 Two children wave the South Korean national flag outside the Incheon Asiad Main Stadium before the opening ceremony of the 17th Asian Games, in Incheon, South Korea. (IANS File Photo) Seoul, (IANS): South Korea's media watchdog said Thursday it is considering a social media restriction against children aged 14 years old and younger amid escalating concerns over excessive use of such platforms. Kim Jong-cheol, the chairman of the Korea Media and Communications Commission, made the remarks at a policy briefing in Cheong Wa Dae, emphasizing that excessive social media use by teenagers is a worldwide problem. "We are reviewing, in phases, a plan to restrict children under 14 years of age from creating accounts on social media platforms, and limiting exposure to designs and algorithms that could encourage excessive use of such platforms for teens aged 14 to 19," Kim said, Yonhap News Agency reported. "There are around seven related pieces of legislation proposed at the National Assembly," he added. Kim, however, acknowledged the issue should be approached carefully, recalling the Shutdown Law in 2011, which prohibited minors under 16 from accessing online games from midnight to 6 am. The decade-old legislation was eventually scrapped in January 2022, following calls that the law infringes upon people's basic rights and negatively affects the game and culture industry. The latest proposal from the media watchdog came amid governments in other countries taking legislative steps to restrict children and teenagers' access to social media platforms. The European Union said it will present legislation restricting children's access to such platforms after the summer. Australia also became the first country in the world to ban those under 16 from owning a social media account. Earlier in June, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he would ban access to social media for children aged below 16 years, terming it a "big step" for the country. Starmer said the government plans to pass regulations before Christmas and protections expected to come into force in Spring 2027. While making the announcement, Starmer noted that social media is making children of the UK "unhappy and unsafe" and that their children deserve better. He stated that the decision to ban access to social media for children aged below 16 years was taken after looking at the evidence. In a video shared on X, Starmer said, "Every parent wants the best for their kids. And that's what being a parent means. And for me, for my two kids, all I've ever wanted, hand on heart, is for them to be safe and for them to be happy and the rest is up to them. But you know, I think back to when I was growing up, and I have to say, I think we had it easier. These days, kids have to find their feet in a world that changes so quickly, where technology intrudes into every area of their lives. And we know that harms them."The response from parents in the consultation has been absolutely clear. Thousands of parents say their children are addicted to social media. It can leave them trapped in a cycle of endless scrolling that displaces play, sleep, and time with the family. It can harm their mental health and frankly, parents need our support on this. That is why today the government has decided to ban social media access for children under 16. It's a big step for our country. , fairer Britain," he added. South Korea's media watchdog floats possible social media ban for minors | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com |
South Korea's media watchdog floats possible social media ban for minors (2026-09-25T11:42:00+05:30)
Over 30 minutes of Instagram, Snapchat use may impair children’s attention: Study (2026-09-22T12:37:00+05:30)
 New Delhi, (IANS): Children who spend more than 30 minutes on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are likely to experience a gradual decline in their ability to concentrate, according to a study of more than 8,000 children from around age 10 through age 14. Researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden and Oregon Health & Science University in the US investigated a possible link between screen habits and symptoms related to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). They followed 8,324 children aged 9-14 in the US for four years, with the average time children spent on social media, watching TV/videos, and playing video games -- from approximately 30 minutes a day for 9-year-olds to 2.5 hours for 13-year-olds. Children who spent a significant amount of time on social media platforms, such as Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), or Messenger, gradually developed inattention symptoms, revealed the findings. In the study, the average time spent on social media rose from approximately 30 minutes a day for 9-year-olds to 2.5 hours for 13-year-olds, despite the fact that many platforms set their minimum age requirement at 13. The study, published in Pediatrics Open Science, however, found no such association among children watching television or playing video games. “Our study suggests that it is specifically social media that affects children’s ability to concentrate,” said Torkel Klingberg, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet. “Social media entails constant distractions in the form of messages and notifications, and the mere thought of whether a message has arrived can act as a mental distraction. This affects the ability to stay focused and could explain the association,” Klingberg added. The association was not influenced by socioeconomic background or a genetic predisposition towards ADHD. In addition, children who already had symptoms of inattentiveness did not start to use social media more, which suggests that the association leads from use to symptoms and not vice versa.The researchers found no increase in hyperactive/impulsive behaviour. While the effect on concentration was small at the individual level. At a population level, however, it could have a significant impact, they said. Over 30 minutes of Instagram, Snapchat use may impair children’s attention: Study | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com |
