In September 2026, Australia proposed forcing platforms to let users switch off algorithmic feeds, and Instagram head Adam Mosseri pushed back: without ranking, he argued, feeds get overrun by whoever posts most often, and friends and creators get buried. Behind the politics is a real question for anyone who builds an audience — is a chronological feed better or worse for you? This guide separates the argument from the evidence: what "removing the algorithm" actually changes, why high-frequency accounts win a raw chronological feed, the regulatory picture across the EU, the Netherlands, and Australia, and the durable strategy that holds up whichever way the feed goes.
For years, "kill the algorithm" was a slogan more than a policy — a thing frustrated users said, not something that could actually happen. In September 2026 it became concrete. On September 8, the Australian government released draft "Digital Duty of Care" legislation whose "My Feed, My Way" provision would force platforms to let users over 16 easily opt out of algorithmically curated feeds and see a chronological one instead. Two days later, on September 10, Instagram head Adam Mosseri pushed back publicly, arguing that a feed without ranking would be worse for almost everyone. For anyone who builds an audience on Instagram, that exchange is not political noise — it is a live question about the machinery your reach runs on. This guide takes the argument apart and asks the only thing that matters for a creator: are you better or worse off if the feed goes chronological?
The short version is that the debate conflates two different things — whether ranking is good for society, and whether it is good for you as a creator — and the answers point in different directions. It is worth being honest about both. This is the debate companion to the mechanics guide already on the site: for how ranking actually works surface by surface, read Instagram algorithm strategies for 2026; for the broader shifts this year, Instagram trends 2026. Here the focus is the removal question itself.
First, precision, because the phrase is used loosely. Nobody is proposing to delete Instagram's ranking systems. The regulatory proposals — and the option Instagram already offers — are about giving users a choice: keep the default ranked feed, or switch to a chronological "Following" feed that shows only the accounts you follow, newest first, with no recommendations mixed in. Instagram has offered exactly this "Following" feed globally for some time. The reported catch is that uptake sits in the low single-digit percentages, because most people never change a default. That is the crux of the regulatory move: laws like Australia's would force a visible notification prompting every user to choose, which could push adoption far above the trickle it gets when buried in a menu.
So the real question is not "algorithm or no algorithm." It is "what happens to distribution if a meaningful share of users flips to chronological?" And that depends entirely on which of the two reach pools you rely on. As the mechanics guide covers in depth, Instagram distribution splits into connected reach (people who already follow you, seeing your posts and Stories) and unconnected reach (non-followers who encounter you through recommendations in Reels, Explore, and Feed suggestions). A chronological feed removes the second pool almost entirely — it can only show you accounts you already follow. Everything about who wins and who loses follows from that one fact.
Mosseri's central claim is the strongest part of his argument, and it is worth stating plainly because it is easy to verify from first principles. In a pure chronological feed, the only thing that determines how much of your feed an account occupies is how often it posts. An account that publishes ten times a day will fill ten times as many slots as a friend who posts once a week — and businesses, news publishers, and content mills post far more frequently than individuals. Ranking, whatever its flaws, normalizes for that: it decides what to show based on predicted interest, not raw volume, which is what lets a friend's single weekly post outrank a brand's tenth post of the day. Strip ranking out and, as Mosseri put it, the feed "gets overrun with content from accounts that post the most often," pushing Instagram "to a much less friend-oriented place and a much less creator-oriented place, and towards a much more business, news publisher-oriented place."
This is not spin; it is arithmetic, and it is the reason the original chronological feeds of the early 2010s were replaced in the first place. The counterargument is not that Mosseri is wrong about the mechanics, but that a feed engineered to maximize engagement has costs — compulsive use, amplification of outrage, harm to minors — that the raw-volume problem does not justify ignoring. Both can be true: ranking genuinely produces a more relevant feed for most users, and ranking optimized for time-spent genuinely creates the harms regulators are responding to. The policy fight is about how to keep the first without the second. The creator question is narrower.
