RFK Jr. criticizes FDA for banning alternative remedies and condemns drug industry’s influence

In a speech aired on the Food and Drug Administration’s Maryland campus Friday morning, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. introduced himself as the country’s health secretary in a mean speech that touched on everything from the raptors of Lake Erie to the CIA.

Kennedy told agency staff in an effort to boldly avoid the impulse to protect the companies they regulate amid the pain of losing 20% ​​of the workforce under an overhaul of the health and human services sector.

Layoffs, voluntary departures and cuts in funding have already stopped the sectors controlling tobacco surveillance, drug approval processes, testing bird milk and bird flu cheeses, and food safety, which monitors and protects consumers from foodborne diseases.

In his remarks Friday, Kennedy suggested that the agency did not approve “alternative drugs” because of its subordination to wealthy businesses. Agent veterans argue that alternative products often fail to pass safety and efficacy standards.

He previously accused the FDA of suppressing raw milk, ivermectin and stem cell therapy.

He urged staff to resist the temptation to serve small groups of wealthy businesses at the expense of public health.

“We want to break away from it so that we can make our children healthy,” he said, according to a transcript of the speech shared with the New York Times. At another point, he said, “The deep nation is the real thing.” This is a light-journal reference to the vast federal bureaucracy that President Trump accused of as an obstacle to achieving his goals in his first term.

Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Kennedy’s remarks.

Kennedy also calls the FDA “sock dolls.” He used it in the past. Dynamics rewards “a very powerful incumbent in the industry,” he said at another time.

Drugmakers have benefited from a series of efforts by the FDA to speed up specific drug approvals and encourage businesses to develop drugs for serious illnesses that lack treatment. An FDA official said the program is intended to help patients.

The FDA has faced criticism over the past few years for several well-known drug approvals. For example, when granting approval for Alzheimer’s and Duchenne muscular dystrophy products, the top officials rejected the agency’s scientist or advisor.

Kennedy urged FDA employees to speak up if their boss greenlights products with insufficient evidence. “If your boss is making a mistake, if they approve something that shouldn’t be approved, we want to hear,” he said.

New FDA committee member Dr. Marty McCurry introduced Kennedy at a meeting Friday, supporting the goal of shaping healthier food supplies. He admitted that for some staff, cutting at the agency is “struggling with the ground.” He said the change was “to be integrated, more efficient and create more teamwork.”

Kennedy and Dr. McCurry were broadcast on video that aired on the agency White Oak campus outside Maryland.

Kennedy visited her father, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, at Washington’s Department of Justice, and recalls her child watching the Peregrine Falcons nest in the cupola of an old post office building. He also discussed his experiences at the Special Olympics, where he played the role of “Hugger” and coaching, playing the battles he played as an environmental lawyer.

Kennedy also complained about the rules governing the agency’s food department, which allow businesses to recognize that they can generally be recognized as being safe. This scale initially covered ingredients such as salt and vinegar to be acceptable in food without review. However, since then, thousands of ingredients have been added to the food supply without notice or testing by agents.

Food companies must provide a review of the materials to the FDA inspector on the premises, but such inspections can be performed once every five years. Kennedy is calling for an end to allow food companies to self-certify that the ingredients are safe.

“We literally don’t test chemicals before they’re added to food,” he said, according to the transcript. “Everything is engraved by the industry, as is generally perceived as safe.”

He went on to attribute the country’s diabetes rate to a loophole, adding that sugar also plays a role.

The speech was reminiscent of a social media message Kennedy posted in October, accusing the FDA of “a war with public health.” He said he is engaged in a “active suppression” of a series of unproven or unsafe products, including raw milk, chelate compounds, ivermectin, and “others that advance human health and cannot be patented by pharma.”

Here’s the post: “If you’re working for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, you have two messages.

The agency is still shaking from thousands of job openings and voluntary deviations in the weeks since Kennedy was appointed health secretary. FDA employees who left in recent weeks include staff looking for drugs for byproducts that could cause cancer, and others working with international food safety staff to stop contaminated products from entering the United States.

The cuts in some regions are so deep that former FDA officials have suggested that the pharmaceutical industry could endanger billions of dollars to pay agents to ensure that the drug approval process is properly staffed.

Drugmakers are worried about what Kennedy’s leadership means for their benefit. They are worried that agency cuts will slow down drug reviews, including starting clinical trials, and will add a delay to final approval.

Public letter Dozens of biotech investors and executives have signed the signing, and industry leaders say they are “deeply concerned about the current state of the agency and its future.”

“Some of us have already encountered regulatory challenges that the FDA considers to be the result of the loss of experienced staff,” the letter states.