News sites are locking out the Internet Archive to stop AI crawling. Is the ‘open web’ closing? (2026-09-21T13:11:00+05:30)
Tai Neilson, Macquarie University
When the World Wide Web went live in the early 1990s, its founders hoped it would be a space for anyone to share information and collaborate. But today, the free and open web is shrinking. The Internet Archive has been recording the history of the internet and making it available to the public through its Wayback Machine since 1996. Now, some of the world’s biggest news outlets are blocking the archive’s access to their pages. Major publishers – including The Guardian, The New York Times, the Financial Times, and USA Today – have confirmed they’re ending the Internet Archive’s access to their content. While publishers say they support the archive’s preservation mission, they argue unrestricted access creates unintended consequences, exposing journalism to AI crawlers and members of the public trying to skirt their paywalls. Yet, publishers don’t simply want to lock out AI crawlers. Rather, they want to sell their content to data-hungry tech companies. Their back catalogues of news, books and other media have become a hot commodity as data to train AI systems. Robot readersGenerative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Copilot and Gemini require access to large archives of content (such as media content, books, art and academic research) for training and to answer user prompts. Publishers claim technology companies have accessed a lot of this content for free and without the consent of copyright owners. Some began taking tech companies to court, claiming they had stolen their intellectual property. High-profile examples include The New York Times’ case against ChatGPT’s parent company OpenAI and News Corp’s lawsuit against Perplexity AI. Old news, new moneyIn response, some tech companies have struck deals to pay for access to publishers’ content. NewsCorp’s contract with OpenAI is reportedly worth more than US$250 million over five years. Similar deals have been struck between academic publishers and tech companies. Publishing houses such as Taylor & Francis and Elsevier have come under scrutiny in the past for locking publicly funded research behind commercial paywalls. Now, Taylor & Francis has signed a US$10 million nonexclusive deal with Microsoft granting the company access to over 3,000 journals. Publishers are also using technology to stop unwanted AI bots accessing their content, including the crawlers used by the Internet Archive to record internet history. News publishers have referred to the Internet Archive as a “back door” to their catalogues, allowing unscrupulous tech companies to continue scraping their content.  The Internet Archive has been systematically archiving the web for about three decades. Serene Lee/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images The cost of making news freeThe Wayback Machine has also been used by members of the public to avoid newspaper paywalls. Understandably, media outlets want readers to pay for news. News is a business, and its advertising revenue model has come under increasing pressure from the same tech companies using news content for AI training and retrieval. But this comes at the expense of public access to credible information. When newspapers first started moving their content online and making it free to the public in the late 1990s, they contributed to the ethos of sharing and collaboration on the early web. In hindsight, however, one commentator called free access the “original sin” of online news. The public became accustomed to getting their digital editions for free, and as online business models shifted, many mid- and small-sized news companies struggled to fund their operations. The opposite approach – placing all commercial news behind paywalls – has its own problems. As news publishers move to subscription-only models, people have to juggle multiple expensive subscriptions or limit their news appetite. Otherwise, they’re left with whatever news remains online for free or is served up by social media algorithms. The result is a more closed, commercial internet. This isn’t the first time that the Internet Archive has been in the crosshairs of publishers, as the organisation was previously sued and found to be in breach of copyright through its Open Library project. The past and future of the internetThe Wayback Machine has served as a public record of the web for more than three decades, used by researchers, educators, journalists and amateur internet historians. Blocking its access to international newspapers of note will leave significant holes in the public record of the internet. Today, you can use the Wayback Machine to see The New York Times’ front page from June 1997: the first time the Internet Archive crawled the newspaper’s website. In another 30 years, internet researchers and curious members of the public won’t have access to today’s front page, even if the Internet Archive is still around. Today’s websites become tomorrow’s historical records. Without the preservation efforts of not-for-profit organisations like The Internet Archive, we risk losing vital records. Despite the actions of commercial publishers and emerging challenges of AI, not-for-profit organisations such as the Internet Archive and Wikipedia aim to keep the dream of an open, collaborative and transparent internet alive. Tai Neilson, Senior Lecturer in Media, Macquarie University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
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 |
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 |
Are our cars spying on us? A cybersecurity expert explains how to stay safe (2026-06-17T10:58:00+05:30)
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:
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. |
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)
|
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 testThe 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)
|
