Age verification is NOT a privacy issue: uploaded selfies or IDs deleted within seconds - leaving only yes / no under 18 / over 12 - except Google retains your ID if needed, securely stored not public
Your social media identity is NOT shared with the government and nothing is censored - only pornography blocked for under 18 - already illegal content removed - and safer algorithmic suggestion feeds
There is no privacy issue here. Don’t worry if you are asked to upload a selfie or document ID for age verification. That’s because it is only retained for a second by the software and then deleted so there is nothing there to leak. No human ever sees it.
That’s for most of them. However Google has its own age verification system for YouTube. Most of the ages can be verified without uploading your ID but if you do need to upload an ID, your ID is securely stored and won’t be made public. Google has a high reputation for security. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/10071085?hl=en#zippy=%2Cuse-an-id-for-age-verification%2Cfind-valid-types-of-id-for-age-verification%2Cuse-a-selfie-for-age-verification%2Cuse-an-email-address-for-age-verification. [Sorry I got this wrong before should have double checked].-
Google has a high reputation for security and hasn't been involved in data leaks since 2018. https://firewalltimes.com/google-data-breach-timeline/
Google operates a "zero trust" methodology. Most companies have an intranet where users are trusted by default and the internet where they are not trusted. However Google doesn't trust anyone even if they are working on a server itself, unless they authenticate themselves individually. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-google-implemented-zero-trust-model-modern-security-9uwce/
This means that even if someone got into Google's own intranet it would be meaningless as they can't access anything on it unless they are trusted.
For all the rest, the age verification is done by a separate company, usually Yoti, which erases everything after you upload it. All that the provider like Facebook, X or Bluesky gets is a yes / no are you under 18.
Also, if they have other age requirements they get that information at the same time such as:
are you over 12 (YouTube or Facebook)
[Skip to Contents or click on vertical column of dashes to the left on some devices]
How age verification works for Yoti, and other age verifiers - for most people it’s easy to do
There are some glitches, not surprising early on. But most people can do age verification easily enough. You do need a device that has a camera in it - but most people who are online have it in a mobile phone, or a laptop or some other device.
You need to give the age verifier like Yoti permission to use your laptop or mobile phone camera and it does the selfie not you. It will usually get your age right from the selfie. It has to do it that way to be sure the selfie really is you. Then if you need to upload a document ID then it will use another selfie to check that the document ID shows your photo.
Most providers use an external age verifier, the usual one is Yoti.
Facebook partners with Yoti https://facebook.com/help/958848942357089?locale=en_GB
This is how Yoti does it, it offers many different ways to do age verification including using age estimation with a selfie, or an ID document + selfie. None of the information is retained, they just tell facebook whether you are over 13 or over 18.
https://www.yoti.com/adult-content-age-verification/
This is how X does it
https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/age-assurance
I talk here about how KWS does it - which is what Bluesky uses to comply with the UK's Online Safety Act
BLOG: How your personal details are protected when KWS proves to Bluesky that you are over 18 to comply with the UK's Online safety act
The age verification it doesn't involve anyone retaining your details.
Also it might not even be needed. For big social media platforms like Facebook their algorithms can verify the age for most people by using obvious signals. For instance the photos you upload of yourself and when people say happy birthday to you on your timeline etc.
So most of us won’t even need to verify our ages on the likes of Facebook or X.
UPDATE: Yoti is NOT the same as Tea - a very insecure app that has always been seen as full of security vulnerabilities - while Yoti is a trusted app used by many social media companies since 2022 and first launched in 2019
I’ve found that some people are unsure about age verification because of a story that broke by coincidence about Tea, an app that asks women to upload photos for self identification - with security vulnerabilities. The developers promised that all the selfies are deleted but turned out they were not. Tea is an app created in 2023 which did its own verification and experts say it is riddled with security vulnerabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_(app)
It is NOT involved in age verification for the Online Safety Act and experts had warned it was riddled with security loopholes. The only connection is that it relied on selfies to check identities but did its own inhouse checks and either by a programming error or because they lied, it stored large numbers of selfies that it said it deleted. Given their incompetence generally it could easily just be a programming error, forgot to include the instruction to delete or something.
