Search Results

In a world wired for speed, consumers have learned to filter out noise. Their screens are full. Their attention is fractured. And yet, small businesses thrive when they find ways to cut through that blur, not with more noise, but with sharper signals. Earning customer attention today isn’t about shouting louder; it’s about making moments matter, aligning with how people feel when they scroll, pause, click, and decide. This isn’t theory. It’s survival. For small business owners and new startups, the ability to transform momentary awareness into enduring loyalty is the new metric of relevance. Catch Their Eye Without Breaking the Bank You don’t need a Super Bowl ad. You need surprise. A sidewalk chalk message that loops customers into an event they weren’t expecting. A clever post that hits the cultural moment sideways. A pop-up stand that looks wildly out of place in just the right way. Attention gravitates toward novelty, especially when it's human, local, and delightfully off-script. What works isn’t scale, it’s freshness. That's why more and more business owners are choosing to   leverage creative low-cost buzz tactics  that land like little jolts in the everyday. These jolts create stories worth sharing, and customers are more likely to remember what made them feel something off-script than what followed a template. Don’t Just Exist Online, Signal With Precision Consumers are already online. The question is: Can they find you? Visibility doesn’t happen just because you have a website. It happens because your digital presence tells a coherent, valuable, findable story, one that maps to what people are already trying to solve. And no, it’s not just about having a social account or a blog. Digital success today is built on using tools that   boost visibility using digital marketing , especially those that allow small teams to target specific groups, retarget effectively, and track conversion pathways. If you’re not mapping your content and campaigns to customer intent, you’re wasting digital oxygen. Visibility isn’t accidental; it’s engineered. Use Personalisation Without Turning Into a Robot When every email starts with “Hey [First Name],” you stop noticing any of them. But personalisation isn’t dead, it just needs to feel more human than automated. That’s where understanding behaviour over time pays off. Did the customer return something last month? Did they buy two of the same thing? Did they linger on a particular page for 45 seconds? These signals matter. Smart business owners tailor experiences with customer personalization by tracking these micro-patterns and weaving them into gentle nudges, a coupon for something they looked at but didn’t buy, or a reminder based on the weather in their zip code. The key is restraint. Personalisation should feel like care, not code. Simplify Every Path They Take Nothing breaks a potential customer’s momentum like friction. Too many form fields, unclear next steps, or loyalty programs that feel like puzzles. People are busy. They want clean lines and simple logic. A loyalty system that takes six steps to activate or asks for your blood type is a lost opportunity. Instead, focus on mechanics that reward people in the moment  and don’t make them do math. Many small businesses are leaning into systems that design easy-to-follow loyalty systems, no blackout dates, no hoops. Just buy, get, feel good. That kind of transparency builds quiet trust, which compounds over time and outlasts even the flashiest promotions. Follow Up Like a Human, Not a Sequence The sale isn’t the end of the relationship. It’s the beginning of the proof. Customers who buy and never hear from you again remember that silence more than they remember your copy. And yet, following up isn’t about checking boxes; it’s about checking in. Businesses that do this well don’t rely on recycled templates. They reach back with smart follow-up methods that feel intentional: a quick note  asking how the item is working, a thank-you email with a useful tip, a personal video message. Done right, follow-up transforms a transaction into a relationship, and that’s where loyalty actually starts. Join the Scene, Don’t Just Sell to It You’re not just a business, you’re part of a local narrative. Consumers increasingly care about what businesses stand for and where they belong. So get out there. Sponsor a park clean-up. Set up shop at a weekend market. Donate products to a community event and actually show up to talk to people. This isn’t feel-good fluff; it’s a strategy. Small businesses that   participate in local events to connect  don’t just get facetime, they get trust, context, and memory. People want to buy from businesses that show up before the pitch, not just during it. It’s that offline presence that often becomes the most memorable part of a digital brand. Expand Your Capacity to Lead and Adapt Sometimes, the most important move you can make isn’t outward, it’s internal. If your marketing isn’t landing or your customer journey feels choppy, it might not be your tactics. It might be that your strategic lens is narrow. Earning a   master of Business Administration  degree can expand how you think about pricing, branding, and leadership, not just from a technical standpoint, but in how you set vision and steer growth. Many professionals opt for online MBA programs that offer flexibility without compromising depth, especially useful for entrepreneurs juggling daily operations while planning their next evolution. Business acumen isn't something you're born with; it’s built. In this fast, full world, getting noticed isn’t the same as getting chosen. And being chosen once isn’t the same as being remembered. What separates the businesses people return to, what makes someone walk three blocks farther or click one more link, isn’t noise. It’s resonance. It’s the precision of presence and the intention behind the next move. For small business owners and startups, the challenge is never just getting on someone’s radar. It’s what you do once you’re there. Make it simple. Make it human. Make it stick. Dive into the future with ITK Magazine  and explore how today’s innovations are shaping tomorrow’s world, from tech breakthroughs to cultural shifts!

