Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pledged to take on social media companies in a bid to protect children from addiction, as new guidelines recommend limiting screen time for children under five to no more than an hour a day. The guidelines, developed by a panel led by the children's commissioner, Rachel de Souza, and children's health expert Prof Russell Viner, advise that children under two should avoid screen time except for shared activities. Ministers are also exploring Australia-style measures to limit or ban social media for under-16s, as part of a broader effort to regulate social media companies and protect children. Starmer emphasized that regulating social media companies will require a 'fight' to ensure they do not prioritize profits over children's well-being. 'Some of this will require a fight,' he said. 'If we're going to do more to protect children, we're going to have to fight some of the platforms that are putting the material up there because they're putting this addictive stuff up there for a reason.' The guidelines advise families to avoid fast-paced social media-style videos and toys or tools that use artificial intelligence for children aged two to five. They also recommend screen-free bedtimes and mealtimes, and encourage shared screen activities like video calling or looking through photos together. According to the government, about 98% of children watch screens daily by the age of two. Infants with high screen time are less likely to be read to or go on outdoor trips, which can impact language development. Experts have welcomed the guidelines, with Dr. Mike McKean, vice-president for policy at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, saying they will help parents protect 'short, but developmentally crucial early years.'

The UK music industry is facing a significant disparity in executive roles, with black professionals underrepresented in senior positions despite black music generating £24.5bn out of £30bn in revenue over the past 30 years. A recent report by UK Music found that 80% of UK music revenue has been generated by black music, but industry figures are highlighting that black people are still excluded from top executive roles. According to the 2024 UK Music Diversity Report, 22% of the music industry workforce identify as Black, Asian or minority ethnic, compared with 46% of London's population. Eunice Obianagha, head of diversity at UK Music, emphasized the need for investment in genres such as "grime, garage and lovers rock" to support black music innovation. Charisse Beaumont, CEO of Black Lives in Music, noted that racial pay gaps and barriers to career progression are preventing black professionals from gaining executive roles. Industry experts, including Zeon Richards and Jasmine Dotiwala, stress that ensuring black people secure higher industry positions is crucial for driving cultural understanding and nuance. Mykaell Riley, professor of black music at the University of Westminster, argued that black music should be taught in schools to recognize its significant influence on popular music.

The United Nations has taken a significant step towards acknowledging the atrocities of transatlantic slavery, adopting a resolution that labels it as the 'gravest crime against humanity'. The resolution, proposed by Ghana, was passed with 123 countries in favor, 3 opposed, and 52 abstaining.The resolution is not legally binding but carries substantial political weight. It calls for reparations and urges member states to engage in dialogue on the issue, including issuing formal apologies, returning stolen artifacts, providing financial compensation, and ensuring guarantees of non-repetition.Ghana's President John Dramani Mahama, a key architect of the resolution, hailed its adoption as 'a route to healing and reparative justice'. The resolution's passage is seen as a crucial step towards addressing the ongoing impacts of slavery, which saw at least 12.5 million Africans abducted and sold between the 15th and 19th centuries.Despite the progress, there is growing backlash from Western leaders who oppose discussing reparations, arguing that today's states and institutions should not be held responsible for historical wrongs. The EU and the US expressed concerns that the resolution could imply a hierarchy among crimes against humanity.The Netherlands remains the only European country to have issued a formal apology for its role in slavery. The resolution comes after the African Union set out to create a 'unified vision' among its 55 member states about what reparations for slavery may look like.

Two prominent US lawmakers, Senator Bernie Sanders and House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have introduced legislation to impose a moratorium on the construction of new AI data centres. The proposed pause aims to ensure that the rapidly advancing technology does not pose a threat to the 'future of humanity'. The lawmakers argue that current regulations are insufficient to address the potential risks associated with AI, including mass government surveillance and the proliferation of sexually explicit deepfakes.The legislation seeks to address concerns about the environmental impact of data centres, which consume huge amounts of water and electricity. It also aims to protect workers' livelihoods and civil liberties. Sanders emphasized that lawmakers are 'way behind' in understanding AI and that a moratorium is necessary to prevent a handful of billionaire Big Tech oligarchs from making decisions that could reshape the economy, democracy, and the future of humanity.Ocasio-Cortez stated that Congress has a moral obligation to stand with the American people and stop the expansion of data centres until a framework is in place to adequately address the existential harm AI poses to society. The proposed legislation comes amid a growing grassroots backlash against the rollout of data centres in communities across the US, with at least 36 data centres blocked or delayed between May 2024 and June 2025, disrupting $162bn in investment.However, the bill faces an uphill battle in the US Congress, where Republicans control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democratic Senator John Fetterman dismissed the proposed moratorium, calling it 'China First' and arguing that the US should build the emerging AI infrastructure while implementing appropriate guardrails.