Source: www.nytimes.com

OpenAI seeks court order banning Elon Musk from unfairly attacking

Openai requested a federal court on Wednesday to prohibit Elon Musk from unfairly attacking them through a lawsuit he filed last year.

In a filing in federal court in San Francisco, Openai stated that Musk “initiated his project to defeat Openai.” The company insisted that the tech billionaire cease all actions against Openai and is seeking damages caused by Musk.

This filing highlighted the ongoing conflict between Musk, the founder of Openai, and the company regarding the direction of advancing technology. Last year, Musk sued Openai and its founders, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, accusing them of prioritizing commercial interests over public interest in technology.

Openai stated: “Elon continues to engage in bad faith tactics to hinder Openai’s progress for his own benefit. These actions are anti-competitive and contradict our mission.”

Musk and his legal representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

(The New York Times filed a lawsuit against Openai and Microsoft, alleging copyright infringement related to AI Systems. Openai and Microsoft denied these allegations.)

Musk played a role in founding Openai as a nonprofit organization in late 2015, alongside Altman and others. However, disputes over control of the company hindered AI progress, leading Musk to exit the organization. Openai has since launched ChatGpt and become a prominent AI player with millions of users. Altman secured significant funding for Openai to develop AI technology.

Last year, Openai began transitioning from a nonprofit entity to a company owned by investors. Shortly after, Musk sued Altman and Brockman, alleging violations of the company’s incorporation agreement by prioritizing commercial gains over public interest.

This year, Musk and investors proposed acquiring assets of the managing nonprofit for over $97 billion, which Openai’s board rejected.

In a recent filing, Openai criticized Musk’s bid as “deceptive” and misrepresenting the company’s intentions to change its structure.

“Musk is making false claims that Openai plans to convert from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity,” the filing stated.

Openai clarified that they are considering restructuring as a public benefit corporation (PBC), aiming to serve public and social interests as a for-profit organization.

In another development, a coalition of nonprofit, labor, and charity leaders submitted a petition urging California Attorney General Rob Bonta to investigate Openai’s efforts to convert into a public benefits corporation. The petition can be viewed here.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Potential harmful effects of banning teenagers’ smartphone use for academic purposes

According to a major academic mission by the UK government to review the impact of smartphones on teenagers, a blanket ban is considered “unrealistic and potentially harmful.” Amy Oben, a former member of Cambridge University, leads the research on children and smartphone use commissioned by the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), along with other academics from various UK universities.

Despite resistance from the Minister to impose new legal restrictions on social media and smartphones for children, beyond existing online safety laws that protect against harmful content, some lawmakers are advocating for further restrictions such as limiting access to social media for individuals under 16, a complete ban on smartphones in schools, or regulating social media algorithms that expose young teens to addictive content.


A recent paper by four co-authors of the British Journal of Medicine (BMJ) argued that bans and restrictions are ineffective, although they acknowledged the importance of providing children and teens with phone-free spaces.

The paper highlighted the challenges of protecting youth from potential harms of technology while also recognizing the benefits of information access and social support provided by smartphones and social media.

Researchers emphasized the need for a nuanced approach, acknowledging that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that banning devices could hinder children’s rights to access beneficial technologies that support their development.

The Science and Technology Secretary, Peter Kyle, appointed Orben to lead further research on the impact of smartphones on child health and welfare. Orben emphasized the complexity of understanding the digital impact on youth and the importance of generating quality evidence for informed decision-making.

Ministers face pressure to address the use of smartphones by teenagers, especially concerning harmful online content. Discussions about restrictions on social media algorithms for teens and bans on smartphones in schools are ongoing.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson is reviewing guidelines on smartphone bans in schools to assess their effectiveness, while Prime Minister Kiel Starmer is engaging in discussions with stakeholders to address potential harm associated with smartphone and social media use.

DSIT has been approached for comment on this matter.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Parents take charge as UK government decides against banning smartphones in schools.

Daisy Greenwell has long felt that the idea of letting her eldest son do something inevitable. But until early last year, when her daughter was eight, it filled her with fear. When she spoke to other parents, “Everyone said, ‘Yes, that’s a nightmare, but there’s no choice,'” recalls Greenwell, 41.

She decided to test it. My friend Claire Fergnou shared concerns about the impact of social media on the addictive quality of smartphones and mental health, so I created a WhatsApp group to help develop a strategy. Then Greenwell lives in Suffolk, a countryside in eastern England; I posted her thoughts on Instagram.

“If we could switch social norms like giving your child a smartphone at 11am in our school, our town, our country, we could do it, like giving your child a smartphone at 11am,” she wrote. “What if they could hold off until they were 14 or 16?” she added a link to the WhatsApp group.

