• Apple charges 15-30% extra for in-app purchases and subscription fees like YouTube Premium
• This has become known as the 'Apple tax'
• Third-party developers have been protesting this, mainly Fortnite founder Epic Games

Apple’s App Store is a one-stop shop for all your needs. It’s made subscribing to third-party services a lot easier, and you can manage your memberships all from one place right there on your iPhone. That said, subscribing to platforms through Apple comes with a small but pricey catch.

If you’ve subscribed to the best streaming services such as YouTube Premium through the App Store, you might not know that this could cost you a lot more than if you were to sign up through YouTube itself — and it’s all down to App Store fees.

For example, if you were to sign up to YouTube Premium’s standard tier via its website, it would cost $15.99/ £12.99/ AU$22.99 a month, but if you signed up through the App Store, that monthly price becomes slightly more expensive ($20.99/ £16.99/ AU$23.99).

So, if you’ve started to wonder why your YouTube Premium subscription fee has skyrocketed in comparison to your Netflix and Disney+ memberships, this could be the reason. But why is the margin a lot higher for purchasing directly through Apple’s App Store?

Two words; Apple tax

Apple doesn’t just make bank from selling its extensive range of smartphones, laptops, and other devices; its App Store has created another source of revenue for the tech giant, which is now often referred to as the ‘Apple tax’.

Since Apple charges developers to implement alternative payment systems that aren't Apple Pay, these developers will bump up monthly subscription costs by roughly 15-30%, charging you more per month for simply subscribing to platforms via the App Store in order to avoid paying this fee. It doesn’t just apply to monthly subscriptions; Apple applies this tax to most of its digital goods and in-app purchases.

Now, Apple has been doing this pretty much since the App Store launched on iPhone some 18 years ago, resulting in a protest to this tax — mainly by Fornite-founding company Epic Games.

Back in 2020, Epic Games started its protest against Apple’s App Store fees by implementing its own direct payment system in iOS. As a result, Apple booted Epic’s developer accounts and removed Fortnite, but it didn’t end there.

Epic Games retaliated with a claim of its own, arguing Apple decided to remove Epic's developer accounts because it saw Epic Games as a threat to its ecosystem. Fortnite was then listed back on the App Store following a five-year absence, but the dispute is still very much unresolved. As it stands, the US Supreme Court has decided to hear Apple’s appeal of contempt in the ongoing lawsuit with Epic Games. This will begin in the Supreme Court’s next term, which starts in October.

For most of you who are literate with the ways of Apple, its App Store fees probably won’t come as a big shock to you, but for the average user who relies on their Apple device to make digital purchasing more convenient, they might not be as aware of the catch and are still being blindsided by the Apple Tax.

• Watch World Cup FREE - @CazeTV YouTube (Brazil)
• Outside Brazil? Unlock CazeTV with Norton VPN (try risk-free)
• All 104 games in 4K – including the World Cup Final

Looking to watch CazeTV – the Brazilian YouTube channel with the rights to all 104 World Cup 2026 games? Read on and we'll show you how to watch CazeTV outside Brazil – including the US, Europe and beyond.

After starting out as a Twitch streamer, Casimiro Miguel has changed the game when it comes to sports broadcasts in the modern era with his CazeTV YouTube channel.

For fans in Brazil, it's now easier than ever to watch the games – Caze offers easy access to all 104 matches, in crisp 4K quality, absolutely free of charge. No messy sign ups.

But, what if you're away from Brazil when a big sporting event is on? How do you unlock CazeTV's free streams?

Here's the trick – and how to watch CazeTV from anywhere in the world.

How to watch CazeTV for free

The good news is CazeTV is a totally free YouTube channel which broadcasts live sporting events, like the World Cup.

The catch is it's geo-locked to Brazil, with licensing limiting where you can watch live games and events.

If you're living in Brazil, you'll get access to football games, Olympics coverage, table tennis events, and more.

Traveling outside of Brazil? You can still watch your CazeTV stream for free thanks to Norton VPN (try for 60 days).

How to watch CazeTV from anywhere

Using a VPN is the best way to bypass geo-locked restrictions and access your usual content even if you're away on holiday. Here's how...

Do you need a VPN to watch CazeTV abroad?

Yes, if you're anywhere outside Brazil, CazeTV will be blocked. You'll see some recorded content and World Cup highlights – but you won't be able to access the World Cup live streams.

Having a good VPN and a strong connection can fix that, though.

You can change your location and settings so that your device thinks you're back in Brazil, and get access to your sporting content as normal. As we say, we recommend Norton VPN for this.

Quick warning – some VPNs don't work with CazeTV but Norton does, we tested and it's super-fast so you won't miss a goal of have to worry about buffering during a penalty shootout.

What streaming devices are supported by CazeTV?

📱 Mobile & Web

Android phones & tablets (Android L or later)
iPhone & iPad (iOS 15 or later)
Web browsers — watch via tv.youtube.com on Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc.

📺 Smart TVs

Samsung Smart TVs (2017 & newer)
LG Smart TVs (2016 & newer)
Vizio SmartCast TVs (select models)
Hisense Smart TVs (select models)
Sharp Smart TVs (select models)
Sony Smart TVs (select models)
(Support varies by model and app store availability)

🎮 Streaming Media Players & Set‑tops

Roku players & Roku TVs
Apple TV (4th gen & 4K)
Chromecast with Google TV / Google TV devices
Android TV devices (including built‑in TVs and boxes)
Amazon Fire TV devices & Fire TV Edition TVs
(App must be available in the device’s store)

🎮 Game Consoles & Smart Displays

Xbox Series X|S, Xbox One
PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4/Pro
Google Nest Hub / Smart displays with YouTube support

How popular is CazeTV?

Tens of millions of people are using CazeTV now, and it's breaking all kinds of records during the World Cup 2026.

Coverage of Brazil vs Morocco in the group stages of the World Cup brought in 12.4 million concurrent viewers at its peak.

That's the biggest live audience in YouTube history, and it was also the first time a solo streamer exceeded 10 million viewers.

What can you watch on CazeTV?

It's not just the World Cup you can watch on CazeTV. Here are all the other sports and content you can find on the YouTube channel:

• English Premier League
• La Liga
• Bundesliga
• Serie A
• Ligue 1
• The Olympics
• NFL
• World Table Tennis
• Sports documentaries
• Behind the scenes footage and training coverage
• Influencer and lifestyle content

Who owns CazeTV?

CazeTV is the brainchild of streamer Casimiro Miguel. The 32-year-old from Brazil founded CazeTV when he was starting out on Twitch before migrating to YouTube.

However, there is a much bigger name attached to the business now. Portugal legend Cristiano Ronaldo bought a stake in LiveModeTV, the enterprise behind CazeTV. According to SportCal, Ronaldo made a significant investment in the company.

Is CazeTV legal?

Yes, CazeTV is totally legal and free. It's just your standard YouTube account, but it's special because it has official broadcast rights to stream every single game from the tournament.

The channel had some access to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, and has been picking up more and more prestigious and expansive broadcast rights ever since.

More from TechRadar

• I went inside FIFA's super-secret Technology Command Center for the World Cup — but sadly I can't really tell you too much about what I saw
• How to watch World Cup 2026 online from anywhere: Free Streams, TV Channels and Fixtures
• How to listen to World Cup 2026 from anywhere in the world

One of the most influential forces in modern technology was Susan Wojcicki, who was instrumental in shaping Google in the very early years. She went on to lead YouTube during a significant period in the company's history before passing away in 2024.

The new industrial revolution

Shortly before taking on the leadership mantle at YouTube, Wojcicki – who was then Google's senior vice president of advertising and commerce – gave a lengthy interview to the Financial Times.

During this discussion, she explained that coding was an instrumental component in society's toolbox – and compared computer literacy with the fundamental skill of reading and writing. She added that being able to write code is just as important as being able to write many, many decades before.

Although her background was in marketing and advertising, she had an intimate understanding of the technology landscape – and was key in overseeing Google's acquisition of YouTube 2006, before going on to lead the organization for nine years.

Retooling for the AI era

Wojcicki's comparison between human-to-human communication and human-to-machine communication rings true if you strip down programming to the fundamental components – including the expressions, syntax and rules. Similarly, literacy (whether conventional or digital) unlocks avenues and opens up new possibilities.

In the years that followed, these sentiments have rung true; the importance of programming as a key skill in the modern era cannot be overstated. However, the rise of AI has also added a new dimension – lowering the barrier to entry with practices like 'vibe coding' and giving more and more workers the 'writing skills' they need.

• Watch World Cup 2026 free on YouTube (Brazil restricted)
• UNLOCK FREE STREAMS WITH NORTON VPN (try 60 days)
• World Cup 2026 runs from June 11 – July 19

You can watch the 2026 World Cup for free on YouTube in Brazil – 104 games – right the way from June 11 through to the final on July 19. The free coverage includes commentary and analysis and full-game replays of all 104 fixtures – including Brazil vs Scotland today, June 24.

It sounds too good to be true, especially at a World Cup that looks set to go down as the most commercially voracious of all time, but seeing is believing.

How can you watch the World Cup on YouTube from anywhere? Can you get the free YouTube World Cup stream in the US, Canada and Europe too? And what devices are YouTube available on?

Here's our full (and quick) guide to how to watch World Cup 2026 on YouTube for free...

How to watch the World Cup on YouTube and the YouTube app

The FREE CazeTV YouTube channel has made all of its World Cup coverage available to live stream for free on YouTube – in 4K UHD too! Wow.

To watch YouTube: visit the YouTube website or download the YouTube app (iOS / Android).

YouTube is free – and you don't need an account to use it!

OUTSIDE BRAZIL? ACCESS YOUTUBE FROM ANYWHERE WITH NORTON VPN

How to watch the World Cup on YouTube from anywhere

Although YouTube is available almost everywhere, the free World Cup coverage is limited to Brazil.

Football fans traveling or working outside Brazil will need to use a VPN to access YouTube's free World Cup streams.

We use Norton VPN. Here’s why:

It's really easy to use a VPN to watch World Cup 2026 on YouTube.

1. Install the VPN of your choice. As we've said, Norton VPN is the best choice.

2. Choose the location you wish to connect to in the VPN app. For instance, if you're visiting the US and want to watch your free Brazil YouTube stream, you'd select 'São Paulo'.

3. Sit back and enjoy the action. Head to the CazéTV channel, sign in, and watch the World Cup on YouTube for free.

What will YouTube's World Cup coverage include? Every game?

All 104 World Cup games are free-to-air on the CazéTV YouTube channel.

Full game replays are being posted to the channel too.

YouTube also lets you quickly and easily switch on notifications for upcoming games, which will save you from having to manually add them to your calendar.

Which devices can I watch the World Cup on YouTube with?

You can use YouTube on all of the following devices and platforms:

Amazon Fire TV (select models)
Android devices (Android 6.0 and up)
Android TV (select models)
Apple TV (4th generation & 4K)
Chromecast
Hisense smart TVs (select models)
iOS devices (iOS 12 and up)
LG smart TVs (2016+ models only)
Nest Hub, Nest Hub Max
Nintendo Switch
Nvidia Shield (select models)
PlayStation 5 Pro, PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4 Pro, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3
Roku TVs (all models)
Samsung smart TVs (2017+ models only)
Sharp smart TVs (select models)
Sony smart TVs (select models)
TiVo
Vizio SmartCast TVs (select models)
Web
Xbox Series X, Xbox Series S, Xbox One X, Xbox One S, Xbox One, Xbox 360

Is YouTube a good way to watch the World Cup?

There are pros and cons to CazéTV's free YouTube channel to watch the World Cup coverage.

The positives: you don't need an account to tune in, most people are familiar with the user interface, and every single game is being shown in the same place.

However, coverage is exclusively in Portuguese, which is great if you're fluent in the language or interested in learning it – not so much otherwise.

Free English-language coverage of every World Cup game, meanwhile, is available via SBS on Demand in Australia, BBC iPlayer and ITVX in the UK, and RTE Player in Ireland.

• How to watch the World Cup 2026 from anywhere – it's *FREE*
• How to listen to World Cup 2026 from anywhere
• How to watch the World Cup in Spanish

We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example:1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service).2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad.We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.

The UK has become the latest country to ban social media for under-16s, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing today that "children will be given back their childhoods thanks to government action".

Following Australia's decision to lock teens out of popular social media apps in December 2025, the UK has promised "world-leading additional restrictions" on features like live streaming and strangers communicating with children.

The landmark legislation, which the UK government says is "backed by 9 in 10 parents", is expected to be brought before Parliament before Christmas, and could then come into force in Spring 2027.

So how exactly will the social media ban work, and what does it mean for children in the UK? You can follow all of the latest updates here live...

UK social media ban — a quick primer

Hello, and welcome to our liveblog on the UK's landmark social media ban for under-16s.

We'll be rounding up all of the latest news, reactions and more here today, but first a quick primer on what's happened.

The UK announced the social media ban for under-16s this morning. The statement says that social media is "designed to be addictive" and that the restrictions will give mean "less time for scrolling and more time for play".

The government says it will "use the same model for a social media ban as Australia" and that means the platforms will include Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. It won't include private messaging apps likes of WhatsApp and Signal.

If it's passed by Parliament later this year, the ban is expected to come into force from Spring 2027.

Which platforms are affected?

The UK government's statement lists some of the major platforms that will be affected by its proposed ban. These are

• Snapchat
• TikTok
• YouTube
• Instagram
• Facebook
• X

The UK government says that "we do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the social media ban".

However, there are also planned restrictions for "so-called AI ‘romantic companion’ chatbots – designed to simulate sexual relationships or roleplay with users", which will "have to enforce a minimum age of 18".

The statement adds that "similar intimate functionalities will be restricted for under-18s on AI chatbots more widely".

This is an 'Australia plus' ban

As expected, the UK's proposed social media ban for under-16s is following a so-called 'Australia plus' model. That means it's following the thrust of Australia's legislation by restricting access to social media apps for children, but also adding extra restrictions for platforms that aren't banned.

The UK says this will include "world-leading blocks on harmful functions such as livestreaming and stranger communication with children for under-16s" and will affected "a wider range of online services, including on gaming sites".

And that's not it — the government says it will "also be looking in more detail at overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18-year-olds". Exactly how this might be implemented isn't clear, which is why Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the UK will "set out more detail in July".

UK says it will "learn the lessons" of Australia ban

Reports have claimed that Australia's social media isn't proving very effective, with research from the Molly Rose Foundation claiming that over half of under-16 users were still on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram.

The UK government says it will "learn the lessons from Australia’s experience" by introducing "more highly effective age assurance (HEAA) measures to support compliance, making it far harder for children to bypass safeguards". Exactly what that entails, and how it will be balanced with privacy concerns, isn't yet clear.

Ban is "backed by 9 in 10 parents"

The UK government is pretty confident its social media ban for under-16s has public support and will be passed by Parliament "before Christmas".

It says the announcement follows "one of the biggest national conversations held by this government" with over "116,000 responses submitted by parents, children and experts across the country".

In those responses, "9 in 10 parents said they would support a social media ban for children under 16s", it said. Surprisingly, the government added that most "young people" also backed action" with "two-thirds agreeing that children younger than 16 should not be allowed to use at least some social media platforms".

That said, it didn't clarify exactly what it meant by "young people" and some inevitable controversy will arise more from its implementation than the broader idea.

How will the ban work?

The specifics of how the UK's social media ban will work is down to the country's communications regulator, Ofcom. The government says "Ofcom will conduct a rapid study on what is effective age assurance for verifying whether someone is over 16".

Ofcom has said it's been behind "some of the strongest changes" for online safety regulation, which includes porn sites being required to carry out age checks.

This means the UK social media ban will likely rely on technologies like digital ID and face scans — techniques that'll no doubt kickstart another privacy debate. VPNs will also likely in the spotlight, given their role in allowing people to get around similar blocks.

Not everyone backs the ban

The UK's proposed social media ban for under-16s isn't backed by all experts, despite the government's confidence that it has public support.

Professor David Ellis, Chair of Behavioral Science at the University of Bath and a member of the Institute for Digital Security and Behavior, said: "This ban is based on worry, not evidence. The evidence base as it stands suggests social media has a minuscule effect, if any, on teenagers — particularly once you account for the other factors we know shape childhood development".

"It's also unlikely to be straightforward to enforce, given what we've seen elsewhere, and it risks pushing teenagers towards less regulated parts of the internet," he added. "Worse, it lets social media companies off the hook: they can divert resources away from making platforms safer, despite the fact that many young people will simply remain on them".

Is there more to come?

While the ban is currently aimed at under-16s, Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel De Souza wants measures extended to 18-year-olds across several key areas.

“Any online service – not just social media, but gaming and other platforms – that uses harmful features should be banned from accessing under-18s unless and until it can prove it is safe.”

‘Harmful features’ is the term being used throughout this process, likely to allow further features to be added in the future should they be deemed applicable. That said, the Commissioner explicitly mentions addictive scrolling, explicit content, and unwanted strangers in her statement.

Measures surrounding under-18s are to be looked into in more detail in July. However, there’s currently nothing to suggest this will extend to a full ban like that enforced today.

Do you need to do anything?

Thankfully, for now, all you need to do is sit tight and wait for new information. The Government has said it will provide details to families and children ahead of the ban's enforcement.

If you're an adult, the ban will likely take a similar shape to the enforcement of the Online Safety Act age verification measures last year. This means that most likely, your account will automatically be deemed to comply if:

• It's been open for 16 years or longer
• it's linked to an email account that can prove you are over 16
• A bank card is associated to the account that can prove your age

Should you be required to verify your age, it will likely use methods including ID checks, facial scanning, or bank card verification.

If you've already verified your age for services as a result of the Online Safety Act, you shouldn't need to do them again either!

Will it work? Parents are split in polling

More responses to the UK government's plan are coming in.

YouGov has just released a poll that shows while 77% of UK parents with children under 18 support the ban (a point over all Britons in general at 76%), only 45% think it will be very or quite effective at curbing social media use.

59% of the population as a whole think the ban will be not very effective at stopping under-16s from using social media.

Greens say offline support is needed

How are the UK's other parties responding to the ban?

The UK's Green Party has said it "welcomes action to address the harms social media can cause to young people. The impact on mental health and online safety is well documented as is the huge concern among parents, teachers and many young people themselves. Stronger safeguards are clearly needed."

