Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

A California jury has ruled that Meta and Google are liable for $3m in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit. The case, which began over a month ago, accused the companies of designing features intended to hook young users, including notifications and autoplay features.The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman referred to as KGM or Kaley, claimed that she became addicted to social media at a young age, which exacerbated her mental health issues. She began using YouTube at age six and Meta-owned Instagram at age nine.The jury deliberated for over 40 hours across nine days before reaching a verdict. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri testified in the case, although YouTube chief executive Neal Mohan was not called to testify.The verdict is the latest in a wave of lawsuits targeting social media companies. There is a looming federal social media addiction case slated to begin in June in Oakland, California. On Tuesday in New Mexico, a jury found that Meta violated state law by misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and by enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.Legal experts say the verdict will shape future litigation. 'The fact the jury found Meta and Google liable represents that these cases have real exposure to the social media giants, and are going to frame how future litigation will proceed,' entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell told Al Jazeera.

A recent jury verdict in California has held Meta and YouTube liable for the harm caused to a young woman, KGM, due to the addictive nature of their platforms. The plaintiff claimed that her social media use, which began at the age of six, led to injuries including body dysmorphia and thoughts of self-harm.The jury's decision marks a significant milestone in the ongoing debate about the impact of social media on young people. The verdict suggests that companies like Meta and YouTube, which have been accused of designing features to keep users engaged, can be held accountable for the harm caused by their platforms.Critics of the judgment argue that it could lead to a flood of lawsuits against social media companies, while others see it as a necessary step to protect young people from the potential dangers of social media. The verdict may also prompt regulatory changes and increased scrutiny of social media companies' practices.According to a report from Brown University, social media can be addictive due to its ability to activate the brain's reward system, releasing feel-good hormones such as dopamine. This can lead to a vicious cycle of use and addiction, particularly among young people who spend many hours a day on social media.In response to growing concerns, some countries have taken action to protect young people. Australia, for example, has banned children under 16 from using social media. In the US, there have been calls for social media companies to be required to put warning labels on their sites, but such proposals have yet to gain traction.The verdict is also significant given the close ties between the tech industry and the US administration. The appointment of Mark Zuckerberg to the president's council of advisers on science and technology has raised concerns about the influence of tech companies on policy decisions.Ultimately, the jury verdict sends a clear message to tech titans that they will be held accountable for the impact of their platforms on young people. As the debate about social media regulation continues, this verdict is likely to have far-reaching implications for the industry and for the protection of young people online.

A landmark verdict in a social media trial has held Meta and YouTube accountable for deliberately designing addictive products that harmed a young user. The jury awarded the plaintiff $6m in damages, with Meta to pay 70% and YouTube the remainder.Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have praised the decision, calling it a "watershed moment" for corporate accountability in the digital age. They argue that social media companies must change their design features to ensure children's safety.The plaintiff, a 20-year-old who went by the initials KGM, testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, which led to a long cycle of depression, self-harm, and body dysmorphia. Plaintiffs have taken issue with features such as infinite scroll and autoplay, arguing that they prioritize engagement over users' well-being.However, not all tech freedom and human rights groups agree on the verdict's implications. Fight for the Future, a US-based digital rights group, has expressed skepticism, worrying that the decision could be used to justify legislative solutions that raise free speech concerns.

