But her concerns increased following an abusive relationship with a partner, who later stalked her.

Although police intervened, she left the UK and also scaled back her online profile.

“I erased my online presence as much as I possibly could, including removing the locations of some posts, and a couple of Instagram accounts,” says Ms Smith, whose name has been changed for this article.

Ms Smith, who works in communications, still has a LinkedIn account but doesn’t use her full name.

“I deleted quite a few things off my LinkedIn too, lots of things that were location based, although a few posts do remain.

“I have posted recently as I’m trying to build a brand although I’m sceptical as to how much I share.”

She has kept an original private Facebook account: “I cleanse it once a year, and check on photos and privacy of posts and where I have been tagged.”

Ms Smith has also become more aware of the terms and conditions of social media platforms.

“I follow AI trends and I know a lot of images are training AI models and we don’t have ethical guidelines on how they can be used. That’s another massive factor why I will never put my child on social media as the images can be used for whatever want.”

As scams become more sophisticated, research suggests that more people are concerned about the information they share online.

In a report by Statista, 39% of respondents said they were worried about how companies use their online data, while a quarter (26%) admitted to using a VPN.

There are a number of reasons why people might want to reduce their online profiles.

“First of all, people underappreciate privacy,” says Vytautas Kaziukonis, chief executive at Surfshark, a security software company that encrypts user’s online data and aims to make browsing secure.

“What might be innocent information right now might be bring you into difficulties 10 years down the line, for example, if there’s a change of laws, or political environment.”

Another issue is the explosion of AI, says Mr Kaziukonis.

“Fraud is getting better and better, and one thing that is essential for all scams is having data,” he says.

AI is getting to the stage where it can impersonate people close to you. Add to that ability any personal information shared online, then you have a “deadly combination”, says Mr Kaziukonis.

Also, information shared online about us is collected by data brokers and sold to advertisers.

Mr Kaziukonis says the information is also available to scammers. “It’s the Wild West out there,” he says.

So what can we do to minimise our footprints?

Firstly, it’s important to think about how much information you share online.

“Don’t share your home address anywhere, for example, accidently filming a video with a laptop in the background that has sensitive information on, and when you go online shopping don’t add all details to every random website, for example, your date of birth,” says Mr Kaziukonis.

“It could be leaked and used against you.” He also advises using a different email address for websites that you sign up to. “That limits the spamming.”

It’s worth remembering that under data protection law, you have the right to ask a company what data they hold on you, and request that it is deleted.

“They have to comply as otherwise they can receive huge fines,” says Mr Kaziukonis.

Gus Hosein, executive director at charity Privacy International, recommends several ways to reduce your digital footprint.

He suggests using a VPN (virtual private network) which, for a price, offers a user more privacy when online.

He also recommends cookie-blockers and selecting web browsers with privacy controls.

“The underlying solution remains that we must keep the pressure on our governments to have strong laws to protect everyone,” Mr Hosein says.

Karen Renaud is a computing scientist at the University of Strathclyde working on security and privacy.

Last year she studied 15 privacy policy documents, which lay out what a company is going to do with your data.

She found that the most complicated of them would take 32 minutes to read and would require college-level education to understand.

“The situation is pretty dire,” she says.

She advises it’s a good idea to clear out the cookies on your browser from time to time, and reduce the cookies you accept.

“Also, you can stop some tracking. Google, for example, makes it possible to prevent tracking of your searches.”

Some people turn to services such as DeleteMe and Surfshark, which help remove personal information from data brokers.

Amanda Unterreiner, product manager at US-based data removal service DeleteMe, says high-profile individuals like video gamers and judges use their service as a safety measure.

“In the case of judges… because if they’re announcing some decision, someone might show up at their house.”

She also mentions the case of the killing earlier last year of United Healthcare chief executive Brian Thompson.

“Stories like that kind of spark regular people to think I better get protected.”

Ms Unterreiner went through the process of having her data removed when she joined the company.

“You could see every other place I had ever lived, every phone number I’ve ever had, every email address, on the first page of Google. If someone wanted to steal my identity… they would be able to cause some real personal damage.”

The company also offers a service to mask your house on Google Maps.

“You can look at street view, but that particular property will just be kind of very pixelated.”

There’s multiple reasons why Saam Collingwood, who lives near Stratford-upon-Avon, has cut back her online profile over the years.

The first was following an incident at work where she had included her personal Facebook account on an email to a client and her employer was unhappy.