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 ageWhen 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. Digging deeperOur 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 enoughOur 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 normWe 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 eraIn 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 brandSocial 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 exposureThere 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 AIArtificial 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. |
Chatbot teddies for three‑year‑olds? Why AI toys are risky for kids (2026-06-05T12:16:00+05:30)
|
Tama Leaver, Curtin University; Katrin Langton, Deakin University, and Suzanne Srdarov, Curtin University ChattyBear, a soft, brown-furred teddy bear, begins every conversation with a jubilant, “Hello, my buddy!” No longer the province of the imagination, ChattyBear is part of a new generation of artificial intelligence (AI) toys. It can tell stories, chat about a child’s interests, play games or even discuss what’s happening in the world today. These high tech toys are powered by generative AI engines such as ChatGPT and are now widely available online. They are being marketed as a way to give children as young as three an educational advantage and a new type of play – without the perils of screen time. After evaluating six different AI teddy bears and toys over several months, it’s clear how these toys could feel compelling for children. Yet as our new report highlights, there are new risks that come with AI toys turning up in young children’s lives. Sounding humanFor younger children especially, understanding that their teddy or toy isn’t “alive” or magic can be hard. This is especially true if “teddy” uses language that positions it as a trusted friend – for example, by insisting it is a “real buddy”. This is a feature of many AI toys. Sounding human builds an artificial sense of trust and intimacy, which can be especially problematic for children when combined with sycophantic language choices – or excessively agreeable, validating and even flattering language. Research shows young children are particularly prone to developing a strong sense of emotional attachment to conversational AI agents. Increased trust leads to increased use and engagement with the toys. Recent estimates suggest close to 80% of children aged 10 to 17 have used an AI companion or assistant, so it’s urgent children and young people be taught how to “reality check” their AI “buddies”. Infinite chatThe marketing materials for many AI toys often highlight “endless conversations” as a feature of these devices. But enabling endless conversations, or infinite chat, poses risks when it comes to children learning how to moderate their technology use. In the social media realm, the infinite scroll of TikTok or Instagram is seen as a potential challenge to teens limiting their use to healthy amounts. Research has also found some AI toys discuss very adult topics – such as sexual fetishes and how to find knives and start fires. Infinite chat also opens the door to infinite data collection. The potentially intimate nature of conversations with AI toys might lead children to presume their conversations are private. But most AI terms of use reveal the opposite to be true. Sharing personal details with a friendly bear might feel safe. But that chat could be training data for the next large language model. Marketing material for ChattyBear says the toy offers “safe, filtered content for children”. The Conversation contacted the manufacturer for further detail about this but did not receive a response before deadline. Children’s wellbeingChildhood is a critical period when young people develop the social and emotional skills to form and maintain trusting relationships. These skills are usually learned through interactions with trusted friends and adults. Children’s rights advocates have raised concerns that excessive engagement with AI agents may reduce opportunities for children to develop these skills. And the risks may compound over time. Initially, time spent with AI agents may displace time interacting with real humans. Fewer opportunities to build these skills could lead to a reduced capacity to maintain caring human relationships. Difficulties in maintaining human relationships may promote a preference of machine over human relationships as children expect “frictionless” interactions. Eventually, these developments may lead to less satisfying human connections, increasing loneliness, which in turn promotes increased time spent with AI. The novelty of AI toys means there is little evidence to confirm these possible detrimental impacts. Further research is needed – especially as the AI toy industry is set to grow even more. Last year, for example, Mattel, one of the world’s biggest toy makers, announced a strategic collaboration with OpenAI to support AI-powered products. Barriers to the online world are goneThe ability to read and write was once a requirement to use most online tools and services. This literacy barrier no longer exists today with many generative AI toys, tools and devices now widely accessible to younger children through voice interactions. The audio turn opens up new technological play, experiences and opportunities for children. But it also means adults need to ensure AI toys can be safe for younger children, too. Right now, playing with AI toys under the supervision of a parent or trusted adult may well be a fun way to explore the world of AI together. But especially for younger children, playing with AI toys without supervision opens the door to a wide range of new risks. Importantly, the risk factors in AI toy design, such as the degree to which they pretend to be human, can be changed by manufacturers, offering opportunities to follow safety-by-design. However, the business models behind many AI toys capitalise on the duration and intensity of users’ engagement, leaving little incentive for companies to change their products. Tama Leaver, Professor of Internet Studies, Curtin University; Katrin Langton, Associate Research Fellow, Faculty of Arts and Education/School of Education, Deakin University, and Suzanne Srdarov, Research Fellow, Media and Cultural Studies, Curtin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
