Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The LeadThe mother of a 14-year-old boy who believes he died in a TikTok challenge has accused the government of being too slow to implement a social media ban for under-16s, urging Downing Street to take immediate action. As a 12-week consultation on the potential ban closes, Ellen Roome is among families meeting with Prime Minister Keir Starmer to demand decisive measures to protect children from what she calls unsafe digital platforms.A Mother's PleaEllen Roome, mother of Jools Sweeney who died at 14 following a TikTok challenge, has been vocal in her demands for a complete social media ban until platforms can be made safe. "Come on, get a grip, let's actually stand up, do something, make a decision," she said on BBC Radio 4's Today program. Roome believes a ban would pressure technology companies to invest in making their systems safer, stating: "They spend millions and billions of pounds on making their system. They could spend some money on actually fixing their system."Government ResponseLabour party chair Anna Turley indicated the government would "seize this moment" but defended the consultation process, explaining: "We need to make sure that legislation and protection keeps pace with technology as it changes, and protects our children going forward." Former health secretary Wes Streeting, who compared social media to tobacco in a recent interview, criticized the tech companies for designing addictive products aimed at young users. "They know that it is harmful, and the business model is orientated towards getting kids while they're young, addicting them with the design features that are designed for addiction," he stated.The Australian PrecedentStreeting pointed to Australia's ban on social media for under-16s as evidence that such measures can prevent harm to children. "If it's working for half of children, that's better than it not working for any children at all," he argued, acknowledging that some children find ways to circumvent the restrictions. The former minister revealed he had urged stronger action while serving in cabinet, saying he was now "liberated from the obligations of collective responsibility" to speak publicly on the issue. He emphasized the growing evidence of social media's impact on children's sleep, concentration, learning, and mental health.Potential Regulatory MeasuresBeyond a complete ban, ministers are considering several regulatory options, including age limits on specific app features such as livestreaming, location sharing, and infinite scrolling. The government is also examining potential restrictions on personalized algorithms that create tailored content feeds for users, along with mandatory screen curfews. As the consultation period concludes, families affected by social media-related tragedies hope their personal stories will prompt swift legislative action to prevent further harm to children.

The UK's Energy Crisis: Superficial Measures vs. Fundamental Resilience Rachel Reeves's announcement of a series of cost of living measures this week shows a government trying to prove it still has agency and relevance. The VAT cuts on summer attractions such as theme parks and soft-play centres, free bus rides for the under-16s in England and reduced import tariffs on food are politically useful, but they do not fundamentally alter the UK's exposure to imported energy shocks. This is a mini-budget, with the emphasis on the mini. The inflationary impact of the Iran crisis, however, will be substantial. That is why the chancellor is moving into crisis-management mode with industrial resilience funds and thinly veiled threats to tax profiteers. But it is unlikely to be enough. The Energy Bill Surge: A Direct Hit to Households The repercussions from the closure of the strait of Hormuz are reviving the need for more radical state fiscal intervention. Ms Reeves moved pre-emptively because the energy regulator is next week expected to announce that energy bills are likely to rise by £209 to £1,850 a year for a typical dual-fuel household from July. That is an increase of 13% on the current £1,641 annual bill. It will be a direct hit to household disposable incomes – and Labour's central political claim that the cost of living crisis is easing on its watch. Worse may still be to come. If households absorb a summer rise in bills and then face costs rising again before winter, the government risks a return to the levels of financial anxiety felt after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Britain's Energy Vulnerability: Decades of Policy Missteps Britain's inflation vulnerability is because the country is dependent on energy from abroad. This is a result of the country prioritising for decades short-term profits from finance over building homegrown resilience. Labour ministers waived some Russian oil sanctions this week, allowing imports of diesel and jet fuel refined from Russian crude in third countries. The decision reflects Britain's shrinking refining capacity: the UK can now process only half as much petroleum as it could two decades ago. Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, is right that the safest long-term buffer is reducing fossil-fuel exposure itself rather than deepening gas dependence through new storage systems. But electrification takes years; Britain's energy system still faces winter usage spikes; and even in a green power future the UK would still have to import some materials and technology. The Political Economy of Energy Security Britain does not risk a pummelling from the markets because it may veer from the Treasury view. Britain's financialised economy operates through expectations and institutional structures far more than through simple trade arithmetic alone. Britain is not a developing nation dependent on scarce dollar reserves accumulated through exports. What markets punish most severely is political incoherence and weakness. The former prime minister Liz Truss guaranteed inflationary instability without a productive strategy – and paid for her mistakes. Britain has far more room for state-led transformation than the economic orthodoxy admits. It could simultaneously insulate households from energy costs and build a green power base. But transitions must be politically and institutionally coherent enough to sustain confidence while restructuring occurs. The Path Forward: Balancing Transition and Resilience Can Britain move away fast enough from carbon sources before the next series of external shocks – including that caused by the war in Iran – in the coming months? The jury remains out on that question. The country clearly must radically accelerate the transition to clean power. But it also needs a form of buffering and resilience during the transition itself. The government's current approach of mini-measures may provide temporary relief, but without a comprehensive strategy to address the fundamental vulnerabilities in Britain's energy system, households and businesses will remain exposed to the volatility of global energy markets. The challenge for the government is to balance immediate relief with the long-term structural changes needed to build genuine energy resilience.

