Tag: big tech

Google pockets $45m to fuel Netanyahu’s propaganda denying Gaza famine

Google is executing a $45-million advertising contract with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office to spread propaganda denying famine in Gaza, Drop Site News reported on 3 September.

The six-month campaign, launched in June, is run through Google’s YouTube and its Display & Video 360 service, and is described in the government contract as hasbara. 

The details were disclosed in official Israeli government contract filings from the state advertising bureau, Lapam, which reports directly to Netanyahu’s office.

A video produced by Israel’s Foreign Ministry declaring “There is food in Gaza. Any other claim is a lie” was placed on YouTube in late August, gaining over six million views. 

Its wide reach was fueled by the ongoing ad campaign coordinated by Lapam.

Records show $3 million was also spent on ads with X, while the Israeli digital advertising company Outbrain (that recently acquired the French company Teads) is set to receive about $2.1 million. Other ads accuse the UN of “deliberate sabotage” of aid deliveries and promote the US-backed, deadly Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) aid scheme. 

Campaigns have also sought to discredit the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), which documents Israeli war crimes, labeling it tied to “extremist ideologies.”

The propaganda drive comes as famine spreads across Gaza. In late August, the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) officially declared famine in Gaza City and its surrounding towns for the first time, and warned that Deir al-Balah and Khan Yunis were next by the end of September. By then, a total of over 640,000 people will face “catastrophic levels” of food insecurity – classified as IPC Phase 5 – across the strip.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said on Friday that the strip faced “a descent into a massive famine.” The Health Ministry in Gaza reports at least 367 deaths from hunger and malnutrition, including 131 children, since October 2023.

Despite these figures, Israeli officials have openly called for starvation as policy. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said, “No water, no electricity, they can die of hunger or surrender.” 

Israeli Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu declared that Palestinians “need to starve” and should flee under an emigration plan.

Keep reading

Macron’s Global Censorship Push Exposed: Leaked Files Reveal France’s Covert Speech Control Campaign

As European leaders push to shape global speech rules under the guise of trade policy, new internal records reveal that the French government quietly built a system to enforce censorship worldwide.

Leaked internal communications from Twitter, now known as X, expose a sophisticated campaign led by President Emmanuel Macron and aided by state-aligned organizations to pressure the platform into suppressing speech far beyond what French law requires.

While publicly promoting values like free expression, France’s leadership was privately demanding crackdowns on political content, anonymous users, and anything that veered from government-approved narratives.

The latest TWITTER FILES – FRANCE, published by Public, which is worth reading, documents how Paris pioneered the modern censorship-by-proxy model; using lawsuits, coordinated NGO pressure, and personal outreach at the highest levels to mold a global moderation regime in France’s image.

One of the more revealing moments in the documents comes from October 2020, when Twitter’s Public Policy Director in France noted unusual persistence from the Élysée Palace.

“President Macron’s team has been asking me (again!) Jack [Dorsey]’s number because the President wants to text him some supporting words re our new policies and functionalities on Election integrity,” the message read.

The only issue? Dorsey didn’t hand out his number, even to heads of state. Staff reminded Macron’s team that a direct message would be more appropriate, though they acknowledged the President didn’t use Twitter personally. Alternatives like Signal, Telegram, and even iMessage were considered.

Keep reading

Trump and Biden Tried To Break Up Google. Now, They’ve Both Failed.

The federal government’s five-year-long antitrust case against Google has ended. Instead of forcing the tech giant to divest from Chrome, a federal judge on Tuesday opted “to allow market forces to do the work.”

The suit was first brought against Google in October 2020 by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department (DOJ) and 11 states, who complained that the company had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising markets in the United States. Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—the same judge who issued Tuesday’s decision—ruled in favor of then-President Joseph Biden’s DOJ in August 2024.

