Liverpool manager Arne Slot jumped to the defence of Caoimhín Kelleher after his last gasp mistake denied his side a win in a thrilling 3-3 draw at Newcastle. Fabian Schar snatched victory from Liverpool’s grasp as he cashed in on a misjudgement from Liverpool and Ireland keeper Kelleher, as he left a cross he believed was going out of play. Mohamed Salah looked to have sealed an eighth successive win in all competitions when his second-half double – both set up by substitute Trent Alexander-Arnold – put the visitors 3-2 ahead after Alexander Isak and Anthony Gordon had struck either side of Curtis Jones’ equaliser. However, Switzerland defender Schar squeezed home a 90th-minute equaliser to claim a deserved point at the end of a thrilling encounter which rekindled memories of the two 4-3 classics between the sides during the 1990s. Slot was asked to give his reaction to Kelleher's late error and he was quick to defend his Irish keeper. "He has done remarkably well for us and even today he was good for us," he said. “Unfortunately, he misjudged the situation. He will learn from that.” Read more Former Ireland keeper Shay Given was also quick to defend the Ireland No.1, as he gave is reaction to Amazon Prime. "I feel for Caoimhin Kelleher because he's done really well for Liverpool recently. But one mistake doesn't make him a bad goalkeeper,” said Given. “It's just a misjudgement. He thought Fabian Schar was not going to reach it. He was in a good position but just takes his hand away in the final moment. “It's just an error, as Arne Slot was saying, and I'm sure he will learn from that.” Slot was also in reflective mood as he admitted his side may not have deserved to win an intense match on Tyneside. "I have mixed feelings, we were outstanding in the second half but we were not good enough in the first half. Maybe 3-3 is what the game deserved,” said the Liverpool boss. "They were really aggressive and forced us into mistakes but we were so much better in the second half. I knew the game could be changed around, we were much better with the ball. "After the week we had we could change the game which is a very positive thing to take. Every time we need Mo Salah he scores a goal. "We are hoping and expecting he can continue this for a long time. He was outstanding in the second half, he did many special things for us. "If you want to win this game, you need to be better in the first half and that’s what we didn’t do.” Slot had earlier reaffirmed his stance that Kelleher would be relegated to the bench when Alisson Becker is fit to return, as he responded to a question from former Ireland keeper Shay Given. "I think I've been clear about the decision already a few times, but it is just as difficult as all the situations,” he stated. “I don't think Luis Diaz or Dominik Szoboszlai deserve to be on the bench today if you look at their performances from Sunday. "But it's a long season. A goalkeeper is a different situation. We are just as happy with Caoimhin as you are. He's done outstanding and that's what we should talk about now instead of what's going to happen in a week or in two weeks." Read more
EDMONTON - Alberta’s Technology Minister Nate Glubish says he’s hoping to see $100 billion worth of artificial intelligence data centres under construction within the next five years. Such centres are filled with computer servers used by companies like Meta to develop and train large-scale artificial intelligence models. Glubish says Meta, as well as other major companies including Google and Amazon, are on the hunt for space to build more facilities, and he wants Alberta to be an option. He says landing some data centres would create jobs and bring in much needed new tax revenue for the province. Glubish also says that since Alberta’s electricity grid regulations allows for off-grid power generation, he thinks the province is an ideal location. He says allowing for off-grid power connections where power generators supply data centres directly also means there’s less risk for Albertans, as there wouldn’t be major drains on the electrical grid. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 4, 2024.Julie Scelfo started MAMA—Mothers Against Media Addiction—earlier this year to help parents fight back against the harms of social media on children. A former journalist, Scelfo says she was inspired to take action after reporting on the youth mental health crisis and how screens and social media are affecting young people's lives. The group has 28 chapters in 17 states, with waitlists to start other chapters. Scelfo says the group wants to establish chapters in every state, provide parent education about technology, "ensure the school day remains smart-phone-free for students and overcome the "inertia in our state capitals and Congress so technology is safeguarded like other consumer products ." Scelfo spoke with The Associated Press recently about her work with MAMA, as well as a new Australian law banning children under 16 from using social media. The Q&A has been edited for length and clarity. QUESTION: What are the biggest issues you hear from parents about technology, anything new that hasn't been talked about as much? I'm not sure it hasn't been talked about, but what I hear the most from parents is that they are extremely stressed about the ubiquity of technology in their children's lives and they don't know what to do about it. Whether it's the massive social pressure to get kids their own phones, or the fact that kindergartners are handed tablets on their first day of school, it can feel almost impossible for parents to do what they intrinsically know is better for their kids—which is to be outside in the world as much as possible and not parked in front of a screen. But parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children off screens and keeping them safe online because the problems are baked into society and into the design of the products. Parents and kids face a polycrisis—multiple crises happening at the same time which creates an effect even more devastating than each one would be individually. At a time when children should be building their social skills and attention span, they are increasingly interacting with the world through technology that can impede the development of both—and on platforms without adequate safeguards. Social media companies relentlessly target our kids