For years, tech companies successfully resisted pressure from child safety advocates to do more to keep kids off their services, claiming technical limitations would make any attempt to restrict access for teens ​impractical, overly broad or a security risk.

Also Read | A social media ban will not save our children

Now, a growing list of governments is concluding those hurdles are not insurmountable, and pushing ahead with aggressive new age-checking requirements for social networks, AI chatbots and porn purveyors alike. Three months after Australia launched a ‌landmark ban on teen social media accounts, regulators across Europe, in Brazil and in a handful of U.S. states are moving to emulate it.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, seen ​as a likely Democratic candidate for president in 2028, joined the call last month, while US Republican President Donald Trump is also reportedly “taking an interest” in age limits, according to his daughter-in-law. Spurring ⁠them along are escalating concerns over online abuse and teen mental health, and a recent outcry over the spread of AI-generated child sexual abuse images, as well as increased confidence in the capabilities of “age assurance” software that backers say can suss out a person’s approximate age using facial analysis, parental approval, ID checks and other digital clues.

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have boosted the effectiveness and slashed the cost of those age-gating tools, according to Reuters interviews with more than a dozen regulators, child safety ‌advocates, independent researchers and vendors who perform the age checks for big tech companies, including TikTok, Facebook owner Meta and OpenAI.

“The age-assurance market has matured a lot in the last couple of years,” said Ariel Fox Johnson, a senior adviser to San Francisco-based Common Sense Media, a children’s online advocacy group. She pointed to improving technology, as well as the establishment of trade ‌groups, technical protocols and certification schemes standardising evaluation of the various tools’ effectiveness.

Social media companies now can often confidently guess a person’s age group using digital breadcrumbs like the year an account was ‌established ⁠or the type of content it views, they said, while a burgeoning industry of age assurance vendors like Yoti, k-ID and Persona offer additional layers of checks via automated tools like ⁠face scans and machine-based analysis of government IDs. At the app-store level, too, Apple and Alphabet’s Google have rolled out tools that allow parents to indicate their child’s age range to app developers.

“The tech definitely has gotten better, not just for age verification specifically but for overall identity verification,” said Merritt Maxim, a vice president at Massachusetts-based research firm Forrester. “That, in turn, has driven down the average cost of verification, so that where you were using it five years ago only for higher-value types of transactions, now you can use it for ​pretty much anything without a significant financial impact.”

Vendors generally charge well under $1 per check for ‌basic machine-only age assurance tools, though for large volumes the price is often as low as single-digit cents, said industry executives. More costly traditional processes like human confirmation and triangulation of personal data that were standard a decade ago are still available at a premium, but are needed less frequently, the executives said.

Independent evaluations back up executives’ descriptions of rapid progress. According to an ongoing study run by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), face-scanning software from firms including Yoti – which performs checks for TikTok and Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and Threads – were off in their age estimations by an average of 4.1 years as ‌of initial testing in 2014, while by 2024 that average had dropped to 3.1 years, and is currently 2.5 years.

UK-based Yoti said the performance of its latest face analysis model ​due out in April surpasses that of models it submitted for the NIST and Australian studies, with an average error of only 1.04 years for kids in regulators’ target age range of 14 to 18. Persona, a San Francisco-based identity verification firm used by OpenAI and Reddit, touts a similar average error of 1.77 years for the 13-to-17-year-old age range.

A ⁠report commissioned by the Australian government likewise determined last year that photo-based age estimation products were broadly accurate, although it acknowledged that users within three years of the law’s age cutoff of 16 were in a “grey zone where system uncertainty is higher” and recommended they be diverted to “supplementary assurance methods, such as ID-based verification or parental consent.”

The systems also struggle more with certain skin types, with grainier imagery captured by older phones and when using privacy-protective “on-device” data processing, ‌which entails performing a check entirely on the person’s phone without sending their data out to a cloud server, executives said.

For instance, systems using on-device processing are less likely to catch attempts by enterprising youngsters to appear older than they are, said Rick Song, CEO of San Francisco-based Persona. Common tricks used by teens include donning masks, applying heavy makeup or fake facial hair, or scanning the plastic faces of action figures instead of their own, he said.

Still, said executives, facial age estimation can provide a digital version of the kind of screening performed daily at bars and liquor stores in the offline world.

“If you look young, you can be challenged, and you may have to provide your ID,” said Robin Tombs, CEO of London-based Yoti.

He added that social media services generally require fewer face scans and ID checks than porn or gambling sites because they already have reams of personal information on their users. This means they can lean more on an age assurance method called “inference” — involving analysis of online activities, connected financial information and other signals — to satisfy regulators’ requirements.

