Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

New Zealand football players have expressed their willingness to play their FIFA World Cup 2026 match against Iran outside the United States, citing the ongoing geopolitical tensions between the US and Iran. The match, scheduled for June 15 in Los Angeles, has been put into doubt due to Iran's threat to boycott fixtures on US soil.The Iranian Football Federation has raised concerns over the fixture, following the recent escalation of tensions between Iran and the US-Israel alliance. Despite this, New Zealand's players remain committed to the match and are prepared to adapt if necessary.Ryan Thomas, a Netherlands-based midfielder for New Zealand, emphasized that Iran has earned its spot in the World Cup and that the team would be able to manage the extra attention generated by the match. 'They deserve to be there as qualifiers,' he told Reuters. 'If we've got to play them in Mexico or Canada, then yeah, we play them there. It's not really a big deal for me.'New Zealand's team is set to be based in San Diego, California, which is close to the Mexican border. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has indicated that her country would be open to hosting Iran's World Cup fixtures, should a venue switch be necessary.Kosta Barbarouses, an Australia-based winger for New Zealand, echoed Thomas's sentiments, stating that a venue switch would not disrupt the team's preparations. 'I don't think it would derail our preparation at all,' he told Reuters. 'We've got a base before our first game, anyway. So, yeah, I don't see why not.'FIFA has declined to comment on the possibility of switching venues for Iran's games but has stated that it is in contact with the Iranian Football Federation and looks forward to teams competing as per the current match schedule.

US President Donald Trump has asserted that negotiations to end the war on Iran are ongoing, claiming Tehran is eager to make a deal. Speaking at the White House, Trump stated the US is talking to 'the right people' about a potential agreement, mentioning a 'very big present' related to 'oil and gas' allegedly gifted by Tehran. Trump's claims come as fighting continues, with Iran launching attacks on Israel and a strike near Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant. Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, had previously dismissed Trump's claims as 'fake news.' Media reports suggest Washington has sent Iran a 15-point plan to end the war, which includes ending Iran's nuclear program and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 61% of Americans disapprove of the attacks on Iran, while 35% approve. Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged receiving messages from 'friendly countries' indicating a US request for negotiations. Negar Mortazavi, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, stated Iran would seek to end the war on its 'own terms,' including establishing deterrence and economic gains. Despite Trump's diplomatic efforts, Israeli military spokesman Effie Defrin said Israel's war plan remains 'unchanged,' aiming to 'deepen the damage and remove existential threats.' The US is reportedly preparing to send thousands of soldiers to the Middle East, fueling fears of a longer conflict.

A landmark jury verdict has found Meta and YouTube liable for deliberately designing addictive products that harmed a young user, KGM. The jury ruled that the tech companies were both negligent and failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their products.The plaintiff, KGM, testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, which she claimed had deleterious effects on her wellbeing. By age 10, she said she had become depressed and was engaging in self-harm as a result. Her social media use allegedly caused her to have strained relationships with her family and in school.The jury awarded KGM $6m in damages, with Meta to pay 70% and YouTube the remainder. This lawsuit, over social media's alleged harm to young people, was the first of its kind to go to trial.KGM's lawyers argued that the companies' features, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay, were designed to keep people on the apps and made the products addictive. The plaintiffs' arguments mirrored those brought against big tobacco in the 1990s, focusing on the addictive qualities of social media and the companies' public denial despite knowledge of their products' harms.Meta and YouTube have consistently denied wrongdoing and plan to appeal the verdict. A YouTube spokesperson said the video service was a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site. Meta said KGM's mental health issues were brought on by a difficult home life and social media use was not to blame.This trial is the first in a consolidated group of cases brought in California against Meta, TikTok, YouTube, and Snap on behalf of more than 1,600 plaintiffs. The next bellwether case is scheduled to go to trial in July.

In a significant move, Meta has been fined $375m in a landmark case, highlighting the growing scrutiny of big tech companies. The fine, reported by The Guardian, marks a major development in the ongoing debate over tech regulation and accountability.The case, which involved multiple authors including Lucy Hough, Katie McQue, Bryony Moore, Ryan Ramgobin, and Zoe Hitch, underscores the increasing pressure on tech giants to adhere to regulatory standards. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, this ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving big tech.

In a significant move, Meta has been ordered to pay $375m in a landmark case. This development is being seen as part of a broader big tech reckoning, with regulatory bodies taking a closer look at the practices of major technology companies. The case against Meta, formerly known as Facebook, highlights the growing scrutiny of big tech firms and their handling of user data and advertising practices. The $375m penalty is a substantial one, reflecting the seriousness with which regulators are approaching these issues. Meta's financial obligations in this case are a reminder of the regulatory risks facing big tech companies. As governments and regulatory bodies around the world continue to examine the practices of these firms, significant penalties and fines are likely to become more common. The image of Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO, is a reminder of the high-profile nature of this case and the scrutiny that big tech leaders are under.

