1 . Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox, recently signed two bills into law that strictly limit children’s use of social media platforms. Under the law, which takes effect next year, social media companies have to check the ages of all users in the state, and children under age 18 have to get agreement from their parents to have accounts. Parents will also be able to use their kids’ accounts, apps won’t be allowed to show children ads, and accounts for kids won’t be able to be used between 10:30 pm and 6:30 am without parental agreement.

While some people argue age limitation allows tech companies to collect even more data about users, let’s be real: These companies already have much private information about us. To solve this problem, we need a separate data privacy law. But until that happens, this concern shouldn’t stop us from protecting kids.

One of the key parts of the law is allowing parents to use their kids’ accounts. By doing this, the law begins to help address one of the biggest dangers kids face online: harmful content.

One huge challenge the law helps parents get over is the amount of time kids are spending on social media. A 2022 survey found that, on average, children aged 8 to 12 spend 5 hours and 33 minutes per day on social media while those aged 13 to 18 spend 8 hours and 39 minutes daily. It’s warned that lack of sleep is connected with serious harm to children — everything from injuries to depression (抑郁), fatness and diabetes. So, parents need to have a way to ensure their kids aren’t up on social media platforms all night.

Considering the experiences many kids are having on social media, this law will help Utah’s parents protect their kids. Parents in other states need the same support. Now, it’s time for the government to step up and ensure children throughout the country have the same protection as Utah’s kids.

Besides such ethical concerns, the legal situations the autonomous vehicle industry is likely to be confronted with have     1     heated debates. In this emerging industry, manufacturing and programming standards are not yet     2    . Moreover, the quality and safety of the technology used in self-driving cars is still being challenged. This could lead to extraordinary cases like who should be held     3     when self-driving cars are involved in accidents — should it be the driver, the software programmer or the manufacturer? Manufacturing and programming standards first have to be agreed upon to make it possible for law courts to decide who is at fault when things go wrong. As     4     in autonomous vehicle design and technology are in progress, the final agreement on laws and regulations     5     this industry remains to be seen.

4 . A bill to conserve endangered species was passed by the U.S. House in a 231-to-190 vote on Tuesday.

The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would create an annual fund of more than $1.3 billion, given to states, and territories for wildlife conservation on the ground. While threatened species have been recognized and protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1973, that law does not provide constant funding to actively maintain their numbers.

The effort comes as scientists and international organizations sound the alarm about accelerating species decline.

“Too many people don’t realize that about one-third of our wildlife is at increased risk of extinction,” said lead House sponsor Debbie Ding-ell, echoing (呼应) a recent study about climate change.

In the United States, there are more than 1,600 endangered or threatened species, but state agencies have identified more than 7 times that number in need of conservation assistance in their wildlife action plans.

“The bottom line is, when we save wildlife we save for ourselves,” said Collin O’ Mara, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, which supports the bill. He said species loss threatens everything from the insects that pollinate (授粉) plants in the food chain, to sea life that helps to reduce damages to coastlines from storm.

The bill would improve a 1937 law, the Pittman-Robertson Act, which was passed in response to decreasing game and waterfowl species. That law allows states to tax hunting supplies to pay for wildlife and habitat restoration, but that money is not enough to do the same for non-game species.

The act would also invest more in conservation than the existing program for threatened non-game species, called the State Wildlife Grant Program, which awarded states a total of $56 million this year.

5 . Are there any controversial blood sports in your country? In the UK, there’s fox hunting. Officially, it’s illegal but it’s still going on.

The goal of most fox hunts is simple: to track, catch up and, sometimes, kill a fox. A hunt begins when the hounds (猎犬) are “cast”. This is when the dogs are released and start searching in bushes for foxes. When the hounds pick up the smell, they track the fox. If they see it, the chase (追赶) is on and the dogs run after it. The hunt continues until either the fox escapes or is caught and then usually killed by the hounds.

Many people are against fox hunting. Animal rights activists argue that foxes suffer a cruel (残忍的) and violent death. They also say that fox hunting is an activity in which people seem to gain pleasure from cruelty. Others dislike it for being a mostly upper-class sport. Among them was Oscar Wilde, who once described it in 1893 as, “the unspeakable in full chase of the uneatable”.

Supporters of fox hunting say it’s a tradition that’s part of England’s cultural heritage. They also say it plays an important role in country life, and that many jobs depend on fox hunting. Finally, they point out that it’s an important form of pest control that protects the livelihood of farmers, and that the foxes are killed quickly and that it’s much less cruel than using traps or poisons.

But in 2005 everything changed. The Hunting Act came into force, and this effectively banned fox hunting. But it wasn’t easy passing the law. Thousands of people gathered outside the House of Parliament in protest. Now, it is officially illegal, but hunts still take place and more than 1804 hunt groups are still in existence. So, it seems that this England’s tradition just refuses to die.