“They were able to see photos from a night out,” she says. “That didn’t go down too well.”

In another incident she was trolled by a stranger online after posting a video of herself learning a dance routine on YouTube.

Plus, rising online fraud convinced her to further reduce her online profile.

She hasn’t completely erased her online presence but she no longer posts regularly on Facebook, reducing it about twice a year.

“I don’t like it when people tag me, people knowing I’m not at home. Most times I remove the tag.”

She says she has upgraded her anti-virus and security software with a service from online security firm Norton.

“I wanted to make sure websites weren’t taking my details. It makes me more comfortable.”

But are there any downsides to not being so present online?

“I miss seeing old friends [on Facebook] and people I would contact once or twice year,” says Ms Smith.

Mr Kaziukonis says it’s common to hear people say they don’t care about privacy but he believes this is a flawed argument.

“They say I have nothing to hide. But would they mind sharing every single email they have sent? We have curtains at home, we want to feel private. It’s human nature.”

It comes as Australia plans to implement a total social media ban for under-16s that is expected by the end of this year.

The country’s internet regulator, eSafety, found YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat were the most popular platforms used by young children.

The regulator accused the apps of “a lack of robust interventions” for checking the ages of their users.

The platforms which were examined for the study were Discord, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch and YouTube.

Users of all of these platforms must be 13 and over to have an account, though there are some exceptions.

For example, YouTube has Family Link – when an account is accessible for children under the age of 13 under the supervision of a guardian – and the separate app YouTube Kids, which is specifically made for children.

In the report, usage of YouTube Kids was not included for this reason.

It has been reported that YouTube is likely to be spared from the social media ban when it comes into force.

“The findings of this report will be a helpful input to guide next steps,” said eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant.

Australia’s robust stance on social media for young people is being keenly watched by the rest of the world – including the UK which has not ruled out copying its ban for young users.

In its responses to the study, TikTok and Meta – the parent company of Facebook and Instagram – took the opportunity to criticise the Australian authorities over its stance on YouTube. “This report again shines a spotlight on the government’s decision to give an exclusive carve out to the most popular social media platform for young Australians from the under 16 ban,” said a TikTok spokesperson.

“Australian parents and guardians have a right to know what evidence, if any, supports the government’s decision.”

A Meta spokesperson said they believed the best way to ensure age verification was for a user’s real age to be determined when first using a device’s operating system and its app store, which would then be able to subsequently signal a user’s age to all the social media companies.

Researchers questioned over 1,500 children across Australia aged between eight and 15 about their usage of social media and messaging platforms.

They found 84% of the children aged between eight and 12 who were surveyed had used at least one social media or messaging service since the beginning of last year. Over half of them used it via the account of a parent or carer.

Staying with that age bracket, a third of the children who had used social media or messaging services had their own account, and 80% of them had help setting up their account/accounts from a parent or carer.

The study also found only 13% of children who had an account had them shut down by the social media companies or messaging services for being under the age of 13.

If you take YouTube out of the findings entirely, the report found 44% of children aged eight to 12 who were surveyed had used at least one other social media platform last year.

“These findings indicate there is inconsistency across industry regarding the steps taken to assess the age of end-users at various points in the user experience,” the report’s authors said.

“However, there is one thing they have in common: a lack of robust interventions at the point of account sign-up to a service to prevent someone under 13 from providing a false age or birthdate to set up an account.”

The regulator’s report also surveyed the platforms themselves, which were asked how they verify the ages of younger users.

Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch and YouTube told the authors they deployed tools and technology to detect whether a user may be under the age of 13 once they were using the service.

“Proactive tools and technologies may rely on a user actively engaging with a service (such as connecting with others, communicating with others, sharing and creating content) to detect relevant signals,” the report said.

“This may require time and engagement to detect a child under 13, and in that time the child may be exposed to risks and harms.”

“I make more in an hour going live, than a day spent in the shop,” she said.

A boom in online sales prompted Ms Mallows’ decision to close her flagship beauty store in Cardiff, instead selling her company’s body scrubs and skincare through TikTok’s live shopping stream.

But since the popularity of her products surged and hit the shelves in Superdrug and Boots, she is now pursuing her “dream” of opening a real-world shop once more.

Selling on TikTok requires a good product and a personality that attracts buyers to watch live as orders are packed on camera.