However it added, "organisations including the NSPCC and the Molly Rose Foundation have warned that a blanket ban could leave some young people, particularly disabled and LGBTQIA people, more isolated and cut off from support. We also need to see real investment in youth services and creative activities for young people to fill the void that will be created by this ban."

This echoes the words of Lisa Nandy, the UK's Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who said "Keeping children safe online must go hand in hand with giving them more opportunities offline."

More UK party leaders weigh in

Sentiment among other parties and their leaders is spilt.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative party leader, has called the ban "fantastic news," saying it's "an important step in helping parents protect childhood for children."

Meanwhile Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey noted that while "families have been crying out for action to protect children from harmful social media" he and his party are "really worried that the government hasn't listened, and has instead come up with a half-baked policy that won't keep children safe."

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage doesn't think the ban will work "given the mass adoption of VPNs" adding that this move is "the introduction of Digital ID via the back door." He instead says that "handsets for children with limited features" are the best option — suggesting he's either yet another dumb phone fan, or isn't entirely aware of modern phone's parental controls like the ones Apple just added to iOS 27.

Meta and YouTube respond

Platforms are also sharing their thoughts on the UK's plans.

Speaking to the media a YouTube spokesperson has said "YouTube is a vital resource for young people, educators and parents, external. Blanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less safe services."

Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) has echoed YouTube's response, adding that any targeted age based restrictions should be done on device "so people aren't asked to hand over ID to dozens of individual services to prove their age.”

How will 16 and 17-year-olds prove their age?

When you're trying to prove you're over 18 there are a few methods like a driver's licence or a credit card check that can be used to verify your age. For people aged 16 or 17 there are fewer options, and we'll need to wait and see what Ofcom proposes they use as details of the UK government's plans are hashed out.

Options they could use include provisional driver's licences, bank account information, or passports if they have them.

Whatever verification method is proposed could go hand-in-hand with the UK's legislation to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 by the next general election.

We have our first viral reaction

The mood in UK classrooms today appears to be somber, as this BBC report captures brilliantly.

First, the reporter asks under-16 students to raise their hands if they support the ban — a request that's inevitably met by stunned silence.

Then, when asked what she will do instead of the nine hours per weekend she typically spends on social media, the student Isabella replies "stare at a wall". It's fair to say this isn't going down well with many — and if you've grown up with social media and use it as a communications tool, that's understandable.

Is the evidence really there?

Is there any scientific evidence that social media use harms the brains of children? Not really, as academics told a Science, Innovation and Technology Committee this week.

Professor Denis Mareschal, who is the director of the Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development at Birkbeck College, said "There is very little, if any, causal research in the early years".

And those views were echoed by University of Cambridge Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, who said that the impact of "digital devices or social media" on adolescent brains amounted to "almost nothing".

That's not to say there's no impact, of course, just that the data doesn't yet support the theory that social media's impact on young brains is causational, not just correlational.

• Read more: Brain experts tell the UK government there's 'very little' scientific evidence that phones are harming kids — but a social media ban is going ahead anyway

Bluesky is also included in the ban

The dust is starting to settle on yesterday's bombshell announcement of a UK social media ban for under-16s — and more details are emerging.

For example, Liz Kendall (Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology) has just confirmed (below) that Bluesky will be included in the age restrictions, as it's on Australia's list of affected apps.

If you want to see the full list of affected apps, check out our guide on 5 things you need to know about the UK social media ban.

• Read more: How will the UK's social media ban actually work? Here's the full list of affected apps — and 5 things you need to know

• Spotify is eyeing up live concert streaming
• It's part of the company's strategy to shift more into video content
• YouTube is still leading on the livestream front, and I think it'll be tough competition

Spotify is doing all it can to move beyond being just an audio platform — now it wants to offer live concert videos for subscribers, and I’m not sure how to feel about it.

According to Bloomberg , the audio streaming giant has plans in the works to become “a hub for live music”, and has reached out to concert promoters to secure licensing rights to broadcast live videos of music festivals right from the Spotify app.

Spotify has recently been experimenting with concert videos, adding a slew of pre-recorded music videos from Dua Lipa’s show in Mexico City, accompanying a live album released by the artist. Additionally, Primavera Sound festival took place in Barcelona over the weekend, which has gained substantial popularity and following online over the recent years — so it makes sense as to why Spotify would want to capitalize on this.

The move into live concert broadcasting reflects Spotify’s evolving plans to become a pipeline between artists and their most dedicated fans. A few weeks ago Spotify unveiled its new in-app tool Reserved, a concert ticket-reserving tool that aims to give legitimate fans top priority for securing tickets to their favorite musician’s live shows. On the other hand, the move into live concert streaming plays into Spotify’s wider video monetization strategy.

Spotify first started out as an audio-only service, but over its 20-year lifespan it’s rolled out many visual components from short-form content feeds to music videos, and even video podcasts. Not only have these helped increase subscriber engagement levels, it’s also established a more profitable means of ad revenue that Spotify doesn’t quite get through its audio content and this is reflected in the company’s recent quarterly earnings, as Bloomberg highlights.

In the first quarter of the year Spotify’s total advertising revenue saw a drop — The Next Web reports that it fell 5% year on year to €385 million (roughly $443 million) — therefore adding more video content means higher advertising rates and a better chance at boosting this profit.

That said, some see Spotify’s venture into live concert broadcasting as just another means of reducing artist’s streaming revenue — but that’s not the first concern that crossed my mind.

YouTube, always and forever

Spotify’s video offerings aren’t my favorite ways to engage with music. Compared to Apple Music, I find Spotify’s music videos interface to be unorganized and almost forced upon you while listening to audio (I never use the ‘Switch to video’ button).

I’ve said it before and I shall say it again, YouTube is still the holy grail of visual music content, even if Spotify is still doing all it can to compete. You have to give it to Spotify though, it’s drive is undeniably admirable, but competing with YouTube is like attempting to shade the sun.

In addition to its slew of pre-recorded live music channels (I watch a lot of NPR Tiny Desk Concerts as well as artist music videos) YouTube plays a huge part in bringing fans closer to the biggest music events across the world. This is most notably the case for the Coachella music festival in California, which I’ve been streaming via YouTube since I was 17.

Spotify has a lot to think about, and for its live concert broadcasts to stand out it needs to match, or totally defy what YouTube has. As well as this, there’s also the question regarding where in the app these broadcasts will be situated — the app is already bulky as it is, so an entirely new live stream interface would be a bit of a squeeze.

With that being said, I can see the minor user benefits. Depending on which artists sign on to this agreement, it could give music fans a higher quality, more robust way of consuming live concert content as opposed to relying on watching videos posted to TikTok or Instagram reels.

Right now, my feed is inundated with content from Ariana Grande’s Eternal Sunshine tour which kicked off over the weekend, and it’s making me regret not going for tickets. I have no issues with watching clipped videos on social media, but thinking about it now, having an accessible live stream of the show from start to finish would make good background viewing/ listening. But let’s be real, Netflix works an awful lot faster to sign deals with artists for live concert movies, and that’s essentially the same thing.

• Weedhack spreads via poisoned Minecraft mods on YouTube
• Malware disables defenses and enables remote access
• Offered as MaaS with free and paid tiers

Cybercriminals are using YouTube to disseminate malware that targets Minecraft users and takes full control over their computers.

In January this year, security researchers McAfee Labs spotted a new malicious campaign dubbed Weedhack. In the campaign, the malicious actors created countless YouTube channels and standalone websites, through which they promoted links to Minecraft clients and mods.

With the help of Weedhack (apparently an enterprise-grade dashboard that also allows crooks to inject the malware into legitimate Minecraft mods), they created poisoned mods and clients which delivered a .JAR file called DonutDupe.jar.

Industry support

This is a Java ARchive package format used in the Java ecosystem to bundle multiple files into a single archive. This file starts a chain reaction that results in Windows Defender being disabled, system information collected, and two additional payloads dropped, which establish persistence and enable remote access.

McAfee said the campaign accumulated a total of 116,464 hits, averaging approximately 2000 to 3,000 hits per day. Most of them are located in the US, with other notable mentions including Germany, India, the UK, Italy, Vietnam, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Spain.

McAfee describes Weedhack as a ‘Minecraft-focused Malware-as-a-service’ (MaaS). The custom payloads target versions 1.21.0 to 1.21.11 of the game, while the dashboard allows malicious actors to view stolen credentials and exfiltrated system information in a centralized manner. The MaaS is apparently being offered in Telegram channels in two tiers - free and paid, and while the free version comes with plenty of features (screenshot grabber, file exfiltrator), the paid one ($4.99 a month) offers webcam access, keylogging, and reverse shell execution.

“One of the key features that makes Weedhack unique is that it is hosted on the clear net and provides access to sophisticated malware for free," McAfee’s researchers explained. "This difference in cost and ease of access with detailed tutorials on how to use the malware significantly reduces the barrier to entry for prospective customers. Furthermore, its ability to steal Minecraft accounts attracts a younger audience. Both of these factors complement each other and make the campaign much more lethal."

Via The Hacker News

• The director of A24's Backrooms movie has had his say on why some film adaptations fail
• Kane Parsons thinks some studios ignore the "actual DNA" of franchises that made them popular to begin with
• Backrooms' filmmaker is also the creator behind a viral YouTube series that was inspired by this film's source material

The director of A24's Backrooms movie has had his say on why some film and TV adaptations fail — and how his first big-budget project will attempt to avoid similar pitfalls.

Speaking exclusively to TechRadar, Kane Parsons suggested that the reason some adaptations don't succeed is because studios and/or a production's chief creative team don't fully understand why fans latched onto them in the first place.

For the uninitiated: Backrooms is a feature film retelling of The Backrooms. A creepypasta (read: an internet-created horror folktale) that's only existed since 2019, The Backrooms is described as an impossibly large, interdimensional space filled with a seemingly never-ending number of rooms and corridors, and populated by monstrous entities.

Since its conception, The Backrooms has not only become one of the internet's most popular analog horrors but also spawned a wave of indie horror videogames and served as the inspiration for an American Horror Stories episode.

Additionally, a viral YouTube series, which began in 2022, has amassed hundreds of millions of views and further helped to shape The Backrooms' extensive lore. The individual behind said YouTube phenomenon? A then-16-year-old Parsons, who was hired to direct A24's movie adaptation just over a year after his first video metaphorically caught fire.

Given his prominent role in popularizing The Backrooms and fleshing out its mythos through his short films, Parsons appears to be the ideal candidate to helm Backrooms. It's a decision that, despite Parsons' tender age — he's still only 20 — should also pay off, especially with Backrooms set to attract long-time fans of its source material and Parsons' work to see if its big-screen adaptation is as faithful as Backrooms' trailer makes it out to be.

Other studios might want to take that expert-first leaf out of the A24 playbook, too, especially from the perspective of live-action reimaginings of other forms of media. Indeed, from Netflix's Cowboy Bebop TV show and Paramount's The Last Airbender film, to the Resident Evil movies and more besides, Parsons believes that studio interference and/or hiring the wrong people to oversee such adaptations are the root cause of their downfall.

"I think what happens is there's an overvaluation of the costumes worn by an IP [intellectual property]," Parsons told me when I asked how Backrooms threads the needle of appealing to diehard fans of The Backrooms and general moviegoers alike.

"And that's where most screen adaptations go wrong," he continued. "It's almost as though the skin, specific characters, and other elements of an IP are taken without any of the actual DNA that motivated those creative decisions in the first place. So, I feel like what you need to do — and we did this on our film — is rewind all the way to the beginning, and remind ourselves why people latched onto that initial post [of The Backrooms] and my first short film.

"Fundamentally, for all of the lore and depth, The Backrooms is a story playing in the periphery of a fairly simple concept. Whether people have seen it online or not, I think they can understand it's pretty supernatural in its makeup, so it'll be quite digestible for them.

"And I'd also say the goal isn't to feed into that simplicity in a negative way," Parsons added of one of this year's most exciting new movies. "It's figuring out what was so effective about that very first, almost sensory experience that fans had, and following that thread to build this movie from the ground up."

Backrooms launches in theaters worldwide on Friday, May 29.

• YouTube is rolling out its likeness detection tool to all channel owners over age 18
• It's designed to detect if your identity is being used in AI-generated content
• You have to submit a government-issued ID for verification, which hasn't gone down well with creators

YouTube’s commitment to safeguarding its users against harmful AI-generated content is ongoing, and the company has shared that it’s rolling out its likeness detection tool to all channel users over the age of 18.

The platform debuted likeness detection in October 2025, allowing content creators to flag AI-generated video clones, but this was only available to well-known influencers in the YouTube Partner Program. The tool was then expanded to include celebrities, and it’s now coming to all channel owners through a gradual rollout over the coming weeks.

In short, YouTube’s likeness detection tool is designed to help you manage how AI is used to depict you, examining videos across the platform to identify if your face is being used without your permission. This includes everything from videos featuring slightly altered, modified versions of your facial likeness to fully AI-generated deepfakes.

“As AI-generated content continues to evolve, we’re committed to creating an environment where you can upload content to YouTube while staying in control of your likeness,” the platform shared in its announcement, adding, “Our goal is to provide you with more peace of mind by giving you easy access to request the removal of unauthorized content that violates our Privacy Guidelines”.

There are many sides to YouTube’s flagship protection function. While its main aim is to safeguard your identity from AI and other unauthorized use, it’s designed to give you more control over your digital identity while also ensuring that your viewers aren’t misled by videos that may impersonate you.

If likeness detection identifies a possible match, it will flag the content it believes contains your identity in the YouTube Studio hub, where creators can view it and decide what action they wish to take. From there, you can submit a likeness removal request if you believe the content breaches YouTube’s privacy policy. You can also submit a legal copyright removal request if your original copyrighted content was used elsewhere without your permission.

That said, before you can enable likeness detection for your YouTube channel, there’s one trade-off you’ll have to be willing to make in order to continue the verification process — and that’s submitting a government-issued ID to YouTube.

That’s wherein the catch lies, and it sounds a bit counterintuitive for a feature that’s designed to protect your identity. If this were an age verification matter to protect younger viewers from accessing age-proofed content, it seems pretty fair enough, as government-issued IDs confirm your age in black and white.

However, for creators who regularly upload content to YouTube, the platform already has access to your videos where your facial identity is on full display, so why would YouTube need your ID when it already uses images of your face from your content to detect videos where your identity may be used in deepfakes?

When YouTube first announced likeness detection, many creators felt the same way about having to verify their identity this way. One user on Reddit shared that despite having access to it, they decided not to use it, writing, “[YouTube’s] got enough of my face and I don’t trust them with any more than I need to”.

Other creators have taken to it more lightly, but are still skeptical about its legitimacy; “This will just be one more tool they'll use to punish anybody that they don't like, typical for YouTube with their constant manipulations behind the scenes,” a fellow Reddit user and YouTube creator added.

• Google has announced a new feature called 'Ask YouTube'
• This lets you ask lengthy and detailed questions when looking for a video
• It uses Gemini, and makes the service a bit more like a chatbot

Google I/O 2026 is now underway, and among the many announcements emerging from the California-set showcase, Google has revealed ‘Ask YouTube’ — a feature that adds conversational AI to the popular video streaming platform.

With Ask YouTube, rather than searching for a specific video the old-fashioned way, you can ask complex and lengthy questions, and Gemini will serve up specific videos that it thinks best answer your query. Helpfully, you'll be sent directly to the relevant part of the videos in question, too, rather than having to skim through them.

One query example given by Google was, “How to teach my 3-year-old how to ride a pedal bike, they already know how to ride a balance bike?” As you can see in the video below, the results delivered written answers like a typical AI chatbot, but these were accompanied by relevant YouTube videos, so you can both read and watch to get the answers you’re looking for.

The idea of Ask YouTube is to make the information more digestible, and to make it easier to actually find useful videos and the relevant parts of them.

Coming this summer, but only to the US

Ask YouTube is a similar idea to ‘Ask Maps’, a feature that was rolled out to Google Maps recently. Though currently, Ask Maps is only available in the US and India, and at launch, Ask YouTube will only be accessible in the US.

So, much of the world will be stuck waiting for this exciting new feature, but if you’re in the US, you should gain access to Ask YouTube sometime “this summer”— presumably meaning sometime between June and September.

And if you’re happy doing things the current way, you can always just ignore the new Ask YouTube button that’s soon going to appear.

• YouTube unveiled new features at its Brandcast event for advertisers and brands
• Its new Buy with Google Pay tool lets you buy products from ads in YouTube's TV app
• The company also announced two new AI-powered features

YouTube’s TV app is about to get a new function, but it has nothing to do with upgrading your viewing experience — instead, the company wants to make shopping through its ads a lot more convenient.

At its annual Brandcast event on May 13, YouTube unveiled a series of new features designed to “connect brands to YouTube's most impactful cultural moments and trending conversations”, the company says in its blog post. One of those features is Buy with Google Pay, a tool that will allow you to buy products “with just two clicks” from ads right from YouTube’s TV app interface on smart TVs and streaming devices.

This marks the next step in YouTube’s expansion of shoppable ads. Last year the company revealed its interactive product feed allowing advertisers to list products on the right side of the screen while ads play in between videos, allowing you to click on the listing where it will then display a QR code for you to scan with your phone to take you through to the purchase link.

Targeting pain points

With this new functionality, YouTube targets a pain point with TVs, as entering payment details onto larger devices can be quite a process. Allowing viewers to purchase through ads by using the payment details already stored in their Google account removes this hassle.

Not only this, but more users are flocking to YouTube’s TV app for bigger viewing, which has opened a gap for the company to take advantage of. With more viewers using YouTube on smart TVs and streaming devices it creates an opportunity for YouTube to push more advertisers and their products to more people — but could really take a toll on impulsive purchasing habits.

Custom sponsorships

Aside from the expanded commercialization of its TV interface, YouTube is rolling out even more features to go alongside it, and two of them are powered by AI.

As per YouTube’s announcement, its Custom Sponsorships tool uses AI to “dynamically surface videos tailored to a brand’s desired moment”. In other words, brands won’t need to manually select channels and content categories where they want their ads to be displayed.

