Search Results

After a decade in which legal streaming cut piracy rates, recent data suggest online piracy is on the rise again. The causes are complex: rising subscription costs, fragmentation of content across multiple services, the explosion of easy live streams for sport, and more sophisticated pirate tools. This article explains what changed, who is affected, which piracy formats are growing, and what rights holders and regulators are doing in response. How streaming briefly won the battle against piracy In the 2010s and early 2020s, the growth of affordable, convenient streaming services helped reduce piracy. A single subscription gave users safe, high-quality access to large catalogues of film, TV and music, and the model undercut the old incentives to download or torrent. Music piracy fell particularly sharply after Spotify and similar services reached scale. The relative convenience and low friction of legal services made piracy less attractive for many users. Why piracy is rising again There is no single cause. Several trends converged to make piracy attractive once more. 1. Rising subscription costs and stacked services: Streaming prices have climbed in recent years, and many households now subscribe to several platforms to watch everything they want. That perceived loss of value has nudged some viewers back to illegal sources, especially in a tighter economic climate. Industry commentators and analysts have explicitly linked price rises and subscription complexity to growing piracy traffic. 2. Fragmentation and exclusive rights: Producers increasingly sell shows and sports rights to different platforms. A single season may be split across services or geo-locked to particular markets. For viewers, that means multiple subscriptions to follow a single show or live event. When the content you want appears behind an additional paywall, some viewers turn to pirate feeds instead. Research and reporting identify limited legal access as a key driver of piracy in several markets. 3. Live sports and real-time streaming: Live sport is especially vulnerable. Rights holders spend billions to secure live broadcast deals, but analysts now describe pirated sports streams as being of “industrial scale”, with illegal feeds drawing tens of thousands of viewers each for major fixtures. That problem is acute because live streams provide a near-perfect substitution for the authorised broadcast and are very hard to police in real time. Reports by media analysts and industry bodies have highlighted the huge scale and financial impact. 4. New distribution methods and cheap tools: Pirates are not limited to P2P torrents. A shift towards instant streaming, rebuilt indexing sites, “stream-host” platforms, pirate apps and modified streaming devices now enables easy, low-latency access to new releases and live events. These methods tend to lower the technical barrier for casual users who would once have avoided torrents. Monitoring firms report that while classic torrent downloads fell in some categories, streaming-centric piracy has grown. What the numbers say Industry tracking firms show a mixed picture but a worrying trend overall. MUSO, a large piracy monitoring firm, recorded hundreds of billions of visits to piracy sites in recent years and noted that while some year-to-year figures fluctuate, the long-term trend is upwards for certain formats and regions. Independent analysis and consultancy reports that track user behaviour have also linked the recent upward movement in piracy traffic to consumer frustration around cost and access. One recent industry summary concluded that price rises at major streaming services have contributed materially to renewed piracy growth. For live sports specifically, Enders Analysis and reporting in the Financial Times have shown that pirated feeds are now a significant share of consumption for some high-profile events. The industry talks in terms of “industrial scale theft” when describing these one-to-many illegal streams. Popular piracy hubs and formats For context, piracy today is enabled by a variety of sites and platforms. Reporting and monitoring outlets list a mixture of legacy torrent sites, new indexers, stream-hosting portals and modified app ecosystems. Examples frequently cited in industry and trade reporting include established torrent indexes and trackers such as YTS , 1337x , The Pirate Bay , and NYAA ; streaming and link-aggregation sites that host or index illegal live and on-demand streams; and apps or “add-ons” for open platforms that facilitate access on cheap set-top devices. These names appear in regular lists of the most trafficked piracy services, though exact rankings change frequently. Note: this piece names popular services where they are already widely reported, but it does not offer instructions on how to access them or advice that would facilitate infringement. Who is harmed and how Rights holders such as studios, broadcasters and sports leagues see direct financial impact from piracy, particularly when live audiences and subscription sales are lost. Broadcasters arguing for higher rights fees are concerned that widespread unauthorised viewing reduces the commercial case for expensive exclusive deals. Advertisers and platforms also argue that piracy undermines the incentives that fund original production. Consumers face risks too. Many pirate feeds carry malware, poor-quality streams, or surprise charges. Modified devices and unofficial apps often expose users to security and privacy threats, and they can breach the terms of service of legitimate platform providers. Reports from industry bodies emphasise the security danger to users of jailbroken set-top boxes and pirating apps. What rights holders and governments are doing The response has multiple strands: Enforcement and takedowns.  Industry coalitions and enforcement groups continue to pursue legal action, takedowns and domain seizures. The International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP) and other organisations publish regular reports and action lists showing recent lawsuits and takedowns. Technical countermeasures.  Rights holders employ watermarking, automated detection, and “war rooms” to identify and terminate pirate feeds in real time, particularly for high-value live events. Industry pressure on platforms.  Broadcasters have urged platform providers and marketplaces to do more to block the distribution of pirating apps and to remove listings for illicit devices. Some calls have focused on vendors of popular streaming hardware where jailbroken apps are distributed. Policy and legislation.  In some jurisdictions, courts and regulators are enabling faster blocking and takedown orders, and some governments have strengthened penalties for commercial piracy operations. Efforts to increase platform accountability are under discussion in multiple markets, though progress varies. Why enforcement alone will not solve it Experience shows enforcement is necessary but not sufficient. Pirates adapt quickly, and takedowns often produce short-term disruption only for new mirrors, indexes or hosting arrangements to appear. Industry bodies increasingly argue that platform design, supply chains for illicit devices, and the economics of access must be addressed alongside enforcement. In some markets, La Liga’s technical and legal measures to block IPs in real time have reduced particular forms of piracy, suggesting that a mix of legal and technical responses can work when applied at scale. Still, these measures can be controversial when they risk collateral blocking of legitimate services. What might reduce piracy again? The evidence points to an integrated approach: Make lawful access easier and more valuable.  When content is simple to find and affordable to access, piracy falls. Bundling, fair regional licensing and more consumer-friendly pricing models will help. Improve platform and marketplace controls.  Tech platforms and device retailers can do more to stop the sale and distribution of modified devices and unauthorised apps. Rapid technical detection for live streams.  Investing in real-time detection and disruption for live event piracy reduces the immediate incentive to watch illegal feeds. Public information and safer alternatives.  Educating consumers about the security risks of pirate streams and offering attractive, legal short-duration passes for premium events would reduce demand. Piracy has not returned to its early 2000s peak, but recent trends show it is adapting and, in some areas, growing again. The reasons are economic and structural: higher and fragmented subscription costs, stronger incentives to pirate live sports, new distribution channels and persistent regional access barriers. Rights holders, platforms and policymakers face a moving target. Reducing piracy sustainably will require pragmatic pricing, better legal access, technical measures and more cooperation between industry and tech platforms. The alternative is an escalation in enforcement action that risks being expensive, inconsistent and ultimately only partially effective.

