\n<\/p>\n
The Trump administration has issued a sharp warning over Anthony Albanese\u2019s proposed digital duty of care laws, saying Australian rules governing social media algorithms could lead to what Washington regards as \u201cfacilitating censorship.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n In its formal submission to the Australian Government\u2019s consultation on the proposed Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026<\/strong>, the United States Government said it had \u201cserious concerns\u201d<\/strong> about Canberra\u2019s plans to impose broad obligations on online platforms.<\/p>\n The US Government specifically objected to potential requirements that would dictate how platforms design their services and manage users\u2019 feeds.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are particularly concerned by potential mandates that would allow regulators to impose rigid, one-size-fits-all platform design requirements,\u201d the submission states.<\/p>\n It specifically cites possible requirements involving forced chronological feeds and opt-in recommendation systems<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The submission then delivers a stronger warning.<\/p>\n \u201cA framework that empowers governments to enforce vague definitions of \u2018harm\u2019 risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship,\u201d it says.<\/p>\n The US Government adds that platforms could be incentivised to over-remove or suppress lawful content<\/strong> to avoid regulatory penalties.<\/p>\n The US submission questions how the Albanese Government would determine what constitutes foreseeable harm online and who would ultimately decide whether platforms had breached their obligations.<\/p>\n It also raises questions about the role of Australia\u2019s eSafety Commissioner, appeal mechanisms and potential privacy consequences.<\/p>\n The intervention comes as the Albanese Government develops legislation that would give Australians greater control over algorithmically generated social media feeds.<\/p>\n Under the proposed \u201cMy Feed, My Way\u201d<\/strong> approach, users would be offered a choice between a personalised algorithmic feed and a feed based on accounts they have chosen to follow.<\/p>\n The US Government argues that forcing platforms to make Australia specific changes could have consequences outside Australia.<\/p>\n Its submission warns that if other governments introduced different or conflicting requirements, global technology companies could face multiple regulatory demands that were difficult to implement simultaneously.<\/p>\n The submission represents an unusually public intervention by the United States into an Australian domestic policy debate.<\/p>\n ABC News reported that the US Government publicly criticised the proposed Australian legislation while Albanese was in New York for the United Nations General Assembly.<\/p>\n Washington\u2019s objection centres on the potential impact of the proposed regulations on the way platforms recommend, organise and moderate content.<\/p>\n The Albanese Government has presented the reforms as an online safety measure intended to give Australians greater control over their digital experiences.<\/p>\n The legislation has not yet been enacted.<\/p>\n Source:<\/strong> United States Embassy in Australia, U.S. Government Response to the Australian Consultation on the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026<\/em>.<\/p>\nWashington challenges Australia\u2019s definition of \u2018harm\u2019<\/h3>\n
Rare public intervention from Washington<\/h3>\n