The news comes in the amidst of increased scrutiny over TikTok national security concerns, with American lawmakers calling for more stringent regulations on Chinese-owned tech platforms. Though information is limited, Trump’s assertion has raised further speculation regarding the fate of TikTok in America. After a small ban, Tiktok has returned to U.S. app stores as the President delayed the ban due to undergoing negotiations.

Tiktok’s Chinese parent company, Bytedance, is engaged in the ongoing conversation about the future of the platform. Bytedance’s TikTok negotiations are inspired by growing concerns with American authorities, arguing that the app poses data protection risks and foreign influences. Trump saved the U.S. Tiktok services by delaying the ban as he proposed a 50% American ownership of the social media platform.

Who Are the TikTok Sale Bidders?

While Trump did not disclose the identity of four Tiktok sales bidders, reports suggest that the leading American technology firm and investment groups are among interested parties. As Tiktok has a massive user base and impact in the U.S., the deal is expected to attract significant interest from companies expanding their digital appearance.

So far known bidders include a group led by billionaire Frank McCourt and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, including another group that includes Tech Entrepreneur Jesse Tinsley and YouTube star Mribst, and a merger from San Francisco-based Perplexity AI. Additionally, Trump has mentioned Larry Alison, the founder of Oracle Corp, while Tikokok has previously collaborated with Oracle to host its American user data. Out of all of them, Perplexity AI revised merger conditions with Tiktok as it gave a 50% stake to the U.S. government.

TikTok Acquisition Deadline Approaches

The deadline for Tiktok acquisition is approaching fast on April 5, 2025, the law makers soon established expectations for a proposal. If ByteDance fails to reach a deal, the company may face regulatory action that will severely affect its operations in the US market.

For now, Tiktok’s fate is uncertain, but the president’s comments show that a deal may be adjacent. Though Trump’s tactics to delay the ban have turned TikTok U.S. sales into a bidding war. Whether it is complete acquisition or reorganization of US Operations of Tikok, results will have permanent implications for technical industry, international relations and millions of ticket users across the country.

The post Trump Says Four Bidders in Play as Efforts to Acquire TikTok Gain Momentum appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Reality Check

Towards the end of last year, Australia approved a social media ban for kids below the age of 16. The ban, which is expected to take effect at the end of this year, set a high benchmark for countries across the globe.

Although social media platforms don’t allow access to persons aged 13 and below, the report shows that 80% of Australian kids aged between 8 and 12 years used the platforms last year. YouTube, TickTok, Instagram, and Snapchat are the platforms that most children use.

All social media platforms except Reddit require users to provide their date of birth when signing up. However, these platforms rely on self-declaration to verify information provided and have no other age assurance tools.

The latest eSafety report highlights results from a social media usage national survey that targeted 8 to 15 year olds. It also includes responses from different social media services including YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitch. These services are owned by Google, Meta, ByteDance, and Amazon respectively.

Age Detection

The report showed that Snapchat and Instagram have over a million users aged between 13 and 17. TikTok had over 522,800, YouTube 643,600, Facebook 455,000, and Twitch 24,400. Reddit did not have a record of underage users.

These statistics raise questions about the ability of Australia’s social media regulations that have been criticized for being ill-considered and rushed by a section of politicians and industry experts. The country’s under 16 social media ban relies heavily on truthful declaration of age to enable social platforms to block under age users.

“There is still significant work to be done by any social media platforms relying on truthful self-declaration to determine age with enforcement of the government’s minimum age legislation on the horizon,” Julie Inman Grant, eSafety Commissioner said.

Social media platforms like Snapchat, Twitch, and TikTok use language analysis technology to identify under 16 users. Twitch and TikTok also use AI-driven age estimation to detect below 16 users. Instagram and Facebook have age stimate models while YouTube relies on classifiers.

YouTube is the only social platform that supports under-age use with parental supervision. The platform does this through family accounts. However, none of the minors with YouTube accounts reported being shut down due to being underage.

Shared Responsibility

Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook said it supports age-appropriate experiences for children. However, the tech giant holds that the responsibility of enforcing age restrictions lies with app stores.

“Since the start of 2023, our proactive age detection tools have resulted in the removal of more than one million Australian users suspected of being under the age of 13,” a TikTok spokesperson said.

Commission Grant highlighted the need for social media companies to comply with online safety laws, safety expectations, minimum age requirements, and the emerging global needs.

