Category World News

EXPLAINER

Eight contenders will fight for a spot in the semifinals of the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026 as the second stage of the tournament gets under way on Saturday.

Pakistan became the last team to book their place in the Super Eight with a win over Namibia on Wednesday, while former champions Australia’s early exit was the biggest shock of the group stage.

Here’s what you need to know about the Super Eight:

Which teams have qualified for the T20 World Cup Super Eight?

The eight sides have been divided into two groups of four teams, with India and Sri Lanka hosting a group each.

Group 1:

• India
• South Africa
• West Indies
• Zimbabwe

Group 2:

• England
• New Zealand
• Pakistan
• Sri Lanka

Will teams carry over their points and net run rates in the Super Eight?

Neither their points nor their net run rates will be carried over, giving each side a chance to start with a clean slate.

How do the Super Eight groups work?

Every team will play the other three teams once, and the top two teams at the end of the round of matches will proceed to the semifinals.

As in the group stage, a win in the Super Eight will earn two points and a loss will earn none.

If a match is tied at the end of each team’s 20 overs, a super over will be played until a result is determined.

What happens if it rains in a Super Eight match?

In case of poor weather, for a match to be considered completed, each team must play at least five overs each.

If the match is abandoned due to rain, both teams will walk away with a point apiece.

What’s the full match schedule of the Super Eight stage?

Saturday, February 21

Pakistan vs New Zealand at 7pm (13:30 GMT) – R Premadasa Stadium, Colombo

Sunday, February 22

Sri Lanka vs England at 3pm (09:30 GMT) – Pallekele International Cricket Stadium, Kandy

India vs South Africa at 7pm (13:30 GMT) – Narendra Modi Stadium, Ahmedabad

Monday, February 23

Zimbabwe vs West Indies at 7pm (13:30 GMT) – Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai

Tuesday, February 24

England vs Pakistan at 7pm (13:30 GMT) – Pallekele International Cricket Stadium, Kandy

Wednesday, February 25

New Zealand vs Sri Lanka at 7pm (13:30 GMT) – R Premadasa Stadium, Colombo

Thursday, February 26

West Indies vs South Africa 3pm (09:30 GMT) – Narendra Modi Stadium, Ahmedabad

India vs Zimbabwe at 7pm (13:30 GMT) – MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai

Friday, February 27

England vs New Zealand at 7pm (13:30 GMT) – R Premadasa Stadium, Colombo

Saturday, February 28

Sri Lanka vs Pakistan at 7pm (13:30 GMT) – Pallekele International Cricket Stadium, Kandy

Sunday, March 1

Zimbabwe vs South Africa at 3pm (09:30 GMT) – Arun Jaitley Stadium, New Delhi

India vs West Indies at 7pm (13:30 GMT) – Eden Gardens, Kolkata

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand in a Los Angeles court in the United States as part of a landmark trial examining Instagram’s impact on the mental health of its young users.

While on the stand on Wednesday, Zuckerberg pushed back on allegations made by Mark Lanier, the lawyer for the woman who has accused Meta of harming her mental health while she was a child.

The case revolves around the story of a woman identified as KGM, who began using YouTube and Instagram in her childhood. She alleges that those apps fueled suicidal thoughts and depression.

Lanier alleged that Zuckerberg misled Congress about the design of its social media platforms.

Zuckerberg was questioned on his statements to the US Congress in 2024, during a hearing in which he said the company did not give its teams the goal of maximising time spent on its apps.

Lanier showed jurors emails from 2014 and 2015 in which Zuckerberg laid out aims to increase time spent on the app by double-digit percentage points. Zuckerberg said that while Meta previously had goals related to the amount of time users spent on the app, it has since changed its approach.

“If you are trying to say my testimony was not accurate, I strongly disagree with that,” Zuckerberg said.

High stakes

The stakes are higher at the jury trial. Meta may have to pay damages if it loses the case, and the verdict could erode Big Tech’s longstanding legal defence against claims of user harm that liability is on the user and not the platform.

TikTok and Snap, who were previously named in the case, reached a settlement. TikTok settled the same day the case began for undisclosed terms. Snap settled a week before, also for undisclosed terms.

The case is the first among a slew of similar ones that allege that social media platforms designed features that the companies knew would addict young consumers and affect their mental health. Families, school districts and states around the US have filed roughly 1,600 lawsuits against various social media giants, including Meta, TikTok, Google and Snap.

“The outcome will help determine how to handle the remaining cases. The jury’s decisions will provide guidance,” Tre Lovell, a Los Angeles-based media law and entertainment lawyer told Al Jazeera.

“If the plaintiffs lose and the defendants successfully argue that the platforms are not products, that there is no causation, or that the algorithms had nothing to do with the alleged harm, and that the plaintiffs’ own circumstances are responsible, then Meta and Google’s YouTube will likely take a firmer stance in the remaining cases.”

