Esha Deol says 'still grieving' as she expresses her desire to take a break from social media (2025-12-20T12:29:00+05:30)

Photo: Esha Deol/ Instagram) IANS Mumbai, December 19 (IANS) Actress Esha Deol, who is still grieving the loss of her beloved father and legendary actor Dharmendra, has expressed her wish to take a break from social media for some time. The 'Dhoom' actress revealed that due to the unfortunate circumstances, she had been keeping her work commitments on hold for some time; however, she intends to post all of them in the near future. Taking to the Stories section of her Instagram handle, Esha wrote, "I had kept a few work commitments on hold for a long time which I would be posting & sharing with you all now in the coming days. (sic)." Reiterating that this is indeed a very difficult time for her as a daughter and she is still grieving the loss of her 'precious' father, Esha added, "Please understand me as a human & most importantly as a daughter who is still grieving the loss of her most loving precious father. A loss I would never get over." The 'Yuva' actress said that if she could have her way, she would love to go on a social media break, but the nature of her work does not allow her to do so. Esha expressed, "If I had things my way I would wish to not be on this platform for sometime and just take a break. But I can't do that. So try & be kind and understanding. Thank you for the love & support always... love you all." Earlier, remembering dad Dharmendra on his 90th birthday on December 8, Esha promised to continue his legacy with 'pride & respect'. Her emotional post read, "I so painfully miss you papa … your warm protective hugs that felt like the cosiest blanket , holding your soft yet strong hands which had unspoken messages & your voice calling out my name that followed with endless conversations , laughter & shayaris . Your motto “ always be humble , be happy, healthy & strong.""I promise to continue your legacy with pride & respect .And I will try my best to spread your love to the millions who love you as I do. I love you papa", she concluded the note, signing off as “Your darling daughter, Your Esha, your Bittu.” Esha Deol says 'still grieving' as she expresses her desire to take a break from social media | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Screenagers face troubling addictions from an early age (2025-12-12T11:27:00+05:30)

Early exposure can lead to addiction. Brit., CC BY-NC-ND Joseph Attard, King's College London and Mark Griffiths, Nottingham Trent University In 1997, Douglas Rushkoff boldly predicted the emergence a new caste of tech-literate adolescents. He argued that the children of his day would soon blossom into “screenagers”, endowed with effortless advantages over their parents, having been raised from birth on a diet of computers and micro-chipped devices. Fast-forward to 2014: the screenagers have come of age in a world ruled by Twitter and Candy Crush Saga. A substantial body of evidence addresses the ways in which media saturation shapes the identities of children and adolescents. While there are clear benefits to maturing as a digital native, a number of experts are concerned about the physical and psychological health of our screenagers. The perils of media-immersion There are advantages of tech-literacy from an early age such as gaining IT skills that will serve you well in the future but there are risks too. Aside from the dangers of social isolation and physical inactivity, there are also dangers that come not directly from any IT medium itself, but what happens when children are exposed to them. The ability to access pornography or gamble online throws up all kinds of issues when children are involved. Particularly insidious are “foot-in-the-door” products which, combined with big data marketing techniques, specifically target adolescents and stimulate pathological behaviour. For example, a number of free Facebook games, including Zynga Poker and Slotomania, normalise gambling and divorce the thrill of playing from the consequences of losing. The player gets to experience the highs of winning but because there is no money involved, they don’t suffer any real life consequences when they lose. This poses a major risk and could lead to problem gambling in adolescence. Other freemium app and internet games also carry a risk factor for pathological behaviour. So-called “casual games” such as Flappy Bird, Bejeweled and Candy Crush Saga use behavioural conditioning techniques to keep players invested for long stretches, which may inhibit the social development of youngsters. And even if we don’t buy into the moral panic so often spread by the media, there is evidence to suggest that sustained access to pornography can have detrimental effects on young people. Mental health website Psych Central reports that not only is pornography easy to stumble across online (with search terms like “toy” often throwing up adult images) repeated exposure can be over-stimulating and potentially addictive for young people. According to the site, “Cybersex addiction functions in a similar way to any other addiction, leading to a cycle of preoccupation, compulsion, acting out, isolation, self-absorption, shame and depression as well as distorted views of real relationships and intimacy.” Most susceptible to compulsive porn viewing are teens with limited parental support, which also correlates with unsupervised web access. New addictions While the addictiveness of certain activities is reasonably well established, the more general concept of “media addiction” in young people is harder to pin down. For a start, it isn’t easy to define addiction as it applies to any activity, even traditional problems such as gambling. So when it comes to new technologies and services, the picture becomes more confused. It is tempting to discuss “media addiction” as a catch-all term for spending too much time online but there are so many opportunities for digital natives to engage in harmful activities that we ought to think in more detail about the problems that can arise for them. While we might group people together as “Facebook addicts”, for example, there may well be a big difference between someone who spends an unhealthy amount of time growing virtual tomatoes on Farmville and another who might be pathologically engrossed in instant messaging. Starting young These phenomena are disconcerting enough on their own but we also need to address the fact that for today’s youngsters, the process of media immersion often begins in very early childhood. Last year, campaign group Common Sense Media and electronics company VTech carried out a survey of 1,463 parents with children aged under eight in the US and found 75% had access to smart devices. This was up from 52% in 2011. This suggests that by the time they hit their teens, there is a high probability that young children will be active participants in global information networks. Whereas children of the 1990s were raised on a diet of discontinuous digital media (MTV and 16-bit gaming), the next wave of screenagers will hold multiple social media accounts, exposing them to all the hazards this level of connectivity implies. From underage users viewing gambling as a source of wealth to adolescents whose formative sexuality is filtered through internet porn, the influence of media-immersion on developing minds is disquieting. One can only imagine the mental state of young people when a universe of information, temptations and perils can be carried around in their pocket. While it’s obvious that internet-use carries huge advantages for young people, they also need to be educated about the dangers before addictions develop. Joseph Attard, Film Studies PhD Researcher, King's College London and Mark Griffiths, Director of the International Gaming Research Unit and Professor of Gambling Studies, Nottingham Trent University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