The 10 social media companies included ‌in Australia’s teen ban all declined Reuters requests for data on the effectiveness of their age assurance tools.

Australia’s internet regulator, the eSafety commissioner, has said it will collect population data for two years to assess the ban’s impact and publish first ​results later this year. Already, companies have locked 4.7 million suspected underage accounts since the law came into effect in December, it said, although industry participants have told Reuters that some of the accounts were likely underage Google accounts that were prevented from logging in to YouTube, regardless of whether they were active.

Meta said it took down about 550,000 Instagram, Facebook and Threads ⁠accounts suspected to be underage in the first weeks of the Australian ban. Snapchat said it took down about 415,000.

Regulators elsewhere are watching carefully. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is set to discuss age verification during ⁠an upcoming visit to Canberra, according to a European lawmaker briefed on her agenda. The United Kingdom, which requires age verification for porn websites and is considering tightening child safety rules for social media and AI chatbots as well, is likewise swapping notes with Australian counterparts.

Early results from the Australian experiment should be taken with a grain of salt, as companies affected by the ban generally were doing ‌the bare minimum to comply with legal requirements, said Iain Corby, the executive director of the Age Verification Providers Association, a trade association that represents about three dozen vendors including Yoti and Persona.

In some cases, he added, the social media companies asked AVPA member firms to turn off controls that make the age checks more robust.

“They are extremely worried this is going to be contagious and be a policy ​that is adopted around the world, so they are not really motivated for it to be a glowing success,” he said.

“They are testing the regulator’s patience to see what they can get away with.”

Representational image only. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

On the afternoon of September 8, Riddhima Sanba, 23, and her friends scurried to a cafe, some 200 metres from the Parliament building in Kathmandu, when clashes erupted between young protesters and security forces in Nepal. Tear gas filled the cafe, and the police fired gunshots.

“We could hear shouting and screaming and clamour outside,” Sanba recalled, about the first day of Nepal’s youth-led protests against corruption, the lavish lifestyles of political elites, and misgovernance. The Himalayan country abolished the centuries-old monarchy and became a constitutional republic in 2008. Its current Constitution came into effect in 2015.

Sanba had been part of the protests since that morning, following weeks-long discussions online among Nepali youths, largely clustered under the umbrella of Gen Z, those born roughly between 1997 and 2012. “The call was for peaceful protests, but things spiralled out of control quickly,” she said.

The youth, in their school and college uniforms, gathered at Maitighar Mandala in the heart of Kathmandu. Maitighar is synonymous with protests. It is just metres away from the Supreme Court, the pinnacle of justice.

Slowly, the crowd swelled into thousands. The protesters gradually started to march towards the Parliament building, about a kilometre away, said Sanba.

“We were minding our friends and supplying water,” recalled the BBA final-year marketing student who works as a marketing head and content creator for a private company. “We had no plans to clash with the police. But as security forces charged, demonstrations flared up.”

By the evening of September 8, official figures were out — at least 19 young lives had been lost, allegedly due to excessive force used by security forces on the demonstrators.

The next day, defying the government’s curfew, demonstrators not only filled the streets, but also turned violent — attacking politicians and their homes, government infrastructure, and business properties.

“They were not only Gen Z; there were a lot of other people. The second day was chaotic. None of us could comprehend what exactly was going on,” Sanba said.

But the events of September 8 and 9 did not erupt out of the blue. Online, a storm had already been brewing in Nepal.

From a spark to a storm

On September 4, the government, led by K.P. Sharma Oli, a leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), imposed a sweeping ban on 26 social media sites, including X, Facebook, and Instagram, citing their failure to meet the deadline to comply with registration requirements.

The youth, who had used social media to band together, took this not just as an affront, but also as a brutal attack on their civic space. “The digital space we were using just went dark suddenly,” said Sanba. “It was like being robbed of our agency, our right to speak and express ourselves.”

There was already a lot of anger against corruption and nepotism. Videos and clips about “nepo kids” and “nepo babies” were already circulating in the digital sphere. They showed politicians’ children flaunting lavish lifestyles — travelling in luxury cars, going on foreign vacations, and throwing extravagant parties.

Anmol Ghimire, 19, who participated in the discussions online in the lead-up to the protests, said Gen Z were definitely not protesting only the social media ban. “But the government’s sudden prohibition on social media sites did light a fuse,” said the student of cybersecurity and digital forensics at the British College in Kathmandu. “All we wanted was to call for an end to corruption, and a leadership that could fix the economy, unemployment, and a system that ensured a good future for us young people.”

