The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has urged Google to divest its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system to dismantle its alleged monopoly in online search.

This follows an earlier ruling by Judge Amit Mehta declaring Google holds an illegal monopoly for abusing its control over the search market and key distribution channels.

The DoJ claims Google’s control over Chrome and Android obstructs competition with prosecutors suggesting strict measures, such as prohibiting exclusionary agreements like the one with Apple that designates Google as the iPhone’s default search engine.

Google criticised the proposal, deeming it part of “a radical interventionist agenda” that would damage consumer security, product quality, and US tech leadership. The company plans to respond formally next month.

A final court decision is expected in 2025.

Read more…

Australia’s proposed social media ban for children faces controversy after Musk tweet

A Senate inquiry into the Australian government’s proposal to ban children under-16 from social media received 15,000 submissions in just 24-hours after Elon Musk posted about it on X.

The post, sharing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s announcement on X, amplified the issue to millions of users on the platform.

The bill seeks to impose fines of up to $50 million on social media companies that fail to block underage users. Parents and children bypassing the rules won’t face penalties.

“Seems like a backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians,” Musk wrote in response to Mr Albanese’s post.

If passed, the law will take effect in 12 months, giving platforms time to comply. Labor expects Coalition support despite ongoing concerns that the process was rushed, and over potential harm to young users.

Read more…

Amazon Japan raided over alleged antitrust violations

Japan’s Fair Trade Commission conducted an on-site inspection of Amazon Japan over suspicions of violating anti-monopoly laws by pressuring sellers to lower prices in exchange for favourable product placement.

The investigation focuses on Amazon’s “Buy Box” system, which allegedly prioritises products with competitive pricing and mandates sellers use Amazon’s logistics and payment services to qualify for promotion.

This is not Amazon Japan’s first antitrust issue; it faced similar scrutiny in 2018 but avoided penalties by agreeing to improve its business practices.

Globally, Amazon is under similar investigations in the EU, UK, and US, with concerns over self-preferencing and price manipulation. The US Federal Trade Commission recently alleged Amazon’s practices raised household costs by over $1 billion.

Amazon Japan stated that it will fully cooperate with authorities. If found guilty, Amazon could face significant fines and stricter regulatory oversight.

Read more…

Goldman Sachs faces $900m loss after Northvolt bankruptcy

Goldman Sachs has taken a $900 million hit after Swedish battery maker Northvolt filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week.

As Northvolt’s second-largest shareholder, Goldman’s private equity funds wrote down their 19% stake to zero, a stark reversal from optimistic valuations earlier this year.

The collapse also impacted Volkswagen, Northvolt’s largest shareholder, and raised concerns about investor confidence in Europe’s green energy initiatives.

Northvolt, once seen as a symbol of Europe’s ambitions to rival Asia in battery manufacturing, struggled with debt exceeding $5.8 billion and insufficient cash to sustain operations.

While its factory in Sweden gained traction, aggressive expansion plans in Germany and Canada strained resources despite substantial government subsidies. Northvolt now seeks $1-1.2 billion to restructure and exit bankruptcy by early 2024.

Read more…

UK Government offers up to £3.5m towards satellite connectivity pilots in remote communities

The UK Space Agency, in partnership with government and European agencies, is funding innovative satellite projects to tackle connectivity challenges in remote UK areas.

With up to £3.5 million in funding, these pilots will test hybrid solutions combining Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geostationary Orbit (GEO) satellites with mobile and wireless networks, aiming to deliver gigabit-capable internet to hard-to-reach regions.

Projects on Rathlin Island, Northern Ireland, and Papa Stour, Shetland, will trial systems to enhance broadband reliability, support local economies, and improve essential services like education, healthcare, and conservation.

Rathlin’s solution integrates advanced satellite and wireless technologies to address its seasonal population surges, while Papa Stour’s project explores community-managed models to extend connectivity without heavy on-site maintenance.

Additionally, portable connectivity solutions, adaptable for emergency services and businesses, will be developed to provide high-speed internet in mobile settings.

Read more…

The post DoJ orders Google to sell Chrome and Amazon Japan hit with antitrust raid appeared first on TechInformed.

In a keynote at Web Summit in Lisbon yesterday, Bornyakov announced the launch of CodeUA, an online platform that showcases Ukraine’s technological solutions for businesses.

Ukrainian companies featured on the platform include Grammarly, an online spell-checking platform, GitLab, an open-source code repository, and Creatio, a workflow automation firm.

Bornyakov also showcased Esper Bionics, a startup building robotic limbs and controllers for people with limb differences.

Read: Using 3D scanners to aid Ukraine

According to the minister, the technology industry is Ukraine’s second-largest export sector.