A company like that would NOT be used for age verification by anyone.
But it hit the news and so has spooked a few people.
Check that the site that asks for age verification is either itself highly trusted, like Google which is highly trusted for age verification - or else is doing it through a highly trusted partner like Yoti. For major companies like Facebook, X, BlueSky etc you can expect them to do due diligence and make sure they are using a trusted partner.
Yoti which is the app used for most social media age verification, first launched age verification in 2019.
QUOTE Our latest technology, Yoti Age Scan (YAS), is another initiative to help children navigate the internet in a safe way. YAS is a secure, anonymous age-checking service that accurately estimates a person’s age by comparing an individual’s face to many thousands of other age verified faces. After the age is estimated, the image is deleted.
It was already in use with many major social media maps in 2022.
QUOTE We’ve been busy teaming up with some of the world’s biggest social media platforms, got ourselves accepted in cinemas across the UK, and became the first certified digital identity service provider under the UK Digital Identity & Attributes Trust Framework for Right to Work, Right to Rent and criminal records checks. That and much more!
In 2025 they say that by using a challenge age of 20 for being over / under 18, 95% of UK adults can use the Yoti method to give strong confidence that they are 18+
QUOTE STARTS
Using a 2 year buffer (using a challenge age of 20 for being over/under 18, or a challenge age of 18 for being over/under 16):
In the UK, over 95% of adults could use Yoti’s facial age estimation to give strong confidence they are adults (18+), whilst denying access to almost all under-18s.
In Australia, over 95% of those aged 16 or over could use Yoti’s facial age estimation to give strong confidence they are over 16 on social media, whilst denying access to almost all under-15s.
So it is the difference between a dedicated age verification app first launched in 2019 and used with confidence by many social media companies since then and a small startup that did its own user identity verification (not sure what for doesn't say age verification) that has had a reputation of being riddled with security vulnerabilities that either lied about deleting the photos or just forgot to delete them through sloppy coding.
Most social media apps use Yoti, established age verification app, high reputation, very secure - and Google does its own age verification - but it’s got a similar very high reputation for security / privacy for its age verification
For most social media companies like Facebook, it never sees any of the data just the yes / no, this user is Under 18 and yes/no they are over 12.
The Yoti app does see the information but immediately destroys it in a second or so and retains nothing. No human sees it and it can’t be hacked as it is deleted.
How age verification works for Google - securely stored with security so strong that even company employees can’t access the data without special priviledges
Google does its own age verification.
Google does ask for permission for all the ways it uses your data though you might just click" yes" to it when you join without reading the details. You can also opt out of the ways it uses your data.
Google doesn’t erase the ID for the people who need to upload one but your ID is securely stored and won’t be made public though it can sometimes need manual review. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/10071085?hl=en#zippy=%2Cuse-an-id-for-age-verification%2Cfind-valid-types-of-id-for-age-verification%2Cuse-a-selfie-for-age-verification%2Cuse-an-email-address-for-age-verification
With most companies if you are a company employee on site you have access to their intranet and if you are a hacker you may be able to find a way to exploit that access.
However Google’s computers are set up so they don’t trust anyone even if they are working on a server itself, unless they authenticate themselves individually. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-google-implemented-zero-trust-model-modern-security-9uwce/
For instance only technicians that have been specifically granted permission to work on a server can access it even if someone else gets physical access to the server. All their computers, servers, laptops etc connected to their intranet have the same zero trust approach.
This means that even if a hacker got into Google's own intranet- the internal connection between their computers it would be meaningless as they can't access anything on it unless they are trusted. They will find walls blocking them out wherever they try to go.
For both Yoti and Google, it is very important to them that the age verification is secure and that there is no privacy risk.
Facebook and Google do have lots of data about you but you give them permission to use this data in their terms and conditions, they don't use it illegally.
How age verification works for X - the data is kept for manual verification if needed with external age verifiers for 30 days - Stripe keeps it indefinitely but is a very secure platform
For most users X is able to infer their age without age verification.
If it does need to infer your age, X says its age verification partners retain the data for 30 days for Au10tix and Persona and indefinitely for Stripe.
QUOTE STARTS
What data does X collect?