The Republic of Ireland's hopes of reaching the 2026 World Cup were cruelly extinguished in Prague as they suffered a penalty shootout defeat to the Czech Republic. Despite leading 2-0 and 3-2 in the shootout, Heimir Hallgrímsson's team failed to capitalize on their advantages and ultimately fell to a Ladislav Krejci equalizer in the 86th minute, forcing a shootout.Ireland had started brightly, with Troy Parrott scoring a penalty and an own goal by Czech goalkeeper Matej Kovar doubling their lead. However, a needless penalty conceded by Ryan Manning allowed the Czechs back into the contest. The Czech Republic, led by captain Ladislav Krejci, equalized in the 86th minute, sending the match into extra time and eventually a shootout.In the shootout, Caoimhín Kelleher made a crucial save but Finn Azaz and Alan Browne failed to convert their spot kicks, allowing the Czech Republic to advance. Jan Kliment converted the fifth and final spot-kick to send the Czech Republic into a home final against Denmark on Tuesday.The Republic of Ireland have now lost five of their last six World Cup playoff fixtures, and the pain of this latest defeat will be heightened by the realization that it was largely unnecessary. As Heimir Hallgrímsson said, 'Just pain, we all feel pain. When you go this far it's a flip of a coin. Just pain we feel being that close.'

The connection between boxing and cinema dates back to the early days of film, with the first sports film being a 1894 short of a six-round match between Mike Leonard and Jack Cushing. Since then, boxing has been a staple of the big screen, captivating audiences with its high-stakes emotion, physical intensity, and personal turbulence.The British Film Institute's new season, The Cinematic Life of Boxing, curated by Clive Chijioke Nwonka, an amateur boxer since his childhood in London, explores this symbiotic relationship. Nwonka believes that an uncompromising hunt for realism is central to the relationship between the sport and artform, with films that interact with human experience, poverty, struggle, triumph, and boxing as a way of life.Boxing films often capture a political zeitgeist, as seen in the 1974 'Rumble in the Jungle' heavyweight championship match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, which was not just a fight but a referendum on ideology during the civil rights era. This fight was documented in the 1996 film When We Were Kings, described by Nwonka as 'probably the greatest sports documentary of all time'.The Rocky franchise, which has spanned six films and a spin-off series, Creed, under the direction of Ryan Coogler, is a barometer for all the films captured in its wake. The first film remains the hallmark of sporting cinema, successfully capturing the habitual experience of the sport outside its more glamorous moments.Despite the genre's popularity, boxing films are not immune to clichés, with many relying on stock characters and familiar arcs. However, the best film-makers are able to return to the core of these films: the stakes of signing up for a fight, and the physical, psychological, and real monetary costs of endurance.

Paris Saint-Germain's highly anticipated visit to Lens in Ligue 1 has been postponed to May 13, allowing the team more time to focus on their upcoming Champions League quarter-final against Liverpool. The match, initially scheduled for April 11, could have significant implications for the Ligue 1 title race, with PSG currently leading Lens by a single point.The decision to reschedule the match has been met with some resistance from Lens, who expressed concerns that the French league is being treated as an adjustment variable to accommodate the European imperatives of certain teams. The Ligue de Football Professionnel justified the move by citing the strategic goal of helping France maintain its fifth place in the UEFA coefficient rankings, which would secure four places in the Champions League.PSG is set to face Liverpool in the Champions League quarter-final on April 8 at the Parc de Princes, with the second leg taking place at Anfield six days later. This extra time could prove crucial for PSG as they look to advance in the competition.In addition to the PSG-Lens match, Strasbourg's visit to Brest on April 12 has also been rescheduled to May 13, as Strasbourg prepares for their Europa Conference League last-eight games against Mainz.

Renowned violinist Anne-Sophie Mutter continues her dedication to contemporary music with a bold new series on Alpha Classics titled 'East Meets West'. This album brings together four works specifically written for her, reflecting the diverse heritages of the composers.The album opens with Aftab Darvishi's 'Likoo', a six-minute solo piece that evokes a folk poetry genre from Iran. Originally composed before recent global conflicts, it now resonates with poignant significance. Next is Unsuk Chin's 'Gran Cadenza', a nine-minute duo with Mutter and Chinese-American violinist Nancy Zhou, characterized by a high-wire performance.The textures expand as Mutter is joined by Ye-Eun Choi, Muriel Razavi, and Pablo Ferrández for Jörg Widmann's 'String Quartet No 6'. Titled 'Studie über Beethoven', this piece reinterprets Beethoven's music with coruscating and often uproarious effects. The album concludes with Thomas Adès' 'Air', subtitled 'Homage to Sibelius', performed with the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Adès himself.Stream the album on Apple Music or Spotify.

