Alexandra Andhov, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The US state of Florida has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman, alleging the tech giant and its CEO put profit over public safety with its flagship artificial intelligence (AI) product, ChatGPT.

The lawsuit, filed in Florida state court on Monday local time by Florida’s attorney general James Uthmeier, is one of the most significant enforcement actions brought by a state attorney against an AI company to date.

It comes as OpenAI and other big tech companies are embroiled in a growing number of legal cases related to the alleged harm their products have caused.

Six key elements

The complaint opens with a screenshot of OpenAI’s own parental-control page, which states that ChatGPT was “built with safety in mind”. Then, in a standalone paragraph, the State answers with two words: “Not so”.

This signals the central allegation of the case: that OpenAI sold ChatGPT to the public as safe and reliable, while knowing it could cause serious harm

More specifically, there are six key themes to Florida’s case against OpenAI. The first is that the company engaged in deceptive safety marketing, assuring parents the platform is safe for teenage use, while not clearly disclosing that ChatGPT can be wrong.

Second, despite OpenAI’s marketing, ChatGPT is unreliable. A 2025 study, for example, found AI assistants, such as ChatGPT, misrepresent the news roughly 45% of the time. Similarly, despite marketing suggesting ChatGPT can handle financial affairs, ChatGPT has failed in meeting basic accounting standards and provided incorrect tax advice to users.

The third element of the case is the public safety threat. The danger to young people in particular is illustrated by the tragic story of Adam Raine, a 16-year-old who died by suicide in April 2025 after engaging in long conversations with ChatGPT. When Adam expressed suicidal thoughts, ChatGPT responded that it “won’t try to talk you out of your feelings”. It helped Adam plan a “beautiful suicide” and even offered to write his suicide note for him.

Why would a product behave this way? Because, Uthmeier argues, it was built to.

OpenAI designed ChatGPT to be highly agreeable, to say “yes” roughly ten times as often as “no”, according to a Washington Post review of 47,000 conversations. This forms the fourth element of the case – commercial exploitation through sycophancy. In other words, ChatGPT optimistically parrots back users’ responses in order to to manipulate them into deeper conversations, regardless of truth or safety.

But according to the lawsuit, even ordinary use carries a cost: it weakens people’s brain activity and critical thinking skills (also known as cognitive atrophy). This is the fifth element of the case.

The sixth and final element is knowledge – specifically, the knowledge of Samuel Altman. According to Uthmeier, since at least 2023, OpenAI’s own documents warned that the model could coach people on committing crimes, but Altman overruled the safety staff.

These six elements paint a picture of a product marketed as safe, engineered to be addictive, and known by its own makers to be dangerous – yet sold to us, anyway.

Altman is at the centre of that picture. The complaint reconstructs his career and reaches for an April 2026 New Yorker investigation and testimony from the recent legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI to depict a man, who in Uthmeier’s telling, repeatedly chose speed over safety.

That is why Uthmeier is asking the court to hold Altman personally liable for “his utter disregard for the risk to human life”.

Pay for past harms

Uthmeier is asking the court to declare that OpenAI broke the law, then to order the company to stop – permanently – its unlawful practices.

He wants the company barred from collecting children’s data without parental consent and the safeguards that should come with it, and barred from misrepresenting or staying silent about ChatGPT’s risks.

On top of the injunctions, the state is seeking civil penalties of up to US$10,000 per violation for OpenAI’s alleged wilful violation of the the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Uthmeier said penalties could total billions of dollars.

In other words: pay for the past harms and change the product going forward.

In a statement to The Conversation, an OpenAI spokesperson pointed to the company’s “industry leading protections and policies” regarding user safety.

In particular we built safety for minors directly into our products, including a more protective experience specifically for minors, an age prediction tool, defaulting users whose age we are not confident into our more protective experience, and giving parents tools to monitor their kids use of AI.

Adding to a growing pile

This lawsuit is a significant development, but it has not arrived in a vacuum.

Across the US, the courts are filling with cases accusing tech companies of harming young people. In April, for example, Uthmeier launched a criminal investigation into OpenAI over the chatbot’s alleged role in a shooting at Florida State University.

Some juries have started to side with the plaintiffs.

In March 2026, for example, a New Mexico jury hit Meta with a US$375 million penalty in a child safety case. Days later, a jury in Los Angeles found Meta and Google liable in a landmark trial over social media addiction.

This case rides the same current. But it broadens the scope by alleging Altman himself should be personally responsible.

Uthmeier is demanding a trial by jury.

Alexandra Andhov, Chair in Law and Technology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Elizabeth Morton, Curtin University and Lisa Greig, The University of Melbourne

Tax time is coming – and with it, the unfortunate reality of needing to do something to get ready.

Don’t put your head in the sand and ignore it. That’s how you can end up missing the October 31 deadline and potentially end up with fines and penalties.

And don’t risk taking tax advice from unofficial sources.

This year, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has warned against relying on online tips or “tax hacks” from “finfluencers”: financial influencers on social media. It’s also warned artificial intelligence platforms can draw from outdated, inaccurate or foreign sources – so using them for your tax can be risky.

If you’re seeking advice, always ensure you are dealing with a registered tax agent.

Luckily, the ATO has been improving its online tax tools, so lodging your tax yourself is not as daunting as it once was.

A growing trend to DIY taxes

More than 6.1 million Australians (around 43%) did their own tax online with MyTax in 2025.

More than 8.1 million (around 57%) still choose to use a tax agent.

