media

Critics say the 39 percent cap was a safeguard against excessive concentration of media ownership in the US.

The United States Federal Communications Commission has voted to rescind the rule that bars local broadcast station owners from reaching more than 39 percent of the total number of US TV households in a move that could help spark industry consolidation.

The FCC on Thursday voted 2-1 to lift the cap in favour of a new case-by-case approach. The commission’s sole Democrat, Anna Gomez, said the proposal was illegal and argued only the US Congress can lift the cap. Many critics argue the move will lead to excessive market power among station owners.

Under the rules, stations with weaker over-the-air signals can be partially counted against a company’s ownership cap. The FCC has limited ownership of local broadcast stations since 1941 and most recently raised the cap to 39 percent in 2004.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the move is about helping local broadcasters survive and pointed to the sharp decline in local newspapers.

“We should stop hamstringing this one segment of the broader market with outdated restrictions,” Carr said.

“The FCC kept a rule on the books in the name of localism that contributed to the gutting of local newspapers … I don’t want local broadcast TV to go the way of local newspapers.”

The FCC said the new rule would consider applications on television company mergers that would go above 39 percent on an individual basis to determine if they are in the public interest. The agency said it would “remove artificial restrictions on opportunities for broadcast television to attract capital and generate revenue”.

Gomez said the decision is “an invitation to bring in a lot of transactions”.

‘More control’

Lifting the cap hands “more control of the public airwaves to a small number of companies whose coverage pleases this administration … It is putting its thumb on the scale in favour of content that this administration likes,” she added.

Carr has said the change would allow local television owners to increase investment in local programming and give them more leverage against national networks.

In March, the FCC approved the $3.54bn sale of ‌local television station owner Tegna to Nexstar despite objections from Democratic-led states.

The acquisition, if not reversed by courts, will expand Nexstar’s presence to cover 80 percent of US TV households. The FCC has said it was waiving the 39 percent rule in approving the deal.

Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz, a Republican, said last month that he is sceptical the FCC can hike the 39 percent cap without an act of Congress.

Clayton Weimers, executive director at Reporters Without Borders North America, said in a statement that with this latest move, the FCC has “abandoned” one of the last significant safeguards against excessive concentration of media ownership in the US, which ensured that “no single company or individual should be allowed to dominate what millions of Americans see, hear, and understand about the world”.

“Today’s vote eliminates that safeguard and only benefits a handful of already powerful media conglomerates. This is not deregulation in the public interest. It is consolidation in the interest of the powerful,” Weimers said.

He said that the action exceeds the FCC’s legal authority and that Reporters Without Borders was evaluating every available legal avenue to challenge this decision.

Britain’s new Prime Minister Andy Burnham is using social media to reshape Labour’s public image and challenge the growing online influence of populist parties, particularly Reform UK. By combining informal, relatable content with government messaging, Burnham is seeking to connect with younger voters while projecting a more approachable leadership style.

A New Digital Approach

Since taking office, Burnham has rapidly expanded his presence on TikTok, X, and Instagram through light-hearted videos, behind-the-scenes content, and policy announcements packaged in an accessible format.

Unlike traditional political messaging, Burnham’s posts often feature humor and everyday topics, ranging from debating popular pub snacks to joking about his own appearance. Communications experts say this approach presents him as relatable without undermining the seriousness of his office.

Labour Seeks to Close the Digital Gap

Burnham’s strategy reflects Labour’s effort to compete in an online space where Reform UK and its leader Nigel Farage have built significant audiences over several years.

Political analysts argue that while former Prime Minister Keir Starmer struggled to connect through digital platforms, Burnham’s communication style is more natural and engaging. Early polling suggests Labour has narrowed Reform UK’s lead since Burnham became prime minister, although the next general election remains years away.

Positive Messaging Over Polarisation

Communications specialists describe Burnham’s strategy as one focused on inclusion rather than confrontation. Instead of relying on divisive rhetoric, Labour is attempting to broaden its appeal through optimistic messaging and accessible political communication.

Videos highlighting government policies such as tax relief for hospitality businesses have attracted millions of views, demonstrating how policy announcements can gain wider attention when presented through social media trends.

Building a Professional Digital Operation

The government has expanded its investment in digital communications, recruiting specialists in content production, strategy, and social media engagement.

Burnham’s online campaign is being coordinated by experienced digital strategists, reflecting a broader recognition that political influence increasingly depends on platforms where younger audiences consume information.

Analysis: Social Media Is Becoming a Core Political Battleground

Burnham‘s early success illustrates how political communication is evolving beyond traditional speeches and television appearances. Social media has become a central arena where leaders compete not only on policy but also on personality, authenticity, and accessibility. While Burnham’s informal style may help Labour regain ground against populist rivals such as Reform UK, digital popularity alone is unlikely to determine long-term political success. As analysts note, sustained public support will ultimately depend on whether the government delivers tangible improvements on the economy, living standards, and public services. If policy outcomes fail to match the positive online narrative, social media momentum could prove difficult to maintain.

With information from Reuters.

Bangladeshi journalist and fact-checker Qadaruddin Shishir investigates extrajudicial killings and disinformation following the student-led protests that ousted former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in 2024.

As Bangladesh continues a political transition under new governance, he turns his focus towards debunking fake news and misleading narratives spreading online. Determined to safeguard his nation’s democratic integrity, he launches an independent organisation to expand his work and mentor a new generation of fact-checkers.

As Bangladesh struggles to rebuild trust after political turmoil, Shishir pins his hopes on a new generation willing to defend the truth.

A new study by Australia’s internet regulator has revealed that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens are continuing to use social media platforms despite the government’s prohibition for children under 16.

The ban came into effect in December last year.

Here is what we know about how it’s going.

What did the latest report find?

Australia’s internet regulator, eSafety, said it had found that more than eight in 10 Australian under-16s are continuing to use social media despite being banned from doing so.

The report also found that most of those children aged 10 to 15 were using social media just as frequently in March as they had been before the ban came into force on December 10 last year.

“Most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones at the three-month ⁠mark, with social media platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures cited as the main reason,” eSafety said in a statement.

About half the children who retained their accounts said platforms had not checked their age, the most common reason they were able to stay on the services. Others said that their accounts listed them as aged 16 or older or ‌that age-checking ⁠systems had incorrectly determined they were older.

Prior to the ban, nearly 86 percent of children surveyed reported using at least one age-restricted platform. Three months later, that figure remained above 81 percent, the eSafety report said.

Around 58 percent of teenagers reported using social media daily, the report found. Before the ban, the number was roughly 60 percent.

The report showed minimal change in “sports and physical activity, arts and music, spending time with friends and family, and attendance at community events”.

At the time the new rule was introduced, experts warned that enforcing it would be extremely difficult.

Joanna Orlando, a researcher in digital wellbeing and the author of Generation Connected: How to Parent in a Digital World, told Al Jazeera in December last year: “Tech-savvy teens simply use VPNs, fake birth photos for face scans, or migrate to less regulated platforms like Lemon8, or to platforms not part of the ban like video games. Enforcement is proving to be difficult in the days leading up to the ban.”

In December 2025, Australia prohibited children under 16 from using social media platforms, becoming the world’s first country to do so. Video game platforms are not included in the ban.

The government said this was prompted by increasing concerns about the effects of cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and self-harm content on the mental and physical health of children and young people.

Research commissioned by the Australian government in 2023 found four out of five children aged eight to 16 use social media, often beginning between the ages of 10 and 12. That report was led by former National Australia Bank CEO Andrew Thorburn, who recommended age restrictions.

Under the law, 10 of the biggest social media platforms face $33m in fines if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to block Australian-based users younger than 16. Such steps include using age-verification tools to determine how old users are.

As of January 16, social media companies had revoked access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children in Australia, according to officials.

“We stared down everybody who said it couldn’t be done, some of the most powerful and rich companies in the world and their supporters,” Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells told reporters in January.

However, several months later, it now appears that youngsters have been able to open new accounts with relative ease.

Days after Australia’s ban took effect, Reddit, one of the 10 platforms required to block minors, lodged a challenge to the ban in the High Court, while still complying with it. The case is still ongoing.

How has the Australian government responded to the latest findings?