“While social media services must do more to implement age assurance measures and prioritise the best interests of children, we cannot expect them to act alone,” she said.
She however acknowledged that this responsibility does not belong to social media platforms only.

“The responsibility for child safety, including appropriate age assurance, must be shared across the digital ecosystem, including devices and their operating systems, app stores, search engines, and other services. Parents and carers, educators, policymakers, and technology developers all have a role to play in fostering safer digital spaces,” she added.

The eSafety report appreciated that most social media platforms had conducted research on improving age assurance setups. Some had provided ways for users to report instances of underage use.

The post Australia’s Under 16 Social Media Ban Questioned as Children Below 16 Bypass Age Restrictions appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Netflix vs. Disney+ has always been a popular argument on the internet because of the recognition gained by both streaming services.

Netflix was founded in 2007 and changed the video streaming industry with its subscription-based model and vast content library. Disney Plus, which debuted later in 2019, quickly positioned itself as a streaming platform dedicated to family-friendly content.

As these two streaming giants race for the top, a comparative analysis of their market performance and growth will reveal their respective strengths and weaknesses in the battle for streaming dominance.

Market Share and Growth: Netflix vs. Disney+

Netflix is currently crowned the streaming industry leader, with over 282.7 million subscribers in Q3 2024. In contrast, Disney+ has experienced some growth since its launch in 2019, reaching over 236.2 million subscribers across Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+. This display of rapid ascension showcases Disney+’s ability to leverage its existing brand equity and content library to capture market share.

Netflix has a market presence in over 190 countries, penetrating both developed and emerging markets. The platform has successfully localized its content and pricing strategies across regions. Disney+, while available in fewer territories, has secured a solid expansion strategy, particularly in the Asia-Pacific market, where it has secured strong partnerships with local telecom providers and content creators.

Disney+ is mainly focused on Bundle offerings with Hulu and ESPN+, as well as Premier access and integration with Disney’s broad ecosystem for its revenue streams. On the other hand, Netflix has diversified its income streams through multiple subscription tiers, recently introduced ad-supported options, and made pricing adjustments based on region.

While Netflix is very much in demand in Asia and maintains a high ARPU, with its interest in producing Korean content, in regions like North America, it has taken a drop in its audience size up to 61.8 percent. This development contributed to one of the factors that made Netflix introduce ad-supported tiers.

Disney+ has remarkable reach in Europe, with over five million mobile app downloads immediately after it was announced, taking its global subscriber base to over 30 million as of 2020. This successful launch had many factors behind it, such as its partnership with Sky and the Corona lockdown.

Content Strategy: Netflix vs. Disney+

In 2024, Netflix budgeted approximately $17 billion in content creation. They’re focused on high-volume production across several genres, green-lighting on promising projects, and global production hubs to create region-specific content.

Disney is taking a more calculated approach by expanding already successful franchises like Netflix, Star Wars, etc. They use a “tentpole strategy” that involves at least eight big-budget movies from its acquired labels like Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, and Pixar. However, this strategy has flopped hard since after COVID-19, as audiences are not buying tickets like they used to.

Netflix’s library includes over 17,000 titles, including popular original series like Stranger Things, Dahmer, and Wednesday, as well as a huge collection of documentaries and films across several genres. This diversity has made Netflix appealing to viewers of all ages and interests.

On the contrary, Disney+ offers just about 15,000 titles, mainly comprising Disney classics like Moana and Encanto alongside newer hits from Star Wars and Marvel. This makes it a top pick for sci-fi and superhero lovers.

Netflix enters partnerships with studios and content creators to secure rights to stream popular movies and TV shows. They have licensing deals with Sony, Universal, Warner Bros and Lionsgate. For instance, Netflix has a deal with Universal to license animated titles from DreamWorks Animation and Illumination, as well as live-action titles from Universal Pictures and Focus Features.

Infrastructure: Disney+ vs. Netflix

Disney+ or Netflix is available on mobile phones, tablets, smart TVs, gaming consoles, and even in cars with Apple Car Play or Android Auto. You can create multiple profiles and download videos to watch offline. They also have a dedicated kids mode that simplifies the UI and shows only content for kids.

Netflix also has secret codes for different genre categories and subcategories. For example, if you’re an action thriller lover, you can enter the code 43048 in the search bar of the streaming app, and you’ll get all the action thriller movies or series on the platform.