YouTube also unveiled Multimodal Video Creation, which uses Google AI models such as Gemini, Nano Banana, and Veo to “move from creative brief to final production with just a few prompts” — eliminating production time and cost.

Regarding the clickable ads in the YouTube TV app, convenience is clearly the selling point here, but the bigger picture is harder to ignore. YouTube isn’t just trying to make ads easier to watch — it’s trying to remove every possible barrier between attention and spending money, without ever leaving its TV app.

• YouTube is rolling out picture-in-picture (PiP) to free users globally
• This was already available to free users in the US, but elsewhere, you had to be a Premium or Premium Lite customer
• PiP lets you keep watching videos in a small player when you leave the YouTube app

If you don’t have YouTube Premium, you should probably consider it, as it’s arguably one of the better subscription services out there. But the free version of YouTube has just got a little bit better for users outside the US, as Google is enabling picture-in-picture (PiP) globally.

That means whatever kind of YouTube account you have, you’ll soon be able to view longform, non-music videos in a little window while interacting with other apps.

To do this, just swipe up or tap the home button to exit the YouTube app while a video is playing — though it might not work yet, as Google claims that PiP is “rolling out to all users globally in the coming months.”

An upgrade for both iOS and Android

The feature will work on both iPhone and Android, but it won’t be anything new if you’re in the US, as, for whatever reason, the company already rolled this out to free users in the US a while back.

It’s also no change for Premium Lite members, who already had this capability globally, or to Premium members, who again could already do this globally, and can additionally enjoy music content using picture-in-picture, which is a feature that remains exclusive to Premium customers.

Still, having picture-in-picture at all is potentially very useful, so it’s great to see Google make this feature widely available to non-paying customers. If only background play would also come to free customers, then I might be able to ditch my Premium subscription once and for all...

As soon as I flipped the last digital page of my ebook, Ken Follett's Circle of Days, I started my deep digital dive on Stonehenge, one that quickly led me to YouTube. Maybe that was my first mistake.

Stonehenge, the prehistoric World UNESCO Heritage Site, is the subject of Follett's book, and it posits a dramatic narrative around how many experts now believe the iconic edifice was created thousands of years ago. It's a remarkable story, and if you ask AI, it somehow involved guys with hard hats. I kid you not.

It didn't take long for me to find a treasure trove of information about how people in the Megalithic and Neolithic eras used traditional tools like antlers and flints, and some surprising physics ingenuity, to move and lift into place the giant sarsen and bluestone rocks. Wikipedia is a great source, and much of what Follett wrote about the process tracks. The first YouTube video I found (embedded below) had the perfect title: "Stonehenge: How Did Ancient People Build THIS?" It also admitted up front to being an AI recreation. If it were being accurate, it would've said, "AI Slop Recreation."

The video starts off well enough, properly identifying the location, Salisbury Plain, and showing off what looks like the real ruins, though it's clearly an AI rendering. It walks you through the initial build and how the location was a meeting place for many cultures (often during the solstice). It addresses the structures that existed there before the stones (wood that did not survive the centuries) and how archeologists discovered in the 1960s evidence of wooden posts and "remnants of a feast."

There are clips of thousands digging the initial ditch and using chalk to create the inner and outer bank. So far, so good.

The scene keeps switching through various stages of the build, with a monotone voice narrating each scene, and suddenly we see the moment when a team of workers excavates 56 large pits — and they're all wearing modern hard hats, yellow vests, jeans, and gloves. Oh, and the location inexplicably looks like the present-day interior of the US Capitol-like building in Washington, D.C.

I could almost feel the slippery slide of AI Slop under my feet.

Later in the video, as they attempt to explain how these primitive people used wooden sleds to move the giant stones (accurate), the screen switches to workers dragging a gigantic stone away from the pyramids of Egypt.

The video seemed to be transforming from a historical record into a travelogue. Another scene depicts people of India pulling massive ropes tied around another giant, intricately decorated stone — one that bears no resemblance to anything at Stonehenge (or even Easter Island, for that matter).

At another point, we find ourselves somewhere in China, and for the celebrations around the delivery of the stones to the building site, we're transported to a celebration in modern Mexico.

With all the stones in place, construction is handed back to modern construction workers.

Could I build it better?

Look, the video is a mess, the worst form of AI slop, and fortunately only has about 500 views. Still, it's presented as a history lesson, and that makes me sick.

I have a good idea of how it was made. The 12-minute video is clearly comprised of dozens (if not hundreds) of short AI-generated clips. Each one was based on an inexpertly crafted prompt that often left too much to the AI's imagination. What's even more disturbing is that whoever created this didn't even bother to check their work. They just took all the clips, slapped them together, and posted them on YouTube.

This video, by the way, is just one of many AI-generated history YouTube videos, and some have tens of thousands of views. I can only imagine the junk history that's being fed to unenlightened audiences.

For as disgusted as I was by this twisting of historical fact into AI fantasy, I was curious about the creation process.

I have no information about which tool was used to build this Stonehenge video, but I have an idea. It might might Google Veo 3.1, which can combine audio and video. To test my assumption, I fed Veo this prompt and set the thinking to "Pro" for "Advanced thinking and code with 3.1 Pro":

I want to create a landscape video of the creation of Stonehenge. It should be historically accurate, set it the Neolithic age. Use this image as reference for what the stories should look like. The film should depict transporting the stones on giant wooden sleds along paths lines with logs and branches. It should show how they used tools like flints and antlers to shape the stones and rough-hewn A-frame wooden structures to lifts them into place. Please also include audio narration. Details on the history can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge. Set all of it in daytime and make it look photorealistic

I got a pretty good eight seconds, and I could see how neatly it would slip into the AI video above. My second prompt was less successful. First, it sort of repeated a portion of my first video, and second, it made one giant stone lighter than air. At least I didn't get any hard hats.

Look, I love reading historical fiction, which is called fiction for a reason: it takes the facts and then wraps characters and interpersonal events around them that may or may not have happened, but the thrust is always toward accepted truth: these events happened but the people may not have fought, fallen in love, had that conversation, or lived and died in that way.

Unlike the novels, though, these "Historical" AI videos are just a mess of barely-understood factoids, outright fantasy, and nonsense. People, places, and time frames are meaningless. AI doesn't know or understand history and is much more interested in completing the prompt. It takes people, places, and things from any era and employs them like puppets to fulfil that effort.

On the other side of this equation are the people building and posting these AI slop videos. They're far more interested in speed and views and the potential for view-based ad revenue they might provide than verisimilitude. YouTube, for its part, appears agnostic about this content. It's served up alongside accurate history videos.

If you, like me, care about history, beware. These "You Are There"-style videos are everywhere, and they can't be trusted to produce accurate views of history, unless, of course, you believe people in hard hats living in China, Mexico, and India somehow worked on Stonehenge in the Neolithic era.

Of all the paywalled services out there, YouTube Premium is the one that I’ve never thought twice about signing up to. After all, I’ve been pretty fine just using its free version — but that changed a few weeks back.

After toying around with the idea and pushing it back on countless occasions, I gave into my temptations and signed up to YouTube Premium’s 1-month free trial. I’ve never quite understood why anyone would sign up to it, for me the price hikes and restrictions on extremely basic features haven’t sold me. Oh how I’ve totally changed my tune.

Over the course of my free trial, I used YouTube Premium more than Netflix, Disney+, and the slew of our best streaming services combined. If anything, it’s as if none of them existed in the first place — here’s what I thought.

Welcome back, MTV

There’s nothing quite like opening YouTube, tapping on a video, and not having to sit through a jarring ad. Until you sign up for YouTube Premium, you’ll never fully understand how many ads are forced upon you per video, and going back to YouTube’s free version only proves that the number is growing. In retrospect, it’s one of the best parts of the experience, and it makes the music video viewing experience even better.

Though I’ve been a Spotify subscriber for over 10 years, I’ve been vocal on how its music video interface is simply no match to how smooth YouTube’s is. Take away the ads, and it’s like MTV has been resurrected. Besides, it’s a nice change to throw on a personalized Mix of fun music videos instead of a Spotify playlist, especially when you have friends over. Then an idea sprung to mind; what if I created my own playlists to mimic the nostalgia of music channels?

Until I signed up to Premium, I’ve never felt encouraged to make my own playlists in YouTube’s free version. Even though playlist-making isn’t a paywalled feature, you still have to sit through ads when watching the videos. So with that in mind, I used my free trial wisely to experiment with playlist making, and naturally, I created one that screamed ‘00s music channel'.

This took some time to get used to I won’t lie — only because I’ve been accustomed to Spotify and Apple Music’s way of things — but once I got the ball rolling, I was unstoppable. What was very helpful was YouTube’s playlist recommendation tools which, similar to the best music streaming services, sits at the bottom of each playlist giving you a quick and stress-free way of building your playlist with related videos.

It’s safe to say that streaming music videos ad-free and building playlists was one of my favorite parts of the experience, and even my pre-generated Mixes of familiar and suggested videos gave me just as much of a buzz. However, while returning to YouTube Premium isn’t totally off the table for me, I can’t ignore its awkward queuing system.

YouTube, fix your queuing system

I admit, this is a very small setback, but if you’re a chronic video queuer like me you’ll notice the finer details. But the wildest part is that queuing is a paywalled tool, and I don’t believe I’m getting my money’s worth.

There are two options for queuing videos, ‘Play next in queue’ and ‘Play last in queue’. But what I had the biggest issue with is that YouTube doesn’t separate your queued content from ‘Continue Playing’ content like music streaming does (see Apple Music as an example).

Instead of grouping your queued videos in a separate list at the top like Apple Music, it integrates them in the list of ‘Continue Playing’ videos. It’s a bit of a headache because you can only choose to play a video immediately, or plonk it on the very end of a lengthy list of recommendations, sandwiching your queued videos on either side.

This means you have to manually reorder the queue so that the videos you want to play next come first. Though the ‘Play next in queue’ button effectively does this, every time you select this option for a new video it overrides the previous video you chose to ‘Play next’, pushing it further down the line. It’s not ideal when you’ve got YouTube playing at a social gathering and all your friends get vexed when the video you queued for them an hour ago has yet to be played.

I could be reading far too deep into this, but it’s one of the downsides to my YouTube Premium experience that I can’t shake off. However YouTube is always making changes to the Premium experience, and I hope it hasn’t forgotten about its queuing system’s much-needed TLC.

As a tech journalist, I'm pretty much always online. With that sometimes comes certain habits that are not necessarily conducive to either productivity or mental health. I'm pretty sure most people would relate to that statement, regardless of profession, to say the least.

My current bugbear? It's definitely my social media usage. Like many others, I've been scrutinizing my own habits in the wake of the increasing public backlash around social media. Ethics and morality aside, my conclusion was pretty simple - I'm just wasting too much time on these apps.

In short, I'm sick of the distractions, and, as a Millennial, I'm old enough to remember when I wasn't just mindlessly scrolling on a screen. I'm old enough to remember when Facebook was just a twinkle in Mark Zuckerberg's eye, in fact.

Subsequently, this past month or so, I've been on a real drive to get my online habits in shape. The results, after a strong start, have been... mixed.

Diagnosing the issue

To be honest, I've never really cared for Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok. I've always thought LinkedIn was quite lame, and X/Twitter is obviously a cesspit to be avoided at all costs. I've always steered pretty clear of all the usual suspects with a kind of haughty pride, all the while ignoring my own ballooning Reddit and YouTube usage.

I've noticed (ironically, while scrolling through these apps) that people tend to give these platforms a kind of 'soft pass' when it comes to categorizing what's harmful and what isn't. Self-help sub-Reddits and YouTube vids are full of stories about 'digital detoxes' without a hint of irony. Perhaps I'm too critical here, but in my experience, these apps are just as addictive as the others.

And when you work on your home PC, as I do most of the time, it's exceptionally easy to get distracted, regardless of the app. A five-minute check for updates or news can turn into half an hour of scrolling through completely irrelevant content. Before you know it, you've wasted significant time with nothing to show for it.

Of course, we all have slow days, but I can't ignore that over the past few years, I've found it increasingly difficult to focus on all sorts of tasks. Even things that have usually held my interest, like say, reading a book, have been increasingly difficult. It's usually not long before I find myself scrolling Reddit or Google Discover.

If it were just eating into my productivity or my free time, then I could live with a little scrolling. The issue, for me, is that it distracts me from things I love to do, like reading or playing guitar. Even when I specifically schedule time out to do these things, I usually find myself distracted.

The first few weeks

From my previous attempts at quitting various things (namely caffeine), I knew that cold turkey was going to be the best approach. For some people, gradually reducing usage is effective, but it's never worked for me at all. I usually opt for the 'walk away and sweat it out' approach (admittedly, with varied results).

So, I resolved on a pretty simple path. Close all Reddit and YouTube tabs on my browser, delete the apps on my phone, and then just 'do other things'. The things in this case are my job, my hobbies, reading physical books, and so on. It's a crude approach, admittedly, but I was hoping that a bit of discipline would do most of the work while the dopamine slowly drained from my brain.

For the first few days, the approach did actually seem to be working, too. Aside from the expected boredom and restlessness, the difference was stark immediately. With no 'easy' options to fill space, suddenly I felt as if I had a lot more free time.

More work was getting done, I was enjoying my hobbies more, and even my apartment was looking a lot tidier. So far, so good - it felt like significant progress was being made here. Even better still, I wasn't even missing Reddit.

Where I went wrong

So why am I writing this? Well, obviously, I fell off the wagon. Just a month later, I'm almost back at square one, albeit with a resolve to curb my usage again.

Where things started going pear-shaped was about week two or three. I was enjoying recording music in my free time so much that I decided to pick up a new bass. This seemingly innocent decision is where I made a critical error.

In researching what to buy, I did what anyone would do - start with a simple Google search.

Cue a host of results with Reddit threads and YouTube videos detailing a whole list of products. Anyway, you can imagine how things went from here. Reading threads and watching videos 'strictly for research' turned into checking out the front pages for relevant content. Almost subconsciously, I found myself falling into the old routine of mindlessly scrolling through Reddit without much thought.

Editorial sites like TechRadar are increasingly being squeezed out of search results in favor of social media, which might be good or bad, depending on your viewpoint. Regardless, it makes it increasingly tricky to find information without being pulled into the swirling pool of social media. These sites permeate so many platforms now.

Although I'm more or less back at square one now, I do have a much clearer perspective of where to go from here. For one, I'll make sure I don't violate my self-imposed ban for any reason whatsoever (even when 'researching' products). Secondly, I think I'll book some time off work in the not-too-distant future to get some quality time away from my screen.

I'm wary of the term 'digital detox' because it reminds me of some kind of self-help fad, but in this case, I'm sure some time away from screens would massively help set habits straight. Fewer distractions, less nonsense content, and hopefully, more time to focus on the things that actually matter.

• A new time limit option on YouTube Shorts allows users to effectively remove the feature entirely
• The new zero-minute timer stops Shorts from showing up on users' home feeds
• It hasn't rolled out to all users yet, but enabling the setting is quick and easy

It's been a long time coming, but after many requests, YouTube has finally given users the option to disable Shorts from appearing on the homepage. While it's still visible in the subscriptions feed, it's a significant step for users who want the feature eradicated.

As reported by The Verge, YouTube has implemented a zero-minute option for Shorts, which effectively stops users from accessing the feature. Previously, the lowest time limit option was 15 minutes, but users will now have full control over their viewing preferences on Shorts.

Most importantly, the new addition is made to help adults decrease (or eliminate) the time spent scrolling, while also serving as an ideal tool for parental control. It's a significant bonus to the parental controls already present, which include reminders to take breaks and bedtime alerts.

The move from Google has already led to tons of praise, most notably on Reddit, and it's no surprise considering the strong opinions many have over applications that use the same quick video format, such as TikTok.

Comment from r/technology

Comment from r/technology

Comment from r/technology

Unfortunately, it hasn't rolled out to all users just yet, and the option might take some time to present itself. However, once it does become widely available, here's how you activate the setting.

Once you're on the YouTube homepage, you'll want to navigate your way to the daily limit page, via Settings > Time management > Shorts feed limit, and you'll find a new option labelled '0 minutes.'

Enable that, and ensure the 'Shorts Feed Limit' box is checked, and you're good to go. Shorts should now be completely removed from your homepage on YouTube. While I've noticed that some can still show up in the subscriptions tab (when testing the 15-minute option), this should hopefully be completely ironed out, or may not even be the case for most users.

Following the backlash it received for quietly hiking YouTube Premium prices in the US, Google has unveiled a new deal that gets you 50% off a year of YouTube Premium when you sign up to a Google One Premium or Google AI plan — as long as you meet certain criteria.

Vice President of Google Photos and Google One, Shimrit Ben-Yair, shared the bundle deal to her X account (see below), while the Google Gemini account on X also announced the “special surprise for our Gemini power users”.

When you sign up, the deal will knock 50% off a 12-month YouTube Premium membership, so you'll pay $80 instead of $159.99. As per Google's outline of the offer, your YouTube Premium add-on will remain active for the duration of your membership; however this deal will only be available until April 29, which will be your last day to claim.

Google has been making quite a few changes to its Google One Premium plans recently. Just a few weeks ago it doubled the storage allowance for its AI Pro tier, which also offers the YouTube Premium add-on for a limited time, without increasing the price.

But before you rush to sign up, there are a few things to note.

As mentioned in the X post, the YouTube Premium deal is only available for Google One Premium subscribers who are paying for 2TB of storage or higher. The Google AI Pro plan is also included, as it offers 5TB of storage. This means that those on the Basic, Standard, and Google AI Plus won't be eligible.

There are also some regional restrictions to bear in mind. You can only claim the discount if you’re based in the US, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, or Japan, so UK subscribers will unfortunately miss out.

If you're an existing YouTube Premium subscriber, you'll have to cancel your subscription and sign up to Google AI Pro in order to claim the discount. You can do this by following the steps outlined in the Google One help page.

• Research shows that Australia's social media ban isn't the most effective
• Some under-16s say platforms haven't taken action to deactivate their accounts
• Despite the failure, the UK government is still considering a similar ban

The UK government is still mulling over a proposed social media ban following Australia becoming the first country to implement the ban — but it turns out, this ruling is failing for the people down under.