Transparency International, which aims “to end the injustice of corruption”, published a report earlier this year, ranking Nepal 107th among 180 countries, with a score of 34, on the Corruption Perceptions Index. According to the World Bank, one in five Nepalis aged 15-24 is unemployed. With a high unemployment rate at home, and GDP per capita just a little over $1,400, millions of Nepalis look for jobs abroad. The people believe that this demonstrates the failure of Nepal’s ruling class.

Deaths and devastation

Multiple Gen Z protesters said they were taken aback by the degree of devastation on September 9, as the demonstrations descended into chaos. Several protesters burned down the Parliament and set the Supreme Court on fire. They set ablaze Singha Durbar, the main government complex, which was once a palace dating back over 100 years. They also attacked hotels and business enterprises. For several days after, the smell of charred papers and smoke filled the air. Blackened buildings and piles of soot were a common sight, and burnt vehicles could be seen across parking areas.

Two senior officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that security forces were in no position to contain the crowds, as protesters stormed the buildings from all sides.

On September 8, the Home Minister, Ramesh Lekhak, stepped down. On the following day, Oli resigned as Prime Minister, leaving a political vacuum. With no administration in effect, anarchy ensued. The demonstrators beat up Sher Bahadur Deuba, a five-time Prime Minister, and his wife, Arzu Deuba, a Minister in the Oli Cabinet. They set on fire former Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal’s home. His wife, Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar, suffered severe burn injuries.

Watch | Nepal protests force government out | Should India worry?

The official casualty figure stood at 73, with the majority being protesters. The rest included police officials and others who died from burns sustained when buildings were set on fire during the protests, according to information compiled by the government and police.

The tense situation forced the Nepal Army to step in to take charge of security. The Army airlifted Oli and other senior leaders to one of its barracks on the northern rim of Kathmandu for their safety.

Two major hospitals — the National Trauma Centre and the Civil Service Hospital — were filled with the injured, who had bullets lodged in their head, neck, arms, and legs. Doctors and nurses said they worked extra hours.

“We did not expect youngsters to be brought here with bullets even in their chests,” said a doctor at the Civil Service Hospital, a stone’s throw from the Parliament building. “Tear gas shells were fired even within the hospital premises.”

Watch | On the ground in Nepal: Empty streets under tight army watch

More than 100 people are still receiving treatment. The dead were cremated on September 16 with state honours. On September 17, the government declared a public holiday in their memory, with flags flying at half-mast. It declared all those killed ‘martyrs’.

Most of the demonstrators who lost their lives were between the ages of 19 and 24, according to hospitals. Some were in Kathmandu to study and work, while others were preparing for foreign employment or higher education abroad, family members outside the hospitals said.

Discontent turns to dissent

Analysts said a public eruption on the streets was long overdue. “It was not a matter of if, but when,” said Krishna Khanal, a professor of political science at Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu. “It was for everyone to see that the political class was failing on all fronts. Their promises of reform were turning hollow by the years.”

Since the new Constitution came into effect in 2015, Nepal has seen multiple government changes with the same three faces at the helm on a rotational basis: Oli, Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda”. Their role in past democratic struggles is publicly acknowledged, but the perception had been growing that they were no longer fit to run the country. Khanal said frustration at Nepal’s political parties had been growing, and “what we are calling Gen Z decided to take matters into their own hands.”

Oli began centralising power by consolidating several powerful departments under the Prime Minister’s Office. His government issued a policy, making it difficult for NGOs in Nepal to register and operate.

Watch | The rise and fall of K.P. Sharma Oli: Nepal’s embattled leader

Ajaya Bhadra Khanal, research director at the Centre for Social Innovation and Foreign Policy, said Oli’s authoritarian tendencies became evident from his first stint in 2018. “He tried to control the legislative process, policy making, and governance,” he said. “The way he bulldozed the party statute amendment to secure a third term as party chair also showed he was inclined to rule with an iron fist.” Last July, Oli inked a midnight power-sharing deal with Deuba to form a new ‘national consensus government’ to replace the coalition government led by “Prachanda.”

Further, media exposés on land grabs, corruption, gold smuggling, and the Bhutanese refugee scam, among others, were not pursued.

Semblance of calm

As the Army stepped in, President Ram Chandra Poudel called for restraint and invited the protesting groups for talks. Army Chief General Ashok Sigdel was tasked with negotiating with Gen Z protesters. But who could he talk to?

The protests had started spontaneously after discussions among various groups and subgroups, especially on the digital platform Discord. “We are not a political party, we are not an organised group. Yes, we did lack structural leadership,” said Yujan Rajbhandari, 23, one of the youth representatives who met Gen. Sigdel.

Negotiations began late on September 9 and continued, as the representatives demanded a leader with wider acceptance, who they believed was honest to head the government.

“After hours of discussions among ourselves, a majority agreed on Sushila Karki’s name,” said Rajbhandari, a civil engineering student. “Her support for our protest, her integrity, and her anti-corruption stance made us think she was the right candidate.”

