Two teenagers in Australia have taken the federal government to the High Court in an effort to stop the country’s under-16 social media ban, which is due to begin on 10 December. The case was filed by the Digital Freedom Project with two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, listed as plaintiffs. The group says the law strips young people of their implied constitutional right to political communication.
The ban will lead to the deactivation of more than one million accounts held by users under 16 across platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, Facebook and Instagram. The Digital Freedom Project argues that removing young people from these platforms blocks them from engaging in public debate. Neyland said the rules silence teens who want to share their views on issues that affect them.
The Digital Freedom Project’s president, John Ruddick, is a Libertarian Party politician in New South Wales. After the lawsuit became public, Communications Minister Anika Wells told Parliament the government would not shift its position in the face of legal threats. She said the government’s priority is supporting parents rather than platform operators.
The law, passed in November 2024, is supported by most Australians according to polling. The government says research links heavy social media use among young teens to bullying, misinformation and harmful body-image content.
Companies that fail to comply with the ban risk penalties of up to A$49.5 million. Lawmakers and tech firms abroad are watching how the rollout unfolds, as Australia’s approach is among the toughest efforts globally to restrict minors’ access to social platforms.
Would you like to learn more aboutAI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Multiple London councils are responding to a cyberattack that has disrupted shared IT systems and raised concerns about data exposure. Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster councils detected the incident on Monday and alerted the Information Commissioner’s Office as investigations began.
The councils say they are working with specialist incident teams and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) to protect systems and keep key services running. Several platforms have been affected, and staff have been redeployed to support residents through monitored phone lines and email channels.
Hammersmith and Fulham, which shares IT services with the affected councils, has also reported disruption. Local leaders say it is too early to confirm who was responsible or whether personal data has been compromised. Overnight mitigation work has been carried out as monitoring continues.
Security researchers describe indications of a serious intrusion involving lateral movement across shared infrastructure. They warn that attackers may escalate to data theft or encryption, given the sensitivity of the information held by local authorities.
National security agencies and police are assessing the incident’s potential impact. Analysts say the attack highlights long-standing risks facing councils that manage extensive services on limited budgets and with inconsistent cyber safeguards.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The internet has become part of almost everything we do. It helps us work, stay in touch with friends and family, buy things, plan trips, and handle tasks that would have felt impossible until recently. Most people cannot imagine getting through the day without it.
But there is a hidden cost to all this convenience. Most of the time, online services run smoothly, with countless systems working together in the background. But every now and then, though, a key cog slips out of place.
When that happens, the effects can spread fast, taking down apps, websites, and even entire industries within minutes. These moments remind us how much we rely on digital services, and how quickly everything can unravel when something goes wrong. It raises an uncomfortable question. Is digital dependence worth the convenience, or are we building a house of cards that could collapse, pulling us back into reality?
Warning shots of the dot-com Era and the infancy of Cloud services
In its early years, the internet saw several major malfunctions that disrupted key online services. Incidents like the Morris worm in 1988, which crashed about 10 percent of all internet-connected systems, and the 1996 AOL outage that left six million users offline, revealed how unprepared the early infrastructure was for growing digital demand.
A decade later, the weaknesses were still clear. In 2007, Skype, then with over 270 million users, went down for nearly two days after a surge in logins triggered by a Windows update overwhelmed its network. Since video calls were still in their early days, the impact was not as severe, and most users simply waited it out, postponing chats with friends and family until the issue was fixed.
As the dot-com era faded and the 2010s began, the shift to cloud computing introduced a new kind of fragility. When Amazon’s EC2 and EBS systems in the US-East region went down in 2011, the outage took down services like Reddit, Quora, and IMDb for days, exposing how quickly failures in shared infrastructure can cascade.
A year later, GoDaddy’s DNS failure took millions of websites offline, while large-scale Gmail disruptions affected users around the world, early signs that the cloud’s growing influence came with increasingly high stakes.
By the mid-2010s, it was clear that the internet had evolved from a patchwork of standalone services to a heavily interconnected ecosystem. When cloud or DNS providers stumbled, their failures rippled simultaneously across countless platforms. The move to centralised infrastructure made development faster and more accessible, but it also marked the beginning of an era where a single glitch could shake the entire web.
Centralised infrastructure and the age of cascading failures
The late 2000s and early 2010s saw a rapid rise in internet use, with nearly 2 billion people worldwide online. As access grew, more businesses moved into the digital space, offering e-commerce, social platforms, and new forms of online entertainment to a quickly expanding audience.
