Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
Discord is testing face scanning to verify some users' ages in the UK and Australia.
The social platform, which says it has over 200 million monthly users around the world, was initially used by gamers but now has communities on a wide range of topics including pornography.
The UK's online safety laws mean platforms with adult content will need have "robust" age verification in place by July.
And social media expert Matt Navarra told the BBC "this isn't a one-off - it's the start of a bigger shift".
"Regulators want real proof, and facial recognition might be the fastest route there," he said.
But campaigners have said these types of checks are ineffective and could lead to privacy issues.
"Age assurance is becoming the new seatbelt for the internet," said Mr Navarra.
"Will it become the norm in the UK? Honestly, yes, probably."
He said he believed the incoming changes in online safety laws mean online platforms would beef up their age verification processes.
"The era of 'click here to confirm you're 13' is dead," he said.
"Get age verification wrong now, and you don't just lose users - you could lose a courtroom battle or incur fines."
Firms which do not comply with the Online Safety Act could be fined up to 10% of their global turnover.
Instagram previously brought in age checks using facial recognition in 2022 for users who want to change their profile settings to be over 18.
The social media company requires users to take a selfie video on their phone and uses AI to estimate the person's age.
Like Discord, they can alternatively upload a picture of their photo ID.
How can you keep your child safe online?
The US-based platform says the verification - which it describes as "an experiment" - will be a one-time check.
It will apply the first time a user comes across content which it has flagged as sensitive, or if they change their settings on viewing sensitive media.
Users can either use the face scanner or upload a photo of their ID to confirm their age.
It says information used for age checks will not be stored by Discord or the verification company.
Face scans will stay on the device and not be collected, and ID uploads will be deleted after the verification is complete, according to the company.
Content which is flagged as sensitive is already automatically blocked or blurred for teenagers.
Privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch says age check technology "shouldn't be seen as a silver bullet solution".
Senior Advocacy Officer Madeleine Stone says they can pose a risk to users, "including security breaches, privacy intrusion, errors, digital exclusion and censorship".
While industry group the Age Verification Providers Association says there is a "wide range of convenient, privacy-preserving methods".
Their executive director Iain Corby told the BBC the latest technology can estimate age "within 1-2 years based on a selfie or how you move your hands".
But he also said platforms have a choice on how to use age verification.
"They can remove the harmful content altogether, apply age checks to access the whole site, or just check ages before allowing access to high-risk pages and posts," he said.
Australia is planning to bring in a social media ban for all under-16s this year.
Recent research found more than 80% of Australian children aged eight to 12 use social media or messaging services that are only meant to be for over-13s
Meta expands restrictions for teen users to Facebook and Messenger
Leave school phone bans to head teachers, children's commissioner says
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
4 hours ago
- The Verge
Weird-shaped notebooks make me want to write again
Andru Marino is an audio and video producer at The Verge. 'I make videos on our YouTube / TikTok / Instagram channels, and have produced our podcasts like Vergecast, Decoder, and Why'd You Push That Button?' He also keeps a lot of notes, and his latest favorite places to keep them are the Triangle and Sidekick notebooks. I asked him about them. Where did you first hear about these notebooks? I don't really remember when I first saw the Triangle Notebook. It was probably an Instagram ad. I had kept a link to the notebook's website in a browser tab on my phone for a few months and kept thinking about it. When did you buy it, and what went into the decision? I bought it in April, and what really attracted me was how weird it was. Why does the notebook need to be a triangle? Oh, it opens up into a square! Wow, I love that! The main reason I use paper is to doodle, and I thought this shape would inspire me to doodle differently. And then I saw this company also made another notebook called the Sidekick that basically looks like an L when opened, so it is angled alongside your computer keyboard. That was so wacky to me. So I bought that one too. What do you like about them? This seems more like an art experiment than anything. I love objects that make you rethink how they are used. I typically have Post-it notes or a spiral notebook on my desk so I can write something down or doodle during a meeting. The Sidekick doesn't take up a ton of space on my desk either opened or closed. The Triangle Notebook is actually great for using on your lap or other unconventional surfaces, as it is pretty sturdy and lays flat on its spine. Both notebooks also encourage me to use my handwriting more, which was a New Year's resolution I had. Is there anything about them that you dislike, or that you think could be improved? I am not entirely sure if it makes sense to take notes on an L-shaped piece of paper, but that is just what makes the Sidekick different. The Triangle Notebook could have a few more pages in it. It is nicely bound and sort of expensive ($33), so I would like to get more use out of it. Also it is so long! I don't know where to store it. And the pages don't tear out very easily. I'd love to give someone a note on a weird-shaped piece of paper. Who would you recommend it to? I'd recommend the Sidekick to an artist who wants to doodle during meetings — which is why I bought this. But I can also see it working for someone who draws on a tablet and wants to briefly write down some notes about what they are working on. I don't know who I would recommend the Triangle Notebook to besides someone who likes weird objects. I'd love to know if someone feels like they do their best work on a triangle-shaped notebook. You started this by saying you hoped these notebooks would inspire you to doodle differently. Have they? So far, no. My notes look the same mess as ever, but it has encouraged me to doodle more and write more, so that makes me happy. Triangle-shaped notebook that opens into a square. Notebook shaped like an 'L' to wrap around your keyboard.