Ms. Karki, a former Chief Justice, who often speaks out against corruption from various public forums, was the first public figure to visit hospitals and meet the injured. She passionately supported Gen Z’s protest. She was at Kathmandu’s Civil Hospital, near the Parliament building on September 9, and said, “The way the state has responded to this youth protest is unacceptable. The protesters’ demand is justified.”

After marathon meetings, on the night of September 12, President Poudel appointed Karki, 73, as head of the interim government. Hours later, he dissolved Parliament and called for elections on March 5.

While calm has returned to Kathmandu and elsewhere, uncertainty still hangs in the air.

The road ahead

In her first public statement after assuming office on September 14, Ms. Karki said she would follow through on the protesters’ demands to end corruption. “I had no desire to come here. My name was brought from the streets,” she said. “We will not stay beyond six months under any circumstance. We will fulfil our responsibilities and hand over power to the next Parliament and elected ministers.”

Ms. Karki’s Cabinet includes Rameshore Khanal, an economist who has long advocated economic reforms; Kulman Ghising, an electrical engineer credited with ending power cuts; and Om Prakash Aryal, a lawyer known for his anti-corruption and social justice work.

Rajbhandari, the Gen Z representative, said the Cabinet may not be an ideal one, but it is fit to steer the country towards elections and restore democratic order. “We were definitely not for a system change or the overturning of the Constitution. Our groups that led the protests were not demanding the return of the monarchy,” he said. “We are for a democratic government that works for the welfare of the people and the country. We need corruption rooted out; we want clean people to lead the country, who can inspire hope.”

Professor Khanal said this government’s main challenge is to hold elections on time by winning the confidence of the major stakeholders — the youth representatives as well as the political parties. “This interim government has the uphill task of bringing political players to the elections while not undermining the spirit of Gen Z,” he said.

For Sanba, the marketing student, and many like her, hope now rests on the promise that their voices will lead to change, and that the sacrifice of so many young lives will not be in vain. They are hopeful about the current government.

They also insist that the violence against young protesters be investigated and that those behind the arson, attacks on government buildings, and other criminal acts be held accountable.

Sanba maintains that Gen Z was not involved in the violence. “We strongly believe that our protest was infiltrated, and our movement was taken advantage of,” she said. “Almost like using our shoulders to aim and fire.”

Sanjeev Satgainya is former editor of The Kathmandu Post. Email: sanjeevsatgainya@gmail.com

Social media giants on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law banning them from signing up under-16s, describing it as a rush job littered with “many unanswered questions”.

The UN children’s charity UNICEF Australia joined the fray, warning the law was no “silver bullet” against online harm and could push kids into “covert and unregulated” spaces online.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the legislation may not be implemented perfectly — much like existing age restrictions on alcohol — but it was “the right thing to do”.

The crackdown on sites like Facebook, Instagram and X, approved by parliament late Thursday, will lead to “better outcomes and less harm for young Australians”, he told reporters.

Platforms have a “social responsibility” to make children’s safety a priority, the prime minister said. 

“We’ve got your back, is our message to Australian parents.”

Social media firms that fail to comply with the law face fines of up to Aus$50 million (US$32.5 million).

TikTok said Friday it was “disappointed” in the law, accusing the government of ignoring mental health, online safety and youth experts who had opposed the ban.

“It’s entirely likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the internet where no community guidelines, safety tools, or protections exist,” a TikTok spokesperson said.

‘Unanswered questions’

Tech companies said that despite the law’s perceived shortcomings, they would engage with the government on shaping how it could be implemented in the next 12 months.

The legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic, unenforceable piece of legislation.

Meta — owner of Facebook and Instagram —  called for consultation on the rules to ensure a “technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens”.

But the company added it was concerned “about the process, which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people”. 

A Snapchat spokesperson said the company had raised “serious concerns” about the law and that “many unanswered questions” remained about how it would work.

But the company said it would engage closely with government to develop an approach balancing “privacy, safety and practicality”. 

“As always, Snap will comply with any applicable laws and regulations in Australia,” it said.

UNICEF Australia policy chief Katie Maskiell said young people need to be protected online but also need to be included in the digital world.

“This ban risks pushing children into increasingly covert and unregulated online spaces as well as preventing them from accessing aspects of the online world essential to their wellbeing,” she said.

Global attention

One of the biggest issues will be privacy — what age-verification information is used, how it is collected and by whom.

Social media companies remain adamant that age-verification should be the job of app stores, but the government believes tech platforms should be responsible.

Exemptions will likely be granted to some companies, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.

The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans. 

Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.

China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.

Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)