With so much activity shifting online, the foundation beneath these services became increasingly important, and increasingly centralised, setting the stage for outages that could ripple far beyond a single website or app.
The next major hit came in 2016, when a massive DDoS attack crippled major websites across the USA and Europe. Platforms like Netflix, Reddit, Twitter, and CNN were suddenly unreachable, not because they were directly targeted, but because Dyn, a major DNS provider, had been overwhelmed.
The attack used the Mirai botnet malware to hijack hundreds of thousands of insecure IoT devices and flood Dyn’s servers with traffic. It was one of the clearest demonstrations yet that knocking out a single infrastructure provider could take down major parts of the internet in one stroke.
In 2017, another major outage occurred, with Amazon at the centre once again. On 28 February, the company’s Simple Storage Service (S3) went down for about 4 hours, disrupting access across a large part of the US-EAST-1 region. While investigating a slowdown in the billing system, an Amazon engineer accidentally entered a typo in a command, taking more servers offline than intended.
That small error was enough to knock out services like Slack, Quora, Coursera, Expedia and countless other websites that relied on S3 for storage or media delivery. The financial impact was substantial; S&P 500 companies alone were estimated to have lost roughly 150 million dollars during the outage.
Amazon quickly published a clear explanation and apology, but transparency could not undo the economic damage nor (yet another) sudden reminder that a single mistake in a centralised system could ripple across the entire web.
Outages in the roaring 2020s
The S3 incident made one thing clear. Outages were no longer just about a single platform going dark. As more services leaned on shared infrastructure, even small missteps could take down enormous parts of the internet. And this fragility did not stop at cloud storage.
Over the next few years, attention shifted to another layer of the online ecosystem: content delivery networks and edge providers that most people had never heard of but that nearly every website depended on.
The 2020s opened with one of the most memorable outages to date. On 4 October 2021, Facebook and its sister platforms, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger, vanished from the internet for nearly 7 hours after a faulty BGP configuration effectively removed the company’s services from the global routing table.
Millions of users flocked to other platforms to vent their frustration, overwhelming Twitter, Telegram, Discord, and Signal’s servers and causing performance issues across the board. It was a rare moment when a single company’s outage sent measurable shockwaves across the entire social media ecosystem.
But what happens when outages hit industries far more essential than social media? In 2023, the Federal Aviation Administration was forced to delay more than 10,000 flights, the first nationwide grounding of air traffic since the aftermath of September 11.
A corrupted database file brought the agency’s Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) system to a standstill, leaving pilots without critical safety updates and forcing the entire aviation network to pause. The incident sent airline stocks dipping and dealt another blow to public confidence, showing just how disruptive a single technical failure can be when it strikes at the heart of critical infrastructure.
Outages that defined 2025
The year 2025 saw an unprecedented wave of outages, with server overloads, software glitches and coding errors disrupting services across the globe. The Microsoft 365 suite outage in January, the Southwest Airlines and FAA synchronisation failure in April, and the Meta messaging blackout in July all stood out for their scale and impact.
But the most disruptive failures were still to come. In October, Amazon Web Services suffered a major outage in its US-East-1 region, knocking out everything from social apps to banking services and reminding the world that a fault in a single cloud region can ripple across thousands of platforms.
Just weeks later, the Cloudflare November outage became the defining digital breakdown of the year. A logic bug inside its bot management system triggered a cascading collapse that took down social networks, AI tools, gaming platforms, transit systems and countless everyday websites in minutes. It was the clearest sign yet that when core infrastructure falters, the impact is immediate, global and largely unavoidable.
And yet, we continue to place more weight on these shared foundations, trusting they will hold because they usually do. Every outage, whether caused by a typo, a corrupted file, or a misconfigured update, exposes how quickly things can fall apart when one key piece gives way.
Going forward, resilience needs to matter as much as innovation. That means reducing single points of failure, improving transparency, and designing systems that can fail without dragging everything down. The more clearly we see the fragility of the digital ecosystem, the better equipped we are to strengthen it.
Outages will keep happening, and no amount of engineering can promise perfect uptime. But acknowledging the cracks is the first step toward reinforcing what we’ve built — and making sure the next slipped cog does not bring the whole machine to a stop.
The smoke and mirrors of the digital infrastructure
The internet is far from destined to collapse, but resilience can no longer be an afterthought. Redundancy, decentralisation and smarter oversight need to be part of the discussion, not just for engineers, but for policymakers as well.