But doing your own tax has been a steadily growing trend for more than a decade, as more people realise the ease of using MyTax.

The tax office knows a lot

As a taxpayer, you have the obligation to tell the ATO what you have earned – even if you think you don’t have to pay any tax.

While the ATO know a lot more about you than you might realise, they are not mind readers.

The tax office collects more than 600 million transactions annually from various third parties. Sometimes they share the information with you – such as when they pre-fill sections of your MyTax form – but sometimes they don’t.

While articles like this about tax time often focus on claiming deductions, being transparent about your income is non-negotiable.

Whatever you claim on your tax return, the onus is on you to get it right.

If you have deposits in your bank account, can you explain where those came from? If not, the ATO may deem that those deposits were income. Then it is up to you as the taxpayer to prove otherwise.

Claiming work deductions

When you get to your deductions, there are three “golden rules” to remember:

• you have to have spent the money and not been reimbursed (such as if your employer paid for your phone or petrol expenses)
• your spending must be directly related to earning your income
• you must have proof (usually a receipt).

If you are claiming working from home, there are two options to reduce your tax bill: the fixed rate or actual cost approaches.

The $0.70 per hour fixed-rate method is much simpler. For most people doing their own tax, it’s the one you’re more likely to use.

But watch out for traps. To claim this deduction, you need to keep records the entire year.

And the fixed-rate method includes common expenses such as phones and stationery, so don’t double dip by claiming those separately.

You cannot claim rent or interest for working from home, unless your home is an actual place of business, such as a doctor’s surgery or hair salon.

Similarly, you cannot claim everyday clothing. To claim a deduction on clothing, it needs to be occupation specific, protective (such as steel-capped boots), a compulsory uniform (likely to be written into your employment contract) or a registered non-compulsory work uniform.

You cannot claim private travel. This includes driving to and from work, or commuting on public transport. There are very limited exceptions.

Don’t just rollover your claims from last year, either. What have you actually spent this year – and have you got the receipts to back it up?

Why you can’t claim a $1,000 ‘instant’ deduction just yet

There’s been a lot of coverage about the $1,000 “instant” tax deduction and the “working Australians tax offset” of $250, announced in last month’s federal budget.

These are not relevant for this tax season. Those are due to start from next financial year and beyond, assuming they’re passed by parliament.

When it’s better to lodge early or later

Taxpayers should lodge when required. Think Goldilocks here: not too soon – and not too late.

If you try to do it too early, ATO data matching may not be complete. Generally that’s done by around end of July.

You’re better off waiting until all the information is there, otherwise the ATO is likely to amend your return. You can either lodge yourself or use a registered tax agent.

Expecting a tax refund? You’re better off lodging earlier, from late July on. For simple, self-lodged tax returns, you can generally expect to get a refund within about two weeks. So that means you’ll have more money in your bank account sooner.

Expecting a tax bill? That’s when you’re better off lodging just in time: by October 31 if you’re submitting yourself, or making sure you have a tax agent locked in by then.

Where to get help

The ATO provides a variety of guidance and advice to support taxpayers, while tax agents can help you to pay the right amount of tax.

Be careful of unregistered tax agents, particularly those tax “influencers” offering huge refunds. If you’re unsure, check this official register.

Never give out your login details to myGov or myTax. Registered tax agents will never ask for your passwords.

If you’re facing financial, social or personal challenges and need help, free tax clinics can provide targeted assistance.

And if you’re having difficulties meeting your tax obligations, or are unable to lodge on time, contact the tax office or a registered tax agent as soon as possible.

Disclaimer: This is not tax advice, it is for educational purposes only. Taxpayers should seek advice from a registered tax agent or suitably qualified professional.

Elizabeth Morton, Senior Lecturer, Curtin University and Lisa Greig, Lecturer in Taxation Law for accountants, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Kellie McGlynn, Deakin University and Shaun Rawolle, Deakin University

At the end of each school year, we see the same ritual play out. Year 12 results are released and newspapers publish league tables, ranking schools by their exam results.

What you almost never see on the front page is a student who finished a vocational program and walked straight into skilled work.

This doesn’t make sense. There is constant commentary from governments and employers that the country needs more skilled workers in construction, nursing, aged care, early childhood, teaching and trades.

Yet we still treat the pathways that produce these workers as the option you take when the “real” one doesn’t work out.

Why is this? And how can we fix it?

What is a vocational pathway?

A vocational pathway means developing workplace-specific skills and qualifications for a particular occupation or industry. Students can begin vocational learning while still at school, including as part of a senior secondary certificate or through a school-based apprenticeship or traineeship. After school, they might continue through TAFE, another registered training provider, an apprenticeship, a traineeship or a private registered college.

This is different from a “higher education”, where the focus is on giving you thinking tools to perform in a role (although unis can also focus on practical skills).

You might do vocational training to be a hairdresser, chef, electrician or dental hygienist, for example.

Vocational pathways can start before students leave school. In 2024, more than 266,000 Australian school students undertook vocational training as part of their senior secondary certificate. This was about 26% of Year 12 completers.

You can also start your vocational training – with no prior experience – after school.

A paradox decades in the making

For at least 40 years, governments of every stripe have warned about skills shortages. As of 2025, 29% of occupations are in shortage. This involves almost 50% of trade roles and about 40% of professional occupations. But when it comes to life after Year 12, the focus keeps flowing toward universities and the ATAR.