The post has gone viral. Within 24 hours, the group was oversubscribed for parents to participate. Today, more than 124,000 parents of children in UK schools have signature A pact created by the free childhood of smartphones, a charity founded by Greenwell, her husband Joe Riley and Ferniev. “I will act in the best interests of my kids and our community and wait until I get my smartphone until the end of my ninth year.” (The ninth year is equivalent to the eighth graders in America.)

Movement aligns with a A broader change in British attitudesmounts of harm caused by smartphone addiction and algorithm-driven social media as evidence. 1 investigation Last year, the majority of respondents (69%) felt that social media had negatively affected children under the age of 15.

Meanwhile, with the police Intelligence Services We warned about extreme and violent content torrents reaching children online. This is a trend that was examined during adolescence of hit television shows, where school men are accused of murder after being exposed to online misogyny. It’s become British Most of them were seen Show, and on Monday, Prime Minister Kiel Starmer met. The creator and I told her I had seen it on Downing Street with my son and daughter. But he also said, “This is not a challenge politicians can simply legislate.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

The detrimental effects of banning frightening concepts may outweigh the sense of security it provides

Yuichiro Chino/Getty Images

In 1818, Mary Shelley invented a technology that has been used for both good and bad in the centuries since. It's called science fiction.

Although you might not think that literary genres count as technology, science fiction has long been a tool for predicting and critiquing science. Shelley’s Frankenstein Considered by many to be the first serious science fiction novel, it was so powerful that South Africa banned it in 1955. This story set the formula with a story that still serves today as a warning against unintended consequences.

As far as we know, the exact science that the eponymous Victor Frankenstein used to create is impossible. But today researchers can restore dead human brains to something resembling life. Experiments are underway to restart cell activity (but importantly not consciousness) after death to test its effectiveness in treating conditions such as Alzheimer's disease (see “Fundamental treatments that bring people back from the brink of death”).

It reminds me of many science fiction stories that feature similar scenarios and I can’t help but imagine what will happen next. The same is true for the study reported in “1000 people’s AI simulation accurately reproduces their behavior.” In this study, researchers used the technology behind ChatGPT to recreate the thoughts and actions of specific individuals with surprising success.

The team behind this work blurs the lines between fact, fiction, and what it means to be human.

In both cases, the teams behind this research are blurring the lines between fact, fiction, and what it means to be human, and their research is being conducted under strong ethical oversight. We are deeply aware that there are ethical concerns in the details. It was announced early on. But now that the technology is proven, there is nothing to stop more violent groups from attempting the same thing without oversight, potentially causing significant damage.

Does that mean the research should be banned for fear of it falling into the wrong hands, as Shelley’s book was? Far from it. Concerns about technology are best addressed through appropriate evidence-based regulation and swift punishment of violators. When regulators go too far, they miss out on not only the technology but also the opportunity to criticize and debate it.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Introducing smartphones gradually is more beneficial for children than banning them completely

“Let’s take cell phones out of schools.” “Social media is harmful to teens.”

Such messages are being broadcast around the world and appear to have reached a peak in recent days. In the UK, concerns about the harms of social media and screen time have led to Smartphone Free Children Campaign A government crackdown on smartphone use in schools has also begun, and ministers are considering banning the sale of smartphones to anyone under 16. Meanwhile, in the United States, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy this week called for social media platforms to require cigarette-style warning labels.

More than 40% of American children own a smartphone by age 10, and the concern is Excessive screen use can lead to health problemsThese include obesity, sleep disorders, depression and anxiety.

Certainly, some studies have documented this link, but as we explain in our feature, The Truth About How Social Media and Screen Time Affect Young People, the evidence that screen time causes widespread harm to children is not as strong or clear as some claim.

While we figure out the details, we must protect our children, especially those who are most vulnerable to the harmful influences of smartphones and social media. But depriving them entirely would be the wrong move.

The smarter approach is to give children access, even from an early age, in a controlled and measured way.

Imagine what a smartphone utopia might look like: It would be done in stages: instead of giving kids access to the entire internet at first, we’d allow them access to walled gardens, like kid-friendly TV channels.

In such a world, we would allow limited messaging with strict moderation that loosens with age, the system would allow parents access that diminishes over time, and all of this would be combined with ongoing digital literacy classes.

Smartphones, social media, and screens will continue to be a part of our children’s lives, no matter how many warning labels they carry, and now is the time to think seriously about how we give our kids the tools they need to navigate the realities of growing up online.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Title: “How Banning my Daughter from Her iPhone Led to Positive Changes”

The signature on this essay is a pen name.

