Tag: big tech

Big Tech is paying millions to train teachers on AI, in a push to bring chatbots into classrooms

On a scorching hot Saturday in San Antonio, dozens of teachers traded a day off for a glimpse of the future. The topic of the day’s workshop: enhancing instruction with artificial intelligence.

After marveling as AI graded classwork instantly and turned lesson plans into podcasts or online storybooks, one high school English teacher raised a concern that was on the minds of many: “Are we going to be replaced with AI?”

That remains to be seen. But for the nation’s 4 million teachers to stay relevant and help students use the technology wisely, teachers unions have forged an unlikely partnership with the world’s largest technology companies. The two groups don’t always see eye to eye but say they share a common goal: training the future workforce of America.

Microsoft, OpenAI and Anthropic are providing millions of dollars for AI training to the American Federation of Teachers, the country’s second-largest teachers union. In exchange, the tech companies have an opportunity to make inroads into schools and win over students in the race for AI dominance.

AFT President Randi Weingarten said skepticism guided her negotiations, but the tech industry has something schools lack: deep pockets.

“There is no one else who is helping us with this. That’s why we felt we needed to work with the largest corporations in the world,” Weingarten said. “We went to them — they didn’t come to us.”

Weingarten first met with Microsoft CEO Brad Smith in 2023 to discuss a partnership. She later reached out to OpenAI to pursue an “agnostic” approach that means any company’s AI tools could be used in a training session.

Under the arrangement announced in July, Microsoft is contributing $12.5 million to AFT over five years. OpenAI is providing $8 million in funding and $2 million in technical resources, and Anthropic has offered $500,000.

Keep reading

Google Dismisses Privacy Fears Over App ID Policy

Google has responded to growing concern over its decision to require identity verification for all Android app developers by September 2026.

The company plans to block sideloaded apps from developers who decline to verify their identity, a move that many view as a threat to both developer privacy and the health of independent app distribution outside the Play Store.

The policy will require developers to submit government-issued identification to Google.

During a video explanation, a Google employee brushed aside questions about anonymity, saying “it’s not clear when anonymity is absolutely required,” and tried to ease fears about data collection by stating “it’s not like Google’s gonna share that information with the public or anything like that.”

The company’s position was outlined across multiple formats, including a blog post, a support page, and a lengthy video featuring Google employees discussing the shift.

However, many concerns, particularly around privacy, decentralization, and the viability of third-party app stores, were left either unaddressed or downplayed.

Google’s messaging implies that the changes are aimed at improving app security.

The company claims identity checks will help weed out malicious actors, especially those distributing malware.

But there is growing unease about the level of control this policy gives Google over the Android ecosystem.

Under the proposed system, Google will have the unilateral authority to determine who is allowed to distribute apps and could effectively block any developer it suspects of wrongdoing, potentially even without a clear or transparent justification.

While the video suggests the focus is currently limited to those linked with malware, nothing in the policy guarantees that future enforcement will not extend further.

Developers flagged in error could lose their ability to share apps entirely, with no clear recourse.

Keep reading

Witnesses Testify on CISA, GEC, and Tech Firms Coordinated Effort to Silence Dissent Online

A contentious Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday laid bare deep divisions over the role of the federal government in influencing what Americans are allowed to say online.

While Republican lawmakers and witnesses presented extensive evidence of federal agencies pressuring tech platforms to silence the dissent of the public, Democrats largely sidestepped those concerns and instead zeroed in on a controversy involving late-night host Jimmy Kimmel where ABC owner Disney temporarily took him off air over comments related to the assassination of political activist and commentator Charlie Kirk.

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) opened the hearing with a warning about what he described as a “vast censorship enterprise” operating under the Biden administration.

He called for the passage of two bills aimed at curbing such activity: the Collude Act, which would revoke Section 230 protections from tech firms that censor speech at the request of government officials or affiliated organizations, and the Censorship Accountability Act, which would allow citizens to sue federal employees who violate First Amendment rights by coordinating with private companies to suppress lawful expression.

“Congress must act to dismantle this unconstitutional alliance between Big Tech and Big Government that has deprived Americans of their most fundamental right,” Schmitt stated.