The social media platform, which plays host to more than 6,000 live shopping sessions every day, fulfills orders on behalf of sellers.

Anyone using the platform can access training and guides to help them join some of the 200,000 small and medium-sized businesses who are already there.

A small room, decorated for a TikTok audience, allows the team behind Mallows Beauty to sell products directly from their office in Llantrisant, south Wales.

“The progress has been wild,” said Ms Mallows.

It’s a process that also attracts instant feedback.

“People will definitely tell me if they think we’re doing something right or doing something wrong.

“And I think the big deal for me is that we’re just in this little office in Wales, and you don’t realise the impact.

“I’ll post videos thinking I’m just posting videos to my friends, and I don’t really think about it – not until you get recognized in New York, and people come up to you and ask for your selfies.

But despite so many people turning to this new way of buying, the UK’s high streets showed a surprising surge in shoppers last month.

Footfall increased by 6.6% in January compared to the same month in 2024, according to the British Retail Consortium.

It poses a dilemma for sellers like Ms Mallows, 33, who thrive online but also want a slice of real-world shoppers.

Ms Mallows is now once again focussed on opening her own shop.

While her business has boomed on TikTok, the platform has strict rules which prevent sellers from pointing to other platforms and some products are restricted.

Sellers say some words are banned and alluding to a personal website can lead to accounts being suspended.

The ambition to straddle both social media sales and the high street is being watched closely by the British Retail Consortium.

Its Welsh spokesperson, Sara Jones, said 2025 would be the year of “smart shopping” by consumers.

“We’re going to see both clicks and bricks,” she said, with “digital, online and in-store shopping experiences” being offered to shoppers.

“Those retailers that are going to do really well this year are going to be the ones that harness digital technology to encourage people back both to the high street, but alongside their online offering.”

Others are turning to platforms like TikTok shop to sell direct to customers after growth slowed through their existing online and high street outlets.

“It has doubled our sales,” said Shoned Owen, whose fake tan products Tanya Whitebits proved popular since she started selling them live online.

“I think people are craving live content. I attended a workshop in 2024 and it was predicted that live content was going to explode on TikTok during 2025.

“I thought, I’ve got to jump on this trend.”

As well as doubling her sales over the course of the year, Ms Owen said she had to “familiarise” herself with the rules of selling on TikTok.

There are “certain keywords you can’t use, you can’t direct them to your website or other sales channels”, she said, and “you can’t vape, you can’t smoke, there’s no nudity on TikTok”.

Ms Owen still sells through high street shops, and wants to recruit staff to help promote her online sales.

“My long term plan is that I’m looking at recruiting staff,” she said.

“Hopefully there will be employment opportunities for local people, because obviously they’ll have to be local to work in in the TikTok shop – and to do a live.”

TikTok said its live shopping was “like an extension of the brilliance of brick and mortar stores”.

“Through live shopping and shoppable content, TikTok shop allows their products to be discovered by millions and for them to create communities based on human connection in a way that no other online platform can,” said the head of TikTok Shop, Jan Wilk.

He said the platform had a “positive impact on the high street at large” as a “halo effect” often touched businesses who found that products trending on TikTok then became popular in high street stores.

Lewis Stevenson, who lived in West Hallam in Derbyshire, fell from Castilla La Mancha bridge, outside the city of Talavera de la Reina, on 13 October.

Derby Coroner’s Court heard the 26-year-old’s cause of his death was blunt force head injuries and uncontrolled descent from a height.

The inquest was opened and adjourned on Tuesday by assistant coroner Sabyta Kaushal.

The court heard Mr Stevenson was a graphic and print designer who was born in Derby.His body was identified by his mother Keilia Stevenson.

Miss Kaushal said: “The inquest will now be adjourned for further investigations to be concluded.”

The hearing was also told police have filed for a toxicology report, which could take nine to 12 months.

His mother previously paid tribute to him, saying how proud she was of him.”He was a thrill-seeker who loved to travel and have new experiences,” she said.

A statement from Macarena Muñoz, a councillor on Talavera council, said Mr Stevenson and a 24-year-old man – who was with him when he fell to his death – had “come to Talavera to climb the bridge and create content for social networks”.She described it as an “unfortunate and sad outcome”.She added it was “totally prohibited” to climb the bridge, describing it as something “which we have reiterated on many occasions cannot be done under any circumstances”.

Such films had gained millions of views and attracted misogynistic comments, which led to a police inquiry.

