Ticker Views

Australia set to ban ‘nudify’ apps. How will it work?

Published

5 months ago

September 4, 2025

The Conversation

Australia set to ban ‘nudify’ apps. How will it work?

Nicola Henry, RMIT University

The Australian government has announced plans to ban “nudify” tools and hold tech platforms accountable for failing to prevent users from accessing them.

This is part of the government’s overall strategy to move towards a “digital duty of care” approach to online safety. This approach places legal responsibility on tech companies to take proactive steps to identify and prevent online harms on their platforms and services.

So how will the nudify ban happen in practice? And will it be effective?

How are nudify tools being used?

Nudify or “undress” tools are available on app stores and websites. They use artificial intelligence (AI) methods to create realistic but fake sexually explicit images of people.

Users can upload a clothed, everyday photo which the tool analyses and then digitally removes the person’s clothing by putting their face onto a nude body (or what the AI “thinks” the person would look like naked).

The problem is that nudify tools are easy to use and access. The images they create can also look highly realistic and can cause significant harms, including bullying, harassment, distress, anxiety, reputational damage and self-harm.

These apps – and other AI tools used to generate image-based abuse material – are an increasing problem.

In June this year, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner revealed that reports of deepfakes and other digitally altered images of people under 18 have more than doubled in the past 18 months.

In the first half of 2024, 16 nudify websites that were named in a lawsuit issued by the San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu were visited more than 200 million times.

In a July 2025 study, 85 nudify websites had a combined average of 18.5 million visitors for the preceding six months. Some 18 of the websites – which rely on tech services such as Google’s sign-on system, or Amazon and Cloudflare’s hosting or content delivery services – made between US$2.6 million and $18.4 million in the past six months.

Aren’t nudify tools already illegal?

For adults, sharing (or threatening to share) non-consensual deepfake sexualised images is a criminal offence under most Australian state, federal and territory laws. But aside from Victoria and New South Wales, it is not currently a criminal offence to create digitally generated intimate images of adults.

For children and adolescents under 18, the situation is slightly different. It’s a criminal offence not only to share child sexual abuse material (including fictional, cartoon or fake images generated using AI), but also to create, access, possess and solicit this material.

Developing, hosting and promoting the use of these tools for creating either adult or child content is not currently illegal in Australia.

Last month, independent federal MP Kate Chaney introduced a bill that would make it a criminal offence to download, access, supply or offer access to nudify apps and other tools of which the dominant or sole purpose is the creation of child sexual abuse material.

The government has not taken on this bill. It instead wants to focus on placing the onus on technology companies.

How will the nudify ban actually work?

Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, said the government will work closely with industry to figure out the best way to proactively restrict access to nudify tools.

At this point, it’s unclear what the time frames are or how the ban will work in practice. It might involve the government “geoblocking” access to nudify sites, or directing the platforms to remove access (including advertising links) to the tools.

It might also involve transparency reporting from platforms on what they’re doing to address the problem, including risk assessments for illegal and harmful activity.

But government bans and industry collaboration won’t completely solve the problem.

Users can get around geographic restrictions with VPNs or proxy servers. The tools can also be used “off the radar” via file-sharing platforms, private forums or messaging apps that already host nudify chatbots.

Open-source AI models can also be fine-tuned to create new nudify tools.

What are tech companies already doing?

Some tech companies have already taken action against nudify tools.

Discord and Apple have removed nudify apps and developer accounts associated with nudify apps and websites.

Meta also bans adult content, including AI-generated nudes. However, Meta came under fire for inadvertently promoting nudify apps through advertisements – even though those ads violate the company’s standards. The company recently filed a lawsuit against Hong Kong nudify company CrushAI, after the company ran more than 87,000 ads across Meta platforms in violation of Meta’s rules on non-consensual intimate imagery.

Tech companies can do much more to mitigate harms from nudify and other deepfake tools. For example, they can ensure guardrails are in place for deepfake generators, remove content more quickly, and ban or suspend user accounts.

They can restrict search results and block keywords such as “undress” or “nudify”, issue “nudges” or warnings to people using related search terms, and use watermarking and provenance indicators to identify the origins of images.

They can also work collaboratively together to share signals of suspicious activity (for example, advertising attempts) and share digital hashes (a unique code like a fingerprint) of known image-based abuse or child sexual abuse content with other platforms to prevent recirculation.