The internet has long been described as a “living” network, a chaotic digital ecosystem buzzing with human creativity. But what if much of it was not alive at all? That is the provocative claim of the Dead Internet Theory , a fringe yet increasingly discussed idea that suggests bots and algorithms have quietly replaced human users across much of the web. Where Did the Dead Internet Theory Come From? The phrase first gained traction in the early 2020s on forums such as 4chan and later spread into wider digital culture. Proponents argue that somewhere around 2016 to 2017, the internet changed. They claim that organic human activity began to fade, replaced by a flood of automated bots, recycled content, and AI-generated material. The Dead Internet Theory taps into broader concerns about the authenticity of online life. With so much engagement driven by algorithms, sponsored posts, and artificially boosted accounts, some began to ask: how much of the internet is really us? The Link to Platforms Like Twitch The recent revelations from Twitch, where bot purges caused a near-quarter drop in viewership, have given the theory new attention. For believers, it is proof that a large share of online activity is synthetic. If one of the internet’s most interactive platforms was propped up by artificial viewers, what does that say about the wider digital landscape? The fear is that what looks like a bustling, vibrant network may in reality be sustained by smoke and mirrors. How Bots Shape the Web Bots are not inherently malicious. They can automate useful tasks such as indexing websites for search engines or scanning for cybersecurity threats. But the line between helpful automation and manipulative deception is thin. On social media, bots can inflate follower counts, sway political discourse, or amplify viral trends. On streaming platforms, they can make creators appear far more popular than they really are. As artificial intelligence tools advance, bots are becoming harder to spot. Entire conversations, articles, or even video content can now be generated without a human in the loop. To the casual user, it may be impossible to tell the difference. Critics of the Theory Not everyone buys the Dead Internet Theory . Skeptics argue that while bots and algorithms are undeniably widespread, the idea that the internet is “dead” is more paranoia than reality. They suggest the theory reflects a cultural unease about how digital spaces are evolving, rather than evidence of a literal takeover. Indeed, internet use is at record highs, and platforms continue to see strong human participation. For many, the web feels more alive than ever — but it is also noisier, more commercialised, and more curated by algorithms. Why It Resonates Despite criticism, the theory strikes a chord because it captures something many feel: that the online world has become less authentic. Whether it is influencer marketing that feels staged, news feeds shaped by opaque algorithms, or “viral” trends that turn out to be manufactured, the sense of the internet as a wild frontier of creativity has faded. The Dead Internet Theory  may not be literally true, but it reflects a very real anxiety — that in chasing scale, profit, and engagement, the internet has lost some of its human soul. Looking Ahead The Twitch bot purge has put questions of authenticity back in the spotlight. As more platforms confront inflated numbers and AI-driven content, debates around what is “real” online will only intensify. Whether or not the internet is “dead”, the theory highlights the need for transparency. As users, we crave connection to other humans — not to machines pretending to be them. The future of the internet may hinge on how platforms, regulators, and communities choose to preserve that human core.

The son of MMA legend Quinton “Rampage” Jackson has found himself at the centre of a storm after an independent wrestling match in Los Angeles turned violent. Raja Jackson, a trainee wrestler, has been accused of assaulting an opponent after a scripted move went wrong, leaving fans, promoters and even his own father facing difficult questions about his future. What Happened in the Ring During a recent Knokx Pro Wrestling event in California, Raja was booked in a standard exhibition match against local performer Stuart “Syko Stu” Smith. What began as a routine bout allegedly turned dangerous when Raja delivered repeated blows to his downed opponent, continuing well after the scripted finish. Eyewitnesses described it as a chilling moment where the staged performance gave way to something far more real. Smith was reportedly left bloodied and unconscious, requiring medical treatment. A GoFundMe page has since been launched to cover his hospital costs. The incident was severe enough that Knokx Pro immediately suspended Raja and confirmed he would no longer appear in their shows. The Los Angeles Police Department has also confirmed an investigation into possible assault charges. Who is Raja Jackson? Raja, in his early twenties, is the eldest son of Quinton “Rampage” Jackson, one of the UFC’s most colourful champions during the 2000s. While his father became famous in the Octagon for his power slams and knockout punches, Raja pursued a different path, entering the world of professional wrestling rather than mixed martial arts. Training at Knokx Pro Wrestling Academy, which is closely tied to WWE Hall of Famer Rikishi and the Anoa’i wrestling family, Raja was seen as a young talent with potential. Until this incident, he had no public history of violence or criminal behaviour. Within the wrestling community, however, some described him as brash and eager to prove himself. Rampage’s Remark About Bail Money Attention has also turned to comments Rampage Jackson made in an interview several years ago. Speaking candidly about his children, Rampage joked that he had saved money for two of his sons to go to college, while setting aside money for bail for his third. The remark was made in a light-hearted tone at the time, but fans have since speculated whether he was referring to Raja and whether that comment reflected a deeper concern about his temperament. While it may have been nothing more than a joke, the resurfacing of that quote has added fuel to debates over whether Raja had shown warning signs of volatility before stepping into the ring. Retired Pro Wrestler Stevie Richards Breaks Down What Has Happened Why This Crossed the Line in Wrestling Professional wrestling is unique in that it blurs the lines between performance and sport. Matches are choreographed, and opponents work together to create the illusion of combat without causing real harm. This cooperative aspect is considered sacred in the industry. When a wrestler breaks from the script and intentionally hurts their opponent, it is known as a “shoot.” A scripted, staged performance is referred to as a “work.” While works are the foundation of the business, shoots are seen as unprofessional and dangerous, violating the trust between performers. What happened in Raja’s match is being widely regarded as a shoot, and one that placed his opponent’s health in jeopardy. For that reason, industry insiders have been quick to condemn his actions, stressing that pro wrestling has no place for unsanctioned violence. The Legal Implications From a legal perspective, Raja’s situation is serious. While athletes consent to physical contact within the rules of their sport, the law draws the line at excessive or intentional harm beyond what is reasonably expected. Courts have repeatedly held that consent does not cover actions “outside the ordinary scope of play.” If police determine that Raja’s extra strikes constituted assault, he could face charges ranging from misdemeanour assault to felony assault, depending on the injuries sustained by Smith. Beyond criminal charges, Raja could also be sued in civil court for medical costs, damages and loss of income. What Happens Next? Knokx Pro Wrestling has made it clear that Raja will not return to their shows, and larger promotions like WWE or AEW are unlikely to take a chance on him while legal questions hang over his head. What was meant to be the beginning of his career could, in fact, become the end of it. For now, all eyes are on the LAPD investigation and whether formal charges will be brought. If the case proceeds, it could be a defining moment not only for Raja Jackson but for the reputation of independent wrestling promotions, which must reassure fans and performers that safety remains a priority.

