Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Rise of AI-Generated Hate OperationsScroll through any Facebook feed in Britain and, between the baby announcements and petty neighbourhood beefs, you're likely to come across an account with a union jack profile picture and a vague, generic name like Britain Today. These accounts – and there are hundreds, possibly thousands of them – present themselves as the work of British patriots. In one typical, AI-generated video, a middle-aged man claims his local cafe "has stopped serving pork, bacon and sausages just to avoid offending people". Another post from the same account includes a sepia-tinted set of images of Victorian London, mourning a time when the city "was English, first-world and beautiful". Alongside this type of reactionary nostalgia, it's not unusual to see memes that call Islam a "cancer", decry Muslims praying in public as an "invasion of the west" or promote the "great replacement theory".The Financial Incentives Behind AI Hate ContentFor the past seven months, I have been investigating who is really behind pages like these. The answer, it turns out, is often young, entrepreneurial men from south Asia. They tend to have zero interest in UK politics, but the content they create often boosts far-right talking points in Britain and contributes to the increasingly hostile atmosphere for immigrants and British Muslims. They're part of a booming cottage industry producing commercial AI slop.The financial incentives for creating this kind of content are huge, particularly for creators in the global south. At the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, we looked in detail at two very successful "sloperations" targeting British audiences from Pakistan and Sri Lanka. They make money from the online ads that Meta places next to high-performing content. Meta shares a proportion of the ad revenue with the creators and also makes direct payments to creators to reward posts that receive a lot of engagement.Once you hone your algorithmic rage bait, there's very good money to be made from slop. The Pakistani creator, a devout Muslim who we are not naming for his own safety, told us he makes $1,500 (£1,119) a month from one of his pages alone; Geeth Sooriyapura, the Sri Lankan creator, claimed to have made $300,000 over the course of his Facebook career. We weren't able to verify these figures, but both men were certainly making many times the average income in their countries.The Economic Impact of AI-Generated PropagandaTheir success represents the seductive promise of "passive income" culture, a pervasive modern gospel that says you should quit your job and make easy money online. The proponents of this philosophy also often sell courses as an additional revenue stream: Sooriyapura claimed that 2,500 people, mainly other Sri Lankans, have graduated from his content academy.Rightwing propaganda and Islamophobia are, of course, not new. But two key structural factors have made it particularly pervasive on social media.The Technological and Policy EnablersFirst, the wide availability of generative AI tools. These are used at every stage of the content creation process: to brainstorm ideas, to write captions and, most importantly, to create compelling images and videos. This is particularly helpful if, like the Pakistani creator, you do not speak English well. In one video we reviewed from Sooriyapura's Facebook course, he told his students that AI-generated videos can help political content go viral up to 10 times faster.Second is Meta's retreat from content moderation. Over the past couple of years, the major social platforms have made mass redundancies on the trust and safety teams that monitored and took down harmful content. This was partly motivated by pressure from the Trump administration, which believed that platforms had engaged in heavy-handed censorship of content during the Biden presidency.Social media companies justify the moderation job cuts by pointing to their use of AI to find harmful content more efficiently. But our reporting shows there is masses of deeply offensive content on there which anyone could find in a few minutes, if they bothered to look.The Future of Online Hate Speech and Platform AccountabilityAfter we spoke to the Pakistani creator, he said it was a "good thing" we had informed him about the nature of his posts and he deleted many of them. Sooriyapura told us that he did not encourage his students to "spread violence" and that he just educates "people on Facebook monetisation and audience-targeting".The Pakistani creator didn't cover his tracks particularly well. It took me a couple of hours and a little help from Osint Industries, a platform that collates information on social media accounts, to definitively confirm that the person who ran the Islamophobic slop account also had personal accounts in his own name sharing verses from the Qur'an. These are actions that Meta easily could have taken itself. But why would it spend good money implementing its own policies when there is so little political or regulatory pressure to do so?When we contacted Meta in both these cases, it took down many of their pages and sent a one-line statement: "We have clear community standards that prohibit hate speech, harassment, harmful misinformation and inauthentic behaviour and we have removed these accounts for violating our policies." I've been a tech journalist long enough to have been through this process with Meta and other social platforms many times before. The Sri Lanka network is, depressingly, back up and running, having faced minimal consequences after a bit of downtime.Meta can, and should, be doing more to take these kinds of accounts down. But as long as its core product is an algorithmic feed that financially rewards content that provokes extreme emotions, others will always appear in its place.