In a recent story from Sky News, the outlet revealed that research shows over 60% of underage users in Australia still have access to a range of their social media accounts on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. The research was carried out online by the Molly Rose Foundation between March 12 - 31.

Australia’s social media ban for under-16s has been in effect since December 2025, targeting 10 of the biggest platforms. But even though platforms are now required to close existing underage accounts and prevent the creation of new ones by law, 53% of users were still on TikTok, while 53% used YouTube, and 52% of Instagram users still had access, the research reveals.

Beyond this, the study showed something deeper about these platforms’ efforts to enforce restrictions. According to the research, “two-thirds of YouTube users, 61% of Snapchat users, and 60% of both Instagram and TikTok users” claimed that these platforms didn’t take action to deactivate their accounts, which were created before the ban was issued, leaving users feeling more unsafe post-ban compared to before.

Each of the platforms mentioned above have yet to comment on why restrictive measures haven’t succeeded, but for those who have been signed out of their accounts, parents have apparently noticed positive behavioral changes according to a YouGov poll from March. But while Australia still finds its footing with the ban (it could be targeting VPNs next), the UK is still deliberating a similar ruling, even though research suggests Australia's ban hasn't been that effective.

‘Addictive scrolling mechanisms are really problematic’

Since Australia introduced the ban, the UK government has been seriously considering a similar approach. While it rolled out a slew of age verification requirements last year, it has yet to take action on an official social media ban, but it’s not completely off the cards for Prime Minister Keir Starmer who shared to the BBC "But I think ​equally important, the addictive scrolling mechanisms are really problematic to ​my mind. They need to go."

As it stands, the government is currently experimenting with tools such as curfews and screen time limits for apps to examine their impact on things such as education and family life, as Reuters shares. However, aside from this, the government wants to hear directly from parents and teenagers alike.

This would allow the government to see things from both perspectives. On the one hand it gives parents the opportunity to express any concerns they have regarding their child’s screen time and the type of content they can be exposed to. Consulting teenagers on the other hand would offer an explicit insight to the reality of growing up in the age of social media, especially if teenagers provide account of their own personal experiences.

What do you get when you cross one of the world's biggest tech companies with Keanu Reeves? A movie that reviewers really, really don't like.

A black comedy-drama about a washed-up actor named Reef (Reeves) whose life is turned upside down when he's blackmailed over a questionable video leak, Outcome is a new Apple TV movie that critics have roasted. Indeed, despite its evident star power, it holds a 26% approval rating from 31 critics' reviews, and a meagre 32% from over 50 audience reviews, on Rotten Tomatoes. Not exactly the outcome that Reeves or the tech giant had in mind, I imagine.

Thankfully, Reeves' back catalog is filled with other movies that are actually unmissable. Below, I've picked four of his works that are available on one or more of the best streaming services and are highly rated by fans and critics.

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

Where to stream: MGM+, Fubo, the Roku Channel, and YouTube (US), StudioCanal (UK), and Stan (Australia)

Widely considered to be Reeves' breakout role in Hollywood, this 1989 sci-fi stoner comedy sees the fan-favorite Canadian actor unite with long-time collaborator Alex Winter for a totally rad adventure.

In it, the titular metalhead slackers travel through time to persuade notable historical figures to feature in their high-school presentation. Long story short: teenage hijinks ensue across the length and breadth of human history.

With 83% critic and 75% audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes (RT), Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure is a riotously, well, excellent ride from start to finish, and its eponymous characters are played to perfection by its leads.

Speed

Where to stream: Hulu (US) and Disney+ (UK and Australia)

Eleven movies separate the above suggestion and this one in Reeves' film library, including the sequel to the aforementioned flick, Point Break, and Much Ado About Nothing. But it's his role as heroic Los Angeles police officer Jack Traven, though, that books this highly rewatchable action-thriller a spot on this list.

For those who somehow haven't seen this masterpiece (no, I'm not using that word liberally, shut up): Speed tells the story of a passenger bus rigged with explosives that'll go off — and kill everyone on board — if its speed falls below 50 miles per hour.

Sure, that sounds incredibly simplistic and, to some, probably quite boring. However, with its over-the-top 90s set-pieces, great performances from Reeves and co-star Sandra Bullock, and Dennis Hopper's villainous Howard Payne chewing the scenery in every scene he's in, I dare you not to walk away from Speed with a giant smile on your face. Not convinced? Maybe its 95% critic and 77% audience RT ratings will change your mind.

The Matrix

Where to stream: HBO Max (US and UK), and HBO Max and Stan (Australia)

A dystopian sci-fi epic that needs no introduction. If you didn't watch any of Reeves' previous 26 movie outings, you certainly saw this genre-bending, ground-breaking flick.

The Wachowskis' seminal work sees Reeves play Thomas Anderson, a disenfranchised computer programmer whose worldview (and ours alike) is completely changed when he learns that humanity is trapped in the Matrix, a simulated reality created by intelligent machines. Laurence Fishburne, Carrie-Ann Moss, and Hugo Weaving are among its incredibly talented cast.

A film renowned for popularizing the visual effect known as 'bullet-time', The Matrix continues to exert its influence on the sci-fi genre, pop culture, and wider entertainment business to this day. The fact that it's been parodied by everyone from The Simpsons to Shrek goes to show how universally known and adored it is, too.

John Wick

Where to stream: HBO Max (US and UK), and HBO Max and Stan (Australia)

The R-rated action film franchise that coined the phrase 'gun-fu' and introduced a whole new audience to Reeves, John Wick was an unexpected hit upon its release in 2014.

Like Speed, its premise doesn't initially lend itself to generating excitement among cinephiles. Indeed, the tale of a former hitman seeking revenge on the men who stole his prized car and killed the dog gifted to him by his late wife didn't sound all that appealing or original.

With its beloved lead actor firing on all cylinders, spectacular and violent action sequences, and heart-tugging narrative, though, John Wick is an underdog story for the ages. The fact that it's gone on to spawn a franchise dripping in mythology and, spin-offs Ballerina and The Continental aside, has gotten better with each entry — and been more profitable than the last — is a testament to how unbelievably good it is. For more on the movie series' various release projects, read my John Wick movies in order guide.

• YouTube Premium has silently raised its tier prices
• Google started emailing users about the change before announcing it
• For a lot of subscribers, this could be the last straw

YouTube Premium is the latest subscription service to hike its prices in the US, but the timing couldn’t be more awkward — especially since it follows the controversy of its 90-second unskippable ads for free users.

As spotted by eagle-eyed users on Reddit, YouTube has already increased its monthly fees across all of its plans, including its budget Premium Lite tier which was launched only last year. With the new changes in place, subscription prices have gone up by as much as $4.

The standard YouTube Premium individual plan has now increased to $15.99 a month from $13.99, while the new Family plan fee is now $26.99 a month instead of $22.99. YouTube Premium Lite will now cost $8.99, increasing by $1, and Music Premium is $11.99/month, up from $10.99.

Unlike Netflix where customers are no stranger to a frequent price increase, fee hikes don't come as often to YouTube Premium members. The last time Google raised its subscription prices was back in 2023 when individual plans went from $11.99 to $13.99, with the Family plan increasing to $22.99 the year before. It’s safe to say that existing members are quite frustrated with this move, but it’s the vagueness on Google’s behalf that seems to be bothering them the most.

For starters, it took Google a while to speak on the change (the company gave a statement to Variety), leaving subscribers to find out for themselves via email. However, not everyone was informed, and those who’ve received emails are still scratching their heads — why is Google hiking these prices?

One user shared a screenshot of their email which detailed the following: “To continue delivering great service and features, we’re increasing your price to $20.99 a month. We don’t make these decisions lightly, but this update will allow us to continue to improve Premium and support the creators and artists you watch on YouTube”.

The thing is, users aren’t falling for it.

No more YouTube premium from r/youtube

The biggest difference between YouTube Premium and a platform such as Netflix is that the latter has a continuous output of original content, therefore it has somewhere valuable to invest money generated from subscription fees. Another user pointed this out, claiming that YouTube doesn’t have original content on Netflix’s scale to invest in, as all of its hosted content is made by creators with YouTube channels, leading users to question where their money is really going.

With this in mind, YouTube has also come under fire recently for its 90-second unskippable ads on its TV app. But despite the company’s comment against claims that it is conducting secret tests, the price hikes give us a good enough reason to believe that Google is trying to lure even more free users over to the dark side — but will it cost them the loyalty of long-time subscribers in the process?

• Spotify is rolling out video controls to users globally
• It will roll out to Family Plan managers first before expanding to other tiers this month
• It allows users to maintain an audio-first experience, and users are already enjoying it

Do Spotify’s visual elements get in the way of your music listening experience? Thankfully, the company is launching new video controls, and users already like what they see.

The music streaming giant announced on its newsroom yesterday (April 9) that it’s started its global video controls rollout, allowing you to tailor your in-app experience so that it remains an audio-first one. Spotify’s video controls will first become available to Family Plan managers who can now enable and disable video content for all members. Previously, account managers could only do this for Family Plan-managed accounts for users under 13 years old.

Spotify also revealed that Premium and Basic subscribers across Individual, Duo, Family, or Student plans, as well as free users, will have control over what video content appears in their Spotify account, which will be rolling out globally this month. I’m signed up to the Premium Individual plan, and the video controls aren’t there for me yet, so there’s still some time before the wider rollout. That said, if you’re on the Family Plan and want to amend your video settings, it’s very easy to do.

Just head to Settings in the Spotify app on mobile, desktop, web, or TV and find ‘Content and display’. From there, you’ll see toggles allowing you to turn off video components, including music videos and Canvas. There’s also an ‘All other videos’ option, which includes video podcasts, vertically scrolling videos, and videos from creators and authors.

Spotify’s visual elements can be quite tedious, especially if you want to switch from audio streaming to music video viewing, then the transitions between the two can be quite janky — at least that’s how I find it. So having the freedom to disable certain types of video content is something I’m going to welcome with open arms, and I’m not the only music fanatic who thinks this.

Putting audio-first experience at the forefront

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Spotify’s music video ecosystem is nothing compared to what YouTube has to offer, which runs smoother, playlist Mixes are better, and when you stream with a YouTube Premium subscription, it’s like MTV never left. Besides, YouTube is my go-to platform for music video content simply because it’s been part of my life much longer than Spotify has.

Although the new Spotify video controls are available to Family Plan managers for the time being, this upgrade has caught the attention of other Premium subscribers for all the right reasons, who have shared their excitement for the wider rollout on Reddit: "This is great," one user shared.

In the same comment, the user also draws on something I never thought of until now. When it comes to music video viewing in the Spotify app, you have to tap the 'Switch to video' button each time a new song plays because it reverts to audio. At the moment, there's no option to enable autoplay for music videos, which, in retrospect, would be a valuable addition to Spotify's video controls.

• YouTube TV viewers are reportedly seeing longer, unskippable ads
• However, YouTube denies these ads are being tested
• An increasing number of ads are showing up on streaming services

A fresh debate has kicked up over adverts on YouTube, specifically 90-second, unskippable ads that appear on the YouTube TV app. Users are complaining that they've been introduced, while YouTube is insisting they shouldn't be showing up.

As 9to5Google reports, an official YouTube social media account posted that the platform "does not have a 90-second non-skippable ad format" — despite users taking to the web to vent their frustration at seeing these ad blocks appear on their TVs.

This "isn't something we are testing right now" the post from the YouTube team said, adding that "we're looking into this further". You can see some of the user complaints collected together (with photo evidence) over at Android Authority.

So are the ads there are not? They're very much there, according to Reddit, where there are numerous reports of this happening. One poster says they've had four so far in a single day, while another confirms "they very much exist".

The ad-apocalypse

YouTube says 90-second ads don't exist. Are you seeing them? from r/youtube

While YouTube looks into this, it's difficult to know for sure what's happening — but there seems no reason to doubt the multiple reports that are piling up from viewers about having to wait longer for ads, and not being able to skip through them.

Some users are suggesting these could actually be cases where three 30-second adverts are shown in a row, with no option to skip — which would make both YouTube and its users right, technically — but at the moment it's not clear what the details are.

What we do know is that YouTube hosts and serves up an incredible amount of video content, and is increasing its efforts to try and cover the costs — whether that's through longer adverts or pushing people to sign up for YouTube Premium.

It's definitely not pleasant for viewers though, who are seeing more and more ads across every streaming service. Perhaps the final word (for now) should go to this Redditor: "Joke's on them cause my attention span is too short for a 90-sec ad."

• YouTube has rolled out support for Android Auto with playback controls
• The catch is that it doesn't play videos, and you can only stream audio
• You also need YouTube Premium for it to work, as it's essentially background play

YouTube is finally rolling out support for Android Auto, the app that allows you to mirror your smartphone screen to your car’s dashboard — but before your excitement takes over, you should note that it comes with a slew of limitations.

The video platform has been quite silent with this launch however, and instead of formally announcing the integration, users online have come across it themselves like in this Reddit post. As it stands, Android Auto is pretty strict with what you can and can’t do while your car is in motion which, when it comes to eliminating visual distractions while driving, is a safety no-brainer. That said, YouTube on Android Auto is not the YouTube you know and love.

For starters, Android Auto removes one of YouTube’s key elements and that’s its video player, meaning you won’t be able to watch anything and can only listen to audio playback just like the best music streaming services. In theory, you can play any type of content you want, but you’ll only be able to listen to its audio — which won’t be a huge setback if you exclusively listen to podcast episodes or videos that are ideal for audio-only listening.

Though it takes away YouTube’s biggest functionality, it doesn’t come as a huge surprise and is arguably the most sensible thing to do to ensure safe driving. Not only that, it doesn’t offer full-screen viewing or the option to browse for content, and playback controls are also limited on top of that.

As reported by 9to5Google, you won’t be able to skip forward within a video, and the current skip button will take you straight to the next video in the queue. You can still pause and play audio from the player screen, but you won’t have access to YouTube’s complete slew of playback tools.

Until now, users have been relying on workarounds to get YouTube working on Android Auto, so I can see this integration being widely welcomed. But it wouldn’t be classic YouTube if there weren’t a YouTube Premium catch.

A secret YouTube Premium persuasion strategy

Did you think you could get away with streaming YouTube through Android Auto for free? I hate to break it to you, but you’re going to need a YouTube Premium subscription in order to do so.

In typical YouTube style, Android Auto integration is another functionality that’s being paywalled behind Premium and it’s all because of background play, which is required for streaming through Android Auto. As this is a tool only available to paying subscribers, only those with a membership will be able to stream YouTube on a car dashboard, and the way I look at it is this is yet another strategy YouTube is using to get more people signing up to Premium.

The cheapest way to do this is through YouTube Premium Lite which costs $7.99 / £7.99 / AU$8.99 a month, a relatively new tier that was launched last year. Background viewing and offline downloads were added just a few months back, but while it offers majority ad-supported viewing, this doesn’t apply to music and other music-related content. If you’re like me and use YouTube for all things music and live performances, the standard Premium plan is your best option.

It's hard to find anyone who doesn't believe that too much social media is a bad thing. Social media companies now urge you to take breaks, and even Apple's Tim Cook, whose ultra-popular iPhone hosts all these platforms' apps, wants people to look less at their phones and more at other human beings. Now, though, the courts have weighed in, and Meta and YouTube just lost a landmark case that could take casual concern and make it tangible in the form of fundamental changes to how we view and use social media.

On Wednesday, an LA Superior Court Jury ruled in favor of a 20-year-old plaintiff who claimed that Meta and YouTube were negligent and that their platforms caused her mental health issues. It's one of many such cases popping up around the US, and less than 24 hours earlier, Meta lost a case in New Mexico, which claimed that Meta's apps failed to protect users from online predators. Even though these cases are not connected in the courts, the pair of them may point to some rapidly changing attitudes toward social media and its use.

This LA case, which originally also included TikTok and Snap (they settled out of court) is more notable since, by not focusing on the content that might have led to harm but on how the systems are built (algorithms that keep you engaged, endless scrolls, notificatons to return), the case skirted around the US's long-standing Section 230 (part of the US 1996 Communications Decency Act) that essentially protects these platforms from the content that third-party individuals' post on them. So, unlike a publisher that might be liable for a story in their newspaper, YouTube is not directly liable for false and inflammatory remarks made in a YouTube video.

In this case, the content that might have influenced the plaintiff's body dysmorphia is immaterial. What matters is that Instagram and YouTube felt inescapable because of how they work.

Let's not be naive

Whether or not that's true (yes, the jury believes it is), what we should be able to agree on is that the algorithms in Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok are powerful, and personalized to even your most fleeting interests. They're not just measuring if you actively click on a like button. They can see time spent, where you paused, commented, and other metrics that tell them how you feel about that content. More positive signals will lead to you seeing more of that content, even if it's not good for you. Just last year, Instagram added a tool to let you curate your own algorithm.

If you have notifications on, these platforms will reach out and try to pull you back in. There's also the social construct around them. Our cultural language is now intertwined with social media; to be off of it is to be wildly out of touch. That's not something a teen feels they can afford to do.

One of the questions here, and I don't know that this case makes it clear, is if Meta and YouTube are being held negligent for not knowing what their systems were doing or if they willfully designed systems, as some reports have alleged, and algorithms that would keep us coming back and on platform as long as possible, serving you whatever content engaged you most and not discerning between healthy and unhealthy content.

Cases like this make me feel for the affected teens, and how they must've felt trapped by the content and their response to it. I know that Meta and YouTube argued that the harm this young woman felt was tied to her home life and not their platforms. I would guess that played a part.

The role parents play

Which leads me to think about parents and guardians. Before any of us understood the impact of these platforms, most of us threw up our hands and "let teens be teens." Social media wasn't for us, although now many adults are just as addicted to it as teens.

I've often counseled parents on how they can't leave their kids alone with phones, tablets, and social media. These tiny screens are doorways to a vast and unknowable world, often featuring content, ideas, and people they are not ready to handle.

Post-millennial teens (let's just call them 'digital natives') are often smarter than their parents about technology, running rings around their rules and creating fake Instagrams (Finstagrams) to hide what they were really doing on the platform: parents saw the main Instagram account, their friends saw their real lives in Finstagram.

It took more than a decade for Meta, YouTube, and others to admit that these platforms needed to offer parents some modicum of control.