MPs in the UK have rejected a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media for the second time, as the Prime Minister summoned tech bosses to demand tougher action on internet safety. The House of Commons sided with the government against a Lords amendment to the children's wellbeing and schools bill that imposed a new age limit on using social media platforms. The vote, which was 256 to 150, a majority of 106, against the change, marks a significant setback for campaigners who have been pushing for greater urgency in tackling online harms. The government is now pushing ahead with its own consultation into an under-16s ban and potential restrictions on social media platforms, which closes next month. The consultation will consider raising the age limit on social media from 13 to 16 and addressing the addictive nature of social media platforms by restricting features such as infinite scrolling. The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is set to meet senior leaders at social media companies, including TikTok, X, YouTube, Snapchat, and Meta, to demand swifter progress on internet safety. Campaigners and bereaved parents have urged the government to take tougher action to protect children online. Esther Ghey, mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, said the government consultation was 'delaying' action against online harms. 'We know that social media is addictive, we know about the things young people are accessing online,' she said. The Molly Rose Foundation, an internet safety charity, said the solution was not a ban but a commitment to strengthening the Online Safety Act. 'It's time to look beyond this false sense of safety and for the Prime Minister to decisively commit to strengthening regulation to make unsafe and addictive design a thing of the past,' said Andy Burrows, MRF's chief executive.

The recent ruling that Meta and YouTube are liable for creating addictive products has intensified the debate on restricting social media use for under-16s. However, there's another crucial aspect to consider: 85% of kids and teens interact online through video games. The suggestion to curb online gaming alongside social media restrictions raises significant concerns about feasibility and impact.Some online games, like Roblox, have proven to be unsafe environments for children, with cases of grooming and child exploitation. Nevertheless, implementing a ban on online gaming would be a regulatory nightmare. Games like Minecraft or EA Sports FC have different online components, making a blanket restriction difficult to enforce.Banning teens from playing games online entirely would be detrimental. Online games are vital social spaces for millions of teens, offering a few arenas where they can interact without adult surveillance. With two-thirds of council-run youth centers lost since 2010, video games fill a critical gap.The core problem lies in the internet's heterogeneous nature. Games, social media, and YouTube are distinct, making it hard to cancel out potential harms without also eliminating benefits. Instead of banning young people, the focus should be on taking back the internet from manipulative big tech companies.Parents concerned about their children's safety can use existing parental controls to mitigate risks. Features like chat restrictions, time limits, and age-appropriate settings can ensure children enjoy games while staying safe. A ban would introduce no further benefit and could cause significant harm.

