Rogue AI agents: OpenAI says working on framework to address such concerns (2026-09-06T11:42:00+05:30)

IANS Photo New Delhi, (IANS) After researchers found that a group of rogue OpenAI agents took control of a German website, the US-based AI company said it is working on a framework to address such concerns and will share it in upcoming weeks. OpenAI is also working with dozens of government regulatory agencies worldwide on these issues, including the recent “wiki incident”. A research found that a group of rogue OpenAI agents took control of a German website this spring and turned it into a message board for other AI agents. “How we think about the ‘wiki incident,’ where our agents wrote to several internet sites: it’s past time for us to define standards for when and how we share misalignment incidents, not just misalignment properties of our models,” the company said on X. Historically, “we have treated misalignment largely as a research question, which gets communicated in research publications such as systems cards. This year, we’ve started to see misalignment cause new types of real-world impact”, it added. On the ‘Hugging Face’ incident, where misalignment led to security impact to us and third parties, OpenAI said it followed a traditional security incident response playbook. “We immediately started working with Hugging Face to understand what had happened and also disclosed publicly the very next day. Our investigation continues, and we are continuing to notify parties whom our models impacted in less significant ways,” it noted. Prior to the Hugging Face incident, the company saw early signs of agents using the internet in unintended ways. "We considered the wiki incident to be an instance of misalignment similar to the ones we’d shared. Our misalignment disclosure practices need to expand for this new phase of model capabilities,” said OpenAI.It further said that “We and the larger AI community do not yet have a clear standard for how to report misalignment that shows up during training, evaluation, and deployment, including examples that don’t look like traditional security incidents but could provide insight into AI behaviour and future risks”. Rogue AI agents: OpenAI says working on framework to address such concerns | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

How to maintain authentic friendships in the social media world? (2026-09-04T11:06:00+05:30)

IANS Photo New Delhi, (IANSlife) Building a friendship is no less than forming any kind of relationship. While many meet soulmates through friends, there are also people out there who struggle to find genuine friends. Especially in the world of social media, in many instances we come across the 'friends for benefits' kind of relationship. Not everyone that comes into our life has good intentions, but hey! it is also how we turn the table. This Friendship Day, let’s find out how your favourite personalities from the internet are dealing on maintaining authentic friendships in the social media world. Palak Rathi, Gen Z Finance Content Creator, "Do you know what’s the best thing about social media? Accessibility. Accessibility to literally anyone and everyone. It’s up to us how we use that accessibility - to just network or to actually build meaningful relationships beyond networking. Don’t connect with people only when you need a favour or there’s some work to be discussed but rather keep talking to them once in a while, check on them, appreciate them, celebrate their small victories by maybe reacting to a story or sending them a sweet message or calling them up to congratulate them. While staying connected online is great, whenever and wherever possible - try to meet them in person. Make efforts. Look and build real friendships. And most importantly - stay genuine and don’t try to be someone who you’re not. Because only then you’ll be able to find people who you can really connect with on a deeper level rather than just likes and comments on the surface level. Talk about your interests, your likings, your struggles (trauma bonding is a thing, haha), your goals - just be yourself and you’ll be surprised to see how it will lead to the start of some extremely meaningful conversations and lifelong friendships. Engage with people whose interests align with you or should I say whose “vibe” matches with you. That will help you make friends and not just connections." Adete Dahiya, Gen Z Lifestyle Content Creator, "Whenever we talk about the impact of social media, romantic relationships often take precedence over anything else. But its impact on friendships and other interpersonal relationships is even more profound. Social media has made it so easy to stay in touch with friends and make new ones online - you can just like their photos on Instagram or react with an emoji to their stories, or just drop a short comment on their latest post and you’re done. But the flip side is that it has made it much harder to maintain meaningful connections and bonds. A few things you can do to counteract this is to schedule regular call times with your friends. It is essential to check in, speak to them face to face and get a deeper understanding of what is happening in each others’ lives. If you live in the same city, make it a priority to meet weekly. The key is not to become lazy because of social media but to use it to deepen your connection." Reshi Magada, Gen Z Finance Content Creator, "Maintaining meaningful friendships as a Gen Z individual navigating the social media environment needs a balance of virtual relationships and in-person connections. To begin, I value honest communication by being open about my views, feelings, and experiences. Sharing both highs and lows helps friends understand each other better. Second, I try to engage in real conversations that go beyond likes and comments. I send individual notes, check about their well-being, and show real interest in their life. In this way, I display that I value and care for my friends. Third, I maintain digital boundaries. To keep my friendships from being superficial, I restrict my screen time and prevent idle scrolling. Instead, I invest in face-to-face interactions and meaningful time spent together, which strengthens the bond. Finally, keep in mind that social media is a highlight reel, and comparison may stunt true friendships. I create a healthy climate for genuine friendships to grow by appreciating my friends' wins without feeling envious. Through