My daughter is one of the kids the U.S. Surgeon General has warned about. Our nation’s children have become “unwitting participants” in a “decades-long experiment.” Social media use poses mental health risks to young people. Young people’s “near-constant” use of social media leads to poor sleep, depression, and anxiety.

Before sixth grade, my daughter saved up her dog-walking money to buy a phone. She found a used iPhone 13 Mini on Craigslist. I set high expectations for her to get good grades, keep her room clean, take out the trash, etc. Little did I know then that the iPhone would systematically undermine her ability to accomplish these tasks and so much more.

When my daughter walked under an inflatable arch into her classroom on her first day of middle school, I took comfort in the fact that I could reach her. Like most parents, I associated my cell phone with safety, not danger. I didn’t know that social media developers were controlling her next swipe, or that her “human future” was being sold to the highest bidder, enriching the richest corporation in the history of mankind.

I learned the hard way through my daughter’s lies, manipulation, failing grades, through the “zebra stripes” scars painted on her arms.

Her school photo from sixth grade captures my daughter in her “emo” phase: feather earrings, Pink Floyd T-shirt, crooked smile. The innocence of the photo was quickly replaced by selfies: selfies with pursed lips making a peace sign; selfies with her head tilted to one side, half-face, full-body; selfies in bed. Her camera roll records her degradation: selfies of her crying, selfies with swollen eyes, selfies of her unable to leave her bedroom.

By spring semester, my daughter’s grades were slipping. I assumed she had ADHD, so I took her to a psychiatrist for a psychiatric evaluation. The afternoon sun filtered through the faux-wood blinds, casting strips of light on the black hoodie she always wore. The doctor’s questions started out predictably: Can’t concentrate in class? Can’t finish your homework? Can’t sleep? Then the interview took a scary turn. Do you feel like your life isn’t worth living? Have you ever hurt yourself? Have you ever wanted to die?

I widened my eyes at the child’s profile and answered, “Yes.” Tearing out my guts.

Doctors diagnosed her with depression and anxiety. Further testing revealed that she spent 80% of her attention on gaining the approval of her peers. No wonder she was failing math. It was a miracle she was passing her classes when only 20% of her brain was dedicated to school.

The doctor prescribed therapy and Lexapro. These helped, but he didn’t inform me of the epidemic of cell phones among middle schoolers. I later learned that my daughter is the first generation of 10-14-year-olds to actively use social media. These girls have a 151% increase in suicide rates and a 182% increase in self-harm. Her treatment assumed that her suffering was personal, not structural. In our country, we prescribe drugs to solve this societal crisis.

At the time, I was unaware of this and allowed my daughter to continue using social media. One day, I got a text message from another mother. I stared at the screen, wondering why this mother was sending me such a revealing selfie. Then I noticed a mole on the woman’s chest. It was my daughter’s.

When I showed the photo to my daughter, she gasped. She handed over her phone. I discovered she had circumvented screen limits and been on social media until the early hours of the morning. She had sent the image on Snapchat to someone named PJ. He claimed to be a 16-year-old boy, but his responses were so graphic I suspected he was older. I was horrified to learn that a cell phone is a two-way street and a platform that adults can use to abduct and traffic children.

I had a family meeting with my daughter, her father, and my mother-in-law. We agreed that my daughter would delete her social media accounts and get rid of her phone until the new school year started. After a summer of traveling, relaxing in person, and spending time with family, my daughter’s energy returned. The bags under her eyes faded, and she stopped sighing, shrugging, and rolling her eyes. She woke up and laughed. Sometimes she even wanted me to hug her.

It was hard to give my daughter’s phone back before seventh grade, but we had made a commitment. I wanted to reinforce her good behavior. I created new rules: no social media, no devices in the bedroom, turn off the phone at 8 p.m. Charge the phone on the kitchen counter. I bought an alarm clock and a sound machine. We endured a digital detox. My daughter started playing soccer. My insomnia was cured. We joined a gym and worked out together.

But within a few months, my daughter had relapsed again. Little lies, big lies. A friend’s mother sent me an email with selfies of her daughters vaping and hanging out at the mall with boys they’d never met. We had another family meeting.

“This might seem weird, but maybe my daughter doesn’t need a cell phone,” her mother-in-law said.

The words rippled through my mind. Why hadn’t I thought of that? Cell phones were destroying my daughter, but I couldn’t imagine life without them. I stayed true to the idea of the cell phone, its ideals. I had a cell phone again.

When I told her my daughter had lost her cell phone until she was in high school, she threw a tantrum. that She was the only child in her class without a cell phone, but once the tantrum subsided, she began to regain her composure. Then, within a few weeks, signs of her addictive behavior began to reappear.