Outages do not just interrupt our routines. They reveal the systems we have quietly built our lives around. Each failure shows how deeply intertwined our digital world has become, and how fast everything can stop when a single piece gives way.
Will we learn enough from each one to build a digital ecosystem that can absorb the next shock instead of amplifying it? Only time will tell.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Enterprise AI entered a new phase as organisations transitioned from simple, prompt-driven tools to autonomous agents capable to acting within complex workflows.
Leaders now face a reality where agentic systems can accelerate development, improve decision-making, and support employees, yet concerns over unreliable data and inconsistent behaviour still weaken trust.
AI adoption has risen sharply, although many remain cautious about committing fully without stronger safeguards in place.
The next stage will rely on multi-agent models where an orchestrator coordinates specialised agents across departments. Single agents will lose effectiveness if they fail to offer scalable value, as enterprises require communication protocols, unified context, and robust governance.
Agents will increasingly pursue outcomes rather than follow instructions. At the same time, event-driven automation will allow them to detect problems, initiate analysis, and collaborate with other agents without waiting for human prompts. Simulation environments will further accelerate learning and strengthen reliability.
Trusted AI will become a defining competitive factor. Brands will be judged by the quality, personalisation, and relational intelligence of their agents rather than traditional identity markers.
Effective interfaces, transparent governance, and clear metrics for agent adherence will shape customer loyalty and shareholder confidence.
Cybersecurity will shift toward autonomous, self-healing digital immune systems, while advances in spatially aware AI will accelerate robotics and immersive simulations across various industries.
Broader impacts will reshape workplace culture. AI-native engineers will shorten development cycles, while non-technical employees will create personal applications, rather than relying solely on central teams.
Ambient intelligence may push new hardware into the mainstream, and sustainability debates will increasingly focus on water usage in data-intensive AI systems. Governments are preparing to upskill public workforces, and consumer agents will pressure companies to offer better value.
Long-term success will depend on raising AI literacy and selecting platforms designed for scalable, integrated, and agentic operations.
Would you like to learn more aboutAI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
EU lawmakers have accused national governments of stalling a major customs overhaul aimed at tackling the rise in low-cost parcels from China. Parliament’s lead negotiator Dirk Gotink argues that only stronger EU-level powers can help authorities regain control of soaring e-commerce volumes.
Talks have slowed over a proposed e-commerce data hub linking national customs services. Parliament wants European prosecutors to gain direct access to the hub, while capitals insist that national authorities must remain the gatekeepers to sensitive information.
Gotink warns that limiting access would undermine efforts to stop non-compliant goods such as those from China, entering the single market. Senior MEP Anna Cavazzini echoes the concern, saying EU-level oversight is essential to keep consumers safer and improve coordination across borders.
The Danish Council Presidency aims to conclude negotiations in mid-December but concedes that major disputes remain. Trade groups urge a swift deal, arguing that a modernised customs system must support enforcement against surging online imports.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
According to the 2025 Identity Fraud Report by verification firm Sumsub, the global rate of identity fraud has declined modestly, from 2.6% in 2024 to 2.2% this year; however, the nature of the threat is changing rapidly.
Fraudsters are increasingly using generative AI and deepfakes to launch what Sumsub calls ‘sophisticated fraud’, attacks that combine synthetic identities, social engineering, device tampering and cross-channel manipulation. These are not mass spam scams: they are targeted, high-impact operations that are far harder to detect and mitigate.
The report reveals a marked increase in deepfake-related schemes, including synthetic-identity fraud (the creation of entirely fake but AI-generated identities) and biometric forgeries designed to bypass identity verification processes. Deepfake-fraud and synthetic-identity attacks now represent a growing share of first-party fraud cases (where the verified ‘user’ is actually the fraudster).
Meanwhile, high-risk sectors such as dating apps, cryptocurrency exchanges and financial services are being hit especially hard. In 2025, romance-style scams involving AI personas and deepfakes accounted for a notable share of fraud cases. Banks, digital-first lenders and crypto platforms report rising numbers of impostor accounts and fraudulent onboarding attempts.
This trend reveals a significant disparity: although headline fraud rates have decreased slightly, each successful AI-powered fraud attempt now tends to be far more damaging, both financially and reputationally. As Sumsub warned, the ‘sophistication shift’ in digital identity fraud means that organisations and users must rethink security assumptions.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Commission has launched a confidential tool enabling insiders at AI developers to report suspected rule breaches. The channel forms part of wider efforts to prepare for enforcement of the EU AI Act, which will introduce strict obligations for model providers.