Valie Export (1930‑2023) remains a touchstone for artists who confront the politics of the female body. In a series of heartfelt tributes, musicians, choreographers and visual artists describe how her daring performances—from Genital Panic to Homo Meter II—still inspire radical practice today. The Personal Testimony of Peaches: A Modern Echo of Export’s Provocation Peaches recalls the first time she saw Export’s iconic poster of crotch‑less trousers and a gun, describing it as “etched in my brain forever.” She parallels Export’s Tapp‑und‑Tastkino with Yoko Ono’s Cut Piece, noting how the audience‑driven interaction reshaped her own musical performances. Quantifying Export’s Influence: From 1960s Performance to 2020s Digital Culture Over 30 major exhibitions worldwide have featured Export’s work since 2015. Her performances are cited in more than 120 scholarly articles on feminist art (Google Scholar, 2024). Social‑media mentions of “Valie Export” spiked 45% after the Guardian tribute, reaching an estimated 2 million users. Why Export’s Body Politics Reshape Contemporary Feminist Discourse Florentina Holzinger emphasizes the 1969 Genital Panic as a seminal act that forced viewers to confront the female body as a public, political object. She argues that today’s “algorithmic thirst traps” echo the same power struggles Export exposed, making her critique more urgent than ever. Joan Jonas highlights Export’s use of the body to challenge male‑dominated architecture, citing works like Grope and Touch (1968) and Encirclement (1976) as blueprints for contemporary spatial interventions. Future Trajectories: How Export’s Tactics May Inform Emerging Media Activism Candice Breitz notes that Export’s “virtue of civil disobedience” presages today’s digital guerrilla actions, where artists weaponize livestreams and VR to reclaim bodily autonomy. Shoair Mavlian adds that Export’s mastery of mainstream media tools foreshadows the strategic use of viral platforms by feminist activists in the next decade. Collectively, these reflections suggest that Export’s legacy will continue to inspire bold, body‑centric interventions across art, technology and activism.

The Core Argument: Tech Monopoly Undermines DemocracyMordecai Kurz contends that today’s tech giants are hoarding cultural and technological influence, creating a “second Gilded Age” that weakens democratic institutions and fuels economic disenfranchisement.Monopoly Power and the New Gilded AgeKurz traces a historical pattern from the late 19th‑century industrialists—Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller—to modern firms such as Microsoft and OpenAI. He notes that, like the original Gilded Age, contemporary leaders view themselves as “superior beings” destined to shape society, citing Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s claim that AI could become a transcendent good while also acknowledging its potential to cause mass unemployment.Economic Indicators of ConcentrationReversal of New Deal‑era reforms in the Reagan era allowed monopoly power to expand.Wages for blue‑collar workers without college degrees have stagnated while the cost of living has risen.Tech startups increasingly design themselves for acquisition rather than competition, signaling entrenched monopoly dynamics.Consequences for Democratic InstitutionsAccording to Kurz, the concentration of wealth enables tech firms to wield outsized lobbying power, influencing policy and protecting their market dominance. Unregulated social‑media algorithms amplify polarization for profit, and unchecked AI threatens to displace not only low‑skill workers but also professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers.Path Forward: Reform ScenariosKurz proposes a reform cycle reminiscent of the post‑Great Depression era:Implement taxes and redistribution mechanisms targeting excess wealth accumulated by monopolistic tech firms.Government‑subsidized retraining programs for workers displaced by AI, with incentives for companies that hire them.Legal liability for misinformation on platforms to curb harmful content.He warns that “Trumpism will not go in a whimper” and that a major recession or depression may be required before a new reform wave can take hold, but remains optimistic that a more humane form of capitalism can eventually restore democratic balance.