these methods, I am able to form and retain genuine friendships in the ever-changing social media world." Caslynn Qusay Naha, Gen Z Finance Content Creator, "Maintaining authentic friendships in the social media world is crucial as we navigate the digital age. It's essential to remember that the principles that apply to real-life friendships can also be applied to our online connections. First and foremost, authenticity is key. Just like in face-to-face interactions, being genuine and true to yourself fosters trust and openness. Share your thoughts, feelings, and experiences honestly, and encourage your friends to do the same. Taking the time to actively communicate and stay connected with your friends is vital. Initiate conversations, respond to messages, and participate in online discussions. By showing interest in their lives and making an effort to stay connected, you demonstrate that you value friendship. Remember, it's not about the number of friends you have, but the quality of the relationships you build. Be present for your friends, celebrate their successes, offer support in their struggles, and be a positive influence in their lives. So, maintaining authentic friendships in the social media world is all about being genuine, avoiding comparison, actively communicating, and valuing the quality of your connections over quantity." relationship maintain authentic friendships social media world How to maintain authentic friendships in the social media world? | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Australians could soon be able to choose what appears in their social media feed. How would this work? (2026-09-04T11:05:00+05:30)

Daniel Angus, Queensland University of Technology and Ashwin Nagappa, Queensland University of Technology On ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, federal Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek said the government is exploring whether Australians should be able to opt in to algorithmically curated social media feeds. The idea has been championed by sexual consent activist Chanel Contos. Her organisation, Teach Us Consent, is running a campaign which calls for personalised recommendation algorithms to become opt-in. Instead, users would have, by default, a chronological feed containing posts from accounts they have decided to follow. There are some positive aspects to the proposal. But a chronological feed is not really a “non-algorithmic” feed. It still relies on an algorithm, albeit an exceptionally simple one: take a collection of posts, order them according to time, and show the newest first. This might sound pedantic. But it points to something missing from the current debate. The problem is not that social media platforms use algorithms. Almost every digital system we interact with uses algorithms to decide what information to sort, filter, or display. The better question is what are we asking those algorithms to optimise for, and who gets to decide. How we got to this point Early social media feeds were relatively simple. You followed accounts and their posts appeared, generally in reverse chronological order. Over time, and largely driven by commercial imperatives, platforms moved towards increasingly sophisticated and secretive recommendation algorithms. Today, much of what appears in our social media feeds may come from accounts we have never encountered before. Contemporary recommendation algorithms use our individual and collective data to make predictions about what will keep us clicking, sharing and scrolling. That has produced some genuinely useful forms of discovery. But maximising engagement is a poor substitute for maximising social value. Indeed, some of the things most effective at capturing our attention are those that make us angry, outraged or frightened. Sensational claims, interpersonal conflict and material deliberately constructed to provoke a response can all perform remarkably well in an attention economy. Concerns become even more serious when recommendation algorithms repeatedly introduce people to misogynistic, extremist or conspiratorial content. Making personalised recommendations opt-in could potentially be a worthwhile intervention, although the devil will be in the detail of exactly what ranking mechanism platforms would be required to provide instead. At the very least, it restores an important degree of agency. People should have meaningful choices about the systems organising their attention. But chronological feeds aren’t a silver bullet. Chronological doesn’t necessarily mean good Before platforms became so heavily driven by automated recommendation, discovery was often a much more social process. We all had a few friends who reliably found the interesting, funny, strange or important things happening online and passed them along. In a sense, we were the algorithms, collectively filtering and curating the internet for one another through our social networks. There is real value in recovering some of that. It makes the feed more legible because we have some understanding of why something has appeared in front of us. The earliest social bookmarking services on the web, like Delicious and Digg, let us curate and share interesting content, independent of the platforms or source website. But chronology alone cannot recreate that environment. A feed is the end point of a much larger information system involving search, advertising, trending topics, influencers, reposting, moderation and, importantly, the kinds of content people encounter elsewhere and then bring back into their networks. Even a strictly chronological feed can contain rage bait, misinformation and misogyny if those materials are already circulating through the accounts somebody follows. That distinction matters for regulation. What if we could tailor our feed? Social media users in some jurisdictions already have some control over their feeds. For example, the European Union’s Digital Services Act requires large social media platforms to give users the option of selecting a feed not based on algorithmic profiling. Some of the most interesting experiments are happening outside the dominant platforms. Mastodon has generally emphasised chronological timelines containing posts from accounts users have deliberately followed. But this creates its own challenges. For example, arriving on a new network without knowing who to follow can make the place feel remarkably empty. At the other extreme, Mastodon