Tag Archives: policy

Experts Caution That AI-Driven Agility May Paralysis Britain’s Planning System

Posted on by
Reply

The government’s initiative to leverage artificial intelligence for accelerating home planning could face an unforeseen hurdle: the agility of AI.

A new platform named Opponent is providing “policy-backed appeals in minutes” for those dissatisfied with nearby development plans.

Utilizing generative AI, the service examines planning applications, evaluates grounds for objections, and categorizes the potential impact as ‘high’, ‘medium’, or ‘low’. It also automatically generates challenge letters, AI-enhanced speeches for planning commissions, and even AI-produced videos aimed at persuading legislators.

Kent residents Hannah and Paul George developed this tool after their lengthy opposition to a proposed mosque near their residence, estimating they invested hundreds of hours in the planning process.

They’re making this service available for £45, specifically targeting people without the financial means to hire specialized lawyers to navigate the complexities of planning law. They believe this initiative will “empower everyone, level the playing field, and enhance fairness in the process.”

Though we are a small company, we aim to make a significant impact. A similar offering, Planningobjection.com, markets a £99 AI-generated objection letter with the slogan ‘Stop complaining and take action’.

Additionally, community activists have encouraged their audience to utilize ChatGPT for drafting appeal letters. One activist described it as like having a lawyer “ready to plan.”

A prominent planning lawyer cautioned that such AI could potentially “boost agility,” yet widespread adoption might overwhelm the planning systems and inundate planners with requests.

Sebastian Charles from Aardvark Planning Law noted that in their practice, no AI-generated objections contained references to prior litigation or appeal decisions, which were verified by human lawyers.

“The risk lies in decisions being based on flawed information,” he remarked. “Elected officials could mistakenly trust AI-generated planning speeches, even when rife with inaccuracies about case law and regulations.”

Hannah George, co-founder of Objector, refuted claims that the platform promotes nimbyism.

“It’s simply about making the planning system more equitable,” she explained. “Currently, our experience suggests that it’s far from fair. With the government’s ‘build, produce, build’ approach, we only see things heading in one direction.”

Objector acknowledged the potential for AI-generated inaccuracies, stating that using multiple AI models and comparing their outputs mitigates the risk of “hallucinations” (where AI generates falsehoods).

The current Objector platform is oriented towards small-scale planning applications, like repurposing an office building extension or modifications to a neighbor’s home. George mentioned that they are developing features to address larger projects, such as residential developments on greenbelt land.

The Labor government is advocating for AI as part of the solution to the current planning gridlock. Recently, they introduced a tool named extract, which aims to expedite the planning process and assist the government in fulfilling its goal of constructing 1.5 million new homes.

However, an impending AI “arms race” may be on the horizon, warned John Myers, director of the Inbee Alliance, a campaign advocating for more housing with community backing.

“This will intensify opposition to planning applications and lead to people unearthing vague objections they hadn’t previously discovered,” he stated.

Myers suggested a new dynamic could emerge where “one faction employs AI to expedite the process, while the opposing faction utilizes AI to impede it.” “As long as we lack a method to progress with desirable development, this stalemate will persist.”

Governments might already possess AI systems capable of managing the rising number of dissenting voices spawned by AI. Recently, they unveiled a tool named consult, which examines public consultation responses.

This initiative hopes to ensure “large-scale language models will see widespread implementation,” akin to those utilized by Objector, although it may merely increase the volume of consultation responses.

Paul Smith, managing director of Strategic Land Group, reported this month a rise in AI use among those opposing planning applications.

“AI-based opposition undermines the very rationale of public consultation,” he expressed in Building magazine. “It’s claimed that local communities are best suited to understand their areas…hence, we seek their input.”

“However, if residents opt to reject the system and discover reasons prior to submitting their applications, what’s the purpose of soliciting their opinions in the first place?”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Supreme Court Approves Reductions to NIH Grants Challenging Trump’s DEI Policy

Posted on by
Reply

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, the Supreme Court extended the Trump administration’s substantial reductions to the National Health Grants, part of the federal government’s initiative on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

However, in this intricate ruling, the court upheld another aspect of a lower court’s decision that discarded the administration’s guidance documents related to the policy, raising doubts about its viability going forward.