Following Donald Trump's recent claims that the US is engaged in 'strong talks' to end the war with Iran, Qatar took the unusual step of publicly distancing itself from any alleged diplomatic negotiations. The Gulf state's government spokesperson Majed al-Ansari explicitly stated, 'Qatar was not involved in any mediation efforts,' adding pointedly, 'If they exist.'This represents a significant departure from Qatar's traditional role as a chief mediator in Middle East conflicts, having previously facilitated negotiations between Israel and Hamas, the US and the Taliban, and peace deals in Lebanon and Sudan.Over the past three weeks, Gulf states have found themselves on the frontlines of the conflict after their mediation efforts to prevent war were ultimately rejected by the US. The pattern of broken negotiations is particularly telling: the US attacked Iran twice during talks aimed at halting the Iranian nuclear program, which were championed by Oman. Discussions last June were halted as the US and Israel conducted strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, and revived talks in February were similarly undermined when Trump began bombing Tehran before the final round of meetings.Since the war began, Gulf states have been forced to spend billions defending against daily Iranian missile and drone attacks, with their economies and sovereignty suffering substantial damage. Analysts suggest their reluctance to engage with the alleged ceasefire efforts reflects both the heavy toll of continued warfare and lingering suspicion about whether Trump's peace initiatives are genuine or merely a pretext for further escalation.As Bilal Saab, senior managing director of advisory group Trends US and former Pentagon official in the first Trump administration, explained: 'They've been burned by their previous experience. They previously thought they played a useful mediating role – until they realised that it was all for naught. Not to mention that they have been directly implicated in the war and are still being attacked by the Iranians. So there's a lot of pent-up frustration and disappointment.'By Wednesday night, the Iranian regime had outright rejected Trump's 15-point plan to end the war, submitted to Tehran via Pakistani generals, as 'extremely unreasonable' and presented their own substantially different proposal.The concern among Gulf states is that any negotiations could become a front for military escalation or even the assassination of additional Iranian leaders. This anxiety is compounded by the simultaneous deployment of thousands of US troops to the region and the persistent fear of being used as pawns in the US and Israel's Middle East strategy.Professor Bader al-Saif of Kuwait University noted: 'Whenever the word negotiation was used by the Trump administration, we unfortunately ended up under the rubric of war.' He emphasized that while Gulf states are reluctant to engage with what they perceive as a potential Trumpian charade, they recognize the critical importance of shaping any realistic peace negotiations that could affect their future.The existential threat to Gulf economic ambitions is particularly concerning. The prospect of Trump ending the war with the current Iranian regime still in place—potentially more vengeful than before and acutely aware of the damage its missiles can inflict on multi-billion-dollar infrastructure—poses significant risks. Additionally, there remains no clear solution to Iran's effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which most of the region's oil and gas exports flow.Analysts suggest that beyond relying on US-led negotiations, Gulf states should pursue their own separate dialogue with Iran. As al-Saif stated: 'They shouldn't only count on the US to do the negotiation. They should go and strike a deal with Iran for themselves. This was not our war, and if we can shield ourselves from being impacted any further, we should do it to protect our own national interests.'

Castleford Tigers produced a stunning performance to defeat Bradford Bulls in a highly entertaining Super League match. The Tigers' attack clicked into gear, with Jason Qareqare scoring a hat-trick and leading his team's charge to a convincing victory.The match was a West Yorkshire derby that lived up to expectations, with both teams showing flashes of brilliance. However, it was Castleford who ultimately dominated the game, scoring 28 unanswered points in a 10-minute period either side of half-time to transform a nervy contest into a decisive win.Ryan Carr's Castleford side had been under pressure after a heavy defeat last week, but they responded with a confident display. Carr praised his team's performance, saying, “How we played tonight is how we want to play our rugby.”In contrast, Bradford Bulls' coach Kurt Haggerty was left to ponder what might have been, saying, “You shouldn’t score 28 points in a game and lose.” The Bulls' defensive frailties were exposed, and they will need to address these issues if they are to exceed expectations in 2026.The win for Castleford was a significant one, as it moved them up the table and gave them a much-needed boost in confidence. For Bradford, the loss was a disappointing one, but they will look to bounce back in their next match.