He highlighted recent partnerships, including SoftServe’s GenAI Industrial Assistant, now powered by US chip manufacturer NVIDIA, and software firm Luxoft’s collaboration with German car manufacturer Mercedes-Benz for vehicle screen technology.

“This isn’t about charity,” said Bornyakov. “This is a win-win partnership.”

CodeUA claims to offer no contract fees, legal support, and an AI assistant.

“Right now, truly ground-breaking innovations are being created and tested in Ukraine. This is our asymmetric response to the challenges of war,” he added. “It gives us strength to not only defend ourselves but to also to grow our economy and aspire to new heights.”

Bornyakov said that companies within his country are showing “remarkable resilience,” as offices are becoming energy-independent to work through power outages and shelters have been “transformed” into comfortable workspaces.

“This platform is born in the darkest times for Ukraine. However, it is also born to bring the brightest results,” added the minister. “I’ve been travelling a lot, and I’m often asked how can we help Ukraine. This is our response.”

The post Call for tech support from Ukraine’s deputy minister of digital transformation appeared first on TechInformed.

The accounts have built-in protections which limit who can contact young users of the app and the content that they see.

Instagram said it will automatically place teens under the age of 16 into Teen Accounts and they will need a parent’s permission to change any settings.

This means that the accounts will automatically default to private, so nobody other than those accepted to follow the accounts can message or see posts made by the users. It will also mean teens can only be tagged or mentioned by people they follow.

Instagram will also limit the type of sensitive content teens see within areas of the app which presents teens with content by users they do not follow, such as ‘Explore’ and ‘Reels.’

It will also remind teens to leave the app after an hour, and mute notifications between 10 PM and 7 AM for ‘Sleep mode’.

Content posted on Instagram and its effect on a user’s mental health has caused controversy. In 2021, beauty cosmetics brand Lush chose to quit the platform, as well as Facebook, TikTok and Snapchat, in protest of “overwhelming evidence” that the algorithms are harming customers’ mental health.

While platforms such as Instagram originally presented a chronological home page of content, since TikTok and its ‘For You’ page algorithm gained popularity over the last few years, others have followed in its footsteps.

This meant that Instagram’s ‘Explore’ and ‘Reels’ sections prioritised content in users’ feeds, even by accounts they do not follow, based on factors such as engagement, relationships, relevancy, and timeliness.

Since then, Instagram has also announced an AI that can recognise posts with graphic content which it says will then take action on, or flag it for moderators to review – such as removing it from the platform or reducing its distribution.

The post Instagram introduces teen accounts with parental controls appeared first on TechInformed.

Since then, Lee has co-founded three endeavours: Influencer.com, an influencer marketing agency; MVE Management, a creator management firm, and Creator Ventures – a $20m venture fund he is a partner in alongside his cousin and investor Sasha Kaletsky.

At TechBBQ in Copenhagen, TI met with Lee to find out more about his YouTube hiatus, the changing landscape of content creation and how the business of being an online creator has changed following several technological innovations.

Tell us about your working life, post YouTube…

I decided to take a week off in 2019. That week turned into a month, and then COVID happened. After that, I felt I couldn’t upload because I’d been away for too long. I thought any return would need to be significant, but it just got longer and longer. In hindsight, I was happy to have hung up my boots where I was very satisfied with what I’d achieved.

Since then, I’ve been working on several ventures. I already had a company called Influencer.com and another with Joe Sugg called MVE, which is a management business. Influencer.com is an agency, while MVE focuses on managing creators’ careers.

About three years ago, we launched our first fund, Creator Ventures. That has gone well too. I still love watching YouTube and uploading content on social media every now and then. It wasn’t so much about quitting social media, but more about focusing on other things. YouTube is a full-time gig in my opinion

How has the business of content creation changed since you first started?

When I started in 2010, there wasn’t much of a business aspect; it was just for fun. By 2014 or 2015, money started coming in through Adsense and brand deals, but it wasn’t on the scale it is today. Back then, creators with a few million followers were making over a million a year, which was crazy considering they made nothing just three years prior.

Today, if you’re one of the biggest creators, you can make tens of millions a year, largely in profit. Some are building businesses that are worth over a billion dollars, like Mr Beast. There’s also a significant group of mid-sized creators with a few hundred thousand followers who do well through brand collaborations, since these brands get good ROI. Even creators with smaller audiences can now make money by creating great content, either for businesses or other creators. So, millions are now making money compared to maybe just 20 people doing so when I started.

How has your own experience inspired your work with influencer.com and MVE?

At Influencer.com, our goal is to funnel a billion dollars that might not have gone to influencers within the next 10 years. We’ve already generated $100 million in revenue, helping many people either supplement their income or become full-time creators by connecting them with brands. On the other hand, MVE is more involved, working with about 50 creators to manage their entire careers. I enjoy seeing them grow and achieve their dreams.

