A recent report by Australia’s eSafety regulator reveals that children in the country are finding it easy to bypass age restrictions on social media platforms. The findings come ahead of a government ban, set to take effect at the end of 2025, that will prevent children under the age of 16 from using these platforms. The report highlights data from a national survey on social media use among 8 to 15-year-olds and feedback from eight major services, including YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok.
The report shows that 80% of Australian children aged 8 to 12 were using social media in 2024, with YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat being the most popular platforms. While most platforms, except Reddit, require users to enter their date of birth during sign-up, the report indicates that these systems rely on self-declaration, which can be easily manipulated. Despite these weaknesses, 95% of teens under 16 were found to be active on at least one of the platforms surveyed.
While some platforms, such as TikTok, Twitch, and YouTube, have introduced tools to proactively detect underage users, others have not fully implemented age verification technologies. YouTube remains exempt from the upcoming ban, allowing children under 13 to use the platform with parental supervision. However, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant stressed that there is still significant work needed to enforce the government’s minimum age legislation effectively.
The report also noted that most of the services surveyed had conducted research to improve their age verification processes. However, as the law approaches, there are increasing calls for app stores to take greater responsibility for enforcing age restrictions.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
A growing number of young Europeans are turning to social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube as their primary news source, surpassing traditional outlets such as TV and print media. According to the latest European Parliament Youth Survey, 42% of people aged 16 to 30 rely on social media for news about politics and social issues. This shift highlights changing preferences toward fast-paced, accessible content but also raises concerns about the growing risk of disinformation among younger generations.
Younger users, especially those aged 16 to 18, are more likely to trust platforms like TikTok and Instagram, while those aged 25 to 30 tend to rely more on Facebook, online press, and radio for their news. However, the rise of social media as a news source has also led to increased exposure to fake news. A report from the Reuters Institute revealed that 27% of TikTok users struggle to identify misleading content, while Instagram has faced criticism for relaxing its fact-checking systems.
Despite being aware of the risks, young Europeans continue to engage with social media for news. A significant 76% of respondents reported encountering fake news in the past week, yet platforms like Instagram remain the most popular news sources. This trend is impacting trust in political institutions, with many young people expressing scepticism toward the EU and skipping elections due to a lack of information.
The reliance on social media for news has shifted political discourse, as fake news and AI-generated content have been used to manipulate public opinion. The constant exposure to sensationalised false information is also having psychological effects, increasing anxiety and confusion among young people and pushing some to avoid news altogether.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
The Russian Central Bank has dismissed claims that unused digital rouble coins in inactive wallets will be erased. Officials say the reports, spreading on social media, are false and have no basis in law. Alla Bakina, a senior bank executive, stressed that digital roubles, like cash, belong entirely to the wallet holder, who can spend them whenever they choose.
Concerns have also surfaced that Russian citizens will be forced to use the digital rouble. However, the Central Bank insists that opening a digital rouble wallet will remain voluntary. Officials criticised social media “pseudo-experts” for spreading misinformation and reassured the public that there is no need to submit formal refusals to banks or government offices.
Despite these reassurances, scepticism remains. Some critics argue that while the bank may not impose expiry dates now, digital currencies allow for future spending restrictions. The digital rouble has been in testing since August 2023, with a full rollout expected before the year’s end.
For more information on these topics, visit diplomacy.edu.
In today’s digital age, the rapid proliferation of information has empowered and complicated the way societies communicate and stay informed. At its best, this interconnectedness fosters creativity, knowledge-sharing, and transparency. However, it also opens the floodgates for misinformation, disinformation, and the rise of deepfakes, tools that distort truth and challenge our ability to distinguish fact from fiction. These modern challenges are not confined to the fringes of the internet; they infiltrate mainstream platforms, influencing public opinion, political decisions, and cultural narratives on an unprecedented scale.
I’m sure TJ would never ever have said this about Fed or Nadal.
The emergence of alternative media platforms like podcasts, social media networks, and independent streaming channels has disrupted the traditional gatekeepers of information. While these platforms offer voices outside the mainstream a chance to be heard, they also often lack the editorial oversight of traditional media. This peculiarity has created a complex media ecosystem where authenticity competes with sensationalism, and viral content can quickly overshadow fact-checking.
