restrictions

Starlink has recently denied restricting internet speeds but Elon Musk suggested the US military could be behind it.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that speed restrictions by Starlink’s military-grade internet service had aided a wave of deadly Russian attacks across Ukraine.

Two people were killed on Saturday in a Russian drone attack on what Ukrainian officials called “critical infrastructure” in the northern Koriukivka region.

An energy facility was also hit in Odesa overnight on Sunday, leaving 41,000 households without electricity, Ukraine’s DTEK energy provider said in a Telegram statement.

Ukraine’s army said it shot down 106 of 132 Russian drones launched overnight.

Zelenskyy posted on X that Russia was targeting energy substations with Shahed drones, which both sides commonly attack each other with.

“And many of these strikes are getting through because restrictions on the operating speed of Starshield terminals along the front line and in the temporarily occupied territories are still there,” he posted, citing Starlink’s sister company and reiterating accusations that it was throttling internet speeds and hampering military operations.

The president said on Saturday that the internet restrictions had been in place for five days and that Starlink reported technical problems, but Ukraine does “not believe that is the case”.

It is the second such outage in recent weeks. Starlink, owned by US billionaire Elon Musk’s SpaceX, has denied restricting internet speeds. Last month, Musk said the United States government controls Starshield.

Tit-for-tat attacks

Russia’s Defence Ministry said on Sunday that it launched attacks targeting Ukraine’s military airfields, munitions depots and other military facilities.

Authorities also said that an electrical engineer was killed and four others were injured in Russia’s Taganrog region after Ukrainian drones attacked the area on Sunday.

Six people were injured in a drone attack in Nizhnekamsk, local officials said. The city, as well as the wider Trans-Kama region of Tatarstan, reported heavy Ukrainian attacks on industrial facilities and a residential building earlier on Sunday.

US negotiators concluded visits to both countries in recent days in attempts to secure a ceasefire, despite tensions between Washington and Kyiv over Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries.

Zelenskyy said the US floated the idea of Ukraine withdrawing its remaining forces from the eastern Donbas region in exchange for NATO membership.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is due to meet President Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping in the Chinese city of Shenzhen this week – but Ukraine is not on the agenda. Analysts have compared the meeting to the Yalta conference of 1945, which saw the US, UK and former Soviet Union divide Germany and establish the United Nations.

However, in a statement on Sunday, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, dismissed Russia’s longstanding proposal to revise Europe’s security architecture.

“Putin is throwing around ideas about reshaping the European security order. In his dreams, he sees himself in Yalta in 1945. The problem is that to put forward ideas of this magnitude, you first need to win a world war,” he said.

Iran has exempted ships from India, China, Iraq and Qatar from its Strait of Hormuz restrictions, a senior Iranian lawmaker said on Tuesday.

“Ships from these countries pass freely, and the Americans do not intercept them either,” Amir Hayat Moqaddam, deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the Iranian Students’ News Agency (ISNA).

Iran effectively shut the strait early in the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, and the United States reimposed a naval blockade on Iran’s southern ports in July.

So why have these four countries been granted passage through the critical strait, and can their ships really sail freely while the blockade remains in place?

What does Iran get in return for letting ships pass?

It will receive medicine from India and political backing from China, according to Hayat Moqaddam. Iran already receives diplomatic support from Qatar, which is leading mediation efforts to end the US-Israel war on Iran.

Hayat Moqaddam said Tehran will also collect transit fees from Indian and Chinese ships, while Qatari vessels pass free. He did not say whether Iraqi ships will pay a toll.

“Whatever the lawmaker says is the rationale – the big question is if it works and, if yes, to what extent?” Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran analyst and affiliated researcher at Lund University’s Department of History and Human Rights Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“Iran has been under sanctions for a very long time, so bartering and quid pro quos in trade are nothing new,” he said. The difference now, he added, is that “it’s about poking holes in an embargo and getting crucial goods/services in and out”.