How do you use your time as a creator to inform Creator Ventures?

At Creator Ventures we invest in technology behind internet culture. For instance, ElevenLabs is a voice AI platform that can convert a YouTube video into 60 different languages using the creator’s own voice or a synthesised one. Sync Labs offers lip technology for AI avatars, which is so cool because when you look at an AI avatar, the big giveaway is its lips. So, to see them improve that is exciting and enhances the realism of digital characters. Beehiiv is another investment; it’s a newsletter platform which allows creators more control over their audiences because their subscribers will receive their newsletter, whereas on other platforms the algorithm decides who sees their content.

Is there any current tech you wish you had access to when you were more active on YouTube?

It seems very small but manually adding subtitles was a huge waste of time, and now they can be done with a click of a button. I’m still a bit old-fashioned when it comes to editing, I enjoy the process of cutting something up rather than just getting AI to do it. I think I would still do that, but I also think AI could have helped with thumbnail generation and translating content. Even brainstorming ideas with an AI could have been invaluable.

What tech trends are you seeing creators pick up on now?

Many creators are trying to maintain audiences across different platforms, as the lines between them are blurring. They struggle with whether to post the same content across platforms or different content for each. AI also plays a role; it helps creators produce better content or various versions of their content. However, I believe audiences still value human interactions and opinions, which AI can’t fully replace.

What do you think of AI creators?

I don’t think the clearly-AI-looking creators that have around four million followers will get any bigger…I think the ones that surface when you’re scrolling TikTok, such as a news report made with an AI avatar, may grow as users won’t care then. But, if you want to have someone talk about the report, and to learn more about it then you need a real person because people care what other people think.

That’s why we use multiple platforms because we want to know what other people are doing and what other people think. We don’t really care what AI thinks.

So, how do you take your coffee?

I usually have a decaf flat white because it rolls off the tongue, but I think my favourite is a decaf iced latte.

And how do you wind down, aside from watching YouTube?

If I’m having trouble sleeping, reading usually does the trick. But when I’m with my fiancée, just being next to her helps me relax.

The post A coffee with…Caspar Lee, partner & co-founder, Creator Ventures appeared first on TechInformed.

As courts have tried to keep up with new regulations aimed at holding tech giants accountable, the influence of platforms such as X, Telegram, Google, and Meta has grown immensely.

Regulators have struggled to get a grip when Big Tech has fought back. With battles in Brazil, the US, the EU and the UK all ongoing, can Big Tech platforms balance free speech, user privacy, and legal responsibilities in a rapidly changing landscape?

War of Words: Elon Musk’s X banned in Brazil

Misinformation on social media platforms has become a significant issue in Brazil, especially during politically sensitive periods like elections.

A survey conducted in September 2021 revealed around 77% of Brazilians considered fake news about politicians and the Supreme Federal Court a threat to democracy.

The situation escalated after the 2023 election, in which President Jair Bolsonaro lost to his predecessor, Lula da Silva (aka Lula).

In 2024, the proliferation of such content on the country’s eighth most popular social media platform (with 24.3 million users) X — under the leadership of the richest man in the world, Elon Musk — led to the platform’s complete banning in Brazil.

Why was X banned in Brazil?

Tensions between X and the Brazilian government reached boiling point in August 2024 when Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the platform to block accounts belonging to journalists and politicians accused of spreading misinformation.

When X failed to comply with Justice de Moraes’s orders, the judge warned of severe legal consequences, including the arrest of X’s legal representatives in Brazil.

X’s decision to remove its legal representation from Brazil escalated the situation further.

This culminated on August 30, when Judge de Moraes issued an order for the “immediate, complete, and total suspension” of X’s operations across Brazil, effectively banning the platform.

Judge de Moraes pointed out that other tech companies, including Meta and Google, had complied with similar rulings, underscoring the legal obligations of foreign firms operating in Brazil.

By September 2, 2024, a Supreme Court (STF) panel had upheld de Moraes’s ruling, confirming that X would remain suspended until X fulfilled all court orders.

Notably, the ruling also fined individuals who attempted to access the platform using VPNs — an unprecedented move in global tech regulation.

Elon Musk’s stance on free speech

Since purchasing X in 2022, Musk, the self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist”, has reinstated numerous previously banned accounts, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, gaining him both support and disdain.

However, Musk’s approach to free speech has complicated his relationship with various governments.

His critics have pointed out inconsistencies in his stance, noting that while he resisted calls for stricter moderation in countries like Brazil and Australia, he complied with government orders in places like Turkey and India, where X was required to remove content critical of those nations’ political leaders.