I refuse to cater to the whims and fancies of a supernet, says Aishwarya Lekshmi as she opts out of social media! (2025-12-10T11:11:00+05:30)

(Photo Credit: Aishwarya Lekshmi/Instagram) Chennai, (IANS) Actress Aishwarya Lekshmi, who has delivered impressive performances in several Tamil films, has now chosen to completely opt out of social media, saying that she refuses to be a person who caters to the whims and fancies of a supernet! The actress, who took to her Instagram stories section to make the announcement, wrote, "For the longest time, I subscribed to the idea that social media is much needed to keep me in the game. I thought it necessary to move with the times, especially considering the nature of the industry we are in. Somehow, something that was told would cater to us has reverse-UNO-ed and made me cater to it." Stating that social media had successfully distracted her from what her work and research should be, the actress said it had taken away every original thought from her, affected her vocabulary and language, and made every other simpler pleasure joyless. "I refuse to be one that's made from a generic mould and cater to the whims and fancies of a supernet. As a woman, I have had to train myself a lot to even be aware of grooming and control, and trained even harder to resist it. This is the first original thought that I have had in a while. "I'm taking the risk here to be forgotten, and in today's times, out of the 'gram is out of the mind. So here is me doing the right thing for the artist and the lil girl in me - Keeping her an original and choosing absolute Internet obsoleteness. Here's hoping I create more meaningful connections and cinema in life. And if I do end up making meaningful cinema, give me love - Old Style. Yours Happily, Aishwarya Lekshmi." Interestingly, Aishwarya Lekshmi's announcement of denouncing social media comes just days after Anushka Shetty announced that she was taking a break from social media.Anushka Shetty, in a handwritten note, had said, “Trading blue light to candlelight... Will be stepping away from social media for a bit, just to reconnect to the world and work beyond the scrolling, to where we all actually started... See you all soon with more stories and more love... Smile always. Love Anushka Shetty.” I refuse to cater to the whims and fancies of a supernet, says Aishwarya Lekshmi as she opts out of social media! | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

What AI earbuds can’t replace: The value of learning another language (2025-12-08T12:48:00+05:30)