For years, Twitch has been the undisputed giant of live streaming. Millions tune in daily to watch gaming marathons, esports tournaments, or just hang out with their favourite streamers. Yet in August 2025, the platform experienced one of the most dramatic dips in its history. Following the rollout of new anti-bot technology designed to weed out artificial viewers, Twitch’s sitewide audience numbers fell by almost 24% in just a matter of days. While the company has pitched this as a necessary move to restore authenticity, the changes have sparked debate among creators, advertisers, and audiences alike. Why the Drop Happened On 21 August, Twitch deployed a suite of detection tools specifically aimed at identifying “viewbots” — fake accounts programmed to inflate viewer counts. Within three days, global concurrent viewership plunged by almost a quarter, with some creators reporting losses of up to one-third of their supposed audience. Even big names were not spared. Channels run by popular personalities such as Asmongold, as well as those backed by major agencies, saw sudden declines of 20 to 30 per cent. The impact was swift and visible, raising questions about just how many bots had been lurking on the platform. A Blow to Inflated Numbers The crackdown has laid bare what many industry analysts long suspected: that a substantial chunk of Twitch’s viewership was never real. Estimates now suggest between 5% and 22% of all Twitch viewers were bots. Some agencies have been accused of using them to make their streamers look more popular, securing bigger advertising packages in the process. High-profile streamer xQc went as far as calling it “ad fraud”, accusing agencies of selling inflated numbers to brands. The implication is stark — not only were bots distorting popularity metrics, but they may also have been distorting the economics of streaming itself. Creators Divided Not all streamers reacted the same way. Larger channels, which bore the brunt of the drop, accused Twitch of damaging their brand and sponsorship opportunities. Smaller creators, however, welcomed the move. Many argued that the crackdown levels the playing field, rewarding those who earn engagement through genuine communities rather than artificial boosts. One Reddit user put it bluntly: “The hardest-hit streamers had viewer counts that never matched their chat activity. That breaks every rule we know about audience engagement.” What It Means for Twitch’s Future For Twitch, the immediate numbers look grim. Advertisers may be spooked by the sudden dip in audience size. But in the long term, the platform may benefit from stronger credibility. Brands seeking transparency in digital marketing will likely value accurate data over artificially inflated figures. The challenge now lies in balancing short-term losses with long-term trust. If Twitch can demonstrate that its numbers reflect genuine engagement, the platform may emerge stronger — though it will need to reassure both creators and advertisers that it remains the go-to space for livestreaming.

A Nostalgic Glimpse of the Future There was a certain magic in sitting down to watch a sci-fi film as a child, eyes wide, heart racing, as heroes tapped sleek screens, spoke into tiny devices, or zoomed around in cars that seemed to fly. The future felt just a reel away, and we often marveled at gadgets that seemed impossible. Yet over the decades, many of these fantastical inventions have crept off the screen and into our pockets, homes, and daily lives. Star Trek and the Rise of Mobile Phones One of the most obvious examples is the mobile phone. Fans of Star Trek  will remember the original series’ communicators, small flip devices that allowed instant contact across distances. These were a clear inspiration for the flip phones that became ubiquitous in the 1990s and early 2000s. Even today, the sleek, touch-screen smartphones we carry owe a nod to that early vision of portable, personal communication. Beyond Phones: Sci-Fi as a Blueprint for Innovation Films like Back to the Future Part II  imagined hoverboards, self-lacing shoes, and video calling long before they became tangible possibilities. Science fiction has often served as a blueprint, a source of collective imagination that engineers and designers try to replicate. Robotic assistants, smart home devices, and augmented reality technologies can all trace at least part of their conceptual lineage back to the silver screen. Medical Technology Inspired by Fiction Medical technology has also benefited from the visionary ideas of science fiction. The Star Trek  medical tricorder, capable of diagnosing ailments instantly, inspired real-world attempts at portable diagnostic tools. Companies and researchers have been working on handheld devices capable of scanning vitals and detecting illnesses quickly, a technology that could revolutionise healthcare access in remote areas. Challenges of Turning Fiction Into Reality Yet translating fiction into reality is rarely straightforward. Many innovations seen in films face practical, economic, and ethical challenges. The self-driving cars imagined in Total Recall  and Minority Report  are now being tested in real cities, but safety, regulation, and infrastructure remain hurdles. Similarly, while gesture-controlled interfaces and holographic displays dazzle audiences in cinemas, creating responsive, reliable, and affordable versions for daily use is far from simple. Nostalgia Keeps the Dream Alive Nostalgia, however, keeps the dream alive. Older audiences smile at seeing Star Trek communicators reflected in their pocket devices, while younger viewers are inspired by the visions they see on screen today. Science fiction acts as both motivator and mirror, reflecting our hopes for the future and nudging technologists to turn imagination into reality. Looking Forward: The Fantastical Becoming Mundane So, while we may not be zooming around on hoverboards or casually teleporting from place to place just yet, the gadgets we carry and the technologies we rely on are increasingly influenced by what once seemed impossible. Perhaps one day, the fantastical devices of today’s films will be the mundane tools of tomorrow, and future generations will look back with the same nostalgic wonder we do now. Until then, keep an eye on the screen—it may just be the blueprint for the next revolution in technology.