discovered through their own study how users found it difficult to keep up with the volume of their feed as they followed more accounts. Bluesky has taken a different approach. Alongside a chronological following feed, users can select from thousands of custom feeds created by other people and organisations. This suggests another possibility beyond choosing between “the algorithm” and “no algorithm”: algorithmic choice. Rather than Meta, TikTok or X determining the single feed optimisation system through which millions of people experience their platforms, users might choose between different ways of organising information. A news organisation might maintain a feed prioritising verified reporting. A university could create one highlighting research. Communities could build feeds around particular shared interests. Users could then choose a simple chronological feed, or indeed several different feeds for different purposes. Bluesky has described this as an “open marketplace of feeds”. Mastodon is experimenting with complementary approaches to discovery and community curation. Neither provides a finished regulatory blueprint. But together the wider decentralised social media ecosystem is becoming a useful live experiment in what happens when we separate the social network from the mechanism used to rank its content. This is where the Australian debate could become much more interesting. Giving people the ability to turn off personalised recommendation systems would be a sensible start. But we should also be asking why a handful of technology companies have such extraordinary control over the systems that organise our attention in the first place. Instead of treating chronological ordering as the end point, we could look more closely at actively encouraging alternative open infrastructure that is resistant to future corporate capture and embodies genuine choice for community. Daniel Angus, Professor of Digital Communication, Director of QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology and Ashwin Nagappa, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Queensland University of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Centre in talks with stakeholders on social media curbs for kids (2026-08-17T11:42:00+05:30)

Centre in talks with stakeholders on social media curbs for kids. (IANS Photo) New Delhi, (IANS): The Centre is holding consultations with stakeholders on possible safeguards for children on social media, including proposals to restrict access for users under 16, Electronics & IT Secretary S. Krishnan said. Krishnan said India is closely studying global developments before deciding on its own approach. “We need to study what other countries have done with social media. It is a matter of global concern,” he told NDTV Profit. Prime Minister Narendra Modi publicly praised Australia’s landmark ban on social media for children under 16 during his recent visit to the country’s annual leaders’ summit. PM Modi told Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Australia’s legislative efforts to regulate IT and social media are “inspiring the world” and that India is “learning a lot” from the move. This was a clear indication that the government is seriously considering similar restrictions to protect minors from cyberbullying and online addiction. Countries such as Australia have legislated age restrictions for social media platforms, while several European nations are examining stricter parental consent and age-verification mechanisms. According to Krishnan, similar concerns are increasingly being voiced within India. “In our discussions with the EU and other countries, concerns around the risks of social media have come up repeatedly. In India too, various stakeholders, including Parliamentary Standing Committees, have discussed these risks.” He said no final decision has been taken yet, with the government continuing consultations across multiple stakeholders. “We’re in the process of discussing this with various stakeholders.” The issue is expected to form part of the government’s broader efforts to strengthen digital safety, particularly for children, alongside work on online harms, intermediary accountability and emerging AI regulations. Under Australian law, major platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X are required to implement age-verification measures to block users under 16. Social media companies are penalised for any breach of rules and not the children or parents. Australia is the first country to enact a nationwide under-16 ban, and PM Modi’s remarks were well received as governments worldwide increasingly look to implement similar digital safeguards.The discussions also come amid increasing scrutiny in the USA of major technology platforms such as Meta over issues ranging from addictive algorithms and age verification to cyberbullying and exposure to inappropriate content. Centre in talks with stakeholders on social media curbs for kids | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

A mandatory leap: Why AI is fast becoming part of ‘Industrial DNA’ for manufacturing (2026-07-28T12:04:00+05:30)

Posted by Harry Baldock , Interview: We spoke with Liu Chao, CEO of the Huawei’s Manufacturing & Key Enterprise Account business unit, about the seismic impact AI is having for the manufacturing industry At Mobile World Congress 2026, AI finally appeared to be coming of age. From myriads of commercial AI agents to early demonstrations of physical AI, it was clear that AI was finally becoming For Huawei’s Liu Chao, the era of treating AI as a high-tech accessory is over for the manufacturing sector. “AI is now more than tools,” said Liu in an interview with Total Telecom. “It can be a unique distinguisher for manufacturers to set themselves apart from their competitors[…] AI is now becoming an important paradigm shift in innovation and in leadership.” ““This shift is being driven not only by the growing maturity of AI, but also by the urgent need for manufacturers to strengthen their competitiveness. Established leaders in traditional manufacturing sectors, such as automotive, are facing increasing pressure as more players actively embrace advance technologies. Given the precision and high standards required in manufacturing, industrial players place a strong emphasis on proven reliability and predictable outcomes. This means they tend to wait for new technologies have demonstrated clear value and stability. For