Australia Ban Offers Test on Social Media Harm

This photo taken on October 24, 2025 shows a 14-year-old boy posing at his home near Gosford as he looks at social media on his mobile phone. (AFP)
This photo taken on October 24, 2025 shows a 14-year-old boy posing at his home near Gosford as he looks at social media on his mobile phone. (AFP)
TT

Australia Ban Offers Test on Social Media Harm

This photo taken on October 24, 2025 shows a 14-year-old boy posing at his home near Gosford as he looks at social media on his mobile phone. (AFP)
This photo taken on October 24, 2025 shows a 14-year-old boy posing at his home near Gosford as he looks at social media on his mobile phone. (AFP)

Australia's under-16 social media ban will make the nation a real-life laboratory on how best to tackle the technology's impact on young people, experts say.

Those in favor of the world-first December 10 ban point to a growing mass of studies that suggest too much time online takes a toll on teen wellbeing.

But opponents argue there is not enough hard proof to warrant the new legislation, which could do more harm than good.

Adolescent brains are still developing into the early 20s, said psychologist Amy Orben, who leads a digital mental health program at the University of Cambridge.

A "huge amount" of observational research, often based on surveys, has tracked a correlation between teen tech use and worse mental health, she told AFP.

But it is hard to draw firm conclusions, because phones are so ingrained into daily life, and young people may turn to social media because they are already suffering.

"With technology, because it's changing so fast, the evidence base will always be uncertain," Orben said.

"What could change the dial are experimental studies or evaluations of natural experiments. So evaluating the Australia ban is hugely important because it actually gives us a window on what might be happening."

To try and shed light on the cause-and-effect relationship, Australian researchers are recruiting 13- to 16-year-olds for a "Connected Minds Study" to assess how the ban affects their wellbeing.

A World Health Organization survey last year found that 11 percent of adolescents struggled to control their use of social media.

Other research has shown a link between excessive social media use and poor sleep, body image, school performance and emotional distress, such as a 2019 study of US schoolchildren in JAMA Psychiatry that found those who spent over three hours a day on social media could be at heightened risk for mental health problems.

So some experts argue the right time to act is now.

"I actually don't think this is a science issue. This is a values issue," said Christian Heim, an Australian psychiatrist and clinical director of mental health.

"We're talking about things like cyberbullying, the risk of suicide, accessing sites on anorexia nervosa and self-harm," he told AFP.

Evidence of a risk is growing, Heim said -- pointing to a 2018 study by neuroscientist Christian Montag that linked addiction to the Chinese messaging app WeChat to shrinking grey matter volume in part of the brain.

"We can't wait for stronger evidence," Heim said.

Scott Griffiths of the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences said a "smoking gun research study" was unlikely to emerge soon to prove the harms of social media.

But the ban was worth trying, he said.

"I'm hopeful that the major social media companies seeing this full-throated legislative action come into play will finally be motivated to more meaningfully protect the health and wellbeing of young people."

More than three-quarters of Australian adults agreed with the new legislation before it passed, a poll indicated.

However, an open letter signed by more than 140 academics, campaigners and other experts cautioned that a ban would be "too blunt an instrument".

"People were saying: 'Well, kids are getting more anxious. There must be a reason -- let's ban social media'," argued one signatory, Axel Bruns, a digital media professor at Queensland University of Technology.

Children may simply have more reasons to be anxious, under pressure from pandemic-interrupted schooling and troubled by wars in Gaza and Ukraine, he told AFP.

And a ban might push some teens to more extreme, fringe sites, while preventing other marginalized young people from finding community.

Noelle Martin, an activist focused on image-based online abuse and deepfakes, feared the Australian ban would do little to help, given the country's history on enforcement of existing laws.

"I don't believe it will stop, prevent or do much to meaningfully combat this issue," Martin said.

In any case, the political decision has been taken in Australia.

"Social media is doing social harm to our children," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said this year.

"There is no doubt that Australian kids are being negatively impacted by online platforms, so I'm calling time on it."