In November 2024, the Justice Department proposed wide-reaching actions that the federal government said were necessary to address Google’s monopolization of the search market: divestiture from Chrome; conditional divestiture from Android; termination of its paid partnerships with Apple and Android; forced sharing of its search, user, and advertisement data with competitors; and prohibition on “query-based AI product” investments. In March, the Justice Department submitted its revised proposal, which largely maintained these remedies but eliminated the AI-investment prohibition.

On Tuesday, Mehta rejected the proposed Chrome divestiture, saying it “cannot reasonably be described as a remedy ‘tailored to fit the wrong'” and characterized the contingent Android divestiture as suffering “from similar legal infirmities.” Mehta declined to forbid Google from paying distributors like Apple for default placement of its search engine on its iPhones in light of the “GenAI products that pose a threat to the primacy of traditional internet.” Doing so would disadvantage “Google in this highly competitive space.”

Geoffrey Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics, says that Mehta’s refusal to enjoin Google from making payments for search access is “entirely borne out of adherence to a consumer-welfare-focused antitrust and rejection of the ‘big is bad’ vision underlying the [Justice Department’s] proposed remedies.” Likewise, Mehta’s rejection of the choice screen remedy, which would’ve required users to choose their device’s default search engine on first use and again every year thereafter, “recognized that judicial micromanagement of product design would not be beneficial for innovation or consumer welfare in the long run,” says Manne.

Mehta did prohibit Google from maintaining exclusive distribution agreements that condition access to the “Play Store or any other Google application on the distribution, preloading, or placement of Google Search.” He also sided with the plaintiffs on some search-index data-sharing provisions but opted for a narrow definition of search index, which excludes user-side data and only includes information about websites. Qualified competitors will only receive a one-time snapshot of this search index data, not the ongoing, periodic disclosure proposed by plaintiffs.

Keep reading

Germany Targets X Executives in Unprecedented Criminal Probe over Refusal to Hand Over User Data in “Hate Speech” Cases

German authorities have opened a criminal investigation targeting three managers at X, accusing them of “obstruction of justice” for refusing to directly provide user data in online speech-related cases.

Two of the employees are American, and one of them is reportedly Diego de Lima Gualda, the former head of X’s operations in Brazil, who previously faced off against legal demands in his home country before resigning in April 2024.

The alleged problem for Germany is X’s policy of forwarding German requests for user data to US authorities, following procedures established under a bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).

That treaty lays out the legal framework for cross-border data sharing, requiring requests from German prosecutors to be reviewed and processed through US legal channels before X is compelled to hand over user information.

Despite this legally grounded process, prosecutors in Göttingen have decided to treat the policy as criminal interference, marking what appears to be the first time in German legal history that social media executives are being investigated for how they respond to international legal requests.

German prosecutors have reportedly been frustrated by X’s unwillingness to grant them direct access to account data, particularly in cases involving posts that include banned symbols like swastikas or comments that authorities allege may amount to defamation.

The inability to obtain data has resulted in stalled investigations and dropped cases, including one where a post containing a swastika could not be traced to its author.

Although X restricted that post within Germany, the company declined to release identifying information.

Keep reading

Google’s Android Lockdown: Are You Really In Control Of Your Phone?

Android’s new rule requires all app developers to submit personal information to Google, even for apps outside the Play Store. Critics argue this threatens user freedom and ignores solutions…

Android, Google’s mobile operating system, announced on August 25 that it will be requiring all app developers to verify their identity with the organization before their apps can run on “certified android devices.”

While this might sound like a common-sense policy by Google, this new standard is not just going to be applied to apps downloaded from Google Play store, but all apps, even those “side-loaded” — installed directly into devices by side-stepping the Google Play store. Apps of the sort can be found online in Github repositories or on project websites and installed on Android devices directly by downloading the installation files (known as APKs). 

What this means is that, if there is an application that Google does not like, be it because it does not conform to its policies, politics or economic incentives, they can simply keep you from running that application on your own device. They are locking down Android devices from running applications not with their purview. The ask? All developers, whether submitting their apps through the Play store or not, need to give their personal information to Google. 

