Indonesia plans to introduce strict limits on social media access for children under 16, as the government moves to address growing concerns about online safety and digital well-being.
Communication and Digital Affairs Minister Meutya Hafid confirmed that a new regulation has been signed banning minors from creating accounts on high-risk platforms, including YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Bigo Live and Roblox.
Implementation will begin gradually from 28 March as platforms adapt their systems to comply with the new rules.
Authorities say the measure responds to rising risks faced by young users online, including exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, online fraud and excessive platform use.
Officials argue that stronger government intervention is needed to support families dealing with the influence of large digital platforms and algorithm-driven services.
Indonesia’s decision places the country at the forefront of youth-focused social media regulation in Southeast Asia. Similar restrictions have been debated globally, with Australia introducing a nationwide age threshold in 2025 that led platforms to remove millions of accounts linked to underage users.
Would you like to learn more aboutAI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Commission has convened a new expert panel tasked with examining how children can be better protected across digital platforms, including social media, gaming environments and AI tools.
The initiative reflects growing concern across Europe regarding the psychological and safety risks associated with young users’ online behaviour.
Specialists from health, computer science, child rights and digital literacy will work alongside youth representatives to assess current research and policy responses.
Discussions during the first meeting centred on platform responsibility, including age-appropriate safety-by-design features, algorithmic amplification and addictive product design.
An initiative that also addresses digital literacy for children, parents and educators, while considering how regulatory measures can reduce risks without undermining the benefits of online participation.
The panel’s work complements the enforcement of the Digital Services Act and related European policies designed to strengthen protections for minors online.
Among the tools under development is an EU age-verification application currently tested in several member states, intended to support privacy-preserving checks compatible with the future EU digital identity framework.
The panel is expected to deliver policy recommendations to the Commission by summer 2026.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Online privacy is eroding as digital services collect ever-growing personal data and surveillance becomes part of daily technology use. The debate has intensified as social media platforms, advertisers, and connected devices expand their ability to track behaviour, preferences, and habits.
Analysts say younger generations have adapted to this reality rather than resisting it. ‘In 2026, online privacy is a luxury, not a right,’ says Thomas Bunting, an analyst at the UK innovation think tank Nesta. He argues many people have grown up accepting data collection as a trade-off for access to online services, noting: ‘We’ve been taught how to deal with it.’
Advocates warn that the erosion of online privacy could have wider social consequences. Cybersecurity expert Prof Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey says the issue goes beyond personal privacy. ‘People should care about online privacy because it shapes who has power over their lives,’ he says, arguing that privacy is ‘about having something to protect: freedom of thought, experimentation, dissent and personal development without permanent surveillance.’
Despite a growing number of privacy tools and regulations, data exposure remains widespread. According to Statista, more than 1.35 billion people were affected by data breaches, hacks, or exposure in 2024 alone. At the same time, more than 160 countries now have privacy legislation, while users regularly encounter cookie consent prompts that govern how their data is collected online.
Experts say frustration with privacy controls reflects a broader ‘privacy paradox’, in which people express concern about data protection but rarely change their behaviour. Cisco’s Consumer Privacy Survey found that while 89% of respondents said they care about privacy, only 38% actively take steps to protect their data.
As philosopher Carissa Véliz notes, the challenge is not simply awareness but a sense of agency: ‘Mostly, people don’t feel like they have control.’ She argues that protecting privacy requires stronger regulation, responsible technology design, and cultural change, adding: ‘It’s about having [access to] the right tech, but also using it.’
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Commission has registered a European Citizens’ Initiative proposing the creation of a public social media platform operating at the European level, rather than relying exclusively on private technology companies.
An initiative titled the European Public Social Network calls for legislation establishing a publicly funded digital platform designed to serve societal interests.
Organisers argue that a publicly owned network could function independently from commercial incentives and political pressure while guaranteeing equal rights for users across the EU. The proposed platform would operate as a public service overseen by society rather than private corporations.
