The ban is being closely watched internationally as governments consider similar age-based restrictions amid rising concerns about the impact of social media on young people’s wellbeing. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the goal is to support children by reducing pressure from constant online content, encouraging them to spend more time on offline activities and with family and friends.

This marks one of the first large-scale attempts by a country to restrict minors’ access to widely used digital platforms. Observers say it may influence global efforts to regulate major tech companies. Several governments have signalled interest in measures of their own, especially following reports suggesting social media can contribute to mental health and body-image issues among teenagers.

The ban covers ten platforms initially, though the list may change as new services emerge. Most companies have agreed to use age-estimation tools, ID checks or account verification methods, while one major platform has argued the rules could limit broader internet access. A legal challenge is pending.

Some young people worry the restrictions could isolate those who rely on online communities for support. Fourteen-year-old Annie Wang said the ban may worsen mental health for users who depend on social media to connect with others.

The software in question, ConnectID, verifies a user’s age using information from their bank account. It’s being trialed alongside a facial age estimation system from Singapore-based company k-ID, which specializes in determining user age through facial analysis.

k-ID confirmed that some social media platforms in Australia are already testing the combined solution, though it declined to identify which ones. The company is already known for providing age verification to Discord in the UK, where the chat-based platform recently enforced stricter age rules for adult content.

ConnectID stated that its tool is available as a standalone solution for the upcoming age restriction law, although it can be paired with k-ID’s system. The company added that it hasn’t yet signed any clients specifically for this purpose.

The two companies are also aiming to offer their combined technologies to gaming platforms operating in Australia. While those platforms aren’t directly impacted by the social media ban, they are subject to other laws requiring stricter moderation for content aimed at minors.

If adopted, the partnership would put the banking sector in a central role in implementing a law that has drawn international attention, as governments worldwide explore new ways to protect teens online.

ConnectID was one of several age-verification technologies evaluated in a recent government-commissioned trial. However, the fact that it is now being tested by social media companies—and in partnership with k-ID—has not been previously reported.

The ConnectID system works by linking a website with a user’s bank account, sending back an anonymous confirmation of whether the person is over a specific age. Since many teens already have bank accounts, ConnectID argues its solution could correct errors if facial recognition software fails to determine a user’s age.

“It’s something we’ve been doing with major partners over the last couple of years across any ID,” said ConnectID managing director Andrew Black in an interview.

“Age assurance and social media is an interesting inflection point for that.”

k-ID CEO Kieran Donovan said in a statement announcing the gaming agreement that “partnering with ConnectID means we can help Australian platforms offer safer environments for younger players through real-time age verification”.

The government-backed trial found that facial age-estimation software was generally effective in enforcing age-based restrictions, though its reliability declined near the 16-year-old threshold. A report from last month indicated that selfie-based tools often struggled to consistently determine age at that cutoff.

Authorities have said that social media platforms should progressively implement more accurate ways for users to verify their age.

The war against the cancer epidemic in children, and to begin with: for the first time in modern medical history, children as young as eight are being diagnosed with aggressive colon cancer—a phenomenon so rare it was virtually unheard of before 2021. But now, oncologists are breaking ranks, exposing what they call a “global epidemic” of fast-moving cancers directly linked to COVID-19 vaccines, while the medical authorities who once demanded blind faith in these shots have gone eerily silent as the many children get sick.

Against this backdrop, Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, who is a pioneering cancer researcher, recently dropped a bombshell during an interview with Tucker Carlson, by bluntly connecting the dots between mRNA vaccines and the surge in deadly cancers. His warning follows a flood of reports from frontline doctors witnessing bizarre, rapid-onset tumors in young patients—cases that they state defy decades of medical understanding. Meanwhile, Dr Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist from the University of London, has called for an outright ban on mRNA vaccines, declaring they have no place in medicine outside of terminal cancer cases; and this came as his research found mRNA fragments inside tumors, suggesting the shots may be fueling cancer growth.

More specifically, Dr Dalgleish highlighted that researchers have identified traces of mRNA within cancerous tumors, noting that this genetic material plays a role in their rapid growth and the aggressive spread of these cancers. He asserted, “Cancer caused by mRNA vaccines is a known outcome.” He subsequently issued a cautionary note, emphasising that mRNA vaccines should NOT be utilised as a preventive measure against cancer, as they are implicated in its causation!