I found an iPhone charger in the outlet next to her bed. She said it was to charge her AirPods. She threw herself on the ground to stop me from searching under the bed. One night, I was lying in bed thinking and it occurred to me. My daughter two Phone. I accidentally broke my Mini on a weight training machine while working out, so I bought her a new iPhone 13. I confiscated the 13, but I was able to give the Mini to her.

When I asked her the next morning, she said, “I sold it to a friend at school.” She couldn’t tell me who she sold it to or how much she paid for it.

“I’ll find it,” I said. I see you Gestures. I was distraught, but with calm confidence and a little humor, I went through backpacks and drawers, rifled through pockets, entered rooms unannounced, and tried to catch her in the act. My daughter remained calm the whole time I searched. I began to wonder if I had gone completely crazy. I bought a metal detector.

Then one night, I walked into my daughter’s room. She jumped up and pulled back the comforter. I ran to the bed and reached under the covers. The charging cord! My fingers traced its length to the plugged-in phone.

We stared at the Mini in my hands, the Snapchat app glowing beneath the cracked screen, and she looked at me, her eyes wide and filling with tears.

That night, my heart pounded against the pillow as I scrolled through her social media. Her communications were urgent and earnest. She begged one boy in particular, Damien, to get back to her. When he didn’t respond, she said she was depressed and began sexting him and sending him pictures of her breasts.

Through my sister, I found the answer in Johan Hari’s Stolen Focus. The book explores why and how our attention span is declining: “The phones we own and the programs that run on them have been purposefully designed by the smartest people in the world to capture and hold the most of our attention.” Of course. My daughter was young and vulnerable to this manipulation. She measured her self-worth within a system that was both attention-addicted and attention-starved at the same time. She had internalized an algorithm where provocative content wins. “The more outrageous something is, the more attractive it is,” Hari writes.

Our social experiment is being replicated in homes across the country. As parents, we want our kids to be safe. We want them to contact us if a shooter comes to school. But the biggest danger is At the inner Make phone calls on your cell phone, not outside.

One of the reasons our kids are addicted to their phones is because we are. My friends complain of insomnia, but they can’t imagine leaving their phones outside of their bedrooms. Addressing my kids’ phone use means addressing my own. I have to restrain myself from texting while driving. I’ve also stopped rushing to the charging station each morning to check if I’ve missed any messages.

After the seventh grade, my daughter that A child. Without a phone, she’s the kid who dribbles a soccer ball in her living room, races down the street on her skateboard, becomes an honor student and joins the track team. The kid who wags her hands while chatting with friends, braids her hair, falls asleep reading a book.

These days, we use my phone to plan outings together, listen to audiobooks, and sing along to her songs and mine (Shakira, Sade, Ice Cube, Fugees). Last weekend, we drove up the Pacific Coast Highway to visit family. As the June gloom settled over the shoreline, my daughter and I bodysurfed into the crashing waves. “Again!” she said, jumping up, enthralled by the feeling of the waves rolling under her belly.

My daughter is not the only child like this. A woman I met recently confiscated her 11-year-old son’s phone after she discovered him sexting. Since schools were required to wrap their phones in rubber bands, the sick middle-schooler has built community and focused in class. The trend is spreading fast. UK children have been learning mostly in “no-phone environments” since the Department for Education ordered it.

Individuals and and Changes to the system to check cell phone usage. I’m interested to see what happens with this change when my daughter reaches high school.

I’ll hold the phone until then.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Tick Tock: Why is the US considering banning TikTok and will other nations do the same?

President Biden is anticipated to sign legislation mandating that TikTok’s Chinese owner divest the social media app’s U.S. operations or face a ban once it is passed by the Senate.

Biden has affirmed his intention to sign the bill, which is part of a foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.

Below is an overview of the bill and its implications.

How does the law enable sales or bans?

The legislation gives TikTok’s parent company, Dance Corp. based in Beijing, 270 days to sell the app’s U.S. operations. Upon nearing the deadline, the president can grant a 90-day extension if ByteDance is near finalizing the deal. If the bill passes this week, the deadline coincides with the presidential inauguration on January 20th. This means that the decision to extend the sale process may rest with Donald Trump depending on the election outcome.




Joe Biden previously said he intended to sign the bill. Photo: Anadolu/Getty Images

Failure by ByteDance to complete any sales would result in a nationwide ban by restricting app stores and web hosts from distributing TikTok.

Why is the US considering banning TikTok?