Registration confirms that the proposal meets the legal requirements of the European Citizens’ Initiative framework. The Commission has not yet assessed the substance of the idea, and registration does not imply support for the proposal.
Supporters must now gather 1 million signatures from citizens across at least 7 EU member states within 12 months. If the threshold is reached, the Commission will be required to formally examine the initiative and decide whether legislative action is appropriate.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Australia has begun reviewing its ban on social media accounts for children under 16, introduced in December 2025. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner is tracking more than 4,000 children and families to assess how the policy works in practice.
Researchers in Australia will analyse surveys, interviews and voluntary smartphone data to measure how young people interact with apps. Officials in Australia aim to understand how the ban affects children, parents and everyday online behaviour.
Early reactions in Australia have been mixed, with some teenagers telling media outlets they bypass age verification systems. Platforms reportedly remain accessible to some minors in Australia.
Meanwhile, the UK government has launched a public consultation on potential social media restrictions for children. Policymakers in the UK are seeking views on bans, stronger age verification and limits on addictive platform features.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Social platform X has released a standalone version of its private messaging service, X Chat, via Apple’s TestFlight. The initial beta reached capacity within two hours, reflecting strong early demand among iOS users eager to trial the new app.
Michael Boswell confirmed that the first 1,000 places were quickly expanded to 5,000, with further growth expected. Development has been ongoing for several months, and testers have been urged to stress-test the product and submit detailed feedback.
Early screenshots suggest a cleaner interface and possible rebranding to ‘xChat’.
Security claims remain under scrutiny, as experts question whether X Chat’s encryption matches established platforms such as Signal. Clear evidence addressing those concerns in the standalone build has yet to emerge.
Launch of the separate app marks a notable shift from Elon Musk’s earlier ambition to integrate messaging, payments, and content into a single ‘everything app’.
Chats will synchronise across X, its web platform chat.x.com, and the new iOS app, while an Android version is expected soon.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Britain has opened a public consultation examining whether children under 16 should face restrictions or a potential ban on social media use. Young people, parents and educators are being invited to share views before ministers decide on future policy.
Officials are considering several options beyond a full ban, including disabling addictive platform features, introducing overnight curfews, regulating access to AI chatbots, and tightening age verification rules. Pilot schemes will test proposed measures to gather practical evidence on their effectiveness.
The debate follows international momentum after Australia introduced restrictions on under-16 access to major platforms, with Spain signalling similar intentions. Political parties, charities and campaigners remain divided over whether bans or stronger safety regulations offer better protection.
Children’s organisations warn blanket prohibitions could push young users towards less regulated online spaces, creating a ‘false sense of security’. Researchers and policymakers instead emphasise improving platform safety standards while allowing young people to socialise and express themselves online responsibly.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
eSafety Commissioner has launched a major evaluation of Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age to understand how platforms are applying the requirement and what effects it is having on children, young people and families.
The study aims to deliver robust evidence about both intended and unintended impacts as the national debate on youth, wellbeing and digital environments intensifies.
Over more than two years, the research will follow more than four thousand children and families in Australia, combining surveys, interviews, group discussions and privacy-protected smartphone tracking.
Administrative data from national literacy assessments and health systems will be linked to deepen understanding of online behaviour, wellbeing and exposure to risk. All research materials are publicly available through the Open Science Framework to maintain transparency.
The project is led by eSafety’s Research and Evaluation team in partnership with the Stanford University Social Media Lab and an Academic Advisory Group of specialists in mental health, youth development and digital technologies.
Young people themselves are shaping the study through the eSafety Youth Council, ensuring that the interpretation reflects lived experience rather than external assumptions. Full ethics approval underpins the methodology, which meets strict standards of integrity and privacy.