The videos on TikTok, Youtube and Instagram, often titled Manchester nightlife or Liverpool nightlife, were uploaded daily.

A 27-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of stalking and harassment in Bradford earlier and is being questioned in police custody.

Greater Manchester Police said many women who had been impacted by such videos had come forward following a public appeal.

One of the women filmed said that she was recorded walking along Deansgate in Manchester.

The 23-year-old said she had not realised she had been filmed until she was sent a link to one of the videos.

“I have no words really other than it just made me feel a bit sick,” she said.

The force said: “We’ve arrested a 27-year-old man from Bradford on suspicion of stalking and harassment, in connection with several reports of women being followed, filmed, and harassed in Manchester City Centre.

“This arrest is thought to be the first in the country linked with several viral videos on social media platforms appearing to have filmed women on nights out, some whilst in vulnerable positions.”

GMP said officers had found other content “locked under paywalled accounts which included footage of suspected non-consensual nudity and upskirting” in the course of the investigation.

Ch Insp Stephen Wiggins said: “Filming in public is legal, however where this filming crosses the line into offences such as upskirting, stalking or harassment, it’s important that we don’t allow that behaviour.”

He added: “Everyone has the right to feel safe as they enjoy a night out, and these videos have made people, particularly women, not feel like that, which we can’t tolerate.”

“LinkedIn simply does not have content interesting and appealing to minors,” the Microsoft-owned company said in a submission to an Australian senate committee.

The Australian government has said it will introduce “world-leading” legislation to stop children accessing social media platforms.

But companies behind some of the most popular platforms with young people – Meta, Google, Snapchat-owner Snap Inc and TikTok – have all challenged the planned law in submissions made to lawmakers.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said the proposed law is to address the harm social media was inflicting on Australian children.

He said it was for “the mums and dads” who like him were “worried sick about the safety of our kids online.”

Other countries are closely watching what happens with the legislation with some – including the UK – saying they are open to following suit.

Australia’s Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee gave respondents one day to comment on the bill, which would amend its existing Online Safety Act.

Its report to the Senate concludes the bill should pass – providing its recommendations, such as engaging young people in the legislation’s implementation, are considered.

However, in their responses, the world’s biggest tech firms have been setting out why they are unhappy with the proposed law.Google – which owns YouTube – and Instagram-parent Meta have said they needed more time to consider the legislation.

Meta said its current form “will fail to achieve its goal of reducing the burden on parents to manage the safety of young people on social media”.

It also claimed it “ignores the evidence” presented by child safety and mental health experts – a view shared by Snapchat in its own submission.

X (formerly Twitter), meanwhile questioned the legality of the bill’s proposals.

TikTok Australia said it had “significant concerns” with the bill as proposed.

Like other platforms commenting on the legislation, it said it “hinges” on an ongoing age assurance trial looking at technologies that can effectively check user age.

Ella Woods-Joyce, director of public policy for TikTok Australia and New Zealand, wrote in the company’s submission that the bill’s “rushed passage poses a serious risk of further unintended consequences”.

But LinkedIn has adopted a different approach – arguing in its submission that is a platform which is simply not of any interest to children.

Its minimum age requirement of 16 means they cannot access it, the company said, adding it removes child accounts when found.

If LinkedIn can successfully argue it should not be included in the legislation it will potentially avoid the cost and disruption involved it introducing additional age verification processes to the site.

“Subjecting LinkedIn’s platform to regulation under the proposed legislation would create unnecessary barriers and costs for LinkedIn’s members in Australia to undertake age assurance,” it said.

The Australian government has said it wants to bring in the legislation before the end of the parliamentary year.

But experts have said the bill’s timeframe and current composition fails to provide an opportunity for adequate scrutiny.

Carly Kind, the country’s privacy commissioner, said in a LinkedIn post on Monday after appearing at a public Senate hearing that she was concerned by “the widespread privacy implications of a social media ban”.

Human rights commissioner Lorraine Findlay called the one-day window for submissions of responses to the legislation “entirely inadequate” in a LinkedIn post on Thursday.

“We need actual consultation, not just the appearance of it,” she said.Nonetheless, the Australian government’s plans have sparked interest elsewhere.

In the UK, the technology secretary, Peter Kyle said that this month that similar legislation was “on the table.”

France has already introduced legislation requiring social media platforms to block access to children under 15 without parental consent- though research indicates almost half of users were able to circumvent the ban using a simple VPN.