On Saturday, Andrew Leigh, Australia’s assistant minister for productivity, competition, charities and treasury, defended the new law, arguing that the social media ban has already reshaped the “national debate” about the use of social media by children.

The ban has been “an important game changer in the conversation among parents”, Leigh said in televised remarks.

“We’ve had millions of accounts shut down,” he said.

“We never expected that this would have 100 percent compliance. We don’t get 100 percent compliance out of minimum drinking age laws, but it’s still appropriate that we have that law on the books.”

While social media has long provided easy access to unregulated and often harmful content, misinformation and hate speech, the recent explosion of AI‑generated material poses new risks to the wellbeing of children and young people, experts say.

The American Psychological Association published an advisory last year warning that generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems can amplify harmful content such as violent or sexual videos.

It also added that adolescents are less likely than adults to question the accuracy of AI-generated content. “They may also be unaware of the persuasive intent underlying an AI system’s advice or bias,” the advisory stated.

AI can also amplify pre-existing societal prejudices, according to Ayo Tometi, co-creator of the US-based antiracist movement Black Lives Matter.

Children worldwide are also worried about the misuse of AI for online child sexual exploitation and “deepfakes”, according to research by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on children’s perspectives and AI, which it published in October 2025.

Following the introduction of Australia’s landmark law, some other countries are contemplating similar bans.

In the United Kingdom, the government has announced that it also plans to introduce a ban on social media platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram from spring 2027 onward. 

Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal, educational tools, and e-commerce and music streaming will be excluded.

The government will announce the new regulations by the end of this year.

In November 2025, Denmark’s government said it also plans to prohibit social media platforms for children under 15, saying it had secured majority support in parliament. The ban is due to come into effect later this year.

Around the same time, Malaysia said it would ban social media accounts for people under 16 from this year.

In April, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis formally announced plans to prohibit social media access for children under 15 from January 1, 2027, subject to parliamentary approval.

Truth Social, the social media firm owned by Trump Media & Technology Group (DJT), on Saturday launched Truth API, a licensed data feed that enables real-time access to posts from its high-profile users, including President Donald Trump.

With Trump Media & Technology

Media freedom organisations and opposition lawmakers have criticised sweeping media reforms pushed through by Israel’s right-wing coalition as part of a legislative blitz before the parliament’s dissolution in advance of elections later this year.

The parliament, or Knesset, last week approved the bill that could give the government a far greater say in Israel’s news and broadcast sectors. The controversial measure strips away traditional oversight safeguards, eliminates requirements for minimum journalism standards and lifts longstanding limits on cross-ownership, among others.

Following the July 17 vote, watchdog groups, including the Union of Journalists in Israel, along with opposition parties, successfully petitioned the High Court of Justice to freeze parts of the legislation. They warned that some provisions that were set to take effect immediately, including the removal of limits on ownership of multiple media outlets and the stripping away of newsroom standards, could permanently distort the media landscape before the October 27 election, potentially influencing its outcome.

The government has until Sunday to respond, after which the court will decide whether to keep the freeze, widen it, or allow the provisions to take effect. Other, less contentious and immediate sections of the law were left to stand.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not vote on the measure. He is currently bound by a 2020 conflict-of-interest agreement that bars him from participating in government decisions that could affect his ongoing corruption trial, where, among other charges, he stands accused of using his position to unduly influence media coverage of his administration.

Nevertheless, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi thanked Netanyahu directly, saying: “Mr prime minister, I want to thank you and tell you that the mission you gave me four years ago – to deliver right-wing reform of the media – was today successfully completed.”

Israeli media reported that such a directive by Netanyahu could be a violation of his agreement. Neither the Prime Minister’s Office nor the Communications Ministry responded to Al Jazeera’s queries over whether Netanyahu’s role in the legislation’s passage represented a conflict of interest. However, Karhi subsequently claimed that he had secured a legal opinion determining that the prime minister was not in breach of the conflict-of-interest agreement.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi have proven repeatedly that they are enemies of independent journalism in Israel,” Martin Roux, of the Reporters Without Borders media monitor, told Al Jazeera.

“This means they’re attacking every Israeli citizen’s right to reliable information from diverse sources. This has been true for years, and it is becoming more obvious every day as the legislative elections, set for the end of October, approach. It’s all about controlling the narrative,” he said.

In a social media post, Karhi claimed the new legislation would bring “more right-wing coverage and less regulation”.

“After a determined struggle against every possible element from the deep state, tycoons, attorneys, officials and fearmongering networks – we managed to pass the right-wing media reform.”

‘Boosting propaganda channels’

However, for many observers, there was little new in overhauling media that had grown used to toeing the government line, with critical coverage of the multiple wars that Israel has engaged in and the international outrage that many have caused typically relegated to the sidelines of the national conversation.

“The reforms are part of Netanyahu’s ongoing media overhaul – undermining the remains of critical reporting and journalistic independence in the country, while boosting Netanyahu’s propaganda channels,” London-based Israeli academic and media analyst Ayala Panievsky told Al Jazeera.

She cited the far-right Channel 14, which she said emboldened Israel’s war crimes and offered unflagging support to what she described as the most right-wing government in Israel’s history.

“In 2020, they amplified ‘the Big Lie’ in the US elections, claiming Trump won the election – they might therefore act similarly following the Israeli general elections in October, if Netanyahu’s coalition indeed loses,” said Panievsky, echoing similar concerns among academics and legal analysts sparked by accusations from lawmakers within Netanyahu’s Likud party that the acting head of the Central Elections Committee, Dean Livne, was “clearly politically biased”.

Analysts and observers from across Israel have long pointed to the strongly nationalist undertone of much of Israel’s current affairs coverage and the absence of space given to Palestinians and Palestinian suffering.

When the United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded in September 2025 that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, Israel’s Foreign Ministry dismissed the findings as “distorted and false“, a framing echoed across domestic outlets rather than scrutinised.

A subsequent Molad report found only 3 percent of Channel 12’s early war coverage referenced Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, with just two of 206 visuals showing Palestinian civilian casualties. Elsewhere, allegations of Israeli war crimes, including sexual abuse, are either omitted or given pro-government framing, observers told Al Jazeera.

“The Israeli media just doesn’t feature Gaza. It’s not there,” political analyst Ori Goldberg said from outside Tel Aviv. “There’s no sense of solidarity with the journalists killed there, or those they don’t let in. They’re just not mentioned.”

Similarly, discussion panels on the various wars that the Netanyahu administration had embarked upon were typically staffed by ex-generals, who had no question with the need for war, only differences over its prosecution, said Goldberg.

However, even this relative compliance was not enough for a prime minister fighting an election that had come to rely on the appearance of forward momentum and paper enemies to sustain his political project.

“Netanyahu always needs to be seen to be pushing the envelope,” Goldberg added. “He needs a media that will give barely critical coverage of his every word, but one that he can still present as the enemy within.”

India’s young protesters are mocking their government. And the jokes are landing.

As thousands of demonstrators take to the streets in the Indian capital, they are waging a parallel campaign online, flooding social media with memes, parody videos and self-deprecating jokes.

In doing so, they are also beating Narendra Modi – the powerful but image-conscious prime minister – at his own game.

Modi built his political brand through social media. Now protesters are using that same platform to mock his administration, ridicule pro-government television news coverage, transform confrontation with police into viral content and seize control of the online narrative.

The campaign has taken the protests demanding accountability and education reforms beyond the streets, broadening its reach and intensifying pressure on a government wary of appearing to yield to a rapidly growing youth movement.

Strava streaks and Subway Surfers

The “Cockroach” movement’s digital campaign has been largely powered by humour.

Clashes with police have become viral content. Videos showed protesters joking about keeping their Strava streaks alive — a reference to the fitness tracking app used by runners — as they ran from police baton charges.

Others edited footage of themselves dodging police barricades to mimic the popular endless runner mobile game Subway Surfers.

Some women have borrowed influencer culture, posting “get ready with me” videos before marches and “fit check” posts featuring helmets, goggles and other homemade protest gear. Other protesters have created spoof videos mocking pro-government television anchors and their dramatic style of broadcasts that have labelled the protesters “anti-national” and “foreign-funded conspirators”.

Several protesters spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals from authorities.

One 25-year-old protester said the memes are more than comic relief; they are a way of coping. She sees them as a generational trait.

