TL;DR: Grok Crisis; Bans Accelerating; Research Complicates.

If you've been feeling like the ground is shifting under your feet with children and technology decisions, this week won't help. X's AI tool generated sexualised deepfakes of children. Indiana wants to ban all under-14s from social media. And Australian researchers just proved that what works for teenage boys is opposite of what works for younger girls. Here's what you need to know.

Enjoying Plugged In? Forward this to a parent friend who's also trying to navigate digital parenting decisions. They can subscribe here

You've probably been hearing a lot about Grok this week and to put it mildly, it's not great.

X's integrated AI chatbot Grok spent the final weeks of 2025 generating thousands of non-consensual intimate images per hour, including sexualised depictions of children. The platform's "edit image" feature allowed users to upload any photo from anywhere and create deepfakes within seconds.

What made this different from previous deepfake scandals was the integration. This wasn't a third-party app requiring downloads or technical knowledge as Grok sat directly inside X, making creation and distribution happen in one place. You can type a prompt, generate an image and then post it publicly. The barrier to creating non-consensual intimate images effectively dropped to zero.

Eight governments responded within two weeks:

United Kingdom: Ofcom launched a formal investigation on January 12. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the images "disgusting" and "unlawful." Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced the UK would criminalise nudification tools entirely. Musk pushed back, calling the investigation an attack on free speech.

European Union: Issued a document preservation order requiring X to retain all internal communications and data related to Grok through the end of 2026.

Australia: The eSafety Commissioner opened an investigation after receiving reports of AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Turkey: Blocked X entirely.

The response from eight governments within two weeks is significant and the concerns parents have been voicing weren't overreactions. When multiple countries move this quickly, it's institutional recognition that the risks are real.

X disabled Grok's image editing feature on December 26, but the window was open long enough for significant harm and the feature is still available to subscription members.

What this means for your decisions: If you've posted photos of your children anywhere online in the past five years, those images could be downloaded and used. Every family will handle this differently. Some will scrub everything public. Some will adjust privacy settings. Some will decide the risk is acceptable. There's no universal right answer, but it's worth auditing what's out there. School websites, sports team pages, your own Facebook or Instagram (even with privacy settings, friends can screenshot), relatives' accounts, Google Photos with link sharing enabled. It's not too late to reduce unnecessary exposure. Make the decision that's right for your family.

Read more here: Wired Parents

If the Grok story made you uncomfortable, here are two things you can actually do: audit what's already public and talk to your children about AI manipulation.

1. Audit Your Children's Photos Online

Check these places first:

School and organisation websites often post photos without asking. Sports teams, drama clubs, school newsletters. Contact the webmaster and request removal. Most will comply immediately.

Your own social media accounts. Go back through Facebook and Instagram. Even with privacy settings, friends can screenshot and share. Consider deleting or adjusting "who can see this" on posts with your children's faces.

Relatives' accounts. Grandparents love posting family photos. They don't always think about privacy settings. A quick conversation is usually enough.

Google Photos with link sharing enabled. Check whether you've shared albums with extended family where the link is accessible to anyone who has it.

Quick test: Google your child's name plus your surname. See what's publicly indexed.

What to prioritise: Focus on removing full-face photos from public-facing websites first. School directories, team rosters, organisation sites. These are the easiest for anyone to access and download.

The goal: You don't need to scrub the entire internet in one go. The point isn't to delete everything—it's to make conscious choices about what's public rather than discovering years later what's been accessible all along.

2. The Conversation With Your Children

AI tools can now change any photo—including making people look naked or sexual. This is happening to real people, including kids.

Three things they need to know:

If you post a photo publicly—anywhere online—someone could use AI to change it. That's not your fault, but it's the reality.

If someone sends you one of these images, or if it happens to you: Don't save it. Don't forward it. Come to me immediately. You won't be in trouble. I will help you.

If someone asks you to use AI to change someone else's photo, that's never okay. Even if it seems like a joke.

Indiana just introduced legislation that goes further than any other jurisdiction: no social media access for children under 14, not even with parental permission.

The proposal represents the most restrictive approach yet attempted in the United States. Unlike other states that allow parental consent for younger users, Indiana's bill would prohibit platforms from allowing anyone under 14 to create or maintain an account, full stop.

What the legislation includes:

Ages under 14: Complete prohibition. No exceptions, no parental override.

Ages 14-18: Parental consent required to create accounts.

Algorithmic feeds: Platforms must offer chronological feed options (no algorithm curation) for all users.