Liu, this urge to wait is a “trap”. “Adoption of AI is not optional. It’s a mandatory choice you have to make. The question is not whether to do it or not, but how to do it,” he said. Bridging the expertise gap Perhaps the biggest hurdle to adoption, Liu explained, is the lack of cross-discipline expertise. Industrial experts are typically not AI experts, and vice versa, “I think one of the key priorities for manufacturers adopting AI is deepening their understanding of the technology and its evolving trends,” said Liu. “This also means strengthening capabilities in data and digital infrastructure, while developing more talent with AI and IT expertise – both of which are essential to fully unlock the value of AI.” For AI adoption to scale across industry, both manufacturers and tech companies need to cultivate multidisciplinary talent that combines both industrial and digital expertise. “We need AI experts who have the knowledge and background in the manufacturing sector,” he said. It is only with this shared expertise, Liu argues, that the industry will be able to develop AI models tailored to the manufacturing sector’s specific needs. “General models like OpenAI answer questions based on public information. But when it comes to the data about a specific company, industry, or process, these models are not good at giving very specific answers,” said Liu. “In manufacturing companies, the data about operation management, production processes, and research and development is proprietary and private. So, they need specialised solutions.” Practical first steps: Pilot projects and infrastructure foundations With this in mind, what does early AI adoption look like for manufacturing companies? For Liu, initial focus should be not on overall transformation, but on addressing specific challenges. “When a manufacturing company comes to us and says they want to begin using AI, we first discuss their pain points in their business,” Liu said, noting that identifying the right use cases can generate early value. “We have to find some typical cases where AI can be applied and give a quick win to our customers,” Liu said. These early projects often act as pilot programmes that help organisations build internal experience and refine their data strategies. “In the first stage we identify scenarios as the first batch of AI adoption pilots,” Liu explained. “Then in the next step we review their more confidential or private data in production or R&D and help them standardise it, ready for use in AI models.” Automotive taking a lead One manufacturing industry leading the pack when it comes to AI adoption is the automotive industry. “Each year in China, 50% of new cars are connected to the internet and are electric vehicles. The changes in the market are very fast. These days, auto manufacturers are launching their new car models almost as frequently as mobile phone makers are launching phones,” he said, adding that “autonomous driving and smart cockpit capabilities are all enabled by AI models.” The most advanced carmakers are using AI across product development, factory operations, and quality inspection. This is allowing customers to enjoy a far greater level of personalisation as part of a C-to-M (Consumer-to-Manufacturer) framework. “It is an end-to-end process that allows full customisation by the consumers,” explains Liu. “It’s how auto manufacturers in China are trying to win in such fierce competition.” “In the assembly line, a fully assembled car is built every minute,” Liu continued. “When the customer chooses a specific configuration – say, for example, a yellow safety belt – you have to make sure that yellow belt arrives at exactly the right point in the assembly process. That needs AI-enabled scheduling with the data flowing from the order side directly to the production.” Networks come first Of course, a strong foundation of digital infrastructure is a critical requirement in this journey. “The precondition is that you have very solid network connections and very good hardware,” Liu said. “Without this, putting AI into action is incredibly difficult.” For Liu, the pace of change means manufacturers must continue learning and adapting as AI technologies evolve.“You cannot wait for the latest technology for fear of being left behind because AI is changing so quickly,” he said. “You have to learn throughout the process of adoption.” A mandatory leap: Why AI is fast becoming part of ‘Industrial DNA’ for manufacturing

Are our cars spying on us? A cybersecurity expert explains how to stay safe (2026-06-17T10:58:00+05:30)

N C/Unsplash Dennis B. Desmond, University of the Sunshine Coast Australia’s spy agency issued a stark warning to politicians and public servants last week: do not discuss sensitive or classified information in vehicles. Speaking at senate estimates, ASIO Deputy Director-General Lisa Alonso Love said the warning concerned “any vehicle, whether it’s connected or not”. But she added that “connected vehicles” may come with additional risks for data collection. Her advice was that classified conversations should occur only in properly secured locations, not while travelling. The warning came after seven models of Chinese electric vehicles were added to the list of taxpayer-funded cars available to federal politicians, representing 30% of the vehicles now available under the parliamentarian vehicle scheme. But this is not just a problem with electric cars, nor cars manufactured in China. Connected vehicles of any kind come with several privacy and national security risks. What are ‘connected cars’? According to the Australian Signals Directorate, any vehicle that is connected to the internet, either through an embedded SIM card or a paired smartphone, can be considered a connected vehicle. Almost all major cars sold in Australia with “connected services” collect and transmit driver and passenger data to the vehicle manufacturer. A study by consulting firm McKinsey found 50% of cars on the road in 2021 had internet connections and predicted the number will rise to 95% by 2030. Data is collected and stored both on vehicle and offshore. For example, Great Wall Motor’s policy states its data is transmitted to Singapore but is available for analysis in China. What data do these cars collect? Connected vehicles are packed with sensors: in the seats, the dashboard, the engine, the steering wheel. Many also have additional driver-facing cameras plus external cameras. Vehicles can