Content policy has become a battlefield, with platforms struggling to balance free expression and the need to curb harmful or deceptive narratives. The debate is further complicated by the increasing sophistication of deepfake technology and AI-generated content, which can fabricate convincing yet entirely false narratives. Whether it is a politician giving a speech they never delivered, a celebrity endorsing a product they have never used, or a manipulated video sparking social unrest, the stakes are high.
These challenges have sparked fierce debates among tech giants, policymakers, journalists, and users on who should bear responsibility for ensuring accurate and ethical content. Against this backdrop, recent high-profile incidents, such as Novak Djokovic’s response to perceived media bias and Joe Rogan’s defiance of traditional norms, or Elon Musk’s ‘nazi salute’, highlight the tension between established media practices and the uncharted territory of modern communication channels. These case studies shed light on the shifting dynamics of information dissemination in an era where the lines between truth and fabrication are increasingly blurred.
Case study No. 1: The Djokovic incident, traditional media vs social media dynamics
The intersection of media and public discourse took centre stage during the 2025 Australian Open when tennis icon Novak Djokovic decided to boycott an on-court interview with Channel 9, the official broadcaster of the tournament. The decision, rooted in a dispute over comments made by one of its journalists, Tony Jones, highlighted the ongoing tension between traditional media’s content policies and the freedom of expression offered by modern social media platforms.
Novak Djokovic did not do a post-match interview after his win at Australian Open.
He gave a quick statement, signed some autographs, and was booed by some of the crowd as he left.
Namely, on 19 January 2025, following his victory over Jiri Lehecka in the fourth round of the Australian Open, Novak Djokovic, the 24-time Grand Slam champion, refused to engage in the customary on-court interview for Channel 9, a long-standing practice in tennis that directly connects players with fans. The reason was not due to personal animosity towards the interviewer, Jim Courier, but rather a response to remarks made by Channel 9 sports journalist Tony Jones. During a live broadcast, Jones had mocked Serbian fans chanting for Djokovic, calling the player ‘overrated’ and a ‘has-been,’ and even suggested they ‘kick him out’, a phrase that resonated deeply given Djokovic’s previous deportation from Australia over vaccine mandate issues in 2022.
The response and social media amplification
In his post-match press conference, Djokovic clarified his stance, saying that he would not conduct interviews with Channel 9 until he received an apology from both Jones and the network for what he described as ‘insulting and offensive’ comments. The incident quickly escalated beyond the tennis courts when Djokovic took to X (formerly Twitter) to share a video explaining his actions, directly addressing his fans and the broader public.
What happened was a protest against the Australian broadcaster and the strategic use of social media to bypass traditional media channels, often seen as gatekeepers of information with their own biases and agendas. The response was immediate; the video went viral, drawing comments from various quarters, including from Elon Musk, the owner of X. Musk retweeted Djokovic’s video with a critique of ‘legacy media’, stating, ‘It’s way better just to talk to the public directly than go through the negativity filter of legacy media.’ Djokovic’s simple reply, ‘Indeed’, underscored his alignment with this view, further fuelling the discussion about media integrity and control.
It’s way better just to talk to the public directly than go through the negativity filter of legacy media https://t.co/QYDJXWAC5r
The incident brings to light several issues concerning content policy in traditional media. Traditional media like Channel 9 operate under strict content policies where editorial decisions are made to balance entertainment and journalistic integrity. However, remarks like those from Jones can blur this line, leading to public backlash and accusations of bias or misinformation.
The response from Channel 9, an apology after the public outcry, showcases the reactive nature of traditional media when managing content that might be deemed offensive or misinformative, often after significant damage has been done to public perception.
Unlike social media, where anyone can broadcast their viewpoint, traditional media has the infrastructure for fact-checking but can also be accused of pushing a narrative. The Djokovic case has raised questions about whether Jones’s comments were intended as humour or reflected a deeper bias against Djokovic or his nationality.
The role of social media
Social media platforms such as X enable figures like Djokovic to communicate directly with their audience, controlling their narrative without the mediation of traditional media. Direct public exposure can be empowering, but it can also bypass established journalistic checks and balances.
While this incident showcased the power of social media for positive storytelling, it also highlights the platform’s potential for misinformation. Messages can be amplified without context or correction without editorial oversight, leading to public misinterpretation.
