Australia’s Digital Duty of Care - what you need to know about laws that could reshape creator discovery

The federal government is expected to release draft Digital Duty of Care laws that would give Australians greater control over algorithmically recommended feeds.

The proposed laws would do a couple of things: Under the proposed digital duty of care legislation:

• users would have the ability to opt out of social media recommender algorithms via pop-up messages on the apps
• social media companies would be expected to identify and manage risks on their platforms
• the onus would be on platforms to stop harmful content (such as illegal pornography) from being shared.

The changes are driven by concerns around social harm on the platforms being amplified by the algorithms.The complication is that much of social media today is driven by algorithms that are designed to serve you content you are interested in. 

This change, which happened over a number of years,has seen social media move away from follower-first distribution to the “For You” model where the algorithm serves you content that, based on your viewing, it thinks you will be interested in.

Algorithms gave smaller creators a way in

Before algorithmic feeds took over, distribution depended heavily on a creator’s existing following. Recommendation changed that by allowing content to travel based on interest instead.

That gave emerging and niche creators a new path to attention. Useful, entertaining or highly specific content could find the right audience even when it came from a small account.

If more people choose following-based feeds, larger creators with loyal audiences may have an advantage. Smaller creators could find it harder to break through, while every follower they earn may become more valuable.

For creators, this is not a reason to fear an algorithm off-switch. It is a reminder of the difference between rented reach and an audience that has actively chosen to stay.

The challenge is not discovery. It is what gets amplified

The Australian Government is saying there is a clear case for giving users more control. Recommendation systems built around engagement can reward content that provokes anger, fear or outrage alongside content that informs, entertains or builds community.

eSafety has warned that repeated exposure to harmful recommendations can be more damaging than an individual post. Users also have little visibility over why content appears.

Yet the same technology introduces people to new music, hobbies, perspectives and creators. As Fabulate co-founder and chief product and strategy officer Nathan Powell told B&T, “Algorithms can create rabbit holes, but they can also create doorways.”

The problem is not discovery itself. It is what platforms choose to optimise that discovery for.

Turning recommendations off will not remove harmful accounts already followed or stop content arriving through messages, search and shares. Nor will it create a neutral feed, because every version still reflects choices.

Marketers need to know where reach came from

If algorithmic reach becomes less dependable, marketers will need to look beyond the biggest view count on a creator’s latest post.

Did the creator reach their established community or a much broader recommended audience? Is that audience relevant to the campaign objective? Does their performance remain consistent beyond one breakout post?

A million views is not always the same million views. Broad recommendation can create awareness, while a smaller audience with a reason to care may be more useful for consideration, credibility or action.

There is also an important difference between organic recommendation and paid targeting. Switching to a chronological feed would not necessarily switch off the systems used to serve advertising.

As Mumbrella reported, industry analysis suggests less time in-app could mean fewer impressions and greater pressure on CPMs, rather than the end of targeted social advertising.

Follower count and reach will still matter, but neither tells the full story. Audience composition, creative fit and performance over time will become even more important.

An off-switch is only the beginning

The draft legislation has only just hit Parliament and there are still major questions around how the changes will operate in the real world and whether users will prefer the algorithm experience or just the people they follow. See the Guardian Australia for a good explainer. 

If opting out is buried in settings or replaced with a deliberately worse experience, the choice could potentially  exist only on paper.

The debate is also complex and centres around questions of moderation, algorithmic transparency, age-appropriate design, enforcement and digital literacy.

‍