The results will inform a legislative review conducted by Australia’s Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts.
eSafety expects the evaluation to become a major evidence source for policymakers, researchers and communities as the global conversation on minors and social media regulation continues.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
In December 2025, the Macquarie Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and the American Dialect Society named ‘slop’ as the Word of the Year, reflecting a widespread reaction to AI-generated content online, often referred to as ‘AI slop.’ By choosing ‘slop’, typically associated with unappetising animal feed, they captured unease about the digital clutter created by AI tools.
As LLMs and AI tools became accessible to more people, many saw them as opportunities for profit through the creation of artificial content for marketing or entertainment, or through the manipulation of social media algorithms. However, despite video and image generation advances, there is a growing gap between perceived quality and actual detection: many overestimate how easily AI content evades notice, fueling scepticism about its online value.
As generative AI systems expand, the debate goes beyond digital clutter to deeper concerns about trust, market incentives, and regulatory resilience. How will societies manage the social, economic, and governance impacts of an information ecosystem increasingly shaped by automated abundance? In simplified terms, is AI slop more than a simple digital nuisance, or do we needlessly worry about a transient vogue that will eventually fade away?
The social aspect of AI slop’s influence
The most visible effects of AI slop emerge on large social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Users frequently encounter AI-generated images and videos that appropriate celebrity likenesses without consent, depict fabricated events, or present sensational and misleading scenarios. Comment sections often become informal verification spaces, where some users identify visual inconsistencies and warn others, while many remain uncertain about the content’s authenticity.
However, no platform has suffered the AI slop effect as much as Facebook, and once you take a glance at its demographics, the pieces start to come together. According to multiple studies, Facebook’s user base is mostly populated by adults aged 25-34, but users over the age of 55 make up nearly 24 percent of all users. While seniors do not constitute the majority (yet), younger generations have been steadily migrating to social platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and X, leaving the most popular platform to the whims of the older generation.
Due to factors such as cognitive decline, positivity bias, or digital (il)literacy, older social media users are more likely to fall for scams and fraud. Such conditions make Facebook an ideal place for spreading low-quality AI slop and false information. Scammers use AI tools to create fake images and videos about made-up crises to raise money for causes that are not real.
The lack of regulation on Meta’s side is the most glaring sore spot, evidenced by the company pushing back against the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), viewing them as ‘overreaching‘ and stifling innovation. The math is simple: content generates engagement, resulting in more revenue for Facebook and other platforms owned by Meta. Whether that content is authentic and high-quality or low-effort AI slop, the numbers don’t care.
The economics behind AI slop
At its core, AI content is not just a social media phenomenon, but an economic one as well. GenAI tools drastically reduce the cost and time required to produce all types of content, and when production approaches zero marginal cost, the incentive to churn out AI slop seems too good to ignore. Even minimal engagement can generate positive returns through advertising, affiliate marketing, or platform monetisation schemes.
AI content production goes beyond exploiting social media algorithms and monetisation policies. SEO can now be automated at scale, thus generating thousands of keyword-optimised articles within hours. Affiliate link farming allows creators to monetise their products or product recommendations with minimal editorial input.
On video platforms like TikTok and YouTube, synthetic voice-overs and AI-generated visuals are on full display, banking on trending topics and using AI-generated thumbnails to garner more views on a whim. Thanks to AI tools, content creators can post relevant AI-generated content in minutes, enabling them to jump on the hottest topics and drive clicks faster than with any other authentic content creation method.
To add salt to the wound, YouTube content creators share the sentiment that they are victims of the platform’s double standards in enforcing its strict community guidelines. Even the largest YouTube Channels are often flagged for a plethora of breaches, including copyright claims and depictions of dangerous or illegal activities, and harmful speech, to name a few. On the other hand, AI slop videos seem to fly under YouTube’s radar, leading to more resentment towards AI-generated content.