with hidden algorithms that exploit their emotions for profit, and I don't think there's a real understanding of just how pervasive that exploitation is. Q: Is Australia's ban on social media for kids under 16 the right move by a government? Why/why not? Australia's social media ban for children under 16 puts the responsibility of compliance where it should be—on tech platforms, not parents. With more than half of teenagers spending nearly five hours a day on social media platforms and our heart-breaking national youth mental health crisis , it's unconscionable that governments around the world, including here in the U.S., have failed to pass meaningful social media regulation since the days when AOL still distributed CD-ROMs by snail mail. Much like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) would do here in the U.S, Australia's ban represents a crucial first break in the long-standing logjam on any type of internet regulation and I applaud Australia's legislators and Prime Minister Albanese for having the courage to stand up to Big Tech. Big Tech is personalizing content to pull our kids into a world where addiction, anxiety, and even depression are side effects. To keep them on the app longer, children are shown more and more extreme content, leveraging the mountains of data they are collecting on our kids, with no common-sense safeguards or basic protections every parent expects. They are making billions while having the nerve to say it's the parents ' job to make their products safe for our kids? It's time for governments to step in and force Beg Tech to take responsibility for the effects of their products. Big Tech has spent more than $51 million this year alone to prevent KOSA from passing. Q: What are the reasons that teens should wait until 16 to be on social media? A: Today's youth spend nearly 9 hours on screens daily and it's not healthy or safe for their hearts and minds. For example, Meta in September acknowledged taking action on 12 million pieces of suicide and self-harm content on Facebook and Instagram this year—just between April and June. Our kids' compulsion to check their phones is exposing them to unsafe content and displacing critical, real-world experiences they need to properly develop socially, emotionally and academically. Q: Won't kids just get around the restrictions, as they always do? A: Every other industry is safeguarded. From toys to food to buildings to cars, we have regulations in place to keep children safe. Why should social media products be any different? Kids may try to get around the restrictions—just like they do for alcohol, tobacco or drugs—but nobody is saying that because they try, we should give them unfettered access to them. Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products, and so we need policies that hold Big Tech accountable for ensuring their products are safe. Q: What is your ultimate goal with MAMA? A: Just like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the genesis of this movement is fury and anger at the injustice of young people being robbed of their lives just because they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I want to direct that energy into cultural change —we can't continue to tout the benefits of technology without having an open and real-time discussion about its significant, and widespread harms and without ensuring that powerful corporations, just like Big Tobacco, are forced to make their products as safe as possible for humans. The ultimate goal for MAMA is to put tech products in their place: as powerful, and often helpful tools—but just a part of human life, not the center of it. © 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
It is an ambitious social experiment of our moment in history — one that experts say could accomplish something that parents, schools and other governments have attempted with varying degrees of success: keeping kids off social media until they turn 16 . Australia's new law, approved by its Parliament last week, is an attempt to swim against many tides of modern life — formidable forces like technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the iron will of a teenager. And like efforts of the past to protect kids from things that parents believe they're not ready for, the nation's move is both ambitious and not exactly simple, particularly in a world where young people are often shaped, defined and judged by the online company they keep. The ban won't go into effect for another year. But how will Australia be able to enforce it? That's not clear, nor will it be easy. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram have become so ingrained in young people's lives that going cold turkey will be difficult. Other questions loom. Does the ban limit kids' free expression and — especially for those in vulnerable groups — isolate them and curtail their opportunity to connect with members of their community? And how will social sites verify people's ages, anyway? Can't kids just get around such technicalities, as they so often do? This is, after all, the 21st century — an era when social media is the primary communications tool for most of those born in the past 25 years who, in a fragmented world, seek the common cultures of trends, music and memes. What happens when big swaths of that fall away? Is Australia's initiative a good, long-time-coming development that will protect the vulnerable, or could it become a well-meaning experiment with unintended consequences? The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. “It’s clear that social media companies have to be held accountable, which is what Australia is trying to do,” said Jim Steyer, president and CEO of the nonprofit Common Sense Media. Leaders and parents in countries around the world are watching Australia’s policy closely as many seek to protect young kids from the internet's dangerous corners — and, not incidentally, from each other. Most nations have taken different routes, from parental consent requirements to minimum age limits. Many child safety experts, parents and even teens who have waited to get on social media consider Australia's move a positive step. They say there’s ample reason to ensure that children wait. “What’s most important for kids, just like adults, is real human connection. Less time alone on the screen means more time to connect, not less," said Julie