US lawmakers and authorities are worried about the possibility of the Chinese government accessing the data of TikTok’s 170 million American users under national security laws. Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, stated that ByteDance is “influenced by the Chinese government” and Chinese officials manipulated TikTok’s algorithms. He cautioned that this could jeopardize individuals and allow governments to gather user data for espionage purposes.

TikTok refutes allegations of the Chinese government attempting to access U.S. user data and asserts denial of such requests. During a congressional hearing last year, TikTok’s CEO, Shou Zhi Chu, clarified: “ByteDance does not operate in China or any other country.”

Will TikTok challenge this legislation?

TikTok has pledged to contest the bill in court post its enactment, arguing that it violates the First Amendment safeguarding free speech.

“After the bill becomes law, we plan to file a legal challenge in court,” stated Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s head of public policy for the Americas, in a weekend memo to staff. He emphasized: “We will persist in opposing this bill as it infringes upon the First Amendment rights of the 170 million American TikTok users.”

The favorable tilt towards TikTok from the First Amendment was evident when a judge in Montana who previously banned the app overturned the decision, citing violation of users’ free speech rights.




View of Beijing, China. TikTok denies that the Chinese government has tried to access U.S. user data and says it rejects all such requests. Photo: Sean Pavone/Alamy

In 2020, the U.S. attempted to ban TikTok following an executive order from President Trump, but a Washington judge blocked the ban, citing potential legal overreach. TikTok is expected to seek another injunction before challenging the constitutionality of the bill through a comprehensive lawsuit.

Who could potentially acquire TikTok’s U.S. operations?

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin announced in March his intention to form a consortium to acquire TikTok’s U.S. assets, lauding it as a “promising investment.”

Microsoft had considered a deal to purchase TikTok in 2020 at the urging of President Trump. Additionally, President Trump advocated for U.S. tech company Oracle and retailer Walmart to acquire significant stakes in the company. ByteDance itself has several U.S. investors, including investment firms General Atlantic, Susquehanna, and Sequoia Capital.

Financial analysts at Wedbush Securities anticipate challenges in securing a sale involving TikTok’s algorithm, a crucial technology influencing app content curation. They emphasize the complexity of the sales process without the algorithm’s inclusion.




If ByteDance fails to make the sale, it could face a nationwide ban by blocking app stores and web hosts from distributing TikTok. Photo: Sheldon Cooper/SOPA Images/Rex/Shutterstock

What is the stance of the Chinese government?

Last year, the Chinese government expressed strong opposition to the app’s sale, stating that it would undermine global investor confidence in the U.S., including China. China’s export regulations also restrict the sale of specific technologies.

Will other nations replicate this divestment or ban?

TikTok faces scrutiny in other Western countries due to data concerns. It is prohibited on government-issued mobile devices in the UK, US, Canada, and New Zealand. Employees of the European Commission are also forbidden from using it on work-provided devices.

Calls for banning TikTok in the UK have been made, with former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith stating: “We should have done it ourselves.”

In 2020, India banned TikTok and numerous other Chinese apps, citing threats to national sovereignty, defense, and security.

Source: www.theguardian.com

EU considers banning TikTok Lite due to view reward feature

The EU has determined that TikTok’s new service in Europe could potentially be as addictive as cigarettes unless the company provides compelling evidence of protecting children. They believed a ban may be necessary.

If the ban is enforced, it would be the first time the EU utilizes its new powers to impose sanctions on social media companies since the inception of the Digital Services Act (DSA) last August.

TikTok has until Wednesday to present arguments for the commission to evaluate before reaching a final decision on enforcement actions.

Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton stated that TikTok Lite has failed to demonstrate compliance with legal obligations to reward users for watching videos, deeming the service harmful.

The commission warned that benefits could be suspended if TikTok does not address regulators’ concerns about the impact on users’ mental health.

Despite ongoing investigations into child protection concerns, TikTok launched the app in France and Spain, where millions of European children use the platform, prompting the commission to prioritize their protection efforts.

The new watch-and-earn app allows users to earn rewards such as Amazon coupons or PayPal credits by completing tasks like watching videos, liking content, following creators, and inviting friends.

Brereton compared TikTok Lite to cigarettes, stating that while the main app provides fun and connection, it also poses significant risks to children’s mental health.

TikTok had a deadline to provide a risk assessment for its Lite service over concerns of video addiction in children.

Following insufficient responses from TikTok regarding addiction safeguards, the commission expressed readiness to invoke DSA interim measures, potentially suspending TikTok Lite’s rewards program.

TikTok responded, expressing disappointment with the decision and highlighting restrictions on the Lite Rewards Hub for users under 18.

With U.S. lawmakers passing a bill that could lead to a TikTok ban unless its Chinese owner sells a stake in its U.S. operations, the app’s future in the U.S. is uncertain.