An emergency request by an administrator aiming to pause the Massachusetts federal judge’s ruling was partially granted, resulting in a 5-4 vote.

While the court did not extensively elaborate on its reasoning, the majority suggested that groups contesting the funding cuts would need to initiate a new lawsuit in a different federal court, specifically the Federal Court of Claims.

The decisive vote came from conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett. All four conservative justices supported the Trump administration’s application, indicating that the other four justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and three liberal justices, would have completely denied it.

Barrett stated in a concurring opinion, “As today’s order indicates, district courts likely lack jurisdiction to address the funding challenges that pertain to the federal claims court.” She added, “The government is not entitled to a stay of judgment as long as it possesses valid guidance documents.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a collection of agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, receiving billions of dollars from Congress for medical research funding at universities, hospitals, and various institutions.

When President Donald Trump assumed office in January, he asserted that what is termed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) constituted discrimination mainly against white individuals, rather than fostering equality as intended. He also championed policies recognizing transgender rights, including access to gender transition care.

Subsequently, the NIH conducted a review of grants and concluded that over 1,700 were inconsistent with Trump’s directives, resulting in their termination, which included programs related to teenage HIV prevention and gender identity studies.

Massachusetts, along with 16 states represented by the American Public Health Association, has contested this action.

After the trial, District Judge William Young of Massachusetts ruled that the government had not adhered to the proper legal protocols while enacting the policy, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

In haste to execute Trump’s agenda, the NIH “failed to comply with legal requirements,” Young noted.

He characterized DEI as an “undefined enemy,” stating that government attorneys could not adequately clarify its meaning.

Young found evidence of “prevailing racism” and “widespread discrimination” against gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals in how grants were awarded. Furthermore, he identified “a distinct pattern of discrimination against women’s health issues.”

He declined to stay his ruling, a decision mirrored by the Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney General John Sauer requested the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration, likening the situation to another incident in Massachusetts where the Trump administration obstructed plans to eliminate teacher training grants based on anti-DEI grounds.

The Supreme Court had blocked this earlier ruling in April with a 5-4 vote.

Sauer asserted, “This application presents a particularly clear case where this court must intervene to prevent the district court from disregarding this court’s previous decision.”

The state’s attorney countered Sauer’s assertion, stating it “bears little resemblance to reality.”

The judge deliberated Thursday on whether the April ruling impacted the latest case’s outcome.

In a brief opinion, Roberts, who had contested the previous case, asserted that Young’s findings fell within the permissible scope of district court jurisdiction.

However, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized Young in a separate opinion for failing to comply with the April ruling.

“While lower court judges may oppose this court’s ruling, they are never free to disregard it,” he wrote.

The Trump administration frequently relied on the Supreme Court when facing judicial challenges to its enforcement actions, generally securing favorable outcomes. Trump and his supporters have also aggressively criticized judges who opposed him.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Trump Approves UAE Agreement for Construction of Largest AI Campus Outside the U.S.

Posted on by
Reply

The United Arab Emirates and the United States have formalized a Gulf State agreement to establish the largest artificial intelligence campus outside of the U.S., a key development during Donald Trump’s Middle East visit that included multiple AI-related deals.

Nevertheless, the agreement has sparked concerns due to previous administration restrictions based on fears that China could gain access to important technologies.

The deal to construct the campus will enable the UAE to enhance access to state-of-the-art AI chips. While the U.S. and UAE did not specify which AI chips would be featured in the data center, sources informed Reuters of a potential allowance for the UAE to import 500,000 of Nvidia’s most advanced AI chips annually starting in 2025.

Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, was seen on television talking with Donald Trump and UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan at the Abu Dhabi palace on Thursday.

This agreement marks a significant win for the UAE, as it navigates its long-standing relationships with allies while also engaging with China, its largest trading partner. The Gulf nation is investing billions to establish itself as a leader in AI. However, its ties with China have previously limited access to U.S. chips under the former Biden administration.

This transaction illustrates the Trump administration’s belief in its ability to securely regulate chip management by mandating that U.S. companies oversee their data centers.

