Why an algorithm ‘choice’ is meaningless without transparency

RMIT University Media Release 

The federal government is considering plans requiring platforms to let users opt out of algorithm‑curated feeds and switch to a chronological view. But an RMIT expert says the proposal misses a critical oversight – an opt‑out is not consent, and teenagers are being asked to agree to an algorithm they cannot see, cannot interpret, and cannot independently verify. 

Dr Vasileios Stavropoulos, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences: 

“An opt‑out is not consent. Consent means understanding what you are agreeing to, and almost nobody can describe what these systems are actually selecting for. 

“The more useful question is not whether the algorithm is switched on, but what it is optimising for, and for whom. 

“We should also be careful about assuming a chronological feed is automatically safer for teenagers. It is a different feed, not a neutral one, and we do not yet have the evidence to say who benefits and who does not. 

“Digital engagement is not uniformly good or bad. The same feed can be harmless for one young person and corrosive for another, depending on their age, their circumstances and what they are already carrying. 

“A single switch treats every user as though they were the same person. 

“For this to be genuine consent rather than a compliance exercise, three things have to hold: platforms should say plainly what the feed is selecting for, the choice should stick, and independent researchers should be able to verify what actually changes when someone flicks the switch.” 

Associate Dean Dr Vasileios Stavropoulos is a clinical psychologist and digital‑behaviour researcher within RMIT’s School of Health & Biomedical Sciences.