For users that complete the ID verification flow, we collect an image of the ID and the selfie, which include face data and data extracted from the ID.
How long is this data retained?
Au10tix and Persona delete images of the IDs, selfies and data extracted from the ID after 30 days. This helps X provide you an opportunity to appeal a verification decision and for X to review your appeal. For creators, Stripe will retain the data as long as the user remains a creator.
Does X retain this data or share it with any third parties?
X does not directly retain this data in connection with the User Experience Enhancement and the Safety and Security Purposes noted above. X will retain full name, address, when possible, and a hash of the document ID number in connection with the Creator Subscription and Ads Revenue Share identity verification process. We share face data and data extracted from the ID with our third party processors who process and store the data as detailed above.
https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/verification-policy
So it's a bit like Google but we are depending on the security of those third party age verification apps rather than Google. X itself doesn’t store the data.
Stripe is a widely used online payment processing platform and has a high level of security.
https://docs.stripe.com/security?locale=en-GB
The UK government isn't involved in age verification nor is Ofcom. They don't see any of the information and they can't link you to any social media account using this age verification, they are not involved in it at all.
The government or independent regulators like Ofcom are not involved in age verification
As for the government or independent regulators like Ofcom, they are not notified in any way. The government is not involved in any way - the providers are required to self regulate. In particular this information about whether an account is under 18 is NOT shared with Ofcom or the UK government. Nothing is.
Online safety act only does age verification for high risk sites - either over 7 million active users or self assessed as high risk
Also for the Online Safety act, it's only needed for high risk sites where there is a reasonable chance of kids encountering harmful material.
Its focus is on LEGAL online harms which encourage self harm and eating disorders. The aim is to deal with the way that online algorithms encourage binge watching of harmful videos that a kid did NOT choose to watch, or search for and the algorithm shows it just because they click on it.
This is also only a requirement on social media sites with at least 7 million active users (not just viewers, active users that can interact with each other via the site).
The legal content is NOT taken down. It’s just about making sure algorithms don’t encourage it and that there are links to support available for kids affected. Also to make sure that they have an easy way to block people. Sensible stuff.
The government doesn’t make ANY content decisions nor does Ofcom.
The only material removed is material that is already illegal under various laws.
Ofcom is highly respected in the UK and it relies on companies to self regulate and will only step in if it has to if a company isn’t complying.
QUOTE STARTS FROM BBC
Ofcom say their new rules have more than 40 guidelines that tech firms must follow otherwise they could face big fines. They include:
Algorithms - tech which offers you content users may like - must be changed to filter out harmful content from children's feeds.
Stricter age checks for people accessing age-restricted content.
Taking quick action when harmful content is identified.
Making terms of service easy for children to understand.
Giving children the option to decline group chats invitations which may include harmful content, and to block and mute accounts and to disable comments on their own posts.
Providing support to children who come across harmful content.
Having a "named person accountable for children's safety" at the organisation.
A yearly review of possible risks to children.
...
You might not even notice a difference in your apps and games now these rules are in place.
It's hoped videos that could upset you or cause you harm won't appear in your feed at all.
It might also be needed for smaller sites if, for instance, they know that they get material often shared on the site that encourages suicide or self harm.
Most sites will self assess as not at risk and then they have minimal requirements, mainly
to take down illegal content if it’s reported and
to have a tool users can use to report content.
For the anti-pornography requirements, the age verification is about complying with the law for pornography whatever the age limit is in your country. In the UK for instance it is legal for kids to watch pornography but illegal for UK providers to provide them with pornography which is why they have to block the pornography to under 18s on their websites.
More about the Online Safety act and how it works see my:
For the online safety act,
YouTube has classified videos as suitable for under 18 and 12 or under for years - only thing new is to help catch out people who lie about their ages based on whether they search for and watch similar videos to young kids - with machine learning (AI) to eliminate false positives
Youtube content is already age restricted for those under 18. This is not new it's been like this for several years and I see the option whenever I upload a video.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802167?hl=en-GB
As you see from that screenshot, when you upload a video you have an option to say if it is mature content and is only for 18 and over. If you do that, under 18s won't see your video.