Furthermore, we want to let you know whether Netflix or Disney+ provides better streaming speed. The internet speed required for an optimal experience on these platforms varies based on the video quality you wish to stream. However, Disney+ users have repeatedly complained of buffering on the platform. We also found out during our research that Disney plus is much slower than Netflix.

This is because Disney+ lacks a compression algorithm, leading to higher bandwidth demands and increased data usage. Netflix, on the other hand, has an advanced buffering algorithm, allowing you to stream smoothly even on lower bandwidths.

Business Model Comparison: Netflix vs. Disney+

Netflix offers three tiered plans: Standard with Ads, Standard, and Premium. These plans range from $6.99 to $22.99 monthly.

The Premium plan provides extra features, like spatial audio and 4k video. However, despite these offerings, Netflix’s ad-supported plan surpassed other tiers in November 2024, reaching 70 million active users globally.

In response to the crackdown on account sharing, Netflix launched the Extra member feature. This feature, available to Standard and Premium users, allows them to add additional members outside their household for $7.99 per member. Standard users can add one extra member, while Premium users can add two. This feature has been criticized as many customers threaten to quit and switch to competitors, as they now have to pay extra to share their accounts.

On the other hand, Disney+ offers just two plans: Basic and Premium. The Basic plan costs $9.99 monthly, while the Premium is capped at $15.99 monthly with features like an ad-free experience and Dolby Atmos. Both plans offer 4K and HDR video streaming on up to 4 screens, making them significantly cheaper than Netflix, which requires an upgrade. However, Disney Plus extra member feature is more expensive than Netflix’s, as each subscription tier has different pricing.

An extra member slot on the Basic plan costs $6.99/month and $9.99/month on the Premium plan. Additionally, only one member can be added, regardless of the pricing tier.

In the early days of growth, Netflix partnered with Toshiba, which enabled them to give owners of Toshiba DVD players Netflix DVD rental coupons. In recent times, Netflix has partnered with smart TV companies like Sony, LG, and Samsung to install their application on their TV models. Disney+ is also making strategic partnerships with Samsung Smart TVs and services like Max to increase their bundled offerings.

The Next Chapter for Netflix vs. Disney+

Taking a quick SWOT analysis for Netflix and Disney+, it’s obvious these two giants have future growth potential. With the ongoing AI Bubble, Netflix recently announced the introduction of generative AI to assist content creators and improve content recommendations for its subscribers.

Disney has also introduced AI to create realistic 3-D immersive worlds with high-quality graphics. Additionally, with VR headsets becoming more popular, they announced showing 3D versions of their movies on Apple’s VR headset.

These trends suggest a bright future for both Netflix and Disney+ as they’re well-positioned to adapt and meet changing customer demands.

The post Disney Plus vs. Netflix: Which One Is the Better Streaming Service in 2025? appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Additional Verification

Telegram already had a feature for verifying organizations and public figures on the platform. With the latest Telegram update, the chat app introduces a new project where third-party authorities that have been verified can verify other accounts. Third-party authorities include educational consortiums and regulators.

Accounts that third-party authorities verify will have a new logo replacing the blue checkmark. The social media platform says the new logo will appear next to the name of the verified account.

“This decentralized platform for additional verification will help prevent scams and reduce misinformation- with a unique proactive solution that sets a new safety standard for social platforms,” Telegram said in a blog post.

Third-Party Authentication

Telegram’s new feature comes soon after its CEO Pavel Durov announced a new privacy policy. The policy paved the way for verification of close to 1 billion users on the platform following his arrest by French authorities last year. Durov was arrested for failing to prevent child abuse and drug trafficking on the social media app.

Organizations or users who wish to be authenticated will first have to undergo a verification process. This includes completing an application before becoming eligible for the verified mark. According to the company, authenticated third-party entities will be allowed to use the Telegram Bot API to remove or assign verifications.

This is very similar to entities purchasing verifications on X and verifying accounts that are affiliated to them. Once verified, affiliated accounts will have the logo of the verifying entity on their profile.

Gift-NFT Conversion

Besides Telegram’s third-party verification, the social media platform also announced a new way of converting gifts to NFTs with customized icons and backgrounds. With this feature, users will be able to send gifts they buy using Telegram Stars. Gifts can be purchased via the app or fragment sites by linking TON crypto wallets.