TikTok Reaches $400 Million Settlement with US Justice Department over Children's Privacy

FILED - 24 August 2022, North Rhine-Westphalia, Cologne: The logo of Tik Tok is seen at Gamescom. Photo: Rolf Vennenbernd/dpa
FILED - 24 August 2022, North Rhine-Westphalia, Cologne: The logo of Tik Tok is seen at Gamescom. Photo: Rolf Vennenbernd/dpa
TT

TikTok Reaches $400 Million Settlement with US Justice Department over Children's Privacy

FILED - 24 August 2022, North Rhine-Westphalia, Cologne: The logo of Tik Tok is seen at Gamescom. Photo: Rolf Vennenbernd/dpa
FILED - 24 August 2022, North Rhine-Westphalia, Cologne: The logo of Tik Tok is seen at Gamescom. Photo: Rolf Vennenbernd/dpa

TikTok has reached a $400 million settlement with the US Department of Justice, ending a 2024 lawsuit alleging the company violated federal children's privacy laws.

The DOJ said Friday that TikTok will pay $300 million immediately and another $100 million after an order vacates an earlier consent decree against its predecessor company, Musical.ly.

“This settlement is a major victory for American children and parents,” said US Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. in a statement. “The Department’s priority is ensuring that children are protected online and that companies entrusted with their personal information meet their legal obligations. This resolution secures a substantial recovery while reinforcing the protections that families expect and deserve.”

Since the DOJ's lawsuit in 2024, TikTok has undergone major changes, most notably in the ownership structure of its US arm. In January, the social video platform company signed agreements with major investors including Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX to form the new TikTok US joint venture.

Representatives for TikTok did not immediately respond to a message for comment Friday.

The latest lawsuit focused on allegations that TikTok and its China-based parent company ByteDance violated a federal law that requires kid-oriented apps and websites to get parental consent before collecting personal information of children under 13. It also says the companies failed to honor requests from parents who wanted their children’s accounts deleted, and chose not to delete accounts even when the firms knew they belonged to kids under 13.

The settlement comes as social media companies face an avalanche of lawsuits over children's safety and privacy and a growing number of countries are banning young kids and teens from social media apps. Instagram's parent company, Meta Platforms, is currently on trial in federal court in Oakland, California, over allegations it violated the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, along with various state statutes.


How AI Is Changing Event Discovery, Booking

Nadeem Bakhsh, chief executive and co-founder of webook.com (Company handout)
Nadeem Bakhsh, chief executive and co-founder of webook.com (Company handout)
TT

How AI Is Changing Event Discovery, Booking

Nadeem Bakhsh, chief executive and co-founder of webook.com (Company handout)
Nadeem Bakhsh, chief executive and co-founder of webook.com (Company handout)

A night out can start with a simple question: “What should we do tonight?”

That is where traditional search can struggle. It works best when users already know the event, date, or location they want. Booking platforms are now using artificial intelligence to tackle the opposite problem: first understanding vague intent, then turning it into options that can actually be booked.

Nadeem Bakhsh, chief executive and co-founder of webook.com, says the platform’s AI booking agent was not built because existing search tools were failing. It was designed to add another layer of discovery for users who do not yet know exactly what they want.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Bakhsh said search and filters remain effective when users have a clear target. Open-ended questions, however, require the system to understand context before it can surface the right option.

From keywords to intent

In its first version, the agent uses natural language processing in Arabic and English and can handle informal requests that include location, preferences, group type or booking criteria.

Users do not need to know an event’s name or phrase their request like a search query, Bakhsh said. They can simply ask for a family activity, a nearby experience or something available in the evening.

The system then interprets the request, identifies the relevant details and matches them with options in the platform’s live catalog.

If key information is missing, the agent is designed to ask for clarification rather than produce a generic list that may not fit the user’s needs.

That makes accuracy central to the experience. The more discovery shifts from explicit search to conversation, the greater the risk that a question will be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

When the agent gets it wrong

Bakhsh acknowledges that mistakes are part of using AI systems.

The agent, he said, “should not pretend to know.” If a request is unclear or incomplete, it should ask for more information rather than force an unreliable recommendation.

The official booking page remains the final authority on availability, prices, fees and event terms. If information changes or tickets sell out before a purchase is completed, the details shown in the official booking flow take precedence over anything said earlier in the conversation.

When the agent cannot verify information, Bakhsh said, it should direct the user to official event details or human support.

A correction from the user may also help improve the next response, but Bakhsh does not present that as a guarantee that the same mistake will not happen again.

Recommendation or advertising?

Trust becomes a commercial issue when the agent is not only finding events, but ranking and recommending them.

Bakhsh said the system is meant to match user intent with options that are genuinely available to book, not present paid advertising as personal advice.

