YouTube is rolling out enhancements to its search filters designed to make finding content more efficient and user-friendly. Following feedback from users, the platform has focused on providing advanced search tools that better match how viewers look for videos.

A significant update is the introduction of a dedicated Shorts filter. This new filter lets users decide whether search results should show Shorts, long-form videos, or both, putting more control in the hands of viewers who want to focus on their preferred format. This change has drawn positive reactions on social platforms, with some users expressing relief that a long-requested feature is finally here.

Building on these improvements, YouTube has changed the names of some sorting tools. The previous Sort By menu is now called Prioritize, and the View count sort option has been replaced by Popularity. The new Popularity measure takes into account both view counts and additional relevance factors, such as watch time, to surface videos that best match a search query.

In response to complaints about underused or ineffective filters, YouTube has also removed the Upload Date - Last Hour and Sort by Rating options. However, users can still find recent or highly-viewed content using the updated set of filters.

View article on AlternativeTo »

More about YouTube | YouTube Alternatives

A comprehensive database built by scientists in Switzerland and Norway has catalogued 16,000 chemicals linked to plastic materials, and the findings paint a troubling picture of what Americans are actually eating when they prepare food in their kitchens. Of those 16,000 chemicals, more than 5,400 are considered hazardous to human health by government and industry standards, while just 161 are classified as not hazardous. The remaining 10,700-plus chemicals simply don't have enough data to determine their safety. The chemicals enter food through multiple pathways. Black plastic utensils and trays often contain brominated flame retardants because they're made from recycled electronic waste. Nonstick pans and compostable plates frequently contain PFAS. One California study found phthalates in three-quarters of tested foods, and a Consumer Reports analysis last year detected BPA or similar chemicals in 79% of foods tested. According to CDC data, more than 90% of Americans have measurable levels of these chemicals in their bodies. A 10-fold increase in maternal levels of brominated flame retardants is associated with a 3.7-point IQ drop in children.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Australia has implemented the first under-16 social media ban. As of midnight on December 9, 2025, major platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Twitch, and X must prevent anyone under the age of 16 from logging in — or face massive fines.

Lawmakers from every state and territory backed the Australia social media ban, and political consensus helped it pass swiftly.

But as the ban goes live, early evidence shows enforcement is bumping into reality with verification failures, widespread attempts to circumvent the rules, and rising privacy concerns.

• Teens are already finding workarounds to Australia’s social media ban
• Age checks at scale expose major flaws
• Enforcing the ban requires sensitive data
• Parental support is high, but the trade-offs are significant
• What Australia’s ban means for the rest of the world

Teens are already finding workarounds to Australia’s social media ban

Some teens told reporters they plan to log in using their parents’ Face ID to get around the Australian social media ban. Others are creating new accounts under older siblings or fake ages.

The Guardian reported that some under-16 users began swapping their phone numbers as the ban approached — an unintended consequence of losing their usual channels to stay in touch. One teen claimed to pass an age-verification selfie check using the photo of a dog.

Meanwhile, platforms are preparing to block more than a million accounts, a shift that’s pushing many teens to find alternative ways to stay connected. These developments suggest the law may simply redistribute online activity, rather than eliminate it.

Age checks at scale expose major flaws

The law enforcing the Australian social media ban leaves it up to platforms to show “reasonable steps” for age checks. That has led to biometric facial-age estimation, live video selfies, AI-based behavioral age inference, document uploads, and other verification experiments.

One of the age-assurance services in use claims to have processed hundreds of thousands of checks recently. But even before widespread enforcement began, errors emerged. Reports show under-16s erroneously verified as adults — or minors incorrectly blocked.

In October 2024, when Australia’s social media ban was still a proposal, experts widely signed an open letter criticizing the approach as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.” warning that large-scale identity verification could backfire. Additionally, at least one teen has filed a lawsuit arguing the ban will drive minors into more dangerous corners of the internet.

Enforcing the ban requires sensitive data

Enforcing age limits inevitably requires platforms to collect far more personal data than before, such as biometric facial-geometry data via live selfies. They may also be asked for government-issued identity documents, verified phone numbers, or behavioral data used to infer age.

That level of collection raises a new concern: platforms risk becoming de facto identity-arbiters, responsible for storing, processing, and securing millions of sensitive documents and biometric signatures. A Curtin University professor warned this represents “the worst possible outcome,” given the poor track record of many tech firms when it comes to data security.

The UK’s experience shows how difficult national age-verification schemes are to implement. The government spent years trying to introduce a system that would require users to prove their age to access online pornography, but the effort collapsed after repeated technical failures, privacy concerns, and the discovery that at least one verification system could be bypassed in minutes. The plan was ultimately abandoned in 2019 because regulators concluded the system wasn’t reliable enough to enforce and carried unacceptable risks for user data.

Parental support is high, but the trade-offs are significant

Many parents support Australia’s social media ban because the underlying concerns are real. Research commissioned by the government found that 96% of children aged 10–15 use social media and that large numbers had been exposed to harmful content, including misogynistic or violent material, eating disorder content, and even grooming attempts.

Parents aren’t imagining the risks. Social platforms use design patterns engineered to keep people — especially young people — online for longer. That can amplify anxiety, create unhealthy comparisons, expose teens to predatory behavior, and erode their sense of self. It’s no surprise that many parents see any effort to put guardrails in place as overdue.

But how the policy is enforced matters. Age-verification systems depend on biometric scans, identity documents, behavioral analysis, and the retention of sensitive data. That turns mainstream social platforms into identity-verified spaces rather than places where you can participate without handing over personal information. And those changes affect everybody, not just children.

Many parents say navigating the internet with their kids feels overwhelming, especially when platforms are designed to keep young people online. That’s why Proton has built resources — like our parent’s guide to keeping kids safe online — to help parents understand harmful design patterns, set healthy boundaries, and protect their family’s data. The goal isn’t to lock the internet down, but to empower families with the knowledge and tools they need to navigate it.

Efforts to protect children deserve serious attention, but they also require a careful balance. Safety shouldn’t come at the cost of normalizing mass identity checks or expanding the amount of sensitive data platforms must collect to function.

What Australia’s ban means for the rest of the world

Australia’s online-safety authority has said it will monitor not only compliance, but also unintended consequences: whether teens migrate to lesser-regulated services or darker corners of the internet; whether circumvention rises; whether verification errors lead to social exclusion; and how mental health, behavior, and community engagement change over time. The government has also contracted external researchers at Stanford University to study outcomes over the coming years.

Other countries are already taking notes. Reuters notes governments in Denmark, Malaysia, and elsewhere are exploring similar bans if Australia’s rollout goes smoothly.

But what the early evidence shows is that implementing age-based bans at national scale does more than limit teenage access — it redefines what social media is. Instead of a place for casual, pseudonymous connection, platforms become identity-verified services. That shift carries deep implications for privacy, anonymity, free expression, and data risk.

At Proton, our conviction is clear: instead of building systems that treat identity as the price of entry, we should build systems that minimize the amount of data collected, maximize user control, and preserve privacy.

Especially for young people.

As other nations consider similar policies, Australia’s experiment may serve as a warning more than a blueprint.

Heat-expelling device could one day cool greenhouses and homes