According to the messaging app, users can trade their NFTs on various platforms. The social media platform charges users to upgrade gifts to collectibles in order to cater for blockchain transaction fees. Collectible gifts are unique pieces of art that feature random combinations of background colors, numbers, or icons. Some collectibles gifts are more rare than others.

Telegram uses cryptocurrencies for mini app and game payments, as well as to facilitate creator monetization. Other updates on the platform include advanced search filters for private groups, chats, and channels as well as emoji reactions for messages.

Telegram’s Profitability

Telegram says that the monetization features launched in 2021 have paid off. Last year, the chat app attained profitability through privacy-focused ads, premium subscriptions, and Telegram Stars.

This has enabled it to focus on user privacy through the Telegram safety feature while improving the platform’s UX design. User safety took prominence in 2024 with leading social media giants like Meta and TikTok taking big hits. Last year, Meta-owned Instagram launched a teen account feature in a bid to improve minor safety.

The post Telegram Adds Third-Party Account Verification, Message Search Filter Features in New Update appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Personalizing User Experience

Reddit’s user base has been growing as Google improved search results. However, the number of log outs have exceeded logins since quarter four of 2023. The company has been struggling to monetize both logged in and logged-out users. This has forced Reddit to develop more personalized features to incentivize users.

“Reddit is the sixth most searched word on Google in the US this year, and so, those are people literally typing the word Reddit into Google. They know they’re going to end up there. They’re using, in this case, Google to navigate Reddit,” Huffman said in October.

Reddit has been testing its AI feature for the last six months before rolling it out widely. The company says that only a small section of US users will have access to the new Reddit Answers feature during this phase. Users can access the Reddit Answers feature through a new button placed on the homepage.

From the homepage, users land on an interface where they can post their questions. The user interface is very similar to what you find on Perplexity, ChatGPT, and other generative AI platforms.

User Generated Responses

Although the Reddit Answers interface looks like other AI platforms, it works differently. Unlike other AI search tools that source for answers around the web, Reddit’s AI feature generates answers from the posts that users leave on the platform.

“Once a question is asked, curated summaries of relevant conversations and details across Reddit will appear, including links to related communities and posts,” the company said.

A good example is when a user posts a question like how to modify a popular Jeep model. Using the AI feature, Reddit will list all the tips, quotes, and summaries from related posts made by other users on the platform. The platform also provides links to the answers so users can access the related links directly.

VP for Product, Serkan Piantino said that Reddit AI generated replies are about creating a bridge to user generated content as opposed to replacing the platform. The intention of introducing Reddit Answers is to get users to access more content on the platform.

Focused Investment

Reddit says that its users will be able to query any topic on its AI chatbot except for content that is not safe for work. In October 2024, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman said that the AI-powered search is focused investment.

“It helps core users navigate Reddit, answer their questions, and it’s a monetization opportunity. It’s one of the few products that kind of touches everything,” he said during the third-quarter earnings call.

Reddit developed its AI chatbot using AI models from Google Cloud and OpenAI. The chatbot has been built on top of Reddit’s current search architecture. The company has signed data licensing agreements with Google and OpenAI where the two big techs pay Reddit to access its data for use in their respective AI models.

The post How Reddit’s New AI-Powered Feature Generates Answers by Curating User Posts appeared first on Tech Research Online.

If you had to choose between the Apple Vision Pro vs Meta Quest 3, which would you pick? For many, the Vision Pro with a starting price of $3,499 Vision Pro might seem like the obvious choice—if budget isn’t a concern. But is spending an extra $3,000 on the Apple headset truly worth the added value?

Set aside personal bias as we go into a detailed comparison of these two standout headsets. We’ll evaluate them based on key factors like pricing, performance, battery life, appearance, display quality, and gaming support to help you determine the best choice for your needs.

Pricing and Accessibility: Apple Vision Pro vs Meta Quest 3

The Quest 3 is better than Vision Pro if budget is a concern. However, the popularity of the Vision Pro since its launch in early 2024 highlights the value it offers. With an infinite display, spatial computing, and seamless integration with Apple products, the Vision Pro is a premium investment. Starting at $3,499 for the 256GB model, it also offers 512GB and 1TB options at $3,699 and $3,899, respectively.

