Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

MPs in the UK have rejected a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media for the second time, as the Prime Minister summoned tech bosses to demand tougher action on internet safety. The House of Commons sided with the government against a Lords amendment to the children's wellbeing and schools bill that imposed a new age limit on using social media platforms. The vote, which was 256 to 150, a majority of 106, against the change, marks a significant setback for campaigners who have been pushing for greater urgency in tackling online harms. The government is now pushing ahead with its own consultation into an under-16s ban and potential restrictions on social media platforms, which closes next month. The consultation will consider raising the age limit on social media from 13 to 16 and addressing the addictive nature of social media platforms by restricting features such as infinite scrolling. The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is set to meet senior leaders at social media companies, including TikTok, X, YouTube, Snapchat, and Meta, to demand swifter progress on internet safety. Campaigners and bereaved parents have urged the government to take tougher action to protect children online. Esther Ghey, mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, said the government consultation was 'delaying' action against online harms. 'We know that social media is addictive, we know about the things young people are accessing online,' she said. The Molly Rose Foundation, an internet safety charity, said the solution was not a ban but a commitment to strengthening the Online Safety Act. 'It's time to look beyond this false sense of safety and for the Prime Minister to decisively commit to strengthening regulation to make unsafe and addictive design a thing of the past,' said Andy Burrows, MRF's chief executive.

The biggest public backer of World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture co‑founded by the Trump family, has publicly accused the firm of embedding a covert "backdoor blacklisting" feature that allows it to freeze token holdings at will. On Sunday, blockchain entrepreneur Justin Sun posted on X, alleging that World Liberty’s smart contracts for the WLFI token contain a tool that can unilaterally freeze, restrict, or confiscate any user’s assets without cause or recourse. Sun did not provide evidence, but said his own wallet was locked in September, making him the "first and single largest victim" of the alleged mechanism. World Liberty responded on X, stating, "We have the contracts. We have the evidence. We have the truth. See you in court, pal," and directed observers to its own posts for clarification. The company’s official risk disclosures do note that it may block or freeze addresses deemed linked to illegal activity or terms violations – a practice also employed by other crypto issuers such as Tether. Sun, who invested tens of millions of dollars in WLFI and later increased his stake to at least $75 million according to his 2025 posts, has not shared the purported blockchain records that supposedly show his wallet being blacklisted by a single administrative account. World Liberty, launched in 2024, claimed it would empower small investors through a decentralized‑finance app that has yet to launch. Reuters analysis indicated the venture generated **more than $460 million** for the Trump family in the first half of 2025. In March, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission settled a 2023 lawsuit against Sun for $10 million, alleging fraud and the sale of unregistered crypto securities. Sun made no admission of wrongdoing. The dispute highlights the murky regulatory environment for crypto in the United States, where the SEC has limited jurisdiction and has declined to comment on the legality of token‑freezing practices.

