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."



Microsoft Offers Voluntary Exit Packages to 60,000 Staff

The Microsoft logo and a keyboard in this illustration taken October 19, 2026. (Reuters)
The Microsoft logo and a keyboard in this illustration taken October 19, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

Microsoft Offers Voluntary Exit Packages to 60,000 Staff

The Microsoft logo and a keyboard in this illustration taken October 19, 2026. (Reuters)
The Microsoft logo and a keyboard in this illustration taken October 19, 2026. (Reuters)

Microsoft is offering voluntary buyouts to about 60,000 employees, the company said on Monday, roughly a quarter of its workforce, as the tech giant seeks to cut costs while pouring money into artificial intelligence.

Staff on select teams in the United States, Canada, India and Britain at vice president level and below will be eligible, a Microsoft spokesperson said, while some groups of employees, including some working on data centers, sales and marketing, are excluded.

"The Voluntary Exit Offer reflects an important part of how we're evolving our approach to change: creating greater flexibility and, where possible, more ways for employees to shape their next chapter," Amy Coleman, an executive vice president and chief people officer, told employees in a memo.

It's the second voluntary buyout offer that Microsoft has offered employees this year.

In April, the company reportedly offered around seven percent of its US workforce the option to retire early.

Around 30 percent of those eligible took the voluntary retirement plan, according to CNBC.

Microsoft had 223,000 employees globally at the end of June, down from 228,000 at the end of 2025, according to regulatory filings.

Around 27 percent of Microsoft's workforce is eligible for the new buyout offer.

The company is expected to report quarterly earnings later this week.


From Carnegie to Claude: AI Wealth Could Reshape Philanthropy

Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, will commit 5 percent of its shares to a new public benefit fund. ANDREJ IVANOV / AFP
Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, will commit 5 percent of its shares to a new public benefit fund. ANDREJ IVANOV / AFP
TT

From Carnegie to Claude: AI Wealth Could Reshape Philanthropy

Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, will commit 5 percent of its shares to a new public benefit fund. ANDREJ IVANOV / AFP
Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, will commit 5 percent of its shares to a new public benefit fund. ANDREJ IVANOV / AFP

A wave of American wealth created by artificial intelligence companies could produce some of the largest charitable sums since the era of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, raising questions about where the money goes.

Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, has said it would commit 5 percent of its shares to a new Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, a stake that could be worth around $100 billion if the company reaches the $2 trillion valuation investors are eyeing for a stock market debut expected as early as November, reported AFP.

Combined with pledges by its seven co-founders to give away 80 percent of their equity and a program matching employees' donations, Anthropic says roughly a fifth of its shares will be dedicated to public-benefit purposes.

"This might be one of the biggest stories in corporate philanthropy ever," said Michael Moody, a professor of philanthropic studies at Indiana University's Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

The OpenAI Foundation, the nonprofit that controls ChatGPT maker OpenAI, holds a 26 percent stake in the company that was valued at about $130 billion when it was restructured a year ago, more than the endowment of the Gates Foundation.

Nan Ransohoff of payments firm Stripe has described the moment as a "third wave" of American philanthropy, after the industrial fortunes of the late 19th century and the internet billionaires of recent decades.

- 'Dies disgraced' -

Carnegie argued in his 1889 essay "The Gospel of Wealth" that "the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced," and by his death had given away the bulk of his fortune, about $350 million.

Carnegie transferred what remained into a trust, which has continued to make grants for more than a century.

Rockefeller's money built universities and funded medical research and public health campaigns around the world.

Railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt gave comparatively little, apart from the $1 million that founded the university bearing his name.

Anthropic is setting up its fund as a limited liability company that it wholly owns, rather than as a nonprofit foundation, which must pay out a minimum share of its assets each year and file public tax returns.

"The trade-off is that decision-making stays with the company and transparency is voluntary," said Sarah Wolfolds, who studies nonprofit organizations at Cornell University's SC Johnson College of Business.

Anthropic has said the fund's equity will not be used for lobbying or political giving and that it will report on its activities.

- 'Where the money is' -

Many Anthropic founders and staff have close ties to effective altruism, a movement that favors causes such as AI safety and global health because of their measurable impact.

"Nonprofits tend to reorient their programs toward where the money is," Wolfolds said, warning that other causes can become neglected.

Moody said the philanthropic world would be "looking closely at which causes they support," including whether research funding is limited to AI.