While the U.S. has led in AI technology and innovation, China has recently become a formidable competitor. Despite Trump’s optimism, there are concerns that significant agreements with Gulf countries could diminish U.S. control over this rapidly growing technology, coupled with fears that China might leverage these data centers for its own advantages.

Leading CEOs from AI and semiconductor firms, including OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Nvidia’s Huang, seem supportive of such transactions, as they present opportunities to showcase their products on a global scale and derive substantial benefits.

According to the White House, the AI contract encompasses investment, construction, and funding in U.S. data centers that match the scale of those in the UAE.

“The agreement also commits the UAE to align its national security regulations more closely with those of the United States.

The focal point of the announced contract is a 10-square-mile (25.9 square kilometers) AI campus in Abu Dhabi, boasting a capacity of 5 gigawatts for AI data processing.

The campus will be developed by G42, a company backed by Abu Dhabi, but U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick stated that “U.S. companies will manage data centers and supply American-managed cloud services throughout the region.”

In a U.S. fact sheet, Qualcomm, a chip manufacturer involved in AI engineering centers, noted that Amazon Web Services, the cloud division of the technology and commerce firm, will collaborate with local partners to enhance cybersecurity and cloud integration.

Historically, the U.S. pursued protective measures to limit China’s access to advanced semiconductors.

Regulations are being relaxed under Trump, and AI Czar David Sacks informed Riyadh on Tuesday that the Biden administration’s export controls “are not intended to include friends, allies, or strategic partners.”

Skip past newsletter promotions

Granting the UAE access to cutting-edge chips made by companies like Nvidia signifies a substantial change.

“This transition will enable the UAE to strengthen its technological partnership with the U.S. while sustaining trade relations with China,” said Mohamed Soliman, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

“It doesn’t imply a severance from China; rather, it reflects a reorientation of our technology strategy to adhere to U.S. standards and protocols, especially in key areas like computing, cloud computing, and semiconductor supply chains,” he stated.

AI was a key topic when Bin Zayed Al Nahyan visited Washington on the last day of Biden’s administration.

G42 and MGX, the state-affiliated entities spearheading the UAE’s AI investment initiative, have also invested in U.S. firms such as OpenAI and Elon Musk’s Xai, while Microsoft committed $1.5 billion to G42 last year.

The companies indicated that the agreement was bolstered by security guarantees, and under U.S. influence, G42 has started dismantling previous Chinese hardware and divesting from Chinese investments.

Nonetheless, Chinese firms like Huawei and Alibaba Cloud continue to operate in the UAE, and the flow of AI chips to China has been monitored by various nations, including Malaysia, Singapore, and the UAE, according to sources who spoke with Reuters in February.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Apple’s Quarterly Revenue Surpasses Wall Street Projections Amid Trump’s Trade Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Apple’s financial results for the second quarter exceeded Wall Street predictions on Thursday.

The tech leader announced a revenue of $95.4 billion, marking an increase of over 4% compared to last year, with earnings surpassing $1.65 per share, up more than 7%. Analysts had anticipated a revenue of $94.5 billion and a profit of $1.62. The company’s market value stands at $3.2 trillion, consistently surpassing Wall Street forecasts for the last four quarters.

Investors remain focused on Apple’s impending financial disclosures. The tech giant has worked diligently to ease the concerns of anxious analysts following Donald Trump’s extensive tariffs that could disrupt the supply chain for appliances. Since the start of the year, Apple’s stock has decreased by 16%.

During a call with investors on Thursday, CEO Tim Cook indicated that he expects tariffs to escalate expenses by $900 million for the quarter ending in June, provided global tariff rates remain unchanged. Cook declined to make further predictions about the future, stating, “We don’t know what will happen with tariffs… it’s very challenging to predict post-June.”

In after-hours trading, the company’s shares dropped more than 4%, despite last year’s growth, due to tariff impacts and revenues that fell short of Wall Street’s expectations, particularly in its services sector, which includes iCloud subscriptions and various licensing revenues. Sales in China also did not meet estimates.