Businesses that rely on generative AI tools to market their services online are also finding AI to be the way to go, as most users are still not too keen on distinguishing authentic content, nor do they give much importance to those aspects. Instead of paying voice-over artists and illustrators, it is way cheaper to simply create a desired post in under a few minutes, adding fuel to an already raging fire. Some might call it AI slop, but again, the numbers are what truly matter.
The regulatory challenge of AI slop
AI slop is not only a social and economic issue, but also a regulatory one. The problem is not a single AI-generated post that promotes harmful behaviour or misleading information, but the sheer scale of synthetic content entering digital platforms. When large volumes of low-value or deceptive material circulate on the web, they can distort information ecosystems and make moderation a tough challenge. Such a predicament shifts the focus from individual violations to broader systemic effects.
In the EU, the DSA requires very large online platforms to assess and mitigate the systemic risks linked to their services. While the DSA does not specifically target AI slop, its provisions on transparency, content recommendation algorithms, and risk mitigation could apply if AI content significantly affects public discourse or enables fraud. The challenge lies in defining when content volume prevails over quality control, becoming a systemic issue rather than isolated misuse.
Debates around labelling AI slop and transparency also play a large role. Policymakers and platforms have explored ways to flag AI-generated content throughout disclosures or watermarking. For example, OpenAI’s Sora generates videos with a faint Sora watermark, although it is hardly visible to an uninitiated user. Nevertheless, labelling alone may not address deeper concerns if recommendation systems continue to prioritise engagement above all else, with the issue not only being whether users know the content is AI-generated, but how such content is ranked, amplified, and monetised.
More broadly, AI slop highlights the limits of traditional content moderation. As generative tools make production faster and cheaper, enforcement systems may struggle to keep pace. Regulation, therefore, faces a structural question: can existing digital governance frameworks preserve information quality in an environment where automated content production continues to grow?
Building resilience in the era of AI slop
Humans are considered the most adaptable species on Earth, and for good reason. While AI slop has exposed weaknesses in platform design, monetisation models, and moderation systems, it may also serve as a catalyst for adaptation. Unless regulatory bodies unite under one banner and agree to ban AI content for good, it is safe to say that synthetic content is here to stay. However, sooner or later, systemic regulations will evolve to address this new AI craze and mitigate its negative effects.
The AI slop bubble is bound to burst at some point, as online users will come to favour meticulously crafted content – whether authentic or artificial over low-quality content. Consequently, incentives may also evolve along with content saturation, leading to a greater focus on quality rather than quantity. Advertisers and brands often prioritise credibility and brand safety, which could encourage platforms to refine their ranking systems to reward originality, reliability, and verified creators.
Transparency requirements, systemic risk assessments, and discussions around provenance disclosure mechanisms imply that governance is responding to the realities of generative AI. Instead of marking the deterioration of digital spaces, AI slop may represent a transitional phase in which platforms, policymakers, and users are challenged to adjust their expectations and norms accordingly.
Finally, the long-term outcome will depend entirely on whether innovation, market incentives, and governance structures can converge around information quality and resilience. In that sense, AI slop may ultimately function less as a permanent state of affairs and more as a stress test to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the upcoming struggle between user experience and generative AI tools, the former will have the final say, which is an encouraging thought.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Regulators aim to assess safeguards for children and ensure stronger compliance with local standards.
The ruling party is expected to introduce a family package that would require identity verification for every account through phone numbers or the e-Devlet system. Children under 15 would not be allowed to create profiles and further limits could apply to users under 18.
A proposal that would also allow authorities to order the rapid removal of content deemed unlawful without waiting for court approval, while platforms that fail to comply may face penalties such as phased bandwidth reductions.
Rights advocates warn that mandatory verification and broader enforcement powers could reshape online speech across the country. Some argue that linking accounts to verified identities threatens anonymity and could restrict legitimate expression instead of fostering safety.
Turkey has already expanded online oversight since 2016 through laws that increased the government’s ability to block websites, require content removal and oblige major platforms to maintain a legal presence in the country.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