The phrase “15-minute city” has been buzzing around councils, planning departments, and even protest placards in recent years. At its heart, the concept is simple. Every resident should be able to access the essentials of daily life within a 15-minute walk or cycle from their front door. Shops, schools, healthcare, parks, and workplaces would all be close at hand, reducing the need for long commutes and helping to cut down on car dependency. Concept Image generated with Leonardo AI Supporters say it is about creating healthier, greener neighbourhoods. Critics call it unrealistic or even restrictive. But with several UK cities exploring the model, the question is becoming less about “if” and more about “how.” How the 15-Minute City Works The idea was popularised by Professor Carlos Moreno in Paris, where city leaders have restructured neighbourhoods to bring amenities closer to residents. It involves: Mixed-use planning:  Combining homes, workplaces, shops, and leisure in the same area. Green corridors:  Designing cities for walking and cycling as much as cars. Decentralisation:  Moving away from the idea of one city centre and instead supporting multiple local hubs. Resilience:  Ensuring neighbourhoods can function independently, from access to food to community spaces. The aim is not to stop people from leaving their neighbourhoods but to give them the option of living more locally if they wish. UK Cities Taking the Leap Several councils in the UK are experimenting with 15-minute city principles, though each is approaching it differently. Oxford Oxford City Council became one of the first to announce trials, sparking heated debate. Their plan involves restricting car access between certain zones at peak times, combined with investment in cycling and bus routes. The idea is to encourage more local trips rather than forcing residents across town for basic needs. Critics argued it risked “trapping” people, though the council insists the model is about freedom of choice. Bristol Bristol has embedded 15-minute city ideas into its long-term planning strategy. Rather than creating new barriers, the city is promoting dense, walkable neighbourhoods with shops, schools, and clinics woven into residential developments. Easton and Southville are often cited as examples where people already live in near-15-minute conditions, with strong community hubs and active high streets. Edinburgh Edinburgh has launched what it calls a “20-minute neighbourhood” plan. The principle is the same but adapted to the city’s geography. The council aims to ensure residents can reach shops, services, green spaces, and public transport within a short walk. Pilot areas include Leith, where investment in local shopping streets and public spaces has already started. Birmingham Birmingham is looking at how its outer estates can be reconnected. While the city centre is thriving, many residential areas were built around car use. The council has identified neighbourhoods where small-scale facilities like health clinics and shops could be reintroduced to cut long car journeys. London Parts of London already function as 15-minute neighbourhoods. Areas like Hackney and Islington have thriving local high streets, schools, and parks within walking distance. However, the Greater London Authority is encouraging boroughs to develop policies that spread this model more evenly, especially in outer London where car dependency is still high. A Look Back at the Tower Block Dream For some, the 15-minute city sounds familiar. In the 1950s and 1960s, post-war Britain embraced modernist architecture and the idea of self-contained estates. Tower blocks such as Sheffield’s Park Hill or London’s Barbican were built with shops, schools, and even pubs included. The dream was to give working-class families modern homes with everything on their doorstep. It did not always work out. Poor maintenance, design flaws, and rising crime left many estates in decline by the 1970s and 1980s. The promise of close-knit communities gave way to isolation and poverty in some areas. For older generations, the memory of these failed experiments lingers, and there are fears that the 15-minute city could repeat some of the same mistakes. Learning from the Past The key difference, say modern planners, is that today’s approach is community-led rather than imposed from above. Councils are holding workshops and consultations to shape neighbourhoods alongside residents. Instead of high-rise towers, most designs focus on mixed-use low and mid-rise housing, walkable high streets, and green spaces. There is also a greater emphasis on flexibility. The 15-minute city does not seek to lock people into their area but to give them choices. If you want to walk to the shops, you can. If you want to drive across town, you still can. The failure of the tower blocks has made modern planners more cautious about assuming they know best. The Debate and the Future Despite these reassurances, the concept has become politically charged. Some campaigners fear it will lead to restrictions on personal freedom. Others worry it may prioritise wealthier areas, leaving deprived communities behind once again. What is clear is that UK cities face enormous challenges. Rising populations, climate targets, and stretched infrastructure mean that the current reliance on cars and long commutes cannot last forever. Whether labelled as 15-minute cities or simply better neighbourhood planning, councils are under pressure to make urban life more sustainable and liveable. The ghosts of the tower block era will always haunt such debates. Yet for many communities, the dream of being able to shop, work, and socialise close to home remains as appealing as ever. The question is whether Britain can learn from its mistakes and finally turn that dream into reality.