Progressive lawmakers Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have unveiled a bill to place a moratorium on the construction of AI datacenters in the US. The proposed pause aims to ensure the AI boom benefits workers, protects the environment, and does not harm communities.The bill's introduction comes amid growing concerns about the rapid buildout of AI infrastructure and its impact on energy consumption, electricity bills, and the climate crisis. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez argue that a temporary ban would give the US government time to create strong federal safeguards for AI.“AI and robotics are creating the most sweeping technological revolution in the history of humanity,” Sanders said. “The scale, scope, and speed of that change is unprecedented. Congress is way behind where it should be in understanding the nature of this revolution and its impacts.”The proposal has gained traction, with at least 11 states considering similar policies. Advocacy groups, including Food and Water Watch, have also called for a federal datacenter moratorium, citing concerns about the sector's impacts on electricity bills and the climate crisis.The bill's supporters argue that datacenters' massive energy consumption and water usage have sparked controversy, especially in drought-ridden areas. If current trends continue, datacenters may account for nearly half of all US emissions from the power sector.“We cannot sit back and allow a handful of billionaire Big Tech oligarchs to make decisions that will reshape our economy, our democracy and the future of humanity,” Sanders said. “We need serious public debate and democratic oversight over this enormously consequential issue. The time for action is now.”

The UK government is set to trial social media curbs for teenagers in a major study aimed at understanding the impact of reduced social media use on young people's lives. Hundreds of UK teenagers will participate in the six-week pilot, which will test different restrictions on social media use, including bans, digital curfews, and time limits on popular apps like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat.The trial, led by the UK government, will involve 300 teens across all four nations of the UK, with some participants having their social apps disabled, while others will have access blocked overnight or capped to one hour's use. The goal is to gather evidence on how different restrictions affect young people's day-to-day lives.Technology Secretary Liz Kendall emphasized the importance of testing different options in the real world, stating that the pilots will provide the evidence needed to take the next steps, informed by the experiences of families themselves.The pilot is part of a broader effort to address concerns about the mental health risks associated with unfettered internet access. Nearly 30,000 parents and children have responded to the government's digital wellbeing consultation, which closes on May 26. An independent study, funded by the Wellcome Trust, will also examine the impact of reducing social media use among adolescents.The study, involving about 4,000 students between the ages of 12 and 15 from 10 Bradford secondary schools, will investigate changes in anxiety and sleep quality, time spent with friends and family, wellbeing, body image, social comparison, school absences, and bullying.The UK government faces pressure to follow Australia's move to ban access to social media sites for under-16s, with France, Spain, and Indonesia also considering similar bans. The European parliament has passed a resolution on age restrictions, although it is not legally binding.Critics argue that the pilot is a half-measure that puts pressure on parents rather than holding big tech accountable for the harm caused by social media. Bereaved parents have written to parliamentarians, urging them to support a ban and expressing concern about the consultation process.

Mohamed Salah's future has become the subject of intense speculation after his agent, Ramy Abbas Issa, confirmed that the Liverpool star will leave Anfield at the end of the season. While there will be attention on whether Salah can end his nine-year spell with a trophy, the focus is shifting to his next destination.Salah's former teammates Sadio Mané and Roberto Firmino have already made the move to Saudi Arabia, and it is a path that Salah may well take. The Saudi media is hopeful that the country is in pole position to sign the Egyptian star, with several top clubs expressing interest.Al-Ittihad, Al-Hilal, Al-Nassr, and Al-Ahli are all reportedly interested in signing Salah, with each club offering different advantages and challenges. Al-Ittihad have had offers turned down before and would likely be a frontrunner, while Al-Hilal, the most successful club in Saudi Arabia and Asia, could make a strong claim to being the biggest.The signing of Salah would not only boost the Saudi Pro League's profile but also provide a significant marketing coup. As one of the biggest names in Middle Eastern sport, Salah's presence would help to maintain global interest in the league, which has been investing heavily in star players since 2023.There are also religious and personal factors that could influence Salah's decision, with several players citing their Muslim faith and desire to live in a Muslim country as reasons for joining Saudi clubs.Ultimately, if Salah does join a club in Saudi Arabia this summer, he will become the face of the league for years to come, and his decision will have significant implications for the future of the Saudi Pro League and European football.

The Football Association (FA) is standing firm in its decision to host the 2035 Women's World Cup final at Wembley Stadium, despite lobbying from Manchester United to have the event held at a rebuilt Old Trafford.Manchester United's chief executive of New Stadium Development, Collette Roche, publicly expressed the club's aspirations to host the 2035 final, but the FA remains committed to staging the showpiece occasion at Wembley.The FA had named Wembley as its preferred venue for the final when submitting its official bid for the tournament to Fifa last November, and this position will not change even if Manchester United succeeds in building a new 100,000-seat stadium before the finals.The ultimate decision on the venue for the final will be taken by Fifa, but it would be a huge surprise if they overruled the wishes of the governing body that is leading the bid. The FA is fronting a joint bid from the home nations to stage the Women's World Cup for the first time in what would be the biggest sporting event ever staged in the UK.The current Old Trafford is one of 22 proposed stadiums in the bid book – 16 in England, three in Wales, two in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland – but will be replaced by the new stadium if it is built on time. Manchester United are still in the process of securing funding for a project that could cost over £2bn, while the club also needs to purchase land from the haulage company Freightliner.