Scelfo, the founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, or MAMA, a grassroots group of parents aimed at combatting the harms of social media to children. “I’m confident we can support our kids in interacting in any number of ways aside from sharing the latest meme.” The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook’s launch ushered in a new era in how the world communicates. Kids who spend more time on social media, especially as tweens or young teenagers, are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, according to multiple studies — though it is not yet clear if there is a causal relationship. What's more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as social pressures about body image and makeup . They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as adult strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is focused on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even happy posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral. Many major initiatives, particularly those aimed at social engineering, can produce side effects — often unintended. Could that happen here? What, if anything, do kids stand to lose by separating kids and the networks in which they participate? Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying group NetChoice, says he considers the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today" even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States "These restrictions would create a massive cultural shift,” Taske said. “Not only is the Australian government preventing young people from engaging with issues they’re passionate about, but they’re also doing so even if their parents are ok with them using digital services," he said. "Parents know their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families — not big government. That kind of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.” David Inserra, a fellow for Free Expression and Technology, Cato Institute, called the bill “about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike” in a recent blog post . While Australia's law doesn't require “hard verification” such as an uploaded ID, he said, it calls for effective “age assurance.” He said no verification system can ensure accuracy while also protecting privacy and not impacting adults in the process. Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the law's effect on online anonymity, a cornerstone of online communications — and something that can protect teens on social platforms. “Whether it be religious minorities and dissidents, LGBTQ youth, those in abusive situations, whistleblowers, or countless other speakers in tricky situations, anonymous speech is a critical tool to safely challenge authority and express controversial opinions,” Inserra said. A spot check of kids at one mall in the Australian city of Brisbane on Wednesday didn't turn up a great deal of worry, though. “Social media is still important because you get to talk to people, but I think it’s still good that they’re like limiting it,” said Swan Son, a 13-year-old student at Brisbane State High School. She said she has had limited exposure to social media and wouldn’t really miss it for a couple of years. Her parents already enforce a daily one-hour limit. And as for her friends? “I see them at school every day, so I think I’ll be fine.” Conor Negric, 16, said he felt he’d dodged a bullet because of his age. Still, he considers the law reasonable. “I think 16 is fine. Some kids, I know some kids like 10 who’re on Instagram, Snapchat. I only got Instagram when I was 14." His mom, Sive Negric, who has two teenage sons, said she was happy for her boys to avoid exposure to social media too early: “That aspect of the internet, it’s a bit `meanland.'" Parents in Britain and across Europe earlier this year organized on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram to promise not to buy smartphones for children younger than 12 or 13. This approach costs almost no money and requires no government enforcement. In the United States, some parents are keeping kids off social media either informally or as part of an organized campaign such as Wait Until 8th, a group that helps parents delay kids' access to social media and phones. This fall, Norway announced plans to ban kids under 15 from using social media, while France is testing a smartphone ban for kids under 15 in a limited number of schools — a policy that could be rolled out nationwide if successful. U.S. lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings — most recently in January — on child online safety. Still, the last federal law aimed at protecting children online was enacted in 1998, six years before Facebook’s founding. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation designed to protect children from dangerous online content , pushing forward with what would be the first major effort by Congress in decades to hold tech companies more accountable. But the Kids Online Safety Act has since stalled in the House. While several states have passed laws requiring age verification, those are stuck in court. Utah became the first state to pass laws regulating children’s social media use in 2023. In September, a judge issued the preliminary injunction against the law, which would have required social media companies to verify the ages of users, apply privacy settings and limit some features. NetChoice has also obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar laws in several other states. And last May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said there is insufficient evidence to show social media is safe for kids. He urged policymakers to treat social media like car seats, baby formula, medication and other products children use. “Why should social media products be any different? Scelfo said. “Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products.” Associated Press Writers John Pye in Brisbane, Australia and Laurie Kellman in London contributed to this story.TikTok asks Supreme Court to block ban as deadline nearsInvest in These 2 Unstoppable Canadian Stocks for the Next DecadeNone
Victorian bushfire threat eases as financial help flows to victimsAlberta minister wants to see $100B in data centre infrastructure in next five years
Critical Comparison: Amplitude (NASDAQ:AMPL) versus Couchbase (NASDAQ:BASE)