Technology · October 16, 2026
Toxic algorithms wouldn't let them go - now Australia wants an off switch
Summary
Australia has introduced new laws to parliament that would let social media users switch off recommender algorithms and see only posts from accounts they follow, alongside a broader legal duty of care for online services. The BBC report says the government presents the package as a way to help people avoid content they do not want to see, including material that can pull users into unwanted spirals. The report’s examples matter because they show the policy is not aimed at a purely abstract design choice. People…
News sources
All original articles on this story — bundled across outlets when the same news appears in multiple feeds.
Listen
AI-generated audio· approx. 1:23The following audio was generated with artificial intelligence. A short notice in a neutral voice plays first, then the interpretation voice — not a recording of Ludwig von Mises.
Disclosure (neutral voice) …
More info: AI-generated audio
Created based on published works of Ludwig von Mises. Not a historical recording and not an original statement by Ludwig von Mises. The spoken intro marks this contribution as AI-generated. Toxic algorithms wouldn't let them go - now Australia wants an off switch
AI-assisted interpretation
Australia has introduced new laws to parliament that would let social media users switch off recommender algorithms and see only posts from accounts they follow, alongside a broader legal duty of care for online services. The BBC report says the government presents the package as a way to help people avoid content they do not want to see, including material that can pull users into unwanted spirals.
The report’s examples matter because they show the policy is not aimed at a purely abstract design choice. People described being drawn into eating-disorder content or manosphere material even after turning on safety settings and trying to avoid it. On the report’s own account, the reform is meant to address that experience by giving users more control over what the platforms surface.
Mises would not have been writing about social media algorithms, so the link is analogical rather than direct. Still, his critique of interventionism fits the structure of this proposal: once the state starts restricting how a private service may curate information, the logic of control can expand. In Interventionism: An Economic Analysis he warns that, once activity is restricted, “how far this control will expand depends only on the authority and the public opinion which motivates it” (p. 24), and that it becomes “logically impossible to oppose tendencies which want to subject all activity of the individual to the care of the state” (p. 24).
He also treats interference with consumption or access as more than a narrow adjustment. In Human Action he writes that “If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away” (p. 766), and adds that advocates of such interference often miss the broader implications, including pressures toward censorship and the persecution of dissenters (p. 766). Applied here, that does not prove the Australian proposal is equivalent to censorship; it means Mises’s framework would read it as a state intervention into private choice and user exposure, with the possibility of further regulatory extension.
Sources: Interventionism: An Economic Analysis p. 24 — brief link: Mises Institute; Human Action p. 766 — brief link: Mises Institute; BBC World coverage — https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwr7y8er1n8vo?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss
Historical basis
Works cited as the analytical frame — not a claim that Mises commented on this present-day event.
Topic context
Mapped from existing analysis fields (category / Mises angle) — no invented relationships.
- Category
- Technology
- Mises angle
- Interventionism