The hearing, titled “Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” featured testimony from several individuals who said they had been targeted as a result of government-backed efforts to influence speech online.

Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, testified that his outlet was hit by a coordinated censorship campaign involving both US agencies and foreign-linked organizations.

Keep reading

Tech Firms Unite in Open Letter Against EU Chat Scanning Law

With the vote approaching, the European Commission’s plan to scan private digital messages is moving toward final approval.

The regulation, called Chat Control 2.0, has gone through a year of resistance, warnings from experts, and objections from technology companies.

It is presented as a child safety measure, designed to inspect messages, photos, and videos across the EU before they are sent.

The privacy implications are immense.

Alice Weidel, co-leader of Germany’s AfD party, described the proposal as “an absolutely totalitarian project” and “a comprehensive general attack on central citizens and freedoms.”

She said the measure would install scanning software on personal devices, intercepting content before it reaches its recipient. The system would remove the protection offered by end-to-end encryption and treat every user as a potential suspect.

Weidel said the use of child safety language was “a cheap pretext” for real-time surveillance.

“Even the Stasi could only dream of such a full force,” she said, comparing the plan to intercepting and photographing every private letter for review by a government authority.

She warned that once the system exists, its function can expand to include other categories such as “politically offensive content” and “so-called hate speech.” The structure of the law allows the criteria to be adjusted through political decisions.

Technology companies have joined in opposition. Hundreds of privacy-oriented firms, including encrypted messengers, cloud storage services, and VPN providers, signed a joint letter urging EU ministers to reject the regulation.

Their message called for the protection of encryption and for an end to mandatory message scanning.

Signal has announced that it will leave the EU if forced to comply. The platform has stated that it cannot operate under a framework requiring message inspection.

The regulation creates an obligation to weaken the systems that enable private communication and turns encryption into a technical formality rather than a guarantee of privacy.

Supporters of the proposal say it will catch child abusers. Critics point out that criminal networks conduct their operations in offline settings or hidden spaces beyond the reach of such scanning.

“Criminals are already using offline or so-called dark rooms for their illegal businesses,” Weidel said.

Keep reading

California’s Vague ‘Hate Speech’ Bill Would Force Big Tech To Censor Mainstream Conservative Views

alifornia lawmakers are once again leading the charge — not toward progress, but toward repression. Their latest move, Senate Bill 771 (SB-771), is being packaged as a bold stand against “hate” on social media. In reality, it’s a direct assault on the free expression and constitutionally protected speech of ministries, minority groups, and faith-based organizations.

The bill would force Big Tech to remove content that could be interpreted as “harassment” or “intimidation” based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and more — or face financially devastating lawsuits.

If Gov. Gavin Newsom signs this bill into law as expected, it will become one of the most dangerous speech-restricting laws in the country. Cloaked in the language of civil rights, SB-771 is built to punish dissent from progressive orthodoxy.

The target is anyone who dares to speak publicly about values or perspectives that conflict with the state’s ever-expanding list of protected identities. In practice, this means community groups sharing discussions on traditional family structures, cultural views on gender roles, or advocacy for certain social issues may find themselves silenced — not by law enforcement, but by tech giants eager to avoid legal risk.

The bills says:

California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.

 3273.73. (a) A social media platform that violates Section 51.7, 51.9, 52, or 52.1 through its algorithms that relay content to users or aids, abets, acts in concert, or conspires in a violation of any of those sections, or is a joint tortfeasor in a violation of any of those sections, shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable to a prevailing plaintiff for a civil penalty for each violation sufficient to deter future violations but not to exceed the following:

(1) For an intentional, knowing, or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to one million dollars

(2) For a reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to five hundred thousand dollars.


This language may appear just, but its sweeping terms — “intimidation,” “coercion,” even “aiding” — are dangerously vague. In the hands of ideologically motivated actors, they can be weaponized to silence constitutionally protected discourse under the guise of enforcing civil rights.

That’s the chilling brilliance of SB-771: it outsources censorship to the private sector under threat of state-enforced financial ruin. The law doesn’t need to directly ban speech — it just makes the cost of hosting it too high for Big Tech to tolerate. This will especially impact small ministries, minority-led organizations, and faith-based nonprofits with limited legal or technical resources. For them, one flagged post — perhaps a cultural reference taken out of context — could mean being shadow-banned or deplatformed altogether.