The decision begs the question, if you can not run whatever app you want on your device without the permission of Google, then is it really your device? How would you respond if Windows decided you could only install programs from the Microsoft app store?

The move has of course made news in tech and cybersecurity media and caused quite a stir as it has profound consequences for the free and open web. For years, Android has been touted as an open source operating system, and through this strategy has gained massive distribution throughout the world with users in developing countries where Apple’s “walled garden” model and luxury devices are not affordable.

This new policy will tighten up controls over applications and its developers, and threatens the freedom to run whatever software you like on your own device in a very subversive and legalistic way. Because of Google’s influence over the Android variety of phones, the consequences of this policy are likely to be felt by the majority of users and devices, throughout the world.

Keep reading

Shopify Reimposes Content Restrictions Through Shop App, Reviving Ban on “Hateful” Content

Shopify has reintroduced restrictions on certain types of merchandise, targeting what it calls “hateful content.”

This marks a significant shift back toward censorship, though the company has avoided framing it that way.

The change comes more than a year after Shopify eliminated similar content bans in what was then seen as a move toward supporting free expression in commerce.

Recently, the company updated a help page related to its Shop app and payment system to include a ban on products promoting “hateful content, violence, gore, profanity, or offensive content.”

This revision, made sometime after May, and noticed by Bloomberg, applies specifically to the Shop sales channel.

While Shopify’s main platform-wide acceptable use policy still does not include a hateful content clause, this new rule effectively reintroduces content control through a different path.

The company had previously removed its ban on hateful content in July 2024.

That decision appeared consistent with CEO Tobi Lütke’s long-standing defense of open commerce.

In a 2017 blog post, Lütke wrote, “commerce is a powerful, underestimated form of expression.” He went on to say, “We don’t like Breitbart, but products are speech and we are pro free speech,” and added, “To kick off a merchant is to censor ideas…When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code?”

Rather than restoring the original company-wide policy, Shopify has now imposed restrictions within a specific tool. This segmentation allows the company to present itself as a neutral platform while still controlling what merchants can sell. In practice, it results in censorship through back-end enforcement.

Keep reading

Apple Removes iTorrent From Third-Party App Store AltStore PAL Without Warning

Apple has removed the iTorrent app from AltStore PAL, an alternative iOS app marketplace in the EU, even though the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) is meant to guarantee users the right to install third-party software.

The app’s developer says the move was carried out without notice, without explanation, and with no way to appeal, effectively cutting off access to a legal torrenting tool that had been gaining popularity across Europe over the past year.

Daniil Vinogradov, the developer behind iTorrent (known online as XITRIX), confirmed that Apple revoked his ability to distribute apps outside of its App Store.

Although iTorrent had been hosted through AltStore PAL, the removal had nothing to do with the store itself. The decision came directly from Apple at the developer account level.

“Apple removed Alternative Distribution functionality from iTorrent’s Developer Portal without any warning,” Vinogradov posted on GitHub. He stated that Apple provided no explanation and no direct communication regarding the decision.

Keep reading

Meta to spend millions backing pro-AI candidates – media

US tech giant Meta will launch a California‑focused super‑PAC to support state‑level candidates who favor looser technology regulation, especially regarding artificial intelligence, according to media reports.

A super PAC is an independent political committee that can raise and spend unlimited funds from individuals, corporations, and unions to support or oppose candidates. It cannot coordinate directly with campaigns or parties and was created after 2010 US court rulings that loosened campaign finance rules.

The group, named Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California, will reportedly back candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties who prioritize AI innovation over stringent rules.

According to Politico, the Facebook and Instagram parent plans to spend tens of millions of dollars through the PAC, which could make it one of the top political spenders in the state in the run‑up to the 2026 governor’s race.

The initiative aligns with Meta’s broader effort to safeguard California’s status as a technology hub amid concerns that strict oversight could stifle innovation.