They moved slowly at first, but in the last few years, Meta has become particularly aggressive, even applying AI to identify potential teens on the Instagram and then automatically shifting them into more limited access (yes, I've heard of adults who've been swept up in this automation, but then I have to ask, why does an AI think you're a teen? What are you doing on there?).

What's next

Meta is appealing in New Mexico and will surely appeal this case, as well. But a loss like this could be the beginning of a landslide where Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and others suffer more losses and have no choice but to rewrite algorithms (what if they have to insert content they know you'll dislike after every fifth post?), pause or limit auto scrolling for everyone, and remove everyone under 18 from these platforms.

That's also all unlikely but not impossible. It's hard to imagine these platforms emerging unscathed. The sentiment has changed. Action will be warranted.

At the same time, they cannot afford to lose their teen user bases. Meta and YouTube need these younger users because they will eventually become their adult customers with buying power. Most of Meta's revenue still comes from advertising, which is somewhat effective on kids and teens, but far more impactful for adults with money in their pockets.

Change is coming, but I can't conceive yet how it will manifest; I just know it's coming.

When we recorded the latest episode of the TechRadar podcast we were coming in hot after the major new product announcements from Apple including the iPhone 17e, iPad Air M4 and its new budget MacBook.

Hearing that the affordable Apple laptop boasted an iPhone chip – the A18 pro which debuted in the iPhone 16 Pro back in 2024 — and only 8GB of unified memory (which we call RAM in the recording though it’s not the same as typical PC RAM) I just didn’t believe it would be that great. Even at its budget pricing I thought it would be a major let down.

Then we got to review the MacBook Neo and this thing blew us away. Our Computing Editor Matt Hanson called it “the best budget laptop you can buy right now.”

Clearly I was wrong, but what makes the MacBook Neo so excellent?

Beautiful inside and out

The first success of this machine is its design.

There’s silver, black, pink, and a lime green which all look beautiful, and the vibrant colorways are felt throughout the whole machine — across its body, keyboard, accents, and even macOS elements.

Couple this with the silent fanless design, the already sleek macOS software, and a gorgeous 13-inch 2408 x 1506-pixel display, and the MacBook Neo oozes premium — something most budget machines simply can’t achieve.

While not as essential as performance (at least in my books) the look of something is important.

Case in point, I’m currently testing the Rokid AI glasses and while they boast solid AI abilities to rival Meta’s smart specs they just don’t share the Oakley or Ray-Ban pizazz. Even though they are cheaper the Rokid design just feels bland and plasticky, and it’s a serious let down that makes me much less inclined to use them.

The Neo, on the other hand, smashes the design — it’s a budget gadget you’ll be proud to get caught using — but it does succeed on the performance side of things too.

iPhone chip, MacBook performance

Without an M-series chip I didn’t believe Apple’s MacBook Neo could deliver a laptop experience, but as our review discovered, this machine delivers an uncompromised version of macOS.

You aren’t locked out of any apps or locked into iPhone or iPad software, and this machine can multitask a fair amount too. Obviously we have to temper expectations — 3D blender projects or serious 4K video editing aren’t what the Neo is for, as is to be expected in this price category.

But if you want to do typical productivity tasks, the Neo will be great. In fact, it boasts better Geekbench 6 scores than the MacBook Air M1, and it beats the MacBook Air M2 in single core performance — impressive feats for a phone chip.

This supports what we found in testing. Simpler tasks, even a little light gaming should be fine, but things like scientific simulations or hefty video editing will be slow with the Neo’s less impressive multicore performance and mere 8GB of unified memory (you may find this 8GB harms its future-proofing somewhat too).

And while this might not sound like an out and out victory for the Neo, you have to remember that cheap Chromebooks and Windows 11 machines come with much stricter limitations and worse performance. It’s not the best laptop ever made, sure, but the Neo is best in class if affordability is a priority.

And thus, Apple has wholeheartedly proved me wrong on the MacBook Neo, and you know what? I’m happy about it.

With costs rising, especially in tech, it’s nice to see some affordability victories — especially from a big brand like Apple. The Neo stuck the landing for students and folks in need of a cheap productivity machine.

• YouTube TV has rolled out its new genre-specific plans
• Users now have more control over what they pay to stream with cheaper prices
• New plans include Sports, Entertainment, and more

Big changes are happening at YouTube TV, and the streaming giant is finally launching its new, more affordable subscription plans, something that loyal subscribers have been asking for years.

The company first announced the changes to its tier system back in December, but went into further detail in its annual newsletter in January, confirming that it would be lifting its all-or-nothing subscription plan in 2026. At the time, the company didn’t share an exact date for the roll out, but now the new streaming packages are now available — but it never used to be this way.

Previously YouTube TV only offered one subscription plan (the Base Plan) with a pricey $82.99 monthly fee, offering an endless slew of live TV channels and on-demand streaming across sports, entertainment, and other popular genres. But this all-or-nothing approach meant that many customers were paying for channels they weren’t watching.

It’s a big waste of money, but the new genre-specific plans offer a lot more flexibility, giving you more control over what channels you pay for, plus you can take advantage of a discount on each one to get you started. Let’s break them down plan by plan.

YouTube TV Sports Plan

This tier is best suited to those who eat, sleep, and breathe all-things live sports. For $64.99 a month ($54.99 for new users), subscribers of this plan will receive access to YouTube TV’s extensive catalog of live sports viewing including popular channels including all of the ESPN broadcasters, FS1, NBC Sports Network, and more. It also includes access to ESPN Unlimited, which will become available this fall. I can already see this package taking your Super Bowl parties to a whole new level.

YouTube TV Entertainment Plan

Calling all movie buffs, this one’s for you. YouTube TV’s new Entertainment Plan includes networks such as FX, Comedy Central, Paramount+, and HGTV. The Entertainment Plan comes in at $54.99 ($44.99 for new users) a month, working out to $28 cheaper than the Base Plan.

YouTube TV Sports + News Plan

As well as all the sports networks included in the standard Sports Plan, subscribers will also get a range of national news broadcasters including CNBC, Fox News, MSNBC, and more, all for $71.99 a month ($56.99 a month for new users)

YouTube TV News + Entertainment + Family Plan

This mega bundle combines all the popular channels across news and entertainment, as well as family content from Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, National Geographic, Cartoon Network, and more. It’s perfect if you have young ones, but it’s a bit more pricey — $69.99 a month ($59.99/month for new users).

In addition to the four new plans above, you also have the option to choose from 8 other plans which you’ll find during the sign-up process. These include Sports + Entertainment ($72/ month), News + Entertainment ($63/ month), News + Family ($63/ month), Sports + Family ($72/ month), Entertainment + Family ($63/ month), Sports + News + Family ($78/ month), Sports + Entertainment + Family ($78/ month), and Sports + News + Entertainment ($78/ month).

• Google has rolled out 30-second unskippable ads for YouTube's TV app
• It's another way for the company to convince more people to sign up to YouTube Premium
• Last year YouTube made more ad revenue than any of the biggest media companies

Google will stop at nothing to make you cave and succumb yourself to a YouTube Premium subscription, and its latest move could be the one thing that makes you throw in the towel — it’s now targeting YouTube’s TV app.

The company unveiled that VRC non-skip ads are now being rolled out to the TV version of the YouTube app globally, removing the option to skip ads after just a few seconds. Just like its ad-blocker and background play crackdowns for phones and laptops, Google is implementing similar measures for YouTube for TV, and it’s all because of shifting viewing habits.

As more users opt for their TVs over smartphones and other devices for YouTube viewing, it gives Google a target, allowing the company to really show you what YouTube Premium features you’re missing out on. But from Google's announcement, it appears that its new ads system is also designed to mimic the feel of watching traditional broadcast television.

The company details that “Google AI dynamically optimizes between 6-second Bumpers, 15-second standard and 30-second CTV-only non-skippable ad formats, ensuring your campaign reaches the right audience at the right time”, meaning that Google AI will wait to show you ads during the moments when you’re most engaged with whatever video content you’re watching. But there’s more to the strategy than meets the eye.

In 2025, YouTube made over $60 billion in revenue, $40 billion of that being from advertising. According to Business Insider ($/£), this equates more to the combined advertising revenue of Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount Skydance, and Warner Bros. Discovery.

So it’s official; YouTube is the biggest media company out there, so of course Google is taking the opportunity to generate more revenue growth from YouTube’s TV experience now that more viewers use it in a living room just as they would with the best streaming services — and I’m one of those people.

Signing up to YouTube Premium’s free trial is the best thing I’ve done

As it stands, Google has locked the most minor features into YouTube Premium which has made its free version almost unbearable to use. I’ll hold my hands up when I say I caved to the temptation of a YouTube Premium free trial and, I hate to admit it, but it’s frustratingly good.

Aside from the complete absence of ads, smaller features such as background play, continue watching, and video and audio quality makes all the difference — and it’s even better if you’re a big music buff.

Though I’m a Spotify subscriber, for me its music video integration is nowhere near YouTube’s level, and the same goes for live recorded performances, both of which I always go back to YouTube for. That said, if you’re tempted to make the most of YouTube’s music video and live shows content, then you’ll have to go whole hog with YouTube Premium as the more affordable YouTube Premium Lite just won’t cut it.

Recently YouTube added background play and downloads to its cheaper plan, but once again left out the music benefits, which includes access to the YouTube Music streaming platform and ad-free viewing on music content (i.e. music videos). But if this isn’t a priority for you, Premium Lite should be enough to suffice if all you want is majority ad-free viewing.

• YouTube fixed a recent bug that meant non-English comments in live chats wouldn't be delivered
• Multiple users took to voicing complaints on the YouTube Help platform
• It remains unclear what caused the bug, but it may have been a caching or AI moderation error

YouTube has undergone numerous changes over the years, with content creators frequently voicing frustrations regarding moderation and monetization — and the platform's latest issue sums up these concerns.

Several users noticed a strange bug on YouTube's live chats, which only allowed emojis or non-English text to be sent and delivered, and was subsequently fixed, as noted by YouTube on its support page. This applied to both standard and super chat messages, temporarily spoiling live chat functionality.

I spotted this while chatting in a live stream, and found that only incoherent text (or text in different languages) would be delivered, making it one of the most bizarre bugs on the platform. It's not exactly clear what caused the issue, as YouTube gave little to no explanation to users.

On paper, however, it appears that the issue may have originated from a caching error on YouTube's backend. The worst-case scenario is an error that may have occurred on the side of chat moderation, and YouTube has openly admitted that it uses AI for content moderation.

The potential cause behind the bug is open to speculation unless YouTube provides any further details, which I would say is unlikely at this stage, now that the bug is resolved. However, the live chat bug sheds light on a bigger issue that YouTube needs to address as soon as possible.

YouTube's AI chat moderation is too aggressive

Having used YouTube's live chat during streams, many other users and I have noticed how aggressive the chat moderation can be, even when content creators aren't actively blocking keywords.

While not safe-for-work text is unsurprisingly blocked a majority of the time, there are multiple scenarios where safe-for-work content is also blocked, and that's where YouTube's AI chat moderation is to blame.

AI is far from perfect, and that statement particularly applies to discerning whether comments in live chats are appropriate or not. Without humans reviewing content, false flags are likely, and the controversy grows when noting that AI moderation supposedly extends to scans of channels that may be violating community guidelines.

Unfortunately, platforms and companies beyond YouTube are also relying on AI to complete human tasks, and it's proving problematic for job security, hardware availability in tech, and the normal functionality of multiple systems. It seems like AI is here to stay, and that's very worrying.

• YouTube is adding downloads and background play to its Premium Lite plan
• It's the first upgrade to the Premium Lite plan since its inception last year
• Music fans will still have to upgrade however, as ad-free music videos are still paywalled into the Premium Plan

YouTube locks tons of features behind the walls of its rather pricey Premium tier, but now it’s bringing a few of them over to its more affordable Premium Lite plan.

The platform announced on its blog that offline downloads and background play are both being integrated into YouTube Premium Lite, and are being rolled out now. This is a big upgrade; when YouTube launched Premium Lite in March 2025, it offered ad-free viewing for most videos (with the exception of music videos and music content) and not much else. Premium Lite subscribers don’t get the YouTube Music perk, either.

Until now, the only way subscribers could view all videos ad-free was by signing up to the full-price YouTube Premium plan for $13.99 / £12.99 (about AU$20) a month. While YouTube Premium Lite ($7.99 / £7.99, or about AU$10 a month) is still missing features such as jump ahead, queuing, and continue watching, downloads and background play were the most-requested features.

“Last year, we expanded our Premium Lite pilot to more markets​ and heard feedback about wanting these additional features included in the service. ​We're excited for today's update and to continue testing and building products that best meet our users’ needs,” the YouTube team shared in its announcement.

Going forward, the YouTube Premium Lite experience will give you an even bigger taste of what the standard plan has to offer. For most people who just want to enjoy mostly ad-free viewing and now the added benefits of downloads and background play on most videos, YouTube Premium Lite will be the ideal option, and the next step is to roll out a Premium Lite Family plan to give households a more affordable alternative.

That’s not the reason why I’m still more attracted to the standard YouTube Premium plan, though.

I’m nothing without YouTube music videos

I’ve been eyeing up a YouTube Premium subscription for quite a while now, and though I’ve come close to it many times, for some reason I always pull myself back. For the most part YouTube Premium Lite is the ideal plan, but leaving out ad-free music videos is a bit of a kick in the teeth. That said, I know exactly why YouTube does this.

As far as the best music streaming services go, YouTube Music is no match to Spotify or Apple Music on the features and popularity front. However, it has the edge over its competitors with one particular thing: music videos.

I’ve tested Spotify’s music video ecosystem many times, and despite being a subscriber for the last decade, I can see it doesn’t even come close to what YouTube has to offer with music videos. It’s all over the place, and the way videos appear in the playback page is quite unflattering. I’m not the only one who thinks so, and Spotify music videos have been at the center of heated discussions since their inception.

I hate "listening" to music videos :( from r/truespotify

I think I speak on behalf of many music fans when I say that, despite being subscribed to audio streaming platforms that aren’t YouTube Music, we still revert to the standard YouTube app for the visual elements, whether that’s for music videos or live performances. So the fact that YouTube has identified and paywalled this advantage is no surprise whatsoever — it’s just frustrating to know that the Premium temptation is inevitable.

• Mark Zuckerberg spoke at the LA social media addiction trial
• He defended Meta's approach to protecting teen users
• The plantiff's lawyer argued Meta was targeting teens for platform growth

Meta's focus might look to be more on AI and smart glasses than the social media platforms which saw it rise to prominence, but errors its accused of making with regards to keeping teens safe online could affect the whole company, and the whole tech industry.

To catch you up to speed, Meta and YouTube are currently involved in a social media addiction trial being held in Los Angeles, which pits the duo against a plaintiff accusing the companies of intentionally creating damagingly addictive platforms.

It’s one of thousands of similar lawsuits that have been filed against social media giants, which are attempting to argue that platform features rather than platform content have created negative addictive tendencies in younger users. Social media content is protected by the infamous Section 230 federal rule, which shields platforms from liability for the user-generated content on their sites, but lawyers for the plaintiff argue the law doesn’t protect features like infinite scroll.

The trial started a little over a week ago, and after opening arguments from lawyers for each side, key figures are taking the stand, including, recently, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg defended the actions of his company, saying that, while he regrets Meta not making faster progress in its efforts to identify users under 13, the teams working on platforms like Facebook and Instagram have spent years addressing “problematic use” because “it’s the right thing to do” (via the BBC).

This includes adding features such as daily use limits, usage alerts, and the ability to switch notifications off in the evening and overnight.

He was, however, questioned about various internal messages, such as one in 2017 which sees an executive saying “Mark has decided the top priority for the company is teens," and another from 2015 in which Zuckerberg and others discuss strategies to increase "teen usage."

Zuckerberg was also asked about a 2019 research report from an independent company done on behalf of Instagram, which said teen users had "an addicts' narrative about their Instagram use."

More than a social media trial?

As we've discussed in previous articles about this ongoing story, the verdict made in this trial could have major ramifications for social media companies. There are thousands of similar lawsuits making their way through the US courts that would take precedent from the decisions made here, and a negative result for Meta and YouTube could embolden more governments to introduce or tighten social media restrictions for younger users, following the lead of Australia.

But for both of these companies, a negative result – or even simply a negative result in the court of public opinion – could impact not only their past mistakes but their future projects too.

Both Meta and Google, the parent of YouTube, are currently pushing hard into AI and wearables with Ray-Ban Meta glasses and Android XR. Smart glasses are the big new thing in tech, and there are rumors that Meta might finally launch a smart watch to compete with Android and Apple bands, but these gadgets can give these companies a lot of insight into our lives and our physical health.

A recent New York Times report has suggested Meta wants to add facial recognition to its specs, and numerous wearables brands have dreamed up visions of glasses that can remind you where you left your keys before you leave home. But these features only work effectively if your tech is always watching your every move, listening to all your conversations, and deeply involved in your life.

If the perception (even if the trial’s verdict disputes it) is that Meta and YouTube – and by extension Google – misuse social media data to get people hooked on their tech, I imagine folks wouldn’t be keen to hand over even more data to these companies through wearables.

Equally, if Meta and YouTube can prove they have done everything they can to keep users safe, then that could help convince people that their wearables are the safest option in this new AI/AR wild west.

This is a case we’ll be following closely, though with the trial still underway, and appeals likely to follow, don't expect a final decision to be made any time soon.

Last year marked 20 years since YouTube was revealed to the world, as well as the anniversary of the first-ever YouTube video. To celebrate this milestone, it’s heading to one of the most famous art museums in the world, the V&A museum in London, and it’s wild to think that it's now considered museum-worthy.

As part of the museum’s latest collection 'Design 1900 - Now,' which opens today (February 18), its curators have acquired a reconstruction of the original YouTube watch page from 2006, as well as a projection of the original video file for the first uploaded video titled ‘Me at the zoo’ — taken by YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim.

While this part of the exhibit is designed to spotlight early web design aesthetics, there’s more to it than meets the eye. Its purpose is to showcase how YouTube’s early contributions to internet culture have shaped the evolution of content platforms and the formation of online communities.

