PlayStation Plus subscribers will receive an automatic five-day extension after a global outage disrupted the PlayStation Network for around 18 hours on Friday and Saturday. Sony confirmed on Sunday that network services had been fully restored and apologised for the inconvenience but did not specify the cause of the disruption.
The outage, which started late on Friday, left users unable to sign in, play online games or access the PlayStation Store. By Saturday evening, Sony announced that services were back online. At its peak, Downdetector.com recorded nearly 8,000 affected users in the US and over 7,300 in the UK.
PlayStation Network plays a vital role in Sony’s gaming division, supporting millions of users worldwide. Previous disruptions have been more severe, including a cyberattack in 2014 that shut down services for several days and a major 2011 data breach affecting 77 million users, leading to a month-long shutdown and regulatory scrutiny.
Scotland’s Makar, Peter Mackay, has voiced concerns about the growing role of artificial intelligence in literature, warning that it could threaten the livelihoods of new writers. With AI tools capable of generating dialogue, plot ideas, and entire narratives, Mackay fears that competing with machine-created content may become increasingly difficult for human authors.
To address these challenges, he has proposed clearer distinctions between human and AI-generated work. Ideas discussed include a certification system similar to the Harris Tweed Orb, ensuring books are marked as ‘100% AI-free.’ Another suggestion is an ingredient-style label outlining an AI-generated book’s influences, listing percentages of various literary styles.
Mackay also believes literary prizes, such as the Highland Book Prize, can play a role in safeguarding human creativity by celebrating originality and unique writing styles and qualities that AI struggles to replicate. He warns of the day an AI-generated book wins a major award, questioning what it would mean for writers who spend years perfecting their craft.
Luca Casarini, a prominent Italian migrant rescue activist, was warned by Meta that his phone had been targeted with spyware. The alert was received through WhatsApp, the same day Meta accused surveillance firm Paragon Solutions of using advanced hacking methods to steal user data. Paragon, reportedly American-owned, has not responded to the allegations.
Casarini, who co-founded the Mediterranea Saving Humans charity, has faced legal action in Italy over his rescue work. He has also been a target of anti-migrant media and previously had his communications intercepted in a case related to alleged illegal immigration. He remains unaware of who attempted to hack his device or whether the attack had judicial approval.
The revelation follows a similar warning issued to Italian journalist Francesco Cancellato, whose investigative news outlet, Fanpage, recently exposed far-right sympathies within Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s political youth wing. Italy’s interior ministry has yet to comment on the situation.
Australia has banned Chinese AI startup DeepSeek from all government devices, citing security risks. The directive, issued by the Department of Home Affairs, requires all government entities to prevent the installation of DeepSeek’s applications and remove any existing instances from official systems. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke stated that the immediate ban was necessary to safeguard Australia’s national security.
The move follows similar action taken by Italy and Taiwan, with other countries also reviewing potential risks posed by the AI firm. DeepSeek has drawn global attention for its cost-effective AI models, which have disrupted the industry by operating with lower hardware requirements than competitors. The rapid rise of the company has raised concerns over data security, particularly regarding its Chinese origins.
This is not the first time Australia has taken such action against a Chinese technology firm. Two years ago, the government imposed a nationwide ban on TikTok for similar security reasons. As scrutiny over AI intensifies, more governments may follow Australia’s lead in limiting DeepSeek’s reach within public sector networks.
Australia has imposed sanctions on the extremist online network ‘Terrorgram’ in an effort to combat rising antisemitism and online radicalisation. Foreign Minister Penny Wong stated that engaging with the group would now be a criminal offence, helping to prevent young people from being drawn into far-right extremism. The move follows similar actions by Britain and the US.
Wong described ‘Terrorgram’ as a network that promotes white supremacy and racially motivated violence, making it the first entirely online entity to face Australian counterterrorism financing sanctions. Offenders could face up to 10 years in prison and substantial fines. Sanctions were also renewed against four other right-wing groups, including the Russian Imperial Movement and The Base.
