Who owns AI-generated Tung Tung Tung Sahur?

Coming up on today’s episode of Raising Generation AI.
Should we just accept AI doing bad things?
Bombadero, Crocodillo, Cappuccino, Assassino, Tra-la-la-ro, Tra-la-la, Tung Tung Tung Sahur, and Italian Brainrot. Can say that last one, at least.
And if you don’t know what Holly’s on about, the kids definitely will.
Plus your questions, including the closure of Character AI and what it means for your child’s conversations.
It’s all on the way next.

Hello and welcome to Raising Generation AI with me, mum of two, Holly Green.
And me, AI expert, Fiona Morgan.
This podcast is all about the complicated world of parenting and AI because I’m a mum and I’m a bit worried about it all.
And this week, we’re talking about Italian Brainrot and who owns that character your kid just created with AI. But before we get to that, Holly, I have something kind of fun to show you.
I love it when you surprise me with things on the pocket. What is that? Look what this is.
I found that viral OpenAI crisps.
Oh, that’s so fun. I totally, when you say it’s gone viral, you’ve obviously got very niche algorithms that feed you some very specific things. So it’s gone big online then.
I saw them on my Instagram and it’s taken me a little while, but I found them this week and they’re seaweed flavour. Although not just any seaweed. Look, they’re extra seaweed.
Extra seaweed. Just a regular bit of seaweed wasn’t enough. I haven’t tried one yet, so I’m going to try one, but apologies if I get some seaweed on my teeth. For the rest of the podcast, you need to tell me.
I’m excited about this. All good crunch, good texture. Yeah.
That’s a good noise.
They taste like seaweed.
Yummy.
Is that a good thing?
I don’t know.
They taste exactly like when you buy sushi and it’s got the seaweed around the outside. They taste exactly like that. But anyway, I just thought you’d like the OpenAI crisps.
I love it when you throw a random curveball at me at the beginning of the podcast. That was great, Fiona. Thank you.

I’m going to throw one at you now. Sam Altman.
Okay.
I heard him say something the other day, which I want to ask your opinion on, because, well, I’ll tell you what he said. So he basically said that we have to accept some bad things happening with AI, because the good outweighs the bad. Now, I get that no technology, no new technology is without risk.
But when AI is so ubiquitous, it’s interwoven now in so many aspects of our life, what our kids are using it, it seems a lot to ask to accept all of these bad things that we’re seeing. And I don’t know, it might feel like at the moment, the bad rather outweighs the good. What do you think about this?
Well, so for context, Sam Altman is the guy that runs OpenAI. That’s the company that makes ChatGPT. And what you’re talking about here is an interview earlier this month where he was asked where OpenAI disagrees with the company that makes Claude. So they were talking specifically about how those different firms approach exactly this kind of thing. And the whole interview was Sam arguing against tight control over who gets to use AI. The specific quote is, we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and the people having the agency.
So to answer your question, do we need to accept bad things happening? Yes, but it’s also kind of no. It’s not really a short answer.
You’re right, with new technology, there’s always going to be things that go wrong. That’s the nature of it. You’re experimenting with new technology.
You can’t, even with the best will in the world, you can’t predict everything that that technology might be used for, every way it might go wrong. But you can take a very measured approach to how you design technology. And you can bring together the right people to really interrogate the technology and think about what is the worst thing this could be used for? What is the worst way this could go wrong? So when I was building technology for places like the BBC and NatWest, we would actually have activities where we would write the headlines. We’d do workshops where we’d write the worst headlines we could about what it was we were building.
I co-hosted a panel when I was at NatWest, which was an ethics panel. And anyone that was using AI in our department had to bring their AI use cases and their plans to the panel for us to interrogate and think about it from the perspectives of customers and people like that. So you can do things to try and mitigate the risks and try and stop these things from happening.
It’s not just a black and white, we just have to accept them and we don’t have to accept them. I think as well, there’s a feeling amongst a lot of people perhaps that at the moment it’s hard to see a lot of the upsides. I mean, obviously there are some, clearly, there’s been some wonderful medical stories, for example, but it does feel at the moment like we’re hearing a lot of the bad stuff and it strikes me that a lot of the good stuff is going to be for those people who are involved in the making of these AI programs and companies who are going to get very, very rich presumably and people that have invested in them. But for the everyday person, I mean, if it does result in a loss of jobs, if it does result in more scamming, more hacking, whatever it might be, it strikes me that the everyday person isn’t really getting to see many of the benefits. I think it’s all well and good someone like Sam Altman saying, yeah, you just need to accept some of the negatives when in reality, he’s not the one that is experiencing these negatives. Although I must admit the Gen AI videos that are being made of him and his counterpart Anthropic are hilarious and they are completely taking the mick out of him. They’re really funny.