Nevertheless, the company remains optimistic, stating that it reported “strong post-quarter results” and is “actively engaged in the tariff discussion.”


iPhone manufacturers are heavily reliant on production in China for their mobile phones, tablets, and laptops. Following Trump’s implementation of tariffs that reached over approximately 245%, the president indicated he would allow an exception for household appliances.

During this period, Cook communicated with a senior White House official, as reported by the Washington Post. After these discussions, Trump declared an exemption for appliances. Following this announcement, Apple’s shares increased by 7% in subsequent days.

However, the duration of this exemption remains uncertain. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick described it as “temporary”, and Trump later stated on social media that there would be no “exceptions”.

The president has consistently expressed a desire to see increased manufacturing in the United States. In February, he and Cook met to discuss investments in U.S. manufacturing. “He’s about to start a building,” Trump remarked after their meeting. “A very significant number – you have to tell him. I believe they’ll announce it soon.”

JPMorgan predicts that relocating production to the U.S. will lead to a substantial increase in prices. In this week’s memo, they noted, “Assuming a 20% tariff on China, we could witness a 30% price hike in the short term.” JPMorgan and other analysts assert that Apple may continue to shift more manufacturing to India, where tariffs are only 10%.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Earlier this month, Apple transported around $2 billion worth of iPhones from India to the U.S. to boost its inventory in anticipation of rising prices due to Trump’s tariffs and panic buying by concerned consumers. Investors are increasingly worried about a drop in iPhone sales in China, the largest smartphone market globally. In its latest revenue report in January, Apple disclosed that iPhone sales in China fell by 11.1% in the first quarter, missing Wall Street revenue expectations.

Cook mentioned during a call with investors that while China remains the primary manufacturing hub for the company, India is expected to produce more iPhones along with Vietnam in the June quarter. “The tariffs currently imposed on Apple are contingent upon the origin of the product,” he noted, emphasizing that tariffs in India and Vietnam are less than those in China.

In the immediate term, analysts suggest that tariff-related disruptions could work in Apple’s favor as consumers rush to buy more products fearing price hikes. “Dipanjangchatterjee, principal analyst at Forester, stated: [consumers] absorb these price increases as they seek out Apple products.

Source: www.theguardian.com

What Does the Australian Election Outcome Mean for Climate Policy in a Major Coal Economy?

Posted on by
Reply

Few voters can impact climate change as significantly as Australians.

In terms of per capita greenhouse gas emissions, only the US and Canada closely approach Australia. The nation stands as one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels contributing to global warming, notably sending vast quantities of natural gas to Asian countries alongside some of the most polluting fossil fuels.

As the country prepares for national elections on Saturday, polls indicate that climate change is not a primary concern for many voters. However, the leading candidates from the Labour Party and the Free State Union present starkly different approaches to climate and energy policy.

Central to the discussion is the dependence on the aging coal plants that generate electricity for the country.

“We’ve witnessed a lot of global experiences,” noted Andrew McIntosh, professor of environmental law and policy at Australian National University. “One perspective emphasizes workforce requirements and the need for increasing renewables, while the alternative espouses a conservative coalition favoring nuclear energy.”

Both strategies could lead to reduced emissions, according to McIntosh, though many are puzzled by the nuclear program. Constructing nuclear power plants can take over a decade, whereas renewable energy sources can be implemented within months.

“We need to rely on coal for the foreseeable future,” he added.

In some ways, analysts reflect a polarized debate akin to that in the US, where former President Donald J. Trump dismissed climate science and branded efforts to clean energy as a hoax. Matt McDonald, a political scientist specializing in climate issues at the University of Queensland, stated:

“However, rather than making Australians more apprehensive about climate change, Trump’s rhetoric has not gained significant traction internationally, effectively cooling the debates on both sides,” remarked Dr. McDonald.

For Australians feeling the pressure, it largely stems from rising energy costs for households. Australian energy regulators report that average energy prices have surged by approximately 60% over the past decade.

Incumbent Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who leads the Labour Party, has proposed an ambitious target for renewable energy, aiming for over 80% generation by 2030.

“But,” Dr. McDonald pointed out, “we have substantial coal reserves as well.”