Enforcement: Platforms that violate the restrictions face civil liability.

How this compares globally:

Australia's under-16 ban allows some parental consent exceptions. Virginia caps daily usage but doesn't ban access entirely. Florida prohibits under-14s but isn't being actively enforced.

Indiana's approach is stricter than all of them. No wiggle room for parental judgement under 14 just a black and white ‘no”.

Why this matters beyond Indiana:

Eight US states are considering similar restrictions right now. If Indiana passes this and survives legal challenges, it establishes a new floor for how restrictive policy can be. Other states will look at Indiana's precedent when crafting their own legislation.

The debate has shifted and it's no longer "should governments restrict children's social media access?" It's "how young and how strict?"

What this means for your decisions:

Whether you're in Indiana or not, this shows where policy momentum is heading. Some families will welcome government restrictions as validation of their own choices. Others will resist government intrusion into parenting decisions. Either way, the assumption that platforms and parents alone will solve this is fading fast. Governments worldwide are deciding they need to intervene and Indiana shows just how far they're willing to go.

Read more here: Wired Parents

Australian researchers just contradicted their own government's under-16 social media ban. Using data from 100,000 Australian children, the study published weeks after the December ban shows teenage boys may actually benefit from moderate social media use, the complete opposite of what Australia just legislated.

What the Research Found

The study, published this week in JAMA Pediatrics, followed 100,000 Australian children in grades 4-12 for three years, measuring eight aspects of wellbeing including happiness, anxiety, and school engagement.

High use (over 2 hours daily) showed negative impacts across all groups. No surprises there.

But "optimal" use varied dramatically:

Younger girls (grades 4-6): Highest wellbeing with zero social media use

Older girls (grades 7-12): Benefited from moderate use under 2 hours daily

Younger boys (grades 4-6): No significant difference between moderate use and zero use

Older boys (grades 7-12): Wellbeing declined with zero use; moderate use showed benefits

The Policy vs. The Data

Australia banned all under-16s from social media in December. This research, published weeks later, shows teenage boys actually benefit from moderate use. The policy treats all children the same. The data proves they're not.

This isn't about whether the ban is good or bad policy. It's about recognising what blanket age restrictions cannot account for: individual differences. What works for your 14-year-old daughter isn't what works for your 14-year-old son.

Why the Differences Matter

The researchers found older teenagers use social media differently than younger children. For older girls, moderate use correlated with maintaining friendships, planning activities, and staying connected to their social groups—relationship maintenance that matters more in teenage years. For older boys, complete restriction correlated with social isolation and reduced peer connection, suggesting moderate use helps them maintain relationships they might not sustain as easily through other channels.

This doesn't mean social media creates these benefits—it may simply be the primary channel teenagers currently use for normal social development. But a blanket under-16 ban removes that channel entirely during years when peer connection matters most, potentially harming the social development of some teenagers whilst protecting others.

The Broader Context

This study is notable precisely because it shows nuance in an area where most research points toward caution. Systematic reviews consistently link social media use to increased anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and body image issues, particularly for girls. The US Surgeon General has warned that teens spending more than three hours daily on social media face double the risk of poor mental health outcomes.

The JAMA findings don't contradict this broader evidence. They add complexity. Even within this study, zero use was optimal for some groups. And "moderate use showed benefits" doesn't mean unrestricted access is harmless.

What This Means for Your Decisions

Governments implement universal rules because that's what governments do. They can't write legislation that says "it depends on the child." But that's exactly what the research demonstrates.

This is why "make technology decisions for your children, not everyone else's" matters. When research proves different children need different approaches, blanket mandates will get it wrong for somebody.

Your decision doesn't need to match what Australia legislates or what other families choose. But the broader body of research suggests erring on the side of caution makes sense for most families. If your teenage son seems to handle moderate social media use well, that doesn't mean unrestricted access. And if you're uncertain, delay remains the safer choice.

The research shows there's no universal answer, it doesn't show social media is risk-free.

Sources: Jama Paediatrics, ABC News,

For more articles from the week, head over to Wired-Parents.com

This week's Australian research proved different children need different approaches. For every technology decision, you have four options:

Delay – Wait until they're older. "We'll revisit this when you're 13."

Manage – Allow with controls. Time limits, private accounts, parental following, weekly check-ins.

Allow – Give access with trust. Open conversations, minimal monitoring.

Refuse – Not right for your family. "We don't do TikTok." "Smartphones wait until high school."

All four are valid—if they're right for YOUR children, not everyone else's.