For a creator, the honest read is that a widespread chronological switch is mostly bad news, with one narrow exception. The bad news is unconnected reach. Most growth for an account that is not already huge comes from recommendations to people who do not follow it yet — a Reel that travels through Explore and the recommendation engine to strangers. A chronological feed cannot show your content to non-followers at all, because by definition it only surfaces accounts a user already follows. So the discovery engine that turns a small account into a bigger one largely disappears for any user who opts out. If the opt-out stays a niche choice, the effect is marginal; if a mandated prompt drives real adoption, the pool of people you can reach cold shrinks in proportion.
The narrow exception is connected reach. Under ranking, even your own followers do not all see every post — the system decides which of your followers get shown your content based on predicted interest and relationship history. A creator whose engaged followers routinely miss their posts could, in a chronological feed, reach more of the people who already chose them. That is a real upside, but a limited one: it helps you serve an audience you already have, not grow a new one. Net it out and the strategic conclusion is uncomfortable but clear — the recommendation algorithm is, for most creators, the thing doing the growing, even as it is also the thing capping how many of your own followers see you. Wishing it away removes the ceiling and the engine at once.
Australia is not acting in isolation, which is why creators should treat feed-choice mandates as a direction rather than a single event. The European Union's Digital Services Act, in force since 2023, already requires large platforms to offer a recommendation option not based on profiling — an effectively chronological or non-personalized feed. In October 2025, a Dutch court ordered Meta specifically to provide an easier way to switch Facebook and Instagram to a non-personalized feed, going further than a buried setting. Australia's "My Feed, My Way," released September 8, 2026, adds a notification requirement and, for users under 16, proposes turning recommendation algorithms and infinite scroll off by default, with reported non-compliance penalties around AUD 109 million. The bill faces consultation before any final form, so treat the specifics as the announcement-window position.
The pattern across all three is the same: regulators are not banning ranking, they are mandating an accessible off-switch and, for minors, a different default. For a creator, the takeaway is not to predict the exact rules but to notice the trajectory — the assumption that every user is on a ranked feed by default is being chipped away, region by region, and your distribution model should not depend on that assumption holding everywhere forever.
The useful response to an uncertain feed is not to guess the outcome but to build a distribution position that is robust to either one. Three moves do that. First, keep winning unconnected reach while it exists — the recommendation engine is still the default for the overwhelming majority of users, so the send-optimized, original, format-right content the mechanics guide describes is still the growth play today, and abandoning it to hedge against a future that may not arrive is a mistake. Second, deliberately convert reach into a followed relationship. In a chronological world, the people who chose to follow you are the only ones who see you, so being an account worth following on purpose — recognizable, consistent, with a clear reason to hit follow — is what survives the switch. Third, build distribution you own outright.
That third move is the one most creators under-invest in, and it is the true insurance policy. An email list and a blog reach your audience directly, in the order you publish, with no ranking layer and no opt-out setting that can throttle them — no regulator anywhere is going to legislate your newsletter into a different order. A creator whose audience exists only inside one app's feed is exposed to every ranking change and every feed-choice law that app is subject to. A creator who has moved even part of that audience onto owned channels has a floor under their reach that no platform decision can pull out. The algorithm debate is, in the end, a reminder that renting your entire audience from one feed is a fragile place to stand.
The strategy above has a production problem baked into it. Winning recommendation reach today, being an account people choose to follow, and feeding an owned channel are three different content jobs — and doing all three, consistently, in a recognizable voice, is more than most creators can sustain by hand. That is the specific gap Kompozy closes, and the angle that matters for this debate is recognizability, not raw volume. In a world where connected reach — the followers who deliberately chose you — becomes the reliable pool, being unmistakably you on every post is the whole game, because a chronological feed rewards the account a user recognizes and keeps following, not the one that got lucky with a stranger once.
Kompozy is built to manufacture that consistency. One Persona Brief fixes your voice, positioning, and banned words across everything it generates, so your captions and posts read as the same person rather than drifting into the interchangeable AI register audiences unfollow. The same avatar renders every Persona Short, Gemini face-lock keeps that same face identical across every persona image, and HyperFrames renders your carousels and graphics in your exact palette and type — so whether someone sees you in a ranked feed or scrolling their chronological Following feed, they recognize you instantly and have a reason to keep you. That recognizability is precisely the asset that appreciates if feeds go chronological and connected reach becomes king.
