An algorithm off switch isn’t enough. Big tech needs a duty of care over addictive designs | Zoe Daniel
In this opinion piece, former Australian MP Zoe Daniel argues that letting users switch off "the algorithm" on social media platforms is insufficient to address the harms of addictive tech design, and calls instead for a legally binding "duty of care" on big tech companies. She contrasts this with the Australian government's under-16s social media ban, which she describes as a populist, patchy measure that shifts responsibility onto consumers rather than addressing the platforms' underlying design choices. This matters, she argues, because algorithmic systems are driving rising mental health problems, shrinking attention spans, social isolation and the amplification of divisive content, with the urgency compounded by rapid advances in AI that governments are struggling to regulate.
Daniel draws on the "Fix our feeds" campaign led by consent advocate Chanel Contos, who recently told the National Press Club that tech companies can too easily present cosmetic changes as genuine reform. Daniel also references her own 2024 private member's bill, modelled on UK and EU law, which would have mandated strong default privacy settings, an algorithm "switch off" option, mandatory risk assessments, researcher access to platform systems, and fines of up to 10% of global turnover for non-compliance. She argues such enforceable measures, rather than reactive content removal or voluntary opt-outs, are needed to hold platforms accountable for the safety of the digital spaces they create.
- Opinion piece calls for legally enforceable "duty of care" on tech platforms
- Argues algorithm opt-outs alone don't fix addictive design harms
- Cites 2024 bill proposing fines up to 10% of global turnover
New here? Start with this
Social media platforms use algorithms to decide what content is shown to each user, often designed to keep people scrolling for as long as possible. Concerns have grown in recent years that these designs contribute to problems such as poor mental health, shorter attention spans, loneliness and the spread of divisive or extreme content, particularly among younger users. Governments in several countries have been considering how to respond, including through regulation of the platforms themselves or restrictions on who can use them.
In Australia, the government has introduced a ban on social media use for under-16s, one of a number of approaches being debated internationally for protecting young people online. Separately, campaigners and some former politicians have pushed for different solutions, focusing on the design of the platforms rather than restricting who can access them. This includes calls for legally enforceable obligations on tech companies, drawing on rules already in place in the UK and European Union covering things like privacy settings, risk assessments and access for researchers to study how platforms operate.
The debate matters because it centres on where responsibility should sit: with individual users and parents, or with the companies that build and profit from these systems. It has taken on added urgency as artificial intelligence develops rapidly, raising questions about whether existing laws and proposed protections can keep pace with new technology.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of a statutory duty of care argue that platforms, not individual users, design the addictive mechanics — infinite scroll, variable reward notifications, engagement-optimised recommendation systems — and so bear primary responsibility for the harms these designs cause, particularly to children and vulnerable users. They contend that voluntary switches and opt-outs place an unreasonable burden on individuals to protect themselves from systems deliberately engineered to override self-control, and that only enforceable obligations, independent risk assessments, researcher access and meaningful fines can shift incentives away from cosmetic fixes towards genuine safety-by-design, much as duty-of-care regimes already operate in the UK and EU.
The case against
Sceptics of mandated duty-of-care regimes argue that such laws risk vague, hard-to-define obligations that regulators and courts struggle to apply consistently, potentially chilling legitimate content curation, free expression and innovation while burdening smaller competitors far more than incumbents who can absorb compliance costs. They also warn that granting government regulators or outside researchers deep access to platform algorithms and risk assessments raises legitimate concerns about commercial confidentiality, security, and regulatory overreach, and that clearer, simpler measures — such as age verification or default settings — may achieve child-safety goals with less risk of unintended censorship or stifled competition than an open-ended duty-of-care standard.