Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Four months after Australia introduced its under‑16 social‑media ban, Sydney teenager Noah Jones says his online experience has been largely unchanged – he has not been removed from any platform.Jones recounts a brief hiccup on Instagram that he quickly resolved, and notes a friend who temporarily lost access to Snapchat but managed to circumvent it. "That’s pretty much my whole experience of the ban," he says.Despite his personal continuity, Jones is now a plaintiff in a High Court challenge mounted by the Digital Freedom Project, which argues the ban infringes the implied constitutional right to political communication.The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman‑Grant, recently disclosed that more than 5 million accounts have been deactivated since the policy’s rollout, yet over two‑thirds of teenagers remain active on the ten targeted platforms – Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X, Twitch, Kick, Threads and Reddit. Young users are reportedly bypassing facial‑age estimation tools, especially when they are within two years of turning 16.Further eSafety findings reveal that 66 % of parents say platforms did not request age verification, and when ages of 14 or 15 were detected, platforms often prompted users to undergo facial‑recognition checks and simply adjust the displayed age rather than enforce deactivation.Communications Minister Anika Wells has urged the commissioner to "throw the book at" non‑compliant services, noting that fines could reach up to $49.5 million per breach in federal court. However, any penalties are likely to be considered only after the High Court decides the law’s validity.Wells also pledged new legislation imposing a digital duty of care on platforms, obliging them to take reasonable steps to prevent harm. The bill is slated for parliamentary debate later this year.The Digital Freedom Project, led by NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick, contends that banning under‑16s from holding accounts effectively silences their participation in political discourse, as logged‑out viewing does not permit meaningful engagement.Legal scholars are divided. Prof. Sarah Joseph of Griffith University warns that an ineffective law could breach the implied freedom of political communication, while Monash University’s Prof. Luke Beck argues that the law’s purpose is to compel platforms to enforce age restrictions, not to achieve 100 % compliance.Beck points out that most legislation is not perfectly effective – citing murder laws and age‑restricted media – and that courts typically assess whether a law is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.The government acknowledges that the age limit imposes a burden on political communication but maintains the measure is justified to mitigate risks from algorithmic recommendation systems, endless feeds, and other features that can amplify harm.Jones will turn 16 in August, at which point the ban would no longer apply to him. His mother, Renee Jones, says she faced online backlash for opposing the ban, with some critics even suggesting her children be taken away."It’s my right to choose how I raise my children in a digital world," she asserts, emphasizing strict household rules: no devices in bedrooms, phones locked at night, and shared passwords for parental oversight.Jones acknowledges the downsides of social media – bullying and explicit content – but stresses that his generation relies on these platforms for news and forming opinions, more so than traditional media.Both Jones and his mother argue the legislation was rushed and is failing to address the core concerns about harmful content, leaving many teens, like Noah, to navigate the digital landscape largely unchanged despite the ban.

On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom’s electorate shifted from party‑centric voting to a binary choice between staying in or leaving the European Union. A decade later, about 60 % of the population still define themselves by the side they chose in that single referendum, turning a one‑off political decision into a lasting personal identity.While analysts often focus on the policy fallout—economic turbulence, party infighting, and shifting trade relations—the real impact runs deeper. The referendum ignited a civil‑war‑like split that continues to shape elections, media narratives, and everyday conversations across the country.Before the global upheavals of the George Floyd protests and the Covid‑19 vaccine rollout, Brexit was Britain’s most potent form of identity politics. It spawned new media outlets, such as GB News, and programmes like The Rest Is Politics, while also marginalising older cultural tropes like the “centrist dad” or “gammon” heckler on Question Time. Figures such as Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski now occupy the political fringe rather than the mainstream.The analysis draws on the new book Tribal Politics: How Brexit Divided Britain by political scientists Sara Hobolt and James Tilley. Their longitudinal surveys reveal a simple yet striking pattern: the referendum transformed a previously lukewarm public attitude toward the EU into a powerful, identity‑based habit.Prior to 2016, most Britons held only a mild Euroscepticism and gave the EU little thought. Even former Prime Minister David Cameron tried to silence the issue in 2006, believing it failed to engage voters. The sudden elevation of a niche concern to a national obsession forced ordinary citizens to pick a side, discuss it in pubs, and embed it into their self‑image—a process James Clear describes as building “identity‑based habits”.Data from Hobolt and Tilley show that emotional attachment to the Brexit identity was modest before the vote, rose sharply as the referendum approached, and surged dramatically after the result was announced. The post‑vote period saw a flood of EU‑themed merchandise, street rallies, and even flag‑clashes at cultural events such as the 2017 Last Night of the Proms.Crucially, the tribal divide has not faded. By 2025, only around 40 % of “Leavers” feel comfortable discussing politics with “Remainers”, and the sentiment is reciprocated. This goes beyond mere disagreement; it reflects a level of social discrimination where individuals on opposite sides would hesitate to share a home or marry into each other’s families.The authors note that the split now extends to perceptions of reality itself. Even in 2024, Remainers and Leavers disagreed on basic economic indicators, illustrating how the referendum reshaped not just policy preferences but fundamental worldviews.Class‑based voting, which dominated the 20th‑century British political landscape, has been largely supplanted by this new cultural cleavage. A previous study co‑authored by Tilley showed that the Labour Party’s turn toward the political centre in the 1990s eroded traditional working‑class loyalty. Today, leader Keir Starmer’s working‑class credentials appear largely symbolic, offering little substantive change.With class politics receded, culture wars have taken centre stage. The Brexit campaign’s vague promises about trade left the nation with a protracted, messy adjustment period. Immigration, famously dubbed the “baseball bat” issue by Dominic Cummings, remains the most polarising policy divide, followed by foreign aid and even the death penalty.Hobolt and Tilley’s most striking chart shows that while Remainers and Leavers clash over immigration, they share little disagreement on economic equality, workers’ rights, or public ownership—issues that directly affect household incomes. This suggests that the political battle is driven more by symbolic identity than by material concerns, benefitting those already financially secure.In sum, the United Kingdom’s post‑Brexit reality is one of entrenched tribalism, where a single referendum has reshaped social bonds, political discourse, and perceptions of truth itself. The nation continues to grapple with the legacy of a vote that turned a policy decision into a lasting cultural fault line.

A recent statement by Pastor Franklin Graham has ignited controversy, claiming that Iranians are seeking the death of all Jews. This assertion was made in the context of a prayer at the White House, drawing significant attention to the complex dynamics between Iran and Israel. The relationship between Iran and Israel has long been strained, with Iran's stance on Israel being a focal point of international concern. Iran has repeatedly denied allegations of seeking to destroy Israel, but its rhetoric and actions have been closely monitored by global powers. Pastor Graham's comments have highlighted the deep-seated tensions in the region and the challenges of navigating diplomatic relations. The White House, as a platform for such statements, underscores the significance of religious and political discourse in shaping international perceptions. The international community remains vigilant, monitoring developments that could impact global stability. The situation underscores the importance of diplomatic engagement and the need for clear communication to avoid escalating tensions.