Students can absorb the message early. From the first years of high school, the academic route is presented as the aspiration and vocational study as the fallback.

This is despite the strong opportunities many vocational pathways can provide. In 2024, 95.4% of trade apprentices were employed after completing their apprenticeship or traineeship. Some trade occupations also pay above the all-occupation median. For example, electricians have median full-time earnings of about A$2,191 a week, well above median weekly full-time earnings of about $1,852.

A current Victorian parliamentary inquiry has heard evidence from students of the “stigma” around taking a vocational pathway in the senior years of school, noting it’s not seen as the “smart way”.

A 2024 federal parliamentary inquiry similarly found many students still see vocational pathways as a “last resort” for those who do not get the marks for university.

It also heard many schools are institutionally structured to channel students toward university. This can include limited provision of vocational options, inadequate information about non-university career pathways, and a lack of trained career counsellors and educators with industry knowledge.

It also noted how high ATAR scores are used to rank schools, while schools are “rarely if ever” ranked by the number of students who succeed through VET pathways.

Vocational learning seen as ‘residual’ by school leaders

This doesn’t mean students lack interest in vocational learning. It means they are often making choices in a system where university entrance, ATAR results and academic achievement remain the most visible signs of “school success”. Meanwhile, vocational achievement is less publicly recognised.

In our research on vocational and applied learning (which includes workplace learning, projects and community activities), we found school systems often make vocational learning less visible and less secure.

In a project with school leaders across 23 Victorian high schools, applied learning was repeatedly described as “additional”, “extra” or “residual” work. Leaders pointed to timetabling pressures, staffing instability and school systems that still privilege academic performance.

When vocational learning is treated as peripheral inside schools, students are more likely to view their pathway is also peripheral.

The teachers no one talks about

Students aren’t the only ones affected.

Teachers in applied and vocational settings do some of the most demanding work in schools. They connect classroom learning to what’s happening in industry, build partnerships with employers, and teach some of the most diverse groups of students.

That work takes real expertise. Yet our research also found it is routinely treated as a “lesser” role in the profession. This judgement shows up in concrete ways in timetabling, funding, and in who gets resourced and recognised.

Why marketing won’t fix it

Three structural changes can help this situation.

1. Change how we measure and report success. If a school’s public worth is summarised by its top ATARs, everything else is invisible. Recognising and reporting achievement in vocational pathways would begin to shift what counts.

2. Stop treating vocational and academic pathways as separate worlds. Schooling, vocational education and higher education are still too often governed, funded, and discussed through different systems. This reinforces the idea that they are different kinds of learning – with different levels of importance – rather than connected parts of a broader education and training system.

3. Build more useful evidence. Government-funded bodies such as the Australian Education Research Organisation give schools research-based advice. Applied and vocational pathways need the same attention, so schools are not left to build programs on goodwill alone. They need clearer evidence about what works, how to implement it, and how to recognise successful outcomes beyond ATAR results.

Signs of change

It isn’t all bleak. For example, in Victoria, students can now do a vocational major as part of the Victorian Certificate of Education. This means there is a clear place within the schooling system and recognition of distinct contributions they make to schools.

Educators and young people already know the value of this learning, they live it. The shift still to come is among policymakers, the media and the public.

The next time the ATAR league tables appear, it is worth asking who they leave out, and what we would have to change to put them back in.

Kellie McGlynn, Senior Lecturer in Education, Deakin University and Shaun Rawolle, Senior Lecturer in Education, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Juliet Bennett, University of Sydney; Alex Broom, University of Sydney, and David Raubenheimer, University of Sydney

Your toddler demands a Bluey-themed yoghurt and has a tantrum when offered something else. If it’s not a Nutella sandwich, your child’s lunchbox comes home uneaten. And the dinner table can become a battleground unless there are sausages, chicken nuggets or pizza on the plate.

These examples of fussy eating are everyday experiences for many parents.

Fussy eating, also known as picky or selective eating, is common, and can be frustrating. It’s often seen as a child or parenting issue. But it’s not merely shaped by what parents do, or the characteristics of the child.

Our new research suggests food fussiness and children’s eating habits are also shaped by commercial interests in food.

This includes mass produced foods that are high in sugar, salt and additives, combined in irresistible combinations and that are heavily promoted to children to maximise sales.

This has important implications for children’s health, and sets up tensions between what parents want their children to eat, and what they’ll actually eat.

What is ‘fussy eating’?

Fussy eating refers to having strong preferences for specific foods. Sometimes it involves not trying new foods, eating a limited variety of foods, or avoiding foods with a specific taste, texture or appearance.

Most research estimates 10–30% of children two to six years old are considered fussy eaters, peaking at around three years old.

The origins of food fussiness lie in the age-old practice of learning which foods are safe to eat and provide enough energy. This is why we often like sweet foods and not bitter ones.

Today, food companies capitalise on this biology of survival. They engineer and market foods to appeal to children, and in ways that confuse their parents.

What we did and what we found

We interviewed 34 parents of children aged one to 18 years old about their children’s eating habits and how they navigated them.

Parents talked about how they felt pitted against powerful food companies that influenced their children’s tastes.

Their comments also revealed fussy eating in children older than most earlier research presumes. We found this is developing in the primary school years when children are exposed to more ultra-processed foods.

Here are some of the common themes.

1. ‘Pester power’

Parents felt responsible for teaching their children about healthy eating, yet this was challenging with so much food marketed directly to children.