Bram Stoker did not live to see how famous his creation would become. When he published Dracula  in 1897, it arrived into a rapidly changing world, but the novel was not considered a sensation. It sold steadily, quietly, and respectfully. Only after his death did it begin its ascent from Gothic curiosity to cultural phenomenon. Today, Count Dracula is one of the most recognisable fictional characters in history, influencing everything from cinema and theatre to fashion, language and popular fears. Yet the man behind it, an Irish theatre manager who wrote at night, remains a far more mysterious figure. Early Life: A Childhood in Stillness Abraham “Bram” Stoker was born on 8 November 1847 in Dublin, into a middle-class Protestant family. As a child he suffered from a mysterious illness that left him bedridden for years. This prolonged isolation, he later said, gave him “the habit of dreaming awake.” He eventually recovered and attended Trinity College Dublin , where he studied mathematics and excelled in athletics, but the stage soon captured his attention. He began reviewing theatre for the Dublin Evening Mail , which led to his first encounter with the celebrated actor Sir Henry Irving . That meeting would change the trajectory of his life. The Theatre Years: London, the Lyceum, and Obsession In 1878 , at the age of thirty-one, Stoker moved to London to become acting and business manager  of the Lyceum Theatre , working directly under Irving. He would hold the position for nearly thirty years. The Lyceum was not just a job, it was Bram Stoker’s life. He worked punishing hours, travelling constantly on performance tours, organising schedules, finances and logistics. Irving was famously demanding, but Stoker remained devotedly loyal. During these years, he met many notable figures, among them Ellen Terry , the Lyceum’s leading lady, and Oscar Wilde , a friend from his Dublin youth. Stoker worked in the heart of London’s artistic and intellectual world. What is remarkable is that he managed to write fiction in the margins of this exhausting career , often through the night. The Making of Dracula Dracula , his fifth novel, was published in 1897 . It was not his first attempt at horror, earlier stories explored themes of the supernatural, but Dracula  was something altogether more ambitious. It arrived in the age of late Victorian anxiety. Britain was wrestling with fear of invasion, disease, moral decay and scientific overreach. Stoker absorbed it all. He also researched Transylvanian folklore, medieval history, the occult, and early medical science . The form was striking. It was told through diary entries, letters, newspaper reports, ship logs : fragmented testimony that made the horror feel documentary, almost factual. Dracula is nearly invisible in the book. What matters is the growing fear he leaves behind. The novel was well received critically , but not a bestseller. It did not become legendary until theatre and cinema got hold of it , especially after the 1931 film adaptation starring Bela Lugosi , nine years after Stoker’s death. Other Works: Ambition Beyond the Vampire Although history remembers him almost solely for Dracula , Stoker wrote twelve novels in total . Notable works include: The Jewel of Seven Stars  (1903) : an Egyptian mummy horror story involving death, reincarnation and occult ritual. It influenced countless later “mummy“ films. The Lair of the White Worm  (1911) : one of his strangest, most chaotic works, involving a shape-shifting serpent-woman and pre-Christian horror. The Snake’s Pass  (1890) and Miss Betty  (1898) : Irish and romantic novels respectively, showing his range beyond horror. Most of these works never achieved the lasting influence of Dracula , but they reveal Stoker’s ongoing interest in folklore, resurrection, forbidden knowledge and the fine line between rational science and ancient fear. Final Years and Death The Lyceum Theatre declined in the early twentieth century, and with it went Stoker’s financial stability. He suffered a series of strokes  beginning around 1906, which affected his speech and mobility. His health deteriorated, and money troubles followed. Bram Stoker died in London on 20 April 1912 , aged 64. Official records cite a stroke, though tertiary complications are suspected. He died not yet a household name . His widow Florence Stoker  spent years fighting for copyright against unauthorised Dracula  adaptations. It was only after his death  that the world began to realise the scale of what he had created. A Legacy That Refused to Die Bram Stoker gave nothing less than an immortal archetype to literature. His vampire was not the first, but it was the one that endured. Through cinema, theatre, television, graphic novels, video games and even comedy, Count Dracula escaped his pages and became legend. What makes this more extraordinary is that Stoker never sought fame as an artist . He saw himself as a working professional, a steady hand behind the scenes, not the genius at the centre of the stage. And yet, history placed him there anyway.

Few writers have left a mark on culture as deep as Mary Shelley . Her name has become inseparable from one of literature’s most enduring creations: Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus . Written before her twenty-first birthday, it changed not just Gothic fiction but the way we think about science, ambition and the boundaries of creation. Yet Shelley’s legacy reaches far beyond her famous novel. She was a thinker shaped by revolution, love, loss and intellectual curiosity. Her life reads like a story of its own: a tale of genius, tragedy and quiet resilience in an age when women writers were rarely taken seriously. A Legacy That Still Lives More than two hundred years after Frankenstein  was first published in 1818, its questions still feel modern. What does it mean to create life? When does progress become hubris? The story’s blend of science, morality and human emotion continues to inspire countless adaptations in film, theatre and art. Shelley’s influence extends far beyond horror. Many scholars credit her as one of the founding figures of modern science fiction , a writer who understood that new technologies would not only change the world but challenge the human heart. Her creation has become part of the collective imagination, but behind it stood a young woman navigating grief, love, scandal and the expectations of a society that never quite knew what to make of her. Early Life: Born Into Ideas Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin was born in London in 1797  to remarkable parents. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft , was a pioneering feminist thinker and author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman . Her father, William Godwin , was a radical philosopher known for his ideas on justice and liberty. Her mother died shortly after giving birth, leaving Mary to be raised by Godwin, who encouraged her education and allowed her access to his vast library. She grew up surrounded by the leading intellectuals of the day, absorbing ideas about politics, philosophy and art from an early age. By the time she was a teenager, Mary was already drawn to writing. Her father’s home became a gathering place for poets and radicals, and it was there that she met the young Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley . Their meeting would alter both of their lives. A Scandalous Romance and a Restless Mind In 1814, when Mary was sixteen, she and Percy began a relationship that shocked London’s literary circles. He was already married, and their elopement to Europe caused a public scandal. They lived as outcasts for years, moving between England, France, Switzerland and Italy, always chasing inspiration and fleeing judgement. The couple endured extraordinary hardship. Several of their children died in infancy, leaving Mary consumed by grief. Yet she continued to write, often in the margins of their turbulent lives. Her journals from this period show both her emotional depth and her growing intellectual independence. The Birth of Frankenstein The summer of 1816  would change everything. Staying at a villa near Lake Geneva with Percy Shelley, Lord Byron , and others, the group found themselves trapped indoors by stormy weather. To pass the time, Byron proposed that everyone write a ghost story. For days, Mary wrestled with ideas. One night, after a conversation about electricity and reanimation, she had a vivid waking dream of a scientist who created life and recoiled in horror at what he had made. That image became the seed of Frankenstein . She began writing soon after, and by 1818 , the novel was published anonymously in London. Many assumed the author was Percy Shelley. When Mary’s name was added to the second edition, readers were stunned to discover that one of the darkest and most profound novels of the age had been written by a young woman. The book’s success was immediate, but controversial. Some praised its imagination and philosophical depth; others dismissed it as morbid. Over time, it would come to define