09/09/2026
In July, I wrote to Communications Minister Anika Wells about Big Tech accountability and the complete lack of useful support available to Australian small businesses.
Last week, I received a response acknowledging the impact suspended social media accounts can have on businesses like mine. It said the government intends to require digital platforms to provide accessible complaint systems and respond within a “reasonable time”.
That is progress.
Then this week, the government announced its proposed Digital Duty of Care Bill, including “My Feed, My Way”. It would give Australians the choice between an algorithmic feed and content from accounts they already follow.
More control is a good thing. Protecting children from content promoting eating disorders, misogyny, bullying and other genuine harm is incredibly important.
But I’m not convinced an algorithm off switch fixes the algorithm.
When it works well, the algorithm helps us discover creators, information and small businesses we would never have found ourselves. The problem is not simply that an algorithm exists. The problem is what it has been designed to prioritise, and fear, anger and outrage often hold our attention longer than joy does.
There are also consequences for small businesses. Switching off recommended content could mean less organic discovery and an even greater reliance on paid advertising. The proposal does not clearly explain what happens to ads, so Meta may still use an algorithm to decide which paid content appears in that same feed.
Meanwhile, some rather important questions remain unanswered.
Does an “accessible” complaint system include access to an actual human? What is a “reasonable” response time when a business has lost access to its customers, advertising and income? Will Meta have to explain automated restrictions? Will there be an independent appeal process when Meta’s own support system fails?
It feels strange to regulate which content Meta recommends without fully addressing what happens when Meta’s automated systems wrongly remove a business from the platform altogether.
The proposed bill is a start. But if social media platforms are now essential infrastructure for Australian businesses, a genuine Digital Duty of Care must extend beyond what appears in our feeds. It must also cover what happens when the platform itself causes the harm.
So, I am putting together a submission and I need real examples from Australian small businesses.
Have you had a Facebook, Instagram, Business Portfolio or advertising account hacked, wrongly restricted, disabled or taken away, then found there was no useful support or appeal process?
Please tell me:
• What happened?
• What did your business lose access to?
• How long were you locked out?
• Could you speak to an actual human?
• What did it cost you in advertising, customers, income or workload?
• Was it eventually resolved, and how?
A few sentences is plenty. Please do not post account IDs or sensitive information publicly. You can message me privately or email [email protected], and I can include your experience anonymously.
I don’t need 400 versions of “Meta support is cooked”. We know. I need clear examples that show the government what an automated restriction actually costs a small Australian business.
Please send your story to me by 16 September so I can include it before submissions close.
