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.

Pet owners in Britain may soon be barred from purchasing flea‑control products for cats and dogs at local shops. The government has opened an eight‑week public consultation to consider restricting sales to veterinarians or pharmacists, arguing that professional oversight will ensure correct usage and reduce environmental harm. Current regulations allow these topical treatments—containing potent insecticides such as fipronil and imidacloprid—to be bought in any pet store. Once applied, the chemicals disperse into the animal’s fur, enter waterways through washing or swimming, and have been linked to songbird nest failures and massive bee mortality. Water minister Emma Hardy emphasized the government’s commitment to “restore nature and clean up our rivers,” noting that while the products are vital for pet health, their distribution should be limited to professionals who can advise on safe application. Research funded by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) found that pet owners’ use of these treatments contributes to detectable levels of fipronil and imidacloprid in rivers and lakes. Environment Agency data reveal fipronil residues in 98% of water samples and imidacloprid in 66%, often exceeding toxicity thresholds for aquatic insects. One monthly flea treatment for a large dog contains enough imidacloprid to kill 25 million bees, underscoring the broader impact on pollinator populations. In the UK, fipronil is an ingredient in 66 veterinary products, while imidacloprid appears in 21. Abigail Seager, chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directive, acknowledged the dual role of these chemicals in protecting pets and people from parasites, but warned that “they are entering our waterways and may be having wider environmental impacts.” She called for diverse stakeholder input to balance medicine availability with ecological protection. The consultation follows a recent governmental pledge to ban imidacloprid and two other neonicotinoids—clothianidin and thiamethoxam—from agricultural use, reflecting a broader strategy to safeguard biodiversity.

Senator Bernie Sanders, a proud Jewish American, has spoken out against the inhumane actions of Israel and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. He emphasizes that criticizing Israel's actions is not antisemitic, but rather a necessary stance against violations of international law.Sanders highlights the devastating impact of Israel's actions in Gaza, where over 72,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 170,000 wounded, mostly women, children, and the elderly. He also notes the destruction of almost all of Gaza's infrastructure, including water and sewer systems, and the demolition of every university and hundreds of schools.In the West Bank, Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed 1,071 Palestinians, including 233 children, and demolished over 6,000 Palestinian homes. Sanders argues that these actions are not just extremist settler behavior, but government policy, with Netanyahu's security cabinet approving sweeping changes to the West Bank's legal status.Sanders announces that he will force a Senate vote on two Joint Resolutions of Disapproval to block arms sales to Israel, including $151.8m in 1,000-pound bombs and $295m in bulldozers used for demolishing homes. He hopes his colleagues will join him in supporting these resolutions, citing plummeting support for Israel among Americans, especially young people.

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.

British Chancellor Rachel Reeves has stepped up her criticism of Donald Trump's war on Iran, describing it as a 'mistake' that has destabilized the global economy and damaged living standards around the world.In a marked fraying of the transatlantic relationship, Reeves said Trump's decision to break off from diplomatic talks with Iran and launch airstrikes seemed to have left the president in a worse place than he started.“I think it was a mistake to end those [talks with Iran] and to enter into conflict, because I'm not convinced that we are safer today than we were a few weeks ago,” she told an event in Washington.Reeves' comments added to blunt criticism of Trump she made just before flying out on Tuesday, when she expressed frustration at the 'folly' of his decision to go to war without a clear exit plan.The criticism adds to an increasingly tense atmosphere between Downing Street and the White House, with Trump's attacks on Prime Minister Keir Starmer becoming increasingly personal.The IMF warned on Tuesday that a further escalation in the Iran war could trigger a global recession that would affect the UK more than any of the other G7 nations.Reeves called for the urgent reopening of the strait of Hormuz to calm global energy prices, saying the lack of clear US targets in negotiations with Iran had worsened the situation.“We had the waterway open a few weeks ago. So, if now the objective is to reopen the strait of Hormuz? Well it was open at the beginning of this conflict,” Reeves added.Reeves said she had come to the IMF meetings to “deliver that fair message” that the conflict in the Middle East was hitting living standards worldwide and required urgent de-escalation.

