Jeff Johnson (Mastodon):
“Every instance of UserDefaults shares the contents of the argument and registration domains.” In other words, the result of calling registerDefaults on the object returned by [NSUserDefaults initWithSuiteName:] is the same as calling registerDefaults on the object returned by [NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults]! Yet the documentation for registerDefaults does not mention this fact.
How did this become a Link Unshortener bug? In the NSApplicationDelegate method applicationWillFinishLaunching, I call [NSUserDefaults initWithSuiteName:] and registerDefaults to register the default values of Link Unshortener settings. Then I check whether the app container settings need to be migrated. If migration is necessary, then I call [NSUserDefaults setObject: forKey:] on the group defaults, using [NSUserDefaults objectForKey:] from the app defaults. If the default key has never been set in the app defaults, then [NSUserDefaults objectForKey:] should return nil. Or so I thought! But at that point registerDefaults has already been called on the group defaults object, and the app defaults object shares the registration domain with the group defaults object, so [NSUserDefaults objectForKey:] returns a non-nil value, which gets saved in the group defaults.
Previously:
Bug Cocoa iOS iOS 26 Link Unshortener Mac macOS Tahoe 26 NSUserDefaults Programming
Adam Engst:
However, getting that playlist working this year proved intensely frustrating. Even though it contains over 300 songs, only a handful played when we asked Siri to shuffle the playlist on the HomePod. It made no sense—I could cause any song in the playlist to play on the HomePod from my iPhone, and the Music app had no problem continuing from one song to another as long as shuffle wasn’t turned on.
[…]
But wait! Isn’t there some other checkbox that might be related? I opened the Info window for one of the tracks that wouldn’t play and clicked through all the tabs. There it was in the Options tab: “Skip when shuffling.” I selected all the songs in the playlist, pressed Command-I to open an Info window that would apply to everything selected, and turned off “Skip when shuffling.” Voilà! My playlist started working correctly again.
[…]
But this raises a question. If you prefer to listen to holiday music only at the end of the year, how do you prevent it from playing at other times? I can imagine a range of approaches, including exclusionary playlists and separate music libraries, but they would require me to change how I interact with Apple Music for the rest of the year. Other techniques suffer from allowing holiday songs to be mixed in with other music.
I’ve been seeing some strange behavior recently when I tell the Music app to shuffle a particular artist. I would expect this to produce a random-seeming mix of all the songs I have by that artist. But often it actually plays one of the following:
- A random mix of songs, but only from the artist’s most recent 2–3 albums, when there are far more in my library.
- A random mix of songs, but each time it plays a song it will play all the versions of that same song (e.g. compilations, live recordings) before moving on to the next song.
iOS iOS 18 iOS 26 Music Music.app
Danah Boyd (2024):
Since the “social media is bad for teens” myth will not die, I keep having intense conversations with colleagues, journalists, and friends over what the research says and what it doesn’t. (Alice Marwick et. al put together a great little primer in light of the legislative moves.)
[…]
Can social media be risky for youth? Of course. So can school. So can friendship. So can the kitchen. So can navigating parents. Can social media be designed better? Absolutely. So can school. So can the kitchen. (So can parents?) Do we always know the best design interventions? No. Might those design interventions backfire? Yes.
Does that mean that we should give up trying to improve social media or other digital environments? Absolutely not. But we must also recognize that trying to cement design into law might backfire. And that, more generally, technologies’ risks cannot be managed by design alone.
[…]
Do some people experience harms through social media? Absolutely. But it’s important to acknowledge that most of these harms involve people using social media to harm others. It’s reasonable that they should be held accountable. It’s not reasonable to presume that you can design a system that allows people to interact in a manner where harms will never happen. As every school principal knows, you can’t solve bullying through the design of the physical building.
Nick Heer:
This is pretty clearly a response to arguments pushed by people like Dr. Jonathan Haidt.
[…]
Then again, why not both? Kids can be educated on how to use new technologies responsibly and platforms can be pressured to reduce abuses and hostile behaviour.
[…]
I find it plausible it is difficult to disentangle the influence of social media from other uses of a smartphone and from the broader world. I am not entirely convinced social media platforms have little responsibility for how youth experience their online environment, but I am even less convinced Haidt’s restrictive approach makes sense.
Mike Masnick:
Jonathan Haidt’s incredibly well-timed decision to surf on the wave of a moral panic about kids and social media has made him a false hero for many parents and educators. In my review, I noted that his book, “The Anxious Generation,” is written in a way that makes adults struggling with the world today feel good, because it gives them something to blame for lots of really difficult things happening with kids today.
The fact that it’s wrong and the data don’t support the actual claims is of no matter. It feels like it could be right, and that’s much easier than doing the real and extremely difficult work of actually preparing kids for the modern world.
[…]
Earlier this year, we had Dr. Candice Odgers on our podcast. Unlike Haidt, she is an actual expert in this field and has been doing research on the issue for years. The podcast was mostly to talk about what the research actually shows, rather than just “playing off Haidt’s” misleading book. However, Odgers has become the go-to responder to Haidt’s misleading moral panic. She’s great at it (though there are a ton of other experts in the field who also point out that Haidt’s claims are not supported by evidence).