Unlike older generations, who learned to endure hardship, hers has little patience for “simply putting up with it,” she said.

“If our phone data runs out, we can’t even bear that. So we’re definitely not going to tolerate this,” she said, referring to Monday’s police crackdown on protesters in the capital.

‘We find speeches boring’

The street protests erupted a month ago, fuelled by anger over a string of exam scandals, including the illegal sharing of entrance exams for the national medical programme.

Young people say the scandals have jeopardised their futures and eroded trust in the education system. They blame Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who resigned on Saturday.

But the demonstrations have expanded into wider anger over government accountability, spreading to other cities.

Much of that expansion has been driven by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a satirical group that started the movement two months ago. Through memes, humour and satire, it has given younger Indians a new way to express their frustration with the government and helped turn a single-issue campaign into a broader youth movement.

At the main protest site in New Delhi, that influence was hard to miss.

Some protesters marched in Spider-Man masks and Batman costumes, carrying tongue-in-cheek placards. Other protest signs echoed the irreverent tone of social media, with memes and pop culture references woven into the demonstrations.

One poster featuring the education minister asked: “When will AI take his job?” Another captured the movement’s spirit with the slogan: “Every joke is a [tiny] revolution.”

Some slogans and posters took on an overtly profane and risque tone. A 23-year-old student said the protesters were simply speaking the language of their generation.

“We find speeches boring, we are the summary generation. We have a habit of consuming things in a short span of time, so we are using the same ways to put our message across,” she said.

Jokes now target Modi

For Modi, who is entering his 13th year in office, the protests present an unusual challenge.

His image is built on strength and decisiveness, but he risks alienating young people if he responds too forcefully. Nearly half of India’s population is under 25, making young voters one of the country’s most influential electoral groups.

But the protests have broken a longstanding taboo: mocking Modi himself.

Jokes about Modi were rare during earlier protests, when his government was criticised for suppressing dissent. But now, even he has become a target of taunts.

Modi’s gestures, pauses and mannerisms have been turned into viral edits that turn his own words into political jokes.

When Modi released a late-night, selfie-style video on Thursday addressing the protesters, he promised swift legal action against those responsible for leaking academic or job exams.

But many internet users edited the clip with parody voiceovers and references to his past promises they said had gone unfulfilled.

One video went particularly viral.

Modi’s original address began with him referring to the protesters as “friends”. A parody video kept that opening, and abruptly cut to three young girls staring into the camera and responding: “No, we are not.”

A 21-year-old student said there is no better way to challenge Modi than by using social media that helped build his political brand.

“We are just answering him in his language,” he said.

The delay, filed in court on Friday, can cost Paramount $1.7bn in fees if the deal is not closed by next June.

Paramount Skydance has agreed to pause its $110bn acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery until after a federal judge rules on states’ challenge to the deal, according to court papers.

The delay, filed in court on Friday, could cost Paramount Skydance about $7m a day in fees it agreed to pay Warner Bros shareholders if the merger does not close by September 30.

“We look forward to proving our case at trial,” Paramount’s spokesperson said.

Twelve states, led by California, sued on July 13, arguing the deal would “extinguish competition” in Hollywood and lead to fewer choices for consumers, particularly moviegoers and cable customers. Paramount has called the states’ claims meritless and pledged to “vigorously defend” its merger.

“Halting this merger while our case proceeds is a critical victory in our efforts to uphold the law and protect the film and television industries,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is suing to block the deal.

Friday’s move arrives just days after US District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted a temporary restraining order requested by the states to freeze the transaction for several weeks.

The companies agreed to pause the deal until five days after the judge rules on the merits of the case, or June 1, 2027, whichever comes first. Paramount could owe as much as $1.7bn in ticking fees to Warner Bros shareholders if the deal is delayed until then.

Similar merger challenges have taken an average of eight months for a judge to rule, a review of recent cases by the Reuters news agency has found.

There have also been concerns over a media stranglehold as the merger would have brought CNN, currently owned by Warner Bros, under the umbrella of Paramount. The latter already owns CBS, which has seen a fair amount of turmoil amid allegations of bias in favour of US President Donald Trump under the leadership of CEO David Ellison, whose father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison, is a Trump ally.

Governments have become remarkably efficient at producing information. During crises, official statements, emergency regulations and public updates appear almost instantly. Yet recent global emergencies have exposed a fundamental paradox: more information does not necessarily create greater public trust.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated this with exceptional clarity. Around the world, governments introduced unprecedented public-health measures, revised policies at remarkable speed and communicated with citizens almost continuously. Despite these efforts, public responses varied dramatically. Accurate information competed with rumours, institutional confidence fluctuated and misinformation often spread faster than official corrections.

The challenge extended well beyond the pandemic. Whether societies face natural disasters, armed conflicts, cyberattacks or public-health emergencies, governments confront the same question: how can accurate information become trusted information?

Most discussions of crisis communication focus on governments and public institutions. Established frameworks such as the CDC’s Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model and Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) have shaped modern practice by emphasising transparency, consistency and timely communication.

These principles remain indispensable.

Yet they share an important assumption-that once reliable information is produced, effective communication naturally follows.

Recent experience suggests otherwise.

Between governments and citizens lies an often-overlooked stage of communication. Official information rarely reaches the public directly. Instead, journalists, editors, producers and broadcasters interpret complex events, provide context and translate institutional language into messages ordinary audiences can understand.

This intermediary role becomes especially important during uncertainty.

People rarely judge information on facts alone. They also respond to clarity, consistency and the credibility of those delivering the message. Two governments may release nearly identical information yet receive very different public reactions because the communication itself inspires different levels of confidence.

Television illustrated this particularly well during the COVID-19 pandemic. While social media accelerated both verified information and misinformation, television remained one of the most trusted sources of crisis reporting because journalists explained changing regulations, interpreted complex developments and provided continuity during uncertain periods.

In such moments, credibility becomes inseparable from presentation.

This raises a broader question. If governments are responsible for making decisions, who ensures those decisions are understood?

Despite its practical importance, that question has received surprisingly little attention.

One researcher exploring this overlooked dimension of crisis communication is Kazakh journalist Kydyr-Zhan Mukhatayev. His work examines what happens after official information reaches television audiences.

Using Kazakhstan’s experience during the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, Mukhatayev argues that broadcasters should not be viewed as passive channels transmitting government messages. Through editorial judgement, presentation and audience engagement, they actively influence how information is interpreted, trusted and ultimately acted upon.

When Information Isn’t Enough

A Case Study with Broader Implications

Mukhatayev explores this relationship through two complementary studies based on Kazakhstan’s broadcasting experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The first examines the professional role of television journalists during prolonged uncertainty. Rather than focusing exclusively on government communication, it considers how broadcasters themselves contributed to public understanding through responsible reporting, editorial judgement and effective communication.

The second expands the discussion beyond the pandemic, presenting crisis broadcasting as an interconnected system in which institutional credibility, journalism, visual communication and audience psychology continuously influence one another.

Although grounded in Kazakhstan’s experience, the questions raised extend far beyond one country. They suggest that successful crisis communication depends not only on what governments say but also on how professional media transform official information into messages citizens are prepared to understand, trust and follow.

How Trust Is Actually Built

Mukhatayev’s research brings these elements together into a single analytical perspective. Rather than viewing broadcasting as a channel for delivering official information, it presents television journalism as an active component of crisis management capable of strengthening-or undermining-public confidence.

Beyond COVID-19

The Next Crisis Will Test More Than Governments

New Delhi, India — She darted through a sprinting crowd, running from a cloud of tear gas just above her head. Her eyes stung so badly she could barely see, yet she filmed the chaos on her phone.

“I saw policemen brutally beating up unarmed girls and peaceful children,” said Avanshika Singh, who has been turning up for student protests that shut down the national capital, demanding the education minister’s resignation.

On her return home, the 18-year-old put together a rough cut from the chaos and captioned it on Instagram: “Today, we rang Parliament’s doorbell and ran.”

The march to the Indian parliament on July 20 against serial examination paper leaks brought the nation’s capital to a standstill as tens of thousands of protesters occupied central roads leading to the country’s corridors of power. More than 100 students were injured in a crackdown by police, operating under the direct instructions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.

But since then, Indian internet has turned into a relentless reel of police excesses: shaky smartphone footage, rapid-fire edits pulsing to hip-hop tracks, and a tidal wave of memes and expletives.