The network primarily operates on the Telegram platform, which stated that it has long banned such content and removed related channels. The US designated ‘Terrorgram’ as a violent extremist group in January, while Britain criminalised affiliation with it in April.
Australia has seen a rise in antisemitic incidents, including attacks on synagogues and vehicles since the Israel-Gaza conflict began in October 2023. Police recently arrested neo-Nazi group members in Adelaide and charged a man for displaying a Nazi symbol on National Day.
The United Kingdom is set to become the first country to criminalise the use of AI to create child sexual abuse images. New offences will target AI-generated explicit content, including tools that ‘nudeify’ real-life images of children. The move follows a sharp rise in AI-generated abuse material, with reports increasing nearly five-fold in 2024, according to the Internet Watch Foundation.
The government warns that predators are using AI to disguise their identities and blackmail children into further exploitation. New laws will criminalise the possession, creation, or distribution of AI tools designed for child abuse material, as well as so-called ‘paedophile manuals’ that provide instructions on using such technology. Websites hosting AI-generated child abuse content will also be targeted, and authorities will gain powers to unlock digital devices for inspection.
The measures will be included in the upcoming Crime and Policing Bill. Earlier this month, Britain also announced plans to outlaw AI-generated ‘deepfake’ pornography, making it illegal to create or share sexually explicit deepfakes. Officials say the new laws will help protect children from emerging online threats.
In today’s digital age, the rapid proliferation of information has empowered and complicated the way societies communicate and stay informed. At its best, this interconnectedness fosters creativity, knowledge-sharing, and transparency. However, it also opens the floodgates for misinformation, disinformation, and the rise of deepfakes, tools that distort truth and challenge our ability to distinguish fact from fiction. These modern challenges are not confined to the fringes of the internet; they infiltrate mainstream platforms, influencing public opinion, political decisions, and cultural narratives on an unprecedented scale.
I’m sure TJ would never ever have said this about Fed or Nadal.
The emergence of alternative media platforms like podcasts, social media networks, and independent streaming channels has disrupted the traditional gatekeepers of information. While these platforms offer voices outside the mainstream a chance to be heard, they also often lack the editorial oversight of traditional media. This peculiarity has created a complex media ecosystem where authenticity competes with sensationalism, and viral content can quickly overshadow fact-checking.
Content policy has become a battlefield, with platforms struggling to balance free expression and the need to curb harmful or deceptive narratives. The debate is further complicated by the increasing sophistication of deepfake technology and AI-generated content, which can fabricate convincing yet entirely false narratives. Whether it is a politician giving a speech they never delivered, a celebrity endorsing a product they have never used, or a manipulated video sparking social unrest, the stakes are high.
These challenges have sparked fierce debates among tech giants, policymakers, journalists, and users on who should bear responsibility for ensuring accurate and ethical content. Against this backdrop, recent high-profile incidents, such as Novak Djokovic’s response to perceived media bias and Joe Rogan’s defiance of traditional norms, or Elon Musk’s ‘nazi salute’, highlight the tension between established media practices and the uncharted territory of modern communication channels. These case studies shed light on the shifting dynamics of information dissemination in an era where the lines between truth and fabrication are increasingly blurred.
Case study No. 1: The Djokovic incident, traditional media vs social media dynamics
The intersection of media and public discourse took centre stage during the 2025 Australian Open when tennis icon Novak Djokovic decided to boycott an on-court interview with Channel 9, the official broadcaster of the tournament. The decision, rooted in a dispute over comments made by one of its journalists, Tony Jones, highlighted the ongoing tension between traditional media’s content policies and the freedom of expression offered by modern social media platforms.
Novak Djokovic did not do a post-match interview after his win at Australian Open.
He gave a quick statement, signed some autographs, and was booed by some of the crowd as he left.