The ongoing DSA investigation into TikTok covers child protection issues like age verification, transparent advertising, and the management of addictive design and harmful content.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Feeling Anxious About Kids and Cell Phones is Normal, but Banning is not the Solution – Zoe Williams

I I received a message from a former colleague, a once cheerful person who is now a provocateur of “alt-right” nostalgia to an aging society. Whatever he wanted, I would have told him to get on with it, but it just so happened that I didn't really agree with it: campaign to limit children's cell phone use. It is a bipartisan organization that

As surely as anything bad happens to children, people will blame it on phone use. Perhaps there is a crisis in their mental health, someone is being bullied online, someone is being threatened over an image they have sent, they are part of a criminal organization, part of a murderous enterprise, or they are committing self-harm. You may be doing this. Somewhere in the story, smartphones probably don't play a role. Those affected often wish they had limited their phone use, or at the very least, are keenly aware that they had little knowledge of what was happening to their children, who of course were constantly on their phones. is used. Then politicians and pundits get involved, exploiting the sorrows and trials of others to their discursive advantage, lecturing schools on the measures they are already frequently implementing and forcing parents back to “dumb phones”; Preaching to kids to ban devices completely.

And steadily, it becomes another indicator of reputable parenting. If you're doing it right, your kids will get a Nokia at age 14 and won't know about Instagram until they're 25. And all the kids who have had iPhones since age 6 and can operate them with one thumb, they texted with their eyes closed, well, they were clearly poorly raised. The main reason I dislike such campaigns is that they turn parents into jailers whose authority they must circumvent, which I can't help but think inhibits openness. Beyond hard work, respect, and responsibility, I like to instill the values ​​of “tell me what's going on” above all else. No information is too small. Beef is not trivial. No gossip is too far away. If someone from a completely different age texted another person a shrimp emoji and that person mistook it for a sombrero, I'd love to hear about it. Also, if I want to spend a significant amount of time every day engaging in a fierce battle with a teenager, I want it to be about something important: which is better, a dog or a cat? How many crunches should I eat in a day? – It's not about compulsive phone checking behavior that's just as good as mine, or even slightly better.

But I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel scared multiple times a day looking at the state of modern connectivity. TikTok is basically a never-ending reinforcement exercise. If your hobbies are K-pop or cafes with animals, there's no problem. All you see is a nicer young Korean woman and a piglet drinking a cappuccino. When I was 14, I was so obsessed with trench warfare that I regularly thought I was going crazy. I don't even want to think what my social feed would look like, a combination of self-diagnosed mental illness and military recruitment ads.

Snapchat, on the other hand, works as if someone created the app out of a disturbing dream. What if everyone could see not only who you're talking to most of the time, but also who you're talking to? They are I was able to talk to the most people and rank entire circles by their asymmetrical loyalties and affiliations. Imagine if you could always see where everyone is with Snap Maps. But if you turn it off to avoid detection, you'll look suspicious and he'll probably start people gossiping about you on Snapchat. The level of hyper-surveillance that teens exert on each other is incredible. The last thing you want to do is rush in with an oar and make the situation worse.

But I think so, and I always say one thing: Whatever it is, it's not the end of the world. Today's social apocalypse will be tomorrow's boring anecdote. Yes, the internet has a very long memory, but it also has a lot going on at the same time. I don't have the strength to stay angry forever or even for two weeks. It's strange that no one has proposed a cross-party parenting campaign to help us all maintain a sense of balance. That should be our main job.

Zoe Williams is a columnist for the Guardian

Source: www.theguardian.com

Can Banning Smartphones and Social Media Help Protect Young People from Online Dangers?

The members of the WhatsApp group ‘Smartphone Free Childhood’ advocate for banning under-14s from owning smartphones and preventing under-16s from accessing social media to protect them from the dangers of the internet. However, believing this is the solution is unrealistic. Announcement (“Crazy: Thousands of UK parents join in quest for smartphone-free childhood”, February 17).

It is a parent’s responsibility to provide a safe environment for their children and teach them how to safely navigate the internet. Just like roads can be dangerous but we don’t ban cars, teaching children internet safety is crucial. Building open and honest relationships and setting boundaries at home will help young people understand internet dangers better than blanket bans. Making social media “adults only” may backfire and make it more tempting for children. They may also be less likely to seek help if they encounter inappropriate content.
stuart harrington
Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset

As seen in cases like Brianna Gee’s, giving children smartphones can have negative consequences. However, we should consider the benefits and drawbacks of smartphone access. I personally benefitted from having a smartphone in school for various tasks like using apps for transportation, news, and communication. While parental controls and monitoring are essential, smartphones have many positive uses. It is important to adapt to the changing online threats and promote more parental supervision.
oscar acton
Merton, County Durham

Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it. Selected photos will be featured in our readers’ best photos gallery and in Saturday’s print edition.