an entire genre. Life After Frankenstein Tragedy continued to shape Mary’s life. Her half-sister and close friend both died by suicide, and in 1822 , Percy Shelley drowned in a boating accident off the coast of Italy. Mary was twenty-four and left alone with their only surviving child, Percy Florence Shelley . In the years after her husband’s death, she turned to writing both to support herself and to process her grief. Although Frankenstein  remained her most famous work, she produced a series of thoughtful novels that explored love, loss, and resilience. Her 1826 novel The Last Man  imagined a future world devastated by plague and isolation. It was one of the earliest works of post-apocalyptic fiction, though it was not widely appreciated at the time. Critics found it bleak and strange, but modern readers see it as visionary. Other novels, such as Lodore  (1835) and Falkner  (1837), examined family relationships, morality and the struggles of women in a society that constrained them. These works never achieved the fame of Frankenstein , but they showed Mary’s range as a writer and her commitment to moral and emotional truth. She also wrote essays, short stories, and travel books such as Rambles in Germany and Italy  (1844), which revealed her sharp observation and political awareness. A Quiet Strength Mary Shelley lived through loss that would have broken many. She buried her mother, children, husband and several close friends before reaching middle age. Yet she continued to write, edit and advocate for the preservation of her husband’s poetry. She was respected but not wealthy, admired by some but underestimated by many. Victorian society still viewed her through the lens of Frankenstein  and her association with Percy Shelley. She worked tirelessly to establish her own reputation, even as she battled poor health. Illness and Final Years In her later years, Mary suffered from severe headaches and episodes of paralysis, possibly caused by a brain tumour. These conditions made writing increasingly difficult. Despite this, she continued to correspond with friends and literary figures, and remained devoted to her son. She died in London in 1851 , aged fifty-three. Her son and daughter-in-law buried her in St Peter’s Church, Bournemouth , near the remains of her parents. Among her belongings, they found a small parcel wrapped in silk containing her late husband’s heart. The Enduring Influence of Mary Shelley Mary Shelley’s life was extraordinary: part love story, part tragedy, part revolution in thought. She gave the world one of its most haunting stories, written at a time when women were rarely allowed to speak, let alone create monsters. Her work bridged the Romantic and modern eras, asking what it means to be human in a world reshaped by science. More than two centuries later, Frankenstein  still feels alive, a story that refuses to die, just like the creature she imagined on that stormy night by the lake.

We live in a world where boredom barely exists. Waiting for the bus? Check your phone. Stuck in a queue? Scroll social media. Even when we relax, we multitask. The idea of doing nothing feels outdated, even wasteful. Yet psychologists say boredom might be one of the most useful emotions we have. Far from being a problem to solve, it could be the quiet space where creativity, reflection and calm begin. In an age of constant stimulation, rediscovering boredom might just be the healthiest thing we can do. What Is Boredom and Why Do We Avoid It? Boredom is more than just a lack of things to do. It is the state of wanting engagement but not finding it. The mind itches for stimulation, and when none appears, we instinctively reach for a distraction. Inside the brain, something interesting happens when we are bored. A region called the default mode network  activates. It lights up when our attention drifts away from tasks, helping us process experiences, imagine possibilities, and plan ahead. The problem is that we rarely give it a chance. Modern technology offers instant relief from even a second of stillness. We are trained to avoid boredom at all costs, and as a result, we lose out on what it can offer. The Psychology Behind Boredom Research shows that boredom can be surprisingly good for us. Psychologist Dr Sandi Mann , author of The Upside of Downtime , found that when people are bored, their minds begin to wander in useful ways. In one study, volunteers who copied numbers from a phone book later performed better on creative tasks than those who had stayed busy. When we are bored, the brain is not resting. It is rearranging information, connecting ideas, and finding patterns. Many creative breakthroughs occur not during work, but during idle moments, such as in the shower, on a walk, or while waiting in traffic. There is a difference between helpful and harmful boredom. “Productive boredom” is reflective and calm, giving the mind space to breathe. “Unproductive boredom” is restless and irritable, the kind that comes from feeling trapped or overstimulated. The trick is to recognise the difference and lean into the first type when it appears. How Technology Eliminated Boredom Once upon a time, boredom was part of daily life. People daydreamed on trains, looked out of windows, and let their thoughts drift. Now, we fill every spare moment with screens. Our devices give constant micro-stimulation: news alerts, messages, videos, and games. Each one triggers a small release of dopamine, the brain’s pleasure chemical, keeping us hooked in a cycle of endless novelty. Studies show the average person checks their phone more than 140 times a day . This constant engagement comes at a cost. By erasing boredom, we have reduced our capacity for focus and patience. Deep work, long reading, and sustained thought have become harder. We crave stimulation even when it leaves us drained. As Dr Mann puts it, “We are never truly alone with our thoughts anymore, and that might be one of the reasons creativity is suffering.” Why Doing Nothing Is Good for You Doing nothing might sound lazy, but it is one of the best ways to reset the mind. When you pause and allow your brain to idle, it begins to process information, consolidate memories, and make new connections. Psychologists link this mental downtime to higher creativity, better mood regulation, and even greater problem-solving ability. It also helps lower stress by breaking the cycle of constant alertness that technology encourages. Mindfulness and meditation work in much the same way. Both create intentional moments of quiet, helping people refocus and manage their emotions. In essence, they are structured ways of being bored on purpose, and they are good for you. For children, boredom plays an even more important role. Psychologists say that when kids are not entertained every minute, they learn imagination and resourcefulness. It is through boredom that creativity and independence take root. How to Reintroduce Boredom Into Everyday Life You do not have to move to the countryside or throw away your phone to bring boredom back into your life. A few small shifts can make a big difference. 1. Schedule unstructured time.  Give yourself short breaks where nothing is planned. No scrolling, no background music, no multitasking. 2. Take device-free walks.  Leave your headphones behind and notice what your mind drifts to. Some of your best ideas may appear when you are not looking for them. 3. Practise monotasking.  Focus on one activity at a time, such as cooking or cleaning, without adding other distractions. 4. Embrace silence.  Let quiet moments exist without trying to fill them. This is where thought deepens and stress begins to fade. 5. Redefine productivity.  Rest and reflection are not wasted time; they are fuel for the next burst of focus. Small acts of stillness can restore a sense of balance and creativity that constant activity cannot. The Cultural Shift: From Productivity to Presence Our culture often glorifies busyness. We measure success by how full our calendars look and how quickly we reply to messages. But the pandemic years, burnout, and growing interest in “slow living” have begun to change that. People are rediscovering that life does not have to be lived at full speed to be fulfilling. Intentional boredom, or choosing to disconnect for a while, has become a quiet form of resistance. Philosophers and psychologists alike now argue that doing nothing can be a radical act of presence. It allows people to reclaim their attention, live more deliberately, and focus on what truly matters. In short, boredom has become a luxury again: a rare space where time slows down enough for life to make sense. The Power of Doing Nothing Boredom may not feel comfortable, but it is deeply necessary. It gives the mind time to reset, to create, and to simply be. In a world that demands constant productivity, rediscovering boredom might be the most productive thing of all. So the next time you find yourself with nothing to do, resist the urge to reach for your phone. Sit with it. Let your thoughts wander. You might be surprised by where they lead.