This selective approach has led some to question whether Musk’s commitment to free speech extends only to individuals and viewpoints he supports, as seen by his apparent sympathies toward former President Bolsonaro and Argentina’s new President, Javier Milei.

Broader implications for social platforms

The case highlights the increasing tensions between tech companies and national governments over online content regulation. Victoria Lee, Founder and CEO of 100 Pound Social, argues that this situation underscores the need for regulatory frameworks that balance the principles of free speech with the growing threats of misinformation.

“The X case in Brazil is a reminder of how social media platforms can influence political discussions,” she explains. “It shows that we need regulations that allow free speech but also manage risks like misinformation. Finding that balance is key to ensuring social media platforms contribute positively to public debate.”

Platforms like Meta and Google have already demonstrated a willingness to comply with government demands in Brazil, and this case could pressure others to do the same or face similar consequences.

Here today, Elon tomorrow: are advertisers abandoning X? — Read the article here.

Pavel Durov and Telegram: Privacy, crime, and accountability

Telegram is a widely used messaging app developed by Pavel Durov that has gained popularity for its strong emphasis on user privacy and encryption.

However, the platform has also come under intense scrutiny in recent years for facilitating organised crime, illegal activities, and other forms of misconduct.

Durov’s arrest in France has reinvigorated the debate about platform founders’ responsibility for criminal activity on their platforms.

Why did the French government arrest Pavel Durov?

The French government’s arrest of Pavel Durov regards an investigation into organised crime facilitated through Telegram.

The Russian-born billionaire was placed under “judicial supervision,” meaning he can’t leave France and must report to the authorities twice a week.

French prosecutors have tied Durov’s arrest to an ongoing investigation that involves twelve different offences, primarily linked to cybercrime and organised crime on the platform — such as child sexual abuse, drug sales, and fraud.

By detaining Durov, French authorities are testing the Digital Services Act (DSA) and exploring whether platform founders can be held directly accountable for criminal activities that occur on their platforms.

The DSA mandates more stringent moderation practices for digital platforms, requiring them to combat illegal content and misinformation actively.

How has Telegram been used for organised crime?

Telegram is a widely used communication tool but has also been described as a “haven” for organised crime. The platform boasts around 950 million active users and allows group chats of up to 200,000 members, far surpassing the limits of rival platforms like WhatsApp.

However, as cybersecurity expert Zac Doffman accounts on Forbes, Telegram’s promise of privacy and minimal moderation has attracted not only regular users but also hackers, drug dealers, and child abusers.

Telegram operates similarly to a “popularised dark web,” where criminals are drawn to Telegram’s lack of moderation, allowing them to hide in plain sight while engaging in illicit activities.

Telegram’s website advertises, “You can have a Telegram account without a SIM card and log in using blockchain-powered anonymous numbers.”

However, critics argue that these tools, while beneficial for privacy, make Telegram an appealing platform for organised crime.

Pavel Durov’s response to content moderation challenges

Telegram’s official communication is that “it is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform.”

Telegram abides by EU laws, including the Digital Services Act — its moderation is within industry standards and constantly improving.

Telegram’s CEO Pavel Durov has nothing to hide and travels frequently in Europe.

It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner…

— Telegram Messenger (@telegram) August 25, 2024

In his first public comments following his detention, Durov defended Telegram’s moderation practices, stating that the app was far from an “anarchic paradise.”

Durov highlighted that French authorities have access to a “hotline” set up to report illegal content on Telegram and could have used this channel rather than resorting to legal action against him personally.

Durov pointed out that Telegram takes down millions of harmful posts and channels daily, although he acknowledged that the platform is imperfect.

Has “Telegram’s control over privacy impacted broader society?

Telegram’s unique privacy features have created both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, the app has empowered users around the world by offering secure communication options in countries with repressive regimes or poor internet freedom.

On the other hand, it has also facilitated criminal activities by offering individuals a space to operate under the radar.

Victoria Lee, founder and CEO of 100 Pound Social, believes that while privacy-focused platforms like Telegram are necessary, they can also create significant safety concerns.

“Telegram’s focus on privacy is great, but it does create some problems when it comes to keeping people safe. Finding a middle ground means having ongoing conversations with tech companies, governments, and privacy advocates to address both privacy and safety,” she says.

What are the broader implications for platforms like Telegram?

The arrest of Pavel Durov has broader implications for platforms that prioritise privacy and decentralisation. If Durov is found liable for criminal activity on Telegram, it could set a precedent for how governments around the world approach similar platforms.

This would likely force privacy-focused platforms to implement stricter moderation policies, which could conflict with their commitment to user privacy.