Laura McGarry, of fundraising consultancy Graham-Pelton, said the charities best placed to benefit are those that already have relationships with the newly wealthy.

"It's really about values alignment," she said, adding that charities that court the newly rich only after their big payday risk looking transactional.

Effective altruism has shaped some donors' giving but has not "dramatically upset the apple cart," she said.

Anthropic has said the fund could make payments directly to groups affected by AI's impact on jobs, without giving details.

Research on cash transfers is encouraging, Wolfolds said, but "the harder challenge may be identifying who has been affected by AI."

Such payments should complement, not replace, unemployment insurance and retraining programs, she said.

- One child, one share -

Elon Musk, the world's richest person, whose SpaceX owns rival AI developer xAI, criticized Anthropic's approach.

"I recommend giving the shares directly to the public," he wrote on X.

As an alternative, Musk pledged one of his SpaceX shares to every American child next year, a gift worth about $10.5 billion.

US President Donald Trump praised the move as fitting the philosophy behind his "Trump Accounts," government-backed investment accounts for children born between 2025 and 2028. Billionaires Michael and Susan Dell have pledged billions to the program.


'Tech Debt Coming Due': AI-found Flaw Signals Chaos Ahead

Michael Daniel is president of the Cyber Threat Alliance and was a White House cybersecurity coordinator under former US president Barack Obama. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP
Michael Daniel is president of the Cyber Threat Alliance and was a White House cybersecurity coordinator under former US president Barack Obama. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP
TT

'Tech Debt Coming Due': AI-found Flaw Signals Chaos Ahead

Michael Daniel is president of the Cyber Threat Alliance and was a White House cybersecurity coordinator under former US president Barack Obama. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP
Michael Daniel is president of the Cyber Threat Alliance and was a White House cybersecurity coordinator under former US president Barack Obama. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP

Companies and government agencies rushed this week to patch two critical flaws in PHP, the programming language that runs a large share of the world's websites.

The vulnerability to potential hackers was found by using a powerful model from OpenAI in one of the most high-profile demonstration of AI's cyber capabilities.

AFP spoke with Michael Daniel, president of the Cyber Threat Alliance and a former White House cybersecurity coordinator under former US president Barack Obama, about what the episode means as AI tools find software flaws faster than ever.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What does the PHP episode tell us?

A: This is the beginning of a pretty chaotic period, given the abilities of the advanced models. I've been saying for years that the logical conclusion of these AI models being able to find vulnerabilities at speed and at scale is that there's going to be a flood of these vulnerabilities.

Rob Joyce [former cybersecurity director at the US National Security Agency] has referred to it as the great cleansing forest fire of old software. I've talked about our tech debt coming due.

The incentives have been for people to keep software as long as possible, and we don't really factor these risks into the cost of having the software. You're not incurring a direct cost on your books for this old software, but in reality you are, only it's an implicit cost until something like this happens.

Q: What should organizations be doing?

A: Preparing to get your software updated, be prepared to keep it updated, and be prepared to implement patches when they come out.

There's going to be a flood of vulnerabilities, a flood of patches and a flood of mitigations, and not all of them will be created equal.

For a lot of smaller organizations that don't have a lot of internal capacity, what you've got to do is shift your organization to be able to accept the vendor updates as fast as you can.

Q: Is every flaw dangerous?

A: Historically, the exploitation rate for vulnerabilities has been five or six percent, and there's no indication that number is going up. But now when bad guys exploit a vulnerability, they're able to do so much more quickly.

It used to take a month or two for a proof of concept to come out, and then another month or two for it to show up in exploit kits (used by bad actors). That's now measured in hours or days.

Q: What does that mean for large companies?

A: Most businesses essentially ran a zero-risk tolerance for breaking things, so they would test the hell out of a patch before they put it into production. Now they don't have that time.

If the risk of breaking something by putting this patch into place is one percent, but the risk of being attacked could cost me 50 million dollars...now I've got an interesting trade-off.

Q: Are advanced AI tools reliable at finding real flaws?

A: There's a lot of noise. The PHP one is a prime example of a real one, but there's an awful lot out there that are either not real or are on software that's never exposed to the internet. We've got to improve our triage system.

Q: Where does this lead us in two or three years?

A: We're going to turn these AI tools on software that hasn't been deployed yet, so one would hope we start to deploy software that has fewer vulnerabilities to begin with. You burn out all the old stuff, and it makes way for new growth that's more secure from the beginning.

It's not like this solves our cybersecurity problem, but it does change the nature of it going forward.