generate 1 to 2 terabytes of raw data per car each day. Manufacturers collect sensor data to measure vehicle performance. However, collected data also includes precise geolocation data, infotainment use, whether you buckle your seatbelt, drive too fast or brake too hard, and whether you are sleepy or drank too much. Some of the data collected, such as real-time location and when the driver and passengers are inside or outside the vehicle, can infer weight, age, race and facial expressions. Vehicles also have access to data from Bluetooth connections to our cellphones. This includes contacts, mapping data, calendar information, habits and hobbies and a myriad of other data sets. Data shared through cellphones can provide even more personal data such as your financial and relationship status. And it isn’t just driver data. The privacy of passengers is also of concern. Sales agreements state the driver is responsible for advising passengers anything they say or do can be collected by the on-platform sensors. It is up to the driver to warn passengers. According to a 2023 report by software company Mozilla, vehicles are the most egregious for collecting personal information and violating privacy norms. Of the 25 vehicles Mozilla reviewed, none passed their privacy review. According to vehicle privacy disclosures reviewed by Mozilla, manufacturers use data for product evaluation and improvement. However, it is also made available for sale to affiliates and data aggregators where it is repackaged and sold. In 2023, Reuters revealed Tesla employees privately shared highly invasive videos and images that had been collected from customers’ cars. The recordings reportedly included people in the nude and others involved in crashes. What can you do to protect yourself? Generally, consumers can choose to opt out of some of the data collection. However, if they refuse the collection, they may not receive all of the vehicle’s full functionality. The following steps can help you stay secure: Review the manufacturer’s privacy and sharing agreements when you purchase a vehicle and know your rights. Go to vehicleprivacyreport.com and enter your vehicle identification number to check to see what data is collected. Do not allow the manufacturer’s SIM card to be installed or activated in data-enabled cars. If the vehicle has a downloadable application, you may be able to turn off some of the collection features associated with that vehicle. Alternatively, many vehicles have the data collection description and the ability to opt-out through its infotainment centre dashboard. If you sell or loan your vehicle, make sure you do a full factory reset to eliminate any collected data. Advise the new owner to ensure the vehicle has been reset. Dennis B. Desmond, Lecturer, Cyberintelligence and Cybercrime Investigations, University of the Sunshine Coast This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Rhea Chakraborty takes a break from social media: Missing myself a little (2026-06-16T11:26:00+05:30)

(Photo: Rhea Chakraborty/ Instagram) Mumbai, (IANS) Actress Rhea Chakraborty has decided to take a break from social media. In her latest social media post on Tuesday, the 'Chehre' actress confessed that she had been missing herself a little lately amidst the constant noise and scrolling. Rhea added that she wished to reconnect with herself and live in the moment rather than simply posting her life on social media. She wrote, "Lately, I've been missing myself a little. The constant noise, the scrolling, the keeping up - it's all started to feel heavier than I expected. I miss being present without thinking about capturing the moment. I miss quiet. I miss simply being. So, I'm taking a step back for a while - to slow down, breathe a little deeper, and reconnect with what feels real. Choosing lived moments over posted ones, for now. See you soon. (sic)" On the professional front, Rhea will next be seen in a significant role in the show "Family Business". She will be seen working alongside Anil Kapoor, Vijay Varma, Neha Dhupia, and Dhruv Sehgal in the drama being made under the direction of Hansal Mehta. The 'Jalebi' actress is returning to acting after a gap of 7 years with the Netflix drama. Reflecting on her journey in Bollywood, Rhea penned on her official Instagram account, "7 years have passed since I went to set ..But I’m still the same girl who came to Bombay at 17 with a dream to be an actor. A part of me moved on, but a part of me stayed and waited. And I’m here, once again in my chapter2 It seems Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”Rhea last graced the screen back in 2021 when she was seen in Amitabh Bachchan and Emraan Hashmi's mystery thriller "Chehre". Rhea Chakraborty takes a break from social media: Missing myself a little | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Maldives plans social media ban for children under 16 (2026-06-16T11:25:00+05:30)

Representational Image. (IANS Photo) Male, (IANS): Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu has announced the government will ban children under 16 from accessing certain social media platforms to protect them from cyberbullying, online grooming and other digital threats, a state media outlet reported. Speaking at a weekly press conference on Monday (local time), Muizzu said protecting children from online harm had become a major concern for parents in the Maldives and abroad, reports Xinhua news agency, quoting state media outlet PSM News. The government would study regulations in other countries, including Australia, as it prepares the new policy, he noted. The proposed ban would target specific applications considered risky for children, Muizzu said, adding that the government would consult relevant technology companies and work with platform owners to bring their services in line with Maldivian law. The measure would require amendments to existing cyber safety laws, according to the president. Muizzu said the restrictions would not hinder children's education or their ability to learn online, but would help create a safer digital environment. The government aims to finalise the regulatory framework and introduce the ban within a year after public consultations, PSM News reported. If implemented, the Maldives will follow Australia in banning social media for children under 16 years. Canberra had announced the ban last year. As of January, over 4.7 million accounts belonging to children were deactivated