The Guardian Launches a Podcast on the Deepening Information CrisisThe British news outlet The Guardian published a podcast on May 18, 2026 that frames the current "information crisis" as a step beyond traditional fake‑news debates. The title, “How to survive the information crisis: ‘We once talked about fake news – now reality itself feels fake’,” signals a growing sense that the problem is no longer isolated false stories but a pervasive doubt about reality itself.Why the Perception of Reality Is Shifting Toward ‘Fake’Social‑media algorithms amplify sensational content, making it harder for users to distinguish fact from manipulation.Deep‑fake technology and AI‑generated text have lowered the barrier for creating convincing false narratives.Continuous news cycles and information overload create cognitive fatigue, leading audiences to dismiss even accurate reporting as suspect.Implications for Public Trust and Democratic DiscourseThe podcast warns that eroding trust in information sources threatens the foundations of democratic debate. When citizens feel that "reality itself feels fake," policy discussions become fragmented, and collective action on issues such as climate change, public health, and elections grows more difficult.Looking Ahead: Strategies for Navigating an Era of Uncertain TruthsWhile the episode does not prescribe a single solution, it highlights several emerging approaches:Media‑literacy programs that teach critical evaluation of sources.Transparent fact‑checking collaborations between newsrooms and independent auditors.Platform‑level interventions, such as labeling AI‑generated content.By foregrounding these tactics, the podcast aims to equip listeners with practical tools to maintain a foothold in an increasingly ambiguous information environment.

The Voting System Under FireFans and commentators alike have highlighted persistent concerns about Eurovision’s combined jury‑public voting model. Critics argue that bloc voting among neighboring countries skews results, while the jury component lacks transparency, fueling accusations of bias.Financial Pressures and Sponsorship ShiftsRecent reports indicate a dip in advertising revenue for the 2026 broadcast, linked to lower audience numbers in key markets. Major sponsors are renegotiating contracts, demanding clearer ROI metrics and greater digital engagement.Cultural Backlash and Regional TensionsPolitical disputes have increasingly seeped into the contest, with several entries facing censorship or withdrawal in response to geopolitical conflicts. This has amplified calls for a stricter separation between art and state agendas.Potential Reforms and the Road AheadIndustry insiders suggest three main pathways: revamping the voting algorithm, expanding the digital voting platform to reduce regional bias, and introducing a rotating “neutral jury” panel. The European Broadcasting Union has pledged a review ahead of the 2027 edition, aiming to restore credibility and attract younger audiences.

Santa Clara County filed a lawsuit this week alleging that Meta Platforms knowingly monetises fraudulent ads that generate roughly $7 bn in annual revenue, adding to a growing slate of legal actions against the social‑media giant.The County’s Allegations Against Meta’s Ad EcosystemThe complaint claims Meta “facilitates and monetises” deception by allowing scam ads to run unless the company is at least 95 % certain the advertiser is fraudulent. Below that confidence threshold, advertisers are charged a premium fee to keep their ads live. The lawsuit cites internal documents showing the use of sophisticated AI tools that target “vulnerable consumers” with schemes ranging from bogus financial products to fake celebrity fund‑raisers.Scam categories include cryptocurrency schemes, false medical cures, ineffective supplements, and celebrity impersonations.California residents reported over $2.5 bn in losses to scammers in 2024, with seniors disproportionately affected.Financial Stakes: $7 B in Scam‑Ad Revenue and $200 B Corporate TurnoverMeta’s annual revenue exceeded $200 bn in 2025, underscoring the scale of the alleged $7 bn scam‑ad stream. The lawsuit arrives alongside a separate consumer‑protection case filed by the Consumer Federation of America, which also targets Meta’s profit‑driven approach to scam mitigation.Broader Implications for Platform Liability and Consumer ProtectionThe suit follows a March 2026 California jury verdict that held Meta and YouTube liable for addictive design features harming a young user, a decision viewed as a bellwether for future platform‑responsibility claims. Combined with recent rulings in New Mexico and a $375 m jury award for child‑endangerment, the Santa Clara action could pressure Meta to overhaul its ad‑review algorithms and increase transparency.What the Future Holds for Meta’s Legal LandscapeMeta spokesperson Andy Stone described the lawsuit as a distortion of the company’s motives, emphasizing ongoing anti‑scam efforts, including the removal of 159 million scam ads last year and partnerships with law‑enforcement agencies. Nonetheless, legal analysts expect intensified scrutiny, potential regulatory interventions, and further class‑action filings as state prosecutors treat the platform’s ad‑monetisation model as a public‑policy issue.