Gabriel Guillén, Middlebury College and Thor Sawin, Middlebury College Your host in Osaka, Japan, slips on a pair of headphones and suddenly hears your words transformed into flawless Kansai Japanese. Even better, their reply in their native tongue comes through perfectly clear to you. Thanks to artificial intelligence, neither of you is lost in translation. What once seemed like science fiction is now marketed as a quick fix for cross-cultural communication. Such AI-powered tools will be useful for many people, especially for tourists or in any purely transactional situation, even if seamless automatic interpretation remains at an experimental stage. Does this mean the process of learning another language will soon be a thing of the past? As scholars of computer-assisted language learning and linguistics, we disagree and see language learning as vital in other ways. We have devoted our careers to this field because we deeply believe in the lasting and transformative value of learning and speaking languages beyond one’s mother tongue. Lessons from past language ‘disruptions’ This isn’t the first time a new technology has promised massive disruption to learning languages. In recent years, language learning startups such as Duolingo aimed to make acquiring a language easier than ever, in part by gamifying language. While these apps have certainly made learning more accessible to more people, our research shows most platforms and apps have failed to fully replicate the inherently social process of learning a language. One thing’s clear: The massive popularity of language apps shows there’s still strong demand for language learning, despite a sharp decline in formal education settings. Duolingo alone had 113.1 million monthly active users around the world at the end of 2024, a 36% increase over the prior year. This is about 10 times more than the number of students who take languages other than English in U.S. schools. The meaning of learning a language Numbers aside, the gold standard of language learning is the ability to follow and contribute to a live group conversation. Since World War II, government departments and education programs recognized that text-centered grammar-translation methods did little to support real interaction. Interpersonal conversational competence gradually became the main goal of language classes. While technologies you can put in your ear or wear on your face now promise to revolutionize interpersonal interaction, their usefulness in such conversations actually falls along a spectrum. At one end, you have simple tasks you have to navigate while visiting a city where they speak a different language, like checking out of a hotel, buying a ticket at a kiosk or finding your way around town. That is, people from different backgrounds working together to achieve a goal – a successful checkout, a ticket purchase or getting to the famous museum you want to visit. Any mix of languages, gestures or tools – even AI tools – can help in this context. In such cases, where the goal is clear and both parties are patient, shared English or automated interpretation can get the job done while bypassing the hard work of language learning. At the other end, identity matters as much as content. Meeting your in-laws, introducing yourself at work, welcoming a delegation or presenting to a skeptical audience all involve trust and social capital. Humor, idioms, levels of formality, tone, timing and body language shape not just what you say but who you are. The effort of learning a language communicates respect, trust and a willingness to see the world through someone else’s eyes. We believe language learning is one of the most demanding and rewarding forms of deep work, building cognitive resilience, empathy, identity and community in ways technology struggles to replicate. The 2003 movie “Lost in Translation,” which depicts an older American man falling in love with a much younger American woman, was not about getting lost in the language but delved into issues of interculturality and finding yourself while exposed to the other. Indeed, accelerating mobility due to climate migration, remote work and retirement abroad all increase the need to learn languages – not just translate them. Even those staying in place often seek deeper connections through language as learners with familial and historical ties. A Spanish learner from China negotiates meaning with an English learner from Mexico in California. Gabriel Guillén, 2025, CC BY-SA Where AI falls short The latest AI technologies, such as those used by Apple’s newest AirPods to instantly interpret and translate, certainly are powerful tools that will help a lot of people interact with anyone who speaks a different language in ways previously only possible for someone who spent a year or two studying it. It’s like having your own personal interpreter. Yet relying on interpretation carries hidden costs: distortion of meaning, loss of interactive nuance and diminished interpersonal trust. An ethnography of American learners with strong motivation and near limitless support found that falling back on speaking English and using technology to aid translation may be easier in the short term, but this undercuts long-term language and integration goals. Language learners constantly face this choice between short-term ease and long-term impact. Some AI tools help accomplish immediate tasks, and generative AI apps can support acquisition but can take away the negotiations of meaning from which durable skills emerge. AI interpretation may suffice for one-on-one conversations, but learners usually aspire to join ongoing conversations already being had among speakers of another language. Long-term language learning, while necessarily friction-filled, is nevertheless beneficial on many fronts. Interpersonally, using another’s language fosters both cultural and cognitive empathy. In addition, the cognitive benefits of multilingualism are equally well documented: resistance to dementia, divergent thinking, flexibility in shifting attention, acceptance of multiple perspectives and explanations, and reduced bias in reasoning. The very attributes companies seek in the AI age – resilience, lifelong learning, analytical and creative thinking, active listening – are all cultivated through language learning. Rethinking language education in the age of AI So why, in the increasingly multilingual U.K. and U.S., are fewer students choosing to learn another language in high school and at university? The reasons are complex. Too often, institutions have struggled to demonstrate the relevance of language studies. Yet innovative approaches abound, from integrating language in the contexts of other subjects and linking it to service and volunteering to connecting students with others through virtual exchanges or community partners via project-based language learning, all while developing intercultural skills. So, again, what’s the value of learning another language when AI can handle tourism phrases, casual conversation and city navigation? The answer, in our view, lies not in fleeting encounters but in cultivating enduring capacities: curiosity, empathy, deeper understanding of others, the reshaping of identity and the promise of lasting cognitive growth. For educators, the call is clear. Generative AI can take on rote and transactional tasks while excelling at error correction, adapting input and vocabulary support. That frees classroom time for multiparty, culturally rich and nuanced conversation. Teaching approaches grounded in interculturality, embodied communication, play and relationship building will thrive. Learning this way enables learners to critically evaluate what AI earbuds or chatbots create, to join authentic conversations and to experience the full benefits of long-term language learning. Gabriel Guillén, Professor of Language Studies, Middlebury College and Thor Sawin, Professor of Linguistics, Middlebury College This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cybersecurity experts call for AI-driven defence (2025-12-03T12:50:00+05:30)

