This is jobseeker. If there are people on it who can't work that's still a failing of the welfare system, albeit a different one.

Missing a link?

Since the author was unable to find it, here are the bits relevant to recommendation algorithms:

25F Design features

(1) A design feature of an online service includes the following:

(a) a recommender feature;

(b) a logged-in feature;

(c) an endless-feed feature;

(d) a feedback feature;

(e) a time-limited feature.

Recommender feature

(2) An online service has a recommender feature if the service can:

(a) select material by reference to any information that the

service has associated with an end-user’s account; and

(b) display that material to the end-user while the end-user is

using the service.

25G Negative behavioural impacts

(1) The following design features of online services are taken to have

negative behavioural impacts:

(a) a recommender feature;

(b) a logged-in feature;

(c) an endless-feed feature;

(d) a feedback feed feature;

(e) a time limited feature;

(f) a design feature determined by the Minister under

subsection (2).

(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that a

design feature of an online service is taken to have negative

behavioural impacts.

Division 3—The digital duty of care

26 The digital duty of care

Digital duty of care

(1) A person responsible for an online service must ensure, so far as is

reasonably practicable, a safe online environment.

Note: For safe online environment, see section 25B.

(2) This requirement is the person’s digital duty of care.

Mandatory requirements

(3) To comply with the digital duty of care, the person must also do

the following:

(a) manage design features of the service appropriately,

including by providing user empowerment tools as required;

(b) conduct risk assessments in accordance with section 26A;

(c) take effective measures as necessary to address those

assessments.

Note: Failure to comply with this subsection will constitute a breach of the

digital duty of care.

User empowerment tools

(4) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, require specified

online services to provide specified user empowerment tools.

Note: For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act

(5) The online services or user empowerment tools may (without

limitation) be specified by reference to any matter.

Note: The user empowerment tool may, for example, be specified by

reference to the amount or kind of control the tool gives a user of an

online service over the operation of particular design features.

(6) A user empowerment tool allows a user of an online service to

manage the way design features of the service operate for the user,

including, for example, by providing control over the kind of

content that is recommended for the user.

Oof

What's this with reference to?

What's the point of writing 1200 words and interviewing multiple pollies for opinions on a bill that hasn't even been published yet? This reads like manufactured controversy

This sounds a little like the AT protocol (or my weak understanding of it). AFAICT on a protocol level your identity and personal data is decoupled from a content aggregator.

The Greens are awaiting details of the exposure draft before deciding how to vote, while Senator Hanson-Young has proposed her own bill, calling for an algorithm opt-out to be the default setting.

That measure has been the focus of a campaign by Teach Us Consent's Fix Our Feeds, which has been pushing for linear social media feeds to be the default option.

It sucks that we're here, but it would actually be amazing precedent to have the concept of enthusiastic consent in the digital sphere enshrined into law, even in this small way.

Neither. They should be tagged as Alternative Medicine

Australia's system is IRV (for the federal government / lower house). Schulze is significantly better.

IRV has the tendency to eliminate moderate candidates in the first round (only first preferences count in the first round) which is often where Condorcet candidates lie.

IRV doesn't enforce two parties like FPTP but it still promotes polarisation.

and work stops while they call an ambulance?

Amazon workers told to work around dead colleague

Debian votes using the Schulze Method, which is a Condorcet method..

Condorcet methods attempt to answer the question "who would win if we asked everyone to vote on every pair of candidates". Most of the variations between methods deal vary only where there are cyclic preferences e.g. people vote B over A, A over C and C over B.

They're broadly considered the fairest voting systems available and they permit a candidate that everyone thinks is okay to win over polarising candidates (unlike first past the post and IRV, but like approval voting).

Back to the numbers, the big table is the reconstruction of the pairwise votes (people actually vote by ranking candidates but the ordering is taken to show your pairwise preferences)

Below that is the Schulze process steps being carried out. At the bottom the "Schwartz set" is the set of top, cyclic candidates. There is no cycle so there is only one candidate remaining and therefore a Condorcet candidate wins (the one people in general vote over everyone else).