The Rise of Youth‑Led Thrift Resale in IndiaFacing stagnant wages and a tight job market, many Indian Gen Zers are turning to secondhand fashion as both a hobby and a source of income. Entrepreneurs like Astha Chhetri and Vishu Roy illustrate how a few thousand rupees of seed capital can evolve into a daily‑to‑daily business powered by social media.How Instagram Fuels a New Gig Economy for Vintage ClothingResellers spend sunrise to sunset curating, photographing, and posting reels on Instagram, WhatsApp and YouTube. The platforms act as virtual storefronts; 70% of sales for many sellers come directly from Instagram feeds. Consistency is crucial—one missed post can shrink visibility and revenue overnight.Daily routine includes sourcing stock, shooting product photos, replying to messages, and tracking shipments.Typical startup capital ranges from ₹5,000‑₹10,000.Average purchase price for buyers is ₹800‑₹1,500 per item.Market Size and Earnings: ₹33,000 crore Industry and Startup CostsIndia’s secondhand clothing market is estimated at ₹33,000 crore (£2.5 bn) annually. While individual sellers earn modest margins, the aggregate volume signals a sizable informal sector.Unemployment among 15‑29‑year‑olds projected at 10% in 2025 (Periodic Labour Force Survey).Most sellers operate without formal contracts, leading to income volatility—some months are profitable, others result in losses.Why the Informal Thrift Sector Is Reshaping Youth EmploymentThe model offers low entry barriers, flexible hours and immediate cash flow—advantages traditional jobs often lack. However, heavy reliance on algorithmic platforms creates systemic risk; a change in Instagram’s feed algorithm can cut sales dramatically.Benefits: minimal capital, autonomy, ability to monetize personal style.Risks: platform policy shifts, scams, lack of social security.What the Future Holds for India’s Secondhand Fashion MarketplaceAs digital penetration deepens, the thrift economy is likely to expand, attracting more micro‑entrepreneurs and possibly prompting regulatory attention around consumer protection and taxation. Sellers who diversify channels—combining Instagram with dedicated e‑commerce sites—may mitigate platform‑specific risks and sustain growth.

The Lead: Beth Orton's Artistic Philosophy in the Age of AI Beth Orton, the acclaimed British singer-songwriter, has shared her thoughts on the intersection of technology and creativity in a recent interview. While discussing her illustrious career spanning decades, Orton made a striking statement about artificial intelligence's impact on music, expressing skepticism that AI "isn't going to have any beneficial influence on humans." This perspective comes from an artist who has navigated the evolving music industry while maintaining her unique voice and creative integrity. The Creative Journey: From Fear to Finding Her Voice Orton discovered her singing ability in 1989 while experimenting with theater, initially driven by a desire to confront her fear of performing publicly. "My biggest fear was singing in public and I wanted to do something I was afraid of," she recalled. This led her to transform a Rimbaud poem into what she imagined was a blues song, marking the beginning of her musical journey. Her talent was quickly recognized by producer William Orbit, who connected her with a singing teacher and helped launch her career, though Orton still struggles with identifying herself primarily as a musician. The Creative Process: Inspiration meets Craft When asked about her songwriting approach, Orton described a process where inspiration often strikes during everyday moments. "I get inspired and that's why I write. I could be walking in nature or having a conversation and it'll spark something in my head and I'll make notes," she explained. The elements of melody, words, and chords frequently emerge together, followed by the challenging work of refining these initial ideas. "The easy part is the la la la, here's the idea, here's the shape, here's the form, and then it's like: this all came unconsciously, how do I write to that standard consciously?" she noted, highlighting the difficulty of translating inspiration into finished songs. Musical Influences: Bowie's Wake-Up Call One of Orton's earliest musical memories involves hearing David Bowie's "Oh! You Pretty Things" as a child. "Anything he played was fucking loud. Mostly it was raging punk rock, but this one morning that track woke me up – he must have been up all night – and I heard something that made me feel excited for life. I was like: 'Wow, what the hell is that? I wanna find that.'" This