Pledges to find a middle path on social media algorithms and regulating online spaces for children have raised questions from experts.
Labor has unveiled its digital duty of care to enforce minimum standards on social media platforms and give users the ability to choose what they see on their online feeds.
The government has avoided calling the algorithm measures either an opt-in or opt-out, instead landing on a "neutral choice" down the middle.
It's a move which RMIT social media expert Caitlin McGrane said risked pleasing no one and confusing everyone.
"Asking people to opt-out with a pop-up is an interesting approach," she told AAP.
"There is an awful lot of research that has found that those pop-ups that ask you about cookies on websites, people find them very annoying, and they also don't really work.
"They give this kind of illusion of control."
Echoing calls from other experts and federal crossbenchers for an opt-in system for the algorithm, Dr McGrane is cautiously optimistic despite the lack of immediate detail.
Communications Minister Anika Wells said the bill would protect children from harmful content including the promotion of eating disorders, pornography or glorifying crime.
For adults, Ms Wells said only illegal content would be prohibited.
The bill reinforces an underlying assumption that people are no longer affected by eating disorder or extreme misogyny content once they turn 18, Dr McGrane argued.
"And I just don't know that that's true," she said, noting concern over the enforcement of two separate content standards.
"Without collecting vast amounts of personal data or using age assurance technologies that are still fairly unproven as to their efficacy, how are they going to be able to determine whether somebody is a child or an adult?"
The coalition has raised particular concerns with the powers given to the communications minister to determine what constitutes content of "serious harm" for young people.
But Dr McGrane said it would be an improvement on the current system.
"I would rather have a minister in Australia, who is accountable to the Australian public, make a decision about what is harmful, as opposed to an American billionaire."
The legislation is likely to face the scrutiny of an inquiry in coming months.