Namely, on 19 January 2025, following his victory over Jiri Lehecka in the fourth round of the Australian Open, Novak Djokovic, the 24-time Grand Slam champion, refused to engage in the customary on-court interview for Channel 9, a long-standing practice in tennis that directly connects players with fans. The reason was not due to personal animosity towards the interviewer, Jim Courier, but rather a response to remarks made by Channel 9 sports journalist Tony Jones. During a live broadcast, Jones had mocked Serbian fans chanting for Djokovic, calling the player ‘overrated’ and a ‘has-been,’ and even suggested they ‘kick him out’, a phrase that resonated deeply given Djokovic’s previous deportation from Australia over vaccine mandate issues in 2022.
The response and social media amplification
In his post-match press conference, Djokovic clarified his stance, saying that he would not conduct interviews with Channel 9 until he received an apology from both Jones and the network for what he described as ‘insulting and offensive’ comments. The incident quickly escalated beyond the tennis courts when Djokovic took to X (formerly Twitter) to share a video explaining his actions, directly addressing his fans and the broader public.
What happened was a protest against the Australian broadcaster and the strategic use of social media to bypass traditional media channels, often seen as gatekeepers of information with their own biases and agendas. The response was immediate; the video went viral, drawing comments from various quarters, including from Elon Musk, the owner of X. Musk retweeted Djokovic’s video with a critique of ‘legacy media’, stating, ‘It’s way better just to talk to the public directly than go through the negativity filter of legacy media.’ Djokovic’s simple reply, ‘Indeed’, underscored his alignment with this view, further fuelling the discussion about media integrity and control.
It’s way better just to talk to the public directly than go through the negativity filter of legacy media https://t.co/QYDJXWAC5r
The incident brings to light several issues concerning content policy in traditional media. Traditional media like Channel 9 operate under strict content policies where editorial decisions are made to balance entertainment and journalistic integrity. However, remarks like those from Jones can blur this line, leading to public backlash and accusations of bias or misinformation.
The response from Channel 9, an apology after the public outcry, showcases the reactive nature of traditional media when managing content that might be deemed offensive or misinformative, often after significant damage has been done to public perception.
Unlike social media, where anyone can broadcast their viewpoint, traditional media has the infrastructure for fact-checking but can also be accused of pushing a narrative. The Djokovic case has raised questions about whether Jones’s comments were intended as humour or reflected a deeper bias against Djokovic or his nationality.
The role of social media
Social media platforms such as X enable figures like Djokovic to communicate directly with their audience, controlling their narrative without the mediation of traditional media. Direct public exposure can be empowering, but it can also bypass established journalistic checks and balances.
While this incident showcased the power of social media for positive storytelling, it also highlights the platform’s potential for misinformation. Messages can be amplified without context or correction without editorial oversight, leading to public misinterpretation.
Case study No. 2: Alternative media and political discourse – The Joe Rogan experience
As traditional media grapples with issues of trust and relevance, alternative media platforms like podcasts have risen, offering new avenues for information dissemination. Joe Rogan’s podcast, ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’, has become a significant player in this space, influencing political discourse and public opinion, mainly through his interviews with high-profile figures such as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Donald Trump’s podcast appearance
In 2024, Donald Trump’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast was a pivotal moment, often credited with aiding his resurgence in the political arena, leading to his election as the 47th President of the USA. The podcast format allowed for an extended, unscripted conversation, allowing Trump to discuss his policies, personality, and plans without the usual media constraints.
Unlike traditional media interviews, where questions and answers are often tightly controlled, Rogan’s podcast allowed Trump to engage with audiences more authentically, potentially influencing voters who felt alienated by mainstream media.
Critics argue that such platforms can spread misinformation due to the lack of immediate fact-checking. Yet, supporters laud the format for allowing a deeper understanding of the candidate’s views without the spin of journalists.
Kamala Harris’s conditional interview
Contrastingly, Kamala Harris’s approach to the same platform was markedly different. She requested special conditions for her interview, including pre-approved questions, which Rogan declined. Harris then chose not to participate, highlighting a critical difference in how politicians view and interact with alternative media. Her decision reflects a broader strategy among some politicians to control their media exposure, preferring environments where the narrative can be shaped to their advantage, which is often less feasible in an open podcast format.