Such concerns of children’s “pester power” have arisen with concerted efforts by food corporations to market foods designed to maximise shareholder returns.

One mother of three pre-school and primary school-aged children talked about marketing “bad” foods to kids or placing them in reach:

[…] my 2-year-old is always like Bluey!!! […] You almost don’t want to take your kids to the supermarket […] Of course, my kids [are] gonna throw a tantrum – you’ve got a lollipop at his eye level.

2. Conflicting information

Parents today are swamped with misleading, confusing and often false information about food. This makes it challenging for parents to discern what’s healthy or unhealthy.

A mother of three primary school aged-children said:

You think you’re getting something that’s actually healthy because […] on the packaging, it says it’s healthy. So you trust it […] but it’s actually not.

3. Impossible binds

Social situations that normalise processed foods influence the foods children see as desirable and place parents in impossible binds. A father of three pre-school and primary-school aged children said:

My son used to love hummus. But everyone else around eats doughnuts or chips […] It’s a battle that we’re not gonna win.

In this context, many parents were concerned about pushing healthy food too hard. They worried this could have the opposite effect in the longer term. A mother of two primary school aged children said:

It’s a Catch-22 […] if I put Nutella toast in his lunch box, he’ll eat it. But then do I stay strong and not put shit in his lunch box, knowing that he’s going to be starving and be horrible at the end of the day? […] I don’t want to make it a huge thing because I worry about making food a problem.

Fostering compassion and government action

Dietitians advise parents not to pressure children about food. They say not to hide vegetables, and not to use food as a reward. Instead, they suggest eating together at a table, and persisting with offering healthy options.

Our findings suggest this advice falls flat if it doesn’t consider the commercial food environment. We suggest that more compassion, rather than shame, is needed towards parents about the food they provide.

Fussy eating can be a symptom of commercial interests in selling certain kinds of products. Recognising this may encourage people to demand governments do more to support children’s healthy eating.

Ultimately, food fussiness is much more than arguments at the dinner table. It is also a challenge that involves governments and the food industry.

---

We would like to acknowledge the following co-authors of the study mentioned in this article: Imogen Harper, Katherine Kenny, Holly A. Harris and Fiona Wright.

Juliet Bennett, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Sydney Centre for Healthy Societies and the Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney; Alex Broom, Professor of Sociology & Director, Sydney Centre for Healthy Societies, University of Sydney, and David Raubenheimer, Leonard P. Ullman Chair in Nutritional Ecology, Nutrition Theme Leader Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Rosemary Wyber, The Kids Research Institute; Australian National University; Kate Summer, The Kids Research Institute, and Rachel Burgess, The Kids Research Institute Australia

Doing a load of laundry involves lots of decisions – from which cycle to choose to what detergent to use.

These choices may seem like simple personal preferences. But in communities where skin and other infections are common, doing laundry is often part of medical advice.

Washing clothes and bedding is widely recommended to help control skin and other infections. However, we haven’t known which wash settings are needed to kill or remove pathogens found on fabrics.

How hot? For how long? And with what detergent?

Our new research aims to answer these questions.

Why washing matters

Washing clothes and bedding may be one way to support skin health.

Rural and remote First Nations communities experience a particularly high burden of skin infections. These infections are driven by the consequences of colonisation, socioeconomic marginalisation and housing inequity, which disproportionately affect First Nations people.

Skin infections can have serious consequences. For example, skin infections caused by the toxin-producing bacteria, Corynebacterium diphtheriae, are driving the current diphtheria outbreak that has already claimed one person’s life.

Strep A skin infections can lead to acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease, conditions that can cause inflammation throughout the body and permanent damage to the heart. This has a big impact on the lives of children and families. Severe cases may lead to serious disability or death.

Improving access to effective washing may be one way to support wellbeing and curb the spread of skin disease. But we need to get our wash settings right.

What we studied

In our new study, we conducted a systematic review that analysed all the available research about fabric contamination and the effect of washing practices on skin pathogens.

Our results show temperature is the most important factor in preventing the spread of skin infections. This was true across all the pathogens and parasites we reviewed.

We found it is most effective to launder clothes at a minimum temperature of 60°C for at least 15 minutes to effectively kill off any bugs or pathogens. This can be in a washing machine set to hot, or in a conventional dryer.

However, reaching these high temperatures is not always possible. Under current regulations, hot tap water can only reach a maximum of 50°C to prevent scalds. And only some washing machines have internal water heaters, so even a “hot” wash might not be hot enough. Heating water and running dryers is also energy intensive and expensive.

Detergents containing activated oxygen bleach can effectively kill some skin pathogens at lower temperatures. But we need more research to know whether detergents and disinfectants can make cold water washing more effective.

Washing in First Nations communities

However, it’s often not possible to wash laundry in a way that effectively kills pathogens. This is especially true in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Many households struggle to purchase a reliable washing machine that is large enough to suit the needs of families. Washing machines can be twice as expensive in remote communities than urban areas, and the cost of electricity is exorbitant. Environmental factors such as dust, wet seasons and hard water – meaning water with higher concentrations of certain minerals – can damage machines and shorten their lifespan.

In some areas, as many as 70% of First Nations households go without a functional washing machine. Even fewer households have access to a dryer.

Community laundries may be one way to improve access to washing facilities. Our research shows that in the past decade, more than 50 communal laundry facilities have been set up in at least 38 rural and remote First Nations communities. These facilities give people free access to industrial washing machines, machine dryers, hot water and detergent.

