Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

India has taken a significant step to shield its consumers from the impact of rising global energy prices, slashing fuel taxes in the face of increasing tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran. The move aims to prevent a sharp increase in fuel prices that could have been triggered by the crisis.Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri announced on Friday that the government had decided to reduce petrol duties from 13 rupees ($0.14) per litre to 3 rupees ($0.032) per litre. Additionally, the 10-rupee (0.11) per litre duty on diesel has been completely removed, effective immediately.The decision comes as oil prices have surged past $100 per barrel following Iran's near-closure of the Strait of Hormuz after Israel and the US launched attacks on February 28. India, being the world's third-largest crude importer, relies heavily on this passageway for its crude oil supply, with about 40 percent of its crude coming through the Strait of Hormuz.Despite concerns about potential shortages, authorities have assured that there is no shortage of crude and that current reserves will cover 74 days. The government also moved to quash rumours of an impending lockdown, with Minister Puri stating that such claims are 'completely false' and that India is 'resilient.'The impact of the tax cuts on pump prices for ordinary consumers remains uncertain. Analysts suggest that oil companies previously selling at a loss are likely to benefit from the tax reductions. According to economist Madhavi Arora from Emkay Global, the annualised fiscal hit from these cuts is estimated at nearly 1.55 trillion rupees ($16.3bn).In a related move, finance authorities have reimposed export taxes on diesel and aviation fuel, raising them to 21.5 rupees ($0.23) and 29.5 ($0.31) rupees per litre respectively. This comes after the taxes were previously scrapped in 2024.

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.

Sir Paul Marshall, the co-owner of GB News and a self-described 'committed' Christian, has been criticized by a group of 100 church leaders over the TV channel's attacks on climate science and action. The leaders, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, argue that Marshall's statements on climate change are misleading and that his hedge fund's £1.8bn investments in fossil fuels present a conflict of interest.Marshall has stated that the UK has been infected by 'climate derangement syndrome' and that efforts to cut planet-heating emissions are 'impoverishing people.' In response, the church leaders emphasized that 100% of global heating since 1950 has been caused by human emissions and activities, according to the world's climate scientists. They also noted that decarbonization is a huge growth opportunity that will save trillions of dollars in the long term.The leaders, in an open letter, urged Marshall to be transparent about any personal conflicts of interest and to declare his financial interests in fossil fuels. They cited research that found GB News broadcast 953 attacks on climate science and climate action in the period immediately before and after the 2024 general election.Marshall responded that 'the Gospel entreats us to look after the vulnerable' but argued that pursuing an 'ideological' net zero policy was 'a path of unilateral economic disarmament and self-harm.' He also stated that he was not involved in the editorial decisions of GB News, which has lost £131m since its launch in 2021.The Christian leaders' criticism of Marshall and GB News highlights the ongoing debate over climate change and the role of media outlets in shaping public discourse on the issue. As more than 100 countries have net zero policies and the UK's net zero economy grew by 10% in 2024, the pressure on media outlets to provide accurate and responsible reporting on climate issues continues to grow.