Education is also key

Placing the onus on tech companies and ensuring they are held accountable to reduce the harms from nudify tools is important. But it’s not going to stop the problem.

Education must also be a key focus. Young people need comprehensive education on how to critically examine and discuss digital information and content, including digital data privacy, digital rights and respectful digital relationships.

Digital literacy and respectful relationships education shouldn’t be based on shame and fear-based messaging but rather on affirmative consent. That means giving young people the skills to recognise and negotiate consent to receive, request and share intimate images, including deepfake images.

We need effective bystander interventions. This means teaching bystanders how to effectively and safely challenge harmful behaviours and how to support victim-survivors of deepfake abuse.

We also need well-resourced online and offline support systems so victim-survivors, perpetrators, bystanders and support persons can get the help they need.

If this article has raised issues for you, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit the eSafety Commissioner’s website for helpful online safety resources. You can also contact Lifeline crisis support on 13 11 14 or text 0477 13 11 14, Suicide Call Back Services on 1300 659 467, or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800 (for young people aged 5-25). If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, call the police on 000.

Nicola Henry, Professor, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, & Deputy Director, Social Equity Research Centre, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

Backlash over AI “Indigenous Host” sparks ethical debate

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.

Published

11 hours ago

January 21, 2026

Harvey Vargas

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.

A viral social media account featuring an AI-generated “Indigenous host” is drawing criticism from advocates and creators alike, raising questions about authenticity, representation, and ethics in the age of artificial intelligence. Critics argue that AI characters can displace real Indigenous voices and mislead audiences.

Dr Karen Sutherland from Uni SC discusses how AI is reshaping identity on social media and why the backlash over this account has ignited a wider conversation about “digital blackface” and the ethics of AI-generated personalities. She explores the fine line between education, entertainment, and exploitation.

The discussion also dives into monetisation, platform responsibility, and the broader risks AI poses to media and cultural representation. As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, audiences and creators alike must consider what authenticity truly means online.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIControversy #IndigenousVoices #DigitalBlackface #SocialMediaEthics #AIIdentity #OnlineBacklash #MediaEthics #RepresentationMatters

Ticker Views

Business class battles and ultra long-haul flights with Simon Dean

Aviation expert Simon Dean shares insights on premium travel trends, business class, and the future of ultra-long-haul flights.

Published

1 day ago

January 20, 2026

Harvey Vargas

Aviation expert Simon Dean shares insights on premium travel trends, business class, and the future of ultra-long-haul flights.

From the latest trends in premium travel to the rise of ultra-long-haul flights, aviation reviewer Simon Dean from Flight Formula shares his firsthand insights on the airlines leading the charge.

We dive into what makes a great business class experience, and whether first class is still worth it in 2026. Simon breaks down common passenger misconceptions about premium cabins and explores how airlines are redesigning business class for comfort on the world’s longest flights.

He also gives a sneak peek into what excites—and worries him—about Qantas Project Sunrise, set to redefine ultra long haul travel.

Finally, we discuss the future of premium aviation: will ultra-long-haul flights become the new normal or remain a niche experience?

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#BusinessClass #UltraLongHaul #ProjectSunrise #AviationReview #FirstClass #AirlineTrends #TravelInsights #FlightFormula

Ticker Views

Trump’s expanding executive power raises alarms over Congress’ role

Published

1 day ago

January 20, 2026

The Conversation

Congress’ power has been diminishing for years, leaving Trump to act with impunity

Samuel Garrett, University of Sydney

A year into US President Donald Trump’s second term, his record use of executive orders, impoundment of government spending, and military interventions in Venezuela and Iran have sparked criticisms from Democrats and even some Republicans. They say he is unconstitutionally sidelining Congress.

As Trump increasingly wields his power unilaterally, some have wondered what the point of Congress is now. Isn’t it supposed to act as a check on the president?

But the power of the modern presidency had already been growing for decades. Successive presidents from both parties have taken advantage of constitutional vagaries to increase the power of the executive branch. It’s a long-running institutional battle that has underwritten US political history.

The years-long erosion of Congress’ influence leaves the president with largely unchecked power. We’re now seeing the consequences.

A fraught relationship

Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Under the US Constitution, it’s the branch of the government tasked with making laws. It’s supposed to act as a check on the president and the courts.

It can pass legislation, raise taxes, control government spending, review and approve presidential nominees, advise and consent on treaties, conduct investigations, declare war, impeach officials, and even choose the president in a disputed election.