The Australian government has accused major tech firms, including Meta, TikTok, and Google, of failing to comply with a landmark ban on under-16s using social media. The ban, which came into effect last December, aims to protect children from the potential harms of social media.A survey of 900 Australian parents found that around a third (31%) said their children still had one or more social media accounts after the ban, compared to 49% before the laws. Specifically, the survey revealed that 70% of under-16s who had accounts on Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok before the ban maintained access.The eSafety Commission claimed that the technology being used by these companies, such as facial age estimation, was not effective enough. The commission alleged that the firms had lax guardrails which allowed teens to repeatedly attempt age verification until they were successful. 'None of this is impossible. None of this is even difficult for big tech who are innovative billion-dollar companies. What this update shows is unacceptable,' said Australia's communications minister, Anika Wells.The social media minimum age laws specify that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick, and Reddit are 'age-restricted platforms', banning under-16s from holding accounts and requiring those companies to take reasonable steps to prevent children from opening or holding accounts. The laws carry a maximum A$49.5m (US$33.9m, £25.7m) penalty.In response, Meta said it was committed to complying with the social media ban and working with eSafety and the government. The company highlighted the challenge of accurately determining age online, particularly at the age-16 boundary. 'The most effective, privacy-protective and consistent approach is to require robust age verification and parental approval at the app store and operating system level before a teen can download an app or create an account,' Meta stated.TikTok and Google were contacted for comment but did not respond by publication time. The government said in January that more than 4.7m social media accounts were deactivated, removed, or restricted in the first days after the ban came into effect.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has expressed strong support for curbing addictive social media features that target children, stating that the government 'will have to act' to regulate these features. In an interview with the Sunday Mirror, Starmer emphasized that these features 'shouldn’t be permitted' and that the government is committed to taking action.The government's education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, also weighed in on the issue, stating that social media platforms are 'designed to keep you there' and that the government will closely examine how to tackle addictive features. The comments come amid a growing debate about the impact of social media on children's mental health and wellbeing.The UK government's consultation on social media regulation has garnered significant attention, with nearly 30,000 parents and children responding to the digital wellbeing consultation. The government is considering a range of options, including a ban on social media for under-16s, which has already been enacted in Australia.The move comes after a US court ruling found Meta and Google liable for a woman's childhood social media addiction, awarding $6m in damages. The companies plan to appeal the decision. The UK government's consultation will also examine the use of addictive algorithms and algorithmically driven content on social media platforms.As part of the consultation, hundreds of UK teenagers will trial social media bans, digital curfews, and time limits on apps as part of a government pilot. The government aims to introduce significant changes to regulate social media and protect children online.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pledged to take on social media companies in a bid to protect children from addiction, as new guidelines recommend limiting screen time for children under five to no more than an hour a day. The guidelines, developed by a panel led by the children's commissioner, Rachel de Souza, and children's health expert Prof Russell Viner, advise that children under two should avoid screen time except for shared activities. Ministers are also exploring Australia-style measures to limit or ban social media for under-16s, as part of a broader effort to regulate social media companies and protect children. Starmer emphasized that regulating social media companies will require a 'fight' to ensure they do not prioritize profits over children's well-being. 'Some of this will require a fight,' he said. 'If we're going to do more to protect children, we're going to have to fight some of the platforms that are putting the material up there because they're putting this addictive stuff up there for a reason.' The guidelines advise families to avoid fast-paced social media-style videos and toys or tools that use artificial intelligence for children aged two to five. They also recommend screen-free bedtimes and mealtimes, and encourage shared screen activities like video calling or looking through photos together. According to the government, about 98% of children watch screens daily by the age of two. Infants with high screen time are less likely to be read to or go on outdoor trips, which can impact language development. Experts have welcomed the guidelines, with Dr. Mike McKean, vice-president for policy at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, saying they will help parents protect 'short, but developmentally crucial early years.'

The European Commission has initiated an investigation into Snapchat over concerns that the social messaging app is putting children at risk of grooming, sexual exploitation, and other criminal activities. This probe is part of the EU's efforts to enforce its Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to protect European society from a wide range of internet harms, including child safety provisions to combat cyberbullying, exposure to adult content, and illegal products.In a separate decision, the commission also accused four pornographic websites - Pornhub, Stripchat, XNXX, and XVideos - of failing to prevent minors from accessing adult content, which could lead to mental health issues, negative gender attitudes, and increased tolerance of violent sexual behaviors.The investigations follow a landmark ruling in a Los Angeles court that found two social media companies, Meta and YouTube, had deliberately created addictive products that harmed a young user. The EU is now considering whether to follow Australia and ban social media for under-16s.Snapchat reports 94.7 million monthly users in the EU and is hugely popular among teenagers and young people. However, EU regulators believe the company is failing to ensure its age limit of 13 is respected, and users are not given adequate guidance on privacy and safety features.The commission's tech spokesperson, Thomas Regnier, described the situation as 'quite terrible' in EU member states, citing statistics on the prevalence of minors accessing pornographic websites. The companies may now examine the findings and mount a defense, before any final decision is taken. If the complaint is upheld, the four websites could be fined up to 6% of global annual turnover.

The House of Lords has backed an Australian-style social media ban for under-16s, with peers voting 266 to 141 against proposals for a public consultation.Conservative former minister Lord Nash said the vote sent an 'unambiguous message' to the government, emphasizing that 'hollow promises and half-measures are not enough.'The vote comes after a jury in Los Angeles found that Meta, the owner of Google and Facebook, designed deliberately addictive products that harmed a 20-year-old's mental health.Nash proposed the age limit as part of the children's wellbeing and schools bill, stating that 'techies' had taken a 'cavalier approach' to content damaging to children.The decision could influence thousands of similar lawsuits in the US accusing social media companies of deliberately causing harm.Lady Cass, a paediatrician and crossbench peer, criticized the government for 'failing to understand the impact of social media on our children.'