In the rush to embrace automation, it is easy to believe that the future belongs entirely to machines. Artificial intelligence can already write reports, analyse data, and even compose music. Algorithms make hiring decisions, handle customer queries, and optimise entire business models. Yet as technology accelerates, a quieter truth is emerging: the skills that will matter most in the workplaces of tomorrow are the most human ones. Emotional intelligence, or EQ, is becoming a defining measure of success. The ability to read a room, communicate clearly, adapt to change, and manage relationships cannot be replicated by code. These are the traits that make organisations resilient, and they are becoming the foundation of the modern workforce. Beyond the Automation Hype The global conversation about the “future of work” has focused heavily on what machines can do. Reports from McKinsey and the World Economic Forum predict that automation could affect up to half of all current jobs within the next decade. Routine tasks are already being delegated to software systems that can operate faster and more consistently than people. But automation is not replacing human value. It is reshaping it. As repetitive tasks vanish, demand is growing for roles that require judgement, empathy and creativity. These are not easily automated because they depend on social understanding and moral reasoning — the ability to interpret nuance, read intention, and make decisions in complex, unpredictable situations. A 2023 LinkedIn Global Skills Report found that “human skills” such as communication, teamwork, and adaptability were among the fastest-growing priorities for employers worldwide. The same study revealed that managers now rate emotional intelligence as highly as technical expertise when evaluating leadership potential. What Emotional Intelligence Really Means The term “emotional intelligence” was popularised by psychologist Daniel Goleman in the 1990s, but its relevance has never been greater. EQ describes the capacity to recognise, understand and manage emotions in oneself and others. It involves five core elements: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. In practical terms, EQ shapes how people respond to stress, conflict, and change. It affects decision-making, leadership, and the ability to build trust. In an era of hybrid work and cross-cultural collaboration, these abilities are critical. A 2022 study by Harvard Business Review found that teams led by managers with high emotional intelligence reported 25% higher productivity and 30% higher employee engagement. The researchers concluded that emotional intelligence “multiplies” the impact of technical competence by improving communication and morale. Hybrid Work and the Empathy Deficit The shift to remote and hybrid work has made emotional intelligence more important and more difficult to maintain. Without the subtle cues of body language or tone, misunderstandings can escalate quickly. Messages that would feel neutral in person can seem abrupt or cold online. A report by Microsoft’s Work Trend Index found that 54% of hybrid employees felt “disconnected” from their teams. Leaders who could bridge that distance through empathy and consistent communication saw higher retention and satisfaction rates. In this environment, emotional intelligence is not a “soft” skill but a structural one. It determines whether distributed teams can stay cohesive and whether organisations can preserve culture across screens and time zones. Why Emotional Skills Outlast Technology Technical skills evolve quickly. Programming languages go out of fashion, platforms change, and entire roles appear and disappear with each technological wave. Emotional intelligence, by contrast, compounds over time. It grows with experience and reflection. Research from Yale University’s Centre for Emotional Intelligence shows that people with higher EQ handle change better and experience lower burnout levels. They are more likely to stay engaged during organisational transitions and less likely to disengage in high-pressure environments. This adaptability is becoming the new professional currency. As one HR director for a global financial firm told the Financial Times : “We can teach data analysis in six months. It takes a lifetime to teach empathy.” Building Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace While EQ comes more naturally to some people, it can be developed. Many organisations are now investing in emotional intelligence training for managers, pairing it with coaching and feedback. Practical ways to build EQ include: Regular self-assessment:  Encouraging reflection on how emotions influence behaviour and decision-making. Active listening exercises:  Practising focus and empathy during conversations. Feedback culture:  Creating environments where people can safely discuss mistakes and learn from them. Cross-team collaboration:  Exposing employees to diverse perspectives to improve social awareness. Companies that integrate these practices report stronger leadership pipelines and fewer interpersonal conflicts. In Deloitte’s 2023 Human Capital Trends survey, 72% of executives said empathy and emotional skills were now “essential leadership capabilities,” up from 45% in 2018. A Competitive Advantage That Machines Cannot Match Automation continues to reshape industries, but it also amplifies the importance of human strengths. As routine work becomes digitised, emotional intelligence becomes the key differentiator in how teams innovate, manage risk, and serve customers. In client-facing industries such as healthcare, education and consulting, empathy directly correlates with outcomes. In creative and strategic fields, emotional intelligence drives collaboration and original thought. Even in highly technical sectors like engineering or data science, emotionally intelligent teams communicate better and solve problems faster. The future of work will not belong to those who compete with machines, but to those who can work alongside them. Machines can calculate, but they cannot comfort. They can optimise, but they cannot inspire. The New Definition of Smart In the twentieth century, intelligence was defined by logic and knowledge. In the twenty-first, it will be defined by connection. The ability to understand people, adapt to change and act with integrity will shape the most successful organisations of the next generation. As the workplace becomes more complex, emotional intelligence will no longer be a bonus trait but a basic requirement. It is the one skill that automation cannot replace and the one that makes every other skill more effective.