Nader Hashemi, an associate professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, said that “most likely Iran is charging a transit fee or a percentage of the cargo value to allow those ships to go through without being harassed”.

“It’s a clever move by Tehran for several reasons,” Wolfgang Pusztai, a security and defence analyst and Austria’s former defence attache to Libya, told Al Jazeera.

“If successful, this move will generate significant revenue for Iran, as China is by far the largest purchaser of Iranian crude oil, buying nearly 90 percent of Iran’s total oil exports,” he said.

By including Qatar, with its many liquefied natural gas (LNG) buyers, and India, Iran is also “trying to undermine acceptance” of Washington’s strategy in the conflict, especially as it charges Qatar no tolls, he added.

Why does it matter to these four countries?

All four are highly dependent on the Strait of Hormuz for exports.

Of the 10.23 million barrels a day of Gulf crude that passed through the strait in October, about 42 percent went to China and 13 percent to India, Muyu Xu, a senior crude oil analyst at the analytics firm Kpler, told Al Jazeera.

“China is the country most able to cross US interests. The question is whether Beijing considers it worth the potential political cost,” Parsi said.

Asia is particularly reliant on Gulf oil and gas usually shipped out via Hormuz. Countries there have much to offer in return for allowing ships to pass.

“For India, the shutdown of oil from the Gulf has been a great loss – and it is a big producer of the pharmaceuticals that Iran cannot manufacture itself,” he said.

Qatar, which is mediating between Washington and Tehran, shipped no LNG through the strait in August, but managed 1.8 million tonnes in October, Xu said.

Its crude transits fell over the same period, from 517,000 barrels a day to 193,000, while Iraq’s rose from 1.69 million to 2.65 million.

Kpler has been unable to trace the origin of up to two million barrels a day of Middle Eastern crude, so both countries’ flows may be higher, Xu said.

“India and Qatar have closer relationships with DC they need to maintain – while both of them also feel let down by Trump,” Parsi said, adding, “For Qatar, maintaining a relationship with Iran is also vital since it’s an unavoidable neighbour.”

“So for all of them, there are upsides for these exemptions from Iranian restrictions but also political dangers,” he said.

Is this announcement new?

Not entirely.

Iran began letting some vessels from countries it considers friendly pass within weeks of the war starting. And in April, its military command said “brotherly” Iraq was exempt.

With the Iraqi exemption, Iran “probably intends to support the economic recovery” of its western neighbour, a fellow Shia-majority country, Pusztai said.

Will ships be able to get past the US blockade?

That depends on Washington.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) has said the blockade applies to “all vessels of all nations entering or leaving coastal areas or ports in Iran”, while vessels avoiding Iranian ports are not affected.

It has also said humanitarian shipments, including “food and medical supplies essential for the survival of the civilian populations”, can pass after inspection.

But Hayat Moqaddam did not appear to limit the exemptions to ships trading with other Gulf states, Pusztai noted. “If this is really the case, this would also have a significant impact on the other Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia,” he said.

“This could make the continuation of the American naval blockade more difficult and less effective, assuming Washington accepts this Iranian move,” he said. The main change, he added, is that the exemption “would also cover Chinese/Indian ships from/to Iran”, if the US accepts it.

It is also unclear whether “ships of these countries” means the flag a vessel flies, its owner, its operator or some other link, Pusztai said.

Ending the blockade is one of Tehran’s demands before it will commit to broader peace talks with the US, which will include discussions about Iran’s nuclear programme. Qatar-mediated talks currently centre on an Iranian proposal to reopen the strait if the US meets seven conditions, including this and lifting sanctions.

“It seems to be that Iran tries to separate the questions of free passage through the Strait of Hormuz and oil exports from the nuclear question,” Pusztai said, adding, “The American reaction will show if this is successful.”

Will this make a difference to oil markets?

Not much, for now.

“I think they make only limited difference at present,” Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG Group, told Al Jazeera.