Case study No. 2: Alternative media and political discourse – The Joe Rogan experience
As traditional media grapples with issues of trust and relevance, alternative media platforms like podcasts have risen, offering new avenues for information dissemination. Joe Rogan’s podcast, ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’, has become a significant player in this space, influencing political discourse and public opinion, mainly through his interviews with high-profile figures such as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Donald Trump’s podcast appearance
In 2024, Donald Trump’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast was a pivotal moment, often credited with aiding his resurgence in the political arena, leading to his election as the 47th President of the USA. The podcast format allowed for an extended, unscripted conversation, allowing Trump to discuss his policies, personality, and plans without the usual media constraints.
Unlike traditional media interviews, where questions and answers are often tightly controlled, Rogan’s podcast allowed Trump to engage with audiences more authentically, potentially influencing voters who felt alienated by mainstream media.
Critics argue that such platforms can spread misinformation due to the lack of immediate fact-checking. Yet, supporters laud the format for allowing a deeper understanding of the candidate’s views without the spin of journalists.
Kamala Harris’s conditional interview
Contrastingly, Kamala Harris’s approach to the same platform was markedly different. She requested special conditions for her interview, including pre-approved questions, which Rogan declined. Harris then chose not to participate, highlighting a critical difference in how politicians view and interact with alternative media. Her decision reflects a broader strategy among some politicians to control their media exposure, preferring environments where the narrative can be shaped to their advantage, which is often less feasible in an open podcast format.
Some might see her refusal as avoidance of tough, unfiltered questions, potentially impacting her public image as less transparent than figures like Trump, who embraced the platform.
Vladimir Klitschko’s interview on ‘The Joe Rogan Experience‘
Adding another layer to this narrative, former Ukrainian boxer and political figure Vladimir Klitschko appeared on Rogan’s show, discussing his athletic career and geopolitical issues affecting Ukraine. This interview showcased how alternative media like podcasts can give a voice to international figures, offering a different perspective on global issues that might be underrepresented or misrepresented in traditional media.
Rogan’s discussions often delve into subjects with educational value, providing listeners with nuanced insights into complex topics, something traditional news might cover in soundbites.
Analysing media dynamics
Content policy in alternative media: While Rogan’s podcast does not adhere to the same content policies as traditional media, it does have its own set of guidelines, which include a commitment to free speech and a responsibility not to platform dangerous misinformation.
Fact-checking and public accountability: Unlike traditional media, where fact-checking can be institutional, podcast listeners often take on this role, leading to community-driven corrections or discussions on platforms like Reddit or X.
The spread of disinformation: Like social media, podcasts can be vectors of misinformation if not moderated or if hosts fail to challenge or correct inaccuracies. However, Rogan’s approach often includes challenging guests, providing a counterbalance.
Impact on journalism: The rise of podcasts challenges traditional journalism by offering alternative narratives, sometimes at the cost of depth or accuracy but gaining in terms of directness and personal connection with the audience.
Case study No. 3: Elon Musk and the ‘Nazi salute’
The evolution of media consumption has been profound, with the rise of social media and alternative channels significantly altering the landscape traditionally dominated by legacy media. The signs of this evolution are poignantly highlighted in a tweet by Elon Musk, where he commented on the dynamics of media interaction:
‘It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience. In the end, this deception will just be another nail in the coffin of legacy media.’ – Elon Musk, 24 January 2025, 10:22 UTC
It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience.
In the end, this deception will just be another nail in the coffin of legacy media. https://t.co/RKa3UsB7sd
Legacy media, encompassing print, television, and radio, has long been the public’s primary source of news and information. These platforms have established content policies to ensure journalistic integrity, fact-checking, and editorial oversight. However, as Musk’s tweet suggests, they are often perceived as inherently biased, sometimes acting as ‘negativity filters’ that skew public perception. This critique reflects a broader sentiment that legacy media can be slow to adapt, overly cautious, and sometimes accused of pushing an agenda, as seen in Musk’s experience of being ‘cancelled’ over a simple gesture interpreted out of context. The traditional model involves gatekeepers who decide what news reaches the audience, which can lead to a controlled narrative that might not always reflect the full spectrum of public discourse.