GUWAHATI, (MExN): Citing growing instances of cyber attacks from “non-friendly countries,” cybersecurity experts called for a resilient AI-driven defence mechanism and investigation process, alongside greater public awareness. At a national conference, experts highlighted that IT system constraints, too many disconnected threads, and limited remote capabilities were holding back investigations, which could be fast-tracked with the adoption of proper AI tools and skilling of users. The conference on 'Cybersecurity, Digital Forensics and Intelligence' was organised by the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) at Gauhati University. Citing alarming data, Keshri Kumar Asthana, Head of Public Sector at Microsoft, said, “India lost Rs 22,845 crore to cyber fraud in 2024, a 205.6 per cent surge from the previous year.” He stated that over 36 lakh financial fraud cases were reported during the year, and around 20.5 lakh cybersecurity incidents were reported to CERT-In in 2024, up from 15.9 lakh in 2023. Asthana added that the average cost of a data breach in India in 2025 is Rs 22 crore, the highest on record, driven by gaps in governance and security. “Around 83 per cent of organizations experience more than one data breach in their lifetime. The cost is high as the incidents are being caught late,” he said. He emphasised that defenders must adopt a “graphical thinking” approach to counter attackers who already use such methods. Sandesh Jadhav, Global Data Privacy Officer of Wipro, cautioned people to be vigilant while using social media and digital platforms, warning, “You are being watched continuously.” Shreekrishna Ashutosh of Cellebrite pointed to operational challenges, noting that 50 per cent of agencies report case backlogs yearly, and 60 per cent of investigators still rely on outdated methods. “The average time spent per case reviewing digital evidence is 69 hours,” he said. Asthana underscored the critical role of digital evidence, stating, “90 per cent of criminal cases include digital evidence and 98 per cent of prosecutors say it is pivotal. Digital evidence is no longer optional but essential.” The two-day event is being organised by NIELIT Assam & Nagaland under the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY), in association with Assam Police and Gauhati University. The conference is being held under the theme “Cyber Secure Bharat: Fortifying India’s Digital Future.” Delivering the welcome address, L Lanuwabang, Director of NIELIT Assam & Nagaland and Conference Chair, highlighted the expansion of the conference to Guwahati to ensure wider participation across the North-East. He emphasised the need for advanced cyber training, digital forensic laboratory infrastructure, coordinated cyber investigations, and multi-agency collaboration. “Cyber Secure Bharat is not merely a theme; it is a national mission. A secure India is the foundation of a strong digital future,” Lanuwabang remarked. The inaugural ceremony was attended by K S Gopinath Narayan, Principal Secretary, IT, Government of Assam; Prof Nani Gopal Mahanta, Vice Chancellor, Gauhati University; and Surendra Kumar, Additional Director General of Police, Assam, among others. This year's conference features over 30 speakers from industry, defence, law enforcement, and academia, with more than 300 delegates in attendance.The inaugural programme concluded with a vote of thanks delivered by Santanu Borgohain, Additional Director, NIELIT Guwahati. The second day will feature technical sessions and panel discussions on emerging threats and cybercrime trends. Cybersecurity experts call for AI-driven defence | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Britney Spears returns to Instagram, talks about 'boundaries' (2025-11-11T13:31:00+05:30)

(Photo: Britney Spears/Instagram) IANS Los Angeles, (IANS) Popstar Britney Spears has made a comeback on social media weeks after appearing to deactivate her account amid a spat with her ex-spouse Kevin Federline. After a string of erratic posts and a public clash with her former husband, Kevin Federline, the 43-year-old singer appeared to deactivate her account earlier on November 2, with her page showing a message that it “may have been removed”. Returning to Instagram, the Toxic hitmaker reflected on her "crazy" year and encouraged her followers to build "boundaries,” reports femalefirst.co.uk. Alongside a screenshot of one of her videos in a racy ensemble, she wrote: “So much has happened this year, it’s crazy … I try to live within my means and the book, ‘Draw the Circle’ is an incredible perspective. “Get your ballerina, circle, and own your boundaries. It’s incredibly strict and somewhat of a form of prayer but with so many endless possibilities in life, it’s important to do you and keep it simple. I know there is a confusing side too. The devil is in the details but we can get to that later (sic)" Fans have shown concern since the singer shared clips of herself dancing with visible bruises on her arms and cryptic captions about her sons, Sean Preston, 20, and Jayden James, 19. In one post, Spears appeared in a plunging pink swimsuit and knee-high black boots, posing in front of a mirror in her Los Angeles home. The background showed piles of clothes on the floor, prompting renewed discussion about her wellbeing. In another clip last month, she revealed a “horrible” leg injury, explaining she had “fell down the stairs” and her leg “snaps out now and then”. She said: “Not sure if it’s broken but for now it’s snapped in!!! Thank u god.”Britney captioned the same video with a message referencing her faith and her children, saying: “My boys had to leave and go back to Maui… this is the way I express myself and pray through art… father who art in heaven… I’m not here for concern or pity, I just want to be a good woman and be better… and I do have wonderful support, so have a brilliant day !!!” Britney Spears returns to Instagram, talks about 'boundaries' | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