Now, the timing of these cancers is undeniable. Before 2021, childhood cancers like glioblastoma and advanced colon cancer were statistical anomalies. Now, pediatric oncology wards are filling with cases that progress at terrifying speeds—what doctors now call “turbo cancers.” Yet instead of investigating, public health agencies and pharmaceutical giants have doubled down on censorship, smearing dissenting experts as “conspiracy theorists” while quietly updating vaccine injury compensation programs to include cancer claims. The term “turbo cancer” isn’t even a recognised medical term, yet doctors continue to report aggressive cancer cases, in adults and young children without a history of medical issues!

Not only that but the parallels to past medical scandals are chilling. Just as Big Tobacco buried evidence linking smoking to lung cancer for decades, the COVID vaccine pushers—from the FDA to Pfizer—are gaslighting the public while children suffer. Evidently, history repeats itself when profit outweighs ethics. The same institutions that lied about opioids, asbestos, and Agent Orange are now dismissing vaccine injuries as “anecdotal.” But with doctors like Dr Soon-Shiong and Dr Dalgleish risking their careers to speak out, how long can the facade hold? As grieving parents demand answers, one question burns: If vaccines are safe, why are the architects of this experiment refusing to debate their critics in the open? And this is one of those questions that say a lot more than any possible answer. But, here is Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong revealing what is evidently concerning data: which reports aggressive prostate cancers in men as young as 40-50, and colon cancer in kids aged 10-12. And the culprit is a prostate enzyme (called TMPRSS2) that helps spike proteins invade cells faster, accelerating cancer growth.

STUDIES ARE LINKING mRNA JABS TO THE ACCELERATION OF CANCER GROWTH

Adding to what Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong and Dr Angus Dalgleish are warning about, studies are actually linking mRNA jabs to the acceleration of cancer growth. For instance, in a groundbreaking landmark study titled “Synthetic mRNA Vaccines and Transcriptomic Dysregulation: Evidence from New-Onset Adverse Events and Cancers Post-Vaccination” – researchers discovered that COVID-19 mRNA injections can trigger profound, long-lasting genetic dysregulation in individuals who develop new-onset adverse events or cancer following vaccination.

The study was conducted by scientists from Neo7Bioscience (namely Dr John Catanzaro, Dr Natalia von Ranke, Dr Wei Zhang, and Dr Philipp Anokin), as well as researchers from the University of North Texas (namely Dr Danyang Shao, Dr Ahmad Bereimipour, and Minh Vu), as well as researchers from the McCullough Foundation (being Dr Peter McCullough – himself – and Dr Nicolas Hulscher) and also Kevin McKernan from Medicinal Genomics. So, using high-resolution RNA sequencing of blood samples and differential gene expression analysis, the researchers found that COVID-19 “vaccines” severely disrupted the expression of thousands of genes—inducing mitochondrial failure, immune system reprogramming, and oncogenic activation that persisted for months to years after injection!

These findings strongly suggest 3 alarming ramifications. First, these findings suggest that mRNA vaccines can induce gene expression profiles consistent with tumor formation and chronic disease. Secondly, this also suggests that mRNA-vaccinated individuals may be at heightened risk of cancer, immune dysfunction, and inflammatory disorders. Finally, the synthetic mRNA and long-lasting spike protein appear to create sustained cellular stress that disrupts normal genetic regulation. And so, evidently, it is time for the immediate withdrawal of these dangerous gene therapies to protect the population still considering booster doses.

DNA IN THE VACCINE VIALS MAY BE CAPABLE OF CHANGING HUMAN DNA

Now, since the introduction of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, some members of the public have been concerned that the vaccines may modify the human gene by combining their sequences with the human genome. However, “Fact-checkers” refuted this, stating that mRNA cannot be changed into DNA. Yet Mr. McKernan’s earlier work shows that DNA in the vaccine vials may be capable of changing human DNA. And it’s not only Kevin McKernan: human biologist, professor Ulrike Kämmerer, PhD, at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany conducted earlier stages of this research. Exposing breast and ovarian human cancer cells to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, Ms. Kämmerer found that around half of the cells expressed the COVID-19 spike protein on their cellular surface, indicating they had absorbed the vaccines.