Karrion Kross, known to wrestling fans around the world for his intense in-ring style and commanding presence, has once again parted ways with WWE. The news broke earlier this week, sparking a wave of reaction from fans and fellow wrestlers alike. From the Indies to the Big Stage Photo by Diego Serrano Before signing with WWE, Kross built a reputation on the independent circuit under the name Killer Kross . His career began in the mid-2010s with appearances in promotions like Global Force Wrestling, Lucha Underground, and AAA in Mexico. With his imposing stature, MMA-influenced offence, and calculated promos, Kross quickly became a standout. His run in Impact Wrestling, alongside real-life partner Scarlett Bordeaux, cemented him as one of the hottest free agents in the business. Arrival in WWE Kross joined WWE’s NXT brand in early 2020, debuting with cinematic vignettes and instantly making an impact. Accompanied by Scarlett, his entrance became one of the most talked-about in the company. Within months, he captured the NXT Championship, defeating Keith Lee in dominant fashion. However, an injury forced him to relinquish the title shortly after. Upon his return, he reclaimed the championship before eventually dropping it to Samoa Joe in 2021. Why No "Killer Kross"? When Kross signed with WWE, the company opted to change his name to “Karrion Kross.” The reasoning was twofold: WWE prefers to trademark its talent’s ring names for exclusive branding and merchandising purposes. “Killer Kross” was already established in the independents and not owned by WWE. The company wanted to present Kross with a new, unique identity that fit their vision for his character. The “Karrion” spelling played into the darker, foreboding aesthetic WWE was crafting for him. While some fans embraced the new name, others never warmed to it, feeling it lost some of the grit of his indie persona. Main Roster Struggles Kross’s move to WWE’s main roster in mid-2021 proved controversial. Stripped of his NXT presentation and Scarlett’s accompaniment, he debuted wearing a gladiator-style mask and gear that fans felt clashed with his established image. Creative changes, questionable booking decisions, and a lack of momentum eventually led to his first WWE release in November 2021. Karrion Kross's Second Run and Sudden Exit In 2022, under the leadership of Triple H, Kross returned to WWE with Scarlett by his side. Hopes were high for a rejuvenated push, and while he was featured in feuds with Drew McIntyre and Rey Mysterio, his on-screen appearances became sporadic in 2023 and 2024. Earlier this week, WWE announced his release once again. The move has raised eyebrows among fans, with some speculating it could be a “work” designed to set up a storyline surprise down the line. Fan Response Reactions have been split. Many fans have voiced frustration, calling it a waste of talent and a missed opportunity for WWE to create a top-tier villain. Others argue that Kross’s WWE run never fully clicked with audiences outside of NXT. One thing is clear: his release has reignited debate about WWE’s creative direction and its handling of unique talent. Kross has already posted a video message to fans on his official YouTube channel, addressing the release and teasing what might come next. What’s Next for Karrion Kross? If his past career moves are any indication, Kross will not be short on opportunities. A return to the independent circuit, or even a move to AEW, Impact Wrestling, or New Japan Pro Wrestling, would allow him to reconnect with fans who appreciated his original “Killer Kross” persona. Should this turn out to be a WWE storyline twist, it could lead to one of the more memorable comebacks in recent years. Either way, the wrestling world will be watching closely to see where he lands next.

If you've applied for a job recently, you might have noticed something different: the first “interview” often isn’t with a person at all, it’s with a chatbot. More and more companies are using artificial intelligence to help them with the hiring process. From screening resumes to conducting initial interviews, chatbots and AI-powered tools are becoming a regular part of how businesses find new talent. But is this a smart move, or is something important getting lost along the way? What is AI actually changing? Traditionally, job interviews started with a phone call or a face-to-face meeting. Now, for many roles, especially high-volume or entry-level positions, companies are turning to automated systems. These might ask candidates to answer a set of questions via video, or they may chat with you in real time to screen your qualifications. It’s faster and cheaper for companies, but not everyone’s a fan. Why companies are doing it Let’s be fair: using AI can make hiring a lot more efficient. Businesses like Nestlé and GM have saved thousands of hours and even millions of dollars by switching to automated tools. These systems can scan through applications, schedule interviews, and even give feedback to candidates all without involving a human recruiter until much later in the process. For companies hiring hundreds or even thousands of people, it makes sense logistically. So… What’s the problem? The biggest complaint? It feels impersonal. Many candidates say they don’t like talking to a machine, especially when it’s a job they care about. Others worry about fairness. Can an algorithm really judge someone’s personality, creativity, or potential? There are also concerns about bias. If the AI is trained on data that favours certain types of candidates, it could end up unfairly filtering out great people. And then there’s the weird stuff. There are TikToks going viral of AI interviews glitching out, repeating phrases, mishearing answers, or just being plain awkward. One user even joked it felt like applying for a job in a Black Mirror episode. What About Real Interviews? Don’t worry, human interviews haven’t gone away. Most companies still bring in real people for the later stages of hiring. AI is often used just to get through the first wave of applications. For smaller businesses or more senior roles, traditional interviews are still the norm. Some companies are even trying hybrid methods. Meta, for example, is letting candidates use AI tools during their interviews for some tech jobs, kind of like using a calculator during a math test. It’s all about testing real-world problem-solving. Is this the future? Probably. AI isn’t replacing human recruiters entirely, but it is becoming a bigger part of the process. As tools improve, they’ll likely become more common, especially for screening and admin tasks. But here’s the key: people still matter. The final hiring decision usually comes down to a human being, and for good reason. No machine can fully understand passion, personality, or potential the way another person can. So, are companies switching to AI interviews? Yes, but not completely. Chatbots are helping with early steps, but in most cases, real conversations are still part of the process. If you're applying for jobs, it helps to be prepared for both. Practice answering questions on video, but also be ready to connect with an actual person when the time comes. And if the idea of talking to a chatbot feels strange, you’re not alone. Would you trust a robot to hire you?  Or is this one task better left to humans?