Lee notes that this case highlights the difficulties of regulating decentralised platforms. While the focus on privacy is commendable, it creates a regulatory blind spot regarding criminal activities.

She adds: “If Pavel Durov were found liable in the Telegram case, it could set a global example. It would show how different countries might handle similar issues, affecting how tech companies operate around the world.”

Google’s antitrust lawsuit: Is the tech giant a monopoly?

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has long scrutinised Google’s overwhelming control in online advertising, accusing the search engine of engaging in anti-competitive practices.

This antitrust lawsuit, filed in early 2023, centres around the idea that Google’s dominance over digital ad technology has stifled competition, harmed consumers and left smaller companies struggling.

It raises questions about the role of massive tech corporations and how governments should apply antitrust laws to protect free-market competition.

What are the central issues in the Google antitrust lawsuit?

The core of Google’s antitrust lawsuit is the firm’s 2008 acquisition of the advertising company DoubleClick for $3.1 billion.

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) complaint stresses that Google engaged in anti-competitive practices by acquiring rivals, manipulating digital ad markets to benefit its products, and blocking competitors from gaining market share.

The DOJ alleges that Google’s growing control over the ad ecosystem put other ad tech providers at a significant disadvantage. By leveraging its monopoly, Google gained control over both the supply and demand sides of the market.

However, Google says its acquisitions of DoubleClick and subsequent companies like AdMeld were approved by regulators at the time, making it unfair to challenge them years later.

The impact on smaller businesses

The Google antitrust case highlights the challenges smaller businesses face in a market dominated by a few tech giants.

Simon Kvist, CEO of Adnami, an advertising platform, explains that Google’s stranglehold on the ad tech stack creates significant barriers for new players.

“Google’s solutions work seamlessly together, making them the easiest and most attractive option for many publishers,” Kvist points out.

He adds: “If Big Tech companies begin to limit publishers’ abilities to thrive or try and monopolise the advertising technology landscape, the consequences aren’t just fewer jobs and less competition; it also poses a danger to the core mechanics of our societies.”

Many publishers, particularly smaller ones, are caught in a difficult position. On one hand, choosing not to use Google’s ad tech could limit revenue potential, as its tools generate significant ad dollars.

Conversely, reliance on Google deepens the company’s market dominance, which critics argue harms innovation and competition in the long run.

Google’s defence

In its official response, Google emphasises that the ad tech landscape is more vibrant and competitive than ever, with significant rivals such as Amazon building its ad business, Microsoft expanding its digital ad offerings, and Meta (Facebook) playing a big role in digital advertising.

Google argues that automating many aspects of the ad process and connecting publishers with the right advertisers has created a more open web, benefiting all stakeholders involved.

Google’s defence stresses that its innovations have levelled the playing field for smaller publishers and that dismantling its ad tech ecosystem would harm the very businesses the DOJ aims to protect.

Broader consequences for digital advertising

If Google were to lose this antitrust lawsuit, as it did in Europe, the ramifications for the digital advertising landscape would be vast.

Victoria Lee, founder and CEO of 100 Pound Social, says a potential outcome could include regulatory measures that give smaller companies and local publishers a fairer opportunity to compete.

“Smaller publishers and local media often struggle to compete with Google for ad revenue. From what I’ve seen, these smaller outlets can really feel the squeeze.”

She adds: “The Google antitrust case could really change the game for digital advertising. If Google loses, we might see new rules that give smaller companies a fairer shot.”

What are the potential consequences for Google?

Should Google lose, the case could serve as a landmark ruling, setting a precedent for how antitrust laws are applied in the digital age.

A ruling against Google could encourage other governments to pursue similar actions against tech giants accused of monopolistic behaviour.

Simon Kvist points out that while the open web (as opposed to closed ecosystems like Google and Facebook) offers an alternative, fragmentation has hampered it.

“To compete, smaller publishers must focus on creating a cohesive ecosystem where advertisers feel comfortable and incentivised to invest,” he suggests.

He argues that the future of digital advertising lies in the industry’s ability to provide a unified, streamlined experience that rivals the efficiency of Google’s products.

A global trend in tech regulation

The legal battles involving Google, Telegram, and other Big Tech companies highlight a global trend of governments striving to assert control over tech platforms.

These cases underscore the growing push for platform accountability, as governments aim to regulate multinational companies that often escape local jurisdiction due to their ubiquitous nature.

While governments argue these interventions are necessary to curb harmful content and monopolistic practices, tech companies defend their business models, citing innovation and free speech.

The common challenge is balancing user privacy, free speech, and regulation in a borderless digital world.

Lee explains: “Dealing with Big Tech and legal challenges is a real headache for governments. It’s tricky because tech moves so fast, and laws often can’t keep up. For example, the Telegram vs France case shows how hard it is for local laws to catch up with global platforms.”