Then it makes the cadence sustainable instead of heroic. From a single source, Kompozy generates the spread each job needs — talking-head shorts and clips for the recommendation surfaces, save-worthy carousels and quote graphics for the followers who chose you, and the same idea drafted as a newsletter and a blog post for the owned channels no opt-out law can touch. Autopilot schedules and publishes the batch across the eight social platforms plus blog and email from one queue, behind a per-post review gate so a person still signs off before anything ships. Be clear on the boundary: Kompozy does not manufacture the engagement that drives ranking, and it cannot make users keep the algorithm on. What it removes is the throughput ceiling that stops most creators from being consistently recognizable everywhere at once — which is the one posture that pays off whether Instagram's feed stays ranked, goes chronological, or ends up somewhere in between.
Instagram is not removing its algorithm, and the framing of the debate as "algorithm versus no algorithm" obscures the real question, which is what happens to distribution if users get an easy, prompted choice to go chronological. On the mechanics, Mosseri is largely right: a raw chronological feed is dominated by whoever posts most, which buries friends and small creators and advantages brands and publishers. On the politics, the critics are also right that engagement-maximizing ranking carries real harms, which is why the EU, the Netherlands, and now Australia are legislating an off-switch rather than a ban. For a creator, the two truths resolve into one strategy: the recommendation engine is still your growth today, so keep winning it, but do not depend on it — become the account people deliberately follow and forward, and move part of your audience onto channels you own outright. Whichever way the feed goes, the creator who is recognizable to the people who chose them, and who reaches some of them directly, is the one who is not at the mercy of the answer.
No. There is no plan to remove ranking. The debate is about whether users should be able to opt out of the algorithmic feed and see a chronological one instead. Instagram already offers a "Following" chronological feed globally, and regulators in the EU, the Netherlands, and now Australia are pushing to make that opt-out easier and more visible. Instagram head Adam Mosseri has argued against making chronological the norm, saying it would make the feed worse for most people.
His argument is mechanical, not just defensive. Without ranking, the feed gets dominated by whoever posts most often — businesses, news publishers, and high-frequency accounts — so friends and individual creators get buried. He has said this pushes Instagram toward a "much less friend-oriented place and a much less creator-oriented place," that engagement would fall sharply, and that people who want chronological feeds are a minority. Critics respond that engagement-maximizing ranking is exactly what regulators are trying to constrain.
Mostly hurt, in its raw form. A pure chronological feed only shows you accounts you already follow, in time order, which removes the recommendation engine that surfaces small creators to non-followers — the main way an unknown account grows. It also favors whoever posts most frequently, which advantages brands over individuals. The upside is narrow: a creator whose existing followers rarely see their posts under ranking would reach more of them chronologically. Net, algorithmic recommendations are how most small accounts get discovered at all.
On September 8, 2026, Australia released draft "Digital Duty of Care" legislation. Its "My Feed, My Way" provision would require platforms to give users over 16 an easy way to opt out of algorithmically curated feeds, notify users of the choice, and respect it, with separate rules turning off recommendation algorithms and infinite scroll for under-16s by default. The EU's Digital Services Act (2023) already requires large platforms to offer a non-algorithmic feed option, and a Dutch court separately ordered Meta specifically to make that option easier to access on Facebook and Instagram in October 2025.
Do not bet your entire distribution on one ranking system you do not control. Keep winning recommendation reach while it exists, but also become an account people deliberately follow and forward — that connected relationship is what survives a chronological switch — and build owned channels like an email list and blog that reach your audience directly, in your order, with no ranking layer at all. Diversify across platforms so a rule change in one market or app is a slice of your reach, not all of it.
Instagram is not removing its algorithm — the debate is whether users should be able to opt out of ranked feeds for chronological ones. Regulators in the EU, the Netherlands, and Australia are pushing to make that opt-out easy, and in September 2026 Instagram head Adam Mosseri argued against it: without ranking, feeds get overrun by whoever posts most often, burying friends and creators. For creators, a chronological switch would shrink the recommendation reach that drives growth, making connected followers and owned channels the durable hedge.
Get started → · ← All guides · Compare Kompozy vs other tools