We may be able to turn off the algorithm, but we can’t escape the misogyny of the manosphere

The federal government recently announced a suite of new laws designed to address harmful content on digital platforms.

Following campaigning organised by activist Chanel Contos’ youth-led organisation Teach us Consent , the government has pledged to create an opt-out model that would allow users to return their feeds to a timeline-based setting.

The proposal forms part of broader digital duty of care legislation.

It aims to place greater responsibility on tech companies to protect users from abusive and harmful content.

The proposed laws have been broadly celebrated as a win , particularly in light of growing evidence about the harms associated with manosphere content.

These harms are being seen in Australian schools as well as in concerning attitudes and beliefs about gender roles, women and violence among Australian adolescents.

But while there’s no doubt allowing people to opt out of algorithms would help, the technology itself only partially explains why the manosphere is appealing in the first place.

The theme that unites all the manosphere’s disparate content is misogyny.

As important as social media regulation is, no amount of it will meaningfully address the manosphere unless we also do the hard work of dismantling the misogyny that underpins it.

Chicken or egg? As awareness of the manosphere has increased, so too has its use as a single and isolated explanation for the rise in misogynistic behaviour among boys and men.

But the manosphere did not create misogyny.

It just capitalised on it .

Misogyny has been a historical feature of many societies for thousands of years, built into institutions such as legal systems, medicine and education.

The fact it continues today, despite our efforts to work towards gender equality, means we are missing part of the equation when it comes to preventing its spread.