The UK government has rejected a public petition calling for repeal of the Online Safety Act. More than 377,000 people signed in protest against the new age-verification requirements that came into force on 25 July 2025. These rules mean users now often must upload ID, scan their face, or share credit card details to access a range of websites—from social media to adult content sites. What the petition asked for The petition argued that the Online Safety Act’s scope is too broad. It warned that small forums, hobby groups and civil society sites risk being forced offline because they cannot afford the required verification systems. Supporters believe the law could restrict free expression and community conversation about seemingly harmless topics by imposing burdens on niche platforms. Government response Despite breaching the 100,000-signature threshold needed for parliamentary consideration, the government has no intention of repealing the Act. Officials emphasise that the law aims to protect users—especially children—from online harm while allowing low-risk services to operate with support from Ofcom. Official defence and tone of debate In a more forceful public response, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle, implied that critics of the Act were siding with dangerous actors, describing them as on the side of “extreme pornographers” and “predators”. This rhetoric has raised concerns that public criticism is being framed as being anti-safety or anti-children. What this means for internet users For many, the message is clear: age checks are mandatory and non-negotiable, regardless of popular opposition. Users who value privacy or seek to access content without ID may turn to workarounds such as VPNs—which have seen huge spikes in usage since the law took effect. Still, Ofcom has pledged to take a “sensible approach” to enforcement, especially with small services that pose low risks to users

The UK’s new Online Safety Act has introduced sweeping age verification rules for a wide range of digital services. From social media platforms to music streaming apps, users now face requests to prove their age through ID uploads, facial scans or other forms of verification. The majority of these checks are being handled by specialist third-party companies, often based overseas. They act as intermediaries, confirming whether a user is old enough to access certain content. In many cases, they do not share the full ID with the platform, instead sending back a simple “pass” or “fail”. How the system works Under the new law, platforms must ensure that children cannot access content deemed harmful. That includes explicit music lyrics, violent games, pornography, gambling, and online discussions of subjects such as eating disorders or suicide. To meet this “highly effective” requirement, most companies have opted not to build their own systems. Instead they have signed contracts with external providers such as Yoti, Persona and Kids Web Services. These services use techniques like: Scanning an official document such as a passport or driving licence. Estimating a user’s age through a selfie analysed by AI. Linking to government databases or credit card checks. Some verification companies promise to delete personal data within days. Others may retain information for months or years, raising concerns among privacy advocates. Critics point out that once this infrastructure is in place, it could, in theory, be used for purposes beyond child safety. MPs’ VPN expenses draw attention While the public adjusts to this new reality, attention has turned to how some politicians manage their own online access. A POLITICO  review of parliamentary expenses found that several MPs, including Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, claimed subscriptions for virtual private networks (VPNs). Reynolds expensed a two-year NordVPN subscription in April 2024. Other MPs, such as Labour’s Sarah Champion and Alex Sobel, and Conservative MPs Gareth Davies and Chris Heaton-Harris, have also claimed for VPN services. VPNs encrypt internet traffic and can hide a user’s location, making them harder to track. They are often used by businesses and journalists to protect sensitive information. However, they can also bypass regional restrictions, including those imposed by age-verification systems. The revelation has sparked criticism online, with some pointing out the apparent contradiction between MPs approving legislation that pushes the public into using third-party age checks while themselves claiming tools that can avoid such checks. What it means for ordinary users For people who rarely think about online privacy, the combination of mandatory age verification and rising VPN usage can seem confusing. In practical terms, the new rules could mean: You may need to upload official documents or scan your face to access websites you have used freely for years. Your personal data may be handled by a company you have never heard of and which may be outside the UK. Content you regard as harmless could still be blocked unless you verify your age. Some smaller websites may block UK visitors altogether rather than invest in compliance systems. Meanwhile, VPNs remain legal in the UK, but their usage is being monitored more closely. Providers have reported sharp rises in new subscriptions since the age verification rules came into effect. Privacy campaigners warn that this creates a two-tier internet where tech-savvy or wealthier users can pay for workarounds while others cannot. The bigger picture Supporters of the law, including many parents’ groups, argue that the measures are long overdue to protect children in an increasingly digital world. The government insists that the age checks are proportionate and that privacy is being respected. Opponents counter that the approach is heavy-handed, ineffective against determined users, and potentially damaging to free expression. They also highlight that the involvement of overseas verification companies gives the UK little control over how data is stored or processed. As the Online Safety Act’s child safety duties become fully enforceable, the divide between public compliance and private circumvention may continue to grow. The irony that some MPs are expensing VPNs while the public is told to trust age-checking systems has not been lost on critics. For the average person, the choice is stark. Accept a new layer of ID checks to keep using familiar online services, or follow the lead of some elected representatives and invest in a VPN — with all the technical know-how and potential legal scrutiny that entails.