Does this make the Quest 3 a cheaper, inferior alternative? Not at all. At $499.99 for 128GB and $649.99 for 512GB, the Meta Quest 3 appeals to gamers and fans of VR/AR applications. While it lacks advanced computational power with slightly lesser graphics than the Vision Pro, it delivers excellent value for casual users. Accessories for the Quest 3 are also more affordable, with cases starting at $69.99 compared to Apple’s $199.

Winner: Meta Quest 3

Display and Visual Experience: Apple Vision Pro vs Meta Quest 3

Both headsets offer immersive visuals, but the Vision Pro is better than Quest 3 with its dual 4K micro-OLED displays and an impressive 23 million pixel resolution. Its images look incredibly real, providing an experience that feels like being inside a Metaverse environment. Whether for gaming, video editing, or media consumption, the Vision Pro’s display enhances your experience, giving the true feel of interacting within a digital world.

The Meta Quest 3, a significant upgrade over the Quest 2 and Quest Pro, features dual 2,064 x 2,208 pixel LCD displays. While lower in resolution than the Vision Pro, it still provides sharp visuals with a refresh rate of up to 120Hz. However, the Quest 3’s display, which is still preferred by many gamers, may appear “noisy” with less graphical detail compared to Apple’s premium headset.

Winner: Vision Pro

Comfort and Appearance: Apple Vision Pro vs Meta Quest 3

It doesn’t matter if you are a corporate professional or simply the fun guy who wants either Quest 3 or the Vision Pro. What most users want is a headset they can wear for hours without it feeling heavy. While the Apple Vision Pro, at 600–650 g, is only slightly heavier than the 515 g Quest 3, this difference can matter during extended use.

The Vision Pro’s lightweight aluminum and glass construction gives it a premium feel. Although some users find it less comfortable than the polyester and nylon straps of the Meta Quest 3 when used for long hours.

Nevertheless, the Vision Pro offers greater durability, aligning with its luxury positioning. Choosing between Meta Quest 3 vs Apple Vision Pro here comes down to balancing weight and material preferences.

In terms of appearance, the Vision Pro provides a sleek modern luxury, reflecting Apple’s design reputation. By contrast, the Quest 3 prioritizes a user-friendly, robust design, making it practical and accessible for its price point.

Nevertheless, the Vision Pro offers greater durability, aligning with its luxury positioning. Choosing between Meta Quest 3 vs Apple Vision Pro here comes down to balancing weight and material preferences.

In terms of appearance, the Vision Pro provides a sleek modern luxury, reflecting Apple’s design reputation. By contrast, the Quest 3 prioritizes a user-friendly, robust design, making it practical and accessible for its price point.

Winner: Draw

Performance and Hardware: Apple Vision Pro vs Meta Quest 3

• Sensor Technology and Hand/Eye Tracking

The level of interaction with content is the main difference in the mixed reality experiences of the Meta Quest 3 vs Apple Vision Pro headsets. The Vision Pro, through its VisionOS operating system, offers a more intuitive, natural, and seamless navigation with its advanced eye-tracking and hand gesture recognition support. The 12 cameras and 6 microphones also give you the best possible immersive experience of your mixed-reality headset.

In contrast, the Quest 3 lacks eye-tracking and relies on Touch Plus controllers, which are optimized for intense gaming. While the Vision Pro’s eye-tracking is superior for hands-free interactions, the Plus controller for Quest 3 is suitable for intense gaming experiences.

Winner: Vision Pro

• Processor capabilities

The Vision Pro combines the M2 chip with a dedicated R1 chip, enabling real-time spatial data processing and making it perfect for complex tasks like 3D design and heavy computations. On the other hand, the Quest 3 features the Qualcomm Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 processor, which also supports intensive tasks but is more optimized for smooth gaming and entertainment experiences.

Winner: Apple Vision Pro

• Battery life and charging

The battery life of both the Meta Quest 3 vs Apple Vision Pro are similar with the respective manufacturers promising 2 to 3 hours. However, the Apple headset has a slight disadvantage here, since it requires an external connector for the battery pack. That means the battery pack must be somewhere in your pocket. The wireless power-up system for the Quest 3 is better than Vision Pro since you only charge the main headset and not a separate battery pack.

Winner: Quest 3

Gaming and Apps: Apple Vision Pro vs Meta Quest 3

While the Vision Pro is better than Quest 3 in spatial computing and high-resolution graphics, the Meta product remains the go-to choice for most gamers. A good reason is the time on the market compared to the Vision Pro that just launched in 2024. As a result, the Meta headset is compatible with an insanely large amount of games which are mostly VR for now.