They’re just ridiculously over-the-top replications of music videos and stuff. Do you remember that somebody I used to know song where they had… Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Where they sing it each other. People have replaced the singers in that with Sam Altman and…
They’re just mocking them and taking them.
Which is actually really fun. And if that was anybody else, I might feel really bad for them, but I absolutely don’t feel bad. So they are getting some of it.
But if I’m honest, with the amount of money they’re making, and they’re on top of the world at the moment. So they’re not being the ones that are impacted. They’re not losing their jobs. In fact, they’re making loads of money and they are arguably kind of ruling all of this and getting a lot from it. And the people that are being impacted are the people on the ground, for lack of a better word. Normal people like me and you, and that’s where the problem is.
And I do agree what he’s saying that we need to accept some risks, but my view is that the people that are accepting the risks need to be the people that are being asked about this. They’re the ones that need to do the accepting, right? If the risk is impacting you, you should be the one that’s accepting the risk.
At the moment, we just kind of don’t really have a choice in that. But also the people that are then saying, yes, okay, I will accept that risk and I understand, should also in equal measures then be the ones that benefit from it when it goes really well. I think that’s where there’s a really big imbalance at the moment. I think the people that are benefiting from it are the people on the top and the CEOs and those people and the people that are being impacted by the things going wrong are the people like you and me.
So absolutely naturally, they would want us to put up with some bad stuff so that all the good stuff and inverted commas can happen.
And the stuff that you can do that I was saying about the ethics panels and those activities and things, that slows things down, it costs money. There’s an AI race going on at the moment. They don’t want to slow things down.
They don’t want to do these things because it isn’t of benefit to them at all. But there are things they can do is the most important thing to understand. They could be doing better with this in my view.
And it feels like there’s a limited number of things that we could be doing.
Exactly. Yeah. I know a lot of people that have just completely said I’m not having anything to do with AI.
Really? Even in your world? I’ve seen a lot of people on Instagram who were originally very pro-AI, that have now had their eyes opened, and now they’re running Instagram accounts that are switched to the opposite, saying I do not use any AI. And I’ve seen it as a bit of a marketing tactic in a lot of places as well, where people are saying, I don’t use AI, I don’t do it. And myself, to an extent, has gone on a bit of a journey with that because I still believe it’s just maths.
Like I’m still of that belief and I still use AI. I use it and I work in AI and I do have lots to do with AI, but I am much more cautious around what I use AI for and thinking about, is this really what I want to do? I try never to default to it.
A bit like we talk about defaulting to just opening Instagram or something. I try to step back and try not to default to just going to stuff. And I think there are people moving that way. We’ve talked about on previous episodes where we, myself and producer James, won’t go to a cafe or a restaurant if it’s got AI-generated food posters because it kind of just… I would rather there was a terrible photo of the meal that I’m about to eat than an AI-generated one because it literally could be anything if it’s AI-generated.
I mean, I don’t even feel like I need to see a photo of the food I’m about to eat. Just give me a description. That’s fine.
I can use my imagination. It’s interesting you say as well about people making this point now about this is not AI. I had an email the other day from someone and it said something along the bottom like, I can’t remember exactly how it was phrased, but it’s basically said not an AI bot or something as part of their sign-off.
I thought that’s really interesting is that people are now making that distinction and pointing out, oh yeah, no, I wrote this not AI, which I find very odd as well. I’ve seen people purposely leave in spelling mistakes and typos and stuff into stuff they’ve written to prove that they’re not AI, because that really overly-polished thing. Yes. I mean, it’s anecdotally, and I’ve just heard people saying that actually, if they have a typo or something now, they like that because it shows that a real human was behind what was created, which is a really interesting perspective to have, purposely making mistakes.
Although, how long until AI is then purposely making mistakes in written pieces to make it look human? So, I don’t know how long that will last, but.
Oh, yeah, going a full circle. Yeah, you probably could prompt that into your writing, couldn’t you? Write an email, make a couple of mistakes, make it look human.
Yeah, that’s really weird. I have seen a great story this week, Fiona, and I think it has led you down a bit of a rabbit hole, hasn’t it? And this is, okay, so for the audience, this is about Italian Brainrot.