Once again, Meta is in the spotlight, and not for the reasons it might hope. This time, it finds itself under renewed legal and regulatory scrutiny across both the UK and United States, as fresh allegations emerge about its continued tracking of user data without full consent. Despite previous fines and public outcry, the tech giant behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp is facing a storm that may be more difficult to weather. New Legal Pressure in the United States In the US, Meta is currently facing multiple class action lawsuits, many of which revolve around privacy breaches, exploitative platform design, and the targeting of young users. One of the most prominent ongoing cases was filed in 2023 by dozens of US states. The lawsuit accuses Meta of deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that exploit young users' psychological vulnerabilities, encouraging addictive use of the platforms. The company is alleged to have known about the harm these features could cause, particularly to teenage mental health, but did little to change the design. Another class action is gaining traction over the unauthorised tracking of user behaviour on third-party websites. This includes the alleged misuse of tracking pixels to collect data even when users are not logged into Meta’s platforms. Users claim they were unaware that their health, financial, or browsing information was being collected in the background. These lawsuits follow in the wake of a $725 million settlement Meta agreed to pay in 2022 over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The current cases suggest that regulatory and legal appetite for holding Big Tech accountable is only increasing. Investigations and Pressure in the UK Across the Atlantic, Meta is facing scrutiny from the UK’s Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). Though details of ongoing investigations remain confidential, the ICO has expressed growing concern about the use of data tracking in digital advertising. The regulator is reportedly investigating whether Meta’s ad targeting systems and platform architecture violate UK privacy laws, especially in light of recent Online Safety Act provisions. In addition, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched probes into how Meta collects and uses consumer data, particularly around its growing integration with virtual and augmented reality services. The UK’s appetite for action follows similar moves in the European Union. In 2023, Ireland’s Data Protection Commission issued Meta with a €1.2 billion fine for unlawful data transfers to the United States, the largest GDPR-related fine ever issued. A Pattern of Privacy Failures Meta’s defenders often argue that the company is simply evolving in a fast-moving tech environment. However, critics point to a repeated pattern of behaviour that undermines public trust. From Cambridge Analytica to hidden tracking pixels and now algorithms that allegedly harm young people, Meta’s record on user data is far from spotless. Regulators and campaigners say this pattern suggests systemic issues rather than one-off mistakes. James Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media, said: "Tech giants like Meta have failed to put the wellbeing of users first. We have seen this time and again. Fines may not be enough to drive real change." What Could This Mean for Meta? The potential financial impact of these actions could be considerable. Under GDPR, fines can reach up to 4 percent of global turnover. With Meta reporting revenue of around $135 billion in 2024, this could mean penalties in the multi-billion range. Beyond the fines, Meta faces restrictions on how it can collect and use data. Some legal experts believe upcoming rulings may force the company to overhaul its ad systems entirely, particularly those built around inferred personal data and behavioural tracking. There is also reputational risk. Consumers, particularly younger ones, are increasingly conscious of how their data is handled. With rival platforms emerging and concerns around AI-generated content on the rise, Meta’s grip on digital culture may be slipping. Why It Matters to Everyone These legal actions may feel distant from everyday life, but they reflect a deeper issue about how much control individuals have over their digital lives. Most users never read the fine print or understand the scope of the data being collected. Meta’s platforms remain free to use, but the cost is increasingly paid in privacy. There is also a broader societal question at play. If companies continue to operate in a way that values data extraction over transparency, can regulation ever catch up? Or are we simply witnessing the beginning of a new kind of digital economy, one where personal information is the price of entry? A Familiar Story with Higher Stakes Whether this new wave of lawsuits and investigations leads to genuine change is yet to be seen. Meta has the resources to fight prolonged legal battles, and history has shown the company is rarely forced into long-term reform. But there is a sense that the tide is turning. Public sentiment is shifting, and regulators appear more coordinated than ever. If Meta is once again under fire for failing to respect data boundaries, this time it may find the consequences harder to brush off. Sources and Further Reading FTC vs Meta Lawsuit (USA) Meta $1.2B Fine – Irish DPC UK ICO Comments on Ad Tracking Common Sense Media: Youth Lawsuit Meta’s Cambridge Analytica Settlement