The US military operation in Iran has cost a staggering $20bn to date, sparking widespread outrage and protests among American citizens. As tax day approaches, a growing movement of individuals is refusing to pay their federal income taxes to protest against the war. The protesters argue that the war is unjustified and that they do not want their tax dollars to fund military actions that have resulted in civilian casualties, including the killing of over 150 girls in Iran and 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza. They claim that the US government has not consulted Congress or the American people before launching the military operation, which is a clear violation of the separation of powers. The movement is inspired by a long history of war tax resistance in the US, dating back to the American Revolution. In 1637, the Algonquin Nation refused to pay taxes to the Dutch to support their new military fort, and Quakers were the first organized religion to oppose wartime taxation as a rule. War tax resisters are not simply refusing to pay taxes; they are also redirecting the taxes they would have paid to alternative causes, such as relief aid for those affected by the war. This approach is based on the principle that taxpayers have a right to choose how their taxes are spent and that they should not be forced to fund actions that go against their values. The movement is gaining momentum, with up to 50% of federal taxes going towards military spending. While some individuals may face consequences for not paying taxes, many war tax resisters have never faced penalties, and only two individuals have served time for non-payment of taxes in protest of US military interventions since World War II. The war tax resistance movement is part of a broader effort to challenge the US government's military adventurism and to promote civil disobedience as a means of bringing about change. As one protester noted, 'Silent resistance is untenable now. Public and open rejection of our 'peace' president and his military adventurism is the only way for this tactic to have its maximum effect.'

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has made a significant U-turn on its policy regarding transgender athletes, effectively banning them from competing in female events at the Olympics. This decision marks a major shift from their previous stance, which allowed transgender women to compete with certain conditions.In 2020, the IOC permitted Laurel Hubbard, a transgender weightlifter, to compete at the Tokyo Olympics, issuing a framework that stated transgender women “should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage” over biological women. However, in a recent policy document, the IOC has stated that the female category must be protected for fairness and safety reasons, and will use SRY screening – a sex test using saliva or a cheek-swab – to determine biological sex.This new policy means that transgender women and athletes with differences in sex development (DSD), who were reported as female at birth but have internal testes and have undergone male puberty, are now banned from the female category at all future Olympics. The decision has caused anger among some groups and joy among others.According to Kirsty Coventry, the newly elected IOC president, this policy change was a priority for her, and she had set up a working group to examine the issue shortly after taking office. Coventry emphasized that the decision was based on scientific consensus and the need to protect the female category.The IOC's decision is based on scientific research showing that males have a performance advantage in sports, even after hormone treatment. The policy document states that the advantage is 10-12% in most running and swimming events, and greater than 100% in events that involve explosive power. This has led to sports such as athletics, swimming, and boxing introducing policies to protect the female category.While this decision applies only to elite sport, there could still be future challenges at the Court of Arbitration for Sport if transgender or DSD athletes decide to appeal. Nevertheless, the IOC's U-turn marks a seismic shift in the ongoing debate about transgender athletes and their participation in sports.

In 2025, England's rivers and seas were hit by 291,492 instances of raw sewage discharge from storm overflows, a 35% reduction from the previous year. The discharges lasted for 1.8 million hours, a significant decrease from almost 4 million hours in 2024. The Environment Agency (EA) reported that some water companies achieved reductions of over 60% and 70% compared to the previous year. However, campaigners argue that the discharges, which are only supposed to occur in extreme weather conditions, are still too frequent and harmful to the environment. Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated, 'When sewage is pouring out even in a dry year, you really know the system is broken.' He emphasized that rivers, lakes, and seas should not be used as pressure valves for pollution. The water industry acknowledged that dry conditions contributed to the reduction in discharges but also cited record levels of investment in the system. Water UK stated that the industry aims to halve spills over the next five years by building bigger storm tanks and expanding capacity at sewage treatment works. Michelle Walker, technical director for the Rivers Trust, highlighted that many discharges occur on dry days and are therefore illegal. She warned that the impact of these discharges will be more concentrated and damaging in already stressed ecosystems. The government and water companies face criticism for the ongoing pollution. Water minister Emma Hardy said there is still an unacceptable amount of sewage entering waterways and a long way to go in cleaning up rivers, lakes, and seas.