Last November, the federal government committed A$11.4 million in funding for new or upgraded laundries.

Where to from here

Washing facilities are tied to the human rights to water, sanitation and dignity. They also have clear benefits for wellbeing.

But more work is needed to understand how effective washing could help reduce skin infection rates, particularly in remote First Nations communities.

One reason is funding for these laundry facilities is often tied to potential health benefits. The Remote Community Laundries Project, for example, aims to prevent serious conditions that can arise from skin infections. However, we don’t have enough evidence for looking at the health impacts of having more laundry facilities, or how we can maximise them.

Another reason is we don’t currently have guidance to support communities and laundry providers delivering these services. Our research highlights that the Australian Standard for Laundry Practice, for instance, has no specific recommendations about how community laundry facilities should be established or run.

Everyone has the right to wash and dry their clothes and bedding. But more work is needed to ensure washing facilities and practices meet the needs, preferences and priorities of First Nations communities.

Rosemary Wyber, Research Fellow, Yardhura Walani and The Kids Research Institute Australia, The Kids Research Institute; Australian National University; Kate Summer, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Strep A Translation Team, The Kids Research Institute, and Rachel Burgess, Social Scientist and Aboriginal Senior Research Fellow, The Kids Research Institute Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Senuri Wijenayake, RMIT University; Anastasia Powell, RMIT University; Dana McKay, RMIT University, and Madhuka Thisuri De Silva, RMIT University

Australia is world-leading in taking active measures to keep people safe online – home to the world’s first dedicated online safety regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, and the first country to introduce enforceable industry codes requiring platforms to tackle harmful content at scale.

And now, a newly released federal government issues paper proposes a “digital duty of care”, which would require social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable online harm.

The proposal signals Australia’s position that it is platforms, not just individuals, who should be responsible for actively preventing online harms.

At the heart of the proposed digital duty of care is the principle that social media platforms should be “safe by design”.

But what does that mean in practice – especially for those who are most at risk? Our research with women and gender-diverse Australians offers six concrete recommendations for what safety by design could look like in practice.

Who bears the brunt of online abuse?

One in two Australian adults have experienced online abuse in their lifetime. Women and gender-diverse people are disproportionately targeted, experiencing harassment, non-consensual image sharing, impersonation, stalking and identity-based abuse at far higher rates than others.

Yet these groups are rarely involved in envisioning what safer platforms could look like. So, we asked them: what would safer social media look like to you?

We worked with 75 Australian women and gender-diverse social media users, and 21 experts in platform safety, digital policy and content moderation, to understand how existing safety features are falling short.

Here’s what they told us – and how it compares with the current Australian proposal for a digital duty of care.

1. Make abuse reports actually work. Abuse rarely fits a single category – without context, platforms don’t handle the reports well. A message that reads as innocuous to a stranger may be a clear threat to someone who knows their abuser. But without that context, platforms have no way of knowing.

Users want clearer processes that capture the full picture, smarter triage that prioritises urgent cases, and timely updates on what happened to their report. This fits well with what the digital duty of care proposes: platforms should have accessible complaint mechanisms and respond within 24 hours for serious issues.

2. Harmful content should be harder to share in the first place. Once someone shares intimate or sensitive content without your consent, it quickly spirals out of control. Australia’s proposal suggests platforms should prevent the upload of seriously harmful content such as image-based abuse, or detect and remove it.

Users in our research said they want prompts that encourage people to pause before sharing, technical measures that prevent screenshots or downloads, and real-time alerts showing when and where their content is being accessed.

3. Make bans harder to evade. If you block a user, they can create new accounts in minutes, facing few real barriers. The digital duty of care flags that anonymous account systems may need redesigning to prevent foreseeable harm.

As we found, users want layered verification – such as requiring a unique phone number or introducing delays before new accounts become active – that adds friction to repeat account creation, but not mandatory ID checks for everyone. This would protect those without formal ID, those escaping unsafe homes, or those who rely on anonymity to stay safe.

4. Harmful content should be caught before it spreads. Automated systems routinely miss culturally specific abuse and coded language. Content should be detectable before it is shared, and easy for bystanders – not just victims – to flag.

The users in our research recommended pairing automated detection with human moderators trained in cultural nuances, which is precisely the kind of effective content moderation system the proposed duty of care requires.

5. Recognise campaigns, not just individual posts. Abuse is often a sustained campaign, even when each message seems minor alone. The duty of care proposal requires platforms to mitigate reasonably foreseeable harms – which means looking beyond individual incidents.

Platforms should connect reports over time, identify patterns, and act before harm escalates, with independent audits to ensure these systems are never weaponised against the people they are meant to protect.

6. Surface safety tools before harm happens. Most users discover safety features only after something has gone wrong. Australia’s proposal envisions “empowering” users – but empowerment means more than adding features. It means the platform should offer the right tool at the right moment, rather than bury it in a settings menu that only the most determined users will ever find.

The real test

The proposed digital duty of care is a significant step in the right direction. But “safe by design” will only deliver if it works for everyone. As our research shows, those most affected already have clear, practical ideas about what would make platforms safer.

The opportunity now is to design with them – so safety is built in from the start.

Until the proposed digital duty of care is rolled out, it is up to all of us to look after each other. We can report harmful content, pause before we post and ask: is it true? Is it kind? Is it fair? And we can be active bystanders – commenting when we see something harmful, or offering support to those experiencing abuse.