Albanese’s main rival, Peter Dutton, at the helm of a liberal coalition, advocates for increased domestic gas production to support electricity generation. While gas is a fossil fuel, it is considerably less polluting than coal. Dutton proposes that gas producers be mandated to supply a portion of their output to Australian power grids, while also expediting the approval process for new drilling projects.

Generally, both parties are proponents of gas development, with Australia being the world’s second-largest gas exporter after the US.

With polls indicating a tight race, the Green Party and the so-called Teal Independents, both strong advocates for robust climate policies, could potentially influence Congress significantly. “If they retain their seats, they’ll be poised to push harder on climate initiatives—like decreasing coal exports,” Dr. McDonald noted.

An additional point of contention globally is whether Australia will be the host for the upcoming United Nations-sponsored Global Climate Conference next year, commonly referred to as COP. Currently, Australia is vying with Türkiye for the hosting rights, an opportunity carrying geopolitical significance and economic advantages by welcoming tens of thousands of representatives.

Hosting nations often establish the dialogue tone for consultation ambitions, and Prime Minister Albanese’s government has been actively lobbying other countries for over a year to support Australia’s bid. “If the coalition wins, this opportunity will certainly vanish,” Dr. McDonald asserted.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Leaders in the Performing Arts Sound Alarm on UK Government’s AI Plan, Warn of Copyright Issues

Posted on by
Reply

A group of more than 30 British performing arts leaders, including executives from the National Theatre, Opera North, and Royal Albert Hall, have expressed concerns over the government’s proposal to allow artists to use their work without permission.

In a joint statement, they emphasized that performing arts organizations rely on a delicate balance of freelancers who depend on copyright to sustain their livelihoods. They urged the government to uphold the “moral and economic rights” of the creative community encompassing music, dance, drama, and opera.

Signatories to the statement include top leaders from institutions such as Saddlers Wells Dance Theatre, Royal Shakespeare Company, Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, and Leeds Playhouse.

They expressed concern over the government’s plan to diminish creative copyright by granting exemptions to AI companies. The statement highlighted the reliance of highly skilled creative workers on copyright and the potential negative impact on their livelihoods.


While embracing technological advancements, they warned that the government’s plans could hinder their participation in AI development. They called for automatic rights for creative professionals and criticized proposals that require copyright holders to opt out.

Additionally, they demanded transparency from AI companies regarding the copyrighted material they use in their models and how it was obtained. The government’s proposed transparency requirements in copyright consultations were noted.

The statement emphasized the importance of music, drama, dance, and opera to human joy and highlighted the backlash against the government’s proposals from prominent figures in the creative industry.

The controversy revolves around AI models that power tools like ChatGpt chatbots, trained using vast amounts of data from the open web. A government spokesperson defended the new approach, aiming to balance the interests of AI developers and rights holders.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Uncovered: British Technology Secretary Peter Kyle’s Use of ChatGPT for Policy Guidance

Posted on by
Reply

British Secretary of Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle says he uses chatGpt to understand difficult concepts.

Ju Jae-Young/Wiktor Szymanowicz/Shutterstock

British technology secretary Peter Kyle asked ChatGpt for advice on why artificial intelligence is so slow in the UK business community and which podcasts to appear on.

This week, Prime Minister Kiel Starmer said the UK government should make much more use of AI to improve efficiency. “We shouldn't spend substantial time on tasks where digital or AI can make it better, faster, the same high quality and standard.” He said.

now, New Scientist Kyle's record of ChatGpt usage is considered to be the world's first test under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, whether chatbot interactions are subject to such laws.

These records show that Kyle asked ChatGpt to explain why the UK Small Business (SMB) community is so slow to adopt AI. ChatGpt returned a 10-point list of issues that hinder adoption, including sections on “Limited Awareness and Understanding,” “Regulation and Ethical Concerns,” and “Less of Government or Institutional Support.”

The chatbot advised Kyle: “The UK government has launched initiatives to encourage AI adoption, but many SMBs have either been unaware of these programs or find it difficult to navigate. Limited access to funding or incentives for risky AI investments could also block adoption,” he said in regards to regulatory and ethical concerns. “Compliance with data protection laws such as GDPR, etc. [a data privacy law]which could be an important hurdle. SMBs may worry about legal and ethical issues related to the use of AI. ”

“As a minister in charge of AI, the Secretary of State uses this technology. A spokesman for the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), led by Kyle, said: “The government uses AI as a labor saving tool, supported by clear guidance on how to quickly and safely utilize technology.”