But the Constitution leaves open many questions about where the powers of Congress end and the powers of the president begin.

In a 2019 ruling on Trump’s tax returns, the judge commented:

disputes between Congress and the President are a recurring plot in our national story. And that is precisely what the Framers intended.

Relative power between the different branches of the US government has changed since independence as constitutional interpretations shifted. This includes whether the president or Congress takes the lead on making laws.

Although Congress holds legislative power, intense negotiations between Congress and the executive branch (led by the president) are now a common feature of US lawmaking. Modern political parties work closely with the president to design and pass new laws.

Redefining the presidency

By contrast, presidents in the 19th and early 20th centuries generally left Congress to lead policymaking. Party “czars” in Congress dominated the national legislative agenda.

Future president Woodrow Wilson noted in 1885 that Congress:

has entered more and more into the details of administration, until it has virtually taken into its own hands all the substantial powers of government.

Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt after him would later help to redefine the president not only as the head of the executive branch, but as head of their party and of the government.

In the 1970s, in the wake of the Watergate scandal and secret bombing of Cambodia, Congress sought to expand its oversight over what commentators suggested was becoming an “imperial presidency”.

This included the passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, designed to wrest back Congressional control of unauthorised military deployments.

Nevertheless, the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations all argued that Congressional authorisation was not required for operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya (though Bush still sought authorisation to secure public support).

In turn, the Trump administration argued its actions in Venezuela were a law-enforcement operation, to which the resolution does not apply.

Why presidents bypass Congress

Historically, presidents have sought to bypass Congress for reasons of personality or politics. Controversial decisions that would struggle to pass through Congress are often made using executive orders.

Obama’s 2011 “We Can’t Wait” initiative used executive orders to enact policy priorities without needing to go through a gridlocked Congress. One such policy was the 2012 creation of the DACA program for undocumented immigrants.

Franklin Roosevelt’s use of executive orders dwarfed that of his predecessors. He issued eight times as many orders in his 12-year tenure than were signed in the first 100 years of the United States’ existence.

The question of what constitutes a genuine threat to the preservation of the nation is especially pertinent now. More than 50 “national emergencies” are currently in effect in the United States.

This was the controversial basis of Trump’s tariff policy under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It bypassed Congressional approval and is now being considered by the Supreme Court.

Recent presidents have also increasingly claimed executive privilege to block Congress’ subpoena power.

Institutional wrestling

Institutional wrestling is a feature of Congressional relations with the president, even when the same party controls the White House and both chambers of the legislature, as the Republican party does now.

While Roosevelt dominated Congress, his “court-packing plan” to take control of the US Supreme Court in 1937 proved a bridge too far, even for his own sweeping Democratic majorities. The Democrats controlled three quarters of both the House and Senate and yet refused to back his plan.

More recently, former Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered many of Barack Obama’s early legislative achievements, but still clashed with the president in 2010 over congressional oversight.

As House minority leader, she rallied many Democrats against Obama’s US$1.1 trillion (A$1.6 trillion) budget proposal in 2014. Obama was forced to rely on Republican votes in 2015 to secure approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite his heavy lobbying of congressional Democrats.

Even today’s Congress, which has taken Trump’s direction at almost every turn, demonstrated its influence perhaps most notably by forcing the president into a backflip on the release of the Epstein files after a revolt within Trump’s supporters in the Republican party.

Given the extremely slim Republican majority in Congress, the general unity of the Republican party behind Trump has been a key source of his political strength. That may be lost if public opinion continues to turn against him.

Is Trump breaking the rules?

Trump and his administration have taken an expansive view of presidential power by regularly bypassing Congress.

But he’s not the first president to have pushed the already blurry limits of executive power to redefine what is or is not within the president’s remit. The extent to which presidents are even bound by law at all is a matter of long running academic debate.

Deliberate vagaries in US law and the Constitution mean the Supreme Court is ultimately the arbiter of what is legal.

The court is currently the most conservative in modern history and has taken a sweeping view of presidential power. The 2024 Supreme Court ruling that presidents enjoy extensive immunity suggests the president is, in fact, legally able to do almost anything.

Regardless, public opinion and perceptions of illegality continue to be one of the most important constraints on presidential action. Constituents can take a dim view of presidential behaviour, even if it’s not technically illegal.

Even if Trump can legally act with complete authority, it’s public opinion — not the letter of the law — that may continue to shape when, and if, he does so.

Samuel Garrett, Research Associate, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.