Fix the Feed, or Fix the Problem?

In this episode of Influencing Outcomes, Nathan Powell is joined by Eliza Lewis and Ben Gunn to examine Australia’s proposed changes to social media feeds and ask a bigger question: are algorithms really the problem we need to fix? With the Australian Government’s proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation set to give users greater choice over personalised recommendations, the team starts by looking at what it actually means to switch off an algorithm. They explore how recommendation systems shape what people see, the echo chambers they can create, and why personalised feeds can make our individual version of the world feel much more representative than it really is. The conversation then turns to whether removing personalisation would actually create a better social media experience. From chronological feeds potentially rewarding the accounts that post most often to the role recommendations play in helping people discover new creators, the team looks at what could be lost alongside the risks the legislation is trying to address. They debate whether the problem is recommendation itself, or what platforms allow their systems to optimise for and repeatedly amplify. For creators, the implications could be significant if enough people choose to move away from personalised feeds. The team explores whether follower-led distribution could favour established creators while making it harder for emerging voices to break through. They also consider what it could mean for brands, earned distribution and a creator economy where great content can currently travel far beyond an existing follower base. Finally, the discussion asks where responsibility should sit. Giving users greater control over their feeds does not remove the responsibility platforms have for what their systems recommend, but switching off personalisation cannot remove harmful content from the internet either. The team considers whether the better approach is to focus on what platforms recommend, what their systems optimise for and when content should be eligible for algorithmic distribution in the first place. The conclusion is that user choice and platform responsibility do not have to be competing ideas. People can have greater control over how their feeds work while platforms remain accountable for what their systems amplify. The challenge is finding a way to reduce the harms of recommendation without losing the discovery, competition and diversity that have made social media such a powerful distribution model. Timecodes: ● (00:25) What does it actually mean to switch off the algorithm? ● (03:08) Are personalised feeds creating echo chambers? ● (05:16) Is the algorithm really the problem? ● (08:40) What happens when you switch recommendations off? ● (11:12) Why recommendation changed creator discovery ● (14:19) Is there such a thing as a neutral feed? ● (15:56) Would people actually turn personalisation off? ● (22:25) What could this mean for creators? ● (25:46) Could follower-led feeds change creator strategy? ● (28:52) What does it mean for brands and paid distribution? ● (30:36) Should all content have a right to algorithmic distribution? ● (33:44) Can regulation actually fix the problem? Follow, Subscribe and Stay Connected. Enjoyed the episode? Follow Influencing Outcomes on your favourite podcast platform so you never miss an update. For more insights, industry trends and behind the scenes content: Follow Fabulate on socials: ⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠| ⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Youtube⁠⁠ Visit our website:⁠⁠ www.fabulate.co