Over the past few days, the following topics attracted our attention:
Australia’s Teen Cocial Media Ban Built on Flawed Report
China is Making Leaving the Country a Privilege Granted by the Authorities
EU Wants Ceuta Minors Sent Back — Spain Moves the Children Inland Instead
Australia’s Teen Cocial Media Ban Built on Flawed Report
The analysis that championed the Australian social media ban contains references to academic articles that do not actually exist. The authors deny that these references were fabricated by AI, although they admit to having used ChatGPT during the editing process, The Guardian reports.
This is a report commissioned last year by the Australian authorities for 3.48 million dollars (approx. 2.98 million euros) from the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) in the United Kingdom. The company tested several age-verification technologies that platforms could use to prevent anyone under the age of 16 from accessing them. One chapter of the report discusses emerging technologies and cites several research papers on potential new age-verification solutions.
The Australian Senate is currently considering a proposal to further strengthen the social media ban legislation. During the proceedings, a statement was submitted claiming that the analysis contained at least two erroneous references. “The citations … appear to be AI hallucinations, rather than being based on real sources,” the statement reads. Guardian analysis later identified at least six further incorrect references. These include mistakes in Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), which refer to works that do not exist or are incorrect in content. Some references list an author, journal or year of publication that matches no known work. Materials were also found which did not contain what the report claimed they did.
An ACCS spokesperson initially denied that artificial intelligence had been used in compiling the report and attempted to correct the errors by providing new references to the studies on which the report was allegedly based. However, errors were also found in these new references. For example, one new reference gave the publication date as March 2025. The author of that paper confirmed it had only been published in June 2025, so it could not have been accessed in March. Moreover, ‘Jamil’, listed as lead author, had never been among the authors, and ACCS had incorrectly summarised the article. Another cited article, ‘Weber et al. 2011’, could not be found in the journal said to have published it. ACCS then claimed that the study had been cited by Monash University and provided a university paper in which, however, no reference to Weber’s work could be found.
Subsequently, ACCS admitted that artificial intelligence had been used, but only to rewrite paragraphs more succinctly. A spokesperson maintained that AI had not been used for the cited materials; every reference had been checked to ensure it was relevant, accurate and that the links worked. But when links were discovered whose metadata showed they originated from ChatGPT, ACCS was ultimately forced to admit AI use in the report. It argued, however, that the ChatGPT metadata meant the use of artificial intelligence had already been disclosed, and since these specific links were correct, this did not constitute a problem.
Officials explained that they met with ACCS, which argued that the errors were due to links that had previously worked having broken in the meantime. Officials said it would be extremely difficult to verify this claim retrospectively. They also noted that only “a handful of errors” were found in the report, which comprises approximately 1,000 pages and a 26-page list of sources.
Professor Christian Downie of the School of Regulation and Global Governance at the Australian National University explained that if reports submitted to the authorities contain citation errors - AI or otherwise - this could lead to incorrect decisions and erode public confidence. What is remarkable about the current case is that Australia’s approach to social media bans and age verification has been closely watched across the world, with many countries following or considering its example, including the European Commission and the European Parliament. One after another, countries are announcing plans to ban or restrict social media for young people and introduce age verification, such as France, Denmark, Spain, Austria, Norway, Cyprus, Italy, Poland, Ireland, Greece, the USA, the UK, Japan, the UAE,Brazil, Turkey, Nepal, Russia, etc. But if the Australian authorities made their decision based on incorrect data, all the others are following suit at a rapid pace.
China is Making Leaving the Country a Privilege Granted by the Authorities
At the end of July, China’s State Council published a document stating that border control officials may require travellers to provide additional information and documents on the reasons for their travel in order to “protect the country’s sovereignty and interests”. The rules, which take effect on 15 September, introduce stricter passenger checks and new grounds for restricting Chinese citizens’ ability to leave. These rules are seen as an extension of state control over citizens, writes France24.
The rules apply if border officers find that a person has presented forged documents or false information. In such cases, the person may be barred from entering or leaving the country. Chinese citizens who, in the authorities’ view, obtained travel documents by fraud, or left or entered illegally, may face a travel ban of six months to three years on top of standard penalties. The same can apply to those who “violate” rules on technology imports and exports if the breach threatens China’s industrial or technological security. A ban may also be imposed on citizens deemed to have engaged in illegal activities abroad or threatened national security. Beijing has used travel bans before, including on the two founders of the Chinese AI firm Manus after Meta planned to buy it for $2 billion. The authorities later blocked the takeover and after that agreed to lift the ban.