An international conference in Berlin has yielded pledges of over £1 billion to support Sudan, a country devastated by three years of conflict. The funding, which exceeds the initial target of $1 billion (£740 million) set by German ministers, aims to alleviate the world's largest humanitarian crisis.The financial commitments will help address a chronic humanitarian funding shortfall in Sudan, where two-thirds of the population, or 34 million people, require assistance. The crisis has been exacerbated by ongoing conflict between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the army.UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged international delegates to take action, highlighting 'credible allegations of the gravest international crimes' and the need for an immediate cessation of hostilities. He emphasized that 'funding alone cannot substitute for peace.'The UK Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, called for a concerted international effort to stop the flow of arms into Sudan, while the US emphasized its commitment to a humanitarian truce that would allow aid to reach those in need.Despite the funding pledges, the prospect of peace remains distant, with scant progress reported on ceasefire talks and neither of Sudan's warring parties attending the conference.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran are expected to resume in Islamabad within days, placing President Donald Trump under intense pressure to deliver an Iran accord that can be credibly billed as superior to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) brokered by former President Barack Obama. Two tests dominate the diplomatic calculus: the deal must demonstrably exceed the Obama agreement, and it must ensure that Iran derives no lasting strategic advantage, particularly over the vital Strait of Hormuz. While direct comparisons with the 159‑page JCPOA are imperfect—given the evolution of Iran’s nuclear program and the emergence of non‑nuclear concerns—the Trump team is framing its objectives around four pivotal issues. 1. Enrichment suspension: In Geneva on 26 February, the U.S. demanded a 10‑year freeze on all domestic uranium enrichment, a figure Iran’s foreign minister deemed unrealistic beyond three years. In Islamabad, the U.S. escalated the ask to a 20‑year suspension, yet Trump publicly dismissed even that, insisting on a permanent ban. The practical timeline for Iran to restart enrichment after the damage to its facilities remains uncertain. 2. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) stockpile: The original JCPOA capped uranium enrichment at 3.65% and limited the stockpile to 300 kg. Iran now holds 440.9 kg of 60%‑enriched uranium—a material that can be rapidly converted to weapons‑grade (90%)—mostly stored as UF₆ gas in scuba‑tank‑sized canisters. Tehran offered to down‑blend this stockpile to 3.67% in an irreversible process, mirroring the 2015 deal’s provisions. The U.S., however, is pressing for the entire stockpile to be removed from Iran under American supervision, a stance that raises questions about the relative merits of in‑country down‑blending versus export. 3. Sanctions relief: The JCPOA promised the release of roughly $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets and the lifting of oil trade restrictions, while retaining sanctions on terrorism, human rights, and missile proliferation. In the Geneva framework, over 80% of sanctions would be lifted, leaving only human‑rights‑related measures. Trump’s administration, wary of political backlash, seeks to attach conditions on how Iran can spend the relief, a demand Tehran rejects, insisting on a permanent, irreversible lifting of sanctions. 4. Non‑nuclear issues: Trump has repeatedly criticized the JCPOA for isolating Iran’s nuclear program from its broader regional behavior. The current negotiations must grapple with Iran’s ballistic‑missile program, support for proxy forces, and the strategic future of the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials are divided: one camp favors leveraging the strait for immediate revenue and national pride, while another views it as a diplomatic lever to secure a lasting ceasefire and security guarantees. The confluence of these challenges creates a “marshmallow test” for both sides—whether they can forgo short‑term temptations in favor of a durable, long‑term settlement. As the Trump presidency approaches its final year, the ability to craft a deal that convincingly outperforms the Obama era while addressing the expanded nuclear and geopolitical landscape will determine the legacy of U.S. policy on Iran and its impact on regional stability.

Sir Keir Starmer cannot be blamed for the economic consequences of a war he did not start, but he needs to have a plan in place for a severe and prolonged crisis. The public needs to see that the government is proactive and prepared to address the challenges ahead.

Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta expressed his pride in his team's performance after they reached the Champions League semi-finals for the first time in their history. The Gunners secured a spot in the last four with a gritty draw against Sporting, despite being without their injured captain Martin Ødegaard and Bukayo Saka.Declan Rice, who was captain in Ødegaard's absence, revealed that he had come off his sickbed to play a crucial role in the match. 'He was shattered,' Arteta said of Rice. 'He had no chance to play today, he wasn’t feeling good at all today, he played 94 minutes at the level that he’s done.'The match was a closely contested affair, with both teams creating chances. Leandro Trossard headed against a post from a Max Dowman corner late on, while Sporting's João Simões fired into the side netting with virtually the last kick of the match.Arteta attributed his team's success to their durability, saying, 'That is the reason why we are the only English team in the competition, because this league and this schedule takes the hell out of you, and it’s very difficult to do what we’ve done.'Rice also addressed criticism of the team's recent performances, saying, 'If you don’t play well, if you don’t play good, take it with a pinch of salt and keep moving.'Arsenal will now face Atlético Madrid in the semi-finals, having maintained their record as the only unbeaten team left in this year’s competition. They will also look to bounce back from their recent Premier League defeat to Bournemouth when they face Manchester City on Sunday.