Some might see her refusal as avoidance of tough, unfiltered questions, potentially impacting her public image as less transparent than figures like Trump, who embraced the platform.
Vladimir Klitschko’s interview on ‘The Joe Rogan Experience‘
Adding another layer to this narrative, former Ukrainian boxer and political figure Vladimir Klitschko appeared on Rogan’s show, discussing his athletic career and geopolitical issues affecting Ukraine. This interview showcased how alternative media like podcasts can give a voice to international figures, offering a different perspective on global issues that might be underrepresented or misrepresented in traditional media.
Rogan’s discussions often delve into subjects with educational value, providing listeners with nuanced insights into complex topics, something traditional news might cover in soundbites.
Analysing media dynamics
Content policy in alternative media: While Rogan’s podcast does not adhere to the same content policies as traditional media, it does have its own set of guidelines, which include a commitment to free speech and a responsibility not to platform dangerous misinformation.
Fact-checking and public accountability: Unlike traditional media, where fact-checking can be institutional, podcast listeners often take on this role, leading to community-driven corrections or discussions on platforms like Reddit or X.
The spread of disinformation: Like social media, podcasts can be vectors of misinformation if not moderated or if hosts fail to challenge or correct inaccuracies. However, Rogan’s approach often includes challenging guests, providing a counterbalance.
Impact on journalism: The rise of podcasts challenges traditional journalism by offering alternative narratives, sometimes at the cost of depth or accuracy but gaining in terms of directness and personal connection with the audience.
Case study No. 3: Elon Musk and the ‘Nazi salute’
The evolution of media consumption has been profound, with the rise of social media and alternative channels significantly altering the landscape traditionally dominated by legacy media. The signs of this evolution are poignantly highlighted in a tweet by Elon Musk, where he commented on the dynamics of media interaction:
‘It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience. In the end, this deception will just be another nail in the coffin of legacy media.’ – Elon Musk, 24 January 2025, 10:22 UTC
It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience.
In the end, this deception will just be another nail in the coffin of legacy media. https://t.co/RKa3UsB7sd
Legacy media, encompassing print, television, and radio, has long been the public’s primary source of news and information. These platforms have established content policies to ensure journalistic integrity, fact-checking, and editorial oversight. However, as Musk’s tweet suggests, they are often perceived as inherently biased, sometimes acting as ‘negativity filters’ that skew public perception. This critique reflects a broader sentiment that legacy media can be slow to adapt, overly cautious, and sometimes accused of pushing an agenda, as seen in Musk’s experience of being ‘cancelled’ over a simple gesture interpreted out of context. The traditional model involves gatekeepers who decide what news reaches the audience, which can lead to a controlled narrative that might not always reflect the full spectrum of public discourse.
Modern social media: direct engagement
In contrast, social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) democratise information dissemination by allowing direct communication from individuals to the public, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers. Musk’s use of X to address his audience directly illustrates this shift. Social media provides an unfiltered stage where public figures can share their stories, engage in real-time, and counteract what they see as biassed reporting from legacy media. This directness enhances transparency and authenticity but also poses significant challenges. Without the same level of editorial oversight, misinformation can spread rapidly, as social media algorithms often prioritise engagement over accuracy, potentially amplifying falsehoods or sensational content.
Alternative media channels: a new frontier
Beyond social media, alternative channels like podcasts, independent streaming services, and blogs have emerged, offering even more diverse voices and perspectives. These platforms often operate with less stringent content policies, emphasising freedom of speech and direct audience interaction. For instance, podcasts like ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ have become influential by hosting long-form discussions that delve deeper into topics than typical news segments. This format allows for nuanced conversations but lacks the immediate fact-checking mechanisms of traditional media, relying instead on the community or the host’s discretion to challenge or correct misinformation. The rise of alternative media has challenged the monopoly of legacy media, providing platforms where narratives can be shaped by content creators themselves, often leading to a richer, albeit sometimes less regulated, exchange of ideas.