“This is the only thing anyone is talking about. If nothing, we are televising our revolution,” Singh, a teenager, told Al Jazeera, standing amid a sea of protesters choking Parliament Street on Wednesday. “The entire country today feels the sting of batons and tear gas with us.”

Twelve years ago, Modi rode to power and pioneered in many ways, leveraging social media platforms to reach the masses. Today, Gen Z is flipping his Hindu majoritarian party’s dominance on social platforms, weaponising against it the very tools the Bharatiya Janata Party has long relied on.

“Hating Modi is cool on the internet now, after years of criminalising dissent,” she said, before bursting into slogans: “Uncle Modi, go back, go back.”

Evidence of police excess

After the July 20 demonstrations against the government’s handling of paper leaks, the police denied all the protesters’ allegations and media reports of excess force in the crackdown.

But by then, social media was flooded with evidence, recorded by the protesting students.

A New Delhi police officer thrusting a baton on a female protester’s back; usage — potentially by a paramilitary force that was deployed alongside the police — of lethal pellet guns, for the first time in the national capital; a mother crying and pleading with dozens of police officials; another officer slapping and chasing unarmed students; police officers wearing Meta glasses; law enforcement agents planting a damaged car outside a protest strip; and footage where an officer casually trips the students running from tear gas.

No sight escapes the cameras at the Jantar Mantar protest strip, where thousands of protesters keep recording round the clock. The visuals from July 20 have prompted protests across India, in cities like Mumbai, Bengaluru, Patna, Lucknow and Aizawl.

The Cockroach Janta Party, a political pressure group that has been leading the students’ protest, has said the demonstrations would continue “peacefully” until three demands are met. They want Dharmendra Pradhan, the education minister, to resign; for the Modi government to assure that no criminal cases would be pursued against protesters; and for compensation of about $105,000 for families of students who died by suicide due to exam paper leaks and cancellations.

Niharika Soni, a 19-year-old, stood among the thousands-strong crowd that occupied Parliament Street on Wednesday, distributing water bottles to protesters. She did not take part in the July 20 march and did not care much about it either.

Then, the visuals appeared on her feed.

“My mother and I cried for two hours, watching the videos together at home,” she said, adding that her mother has been a staunch supporter of PM Modi.

“We hugged each other and come here every day now,” she added, now holding her mother’s hands, as part of a human chain, ready to confront government forces if attacked.

‘Leaking any responsibility’

It is also a meme fest on the Indian internet.

Protesters pose, mock and tease police personnel stationed near the protest site. Some offer flowers to them while reminding them that the officers only offered baton hits.

A stroll through the protest site and nearby roads is like scrolling an Instagram feed: posters and graffiti now line central New Delhi.

Even when they speak, protesters use language riddled with smart one-liners and mockery of the government.

“This government is leaking any responsibility towards the youth of this country,” Ipshita Gulyari, a 20-year-old, told Al Jazeera. Modi, she said, had messed with the “wrong generation”.

“There is a lot of arrogance in him — and, you know, teenagers do not tolerate that, bro.”

Another duo carried the popular Japanese manga One Piece, a symbol adopted by Gen Z protest movements worldwide. A group of friends donned fictional superhero costumes from Marvel’s Avengers: Spider-Man, Iron Man and Hulk, sitting together on police barricades, looking onto Parliament Street.

“We, the Gen Z people, are born on and for the internet. We were using Instagram before I could read a clock,” said Gulyari.

Mainstream television news channels friendly to Modi have faced accusations of not covering the protests adequately. But young people like Gulyari rely increasingly on independent small publications, and, even more, on social media.

“Gen Z is taking it lightly, being funny about it, because humour is our coping mechanism,” said 18-year-old Yashvi Kumar, a friend of Gulyari at the protest.

“In the middle of all chaos, somewhere we decided that to rebel, we need to find a way that unites us. The memes are uniting us.”

On the other hand, social media posts put up by the BJP are spammed by thousands, calling for the minister to resign.

Flipping the game

In 2014, Modi was among the first world leaders to understand and leverage social media to take his narrative to the masses. The Congress party, now in opposition, was trounced by Modi’s BJP in national elections that year, and has long struggled to keep up with the BJP’s social media dominance.

But with years in power, as India slid in multiple democratic indices, Modi’s government faced mounting accusations that it was criminalising dissent, with several critics jailed for years without a trial.

Modi’s party also mobilised extensive resources in the last decade in its so-called IT Cell, where a bunch of anonymous accounts, or creators friendly to the government, dox, troll and delegitimise social media criticism.

It is fitting, therefore, analysts say, that the biggest challenge Modi has faced on the streets stems from an online joke. After India’s chief justice casually likened the youth to “cockroaches” and “parasites”, the resulting fury led to the formation of the Cockroach Janta Party.

Before the Cockroach movement, “there was an undercurrent of memes from anonymous accounts, masked people, mocking the government,” said Anurag Minus Verma, a cultural critic and author of The Great Indian Brain Rot.

“In a post-ironical world, anything said with irony travels faster — and irony becomes a central feature of the internet during this kind of protest,” he said. “The pent-up anger found a channel at Jantar Mantar, allowing youth to do their thing, speak in their language.”

The most remarkable turnaround for Verma, he said, has been the unmasking of critics at the protest, where demonstrators ridicule and mock Modi, erasing the fear.

Verma argued that the Modi government had crushed and criminalised protests by labelling them anti-nationals and breaking them into sections. “The Gen Z protesters already identify themselves ridiculously enough: they are cockroaches,” he said. “It becomes a single identity — and that becomes easier to penetrate the virality zone.”

“Some are recreating the popular memes from Nepal, Bangladesh and Hong Kong uprisings,” he told Al Jazeera. “The criticism and hate directed at Modi in the capital is not only acceptable now, but even cool.”

Modi, in a tacit acknowledgement of the power of the social media wave that’s against his government, on Thursday morning offered his first comments on the student protests — on X.

“Nothing is more important than the welfare and future of our youth!” he wrote, before mentioning that his government had set up fast-track courts to punish those behind the paper leaks.

But the CJP’s leader Abhijeet Dipke was quick with his riposte on X.

Playing on Modi’s own words, overlaid on a photo of Education Minister Pradhan, Dipke wrote: “Hi, my name is Nothing”.

July 21 (UPI) — The French parliament passed a new law to ban children younger than 15 from using social media.

The law was a pet project of President Emmanuel Macron, who is near the end of his term limits. He announced the ban on X immediately after it passed Wednesday.

“I had committed to it, and now it’s been voted on: social media will be banned for those under 15 starting back-to-school. Thanks to the parliamentarians. It’s up to the Constitutional Council to rule, then on to action to make this measure concrete and protect our children online,” Macron said.

The French Senate and National Assembly approved the ban, despite criticism from some on the left, which has said it prevents online anonymity.

The law will be implemented in two stages: Beginning in September, children under 15 can’t open accounts, and age verification will be required for all new accounts; and in January 2027, the age verification rule applies to all existing accounts.

The French privacy regulator would have to approve the age-verification tools used, and everyone in France would have to verify their age on social media. The law doesn’t create penalties against children or parents who don’t comply or for social media providers. Those would likely need to come from the European Union.

In December, Australia was the first country to ban children under 16 from using social media apps, though a June New York Times report showed it is largely failing to keep kids off social media. Britain and Canada are working on implementing similar bans, and Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain have all written laws. The EU is expected to create a bill this fall.

“France wants to push its own legislation to make the EU act, and the EU act fast,” Jessica Galissaire, a senior policy researcher at Interface, a Berlin-based think tank, told The Times. “I see it more as a political announcement.”

Macron, last year, argued for the ban.

“It is clear that before the age of 15 or 16, social media is not a good thing. This is because at that age, we have not yet sufficiently consolidated things on an affective, emotional and cognitive level,” he said.

He likened it to age restrictions on drinking alcohol.

“Sixty years ago, kids were served wine,” he said. “There may still be people who serve beer to infants, but in my opinion, they are not in a majority in the country today.”

Benn, 29, had earlier said Garcia is “like a big child, a spoiled brat”.

“He throws his toys out of the pram on social media, throwing little tantrums,” he added.