Kyle also used the chatbot in his canvas idea for media appearances, saying, “I am the Secretary of State for UK Science, Innovation and Technology. What is the best podcast for me to appear to reach a wide audience worthy of the responsibility of ministers?” ChatGpt proposed. Infinite salcage and Naked Scientistbased on the number of listeners.

In addition to seeking this advice, Kyle asked ChatGpt to define various terms related to his department: Antimatter, Quantum, and Digital Inclusion. Two experts New Scientist Regarding Quantum's definition of ChatGpt, he said he was surprised by the quality of the response. “In my opinion, this is surprisingly good.” Peter Night Imperial College London. “I don't think that's bad at all.” Christian Bonato at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh, UK.

New Scientist Requested Kyle's recent data Interview with Politicshomepoliticians were explained “frequently” using chatgpt. He used it to “try to understand the broader context in which innovation came into being, the people who developed it, the organization behind them, and stated, “ChatGpt is fantastically superior and if there are places you really struggle to really get a deeper understanding, ChatGpt can be a very good tutor.”

DSIT initially refused The new scientistS FOI request, “Peter Kyle's ChatGPT history includes prompts and responses made in both personal and official abilities.” A sophisticated request was granted, with only prompts and responses made in official capabilities.

The fact that data was provided at all is a shock, and Tim Turner, a data protection expert based in Manchester, UK, thinks it may be the first case of a chatbot interaction being released under the FOI. “I'm amazed that you got them,” he says. “I would have thought they wanted to avoid precedent.”

This raises questions to governments with similar FOI laws, such as the United States. For example, ChatGpt is like an email or WhatsApp conversation. Both have been historically covered by FOI based on past precedents – or are they the results of search engine queries that traditionally organizations are likely to reject? Experts disagree with the answer.

“As a rule, if you can extract it from the departmental system, it will also cover the minister's Google search history,” says Jon Baines of the UK law firm Mishcon De Reya.

“Personally, I don't think ChatGpt is the same as Google search,” he says. John SlaterFOI expert. That's because Google search doesn't create new information, he says. “ChatGpt, on the other hand, “creates” something based on input from the user. ”

This uncertainty may make politicians want to avoid using personalized commercial AI tools like ChatGpt, Turner says. “It's a real can of worms,” ​​he says. “To cover their backs, politicians definitely need to use public tools provided by their departments to ensure that the public is an audience.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Employees claim Trump’s Day policy is already jeopardizing the limited representation of women and minorities in STEM.

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s recent order has classified diversity, fairness, and inclusion programs as “discriminatory,” causing concern among women working in federal government-related roles. They believe his directive is aimed at promoting a specific agenda rather than fostering a diverse workforce.

Women in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) who are employed by the federal government are worried about their future prospects. They fear potential restrictions on STEM career opportunities and feel unwelcome under the current administration.

One female Hispanic STEM worker in a federal organization expressed her concerns anonymously, highlighting the lack of diversity in STEM-related roles and the potential impact of the administration’s policies.

The Trump administration has not yet responded to requests for comments on the issue. However, previous statements from the White House press director emphasized the administration’s focus on merit-based hiring.

The STEM field has long faced criticism for its lack of diversity, with women being underrepresented in these roles. Data from the National Science Engineering Statistics Center shows that women account for more than half of the US population but only one-third of STEM jobs in 2021.

Minority groups, including black and Hispanic workers, also face challenges in advancing their STEM careers. Research from the USDA Forest Bureau in 2023 revealed disparities in the progress and retention of non-white women and men in STEM roles.

“Scientific perfection requires diversity. So it’s important for science.”

A colored federal worker said in the STEM field.

Many federal employees, particularly those from minority backgrounds, believe that diversity is essential for scientific progress. They stress the importance of including diverse perspectives in research teams to improve outcomes.

A biologist working in the federal government shared her experience of benefiting from diversity recruitment programs early in her career. She emphasized the importance of providing opportunities for underrepresented groups to access STEM positions.

