Six months after Australia became the first country in the world to ban under-16s from social media, the age-verification systems that the platforms have built to comply with the law have, on the public record, verified a tabby cat as an eighty-year-old man. The cat's name is Man Pussy. He is, by our best estimate, nine years old. He has, by the platform's own assessment, the bone density of a person who lived through the war. The platform has, in writing, congratulated him on his account's continued good standing.
We note that the cat cannot read. We note further that the cat does not have a phone. We note, finally, that the cat was verified by the face of a woman who, in the relevant sense, is not the cat. These three notes do not, on the public record, trouble the verification system. The verification system has, in fact, congratulated the cat on his "successful age confirmation" in an email we have on file.
The law, as drafted
The under-16 ban was passed by the Australian federal parliament in the closing days of 2025, with twenty-four hours given to the public to make submissions to the Senate inquiry. It was, by the regulator's own subsequent description, drafted in a hurry, on "thin scaffolding." It is also the law. It places the burden of compliance on the platforms and the burden of enforcement on the eSafety Commissioner, who has, in the six months since, observed publicly that the law does not give her "potent powers," and that she cannot, in any case, fence the ocean.
The Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, has adopted the same metaphor with improvements. "You can't fence the ocean," she told the BBC last week. "But you can police the sharks." The sharks, in this metaphor, are the platforms. The ocean is the public. The fence is the law. The arrangement has worked out about as well as one would expect of a country that has decided, in earnest, to police sharks from a rowboat.
The system, as built
To comply with the law, the platforms have built systems that determine, with the help of a camera and a third-party age-estimation vendor, whether the face in front of the camera is over sixteen. The systems have been criticised, since their introduction, on three grounds. The first is that they are defeatable by any person with access to an adult face that is willing to be scanned. The second is that they are defeatable by any person willing to hold up a photograph of an adult face that is not willing. The third is that, on the public record, they are also defeatable by a photograph of a cat.
The fourteen-year-old in our lede is named Cruz Condren. He lives on the Gold Coast. His account was deactivated when the law came into force. His account was reactivated when his mother, Chantal, scanned her face in front of his phone. He is back on Snapchat. He has, by his own account, never been asked to age-verify a second time. He considers the matter settled.
"It asked me to verify my age by a camera. I just asked my mum to scan her face because she's over 18. It just let me back on."
"Everyone's pretty much still on there because it's just so easy to get back on."
The cat, who is the point
Man Pussy is a tabby. He belongs to a woman in suburban Melbourne. The woman has, on the public record, attempted to verify Man Pussy's age for a joke. The platform's age-estimation vendor, on the public record, has assessed Man Pussy's face and returned an estimate of approximately eighty years. The platform, on the public record, has accepted the estimate. The platform, on the public record, has emailed the woman to confirm that Man Pussy's account is in good standing.
Man Pussy has, accordingly, been verified as over sixteen. He has not, accordingly, been deactivated under the ban. He cannot read the platform. He cannot post to the platform. He cannot, in any meaningful sense, use the platform. He is, however, on the platform, in good standing, verified as eighty, with a continued right of access that the law is, in theory, designed to restrict.
Operator says: the age-estimation system uses advanced biometric techniques to confirm users are over sixteen. Observed result: the system has confirmed a cat. The cat cannot read. The system has, on the public record, accepted this.
We have, on the public record, attempted to reach the platform for comment. The platform has, on the public record, declined to comment. The platform's terms of service forbid, in clause 14.3, the use of the platform by non-human entities. We have submitted, in writing, that Man Pussy is a non-human entity. The platform has, in writing, declined to engage.
The numbers, which are not good
The platforms report that more than five million accounts held by under-sixteens have been deactivated since the law came into force. The platforms also report that Australia has only 1.2 million people aged thirteen to sixteen, which means the figure is, on the platforms' own accounting, evidence that the children are merely opening new accounts. The platforms report this in the same press release that congratulates themselves on the five-million figure. The press release does not flag the discrepancy. The press release does not need to flag the discrepancy. The press release is filed under success.
| Metric | Reported by Platform | Reported by eSafety | Reality (Best Estimate) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accounts deactivated | 5,000,000+ | — | Same number, mostly reopened |
| Under-16s holding accounts | — | −37% | −7% (Pureprofile) |
| Children actually verified | — | — | ~31% |
| Children who passed age check | — | — | ~50% (of those scanned) |
| Cats verified as 80 | At least 1 | — | Likely more |
The discrepancy between the platforms' figures and the regulator's figures is not, on the public record, reconciled. The discrepancy between either set of figures and the figure reported by independent researchers (Pureprofile: 78 per cent of under-sixteens are still on the platforms, down from 84 per cent before the ban) is also not, on the public record, reconciled. The platforms have, in our reading, no incentive to reconcile it. The regulator has, in her own words, no potent powers. The researchers have, in the customary manner of researchers, a number.
The sharks, examined
The Minister has said she wishes to "police the sharks." We have, in the spirit of the metaphor, taken the liberty of compiling the relevant sharks.
- Snapchat — under formal investigation. Its age-verification system has been the subject of reporting in this masthead since January, when it emerged that adult men were able to verify teenage girls' accounts by scanning their own faces.
- TikTok — subject of the same investigation. Its compliance report is, in our reading, suspiciously close to Snapchat's in the parts where the figures are flattering.
- Instagram — subject of the same investigation. Has filed the most aggressive legal challenge to the law's scope, on the grounds that the law does not, in fact, give the regulator the powers the regulator believes she has.
- Facebook — subject of the same investigation. The platform's head of policy in Australia has, on the public record, declined to be interviewed on the matter.
- YouTube — subject of the same investigation. Notable for being included in the ban, on the grounds that scrolling is a feature, which the operator disputes.
The sharks are, in our reading, well aware that they are sharks. They have, in our reading, less incentive than one would hope to fence themselves in.
What the rest of the world is doing
The rest of the world is, by Wells' count, watching. Canada has introduced a bill. The European Commission has flagged a proposal. Greece has restricted under-fifteens. New Zealand is debating. Britain is, with the air of a country that has thought about this for a long time, looking at the evidence.
The evidence, for the moment, is this. A cat has been verified as eighty. A fourteen-year-old has been reactivated by his mother's face. Five million accounts have been deactivated and reopened under different names. Seventy-eight per cent of under-sixteens are still on the platforms. The regulator has, in her own words, no potent powers. The platforms have, on the public record, no incentive to do anything other than what they have done. The Minister has a metaphor involving sharks.
"What you're effectively asking us to do with this is fence the ocean. We might be able to create some friction and some degree of safety, but it's a futile exercise if you think you're totally stemming the ocean."
"You can't fence the ocean, we can't control the internet. But you can police the sharks."
The recommendation, in plain terms
We have, on the public record, watched five democracies announce that they will follow Australia's lead. We would, with the customary restraint of the firm, recommend that they pause. The Australian experiment is not, in our reading, an experiment that has succeeded or failed. It is an experiment that is, six months in, still describing itself. The platforms have built systems that, on the public record, accept cats. The regulator has admitted, on the public record, that she does not have the powers the law appears to give her. The platforms have reported numbers that are, on the public record, evidence of success and evidence of failure in equal measure.
For the moment, the platforms are not policing the sharks. The platforms are, in fact, congratulating the sharks. Man Pussy has, by the platform's own assessment, the bone density of an octogenarian. Man Pussy has, by the platform's own email, an account in good standing. Man Pussy cannot, as far as we are aware, read this article. Man Pussy is, however, verified. We file the discrepancy under platform behaviour.