Facebook or Yoti: Who's More Trustworthy with Your Data?

Published Date : 9/2/2025 

The final report on Australia's Age Assurance Technology Trial (AATT) has sparked a heated debate. Experts are divided on whether third-party age verification services are worse stewards of personal data compared to social media giants like Facebook. 

The publication of the final report for Australia’s Age Assurance Technology Trial (AATT) has ignited a wide range of reactions from vendors, academics, and observers. These responses range from validation to stern objections, reflecting a deep-seated distrust in the concept of online age assurance and the potential for unnecessary data collection. However, many of these objections seem to defend social media platforms, which are known for their extensive data collection and monetization practices.

Dr. Hassan Asghar, a senior lecturer in Computer Science at Macquarie University, points out that document-based verification is already familiar in certain government services. However, expanding this to social media platforms introduces significant concerns. “When we expand this to social media platforms, we’re suddenly asking people to share their most sensitive documents with many more companies. Even though these companies aren’t supposed to keep our documents after checking them, it’s really hard to verify whether their processes are actually secure enough to properly delete everything once they’ve confirmed our age.”

Daniel Angus, a professor of Digital Communication at QUT and director of the Digital Media Research Centre, takes issue with the report’s admission that “unnecessary data retention may occur in apparent anticipation of future regulatory needs.” He calls this an “open door to scope creep and privacy risks for all Australians.” He also criticizes the error rates, noting that the best-performing systems still have false negative and positive rates around 3 percent. “In real terms, that means tens of thousands of legitimate Australian users would be wrongly locked out of digital services. The report never grapples with these consequences, reducing them instead to abstract accuracy figures.”

The debate is further complicated by the conflicting views on social media’s role. Dr. Dana McKay, a senior lecturer in innovative interactive technologies at RMIT University, argues that there are valid reasons for people, including children, to hide their real identity from social media companies. Yet, she also highlights the importance of social media for vulnerable groups like LGBTQ+ kids, who rely on these platforms for support and connection. “Those who most need the external support and connection offered by social media are also those most likely to be denied it by these mechanisms.”

Dr. Jake Renzella, head of the Computing and Education Research Group at the University of New South Wales, shares similar concerns. “The fundamental challenge here isn’t the technology, but the new risks we introduce by outsourcing this critical function. The report proposes adding dozens of third-party providers into the process, each becoming a potential point of failure for data security.”

Some experts, however, see potential in third-party verification providers. Dr. Belinda Barnet, a senior lecturer in Media at Swinburne University of Technology, believes that third-party methods can deliver age assurance without unnecessary data storage. “I would personally like us to adopt the reliable third party method rather than giving Facebook our passports.”

The debate also raises broader questions about trust. Why do we trust the age assurance sector less than massive social platforms run by some of the world’s richest men, which have had demonstrably negative effects on our media and political environments? Why are Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk considered more worthy of defense than an executive like Yoti’s Robin Tombs? And why has social media been classified as a necessity for the survival of certain vulnerable groups?

For years, Silicon Valley has successfully sold the narrative that social media is indispensable. Privacy watchdogs are now coming to its defense against regulators and providers who have voluntarily subjected themselves to independent third-party evaluations. Meanwhile, we may recall that there has never been a public social media tech trial on the scale of Australia’s effort – unless one counts Zuckerberg’s testimony to U.S. Congress, where he apologized to parents of children who died after experiencing sexual exploitation or harassment on social media.

A particular bit of flawed thinking is encapsulated in a statement from Tama Leaver, a professor of Internet Studies at Curtin University. Leaver asserts that “the technical thresholds that the trial used to determine whether a tool was viable or not seem completely at odds with the expectations of ordinary Australians online. Australians want to know if these tools work properly, and properly means work every time. The evidence in this report shows that these tools simply aren’t reliable.”

Age assurance is not a zero-sum game. The notion that a system that is not correct 100 percent of the time should be discarded is nonsensical. ChatGPT, which has been accused of encouraging a teen to kill themselves, was initially released with little outcry from digital privacy absolutists. If we are to abandon technology because it is not perfect and poses risks, surely the chatbot will need to go – along with your car. The task is the same as it has been for automobiles: work to improve safety over time, building public trust as you go. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS): 

Q: What is the Age Assurance Technology Trial (AATT)?

A: The Age Assurance Technology Trial (AATT) is a program in Australia designed to evaluate different methods of age verification for online services, particularly social media platforms. The goal is to ensure that these methods are reliable and secure while protecting user privacy.

Q: Why are experts divided on the AATT report?

A: Experts are divided because some believe that third-party age verification services pose significant privacy risks, while others see them as a necessary step to protect vulnerable users. There are also concerns about the accuracy and reliability of these systems.

Q: What are the main concerns about document-based verification?

A: The main concerns about document-based verification include the potential for sensitive documents to be mishandled or retained by companies, leading to increased privacy risks and data breaches.

Q: Why is social media considered a necessity for some vulnerable groups?

A: Social media is often seen as a vital resource for vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ+ youth, who rely on these platforms for support, connection, and community. However, this reliance also makes them more susceptible to the negative effects of age verification measures.

Q: What is the main argument against the perfectionist approach to age assurance?

A: The main argument against the perfectionist approach is that it is unrealistic to expect any system to be 100% accurate and reliable. Instead, the focus should be on continuously improving these systems to enhance safety and trust over time. 

More Related Topics :