“I’m not too concerned about this little influencer. He ain’t a fighter. He can say whatever he wants, it ain’t going to make a difference come 12 September.”

Benn then pointed to himself and said: “12-round war proven. I don’t quit, I don’t stay down on one knee,” referring to Garcia’s loss to Gervonta Davis in 2023.

Garcia, 27, responded by saying Benn’s “not gonna make it to 12, he’s not good enough”.

“You think I’m going to let a guy from the UK come here and beat me and take my belt? You’ve lost your mind,” Garcia added.

Born and raised in California, Garcia has Mexican heritage and often carries both an American and Mexican flag into the ring.

“Wait till I smack you up and make you quit,” Benn added. “You have no heart. You’re not Mexican, bro.”

Benn, who spent 12 years of his childhood in Mallorca, Spain, then shouted at Garcia in Spanish while grabbing his crotch.

Garcia later said he would stop Benn inside five rounds before the stage was cleared for a face-off between the fighters.

Benn’s father, former world champion Nigel Benn, was standing behind him as he repeatedly shouted “you quit” and told Garcia “you ain’t got no heart. I’ll test it, I’ll test that chin too”.

Garcia replied by saying: “This about to be easy work. You not good enough to beat me. Your dad’s gonna stop the fight. I promise you.”

Mogadishu, Somalia – Thousands of reel-to-reel tapes sit in an air-conditioned room in the archive of Somalia’s public radio, Radio Mogadishu, stacked on steel shelves and lined up like old manuscripts beneath a thick layer of dust.

Each reel contains a small fragment of Somalia’s 20th-century history, from news bulletins to speeches, music and voices that were once beamed out across the nation’s airwaves, some dating back to the early 1950s.

Abdiqadir Geedi Robleh, an archivist at Radio Mogadishu, threads a reel onto an old tape machine, connects it to a computer, and records the contents of each tape. A tape with a love song by Mohamed Mooge Liban, a prominent singer fills the room, and Robleh is transported, he says, to his youth.

He is working with a small team to digitise and methodically order approximately 400,000 hours of broadcasts, officials here say, before the magnetic tape deteriorates beyond recovery, taking with it a crucial record of the country’s past.

“This is the world’s largest store of Somali language music, culture, dramas and everything else, and at the moment it is locked away from the public in a kind of prison,” Robleh tells Al Jazeera. “We’re working to preserve it but also open it up in future to the public.”

Founded in 1951 during the Italian colonial era, Radio Mogadishu would grow into Somalia’s largest and most important public broadcaster. It initially broadcast in Italian and Somali before introducing foreign language services, including everything from Swahili and Oromo to English and Arabic.

In its heyday, it was among the most influential and distinctive voices in East African media, reaching audiences as far afield as Tanzania, Ethiopia, and the Middle East with a style of radical pan-African broadcasting reminiscent of Radio Cairo in the Nasser years.

With the exception of a brief hiatus in the 1990s, when it fell under the control of a warlord, it has served not only as a key source of news for Somalis and audiences across the region, but also as a vital repository of the country’s collective memory.

The effort to preserve its archives has gathered new momentum this year.

In early June, Somalia’s information ministry and the UNESCO regional office for Eastern Africa – the UN’s heritage agency – brought archivists from across the country to a workshop in Mogadishu, aimed at eventually registering its contents with UNESCO’s Memory of the World programme, which catalogues archives of important historical value.

“Protecting this knowledge isn’t just relevant for Somalia, but it is relevant for everyone,” said Guilherme Canela, a senior UNESCO official who is overseeing the project.

An expert assessment carried out in April counted roughly 45,000 tapes and reels, representing an estimated 400,000 hours of material recorded since the station’s founding. More than 85 percent remain playable, but around one in 10 has deteriorated with age, and more than 5 percent has been destroyed or severely damaged, according to UNESCO.

Radio Mogadishu’s collection was recognised both for its size and because so much of what it holds exists nowhere else.

Some were damaged in an electrical fire in 2018, Robleh says, while others were lost during fighting in 1992, when US forces battled Somali militias in the streets of Mogadishu.

During the worst of the civil war, police colonel Abshir Hashi Ali risked his life to prevent the contents of the archives from being looted. When fighting engulfed Mogadishu following the 1990 collapse of the government, he said he ran back “with the aim of conveying to Somalis the wealth that is stored here”.

Abdi Jeite, the station’s director, says the digitisation drive began as early as 2012, but has been held back for years by a lack of resources. By his estimate, only approximately 10 percent of the archive has so far been converted.

“We’ve got some new tools, and more training for our archivists, but there is still a lot of support needed,” he says.

To understand why the archive matters so much, it helps to understand what radio once meant in Somali life.

“Radio Mogadishu was arguably the preeminent media institution in post-independence Somalia,” Iman Mohamed, an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota and historian of Somalia, tells Al Jazeera.

“In a society that prizes orality above the written word, radio was uniquely effective at creating a common public sphere through which ordinary people could feel bonded to one another and to a shared sense of nationhood,” Mohamed adds.

Though Somali audiences could also access BBC Somali, Radio Hargeisa, and opposition stations when the government began to deteriorate in the latter part of the 20th century, it was Radio Mogadishu that dominated the “soundscape of urban Somalia”, Mohamed said.

That dominance made Radio Mogadishu a national factory of talent. “If you were a musician, poet, playwright or producer, Radio Mogadishu was the platform you wanted to appear on,” Robleh, the archivist, said. “It made Somalia’s stars.”

Robleh, the archivist, added that many BBC Somali journalists who went on to have distinguished careers first cut their teeth at Radio Mogadishu, which became an important pipeline for Somali-language talent to the BBC.

Hassan Dahir, a former journalist at the station, was one of many Somali children who grew up dreaming of working there. For years, he recalled, Radio Mogadishu was virtually the only source of news for millions, “the eyes and ears of the community”, he told Al Jazeera.

“Its reach was so extensive that even nomadic herders followed events as far afield as the Vietnam War and the American Civil Rights Movement,” Dahir said.

Under Siad Barre, the military officer who seized power in a 1969 coup and ran Somalia for two decades under a self-styled socialist, revolutionary government, the station became an instrument of state ideology, mixing news, drama and religious programming with nationalist and anti-colonial content.

The station beamed pan-African songs Oh Africa, still asleep by Halimo Khalif Magool, which spurred the continent’s inhabitants to awaken and take charge of their own destinies. Mahamud Abdullahi Sangub’s Reject the Color of Imperialism was another popular song of the era in this same tradition of politically charged music, with lyrics like: “Africans listen to each other, reject the colour of imperialism, reject it, reject it, reject it!”

Many of those songs have been covered, sampled or repurposed since, and younger Somalis often encounter them with no idea who performed the originals, or the politics that shaped them, say Mohamed.

Its news coverage focused on anti-colonial wars in places such as Mozambique against Portugal, the struggle against apartheid in Rhodesia and South Africa and the Civil Rights Movement in the US. It covered everything from colonial battles in Guinea-Bissau to the arrest of African American political activist and author Angela Davis.

“We were telling the stories of people resisting their oppressors”, said Dahir.

The station was a “mouthpiece of the government”, cautions Mohamed, but took on a crucial role of inculcating “a patriotic and revolutionary ideological orientation in the Somali people”.

One of the most important projects the radio supported was the Somali mass literacy campaign, when the government sent students to rural Somalia in 1972 to teach the newly developed Somali script. The campaign led to a dramatic increase in literacy across the country.

It also became deeply entangled with Somalia’s regional foreign policy, as the government spent much of the 20th century at loggerheads with Ethiopia before eventually invading in 1977.

That rivalry led Radio Mogadishu to dedicate airtime to Ethiopia’s marginalised ethnic communities, as well as armed rebel movements, particularly those from Eritrea. Among its most notable initiatives were broadcasts in Oromo and Sidama.

Dahir, the former Radio Mogadishu journalist who covered Ethiopia, told Al Jazeera that these were the first-ever radio programmes in either language, both of which had been suppressed for many years in Ethiopia under policies that privileged Amharic, the language of the country’s elite.

The station itself has taken on a far smaller role in Somali life since.

The collapse of the central government in 1991 broke the state’s grip on broadcasting, opening space for private radio, television and online outlets, which have proven popular with the Somali public.

