Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Consultation Aims to Rein in Under‑16 Social Media UseBritain’s Online Safety Act is being extended with a new consultation that could impose an Australia‑style ban on users under 16, or force platforms to disable "addictive" features such as infinite scrolling, push notifications and autoplay. The deadline for written submissions is Tuesday night, and ministers have signalled a rapid legislative response.Possible outright ban for under‑16s on major platforms.Alternative: block only services that fail strict safety standards.Targeted curbs on algorithmic feeds and endless‑scroll designs. Bereaved Parents Call for a Nuanced, Not Blanket, ApproachIan Russell, 62, father of Molly Russell (who died after exposure to harmful content on Instagram and Pinterest), urges a "nuanced" strategy. He opposes a blanket ban, warning it would create a "cliff edge" where teens jump to unregulated apps once they turn 16. Russell wants platforms that do not meet safety criteria blocked for under‑16s, while "safe" apps remain accessible.Esther Ghey, 39, mother of the late Brianna Ghey, backs raising the age limit. She argues that social‑media addiction contributed to her daughter’s mental‑health decline and risky behaviour. Ghey also stresses the need for digital‑literacy education alongside any age‑based restrictions. Teen Voices Highlight Complexity and Practical ConcernsFin, a 17‑year‑old sixth‑form student, describes the proposals as "incredibly harsh" for youths who rely on platforms for news and social connection. He suggests tiered restrictions rather than a total ban and points out that schools already depend on smartphones for learning tools like Google Classroom and Microsoft Teams.Focus groups run by the NSPCC with 11‑ to 18‑year‑olds echoed these sentiments, calling for a "layered approach" that lets young people gain gradual exposure while retaining control over content and interactions. Parliamentary Perspective on Regulation and EnforcementChi Onwurah, MP, emphasises that any new rules must be enforceable and backed by clear accountability for tech firms. She warns that without robust monitoring, a simple age limit could be bypassed, undermining the intended protective effect. What Comes Next for UK Online Safety Policy?The government will review the consultation responses and is expected to draft legislation before the end of the year. Stakeholders are urging a balance between protecting children from harmful content and preserving their ability to engage responsibly online. The outcome will shape how the UK aligns with global trends in digital‑age regulation and could set a precedent for future tech‑policy debates.

The Regulatory Response to Deadly Online ContentA nihilistic internet suicide forum implicated in over 160 UK deaths has been fined £950,000 by the online regulator in its latest attempt to shut it down. Ofcom said the US-based website remains accessible in the UK despite over a year of warnings. Online safety campaigners have accused the regulator of taking an "interminable" amount of time to act.The Samaritans, mental health campaigners and the Molly Rose Foundation, have repeatedly raised concerns about the site – which promoted a particular poison – which has remained accessible despite it being cited in multiple coroners' reports regarding the deaths of UK citizens.Molly Rose was set up in the memory of Molly Russell, a 14-year-old who took her own life after descending into a vortex of negative online content, including about suicide. Its chief executive, Andy Burrows, welcomed the fine and a separate move that could block UK internet access to the site, but said it was "appalling that it has been left to bereaved families and campaign groups to press Ofcom into action".Legal Action Under the Online Safety ActOfcom has been trying to get the site to obey British laws criminalising intentionally encouraging or assisting suicide since last spring. It had some success with the site being blocked last July and then a mirror site being taken down in November. But it is now taking action because the site can be "used by people in the UK, including without a VPN, and presents a material risk of significant harm".The fine is being levied under the Online Safety Act which also allows Ofcom to seek a court for an order requiring internet service providers to block UK access to the site. It is preparing an application to have its connections effectively cut "if our concerns are not fully addressed and there continues to be an ongoing breach".It accused the provider of "serious and deliberate contraventions" and said the fine reflected the "the risk of fatal harm to people in the UK posed by the content present on the service".Human Cost and Family AdvocacyOn Wednesday, the forum was unavailable but its operator posted a page that said it was advocating for "the right to access lawful information without government overreach" and quoted Mark Twain: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."The Molly Rose Foundation and Together with Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms said coroners had warned the UK government 65 