Pop-up ads were once everywhere online. They emerged in the late 1990s, grew into one of the most visible symbols of the early internet, and were eventually blocked by almost every browser. Yet even today, their legacy shapes how digital advertising works. Who Was Behind the First Pop-Up Ad? The origin of the pop-up ad can be traced to Ethan Zuckerman , a young developer working for Tripod.com  in the 1990s. Tripod was one of the early personal web hosting companies, part of the wave of “free homepage” services that helped ordinary users publish online. Zuckerman and his team faced a challenge that would define the future of web advertising. Advertisers were beginning to place banner ads on hosted pages, but they disliked having their logos appear beside questionable or adult content. To solve this, Zuckerman wrote a small piece of code that made an ad open in a separate browser window rather than on the same page. The idea worked. The ad remained visible but separate from the site that hosted it. What seemed like a neat technical fix quickly spread across the web. Within a few years, the pop-up had become one of the most common and frustrating features of the early internet. In 2014, Zuckerman reflected on his role in the invention, writing in The Atlantic  that he was “sorry” for creating the mechanism that launched the modern pop-up. He called it “the original sin of the internet,” arguing that the industry’s reliance on intrusive advertising helped create the web’s current attention problems. When Did Pop-Up Ads Start? Pop-up ads first appeared in the mid to late 1990s , during the early years of the commercial web. What began as a Tripod.com experiment soon became standard practice across thousands of sites. Advertisers loved the format because it guaranteed visibility. A window that appeared in front of the page demanded attention, ensuring that the ad could not be ignored. For a time, it was considered a clever innovation. But as more developers copied the technique, it lost its novelty and began to dominate user experience. Instead of being seen as a creative solution, it became a symbol of disruption. Why Did Pop-Ups Become So Popular? Pop-up ads spread rapidly because they offered results. They delivered high click-through rates and could run on almost any website without major technical requirements. Throughout the early 2000s, advertisers pushed the limits of what pop-ups could do. Some opened automatically upon page load. Others appeared behind the main browser window as “pop-unders.” A growing number of companies used adware  and spyware  to trigger pop-ups even outside the browser environment. By 2003, analysts estimated that tens of millions of pop-up windows  appeared every day. While some websites used them responsibly, others exploited them to an extreme, leading to scams, viruses, and user fatigue. The practice became so widespread that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)  intervened, suing several companies for deceptive pop-up practices. What began as a way to separate ads from content had spiralled into one of the internet’s most aggressive marketing tools. When Did Pop-Up Ads Start to Decline? The backlash against pop-ups was swift and widespread. Users began downloading third-party software to block them, and browser developers quickly followed. Opera  was the first major browser to integrate pop-up blocking by default. Mozilla Firefox  soon did the same. The turning point came in 2004 , when Microsoft  added pop-up blocking to Internet Explorer  as part of Windows XP Service Pack 2 . With one update, hundreds of millions of users gained the ability to block pop-ups automatically. Websites that relied on pop-up revenue saw immediate drops in ad performance. Within a few years, the format had largely disappeared from mainstream use. What Replaced the Pop-Up Ad? After pop-ups were blocked, advertisers moved towards less aggressive formats. “Polite” overlays and in-page modals  became common, appearing within the website rather than opening a new window. Later, exit-intent pop-ups  were developed to appear only when a user’s cursor moved toward the close button, attempting to catch last-second engagement. At the same time, the industry shifted towards native advertising  and sponsored content , where promotional material blended more naturally into editorial layouts. The goal was to maintain visibility without alienating users. This transition marked a major change in advertising philosophy: from forced attention to earned attention. Are Pop-Up Ads Still Used Today? Yes, though in much smaller and more controlled ways. Modern marketers use pop-ups primarily for email sign-ups, discount offers, or privacy consent requests. Services such as OptinMonster and Justuno allow website owners to create visually refined, targeted versions that comply with privacy laws. However, search engines have cracked down on intrusive pop-ups. Google’s Page Experience update  in 2021 penalised websites that display full-screen pop-ups on mobile devices, arguing that they degrade user experience. While the old pop-up window has largely vanished, its descendants remain part of the digital landscape. What Was the Cultural Impact of Pop-Ups? Pop-up ads changed how users thought about the web. They were the first major example of how advertising could conflict with usability. Ethan Zuckerman’s later reflections highlighted the irony of the invention. What began as a way to protect advertisers from reputational harm became one of the most disruptive forces in online design. His apology resonated with many who saw in the pop-up the roots of the internet’s attention crisis. Culturally, the backlash led to the rise of ad-blockers, privacy tools, and user-first design movements. It set the stage for later debates about consent, cookies, and the ethics of monetising attention. The pop-up taught an enduring lesson: innovation that disregards the user eventually undermines itself. Key Takeaways Inventor:  Ethan Zuckerman at Tripod.com in the late 1990s Peak:  Early 2000s, when millions appeared daily across websites Decline:  Mid-2000s, as browsers introduced pop-up blockers Modern use:  Replaced by overlays, modals, and native ads Cultural legacy:  Sparked debates about ethics, consent, and user experience

With costs soaring, homeowners are facing a difficult challenge as they have to fork out more money to cover all the expenses. This covers several different aspects of the cost-of-living crisis, all of which are setting people back. Housing, food and healthcare are just some of the things that play their part in this rise, with the biggest cost increases coming from gas and energy bills in the home. These are becoming increasingly difficult to afford, especially for single income families who only have one parent earning money. While it might sometimes seem like there’s no end in sight for these cost-of-living increases, there are things that we can do to reduce their impact on our daily lives. This guide will explore how we can fight back against the cost-of-living crisis with better budgeting and lifestyle adjustments, so you no longer need to stress about your outgoings. Continue reading to find out more. What’s Fueling The Crisis? There’s been a lot of economical pressure that has left homeowners scrambling for cash to pay for all their expenses. Inflation has been a big factor, and while wages have remained largely stagnant, there has been an ongoing failure to keep pace with the rising price of essentials. Housing shortages in urban centers are driving rent and home prices to record highs, which has made good housing options unaffordable for many families. Even when a family gets a home, they are bombarded with rising energy bills that get more expensive every year. Meanwhile, there are also supply chain disruptions that are keeping the cost of goods high and making food, drinks and other necessities very pricey. It’s not just one variable that has caused this crisis, as it’s a combination of many things that has made affording a good quality of life quite difficult. How can we fight back? Budgeting If you budget effectively , you can save a lot of money and fight back against the cost-of-living crisis. Start by tracking the money you earn and spend. You can then break your expenses into categories like housing, food, transport and savings to identify areas where even small cuts can add up. The 50/30/20 rule can be used to help you with this, which involves splitting your earnings so that it’s 50% for needs, 30% for wants and 20% for savings. Lifestyle Adjustments Lifestyle adjustments can help you gain control during a cost of living crisis. Minimalism adds value to your life by cutting out the rest, so you won’t be forking out for expensive furniture. That might mean owning fewer clothes, avoiding impulse purchases, or choosing experiences over things. Downsizing can also drastically reduce monthly expenses and can be very beneficial for families who don’t need too much space. Shifting toward a simpler way of living, individuals can stretch their income further and build resilience in uncertain economic times. Effective Home Design The way your home is designed can directly impact the amount you pay for bills. Features like proper insulation, natural lighting and energy-efficient appliances cut utility costs month after month. Allowing more natural light into your home means that you don’t need lightbulbs switched on all the time. Blind in Watford by Blind Technique are designed to help you control how much light comes into your home. Community Resources If you’re in a low-income household, don’t feel ashamed to use community resources to help you through difficult times. Food banks can be a great choice for families who can’t afford a lot of food, and there will be other families using them too, so you shouldn’t put it off. You can also choose to live in shared housing if you’re an individual, as you can then split all the rent and bills to make life more affordable. What Can Communities Do? It’s not just about what you can do as an individual, as communities can band together to help each other out with rising costs. Here are some things that communities should consider: Support Local Food Initiatives: Encourage local donation, redistribution of essentials and the creation of shared spaces for residents to grow their own produce. Push for Affordable Housing Projects: Promote community-backed programs that help renters eventually become homeowners. Promote Financial Education: Learning more about how to manage money can help with saving properly during a cost-of-living crisis. Local Action Group Advocacy: Push local governments to adopt fair wage policies, cap property taxes or invest in public services. The cost of living is impacting everyone, whether you’re living alone or as a family. It’s not all gloom and doom though, as there’s things that you can do to combat the cost of living crisis and live a fulfilling life despite all the rising prices. Making a few lifestyle tweaks can make such a big difference and minimise any expenditure. You can also get all the community together to support one another, as this can benefit plenty of families.

