US attacks Australia's 'opt-out' algorithm law in rare intervention

The Trump administration has made an extraordinary public intervention into Australia's debate about its proposed digital duty of care, warning the Albanese government that the policy would be "extraterritorial censorship of protected speech".

It called for the Australian government to exclude US social media companies from its plans to give users the option to opt into algorithmic recommendation feeds — a decision that would effectively neuter the law, removing the biggest platforms from its application.

The rare public rebuke took the form of a response to a consultation on the draft digital duty of care bill, which would force platforms to take actions to mitigate and respond to harms caused by digital platforms.

The submission, published by the US Embassy today, said Washington had "serious concerns" about how Australia would decide what counts as "foreseeable harm".

This comes with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese currently in the middle of a United States trip to promote his government's tech policy agenda at the United Nations General Assembly.

His support for international AI regulation and his government's teen social media ban have increasingly earned the ire of the Trump administration.

Washington objects to harm rules and feed mandates

In the submission, the US government said it was concerned by what it described as rigid, one-size-fits-all design requirements.

Such mandates, it argued, would push platforms to demote sensitive or controversial topics to comply, reducing the reach of independent journalists and other voices.

"The US government would likely consider such a measure as facilitating censorship," the submission said.

It put a number of questions to the Australian government, including how Australia would define "harm" and "risks", how they would be adjudicated, by whom, and whether platforms or users could appeal. It also asked about the role of the eSafety Commissioner and impacts on privacy.

While it is common for governments to express their views on other countries' policies, those views are usually communicated through private channels.

It is exceedingly rare for a foreign government to make a direct, public intervention into a domestic debate like this.

The US government's hostility toward the digital duty of care was signposted earlier this month in a statement from White House spokesperson Kush Desai to the Guardian Australia.

He said President Donald Trump had warned other nations against imposing "digital services taxes, fines, and other forms of extortion on America's leading technology sector".

Warning Australia's tech policies could spread elsewhere

The submission argued forced changes to mitigate Australia-specific risks could change how users everywhere, including Americans, experienced the platforms.

If other jurisdictions adopted conflicting duty-of-care mandates, platforms could face incompatible design requirements not technically or commercially scalable in parallel, it said.

Australia's teen social media ban inspired a number of other countries to introduce, or pledge to introduce, similar restrictions.

Earlier today, it was reported by Politico Australia that the American industry body representing American tech companies had joined in a High Court challenge to Australia's teen social media ban.

The group, NetChoice, described it as "the most extensive prohibition on youth access to social media in force in any liberal democracy".

The digital duty of care draft shows how the government plans to create a legal obligation for online services, including social media, gaming and other platforms, to create a safe experience for users through its design.

The Albanese government said it would use this law, if passed, to force platforms like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to send users a pop-up offering a choice between a personalised algorithmic feed and a feed limited to accounts they follow.

Communications Minister Anika Wells last week downplayed the White House's warning as "broad" and said she had not directly received such a warning from a US representative.

When asked about the US government's intervention, Ms Wells's office and the US Embassy both declined to comment.