In response, Tech companies are adjusting by adopting more transparent moderation policies but continue arguing that excessive regulation stifles growth and innovation.

Lee adds: “Balancing free speech with moderating harmful content is definitely a challenge. We need to protect people from harmful stuff without shutting down free expression.

“The solution might be clear and fair content moderation policies that let people speak their minds while also providing a way to handle harmful content. Being open about how content is managed can help find a good balance.”

The post Big Tech on trial: Musk, misinformation, and monopolies appeared first on TechInformed.

The investment will support three new semiconductor facilities — two in Sherman, Texas, and one in Lehi, Utah.

The firm has pledged more than $18bn through 2029 to the projects, which it says will create 2,000 manufacturing jobs.

TI is also expected to receive an estimated $6bn-$8bn in investment tax credits from the US Treasury Department and an additional $10m in funding for workforce development.

“With plans to grow our internal manufacturing to more than 95% by 2030, we’re building geopolitically dependable, 300mm capacity at scale to provide the analogue and embedded processing chips our customers will need for years to come,” CEO Haviv Ilan said.

Semiconductor chips are needed in almost any electronic device, including cars, for safety and intelligence systems, medical equipment, and smart home accessories.

The US has been bolstering its semiconductor manufacturing in order to suppress dominance from countries such as China and Taiwan.

“With this proposed investment from the Biden-Harris Administration in TI…we would help secure the supply chain for these foundational semiconductors that are used in every sector of the US economy and create tens of thousands of jobs in Texas and Utah,” said US Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo

US Senator John Cornyn said: “The chipmaking capabilities these resources will enable at Texas Instruments will help the US reclaim its leadership role in the critically important semiconductor industry.”

Texas Instruments added that the new facilities will be entirely powered by renewable electricity and that it will continually “invest in its fabrication processes and equipment to reduce energy, material and water consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The post Texas Instruments secures $1.6bn in US government chip funding appeared first on TechInformed.

Judge Amit Mehta found that Google violated section 2 of the Sherman Act, a US antitrust law.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” he said.

The Department of Justice and a number of US states brought the case against Google in 2020.

It presented that Google paid companies such as Apple and Samsung billions of dollars a year to automatically default to its search engine.

Apple received $18billion, according to The New York Times.

Plus, Samsung received $8billion over four years to make its search engine, voice assistant and Play Store the default on its mobile devices, according to a testimony presented by Epic Games Inc.

Google’s fate will be finalised in the next phase of proceedings, which may mean a mandate to stop certain business practices or even a breakup of Google parent Alphabet.

Nevertheless, Google plans to appeal the ruling. Kent Walker, president of global affairs pointed to the ruling’s acknowledgement that Google “offers the best search engine,” yet it “concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available.”

“As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use,” he said.

“This landmark decision holds Google accountable,” DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan said in a statement. “It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans.”

It’s the latest blow to Google after a federal jury in California found that its app marketplace is an illegal monopoly.

Plus, it faces a separate case from the DOJ and a handful of states accusing its online advertising business of dominating the market, too.

The post Google illegally dominated online search, US judge rules appeared first on TechInformed.

Over the weekend far-right groups rioted in towns and cities across the country, triggered by the stabbing of three young girls in the northwest town of Southport.

Claims that the suspected murderer was an immigrant spread across social media platforms but were proven false when police named the suspect as Cardiff-born Axel Rudakubana.

The false claims, amplified by right-wing political voices, led to Islamophobic and anti-immigration groups mobilising mass protests across the country.

Among the disorder, two Holiday Inn hotels which were reportedly hosting asylum seekers have been damaged, mosques vandalised, and cities including Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester and Belfast have seen violent attacks and threats against Black and Asian people.

Cooper’s comments come after X owner, Elon Musk, responded to a video of protestors aiming fireworks at the police with the post: “civil war is inevitable.”

“There’s been some shocking misinformation that has escalated some of this, but then there’s also been deliberate organisation of violence as well,” she said on the BBC’s Today programme.

How to check for misinformation

“You can’t just have the armchair thuggery of the people being able to incite and organise violence and also not face consequences for this.”

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also criticised social media platforms for the role they played in the recent riots. He said that “violent disorder clearly whipped up online” is a crime.

Mark Jones, partner at legal services firm, Payne Hicks Beach, said in response to this: “but what about the individual posting the misinformation in the first place?”

Jones points to the recent Online Safety Act 2023, which he says could have been “a pivotal moment in the way we tackle harms caused by misinformation.”

“However, the final Act falls short of the Government’s original intention of making the UK the safest place to be online.

The only references to misinformation in the Act are about setting up a committee to advise Ofcom and changes to Ofcom’s media literacy policy.”