We all have a role to play. From governments, to platforms, to everyday people – it is up to all of us to create a safe digital society, one that we can all be a part of.

Senuri Wijenayake, Senior Lecturer in Human-Computer Interaction, RMIT University; Anastasia Powell, Professor of Family and Sexual Violence, RMIT University; Dana McKay, Associate Dean, Interaction, Technology and Information, RMIT University, and Madhuka Thisuri De Silva, Research Assistant, Inclusive Digital Technologies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Michelle Wise, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Higher awareness of the benefits of menopause hormone therapy (MHT) has led to rising demand for treatment – so much so that manufacturers can’t keep up and New Zealand’s drug-funding agency Pharmac had to temporarily ration supplies.

Most women today are prescribed body-identical hormones, including transdermal estradiol (patch or gel) and progesterone capsules, to treat menopause symptoms including hot flushes or night sweats. Estrogen relieves symptoms, while progesterone protects the lining of the uterus and may have benefits for sleep.

I believe there are two main drivers for the surge in demand. One is greater confidence in MHT, following reassuring long-term data from the Women’s Health Initiative trial and other studies.

The second is more open dialogue about menopause. Midlife women are now more aware of therapies and their additional benefit for bone health and they are demanding better care.

But apart from the acute shortages in supply, there are other significant gaps in research and the training of health professionals.

Changes in MHT over time

The initial Women’s Health Initiative trial was published in 2002.

The results scared women off using MHT for decades because the trial found an increased risk of breast cancer, stroke and blood clots in women taking combination hormone therapy for five years, compared to a placebo. It also suggested hormone therapy did not protect from heart attacks as hypothesised.

However, long-term follow-up findings are reassuring, as are newer studies. The 18-year data from the Women’s Health Initiative trial found overall mortality was no different between people who took five years of MHT versus placebo.

Studies of transdermal estrogen treatments such as patches and gels have found little to no association with stroke and blood clots.

Subsequent changes in clinical guidelines have been significant.

When I was training to become a gynaecology specialist in Canada in the late 1990s, we offered hormone therapy to everyone. But after the Women’s Health Initiative trial, we offered it only to women with the most severe symptoms. Later, we offered it to more women but at the lowest dose and for the shortest time possible.

Now, I offer MHT to all menopausal women with symptoms after full discussion of risks (primarily breast cancer) and benefits (bone health).

The current recommendation is to use the dose required to achieve full symptom relief. The duration of MHT treatment should be personalised and the decision to continue or stop should be made on an annual basis between a well-informed woman and her health practitioner.

MHT can now also be considered a first-line therapy to prevent menopause-related bone loss.

Improving menopause care

These changes have led to more MHT prescriptions compared to two decades ago.

Back then, following the initial trial results, prescriptions dropped. Doctors got out of practice of prescribing MHT and new doctors didn’t learn. There was little teaching about menopause at medical school.

This means that some doctors don’t have the training or experience to adequately discuss menopausal symptoms with their patients, prescribe treatments and optimise menopause management.

Currently, four out of ten medical schools in the UK don’t have mandatory menopause education in the curriculum and a survey in the US found most obstetrics and gynaecology training programmes lack modules on menopause.

To answer the call for better care in a New Zealand context, we have developed a short online training course on menopause care for nurses, nurse practitioners and doctors and new content for medical students. We are also advocating for more funded MHT options.

But we are missing evidence about women’s experience in New Zealand. We lack up-to-date data on who is using MHT, what women want from their health practitioners and how symptoms affect whānau, workplaces and communities.

Most studies on MHT include women who are already in menopause (12 months or more without a menstrual period). There are no long-term, high-quality trials of women in perimenopause (the transition to menopause, when symptoms start), nor of women taking contemporary MHT regimens – the estrogen patches and progesterone capsules affected by recent shortages.

Currently, counselling is also based on older studies of outdated therapies in demographics that don’t reflect New Zealand’s population.

New Zealand released a women’s health strategy in 2023 with the goal of “supporting women to live longer in better health”, prioritising better support for menopause. But women continue to report being dismissed by their health practitioners.

We need New Zealand-specific research about menopause and better education and training for health practitioners because midlife women are no longer willing to tolerate undiagnosed and untreated menopausal symptoms.

Michelle Wise, Senior Lecturer, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Vanessa Pirotta, Macquarie University; Justine O'Brien, UNSW Sydney; Phoebe Meagher, UNSW Sydney, and Zara Bending, Macquarie University

Shark fins on a plane, seahorses in your bag and sea cucumbers in the post – these are just a few examples of illegal marine wildlife trafficking.

This crime can be hard to detect. But in a new study, published in the journal Frontiers in Ocean Sustainability, we show how artificial intelligence (AI) can be harnessed as a complimentary detection tool to help stop marine wildlife trafficking at international airports and mail facilities.

A global crime

The cross-border trade in live animals, animal parts or products is a global crime, facilitating the flow of billions of illicit dollars each year. It’s known to converge with other criminal activity, including the trafficking in drugs, arms and humans.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime identifies five sources of demand for wildlife trafficking: food, medicine, pets and ornamental plants, specialist collection and adornment.

In some cases, such as pet prestige, people are motivated both by the desire to have a pet and the perceived status it brings to own an exotic animal.

People traffic marine animals too

Wildlife trafficking affects around 4,000 species. Many of the more well-known examples involve land-based animals – ivory from elephant tusks, horns from rhinos and scales from pangolins – the world’s most trafficked mammal.