Source: www.theguardian.com

The Potential Impact of Banning Smartphones in Schools on US Education

WWhen the weather is nice, Buxton Boarding School moves lunch outside. Students, faculty, staff, and guests grab food from the kitchen and eat together under a white tent overlooking the Berkshire Mountains of western Massachusetts.

As the end of the school year approached last June, conversation turned to final assignments (English class was finishing Moby Dick) and year-end fun (a trip to the local lake was planned). Ta. It was, in most ways, a typical teenage afternoon. However, no one was using a cell phone.

Buxton was completing the first year of a simple but novel experiment: banning cell phone use on campus. Or rather, a smartphone.

RYB

Instead, the school will require everyone on campus, including staff, to light phone, that is, a “dumb” phone with limited functionality. The device can make calls and send texts (slowly), but it cannot load modern applications. Instead, it comes with intentionally cumbersome versions of the Music and Maps apps. They are about the size of a deck of playing cards and have black and white screens.

One student said: “It's like the devil's baby of the iPad and Kindle.”

But most people agree that schools are better off with these infernal devices. (Yes, that includes students.) There are fewer interruptions during classes, more meaningful interactions on campus, and less time spent on screens.

“We've found a pretty good way to deal with this problem,” said Scott Hunter, who teaches English and music, about smartphones. Buxton senior Bea Sass added: “I think people are a lot more social.”


FFor many teachers, students' cell phone use is frustrating. “That's every class, every time period,” said Mark McLaughlin, a math teacher at Near Car Knee High School in Oregon. “The worst part of my job is being the cellphone police.”

Educators across the country report fighting a near-constant battle with their phones.school districts in virginia The survey found that about a third of teachers asked students to put away their phones five to 10 times during class, and 14.7% did so more than 20 times during class. .

When I was in junior high school in Canada investigated According to staff, 75% of respondents believe that mobile phones have a negative impact on students' physical and mental health. Nearly two-thirds believed the device was also having a negative impact on their academic performance.

“This is a big problem,” said Arnold Glass, a psychology professor at Rutgers University. Researched the impact of mobile phones on student grades. “If they are allowed to look at their cell phones during class, they will drop half to the entire grade.”

Ian Tomonblak, a career guidance counselor at Lamoille Union High School in northern Vermont, is also faced with the proliferation of cell phones at his school. “There are kids who get Snapchats or text messages during the day and it just ruins their whole day,” he says. Another problem he sees is students using their cell phones to coordinate trips to collective restrooms in order to hang out during class. “I feel like it distracts me from learning on an academic level.”

Lunch time at Buxton School.

When I told Tromblak about Buxton's experiment, he was intrigued. He noted that one of the things this would address is the argument from students that they need a phone to contact their parents. And teenagers often adapt to new parameters relatively quickly, he said. He remembers learning at the last minute on a field trip with his students that not everyone was allowed to use cell phones. At first, the news was apocalyptic.

“They were very upset. They didn't know how to handle themselves. It was really tense,” Tromblak said, recalling the drama. However, during the trip, the kids almost forgot about their cell phones, and at one point they took it upon themselves to police a girl who secretly tried to call the source of the rope.

“At the end of the first day, we were sitting around the campfire and they were saying, 'I haven't thought about my phone all day,'” Tomblak said. “It was really cool.”


TTo some extent, Buxton experienced a similar progression through stages of panic, grief, and ultimately some acceptance. “When it was announced, I was almost sick,” then-senior Max Weeks said. And while he's still not happy about the switch to Litephone, saying it was a “unilateral” decision, he said overall it was “not as bad as I expected.”

It's an open secret that students still sneak cell phones into their rooms on campus, and some are testing the limits more than others. “People get pretty temperamental and get caught,” said Yamaira Marks, also a senior at Buxton. But smartphones are generally difficult to find on campus.

That includes staff. The school's principal, Peter Beck, said he ditched his iPhone for a Litephone and installed his old GPS system in his car for when he needed to go out into the world. He is thrilled with how his first year went.

Because Buxton uses a narrative evaluation system, it is difficult to determine how the new phone policy is impacting academic performance. But culturally, Beck says, the movement has often led to changes in small but cumulatively meaningful ways.

“People are crazy about the lounge. They stay after class and chat,” says Beck, who estimates they are now having more conversations than ever before at school. “The frequency of all these face-to-face interactions is orders of magnitude higher.”

Skip past newsletter promotions