Modern social media: direct engagement
In contrast, social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) democratise information dissemination by allowing direct communication from individuals to the public, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers. Musk’s use of X to address his audience directly illustrates this shift. Social media provides an unfiltered stage where public figures can share their stories, engage in real-time, and counteract what they see as biassed reporting from legacy media. This directness enhances transparency and authenticity but also poses significant challenges. Without the same level of editorial oversight, misinformation can spread rapidly, as social media algorithms often prioritise engagement over accuracy, potentially amplifying falsehoods or sensational content.
Alternative media channels: a new frontier
Beyond social media, alternative channels like podcasts, independent streaming services, and blogs have emerged, offering even more diverse voices and perspectives. These platforms often operate with less stringent content policies, emphasising freedom of speech and direct audience interaction. For instance, podcasts like ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ have become influential by hosting long-form discussions that delve deeper into topics than typical news segments. This format allows for nuanced conversations but lacks the immediate fact-checking mechanisms of traditional media, relying instead on the community or the host’s discretion to challenge or correct misinformation. The rise of alternative media has challenged the monopoly of legacy media, providing platforms where narratives can be shaped by content creators themselves, often leading to a richer, albeit sometimes less regulated, exchange of ideas.
Content policy and freedom of expression
The tension between content policy and freedom of expression is starkly highlighted in Musk’s tweet. Legacy media’s structured approach to content can sometimes suppress voices or misrepresent intentions, as Musk felt with his gesture. On the other hand, social media and alternative platforms offer broader freedom of expression, yet this freedom comes with the responsibility to manage content that might be misleading or harmful. The debate here revolves around how much control should be exerted over content to prevent harm while preserving the open nature of these platforms. Musk’s situation underscores the need for a balanced approach where the public can engage with authentic expressions without the distortion of ‘legacy media’s negativity filter’.
To summarise:
The juxtaposition of Djokovic’s media strategies and the political interviews on ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ illustrates a shift in how information is consumed, controlled, and critiqued. Traditional media continues to wield considerable influence but is increasingly challenged by platforms offering less censorship, potentially more misinformation, and direct, unfiltered communication.
Elon Musk’s tweet is another vivid example of the ongoing battle between legacy media’s control over narrative and the liberating yet chaotic nature of modern social media and alternative channels. These platforms have reshaped the way information is consumed, offering both opportunities for direct, unmediated communication and challenges in maintaining the integrity of information.
As society continues to navigate this complex media landscape, the balance between ensuring factual accuracy, preventing misinformation, and respecting freedom of speech will remain a critical discussion point. The future of media lies in finding this equilibrium, where the benefits of both traditional oversight (perhaps through stringent/severe regulatory measures) and modern openness can coexist to serve an informed and engaged public.
Chinese state-backed social media accounts played a key role in amplifying the launch of DeepSeek’s AI models last week, according to an analysis by the firm Graphika. These accounts, including those of Chinese diplomats and media outlets, used platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and Weibo to highlight DeepSeek’s challenge to US dominance in the AI sector. This online activity coincided with a significant drop in US tech stocks, including a record one-day loss for Nvidia, shedding $593 billion in market value.
Graphika’s report suggested that this was part of a broader strategy by China to use AI to enhance its global influence and counter American leadership in critical technological fields. The surge in online discussion about DeepSeek’s AI capabilities was noticeable, especially on X, where it surpassed US rival ChatGPT in downloads from Apple’s app store shortly after its release. DeepSeek’s AI assistant also claimed to have been developed at a much lower cost than US competitors, raising concerns about a potential price war in the sector.
While China celebrates DeepSeek’s advancements as a victory over US efforts to limit its tech growth, the US has raised suspicions about whether the company improperly accessed American technology. The Commerce Department is investigating whether DeepSeek used banned US chips in its models, further intensifying tensions between the two countries over AI and tech competition. Meanwhile, major US companies like Microsoft and Meta continue their AI investments despite the challenges.
The European Commission has invited major social media platforms, including Facebook, TikTok, and X, to participate in a “stress test” on 31 January to assess their efforts in combating disinformation ahead of Germany‘s election next month. The test is part of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires companies to implement measures mitigating risks on their platforms. Similar tests were successfully conducted for the European Parliament elections last year.
EU spokesperson Thomas Regnier explained that the exercise would involve various scenarios to evaluate how platforms respond to potential challenges under the DSA. Senior compliance officers and specialists from companies such as Microsoft, LinkedIn, Google, Snap, and Meta have been invited to collaborate with German authorities in the closed-door session.