“Markets are back to pricing in a peace deal, but if conflict flares up at full tilt, then Iranian commanders may not have time to distinguish their targets,” he said, adding: “At present, the focus remains squarely on the prospects of a broader deal.”

An exemption has not guaranteed safety. On October 30, the Qatari LNG carrier Al Mayeda was struck by “unidentified objects” in the Gulf, said its owner, Qatar Gas Transport Company.

More than 120 commercial ships have been hit in the region since the war began, with October being the worst month, according to data from the International Maritime Organization and United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations.

Technology companies Google, Meta and Tik Tok sued the state of California on Wednesday to block a new law that restricts companies from targeting children younger than 16 with “addictive” social media content that can keep them scrolling for hours.

Assembly Bill 1709, introduced by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), bars social media sites from providing features such as autoplay and recommended content displays to teenagers and young children.

The social media companies, which filed separate lawsuits in federal court, cited their 1st Amendment right to free speech and the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from being sued over content posted by third parties. Meta Platforms, as well as Google and YouTube, filed lawsuits in the Northern District of California. TikTok filed in the Central District.

California’s attempt to “appoint the State as the editor, curator and controller of online speech” and “override Meta’s editorial judgment about how to curate and display these billions of posts of third-party speech,” violates the U.S. Constitution, attorneys for Meta wrote in its lawsuit. The technology company owns Instagram, Facebook and Threads.

A representative for Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said his office was reviewing the litigation.

The legal action follows successful lawsuits brought against the tech giants by California and others that have resulted in massive civil settlements. At the same time, the tech industry continues to file legal challenges to block state efforts to rein in social media companies.

Lowenthal said earlier this year he was inspired to seek more safeguards for social media users, citing the anxiety and depression among children who grew up with access to cellphones, tablets and computer screens.

The addictive nature of autoplay and other features is “harmful, full stop, and that they’re not appropriate for the developing brain,” Lowenthal said.

Tech industry groups opposed Lowentha’s bill, arguing it would hamper users’ ability to connect with family and friends.

Meta and others sued last year over Senate Bill 976, a similar bill known as “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act” that bars addictive feeds and certain features to minors without parental consent. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals likely will hear arguments in the case next spring, Courthouse News Services reported last month.

Both Senate Bill 976 and Assembly Bill 1709 go into effect on Jan. 1.

TikTok, in its lawsuit filed Wednesday, argues that AB 1709 essentially overrides SB 976, preventing a social media site from providing “addictive features,” even if parents consent to a minor’s use of the features. The company also argued it has restrictions in place to protect teens.

“The consequence is that a parent who has reviewed TikTok’s platform, linked her account to her fifteen-year-old’s account through Family Pairing, set a 30-minute daily screen-limit, enabled Restricted Mode, and concluded that a personalized For You feed introducing her daughter to new musicians and science educators is appropriate for her family has no ability under California law to make that choice,” Tik Tok’s attorneys wrote. “Nor does the fifteen-year-old daughter have any say in her online expression.”

California is home to some of the biggest social media companies, who increasingly are facing lawsuits over their products. California was among dozens of states that sued Meta in 2023, alleging it designed harmful and addictive features to hook children while misleading the public about the dangers. Some of the harms included depression, anxiety, addiction and body image issues as young people compare themselves to others on social media.

Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion and make changes to its Facebook and Instagram platforms, including hiding likes and reactions and blocking teens from using extreme makeup filters. The company also said it would enact a default two-hour daily time limit that teens can turn off only with parental permission, mute notifications during school hours and implement a night access mode that blocks its apps from midnight to 6 a.m.

In another landmark case, a Los Angeles jury in March found that Instagram and YouTube were responsible for the suffering of a Chico, Calif., woman who charged the platforms were addictive by design. The 20-year-old, who was awarded $6 million damages, said she became hooked on YouTube and Instagram in grade school.