Australia will force digital platforms to let their users opt out of algorithms and offer a “safe online environment”.

The prime minister has predicted blowback to the scheme, which would capture social media, search engines and AI chatbots, and the opposition has claimed it could let the government censor your feed.

But campaigners like Chanel Contos have welcomed the reform, while the Greens say it should go harder and end doomscrolling altogether.

So how will the reforms change your online experience?

What will change in my feed?

If the proposal becomes law, app users will be sent a notification or “pop-up”, giving them a choice of what they want to include in their main feed.

The communications minister, Anika Wells, framed it as a choice between the algorithm or their friends and the content creators they’ve chosen to follow.

Users who pick the former will still be able to use their platforms in the same way as they do now. They would be able to change their mind and swap options as often as they want, Wells said.

Instagram, YouTube and X are among the platforms that already have a tab users can click on to view only content from people they follow. It’s not clear how these would work with the proposed laws.

The government has previously acknowledged tech platforms could respond by making an algorithm-less feed that complies with new rules but is less functional for its users.

What is being banned?

Some content will also be stripped out of feeds, according to the draft legislation released on Tuesday.

Digital services will face a new duty of care, requiring them to ensure a “safe online environment”. That means protecting children from “harmful” content and adults from “seriously harmful” content.

For children, this includes content showing pornography, abuse or bullying, the promotion of eating disorders, hostility to women or gender equality, and crime or dangerous stunts.

For adults, content can be removed if it promotes terrorism, sexual violence, extreme violence, self-harm or suicide, cruelty to animals, crime, illicit drug use, or child sexual exploitation, abuse or grooming. Harassment and explicit threats of physical violence are also banned. Wells said the designated harms were “just illegal content”.

A few features will be classified as having “negative behavioural impacts”: endless scroll; displaying view, likes and engagement; time-limited content like Snapchat and Instagram stories; and personalised content feeds. Social media platforms will be required to disable those features for under-16s.

Platforms will have to perform annual risk assessments of their platforms and manage the risks they find.

The eSafety commissioner can demand platforms take down some material including “nudify” apps, websites or cyberbullying links. They will be able to decide what counts as harassment, Wells said.

The minister has the power to classify other types of material or conduct as a harm that platforms must act on.

The Coalition has claimed the minister’s power to classify new forms of harm could allow the government to shut down expression of views it does not agree with.

Wells said misinformation and political commentary would not be targeted and suggested the Senate would have the power to disallow the minister’s designations.

She said the rules would have let her ban the Grok image generator tool after it was used to generate nude photos of people with their consent.

How are tech companies responding?

The digital platforms facing the new rules can be fined over $100m for breaching the rules.

Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, and TikTok declined to comment on Tuesday. Google did not respond.

The industry body, Digi, said it supported the principle of a digital duty of care but the definitions of harmful content and impact of user experience would be crucial.

A Digi spokesperson said they recognised community concern about apps’ personalised content systems but those systems made services more relevant and useful.

“We support an approach that gives people meaningful choice and control over the content they see, while managing safety risks,” they said.

The prime minister said on Tuesday: “Of course, there will be opponents, because what this is about is changing the power relationship. We’re taking power from big global tech companies and giving it to ordinary Australians.”

Will anything else change?

The Greens are calling for the rules to go even further, including scrapping endless scrolling, protecting adult users from all harmful material rather than just “serious” harm, and raising the penalties imposed on tech companies.

Sarah Hanson-Young, the Greens communications spokesperson, said penalties should be pegged to a proportion of companies’ global revenue to ensure breaching the law would hurt their business. She said they would negotiate for a “the strongest provisions possible to stop the doomscroll”.

“They’ve got a lot of money, and we know that big tech will be looking for every crack, every possible workaround, so we need to tighten this up,” Hanson-Young said.

The Greens have also demanded a “strong opt-in” model for users to choose their feed, making friends and followers the default mode while letting Australians choose to return to the algorithmic feed if they wished. The government has indicated it prefers to have no default setting, instead giving users the choice.

The government will have to negotiate with the minor party if the Coalition refuses to support the law.