Closer to home, we also see native Australian reptiles and birds, sometimes shoved in tins, put in socks and packaged up live to be sent overseas.

Marine creatures, unfortunately, are targeted too. This can include live animals such as fish in people’s bags, or dried marine life such as the rise of the seahorse trade and demand for shark fin.

We have small pockets of knowledge of this activity. But the reality is we don’t fully understand how widespread it is.

AI to detect marine wildlife trade

Currently, the best means of detecting illegally trafficked wildlife is humans. And then there are our four-legged friends: biosecurity dogs.

Recently, Australia has also been working to develop the use of AI as a potential means of detecting land-based wildlife in illegal wildlife movements – building on existing detection pathways using 3D X-ray machines fitted with algorithms.

For our latest study, we built on these efforts by developing world-first marine wildlife algorithms. We taught computers to look for shark fins, seahorses and sea cucumbers.

We did this by collecting a total of 68 samples of dead marine animals, which we scanned in a 3D X-ray machine to create a library of images. We then used this image library to develop algorithms to enable computers to search for what we taught it to look for – in this case, shark fins, seahorses and sea cucumbers.

Samples were scanned alone and then in more complicated scenarios to reflect how people actually traffic marine life. This means if a bag or mail item is hiding a shark fin, seahorse or sea cucumber, the algorithm will be able to flag this to an operator, prompting them to inspect the item.

Out of a total of 298 scans and a training data set derived from these samples, our algorithm had success rates of 95%, 95% and 85% for shark fins, seahorses and sea cucumbers, respectively.

Humans and biosecurity dogs still needed alongside AI

While technology fitted with computer algorithms may help people inspecting luggage or mail, we still need people to verify what computers see. Sometimes the algorithms get it wrong and may miss items.

Despite this, the broader implications of having AI as a second set of eyes searching for trafficked marine life will aid in identifying key trade routes to potentially stop this activity. The next step is relying on implementation of these algorithms at the front lines.

Like computer algorithms and AI, the more we learn, the better we get at detecting and potentially stopping this harmful crime.

Vanessa Pirotta, Postdoctoral Researcher and Wildlife Scientist, Macquarie University; Justine O'Brien, Manager of Conservation Science, Taronga Conservation Society Australia, University of Sydney, UNSW Sydney; Phoebe Meagher, Adjunct Fellow, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Science, UNSW Sydney, and Zara Bending, Distinguished Research Fellow, Macquarie University Environmental Law Research Centre, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sarah Diepstraten, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research) and John (Eddie) La Marca, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research)

Professor Richard Scolyer, renowned pathologist and joint Australian of the Year (2024), has died at the age of 59.

Scolyer captured the attention of Australians and the world when he volunteered to undergo a world-first experimental treatment for brain cancer.

This not only extended the duration of his life, but provided scientists with a wealth of knowledge that will help shape the future of brain cancer therapy.

In an open letter Scolyer intended to be published when he passed away, he wrote:

“I sincerely hope the scientific data and awareness I have generated will provide a platform for others to build upon to ultimately make a difference for future cancer patients.”

Richard Scolyer is survived by his wife, Dr Katie Nicoll, and his three children, Emily, Matt and Lucy.

Finding his calling

Scolyer grew up in the suburb of Riverside in Launceston, Tasmania. He described his memories of his childhood there as “mostly happy”, having spent it doing “all the normal things”, like biking and footy.

His family went on beach holidays every year, spending their time there swimming and playing cricket.

Scolyer was a lifelong sportsman, playing football as a youth, swimming, cycling, and running as an adult, and channelling his skill at these towards fundraising for charity whenever possible.

In year ten, Scolyer decided to be a doctor, successfully finding his calling very early. He studied medicine at The University of Tasmania.

Once a qualified doctor, he excelled in his role, driven by a great compassion for his patients. His speciality was melanoma, and he was regarded as one of the finest melanoma pathologists in the world.

In 2017, Scolyer was appointed the Co-Medical Director of the Melanoma Institute of Australia, alongside his friend, colleague, and co-2024 Australian of the Year recipient, Professor Georgina Long.

In mid-2023, Scolyer was diagnosed with advanced (stage 4) glioblastoma, the most aggressive and most common form of brain cancer.

Following diagnosis, survival is often only around a year. Treatment for glioblastoma has largely not changed in almost 20 years, and usually involves chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery, but the cancer nearly always returns.

Knowing the severity of his disease, however, and the poor prognosis associated with glioblastoma, Scolyer volunteered to undergo a new glioblastoma treatment method that borrowed from newer techniques in the melanoma space. Those techniques are called immunotherapies.

Trailblazing cancer therapy

Immunotherapy is a term for a variety of relatively new techniques that are becoming more widespread.

The immune system is remarkably strong. So strong, in fact, it can kill almost anything, even you. Think of a severe allergic reaction – that’s the immune system being activated essentially by mistake, and it can be lethal.

The immune system needs to be kept under control, and one way the body does that is by using “checkpoints”. These are proteins on the immune cells that are like an “off switch” for the immune system.

It makes sense, then, that one of the most widely used immunotherapies are the “immune checkpoint inhibitors”. These are drugs that “turn off the off switch”, activating the immune system to help fight cancer.

To treat his glioblastoma, Scolyer was given simultaneous doses of three different checkpoint inhibitors, followed by surgery to remove as much cancer as possible from his brain 12 days later.

Scolyer then underwent six weeks of radiation therapy, received some additional checkpoint inhibitors, and even a “personalised peptide vaccination”.