Atlantic
6 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Perverse Pride of Having Never Owned a Smartphone
This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here. Unlike nearly 98 percent of Americans under the age of 50, I don't have a smartphone. Actually, I've never had a smartphone. I've never called an Uber, never 'dropped a pin,' never used Venmo or Spotify or a dating app, never been in a group chat, never been jealous of someone on Instagram (because I've never been on Instagram). I used to feel ashamed of this, or rather, I was made to feel ashamed. For a long time, people either didn't believe me when I told them that I didn't have a smartphone, or reacted with a sort of embarrassed disdain, like they'd just realized I was the source of an unpleasant odor they'd been ignoring. But over the past two years, the reaction has changed. As the costs of being always online have become more apparent, the offline, air-gapped, inaccessible person has become an object of fascination, even envy. I have to confess that I've become a little smug about being a Never-Phoner—a holdout who somehow went from being left behind to ahead of the curve. How far ahead is difficult to say. I think I've avoided the worst effects of the smartphone: the stunned, preoccupied affect; the social atrophy; the hunched posture and long horizontal neck creases of the power scroller. I'm pretty sure my attention span is better than many others', based on the number of people I've observed in movie theaters who either check their phone every few minutes (about half) or scroll throughout the entire movie (always a handful). I will, by the way, let you know if I witness you engaging in similar behavior: If you look at your phone more than once an hour, I will call you an 'iPad baby'; if you put on an auto-generated Spotify playlist, I'll call you 'a hog at the slop trough.' Being phoneless has definitely had downsides. The pockets of every jacket I own are filled with maps scrawled on napkins, receipts, and utility bills torn in half to get me to unfamiliar places. I once missed an important job interview because I'd mislabeled the streets on my hastily sketched map. At the end of group dinners, when someone says, 'Everyone Venmo me $37.50,' the two 20s I offer are taken up like a severed ear. And I'd be lying if I said I didn't occasionally get wistful about all the banter I'm probably missing out on in group chats. Still, I've held out, though it's hard to articulate exactly why. The common anti-smartphone angles don't really land with me. The cranky 'Get off your darn phone!' seems a little too close to 'Get off my lawn!'—a knee-jerk aversion to new things is, if not the root of all evil, then the root of all dullness. The popular exhortations to 'be fully present in the moment' also seem misguided. I think the person utterly absorbed in an Instagram Reel as they shuffle into the crosswalk against the light, narrowly saved by the 'Ahem, excuse me' double-tap on the horn that bus drivers use to tell you that you're a split second from being reunited with your childhood dog, is probably living in the moment to a degree usually achieved only by Buddhist monks; the problem is just that it's the wrong moment. Read: Why are there so many 'alternative devices' all of a sudden? Mostly, I think the reason I don't opt for the more frictionless phone life is that I can't help noticing how much people have changed in the decade or so since smartphones have become ubiquitous. I used to marvel at the walking scroller's ability to sightlessly navigate the crowd, possibly using some kind of batlike sonar. But then, on occasion, whether out of a vague antisocial impulse (not infrequent) or simple necessity (as in navigating a narrow aisle at the grocery store), I'd play a game of chicken with one of these people, walking directly toward them to see when they'd veer off. A surprising percentage of the time, they didn't, and after the collision, they'd always blame me. Eventually, I realized they're not navigating anything; they've just outsourced responsibility for their corporeal self to everyone else around them, much as many people have outsourced their memory to their phone. You're probably saying, well, at least they're on foot, and not driving a car. But many people look at their phones behind the wheel too. At a four-way stop, oftentimes the driver who yields to the crossing vehicle will steal a half-second look at their phone while they wait. At red lights, I see people all the time who don't look up from their phone when the light turns green—they just depress the gas when the car in front of them moves. Less hazardous but somehow more disturbing are the people I see scrolling in parked cars late at night. When I glance over—startled by the sudden appearance of a disembodied, underlit face on an otherwise deserted block—these people typically glare back, looking aggrieved and put-upon, as if I've broken a contract I didn't know I'd agreed to. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt; maybe they share a bed with a light sleeper, or have six annoying kids bouncing off the walls at home. But it happens often enough that I've come to think of them as the embodiment of contemporary alienation. Twenty-five years ago, we had Bowling Alone; today, we have scrolling alone. Of course, a phone is just a medium, no different on some level from a laptop or a book, and the blanket 'phone bad' position elides the fact that people could be doing a nearly infinite number of things on them, many of them productive. The guy hunched intently over his phone at the gym might be reading the latest research on novel cancer treatments. But probably not. Once, a guy at my gym, whose shoulder I looked over as he used the stationary bike in front of me, was talking to an AI-anime-schoolgirl chatbot on his phone. She was telling him, in a very small, breathy voice, how she'd been in line at the store earlier, and when someone had cut in front of her, she'd politely spoken up and asked them to go to the back of the line. 'That's great, baby,' he said. 'I'm so proud of you for standing up for yourself.' This is more or less typical of the stuff I spy people doing on their phone—self-abasing, a devitalized substitute for some real-life activity, and incredibly demoralizing, at least in the eyes of a phoneless naif. Many times, I've watched friends open a group chat, sigh, and go through a huge backlog of unread messages, mechanically dispensing heart eyes and laughing emoji—friendship as a data-entry gig you aren't paid for, yet can't quit. I have a girlfriend, but one of my friends often lets me watch as he uses the dating apps. Like most men (including myself), he overestimates his attractiveness while underestimating the attractiveness of the women he swipes on. 'I guess I'll give her a chance,' he'll say, swiping right on a woman whom ancient civilizations would've gone to war over. As long as this friend does his daily quota of swipes, he's 'out there and on the market,' he tells me, and there's 'nothing more he can do.' Yet we go to the same coffee shop, and several times a week, we see a woman who seems to be his perfect match. Each day, he comes in, reads his little autofiction book, then takes out his laptop to peck away at a little autofiction manuscript. Each day, she comes in, reads her little autofiction book, then takes out her laptop to peck away at what we've theorized must also be a little autofiction manuscript. Sometimes they sit, by chance, at adjacent tables, so close that I'm sure he can smell her perfume. On these occasions, I try to encourage him from across the room—I raise my eyebrows suggestively, I subtly thrust my hips under the table. After she leaves, I go over and ask why he didn't talk to her; he reacts as if I suggested a self-appendectomy. 'Maybe I'll see her on the apps,' he says, of the woman he's just seen in real life for the 300th time. I don't blame him. He's 36 and has only ever dated through apps. Meeting people in public does seem exponentially harder than it was just 10 years ago. The bars seem mostly full of insular friend groups and people nervously awaiting their app dates. (Few things are more depressing than witnessing the initial meeting of app users. 'Taylor … ? Hi, Riley.' The firm salesmanlike handshake, the leaning hug with feet kept at maximum distance, both speaking over each other in their job-interview voices.) I often see people come into a bar, order a single drink, sit looking at their phone for 20 to 30 minutes, and then leave. Maybe they're being ghosted. Or maybe they're doing exactly what they intended to do. But they frequently look disappointed; I imagine that their visit was an attempt at something—giving serendipity an opportunity to tap them on the shoulder and say, Here you go, here's the encounter that will fix you. Witnessing all of this, I sense that a huge amount of social and libidinal energy has been withdrawn from the real world. Where has it all gone? Data centers? The comments? Many critics of smartphones say that phones have made people narcissists, but I don't think that's right. Narcissists need other people; the emotional charge of engagement is their lifeblood. What the oblivious walking scroller, the driving texter, the unrealistic dating-app swiper have in common is almost the opposite—a quality closer to the insularity of solipsism, the belief that you're the one person who actually exists and that other people are fundamentally unreal. Solipsism, though, is a form of isolation, and to become accustomed to it is to make yourself a kind of recluse, capable of mimicking normalcy yet only truly comfortable shuffling among your feeds, muttering darkly to yourself. I know that my refusal to get a smartphone is an implicit admission that I would become just as addicted to it as anyone else. Recently, my girlfriend handed me her phone and told me to put on music for sex; a few minutes later, she leaned over to see what was taking so long. I had been looking at the Wikipedia page for soft-serve ice cream. I have no idea why I was looking at that or even how I'd gotten there. It's like the sudden availability of unlimited information had sent me into a fugue state, and I just started swiping and scrolling. I guess I looked into the void and fell in. I won't lie; it felt kind of nice, giving up.