Egil Johansen, the landlord of the Kenton pub in Hackney, east London, describes recent incidents involving children as "like the wild west." He has now banned children entirely after a three-year-old fell down a cellar hatch while parents sat elsewhere, a five-year-old crashed into staff carrying drinks, and six parents brought 10 hyperactive children after a birthday party while ignoring their behavior."In every case, the parents blame us when something goes wrong or get really angry when we ask them to control their children," says Johansen, who has run the pub for 17 years. "I'm legally obliged to keep children safe on my premises and if the parents let their children run riot, the only answer is to not allow them in at all."Johansen initially tried banning children only after 5pm, but this interim measure failed to address the underlying issues. Despite online criticism framing him as the "baddie," he expresses sadness about the situation: "I'm a publican; I'm a people-person. It gives me no joy to ban anyone, but it's just not safe: parents don't control their children and our other customers were beginning to go elsewhere. I had no choice."The Kenton's decision reflects a growing trend among UK pubs seeking to differentiate themselves from establishments that "resemble soft play centres without the ball pit." While some welcome this shift, others view it as unwelcoming to families, creating a culture war in the pub industry.Lee Jones, landlord of the Brewers Arms in West Malvern, Worcestershire, reversed a previous child ban: "We're dog-friendly, child-friendly, adult-friendly. We're just friendly – we don't distinguish. Pubs are for the community and I don't see bans in the spirit of what we're here for." Jones reports that when children become rowdy, staff can address the issue with parents, though this is rarely needed.Stephen Boyd, who runs the Alma in south London, took a different approach after attempting to attract young families. He found families with children consumed disproportionate time and resources with special requests for diluted drinks, heated beverages, and customized meals, while adult customers waited longer for their orders."You just need a couple screaming, banging on a table or running up and down, and it dictates the whole atmosphere of the pub," Boyd says. "Parents would take massive umbrage if staff asked them to stop their children doing something." After implementing a child ban, he describes the change as "a fucking revelation" with staff retention improving and takings doubling.Despite the positive results, Boyd faced significant backlash: "I got a lot of online hate. Mainly from people who had never been to the pub but felt I was doing something morally hateful."Tom Stainer, chief executive of the Campaign for Real Ale, acknowledges the debate is "very live" but emphasizes: "But you do have to look at the responsibility of the parents in these situations, not just at the pubs. They're the ones responsible for making sure that their children behave."Financial considerations also drive some decisions. Mandy Keefe, landlady of the Wheel Inn in Ashford, banned children partly for behavioral reasons but also financial ones: "If a third of my Sunday customers were children eating from a reduced-rate child's menu and not drinking any alcohol, that wouldn't be financially viable."Across the UK, pubs are making individual decisions based on their specific circumstances, but as Johansen's experience demonstrates, it only takes one serious incident to settle the question for good.

The conflict in Sudan continues to intensify, with two drone strikes resulting in the deaths of at least 28 civilians. The strikes occurred in separate locations, with one hitting a market in Saraf Omra, North Darfur state, killing 22 people, including an infant, and injuring 17 others. Another strike targeted a truck carrying civilians on a highway in North Kordofan, approximately 500 miles east of Darfur, killing six people and wounding 10. The RSF was blamed for the attack, although it is unclear which side launched the drone. Sudan's civil war, which began on April 15, 2023, has led to over 11.6 million people being displaced out of a population of about 51 million. The conflict has resulted in tens of thousands to potentially over 400,000 deaths. The situation has been described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with large areas of the country at risk of famine. The UN has reported a significant increase in civilian deaths from drone strikes this year, particularly in the Kordofan region. Between January 1 and March 15, over 500 people were killed by drones. A recent drone strike on a hospital in East Darfur killed 64 people and wounded 89, according to the World Health Organization.