Okay. Now, I have to say, this is not something I was familiar with until this story came out, but having spoken to other parents, it is something that’s pretty big amongst Gen Alpha. An Italian Brainrot is basically a load of characters that have been made by AI.
So people have gone in and prompted AI to make these characters, and they’re really weird. They’re like, I don’t know, there’s like a shark that wears trainers, or there’s a crocodile head on a second world war twin propelled bomber plane, and they all have these completely over the top Italian names. So there’s one called Ballerina Cappuccino, I think it’s pronounced Balladina Cappuccino, and it’s like a ballerina with a coffee cup on its head.
So they’re all completely ridiculous. But this has been a big story this week because there’s one particular character, Tung Tung Sahur, I think is the pronunciation, which is like…
Tung Tung Tung Sahur, three names.
Oh, there we go. Sorry. Tung Tung Tung Sahur.
I think it’s also known as Triple T.
So I might just stick to that. And it’s like a Southeast Asian drum, but anthropomorphized. So you…
And it carries this big club, which all sounds completely bizarre as an adult, but apparently kids have gone crazy for it. But as I say, I think you probably now know more about this than I do, Fiona. So take it away with what’s been going on this week.
I went down the biggest rabbit hole. I had zero idea that this existed. So we’re on TikTok at Raising Generation AI, but I’m not really on TikTok.
I don’t really use it other than for our Raising Generation AI stuff, and it’s just full of loads of AI bits. But I went down this TikTok rabbit hole today, trying to find out more about Italian Brainrot on watching these videos. I found this particular one, which is ranking the characters.
And this is the sort of stuff that kids are watching.
Tralalalo Tralala is A tier. His shoes are fire, but in combat, he doesn’t quite match his rival, Bombardio Crocodillo, D tier. This dude is way too overrated just because he’s powerful. Bombardio Crocodillo never had to work for any of his strength, unlike Tung Tung Tung Sahur, who easily gets S tier. Not only does he have the hardest name, the coldest baseball bat, but those who know his backstory understand his pain. He carries the baseball bat of his dead father, defending the village from invaders such as Chimpanzee Bambanini, F tier.
After murdering the forest oracle Berber Parapim, God rest his soul, Chimpanzee Bambanini aimlessly roams the forest seeking power. And finally, Larry Lee Lalala gets S tier because he’s cool.
I didn’t understand about 50% of that, but yeah.
Honestly, right, so just imagine me sitting on my sofa, just scrolling through this, I mean like, what is going on? I had to go and watch the videos because the article you sent me, I read it and I think it was The Guardian. It wasn’t some bizarre buzzfeed-y style thing.
Like it was a proper publication. And I genuinely read it and was like, I don’t understand these words. What I love about that is now, you know, your feed is just going to be full from now on of Italian Brainrot. This is going to be what your algorithm is now. It’s going to be AI, Italian Brainrot.
That is you, that is you done now forever.
Honestly, it’s mad. Thankfully, I don’t use TikTok, so it can feed into my algorithm. As long as it doesn’t get onto my Instagram, I don’t, oh gosh.
To give you a bit more of an idea of what happens here, basically these characters have been created with AI. So they’ve been created on software like Dali, which is like the ChatGPT image generator, those kinds of things, not necessarily just Dali, but all of the different ones. And Tung Tung Tung Sahur is the one that’s the center of all of this stuff going on.
He’s that wooden drum that you mentioned. And he was created by an Indonesian kid known as Noxa. And it was actually February last year, so it was quite a while ago now. But he was made with just seven prompts, so that’s seven messages into AI, and took about 15 minutes and did use Dali, which is the OpenAI’s image tool. And the video went mad on TikTok. There were over 31 million views, right?
To give you a bit of a sense of the scale of this. And what happens with these is they create these videos, and there’s this over-the-top computer voice that reads out the Italian sounding names. And then kids pick up on that, and then they create their own creation on top of that character in that original video.
And then that one will be taken and someone else will create another video. So these, although this original character was created by Noxer, there are so many, and I don’t even want to guess how many, videos made off the back, and it’s kind of creation on creation on creation, made by your kids, not yours specifically, but people listening. Your kids will no doubt have made or at least been watching these. And the characters interact with each other. It’s almost a bit like today’s fan fiction. So you know how when we were younger, and people were writing stories about their favourite pop stars or their favourite characters from books, and like making their own stories up.
That’s sort of what this is. They kind of make their own creations here, and the characters interact, and they’ll be getting married in one person’s story, and they’ll be fighting in another person’s story. And it’s just this whole creative world of content on top of content.
