Tag: big tech

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Launches Super PAC to Combat AI Regulations

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has announced the launch of a new super PAC aimed at electing state candidates from both parties who support the company’s stance on AI development and regulation. According to the company, the American Technology Excellence Project super PAC is launching “amid a growing patchwork of inconsistent regulations that threaten homegrown innovation and investments in AI.”

Axios reports that social media and AI giant Meta has launched a new super PAC called the American Technology Excellence Project to help fight what it perceives as burdensome AI and tech policy bills across multiple states. The announcement highlights the company’s focus on state-level legislation as the federal government appears unlikely to pass significant tech policy regulation in the near future.

The super PAC will be run by Brian Baker, a longtime Republican operative, and the Democratic consulting firm Hilltop Public Solutions, with Meta investing tens of millions of dollars into the project. Baker stated, “America’s innovation edge is at a crossroads. We need state legislators who will champion our tech future, not cede it to global adversaries. We’ll fight to keep the US ahead of the curve, driving growth and opportunity for all.”

In a statement to Breitbart News, Meta VP of Public Policy Brian Rice wrote:

Amid a growing patchwork of inconsistent regulations that threaten homegrown innovation and investments in AI, state lawmakers are uniquely positioned to ensure that America remains a global technology leader. This is why Meta is launching an effort to support the election of state candidates across the country who embrace AI development, champion the U.S. technology industry, and defend American tech leadership at home and abroad.

The American Technology Excellence Project will focus on three main pillars: promoting and defending U.S. technology companies and leadership, advocating for AI progress, and empowering parents to control how their children experience online apps and AI technologies. While Meta has not yet shared which states the PAC will immediately focus on or how many people it will employ, the company claims it is committed to supporting the election of state candidates who embrace AI development, champion the U.S. technology industry, and defend American tech leadership both domestically and internationally.

Keep reading

If Big Tech Doesn’t Treat Leftist Terrorists Like It Did Donald Trump, Government Should Make Them

The tragic murder of Charlie Kirk has exposed the dark underbelly of left-wing discourse on the Internet as users on BlueSky, Reddit, and Discord celebrate the vicious assassination of a young husband and father because of his politics and faith. Moreover, FBI Director Kash Patel has confirmed evidence that some media users may have previewed Kirk’s killing days beforehand (the FBI is investigating at least twenty Discord users for their communications with the killer).

This entire episode highlights the dangerous radicalization that has happened over years as extreme rhetoric online pushes young people toward desperate and awful acts. Social media companies need to take responsibility for their role in radicalization, and their failure to address irresponsible liberal discourse after their aggressive censorship of conservative viewpoints exposes a dangerous double standard.

A template for how private actors can self-police was on display Tuesday when local television affiliates, Nexstar and Sinclair, forced Disney/ABC’s hand to cancel indefinitely Jimmy Kimmel Live! They recognized that the callousness and blatant misinformation on that show did not serve the public interest. By contrast, social media titans have enabled irresponsible leftist rhetoric to proliferate and pollute civil discourse.

For the last decade, the Left has sought to drive conservatives from the public square through tools like deplatforming and debanking. Working hand-in-glove with the Biden administration, for instance, the Big Tech companies canceled thousands of conservative voices who dared to challenge the then-conventional wisdom during the Covid-19 pandemic. And they did so again after the 2020 election, targeting “election deniers” and “J-6ers” for cancellation, even going so far as to ban President Trump. Not only everyday citizens, but a half-dozen senators and congressmen (all Republicans) had their accounts suspended for violating these “community standards.” Even Stripe stopped processing campaign contributions to Donald Trump because the financial services company believed he violated their arbitrary standards.

When the Big Tech companies defended those decisions in the media and the courts, they turned again and again to their “terms and conditions,” the contracts users sign that permitted the companies to remove content that violated their “community standards.” The popular conversation site Reddit, for instance, has a set of “Reddit Rules” that include principles like “[e]veryone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.”

On January 8, 2021, two days after the protests taking over the Capitol, the news magazine Variety reported that “Reddit on Friday said it banned r/donaldtrump — one of the biggest pro-Trump subreddits on the platform — after ‘repeated’ violations of the site’s policy against inciting violence.”

Many of these decisions occur down the Internet stacks and not just at the platform level, such as a cloud services company that manages the site’s traffic or even the app store. This was on full demonstration in 2018 when Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince unilaterally decided to stop servicing the alt-right website Daily Stormer after they were instrumental in planning the infamous neo-Nazi demonstration in Charlottesville, Virginia. As Prince explained in a Wall Street Journal column, he decided it was no longer in Cloudflare’s interests to service this client, so he pulled the plug. Prince simply found that the Daily Stormer was in breach of his company’s Terms of Service and decided to act accordingly.

Keep reading

Hawley pushes legal action against Meta after whistleblowers detail child abuse in VR

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., called to “open the courtroom doors” so parents can sue Meta, accusing founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg of misleading Congress after whistleblowers detailed child safety failures on the company’s virtual reality (VR) platforms.

Two former Meta researchers told a Senate panel Tuesday that the company buried child harm evidence in VR, killed age-verification studies and let AI chatbots flirt with kids, prompting a bipartisan push to pass measures protecting minors online.

“The claims at the heart of this hearing are nonsense; they’re based on selectively leaked internal documents that were picked specifically to craft a false narrative,” a Meta spokesperson said. 

“The truth is there was never any blanket prohibition on conducting research with young people and, since the start of 2022, Meta approved nearly 180 Reality Labs-related studies on issues including youth safety and well-being.”

Keep reading

Australia Orders Tech Giants to Enforce Age Verification Digital ID by December 10

Australia is preparing to enforce one of the most invasive online measures in its history under the guise of child safety.

With the introduction of mandatory age verification across social media platforms, privacy advocates are warning that the policy, set to begin December 10, 2025, risks eroding fundamental digital rights for every user, not just those under 16.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has told tech giants like Google, Meta, TikTok, and Snap that they must be ready to detect and shut down accounts held by Australians under the age threshold.

She has made it clear that platforms are expected to implement broad “age assurance” systems across their services, and that “self-declaration of age will not, on its own, be enough to constitute reasonable steps.”

The new rules stem from the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which gives the government sweeping new authority to dictate how users verify their age before accessing digital services. Any platform that doesn’t comply could be fined up to $31M USD.

While the government claims the law isn’t a ban on social media for children under 16, in practice, it forces platforms to block these users unless they can pass age checks, which means a digital ID.

There will be no penalties for children or their parents, but platforms face immense legal and financial pressure to enforce restrictions, pressure that almost inevitably leads to surveillance-based systems.

The Commissioner said companies must “detect and de-activate these accounts from 10 December, and provide account holders with appropriate information and support before then.”

These expectations extend to providing “clear, age-appropriate communications” and making sure users can download their data and find emotional or mental health resources when their accounts are terminated.

She further stated that “efficacy will require layered safety measures, sometimes known as a ‘waterfall approach’,” a term often associated with collecting increasing amounts of personal data at multiple steps of user interaction.

Such layered systems often rely on facial scanning, government ID uploads, biometric estimation, or AI-powered surveillance tools to estimate age.

Keep reading

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