There's YouTube kids too for 12 and under too. You have another option to say your video is for kids.
https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/kids-and-teens/
The YouTube restrictions for under 18 are NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT. It has had them for many years. The only new thing is they are now using AI. The two factors they mention specifically are
the longevity of an account - and the videos you search for and watch.
QUOTE We will use AI to interpret a variety of signals that help us to determine whether a user is over or under 18. These signals include the types of videos a user is searching for, the categories of videos they have watched, or the longevity of the account.
https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/extending-our-built-in-protections-to-more-teens-on-youtube/
They are doing a pilot in the US which means they likely randomly select some people to test, and half are tested using AI and half not and monitor it closely to see if there are any problems.
The aim will be to test their conclusions that AI is able to deduce someone's age reasonably accurately from those signals.
Then they would fix any glitches and expand to a large population in the USA and once they have it working for the USA they'd likely then do pilots with smaller populations in other countries and so expand it bit by bit throughout the world. At least that is a normal way of doing it. It is internally driven not by external requirements in this case.
Though they are already likely doing it for the UK online safety act that may be how they got onto it?
On the videos they search for and watch
17 year olds tend to watch videos with 17 year olds as heroes and heroines for fictional movies and they also watch videos for 17 year olds. Of course young people watch videos for older heroines and heroes too but if someone watches a lot of videos with 17 year olds as heroes and heroines and only a few with 27 year old heroes and heroines, they are likely 17 themselves.
Of course they could get it wrong. For instance if you are an author that writes stories for kids. But the AI would likely have many ways to cross check to see WHY you are watching videos with 17 year olds as heroes and heroines.
You can't expect YouTube to spell out how it does it as that would give users ways to try to trick the AI. E.g. in that case a 17 year old might watch large numbers of videos where the heroes and heroines are in their mid 20s to try to game the AI if that is what they do.
If the AI mistakenly deduces you are under 18 then YouTube may ask you to get a selfie or upload a document ID.
Google doesn’t erase the ID for the people who need to upload one but your ID is securely stored and won’t be made public though it can sometimes need manual review. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/10071085?hl=en#zippy=%2Cuse-an-id-for-age-verification%2Cfind-valid-types-of-id-for-age-verification%2Cuse-a-selfie-for-age-verification%2Cuse-an-email-address-for-age-verification
[sorry fixed earlier mistaken summary I though they deleted the ID but though almost everyone else does YouTube / Google do not - but it’s securely stored]
Spotify is not going to delete a channel for anything to do with the Online Safety act but plans to do age verification for its own requirements - it requires authors under 13 to upload audio to Spotify Kids
Spotify just does age verification to decide what to play. If you don't complete age verification you won't be able to play audio designed for a mature audience.
Spotify partners with Yoti which is a professional highly regarded age verification partner that will typically be able to estimate your age with a selfie, rarely might need an ID - and deletes ALL the information you upload except it sends Spotify a message saying yes or no, this person is under 18 or not under 18.
Spotify must be using this opportunity to also ask Yoti to answer yes or no, this person is under 13 or not under 13 but that is NOT anything to do with the Oline Safety Act, that's by Spotify's own terms and conditions.
It does NOT delete accounts because of the Online Safety Act. It WILL delete accounts that are under 13 - first deactivate then eventually delete because it has Spotify Kids for kids. You need to use Spotify Kids if under 13.
https://www.spotify.com/safetyandprivacy/files/Parental_Guide.pdf
This is what Spotify says:
QUOTE STARTS
We partner with Yoti, a trusted digital identity company, to help us identify if users are of eligible age to access some Spotify content and features, like Music videos that are labeled as 18+ by rightsholders.
...
You cannot use Spotify if you don’t meet the minimum age requirements for the market you’re in. If you cannot confirm you’re old enough to use Spotify, your account will be deactivated and eventually deleted.
https://support.spotify.com/uk/article/age-restricted-content-age-check/
Wikipedia is NOT going to be blocked in the UK
This is not about content on Wikipedia. It is about the active users and the ability of those users to message each other and share things with each other in Wikipedia - and because Wikipedia has algorithms that can order / prioritize what is easy to find.