He adds that while there is a new false communications offence in the Act that outlaws the intentional sending of false information that could cause psychological or physical harm, this is mainly aimed at internet trolls and does not cover events such as last week.

“Instead, the police are likely to have to rely on offences under the Public Order Act 1986, which is the main piece of legislation which penalises the use of violence and/or intimidation by individuals in groups,” Jones explained.

He acknowledged the Home Secretary’s comments, saying “if it’s a crime offline, it’s a crime online,” but added: “The Online Safety Act provides no additional support to the pre-existing criminal covering incidents of incitement of violence.”

Meta, X, Snap and TikTok did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The post UK riots: Home Secretary demands action from social media giants appeared first on TechInformed.

Having left university after three months, an 18-year-old Brown stepped into a technology sales role and worked her way up to channel manager at eCommerce giant The Hut Group (THG).

While working at THG, she took a short stint to find love on TV, where she has since amassed a following of over 130,000 on Instagram. Now at 27, Brown joined Manchester-based SaaS startup Flowlio last year as the project management vendor’s commercial director.

How can your firm’s project management tools help businesses?

Flowlio has come on an insane amount since I came on board. It’s a project management SaaS solution that is cloud-based and open-source. It’s an enterprise-level end-to-end project management platform which helps simplify processes.

It lends itself well to local authorities such as housing, government, and healthcare where projects are unfortunately not run to the standard they should be.

We also offer a project management course. Normally, you pay a lot of money to do a course and just get given a manual. For ours, we’ll go into businesses, and for three days, they’ll bring ideas and projects they’re working on to the table, and they’ll get tangible feedback they can take back to the workplace.

It’s great because we can go into a business, train them up, and slowly integrate the software into their business over time and give them a new way to work.

As a young woman in a senior role, what’s your take on the tech sector? Any advice to pass on?

I’ve learned to build resilience. If I wanted to achieve something, I encouraged myself to put myself forward. At THG, I was part of its internal women in tech group, and I took it upon myself to deliver a talk on salary negotiation.

I’m not an expert, but I’ve always asked for more money. I didn’t realise until I spoke to other people that people don’t usually do that, especially women – I’m a commercially-minded person, so that’s probably why my head goes to money.

Whereas for those in tech roles, whether it is coding, engineering or anything, it’s just not where their brain goes. So, for me, I’ve realised how important it is to clue younger people up on that.

How do you balance your influencer work with your current role?

It’s crazy because when I was on [Married at First Sight], I spoke about being a woman in tech so much it almost pushed me to the point of being a bit comical. But afterwards, I was inundated with messages from young people, mostly women, getting into tech celebrating it and saying: ‘We don’t normally see a young voice that’s speaking about it and that’s passionate about it.’

Then I went to speak about my ADHD diagnosis online after the show, when I was diagnosed at 26, and I couldn’t believe the number of messages I got. I had parents saying, ‘My kids have ADHD, and this has been so helpful’. I honestly think people forget what influence they have online.

I’m so happy with where I am now because I’ve still got that influence to be able to show that in a positive way. It’s not just a social media influencer, but I have this business side of me, so I can take things from both sides.

How do you find switching off?

I find it so hard to switch off. I don’t take medication for my ADHD. I tried, but I just didn’t get on with it. They say if you want your personality that day, then don’t take it because it kind of dulls you down a bit.

It was great in the morning when I was getting stuff done, but there was one time I was driving home from work in floods of tears. It just pulled the essence and emotion out of me. So, I thought, I’ve done 26 years without medication and for me, I think I’m okay.

It’s amazing in some ways because it keeps me on my toes, and I’m constantly thinking of ideas and things, but then, on the flip side, it can be frustrating. It’s a constant battle.

Does having ADHD bring positives to your role?

Yeah, people say ADHD is a superpower. Tech roles lend themselves to those who are neurodivergent because of the higher focus and the detail-driven work and creativity. So, I think I kind of channelled that.

Sometimes, it’s extremely annoying, but I think it’s about harnessing the parts that can help you in the right way. I could get really frustrated with myself all the time because I have so many thoughts going on, and I can’t concentrate on one thing or focus. But, bigger picture-wise, it’s definitely helped me in the long term.

What can workplaces do to support neurodivergent people?

We’re in an era of self-diagnosis, which shouldn’t be undermined because some people don’t have the funds to go private or the time to wait for an NHS diagnosis. So, it’s not just those who have a diagnosis from a doctor who feels they have tendencies; there are people out there who feel they have tendencies.

However, there are still so many people who don’t come forward when they’re neurodivergent. They don’t say: ‘I’ve got ADHD’, or ‘I’m autistic’, or ‘I’m dyslexic’ because there’s still a bit of a stigma.