The world wide web was meant to unite us, but is tearing us apart instead. Is there another way? (2025-10-27T15:00:00+05:30)

George Buchanan, RMIT University and Dana McKay, RMIT University The hope of the world wide web, according to its creator Tim Berners-Lee, was that it would make communication easier, bring knowledge to all, and strengthen democracy and connection. Instead, it seems to be driving us apart into increasingly small and angry splinter groups. Why? We have commonly blamed online echo chambers, digital spaces filled with people who largely share the same beliefs – or filter bubbles, the idea that algorithms tend to show us content we are likely to agree with. However, these concepts have both been challenged by a number of studies. A 2022 study led by one of us (Dana), which tracked the social media behaviours of ten respondents, found people often engage with content they disagree with – even going so far as to seek it out. When an individual engages with a disagreeable post on social media – whether it’s “rage bait” or something else that offends you – it drives income for the platform. But on a societal scale, it drives antisocial outcomes. One of the worst of these outcomes is “affective polarisation”, where we like people who think similarly to us, and dislike or resent people who hold different views. Research and global surveys both show this form of polarisation is growing across the world. Changing the economics of social media platforms would likely reduce online polarisation. But this won’t be possible without intervention from governments, and each of us. How our views get reinforced online Social media use has been associated with growing affective polarisation. Online, we can be influenced by the opinions of people we agree or disagree with – even on topics we had previously been neutral towards. For instance, if there’s an influencer you admire, and they express a view on a new law you hadn’t thought much about, you’re more likely to adopt their viewpoint on it. When this happens on a large scale, it gradually separates us into ideological tribes that disagree on multiple issues: a phenomenon known as “partisan sorting”. Research shows our encounters on social media can lead to us developing new views on a topic. It also shows how any searches we do to get more insight can solidify these emerging views, as the results are likely to contain the same language as the original post that gave us the view in the first place. For example, if you see a post that inaccurately claims taking paracetamol during pregnancy will give your baby autism, and you search for other posts using the key words “paracetamol pregnancy autism”, you will probably get more of the same. Being in a heightened emotional state has been linked to higher susceptibility to believing false or “fake” content. Why are we fed polarising content? This is where the economics of the internet come in. Divisive and emotionally laden posts are more likely to get engagement (such as likes, shares and comments), especially from people who strongly agree or disagree, and from provocateurs. Platforms will then show these posts to more people, and the cycle of engagement continues. Social media companies leverage our tendency towards divisive content to drive engagement, as this leads to more advertising money for them. According to a 2021 report from the Washington Post, Facebook’s ranking algorithm once treated emoji reactions (including anger) as five times more valuable than “likes”. Simulation-based studies have also revealed how anger and division drive online engagement. One simulation (in a yet to be peer-reviewed paper) used bots to show that any platform measuring its success and income by engagement (currently all of them) would be most successful if it boosted divisive posts. Where are we headed? That said, the current state of social media need not also be its future. People are now spending less time on social media than they used to. According to a recent report from the Financial Times, time spent on social media peaked in 2022 and has since been declining. By the end of 2024, users aged 16 and older spent 10% less time on social platforms than they did in 2022. Droves of users are also leaving bigger “mainstream” platforms for ones that reflect their own political leanings, such as the left-wing BlueSky, or the right-wing Truth Social. While this may not help with polarisation, it signals many people are no longer satisfied with the social media status quo. Internet-fuelled polarisation has also resulted in real costs to government, both in mental health and police spending. Consider recent events in Australia, where online hate and misinformation have played a role in neo-Nazi marches, and the cancellation of events run by the LGBTQIA+ community, due to threats. For those of us who remain on social media platforms, we can individually work to change the status quo. Research shows greater tolerance for different views among online users can slow down polarisation. We can also give social media companies less signals to work from, by not re-sharing or promoting content that’s likely to make others irate. Fundamentally, though, this is a structural problem. Fixing it will mean reframing the economics of online activity to increase the potential for balanced and respectful conversations, and decrease the reward for producing and/or engaging with rage bait. And this will almost certainly require government intervention. When other products have caused harm, governments have regulated them and taxed the companies responsible. Social media platforms can also be regulated and taxed. It may be hard, but not impossible. And it’s worth doing if we want a world where we’re not all one opinion away from becoming an outcast. George Buchanan, Deputy Dean, School of Computing Technologies, RMIT University and Dana McKay, Associate Dean, Interaction, Technology and Information, RMIT University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As social media age restrictions spread, is the internet entering its Victorian era? (2025-10-17T10:45:00+05:30)