For years, the ability to juggle multiple tasks at once has been worn like a badge of honour. The multitasker has been seen as the ideal modern worker: efficient, adaptable, unstoppable. In job interviews, it became a stock phrase of competence, “I’m great at multitasking.” But what if that skill we celebrate does not really exist? What if multitasking is not a sign of productivity at all, but a quiet drain on our focus, accuracy and wellbeing? Cognitive science has been warning us about this for years. The uncomfortable truth is that our brains are not designed to do more than one demanding thing at a time. What feels like efficiency is usually a cycle of rapid task-switching, and it makes us worse at everything we are trying to achieve. The Productivity Illusion The word “multitasking” was borrowed from computer science in the 1960s to describe machines running several programs at once. When it was applied to people, the term carried the same optimistic promise: a smarter, faster way to work. In reality, the human mind is less like a multi-core processor and more like a single-threaded machine. We can walk and talk simultaneously because those are routine physical actions. But when two tasks compete for the same part of the brain’s attention system, performance drops sharply. Neuroscientist Earl Miller at MIT has spent years studying how attention works. “People think they’re multitasking,” he told NPR, “but they’re actually switching rapidly between tasks. Every switch comes with a cost.” That cost is time. Studies at Stanford University found that heavy multitaskers perform worse on tests of attention, memory and task-switching than people who focus on one thing at a time. They are also more easily distracted and take longer to filter out irrelevant information. The conclusion is simple: when we think we are saving time by doing several things at once, we are usually wasting it. The Brain on Constant Switch Mode Every time you change focus, your brain must reconfigure. Psychologists call this “switching cost.” It takes seconds, sometimes minutes, for the prefrontal cortex to fully adjust from one mental context to another. Researchers at the University of California, Irvine, tracked office workers during a typical day. On average, they switched tasks every three minutes and took nearly twenty-three minutes to refocus after an interruption. Even short disruptions create cognitive fatigue. The brain releases a small dose of dopamine with each new stimulus, rewarding novelty and making us crave more of it. This is why constant alerts and notifications feel addictive. They give the illusion of engagement while quietly draining mental energy. Over time, this pattern reduces our capacity for deep, sustained thought. It becomes harder to read long texts, plan strategically, or hold complex ideas in mind without the urge to check something else. The Culture of Busyness If multitasking is so inefficient, why do we keep doing it? Part of the answer lies in culture. Modern workplaces reward visibility as much as results. Being busy has become a symbol of worth, proof that we are in demand. Many employees feel obliged to appear constantly connected, replying instantly to messages, juggling meetings and tasks. Technology amplifies that pressure. Email, messaging platforms, and social media have blurred the line between work and life, producing what researchers call “continuous partial attention.” We are present everywhere, but rarely fully focused anywhere. The culture of busyness also has a psychological reward. Activity feels like progress, even when it is shallow. Checking off small tasks can create a false sense of achievement, masking the absence of meaningful progress on larger goals. The Real Cost of Multitasking The impact is measurable. Researchers at the University of London found that people who multitasked during cognitive tests experienced IQ score drops comparable to those seen after a sleepless night. Other studies link heavy multitasking to increased stress, reduced creativity and lower job satisfaction. In sectors that rely on precision, the effects can be serious. Hospitals have studied the impact of constant interruptions on medical staff. Each distraction, even brief, increases the chance of clinical error. In aviation and manufacturing, divided attention can compromise safety. Even in less critical environments, the loss is significant. A marketing team member who toggles between analytics dashboards, emails, and client chats may spend hours in fragmented effort, without ever achieving full flow. Single Tasking and Deep Work There is an alternative. Productivity researchers increasingly advocate what author Cal Newport calls “deep work”: focused, undistracted time devoted to a single complex task. The method is simple but powerful. Work in concentrated blocks, silence alerts, and dedicate specific periods for email or admin. Organisations such as Microsoft Japan have experimented with this approach, reducing meeting time and encouraging uninterrupted work intervals. They reported measurable boosts in creativity and employee satisfaction. Some companies now train staff in “attention management” rather than time management, helping people identify which tasks require full focus and which can be handled in the background. The principle is not new. Writers, engineers, and scientists have long known that sustained attention is the foundation of quality. What is changing is that research now backs this instinct with hard data. Learning to Focus Again It is easy to blame technology, but the root of the problem is deeper. We have trained ourselves to equate motion with progress, speed with success. Relearning how to focus means rethinking what productivity looks like. Start by reducing cognitive clutter. Limit open tabs. Schedule “focus hours.” Treat attention as a scarce resource, not a renewable one. And most importantly, accept that you cannot do everything at once, and that trying to do so often leads to doing nothing well. When workers stop multitasking, they usually discover a paradox: by doing less, they accomplish more. The Takeaway Multitasking has become one of the great myths of modern life. It promises efficiency but delivers distraction. The science is clear: our brains are wired for focus, not fragmentation. In the long run, productivity will not come from doing more things simultaneously, but from doing the right things sequentially, with care and concentration. In a world that measures worth in speed and volume, the quiet skill of single-tasking might be the most valuable of all.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to recreate the voices, personalities and memories of people who have died. Known as griefbots  or deadbots , these digital simulations are part of a growing industry exploring what many call the “digital afterlife”. Researchers, ethicists and psychologists are now asking whether these technologies help people heal or risk turning grief into a new form of dependency. What Are Griefbots? Griefbots are AI systems trained on the digital footprints of deceased people. They use archived data such as text messages, emails, social media posts, and recordings to generate responses that sound like the individual. The underlying models are based on large language systems, such as GPT-style architectures, which predict text patterns and simulate conversation. Some companies also add voice cloning and photo or video avatars to enhance realism. Key Components Data Collection:  Messages, posts, audio and video are compiled as “seed data”. Model Training:  AI is fine-tuned to reproduce the subject’s tone, phrasing and emotional patterns. Memory Layer:  The system can recall previous conversations to simulate continuity. Output:  Interaction occurs through chat, speech or, increasingly, virtual avatars. Unlike human memory, the AI does not truly remember. It produces statistically likely sentences that feel authentic. The Real Case: The Jessica Simulation One of the most widely reported examples is the case of Joshua Barbeau , a Canadian man who used an online tool called Project December  to recreate his late fiancée, Jessica Pereira. Barbeau uploaded Jessica’s old text messages and personality descriptions into the system. The chatbot generated responses that closely matched her language and humour. The experiment brought moments of comfort, but also confusion