times about risks of further deaths from the forum "and a substance it promotes, glorifies and instructs for use as a suicide method". Adele Zeynap Walton, the sister of Aimee Walton who took her life after accessing suicide forums, said the wait for action had been agonising."While we've waited further lives have been lost and we've had to fight every step," she said, speaking on behalf of Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms. "We feel let down by the process and Ofcom's slow response to this threat to life."Regulatory Challenges and Future ActionsBurrows said: "Molly Rose Foundation submitted detailed evidence which showed scores of vulnerable young people remained at risk while Ofcom's investigation dragged on … There are real questions about why it has taken so long for the regulator to act against a forum linked to at least 164 UK deaths."Ofcom said it has "engaged extensively" with the forum provider and that last summer the forum geoblocked mirror sites in the UK and later removed information on a landing page promoting ways to circumvent the block."We share the urgency about the extreme harms that sites such as this can cause, and understand the anger felt towards them by those who have been so personally affected," a spokesperson said. "It is vital that we ensure our enforcement action is thorough, and this can take time, as is the case for any enforcement agency."Preventive Measures and Support Resources"Lucas was 16. Vlad 17. Aimee 21. Grace, Hannah and Tom 22. Immy 25. Adam 28 and Claire 41," the campaign groups said in a report last year. "They were drawn into a dark world that was allowed to exist online and continues to exist through the use of a VPN. We believe our loved ones suffered coercion, grooming, instruction on how to end their lives. Most accessed a poison that was allowed to cross borders or was readily available domestically."Suzanne Cater, director of enforcement at Ofcom, said the forum had "caused unimaginable pain and suffering … and no punishment can undo that harm"."The provider of this forum knows it's used to share illegal content encouraging and assisting suicide on their site," she said. "While they've responded to our enforcement action by making some changes to the accessibility of their service in the UK, this is not good enough and the changes they've made were not consistently applied or effective to reduce the risk of harm. Given the ongoing risk of harm, we are using all powers available to us to protect the public."

At a high‑profile meeting in Downing Street, Prime Minister Keir Starmer told senior executives from Meta, Google, TikTok, X and Snap that the status quo "can’t go on like this" and that immediate, tangible steps are needed to protect children online. Government ministers are now weighing a legal under‑16 age restriction for all social‑media platforms, alongside proposals to curb addictive design elements such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos and push notifications. During the discussion, Starmer urged the tech leaders to act with "more urgency on internet safety for children" and warned that continued inaction places young users at risk. He emphasized that a world where access is limited but safety is ensured is preferable to one where "harm is the price of participation." While the companies present offered no comment, they have already rolled out a suite of child‑safety tools: Meta’s teen‑account option for users under 18, TikTok’s family‑pairing feature that lets parents set screen‑time limits, and compliance with the UK’s Online Safety Act. The legislation obliges platforms to suppress violent, hateful or abusive content and to keep explicit material, self‑harm, suicide and eating‑disorder content off children’s feeds. The government’s child online‑safety consultation has already attracted 47,000 responses. It explores a formal minimum age of at least 16, as well as restrictions on features that encourage endless usage. The consultation closes on 26 May, after which ministers have pledged “swift action” on the findings. In the House of Lords, a peer‑led amendment to the education bill seeks to introduce a default ban, giving ministers a 12‑month window to decide which apps fall under the age limit. Although MPs have rejected the amendment twice, Conservative peer John Nash is pressing to reinstate the clause. Starmer remains cautious about a blanket ban, fearing it could push teenagers onto the dark web or leave them ill‑prepared for responsible digital use at 16. Nonetheless, Australia’s recent nationwide ban has shifted the political calculus: more than 60 Labour MPs signed a letter in January urging the UK to follow suit. Child‑safety advocates are divided. The Molly Rose Foundation, founded after the tragic death of Molly Russell, warns that an under‑16 ban would punish children for industry failures and calls for stronger enforcement of the Online Safety Act instead. Conversely, Esther Ghey, mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, and Children’s Commissioner for England Rachel de Souza support the introduction of smartphones for under‑16s with built‑in social‑media restrictions.