Alex Beattie, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington A wave of proposed social media bans for young people has swept the globe recently, fuelled by mounting concern about the apparent harm the likes of TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat can cause to vulnerable minds. Australia was the first to announce restrictions on people under 16 having a social media account. New Zealand may soon follow, and Denmark’s prime minister recently declared her country would ban social media for under-15s, accusing mobile phones and social networks of “stealing our children’s childhood”. The moves are part of a growing international trend: the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Pakistan and the United States are now considering or implementing similar restrictions, often requiring parental consent or digital ID verification. At first glance, these policies appear to be about protecting young people from mental health harm, explicit content and addictive design. But beneath the language of safety lies something else: a shift in cultural values. The bans reflect a kind of moral turn, one that risks reviving conservative notions that predate the internet. Might we be entering a new Victorian era of the internet, where the digital lives of young people are reshaped not just by regulation but by a reassertion of moral control? Policing moral decline The Victorian era was marked by rigid social codes, modest dress and formal communication. Public behaviour was tightly regulated, and schools were seen as key sites for socialising children into gender and class hierarchies. Today, we see echoes of this in the way “digital wellness” is framed. Screen-time apps, detox retreats and “dumb” phones are marketed as tools for cultivating a “healthy” digital life – often with moral undertones. The ideal user is calm, focused and restrained. The impulsive, distracted or emotionally expressive user is pathologised. This framing is especially evident in the work of Jonathan Haidt, psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation, a central text in the age-restriction movement. Haidt argues that social media accelerates performative behaviour and emotional dysregulation in young people. Viewed this way, youth digital life involves declining psychological resilience, rising polarisation and the erosion of shared civic values, rather than being a symptom of complex developmental or technological shifts. This has helped popularise the idea that social media is not just harmful but corrupting. Yet the data behind these claims is contested. Critics have pointed out that Haidt’s conclusions often rely on correlational studies and selective interpretations. For example, while some research links heavy social media use to anxiety and depression, other studies suggest the effects are modest and vary widely depending on context, platform and individual differences. What’s missing from much of the debate is a recognition of young people’s agency, or their ability to navigate online spaces intelligently, creatively and socially. Indeed, youth digital life is not just about passive consumption. It’s a site of literacy, expression and connection. Platforms such as TikTok and YouTube have fostered a renaissance of oral and visual communication. Young people stitch together memes, remix videos and engage in rapid-fire editing to produce new forms of storytelling. These are not signs of decline but evolving literacies. To regulate youth access without acknowledging these skills risks suppressing the new in favour of preserving the familiar. Regulate platforms, not young people This is where the Victorian metaphor becomes useful. Just as Victorian norms sought to maintain a particular social order, today’s age restrictions risk enforcing a narrow vision of what digital life should look like. On the surface, terms such as “brain rot” appear to convey the harm of excessive internet use. But in practice, they’re often used by teenagers to laugh about and resist the pressures of 24/7 hustle culture. But concerns about young people’s digital habits seem rooted in a fear of cognitive difference – the idea that some users are too impulsive, too irrational, too deviant. Young people are often cast as unable to communicate properly, hiding behind screens, avoiding phone calls. But these changing habits reflect broader shifts in how we relate to technology. The expectation to be always available, always responsive, ties us to our devices in ways that make switching off genuinely difficult. Age restrictions may address some symptoms, but they don’t tackle the underlying design of platforms that are built to keep us scrolling, sharing and generating data. If society and governments are serious about protecting young people, perhaps the better strategy is to regulate the digital platforms. Legal scholar Eric Goldman calls the age-restriction approach a “segregate and suppress” strategy – one that punishes youth rather than holding platforms accountable. We would never ban children from playgrounds, but we do expect those spaces to be safe. Where are the safety barriers for digital spaces? Where is the duty of care from digital platforms? The popularity of social media bans suggests a resurgence of conservative values in our digital lives. But protection should not come at the cost of autonomy, creativity or expression. For many, the internet has become a moral battleground where values around attention, communication and identity are fiercely contested. But it is also a social infrastructure, one that young people are already shaping through new literacies and forms of expression. Shielding them from it risks suppressing the very skills and voices that could help us build a better digital future. Alex Beattie, Lecturer, Media and Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

People trust podcasts more than social media. But is the trust warranted? (2025-10-16T13:38:00+05:30)