The potential sunset of diversity, fairness, and inclusion programs could hinder the recruitment and retention of women and minorities in STEM roles. These programs have historically provided support and guidance to these groups in navigating workplace dynamics and fostering a sense of belonging.

“Having support groups and programs tailored to women and minorities in STEM fields is crucial for creating an inclusive and productive work environment,” one Hispanic federal worker stated.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Experts warn that Meta police policy changes will cause conflict between EU and UK

Posted on by
Reply

Experts and politicians are warning that significant changes to Meta’s social media platform are setting it on a collision course with lawmakers in the UK and the European Union.

Lawmakers in Brussels and London have criticized Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to remove fact-checkers from Facebook, Instagram, and Threads in the US, with one MP describing it as “absolutely frightening.”

Changes to Meta’s global policy on hateful content now allow users to refer to transgender people as “it,” and the guidelines state that “no mental illness or abnormality based on gender or sexual orientation shall be permitted.”

Chi Onwula, a Labor MP and chair of the House of Commons science and technology committee, has expressed alarm at Zuckerberg’s decision to eliminate professional fact-checkers, calling it “alarming” and “pretty scary.”

Maria Ressa, a Nobel Peace Prize-winning American-Filipino journalist, has warned of “very dangerous times” ahead for journalism, democracy, and social media users due to Meta’s changes.

Damian Collins, the former UK technology secretary, has raised concerns about potential trade negotiations by the Trump administration that could pressure the UK to accept US digital regulatory standards.

Mehta’s move, revealed as a response to Donald Trump’s inauguration, has sparked predictions of challenges from the Trump administration on laws like the Online Safety Act.

Zuckerberg has hinted at extending his policy of removing fact-checkers beyond the US, raising concerns among experts and lawmakers in the UK and EU.

Regulatory scrutiny on Meta’s changes is expected to increase in the UK and EU, with concerns about the spread of misinformation and potential violations of digital services law.

Mehta has assured that content related to suicide, self-harm, and eating disorders will continue to be considered high-severity violations, but concerns remain about the impact on children in the UK.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Concerns Raised Over Potential Further Censorship of Pro-Palestinian Content in Meta’s Hate Speech Policy Review

Posted on by
Reply

The Guardian confirmed that Meta is considering expanding and “reconsidering” its hate speech policy regarding the term “Zionist.” On Friday, the company contacted and met with more than a dozen Arab, Islamic, and pro-Palestinian groups to discuss plans to review its policies to ensure that “Zionist” is not used as a substitute for Jewish or Israeli. An email seen by the Guardian revealed this information.

According to an email sent by Meta representatives to invited groups, the current policy allows the use of “Zionist” in political discussions as long as it does not refer to Jewish people in an inhumane or violent manner. The term will be removed if it is used explicitly on behalf of or on behalf of Israelis. The company is considering this review in response to recent posts reported by users and “stakeholders,” as reported by The Intercept.

Senator demands answers on reports of Meta censoring pro-Palestinian content

Another organization received an email from a Meta representative stating that the company’s current policy does not allow users to attack others based on protected characteristics and that a current understanding of language people use to refer to others is necessary. The email also mentioned that “Zionist” often refers to the ideology of an unprotected individual but can also refer to Jews and Israelis. The organizations participating in the discussions expressed concerns about the changes leading to further censorship of pro-Palestinian voices.

In addition, Meta gave examples of posts that would be removed, including a post calling Zionists rats. The company has been criticized for unfairly censoring Palestinian-related content, which raises concerns about the enforcement of these policies.

In response to a request for comment, Meta spokesperson Corey Chambliss shared a previous statement regarding the “increasing polarized public debate.” He added that Meta is considering whether and how it can expand its nuanced response to such language and will continue to consult with stakeholders to improve the policy. Policy discussions take place during high-stakes periods of conflict, and accurate information and its dissemination can have far-reaching effects.

More than 25,000 Palestinians have been killed since the attack on Gaza began in October 2023. Implementing a policy like this in the midst of a genocide is extremely problematic, and it may cause harm to the community, as stated by an official from the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Source: www.theguardian.com