Keep reading

X Urges EU to Reject “Chat Control 2.0” Surveillance Law Threatening End-to-End Encryption

X is urging European governments to reject a major surveillance proposal that the company warns would strip EU citizens of core privacy rights.

In a public statement ahead of a key Council vote scheduled for October 14, the platform called on member states to “vigorously oppose measures to normalize surveillance of its citizens,” condemning the proposed regulation as a direct threat to end-to-end encryption and private communication.

The draft legislation, widely referred to as “Chat Control 2.0,” would require providers of messaging and cloud services to scan users’ content, including messages, photos, and links, for signs of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Central to the proposal is “client-side scanning” (CSS), a method that inspects content directly on a user’s device before it is encrypted.

X stated plainly that it cannot support any policy that would force the creation of “de facto backdoors for government snooping,” even as it reaffirmed its longstanding commitment to fighting child exploitation.

The company has invested heavily in detection and removal systems, but draws a clear line at measures that dismantle secure encryption for everyone.

Privacy experts, researchers, and technologists across Europe have echoed these warnings.

By mandating that scans occur before encryption is applied, the regulation would effectively neutralize end-to-end encryption, opening private conversations to potential access not only by providers but also by governments and malicious third parties.

The implications reach far beyond targeted investigations. Once CSS is implemented, any digital platform subject to the regulation would be forced to scrutinize every message and file sent by its users.

This approach could also override legal protections enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically Articles 7 and 8, which safeguard privacy and the protection of personal data.

A coalition of scientists issued a public letter warning that detection tools of this kind are technically flawed and unreliable at scale.

High error rates could lead to false accusations against innocent users, while actual abuse material could evade detection.

Keep reading

Larry Ellison Vetted Marco Rubio for Fealty to Israel, Hacked Emails Reveal

Everything is coming together for Larry Ellison. The billionaire co-founder of tech giant Oracle, on-and-off-again the richest man in the world and a staunch supporter of Israel, is set to take a lead role in reshaping TikTok in the United States. His son, David Ellison, is moving to take over large swaths of the media, including CBS News, CNN, Warner Brothers, and Paramount, reportedly bringing in the Free Press’s Bari Weiss to shape editorial direction.

“The Ellison family is cornering the market on attention and data the same way the Vanderbilts did railroads and the Rockefellers did oil,” as Wired recently characterized it. How they plan to operate that monopoly is on course to be tested out in what President Donald Trump is calling “New Gaza,” the techno-dystopian free trade zone that is to be administered by a Board of Peace led by Trump and Ellison’s longtime political and business vehicle, Tony Blair. Ellison has given or pledged more than $350 million to the Tony Blair Institute, which Blair has used to advance Ellison’s vision of a marriage between government, corporate power, and tech surveillance. Oracle, by providing database infrastructure and cloud-computing services to other huge enterprises like FedEx and NVIDIA, has quietly become one of the most powerful companies in the world.

As the nation’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also played a role in the TikTok talks that steered the company toward Ellison, after playing a lead role as a senator in demonizing the app; he was also closely involved in the rollout of Trump’s plan for Gaza’s future, which hands the enclave to Blair. Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner tasked the Blair Institute in the spring with coming up with a post-war plan for Gaza, which was recently completed, the Times of Israel reported.

That Rubio finds himself in such a central position is in part thanks to Ellison, who has been a major patron of the Cuban-American former senator from Florida. Ellison first vetted Rubio for his fealty toward Israel back in early 2015, according to previously unreported email correspondence reviewed by Drop Site. Rubio rose to prominence as a Tea Party-backed conservative Senate upstart in 2010, launching a presidential campaign in the 2016 cycle. As secretary of state, Rubio launched an unprecedented crackdown on speech, detaining and attempting to deport critics of Israel precisely for the crime of their criticism of Israel.

Keep reading

Report: EU to Charge Meta Under Censorship Law for Failing to Remove “Harmful” Content

Meta Platforms is bracing for formal charges from the European Union, accused of not doing enough to police online speech on Facebook and Instagram.