Medy Siregar/Unsplash This is consistent with other reports on Australian attitudes towards social media. For example, the Digital News Report 2025 similarly identified widespread concern about misinformation and distrust in news shared on social media. And such distrust isn’t limited to Australia. The sentiment is evident worldwide. The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, based on an annual global survey of more than 30,000 people across 28 countries, reports a decline in trust in social media companies. So where does this negativity come from? And are other ways of consuming information online, such as podcasts, any better? Podcasts are booming in Australia and around the world, and are often perceived much more positively than social media. Let’s look at what the evidence says about the impacts of social media, what it does and doesn’t yet tell us about podcasts, and what this reveals about the need for accountability across digital platforms. Where does this distrust stem from? While social media has enabled connection, creativity and civic participation, research also highlights its downsides. Studies have shown that, on certain social media platforms, false and sensational information can often spread faster than truth. Such information can also fuel negativity and political polarisation. Beyond civic harms, heavy social media use has also been linked to mental health challenges. The causes are difficult to establish, but studies report associations between social media use and higher levels of depression, anxiety and psychological distress, particularly among adolescents and young adults. In 2021, Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager, made public thousands of internal documents that revealed Instagram’s negative impact on teen mental health. The revelations triggered global scrutiny and intensified debate about social media accountability. Whistleblowers such as Haugen suggest social media companies are aware of potential harms, but don’t always act. Podcasts have a much better reputation In contrast to social media, podcasts appear to enjoy a very different reputation. Not only do Australians view them far more positively, but podcast consumption has significantly increased over the years. More than half of Australians over the age of ten engage with audio or video podcasts on a monthly basis. It’s not surprising that the 2025 Australian election saw political leaders feature on podcasts as part of their campaign strategy. YouTube, traditionally a video sharing platform, has a large section dedicated to podcasts on its home page. YouTube Why are podcasts so popular and trusted? Several features may help explain this. Consumption is often more deliberate. Listeners choose specific shows and episodes instead of scrolling through endless feeds. Podcasts typically provide longer and more nuanced discussions compared with the short snippets served by social media algorithms. Given these features, research suggests podcasts foster a sense of intimacy and authenticity. Listeners develop ongoing “relationships” with hosts and view them as credible, authentic and trustworthy. Yet this trust can be misplaced. A Brookings Institution study analysing more than 36,000 political podcast episodes found nearly 70% contained at least one unverified or false claim. Research also shows political podcasts often rely on toxic or hostile language. This shows that podcasts, while often perceived as more “ethical” than social media, are not automatically safer or more trustworthy spaces. Rethinking trust in a complex media environment What’s clear is that we shouldn’t blindly trust or dismiss any online platform, whether it’s a social media feed or a podcast. We must think critically about all the information we encounter. We all need better tools to navigate a complex media environment. Digital literacy efforts must expand beyond social media to help people assess any information, from a TikTok clip to a long-form podcast episode. To regain public trust, social media platforms will have to behave more ethically. They should be transparent about advertising, sponsorships and moderation policies, and should make clear how content is recommended. This expectation should also apply to podcasts, streaming services and other digital media, which can all be misused by people who want to mislead or harm others. Governments can reinforce accountability through fair oversight, but rules will only work if they are paired with platforms acting responsibly. Earlier this year, the Australian government released a report that argued social media platforms have a “duty of care” towards their users. They should proactively limit the spread of harmful content, for example. A healthier information environment depends on sceptical but engaged citizens, stronger ethical standards across platforms, and systems of accountability that reward transparency and reliability. The lesson is straightforward: trust or distrust alone doesn’t change whether the information you receive is actually truthful – particularly in an online environment where anyone can say anything. It’s best to keep that in mind. Jason Weismueller, Lecturer, UWA Business School, The University of Western Australia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dia Mirza highlights India’s vision for circular economy through deep-tech recycling initiative (2025-10-15T13:33:00+05:30)

( Photo: Dia Mirza/Instagram) Mumbai, (IANS) Bollywood actress Dia Mirza took to social media to celebrate a breakthrough in sustainable innovation. In her post, the ‘Sanju’ actress mentioned how the startup transforms up to five tons of unrecyclable plastic waste per month into high-quality circular materials while providing waste workers with higher wages, health benefits, and dignity, reflecting a vision of inclusive innovation. Dia emphasizes that this is more than just technological innovation — it’s inclusive innovation. The plant not only tackles plastic waste but also benefits the people involved in the recycling process, offering 2–3 times higher salaries. Sharing a series of her photos, the ‘Rehnaa Hai Terre Dil Mein’ actress wrote, “A milestone for people and planet Thrilled to back Without®, an impact-first deep-tech material science enterprise, as they launch their pioneering FOAK Demonstration Plant in Pune — capable of transforming up to 5 tons/month of “unrecyclable” plastic waste into high-quality, circular materials. This isn’t just innovation — it’s inclusive innovation. Cutting-edge recycling technology that gives waste workers 2–3x the salary, health insurance, paid leave, and above all, dignity and respect. At its heart lies systemic thinking and a vision of India leading the world in circular solutions.” “The launch comes at the heels of a $1.9 million Seed Funding round, supported by truly patient impact capital. I’m proud to join this journey as strategic advisor, investor, and advocate alongside partners who believe that science, justice, and sustainability can — and must — go hand in hand.” “A powerful reminder that real circularity includes people, not just materials. Here’s to scaling this vision across India and beyond. Because when innovation meets inclusion, hope becomes action,” she added. As an environmental advocate, Dia Mirza often shares posts to raise awareness about conservation and sustainability.On the professional front, Dia was recently seen in the Netflix film “Nadaaniyan,” directed by Shauna Gautam. The movie introduced a fresh lineup of actors, including Saif Ali Khan’s son Ibrahim Ali Khan and Khushi Kapoor, alongside veteran performers Mahima Chaudhry, Suniel Shetty, and Jugal Hansraj. Dia portrayed Nandini, the mother of Ibrahim’s character, Arjun. Dia Mirza highlights India’s vision for circular economy through deep-tech recycling initiative | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Is social media making you unhappy? The answer is not so simple (2025-09-30T12:06:00+05:30)