Apple is working to close the gap by migrating games and apps to the Vision Pro. Collaborations with game controller companies like Xbox and PlayStation have brought over 600 applications and 250 games to the App Store, including titles like Lego Builder’s Journey and Wylde Flowers. We expect to see more popular game developers adjust their controllers to work with the Vision Pro for its immersive, high-quality, and big-screen experience.

Winner: Meta Quest 3

Final Verdict: Is Apple Vision Pro better than Meta Quest 3?

Comparing the Apple Vision Pro vs Meta Quest 3 is like comparing the Tesla Model S Plaid to the Toyota Camry TRD. The Tesla offers luxury, electric driving, and advanced autonomous driving, while the Camry TRD still delivers the core functions of a car—plus a sporty advantage—at a much more affordable price.

Similarly, the Vision Pro offers premium technology and luxury features over the more affordable Quest 3. However, the Meta headset excels in affordability, versatility, and gaming support, making it more accessible and user-friendly for a wider audience.
Can the Vision Pro play games? Yes, but its lack of controllers makes it less suitable for fast-paced action games, and many developers will need time to adapt their apps for eye tracking.

For great value, comfort, and a wide range of apps, the Quest 3 is the better choice. The Vision Pro is ideal for business users seeking advanced spatial computing and high-definition visuals for complex tasks.

The post Apple Vision Pro vs Meta Quest 3: A Quick Comparison Guide appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Eliminating Censorship Cartel

Trump’s FCC lead said that eliminating censorship cartels will be his top priority. This will ensure that free speech is protected across social media platforms and beyond.

“We must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models,” Carr posted on X.

According to Carr, the remedy is to do away with legal immunity under Section 230 that insulates big techs from liability whenever they regulate third party content. Carr says dominant tech companies abuse their market position.

“Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models.” He wrote in a chapter on the FCC.

There is a need to also impose transparency rules, similar to those that broadband providers are subjected to. With these changes, social media platforms will have to publish more detailed terms of service. Additionally, the platforms will have to establish an appeals process for users to challenge them whenever they pull their posts down.

Impact on Net Neutrality

Carr’s proposals have not gone unchallenged. Fight for the Future, a lobby group that supports online privacy has raised concerns that Carr’s ideas will upend internet neutrality rules. These rules require internet service providers to treat all the content published online equally. In 2017, the upcoming FCC chairperson voted against neutrality rules.

In Project 2025, Carr said that the FCC needed to do more to guard American citizens against existing personal and national security threats.

These threats emanate from social media platform TikTok, and telecommunication equipment makers, ZTE and Huawei. Carr said TikTok gives the Chinese government a chance to run a foreign influence campaign. He said they do this by curating the information and news that millions of US citizens view.

Big Tech’s Service Fund Charge

Trump’s FCC select chair says that US big techs must pay their fair share into the communication agency’s $9 billion universal service fund. The fund is used to subsidize internet costs to facilitate affordable access and support rural connectivity programs.

As it is now, the fund relies on telco consumers for the bulk of its funding. Carr wants to change this. According to him, big techs should support the fund because they use networks that are supported by the federal government to deliver their products and services to customers.

TikTok’s Divest or Ban Law

Earlier this year, President Biden and Congress agreed to ban TikTok from operating in the US under Chinese ownership through the divest or ban law. On the campaign trail, Trump suggested that he could reduce the impact of this law. Biden signed the divest or ban bill into law in April 2024. Under this law, Chinese ownership of TikTok is illegal.

Under Trump’s leadership, the FCC is expected to update the list of covered telecommunication equipment makers that pose national security. Carr says the agency should focus on closing all loopholes to ensure that companies such as China Telecom cannot run unregulated data centers within the US.

The post Trump’s FCC Pick Hints at Massive Changes for US Big Techs appeared first on Tech Research Online.

The Senate in Australia approved the ban late on November 28, 2024 during this year’s last sitting. The approval comes after intense public debate and a rushed process that resulted in the bill being brought to parliament, debated, and voted for in just a week.

A Pivotal Moment

The Australian government praised the under-16 social media ban, saying it will make companies responsible for kids online.

“Platforms now have a social responsibility to ensure the safety of our kids is a priority for them. We know that social media can be a weapon for bullies, a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers. And worst of all, a tool for online predators,” Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.

