Tag Archives: Whos

Who’s Truly Benefiting in Today’s Economy? | Technology Insights

Posted on by
Reply

Greetings and welcome to TechScape. Over the weekend, I contemplated the resilience of the US, where even the ultra-wealthy seem to generate enough wealth to secure the essentials for a comfortable life.

The New York Times recently published an article about rising costs on Broadway, revealing grim statistics indicating that “none of the musicals that debuted last season turned a profit.” Productions are occurring amidst skyrocketing ticket prices, yet they struggle to recoup their investments. So, who is actually making money?

On a broader scale, escalating food prices and perceived wage stagnation are poised to significantly influence the upcoming 2024 presidential race and will remain a pivotal issue in New York City’s mayoral elections.

Despite soaring food costs in the US, farmers haven’t managed to align themselves effectively. They are grappling with a major shortage, primarily due to tariffs imposed during Trump’s administration and China’s retaliatory measures. The disparity between perception and reality was a theme in last year’s series by the Guardian’s US business desk, centering around issues of trust.

The only sector that appears somewhat buoyant is tech. Daily job seekers inform the Guardian that one individual, affected by the layoffs at Usaid linked to Elon Musk’s Doge’s Scythe, has submitted 400 applications but secured just six interviews. This individual described the job market as challenging and slow-moving. This stands in stark contrast to the lavish sums being offered to certain AI researchers, with Nvidia consistently posting remarkable profits amid evaluations that may seem incomprehensible to the average person. Perhaps CEO Jensen Fan is the only one seemingly unaware of the price tags on his weekly grocery runs.

I’m uncertain where this sense of pessimism originates. It likely stems from a broader malaise.

Meta and YouTube are glossing over recent history

Illustration: Angelica Arzona/Guardian Design

Last week, YouTube declared it would prohibit the dissemination of misinformation regarding Covid-19 and the 2020 US presidential election. The platform criticized account suspensions under pressure from the Biden administration.

“High-ranking officials within the Biden administration, including those from the White House, have consistently supported Alphabet and urged the company to address specific user-generated content relating to the Covid-19 pandemic that did not breach its policies,” stated a YouTube lawyer in a letter to Congress.

Both YouTube and Meta are now taking a stance where they frame moderation choices as compliance with unfavorable administrations. Mark Zuckerberg is similarly retracting positions on Covid misinformation and has criticized Biden. This transformation aligns with the CEO’s defense against the Trump administration, involving third-party fact-checking and dismantling the company’s diversity initiatives.

Read more: Zuckerberg’s Turnaround: How Diversity Has Shifted from Meta’s Priorities to Cancellation

The evident changes at YouTube seem to echo the motivations behind major tech firms’ donations to Trump’s inauguration and a visit to him at Mar-a-Lago. Nevertheless, Google and Facebook are both grappling with contemporary challenges, intertwining recent history with their operational frameworks. Banned creators face immense uncertainty, and both platforms appear to have fallen victim to the current administration’s anti-vaccine ideology.

These shifts do not excuse previous errors; rather, they reflect the evolving dynamics of power.

I recall a headline from a Daily Beast article I wrote in 2021. Who do you think it was about? An Instagram spokesperson described the removal of an account belonging to ex-Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stating, “We deleted this account for repeatedly sharing disproven claims regarding the coronavirus or the vaccine.” Kennedy’s account has since been reinstated, amassing 800,000 to 5.4 million followers.

What drives their responses and persistence is indicative of the majority of recent passive moderation practices by tech firms. Moderation entails significant costs and complications, particularly on issues that are controversial, novel, and uncertain, like Covid-19. I believe both companies wield content moderation as political instruments and jeopardize the truth.

Views on Technology

Trump’s Cronyism in TikTok Deal

TikTok’s headquarters in Culver City, California, on Thursday. Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images

Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday, outlining the terms for transferring TikTok to US ownership.

The plan entails US investors assuming control over a significant portion of TikTok’s operations and overseeing the management of the app’s robust recommendation algorithms. US firms are expected to own roughly 65% of the US variant of the spin-off companies, with ordinances and Chinese investors holding less than 20%. According to White House officials, the new TikTok will be governed by a seven-member board, predominantly composed of Americans, including experts in cybersecurity and national security.

Alongside Oracle and its co-founder Larry Ellison, Trump mentioned other investors such as media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and Dell Computer’s CEO.

Murdoch’s Fox News is headed by his son, Lachlan, and Paramount, the parent of CBS News, is managed by Ellison’s son, David. Under Trump’s trade conditions, the owners of the most influential cable networks in the US may soon have control over the nation’s most significant social media platforms. This arrangement grants Trump’s billionaire allies substantial influence over the expansive and unprecedented US media landscape.

The US media terrain is becoming increasingly red as Trump’s TikTok deal takes shape.

Discover more about Trump’s TikTok Deal

Digital ID: A Necessity for Privacy or a Dire Threat in the 21st Century?

