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.

Some American cities shortlisted to host the 2031 Women's World Cup are contemplating withdrawal due to concerns related to Fifa's management of this summer's World Cup. The cities are exploring alternative options, such as focusing on hosting the 2031 Rugby World Cup instead.There are 40 stadiums on the US Soccer Federation's longlist for potential 2031 Women's World Cup venues, while World Rugby has received expressions of interest from 27 cities featuring 33 stadiums, with 20 stadiums appearing on both lists. Cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh have already declined to enter the running for Women's World Cup hosting rights, reportedly due to concerns about Fifa's financial demands.A source working with one of the cities in question noted that World Rugby is offering greater commercial freedom and has fewer demands regarding access to stadiums. Another source indicated that the Rugby World Cup is likely to be more profitable due to the demographic profile of rugby supporters and their expected spending on match attendance.Fifa delayed confirmation of the 2031 World Cup hosts from the end of this month to an unspecified date this year. The joint proposal from the US, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Jamaica is currently the only bid on the table. Additionally, there are concerns about the US government not providing Fifa with mandatory guarantees regarding obligations on visas, tax, safety, and security.The experience of dealing with Fifa for the upcoming men's World Cup has not been uniformly positive for all cities, with issues such as safety and security costs and public transport problems. World Rugby has announced that it will finance its event and share profits or losses with USA Rugby, rather than requiring hosts to underwrite the tournament.

Reports are emerging of deadly Israeli airstrikes targeting Beirut, the capital city of Lebanon. The strikes have resulted in a significant number of casualties, although exact details are still coming in.The incident has heightened tensions in the already volatile Middle East region, where conflicts between Israel and neighboring countries have been a longstanding issue.The situation in Beirut remains dire, with concerns growing over civilian safety and the potential for further escalation.

The European Parliament's decision to block the extension of a law that permits big tech firms to scan for child sexual exploitation on their platforms has created a legal gap that child safety experts say will lead to crimes going undetected. The law, which was a temporary measure allowing companies to use automated detection technologies to scan messages for harms, including child sexual abuse material (CSAM), grooming, and sextortion, expired on April 3.Google, Meta, Snap, and Microsoft have expressed disappointment over the EU's decision, stating that they will continue to voluntarily scan their platforms for CSAM. In a joint statement posted on a Google blog, the companies said, 'We are disappointed by this irresponsible failure to reach an agreement to maintain established efforts to protect children online.'Child protection advocates had warned that allowing the legislation to lapse would probably trigger a steep fall in reports of child sexual abuse. They point to a similar legal gap that occurred in 2021, when reports of such material from EU-based accounts to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) fell by 58% over a period of 18 weeks.The EU's decision to prohibit scanning will have ripple effects in other regions around the world, child safety experts said. Many internet crimes are cross-border, with perpetrators sending illegal images to people or targeting children in other countries. 'The offender can be anywhere in the world, but they could have unfettered access to minors in Europe now that there's legal uncertainty around those safeguards and protections to identify when a child is being groomed,' said John Shehan, vice-president at NCMEC.In 2025, NCMEC received 21.3m reports that included more than 61.8m images, videos, and other files suspected of being related to child abuse, from around the world. About 90% of these reports are related to countries outside the US.

Residents of Sidon are recalling the traumatic experience of Israeli airstrikes that targeted their area, following a recent ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran. The strikes had caused significant fear and destruction, leaving a lasting impact on the local community. The ceasefire has brought a sense of relief, but the memories of the intense violence and fear for their safety continue to linger among the residents. The incident has underscored the fragile nature of peace in the region and the ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran.

The strategic Strait of Hormuz, linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, has become the focal point of the Israel‑U.S. war on Iran that began in February. In peacetime the narrow waterway handled about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments without any tolls, but the conflict has turned it into a contested zone. After a series of Israeli and U.S. strikes, Iran retaliated by targeting merchant vessels it deemed hostile, effectively shutting the passage and triggering one of the most severe energy‑distribution crises in recent memory. While a two‑week ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan, was declared on Tuesday, Tehran has issued a set of official terms that would govern the strait moving forward. According to Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghi, safe passage will be allowed in coordination with the Iranian armed forces and subject to technical limitations. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has even published a new navigation map that pushes traffic farther north, away from the traditional route near Oman’s coast, citing the risk of anti‑ship mines. Central to Tehran’s 10‑point peace proposal is the idea of charging fees for strait usage. Iranian media report that the plan could levy up to $2 million per vessel—a sum to be shared with Oman—or a charge of $1 per barrel of oil shipped. The revenue would allegedly fund reconstruction of military and civilian infrastructure damaged by the U.S.–Israeli campaign. Oman has publicly rejected any toll scheme, with Transport Minister Said Al‑Maawali reminding that the country has already signed all relevant international maritime transport agreements that prohibit such fees. International law adds another layer of complexity. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) prohibits levying charges for mere passage through international straits, allowing fees only for services like navigation assistance or port use. Neither the United States nor Iran have ratified UNCLOS, but the principle remains a benchmark for maritime norms. Analysts suggest a possible workaround: charging for de‑mining and safety services rather than for passage itself, which could be permissible under existing legal frameworks. The proposal has sparked diplomatic pushback. At the United Nations Security Council, Bahrain led a resolution urging coordinated reopening of the strait, backed by Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. The resolution passed with 11 of 15 votes, but was vetoed by Russia and China, who argued it unfairly targeted Iran and ignored the initial strikes. Beyond the region, the United States is unlikely to accept indefinite tolls. Former President Donald Trump, who announced the ceasefire, warned that U.S. forces would remain in the area and threatened to resume attacks if negotiations faltered. American troops are reportedly “hanging around” to assist with traffic buildup, though the extent of their operational control remains unclear. Maritime analyst C. Uday Bhaskar notes that only three to five ships have traversed the strait since the ceasefire began, underscoring the lingering uncertainty for global shippers. He adds that ship owners facing multi‑million‑dollar losses each day may ultimately acquiesce to Iran’s terms, at least temporarily. Should Iran implement a toll regime, the immediate impact would fall on Gulf oil‑producing nations, but the ripple effects could destabilize global energy markets, already strained by supply shocks. Major powers such as the United Kingdom have been coordinating with a coalition of 40 countries to explore alternative mechanisms for reopening the waterway without conceding to tolls. In sum, Iran’s proposed protocol for the Strait of Hormuz introduces a contentious new variable into an already volatile geopolitical landscape, pitting national security interests against established maritime law and the broader stability of world energy supplies.