Meta has denied the allegations made by KGM.

“We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people,” a spokesperson for Meta said in a statement to Al Jazeera.

“For over a decade, we’ve listened to parents, worked with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand the issues that matter most.”

Meta introduced new safety features in 2025, including, in April, blocking teens under 16 from going live on Instagram. In September, the company launched a school partnership programme that gives educators expedited review of complaints, such as cyberbullying.

Zuckerberg’s testimony follows Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, who appeared in front of the court last week. He said he was unaware of an internal Meta study that showed that there is no link between parental supervision and teens’ attentiveness to their own social media use.

Teens with difficult life circumstances more often said they used Instagram habitually or unintentionally, according to the document shown at trial.

Paul Schmidt, one of Meta’s lawyers, did not dispute KGM’s mental health challenges, but argued that Instagram was not a substantial factor in her struggles. He attributed her difficulties to problems at home and said she used social media as a coping mechanism for deeper personal issues.

“The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles. The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media,” a Meta spokesperson added.

Wide ramifications

The case itself is seen as one that could fundamentally change social media, with legal experts likening it to lawsuits that faced the tobacco industry decades ago.

Social media platforms have largely been protected by Section 230, a provision added in 1996 to the Communications Act of 1934. The law protects internet companies from liability for content posted by users on their platforms.

But this latest case emboldens critics calling for reforms, according to Lovell.

“Lawmakers may need to carve out greater obligations and duties for internet and social media companies rather than maintain blanket immunity,” Lovell said.

“With the rise of artificial intelligence and ongoing online abuse, Section 230 has become an enabler for those who want to harm others. Guardrails are needed.”

Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States, has confirmed that the agency launched an investigation against ABC’s daytime talk show The View over a recent appearance by a politician.

In comments to reporters on Wednesday, Carr indicated the probe would examine whether The View violated a new interpretation of an “equal time” rule implemented under President Donald Trump.

Fox News had been the first to report on the investigation in early February. The segment in question involves an appearance from Texas state Representative James Talarico, a Democrat who is vying for the US Senate.

The confirmation comes as Carr attempted to shut down claims that the government censored an interview between Talarico and late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert.

“There was no censorship here at all,” Carr said.

“Every single broadcaster in this country has an obligation to be responsible for the programming that they choose to air, and they’re responsible whether it complies with FCC rules or not, and it doesn’t, and those individual broadcasters are also going to have a potential liability.”

The controversy with Colbert likewise stems from the Trump administration’s decision to shift definitions under the “equal time” rule.

What is the ‘equal time’ rule?

The rule is part of section 315 of the 1934 Communications Act. Under that law, if a broadcaster allows one candidate for public office to use its facilities, it is required to “afford equal opportunities” to all other candidates in the same race.

But the law includes exceptions for “bona fide newscasts” and “bona fide news interviews”.

For nearly 20 years, talk shows and late-night comedy programmes were included in those categories.

In January, however, the FCC issued new guidance (PDF) that significantly narrows how it interprets the “bona fide news” exemption. In a memo, it described daytime talk shows and late-night comedy as “entertainment programs” that fall outside the exception.

“The FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption,” the memo reads.

The commission also suggested that many such programmes are “motivated by partisan purposes” and are therefore not “bona fide” news.

The new interpretation of the “equal time” rule, the FCC argued, is designed to “ensure that no legally qualified candidate for office is unfairly given less access to the public airwaves than their opponent.”

Controversy with Colbert

That new interpretation came roaring into the spotlight on Monday, after a broadcast of the CBS comedy programme The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

In one of his opening segments, Colbert alleged that the network lawyers barred him from airing a planned interview that night with Talarico.

“Let’s just call it what it is,” Colbert told his audience. “Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV. OK? He’s like a toddler with too much screen time.”

Trump has previously criticised both Colbert’s show and The View for what he considers a left-wing slant.

Instead of broadcasting his interview with Talarico on network television, Colbert instead posted the segment on the programme’s YouTube page, where it has gained more than 6 million views as of 3:30pm Eastern Time (20:30 GMT) on Wednesday.

According to Carr, Colbert’s show could have aired the Talarico interview if it had complied with the equal time rule.

That would have involved allowing other candidates in Texas vying for the Senate seat to come on the show. Carr also suggested that another solution could have been to restrict the broadcast in Texas.

But the FCC has continued to face criticisms for its actions. In Tuesday’s broadcast, Colbert addressed the issue a second time.

He read aloud a statement from his broadcast channel that read, in part, that The Late Show “was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview” and that it was instead “provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule”.

CBS added, in the statement, that Colbert could have invited onto the show Talarico’s rivals, including fellow Democrat Jasmine Crockett.

“I am well aware that we can book other guests,” Colbert responded. “I didn’t need to be presented with that option. I’ve had Jasmine Crockett on my show twice. I could prove that to you, but the network won’t let me show you her picture without including her opponents.”