Recommendations are based on criteria supplied by the user, including location, timing, group type and activity preference, as well as live availability.

Any paid or sponsored placement, he said, should be clearly labeled so users can distinguish an organic recommendation from commercial content.

“Trust depends on making that distinction clear,” Bakhsh said.

One journey, several channels

The experience becomes more complicated when the conversation starts outside the booking platform itself, on services such as X, Instagram or WhatsApp.

Bakhsh said the agent uses information users choose to provide, such as location, timing, group type, interests and booking criteria, to make suggestions more relevant.

Public interactions remain limited to discovery. Once greater privacy is required, the conversation moves to a private channel and then into webook.com’s secure booking environment.

Card details and other sensitive personal information should not be requested through public posts, comments or direct messages on social media, he said.

Personal data remains subject to the platform’s privacy policy and to legal and regulatory retention requirements.

Bakhsh also said data is not treated as freely transferable from one channel to another. Any personalization depends on the permissions granted by the user and the purpose for which the data was collected.

What webook.com builds — and what it does not

The agent is not built entirely with in-house technology.

Bakhsh said webook.com develops and operates the core product layer and orchestration system. That includes understanding booking intent, linking it to the catalog, applying product logic, generating recommendations and directing users into the secure booking flow.

External infrastructure is used when needed for language-model processing, cloud services and access to channels such as X, Instagram and WhatsApp.

Those providers supply infrastructure or distribution channels, Bakhsh said, but they do not own the event inventory, booking logic or customer journey.

The company does not disclose vendor architecture or security-sensitive implementation details.

Bakhsh also stressed that the agent remains in beta and can make mistakes. Users should verify event details and final booking information on the official page before completing a transaction.

Discovery ends where the transaction begins

One of the main safeguards in the system is the separation between conversation and payment.

The agent may respond to a general request in a public space, but when privacy becomes necessary, it moves the interaction into a private channel and then directs the user to an official, identity-linked booking flow.

It does not request card details or sensitive information through social media posts, comments, or direct messages.

Bakhsh said this structure helps limit the impact of prompt manipulation, impersonation, fraudulent accounts, and fake booking links.

The conversational layer can help users find an event, but it cannot bypass the inventory, account, pricing, or payment controls on the official platform.

The agent does not set the price

Once a user moves from discovery to purchase, the agent’s role stops at a clear boundary.

Options come from the live catalog, but the official booking page remains the authoritative transaction interface.

Before confirming, users see current availability, the final price, booking fees and event-specific terms, including cancellation and refund policies.

The agent cannot change those terms or guarantee that a ticket will still be available while a user waits.

Age restrictions and accessibility requirements are shown only when they appear in the official event details. If the information is unclear, the system is not supposed to guess.

AI, in other words, changes how users reach an option. It does not change the contractual terms or controls governing the purchase.

Bakhsh also links the agent to a broader framework called TruFan, while drawing a distinction between the two.

The AI agent operates at the start of the journey, turning natural-language requests into bookable options.

TruFan addresses a different stage: integrity and access to high-demand events, by helping identify genuine, verified fans and giving them priority.


Apple Paid 40% of its Global Taxes to Ireland in Last Fiscal Year

FILE PHOTO: An Apple logo and a computer motherboard appear in this illustration taken August 25, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: An Apple logo and a computer motherboard appear in this illustration taken August 25, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
TT

Apple Paid 40% of its Global Taxes to Ireland in Last Fiscal Year

FILE PHOTO: An Apple logo and a computer motherboard appear in this illustration taken August 25, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: An Apple logo and a computer motherboard appear in this illustration taken August 25, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

Apple paid Ireland $17.1billion in taxes last year, representing around 40% of its worldwide total, according to a company filing that detailed the iPhone maker's global tax liabilities country-by-country.

Apple said the amount paid to Ireland was "significantly higher" than income taxes accrued as it included €13 billion ($15.18 billion) in back taxes that it was ordered to pay Ireland by European Union's top court in 2024, Reuters reported.

Ireland fought the EU back-tax bill alongside Apple for eight years, seeking to defend its position as the location of choice for US multinationals in Europe - and the billions of euros in direct and indirect taxes they bring in each year.

In 2016, the European Commission's competition chief at the time, Margrethe Vestager, accused Ireland of having granted Apple illegal tax benefits, unfairly diverting investment away from other countries.

Apple paid $43.2 billion in income taxes worldwide in the fiscal year that ended in September 2025.