In parliament, the bill had attracted support from a majority of members in the Liberal Party, Australia’s largest opposition party. Liberal Party Senator, Maria Kovacic termed the law as a pivotal moment for the country.

“We have drawn a line in the sand. The enormous power of big tech can no longer remain unchecked in Australia,” she said ahead of voting.

But not all members supported the new restrictions. Members of some smaller and independent parties had attempted to block the new law.

“This is a disaster unfolding before our eyes. You couldn’t make this stuff up. The prime minister says he’s worried about social media. The leader of the opposition says, ‘Let’s ban it.’ It’s a race to the bottom to try and pretend who can be the toughest. We need to make social media safer for everybody.” Senator Sarah Hanson-Young of the Greens Party said.

Sharp Criticism

The Australian government has attracted sharp criticism over the speed with which the legislation was passed. Members of the public were only allowed 24 hours to make their submissions to a Senate Committee. The inquiry report from the committee was released on Tuesday, November 26, and the bill passed a day after, on Wednesday 27, 2024.

Over 100 submissions were made to the committee, majority of them expressing serious concerns over the time afforded to a bill of such importance. Despite this, the Senate committee went ahead to recommend passage of the bill with several amendments. One of those changes involved prohibiting social media companies from using government documents like passports to verify the age of users.

Australia’s new online safety laws are now the toughest response to a problem that has pushed other countries into imposing restrictions on social media companies. However, countries are yet to hold those companies accountable for breaching nationwide bans. The new ban will apply to TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Under the new Australian social media law, tech companies have to take measures to keep underage users from using social media platforms. Companies that fail to do this will be fined close to $32 million.

Reactions from Big Techs

Meta and TikTok said they shared Australia’s goal of making social platforms safer for children. However, the two social media giants said the law had been rushed. Meta owns Instagram and Facebook. Both platforms will be affected by the social media ban.

“The task now turns to ensuring there is productive consultation on all rules associated with the bill to ensure a technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens and a commitment that rules will be consistently applied across all social apps used by teens,” Meta’s spokesperson said.

X made submissions to the Senate committee inquiry. In its submissions, X said its platform is not commonly used by minors. However, the Elon Musk-owned platform expressed concerns that the law would limit freedom of expression.

Snap Inc, which owns Snapchat said there are concerns around implementation of Australia’s social media restrictions. The company, whose app is popular among minors, had recommended device level verification in its submissions.

Moving forward, the Australian government will consult widely before setting a switch-off date to deactivate social media accounts held by under 16 users. Although parents and children will not be penalized for violating the ban, social media platforms will be required to demonstrate that they’ve taken reasonable measures to keep underage users from using their platforms.

The post Big Techs Criticize Australia For Rushing the New Social Media Ban Law appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Meta platform, which owns Instagram, announced that the reset feature will be rolled out globally soon.

Accessibility of Reset Feature

Meta says that Instagram’s recommendations feature will be accessible to all users, irrespective of age. This includes Teen Account holders. Instagram introduced the Teen Accounts in September 2024 to reassure parents and guardians that the social media platform has in-built protection features that automatically give teens safe experiences.

“We want to make sure everyone on Instagram, especially teens, has safe, positive, age-appropriate experiences and feels the time they’re spending on Instagram is valuable. We want to give teens new ways to shape their Instagram experience, so it can continue to reflect their passions and interests as they evolve,” Meta said.

Meta has partnered with organization experts to develop tips that can help parents and teens to organize Instagram accounts and take stock of what they view to see whether it suits them.

User Control

By introducing the new Instagram reset feature, Meta will be giving users more control over their accounts. The feature allows users to remove recommendations across different sections. They could also review and make changes to their ‘following’ lists by simply unfollowing accounts.

“Your recommendations will start to personalize again over time, showing new content based on the content and accounts you interact with,” the social media platform said in a blog.

Meta’s update comes amidst rising criticism from safety advocates who claim Instagram affects teens negatively. At the moment, Instagram users have partial influence on their recommendations through a widget that labels content as interested or not interested. Early this year, the platform stopped giving users political content recommendations.

The Instagram algorithm update is very similar to an already existing feature on TikTok.

A Welcome Move

The Instagram new algorithm has been received well by safety regulators like Ofcom. The changes come ahead of enforcement of new safety duties that are to be imposed on social media platforms as soon as the Online Safety Act takes effect.