Colbert has been a vocal critic of CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, particularly after it settled a lawsuit last year with the Trump administration for $16m in the run-up to a critical merger for which it needed government approval.

Talarico, meanwhile, accused the FCC of censoring his interviews. Nevertheless, on Wednesday, he noted that the uptick in media attention from the scandal has helped him gather donations.

Champions League runner-ups Inter Milan became the latest scalp claimed by Bodo/Glimt in the Champions League, as the Italian giants lost 3-1 away in the first leg of their playoff.

The Norwegian outsiders have been the surprise story of this season’s competition after beating Manchester City at home and Atletico Madrid away to make the playoffs.

The club is located north of the Arctic Circle – which is farther north than any team in Champions League history.

Serie A leaders Inter were seeking a seventh straight win in all competitions but fell behind in the 20th minute on Wednesday when midfielder Sondre Brunstad Fet netted with a neat finish.

Although burly striker Pio Esposito equalised with an opportunist finish 10 minutes later, the home side picked off Inter with two goals in quick succession in the second half.

Both were similar, with quick passing and unselfish assists.

For the second goal, forward Kasper Hogh rolled the ball for Jens Petter Hauge to launch a powerful shot into the top corner in the 61st.

The winger, who once had a brief spell in Serie A with AC Milan, jumped and kicked the corner flag in celebration.

The fans at the 8,000-capacity Aspmyra Stadion were cheering again three minutes later when Hogh scored the third goal after being teed up by Ole Didrik Blomberg.

The return leg will be next Tuesday.

Elsewhere, Club Brugge’s Christos ⁠Tzolis ⁠tucked away a late equaliser to secure a dramatic 3-3 ⁠draw with Atletico Madrid in their Champions League playoff ⁠first leg on Wednesday as the Belgian side avoided defeat after an agonising own goal appeared to ‌have cost them.

Tzolis slammed home an angled shot in the 89th minute to level the tie, although the goal was initially ruled out for ⁠offside, but was confirmed ⁠after a VAR check.

Brugge fought back from a 2-0 half-time deficit to level ⁠the score, but then looked to have ⁠thrown it away ⁠when Joel Ordonez turned the ball into his own net in the 79th minute.

Yet ‌they head into next Tuesday’s return leg in Madrid with ‌the ‌scores level.

Bayer Leverkusen striker Patrik ⁠Schick ⁠struck twice in three minutes to steer his team to ⁠a 2-0 victory at Olympiacos in their Champions League last-16 ⁠playoff first leg on Wednesday.

The Czech forward slipped past his marker and slotted in on the hour ‌mark before quickly bagging a second goal with a downward header from Alex Grimaldo’s corner.

In the early game on Wednesday, Anthony Gordon struck four ⁠times in ⁠the first half as Newcastle United thrashed Qarabag 6-1 away ⁠in their Champions League playoff first leg to ⁠all but book their place in the last 16.

Newcastle was 5-0 up by halftime against Qarabag as Gordon completed his hat-trick in 33 minutes at the Tofik Bakhramov Stadium in Baku and got a fourth in first-half added time.

Malick Thiaw was also on target for the Premier League team, which had 16 shots in a rampant first half.

Donald Trump has criticised the United Kingdom’s plan to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a day after the United States Department of State gave its official approval of the deal.

The US president said on Wednesday that Prime Minister Keir Starmer was “making a big mistake” in the agreement to return sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, and lease back the island of Diego Garcia, which is home to a UK-US military base.

He warned in a Truth Social post that Starmer was “losing control of this important Island by claims of entities never known of before”, adding: “In our opinion, they are fictitious in nature.”

The Indian Ocean archipelago became part of British territory in 1814, with the UK detaching it from Mauritius before it gained independence in the 1960s. It then worked with the US to force the islands’ residents to leave, in order to build a military base on Diego Garcia, which it had leased to the US.

Mauritius won its legal battle for sovereignty over the islands in 2019, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) urged the UK to cede control. This was followed by a UN resolution giving the UK six months to hand the islands back.

The UK will maintain a 99-year lease of Diego Garcia with an option to extend, which will cost around 100 million pounds ($135m) a year.

A spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said on Wednesday that the deal was “crucial to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping the British people safe.”

“The agreement we have reached is the only way to guarantee the long-term future of this vital military base,” the spokesperson said.

Trump had criticised the agreement in January, but after speaking with Starmer earlier in February, the US leader said the British prime minister had made “the best deal he could”.

In his Truth Social post on Wednesday, the president went on to warn that “it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford in order to eradicate a potential attack” from Iran, should it decide against making a deal with the US. He added that this attack “would potentially be made” on the UK and other friendly countries.

Describing the lease as tenuous, he said that the UK must “remain strong in the face of Wokeism, and other problems put before them”.