As the cost of living crisis continues to bite, finding ways to lower your grocery bill has become more important than ever. Retail workers are sharing their insider knowledge on how to save money at supermarkets, street markets, and charity shops.Be Savvy About Store DiscountsMany supermarkets offer yellow-stickered items that are reduced in price due to nearing their expiration dates. These discounts can be significant, with reductions of up to 75% off. Alasdair Baker, who runs The Penny Pincher, advises shopping for these items in the late afternoon or early evening when the biggest reductions are typically applied.View image in fullscreenTiming matters … you’ll find the biggest reductions on yellow-sticker items in the late afternoon and early evening. Be AppySome grocery stores use apps such as Too Good To Go and Olio to offer discounts or free food to avoid food waste – but it can be a gamble as to what you get.Use Common SenseIf you buy something reduced on the day it is expiring, that doesn’t mean you need to eat it that day. There is a difference between “best before” dates, which are about food quality and the more important “use by” dates, which are about food safety.Be Cautious About ‘Bogof’ Deals“There aren’t as many buy one, get one free [bogof] deals now, because of new rules that came into place last year,” says Baker. These restrict promotions of products high in fat, sugar or salt.Avoid Big BrandsThe ends of supermarket aisles often feature big brands, says Baker. “They are not placed there randomly: the companies pay an awful lot of money. The idea is to try to coax people into buying those products more often.”Sign Up for a Store Card“It’s sad that we now have to essentially sell our data to the supermarkets in exchange for affordability – but such is life in 2026,” says Jenny Rogers. “If you have a store card, it is also worth getting the supermarket app, as a lot of stores will give you one or two personalised offers a week, or periodic free delivery for members.

Gentleman's Relish, a traditional British condiment, has been discontinued by its manufacturer, AB World Foods. However, Simpson's restaurant in London and Fortnum & Mason have stepped in to keep the spread alive. Jeremy King, who reopened Simpson's in the Strand last month, has instructed his chef to create a version of Gentleman's Relish almost identical to the original.The relish, made from anchovy fillets, rusk, butter, and a secret selection of herbs and spices, was created by John Osborn in 1828. It was a favourite condiment of James Bond writer Ian Fleming and has been named as one of the 10 foods that Nigella Lawson cannot live without. Simpson's serves the relish on toast for £6.50, while Fortnum & Mason offers it in a Tiffany blue pot for £14.95.King's version of the relish is based on a classic Victorian recipe for patum peperium, which he prefers to the mass-produced version. While he would like to sell it as a takeaway product, health and safety regulations prevent this. Nigella Lawson has expressed her love for the relish, saying it's a savoury version of cinnamon toast and just as comforting.

Oil tanker workers stuck in the Gulf for six weeks are reaching their limit, with mental health concerns escalating due to the prolonged standoff. A crew member, who spoke to the Guardian, revealed that the situation is becoming increasingly unbearable.The worker, one of 20,000 seafarers trapped by Iran's chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, expressed frustration and despair, stating that any hope of being freed had evaporated. The crew member's tanker is anchored near dozens of loaded tankers, with many feeling unwilling and unable to traverse the strait, even if a ceasefire allowed them to do so.90% of the crew on the tanker want to exercise their right to refuse to sail, citing safety concerns. The situation has taken a toll on the crew's mental health, with one member suffering a 'mental breakdown' and being checked on regularly by colleagues.The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) has received about 1,000 inquiries from seafarers on 300 different vessels, with 20% seeking repatriation. The union and other organizations are trying to provide support, but the situation remains dire.The shipping companies are expected to find new crew members willing to work in hazardous areas, offering double pay and promotions. However, the workers stuck on the tankers hope that their vessel will be taken to anchorage to allow new crew to take their places.The situation has reignited calls for shipowners to replace their crews with mariners willing to offer relief, highlighting the human cost of the conflict.