After the tricky 'scaly mermaid skin' of the previous episode, Episode 16 will bring new challenges for Dr Sandra Lee

The nefarious potential of digital technology has never been of greater concern. Artificial intelligence is already outsmarting us, and doxxing and deepfake are now firmly part of the common lexicon, so it’s no wonder we live in fear of what lies ahead for our kids. We already lament that young people live their lives as much on social media as they do in the real world, but to what extent can we blame these platforms for everyday mistakes and, even, tragedies? To answer that question, we must turn to two words which strike fear in the hearts of parents around the world. They are: “TikTok” and “challenge”. Sign up for our free Indy100 weekly newsletter To the uninitiated, trends and challenges are the lifeblood of the video-sharing app. What began as a lighthearted stage for lip-syncing and dance routines (originally called Musical.ly), is now a hive of endless hashtags, each one encouraging a new stunt or craze. TikTok’s algorithm is a formidable and unpredictable beast, with the power to propel content creators to global stardom and seven-figure earnings and churn out entire new brands. But while most of us can forgive the platform for inviting pink sauce and Charli d’Amelio into our homes, we will not forget its more sinister capabilities. Indeed, mums and dads not only have to contend with the influence of certain notorious brainwashers, but they also face the prospect of losing their child to a dangerous prank – all for the sake of a few likes and the fleeting respect of their peers. A number of serious injuries and deaths have now been attributed to misguided attempts at “trends” on the app, with the so-called “blackout challenge” alone deemed culpable for the deaths of at least 20 children aged 14 or under in the past two years, a Bloomberg Businessweek investigation found. Archie Battersbee, 12, was widely reported to have taken part in the self-choking craze before he was found unconscious by his mother back in 2022. He’d suffered a catastrophic brain injury and died four months later. Then, in April this year, 13-year-old Jacob Stevens passed away in hospital six days after taking on the “Benedryl challenge,” according to his grieving dad. And less than a month ago, 16-year-old Mason Dark was left “unrecognisable” with burns after creating a makeshift blowtorch as part of an alleged TikTok stunt. Yet, there is scant, if any, proof that the platform had any part in fuelling the tragedies suffered by each of these particular kids. In the case of Archie, an inquest found that there was “no evidence” to back up his mum’s fear that he’d been doing the blackout challenge. A police report concluded that the 12-year-old had accessed TikTok on his mobile phone on the day of his fatal accident, but officers had been unable to pinpoint exactly what he’d been watching. However, photos and videos downloaded from the device offered no indication that he’d expressed interest in any auto-asphyxiation material. Similarly, TikTok took centre stage in reports on Jacob’s death, but a spokesperson for the company told indy100: "We have never seen this type of content (meaning the Benadryl challenge) trend on our platform and have blocked searches for years to help discourage copycat behaviour.” And although it was almost universally reported that a "TikTok challenge" had inspired Mason to created his near-lethal flamethrower, no outlets were able to provide any details on this. Could it be that he got the idea from another source or platform? Indeed, YouTube hosts numerous make-your-own blowtorch videos, some of which date back a number of years –meaning many of these fad projects were around before TikTok even existed. Still, although TikTok claims that it carefully monitors hashtags so that it can block potentially damaging content, a quick search of “flamethrower challenge” by indy100 yielded at least five examples of creators brandishing dangerous homemade devices. Admittedly one of these was captioned: “Don’t try this at home,” but doesn’t that sound like a challenge in itself? Social media companies are under mounting pressure to protect their young users from online harms and to better enforce age restrictions. And yet, even with the employment of increasingly sophisticated AI and tens of thousands of human moderators, they seem to constantly fall short in their duties. Yet, just look at recent headlines and it’s clear that TikTok seems to be shouldering most of the blame. Perhaps this is because it is the platform of choice among the very young and impressionable – it’s the most popular app in the US, used by almost 70 per cent of 13 to 17-year-olds, according to one survey. But perhaps it’s also because TikTok’s biggest rival launched a major campaign to tarnish its reputation last year, and it's still suffering the repercussions. Meta hired one of the most influential Republican consulting firms in the US to turn the public against the platform, driving home the idea that the app was a danger to American kids and society. The firm, Targeted Victory, used a nationwide media and lobbying push to spread the message that TikTok was a “threat”, according to leaked emails seen by the Washington Post. Among its tactics was to promote dubious stories about alleged “TikTok trends” that, in fact, originated on Facebook, the paper noted. In another email, a staffer for Targeted Victory asked one of the company’s partners: “Any local examples of bad TikTok trends/stories in your markets? [The] dream would be to get stories with headlines like ‘From dances to danger: how TikTok has become the most harmful social media space for kids’”. Following the Post’s investigation, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone defended the campaign saying: “We believe all platforms, including TikTok, should face a level of scrutiny consistent with their growing success.” TikTok responded by saying it was “deeply concerned” about “the stoking of local media reports on alleged trends that have not been found on the platform.” And yet, for all its protestations of innocence when it comes to the housing of high-risk content, TikTok was essentially the architect of its own problems. Back in 2016, Alex Zhu – the co-founder of what was then Musical.ly – boasted that his app was different to its competitors thanks to its promotion of "daily challenges". Every day, the company set users a new task – whether that be a dance routine or a weight-lifting mission – each of which typically spawned more than one million videos, according to Bloomberg. When Musical.ly was bought by Bejing-based platform ByteDance in 2017, and the two merged to become TikTok, the challenges came with it. These trends struck a particular chord with teens stuck at home during the first wave of the Covid pandemic, and so TikTok staff did everything they could to boost interest, for example, by getting influencers to encourage involvement. When more and more dangerous crazes started to crop up (remember the “milk crate challenge”?), TikTok established a “harm spectrum” to help its moderators decide what should be removed, Eric Han, the company’s US head of safety told Bloomberg. Nevertheless, children may be naive but they’re not stupid, and they soon found ways to circumvent the filters and restrictions. Participants adopted new names and hashtags for the dares, in some cases using deliberate typos or code names to signpost their content. The challenges were also carried over to different platforms, infesting social media as a whole with the weird, whacky and outright life-threatening. And so, we come back to our original question: to what extent can we blame these platforms – and, more specifically, TikTok – for the mistakes, injuries and even deaths of the young? The answer is, this shouldn't be about apportioning blame but about taking responsibility and collectively doing everything we can to protect our children. The likes of Facebook, Instagram and, yes, TikTok, too, all need to do more to impose age limits and remove harmful content, and stop putting growth over the safety of their young users. However, we must also accept that kids will always find ways to break the rules, and it's up to us as family members and friends, to remind them that a cheap thrill in your social life isn’t worth losing your whole life over. Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