TikTok has confirmed its participation, while other platforms have yet to comment. The initiative underscores the European Union‘s commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability from tech giants in safeguarding democratic processes during elections.
Meta has come under scrutiny after its AI chatbot failed to identify the current US president correctly. Despite Donald Trump’s inauguration on Monday, the chatbot continued to name Joe Biden as president through Thursday. The error led Meta to activate its high-priority troubleshooting protocol, a ‘site event’, to address the issue urgently.
The incident marked at least the third emergency Meta faced this week during the US presidential transition. Other problems included forcing users to re-follow Trump administration profiles on social media and hashtag search errors on Instagram. Meta attributed the re-following issue to delays in transferring White House accounts, which affected ‘unfollow’ requests.
Complaints also arose after searches for Democratic hashtags were blocked while Republican hashtags displayed results normally. Meta acknowledged the issue, claiming it affected searches for various hashtags across the platform. These errors come amid broader platform changes, including scrapping fact-checking programs and reshaping its leadership.
Critics have linked the missteps to perceived shifts in Meta’s political alignment. CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s attendance at Trump’s inauguration and recent strategic moves, such as appointing Trump allies to key positions, have fuelled debate over the platform’s neutrality.
Germany’s interior minister, Nancy Faeser, has called on social media companies to take stronger action against disinformation ahead of the federal parliamentary election on 23 February. Faeser urged platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok to label AI-manipulated videos, clearly identify political advertising, and ensure compliance with European laws. She also emphasised the need for platforms to report and remove criminal content swiftly, including death threats.
Faeser met with representatives of major tech firms to underline the importance of transparency in algorithms, warning against the risk of online radicalisation, particularly among young people. Her concerns come amidst growing fears of disinformation campaigns, possibly originating from Russia, that could influence the upcoming election. She reiterated that platforms must ensure they do not fuel societal division through unchecked content.
Calls for greater accountability in the tech industry are gaining momentum. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez criticised social media owners for enabling algorithms that erode democracy and “poison society.” Faeser’s warnings highlight the growing international demand for stronger regulations on social media to safeguard democratic processes.
South Sudan has suspended access to social media platforms for at least 30 days following violent riots triggered by videos allegedly showing the killings of South Sudanese nationals in Sudan’s El Gezira state. The decision, announced by the National Communications Authority on Wednesday, aims to curb the spread of extreme content and prevent further unrest. Mobile operators MTN South Sudan and Zain confirmed that platforms like Facebook and TikTok would be inaccessible for up to 90 days.
The riots, which erupted in the capital, Juba and other cities, led to the deaths of at least 16 Sudanese nationals. Angry youths looted shops, vandalised property, and burned homes belonging to Sudanese nationals, believing Sudan’s military and its allies were involved in the El Gezira killings. South Sudanese authorities have condemned the violence, urging calm and restraint.
The Sudanese army has also criticised what it described as ‘individual violations’ in El Gezira. The social media ban is part of a broader effort to restore order and prevent further acts of retaliation, as tensions remain high between the neighbouring nations.
Meta users in the US are experiencing an unusual phenomenon where they are being automatically re-followed by the accounts of President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and first lady Melania Trump. The issue emerged after users intentionally unfollowed these accounts following the administration’s transition. Feedback from users, including actress Demi Lovato and comedian Sarah Colonna, highlighted frustration over the inability to maintain their choice to unfollow prominent political figures.
Upon the change of administration, official White House social media accounts are supposed to transition smoothly to the new leaders. While Meta’s communications director Andy Stone acknowledged that followers from the Biden administration were carried over to Trump’s accounts, he confirmed that users were not being forced to re-follow these profiles. Stone suggested that delays in processing follow and unfollow requests might contribute to the confusion experienced by users.
Many individuals reported recurrent issues despite efforts to unfollow the accounts multiple times, raising questions about the underlying technicalities involved. Users are expressing concerns over privacy and choice in the use of social media platforms, as the ability to curate their feeds appears compromised. However, this automatic re-following could reflect broader implications for user control in digital spaces.
As Meta has yet to release a detailed response to the reported glitch, users continue to voice their concerns across multiple platforms. The situation underscores an ongoing need for clarity and assurance regarding user preferences in social media interactions, especially during a politically sensitive time.