The new rules also affect foreign nationals. They may be barred from entering China for one to five years if they provided false information or made false claims in a visa application or on entry. Critics say this poses the greatest risk to those who have renounced Chinese citizenship, also Taiwanese.
However, border guards now have clear authority to check whether a traveller’s declared purpose is genuine. China already tightly controls overseas travel; civil servants are often required to hand over their passports to employers. The new rules have therefore sparked debate over whether foreign travel will remain feasible once they take effect.
According to Henry Gao, a law professor at Singapore Management University, the provisions are highly problematic. In some cases they allow authorities to impose a travel ban without notifying the citizen or giving reasons - for example, if notification could harm national security or a criminal investigation. Challenging such a decision then becomes extremely difficult. Gao concluded: “Taken together, these regulations represent another major step in transforming the right to leave China into a privilege granted at the discretion of the state—a marked departure from the relative liberalization that began in the 1990s.”
Although the rules mainly target those entering and leaving China, experts note they may strengthen Beijing’s ability to pressure Chinese citizens over activities abroad. Gao points out that China has long required reporting of crimes committed by its citizens overseas, mainly serious offences until now. The new rules extend this to a much wider and more ambiguous range of acts. People who campaign for human rights abroad may therefore face punishment on return, and their family members are also at risk. The rules give border guards greater discretion against Chinese citizens. While most countries allow border officers to restrict entry, limits on citizens’ departure are usually confined to specific legal grounds, justified, and open to court challenge.
EU Wants Ceuta Minors Sent Back — Spain Moves the Children Inland Instead
Spain has agreed to transfer underage migrants who arrived in Ceuta during the recent influx to the mainland. At the same time, the European Commission has joined calls from Spain’s right-wing politicians to send all migrants remaining in Ceuta back to Morocco, including minors, reports The Guardian.
The Spanish exclave of Ceuta was hit in late July by a massive wave of illegal immigration from Morocco. In just two days, tens of thousands of people entered Ceuta, and although the majority returned to Morocco within a few days, many have remained in the exclave. Madrid regards the unaccompanied children who reached Ceuta as a particularly serious issue. Under Spanish law, they are automatically entitled to protection and must be placed in the care of the child-protection authorities in the region of arrival.
According to the Spanish Ministry of the Interior, there are around 2,500 unaccompanied minors in Ceuta. However, the charity Save the Children estimates the figure at around 4,000. According to the organisation, the majority have been living and sleeping on the streets of Ceuta because there is no space at the city’s children’s reception centre. The centre has a capacity of just 29 minors, and Madrid has now decided to relocate the 500 most vulnerable of them to the mainland. According to the authorities, the majority of these are girls, and they will be placed in the care of non-profit organisations and child-protection agencies without custody being transferred to regional authorities. With this decision, the authorities have made a complete U-turn on their previous stance, under which they had promised that no one would be relocated from Ceuta to the mainland.
However, Spain’s right-wing parties, which form a majority in many local councils, are demanding the return of all irregular migrants, including minors. According to the right-wing People’s Party, the best place for a child is with their family, and if Europe says that all those who have arrived illegally should be sent back, then the government should not hesitate or decide otherwise.
Spain made this decision just a few days after the European Commission announced on 18 August that, under EU law, all migrants should be returned to Morocco. Spokesperson Markus Lammert said at a press conference that the priority for the Spanish and Moroccan authorities is currently to maintain control and ensure that all those who remain illegally are swiftly returned to Morocco. According to Lammert, thousands of migrants remain in Ceuta, and Morocco has confirmed that it will take them all back, including unaccompanied minors. Lammert explained: “We continue to stress that the expectation is that all those who remain in Ceuta illegally will be returned.” Lammert added that, under EU law, it is possible to return unaccompanied minors as well, and the Commission is encouraging Spain to cooperate with Morocco to this end.
According to figures from Spain’s Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration, in March 2026 there were 21,104 young people aged between 16 and 23 in the state’s care, of whom approximately 3,500 were under the age of 17. Around 50 per cent were from Morocco, while girls accounted for only 8 per cent of the total.
Australian teenagers developed a workaround and 3/4 of everyone who was supposed to be banned are still on social media. This outcome is a far worse indictment of this expensive report than the faulty citations.