Teacher's daughters did not attend their father's funeral, sending 5100 rupees with a request to conduct the rite properly

A survey conducted by Norton revealed that 85% of parents and guardians of minors under 18 in Brazil are concerned that artificial intelligence tools may be used to generate fake images or dialogues involving their children. This study was conducted online between May 29 and June 12, 2026, covering one thousand Brazilian adults, as disclosed by the company to Olhar Digital.

The Norton Insights: Connected Kids report indicates that the growing presence of AI has introduced new anxieties in families, forcing them to deal with dangers such as image manipulation, digital identity forgery, and virtual interactions with potential threats.

Although 89% of participants stated they felt capable of discussing internet safety with their children, almost half of them, specifically 49%, doubt that children can distinguish authentic content from content generated by artificial intelligence.

The data shows that 59% of parents have already implemented some measure to mitigate the effects of AI on their children's daily lives. The mentioned actions include imposing limits on app usage, monitoring digital activities, and promoting conversations focused on the inherent risks of technology.

The threat of fake images stands out as a critical alert point. According to the investigation, criminals can use AI resources and artificial identities to gain the trust of young people or encourage the sharing of photos that can later be used in financial extortion schemes.

Among participants who reported episodes of cyberbullying involving their descendants, 29% reported that the aggressors used fake profiles or simulated being other people. Additionally, 14% pointed out that the aggressor was an account or bot created with the help of artificial intelligence.

The survey also mapped different levels of risk perceived by parents across various digital platforms. Online chat rooms were identified as the environment causing the most concern, cited by 20% of respondents. Discord ranked second with 18%, followed by online games with 15%, and TikTok with 11%.

Despite this perception, data regarding connected games shows frequent occurrences of exposure. Regarding parents of children who use online games with chat functionalities, 61% stated that their children have interacted with strangers via messages or voice.

Furthermore, 33% reported receiving offensive or inappropriate communications, while 29% mentioned that their children were encouraged to continue conversations outside the game environment.

Norton emphasizes that the communication mechanisms present in games can hinder parental monitoring, as these interactions do not always receive the same attention as social media. The company warns that the transition of a conversation from within a game to private applications can create complex detection situations.

The study also highlighted a disparity between what guardians perceive and certain habits observed in their own families. Although most declare being open to dialogue about digital risks, certain behaviors persist. Forty percent of respondents admitted that their children use devices beyond the established time or after bedtime. Another 22% reported that children accessed social networks or websites that should have been blocked.

The research also points out that 13% of parents reported that their children shared personal data with strangers, and 14% reported access to explicit content.

For Norton, the transformation of the digital landscape requires that family conversations be expanded. Guardians must address, in addition to conventional topics such as passwords, strangers on the internet, and screen time, issues related to AI-generated images, digital identity, and the ability to critically evaluate content.

The author argues that the city council could alleviate concerns by demonstrating the possibility of building affordable housing in good neighborhoods without turning those areas into slums. The author believes that residents in both relatively affluent suburbs of Cape Town and residents of the townships in Cape Flats would desire improved living conditions, reduced inequality, and an end to past disagreements.

Despite this general agreement, the author questions why progress in changing the situation has been minimal over the last three decades, and what is preventing Cape Town from overcoming the post-apartheid threshold. Among numerous reasons, including political traditions and party ideologies, three key points are highlighted.

Firstly, the binary choice between the ANC and DA negatively affected democracy, as instead of promoting common goals, it only reinforced existing demographic divisions. Secondly, the city government sought to position itself as anti-transformational to distance itself from its political rival (which is now a partner in the GNU), although this was not always their true objective. Thirdly, excessively high, unaffordable, and rapidly rising property prices are mistakenly viewed by the city government as a sign of success rather than an obstacle to social justice requiring careful management.

Property prices are a central issue. The DA insists that the higher cost of property in the city is due to its governance and attractiveness to tourists. However, the author refutes this, pointing out that the value of Cape Town's real estate and the flow of tourists are linked to the mountains, the sea, Cape Point, wine regions, restaurants, sunny weather, and beaches. The DA also fears the impact of building social and affordable housing in well-located areas on property values, which the author considers a dangerous argument because it excludes integration.

The author notes that the city has failed to demonstrate a commitment to affordable housing in the city center and surrounding areas, having built none there. Thus, the city remains deeply unequal, and its current state, established since the 1960s, is perceived as normal. The author emphasizes that the system that forcibly relocated hundreds of thousands of people into similarly colored communities with poor development and resources was not normal, but a key element of a crime against humanity, as defined by the United Nations.

The author believes that no one desires this forced segregation and inequality, regardless of where they live. He rejects the idea of gathering poor people behind walls, as happens with those living in shacks near N2, and believes that inaction regarding inequality is unsustainable. Creating a socially sustainable city will benefit all residents, regardless of their place of residence.

Fixing problems in Bonteheuwel does not mean betraying Bantry Bay; it ensures a long-term future for both areas. Addressing issues in individual communities is correcting a part of ourselves and investing in the city's future. Conversely, inaction is like risking a long journey with a leak. The author gives the example that improving Bonteheuwel will not lower prices in Bantry Bay, just as maximizing the construction of affordable housing on the Table Mountain site in Sea Point will not lower prices on the Atlantic coast.

Furthermore, beyond promoting justice, this will serve as a guarantee for a future that will likely be less tolerant of inequality than it seems today. Finally, the author touches upon the issue of 'redistributive' justice. The GOOD party joined the South African Property Owners Association to challenge the legality of a supposed form of redistribution in Cape Town—rates based on property value. From their perspective, it was unfair to target people with higher rates simply because the value of their property grew significantly faster than their ability to pay.

However, this does not mean that redistribution is unnecessary. There are much better ways to ask those who can afford more to do so. Possible measures include introducing additional taxes on owners of ultra-expensive properties and real estate speculators (owners of more than one property). It is necessary to change the mindset from an acceptable norm to an unacceptable anomaly.