Tag: think of the children

From eBay To Vinted, UK’s “Age Verification” Rules Spreading Already

The UK’s so-called “social media ban” hasn’t even come into force yet, and already its remit is set to spread beyond social media.

We previously reported that OfCom – the UK’s official censorship office – have announced that facial scans aren’t accurate enough to enforce the ban, and adults hoping to prove they are over 16 may need to use their photo ID.

Well now Lisa Nandy, the UK’s “Culture Secretary” – named in the ironic tradition of Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” – has told the media that the government is going to include non-social media sites in the ban.

The BBC reports:

Government ‘looking seriously’ at banning under-16s from Vinted and eBay

The concern is that – allegedly – the direct messaging available between sellers and customers on second-hand selling services is enabling “grooming”.

So the ban for under 16s is going to be extended to those platforms as well.

Of course, just as with the “social media ban”, the more correct description would be “requiring ID verification from everyone”.

This was always going to happen.

Once the “social media ban” is in place to “protect children”, you have a wedge in the door that can widen in two directions – either new “dangers” to children can be discovered, or you can broaden the definition of “social media”.

The UK government has already gone both ways.

Let us not forget what “Culture Secretary” Lisa Nandy said in her speech at the Labour Party conference last month:

“[We] must be a very active interventionist state, policing and regulating the online space so that people are safe.”

We’re well on our way there.

The social media ban already exists alongside other new regulations limiting online chats in multiplayer games (unless you verify your ID), “digital curfews” for 16 or 17 year-olds, age gating pornography, or suggested measures like device-level “nudity detection” – which would be, in reality, mandatory software scanning every image you look at and every photo you take, or even TRY to take, in real time.

The number of digital services, shops or websites for which all British citizens will be required to supply their ID is growing.

We’re now adding eBay, Vinted, DePop and Facebook Marketplace to that list.

From there it will be Amazon, or Etsy, or Temu. Then Deliveroo, JustEat, UberEats or any online shopping at all.

Then any online activity.

Then internet access in general.

…unless you sign up to the government’s new app to verify your age.

The digital ID beast is slouching toward Bethlehem, to be born.

Keep reading

Meta’s AI Will Now Guess Your Age On Instagram… Even If You Say You’re An Adult

Meta Platforms is expanding its AI-powered age-estimation technology to identify Instagram users suspected of being teenagers, even if they registered with an adult birthdate, and automatically apply stricter safety settings to their accounts.

Meta said in a Nov. 9 statement that the expansion will mean millions more teenagers worldwide will receive Teen Account protections, offering built-in safeguards that automatically limit the content they see, time spent on the app, and who can contact them.

Starting this month, U.S. parents on Instagram will receive a notification explaining how Meta will apply the age-appropriate protections for teens and how they can help ensure that their teenage child is logged in with the correct age, Meta said.

Meta uses AI and other signals to estimate a user’s age, including information from profiles, comments, posts, captions, and bios, such as references to school grades or birthdays, Larry Magid, CEO of nonprofit ConnectSafely, wrote in a Nov. 6 post on Meta’s website.

The company can also analyze photo and video visual patterns to determine a person’s age.

Keep reading

45 Attorneys General Urgently Want Congress to Push Platforms Toward Age Checks

A bipartisan group of 45 attorneys general from 42 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands have asked Congress to pass the Senate’s Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) censorship law, and make sure the bill’s duty of care provision is included.

The letter, sent on November 3 and announced by Hawaii on November 4, was signed by the attorneys general of these 45 US jurisdictions, led by Hawaii’s Anne Lopez, Ohio’s Andy Wilson, Tennessee’s Jonathan Skrmetti, and Connecticut’s William Tong.

The same group, although smaller by five at the time, sent a similar letter to Congress in February, when 40 attorneys general urged Congress to pass the Senate version of KOSA, again, with its duty of care in place.

We have been tracking the progress of KOSA, and explained that the duty of care makes social media platforms responsible for shielding minors from content that a regulator decides is harmful, which in reality pressures sites to censor lawful speech to avoid legal action.

As for the House version, it makes everyone, regardless of age, prove it to social media companies.

The letter now makes the case for the bill, S. 1748, as a way to protect children from online harm by imposing “minimum safety standards on all social media and gaming platforms.”

In addition, the attorneys general are promoting KOSA as a way to future-proof these standards, as they say the bill’s duty of care provision would “establish a lasting standard that extends beyond the term of the settlement and adapts as technologies and design features evolve.”