Well, Kevin McKernan (who was among the researchers of the study we just referenced) – he then performed gene sequencing and found that these cells, as well as their descendant cells, contained vaccine DNA. After this, he tested to see if any vaccine DNA combined with the cancer cell DNA, a process known as DNA integration. Integration is more of a concern in healthy cells than cancer cells since it disrupts cells’ genetic stability and integrity, increasing cancer risk. However, because cancer cells already have unstable DNA, the effects of DNA integration are less clear. Currently, in biomedical research, most experiments are carried out in cancer cell lines as they are easier to obtain, experiment on, and maintain in the laboratory. Mr. McKernan detected vaccine DNA sequences on two chromosomes in the cancer cell lines: chromosome 9 and chromosome 12. The sequencing machine detected both instances of integration twice. It is important to get two readings of the DNA integration to ensure the integration is not a result of misreading or random error. Mr. McKernan said it is unsurprising that integration was only detected on two chromosomes with two readings of each integration. This is because integration is rare, and the genes must be sequenced many times to get more sensitive results.

PFIZER’S COVID-19 JAB GOES INTO LIVER CELLS AND IS CONVERTED TO DNA

By the way, this issue is seen also with liver cells. According to Swedish researchers at Lund University, the mRNA  from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA! SO, the researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA. The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA. Now, reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus. And of course you can conduct your own research about, especially the difference between the normal and reverse transcription process.

However, what remains important to note from this information is this: this whole process of reverse transcription occurred rapidly within six hours. And yet… the vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said would not happen! And so, they lied about the relationship between the mRNA jab and the human DNA – something that the President of Loveworld Inc. has always made plain: mRNA affects, and makes editable, the human DNA!

VACCINE MANUFACTURERS KNEW THE VACCINES COULD CAUSE CANCER

By the way, this is not new information for vaccine manufacturers – they knew vaccines have this effect on DNA, and were especially aware of the cancer causing capacity or mRNA. In fact, Pfizer put cancer causing agents in their vaccine!

So, all of this, explains why mRNA vaccines are linked to cancer, but why doctors are seeing a surge in cancers in children – it is a ramification of the mass COVID vaccination campaign!

FOOD COMPANIES ARE ALSO CULPABLE FOR THE CANCER EPIDEMIC IN CHILDREN 

Let’s bring in food companies as additional culprits in the childhood cancer epidemic – and we especially have to focus on herbicide producers. Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are the world’s most widely used weed control agents. Public health concerns have increased since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015. To further investigate the health effects of glyphosate and Glyphosate-based herbicides, the Ramazzini Institute launched the Global Glyphosate Study (GGS), which is designed to test a wide range of toxicological outcomes.

For the duration of the study, glyphosate and two GBHs, Roundup Bioflow used in the European Union (EU) and RangerPro used in the U.S., were administered to male and female Sprague–Dawley rats, beginning at gestational day 6 (via maternal exposure) through to 104 weeks of age; and glyphosate was administered through drinking water at three doses.

Well, the findings from the study showed that in all 3 treatment groups, statistically significant dose-related increased trends or increased incidences of benign and malignant tumors at multiple anatomic sites were observed compared to historical and concurrent controls. These tumors arose in haemolymphoreticular tissues (leukemia), skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus and spleen (hemangiosarcoma). Increased incidences occurred in both sexes. Most of these involved tumors that are rare in Sprague–Dawley rats (with a background incidence of less than 1%) and yet after exposure ot the GBHs, 40% of leukemias deaths in the treated groups occurred before 52 weeks of age and increased early deaths were also observed for other solid tumors. This tells us that these GBHs, like Monsanto’s Roundup, are highly carcinogenic!

But, the study referenced, while it does predominantly focus on rats, is intended to show the dangers that emanate from GBHs. And so, I think not only does it offer insight for the rise of cancers in children, but jarring also in pets. Which I think is a massive indicator because pets are most exposed to environmental factors, that might be a cause for concerns – from food, to vaccines and household chemicals. For instance, the average life of a golden retriever used to be 17 years, but now it is in the single digits, and they often die from cancer or diabetes. Evidently, this tells us that there must be a change in environmental factors that needs to be investigated, especially given that these changes are parallel to the epidemic of cancer in children.