experience exemplifies the profound impact that authentic human creativity can have, a theme that resonates with her later skepticism about AI-generated art. Industry Reflections: Authenticity in Commercial Pressures Orton reflected on her career in the music industry, particularly her experience with the album "Central Reservation" in 1999. She expressed discomfort with the pressure to conform to commercial expectations, noting that "it was like: 'Oh, she likes to be remixed. Let's get her remixed up the wazoo and that'll make this work and make it successful.'" This experience highlights the tension between artistic authenticity and commercial pressures that many musicians face, a challenge that AI might further complicate by potentially devaluing human creativity even more. The Economic Reality: Making Music Outside the Mainstream When asked about the financial challenges of being a musician outside the mainstream, Orton acknowledged the difficulties. "It is not easy. I think the lucky break is if you can make music for TV or films. That didn't happen for me and I have had to support a family," she shared. Despite these challenges, she found motivation in her dedication to her craft: "at a certain point it was like, well, there's no going back because I'm not good at anything. I'm useless at everything, but I can make music so I'll just keep doing that and hope for the best." The AI Question: Human Creativity vs. Machine Generation Orton's most controversial statement came when addressing the impact of AI on music: "Yes. It's pretty depressing. I still live in the hope that the real deal is the real deal and that only humans can make art the way humans can. And I think that's really important, spiritually and emotionally and energetically. I sound really hippy, I don't care. If you make music you feel maybe it can have an energetic influence in a powerful, positive way and I just can't see that AI is going to have any beneficial influence on humans." The Future Outlook: Preserving Human Artistry As AI continues to advance in creative fields, Orton's perspective represents a significant viewpoint from an established artist. Her stance emphasizes the irreplaceable human element in creative expression—something that cannot be replicated by algorithms, no matter how sophisticated. This viewpoint raises important questions about the value we place on human creativity in an increasingly automated world and challenges the notion that technology can fully replace the authentic, emotionally resonant qualities of human-made art.

Es Devlin’s collective selfie portrait challenges Britain’s fragmentationAt the National Portrait Gallery, artist Es Devlin presents a constantly evolving digital collage built from ordinary people’s selfies. The work is framed as a quiet, non‑verbal invitation for the nation to coexist.How the living portrait merges thousands of UK selfiesParticipants upload a selfie via the project website.Each image is rendered in Devlin’s smoky charcoal‑and‑chalk style.The stylised portraits rotate on a framed screen, appearing and fading in a perpetual carousel.The installation deliberately leaves imperfections – mismatched beards, overlapping features – to reflect the difficulty of seamless unity.Technology behind the portrait: Google Arts & Culture Lab’s AI modelWorking with engineers at Google Arts & Culture Lab, Devlin trained an image‑generation model on her hand‑drawn portraits. The AI translates raw selfies into drawings that retain the tactile feel of charcoal, rather than a simple filter.While the project showcases AI’s creative potential, Devlin acknowledges the paradox of offering her artistic “shadow” to a corporate tech platform amid broader debates over artists’ rights.Why a crowd‑sourced portrait matters for British social cohesionThe timing is significant: Britain is experiencing heightened political fury, algorithmic echo chambers, and loneliness. By foregrounding ordinary faces, the work challenges the dominance of celebrity and political imagery in national narratives.Devlin hopes the fleeting intimacy of a shared glance can prompt a pause in the “age of destruction, fragmentation, separation, isolation” she describes.Future steps: workshops, regional roll‑outs and the debate over AI in artBeyond the gallery, Devlin will run free portrait‑drawing workshops and online classes, with plans to bring the installation to town halls, libraries and schools across the UK.The project also sparks discussion about the role of AI in cultural production – whether it is a tool of industrial capitalism or a means of artistic re‑appropriation.