So why has this all become a big talking point now?
It’s been going on for a little while now, back in May 2025, on Roblox. So everyone’s heard of Roblox. If you’re a parent, you’ve heard of Roblox.
And what Roblox is, is it’s for anyone like me, who is less knowledgeable about children’s things. Roblox is kind of a gaming platform, and you can create games and create worlds on Roblox that other people then come and play in, and it’s designed for kids. It’s exactly that. Children are designing games, building games, and then other kids are going and playing and joining in these games. And there was a game made on Roblox called Stealer Brainrot. And it basically involved exactly that, stealing brainrot.
So it’s finding these characters and stealing them and whatever. Anyway, it was massive. At one point, there were about 25 million players of this game, right?
I just want to like really put out there the scale of what was going on. So then there was a company that basically on behalf of the guy that created Tung Tung Tung Sahur or Triple T, a French company representing him basically said to Dubig Studios and Roblox, you can’t do this. You don’t have the rights for this.
And demanded that they took it down. And they did that. They took it down.
But then a little bit later, they decide to put the character back without permission. And this is where it all started because their argument was that because it was created Regenerative AI, there is no copyright. So they are well within their rights to use this character within this game. And if I’m honest, copyright law is kind of on their side to an extent because there has to be this human creator behind it. And so when you create something with Generative AI, are you creating it? That is the question.
And we’ve talked before about, in terms of the AI companies themselves, they don’t claim any copyright over anything created, do they? So it’s a question of whether you as the person that prompted have the copyright or whether there is no copyright and anyone can use the staff. It’s like, I don’t know, publicly owned, a bit like Greensleeves or something of that ilk.
Is that right? It’s one of those two things.
The companies that own the platforms don’t claim any rights to what you create. They don’t take it further than that in their privacy laws and their rules. Gemini especially says that you can’t be sure that what you’re creating hasn’t been created by someone else using the tools.
So they don’t go as far as being really explicit that it is your copyright. Like none of them say your copyright. They just stay out of the conversation and don’t get involved. But actually in the UK, it’s a little bit different because the UK has had a rule since 1988, ages ago, given that GenAI is so new. But it says that computer generated works with no human author, the copyright goes to the person who made the arrangements for the work to be created. So in the UK, there is a bit of a gray area, but actually the government said in March that they’re going to scrap that rule.
So it’s still very big and unknown. Whether they do or not, they’ve just said that they’re going to. But there have been times in history where something like this has happened and the laws haven’t been able to do anything about it.
And it looks like this Tung Tung Tung Sahur is going to be the thing that sets the precedent. So we won’t dig into all of the details of the court stuff because we don’t want to send everyone to sleep. But essentially what’s happening is there’s the creator of Tung Tung Tung Tung Sahur. And the people representing him are fighting the people that have made the game in Roblox. And it’s a bit of a back and forth. And even I, through reading it hundreds of times, couldn’t quite get my head around the counter suing and the appeals and all of that.
But there’s a big fight between them all, right? And no one knows exactly where this is going to land. Currently there’s no court that has made any kind of final ruling.
It’s all happening in the US, the UK law doesn’t really apply anyway.
Okay, but it’s going to be a really interesting test case to see where this comes down. Because I suppose there’s various layers to this, aren’t there? Because as you said, there’s nothing to stop someone else creating the same thing as you’ve created.
Although I believe no one has been able to recreate Tung Tung Sahur. Because all these people try and go back and write the prompts to see if they can create it themselves and no one’s been able to. But there is that. You could have someone, I suppose, create the same thing using AI. But also, as we know, AI has been trained on so many artists’ work. And so it will be drawing from other artists’ work in order to create this thing.
But then you could say, I suppose, the artists themselves will be using other artists as inspiration for their work too. So it’s a really, really gray area. I’ve seen people selling AI art.
I’ve seen people selling AI books. How does that work with all of this?
It’s the same. There’s nothing to stop you painting your own pictures of Mickey Mouse and selling them. You might then get done for copyright, but Disney would have to basically say, hey, that’s copyright and then contact you and sort it out. So if you just generate a book of pictures and put it up for sale on Amazon or wherever, then someone would have to see your book, see the pictures you’ve created and then raise a copyright claim against you and have evidence to be able to do that, which is unlikely. The difference with just creating a load of pictures is you’re not really creating a brand. You’re not creating a very specific.