The EU's new entry-exit system (EES) has caused significant delays at several European airports, with travellers waiting up to three hours at border checks. The system, which came into effect on Friday in the Schengen countries, requires passengers from non-EU countries to register their personal information and biometrics at the border.Passengers in airports in countries such as France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Greece are experiencing several hours of waiting at border checks, according to the Airports Council International (ACI) body. Olivier Jankovec, the director of the ACI European division, warned that the situation will be "simply unmanageable" in the coming weeks and peak summer months.The EES has been gradually introduced since October and has already caused long delays at some airports. On Sunday, the BBC reported that more than 100 passengers were unable to board an easyJet flight from Milan to Manchester before it took off due to delays at passport desks.Airport representatives and the European Commission held a meeting to discuss problems with the system on Tuesday. The ACI has asked to extend existing exemptions and the power to fully suspend the new checks. Jankovec told the FT that the ACI needed the ability to "fully suspend EES registration whenever there are excessive waiting times at border control that are just unmanageable".A spokesperson for the European Commission said that the system is working well, with an average registration time of 70 seconds per passenger. However, the ACI has claimed that it can take up to five minutes. The commission said that there were a "few member states where technical issues have been detected" but that they "are being addressed".The EES has registered more than 52m entries and exits, as well as more than 27,000 refusals of entry, since its introduction in October. Almost 700 people were identified as posing a security threat.

The United States is grappling with unprecedented levels of income and wealth inequality. The average household income in New York City stands at $131,000, yet this figure belies the stark reality that a small elite captures a disproportionate amount of wealth, leaving millions struggling to make ends meet. This extreme inequality has far-reaching economic, political, and social consequences, eroding trust in institutions and leading people to believe that the system is rigged. The issue is not unique to the U.S., as nearly one-fifth of the world's super-rich live in New York, but it is more pronounced in the U.S. than in almost any other advanced economy. A recent global inequality report found that between 2000 and 2024, the richest 1% captured 41% of all new wealth, while the bottom half of humanity received just 1%. The concentration of wealth is staggering, with billionaires now owning 16% of global GDP, up from 3% in 1987. The main driver of this trend is the failure to effectively tax the super-rich. Research has shown that in the 1960s, the 400 richest Americans paid about 50% of their income in taxes, but today they pay around 24%. This pattern is not unique to the U.S., as similar trends have been observed in Europe and other countries. Experts argue that a progressive tax system is necessary to address this issue. A minimum tax of 2% on the wealth of the super-rich has been proposed as a straightforward way to ensure they meet their obligations to society. Several countries, including Spain and Brazil, have committed to implementing this tax, and other nations are considering similar measures. In the U.S., there are signs of a paradigm shift. California voters will consider a tax on billionaire wealth this November, and Washington state has approved a 9.9% income tax on million-dollar incomes. In New York, there are calls to increase taxes on the rich and large corporations to fund essential public services. The authors of the article, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Zohran Mamdani, and Gabriel Zucman, emphasize that the idea of billionaires paying higher tax rates than working people is not radical, but rather a necessary step towards restoring a basic social principle: that those with the most should contribute their fair share so that everyone can live with dignity.

Snap Inc, the parent company of Snapchat, has announced plans to lay off 1,000 workers, or 16% of its employees, citing rapid advancements in artificial intelligence as the reason. The social media company informed staff of the decision in an internal memo on Wednesday.The layoffs are part of a wave of tech industry job cuts in the past year, with many firms, including Microsoft, Amazon, and Oracle, blaming AI for the reductions. Snap Inc's CEO, Evan Spiegel, claimed that the layoffs would help the company move towards profitability and suggested that AI could fill the gap left by human labor.In his memo to staff, Spiegel wrote: “While these changes are necessary to realize Snap’s long-term potential, we believe that rapid advancements in artificial intelligence enable our teams to reduce repetitive work, increase velocity, and better support our community, partners, and advertisers.”The company, which employed around 5,200 people as of December last year, had also posted 300 open roles that will no longer be filled. Snap's stock rose around 6% in early trading following the news of the layoffs.The move has sparked concerns about the impact of AI on the labor market, with some experts and workers accusing firms of “AI-washing” layoffs to posture for investors and the market. However, top AI firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic have launched a charm offensive to address AI's potentially harmful effects on the labor market.