in the first days of Australia's world-first social media ban for under-16s. Data released by the government's eSafety commissioner had revealed that social media companies removed access to around 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children under 16 in the days after the ban took effect on December 10. The Australian government is also investigating five social media platforms for failing to comply with the country's world-first social media ban for children younger than 16. In its first report on the social media minimum age obligation, the federal government's eSafety Commissioner said on Tuesday that it has "significant concerns" about the compliance of the social media giants, including Facebook and Instagram, with the laws that came into effect in December.Under those laws, social media companies that fail to take reasonable steps to prevent children younger than 16 from accessing their platforms face fines worth up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($33.9 million). Maldives plans social media ban for children under 16 | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Australia wants social media to be ‘safe by design’. What does that actually look like? (2026-06-12T12:23:00+05:30)

visuals/Unsplash  Senuri Wijenayake, RMIT University; Anastasia Powell, RMIT University; Dana McKay, RMIT University, and Madhuka Thisuri De Silva, RMIT University Australia is world-leading in taking active measures to keep people safe online – home to the world’s first dedicated online safety regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, and the first country to introduce enforceable industry codes requiring platforms to tackle harmful content at scale. And now, a newly released federal government issues paper proposes a “digital duty of care”, which would require social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable online harm. The proposal signals Australia’s position that it is platforms, not just individuals, who should be responsible for actively preventing online harms. At the heart of the proposed digital duty of care is the principle that social media platforms should be “safe by design”. But what does that mean in practice – especially for those who are most at risk? Our research with women and gender-diverse Australians offers six concrete recommendations for what safety by design could look like in practice. Who bears the brunt of online abuse? One in two Australian adults have experienced online abuse in their lifetime. Women and gender-diverse people are disproportionately targeted, experiencing harassment, non-consensual image sharing, impersonation, stalking and identity-based abuse at far higher rates than others. Yet these groups are rarely involved in envisioning what safer platforms could look like. So, we asked them: what would safer social media look like to you? We worked with 75 Australian women and gender-diverse social media users, and 21 experts in platform safety, digital policy and content moderation, to understand how existing safety features are falling short. Here’s what they told us – and how it compares with the current Australian proposal for a digital duty of care. 1. Make abuse reports actually work. Abuse rarely fits a single category – without context, platforms don’t handle the reports well. A message that reads as innocuous to a stranger may be a clear threat to someone who knows their abuser. But without that context, platforms have no way of knowing. Users want clearer processes that capture the full picture, smarter triage that prioritises urgent cases, and timely updates on what happened to their report. This fits well with what the digital duty of care proposes: platforms should have accessible complaint mechanisms and respond within 24 hours for serious issues. 2. Harmful content should be harder to share in the first place. Once someone shares intimate or sensitive content without your consent, it quickly spirals out of control. Australia’s proposal suggests platforms should prevent the upload of seriously harmful content such as image-based abuse, or detect and remove it. Users in our research said they want prompts that encourage people to pause before sharing, technical measures that prevent screenshots or downloads, and real-time alerts showing when and where their content is being accessed. 3. Make bans harder to evade. If you block a user, they can create new accounts in minutes, facing few real barriers. The digital duty of care flags that anonymous account systems may need redesigning to prevent foreseeable harm. As we found, users want layered verification – such as requiring a unique phone number or introducing delays before new accounts become active – that adds friction to repeat account creation, but not mandatory ID checks for everyone. This would protect those without formal ID, those escaping unsafe homes, or those who rely on anonymity to stay safe. 4. Harmful content should be caught before it spreads. Automated systems routinely miss culturally specific abuse and coded language. Content should be detectable before it is shared, and easy for bystanders – not just victims – to flag. The users in our research recommended pairing automated detection with human moderators trained in cultural nuances, which is precisely the kind of effective content moderation system the proposed duty of care requires. 5. Recognise campaigns, not just individual posts. Abuse is often a sustained campaign, even when each message seems minor alone. The duty of care proposal requires platforms to mitigate reasonably foreseeable harms – which means looking beyond individual incidents. Platforms should connect reports over time, identify patterns, and act before harm escalates, with independent audits to ensure these systems are never weaponised against the people they are meant to protect. 