It has lost most of its foreign-language programming, and with it, much of its revolutionary edge. The Somali state also continues to be constrained by limited resources as it rebuilds after decades of conflict.

In November 2021, the al-Qaida-affiliated armed group al-Shabab, which has waged a long rebellion against Somalia’s government, assassinated the station’s then-director, Abdiaziz Mohamud Guled, in a suicide bombing in Mogadishu.

Iman Mohamed, the historian, says that with the civil war in the country, now in its third decade, preserving the archive for posterity has become more urgent.

“The destruction of archives during the civil war has left an enormous gap in Somalia’s documentary record, which means that anyone researching the country’s history is almost entirely reliant on foreign archives or oral history,” Mohamed said.

“That is especially problematic for young people,” she adds. “Recovering what we can matters for the youth who will never have known the world that Radio Mogadishu broadcast in its heyday.”

Influencer brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate, whose social media empire promoting wealth, male dominance and misogyny has made them among the world’s most polarizing internet personalities, were arrested Saturday in Miami as British authorities sought their extradition on rape and sex trafficking charges.

The brothers were taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals Service on a sealed warrant, agency spokesperson Brady McCarron told the Associated Press, placing the United States at the center of an international legal saga that has stretched from Romania to Britain.

British prosecutors announced Saturday that they were seeking the brothers’ extradition on charges alleging they raped and trafficked women between 2010 and 2017.

The dual U.S. and British citizens moved to Romania in 2016. They were arrested there in 2022, accused of participating in schemes to lure women for sexual exploitation. They denied those allegations, and the Romanian case hasn’t gone forward because of legal and procedural problems.

Last year, they were allowed to leave Romania and flew to Florida on a private jet.

The brothers are expected to appear in Miami’s federal court early next week, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive law enforcement operations.

The pending charges in the United Kingdom accused the brothers of abusing women in an area north of London, where they grew up. Their lawyers had said they denied the allegations.

Joseph McBride, an attorney representing the Tate brothers, said in a phone interview Saturday evening that he has not been able to speak with his clients but called the new charges in the U.K. “filth and slander” intended to derail defamation lawsuits filed by the brothers in the U.S.

“They’re pulling out all the stops to make sure these guys never get their day in court,” McBride said.

“We are confident that once a competent judge sees the facts, and once the Department of Justice confronts this egregious abuse of its own authority, Andrew and Tristan Tate will walk free. America does not do Britain’s political dirty work.”

Andrew Tate, 39, first reached a mainstream audience as a contestant on the U.K. reality television show “Big Brother” in 2016. He was removed from the show when a video surfaced that appeared to show Tate assaulting a woman. He and his brother Tristan, 38, are vocal supporters of President Trump.

Andrew Tate has amassed more than 10 million followers on X but has been banned from platforms including YouTube, TikTok and Instagram for violating hate speech guidelines. His most widely condemned rhetoric includes comments that women who are sexually assaulted should bear some responsibility for their attacks, graphic descriptions of how he might attack women and criticisms of people who seek treatment for mental illness.

The Tate brothers have consistently denied allegations of abuse and human trafficking, claiming that violent and misogynistic statements have been taken out of context or were intended as jokes.

In a statement Saturday, the U.K.’s Crown Prosecution Services said that in addition to the charges announced against the brothers in 2025, involving alleged crimes against three women, it was bringing a total of 38 new charges related to “four further victims.”

Both brothers are accused of rape and human trafficking. Andrew Tate faces an additional charge of profiting from prostitution, and 19 charges “for offenses relating to indecent images of a child and extreme pornography,” according to U.K. authorities.

“There is no place for male violence against women and girls, and we will continue to work tirelessly to support victims and investigate all reports made to us,” said Karena Thomas, an assistant chief constable of the Bedfordshire Police, which investigated the case.

Durkin Richer writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Savannah Peters in Santa Fe, N.M., contributed to this report.

The only thing you might have in common with a World Cup football player is posting on Instagram as soon as you’re back home from a social gathering. Or, in the case of Erling Haaland, while you’re still in the dressing room after a win.

Football’s biggest stars are giving an insider look into the World Cup, their training, and personal lives at the six-week tournament through social media, and for some of them, their following has grown by tens of millions. Their on-pitch heroics, popularity, and personal stories have led them to overnight social media stardom during the World Cup.

Of course, football icons like Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, and Neymar have seen an exponential rise in their Instagram following as well. But the 2026 World Cup wasn’t the first rodeo for these veterans, who have an evergreen social media boom outside the tournament.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at some of the biggest social media stars from this World Cup:

Erling Haaland — Netherlands

The goofy, witty and relatable six-foot-five-inch (195cm) Viking has been one of the World Cup’s most loveable personalities on the pitch and online.

The 25-year-old Norwegian striker, like many Gen Z social media users, seems to be chronically online when he’s not leading his country to new World Cup heights.

From candid Snapchat stories to Instagram posts right after winning to taking a taxidermied raccoon on the plane ride home, Haaland has become a social media phenomenon this World Cup.

It’s all thanks to his authentic posting style, compared with more carefully curated accounts that PR firms manage for similar high-profile personalities.

Of Haaland’s Instagram following of more than 70 million, 29 million were added in the past 30 days, according to analytics tool Social Blade. He is projected to reach 75 million after the World Cup final and nearly 322 million by the end of the year.

Vozinha — Cape Verde

One of the best feel-good stories of the tournament belongs to Vozinha, the Cape Verde goalkeeper whose heroics kept some of the world’s best teams from scoring a single goal against the island nation — all of which his mother eventually saw in person after she finally received a US visa to attend the World Cup.

He leapt, dived and executed a string of saves in Cape Verde’s tournament opener against Spain to end the match in a shock 0-0 draw. By the time he opened his Instagram a few hours later, his following surged from 500,000 to nearly five million.

It currently sits at 29.3 million followers, and the initial hype around him still stands as his posts garner millions of likes and interactions.

The 40-year-old joked how most people couldn’t even point out Cape Verde on a map before the World Cup, but his team’s standout performance in the group stages and knockout match helped change that.

Jude Bellingham — England

Good looks, loveable personality, Golden Boot contender — is there anything Jude Bellingham isn’t great at? And a massive 50 million Instagram following, of course.

The English midfielder’s World Cup journey may have ended in disappointment earlier this week, but there’s a lot to be said about a player whose fans sing “Hey Jude” for him after leading his team to victory at previous World Cup stages before the semifinal loss.

Bellingham, 23, has gained nearly nine million followers in the past 30 days, according to Social Blade, but his online popularity spiked by three million in October, when he opened up about his struggles with mental health.

Lamine Yamal — Spain

The teen sensation has been on the up and up since bursting to stardom two summers ago with Spain’s UEFA 2024 win, and his social media reflects the cool, candid, level-headed personality he carries on and off the pitch.

The 19-year-old’s Instagram feed is a mix of post-match photos, brand partnerships, multiple trophy wins and pictures with family members with whom he shares a close relationship.

His younger brother, Keyne, has become something of a celebrity at the World Cup, too, with his endearing antics as Yamal shepherds the three-year-old around the stadium pitch or watches him try — and fail — at golf.

The Barcelona striker could see his popularity gain new heights — and more Instagram followers, which currently number 49.6 million — after this Sunday’s World Cup final as Spain take on Messi’s Argentina.

Social media has already been fawning over the full-circle moment that began with a now-viral photo of Messi and Yamal in 2007 for a UNICEF fundraising shoot.

Tim Payne — New Zealand

Payne’s viral moment may have come before the World Cup, but it was touching nonetheless.

The New Zealand defender’s Instagram following exploded late in May after an Argentinian influencer decided he was the least-known player at the World Cup.

Valen Scarsini, known as “elscarso” on Instagram and TikTok, made a video encouraging his audience to give the Wellington Phoenix and All Whites defender’s account likes, comments and follows.

Payne’s Instagram following grew from fewer ⁠⁠than 5,000 before the campaign to about 5.8 million, turning the 32-year-old into one of the tournament’s most unlikely viral stars.

He even addressed the outpouring of love in a video on Instagram, and eventually met up with Scarsini at the team’s hotel in Boca Raton, Florida, ahead of the World Cup.

The latest government measure aimed at curbing digital harm comes after an under-16 social media ban was announced last month.