The problem is the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a law that gives regulators the power to decide what counts as “illegal” or “harmful” content (a definition that includes “illegal hate speech”) and punish companies that fail to take it down.

The commission’s move could lead to a fine of up to 6% of Meta’s worldwide revenue, though the company will be allowed to respond before any penalty is finalized.

Officials in Brussels argue that Meta lacks an adequate “notice and action mechanism” for users to flag posts for removal.

The charge sheet, expected within weeks, according to Bloomberg, builds on an investigation launched in April 2024.

What the EU describes as a duty to protect users is, in fact, a mandate that forces platforms to censor more aggressively or face ruinous fines.

The commission would not comment on its plans, but Meta spokesperson Ben Walters rejected the accusations outright, saying the company disagreed “with any suggestion we have breached the DSA” and confirmed that talks are ongoing.

The DSA covers every major platform with more than 45 million active users in the EU.

Meta is currently facing two separate probes under the law: one focused on disinformation and illegal content, the other on protections for minors.

Supporters of the DSA insist it protects citizens, but the law essentially hands governments the authority to decide what speech is acceptable online.

No fines have yet been issued, but the pressure to comply has already chilled open debate.

Keep reading

Is the tech giant who gave Blair £257m in line for huge ID card contract? Government embroiled in cronyism row after revelation former PM lobbied for his billionaire backer who could make millions

The Government was tonight embroiled in a cronyism row as it emerged Tony Blair secretly lobbied for his billionaire backer who could make millions of pounds from Labour’s controversial digital ID cards.

Documents seen by The Mail on Sunday reveal the former prime minister urged Business Secretary Peter Kyle to consult a technology institute founded by his friend Larry Ellison in a private meeting last year.

Mr Ellison, the world’s second richest man, has donated or pledged a staggering £257million for the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. 

He founded the Ellison Institute of Technology (EIT), a research centre in Oxford, and is chairman of tech giant Oracle, which has a £700million IT deal with four Whitehall departments.

Experts say Oracle is now in pole position to profit from plans to force millions of adults to sign up for a digital ID card.

And an exclusive MoS analysis can reveal that after Sir Tony’s meeting with Mr Kyle, Mr Ellison’s organisations have enjoyed astonishing access to the very top of Government.

Indeed, staff from Oracle and EIT have met with ministers and senior officials no fewer than 29 times in nine months.

Mr Kyle, Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have met bosses from Oracle.

Meanwhile science minister Lord Vallance has met EIT representatives seven times – one was to discuss ‘EIT plans for expansion and alignment with Government’s priorities’, official records show.

Sir Tony has had a decades-long ‘bromance’ with Mr Ellison, who is worth £290billion, and last year enjoyed a lavish Mediterranean holiday on his superyacht.

On Saturday, Conservative Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake said: ‘Despite Keir Starmer’s promises of a ‘crackdown on cronyism’, these revelations show it runs right to the very top of this rotten Labour Government.

‘Tony Blair lobbying Peter Kyle to set up meetings with groups linked to Larry Ellison – now in pole position for the Government’s Digital ID contract – reeks of a blatant conflict of interest. This has all the hallmarks of yet another cosy deal between Labour insiders and powerful vested interests.’

Keep reading

Critics Accuse YouTube of Dragging Out Return Process for Banned Channels

YouTube is being criticized for what many see as backpedaling on its commitment to free speech, after pledging to restore banned accounts, only to continue removing new channels created by previously banned figures.

The initial assurance came in a letter dated September 23, 2025, addressed to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan.

In that communication, YouTube acknowledged its past enforcement actions, which included terminating channels over election-related and COVID-19 content under policies that have since changed. The company claimed that its current guidelines permit more room for such topics and asserted:

“Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the Company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”

The same day, YouTube posted a message on X describing a “limited pilot project” that would provide “a pathway back to YouTube for some terminated creators to set up a new channel.”

However, the platform immediately added that this option would only apply to a “subset” of creators.

The vagueness of the commitment raised suspicion, which intensified when two prominent figures, Infowars founder Alex Jones and “America First” host Nick Fuentes, launched new channels that were almost immediately taken down.

Keep reading