Peptide vaccination is another type of immunotherapy. The aim is to try to teach the immune system what a patient’s cancer cells look like so, if their cancer comes back, the immune system can better fight against it.

Eighteen months after surgery, Scolyer’s tumour was still gone.

For a disease as difficult to treat as glioblastoma, it was an incredible result, and a testament to the skill of the scientists and clinicians involved, as well as to the tenacity and strength of Scolyer himself.

The success of his treatment quickly led to the creation of a clinical trial, looking at how this new glioblastoma treatment program can be adapted and used more widely in the future.

Scolyer’s bravery and trailblazing approach to his own care will almost certainly contribute to extending the lives of hundreds, even thousands of people who will be diagnosed with glioblastoma in the future.

More than that, researchers will be able to adapt these techniques to treat other cancers and diseases, which has the potential to benefit even more patients.

A remarkable extension

Sadly, in March 2025, Scolyer announced that his cancer had returned. It had been almost two years since his original diagnosis – a remarkable extension to his life, considering the dangerous nature of his disease.

Scolyer will live on in the memories of all that knew him, and his contributions to science and medicine will touch the lives of people worldwide for years to come, even if they never knew his name.

Sarah Diepstraten, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer Division, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research) and John (Eddie) La Marca, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Mohiuddin Ahmed, Adelaide University

From July 1, when you get a text claiming to be from the Australian Taxation Office, Australia Post or any other organisation, the first thing to check for will be one little word: “unverified”.

If it says that, be extra careful.

Australia’s phone companies blocked more than 153 million scam text messages in 2025 alone, as part of their obligations under the industry’s scam code. Yet many others are still getting through to our phones.

Until now, scammers have been able to mislabel the top of their texts to pretend to be from banks, government or other legitimate businesses.

From July 1 this year, that’s changing.

Major government agencies and big businesses have been preparing for this change for months. But 97% of businesses in Australia – 2.6 million in total – are small businesses, employing fewer than 20 people.

Along with community organisations, they’ve been warned to act fast to register their “sender ID” – or risk having their texts ignored or even reported as scams from July onwards.

What is ‘sender ID’? Why does it matter?

When you get a text message, it shows the sender’s name if that’s saved in your contact list, or else the phone number if it’s not saved.

Businesses can also text their customers with their organisation’s name at the top of a message. That’s known as the “sender ID”.

Scammers have been taking advantage of this process for years to trick their victims. For instance, you might get what appears to be a message from “AusGov” or “AUPost”: fake sender IDs close enough to the real “myGov” or “AusPost” IDs that they can fool people.

From July 1, under a much-needed government initiative, those scam text messages will show up on your phone under a single “unverified” message thread.

It’s a new way to signal it may be a scam. Over time, the goal is to eventually block more of those scam texts.

Australians lost more than A$2 billion to scams of all varieties in 2025. According to official Scamwatch data, email is still by far the number-one way Australians report being contacted by scammers. But texting is still a common method for scammers.

After July 1, scammers may try to get around it by writing the so-called organisation at the top of the text message – like a “PayPal” text scam going around now.

But from July 1, that same text would say “unverified” at the top, hopefully giving some people pause before they ring the fraudsters.

What businesses and community groups need to do now

While this is a welcome crackdown on scammers, there could be unintended consequences for businesses and community organisations that don’t register their sender ID before July.

Legitimate – but unregistered – texts risk ending up being lumped into the “unverified” thread, along with actual scams.

The national regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), last month acknowledged some small and medium-sized businesses and organisations may not realise the changes apply to them too. It warned “failing to register may mean consumers miss important messages or no longer trust them”.

From local childcare centres and tradespeople to small community groups, if you don’t want your message to be ignored from July 1, now is the time to register your sender ID.

There are two registration options available:

• if you have an Australian Business Number (ABN)
• if you don’t have an ABN.

It’s a similar three-step process in both cases. In both cases, you have to start by contact your telco or message provider. Then you’ll need to verify your organisation.

Don’t leave this until the last minute: start now.

When you receive a text after July 1

After July 1, any text message received from an “unverified” source should be treated carefully.

Since many legitimate businesses are yet to get on the Sender ID register, remember: an “unverified” text will not automatically be a scam.

But play it safe anyway. Use different means – such as looking up their official contact number to call them – to confirm it’s legitimate, rather than texting back or using links or numbers in their message.

On the other hand, if you think a new “unverified” message is suspicious, you can help by reporting it.

The easiest way to report a scam text is to forward it to 7226, a reporting line supported by phone companies.

Alternatively, you can also report it via the Scamwatch website. It is a longer five step process, probably designed to avoid false alarms given the volume of reported scams.

3 steps to protect against scams

As well as checking for “unverified” after July 1, Scamwatch already recommends these security steps.

• Stop: Never interact with a suspicious message in a hurry, even if scammers try to pressure you, such as with “Hi Mum” tactics. And never share your pin, password or codes in response to an unexpected text or call.

• Check: Make sure the person or organisation you’re dealing with is real. For instance, check if the phone number or email address on their official website matches what’s in the suspicious text.

• Protect: Contact your bank immediately if you’ve shared financial details or think money is being stolen. Change passwords if you think they’ve been compromised.

Scamwatch lists more support services, such as not-for-profit IDCARE if you need help as an individual or small business.

Mohiuddin Ahmed, Associate Professor in Cyber Security, Adelaide University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.