"By reconstructing the original 2005 watchpage, we aren't just showing a video; we are inviting the public to step back in time to the beginning of a global, cultural phenomenon”, YouTube's chief executive, Neal Mohan, summarizes for the BBC.

YouTube goes into further detail in its blog post, saying “The 19-second clip of YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim, filmed on a low-res camera in 2005 is widely considered a foundational moment in the rise of user-generated content, enabling new modes of public self-expression, changing how media is created and consumed”. In this lies the birth of the popular social media functions we use daily.

It was unknown back then, but much of YouTube’s early design elements feature infant examples of key social media tools such as badges, rating buttons, as well as sharing and recommendation features — all of which I, frankly, couldn't live without. That said, I still can’t get over the fact that early YouTube is now considered old enough to be exhibited in this way.

My favorite corner of the internet is almost old enough to buy a beer, and I’m still using it

I remember stumbling upon YouTube around the 2007-2008 mark, and it felt like I had discovered something otherworldly. The first batch of videos that defined my early YouTube days ranged from clips of The Sims to viral hits such as Potter Puppet Pals — but then music videos happened.

Being a frequent scourer of pre-YouTube music websites such as Slack-Time (that’s where I first watched the video for Poker Face), and a keen watcher of music TV channels, you can imagine how thrilled 9-year-old me was when Vevo started providing YouTube with music videos galore in 2009. But even then, I look back on that time and nothing feels too dissimilar to how I’m consuming content in my 20s even though the game has exponentially changed.

I still can’t quite wrap my head around the fact that we’re now approaching a time where we’re beginning to view platforms like YouTube in this light — even though its layout today has a lot of the same features it did back then, it is much more refined. Before you know it, it’ll only be a matter of time before an early TikTok feed gets suspended in the Louvre.

• Instagram boss Adam Mosseri insists the app is not addictive
• Social media apps are on trial for causing mental health issues
• There is 'problematic use' in some cases, Mosseri admits

Adam Mosseri, who has been the head of Instagram since 2018, has had some interesting things to say about addiction on the platform. Mosseri was speaking at a high-profile trial in California investigating the mental health impacts of social media.

Meta's social platforms and YouTube are currently in the dock. They're accused of designing their apps to be as addictive as possible, leading to compulsive use that drives health problems such as body dysmorphia, anxiety, and depression.

"It's important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use," Mosseri said (via the BBC). When it was put to him that the main plaintiff in the case, known as KGM, had once spent 16 hours on the platform, he said "that sounds like problematic use".

"I'm sure I've said that I've been addicted to a Netflix show when I binged it really late one night, but I don't think it's the same thing as clinical addiction," Mosseri went on to say, refusing to label the user behavior described in the trial as addictive.

'Digital casinos'

While Meta and YouTube are defending themselves, Snap and TikTok have already settled with KGM out of court. The 20-year-old Californian woman sued the social media platforms in 2023, and opening statements have been heard this week.

KGM's lawyer, Mark Lanier, has argued that these apps and services are essentially "digital casinos", and has highlighted that internal documents from these accused companies have compared their technology with Big Tobacco.

Meta's defense is that the mental health issues of KGM were brought about primarily by other factors in her life, including abuse and problems at home. However, the plaintiff had previously made over 300 complaints to Instagram about bullying on the platform.

The trial comes as social media companies face increasing scrutiny over the impacts their algorithms and features have on users. Late last year, Australia banned under-16s from social media, a move that other countries are also considering.

• YouTube TV is rolling out over 10 new genre-specific plans, including designated tiers for sports and entertainment fans
• The new plans are rolling out this week, and aim to give users more control over what they want to stream
• However, ESPN Unlimited won't be available until fall 2026, which has rubbed sports fans the wrong way

Update: We reached out to Google for a comment on the ESPN Unlimited delay, and they replied with the following: "On background, we’re working closely with the Disney and ESPN teams to complete the technical work required to integrate the content into YouTube TV."

Original story follows:

The days of YouTube TV’s singular subscription plan are over, and the company is finally rolling out new genre-specific packages from this week after teasing the upgrade a few weeks back.

Since its inception in 2017, YouTube TV has offered its members only one ‘all-or-nothing’ subscription plan, which includes over 100 networks across a multitude of channels and genres, for a costly fee of $82.99 a month. The new 10+ content plans are designed to give customers “more control over their subscriptions”, the platform said in its announcement.

When the new tiers roll out, you’ll be able to select genre-specific bundles based on the content you want to stream, saving you a little bit of cash each month instead of paying for channels you never get around to viewing – and there are plenty to choose from.

The new Sports Plan ($64.99 per month) is designed for the biggest sports fans out there, bundling the most popular sports broadcasters into one package including FS1, NBC Sports Network and more. There’s also the new Sports + News Plan ($71.99 per month), which gives you access to all the regular sports channels as well as news networks such as CNBC, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN.

Don’t worry, YouTube hasn’t forgotten about movie and TV fans. Now, you’ll have the option to stream nothing but the best movies and shows through the Entertainment Plan ($54.99 per month), the new home of FX, Hallmark, Comedy Central, Bravo, Paramount, Food Network, and similar channels. Just like the Sports + News bundle, the News + Entertainment + Family Plan ($69.99 per month) combines entertainment with news, as well as featuring family-friendly viewing.

How it’s taken YouTube this long to expand its subscription offerings is beyond me, but hey, at least it’s happening, and it will welcome more flexibility for subscribers. But with launches like this, there’s always a setback, and sports fans are pretty disappointed with the absence of ESPN Unlimited.

“Dealbreaker without ESPN unlimited access”

YouTube TV won’t get ESPN Unlimited until Fall 2026 from r/youtubetv

YouTube TV is one of the best streaming services for sports viewing, and thanks to product features like multiview, sports fans can view multiple games across different channels at once. As for the new Sports Plan, its array of broadcasters hasn't changed – except for ESPN Unlimited, which won’t become available for at least another six months.

Comment from r/youtubetv

Why is YouTube holding back the one channel that sports fans love the most? Well, the company hasn’t stated why it’s not yet available in the Sports Plan. It hasn’t received the best reaction let’s just say, and it’s got members coming up with their own theories, one involving Disney.

Comment from r/youtubetv

Following the dramatic dispute between YouTube and Disney in October last year, failed carriage agreements resulted in 20 Disney-owned networks being removed from YouTube TV, but were later reinstated after a new deal was agreed. Some YouTube TV subscribers are convinced that the platform would never delay a network integration for this long, pinning the blame on Disney’s part, but some users believe otherwise.

Other users on Reddit have been quick to compare YouTube’s selection of Disney subsidiaries with DIRECTV, another channel distributor service that offers access to Disney-owned networks.

One user in particular claimed that following DIRECTV and Disney’s renewed agreement back in September 2024, it took 11 months before users regained access to ESPN hinting that the delay comes down to technical difficulties, when in fact the blackout lasted 14 days. Other users in the Reddit thread appeared to squash this claim too.

Correction: February 13, 2026
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that it took 11 months for DIRECTV users to regain access to Disney channels following the 2024 blackout, when it took 14 days. The intended reference was instead about ESPN availability for DIRECTV users after renewing their Disney contract.

• A major lawsuit on social media addiction is playing out in Los Angeles
• Lawyers for the plaintiff argue that social media is intentionally addictive to children
• Meta and YouTube argue their platforms are safe for younger users

Have social media platforms such as Instagram and YouTube “engineered addiction in children’s brains”?

That’s the question at the center of a social media addiction trial being held in Los Angeles, pitting Meta and YouTube against a plaintiff accusing the companies of intentionally creating damagingly addictive platforms.

It’s not just central to this case either. The outcome of the trial could guide the result of around 1,500 more similar lawsuits being levied at social media giants (via CNN), and continue the growing trend of social media pushback – especially when it comes to young people.

Likening swiping through social to the motion of pulling a “handle of a slot machine” in the pursuit of mental stimulation, the lawyer for the plaintiff – identified only as Kaley (and her initials KGM) – argues that YouTube and Instagram are like “digital casinos” with features that create an addictive cycle of dopamine hits.

In turn, the lawyer argues, this social media addiction caused Kaley to develop anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts.

The case specifically targets social media features – such as infinite scroll feeds (which never end, no matter how far you scroll down) – rather than the content of the platforms, which would be protected under US Section 230 of Federal law.

Meta’s lawyer in the case has instead suggested KGM’s family dynamics are to blame for her mental health troubles, with spokespersons for the company saying that Meta “Strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

YouTube similarly refutes the allegations. A spokesperson has said that “providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.” YouTube’s lawyer is expected to give the company’s opening legal statement on Tuesday, February 10.

Snapchat’s parent company, Snap, and TikTok were originally named in the lawsuit, too. However, they have both settled with KGM and are no longer defendants in the case.

A guide for what's to come

This is just the start of what is set to be a six-week-long case – that with appeals may stretch even longer – so it’s impossible to predict what the jury’s verdict will decide, but it’s yet another instance of pushback against how social media platforms engage young people.

We’ve seen various proposed and passed bills limiting access to sites based on tighter age restrictions in the UK, Australia, and recently, France.

In another California legal case, this time from state Attorneys General, prosecutors are asking a Federal judge to force Meta to remove all accounts known to belong to users under 13, to delete all data collected from Facebook and Instagram users under 13, and to delete algorithms and other tools built using said data.

Some of this group are also calling for Meta to impose new restrictions for younger users, and to remove what they call “ addictive” design features like autoplay and infinite scroll – a feature highlighted in the KGM lawsuit above.

At the same time, we’ve seen social media companies perhaps attempt to preempt this backlash by launching renewed safety measures for young users. Meta, in recent years, has rolled out dedicated features for teen accounts that include special safety and content filtering options for people under 16.

More recently, Discord has announced global age verification checks will roll out to all users in early March – requiring all users to submit an ID or complete a facial age check before they can use the platform unrestricted.

Though with that last one, companies are also seeing there’s a tightrope to walk between appeasing lawmakers on the safety of their platform and not creating user outrage – the latter of which Discord does appear to have stoked.

We’ll have to wait and see exactly what happens with the case above, the many others in the works, and various government actions being taken on social media, but it does seem major shifts are all but inevitable for how young people will be able to engage with online platforms. With privacy fears and usage frustration remaining for adults with many of the proposed solutions, however, it’s unclear if they’ll end the online safety debate or merely evolve it.

For many sports fans, YouTube TV is the place to go to watch the biggest games, but if you were thinking of cancelling after streaming Super Bowl 2026, this new YouTube TV deal might just change your mind.

As spotted by users on Reddit (see below), Google is cutting the price of its YouTube TV Base Plan, giving existing subscribers a $20 discount for four months – saving you $80 in total. The standard monthly fee would cost you a hefty $82.99, which works out at $331.96 for four months. If you decide to redeem the deal, it comes to $62.99 a month, or $251.96 for four months starting on March 1, and ending July 1.

Save $20 a month for 4 months from r/youtubetv

The latest YouTube TV deal comes just in time for post Super Bowl blues, and more users are noticing it appearing in their accounts. However, there’s a catch: not all members are eligible for it.

At the moment, we don’t know the reason behind its limitations; all we know is that it’s showing up in the account settings of a handful of lucky subscribers, but not everyone. To find out if you’re one of the fortunate ones, you can check by logging into your YouTube TV account on a desktop browser and selecting ‘Your Plan’ then ‘Manage’. From there, you should be able to see if the discount is available to you.

Recently YouTube TV has been handing out one discount after the next, and though this deal is aimed at existing customers, the streaming platform is still focused on luring in fresh members.

If you’ve been tempted to sign up to YouTube TV there’s still time to take advantage of this offer which gives you an extended free trial period and a $23 monthly discount for two months — but will only work for new customers. There’s still time to sit on this one as it will expire on March 17, which is just over a month away.

• YouTube is clamping down on a popular background playback hack for mobile browsers
• Free YouTube users have reported that background listening has stopped working for browsers such as Brave and Microsoft Edge
• Google has put out a statement to confirm it has "updated the experience to ensure consistency" across platforms

YouTube is still on its mission to convert free users over to the YouTube Premium plan, but that hasn’t stopped many from taking advantage of workarounds such as ad blockers. Unfortunately, YouTube is now clamping down on a popular mobile browser background playback hack.

For some time, free YouTube users have been using a handy workaround to play YouTube video audio in the background (a paywalled Premium feature) on third-party mobile browsers such as Microsoft Edge, Brave or Samsung Internet. Users would play a video then minimize the browser to effectively get background playback, a YouTube Premium feature.

Sadly, a growing number of user reports suggest this has stopped working for many – and Google has now issued a statement suggesting the clampdown is official.

You can no longer have YouTube running in the background. from r/youtube

Although some users have reported that this clampdown hasn’t hit them yet, it’s an increasingly common occurrence for a number of free YouTube users. “We are now officially paying for everything that was free a couple of years ago”, says the Reddit user who sparked the online conversation.

Amid the uproar, Google has officially spoken out on its decision to clamp down background viewing on mobile browsers, sharing the following statement with Android Authority:

“Background playback is a feature intended to be exclusive for YouTube Premium members. While some non-Premium users may have previously been able to access this through mobile web browsers in certain scenarios, we have updated the experience to ensure consistency across all our platforms.”

Another blow for free YouTube users

As mentioned, free YouTube users have been able to evade this paywalled YouTube Premium feature for some time, but it’s definitely the end of days for this popular workaround – and to say it’s rubbed people the wrong way is an understatement.

Comment from r/youtube

This isn't the first time that Google has doubled down on making these life hacks even more difficult for free users to access. In the past year, YouTube has also clamped down on ad blockers, forcing many to seek sneaky workarounds.

It all comes down to one thing; Google is trying to convert more free users over to the paid Premium plan. While we are also fans of YouTube Premium, it certainly isn't without its flaws and not everyone can justify the $13.99 / £12.99 / AU$16.99 monthly cost.

It's all about striking a balance and, as one Reddit user has highlighted, the company continues to paywall features that have been free for years, as opposed to offering any particularly compelling new features on YouTube Premium.

Comment from r/youtube

As YouTube continues to pull stunts like this – it’s also experimenting with locking playback speed into Premium – it will only cause more friction with free users who can't justify stumping up for YouTube Premium. Luckily, background viewing for desktop web browsers is here to stay, but how long will it be before YouTube decides to paywall this, too?

Disneyland Handcrafted has been streaming on Disney+ and YouTube since January 22, delivering stunning, raw, behind-the-scenes footage of Disneyland, the entertainment giant's first theme park, construction. It’s immediately different from other retellings of the park’s origin story, relying almost entirely on previously unseen footage of the process, without the extra polish or pixie dust one might expect from Disney.

What made that difference was a meticulous editing and restoration process – one that director Leslie Iwerks describes as being less like traditional storytelling and more like investigation. While there’s a template for how Disneyland was built, Handcrafted wasn’t about creating a fresh narrative. It was about uncovering one that was already there.

“And so, like I said, it was sort of forensics to try to figure out where were the drama pinch points with the footage,” Iwerks told me. “But it was only through this film that when we saw the slates on the reels themselves that we knew, 'Okay, this was this' timeframe and it was this location.”

Thankfully, the camera crews Walt Disney tasked with documenting Disneyland’s construction were good at dating the slates on each reel, something that was pretty mission-critical.

Iwerks and her team worked through roughly 65 to 70 hours of this material, logging the footage and lining it up chronologically before the story could even begin to take shape.

“I remember being in the editing room and asking Moe, I said, ‘There is no way this is three months out,’” Iwerks recalled. “And he goes, ‘Oh yeah, look at the slate.’ So the slates have dates, right? So we were – we were, um, locked to the reality of the footage.”

All of the footage was shot on 16mm film, and Iwerks intentionally chose not to modernize its look. Even as Disneyland Handcrafted moved through a contemporary post-production workflow, the goal was never to make the images feel ‘new’ – only to make them feel honest.

“The footage had already been transferred to 2K,” Iwerks explained, noting that for the edit, that footage was converted to slightly lower-res proxy files, and for the final cut, her team brought the “2K back in” to over-cut the work print.

From there, restraint became the guiding principle. “There was no colorization or anything,” Iwerks said. “It was already Kodachrome 16mm footage. When we went into the finishing, we enhanced the color, but only to keep it as natural as possible, right? There was no, like, effects or anything that were created.”

Imperfections weren’t entirely erased either, as dirt, scratches, and grain were addressed selectively.

“It was this fine balance between having too much grain and too many things that reminded you it was film, versus, you know, it feeling real like you were immersed in it,” Iwerks said.

In one moment, that balance tips deliberately toward visibility. The film briefly exposes the sprocket holes of the original film stock – a choice that runs counter to most restoration philosophies.

“I intentionally put the film frame – the holes in the film – in there,” Iwerks explained. “I wanted people to remember that this actually was film, this was shot. There was a cameraman behind all of this footage.”

That forensic approach didn’t just shape the edit – it also surfaced moments that feel almost unbelievable when viewed in proper chronological context.

“And, you know, even one month out they’re still building Tomorrowland and that was crazy,” Iwerks said. “It’s all wood! One month out.”

The line lands because the film never tries to soften the timeline for construction, or the fact that it was truly a race to the finish. The timeline isn’t retrofitted to match what Disneyland eventually became; it’s allowed to exist exactly as it was, uncertainty and all.

That same philosophy extends to the shots Iwerks chose to linger on. Beyond the wide construction scenes, Disneyland Handcrafted repeatedly slows down for details – bricks being carved by hand, boots pressing on the gravel, stones being placed in red asphalt. They’re small moments, but they reinforce the idea that Disneyland wasn’t assembled cleanly or all at once. It was built piece by piece, surface by surface.

Those choices quietly hint at where the film ultimately lands. By treating the footage as something to be examined rather than reimagined, Disneyland Handcrafted lets the physical work – and the people doing it – define the story. And in the process, the meaning of its title starts to come into focus.

I asked Iwerks where the title came from, and she shared that it came at some point in the middle of the editing process: “I just think, God, this is so handcrafted, it just feels like it’s – this is what it should be called: Disneyland Handcrafted.”

You can watch Disneyland Handcrafted now on Disney+ and on YouTube.