Seeking the White House while facing multiple civil and criminal trials will keep Donald Trump very busy in 2024.

British novelist Martin Amis, who brought a rock ‘n’ roll sensibility to his stories and lifestyle, has died

A review of the status of a vanishing species of whale found that the animal’s population is in worse shape than previously thought

Sean 'Diddy' Combs believe no genre of music has had more of an impact on the world than hip-hop.

A man has questioned whether he was wrong for storming out of a date after he says the woman behaved "disrespectfully" towards him - but people are divided on this matter. In a post to Reddit's "Am I the A**hole?" forum, the 34-year-old man has noted he was on a second date with the 31-year-old woman and "things seemed to be going great" until he left to go to the bathroom. "We went to a local bar and we were kissing, hugging, dancing, holding hands. Next thing you know I get up to go to the bathroom and when I come back she's at another table sitting with a guy and talking to him," he wrote. "We make eye contact, doesn't signal to tell me she needs five minutes and she doesn't wave me over." Time passed and the man had enough of waiting around for his date. "I wait for what felt like 10 minutes, sitting alone at the table. I finally decide to get up and leave. "I had picked her up so I'm not sure how she got home. I text her the next day to tell her it bothered me she started talking to other guys while we were on a date. No reply." To conclude, the man asked Redditors if he wrong for ditching his date after being left to sit on his own, and many people have weighed in with their thoughts. One person said: "What she did was rude. She SAW you, chose to ignore you and leave you alone for 10 minutes while she talked to another man. It wasn't on you to go up and introduce yourself to whomever she decided to chat with. You dodged a bullet." "It was a second date, you didn't lose much anyways. Let the trash take itself out," another person wrote. Someone else added: "NTA great job standing up for yourself by leaving. How rude of her to do that. Even if it was an old friend I knew, I'd leave them right away and simply say I'm on a date, good chat, gtg." While others believed he was in the wrong for his actions and that he jumped to conclusions. One person wrote: "YTA. Like you wrote in your other post and in comments, you ASSUMED the worst (that she was flirting with a stranger) instead of talking to a friend or someone she knew because in your words, your insecurity. "You said you didn’t see any body language that they were flirting." "YTA. [...] As a woman who has actually been in similar situations multiple times, what I do is I walk over and introduce myself to gauge the situation before jumping to conclusions," another person said. Someone else added: "YTA. Why not just walk over? She was probably waiting for you and then found it super weird that you just left. She could have been chatting with a friend or coworker. Even if it’s a random dude, she’s there with you and you said it was going well." Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

By John Kruzel WASHINGTON The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt another setback to organized labor by making

A converted artists’ warehouse in Oakland that burned in 2016 and killed 36 people has been acquired by a nonprofit community development organization

Deshaun Watson begins his first full season with Cleveland after the Browns quarterback was suspended for the first 11 games in 2022

The British army veteran says his aim was to inspire others and change perceptions of disability.

