Social Media – Natpoint

Featured Article : Under-16s To Be Banned From Social Media From 2027

Posted on 23 June 2026 by Paul Stradling

Children under the age of 16 will be banned from using major social media platforms in the UK from Spring 2027 under government plans that represent one of the most significant attempts yet to reshape how young people interact with the online world.

What Has Been Announced?

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed that the government intends to introduce legislation before Christmas that will prevent under-16s from accessing a range of major social media services.

The ban is expected to come into force in Spring 2027 and will apply to platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube and X. Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal will not be included.

Announcing the plans, Starmer said: “That’s why we’re going further than any country in the world by banning social media for under-16s and putting wider protections in place to give kids their childhood back.”

The government has described the move as a “line in the sand” that will create “a new normal for future generations”.

The UK Is Going Further Than A Simple Ban

The proposal extends beyond simply preventing children from creating social media accounts.

The government has also announced restrictions on high-risk online features, including livestreaming and communication with strangers. These restrictions will apply not only to social media platforms but also to a wider range of online services, including gaming sites.

Importantly, some protections will remain switched on by default for 16 and 17-year-olds. Ministers say this is intended to avoid what they describe as a “cliff-edge at 16”, where protections would otherwise disappear overnight.

The government is also examining possible restrictions on infinite scrolling and overnight social media use for under-18s, with further details expected later this year.

Meanwhile, so-called AI “romantic companion” chatbots designed to simulate intimate or sexual relationships will be restricted to adults, while similar intimate AI functions will be limited for under-18s.

Why Is The Government Doing This?

The announcement follows a major public consultation that attracted more than 116,000 responses from parents, children and experts.

According to the government’s findings, nine in ten parents supported a social media ban for under-16s, while two-thirds of young people agreed that children under 16 should not be allowed to use at least some social media platforms.

The government argues that algorithmic feeds, real-time content, cyberbullying, harmful material, addictive platform design and online exploitation are creating risks that existing safeguards have failed to address.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said: “Today we take a bold and significant step towards creating a safer, healthier life online for our children and future generations.”

She also argued that technology firms had failed to act voluntarily, stating: “Tech companies have had countless opportunities to keep children safe, yet they have failed to act.”

How Will The Ban Be Enforced?

One of the biggest challenges will be ensuring that under-16s cannot simply bypass the restrictions.

The government says it intends to introduce stronger age assurance requirements and has asked Ofcom to carry out a rapid review into the most effective ways of verifying whether someone is over 16.

Officials have indicated that a range of methods could be used, including facial age estimation technology, identity verification and other forms of age assurance. Many adults may not need additional checks if their accounts are already linked to verified payment methods or age-verified accounts.

The government also says it is learning from Australia’s experience, where social media restrictions have already been introduced but enforcement has proved challenging.

Questions Remain

Not everyone supports the plans. For example, Meta, Snapchat and YouTube have all expressed concerns that blanket bans could push young people towards less regulated services that may be harder to supervise.

YouTube described itself as “a vital resource for young people, educators and parents”, while Meta warned that restrictions could risk isolating teenagers from online communities and information.

Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about age verification technologies, particularly where facial analysis or identity checks may be required to access online services.

Critics also point to evidence from Australia suggesting that many children have continued accessing social media despite restrictions, highlighting the practical difficulties involved in enforcing such bans.

Part Of A Global Trend

The UK’s decision reflects a broader international movement towards tighter controls on children’s access to social media.

Australia became the first country to introduce a nationwide under-16 social media ban, while countries including France, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia and others are either introducing similar measures or actively considering them.

Growing concerns about online harms, mental health, addictive platform design, cyberbullying and child exploitation are prompting governments around the world to reconsider the balance between online freedom and child protection.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the immediate impact may be limited, but the wider significance is substantial.

The proposals signal a growing willingness by governments to intervene directly in how digital platforms operate, particularly where child safety, wellbeing and online harms are concerned. Social media firms, gaming platforms, AI developers and technology providers may all face increasing regulatory scrutiny over the coming years.

The plans also highlight the growing importance of age verification, digital identity, online safety and responsible technology design. Organisations developing online services may find that demonstrating effective safeguards becomes just as important as launching new features.

More broadly, the announcement reflects a wider change in how policymakers view digital platforms. For many years, governments largely relied on technology companies to regulate themselves. The UK’s proposed ban suggests that approach is increasingly being replaced by direct intervention when policymakers believe public safety concerns outweigh the benefits of unrestricted access.

Tech News : UK Plans New Social Media Restrictions For Under-16s

Posted on 5 May 20268 May 2026 by Paul Stradling

Social media restrictions for under-16s are moving closer to reality in the UK as ministers commit to action following a major consultation, signalling a significant change in how young people access digital platforms.

Why The UK Is Moving Towards Social Media Restrictions

The UK government has made it clear that some form of restriction on social media use for under-16s will be introduced, even if a full ban is not adopted, with ministers now focused on deciding how those measures should work in practice.