CNBC
12 hours ago
- CNBC
Encountered a problematic response from an AI model? More standards and tests are needed, say researchers
As the usage of artificial intelligence — benign and adversarial — increases at breakneck speed, more cases of potentially harmful responses are being uncovered. These include hate speech, copyright infringements or sexual content. The emergence of these undesirable behaviors is compounded by a lack of regulations and insufficient testing of AI models, researchers told CNBC. Getting machine learning models to behave the way it was intended to do so is also a tall order, said Javier Rando, a researcher in AI. "The answer, after almost 15 years of research, is, no, we don't know how to do this, and it doesn't look like we are getting better," Rando, who focuses on adversarial machine learning, told CNBC. However, there are some ways to evaluate risks in AI, such as red teaming. The practice involves individuals testing and probing artificial intelligence systems to uncover and identify any potential harm — a modus operandi common in cybersecurity circles. Shayne Longpre, a researcher in AI and policy and lead of the Data Provenance Initiative, noted that there are currently insufficient people working in red teams. While AI startups are now using first-party evaluators or contracted second parties to test their models, opening the testing to third parties such as normal users, journalists, researchers, and ethical hackers would lead to a more robust evaluation, according to a paper published by Longpre and researchers. "Some of the flaws in the systems that people were finding required lawyers, medical doctors to actually vet, actual scientists who are specialized subject matter experts to figure out if this was a flaw or not, because the common person probably couldn't or wouldn't have sufficient expertise," Longpre said. Adopting standardized 'AI flaw' reports, incentives and ways to disseminate information on these 'flaws' in AI systems are some of the recommendations put forth in the paper. With this practice having been successfully adopted in other sectors such as software security, "we need that in AI now," Longpre added. Marrying this user-centred practice with governance, policy and other tools would ensure a better understanding of the risks posed by AI tools and users, said Rando. Project Moonshot is one such approach, combining technical solutions with policy mechanisms. Launched by Singapore's Infocomm Media Development Authority, Project Moonshot is a large language model evaluation toolkit developed with industry players such as IBM and Boston-based DataRobot. The toolkit integrates benchmarking, red teaming and testing baselines. There is also an evaluation mechanism which allows AI startups to ensure that their models can be trusted and do no harm to users, Anup Kumar, head of client engineering for data and AI at IBM Asia Pacific, told CNBC. Evaluation is a continuous process that should be done both prior to and following the deployment of models, said Kumar, who noted that the response to the toolkit has been mixed. "A lot of startups took this as a platform because it was open source, and they started leveraging that. But I think, you know, we can do a lot more." Moving forward, Project Moonshot aims to include customization for specific industry use cases and enable multilingual and multicultural red teaming. Pierre Alquier, Professor of Statistics at the ESSEC Business School, Asia-Pacific, said that tech companies are currently rushing to release their latest AI models without proper evaluation. "When a pharmaceutical company designs a new drug, they need months of tests and very serious proof that it is useful and not harmful before they get approved by the government," he noted, adding that a similar process is in place in the aviation sector. AI models need to meet a strict set of conditions before they are approved, Alquier added. A shift away from broad AI tools to developing ones that are designed for more specific tasks would make it easier to anticipate and control their misuse, said Alquier. "LLMs can do too many things, but they are not targeted at tasks that are specific enough," he said. As a result, "the number of possible misuses is too big for the developers to anticipate all of them." Such broad models make defining what counts as safe and secure difficult, according to a research that Rando was involved in. Tech companies should therefore avoid overclaiming that "their defenses are better than they are," said Rando.