On top of this, it is crucial to remember that the current American agriculture system origin story involves large chemical companies – if you got a chance to follow the expose of food companies on one of our programmes called ‘Starting Point’ here on LN24 International, you would have noted that Monsanto, for instance, was one of nine wartime government contractors who manufactured Agent Orange from 1965 to 1969. As a result, in the status quo, 85% of the food people consume started from a patented seed sold by a chemical corporation that was responsible for creating a chemical weapon that was used in the Vietnam War, and has biological ramifications that are still felt even today!

AGROCHEMICAL COMPANIES ARE TAKING A PAGE FROM BIG PHARMA’S PLAYBOOK

And yet, in the midst of these concerns, Agrochemical companies are taking a page from big pharma’s playbook, in that they are seeking a TOTAL liability shield against claims against them! This is to say that while the pesticides that agrochemical companies like Bayer and Monsanto utilize have been “linked to cancer, to learning disabilities, to infertility, to hormone disruption … and they impact children more than the rest of us..” they are, nevertheless, fighting for a liability shield to prevent people from taking legal action against them for injury and death.

And so, just like vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for the harms their vaccines cause, agrochemical companies, like Bayer are seeking similar protections. While Congress has allocated a special fund for those who have been injured by vaccines, the chemical companies are proposing no such plans.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

So, let’s talk about online safety, es for young children. Online safety for young children is a critical issue, given the predatory risks and harmful content they can encounter on the web. Social media platforms, while offering connectivity and creativity, have indeed exposed kids to dangers like grooming, cyberbullying, and inappropriate content. There are monsters that are lurking the web looking for who to prance on. The question now; is an Online Safety Act—like Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 or the UK’s Online Safety Act 2023—the solution? Well, a quick look shows that there are even bigger monsters lurking within.

Countries have been gradually introducing “Online Safety Laws”

The Trojan Horse: Online safety legislation

Let’s start with the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 specific to Australia, where it was passed on November 29, 2024. It sets a minimum age of 16 for social media use, effective by December 2025. No other country has an The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 bans children under 16 from holding social media accounts, with platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X required to enforce age restrictions. Non-compliance can result in fines up to AUD 49.5 million. The law emphasizes privacy protections and places the onus on platforms, not parents or children.

The United Kingdom Online Safety Act 2023, effective from 2025, mandates social media platforms to enforce age limits consistently and protect children from harmful content. It does not set a specific minimum age but requires platforms to assess risks to children and implement age-appropriate restrictions. There is discussion about a potential Australia-style ban for under-16s, but no such law has been enacted yet.

Since June 2023, French law requires social media platforms to obtain parental consent for users under 15 to create accounts. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) also mandates parental consent for processing personal data of children under 16, though France lowered this to 15. Technical challenges have delayed enforcement, and proposals exist to ban smartphones for under-11s and internet-enabled phones for under-13s, but these are not yet law. In Germany under GDPR, children aged 13–15 need parental consent to use social media. No stricter national age limit exists, and there are no plans to increase it. Italian children under 14 require parental consent to sign up for social media accounts under GDPR and national laws. In 2024, Norway proposed amending its Personal Data Act to raise the minimum age for social media use from 13 to 15, though parents can still consent for younger users. Legislation is under development, with no clear timeline for enactment. GDPR-based national laws in require social media users to be at least 13, with no additional national restrictions mentioned.

In the United States the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires parental consent for children under 13 to use social media. The proposed Protecting Kids on Social Media Act would mandate age verification for account holders, but it is not yet law. At the state level, California passed a 2024 law, effective 2027, to prevent platforms like TikTok from tailoring content to children based on their data. Indonesia In January 2025, the Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs expressed interest in introducing social media age restrictions similar to Australia’s, but no legislation has been enacted or proposed yet.

How Parental Responsibility has been subverted by Government

So according to the Australian government, it’s better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. Any child in Australia without a parental lock can access a pornographic website that does not require an account by simply clicking the “Are you over 18?” box. If this bill accomplished anything good, it should have been to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 is about many things – keeping children safe is not one of them.