Content policy and freedom of expression
The tension between content policy and freedom of expression is starkly highlighted in Musk’s tweet. Legacy media’s structured approach to content can sometimes suppress voices or misrepresent intentions, as Musk felt with his gesture. On the other hand, social media and alternative platforms offer broader freedom of expression, yet this freedom comes with the responsibility to manage content that might be misleading or harmful. The debate here revolves around how much control should be exerted over content to prevent harm while preserving the open nature of these platforms. Musk’s situation underscores the need for a balanced approach where the public can engage with authentic expressions without the distortion of ‘legacy media’s negativity filter’.
To summarise:
The juxtaposition of Djokovic’s media strategies and the political interviews on ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ illustrates a shift in how information is consumed, controlled, and critiqued. Traditional media continues to wield considerable influence but is increasingly challenged by platforms offering less censorship, potentially more misinformation, and direct, unfiltered communication.
Elon Musk’s tweet is another vivid example of the ongoing battle between legacy media’s control over narrative and the liberating yet chaotic nature of modern social media and alternative channels. These platforms have reshaped the way information is consumed, offering both opportunities for direct, unmediated communication and challenges in maintaining the integrity of information.
As society continues to navigate this complex media landscape, the balance between ensuring factual accuracy, preventing misinformation, and respecting freedom of speech will remain a critical discussion point. The future of media lies in finding this equilibrium, where the benefits of both traditional oversight (perhaps through stringent/severe regulatory measures) and modern openness can coexist to serve an informed and engaged public.
Mexico has objected to Google’s decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America for US users on Google Maps. President Claudia Sheinbaum confirmed on Wednesday that her government will send an official letter to the tech giant demanding clarification.
The name change follows an announcement by the US government that it had officially rebranded the body of water. In response, Google stated that its platform displays local official names when they differ across countries.
The move has sparked concerns in Mexico over sovereignty and historical recognition. With the government pressing for an explanation, the issue highlights the growing tension between technology firms and national identities in the digital space.
South Sudan has lifted a temporary ban on Facebook and TikTok, imposed following the spread of graphic videos allegedly showing the killings of South Sudanese nationals in Sudan. The National Communications Authority confirmed on 27 January that the disturbing content, which had sparked violent protests and retaliatory killings across South Sudan, has been removed from the platforms.
The videos, which documented ethnically targeted attacks in Sudan’s El Gezira state, had led to widespread outrage. Rights groups blamed the Sudanese army and its allies for the violence, while the army denounced the incidents as isolated violations. South Sudanese authorities urged for a balanced approach to addressing online incitement while protecting the public’s rights.
The unrest highlights the volatile relationship between social media and violence in the region. Authorities continue to call for action to address the root causes of such content while promoting accountability and safety.
The UK government has demanded urgent action from major social media platforms to remove violent and extremist content following the Southport killings. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper criticised the ease with which Axel Rudakubana, who murdered three children and attempted to kill ten others, accessed an al-Qaeda training manual and other violent material online. She described the availability of such content as “unacceptable” and called for immediate action.
Rudakubana, jailed last week for his crimes, had reportedly used techniques from the manual during the attack and watched graphic footage of a similar incident before carrying it out. While platforms like YouTube and TikTok are expected to comply with the UK‘s Online Safety Act when it comes into force in March, Cooper argued that companies have a ‘moral responsibility’ to act now rather than waiting for legal enforcement.
The Southport attack has intensified scrutiny on gaps in counter-terrorism measures and the role of online content in fostering extremism. The government has announced a public inquiry into missed opportunities to intervene, revealing that Rudakubana had been referred to the Prevent programme multiple times. Cooper’s call for immediate action underscores the urgent need to prevent further tragedies linked to online extremism.