• Darren Aronofsky and Google DeepMind have launched an AI‑driven Revolutionary War series on Time’s YouTube channel
• On This Day… 1776 uses AI‑generated visuals to recreate key moments from American history
• The series also incorporates human voice actors and traditional techniques

Filmmaker Darren Aronofsky's latest project melds history with AI, and is rolling out on YouTube starting this week. On This Day… 1776 dropped the first of its short-form videos on Time's official channel as a collaboration between Aronofsky’s AI‑focused venture Primordial Soup, Google DeepMind, and Time Studios. Each episode pairs traditional voice acting and production with AI‑generated visuals to dramatize moments from the American Revolution’s defining year, timed to release on the 250th anniversary dates of each event.

The series is starting with two stories. The first covers George Washington raising the Continental Union Flag in Somerville, Massachusetts, unifying colonists early in the Revolutionary War. The second episode explores how Benjamin Franklin encouraged Thomas Paine to publish his Common Sense pamphlet.

Aronofsky has been keen to explore how AI might transform cinema. He started Primordial Soup to do just that, signing a deal with Google DeepMind to test their technology for artistic production. On This Day… 1776 is their first public release. He and his partners see AI as opening opportunities for independent filmmakers to do things that would normally demand entire production studios and hefty budgets.

“This project is a glimpse at what thoughtful, creative, artist-led use of AI can look like—not replacing craft, but expanding what’s possible and allowing storytellers to go places they simply couldn’t before,” Time Studios president Ben Bitonti said in a statement.

A divided response around such use of AI reflects the polarizing nature of the project. On the plus, AI makes it possible for filmmakers with tiny budgets to make period productions with appropriate costumes, location shoots, and other details that normally cost way too much for small studios looking to tell complex historical stories.

Others, however, think the result is stuck in the uncanny valley, with characters not fully mastering human expressions or period detail. There are credible arguments that AI struggles with nuance and emotional subtlety, and that audiences can sometimes sense when imagery isn’t crafted by seasoned human artisans.

1776 AI

Just as photographers and writers have had to wrestle with digital disruption, filmmakers now face a technological shift that could reshape the economics and aesthetics of their craft. Some directors fear that easy access to AI visuals will lead to a flood of mediocre content; others see it as a means to tell stories that were previously too expensive or risky to greenlight.

Aronofsky isn't the first to experiment with AI in filmmaking. Generative AI has been used in films and TV to clone voices, make performers look like their younger selves, and otherwise finesse productions. But there's no consensus among filmmakers about the place of AI in the industry.

Aronofsky’s project demonstrates his belief that AI can enhance rather than replace human artistry, but there are many prominent directors who reject the idea that AI has any place in their art.

Viewers will have to decide if AI can truly capture the essence of a historical era, with all its complexity and ambiguity. Whether it becomes a model for future work or a cultural footnote, it’s a salvo in a war with as many hot debates as the Continental Congress.

• YouTube is experimenting with charging users for its playback-speed tool, a recent experiment reveals
• A Reddit user shared an image that says a YouTube Premium subscription is required to access playback speeds, although it's not appearing for everyone
• If YouTube decides to lock the feature behind a subscription, it could encourage more Premium sign-ups – or turn off free users

While many people subscribe to YouTube Premium, its free experience is still widely used by millions, myself included – but one of its best free features could soon be locked behind the Premium paywall.

Playback speed is one of the platform’s last remaining handy free features, but now there's evidence that reveals YouTube has been experimenting with making it a new paid feature as part of YouTube Premium. If this is true, it will join other Premium benefits such as offline listening, ad-free viewing, and background viewing, as well as the five handy new features it rolled out in September last year.

The experiment was first spotted by a user on Reddit, who shared a screenshot of a YouTube Premium pop-up showing they had lost access to amending video playback speed – but it’s not appearing for everyone.

Youtube and playback speeds from r/youtube

It appears that YouTube is testing this out by splitting users into two different groups – ‘Group A’ and ‘Group B’ as categorized in the Reddit thread. Users in Group A will still get access to free playback speeds, so nothing changes, whereas users in Group B will run into the pop-up which requires them to be subscribed to YouTube Premium to use playback speeds.

Although it’s not set in stone, we’re not ruling out the possibility of this happening just yet. We’ve reached out to Google and YouTube for a comment, and we'll update this story when we know more.

Opinion: What a way to push away more free users

It just goes to show that YouTube is desperate to persuade more free users to come over to the Premium side, but at what cost?

For the most part, I find that most YouTube users are pretty content with what the free experience offers. Though the benefits of Premium are game-changing, there are enough free tools to suffice not paying for another subscription service – but this potential move could be the one that pushes free users over the edge.

Playback speed is one of the last remaining free tools that’s keeping me locked in, and it’s the same for many users out there. I love using it to speed up videos that are far too long to watch at the standard 1.0 rate, especially long interview videos. Thankfully, I haven’t been hit with a YouTube Premium pop-up yet, and I hope it stays that way.

While this would be a huge inconvenience for us free users, I’ve always been intrigued by YouTube Premium and how much it upgrades the viewing experience. I can’t say that I’ve never been tempted by a free trial – I think it would be a game-changer for music video viewing. Who knows, maybe this is the year where I cave.

• YouTube Music now syncs your playback progress across devices you're signed into, similar to Spotify Connect
• Users could continue music playback after switching between mobile and web versions, but this new upgrade expands on that
• Now that YouTube Music has rolled this tool out it leaves Apple Music as the only service that doesn't offer playback syncing, and users have been airing their thoughts

Google is finally fixing an annoying YouTube Music issue that users have been begging for, and now the music streaming platform syncs your playback queue across other Android and iOS devices – a tool that Apple Music has yet to roll out.

What does this mean for YouTube Music subscribers? Well, similar to tools such as Spotify Connect, your YouTube Music playback queue will now be synced with other devices that you’re signed into, so that you can pick up where you left off hassle-free and continue enjoying your favorite tunes. It’s a godsend if you switch between devices for music streaming.

Previously, the Now Playing queue on Android and iOS was independent, meaning that if you wanted to continue your listening session from a new device, then you’d have to manually build your queue again from scratch – a huge inconvenience if you ask me. With that said, YouTube Music started improving its queue syncing features back in 2024, allowing the web version to load your playback queue from your mobile.

When you switch devices to resume playback, you’ll find the last song you streamed in the miniplayer – so if you were listening to YouTube Music on a Google Pixel Phone and you swap over to an iPad for example, it will resume your queue there. Once you make the switch, you’ll find temporary “From your iPhone” and “From your browser” placeholders for artist names which will disappear when you press play.

It marks a huge quality of life upgrade for YouTube Music users, and it’s about time too, as its music streaming competitors have already jumped on similar bandwagons – with the exception of Apple Music that is.

‘I'm thinking of seriously switching back to Spotify’

Apple Music has many benefits over the likes of Spotify and YouTube Music. It’s one of the best music streaming services for audio quality, supporting Dolby Atmos on a range of albums, and its collection of radio stations and editorial playlists are built with music fans in mind.

It wins in so many areas, however it still hasn’t quite hit the nail on the head when it comes to queue syncing across devices, and since YouTube Music’s latest upgrade it’s ruffled a few feathers with Apple Music subscribers.

Apple Music seriously needs this. from r/AppleMusic

As it stands, there’s no means of syncing your playback queue or song progress across devices where you’re logged into Apple Music, requiring you to search for the song you streamed last and rebuild the queue entirely.

While there are many reasons music fans are sticking with Apple Music, recent comments reveal that if there’s one setback that’s enough to tempt users to switch back to Spotify, it’s this one, especially now that there are so many ways to stream music.

Comment from r/AppleMusic

It's not new that music streaming dominates the way a large number of us consume music today and the tech we stream it though – I frequently switch between my phone, smart speaker, and smart TV to enjoy listening to music, and I don’t know where I’d be without Spotify Connect.

Since covering all things music streaming, this is the first time I’m seeing users actively considering switching from Apple Music to other platforms, when it’s usually the other way around. But whether or not they go through with it is another matter.

Another huge streaming partnership has been announced, and this time it involves the BBC.

This week, the company announced a huge deal with YouTube, which will allow the BBC to produce entertainment content 'aimed at YouTube's digital-native younger audience', according to the broadcasting giant. As early as February, the BBC will begin showing content on YouTube spanning entertainment, news, and sports, starting with the upcoming Winter Olympic Games.

Though the BBC ensures that some of this new content will still be available to view on iPlayer and Sounds, it raises a lot of questions about the company's ongoing business plan debate. As it stands, the BBC currently relies on the £175 television license fee for its programming, but this deal with YouTube will see a major shift in its model.

For the first time, new BBC programmes will be ad-supported, but you'll only see ads when you stream them outside of the UK. As the TV license is currently under review and is expected to be phased out by 2027, this will provide a new means of generating funds.

Just like the recent Netflix and Warner Bros. deal, this unexpected partnership has raised many questions that are yet to be answered. Luckily, we've been in touch with a bunch of analysts who've had a few things to say.

Why is the BBC doing this?

As mentioned, the BBC has felt a need to rethink the way it connects with younger audiences, many of whom have swapped traditional TV viewing for the likes of the best streaming services. Paolo Pescatore, founder and analyst at PP Foresight, agrees, sharing, “The BBC needs to reconnect, especially with younger audiences."

Looks as though the BBC is abandoning public service broadcasting, right? Well, Abi Watson, Head of Publishing at Enders Analysis, believes otherwise, who told us, “It has an obligation to produce creative, high-quality, distinctive content – and that isn’t platform-specific, which does involve the BBC experimenting with new formats, not just recycling linear TV for digital spaces.”

That aside, the other determining factor for the BBC's decision to go ham on digital viewing rests on shifting viewing habits, which Watson also touched on. “Second, it has a duty to reach audiences where they actually are. Viewing habits have shifted materially: around 10% of TV-set viewing in the UK now goes to YouTube, and for under-35s, it’s closer to a quarter," she added.

What does this mean for the TV licence?

In short, it doesn’t change anything for now – while you won’t need a TV licence to watch the BBC’s YouTube content in the UK, you do still need one to watch or record live TV, or use BBC iPlayer. And that’s the case even if you’re only watching on a phone.

Until now, the BBC has solely relied on the TV license fee for funding, but now that its funding model is being deliberated, it's going down the ad-supported programming route. As mentioned, ads will not be shown when you're watching content in the UK, but the idea of it raises a couple of points.

On the one hand, it gives the BBC another source for bringing in funds, and as Watson puts it, “content distributed on YouTube can generate modest incremental revenue overseas through advertising. That revenue sits within the BBC’s commercial arm, and any profits made are returned to the public service side and reinvested.” On the other hand, value is at risk.

“A growing overlap between public service broadcasting and commercial platform access risks complicating how its value is perceived by audiences. This could intensify over time if YouTube and other third-party services become the primary way people discover and consume BBC content," says Peter Ingram, Research Manager at Ampere Analysis.

For Pescatore, it's going to fuel scrutiny for both value and funding, who told us, "all eyes will be on the BBC as it continues to reinvent itself during uncertain, challenging times, even as consumer patterns change and it uses YouTube as a funnel to grow engagement on its own platforms without undermining them.”

What can viewers expect?

For starters, the BBC/ YouTube deal will see a huge boost in the BBC's presence in digital broadcasting. The company has used YouTube in the past to promote snippets of its shows on its YouTube channel, but this is the first time the BBC will be able to produce fresh and original content for the platform. For Ingram, visibility is the main end result.

“The most immediate impact will be increased visibility of BBC content on YouTube, including a mix of new releases and catalogue titles distributed across 50 distinct content channels. Importantly, content created for YouTube is still expected to be made available across BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, meaning existing audiences don’t lose access,” said Ingram.

This aside, the other big change you can expect is the significant shift that will come with the BBC's funding process, as well as content designed for YouTube but is still quintessentially BBC.

“The BBC’s first YouTube-first commissioning brief is for a new factual channel run by BBC Three, with around £2m of spend split across two producers. That tells you a lot: this is a test-and-learn exercise, not a wholesale reallocation of budgets. Alongside that, our understanding is that the initial content focus will be kids and sports, genres that already work well on YouTube and where the BBC has clear strengths. Viewers should expect recognisably BBC content, but designed for YouTube formats and viewing habits from the outset,” Watson told us.

As we've said, these changes are coming very soon, kicking off with the Winter Olympic Games in February. It seems as though the BBC has a very clear vision of the direction it wants to go in with its YouTube-centric content, but it'll be interesting to see what this does to its funding model, given its current state of deliberation.

There’s a certain joy that comes with walking into a Disney park anywhere in the world – but it’s hard to argue that any of them carry quite the same weight as Disneyland. This is the original park, the one Walt Disney himself saw open to the world.

As Disneyland celebrates its 70th anniversary – the gates first opened on July 17, 1955 – Disney has released a new documentary you can watch right now from the comfort of your home. Disneyland Handcrafted, now streaming on Disney+ and YouTube, pulls back the curtain on how the park came to life and why that hands-on, detail-obsessed approach still defines Disney today.

Much like The Imagineering Story, the Disney+ series that explored the creation of iconic attractions across Disney Parks worldwide, Disneyland Handcrafted comes from Leslie Iwerks and her team. Fittingly, the documentary itself was made in just one year – the same amount of time it took to build Disneyland – and it offers a rare, unvarnished look at the process.

The film draws entirely on archival material uncovered and restored in close collaboration with the Walt Disney Archives, including raw 16mm footage that had never been shown.

Walt Disney’s early embrace of television meant cameramen were on site throughout Disneyland’s construction, capturing the park as it took shape under intense pressure and tight timelines. There was even a rig on a tall tower where Sleeping Beauty Castle would eventually stand, with cameras capturing a time-lapse.

Decades later, Iwerks and her team painstakingly digitized, restored, and, in some cases, recolored that footage, preserving moments that had been frozen in time.

Running an hour and 18 minutes – available with a Disney+ subscription or, surprisingly, free on YouTube – Disneyland Handcrafted isn’t all pixie dust. It captures the real fear that Disneyland might not be ready in time and doesn’t shy away from the chaos of opening day, when plenty did go wrong. There’s tension, uncertainty, and risk – something that often gets smoothed over in more polished retellings.

Even after one viewing, Disneyland Handcrafted already feels like the kind of documentary that rewards a second. While no Disney+ viewing stats have been shared, it premiered on January 22, 2026 on YouTube and is already at over 87,000 views.

Still, the film lands on something deeply inspiring. These cast members took an orange grove in Anaheim, California, and built an entire Main Street inspired by the early 1900s, created first-of-their-kind rides, multiple lands, assembled a full riverboat off-site and moved it piece by piece, laid down an entire railroad — and yes, they even built a castle.

What makes Disneyland Handcrafted especially compelling now is how clearly it connects to the work Imagineers are still doing today. Many of the ideas that shaped Disneyland in 1955 weren’t limited by imagination, but by what technology – and construction equipment – could realistically support at the time. That same dynamic continues across Disney Parks, and more broadly Disney Experiences, where concepts can live for decades before the technology finally catches up.

Take the Haunted Mansion Parlor aboard Disney Cruise Line’s Disney Treasure and upcoming Disney Destiny. The space brings to life an idea original Imagineers once envisioned for the Haunted Mansion attraction itself – a ghostly aquarium filled with “ghost fish.” It was a concept far ahead of its time, waiting for the right combination of illusion, engineering, and show technology to finally come into existence.

Or consider the Walt Disney animatronic now on display at Disneyland, a figure that blends storytelling, movement, and performance in a way early Imagineers could have only dreamed of.

From an orange grove in Anaheim to Main Street, U.S.A., from a hand-built riverboat to an entire railroad, the original Disneyland team didn’t wait for perfect conditions – they built anyway. Today’s Imagineers are doing much the same thing, carrying forward ideas sparked decades ago and finally giving them form. Different tools, same ambition.

I’ll have more to share soon, including a full review of Disneyland Handcrafted and a conversation with director Leslie Iwerks about the making of the documentary, what surprised her most during production, and why Disney’s earliest lessons still resonate today.

And with a winter storm bearing down on much of the Midwest and East Coast, Disneyland Handcrafted feels like the perfect watch – a warm, nostalgic trip back to where it all began, best enjoyed from the couch.

You can see the Disneyland Handcrafted trailer above, with the full documentary streaming right now on Disney+ and available for free on YouTube.

• YouTube TV has big upgrades coming in early 2026, including changes to its subscription plans and multiview function
• When the changes roll out, you'll be able to curate a multiview screen that spans sports, entertainment, news, and more
• But the biggest change is the shift in subscription tiers, which will welcome over 10 new genre-specific packages

There’s quite a lot going on behind the scenes at YouTube, and CEO Neal Mohan just unveiled a shedload of new upgrades coming in 2026 – and I have a feeling YouTube TV subscribers are going to really like this.

In his annual letter, Mohan announced two substantial changes for YouTube TV, one that builds on the evolution of its multiview function, and one that alters the subscription tier ladder. Mohan summarized these changes in a brief statement sharing the following:

“Building on our success in the living room, we’re driven by the simple belief that TV should be easy. We’ll soon launch fully customizable multiview and more than 10 specialized YouTube TV plans spanning sports, entertainment and news, all designed to give subscribers more control”. Let’s get into the details.

Introducing multiview flexibility

Since launching its multiview feature in 2023, it’s become one of YouTube TV’s most valuable functions, especially for sports fanatics who like to stream up to four channels at once. However this has been limited to a select list of channels to choose from, but Google has always found ways to evolve it, and its next upgrade is its biggest yet.

Building on multiview’s customizable layout which was first announced in December, YouTube TV subscribers will have the option to curate a multiview screen that spans different types of channels from sports, entertainment, news, and more – the four-screen limit is staying put, but that’s not a massive setback.

When it rolls out, it will be a game-changer for households that find themselves in heated arguments over what to watch. This way, fans of sports and entertainment can be more flexible with their viewing.

Goodbye to ‘all or nothing’ subscription plans

For years, YouTube TV subscribers have been complaining about the structure of the subscription tiers on offer. At the moment there’s just one tier, the Basic Plan, which costs a hefty $82.99 monthly charge – and most members barely scratch the surface of the hundreds of channels that are on offer.

The new changes coming to YouTube TV will see the end of the singular Basic Plan offer, and soon more than 10 genre-specific subscription tiers will be introduced, allowing members to be more selective about the types of content they want to stream.