Melissa Humphries, University of Adelaide and Lewis Mitchell, University of Adelaide You may have seen headlines that link social media to sadness and depression. Social media use goes up, happiness goes down. But recent studies suggest those findings might not be so straightforward. Although it is true that people’s feelings of envy and depression are linked to high social media use, there is evidence to suggest social media use may not be causing that relationship. Instead, your mindset may be the biggest thing affecting how social media connects to your wellbeing. People who feel they are able to use social media, rather than social media “using them”, tend to gain more benefits from their online interactions. Why do people use social media? Social media covers a broad range of platforms: social networking, discussion forums, bookmarking and sharing content, disseminating news, exchanging media like photos and videos, and microblogging. These appeal to a wide range of users, from individuals of all ages through to massive businesses. For some, social media is a way to connect with people we may not otherwise see. In the United States, 39% of people say they are friends with people they only interact with online. For older people, this is especially important for increasing feelings of connectedness and wellbeing. Interestingly though, for older people, social media contact with family does not increase happiness. Meanwhile, younger adults report increased happiness when they have more social media contact with family members. Teens, in particular, find social media most useful for deepening connections and building their social networks. With social media clearly playing such an important role in society, many researchers have tried to figure out: does it make us happier or not? Does social media make us happier? Studies have taken a variety of approaches, including asking people directly through surveys or looking at the content people post and seeing how positive or negative it is. One survey study from 2023 showed that as individuals’ social media use increased, life satisfaction and happiness decreased. Another found that less time on social media was related to increases in work satisfaction, work engagement and positive mental health – so improved mental health and motivation at work. Comparing yourself to others on social media is connected to feelings of envy and depression. However, there is evidence to suggest depression is the predictor, rather than the outcome, of both social comparison and envy. All this shows the way you feel about social media matters. People who see themselves using social media rather than “being used” by it, tend to gain benefits from social media and not experience the harms. Interviews with young people (15–24 years) using social media suggest that positive mental health among that age group was influenced by three features: connection with friends and their global community engagement with social media content the value of social media as an outlet for expression. There are also studies that look at the emotions expressed by more frequent social media users. The so-called “happiness paradox” shows that most people think their friends on social media appear happier than themselves. This is a seeming impossibility that arises because of the mathematical properties of how friendship networks work on social media. In one of our studies, Twitter content with recorded locations showed residents of cities in the United States that tweeted more tended to express less happiness. On the other hand, in Instagram direct messages, happiness has been found to be four times more prevalent than sadness. How does internet use in general affect our wellbeing? Some of the factors associated with decreased mental health are not aligned with social media use alone. One recent study shows that the path to decreased wellbeing is, at least partially, connected to digital media use overall (rather than social media use specifically). This can be due to sleep disruption, reduced face-to-face social interaction or physical activity, social comparison, and cyberbullying. None of these exist for social media alone. However, social media platforms are known to be driven by recommendation algorithms that may send us down “rabbit holes” of the same type of (increasingly extreme) content. This can lead to a distorted view of the world and our place in it. The important point here is to maintain a diverse and balanced information diet online. Interestingly, interacting on social media is not the only thing affecting our mental state. Rainfall influnces the emotional content of social media posts of both the user experiencing rain, and parts of their extended network (even if they don’t experience rain!). This suggests that how we feel is influenced by the emotions in the posts we see. The good news is that happy posts are the most influential, with each happy post encouraging close to two additional happy updates from a user’s friends. The secret to online happiness therefore may not be to “delete your account” entirely (which, as we have found, may not even be effective), but to be mindful about what you consume online. And if you feel like social media is starting to use you, it might be time to change it up a bit. Melissa Humphries, Senior Lecturer, School of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide and Lewis Mitchell, Professor of Data Science, University of Adelaide This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.