The United Kingdom has proposed an overnight social media curfew for older teenagers as part of the government’s latest push to protect minors from digital harm, though users will be permitted to bypass the restrictions.

The Labour administration announced the plans on Wednesday, outlining a six-hour default lockout from midnight to 6am for 16- and 17-year-olds on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube.

Under the proposal, highly engaging mechanisms, such as autoplay videos and infinite scrolling, would also be deactivated by default for this age group to encourage better sleep and focus.

The initiative follows a June announcement by outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who unveiled a blanket ban on social media for children under 16 slated to take effect in 2027.

While the younger cohort faces a strict prohibition on major networks, ministers chose a softer approach for older adolescents.

The UK’s restrictions reflect a rapidly growing global crackdown on young people’s social media access. Australia made waves in December by enacting a world-first ban on social media for under-16s, which its government is already looking to tighten following studies showing that many teenagers easily bypass the restrictions.

The ban, which came into force on December 10, made Australia a global test case for countries trying to curb children’s access to social media.

Defending the voluntary nature of the curfew, UK Secretary for Online Safety Kanishka Narayan rejected criticism that teenagers would simply disable the restrictions. He told Sky News that the government wanted to avoid outright bans for older teenagers, aiming instead for a “smooth slope” into adulthood.

“We want to empower our teenagers,” Narayan said, citing data from a pilot scheme and previous voluntary platform trials where more than 90 percent of teenagers kept the restrictive default settings active.

“The evidence base is clear, the motivation is very clear, and I wouldn’t do the disservice to teenagers of saying they’re all going to switch it off.”

However, political opponents and child safety advocates expressed scepticism about the policy’s efficacy.

Laura Trott, the education spokesperson for the opposition Conservative Party, dismissed the plans as illogical.

“Either they think 16- and 17-year-olds should be on social media or they don’t, but curfews they can simply switch off won’t achieve anything,” Trott said, according to the Associated Press news agency.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a prominent UK children’s nonprofit, welcomed the development, but warned that it was a temporary fix.

Chief executive Chris Sherwood cautioned that unless the government implements “further, stronger measures”, the policy will act only as a “sticking plaster” that fails to address the deeply addictive algorithms driving excessive screen time.

The proposals must still be formally legislated. Because they represent some of the final legislative steps of Starmer’s administration, the responsibility of implementing them is expected to fall to his anticipated successor, Andy Burnham.

July 15 (UPI) — Britain announced plans Wednesday for a midnight social media curfew for older teens aimed at preventing them from staying up late into the night on apps such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, with the new measures expected to take effect in Spring 2027.

Targeted at 16- and 17-year-olds and following on from a full social media ban for children younger than 16 announced in June, the package of measures calls for a 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. curfew to be set by default within the apps and that other “addictive features” such as autoplay and customized feeds be automatically disabled, the government said in a news release.

However, unlike the total ban for under-16s, restrictions on the older teens will be discretionary, meaning they will be able to override them, or turn features back on again, at will.

The Science, Technology and Innovation Department said the move was designed to ease young people’s transition into the online world and ensure there was “no cliff edge” when the full social media restrictions they will have been under, in some cases for their entire life, were suddenly lifted when they turn 16.

It said the protections, which came out of a nationwide pilot that found they improved sleep and focus, struck a balance between protecting older teenagers while giving them age-appropriate independence to change the settings, trusting that they will make good choices.

“Our consultation provided a clear message from parents and teenagers alike — even as young people gain greater independence at 16, they should still be protected from the most addictive online features that can have a harmful impact on their wellbeing,” said Technology Secretary Liz Kendall.

“These measures will be crucial in helping young people get the sleep they need, focus on school and college, and spend more quality time with family and friends, all of which are fundamental to building a happy, healthy and fulfilling adult life,” she added.

The first set of regulations will be introduced to parliament by the end of this year, with measures expected to come into force in spring 2027, timed to coincide with when the social media ban for children younger than 16 comes into force.

The opposition Conservative Party’s shadow education secretary Laura Trott described the move as “absurd.”

“Either Labour think 16 & 17 year olds should be on social media or they don’t, but curfews they can switch off won’t achieve anything. They should stop tinkering and get on with getting u16s off social media,” she wrote in a post on X.

Ellen Roome, who alleges her 14-year-old son lost his life in an online dare that went awry in 2022, was also highly critical.

“I just think it’s not good enough really just to have a product you can switch off; it’s a bit like offering a 17-year-old a bottle of alcohol and then moving it slightly out of arm’s reach, they can just drag it back in, I really wish they could go stronger and harder on these things,” she told the BBC.

Kendall said measures were also in the pipeline to help children younger than 18 use AI chatbots safely, including regular breaks, and tackling bots or apps pushing “dangerous, misleading or unverified” mental health tips with ministers open to all solutions, including banning chatbots that put children at serious risk.

Wednesday’s development follows announcements in June giving Apple, Google and other tech firms three months to stop explicit images from being shot, shared or viewed on children’s mobile phones and in April on planned legislation to ban children from using smartphones in schools in England.

May God have mercy on Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the humane emir, the brave leader, and the great father, who loved Qatar and its people. Advancing the nation, both in the present and the future, was his primary concern and highest goal; today, it occupies advanced ranks across all fields, including media.

The Al Jazeera Media Network was one of the projects launched during his reign, may God rest his soul.

One day, His Highness summoned me, and I met him at his home. He informed me that he intended to establish a television news channel to be named Al Jazeera. It would enjoy a wide margin of freedom so it would be different from what people were accustomed to seeing in the Arab media landscape.

It would be a news channel that operates according to the principles of free journalism, akin to professional international media institutions and outlets.

We began constructing the building not far from Qatar Television, and we proceeded to equip it with broadcasting and satellite communication equipment, and prepared the newsroom to receive those who would work there.

His Highness was keen on following the progress of all major projects, offering encouragement and guidance, despite his immersion in state affairs, having taken the reins of power only a few months prior at the time.

The Board of Directors was formed, and the director general of the channel was appointed. Then the steps of attracting and recruiting journalistic and technical personnel began.

Journalists and staff arrived, and the newsroom came to life. The channel’s slogan, “The Opinion and the Other Opinion”, was set and trial broadcasting commenced.

In late November 1996, the first half-hour news bulletin aired, serving as a window outside the general norm. The beginning consisted of six hours of broadcasting per day.

Signs of success emerged from the early days when journalists and the general public began talking about a new voice unlike anything the Arab world had seen before. Everyone felt joyful at the success of the idea after doubts had troubled many.

Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa used to visit the channel, but he never once interfered in any coverage or programme, as long as everything proceeded according to professional rules.

This is what strengthened everyone’s belonging to the project and cemented the conviction that it was a project for the nation, aimed at conveying the truth from the field in image and word, no matter the hardships and sacrifices.

It was not unexpected for His Highness that the channel — with its strong performance in the arena of news and talk shows, and its independent, professional editorial policy — would face opposition and pressure from both the Arab and international spheres alike.

However, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa did not yield to this, driven by his belief in the importance of independent and free media. This served as a protective umbrella for the channel and its employees, reinforcing their spirit of belonging, deepening their faith in their message, and increasing their readiness to continue contributing.

His vision for the future of Al Jazeera also proved true. The painful targeting it endured over the years did not deter it from continuing to carry its independent message. Its impact continues to grow day by day, within its region and beyond. It changes concepts, broadens culture and awareness, and shifts media equations around the world, north and south. The network today occupies a leading position at the forefront of both the traditional media landscape and the digital sphere.

Among all the projects established by His Highness, Al Jazeera held a special place. In my final meeting with him, may God have mercy on him, his health condition did not prevent him from asking about Al Jazeera and checking on its current state and future, just as he used to do with the workers in the rest of the country’s projects.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani succeeded his father as emir. He too faced, during one of the most difficult periods in Qatar’s history, pressures seeking to alter the network’s approach, yet he did not accept any interference in its editorial policies, regardless of the source.

Furthermore, he does not personally intervene in its operations as long as it adheres to professional rules and ethics.

This is the story of Al Jazeera’s inception with its visionary founder, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, up until he passed away.

However, this article does not recount the complete history of Al Jazeera; rather, it presents merely one chapter of its tale. It is a story that will continue to be read, emulated and cited as an example of a successful enterprise that left a profound impact spanning generations, despite the hardships and challenges it endured.