This change comes after growing concern about the impact of social media on children’s mental health, behaviour, and safety, alongside mounting political pressure from campaigners, parents, and members of Parliament. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is central to this process, as it gives ministers the power to introduce restrictions through regulation rather than requiring entirely new legislation.

The consultation, which closes later this month, is designed to gather evidence on what combination of measures would be most effective, with ministers emphasising that the objective is not simply to act quickly but to ensure that any changes are workable and enforceable at scale, and that the approach should be “evidence-led, with input from independent experts” .

What Type Of Restrictions Are Being Considered?

Rather than focusing solely on an outright ban, the government is currently exploring a range of targeted interventions aimed at reducing harm while preserving some level of access.

One key area is the design of platforms themselves, with proposals to limit or remove features that encourage prolonged use, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and algorithm-driven content feeds. These features have come under increasing scrutiny for keeping users engaged for extended periods, often without clear stopping points.

Age verification is another major focus, with stronger enforcement expected to play a central role in any future framework, particularly given evidence that many children already bypass existing age limits by registering with false dates of birth.

The consultation is also examining the potential for time-based controls, including overnight curfews, as well as restrictions on access to AI chatbots and other emerging technologies that may expose children to inappropriate or harmful interactions, as part of a broader effort “to examine the most effective ways to ensure that children have ‘healthy online experiences’” .

Taken together, these measures point to a more granular approach, where specific features and behaviours are regulated rather than applying a single blanket rule across all platforms.

The Evidence Driving The Debate

The policy push is underpinned by a growing body of data and research highlighting both the scale of social media use among young people and the risks associated with it.

For example, recent figures show that social media use is nearly universal among teenagers, with around 95 per cent of 13 to 15-year-olds actively using platforms and the vast majority holding their own accounts. At the same time, a significant proportion of children report exposure to harmful or distressing content, including material linked to self-harm, bullying, and unrealistic body image expectations.

The Online Safety Act 2023 already requires platforms to take steps to protect children from harmful content, including enforcing age limits and removing illegal material. However, ongoing enforcement actions and investigations suggest that compliance has been uneven and that further intervention may be needed to achieve meaningful improvements.

Concerns have also been raised about the underlying design of platforms, particularly features that drive prolonged engagement, with policymakers pointing to risks from “design features that encourage them to spend more time on screens, while also serving up content that can harm their health and wellbeing” .

How Other Countries Are Approaching The Issue

Several countries have already introduced or are actively considering similar restrictions to the ones the UK is now considering.

For example, Australia has taken the most direct approach, introducing a nationwide ban on social media access for under-16s, with platforms required to take reasonable steps to prevent children from creating or maintaining accounts. Early enforcement efforts led to millions of accounts being removed, demonstrating that large-scale intervention is technically possible, although questions remain about long-term effectiveness and circumvention.

Spain has signalled its intention to follow a similar path, while France has already introduced measures requiring parental consent for younger users and is exploring tighter controls. Across the European Union, regulators have also focused on platform design, with actions taken against companies over addictive features and insufficient child protection measures.

These international examples highlight how governments are increasingly willing to intervene directly in platform access, and how enforcement and user behaviour remain challenging, particularly where young people find alternative routes to access services.

What Challenges Still Need To Be Addressed

Implementing effective restrictions is likely to prove complex, particularly given the global nature of social media platforms and the ease with which users can bypass controls.

Age verification remains one of the most difficult issues, as systems must be robust enough to prevent misuse while also protecting user privacy and remaining practical for widespread adoption. Even with improved verification methods, there is a risk that children will migrate to less regulated platforms or use shared accounts to maintain access.

There are also broader questions about how restrictions might affect positive uses of social media, including communication, education, and community building, particularly for young people who rely on online spaces for support and connection.

These competing factors explain why the government has opted for a consultation-led approach, aiming to balance safety, practicality, and unintended consequences before finalising its strategy.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For UK businesses, the immediate impact will depend on how directly they interact with younger audiences, but the broader implications extend well beyond youth-focused platforms.

Changes to social media regulation are likely to influence how digital platforms operate more widely, particularly in areas such as content moderation, user verification, and the design of engagement features. Businesses that rely on social media for marketing, customer engagement, or recruitment may see shifts in platform behaviour, audience reach, and compliance requirements over time.

Stronger age verification and feature restrictions could also affect advertising strategies, especially where campaigns currently reach mixed-age audiences, requiring more careful targeting and clearer segmentation.

There is also a wider regulatory signal that digital products are increasingly being judged not just on functionality and growth, but on their impact on users, particularly vulnerable groups. This trend is already visible in areas such as data protection and online safety, and it is likely to extend further as governments respond to public concern about digital harms.

Organisations involved in technology, digital services, education, or safeguarding should be paying close attention, as the outcome of this consultation will help shape the next phase of UK digital regulation. Businesses that understand how these changes affect platform design, user behaviour, and compliance expectations will be better placed to adapt as new rules are introduced and enforced.

Featured Article : Lords Back Under-16 Social Media Ban

Posted on 28 January 2026 by Paul Stradling

The House of Lords has voted to add a legal requirement to block under-16s from social media platforms, intensifying pressure on the government as it runs a parallel consultation on children’s online safety.