7 . Too many deaths and injuries occur while mobile phones are being held. Tougher new laws will come into force in a further severe action on using a mobile phone behind the wheel from next year.

It is already illegal to text or make a phone call, other than in an emergency, using a hand-held device while driving. From 2022, laws will go further to ban drivers from using their phones to take photos or videos, or play games. This will mean anyone caught using their hand-held device while driving will face a fixed penalty notice and six points on their license. Drivers will still be able to continue using a device “hands-free” while driving, if it’s secured in a cradle (支架).

The government will also revise The Highway Code to explain the new measures. It will also be more precise about some facts, making it clear that hand-held mobile phone use at traffic lights or in motorway jams is illegal except in very limited circumstances.

There will be an exemption (豁免) to the new law for drivers making a contactless payment using their mobile phone. This will cover, for example, places like a drive-through restaurant or a road toll, and will only apply when payment is being made with a card reader. Anyway, it will not allow drivers to make general online payments while driving.

Mary Williams, chief executive of Brake — the road safety charity, said, “If drivers take their attention away from driving, this can be deadly. Using a hand-held phone at the wheel is never worth the risk. This important road safety decision by government, along with Road Safety Week, is very welcomed. The theme for Road Safety Week is road safety heroes — we can all be road safety heroes by giving driving our full attention.”

8 . Germany’s top court has ruled that parts of the country’s 2019 climate (气候) action law must be changed because they don’t do a good job of protecting young people. The result is a big victory for the nine young people who started the law suing (诉讼).

The court suing stresses an important part of the climate change: The change will impact greatly on young people far more than the adults. That’s because the effects of earth warming will become more serious over time. As young people become adults, they’ll be left to deal with many problems that today’s adults have ignored. The government’s failure to plan carefully was putting their future lives in danger.

In 2019, Germany passed a new law, promising that the country would be carbon neutral (碳中和) by 2050. The law made a detailed plan of action until 2030. But the law didn’t have any specific rules or plans for climate actions that would be taken between 2031 and 2050.

Last Thursday, the judges of Germany’s highest court agreed with the young people. They said that not taking climate action made the basic rights of young people to a good future in danger.

The young people had challenged the government’s law in four specific areas. The judges didn’t agree with all of the challenges. But having the court support even a part of their case is seen as a big victory. Neubauer is one of the young people who sued. She works with the climate action group Fridays For Future. Ms. Neubauer said, “Climate protection is our basic right. This is a huge win for the climate movement. It changes a lot.”

The court has given the German government until the end of 2022 to fix the law. The climate law will now need to have a much more detailed plan for the actions that will be taken after 2030 to cut Germany’s pollution, allowing it to become carbon neutral by 2050. Germany’s government has said that it will quickly begin working to make the needed changes.

10 . Are you the only child in your family? If so, do you enjoy it or do you want more siblings（兄弟姐妹）?

On May 31, a key meeting of the Communist Party of China unveiled a policy that would allow all couples to have up to three children.

The move is expected to maximize the population's role in driving economic and social growth, since this is a critical time for China to transform the world's most populous country into a powerhouse（强国）with a quality workforce, according to the National Health Commission.

The three-child policy is also expected to prevent the decline in the nation's birthrate and address the challenge of a rapidly aging population, China Daily reported.

China's annual number of newborns has fallen for four years in a row. The country's total birthrate—the average number of children born to each woman—stood at 1.3 in 2020. The number is below the rate of 2.1 that would maintain a stable population, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.

The declining birthrate has also brought a sharp increase in the proportion of the population aged 60 or above, rising from 10.3 percent to 18.7 percent in the past decade. An increasingly elderly population will increase the cost of labor and the pressure on the social security net. It also means there will be a lack of young labor force. Therefore, it's not good for economic growth, according to Chen Youhua, a professor at Nanjing University.

In fact, the new birth policy is a step to further relax the family planning policy. The one-child policy was introduced in the 1970s and aimed to control the fast-growing population. Then in 2013, China allowed couples to have a second child if either parent was an only child, and in 2016, all couples were allowed to have two children.

However, not all people have shown their support for this latest policy. Many couples complained about the rising costs of raising a child. A netizen named Qinfeng commented, "High cost of education and both the physical and mental exhaustion stopped me from having more than one child." Also, many women are reluctant（不情愿的）to give birth because that could mean sacrificing their career prospects, according to Mu Guangzong, a professor at Peking University.

In that case, Mu noted that it is better to implement supporting measures with the three-child policy, such as more preferential（优惠的）policies for couples that would ease their parental burden.