and emotional dissonance. The story, published by the San Francisco Chronicle , became one of the first detailed accounts of a real person using AI to simulate the dead. It sparked international discussion about digital resurrection and the ethics of “talking to” lost loved ones. Why Are People Using AI to Reconnect with the Dead? Psychologists and grief researchers point to several motivations behind the use of griefbots: Closure:  People seek the chance to say what they never could. Companionship:  Some find comfort in familiar words or voice tones. Curiosity:  Others are drawn to test how far technology can replicate personality. Legacy Creation:  A growing number of people now train AI replicas of themselves for relatives to interact with after death. In the UK, interest in digital legacy services has risen sharply since the pandemic. Companies such as HereAfter AI  and StoryFile  market themselves to families who want to preserve stories, voices and advice for future generations. Ethical and Psychological Risks Experts warn that AI resurrection carries emotional and social consequences that are not yet fully understood. Main Concerns Distortion of Memory: AI reconstructions may invent or misrepresent facts, reshaping how the deceased is remembered. Prolonged Grief: Continuous digital communication can delay acceptance or amplify loss. Consent and Privacy: The dead cannot give permission for data use, raising questions of ownership and dignity. Commercial Exploitation: Some griefbot platforms charge subscriptions or advertise paid “premium” sessions, effectively monetising mourning. Unwanted Contact: Cambridge researchers have warned that unregulated bots might send messages unexpectedly, leading to “unwanted hauntings”. Cultural and Religious Boundaries: Beliefs about death, remembrance and the afterlife differ globally. In some cultures, simulating a dead person’s voice or face would be taboo. The University of Cambridge’s Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence  has called for clear regulation on AI memorials, including data consent, access rights and time-limited operation of griefbots. The Technology Behind AI Resurrection The most common platforms rely on large language models  combined with personalised prompting . Developers use context blocks that describe the deceased’s traits (“You are Jessica, a 23-year-old artist who loves astronomy and dry humour”). Recent advances include: Neural voice cloning  that can reproduce vocal tone from a few seconds of audio. Facial animation models  used for interactive video memorials. Memory graphs  that store biographical details to maintain conversation continuity. Emotional analytics  that adjust the bot’s tone based on the user’s sentiment. AI companies are also exploring virtual reality  integration, allowing users to enter simulated environments to “meet” digital avatars of loved ones. Regulation and Calls for Oversight There is currently no dedicated UK or international law governing posthumous AI likenesses. Legal experts say personality and likeness rights usually expire upon death, leaving families or companies to decide how data is used. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)  has indicated that UK data protection rules apply only to the living. However, digital legacies often contain sensitive information about the deceased and their relatives, creating grey areas. Ethicists have proposed several safeguards: Require explicit consent before or during life for data use in posthumous AI systems. Implement “digital retirement” processes to deactivate griefbots after set periods. Provide transparency statements identifying the AI’s nature at the start of every interaction. Restrict access for minors and vulnerable users. The Wider “DeathTech” Industry The use of AI in mourning forms part of the broader DeathTech sector , which includes: Online memorial websites and digital headstones. AI-assisted funeral planning and obituary writing. Virtual reality memorials and livestreamed funerals. Interactive archives allowing descendants to “interview” ancestors. Analysts estimate that the digital memorialisation industry could exceed £2 billion globally by 2030 , with North America, the UK and South Korea leading adoption. Future Outlook AI grief technology is likely to expand alongside mainstream adoption of generative models. Future iterations may combine speech, gesture and holographic rendering to produce “living archives”. Experts suggest society will need new ethical and legal frameworks to define identity, consent and closure in a world where death may no longer mark the end of conversation. The question remains: will these tools help the living remember — or make it harder to let go?

It sounds like the set-up to a surreal joke: a 60-year-old man, looking to cut down on table salt, asked an artificial intelligence for alternatives and wound up in hospital after months of dosing himself with sodium bromide. Yet that is precisely what happened in the United States, according to a medical case report that has since sparked a flurry of concern about how people use AI for health advice. What Has the Online Safety Act Done So Far? The case, published in Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases , describes how the man, worried about the health effects of sodium chloride, decided to find a replacement. Instead of speaking to his doctor or a dietitian, he turned to ChatGPT. He later told clinicians that the system suggested bromide as a substitute. He then bought it online and sprinkled it onto food for around three months. When he eventually sought help, doctors found he was suffering from bromism , a rare form of poisoning that was more common decades ago, when bromide salts were sold as sedatives. Today, bromide compounds are not approved for human consumption in most countries. What Are the Symptoms of Bromism? Over time, the man developed a catalogue of troubling symptoms: paranoia, including a belief that his neighbour was poisoning him hallucinations insomnia and fatigue poor coordination and unsteady movement skin complaints including acne and red bumps known as cherry angiomas In blood tests, his chloride levels appeared abnormally high. In reality, bromide was interfering with the equipment — a diagnostic red herring that once led to bromism being nicknamed a “great imitator” in medicine. How Was He Treated? The man was admitted to hospital, where he was placed under psychiatric care due to his paranoia and hallucinations. Treatment included intravenous fluids to flush the bromide, correction of his electrolyte levels, and the use of antipsychotic medication. After three weeks, his condition improved and he was discharged. Doctors noted that many younger clinicians had little experience with bromism, since the condition has all but disappeared from modern practice. Without his disclosure about the AI-recommended substitution, diagnosis might have been even more difficult. Did ChatGPT Really Recommend Bromide? The clinicians never obtained the original conversation logs, so it is impossible to prove exactly what the system said. However, when the team ran similar prompts themselves, they found that ChatGPT sometimes did list sodium bromide as a possible substitute for sodium chloride, alongside caveats such as “context matters” and without asking for medical history. This raises awkward questions about how AI language models generate answers. They are designed to predict plausible text, not to provide safe or medically sound advice. What Are the Lessons? The case highlights three broader concerns: AI is not a doctor.  It may generate convincing answers, but it does not understand chemistry, biology, or risk in the way a professional does. Guardrails are limited.  While OpenAI and others build safeguards into their systems, loopholes remain, especially for niche queries. Doctors may need to ask new questions.  Just as they might ask patients about herbal remedies or over-the-counter pills, clinicians may increasingly need to ask: “Have you consulted an AI about this?” For the man at the centre of this story, the outcome was ultimately positive, after a frightening spell in hospital, he made a recovery. But for the wider public, the case stands as a reminder: artificial intelligence can be a helpful tool, but when it comes to your health, it is no substitute for professional medical advice.