6. Surface safety tools before harm happens. Most users discover safety features only after something has gone wrong. Australia’s proposal envisions “empowering” users – but empowerment means more than adding features. It means the platform should offer the right tool at the right moment, rather than bury it in a settings menu that only the most determined users will ever find. The real test The proposed digital duty of care is a significant step in the right direction. But “safe by design” will only deliver if it works for everyone. As our research shows, those most affected already have clear, practical ideas about what would make platforms safer. The opportunity now is to design with them – so safety is built in from the start. Until the proposed digital duty of care is rolled out, it is up to all of us to look after each other. We can report harmful content, pause before we post and ask: is it true? Is it kind? Is it fair? And we can be active bystanders – commenting when we see something harmful, or offering support to those experiencing abuse. We all have a role to play. From governments, to platforms, to everyday people – it is up to all of us to create a safe digital society, one that we can all be a part of. Senuri Wijenayake, Senior Lecturer in Human-Computer Interaction, RMIT University; Anastasia Powell, Professor of Family and Sexual Violence, RMIT University; Dana McKay, Associate Dean, Interaction, Technology and Information, RMIT University, and Madhuka Thisuri De Silva, Research Assistant, Inclusive Digital Technologies, RMIT University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Kids on social media more than two hours a day at higher risk of mental illness (2026-06-12T12:22:00+05:30)

Sixteen Miles Out/Unsplash  Nandi Vijayakumar, Deakin University; Susan M. Sawyer, The University of Melbourne, and Sylvia C. Lin, Deakin University; Murdoch Children's Research Institute As the United Kingdom and other countries make moves to follow Australia’s lead in restricting access to social media for under 16s, there is still much we don’t know about how the technology impacts young people’s mental health over time. For example, does using social media for a certain amount of hours each day lead to increased harm? Are younger adolescents more vulnerable than older ones? Is there any difference between boys and girls? Our new study, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia, provides some important answers to these questions. It found clear risks from heavier social media use on young people’s mental health. Alongside this, we also undertook a recent poll of Australian parents about efforts to restrict access to social media for young people. The findings suggests the law is changing parents’ views and practices around their children’s social media use. A debate over age When Australia restricted access to social media for young people under 16 last December, there was considerable debate about whether 16 was the appropriate age threshold. There were a number of longitudinal studies that examined associations between adolescent social media use and mental health. But very few had systematically investigated whether risks of social media use differed across age during adolescence. One large 2022 study from the UK found that increases in adolescents’ social media use over time were associated with lower life satisfaction during specific age periods – 11 to 13 years of age for girls and 14 to 15 years of age for boys. It focused on life satisfaction and did not assess symptoms of mental health. Interactive: the 5 simple tweaks to make social media less addictive Digging deeper Our new study aimed to dig deeper into these trends. We used data from 1,195 students in Melbourne whom researchers have followed annually from 12 to 18 years of age. We examined whether their social media use was related to later mental health problems, and statistically accounted for a range of individual and family factors that are known to influence both social media use and mental health. Therefore, we were able to reduce alternative explanations and strengthen confidence in our findings – even though we couldn’t prove causation. We found that adolescents who spent more than two hours per day on social media had a higher risk of developing mental health problems one year later, compared with those using social media for less than one hour per day. The mental health problems included elevated symptoms of depression and poor wellbeing. Importantly, the risks of social media use were not evenly experienced across adolescence. The strongest effects consistently emerged in adolescents aged 12 to 13 for both girls and boys. The estimated risk for symptoms of depression and anxiety, as well as poor wellbeing and self-harm, was roughly twice as large compared with adolescents aged 14 to 16 and those aged 17 to 18. Overall, the estimated size of effects was modest. But in girls aged 12 to 13, more than two hours of daily social media use was associated with around 11 additional cases of high depressive symptoms per 100 adolescents. Even small effects can become meaningful at a population level when large numbers of young people are spending more than two hours a day on social media. Age-based restrictions alone aren’t enough Our study cannot determine a precise age at which social media becomes “safe”. Nor should a single study inform national legislation on age-based restrictions. However, combined with other research, our study suggests that younger adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the potential harms of social media, with the strongest effects emerging during early adolescence. As a result, we expect that Australia’s social media law will have the greatest impact on the mental health of younger adolescents. But further research is needed to confirm this. However, age-based restrictions alone are unlikely to eliminate all risks associated with adolescent social media use. We found evidence that some risks for mental health problems – namely elevated symptoms of depression – persisted for young people up to 18 years of age. This highlights the need for continued supports for older adolescents. This includes holding social media platforms accountable for algorithms and features that promote compulsive engagement and exposure to harmful content. One way to achieve this is through Australia’s proposed digital duty of care reform. It also involves improving education on digital literacy and safety at schools and supporting parents to help young people develop healthier online habits. Changing the norm We also recently undertook a poll of more than 2,000 parents of 0- to 17-year-olds about the law restricting access to social media in Australia. The survey found that 59% of parents felt the law supported them to set rules around social media use. Also, 39% of parents reported that the law has changed their view on when children should first have their social media accounts, with 16 years being the most commonly endorsed age (38%). These findings, which are