Wikipedia has millions of content views in the UK but only a few tens of thousands of active users so it is not at all likely to count as a category 1 website that needs age verification which requires at least 7 million active users.
On the remote chance it was somehow included, the Act gives the Secretary of State authority to grant an exemption which would need to be approved by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament.
I go into that here:
in my:
The online safety act does NOT require sites to block access of kids to Tom and Jerry cartoons - it is about REALISTIC depiction of SERIOUS violence and injury against a fictional creature in GRAPHIC detail
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
This content is NOT removed - this is content that shouldn't be shown to kids.
REALISTICALLY depicts SERIOUS violence or injury against a fictional creature in GRAPHIC detail.
- obviously needs sensible interpretation
Would not block Tom and Jerry - NOT realistic and not GRAPHIC.
From the bill here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50
QUOTE The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to: ...
Clearer way to put it:
QUOTE The kinds of ALREADY ILLEGAL content and activity that platforms need to protection users from are set out in the Act, and this includes SPECIFIC content SET OUT IN THE ACT relating to ..,.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Better phrasing: The kinds of ALREADY ILLEGAL content and activity that platforms need to protection users from are set out in the Act, and this includes SPECIFIC ILLEGAL content SET OUT IN THE ACT relating to …
Ex. assisting illegal immigration and human trafficking.
The act does NOT MAKE ANY content illegal it just is about duties for ALREADY ILLEGAL CONTENT.
The quoted online summary is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
Fact check of this FALSE claim here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-uks-online-safety-071456737.html
Verified by checking the act itself:
QUOTE STARTS
Assisting illegal immigration
23 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Immigration Act 1971—
(a)section 24(A1), (B1), (C1) or (D1) (illegal entry and similar offences);
(b)section 25 (assisting unlawful immigration).
24 An offence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (human trafficking).
25 An offence under section 1 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (asp 12) (human trafficking).
26 An offence under section 2 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act
You do NOT need a VPN to avoid age verification - many downsides- and zero risk from age verification
You don't need to use a VPN. You need to watch out for online sites that claim to list the pros and cons of a VPN and they often conclude that e.g. NordVPN solves all the problems they list in the cons of a VPN - this is just advertising for NordVPN.
According to PC Mag, NordVPN is a good VPN but a bit pricy for what it does.
Their best for novices is TunnelBear VPN.
https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-vpn-services
Their best free VPN is ProtonVPN and the main downside is high latency
https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-free-vpns#
But more importantly the VPN websites list pros for a VPN and in their list of cons they tend to only list cons that their own VPN can fix for you. Their typical message is “There are cons to using VPNs but if you buy our VPN we can fix them all for you”.
That is NOT TRUE. There are many cons that may NOT be fixed by a VPN.
VPNs can add to complexity, they can slow down the internet connection, may barr you from some games, they mean you don't get to see search results customized to your address, weather and currency and news defaults to the wrong location, if your IP address is in the USA say, online shopping leads you to websites that show prices in dollars and ship across the Atlantic, Netflix is legally required to block VPNs as with other legal streaming services under their licensing agreements. Sometimes they can get associated with criminal activity unless you have a dedicated IP address.
In more detail: if you have a VPN with an IP address in the USA, which many have, then
if you search for Amazon in the UK you'll be sent to the Amazon.uk website if you have a VPN with an IP addreses in the US you'd be sent to Amazon.com which obviously can't deliver to addresses in the UK so easily meaning your order if it can be sent to the UK at all will be delayed, and has prices in dollars. This will apply to anything physical you search for to buy online.
Any website you visit would default to prices in dollars rather than pounds.
Search results are customized to your location, for instance if you are in the UK you want to know about flooding and storms that affect the UK not Florida or the Mississippi
This can mostly be fixed if you can buy a dedicated IP address linked to your country but that may not be enough as it depends on how the IP address is checked.
You might find you are blocked from Netflix and other streaming services while using the VPN. They don't have anything against VPNs but they need to know where they are streaming the content to in the world to comply with their licensing arrangements because most movies on Netflix are only licensed to specific companies so they are legally required to block VPNs.