Although Google hasn’t gone into detail about what the new tiers are exactly, it’s likely that they’ll be split into sports, entertainment, and other streaming packages based on specialized content. Instead of paying a massive fee for channels you know you’ll never watch, the new tiers will not only save you quite a bit each month, but they’ll be a lot more tailored to your personal taste.

We don’t know exactly when these new upgrades will roll out other than they’ll be landing in early 2026, but what we do know is that existing YouTube TV subscribers will be particularly pleased to see the back end of the Basic Plan.

As far as live TV streaming goes, YouTube TV is one of the best streaming services for it. If you've been tempted by its extensive range of live TV channels, then there's a limited-time offer that's perfect for starting your YouTube TV journey – and you have until March 17 to claim it.

When you sign up to Google's latest YouTube TV deal, you'll be getting two perks in return. The first is a 10-day free trial, a slightly longer trial period to the standard 7-day YouTube TV free trial offer. This extended introductory offer is an ideal opportunity for you to test the YouTube TV waters and gauge if it's the right service for you. Plus, you can cancel at no charge before the free trial ends.

If you decide to stay on after the free trial, you'll also get access to a discounted subscription of $59.99 a month for the first two months instead of the usual $82.99 monthly charge (which will come into effect after the two-month period). This means you'll save $23 per month, which is $46 in total across the discounted period, which we see as a bonus.

With that said, there are a few small T&Cs to be aware of. First off, Google says that you must be over 18 years old and have a Google account to sign up to YouTube TV, which is standard procedure for most of its services.

Additionally, this limited-time deal is open to those who are not current or former YouTube TV subscribers. You also won't be eligible of you've taken advantage of a YouTube TV free trial in the past with your Google account, so you'll need a fresh Google account to score this discount.

Google details this in further detail on its terms and conditions page, but that's pretty much the gist of what's required from you before you sign up to the YouTube TV discount. If it were me, I wouldn't worry too much about acting fast on this one, as there's still plenty of time for you to decide if YouTube TV will be your 2026 streaming platform. Indeed, there's even another limited-time YouTube TV offer running all the way through June 30 that's worth considering (details below).

Fed up with skipping YouTube ads? Good news: we've spotted a sneaky way to watch YouTube ad-free – something that, before the avalanche of commercials, used to just be known as using YouTube.

There's no need to cough up a minimum of $7.99/£12.99⁠ per month for a YouTube Premium subscription... and no need to buy a dodgy ad-blocking app that probably won't work.

Here's the trick: You can watch YouTube ad-free in Albania by using a VPN to connect to an Albanian server.

How to watch ad-free YouTube without paying (it works)

YouTube serves no ads in Albania due to its smaller market size. And while some Redditors claim to have spotted the occassional ad, we tried it in January 2026 and were served 0 ads after 2.5 viewing hours.

But what if you're traveling outside Albania? Well, you can use a VPN (virtual private network) and set your location to 'Albania'. Simple.

A word of warning: You'll need a strong VPNs (not a cheap/free one). We tested the likes of NordVPN (try risk-free), Surfshark VPN (7-day free trial) and Express VPN – and they all do the trick.

It's clearly a popular workaround for bypassing ads without paying for YouTube Premium. If you're ready to go, sign up below and watch YouTube ad-free without paying...

Use a VPN to access YouTube Albania from abroad

NordVPN is our best VPN (we have our own in-house expert, Mike, who tests VPNs 24/7 and rates NordVPN No.1 for price, features, security, etc).

We find Nord works best for streaming – allowing you to access your usual streaming services when abroad.

To dip your toe in the water, try the Surfshark free trial. If you're set on getting the best VPN at the best price, grab our 74% off Nord deal below... either way you can start watching YouTube ad-free!

Quick start: Using a VPN to watch YouTube ad-free

Once you've signed up with your chosen VPN:

1. Open the NordVPN app.

2. Connect to a server based in Albania.

3. Fire up YouTube Albania. If that doesn't work, try it in Google Chrome's Incognito mode and you should be off to the races.

4. Keep in mind that Google may try to close off this particular loophole one day.

In conclusion

It's an indictment of the average YouTube user experience in 2026 that ad-free access is now being treated as some internet Holy Grail.

It certainly doesn't help that skipping one or several ads at the start of a video is no guarantee that you won't then need to navigate one or more ad breaks and possibly an advertorial too.

You may also be interested in...

• How to watch UK TV from anywhere
• How watch BBC Sounds from anywhere
• Best YouTube VPN

We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example:1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service).2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad.We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.

If you're a long-time TechRadar reader then you'll know that I've previously written about how great YouTube Premium is. It's probably the last digital subscription I'd give up, and that includes the likes of Netflix and my Google cloud storage – that's how much value I get from my £12.99 a month ($13.99 in the US, and AU$16.99 in Australia).

I won't go into detail again about everything that I love about YouTube Premium, but never having to sit through a single ad transforms the viewing experience – sign up for a free trial or test the service for a month and you'll see what I mean. Once you go back to the ad-supported tier, it's incredibly jarring.

There are a whole host of extra bonuses too, including the ability to download videos to devices for offline viewing, and background playback on mobile (so you can keep listening to videos while you use other apps). YouTube Music Premium is included too, so you don't really need a separate music streaming subscription.

However, that doesn't mean YouTube Premium is perfect – not yet – and I do have some feature requests that would make the service even more appealing, and perhaps attract another swath of subscribers. Just in case there's anyone from the YouTube team reading, here's what else I'd like to see.

1. A proper incognito mode

Switching to Incognito mode at the browser level is a really useful way to watch videos without leaving a trace on your viewing history or recommendations, but if you're a YouTube Premium subscriber you'll notice one problem: the ads come back. This is even true for the incognito mode that comes built in as an option in the Android and iOS apps.

If I'm paying for YouTube Premium, I don't want to see ads, not even in incognito mode – this is a feature that should be available on the desktop and on mobile for subscribers. That way I can listen to chilled out, lo-fi beats in the background all day while I'm working, and not then get a huge number of similar videos appear in my recommendations.

2. More detailed viewing stats

I'm a big fan of stats in all forms, and the YouTube Recap that was introduced for the first time this year is certainly an interesting look back on your last 12 months of viewing on the platform: it's available to everyone, Premium subscribers or otherwise, and it gives you a quick and simple breakdown of the channels and types of videos you watched the most.

There's a lot more that I'd like to see though: what times of day do I tend to watch most videos? What's the average point in videos that I tend to stop watching? How many videos have I viewed at 1.5x speed this year? Better analytics on the videos themselves would be welcome too – when I last watched a video, for example, and how many times I've seen it.

3. Turn YouTube into Plex

Maybe I'm just being greedy at this point, but I'd like to see YouTube Premium subscribers get the ability to add their own videos and stream them to all their devices over the web – so YouTube would work in a similar way to something like Plex or Jellyfin. This ability to import local files is already available in music services such as Spotify and YouTube Music.

You can already do this to some extent on YouTube – the upload feature is right there on every device – but more Plex-style features would be handy, like being able to categorize and sort through videos more easily, and better content tagging (the same sort of options you get whenever you purchase movies and shows digitally through YouTube, in fact).

4. Easier clipping and sharing tools

People love to share clips online, and tools like Netflix Moments make this easier than ever, so how about improved clipping and sharing tools for YouTube Premium subscribers? I'd love to be able to snip out a section of a video – podcast, movie, show, or any other type – and then quickly share it through YouTube or through a connected social media account.

How about the ability to highlight my favorite part of a particular movie or show, turn it into a YouTube Short, and then add a little bit of commentary on top? Users are already doing this all across YouTube and social media of course. But as it stands, a variety of third-party tools and a significant amount of time and effort are required for the job.

5. Extra video customizations

The wealth of YouTube-related browser extensions you can find online is testament to how much users want to play around with the look and the functionality of YouTube, and this is another area where I think there's room for improvement when it comes to the default experience – YouTube should be integrating a lot more of these customizations itself.

You can use browser extensions to see more detailed stats on video quality, to tweak video looping behavior, and to change the other elements you see around videos (including recommendations), for example. Background dimming, blue light filters, in-line transcripts, more keyboard shortcuts, and so on – there's a lot of potential here.

What other features would you like to see added to YouTube Premium? Let us know in the comments below.

• A federal judge granted a permanent injunction against Louisiana's Act 456
• The law would have required social media to verify the age of all users
• NetChoice argued the law created "massive privacy risks"

US District Court has permanently blocked Louisiana's controversial social media age verification law, declaring it unconstitutional just days before it was set to be enforced.

In a decision handed down this week, Judge John W. deGravelles ruled in favor of NetChoice, a tech trade association representing giants like Meta, X (formerly Twitter), and Google, arguing that the "Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act" (Act 456) violated the First Amendment.

The law, passed in 2023, would have required social media platforms with more than five million users to verify the age of every account holder and obtain parental consent for minors under 16. While state officials argued the measure was necessary to protect children from online harm, the court found the legislation to be "wildly underinclusive" and "vastly overinclusive," ultimately burdening the free speech rights of adults and minors alike.

The ruling is a significant victory for privacy advocates who have long warned that mandatory ID checks create security vulnerabilities and comes only days after NetChoice scored a similar victory in Arkansas.

In an era where data breaches are common, the requirement to upload government-issued identification to access lawful content has driven many security-conscious users to seek out the best VPN services to secure their digital footprint better. That said, a VPN alone cannot bypass account-level ID enforcement if it is tied to residency.

"ID checks outside the library"

Judge deGravelles did not mince words in his 94-page opinion. He criticized the state's approach, stating that while the government has an interest in protecting children, it does not possess a "free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

Drawing a powerful analogy, the court agreed with NetChoice’s argument that the First Amendment "forbids the government from posting ID-checks outside the library door," ruling that the same principle applies to social media.

The judge also noted that the law was unconstitutionally vague in its definition of what constitutes a "social media platform," leaving companies guessing as to whether they were liable. By forcing all users to surrender anonymity to access protected speech, the law would have chilled expression and created significant privacy risks for Louisiana residents.

A growing legal trend

This decision is not an isolated event. It follows a clear pattern of federal courts striking down similar state-level age verification mandates.

Only last week, we reported on how a federal judge blocked Arkansas' social media safety law, citing nearly identical First Amendment concerns. Like the Louisiana case, the Arkansas ruling emphasized that the state cannot broadly restrict access to information in the name of safety without proving that less restrictive alternatives, such as device-level parental controls, are ineffective.

Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, celebrated the Louisiana ruling in a statement. "Today, the First Amendment prevailed in Louisiana," Taske said. "The government lacks authority to restrict access to lawful speech it does not like."

What comes next?

While the permanent injunction prevents the law from taking effect, the legal battle may not be entirely over. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill expressed disappointment with the ruling and indicated plans to appeal.

"It's unfortunate that the court chose to protect huge corporations that facilitate child exploitation over the legislative policy to require simple age verification mechanisms," Murrill said in a statement.

However, with legal precedents mounting in Ohio, Arkansas, California, and now Louisiana, the path forward for state-mandated age verification looks increasingly difficult. For now, social media platforms operating in Louisiana will not be required to implement the ID checks, and users can continue to access these services without handing over government documentation.

Pretty much every smart device I’ve ever owned has, eventually, become a YouTube machine.

I watch YouTube on my main phone (as well as any review units I have in rotation), on my iPad, on my MacBook, on my Nintendo Switch, on my TV, and even on my PlayStation. I think I’d watch YouTube on my toaster if it had a screen.

Here at TechRadar, a core part of our mission is to highlight great value tech products, whether they be hardware, software, or subscription services. However, I never expected that the best-value tech product I’d ever purchase would land in the latter category.

I'm talking about YouTube Premium, the subscription service for Google’s iconic video streaming site. I’ve now been using YouTube Premium for more than a year, and to be honest, I’m not sure I could ever do without it.

Okay, yes, in a literal sense I would ‘survive’ without YouTube Premium – but what I mean to say is that I think it offers more value for money than any other subscription service I’ve ever used. If it came down to it, I think I’d do away with other subs like PS Plus and Apple Arcade and even my noted favorites Google One and Spotify, so long as I could hold onto YouTube Premium.

From afar, this might seem like hyperbolic praise for a service that a) costs a lot compared to other subscriptions, and b) has relatively few premium benefits.

Indeed, at $12.99 / £12.99 / AU$16.99, YouTube Premium does cost quite a lot. In terms of features, while it allows the queueing of videos on mobile and 4K streaming on any device, as well as access to the middling YouTube Music streaming service, the main value is concentrated in two big-ticket items.

The first is background playback on mobile devices and tablets, which is a game-changer for long-form listens like essays and DJ mixes, or for keeping the video going in picture-in-picture mode. The second, and by far most important, is the total removal of advertising from videos.

In my view, the time and annoyance saved by taking ads out of the picture more than makes up for the high price tag of YouTube Premium. In a world oversaturated with advertising, it feels pretty amazing to have YouTube’s vast library of videos available with no commercial breaks.

And it’s not just me who thinks it’s a good deal – according to Global Media Insight, YouTube Premium increased its subscriber base from 100 million in 2024 to 125 million in 2025. And my colleague, John Loeffler, similarly praised the service this time last year for being the "best tech decision" he's ever made.

How to give YouTube Premium for Christmas

If you find yourself thinking that YouTube Premium would be a good fit for someone in your life, here’s how you can give it as a gift as Christmas approaches.

There’s no direct way to give someone a YouTube Premium subscription – instead, your best bet is to purchase Google Play Store gift cards that can then be used to pay for the service through a Google account.

If you’re using an iPhone or iPad, YouTube Premium can also be bought with Apple gift card balances, but only if the subscription is activated through the App Store.

Admittedly, neither of these methods is perfect, as gift card balances don’t match up perfectly with subscription costs – but it is the thought that counts after all.

Are you a YouTube Premium user? Or is there another subscription service that's worth more for the money? Let me know in the comments below.

• A US Judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking Arkansas Act 901
• The law aimed to penalize social media for features causing harm to minors
• NetChoice successfully argued that the law infringes on protected speech

A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a new Arkansas law intended to hold social media companies liable for harmful effects on users, ruling that the legislation is "likely unconstitutional."

On Monday, US District Judge Timothy L. Brooks granted a preliminary injunction against the Arkansas Act 901, according to local reports. The ruling prevents Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin from enforcing provisions that would have penalized platforms for using designs or algorithms that lead to addiction, drug use, or self-harm.

This legal battle in Fayetteville is the latest flashpoint as US states attempt to regulate online spaces. While similar legislative pushes regarding strict age verification measures have prompted some privacy-conscious Americans to use the best VPN services to maintain access to information without handing over government ID, this specific ruling focuses heavily on the First Amendment rights of the platforms themselves.

"Void for vagueness"

The lawsuit was brought by NetChoice, a major internet trade association representing tech giants including Meta (Facebook, Instagram), YouTube, Snap Inc., Reddit, and X. NetChoice argued that Act 901 violates the First Amendment and is preempted by federal law.

The Act sought to prohibit social media platforms from using features they "know or should have known" cause specific harms to minors, including purchasing controlled substances, developing eating disorders, or committing suicide. Violations could have resulted in civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation and Class A misdemeanor charges.

However, in his order, Judge Brooks criticized the law for being "unconstitutionally vague." He noted that the legislation failed to specify a clear standard of conduct for the platforms, leaving violations dependent on the subjective sensitivities of users.

"The Act regulates pretty much everything a social media platform does," Judge Brooks wrote in the decision. "Defendants have failed to establish that [sections of the law] are narrowly tailored to achieving the State's asserted interests... These provisions of the Act are likely unconstitutional."

While acknowledging the State's argument that social media can harm minors, Brooks emphasized that the government cannot trample on free expression to address it.

A wider battle over online safety

The blocking of Act 901 is a significant victory for the tech industry, which has consistently pushed back against a patchwork of state-level regulations.

Attorney General Griffin had argued that the law was necessary because platforms "hold a vast amount of power over Arkansans" and have refused to exercise it responsibly. Yet, according to the judge, the harm to the government caused by an injunction does not outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

This ruling comes at a time of intense global scrutiny regarding social media safety. While Arkansas struggles to implement its specific restrictions, other jurisdictions are moving faster. For example, the Australian government recently passed a ban on social media for children under 16, and the US Congress is considering its own federal measures for app store age verification.

For now, however, Arkansas cannot enforce Act 901. Judge Brooks noted that because NetChoice showed a likely First Amendment violation, the platforms would suffer "irreparable harm" if the law were allowed to take effect while the case proceeds.

• Saturday Night's Main Event XLII: Sat, Dec 13, 8pm ET / 1am GMT (Sun)
• Stream FREE on YouTube everywhere outside the US
• Watch from anywhere with NordVPN (70% off)

Twenty-three years after his debut on SmackDown in 2002, John Cena enters the squared circle for one final time in WWE at Saturday Night’s Main Event XLII.

His opponent, Gunther, will be aiming to spoil another swansong after sending Goldberg back into retirement earlier this year.

Wondering how to watch for free? Luckily, YouTube are streaming the event for WWE fans outside the US.

How to watch YouTube from anywhere

Wrestling lovers traveling to the US will need to use a VPN to access their usual free stream for John Cena's final WWE match on YouTube.

There are lots of VPN's but NordVPN is our pick to unblock your WWE streams like a pro...

It's really easy to use a VPN to watch the action on cord-cutting services.

1. Install the VPN of your choice. As we've said, NordVPN is the best choice.

2. Choose the location you wish to connect to in the VPN app. For instance, if you're visiting the US and want to watch your free WWE stream - you'd select 'United Kingdom' from the options.

3. Sit back and enjoy the action. Head to YouTube and watch WWE for free.

How to watch John Cena's Final WWE Match for free on YouTube

Coverage of John Cena's Final WWE Match is on Peacock in the US, but streamed free on YouTube everywhere else in the world.

John Cena's Final WWE Match Card

▶︎ John Cena vs Gunther – Singles match

▶︎ Cody Rhodes vs Oba Femi – Champion vs Champion match

▶︎ Bayley vs Sol Ruca – Singles match

▶︎ AJ Styles & Dragon Lee vs Je'Von Evans & Leon Slater – Tag Team match for the World Tag Team Championship

We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example:1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service).2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad.We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.