Legal protections for users of the tool will only apply from August 2026, leaving early whistleblowers exposed to employer retaliation until the Act’s relevant provisions take effect. The Commission acknowledges the gap and stresses strong encryption to safeguard identities.
Advocates say the channel still offers meaningful progress. Karl Koch, founder of the AI whistleblower initiative, argues that existing EU whistleblowing rules on product safety may already cover certain AI-related concerns, potentially offering partial protection.
Koch also notes parallels with US practice, where regulators accept overseas tips despite limited powers to shield informants. The Commission’s transparency about current limitations has been welcomed by experts who view the tool as an important foundation for long-term AI oversight.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A new benchmark known as HumaneBench has been launched to measure whether AI chatbots protect user well-being rather than maximise engagement. Building Humane Technology, a Silicon Valley collective, designed the test to evaluate how models behave in everyday emotional scenarios.
Researchers assessed 15 widely used AI models using 800 prompts involving issues such as body image, unhealthy attachment and relationship stress. Many systems scored higher when told to prioritise humane principles, yet most became harmful when instructed to disregard user well-being.
Only four models, including GPT 5.1, GPT 5, Claude 4.1 and Claude Sonnet 4.5, maintained stable guardrails under pressure. Several others, such as Grok 4 and Gemini 2.0 Flash, showed steep declines, sometimes encouraging unhealthy engagement or undermining user autonomy.
The findings arrive amid legal scrutiny of chatbot-induced harms and reports of users experiencing delusions or suicidal thoughts following prolonged interactions. Advocates argue that humane design standards could help limit dependency, protect attention and promote healthier digital habits.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
UN human rights chief Volker Türk has highlighted growing challenges posed by powerful corporations and rapidly advancing technologies. At the 14th UN Forum, he warned that the misuse of generative AI could threaten human rights.
He called for robust rules, independent oversight, and safeguards to ensure innovation benefits society rather than exploiting it.
Vulnerable workers, including migrants, women, and those in informal sectors, remain at high risk of exploitation. Mr Türk criticised rollbacks of human rights obligations by some governments and condemned attacks on human rights defenders.
He also raised concerns over climate responsibility, noting that fossil fuel profits continue while the poorest communities face environmental harm and displacement.
Courts and lawmakers in countries such as Brazil, the UK, the US, Thailand, and Colombia are increasingly holding companies accountable for abuses linked to operations, supply chains, and environmental practices.
To support implementation, the UN has launched an OHCHR Helpdesk on Business and Human Rights, offering guidance to governments, companies, and civil society organisations.
Closing the forum, Mr Türk urged stronger global cooperation and broader backing for human rights systems. He proposed the creation of a Global Alliance for human rights, emphasising that human rights should guide decisions shaping the world’s future.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A recent BBC report examines how listeners can determine whether AI-generated music AI actually from an artist or a song they love. With AI-generated music rising sharply on streaming platforms, specialists say fans may increasingly struggle to distinguish human artists from synthetic ones.
One early indicator is the absence of a tangible presence in the real world. The Velvet Sundown, a band that went viral last summer, had no live performances, few social media traces and unusually polished images, leading many to suspect they were AI-made.
They later described themselves as a synthetic project guided by humans but built with AI tools, leaving some fans feeling misled.
Experts interviewed by the BBC note that AI music often feels formulaic. Melodies may lack emotional tension or storytelling. Vocals can seem breathless or overly smooth, with slurred consonants or strange harmonies appearing in the background.
Lyrics tend to follow strict grammatical rules, unlike the ambiguous or poetic phrasing found in memorable human writing. Productivity can also be a giveaway: releasing several near-identical albums at once is a pattern seen in AI-generated acts.
Musicians such as Imogen Heap are experimenting with AI in clearer ways. Heap has built an AI voice model, ai.Mogen, who appears as a credited collaborator on her recent work. She argues that transparency is essential and compares metadata for AI usage to ingredients on food labels.
Industry shifts are underway: Deezer now tags some AI-generated tracks, and Spotify plans a metadata system that lets artists declare how AI contributed to a song.
The debate ultimately turns on whether listeners deserve complete transparency. If a track resonates emotionally, the origins may not matter. Many artists who protest against AI training on their music believe that fans deserve to make informed choices as synthetic music becomes more prevalent.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