Above all, these words — and many more — cannot do justice to Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa for all that he gave to his nation, his people, and his extended Qatari family. He dedicated his entire life to serving them and spearheading developmental projects across all fields. Among these is the Al Jazeera project, which is widely regarded as a success story acclaimed by the entire world and described as an exceptional media model.

May God have mercy upon Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa — the human, the father and the leader. May He grant him rest in His vast paradise and reward him with the best of rewards on behalf of us all. And may God protect the emir and wise leader, Sheikh Tamim, and protect Qatar and its people.

A version of this piece was first published on Al Jazeera Arabic. 

July 13 (UPI) — The European Union plans to implement a social media ban on users younger than 13-years-old, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Monday.

The ban would still allow users younger than 13 to use social media with parental supervision. Von der Leyen presented an expert report on the harms of social media use on children that recommended the ban to limit time spent on the platforms.

“It is very clear that we need age-appropriate restrictions to platforms,” von der Leyen said. “This is not about whether children can access social media. It is about whether and when social media can access our children.”

The report, written by child psychiatrist Jorg Fegert and epidemiologist Dr. Maria Melchior, also recommends that social media use be limited to platforms that have certain features such as limits to infinite scrolling. They also recommend that children under the age of 3 have no screen time.

Von der Leyen is expected to announce a law outright banning children and teens from using some social media sites in the coming months. Monday’s report is the first step toward that law.

The European Union is just one body that has considered banning children and teens from accessing social media in recent years. Australia was the first country to implement a ban, barring children under 16-years-old from using social media last year.

Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, India, Indonesia and Malaysia are either considering similar restrictions or have adopted them.

Along with efforts to restrict access to social media, governments and coalitions across the globe have been encouraging major social media companies to change their policies to make their sites safer for children. Among the features they are pushing for are greater control of the data of children, the elimination of features that encourage compulsory use like infinite scrolling and control over age-inappropriate content.

At least 27 people have been killed in a huge fire which ravaged through a Bangkok bar, Thai media has reported.

Firefighters were called to the scene just after midnight and discovered patrons fleeing through the flame-enveloped front door of the venue.

Unverified footage shows flames blasting out of the bar as one woman falls to the floor before getting to her feet to get away.

Thailand’s Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul told journalists at the scene that 27 people died and several have been taken to the hospital, according to local media. He stressed the cause of the fire was still under investigation.

The bar is located in the Chatuchak District and is a famous entertainment venue and restaurant in the area, Thai outlet the Daily News reported, external.

Firefighters were able to bring the flames under control in half an hour.

Pictures taken inside the bar after the fire was put out show it completely charred and blackened, with the ceiling peeling off.

A number of people are still missing after the disaster, Thai outlet Thairath reported, external.

This is a breaking story. More updates will follow.

MINNEAPOLIS — Somali and Muslim communities in Minnesota are once again condemning a social media post by President Trump, alleging it communicates “anti-Muslim bigotry” toward children.

Trump posted a 14-second video clip showing children singing in graduation outfits, with girls also wearing hijabs. The children had sashes that read “kindergarten” on one side and “graduate” on the other. The video posted Monday appears to be from a Somali TV Minnesota news clip filming a ceremony at a charter school in St. Paul.

Included in Trump’s TruthSocial post is a screenshot of a caption from an X account that first posted the video in June. The caption said, “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”

The post drew statements from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Somali American Partnership and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

“By using his global platform to amplify anti-Muslim bigotry and target Muslim children at this elementary school, President Trump is putting lives at risk,” said a statement from the national and Minnesota chapter of CAIR.

Trump and other Republican leaders have repeatedly been accused of making xenophobic and racist attacks against Muslim Americans in recent months. Trump has specifically singled out the Somali community in Minnesota numerous times, calling them “garbage” in December.

“Somali Americans are an integral part of Minnesota’s past, present, and future,” the Somali American Partnership said in a statement. “Our children deserve to be recognized for their potential — not used to fuel fear, division, or anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant narratives.

“Those with public platforms have a responsibility to protect children, not endanger them.”

In a statement on X, Walz accused Trump of “attacking a group of kindergarteners because of the clothes they wore to school.”

The Somali American Partnership, a collection of Minnesota-based nonprofit organizations that assist the Somali community, plans to hold a news conference Wednesday to address “the growing climate of anti-Somali and anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

Members of the Muslim community in Minnesota have expressed fear for their safety numerous times in recent months, citing such rhetoric. In May, community members tied the rhetoric to a disturbance at a mosque in Lakeville, days after three people were killed at a San Diego mosque.

Last fall, Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of the Minnesota chapter of CAIR, said there had been more than 40 instances of vandalism, arson or other disturbances at mosques in the last three years, higher than any other state. Damage totaled more than $3 million, Hussein said.

He said at the time that Islamophobic comments directed at Muslim institutions in Minnesota were “completely on a new level.”

Hughes writes for the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Logan Webb has long been a bright spot amid San Francisco Giants chaos and dysfunction. Now he’s gone dark, deleting his X.com account after exchanging volleys with a radio reporter.

The right-hander who led the National League in innings pitched each of the last three seasons gave up five runs Wednesday in the first inning of the Giants’ 10-0 loss to the Toronto Blue Jays, including surrendering the first grand slam of his career.

Webb settled down and tossed six scoreless innings thereafter. But the Giants were well on their way to dropping to 39-54, 21.5 games behind the first-place Dodgers. Blue Jays starter Dylan Cease took a no-hitter into the ninth inning before Heliot Ramos singled for the Giants’ lone hit.

Jack Loder, a clearly exasperated digital content producer for the Giants’ flagship station KNBR, posted a two-minute video on X shortly after the game that singled out Webb for criticism.

“People say, ‘How do you blame Webb when the offense didn’t do anything?’” Loder said. “Yes, the offense didn’t do anything. I’m spreading the blame here. Maybe they do something if it’s 0-0 or 1-0. When someone is supposed to be your ace, you think they are going to give you the best chance to win every week….

“I’ve really appreciated his Giant tenure, but there’s always been a little bit lacking. I wish he was a little bit more of an ace. Because Lord knows this team has needed him in so many instances the last few years.”

Loder then accurately predicted that Webb “might be searching his name on Twitter after the game, which is never a great look.”

Webb commented on Loder’s video soon thereafter: “You know what’s sad is they allow people like you in the locker room.”

Loder, in turn, posted Webb’s response, adding, “If you’re wondering where the Giants are at mentally after a 10-0 loss to fall to 16 games under .500.”

Webb responded to another reporter’s comment in the thread and to at least two Giants fans, telling one, “Honestly you probably don’t know anything about anything some loser on the couch that couldn’t make his little league team.”

Later in the evening, Webb deleted his account and has not reactivated it. Perhaps reporters may speak to him next at the All-Star Game. He is representing the Giants for the third year in a row.

Near the end of his video, Loder broadened his criticism: “The veterans — the highest-paid guys — let this team down, let the franchise down, let the fans down.”

Six Giants players are being paid more than $20 million this season: First baseman Rafael Devers ($25 million), third baseman Matt Chapman ($25 million), starter Robbie Ray ($25 million), Webb ($23 million), outfielder Jung Hoo Lee ($22 million) and shortstop Willy Adames ($21 million).

Only Chapman (2.5 WAR) has been worth even two wins above replacement, and he is on the injured list.

Giants woes have extended beyond the field. Four pitchers pushed back against the team’s annual Pride Night in June, with three writing Bible verses next to the rainbow-tinted logo on their caps and the fourth declining to wear the colorful cap at all. MLB informed them that they were in violation of uniform protocols, triggering a culture skirmish between one of the nation’s most vibrantly diverse and queer cities and Republican politicians who asserted that the players’ actions were an expression of religious freedom protected by the Constitution.

The response from Giants president and Hall of Fame catcher Buster Posey was considered inadequate. He refused to discuss the players’ actions or the team’s response, telling reporters, “I’ll take baseball questions.”

Baseball questions pertaining to the Giants have been numerous, from the hiring of a manager — Tony Vitello — who had zero professional baseball experience to Devers seemingly defying Vitello by waving off a pinch-runner to three outfielders engaging in a provocative hip-thrust celebration.

Webb’s social media meltdown can be added to the list.