Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Meta, the world's most powerful social media company, has faced a severe public reckoning in recent days, with juries in California and New Mexico delivering back-to-back verdicts that hold the company liable for harming young people. This marks a significant shift in accountability for social media companies, which have long operated with minimal regulation and few consequences in the US.In the California case, a jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay $6 million in damages over claims that they deliberately designed addictive products to hook young users. The following day, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages over claims that its products led to child sexual exploitation, among other harms.These verdicts are the first to go to court, and they set a precedent for over 2,000 plaintiffs, including families, school districts, and state attorneys general, who have brought lawsuits against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. The cases borrow from a familiar playbook, echoing those brought against big tobacco companies in the 1990s, which focused on cigarettes' addictive qualities and their makers' public denials despite knowledge of their products' harms.Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. The verdicts signal that public perception of social media and its makers is shifting, with jurors now laying blame on the business practices of a multi-trillion-dollar industry.Meta and YouTube have both said they disagree with the verdicts and will appeal. However, the rulings mark a significant turning point in the growing scrutiny of social media companies and their impact on young people.The cases are part of a broader effort to challenge tech companies' practices, with online safety advocates urging Congress to pass regulation, forming coalitions of parents, teens, and advocates, and bringing thousands of lawsuits front and center. The goal is to force social media companies to redesign their products and do more to protect children online.

The UK government has introduced new guidelines aimed at helping parents manage their children's screen time. Children under five should spend no more than an hour a day on screens, according to the advice developed by a panel led by the children's commissioner, Rachel de Souza, and children's health expert Prof Russell Viner.For children under two, screen time should be avoided except for shared activities that encourage interaction. The guidance also suggests that bedtimes and mealtimes should be screen-free, with families encouraged to opt for background music, table games, bedtime stories, and colouring instead.Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized that the guidance will help families keep children safe and build healthy habits with screens. He stated, “Parenting in a digital world can feel relentless. Screens are everywhere, and the advice is often conflicting. My government will not leave parents to face this battle alone.”The panel's review found that long periods of solo screen time can harm sleep, physical activity, creative play, and interaction with parents, which are crucial for good development. About 98% of children watch screens daily by the age of two, and high screen time has been linked to impacts on language development.Prof Russell Viner noted, “Too much solo screen time can crowd out the things that make the biggest difference – sleep, play, physical activity and talking with parents and carers.” The guidance also recommends that parents consider their own screen use in front of their children and explore screen-free periods for the whole family.

The UK government is facing mounting pressure to appoint a Conservative former cabinet minister as the next chair of Ofcom, the media regulator. Jeremy Wright, a former culture secretary and sitting Conservative MP, is competing against Margaret Hodge, a Labour peer and former MP, for the role.The appointment has become crucial amid concerns over the rapid growth of online content and the rise of politically partisan broadcasting. The Online Safety Act, which aims to tackle harmful online content, has created legal pitfalls for Ofcom, leading to claims of paralysis at the regulator.Wright, who was involved in drafting laws to tackle harmful online content, is seen as a strong candidate due to his legal background as a king's counsel and his knowledge of the Online Safety Act. He is believed to be willing to take risks in confronting big digital platforms.On the other hand, Hodge has been seen as the favourite to be appointed by the Labour administration. As chair of the public accounts committee, she built a reputation for attacking big tech over its tax bill and has previously suggested banning online anonymity and making social media directors personally liable for defamatory posts.The delay in appointing a new chair is causing concern, with some warning that it could leave Britain at risk. The new chair must address fundamental flaws in Ofcom's implementation of the Online Safety Act and restore the frayed support and confidence of civil society.A government source said a decision would be made very soon. An Ofcom spokesperson said the regulator looks forward to working with whoever the government appoints as its next chair to make life safer online.

The conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran has expanded into Iraqi territory, creating what analysts describe as the most fragile front in the ongoing regional war. Recent strikes by US and Israeli forces have targeted Iran-backed groups operating within Iraq, prompting retaliatory attacks from Iraqi militias against Western interests. The strategic implications of this escalation are profound, with oil flow through the critical Strait of Hormuz completely halted, disrupting global energy markets. This development comes as Iraq's central government already struggles to maintain control over its territory and resources. As hostilities intensify, concerns mount about Iraq's ability to preserve its sovereignty and prevent the country from becoming a battlefield for proxy conflicts between regional and international powers. The fragile state of Iraqi institutions, combined with external military interventions, threatens to destabilize an already volatile region. International observers warn that the prolonged conflict could have lasting consequences for Iraq's political landscape, potentially fragmenting the country further along sectarian lines and weakening the central government's authority beyond recognition. The situation remains fluid, with diplomatic efforts seemingly unable to de-escalate tensions as the conflict enters a dangerous new phase with direct military confrontation on Iraqi soil.

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.'

As Israeli settlers intensify violent attacks against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, often while Israeli forces stand by, a notable shift is occurring in US political circles. Even staunch supporters of Israel within the Democratic party are now publicly denouncing the escalating violence.In recent days, dozens of settlers have engaged in apparently coordinated attacks, torching homes and vehicles while targeting Palestinian civilians. Since the beginning of the month, Israeli settlers and police have killed at least 10 Palestinian civilians in the occupied territory, including two young brothers and their parents who were returning from a Ramadan shopping trip.Among the voices breaking ranks is Ritchie Torres, a New York Democratic representative and one of Israel's most ardent supporters in Congress. In a statement this week, he declared that "the crisis of extremist settler violence in the West Bank must be confronted, and the perpetrators must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." He called for "zero tolerance for violent extremism, no matter what form it takes."Another pro-Israel Democrat, Daniel Goldman of New York, condemned the violence as an "outrage" and urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to bring to vote proposed legislation seeking to impose sanctions against those "undermining prospects for a two-state solution by committing illegal violent acts." He also criticized the Trump administration for rescinding sanctions against violent settlers that had been issued under the Biden administration.Several other Aipac-backed politicians have joined the condemnation, including Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, who called on the Israeli government to "stop being complicit," and Arizona Congressman Greg Stanton, who labeled the attacks "acts of terrorism." Ohio Democratic Congresswoman Shontel Brown accused Trump of "green-lighting settler violence," while Nevada Senator Jacky Rosen stated that "violence against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank is a national security threat to Israel and must be treated as such."The political shift comes as US public support for Israel has plummeted. An NBC News poll found that two-thirds of Democrats now say their sympathies lie with Palestinians over Israelis—a dramatic reversal with significant implications for upcoming elections. Meanwhile, 68% of Republicans continue to express stronger support for Israel.A Guardian analysis revealed that Israel has not prosecuted any of its citizens for killing Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank since the start of the decade. The UN has warned that the Israeli government has accelerated illegal settlement expansion, forcibly displacing approximately 36,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the past year.Political analysts suggest these pro-Israel Democrats are "trapped between the money they've relied on to make their campaigns work and the voters they actually need to win," with condemnation of settler violence offering a way to express discontent without challenging the Israeli state itself.

Donald Trump has launched a scathing attack on the UK's military capabilities, describing its aircraft carriers as 'toys' compared to those of the US. Speaking at the White House, Trump claimed that the UK had offered to send two aircraft carriers to support US military actions against Iran, but he had rejected the offer, saying 'Don't bother, we don't need it.'The comments have sparked a fresh row between Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has refused to engage directly with the US president's repeated insults. Starmer has emphasized his focus on addressing the UK's domestic priorities, including the cost of living crisis, and has reiterated his commitment to defending British interests while avoiding escalation.Tensions between the US and UK have been rising over Nato's role in the conflict with Iran. Trump has expressed disappointment with Nato allies, accusing them of not doing enough to support the US. He also criticized Starmer for not providing sufficient support, saying 'He's not exactly Winston Churchill.'In response, Starmer has reaffirmed the UK's commitment to its Nato allies while emphasizing the need to address the threat posed by Russia. During a visit to Finland, Starmer warned of a 'war on two fronts' – Ukraine and Iran – and highlighted the importance of cooperation between Nato allies to counter these threats.The UK has deployed a warship, HMS Dragon, to the eastern Mediterranean in response to an Iranian-made missile launch from Lebanon at a UK RAF base in Cyprus. Officials are also considering deploying a Royal Navy vessel to support efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global energy supplies.