For Roberto Firmino, an Anfield farewell included a presentation by Sir Kenny Dalglish and a guard of honour from his teammates, with Cody Gakpo bowing in salute to Liverpool’s definitive false nine. Anfield sang his song – Si Senor – for one last time; or, at least, a final occasion with Firmino in the team, on the pitch. Even as fine a servant as James Milner also said goodbye, he was overshadowed by Firmino, which the self-effacing Yorkshireman may prefer. But, even at the end, Firmino offered more evidence to illustrate why he is among the most popular Liverpool players of his generation; perhaps of any. This was not the perfect goodbye; not without victory, not as Liverpool’s last ambition for a dispiriting season became still more remote. But there was a perfection of sorts for Firmino; the rousing ovation when he came on was far from the loudest of the afternoon, because Liverpool still had a last goal from him to celebrate. Firmino’s indefatigable approach is a reason why he was indispensable and integral. If there was no such thing as a lost cause for him, he ensured he did not finish off with a defeat. Aston Villa were leading at Anfield, and deservedly so. But Firmino and Milner entered with 20 minutes to go – though Villa’s timewasting meant their cameos lasted for half an hour – and as injury time beckoned, as it seemed Liverpool’s band of Champions League winners would see their faint hopes of a top-four finish disappear altogether, the former had one last service to perform. Firmino has created many a goal for Mohamed Salah over the years. A favour was returned, the Egyptian bending in a cross with the outside of his left foot, the Brazilian timing his run to volley it in. Selfless for so long, Firmino has become more potent this season; a 12th goal of an injury-hit campaign gives him a total he has not topped since 2018-19. If Liverpool will miss his incessant running, if they will miss his capacity to create goals for others, they will also miss his ability to find the net himself. It was his 110th and potentially last goal for them; the 109th was a dramatic late equaliser at Anfield, too, frustrating Arsenal. He has altered the title race and the battle for Europe: in eight days’ time, it may have a greater effect on Villa. Liverpool’s fate is almost sealed; denied an eighth successive win, they have prolonged the fight for the Champions League places, but only mathematically. It may be a formality for Manchester United and Newcastle to qualify for the Champions League now but, until Firmino intervened, they would be there already. It prolongs the top-four battle but it has altered, shifting the balance still further in the favour of the two Uniteds. An inability to find a winner in added time means that Liverpool’s season will end in anti-climax. Firmino at least ensured it did not finish in Anfield failure. Only Leeds have won here in the Premier League this season; indeed only they have claimed three points in front of a crowd in six years. It has been a fortress for most of Firmino’s time; disappointing as drawing with Villa was, home form is not the principal reason why Liverpool will be condemned to the Europa League. Villa may yet join them in Thursday night action. They were agonisingly close to a 15th win in 24 league games under Unai Emery, and perhaps a best, too. “If it wasn’t for [Steven] Gerrard we’d be top,” their fans chorused, barracking their previous manager and Liverpool’s former captain, and, if not quite true, theirs has been a stunning turnaround; they are ahead of Tottenham now, in the top seven, their fate in their own hands. Yet it probably should have been victory. Ollie Watkins, Liverpool’s nemesis when he scored a hat-trick against them in Villa’s 7-2 win in 2020, offered them respite. He rolled a penalty wide as his goal drought extended to six games. He had earned it himself when fouled by Ibrahima Konate and after racing on to John McGinn’s pass. Villa nevertheless led. Jacob Ramsey met Douglas Luiz’s cross with a low half-volley as Liverpool, who had kept three clean sheets in a row, struggled defensively. They lacked cohesion and chemistry going forward, too. With Gakpo having a goal disallowed when Virgil van Dijk was adjudged offside, They mustered only two shots on target in the first 88 minutes. Klopp may have rued his own indiscipline, confined to the stands by a touchline ban, struggling to alter events. But his assistant Pep Lijnders sent for Firmino and Milner. And, as he has done so many times over the last eight years, Firmino sent Anfield into raptures. Read More Liverpool vs Aston Villa LIVE: Premier League updates Roberto Firmino would knock down Klopp door to secure start on Anfield farewell Roberto Firmino interview: ‘What we achieved was beautiful – but it is time to go’