The letter also reveals that the attorneys general view the bill as a way to cement the impact of a huge settlement reached with Meta earlier this year.

Keep reading

Britain’s Online Censorship Law Now Comes With a Crisis Plan for Your Posts

The Online Safety Act – the UK’s censorship law – is getting its “crisis” machinery in place, and in full. As of Monday, November 2, big platforms in the country are expected to have in place a censorship plan that will be waiting in the wings, ready to be launched at a moment’s notice, or even before that – if a crisis is merely “likely to occur.”

This is what the regulator’s own paperwork, released on October 12, reveals, with the rules coming into force three weeks later. The crisis rules are part of amendments to two Ofcom codes – the Illegal Content Codes and the Protection of Children Code.

A crisis is defined as “an extraordinary situation in which there is a serious threat to public safety in the United Kingdom” that is highly likely to cause, or have come from, a surge in certain content. Ofcom also said that “local or regional crises may still meet the definition” and “an overseas event may also meet the definition.”

What is covered is content related to terrorism, hate, harassment, stalking, threats and abuse, and what is referred to as “the foreign interference offence” – which is a reference to the National Security Act, and a “misrepresentation” that “may” include “presenting information in a way which amounts to a misrepresentation, even if some or all of the information is true.”

As for the effect of such “misrepresentation,” the Act says it can influence political processes or decisions, and a foreign power can be not only a state, but also its head or government.

The posts that are at risk of being taken down are described by Ofcom as “the most highly protected forms of expression,” including “political speech.”

When a crisis hits – or is about to – these will be the first to go. “A higher risk of false positives is likely to be proportionate,” Ofcom says.

To be able to do all this, platforms must now have in place a crisis protocol, which they “need not publish” – and watch their own warning indicators.

Then, they should send in a senior crisis team “as soon as reasonably practicable if the provider determines that a crisis is occurring or is likely to occur.” Reviewing the situation afterwards should also be done in secret.

Large services will also open “a dedicated channel for law enforcement to contact the provider on matters related to the crisis.” No court order is necessary for this police hotline to be activated.

All this applies to large services (those with over 7 million monthly UK users) that are considered to be at medium risk, and any service that is at high risk. The rules cover user-to-user content on social media, messaging apps, forums, dating apps, games, marketplaces, and some AI tools.

The government has said that these steps “are not mandatory in themselves” – but a platform that follows them “will be treated as having complied” with the law. In other words, anyone who decides to go another way will have to prove to Ofcom that their method is equally effective.

It’s optional – in the British sense of the word.

And don’t worry, Ofcom has more reassurances: “The measures do not enable Ofcom to declare a crisis, nor do they introduce emergency powers.” But the Secretary of State can direct Ofcom to send a public statement notice to platforms, and they should take this into account when deciding whether a crisis is indeed taking place.

Ofcom has been working on the crisis protocol for a while, finalizing it on June 9 – the same day riots spread through Belfast after a stabbing on the Shankill Road. We reported about it then.

Keep reading

‘Digital ID Checks For All’: Ofcom’s Plan For UK’s Under-16 Social Media Ban Puts Adults In The Age-Check Line Too

Privacy campaigners have argued for months that this is where an age ban ends up. In March, Big Brother Watch titled a post “A social media ban for under-16s = digital ID checks for all” and argued that because the alternatives are intrusive and unreliable, ID would be required in many millions of cases. “All of the online age verification options are highly invasive and the biometric and behavioural profiling options are highly inaccurate, meaning IDs will be required in many millions of cases regardless,” the group wrote.

Britain’s communications regulator now points the same way. Ofcom’s rapid assessment, published Oct. 29, says the face scans social media platforms use to estimate ages are too imprecise to police the government’s coming ban for under-16s on their own, and that a second check, often photo ID, will have to back them up. And the checks won’t stop at teenagers: many adults with existing accounts will be asked to prove their age as well.

Ofcom named four methods it considers capable of being highly effective at 16, Digit reported: photo ID matching, banking information, digital identity services and facial age estimation. Photo ID matching compares the photo on a passport or driving licence with a live image of the user. A bank check uses age data the bank holds, with the user’s consent. A digital ID service lets a person prove their age once with photo ID and reuse it.