Following a busy and surprise-laden first night, WWE returned with the second chapter of its SummerSlam double-bill. The matches on Sunday delivered more stipulation-based brawls, intense title fights, and the most talked-about return of the weekend. Naomi (c) vs IYO SKY vs Rhea Ripley Women’s World Championship – Triple Threat Match Naomi entered SummerSlam as champion with momentum following her return to the spotlight earlier in the year. After turning heel during the build-up, she found herself in the crosshairs of two of WWE’s most dangerous women: the acrobatic IYO SKY and the returning powerhouse Rhea Ripley. The triple threat format allowed for creative spots, with SKY using ladders and springboards to her advantage, while Ripley dominated with hard-hitting offence. Naomi, however, worked opportunistically, targeting whichever woman was isolated. In the final moments, Ripley hit Riptide on SKY but was thrown out of the ring by Naomi, who swooped in to steal the pin. The finish sparked crowd boos, reinforcing Naomi’s new villainous persona. Winner and Still Champion : Naomi Becky Lynch (c) vs Lyra Valkyria Women’s Intercontinental Championship – No Disqualification, Last Chance Stipulation The feud between Becky Lynch and Lyra Valkyria had been simmering since Valkyria’s rapid rise through the women's ranks. This match came with high stakes—if Lyra failed to win, she could never challenge for the title again during Becky’s reign. Both women brought passion and intensity to the no-disqualification rules. Steel chairs, kendo sticks, and even a table were used liberally. At one point, Valkyria landed a moonsault through a table, nearly securing a pin. Becky’s veteran savvy paid off in the end. She dodged a high-risk top-rope move and locked in the Dis-Arm-Her with a chair wrapped around Valkyria’s arm. With nowhere to go, Lyra tapped out. Winner and Still Champion : Becky Lynch Solo Sikoa (c) vs Jacob Fatu United States Championship – Steel Cage Match This was the most brutal match of the night. Solo Sikoa, now firmly established as the violent centre of the post-Bloodline landscape, defended against the explosive and unpredictable Jacob Fatu. The cage added an extra layer of carnage. The match was less about finesse and more about destruction. Both men slammed each other into the steel repeatedly. Fatu attempted to escape mid-match but was dragged back in for a superkick followed by a Samoan Spike. Despite a late comeback from Fatu that included a top-rope splash, Sikoa kicked out and used the cage to trap Fatu's arm. A second Samoan Spike sealed the win. Winner and Still Champion : Solo Sikoa Dominik Mysterio (c) vs AJ Styles Intercontinental Championship Dominik Mysterio’s controversial title reign had seen him escape with the belt repeatedly, often due to outside interference. This match, however, was a straight one-on-one against AJ Styles, who returned from injury looking to remind fans he was still a world-class performer. Styles controlled the early stages with technical precision, grounding Dominik and teasing a submission finish. Dominik turned the tide with a thumb to the eye and a snap DDT, then used the ropes for leverage during a near-fall that had the crowd furious. Styles mounted a final flurry, hitting the Phenomenal Forearm. But Dominik rolled out of the ring, pulled Styles into the steel steps, and finished with a Frog Splash after slipping back into the ring unnoticed. Winner and Still Champion : Dominik Mysterio The Wyatt Sicks vs Fraxiom, Andrade & Rey Fénix, Motor City Machine Guns, #DIY, Street Profits Six-Team TLC Match – WWE Tag Team Championship This chaotic, high-risk encounter featured six teams and the return of the Tables, Ladders, and Chairs stipulation. It was the most action-packed match of the night, full of wild dives, broken furniture, and blink-and-you-miss-it moments. The Wyatt Sicks, introduced earlier in the summer as a new horror-themed faction, were not favourites going in. But their dark presence dominated the match, with Bo Dallas (as Uncle Howdy) using psychological tactics and brawling style to throw off the competition. Highlights included a triple ladder suplex spot involving Fraxiom and DIY, a Spanish Fly from the top of a ladder by Rey Fénix, and a spear through a table by Montez Ford. The ending saw the Wyatt Sicks’ tag members climb opposite ladders and simultaneously unhook both belts after incapacitating the Machine Guns with chair shots. Winners and New Champions : The Wyatt Sicks John Cena (c) vs Cody Rhodes Undisputed WWE Championship – Street Fight In a rematch from Money in the Bank, John Cena entered as champion and icon, while Cody Rhodes carried the weight of legacy and expectation. Their previous encounter had been clean and respectful, but this time the gloves were off. Both men used the street fight stipulation to full effect—trash cans, steel steps, kendo sticks, and even the commentary desk came into play. Cena delivered a brutal Attitude Adjustment through the announce table. Rhodes responded with a Cody Cutter from the barricade. The decisive moment came when Cena tried to lock in the STF with a chain. Cody slipped out, landed three Cross Rhodes in a row, and pinned Cena to reclaim the title. After the match, the lights cut out. To the shock of everyone, Brock Lesnar  returned, stormed the ring, and dropped Cena with an F5. The move wasn’t part of the match, but it was a clear message. Whether it was revenge, a statement, or both, Lesnar’s presence changed the entire feel of the show’s final moments. Winner and New Champion : Cody Rhodes Location: MetLife Stadium, New Jersey Date: Sunday, August 3, 2025 Attendance: Combined weekend crowd estimated over 140,000 Host: Cardi B While Night One featured title changes and twists, Night Two upped the physicality and chaos. From the carnage of the steel cage and TLC bouts to Lesnar’s surprise return, the second half of SummerSlam 2025 delivered high-impact entertainment and launched several new storylines heading into the autumn. Cody Rhodes reclaimed gold, the Wyatt Sicks made their mark, and Naomi’s championship run continued. WWE’s two-night experiment gave room for a wide range of talent to shine and left fans talking well beyond the final bell.