Lagos, one of Africa's most dynamic cities, is facing a severe housing crisis. The city's population of approximately 22 million people is putting immense pressure on its housing market, leading to soaring rents and a shortage of affordable accommodation.Oluwatobi Ogundipe, a 32-year-old product manager, commutes four hours daily from his small flat in Sango Ota to his office on Lagos Island. Despite working in one of Nigeria's growing technology sectors, he cannot afford to live closer to his office, highlighting the affordability crisis in the city.Rents across Lagos have surged beyond wage growth, with prices increasing by as much as 400% in some areas. On the mainland, flats that rented for ₦500,000 two years ago now cost up to ₦2.5m a year. On the island, rents have tripled, making it even more challenging for residents to find affordable housing.The city's deputy governor, Obafemi Hamzat, attributes the crisis to persistent migration pressure, with about 6,000 new inhabitants arriving and 3,000 leaving each day. This has led to a shortage of over 3.4 million housing units, according to Prof. Taibat Lawanson, a professor of urban management and governance at the University of Lagos.The shortage of affordable homes is exacerbated by developers prioritizing high-end projects over affordable housing, driven by high construction costs, soaring urban land prices, and limited housing finance. This has led to a proliferation of luxury flats, even as people struggle to secure basic accommodation.The crisis has also fueled the popularity of short-term rentals, with many landlords converting their homes into short-let properties, further reducing the availability of long-term rentals and driving prices higher.For now, Lagos's residents adapt, making long commutes through the city's infamous traffic. As Ogundipe says, "We all come to Lagos chasing something, but these days, it feels like the city is slowly pushing us away."

In the first three months of 2026, the United States’ six biggest banks collectively generated $47.4 bn in net profit, edging close to the $50 bn mark. The earnings surge reflects a sharp rise in trading activity as market participants scrambled for safety after the US‑Israeli offensive against Iran sparked a wave of volatility. Bank of America and Morgan Stanley led the pack with profit jumps of 17% and 30% respectively, while Goldman Sachs posted a 19% increase. JPMorgan Chase reported a 13% rise to $16.5 bn, Citi posted a striking 42% jump to $5.8 bn, and Wells Fargo added a modest 7% gain to reach $5.3 bn. Chief Executive David Solomon of Goldman Sachs described the results as a “very strong performance … even as market conditions became more volatile,” noting that the shift in client behavior toward cash‑preserving strategies boosted fee‑based trading revenue. Meanwhile, Bank of America’s CEO Brian Moynihan cautioned that the board remains “watchful of evolving risks,” acknowledging the broader uncertainty surrounding the Middle‑East conflict. The conflict has disrupted tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, pushing energy prices higher and feeding inflationary pressures. The International Monetary Fund responded by trimming its 2026 US growth forecast by 0.1 percentage points to 2.3%, warning that a deeper escalation could trigger a global recession, especially for net energy importers and developing economies. Higher borrowing costs and inflation expectations have dampened demand for loans and mortgages, potentially curbing future investment‑banking fees tied to mergers and acquisitions. Yet, the immediate impact on trading desks has been lucrative, prompting banks to return cash to shareholders. JPMorgan set a quarterly record with a $8.3 bn share‑buyback, Bank of America followed with $7.2 bn, Citi spent $6.3 bn—its biggest buyback in two decades—while Goldman, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley allocated $5 bn, $4 bn and $1.8 bn respectively. Analysts view the earnings surge as a short‑term windfall that may not be sustainable if the geopolitical tension persists. Prolonged conflict could suppress corporate earnings, reduce merger activity, and ultimately erode the trading‑driven profit model that has underpinned this quarter’s success.

President Donald Trump announced on Fox Business that he will dismiss Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell if the central‑bank chief does not vacate the post by the statutory end of his term on May 15. “I’ll have to fire him, OK, if he’s not leaving on time,” Trump said, adding that he had previously held back the decision to avoid controversy. Powell, who has just over a month left in his tenure, has repeatedly been criticized by Trump for what the president calls a “bad job” and for refusing to lower interest rates despite Trump’s repeated demands since his return to the White House in January 2025. In January, Trump nominated former Fed governor Kevin Warsh to replace Powell. Warsh, known for his criticism of the Fed’s relatively high rates, is expected to align more closely with Trump’s push for rate cuts. His confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee is slated for April 21, but the outcome remains uncertain. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a member of the banking committee, has signaled he will block Warsh’s nomination until the Department of Justice concludes its criminal investigation into alleged misconduct surrounding the Fed’s headquarters renovation in Washington, D.C. Tillis described the probe as “reaching the point of absurd,” yet insists the investigation must be resolved before moving forward. The probe appears active: prosecutors made an unannounced visit to the construction site this week, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, underscoring the seriousness of the inquiry. During the same interview, Trump dismissed the investigation’s relevance, claiming the project was “probably corrupt, but what it really is is incompetence,” and questioned whether a $25 million renovation could balloon to a $4 billion expense. Powell responded in January with a rare public rebuke, labeling the investigation a “pretext” aimed at pressuring the Fed to lower rates. He warned that political intimidation could jeopardize the Fed’s ability to set monetary policy based on economic evidence. The legal backdrop adds another layer of uncertainty. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on Trump’s authority to fire a Fed board member without cause—a question that resurfaced after the president’s attempted removal of Fed governor Lisa Cook last summer. Justices appeared skeptical of such unilateral action during oral arguments in January. With the Fed’s independence at stake, the coming weeks will determine whether Trump’s threat translates into action, whether Warsh can secure Senate confirmation, and how the renovation investigation will influence the broader debate over political interference in U.S. monetary policy.

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.