Keep reading

Ofcom lists four age checks many adults may face to stay on social media

Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s communications regulator, on October 29 named four age-check methods it considers “highly effective” at proving a user is 16 or older. Ministers asked for the assessment to inform the regulations for their ban on under-16s using social media.

The four are photo ID matching, bank-based checks, digital ID services and facial age estimation, which The Register reports must be paired with a second check. Credit card, mobile operator and email checks, which Ofcom says work for confirming someone is 18 but not 16, did not make the list. A passport or driving licence is one route; the bank, digital ID and face checks are the others.

The practical effect falls on many adults, not only children, because a platform cannot know who is under 16 without checking. The Register reports that some adults may be spared where a platform can infer their age from past activity.

Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s chief executive, said the ban “can work if social media firms do highly effective age checks properly.” According to The Register’s report of the assessment, Ofcom concedes that “the risk of circumvention cannot be entirely eliminated.”

Big Brother Watch, the civil liberties group, answered the same day. Its director, Silkie Carlo, called the plan “a national ID system by the back door” and “an Orwellian assault on free speech and privacy,” and called instead for “parental controls that genuinely protect children.”

The ban rests on a new section 214A of the Online Safety Act 2023, inserted by the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. Ministers intend to lay the regulations before the end of this year, and the ban is expected to start around spring 2027. The assessment was requested in June by the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall.

Dawes is a career civil servant whom the Ofcom board appointed chief executive in February 2020.

Canada is on the same road. The Safe Social Media Act, Bill C-34, which would set a similar limit for children 16 and under, is at second reading in the House of Commons.

Keep reading

New York Bans Artificial Intelligence Features for Children

New York’s governor has signed a law that bans artificial intelligence (AI) operators from offering certain chatbot features to minors.

Prohibited features include responses that suggest the chatbot is “a real or fictional individual or character that is human, alive, or experiences human emotions.” Responses that engage in flattery or sycophancy, endorse suicide and drug use, and encourage isolation from adults are also barred.

“No longer will minors have access to chatbots that pretend to be their friends and boyfriends and girlfriends,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said at a signing ceremony on Oct. 28.

“No longer will chatbots be allowed to keep sensitive information about a minor’s emotional and physical health. No longer will chatbots discourage kids from seeking help from licensed professionals. And I’m not sure why we have to pass a law against something so obvious, but no longer will minors have access to chatbots that may in any way encourage thoughts of suicide.”

The law authorizes New York’s attorney general to sue in response to indications of violations and seek relief, including money from the chatbot operators and the destruction of illegally obtained data.

“We will not hesitate to defend New Yorkers with the full force of the law,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.

New York legislators approved the bill earlier this year, and it takes effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

“For everyone wondering whether the public can have any say in determining how AI impacts us, New York again has an answer: Absolutely,” Assemblyman Alex Bores, a Democrat who voted for the legislation, said in a statement.

Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that supports restrictions on AI, was among the groups praising the legislation.

Keep reading

Eleventh Circuit Lets Georgia Social Media Age Checks Proceed

A federal appeals court has given a green light to a controversial part of a Georgia law that requires social media platforms to verify the age of every user, and in the case of those under 16, obtain parental consent.

The ruling came on Thursday, October 15, from a panel composed of Judges Newsom, Luck and Tjoflat, with Judge Kevin Newsom writing the opinion.

The case now goes back to the district court, but the decision did not address whether the law is ultimately constitutional – only that NetChoice went about its lawsuit the wrong way and did not provide enough evidence to prove the law is not constitutional.

Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said, “While we are disappointed in the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, the court notably did not hold that SB 351 is constitutional.”

On June 26, 2025, Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the law was too vague, that it was preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and that it likely violated the First Amendment, and blocked it.

The law’s social media part requires platforms to “make commercially reasonable efforts to verify the age of account holders” and obtain a parent’s consent for anyone under 16. For those under 16, platforms can only use age and location for ad targeting.

According to the court’s own summary, the law “requires platforms within its ambit to verify the ages of all their users.”

If a platform does not verify, it must “apply the special conditions applied to minors under this chapter to all account holders.” The ways a platform can confirm a parent include “Collecting information related to the minor’s parent’s or guardian’s government issued identification or financial or payment card information.”

The attorney general can seek up to $2,500 for each violation.

There is also another section of the law that requires sites that are more than 33.33 percent “harmful to minors” to check every visitor’s age, including by submitting government-issued ID. This part of the law has been in force since July 1, 2025, and was not challenged by NetChoice.