Amendment Backed

By 261 votes to 150, peers backed a cross-party amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would require platforms to deploy “highly effective” age checks within a year, marking a rare but not unusual legislative defeat for ministers in the Lords and setting up a politically sensitive return to the Commons.

Who Is Pushing for a Ban and Why?

Support for an under-16 social media ban cuts across party lines at Westminster and is being driven by concern that existing rules are not doing enough to limit children’s exposure to online harms. The amendment in the Lords was sponsored by Conservative former schools minister Lord Nash and backed by Conservative, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers, along with a small number from Labour. Those in favour argue that a clear national age limit would give parents and schools stronger backing when setting boundaries, while placing the responsibility for enforcement squarely on social media companies rather than families.

In The Commons Too

Momentum has also grown in the Commons. For example, more than 60 Labour MPs have publicly urged ministers to act, while the issue has been raised repeatedly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Outside Westminster, bereaved families and online safety advocates have called for decisive action, citing concerns around mental health, exposure to harmful content and compulsive use. At the same time, children’s charities and civil liberties groups have warned that a blanket ban could create unintended consequences, including displacement to less regulated services and wider use of intrusive age verification.

Australia’s Move and Why It Changed the UK Debate

It seems that UK political interest on this subject intensified after Australia introduced a minimum-age framework in late 2025. Rather than criminalising children’s use, Australia placed the onus on platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from holding accounts on age-restricted social media services, with enforcement beginning in December 2025.

The Australian model matters because it focuses on accounts rather than total access. For example, under guidance from the Australian Department of Infrastructure and the eSafety Commissioner, under-16s are not penalised for attempting to use services; platforms face compliance action if they fail to implement safeguards. The framework also includes privacy protections around age assurance data and allows some logged-out access, limiting the scope of checks to user accounts.

Australia’s model has become a key reference in the UK debate, cited by ministers and peers as evidence that age-based restrictions could be enforced without universal identity checks. For example, supporters highlight its focus on blocking account creation rather than access itself, while critics argue the policy is too recent to show whether it delivers lasting reductions in harm.

Why the Lords Backed the Amendment

It seems the Lords’ vote reflected frustration with the pace of change and a belief that existing powers are not delivering fast enough. Supporters argued that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill provided a practical vehicle to force action within a defined timeframe, rather than leaving the issue to future legislation.

During the debate, Lord Nash (Conservative) described teenage social media use as a “societal catastrophe”, arguing that delaying access would give adolescents “a few more years to mature”. Other peers pointed to rising demand for child and adolescent mental health services and disruption in classrooms, while accepting that social media also offers benefits.

However, opponents in the chamber urged caution. For example, Labour peer Lord Knight warned that a blanket ban could push young people towards “less regulated platforms” and deprive them of positive connections, calling instead for young people’s voices to be heard through consultation.

What the Amendment Actually Requires

The amendment does not list specific apps. Instead, it uses the Online Safety Act’s category of “regulated user-to-user services” and sets out a process whereby, within 12 months of the Act passing, ministers would be required to:

Direct the UK Chief Medical Officers to publish advice for parents on children’s social media use at different ages and stages of development.

Introduce regulations mandating “highly effective age assurance” to prevent under-16s from becoming or being users of in-scope platforms.

Crucially, those regulations would be enforceable under the Online Safety Act, bringing them within Ofcom’s existing compliance framework, and would require affirmative approval by both Houses. In practice, that means Parliament would still vote on the detailed rules, including which services fall in scope and what counts as “highly effective”.

How a Ban Could Be Implemented and Enforced

Enforcement would likely focus on preventing account creation by under-16s rather than blocking all content. For example, platforms could be required to use a mix of age-estimation tools, document checks, device signals and repeat prompts, alongside anti-spoofing measures to deter workarounds.

Supporters of the ban argue that reducing exposure, rather than eliminating it entirely, would still lower harm by making social media use less universal among teenagers and easing peer pressure to participate. However, critics say that determined users will continue to find ways around controls, while warning that large-scale age assurance could extend far beyond children, pulling adults into verification systems and normalising online surveillance.

Restricting mainstream platforms also carries a displacement risk, e.g., with some teenagers likely to migrate to smaller or overseas services that operate with weaker moderation and fewer safeguards, potentially complicating child protection rather than improving it.

Why the Government Is Resisting for Now

The government has resisted writing an under-16 social media ban into law for now, opting instead to launch a three-month consultation on children’s online safety that includes the option of a ban alongside measures such as overnight curfews, limits on “doom-scrolling”, tougher enforcement of existing age checks and raising the digital age of consent from 13 to 16.

In a statement to the Commons, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would “look closely at the experience in Australia” and stressed the need for evidence-led policy. She acknowledged strong views in favour of a ban but warned of risks in different approaches, arguing consultation was the responsible route.

Kendall also emphasised that action is coming regardless, stating: “The question is not whether the government will take further action. We will act robustly.” The resistance, ministers argue, is about timing and design rather than principle.