Fort Lauderdale played host to NXT’s No Mercy  this past weekend, and the event lived up to its billing with title changes, controversy, and no shortage of drama. The headline moment saw Ricky Saints end Oba Femi’s reign  as NXT Champion in a match that swung from dominance to defiance before concluding with one of the most surprising finishes of the year. A Strong Start Je’Von Evans and Josh Briggs set the tone in the opening contest. Briggs relied on brute power, but Evans absorbed the punishment and fought back with agility, sealing victory with the OG Cutter. It was an energetic opener that highlighted the depth of NXT’s roster. Speed Championship Sparks Debate With Lainey Reid sidelined, Jaida Parker stepped in as a late replacement to face Sol Ruca for the Women’s Speed Championship. Ruca retained after interference from Zaria paved the way for her Sol Snatcher finish. The decision drew criticism from fans who wanted the Speed title to showcase pure athleticism without outside involvement. Cage Carnage The Weaponised Steel Cage match between Jordynne Grace and Blake Monroe provided the night’s most brutal spectacle. Tables splintered, weapons scattered, and Monroe even sheared Grace’s hair mid-match. Grace responded with an Air Raid Crash through a table to claim the win, reinforcing her reputation as one of wrestling’s toughest performers. Steady Defence for Ethan Page The North American Champion Ethan Page successfully defended against Tavion Heights. While it was a clean, technically sound bout, the lack of twists made it the evening’s least memorable contest. Page nevertheless looked sharp and remains a credible champion. Chaos in the Women’s Title Picture Jacy Jayne held onto her NXT Women’s Championship in controversial fashion. Lola Vice pushed her to the limit, but outside interference from Fallon Henley and a hooded attacker turned the tide. Jayne capitalised with the Rolling Encore, leaving Vice with a strong showing but no gold. Saints Topples the Giant The main event will be remembered for years. Oba Femi looked certain to retain, tossing Saints around the ring with ease. Yet Saints refused to fold. A string of DDTs, including a tornado variation to counter Femi’s Fall From Grace, finally put the champion down. The crowd erupted as Saints scored the three count, crowning a new champion and shaking the foundations of NXT. Final Verdict No Mercy 2025 balanced spectacle with storyline development. Saints’ crowning moment will define the brand’s next chapter, while Grace’s cage war and Evans’ resilience gave the card extra spark. However, the reliance on interference, particularly in the women’s division, and the diluted Speed Championship match, left some fans questioning consistency. Match of the Night : Ricky Saints vs Oba Femi Biggest Surprise : Saints’ title win Most Controversial Finish : Sol Ruca vs Jaida Parker

The UK’s Online Safety Act is already one of the most sweeping pieces of internet regulation in the world. Designed to make the online world safer, especially for children, it places new duties on digital platforms to tackle harmful and illegal content. So far, its reach has been felt by social media platforms, video-sharing services, search engines, and adult content providers. But with new rules coming into force, the focus is shifting: streaming platforms and video-on-demand services are next in line. What Has the Online Safety Act Changed So Far? The Act has already reshaped the way some of the biggest tech platforms operate in the UK. Social media giants like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram now face legal duties to remove illegal content quickly and protect younger users from harmful material. Ofcom, which oversees the Act, has also required stricter “age assurance” systems on sites where children could be exposed to explicit or harmful content. Online pornography providers have been directly targeted, with obligations to block under-18s unless robust age verification is in place. Search engines, meanwhile, have been tasked with reducing how easily harmful content can be discovered. Even niche sites, such as forums and community-driven platforms, have had to carry out risk assessments and change their moderation practices. Are Streaming Services Already Covered by the Act? Until recently, streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime Video sat largely outside the Online Safety Act’s framework. Instead, they were regulated separately under a “video-on-demand” system, which was lighter in scope. That changed in July 2025, when the old video-sharing platform regime was repealed and its rules folded into the Online Safety Act. This means that platforms previously regulated under those rules now fall squarely under the Online Safety Act’s duties, including obligations to tackle illegal content and protect children. While this primarily hit platforms such as Twitch, YouTube, and TikTok, the shift has opened the door for traditional streaming services to face similar scrutiny. Why Is the Government Interested in Regulating Streaming Platforms? Streaming services have become the default way people consume television and film in the UK. With millions of households relying on them daily, the government argues that it is only fair that they face similar standards to traditional broadcasters. A consultation launched by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) asked whether platforms such as Netflix should meet rules on fairness, privacy, and accuracy. These are already applied to public service broadcasters like the BBC, ITV, and Channel 4. The aim is to create a “level playing field” between old and new media, especially as younger audiences increasingly prefer streaming over linear TV. What Might Change for Viewers? If the proposals go ahead, viewers could see stricter content standards applied to streaming services. That might mean clearer age ratings, better content warnings, and stricter controls over what children can access. There could also be rules ensuring content is not misleading or harmful, especially in documentary or factual programming. Another area under discussion is “discoverability.” Public service broadcasters have raised concerns that UK-made content is being buried beneath international shows on streaming platforms. New rules could require services to make UK programming more visible, much as TV guides once gave prominence to BBC and ITV schedules. Could Smaller Streaming Platforms Be Affected Too? Yes. While much of the debate focuses on household names like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, the Online Safety Act does not only apply to global giants. Any platform making content available to UK audiences could fall under the scope, including niche services and independent VoD providers. This raises questions about whether smaller platforms will be able to afford the compliance costs. Age verification, moderation, and discoverability systems are expensive to build and maintain. Some critics fear that the rules could stifle innovation or even push smaller providers out of the UK market. What Does This Mean for the Future of Online Entertainment? For viewers, the changes could result in safer and more transparent streaming experiences, especially for families. For companies, however, the Online Safety Act represents another layer of compliance, on top of licensing agreements, regional rights, and international regulations. Streaming services are watching closely as Ofcom develops its new Video-on-Demand Code. The final rules will determine how far they must go to meet broadcaster-style standards. If the UK is seen as too restrictive, some services could scale back their UK operations, while others may choose to double down on compliance and market it as a badge of safety. Could the UK Become a Model for Other Countries? The UK is one of the first major markets to apply such sweeping safety legislation to both social platforms and, potentially, streaming services. Other countries are observing closely. If the system works, the Online Safety Act could become a template for regulating streaming platforms globally. But if the rules are too heavy-handed, there is a risk of backlash from both companies and users, who may see it as a threat to choice and creativity online. The Online Safety Act has already reshaped the digital landscape in the UK, forcing major platforms to rethink how they moderate and present content. Streaming services are now next in line for regulation, and while the full impact remains to be seen, the direction of travel is clear. The days of streaming being a free-for-all are ending. What replaces it will be a more regulated, safety-focused environment that balances protecting users with preserving freedom of choice.