A narrow victory will come as a relief to Switzerland’s major political parties. Photo: westend61 gmbh/alamy

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has rolled out plans for a mandatory digital ID to establish a person’s right to work in the UK, with the ID expected to be requested by 2029. The proposed measure, which revives a longstanding discussion in the UK, is driven by border security concerns, with Starmer asserting that digital IDs could “play a vital role” in making the UK less appealing to illegal immigrants.

Numerous countries within the European Union have successfully implemented digital identity systems over the years. Outside of the EU, Swiss voters recently sanctioned the creation of national electronic identification cards in a referendum.

My colleague Robert Booth covered the brewing conflict over virtual qualifications:

While digital ID cards have the potential to intensify digital exclusion, the Minister appears set to explore these ideas once more. Age UK estimates that approximately 1.7 million individuals aged 74 and above are not utilizing the internet.

Advocates like Tony Blair assert that digital identities can seal loopholes exploited by human traffickers, mitigate factors driving illegal migration to the UK, expedite interactions between citizens and government, minimize errors and identity fraud, and foster trust as a tangible representation of a more responsive and adaptive government.

Opponents, particularly privacy advocates, argue that even essential ID systems intended to combat illegal immigration could necessitate collecting extensive personal data for national databases. They express concerns that such data can be combined, searched, and scrutinized to surveil, track, and profile individuals.

Cybersecurity experts also warn that centralized data presents lucrative targets for hackers. Increased cyberattacks, such as those aimed at Jaguar Land Rover, Co-op, and the British Library, signify a growing threat to the UK’s operational capabilities.

Opponents of digital IDs (approximately 1.6 million) have signed a petition against their introduction.

The Wider Tech Landscape

Source: www.theguardian.com

Democrats Question Cuts Leader: Who’s Making the Decisions?

Posted on by
Reply

As the Trump administration winds down its recent medical research funding initiatives, there have been ongoing concerns among scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health regarding Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s level of autonomy as the director of the institution.

The government’s efficiency project, championed by Elon Musk to reduce costs, has impacted decisions related to the cancellation or postponement of research grants. Some initiatives have also been adversely affected by President Trump’s confrontation with universities over anti-Semitism. However, during a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Dr. Bhattacharya had a chance to clarify his influence at the NIH but opted not to take ownership of the institution’s longstanding fundraising efforts.

When questioned about the freeze on grant payments to Northwestern University, Dr. Bhattacharya remarked, “That occurred before my tenure,” referring to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

He emphasized that the proposal to cut the NIH budget to $18 billion (a nearly 40% reduction) stemmed from “congress-administrator collaboration,” and he refrained from elaborating on how these cuts might impact institutions.

Further funding cuts were necessitated by rising research costs—an action integrated into the administration’s 2026 budget proposal. Dr. Bhattacharya mentioned ongoing litigation, stating, “I don’t want to delve into it.”

Several Democrats on the committee expressed confusion regarding the decision-making process at the agency.

Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, asked, “Who is withholding these funds?” citing evidence that the NIH reduced grants by billions compared to the previous year. “Is it you? Is it the OMB?” she inquired, referencing the Office of Management and Budget. “Who makes these decisions?”

Dr. Bhattacharya responded, “There are many various decisions. For instance, it was his choice to pivot from what is termed ‘politicized science,’ a phrase he previously used to describe research concerning diversity and equity issues. However, he asserted that restricting research funding at Harvard and other prominent institutions was in “collaboration with the administration.”

Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois reacted sharply after Dr. Bhattacharya distanced himself from the decisions regarding funding for the halted study at Northwestern.

An email from an NIH staff member in mid-April, weeks post Dr. Bhattacharya’s confirmation, instructed employees to refrain from issuing grants to Northwestern and various other universities, without notifying them of the reasons for the funding freeze.

“The buck stops at your office,” Durbin said to Dr. Bhattacharya. “Don’t shift the blame.”

The Trump administration’s plans for significant spending cuts at the agency have drawn criticism from both parties, including Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine.

She told Dr. Bhattacharya that the proposed cuts are “very intrusive,” warning that they could delay or halt the development of effective treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and type 1 diabetes, potentially leaving the U.S. “lagging behind China.”

In response, Dr. Bhattacharya noted that the NIH is engaged in Alzheimer’s and other disease research and will collaborate with lawmakers to address “the health needs of all Americans.”

The director hinted at a possible agreement between the Trump administration and major universities regarding the restoration of medical research funding, yet he did not offer details on the prospects of such an agreement or its prerequisites. “I am very hopeful for a resolution with the universities regarding the grants that have been suspended,” he stated.

In recent years, the NIH has abruptly terminated over 1,300 grant awards and postponed funding for more than 1,000 additional projects. On Monday, numerous NIH employees signed a letter asserting that these actions were dictated by ideological biases and lacked input from scientific staff, effectively suppressing research on health disparities, COVID-19, climate change, and the impacts on sexual health.

On Tuesday, Dr. Bhattacharya stated that scientists have established a process for appealing against funding reductions, and the agency intends to file appeals within weeks.

Source: www.nytimes.com