What It Would Mean for Platforms, Parents and Teenagers

For platforms operating in the UK, a ban would mean heavier compliance costs, tighter onboarding processes and closer scrutiny from regulators. Advertising, influencer marketing and youth-focused features would also face new constraints, while demand for privacy-preserving age assurance services would rise.

For parents, a clear legal line could reduce the burden of negotiating platform rules alone and provide stronger backing for limits at home and in schools. For teenagers, the picture is a bit more mixed. For example, Ofcom research shows most young people report positive experiences online, with many saying social platforms actually help them feel closer to friends. Critics argue that removing access could disproportionately affect isolated or minority groups who rely on online communities.

Business and Policy Implications

Beyond families and platforms, the amendment highlights a broader policy shift. For example, treating social media access more like other age-restricted products would move the UK closer to a regulated-by-default model, with implications for digital identity, privacy and compliance across sectors.

Businesses that rely on youth audiences would need to adjust strategies, while regulators would face pressure to ensure age assurance does not expand unnecessarily. Internationally, the UK’s approach would, no doubt, be watched closely, adding to a growing global debate about how far states should go in reshaping children’s digital lives.

Criticisms Shaping the Commons Fight

As the Bill returns to MPs, the arguments are most likely to focus on scope and consequences rather than intent. For example, critics warn of surveillance creep, imperfect enforcement and the risk of pushing harms elsewhere, whereas supporters say that waiting for perfect solutions still leaves children exposed and that clear age limits would reset expectations.

It’s worth noting here that, with the government’s majority, ministers are pretty likely to overturn the amendment. That said, the Lords’ vote has at least already achieved part of its aim by forcing the issue to the centre of the legislative agenda, ensuring that the consultation’s outcome, and the next steps that follow, will be closely scrutinised.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The outcome now hinges on how far ministers are willing to go beyond consultation and whether political pressure in the Commons forces a clearer timetable for change. Even if the Lords amendment is removed, the debate has narrowed the government’s room for manoeuvre by placing an under-16 ban firmly within the range of realistic policy options rather than the margins of discussion. The question has, therefore, now shifted from whether intervention is justified to how prescriptive the state should be, and how quickly any new rules should take effect.

For UK businesses, particularly digital platforms, advertisers and firms operating in regulated online spaces, the policy implications are becoming harder to ignore. Stronger age assurance requirements would bring higher compliance costs and technical complexity, while also creating opportunities for providers of privacy-preserving verification tools and child safety services. More broadly, a move towards age-based restrictions on mainstream platforms would reinforce the UK’s position as a jurisdiction willing to regulate digital products in the same way as other age-sensitive services, with knock-on effects for investment decisions and product design.

For parents, schools and young people, this whole debate reflects a wider tension between protection and participation in digital life. A clear legal threshold could simplify boundary-setting and expectations, yet risks limiting access to the positive aspects of online connection that many teenagers value. How the government balances these competing interests, and whether it opts for a targeted regulatory approach or a clearer statutory ban, will shape not just children’s online experiences but the future direction of UK digital policy more broadly.

News : Microsoft Copilot To Leave WhatsApp In January 2026

Posted on 4 December 2025 by Paul Stradling

Microsoft has announced that its Copilot chatbot will stop working on WhatsApp on 15 January 2026 after WhatsApp introduces its new restrictions on third party AI assistants.

Why Copilot Was On WhatsApp In The First Place

Copilot was launched on WhatsApp in late 2024 as part of Microsoft’s wider effort to meet users inside the apps they already use each day. It allows people to talk to Copilot through a normal WhatsApp chat thread, asking questions, requesting explanations, drafting messages, or generating ideas. Microsoft says “millions of people” have used the WhatsApp integration since launch, showing how messaging apps have become a common first step into generative AI for mainstream users.

Operated Through The WhatsApp Business API

The chatbot operated through the WhatsApp Business API, which is the system that lets companies automate conversations with customers. Copilot’s version was “unauthenticated”, meaning users did not sign in with a Microsoft account. This made the experience fast and simple, although it meant the service was separated from users’ main Copilot profiles on Microsoft platforms.

Why It’s Being Removed

The removal of Copilot from WhatsApp appears to be due entirely to changes in WhatsApp’s platform rules. For example, in October 2025, WhatsApp updated its Business API terms to prohibit general purpose AI chatbots from running on the platform. These rules apply to assistants capable of broad, open ended conversation rather than bots created to support specific customer service tasks.

WhatsApp said the Business API should remain focused on helping organisations serve customers, i.e., providing shipping updates, booking information, or answers to common questions. The company made clear that it no longer intends WhatsApp to act as a distribution channel for large AI assistants created by external providers.

Several Factors, Say Industry Analysts

Industry analysts have linked the decision to several factors. For example, these include the cost of handling high volume AI traffic on WhatsApp’s infrastructure, Meta’s growing focus on consolidating data inside its own ecosystem, and the introduction of Meta AI, the company’s consumer facing assistant that is being deployed across WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger. Meta AI is expected to remain the only general purpose assistant users can access directly inside WhatsApp once the policy takes effect.

How The Change Will Happen

Microsoft has confirmed that Copilot will remain accessible on WhatsApp until 15 January. After that date, the chatbot will stop responding and users will not be able to send new prompts through the app.

Microsoft has also warned that chat history will not transfer to any other Copilot platform. The WhatsApp integration not using Microsoft’s account authentication means that there is no technical link between a user’s WhatsApp conversation and their profile on the Copilot app or website. Microsoft therefore recommends exporting chats manually using WhatsApp’s built in export tool before the deadline if users want to keep a record of past conversations.

OpenAI has taken a similar approach with ChatGPT on WhatsApp, although it has said that some users may be able to link previous chats to their ChatGPT history if they used a version tied to their account. This is not an option for Copilot due to the design of the original integration.

Where Users Can Access Copilot Instead

Microsoft is directing users to three main platforms where Copilot will continue to be available, which are:

1. The Copilot mobile app on iOS and Android.

2. Copilot on the web at copilot.microsoft.com.

3. Copilot on Windows, built into the operating system.

These platforms support all of the core features users are already familiar with and introduce additional tools that were not available in WhatsApp. These include Copilot Voice for spoken queries, Copilot Vision for image understanding, and Mico, a companion style presence that supports daily tasks. Microsoft says these will form the central experience for Copilot going forward.

The Wider Effect On AI Chatbots

WhatsApp is now reported to be used by more than three billion people globally and has become an important distribution route for companies deploying AI driven tools. The updated rules now mean that all general purpose AI assistants will be removed from the platform, including ChatGPT and Perplexity, which were introduced earlier in 2025. Each provider has begun notifying users and guiding them towards their own mobile apps and websites.

OpenAI previously said more than 50 million people had used ChatGPT through WhatsApp, showing how significant the channel had become for AI adoption. Microsoft has not released its own usage figures beyond confirming “millions” of Copilot interactions on WhatsApp since launch.

Commentary from industry analysts notes that the update will reshape how external AI companies can reach users inside Meta’s ecosystem. It also creates a clearer distinction between approved business automation, which can continue, and broad AI assistants, which cannot operate inside WhatsApp under the new rules.

What The Policy Change Means For AI Developers

Developers that relied on the WhatsApp Business API to distribute general purpose assistants will no longer be able to use that channel. Companies that built workflows around WhatsApp based assistants now need to redesign their approach to comply with the updated rules. Many WhatsApp integration providers have already issued technical advice to help organisations check whether their existing use cases fall under the new restrictions or remain permitted under the “customer support” classification.

Microsoft’s public response has been measured. For example, its official statement states that it is “proud of the impact” Copilot has had on WhatsApp and that it is now focused on ensuring a smooth transition for users. The company has avoided any direct criticism of WhatsApp and has instead highlighted the added functionality available in its own apps, particularly multimodal features that did not fit within WhatsApp’s interface.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This development shows how quickly access to mainstream AI tools can change when platform rules are updated, and it reinforces how much control large messaging platforms now have over which assistants users can reach. For UK businesses, the change means that any informal use of Copilot or ChatGPT through WhatsApp will now need to move to authenticated apps or web based tools, which may offer clearer security controls even if the transition disrupts established habits. Organisations that had started exploring AI driven workflows inside WhatsApp must check whether their implementations fall within the permitted customer support category or whether they now count as general purpose assistants that need reworking or relocating.

AI developers face tighter boundaries on where and how their models can operate, particularly when relying on platforms that sit between them and their users. This will encourage providers to invest more heavily in their own apps and operating system integrations, where they retain full control over authentication, data handling, and feature development. Users who previously relied on WhatsApp as a simple way to test or adopt generative AI will now need to shift their expectations to standalone tools that offer richer functionality but require more deliberate use.

This change also highlights how Meta is positioning its own assistant as the primary option inside WhatsApp, creating a more contained environment for general purpose AI. This will influence how consumers discover and evaluate different AI products, and it will shape how competing providers reach audiences on messaging platforms that have become central to everyday communication.

Featured Article : HMRC’s AI Scans (Tax-Cheats) Social Media

Posted on 20 August 2025 by Paul Stradling

HM Revenue & Customs has confirmed it is using artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor the social media accounts of suspected tax cheats, in what it says is a targeted approach aimed at tackling fraud and reducing the UK’s tax gap.

Using Algorithms

The disclosure came after recent reports in The Telegraph revealed HMRC was using algorithms to flag suspicious activity online. In response, the tax authority confirmed that AI is already playing a role in its investigative work. Officials stressed the technology is only used in criminal investigations and is not applied to the everyday taxpayer. In a statement, HMRC said AI is being deployed to help staff spot inconsistencies between declared income and publicly available social media posts, while also cutting down the amount of time spent on manual administration.

Spend Less Time on Admin

“Greater use of AI will enable our staff to spend less time on admin and more time helping taxpayers, as well as better target fraud and evasion to bring in more money for public services,” HMRC said in a statement. Officials added that the approach does not replace human decision-making, pointing to what they describe as “robust safeguards and legal oversight” around the process.

Why AI Is Being Deployed

The move reflects HMRC’s broader challenge of narrowing the UK’s tax gap, which in 2022–23 was estimated at £51 billion, or about 4.8 per cent of total theoretical tax liabilities. Of this, around £5.5 billion was attributed to tax evasion. Reducing this shortfall has become a priority for the government, which has promised that more efficient enforcement will increase revenues without raising taxes on working households.

By applying AI tools to tasks previously carried out manually, HMRC, therefore hopes to process large volumes of open-source data more quickly and accurately. Social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and TikTok are seen as sources of information because they often show details of people’s lifestyles that may not align with their declared income.

For example, cases have previously been reported where individuals claiming benefits on grounds of ill health were found posting publicly about participation in marathons, or where people declaring modest incomes shared photos of luxury cars and holidays. Until now, gathering such evidence relied heavily on human monitoring. AI allows patterns, anomalies and potential red flags to be detected across thousands of accounts in a fraction of the time.

Integration with Existing Systems

It’s hoped that this latest use of AI will complement HMRC’s wider analytical infrastructure, particularly its “Connect” system, introduced more than a decade ago. Connect draws together information from tax returns, banks, property records and other government databases to flag discrepancies between declared income and observed financial behaviour. Adding automated social media analysis into that mix gives investigators another channel through which to identify possible fraud.

Also To Provide Guidance To Taxpayers

It should be noted that the department has also been exploring AI for broader and less sinister purposes, such as helping taxpayers navigate the more than 100,000 pages of guidance on its website, and summarising customer service calls for advisers. However, it’s the use of social media monitoring that has generated the most public debate, not least because of its implications for privacy, accuracy and accountability.

Efficiency Gains and Cost-Cutting For HMRC

For HMRC itself, the adoption of AI in investigations is positioned as an efficiency gain rather than a cost-cutting measure. The government has already announced plans to recruit 5,500 new compliance staff, suggesting the technology will be used to augment rather than replace human expertise.

Tax specialists have noted that AI could help HMRC by pulling together information from multiple sources far more efficiently than manual checks. At the same time, they warn of potential pitfalls, including the risk of mistaken identity if the technology fails to distinguish between genuine accounts and those that are fake or hacked. Such concerns underline the importance of retaining human oversight in any decision-making process.

Focusing

From HMRC’s perspective, the argument is that automation allows investigators to focus their time where it is most valuable, i.e. complex cases that require judgment, rather than sifting through data for initial leads. The department also points to the potential to secure better returns on public spending, with AI-enabled enforcement expected to bring in billions of pounds in additional tax revenues over the coming years.

The Implications for Taxpayers

For law-abiding taxpayers, HMRC has been keen to stress that there is little to fear from AI social media monitoring. Officials say the tools are not used in routine tax collection or compliance checks, but only in serious criminal cases where there is already suspicion of wrongdoing.

The wider deployment of AI across HMRC’s operations could, in time, make interactions with the tax system simpler for the majority. For example, tools that help people understand complex rules, avoid errors in returns and access relevant guidance more quickly could reduce unintentional mistakes. Tax specialists point out that significant amounts of revenue are often lost through basic errors, and AI has the potential to reduce this by offering clearer digital assistance and more reliable support to taxpayers.

Surveillance Fears

At the same time, it has to be said that the disclosure that HMRC is scouring social media using AI may add to public concerns about surveillance and government access to personal data. Although the posts in question are publicly visible, many people may not anticipate that their online activity could form part of a criminal tax investigation.

Challenges

Not surprisingly, the announcement has not gone unchallenged. Privacy advocates and some parliamentarians have warned that reliance on AI risks producing false positives, where innocent individuals are wrongly flagged as suspicious. Concerns have also been raised that the system could amplify errors if it fails to distinguish between genuine accounts and those that are hacked, fake or misleading. Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch has previously cautioned that the spread of AI-driven surveillance represents a “frightening expansion” of state monitoring, and argued that without strict legal safeguards such tools risk undermining privacy and fairness in the justice system.

There is also a wider political backdrop. The UK government is under pressure over its broader AI strategy, with reports earlier this year suggesting the national AI institute faced internal turmoil and potential funding withdrawals. Against that context, the use of AI by HMRC has become part of a larger debate about how far public authorities should adopt emerging technologies, and how safeguards should be applied.

Some commentators have also drawn parallels with the Horizon IT scandal at the Post Office, in which faulty computer evidence led to wrongful prosecutions of sub-postmasters. Although HMRC emphasises that human decision-making remains central to its process, critics argue that overreliance on automated systems without adequate checks could carry significant risks.

The tax authority insists that its approach has been developed with those lessons in mind. AI is used to highlight possible leads, but human investigators must review the evidence before any action is taken. Officials have also stressed that all use of AI in this area is subject to legal oversight, ensuring compliance with UK data protection and criminal justice laws.

Wider International Context

It should be noted, however, that the UK is not alone in deploying AI to tackle tax evasion as other countries have already been using similar methods. HMRC has been sending so-called “nudge letters” to taxpayers after analysing international financial data shared under the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard, which tracks overseas income. This AI-assisted approach has contributed to a reported 22 per cent rise in admissions of foreign tax evasion in recent years.

The logic appears to be that as more financial data becomes digitised and globally shared, AI will become a necessary tool for connecting the dots. For HMRC, adding social media monitoring into that picture is seen as the next step in keeping pace with increasingly complex forms of tax fraud.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The real test will be whether HMRC can strike the balance between efficiency and fairness. The technology may promise to sharpen investigations, close the tax gap and support a more resilient tax base, but it also raises unresolved questions about how far government agencies should be able to probe into people’s digital lives. For taxpayers, reassurance that AI will not be used in routine compliance checks will be welcome, but concerns about transparency and proportionality are unlikely to fade quickly.

For UK businesses, the implications may be twofold. For example, firms could benefit from a more level playing field if AI enables HMRC to clamp down more effectively on undeclared income and fraudulent competition. However, there is a risk that legitimate companies could face greater scrutiny or reputational harm if mistakes occur in the interpretation of online data. The safeguards HMRC has promised will, therefore, be critical in maintaining trust.

Other stakeholders, from policymakers to civil liberties groups, will, no doubt, be watching closely. The government has positioned AI as a tool for improving public services and raising revenue without additional tax rises, yet its wider strategy for regulating AI remains unsettled. With memories of past technology failures still fresh, the rollout of these systems within HMRC will be an early indicator of how the state intends to manage the trade-offs between innovation, privacy and accountability in the years ahead.

Company Check – Trump Says Microsoft in Talks to Buy TikTok

Posted on 5 February 2025 by Paul Stradling

U.S. President Donald Trump has said that Microsoft is in talks to acquire TikTok, the popular social media platform owned by China’s ByteDance.

In a news conference, President Trump suggested that multiple bidders are interested, stating, “There’s great interest in TikTok” and indicating that a competitive bidding process could be on the horizon. The comments come as the app faces ongoing regulatory pressure in the U.S. due to national security concerns.

TikTok, which has around 170 million users in the U.S., was briefly taken offline earlier this month after a law came into effect requiring ByteDance to either sell its American operations or face an outright ban. However, President Trump intervened by signing an executive order delaying the enforcement of this law by 75 days, allowing negotiations to continue. Microsoft has yet to comment publicly on the talks, while TikTok and ByteDance have also remained silent on the latest developments.

This isn’t the first time Microsoft has been in the frame to acquire TikTok. Back in 2020, the company was one of the leading contenders when Trump, during his first term, sought to force a sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations due to national security concerns. At that time, Oracle and Walmart were also involved in negotiations, though no deal was ultimately reached. Now, with Trump back in office, Microsoft has once again emerged as a potential buyer.

Other parties are also making moves. AI startup Perplexity AI has reportedly submitted a revised bid to merge with TikTok in a deal that would give the U.S. government up to 50 per cent ownership of the newly formed entity. Under the latest proposal, the U.S. government would receive its stake following an initial public offering (IPO) valued at a minimum of $300 billion. Perplexity has revised its offer based on feedback from the Trump administration, suggesting the White House is actively involved in shaping potential acquisition deals.

Trump has previously floated the idea of other high-profile bidders, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Oracle Chairman Larry Ellison, taking over TikTok. However, Musk has yet to publicly express any interest, while Oracle’s role remains unclear. Trump recently told reporters, “I’ve spoken to many people about TikTok, but not with Oracle.” Meanwhile, billionaire Frank McCourt has also made a formal offer for the platform.

The next 30 days could be pivotal for TikTok’s future in the U.S., with Trump indicating that discussions are ongoing and a decision is expected soon. With national security concerns cited as being at the heart of the issue, ByteDance remains under pressure to divest its American operations. Whether Microsoft, Perplexity AI, or another bidder ultimately secures control remains to be seen, but the stage is set for a high-stakes battle over one of the world’s most influential social media platforms.

Tech News : TikTok Loses Appeal Against Sell-or-Ban Law

Posted on 11 December 2024 by Paul Stradling

A U.S. federal appeals court has upheld a law requiring ByteDance, TikTok’s China-based owner, to sell the platform by 19 January 2025 or face a nationwide ban.

Understanding the Legislation

This decision to reject TikTok’s appeal against the original decision of the court intensifies the ongoing debate over national security concerns and the influence of foreign-owned applications on American users.

What Law?

The law in question, known as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), was signed into law by President Joe Biden on 24 April 2024. PAFACA aims to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing sensitive data of U.S. citizens through software applications under their control. Specifically, it requires companies like ByteDance to either divest their ownership in applications operating within the United States or cease operations entirely.

The legislation actually identifies ByteDance and TikTok by name, thereby reflecting bipartisan concerns in the U.S. over potential national security threats posed by foreign-controlled apps, i.e. Chinese apps.

The Key Fears Behind The Law

Essentially, the PAFACA legislation that TikTok has fallen foul of stems from concerns in the U.S. that the Chinese government could exploit TikTok to gather data on American users or manipulate content to influence public opinion.

Dating back to the previous Trump presidency, U.S. officials have expressed fears that TikTok’s extensive data collection practices could provide the Chinese Communist Party with access to sensitive personal information, thereby potentially posing a significant national security risk.

The fear is that ByteDance’s ties to China could make TikTok susceptible to coercion by the Chinese government, potentially leading to espionage or propaganda dissemination.

These concerns have been compounded by China’s national security laws, which could compel Chinese companies to share data with the government upon request.

TikTok Owned By A Chinese Company

TikTok, with over 170 million users in the United States, has become a focal point of this legislation due to its ownership by Chinese company ByteDance. Despite TikTok’s assertions that it operates independently and stores U.S. user data on servers located outside of China, lawmakers clearly remain unconvinced.

Events Leading to the Original Ban Decision

The journey towards this latest legislative action began during the first Trump administration, which attempted to ban TikTok in 2020, citing national security concerns. However, these efforts were stalled by legal challenges, and the ban was never fully implemented. Under the Biden administration, scrutiny of TikTok persisted, culminating in the enactment of PAFACA in April 2024. Following the law’s passage, TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality, arguing that it infringed upon the free speech rights of American users and amounted to an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Appeals Court Ruling

However, on 6 December 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the law, rejecting TikTok’s arguments. The court stated that the legislation was “carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary” and was part of a broader effort to counter a “well-substantiated national security threat posed by the PRC (People’s Republic of China).” The ruling emphasised that the government’s concerns about potential data access and content manipulation by the Chinese government were persuasive and justified the law’s enactment.

The Implications for TikTok and the Social Media Landscape

The appeals court’s decision now places TikTok at a real crossroads. If ByteDance doesn’t divest its ownership (sell TikTok off) by the 19 January 2025 deadline, TikTok will face a ban in the U.S. anyway. This scenario will, of course, lead to significant upheaval in the social media market. For example, competitors like Meta’s Instagram, Google’s YouTube, and Snap’s Snapchat may stand to benefit from TikTok’s potential absence, as users and content creators seek alternative platforms. However, replicating TikTok’s unique algorithm and user experience also presents challenges, and a ban could disrupt the livelihoods of many creators and small businesses that rely on the platform.

What Has TikTok Said?

In response to this latest ruling, TikTok (ByteDance) has announced plans to appeal again, this time to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that the law is based on “inaccurate, flawed, and hypothetical information” and that a ban would essentially censor U.S. citizens. The company expressed hope that the Supreme Court would protect Americans’ right to free speech in this significant constitutional matter.

Complicated By Politics

The political landscape adds another layer of complexity. President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to be inaugurated on 20 January 2025, has previously indicated opposition to a TikTok ban, despite attempting to implement one during his first term. It, therefore, remains unclear whether he will act to prevent the ban from taking effect, but any intervention would require navigating strong bipartisan concerns in Congress regarding national security and foreign influence.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The battle over TikTok highlights the challenges of trying to balance national security concerns with protecting free speech and supporting businesses in today’s connected digital world. The U.S. government’s demand for ByteDance to sell TikTok reflects growing fears about foreign-controlled technology companies, particularly those linked to China. At the same time, TikTok’s importance to millions of users and businesses can’t be ignored, thereby creating a complex situation with no easy answers.

The court’s decision to uphold the law signals that the U.S. is now willing to take strong action to limit foreign influence in technology, even if it disrupts the market and affects consumers. If TikTok’s appeal to the Supreme Court fails, its potential ban in the U.S. could create some major changes in social media. While rivals like Meta and YouTube may benefit, recreating TikTok’s unique algorithm and appeal won’t be simple. Many creators and small businesses that depend on TikTok could face serious challenges if the platform disappears.

For businesses that have embraced TikTok as a key part of their marketing and outreach strategies, this development could be highly disruptive. TikTok’s sophisticated algorithm has enabled brands to target audiences with unmatched precision, driving engagement and sales in ways other platforms struggle to replicate. A ban could leave businesses scrambling to find alternative platforms, many of which lack the same audience reach or content features that make TikTok so effective.

Small businesses, in particular, may feel the strain, as many have used TikTok to build their brand visibility with limited budgets. Losing access to the platform would mean rethinking marketing strategies, potentially investing in new campaigns, and navigating unfamiliar tools. This could also lead to increased competition on other platforms, driving up advertising costs as businesses flock to alternatives like Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and Snapchat.

However, the situation highlights the importance of diversification. Businesses reliant on TikTok should, if they haven’t already done so, begin exploring other platforms and spreading their efforts to ensure they are less vulnerable to the fate of a single app. A proactive approach could help businesses weather any potential disruptions while positioning them for future growth.

Adding to the uncertainty of TikTok’s future is the recent major change to the political landscape, i.e. Trump winning the U.S. election. President-elect Donald Trump has said he opposes a TikTok ban, despite trying to implement one during his first term. Whether he will act to prevent the ban when he takes office remains unclear, and he would need to address strong bipartisan concerns in Congress about national security.

This ongoing saga could be viewed as an example of the tension between globalisation and protecting national interests. As the 19 January 2025 deadline nears, the final outcome for TikTok will not only affect its users and creators but could also set a precedent for how governments handle foreign technology in the future.