Guardian cartoonist David Squires offers a unique perspective on Australia's national soccer team, the Socceroos, as they prepare to host the tantalizing new FIFA Series event. Through his distinctive visual storytelling, Squires captures the significance of Australia's role in this prestigious global tournament.The comic series provides an insightful look into how the Socceroos are serving as trailblazers for the FIFA Series, positioning Australia at the forefront of international soccer innovation. The illustrations showcase both the excitement and strategic importance of this new global competition.Published on March 26, 2026, this piece is part of Squires' ongoing series examining Australian sport, highlighting the nation's growing influence on the world stage. The FIFA Series represents another milestone in Australia's evolving relationship with international soccer, following previous successes that have elevated the country's sporting profile globally.

The deadly conflict in Iran has precipitated what the International Energy Agency describes as the worst oil crisis in history, creating a complex situation for global clean energy efforts. While climate advocates are calling for accelerated transition away from fossil fuels, the war simultaneously presents both opportunities and significant challenges for renewable energy development.US-Israeli strikes on Iran have critically disrupted supply routes through the Strait of Hormuz, a maritime channel through which 20% of global oil flows. The conflict has also seen direct attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure by all parties involved, creating additional market shocks and uncertainty.Interestingly, reduced reliance on oil and gas is proving beneficial for some regions navigating the ongoing fuel crisis. As Jan Rosenow, a professor of energy at Oxford University, explains: Electricity generated from wind and solar is largely insulated from fossil fuel price volatility – once built, the fuel is free.Countries with substantial renewable energy investments are demonstrating greater resilience. Spain and Portugal have witnessed electricity prices decline in recent weeks, while Pakistan has experienced a surge in rooftop solar installations over the past five years, helping the nation weather oil and gas market disruptions.The electric vehicle revolution is also providing some economies with protection against gasoline price increases. In China, more than 50% of all new cars sold are electric, while in Nepal, that figure reaches an impressive 70%.However, the war is creating near-term challenges that could impede clean energy growth. The conflict has disrupted transport routes for metals essential in solar panel construction, particularly aluminum. The Middle East accounts for approximately 9% of global aluminum production, and regional producers have begun scaling back operations amid the hostilities.Furthermore, the inflationary pressures stemming from the conflict pose significant hurdles for renewable energy projects, which require substantial upfront investment for construction, equipment, and installation.Paradoxically, the war and resulting energy shocks have provided a short-term boon for fossil fuels, including coal. Many Asian countries heavily reliant on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) are burning more coal to meet energy demand as LNG supplies through the Strait of Hormuz become constrained.The conflict has also incentivized increased oil and gas drilling and exploration, as countries scramble to replace disrupted LNG supplies and higher prices make previously unviable projects economically viable. US company Venture Global recently announced a new five-year contract to supply LNG, while Canadian energy company TC Energy indicated that Iran war disruptions are increasing the likelihood of expanding a massive LNG export facility.The Trump administration has further incentivized oil expansion, recently announcing plans to pay a French company $1 billion to abandon offshore wind farm projects in favor of fossil fuel initiatives.Experts propose various policy responses to encourage the green transition during this crisis. Rosenow advocates for tax reform to reduce the disproportionate burden on electricity compared to gas. Professor Gregor Semieniuk suggests imposing windfall taxes on oil and gas companies during the war, while Lauren Pagel of Earthworks calls for ending fossil fuel subsidies and making polluters pay for their environmental impact.Despite the current challenges, Kingsmill Bond, a strategist for the energy thinktank Ember, maintains that this crisis could ultimately accelerate the clean energy transition: This is the first oil shock in history where oil faces a superior alternative. Solar, wind and EV are cheaper, local, faster to deploy, and huge.