The United States has sharply criticized Australia's draft legislation that would require social media platforms to let users opt out of algorithmic content feeds. The rebuke came in a formal submission from the US Embassy in Canberra on Tuesday, highlighting concerns over potential government overreach into online speech.

The proposed rules, part of Australia's digital duty of care framework released earlier this month, aim to protect users, particularly those under 18, from harmful content by mandating options for chronological or non-algorithmic feeds. Platforms could face fines reaching tens of millions of dollars for noncompliance. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has defended the measures as empowering individuals rather than expanding government control.

In its submission, the US expressed "serious concerns" that vague definitions of harm and risk could lead platforms to over-moderate content to avoid penalties, resulting in viewpoint-based censorship. Officials warned that requirements such as forced chronological feeds or opt-in recommendation systems represent rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates that could affect users globally, including Americans.

The embassy statement noted that compelling platforms to suppress algorithmic reach of certain content would be functionally similar to outright removal and that the US government would likely view such actions as facilitating censorship. It urged Australia to clarify how harm would be determined to avoid encroaching on protected speech and requested exemptions for US-based platforms.

The criticism arrives amid broader tensions between the Trump administration and foreign efforts to regulate American technology companies. It also coincides with Albanese's attendance at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he has promoted Australia's tech regulatory agenda.

Australia's government has indicated it will consider feedback during the ongoing consultation period before introducing final legislation to parliament later this year. The episode underscores ongoing international debates over balancing online safety with free expression in the digital age.