This is a character that’s now very marketable, and they want to be able to sell Halloween costumes, very topical. There’s a film coming out. A Brainrot film coming out apparently, which I was listening to another podcast about this topic.
They were having the best time laughing at the fact that it takes them like two years to make a film. By then, this is going to be old news, so rubbish, no one’s going to want to watch it.
That’s so true, isn’t it? Two years in the kids’ life is such a long time. Exactly. The kids that were interested in it have grown up and they’re interested in other things now. But when it’s on the internet and they’re just creating off the back of each other’s and stuff like that, that’s fine and actually there isn’t any money to be made.
It’s what it is. It’s this wonderful creative environment where people could just get involved and feel part of this community and have a lot of fun. But where it starts to show up in the courts and things like that is when then can be money to be made.
And generally, it’s not the original generation that are probably the gen alphas that are probably there trying to make money off of this. This is other people that have looked and gone, I think there’s a cash cow in here. They’re going to try and sell the rights to this and make money for various characters.
And one of them is this Tung Tung Tung Sahur is going to turn up in Fortnite as a skin soon. And I believe that was a properly arranged financial contract. But again, who gets that? That’s where it starts getting really complicated. And I have a question for you. Your kids are very young at the moment.
So I suspect they’re not doing this yet. But how would you feel if your son or daughter had created a character that had gone viral and was doing really, really well? When I say doing really well, reaching millions of people and being loved and appreciated.
And then someone came in and capitalised on that and your children didn’t see anything from it. But all they did was type some prompts into GenAI. Like, where would you feel and stand on that?
It’s so difficult, isn’t it? I feel for this Indonesian kid who has created this thing, I mean, he has created it, even if not created in the traditional sense that we might think of it. And it’s gone hugely viral.
There are people making loads of money out of it. It feels very unfair. I mean, I don’t know, this kid might have made, it sounds like he probably has made some money himself, if he’s now represented by this agency and they’ve arranged some deals for him. But it does feel wildly unfair if other people are making the money, the people who are already in a position to make things marketable and make things available to people in a more commercial way, compared to a kid in Indonesia. It does feel unfair, but at the same time, it doesn’t feel to me like creativity as we would have thought about it five years ago. I mean, obviously, if someone drew a picture or painted a picture, it would be, well, it would be illegal, wouldn’t it, to recreate it without their permission, if it was copyrighted to them.
And that feels exactly right. But I don’t have an answer to this. I can kind of see both sides of the coin.
How do you feel?
I mean, there have been things throughout history, the podcast that I was listening to, The Rest Is Entertainment, that was talking about this, talk about this in much greater detail than I do. But they referenced the punk era and creating that music and it being part of that community. And then it became marketable and people swooped in and made a whole load of money. What I don’t think is that this is particularly unprecedented. I think this has happened at various stages throughout time where the people of that generation have fought for independence of their own creativity and have done things in a completely new and different way. And then eventually someone’s come along and gone, we can make money out of this and then lifted it out of their hands.
And I think that’s what’s happening here. And I, regardless of whether it’s made by GenAI or made by an individual, I don’t really like that it’s being taken out of the hands that have created it. I’m going to use that word.
It’ll be fascinating to see how this all unfolds, which side they come down on, how long it will all take to make this decision, because it is clearly very grey. This is not black and white at all.
It’ll impact so much more than just Italian Brainrot. It will be what sets a precedent, I would imagine, for things like generating novels and all of that stuff. I think it’s going to be a really monumental moment when this happens that will impact so many things. Even if you’ve never heard of Italian Brainrot, and you don’t really care about the silly characters.
You never want to hear of it again. I think you’re going to be creating your own.
I wouldn’t know where to start, which is a mad thing to admit because I’m supposed to be the AI expert. I honestly do know a lot about AI, I promise.
But you couldn’t do something that an eight-year-old can.
How do you take a video from TikTok? Is there some special thing within TikTok that I’m completely unaware?
All you need to do is you need to go to, is it Dali? Is it called the OpenAI Image Tour Dali? You need to go to Dali, just write some, make a frog with a tennis racket for a leg or something.
Call it something mad and send out into the universe. Then I think the youngsters will just do it for you. They’ll just become part of the world of Italian Brainrot.
Give it a go, Fiona. Let me know how it goes. Report back for next week. We’re not here next week, thank God. We’re going to save everyone from that. Oh, darn.