Keep reading

Google to Require ID Verification for All Android Developers

Google is preparing to implement a wide-reaching identity verification system for Android app developers, one that could significantly alter how apps are installed and shared across the platform.

This new policy will apply not only to those who publish apps through the Play Store but also to developers distributing their software independently, expanding Google’s role as a gatekeeper over what apps are allowed on Android, even when they aren’t downloaded through Google’s app store.

Without passing Google’s verification process, apps will be blocked from running on the vast majority of Android devices.

Android was once known for its hands-off approach, especially when compared to Apple’s tightly managed ecosystem. That distinction is now fading.

Google says the new system is designed to address security concerns, citing internal data that apps obtained outside the Play Store are 50 times more likely to include malicious software. But this goes far beyond policing its own storefront. Instead, it lays the groundwork for universal control over app distribution from other sources.

Developers will be required to submit their identity information, register their app’s package names, and upload signing keys through a revamped Android Developer Console.

Oddly, Google says it will not review the apps themselves, but the identity requirement will serve as a gateway that blocks installation on certified devices unless it is satisfied. This contrasts with Google’s statement that this is all about security. If security is the main concern, then one would expect Google to actually review the app and its safety, rather than simply demanding a developer ID.

Nearly all Android phones outside China rely on Google’s services, meaning this policy will reach almost every user.

Phones running customized versions of Android that lack Google services will not be affected. However, those devices make up only a small portion of the global Android landscape. For nearly everyone else, unverified apps will simply not work.

This move expands on a policy introduced in 2023, when Google began requiring developer verification for apps on the Play Store.

The company says that the effort led to a sharp decline in scams and malware. It argues that forcing developers outside the Play Store to verify themselves will make Android more secure overall by limiting the ability of anonymous actors to spread harmful software.

Even so, this approach could shrink the space for independent app development. Android users and developers have long relied on the ability to sideload apps or use third-party marketplaces without corporate oversight. Now, even those channels may depend on Google’s approval before users can install anything.

Rollout will happen in phases. Google plans to open early access to the new system in October 2025. Developers worldwide will gain access by March 2026.

The policy will go into effect first in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand in September 2026.

Keep reading

Trump’s Intel Deal Sparks Outrage Over Socialist Control and Corporate Blend

President Donald Trump announced on Friday evening, August 22, 2025, that the federal government has acquired a 10% stake in Intel, a decision he framed as a win for America but one that has left many conservatives, including Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, frustrated, viewing it as an unsettling move toward government involvement in private business.

Why it matters:
This acquisition, facilitated by Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, marks a shift that troubles free-market advocates, who worry it blurs the line between government and corporate control, potentially setting a precedent for more federal overreach in the economy and disappointing those who prioritize individual enterprise.

Driving the news:
The deal, confirmed via Trump’s Truth Social post, involves the U.S. government purchasing 433.3 million Intel shares at $20.47 each, securing a 9.9% stake without voting rights, as part of a strategy to leverage CHIPS Act funds.

  • The CHIPS Act, enacted in 2022, is a $52.7 billion bipartisan initiative to boost U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, providing grants and loans to companies like Intel.
  • Lutnick, on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street,” explained the equity stake, saying, “We should get an equity stake for our money,” converting Biden-era grants into ownership.
  • Trump credited negotiations with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, presenting it as a boost for national security and economic strength, even though he called for his resignation a few weeks prior.

Catch up quick:
The announcement follows months of discussions to support Intel, which reported $19 billion in losses last year, using taxpayer funds to stabilize it amid global tech competition.

The intrigue:
The concern is whether this move will strengthen U.S. tech leadership or signal a troubling trend toward government influence in private companies, with figures like Rand Paul questioning if it aligns with America’s economic traditions.

Between the lines:
Behind the patriotic tone, the deal suggests a pragmatic use of CHIPS Act funds that some see as a step toward socialism, raising questions about the balance between government support and market freedom.

Keep reading