The Eleventh Circuit panel found that NetChoice had standing to sue but did not meet the test set by the Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice to prove the law was unconstitutional in a facial challenge – that is, across the full range of its application. The group had to show that the law was unconstitutional across the board, and it did not.

“NetChoice hasn’t provided even a full list of its own members to which SB 351 applies,” Judge Newsom wrote.

“We’ve learned the facial-challenge lesson the hard way,” the ruling states. “We needn’t address the merits of its First Amendment claim,” it continues.

The panel also reversed the lower court’s ruling that said the law was too vague and that it was preempted by Section 230.

Attorney General Chris Carr said, “This is a major win for Georgia families and a huge blow to those who would stand in the way of commonsense solutions to protect our kids.”

Keep reading

Florida wins key ruling allowing it to enforce a law that targets social media use by kids

The state of Florida won a key court decision Wednesday that allows it to enforce a ban on social media accounts for kids under 14 and other restrictions.

The law was one of the most restrictive in the U.S. on social media use by children when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it in 2024.

The law implicates the First Amendment, an appeals court said, but “likely does so in a content-neutral manner.”

It would likely survive a full legal challenge “because it doesn’t burden substantially more speech than necessary to advance the important interest in protecting minors from social media addiction,” a panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 opinion.

The law bans social media accounts for Florida children under 14 and requires parental consent for use by kids who are 14 or 15.

Industry trade groups the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice sued Florida, arguing that the law violated the free-speech rights of social media providers and users. A judge in 2025 said the law likely was unconstitutional and granted an injunction.

That injunction was put on hold while the appeals court heard the case. The lawsuit, with the injunction now overturned, will return to federal court in Tallahassee.

The appeals court noted that the law covers social media platforms “that have been determined to induce heavy use by children, and applies only to platforms that use both algorithms and one of several addictive features.”

An email seeking comment from the Florida attorney general’s office was not immediately answered. NetChoice said it was disappointed with the decision.

“We are currently evaluating all of our options as we continue the fight to ensure Floridians’ rights to free expression online are protected, and parents remain in the driver’s seat when it comes to making decisions for their families,” said Paul Taske, a lawyer at NetChoice.

Keep reading

Every Bad Idea Australia Ever Had About the Internet, Now in One Bill

A “safety net upstream” – that’s how Australia’s Communications Minister Anika Wells described the intent behind the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, introduced to the country’s Parliament on Thursday.

Wells was making the announcement hours before she was to address the National Press Club. The bill, which is 90 pages long, carries a civil penalty of up to 60,000 penalty units, or $109.2 million, for failing the duty.

In Parliament, Wells said, “It moves the safety net upstream to the people who design the product to stop the harm before it ever reaches an Australian.”

At the Press Club, she put it this way: setting “basic safety standards for the online services we use every day” will see the platforms regulated “just like we have in every other industry.”

Wells said that the goal is to “shift the burden from the shoulders of victims to the companies that are creating the environments where harms occur.”

She added: “To make this abundantly clear, we have removed the ministerial rule-making power to define new harms in the final bill.”

Instead, she said, “New harms can be added by parliament through legislative amendment.”

The takedown changes in Schedule 1 kick in the day after Royal Assent, while the duty of care itself comes into force 12 months later.

In September, the exposure draft gave the minister the power to add, by instrument, any material “that the Minister is satisfied may cause serious harm.” That power is now gone.

The bill does not at any point ask platforms to balance their “duty of care” with the need to protect freedom of expression and privacy of users.

Section 26 sets the duty: a platform “must take appropriate action to ensure a safe online environment, including by taking effective measures to mitigate risks.”

Section 26A spells out what counts as “appropriate” and “effective.” The matters to be taken into account “include” how far the measures achieve “a safe online environment,” how much they reduce the risk of harmful material, “the impact on the security of the online service,” and “whether the action or measures are or would be proportionate to the level of risk.”

Section 26A(3) states: “The cost of the action or measures must not be taken into account.”

Nowhere in this is freedom of expression or privacy mentioned. The word “encryption” does not appear at all in the 90 pages, nor do the phrases “freedom of expression” or “free speech.”

In the UK Online Safety Act – which is no friend of free speech, either – there is at least a section (22) that imposes on platforms, when deciding on safety measures, “a duty to have particular regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law,” and a matching duty on privacy.

The Australian bill has no such provision.

Keep reading