US calls Australia's algorithm opt-out law "censorship"
The US embassy in Canberra filed a formal submission attacking Australia's draft digital duty of care laws, which would force tech platforms to give users the option to turn off algorithms, with fines for firms that fail to do so, as a way to protect people from harmful content. The embassy called this "censorship of protected speech" and said it had "serious concerns." Its objection centers on how the law defines harm: it asked Australia to clarify "how exactly 'harm' and 'risks' shall be determined... ensuring these definitions do not encroach on protected speech," warning that letting government enforce vague harm definitions would produce "viewpoint-based censorship."
The submission raises several specific concerns. It argues the law could reduce the reach of independent journalists and other voices covering sensitive topics if platforms are pushed to "pre-emptively demote" them. It says an opt-out mandate would let regulators impose "rigid, one-size-fits-all platform design requirements" that reach beyond Australia: "Mandated platform design features, especially when applied to algorithms, may affect what users see, say, and hear not just in or from Australia, but globally." It also asks Australia to make sure the "biases and preferences" of government officials do not disadvantage independent or minority-viewpoint speech, and warns the law could damage Australia's reputation as a jurisdiction that enables innovation.
The criticism landed while Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was in New York for the UN General Assembly to discuss his government's tech policies. Responding to reporters there, he rejected the framing of government overreach: "It's not about giving government control," he said. "It's about giving people back control over what they receive on their devices." At the same UN gathering, US President Donald Trump used his own speech to play down calls for AI guardrails, arguing artificial intelligence should be renamed "super intelligence" because "the use of the word artificial makes it sound fake."
The digital duty of care proposal follows Australia's social media ban for children under 16, introduced last December, as the latest step in the country's push to regulate how platforms treat users.
Key facts
- The US embassy in Canberra filed a formal submission calling Australia's draft digital duty of care laws "censorship of protected speech."
- The draft law would require tech platforms to let users opt out of algorithms or face hefty fines, to protect them from harmful content.
- The US warns that enforcing vague harm definitions would produce viewpoint-based censorship and could reduce the reach of independent journalists.
- The US says mandated platform design changes could affect what users see, say and hear "not just in or from Australia, but globally."
- Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking in New York during the UN General Assembly, said the law is about giving people control over their devices, not the government.
Why it matters
A formal diplomatic objection to a specific national tech law is rare, and Washington's argument goes beyond Australia: it explicitly says the design requirements a single country imposes on algorithms can reshape what users worldwide see. That is the same dynamic already visible with the EU's Digital Services Act and other extraterritorial tech rules, but framed here as a free-speech objection rather than a compliance-cost one.
Who it affects
Tech platforms operating in Australia would have to build and expose an algorithm opt-out or face fines. Independent journalists and minority-viewpoint content creators are named as a specific risk group if platforms respond by pre-emptively demoting sensitive material. Any platform with a global user base is affected indirectly, since the US argues the design changes would not stay confined to Australian users.
How to use it
There is no product or policy to adopt yet: this is a diplomatic submission during a comment period on draft legislation, not a passed law. Anyone tracking platform-design regulation should watch how Australia responds to the US objections, particularly on the definition of "harm," before assuming the opt-out requirement will ship as drafted.
How solid is it
The reporting is a straightforward account of a public diplomatic submission plus on-the-record remarks from Albanese in New York; the quotes are drawn directly from the submission and from statements to reporters. The source does not name which specific official at the embassy authored the submission, nor does it give a timeline for when the law might pass.
Risks and caveats
The law is still a draft, not a passed statute, so the fines and requirements described are not yet in force. The source gives no response from tech platforms or industry groups, and does not identify the specific Australian government body running the consultation.
“Mandated platform design features, especially when applied to algorithms, may affect what users see, say, and hear not just in or from Australia, but globally.”
— US embassy submission