Ian Cheshire steps into the helm of Ofcom with a comprehensive 2026‑27 plan that spans telecoms, broadband, postal services, broadcast media and the digital sphere. While the breadth of responsibilities is vast, the regulator’s work on the Online Safety Act (OSA) is set to dominate his tenure.The OSA, the UK’s flagship legislation governing social‑media, search and video platforms, has become a flashpoint between internet‑safety advocates and free‑speech proponents. Campaigners such as Ian Russell – father of Molly Russell, whose tragic suicide highlighted online harms – and filmmaker Beeban Kidron are urging a tougher regulatory stance.Last year, Russell publicly called for a change in Ofcom’s leadership, citing the watchdog’s failure to block an online suicide forum accessible to UK users. At the same time, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall wrote to Ofcom expressing “deep concern” over delays in rolling out key OSA provisions.Although updating the act is a parliamentary responsibility, Cheshire’s close ties to government could accelerate ministerial action. The OSA, passed in 2023, only began substantive implementation under chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes, with the introduction of rigorous age‑gating measures last year marking the first tangible impact on users.Beyond online safety, Ofcom must continue its core duties established in 2003: supervising public‑service broadcasting, ensuring impartial news, maintaining universal postal delivery six days a week, and monitoring broadband and mobile‑phone coverage across the UK. The government’s expectation is clear – the regulator must move faster on digital safety without neglecting these legacy functions.A looming test of the OSA’s strength is the investigation into the partial nudification of women and girls by Elon Musk’s AI tool Grok. The outcome will signal how effectively Ofcom can enforce the act against emerging AI‑driven harms.The 2026‑27 plan lists projects such as preventing illegal content from going viral, measuring harmful material encountered by children, and assessing the effectiveness of age‑gating. Additional measures targeting major platforms like Google and Instagram remain stalled due to ongoing court proceedings.Recent incidents – from misinformation spikes following the Southport killings to AI‑generated misogyny on X – underscore the urgency. While the legislation provides Cheshire with a framework, the patience of campaigners and policymakers is wearing thin.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to address addictive features in social media platforms, signaling a potential regulatory shift following a significant US court ruling that held Meta and YouTube accountable for harms caused by their technology designs.The prime minister emphasized that the recent California court verdict reflects rising public expectations for more aggressive regulation of social media platforms. "I'm absolutely clear that we need to go further," Starmer stated, adding that "the status quo isn't good enough" in terms of protecting children online.Starmer specifically mentioned that the government is consulting about banning social media for under-16s and expressed strong commitment to addressing addictive features within social media platforms. These remarks come amid growing international pressure on tech companies to address the potential harms of their products on young users.In the landmark US case, a California jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for failing to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their platforms. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who claimed she became addicted to social media during her childhood, was awarded $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the payment and YouTube covering the remainder.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex welcomed the verdict as "a reckoning" for tech companies, stating in a joint statement: "For too long, families have paid the price for platforms built with total disregard for the children they reach." They emphasized that "today, the truth has been heard and precedent has been set" regarding children's safety versus corporate profits.Both Google, which owns YouTube, and Meta have indicated they will challenge the decision. Google claimed the case "misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," while Meta stated it "respectfully disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating our legal options." The verdict came after nine days of deliberation in the first lawsuit concerning social media's alleged harm to young people to reach trial.The ruling has resonated beyond the courtroom, with European Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen noting that such cases send "a very clear message" to online platforms about the risks they pose. Campaigners for safer social media have celebrated the decision as a potential watershed moment in regulating platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X.The Molly Rose Foundation, established after the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell who was exposed to harmful content on Instagram, called for legislation that would make "safety and wellbeing the price for tech firms to pay for doing business in the UK." Thomas Lancaster, a computing expert at Imperial College London, emphasized that policies must be effectively enforced to protect those they're designed to safeguard.Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, declared that "the era of big tech invincibility is over," suggesting that the verdict validates concerns about tech platforms' impact on young people that have been raised for years.