Still, Odgers keeps getting called on by publications to respond to Haidt’s claims. She’s done so in Nature, where she highlighted what the research actually shows, and in The Atlantic, where she explained how Haidt’s supported proposals might actually cause real harm to kids.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Hacker News):
Children and teenagers under the age of 16 could soon be banned from using social media after Labor announced it would back the higher cut-off limit.
The government had previously committed to introducing the legislation that would get kids off social media by the end of the year, but earlier suggested it would not announce a specific cut-off age until after a trial of verification technology.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also confirmed on Thursday that the proposed legislation would not include grandfathering arrangements — meaning young people already on social media would not be exempt — nor would it allow for exemptions due to parental consent.
Rod McGuirk:
A social media ban for children under 16 passed the Australian Parliament on Friday in a world-first law.
The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts.
Laura Dobberstein:
As to how exactly age verification would be executed, Rowland said that was part of the purpose of the nation’s $6.5 million age assurance trial.
[…]
Meta posted a blog last week in which it made a case for parental approval for under-16s rather than a ban. That approval, it suggested, could be executed in the app store.
[…]
Social media’s harm to children has been extensively documented. For example, US Surgeon General Dr Vivek Murthy cited adolescents who spend more than three hours per day on social media as having double the risk of developing depression and anxiety. Murthy has advocated for health warning labels on social networks.
The US has been working on its own age verification software, but the results of its efforts remain unreliable.
University of York (Hacker News):
Psychologists at the University of York, who tested the impact that smartphones have on children’s behaviour for a new two-part documentary series for Channel 4, found that a ban in school impacted positively on sleep and mood.
Hunt Allcott et al. (Hacker News):
We estimate the effect of social media deactivation on users’ emotional state in two large randomized experiments before the 2020 U.S. election. People who deactivated Facebook for the six weeks before the election reported a 0.060 standard deviation improvement in an index of happiness, depression, and anxiety, relative to controls who deactivated for just the first of those six weeks. People who deactivated Instagram for those six weeks reported a 0.041 standard deviation improvement relative to controls.
Paris Buttfield-Addison (November 2025):
Australia’s world-first ban on social media for children under 16 takes effect in just over a month on December 10, 2025, yet nobody knows exactly how it will work.
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 passed parliament in a rushed process in November last year, imposing potential fines of up to $50 million on platforms that fail to keep out underage users. While 77% of Australians support the ban, only 25% believe it will actually work, and with weeks until launch, the mounting controversies, technical failures, and expert warnings suggest it’s becoming exactly the shitshow sceptics predicted.
[…]
The age verification requirement creates a piece of backdoor surveillance infrastructure that affects every Australian, not just children. Elon Musk labeled it “a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians,” a rare instance where his fevered ranting and hyperbole aligns with expert consensus.
[…]
The paradox is built into the law itself: s 63DB prohibits platforms from directly collecting government-issued IDs or requiring Digital ID systems, yet platforms must verify ages. This forces reliance on unproven technologies like facial biometric scanning, behavioural tracking, and AI age estimation, all of which require invasive data collection.
Apple (MacRumors):
Beginning December 10, 2025, a new Australian law will require certain social media platforms operating in Australia to prevent people under 16 from having a social media account. Impacted developers are responsible for making sure they follow the requirements of the new law, including deactivating any existing accounts for users under 16 and monitoring new signups.
Apple provides several tools to help meet the requirements of this law[…]
Mike Masnick (Hacker News):
Australia’s social media ban for kids is now in effect. As we’ve discussed, this is a monumentally stupid plan that will do real harm to kids. It’s based on a moral panic and a wide variety of faulty assumptions, including that social media websites are inherently bad for kids, something that none of the evidence supports.
Molly Buckley (Hacker News):
Age verification laws are proliferating fast across the United States and around the world, creating a dangerous and confusing tangle of rules about what we’re all allowed to see and do online. Though these mandates claim to protect children, in practice they create harmful censorship and surveillance regimes that put everyone—adults and young people alike—at risk.
Lisa Kashinsky (Hacker News):
Rahm Emanuel, who is mulling a presidential run, is pushing for the United States to follow Australia’s lead in banning children under 16 from most social media.
Simon Sharwood:
Forum site Reddit has filed a case that seeks to exempt itself from Australia’s ban on children under 16 holding social media accounts.
Mike Masnick:
But late last week, some additional news broke that makes the whole thing even more grotesque: turns out the campaign pushing hardest for the ban was run by an ad agency that makes gambling ads. The same gambling ads that were facing their own potential ban—until the Australian government decided that, hey, with all the kids kicked off social media, gambling ads can stay.
Kristof Van Landschoot (Casey Liss):
Has anybody figured out if it is possible to update the age rating on App Store Connect without submitting an update to the app?
Previously:
Advertising App Store Australia Children iOS iOS 26 Lawsuit Legal Mac Mac App Store macOS Tahoe 26 Privacy Reddit Science
