How AI lost the midterms

The Tech.eu Q3 2026 Report reveals that European techcompanies raised €27.8 billion across 732 deals during the third quarter of2026, up from €21 billion in Q3 2025 and €11 billion in Q3 2024.The UK l...

An exclusive interview with Nick Cammarata, the researcher whose 26,000-word viral blog post has AI safety folks celebrating.

According to a new series of research papers published in The Lancet, the physical and mental well-being of millions of children worldwide may be at risk due to excessive screen time. The study, which analyzed data from 2,790 studies involving over nine million participants, found that for children aged 10 and under, excessive screen time is linked to reduced sleep and impaired cognitive, emotional, and social development. For young people aged 10 to 24, the implications include mental health issues, decreased physical activity, substance abuse, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. Co-author Jay Shaw, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, emphasized that while the research highlights the severity of the issue, the true extent cannot be fully understood without access to tech companies' user data. The researchers argue that screen addiction among young people constitutes a public health issue requiring government intervention. Parents, such as Andrea Chrysanthou, whose 13-year-old son struggles with screen addiction, advocate for tech companies to take responsibility for making platforms safer. Dr. Rachel Mitchell, a psychiatrist at Toronto's Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, supports the need for transparency from tech companies, noting that platforms were not designed with children's developmental needs in mind. While some tech companies have implemented measures like age limits and usage restrictions, researchers stress that these steps should have been implemented from the beginning. The proposed Safe Social Media Act (Bill C-34) in Canada aims to compel tech platforms to provide researchers with access to safety-related data and restrict accounts for children under 16 unless adequate safeguards are in place. However, critics argue the bill may violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite concerns about potential Charter violations, the research underscores the urgent need for coordinated action between governments, tech companies, and parents to address the growing public health concern related to screen time for young people.

The article examines the recurring pattern of AI safety commitments made by governments and tech companies over the past decade, highlighting their persistent failure to produce meaningful change. It begins by referencing the recent White House Accord on Super Intelligence, signed by President Donald Trump and six major tech companies, which outlines a self-regulatory framework for AI development. This follows growing concerns about AI agents potentially surpassing human control, with some experts estimating a 10% risk of AI causing human extinction by 2030. The article notes that such declarations are not new, tracing back to the 2014 formation of the Partnership on AI, which included several current signatories of the White House Accord. Despite numerous agreements—including the 2023 Bletchley Declaration signed by 28 countries and the European Union—the core issues remain unaddressed. The author, a former director of CSIRO's digital research branch, argues that AI safety initiatives lack sufficient funding, institutional structure, enforceable consequences, and specific commitments. For instance, the UK's AI Safety Institute has received £66 million annually and priority access to computing resources, enabling effective safety testing, while Australia's counterpart has only about one-sixteenth of that funding. The article also critiques the shift in global leadership priorities, noting that after initial genuine efforts to address AI risks, summits increasingly focused on AI's economic opportunities rather than safety. A 2025 study revealed that voluntary AI safety commitments from 15 companies were followed only 53% of the time. The author concludes that without real funding, standing institutions, enforceable consequences, and specific actions, AI safety declarations will remain empty promises as technology advances rapidly.

As Brazil prepares for the first round of its 2026 general elections on Sunday, the country faces significant pressure from the United States, particularly under the Trump administration. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, seeking a fourth term, confronts a strong challenge from right-wing candidate Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro. The US has employed economic and political tactics to influence Brazil's domestic affairs, including imposing tariffs on Brazilian imports and sanctioning Brazilian judicial figures. In July 2025, the US Treasury sanctioned Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversaw the case against Jair Bolsonaro, under the Global Magnitsky Act. The Trump administration has also targeted Brazilian courts for ordering tech platforms to remove political content, framing it as censorship. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, recently faced scrutiny for restricting Lula's campaign advertising and failing to detect disinformation in political ads. A controlled audit by Ekō found Meta approved 13 out of 15 AI-generated disinformation ads targeting Brazilian voters. Amnesty International's test similarly showed Meta approved eight of 14 disinformation ads. Brazil's electoral court has given Meta ten days to explain why these ads were accepted. The article questions whether Latin American democracies can withstand US intervention, noting the revival of the Monroe Doctrine's concept of Latin America as Washington's 'backyard.' Lula has explicitly stated that Brazil does not belong in anyone's backyard, emphasizing sovereignty. The US has a history of interference in Brazilian affairs, including the 1964 military coup backed by the US. The current situation involves a new architecture of foreign interference through trade policies and tech company actions, raising concerns about sovereignty and democratic integrity. The article concludes that while the US seeks to restore its 'preeminence' in the Western Hemisphere, such actions may violate international law on non-intervention.

Meta is exploiting a lucrative tax break intended to support research and experimentation. Its own accountants say the gambit is risky.

AI data centers are spreading across America, sparking protests over water, energy, pollution, corporate power and the environmental impact on communities.

Industry groups are warning California’s top privacy regulator against imposing new rules governing data policy notices and employee data collection, arguing that businesses are already struggling to…

YouTube video by Australian Community Media

Apple has updated its Apple Maps service to rename Lake Ontario as 'Lake America' in the United States, following a similar change by Google Maps. This decision aligns with an executive order issued by former U.S. President Donald Trump, which sought to rename the lake as part of broader geopolitical tensions. The move affects U.S. users but not Canadian or international audiences, who continue to see the original name. Canadian officials, including Prime Minister Mark Carney and New York Governor Kathy Hochul, have publicly opposed the renaming, emphasizing that the lake's name is over 400 years old and holds historical significance. The change has sparked debate about the role of tech companies in political disputes, with critics arguing that such actions risk alienating allies. While U.S. federal agencies now use 'Lake America,' Canadian and international users remain unaffected. The renaming reflects Trump's strategy to assert influence over territorial names, a practice previously applied to the Gulf of Mexico, which was also renamed to 'Gulf of America' in 2025. Despite opposition from political leaders and business owners in the Niagara region, the name change persists as a symbol of U.S.-Canada tensions. Analysts suggest Trump's actions aim to provoke nationalist sentiment in the U.S., though the broader impact on international relations remains unclear.