Right, I’m going to wrap this up by asking you a question that we’ve had in this week, and it’s come in from Sarah in the New Forest, and she says, My daughter was really into character AI a couple of years ago. She chatted to the characters most evenings. They stopped under 18 chatting on it last year, but she’s still got the account, and all of her old chats are still on there.
I’ve just read the company’s gone bankrupt and is being sold. What happens to everything she typed into it, and is there anything I should do?
Very good question. Yes, there is something you should do. For those of you who don’t know what character AI is, it’s an app where you chat to AI characters.
You can make them up yourself, or you can chat to other people’s characters that they’ve made. Sometimes they’re versions of famous people, or they’re just completely fictional characters. It was really, really popular with teenagers when it first came out. But then last November, they did stop under-18s having open-ended chats on it. You’re absolutely right. This week, the company filed for bankruptcy in America, and it’s being sold off through the courts.
At the moment, Disney is the only one that’s put in a bid, and what they’re bidding on is the technology, the character creation elements of this technology, but they’re not interested in any user data. But even if Disney win the bid, there might be a separate bid for the rest of the assets, shall we say. It’s a little bit gray around exactly what that means, but ultimately, that could very much mean the conversations that your kids have been having with these.
My recommendation is that you delete your child’s account with them, and then you can thankfully, with UK Data Protection Law, you can email privacy at character.ai and ask for your child’s data to be deleted. If you specify under UK Data Protection Law, they should action that. It’s not a silver bullet.
You’re not definitely all completely safe, but that’s the step that you can take, and there’s no reason not to do that really. That feels so weird to me, that conversations are being treated as a business asset. I suppose you sort of, if you think about it logically, know that a company owns your conversations, your child’s conversations with a bot, but it feels really odd to think of those conversations as being bought and sold. It also goes to show the value in that data, to show those conversations to certain companies, which again feels a little bit uncomfortable to me.
You’re right. And if you had the default settings set for Character AI, then your conversations can be used for training future models. And so all of that conversation data is very valuable.
If you had that setting turned off and that’s within the terms, then they shouldn’t be selling your conversations for that reason, because even the people that buy it still have to abide by the terms. But did you read the terms when you sign up for anything? No one reads the terms when anyone signs up for anything.
So goodness knows what those terms say. And they can be sold as assets through the court as well. And we’ve had the conversation before as well. The problem with these chatbots especially is because they feel so private, so intimate and especially for Character AI, where the whole premise of this was this real sort of companionship stuff. It kind of encourages that sharing of intimate details of your life because it’s not being posted publicly. And so who knows what conversations are that kids have had in these apps.
I suppose there’s another element to this as well. I mean, I know Under 18 shouldn’t be using the app at all now, but I’m sure there are kids on there still, and there’ll be adults on there as well, obviously. I guess they’re just going to now have those companions taken away from them.
And there might be people out there who are quite attached to these AI characters and companions. Yeah, whatever you think about AI companions as a moral, ethical situation, people do build relationships and reliances on these kinds of things and to have them taken away, especially where people have spent hours and hours and hours, sometimes every day, talking to these companions and friends, some people will call them. It’s not just children, it’s vulnerable adults as well that might feel that way. And so just taking it away and it just being gone, it could have an impact.
So I do think as well, it’s worth having a conversation with your child about it, because just deleting their account and it being gone, it’s like taking away their favourite toy. Like that even to an extent would be somewhat upsetting. They maybe haven’t got the understanding or the experience to just be fine with that and understand that that’s just what’s happened.
So there might be some bits there and they shouldn’t have been on them. So just to pick up on that point as well, they shouldn’t have been on it because officially since November last year, under-18s weren’t supposed to be having open-ended chats on it. But before November last year, they could. It was open to over-13s. And it’s one of those apps again that just, you put your date of birth in when you sign up, but you can lie, obviously. And then if you have lied, it just does that age-guessing or age-inferencing where it tries to understand from your behaviours.
So if you’re having quite adult conversations or there’s adult patterns to your conversations, not necessarily that the content is adult, but the way that you’re behaving is less similar to a child, then it wouldn’t pick up on the fact that you’re a child. And so your child may still have been using this app. So I do think it’s something that needs to be taken quite sensitively with the kids, but I would make it quite a priority to try and get that data deleted because the sale is supposedly moving quite fast.
We could see it as early as November.
And we’ll put all that information in the podcast show notes as well. If you want to read more about it, it will all be there. And whilst you’re there, do hit the subscribe button. Thanks so much. There’s no show next week, half term.
Yes, that’s right. So we will be off for a couple of weeks, but we will see you just after Halloween.