Online Safety Laws for Censorship, Surveillance and Control

Online safety Bill wants young people to be protected against hideous content, they will need to prove they are 16 to access websites. But they can change their gender and take a covid fake vaccine at any age, without parental consent. Jokes on us if we let it. Ursula Von Der Leyen made the connection.

The proposed online safety bill is taking a drastic measure to shield young people from explicit content, requiring them to verify their age as 16 to access certain websites. Meanwhile, it’s astonishing that minors can alter their gender identity and receive a COVID-19 vaccine without needing parental consent. It’s a disturbing reality that we’re allowing to unfold.

Isn’t it intriguing that the blame for corrupting kids is being placed on the internet, rather than the adults who are actually controlling it? Let’s set the record straight: yes, the online world is plagued by vile and disturbing content. However, what’s not being disclosed is that major online platforms such as YouTube, Meta, and TikTok have had the technological capability to detect and filter out objectionable content instantly for years. If a user hums just three notes of a copyrighted song, their video is immediately flagged – a feature that Shazam has been utilizing since 2008. It’s astounding that these platforms can identify a bassline but claim they’re unable to detect a beheading. This is not a matter of technological limitations, but rather a lack of willingness to use their capabilities for the greater good, unless it aligns with their interests. Once you grant Big Tech the power to filter content, you’re just one algorithm tweak away from censorship – not just of explicit material, but of any content that doesn’t suit their brand. This is exactly what they used during COVID, anyone who spoke against what they dictated was blocked and disallowed. Trust me, they are coming there. Gradually.

They’re essentially placing a digital ankle bracelet on every 15-year-old

So, what’s the response of governments? Instead of regulating these platforms and demanding transparency in their algorithms, they’re opting for a more invasive approach. They’re essentially placing a digital ankle bracelet on every 15-year-old, requiring IDs, biometrics, voice scans, and face scans. This is a prime example of lazy policy-making, a nightmare for privacy, and a blatant con. The technology to address this issue exists, and it’s possible to do so without treating every individual like a criminal. It’s time to stop pretending that this is about safety and acknowledge the truth: this is just a new excuse to monitor, monetize, and manipulate the entire population, starting with the most vulnerable – our children. But it goes further, something called function creep. This is a tool for censorship and surveillance. Not only for 15-year-olds, but for everyone.

U.K Online Safety Act comes into Effect

Let’s zoom into the U.K now. The British Labour Government is considering the option of banning VPNs, due to a surge in VPN usage in the UK, following the passing of the controversial Online Safety Act. For years, politicians from across the political spectrum insisted the Online Safety Act would focus solely on illegal content – shielding children from pornography, criminal exploitation, and material encouraging or assisting suicide – without threatening free expression. But from the moment its age-verification duties took effect on 25 July, that reassurance began to unravel. Social media sites, search engines, and video-sharing services are now legally required to shield under-18s from content deemed harmful to their mental or physical well-being. Failure to comply risks fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover, whichever is greater. At the heart of the regime is a requirement to implement “highly effective” age checks. If a platform cannot establish with high confidence that a user is over 18, it must restrict access to a wide category of ‘sensitive’ content, even when that content is entirely lawful.

This has major implications for platforms where news footage, protest clips or political commentary appear in real time. Ofcom’s guidance makes clear that simple box-ticking exercises – like declaring your age or agreeing to terms of service – will no longer suffice. Instead, platforms are expected to use tools like facial age estimation, ID scans, open banking credentials, or digital identity wallets. The Act also pushes companies to filter harmful material before it appears in users’ feeds. Ofcom’s broader regulatory guidance warns that recommender systems can steer young users toward material they didn’t ask for. In response, platforms may now be expected to reconfigure their algorithms to filter out entire categories of lawful expression before it reaches underage or unverified users. One platform already moving in this direction is X. Its approach offers a revealing – and potentially sobering – glimpse of where things may be heading. The company uses internal signals, including when an account was created, any prior verification, and behavioural data, to estimate a user’s age. If that process fails to confirm the user is over 18, they are automatically placed into a sensitive content filtering mode. As the platform’s Help Centre explains: “Until we are able to determine if a user is 18 or over, they may be defaulted into sensitive media settings and may not be able to access sensitive media.” Listen to Zia Yusuf, Head of DOGE for Reform UK and Former Co-founder & CEO Velocity Black.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe