Many of the biggest online platforms have long argued they aren’t publishers of the content their users upload, merely hosts. The likes of Google, YouTube, Meta and TikTok claim they simply store and display information created by others, so should not be seen as legally responsible for it.

But a recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) makes that argument harder to maintain – at least in cases where the platform’s algorithm is deciding which content gets pushed, ranked or amplified.

The case relates to Coyote, a French driving assistance company which stores traffic reports submitted by users and redistributes them to the wider network. The question being tested was whether Coyote merely hosts its users’ information, or also controls (and benefits from) how that information is circulated.

The significance of this case – brought by the Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court and the government’s chief legal adviser – extends far beyond driving apps. It clarifies when a provider may lose the legal right of “intermediary immunity” for the user information it stores and circulates.

Traditional book, newspaper and magazine publishers have always been held responsible for their content. A defamatory article generally exposes the publisher to liability, since it chose to make the material available.

In contrast, technology companies have been treated as neutral intermediaries – closer to a corner shop stocking newspapers than a publisher producing content, with clear limits to their liability.

For these companies, the Coyote judgment is significant because it sharpens the boundary between neutral hosting and algorithmic control. A platform that merely stores user content is likely to remain legally protected. But one that decides, in its own interest, how that content is disseminated may no longer be.

One important caveat: as this case is from the CJEU, it does not apply to users in the UK and elsewhere outside the EU. However, it will affect British and international companies that have a significant audience within the EU. So, no technology platform can dismiss the issue simply because it is headquartered outside Europe.

What the court decided

A hosting provider is protected under Article 6 of the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) if it lacks actual knowledge of illegal content – and then acts expeditiously once notified about it.

The question in the Coyote case was whether a service that stores and retransmits user-generated information still counts as a neutral host when its algorithm decides how that information circulates.

The court concluded that a platform can have no knowledge of a specific message’s content, yet can still have legal responsibility for its dissemination. Where a platform’s algorithm determines – in its own interest – the conditions, manner or priority with which information is disseminated, then the “safe harbour” of being a neutral host falls away.

This outcome was anticipated in 2019 by technology law experts Jennifer Cobbe and Jatinder Singh, who argued that algorithmic curation complicated the assumption that platforms are passive, neutral hosts.

The ruling does not doom every algorithm. Simple categorisation, such as showing all posts by one user or from the past 24 hours, remains close to traditional hosting. But ranking or promoting content in the platform’s own interest does not.

None of this makes these platforms automatically liable. Losing the exemption only opens the door to being sued – claimants must still prove the platform’s conduct actually caused harm.

Potential impacts of the Coyote ruling

1. For social media content

A social media company may remain protected when it stores user content or displays it in ways that are largely user-directed or chronological. But algorithmic feeds are different.

“For You” pages, recommendation systems, trending modules and paid amplification systems all decide what content is shown to which users and in what priority. When that decision is made in the platform’s commercial or service interest, Coyote makes it harder to describe the platform as merely hosting the content.

The same reasoning may matter for extreme or graphic material. If a platform simply stores content uploaded by a user, the hosting exemption could still apply. But where a recommender system repeatedly pushes that material to users because it drives engagement, Coyote gives claimants a stronger argument that the platform was not passive.

The content does not always need to be unlawful in itself. But claimants would still need to demonstrate both liability and harm.

2. For paid search

When a platform sells priority, decides how a sponsored result is displayed, and presents that result to users because doing so serves its own commercial interest, it becomes harder to argue that the platform is merely storing or neutrally indexing third-party information.

This matters because online advertising has become a major route for fraud and consumer harm. Following the Coyote ruling, claimants harmed by paid advertisements may have a stronger argument that the harm arose at least in part because the provider sold, ranked and prioritised that information.

But they would still need to prove the advert was unlawful, that the platform’s role fell outside immunity, that the promotion caused their financial loss or other harm.

3. In libel cases

A newspaper that publishes a defamatory allegation can be liable because it has chosen to publish it. In contrast, a hosting platform where a user makes and uploads such an allegation has not been treated in this way.

However, if the platform’s recommender system promotes that post or pushes it into feeds, the CJEU ruling gives claimants a clearer argument that the platform should be held responsible for increasing the audience reach of the allegedly defamatory content.

Changing the terrain

The Coyote judgment does not abolish hosting immunity – but it does change the terrain. It makes clear that the “safe harbour” argument depends not only on where information came from, but what the provider does with it.

The more a platform determines dissemination in its own interest, the harder it is to maintain that it is merely hosting, according to this groundbreaking ruling. And this, remember, holds for international as well as European technology companies.

Iain Nash does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

You may be spotting bodies of dead bumblebees lying across pavements near you in the summer months.

There are several reasons for this, some to do with the weather and some very much due to humans.

Bumblebees are social, living in colonies that are maintained by very active workers with a relatively short lifespan of 4-6 weeks. This means, that in a relatively short space of time, older bees die off and to prevent disease making it’s way through the colony, the healthy young workers bring out their dead, moving them far away from their colony.

Another factor is the weather. It was the warmest June on record in England (and the second hottest for the whole UK) in 2026 and other high temperatures are expected this summer.

Thermal stress in bees is caused by this kind of extreme heat. Prolonged heat exposure alters development and threatens long-term population stability.

Heatwaves also severely disrupt reproduction, flight capacity and ability to forage. Social insects including bees rely on cooling behaviour for example fanning their wings when things get too hot to buffer the hive but there are limits as to how effective this is in extreme heat.

As it gets hotter bee foraging activity may increase, and they may cover greater distances. Bees can thermoregulate themselves by moving heat around their body while in flight, but extremes of temperature can affect their health.

Don’t kill your dandelions

Other elements play a part in bee deaths. Pesticide and herbicide use is commonplace and these chemicals affect the fitness of bees, causing them to die off. However, not only do these chemicals affect the bees directly, they can also remove important plants that they rely on for food causing them to starve. Dandelions for example, are a massively important nectar source for bees, but also a plant commonly controlled with herbicides. So don’t weed your garden and pull them out.

Pesticide use is one of the historical key causes for loss of bees. Pesticides applied to reduce the insects feeding on crops – is some what ironically – responsible for harming a group of animals responsible for their pollination.

The EU and the UK have banned the use of the most harmful neonictinoids, however pesticides are still routinely used, with harmful knock-on effects on pollinators. Insecticides such as organophosphates, synthetic pyrethroids and phenylpyrazoles cause paralysis and death of these insects, as well as disrupting the bees ability to navigate.

Habitat loss is another key issue for bees, with land use changing for housing developments, intensive agriculture and other human structures such as roads. Without these habitats to support the bees, their populations suffer.

Climate change is causing other problems.

---

Read more: A common soil pesticide cut wild bee reproduction by 89% – here’s why scientists are worried

---

Phenological mismatch is when two organisms that are dependent upon each other appear at the wrong time. With a changing climate this is happening. An example of this is that plants that the bees are dependent upon being in flower when the bees aren’t around. Essentially they are flowering at a time of year when the bees aren’t there. They could come out of hibernation too early and not have any nectar to feed on, or conversely the flowers could come out before the bees appear. This, of course, is a disaster for both flower and the bees.

Bees under threat

Insects are the most diverse and abundant group of animals on the planet, but in spite of this dominance they are the most threatened.

We are losing our bees at an alarming rate. In Europe, the number of wild bee species considered at risk of extinction has more than doubled from 77 in 2014 to at least 172 today (around 10% of assessed species).

But we really need them. They provide so much support for our planet, as decomposers, pest controllers, food for other animals and generally for keeping our systems clean and tidy. Scientists call these these roles ecosystem services. However, one such service they provide is directly very important for us, and disproportionately carried out by one group of insects, the bees, and that is pollination of our crops.

Bees are one of the most diverse insect groups. They support an estimated 75% of global crop pollination, and nearly 90% of all flowering plants. The rest can be pollinated by other animals, or by the wind and weather.

If we lose that food security afforded by our pollinators we could have a global food crisis on our hands.

Anything that can be done?

When it comes to pesticide use, be a thoughtful and informed consumer. Support local, sustainably produced food where possible and, if feasible, buy from farmers who use nature-friendly practices. This does not necessarily mean choosing organic products, but rather considering how food is produced and the environmental impact of different farming systems. As a homeowner, explore non-chemical alternatives first, and apply any treatments sparingly and responsibly to minimise harm to beneficial insects and other wildlife.

One of the simplest ways to address habitat loss for bees is to make room for native species. Plant a diverse range of native flowering species, and leave some areas of lawn unmown. This can help create safe havens for bees.

In the short term there is one thing that people can do to help bees in distress. Providing sugary water to a bee you see struggling on the pavement on a hot summer’s day can help revive it. A mixture of sugar and water will do the trick at a two-to-one ratio of sugar to water..

Moving the bee, if safe to do so, to a flower or a shady spot too is also advised. But please do not do this if you have allergies, or are likely to get stung.

Alex Dittrich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The US AI research company Anthropic has become known for building powerful AI models while simultaneously warning about their dangers.

Most recently, its executives wrote about the threat posed by “recursive self-improvement”. This is the point when AI systems can improve themselves by themselves, potentially leading to “superintelligence” far beyond human control.

“We are not there yet, and recursive self-improvement is not inevitable,” the Anthropic blogpost declared. “But it could come sooner than most institutions are prepared for.”

In fact, the idea of recursive self-improvement dates back decades. The British mathematician Irving John Good, who worked with Alan Turing at British codebreaking HQ Bletchley Park, warned in the mid-1960s of the “intelligence explosion” that would follow when a machine could design even better machines without human assistance. Good suggested “the first ultra-intelligent machine is the last invention man need ever make”.

In the 2000s, researcher Eliezer Yudowsky began building a community on the premise that recursive self-improvement and loss of human control could have catastrophic results, up to total human extinction (known as “x-risk”).

Yudkowsky discussed the idea of a “seed AI” that, while not very powerful, is designed for self-modification and able to read its own source code. This means it could generate new, better versions of itself which, in turn, would keep doing the same – researching improvements and writing code, creating a chain reaction of rapid new developments.

Two decades later, the question of recursive self-improvement is looming larger. Here’s why.

An AI coding revolution

It is not an overstatement to say that large language models (LLMs) are revolutionising computer programming. These AI models are well-suited to the job because computer code is highly structured and much simpler than human language. It is also easy to test and verify, and training data is abundant.

Each year, the University of Galway hosts the AtlanTec conference for Ireland’s tech industry. Two years ago, we saw IT companies mainly strategising about AI coding. Last year, they were experimenting. Now, they are incorporating it into engineering workflows.

Since LLMs are made using computer code, it is possible to program them to improve themselves. They can inspect, edit and improve the code, and can combine that with almost all relevant human knowledge gleaned from websites, books and academic publications.

This means we have the pieces in place for recursive self-improvement to become a reality – and we are starting to see it happen.

Despite Anthropic’s statement that “we are not there yet”, the same blogpost revealed that 80% of all code added to the company’s production codebase in May 2026 was generated by its Claude Code AI programming system, under direct human supervision. In February 2025, when Claude Code was launched, this figure was less than 5%.

The number of research papers published in the field of AI has also exploded, tripling over the past decade. Most use some AI systems in their production – whether in experimental design, coding, plotting graphs, or polishing prose.

This form of recursive self-improvement is slow – improvement cycles are in the order of months or years, because each is in some way gated by human approval and requires a lengthy training period. But it is still concerning.

LLMs have already been caught deceiving their overseers. In 2025, for example, the US AI research company OpenAI created a test. An LLM was told if it scored over 50% in a set of questions, it would be considered too powerful and would no longer be used for that task. So the LLM answered only four of the ten questions correctly, even though it had reliably scored better outside this particular test.

Why it’s so hard to ‘pause’ AI

This is not the first time there have been calls for caution. In March 2023, an open letter to AI labs called for a pause on large-scale AI development. It was signed by some of the most notable people in AI, such as deep-learning pioneer Yoshua Bengio and leading AI textbook author Stuart Russell.

Soon after, Yudkowsky suggested those who understood the risks of superintelligent AI should even be “willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike if necessary”. But such calls did not lead to a pause, and investment in AI training has only increased.

Anthropic’s leaders have now called for a globally coordinated pause mechanism regarding the issue of recursive self-improvement – stressing that people outside AI companies should be involved in open deliberation. Pope Leo XIV recently weighed in with a thoughtful and well-informed encyclical, urging for the pace of AI development to be slowed.

The trouble is, we face a coordination problem. Pausing only works if everyone pauses.

In the short- to medium-term, we believe world leaders will need to reckon with recursive self-improvement by collaborating across borders to curtail some forms of AI research and development.

Yet the EU’s AI Act does not mention this issue explicitly, and is strictly concerned with risks where humans misuse AI. This is important, but not the only issue. To date, Chinese regulation has taken a similar approach.

Meanwhile, the US government has created a chaotic and unclear regulatory environment. For the next few months at least, this means the most advanced AI models will require authorisation before release. This may be a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

But globally connected, long-term thinking is needed. Perhaps controversially, this should include the right to inspections inside AI tech companies, because a model which is quickly recursively self-improving – even if unreleased to the public – could still be out of human control.

One of us (James McDermott) is now leading a project for Research Ireland’s newly established Rinn network which will explore how to use debate among multiple AIs as a kind of self-check which can be monitored by a human overseer.

This is the kind of response to the issue – and potential threat – of recursive self-improvement that we believe is now urgently required.

Michael G. Madden is the Chair of the Artificial Intelligence Association of Ireland, and a researcher funded by the Rinn AI National Centre for Research and Innovation in Data Science and AI.

James McDermott is a researcher funded by the Rinn AI National Centre for Research and Innovation in Data Science and AI.

Young people in low- and middle-income countries appear generally more optimistic about how AI can enhance their work prospects and social lives than their western peers, according to our new survey of people in ten countries in Africa and South Asia.

While debates in higher-income countries often focus on job losses, misinformation and mental health risks, many of the 1,864 young adults we surveyed (all aged 18-35) placed more emphasis on the opportunities artificial intelligence tools present for them. In particular, nearly 80% of our participants expect AI to deliver improved education and learning for them.

Until now, there has been little evidence of how young people in middle- and low-income countries use AI, and how they feel about this technology – for good and bad. The 2026 youth AI survey – run by global charity Restless Development and academics from the universities of Makerere in Uganda and Cambridge in the UK – seeks to correct this imbalance.

It comes immediately after the UN Independent International Scientific Panel released its preliminary report on AI. Commenting on the need for more science about AI’s use around the world, the UN’s secretary general, António Guterres, admitted: “The world cannot govern what it cannot understand.”

Our responses were collected in Angola, Kenya, India, Nepal, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe – with the UK included for comparison. Two-thirds of respondents said they use AI every day, with Meta AI the most common tool, followed by Claude.

The extent of AI use is striking given the obstacles many young people encounter. In every African country surveyed except Nigeria, more than half said high data costs limit their access. Weak internet connections and a lack of digital skills were also raised, with many relying on basic-feature phones. By contrast, UK participants said ethical concerns played a stronger role in limiting their AI usage.

AI work opportunities

While few respondents (14%) said they earn income directly from AI tools yet, half expected AI to improve their employment and economic opportunities within the next five years.

Currently, AI’s main work-related uses among our respondents are learning new skills and job searches. In almost every lower-income country, young people held broadly positive attitudes about AI’s future role in their working lives – although many (32%-50% per country) expressed concerned about its impact on their future income.

How will your income be affected by AI?

Among those from lower-income countries, more than seven in ten thought AI would bring them better education and learning opportunities in the near future. A 28-year-old self-employed man in Nepal commented: “AI has the potential to empower young people in developing countries like Nepal by improving access to knowledge, digital skills, and economic opportunities.”

Our sentiment analysis found respondents to be most positive in Tanzania and Zambia, with young women there even more upbeat than young men. In the UK, young men diverged from their international peers in feeling more negative towards AI and work.

Biggest AI concerns

Some respondents described AI tools as “Americanised”, built around western norms and unable to grasp local nuance. They worried this could lead to their languages being further marginalised.

“These AI tools are fed major languages that are spoken worldwide, unlike Shona,” said a 25-year-old student in urban Zimbabwe. Shona is spoken by around 14 million people mainly in southern Africa, but is severely underserved by AI and other technology tools.

A Ugandan respondent was similarly critical about provision for her native language, Luganda – the country’s most widely spoken Indigenous language. “AI barely knows the spellings, grammar and how to interpret sentences. It’s not even familiar with our culture at all, which increases mistakes when we get to things concerning our own world.”

What most concerns you about AI?

Despite the widespread belief that AI would improve education and training, some held strong reservations. A 21-year-old female student in rural Uganda said: “Slowly by slowly, AI is making us dumb. We can no longer think for ourselves.”

The more often these young people use AI, the more worried they appear to be about it. The biggest concerns highlighted by daily users were around who owns their data and the power of AI companies.

Concern about AI’s environmental impact and the welfare of AI workers followed a similar pattern of higher usage co-existing with higher concern. Mental health is the only domain where non-users worry slightly more than daily users.

Gender differences

Significantly more young men (38%) than women (23%) reported having “a lot” of AI knowledge. This probably reflects a combination of diverging gender self-confidence, which tends to emerge from school age, and different levels of AI use. “AI is scary but helpful too,” said one female homemaker in urban Nepal.

Almost twice as many men than women use AI to search for work (33% vs. 17%). This difference is probably rooted in gendered access to data and technology, as well as differing social roles – such as the tendency for women to do more care work.

What have you used AI for in the past month?

In most of the ten lower-income countries surveyed, young women expressed greater concern about AI than men – with their biggest concern being over who owns their data. In the UK, 68% of young women were strongly concerned about data ownership, compared with 29% of men.

What young people want from AI

Many of our participants stressed the need for cheaper data and internet connections that work well. But they also want AI tools that fit their lives and culture – and speak their language. Until then, most recognise that talk of AI “leapfrogging” traditional stages of economic and social development is just that – talk.

Some efforts to make AI more inclusive and relevant for lower-income countries are underway. These include initiatives for “frugal AI”, as well as regional collaborations such as Masakhane for African languages and QuechuaBase in Peru.

How can AI be made safer?

Most of our participants framed AI safety as much more of a governance problem than a technical one. Many countries are establishing new AI policies, shaped in part by global forums such as the UN-led AI for Good summits. Overwhelmingly, our respondents agreed that governments, not tech companies, should be setting the rules when it comes to AI regulation and privacy protection.

Anna Barford receives funding from UKRI. She has previously been funded by the British Academy, Leverhulme Trust, ESRC, the Asian Development Bank, the Mastercard Foundation, and a philanthropic gift to the University from Unilever. She is a co-director of the Business Fights Poverty Institute and does consultancy work for the International Labour Organization.

Anthony Mugeere works as a Research Fellow for the Advocates Coalition for Development, Uganda's leading thinktank specialising in advocacy and analysis on climate change. He has received funding from the British Academy and the Mastercard Foundation to conduct research on climate change and young people.

Giulia Occhini does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

As the UK prepares for the third heatwave of 2026, most people will be hoping to try and keep cool at home.

Building regulations to protect homes from overheating were introduced in 2022. These require all new homes to be checked at the design stage to see if they might be at risk of overheating. If the overheating risk is high, the architect has to make changes to the design.

Given that the UK government plans to build 1.5 million homes by 2029 and the climate is predicted to continue to warm, reducing overheating in new homes is essential. Around 4.6 million bedrooms (19% of the stock) and 3.6 million living rooms (15%) in homes in England were found to have overheated during the summer of 2018.

At Loughborough University we have been experimenting with a pair of semi-detached houses, each fitted with different shading devices, to see what might work to reduce overheating. A lot more needs to be done to make sure UK homes are able to cope with the high temperatures they are likely to experience more often in the future.

1. External shading

If you live in the UK, count the number of window shades you can see on a street. While these were previously quite common in the Victorian period, for instance, most new homes don’t have external shading. But they are one of the most effective passive cooling measures (methods to lower indoor temperatures without air conditioning), as well as being relatively cheap to install.

Ongoing experiments in our pair of test houses have shown that external shading can reduce indoor temperatures by over 6°C, which can make a meaningful improvement to people’s health and wellbeing at home. Other research is looking at how acceptable and affordable shading devices, like awnings, are to householders.

If included at design-stage, some form of external window shading could be applied to almost any new home – even high-rise flats, which are at highest risk of overheating. Tall blocks of flats in countries like France and Italy often incorporate shading on balconies.

2. Insulated and airtight

Some people believe that higher levels of insulation are increasing overheating risk – but this is not correct. Research shows that energy efficiency measures do not increase overheating. They do make rooms warmer, but not so much that they cause overheating discomfort or health risks to people. Increased temperatures from internal wall insulation can be counteracted with ventilation through windows.

Insulation works to ensure that heat does not flow in either direction – in or out of a building. A large national survey of homes in England found that loft insulation reduces overheating, probably because it protects the room below from the high temperatures that can be experienced in loft spaces. Higher levels of airtightness reduces infiltration of hot air from outside during heatwaves.

Building regulations in the past have only focused on reducing wintertime heating demand and for good reason – in the last 25 years, 77 times more people died due to cold homes than hot homes. But combined with new regulations for overheating which limits the sun’s heat entering through windows, high levels of insulation and airtightness can be a positive thing for our buildings all year round.

3. Secure ventilation and sensors

Research in our test houses also investigated the effect of behaviour on overheating. To do this we used synthetic occupants – these are automated devices which can open windows, doors, curtains, and blinds. These controlled tests showed that the way people use windows and shading affects how much their home overheats. I spent a lot of time during recent heatwaves advising people when to open or close their windows. But this ignores the fact that poor building design is often the cause of overheating in many cases – no matter when you open your windows.

If homes could incorporate a cheap and simple temperature sensor which connects to the internet and tells you when to open or close a window it could significantly reduce indoor temperatures. Placed in multiple rooms, they could encourage householders to use cross-ventilation (opening windows on opposite sides of the building) or stack-ventilation (opening ground and first-floor windows), if available.

The issue remains that people are unwilling or unable to open their windows at night or in polluted, noisy areas near main roads. Instead we need a secure means of ventilation which encourages people to keep windows open at night without worrying about security or being woken up by noise.

4. Ceiling fans

Fans don’t cool the air, but they reduce the skin’s surface temperature by increasing sweat evaporation and carrying away heat. They also use considerably less electricity compared to air-conditioning.

Ceiling fans are effective at reducing people’s core body temperature and could be installed in all new-build homes. Building regulations on overheating require any window coverings used to pass the assessment to be installed during construction. Ceiling fans should be installed at the same time.

If new-build homes are to incorporate ceiling fans, ceiling heights may need to increase, which adds to building costs. Ceiling heights in UK homes have dropped over time. In Victorian homes, ceilings were often three metres from the floor, but in newly built UK homes they are commonly 2.4 metres, with 2.3 metres being the standard minimum.

5. A cool refuge

Having a cool room to retreat to in your home can help. In two-storey houses this might be a ground floor or north-facing room. New-build homes could incorporate such a space – highly shaded, on the north-side of the home, and perhaps built with high thermal mass (such as stone walls which keep cool longer during the day).

Mechanically cooling whole houses in the UK should be avoided due to high electricity prices. It also creates pressure on the electricity grid, and creates greenhouse gases. But the Committee on Climate Change, a UK body that advises the government, recently suggested creating one cool room with active cooling (air-conditioning) for use during long heatwaves could be an option.

As more heatwaves hit the UK, residents will increasingly want more information about how to stay cool. Retrofits can be expensive. We need to create housing that works in these increasingly high temperatures to best protect people and avoid expensive energy bills.

Ben Roberts receives funding from UK Government, UKRI, and the British Blind & Shutter Association.