Employers need to create safe spaces for people, and make people feel comfortable to talk about it. You must do things with integrity. You can’t put [neurodiversity] campaigns or days in place to talk about this just to tick a box.

The post A coffee with… Sophie Brown, commercial director, Flowlio appeared first on TechInformed.

During this time, the consultancy has grown a team of over 3,000 talented specialists globally and acquired over sixteen businesses in the UK and Ireland. The firm employs around 500 people in its Dublin base.

Version 1 has worked on a range of digital transformation projects, improving efficiencies in areas such as the motor tax system in Ireland, the courts system and for farmers to help with crop classification.

Speaking with TI, O’Connor discusses how the consultancy has seen the public sector grow and why tech innovations in this area are more common than people think.

Digital transformation means something different to everyone. What does it mean for you and the public sector?

I would describe it as citizen-first redesign of public-facing services. So, putting the citizen at the centre of how you translate what can sometimes be knotty government policy decisions and deliver an efficient and effective solution.

That means translating statutory legislation or an instrument into something citizens can use.

It is also not just about the citizen, but also government and public sector employees involved in delivering the services in a way that makes lives simpler, easier, more efficient and the government overall, more effective.

Would you say that one of the greatest challenges facing the public sector is legacy IT systems?

I don’t think that’s true. The public sector is massive, so there are obviously going to be parts that are a little bit behind, but I think on the whole, the UK public sector, in particular, has shown great innovation and leadership around things like digital-first, cloud-first, design-led thinking.

If you compare it to the financial services sector, for example, you will walk into any large financial services institution or bank and find significant “legacy systems” still running massive parts of their business.

So, the legacy IT perception is one that I understand because we’re all so used to interactions with parts of governments that maybe aren’t as efficient, but that experience is becoming more outdated based on the investment that’s been made over the last five years.

Where would you say the public sector is truly innovating?

We’ve done a lot of work with HM Courts & Tribunals on essentially revolutionising how justice is delivered in areas like family courts and tribunals.

We worked to transform everything from video hearings to how cases are scheduled, making sure there’s efficiency around the recording of judgements, the issuing of penalties and fines, and the recording of the collection of fines.

That was an area that was ripe for transformation, and through investment and insight, they had to do it and put citizens first, then also involved listening to every stakeholder from jurors to judges to court staff.

Another area is the whole area of vehicle licencing and transport in Ireland. It used to be the case that to tax your car, you had to go into an office. The issue with this is – the office closes at lunchtime, you had to bring in a bunch of papers, and there was a queue. Now, we’ve taken it 100% online. It’s completely streamlined the entire process.

I will say it did come back to bite me once because one piece of work we did was enable policemen to automatically check whether a vehicle was appropriately taxed based on car licences at the start of COVID.

When I was getting thousands of emails a day, I missed the renewal notice and my wife was driving down the road one day, and she was stopped by a cop, and when they checked the licence plate the car hadn’t been taxed. I said “that’s our system working…” but she didn’t see the bright side!

How have you seen different sectors innovate with technology? 

Commercial businesses look to technology to improve workflow and save costs. We recently partnered with Reach PLC, the UK and Ireland’s largest commercial publisher, to drive digital transformation within the business.

Society has moved on from print magazines and newspapers that we use to read our daily news from, and we now find ourselves in this digital world where everything we consume is online. Because of this consumer change, traditional publications such as Reach are having to digitise to adapt to customer preferences. We are helping Reach become a more data-led and digital business by streamlining its IT support model and services through our ASPIRE framework which involves reducing costs, risks, and time by improving technology estates.

Another industry I have seen embrace innovation is the retail sector. Many companies today are managing a growth in e-commerce and increased consumer demand for online shopping. We partnered with a leading international clothing retailer employing more than 80,000 colleagues across 17 countries in the UK, Europe and the US to provide a future-proof financial system that could handle the expanding global footprint of the company to meet growing consumer demands.

We implemented a new financial system that helped transform the company’s operations and allow them to monitor real-time financial insights. This new system ensured the management team could make informed strategic decisions to support continued growth, opening new stores and entering new markets worldwide

Where do you think tech improvements are needed in the public sector?

There are many areas that need to catch up, but it’s more a case of continuously evolving how you deliver and what you deliver to citizens in line with their expectations.

People who work in public sector organisations are used to using very simple, straightforward apps. How they bill their taxes, how they do their shopping, banking, everything.

So, I wouldn’t point to a huge body of work that needs transforming and say there is simply a need to evolve on how to deliver services to keep up with the expectations of citizens as they continuously evolve.

The post A coffee with…Tom O’Connor, CEO, Version 1 appeared first on TechInformed.