The internet is likely to be slower over the VPN e.g. possibly while streaming HD videos - e.g. if you stream a video from YouTube via an IP address in the USA, it has to cross the Atlantic to reach you in the UK. Youtube will have servers in the UK that stream the content to you faster and with more bandwidth. It may not be a big hit but they do have a reason for streaming from the UK rather than the USA.
The round trip latency (ping time) is more because your requests are routed to the VPN and back, which you might experience as lag. For instance if you are in the UK then you connect to servers in the UK for things like chatbots or online gaming or e.g. jamming with friends online for music etc - if you use a VPN in the US the signal has to cross the Atlantic and back every time - the travel time is over a hundredth of a second - not that much but could matter in some situations - but the main thing is that the switching between networks adds to the latency. It can be a shorter latency in some cases if the ping is due to limitations of the connectivity of the site you are connecting in your country but it will often be longer.
There are likely many other downsides these are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.
They are very useful for some things. For instance for people living in Russia or China.
But you do NOT need them to avoid age verification. A good modern VPN should be reasonably safe but why would you trust e.g. TunnelBear VPN but not trust Google?
There can be security risks from VPNs, not likely to happen with a high reputation VPN:
https://www.checkpoint.com/cyber-hub/network-security/what-is-vpn/5-biggest-vpn-security-risks
Australia WILL block under 16s from social media - not sure what happens to kid versions of social media like Zigazoo or Khinzoo but may be retained as safe spaces for kids
So far the websites I’ve checked say they don't know when Australia will begin to block social media for kids, but some time after November this year. In principle even if an under 16 has a social media account already and you can have a Facebook account if you are 13 or over, they can be kicked out by Facebook. So that would apply to Australian children aged 13 to 15.
All the social media accounts do give you an option to download all your data so if you are a kid in Australia and you’ve uploaded things that matter to you e.g. digital content you created then do be sure to back it up.
If you’ve made friends on social media then make sure you have contact details for email, or texting or however else you keep in touch.
FAQ here:
https://headspace.org.au/explore-topics/for-young-people/social-media-ban/
Gaming and health education are exceptions
Then, there are special social media accounts designed for under 12s like Zigazoo or Khinzoo.
https://www.internetmatters.org/resources/social-media-networks-made-for-kids/
These have safety features to protect kids. Perplexity AI has given plausible sounding reasons that the kid friendly social media apps like Zigazoo or Khinzoo would be exempt but asked to confirm with human sources it found nothing so far.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-the-australian-under-16-b-AqE6fZg6SA.DTexFtO8FlA#2
It didn’t find any statements from those sites or from anyone else. It’s probably just too early for that.
But it seems plausible that kids that are keen on social media will switch to alternatives when the time comes.
Either those or there may well be that those or other companies set up alternatives specifically to cater to Australian kids complying with whatever are the requirements for the closest to social media the Australian government / regulators permit.
Under 16s are restricted in many other ways such as not able to buy alcohol or to vote.
It’s the first country to restrict adult social media for under 16s. But there isn’t anything ethically wrong in that, it is a cultural decision that Australia has made.
It wasn’t so long ago just a decade or two ago that no kids ever used social media or almost none.
SEE ALSO
How to train your social media algorithm puppy / dragon to fetch whatever you want online
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: HOW TO TRAIN YOUR (ALGORITHM) DRAGON
Also
How to train your social media algorithm puppy to fetch whatever you want online - and request to social media companies to give us ability to select between - pretrained options
I’m a fact checker for a group on Facebook that helps people who get scared of many things shared on the internet.
Contents
How age verification works for Yoti, and other age verifiers - for most people it’s easy to do
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
I often write them up as “short debunks”
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.
I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.
TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS
If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:
BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal
If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.
They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.
Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.
Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.
I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.
There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:
BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:
The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.
This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD GO TO THIS SEPARATE POST AND COMMENT THERE INSTEAD: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/post-to-comment-on-with-off-topic-1d2
The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
Thanks!
I know I had my other comment earlier but is this just another case of social media amplifying how big something is when in reality it’s at most an inconvenience? Again sorry for the double post but my anxiety has been through the roof with this and seeing people talk about things like this leading to a NWO has me panicking a bit even if I know it won’t happen