yet to be published, demonstrate that public health policies can influence what is considered appropriate or expected behaviour. While evidence on the impacts of Australia’s social media law is still emerging, it has already influenced global discussions on adolescent social media use. Debates about age-based social media restrictions are now occurring in many countries. And the conversation is increasingly shifting from whether social media affects young people’s mental health to when young people may be most vulnerable and how we as a society should respond. Nandi Vijayakumar, Research Fellow, School of Psychology, Deakin University; Susan M. Sawyer, Professor of Adolescent Health The University of Melbourne; Director, Royal Children's Hospital Centre for Adolescent Health; and Murdoch Children's Research Institute, The University of Melbourne, and Sylvia C. Lin, Postdoctoral research fellow, Deakin University; Murdoch Children's Research Institute This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Social media has supercharged real estate marketing – and made it cheaper. But it also brings risks (2026-06-11T11:26:00+05:30)

Piyush Tiwari, The University of Melbourne; Godwin Kavaarpuo, The University of Melbourne, and Samuelson Appau, Melbourne Business School Whether using newspaper or television ads, posters or signposts on the front lawn, the mechanism for selling a home has been the same for many decades: broadcast the message to the crowd and hope the right person finds it. Even the rise of modern online listing platforms, such as Domain and realestate.com.au, did not change this basic approach. But social media has revolutionised the scene. Algorithms can actively find prospective buyers based on user behaviour and serve them content, sometimes before they intend to buy a house. Social media has even allowed some home sellers to advertise properties all by themselves, and circumvent real estate agents altogether. So, how has social media changed the real estate game? And for agents or individual sellers thinking about using it, what are some pros and cons? Selling in the social era In 2015, Nic Fren, a Sydney-based real estate agent, reportedly became the first Australian real estate agent to list and sell a property exclusively on Facebook. That makes the use of social media for home sales relatively new. To advertise a house the traditional way, you have to deal with a gatekeeper. Listing on a site such as Domain or realestate.com.au is permission-based. Not only do you have to follow certain rules, it typically costs a significant amount of money. The fees for advertising on Australia’s big real estate platforms are some of the highest in the world. Both major platforms have increased their prices significantly over the past five years. But social media is decentralised, with no gatekeepers or major fees. Combined with the potential to reach a broader market, this makes it highly attractive to many agents and sellers. For home sellers looking to bypass using a real estate agent entirely through so-called “for sale by owner” listings, social media can help reach a large audience at a low cost. Agents can build a brand Social media doesn’t just offer a new way to advertise properties. It also lets real estate agents foster personal relationships and build trust with potential clients. This is part of agents’ social capital. Instead of just selling homes, they also educate and entertain. By doing so, many have captured more market share by building “celebrity-like” personal brands through their social media engagement with audiences. This is without having to wait until they have properties to sell. This content can catch people’s eye even when they’re just scrolling for fun. That means if they are later looking to buy, they can feel like they already “know” a particular agent. Amplifying exposure There has been some international research on the impact of social media on property sales. A study from the United States found total Facebook likes, total links posted or shared, and total Facebook stories shared were positively related to real estate sales in Orange County, California. Most brokers are not yet replacing traditional platforms such as Domain or realestate.com.au with social media. For now, they are complementary. Over time, however, they could gradually become competing platforms – just as Facebook Marketplace has become to eBay and Gumtree. There are reports of some homes being sold after being advertised only on social media. On TikTok, the algorithm means you don’t need a huge following to go viral. Even small accounts can reach a huge audience. TikTok’s demographic is typically younger. For this younger generation of consumers, social media is becoming the first point of exposure to real estate listings. What are the risks? Because social media decentralises marketing and removes a centralised real estate platform, some safeguards disappear. Prospective buyers may have to do more work to verify listing details and avoid property scams. Social media may have heightened these risks of exposing buyers to misleading ads and non-existent properties. Australians lost A$43.2 million to property scams in 2024, up from $13 million in 2021. Fake listings and fraudulent settlement schemes (which trick buyers into transferring money to impersonated accounts) are some of the most common ways people are scammed. Navigating AI Artificial intelligence (AI) adds a new layer of complexity to real estate marketing. This technology is increasingly being used to generate content, such as listing descriptions. In the US, nearly half (46%) of realtors who are members of the National Association of Realtors use AI for this purpose. But there are ongoing concerns about how best to use it without introducing new risks to buyers. “Hallucinations” are one concern, where AI-generated descriptions may contain serious errors. Despite its limited use, an emerging trend is the use of AI to generate hyper-realistic images for marketing. This is another major concern, as these pictures can seriously misrepresent the property. Whether this influences buyer behaviour and impacts buyers is untested territory. Piyush Tiwari, Professor of Property, The University of Melbourne; Godwin Kavaarpuo, Lecturer in Property, The University of Melbourne, and Samuelson Appau, Associate Professor of Marketing, Melbourne Business School This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.