“It’s good to see Instagram bringing these changes in before regulation starts to bite, and we’ll be pressing for companies to do more to protect and empower their users. When the UK’s online safety laws are fully in force, the largest sites and apps will have to give people more control over what they see,” an Ofcom spokesperson said.

Andy Burrows, the CEO of suicide prevention organization at the Molly Rose Foundation noted that some young people feel trapped by the harmful content that social media algorithms recommend. He commended Meta for giving users more control over the content they consume.

The post Instagram’s New Update to Give Users More Control Over Content Recommendations appeared first on Tech Research Online.

According to AP News, Meta obtained information from about 980,000 Facebook users in South Korea. This information included the religion, sexual orientation, and political views of users.

Increased Scrutiny

South Korea has a privacy law that provides for strict protection of information relating to political views, personal beliefs, and sexual behavior. The law also bars companies from using or processing such data without the express consent of the person involved.

In recent years, South Korea has increased scrutiny on how Meta handles private information. Meta also owns the WhatsApp platform and Instagram. The Meta data collection fine is the latest penalty that the Asian country has imposed on the tech giant in recent years.

South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission has been investigating Meta for user data privacy violation for four years. The Commission concluded that the tech giant collected sensitive information from Facebook users between July 2018 and March 2022. According to the data protection watchdog, Meta shared user data with around 4,000 advertisers unlawfully.

Meta’s Targeted Service

South Korea’s data protection agency accused Meta of gathering sensitive data by analyzing Facebook advertisements that users clicked on or pages that they liked. The social media giant then categorized ads in specific themes that included North Korean escapees, transgender issues, same-sex issues, and specific religions. The tech giant used these categories to identify users who are interested in these themes.

“While Meta collected this sensitive information and used it for individualized services, they made only vague mentions of this use in their data policy and did not obtain specific consent,” Lee Eun Jung, a Director at the Commission who led the Investigation on Meta said.

According to Jung, Meta did not implement basic security measures like removal or blocking inactive pages. This placed the privacy of Facebook users at risk, which paved the way for hackers to use inactive pages to fake identities and request password resets for other Facebook users.

According to the Commision, Meta approved the password requests without proper verification. This led to data breaches that affected about 10 Facebook users in South Korea. South Korea Meta office did not comment on the issue but said it will review the decision by the Commission carefully.

Big Tech Penalties

The latest fine from Meta privacy violations in South Korea isn’t the only penalty that the big tech is facing. In July 2024, a US court ordered the tech giant to pay a $1.4 billion settlement in the Texas facial recognition data lawsuit. The Metadata lawsuit was a result of unauthorized use of biometric data by Facebook.

In September 2024, the big tech was slapped with a $100 million fine by European regulators for a security lapse that exposed user passwords temporarily in 2019. In 2022, the Data Privacy Commission in South Korea fined Google and Meta $72 million for monitoring consumer behavior online without their consent and using that data to target them with ads.

According to the Commission, the two big techs failed to obtain user consent to gather their data. The two companies were directed to provide a simple and clear consent process to users to give them more control over their data.

The post South Korea Fines Meta $15 Million for Personal Data Violation appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Thrive is aimed at flagging harmful content on self-harm or suicide and keeping it from spreading on social media platforms.

Sharing Signals

Through the Mental Health Coalition partnership, Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat will share signals about violations of self-harm content with each other. This will enable the platforms to investigate and take action where the same or similar content is posted on their applications.

In a blog posted on its website, Meta acknowledged that self-harm content isn’t limited to its platforms only. Meta’s spokesperson described Thrive Mental health program as a database that’s accessible to all participating companies. Meta said that any self-harm content found on social media will be removed and flagged in the database so that other companies can take action.

“We’re prioritizing this content because of its propensity to spread across different platforms quickly. These initial signals represent content only, and will not include identifiable information about any accounts or individuals,” Meta Global Head of Safety, Antigone Davis wrote in the post.

The social media giant said it will be using its technology, alongside the Lantern program to share harmful data securely on the Thrive platform. Lantern program is a Tech Coalition platform designed to make technology safe for children. It includes tech giants like Google, Apple, OpenAI, and Discord.

Legal Actions

For a long time, Snapchat, Meta, TikTok, and other social media platforms have been criticized for not taking sufficient action to moderate the content that teens consume online. This includes images and videos of self-harm.

Previously, parents and communities have taken legal action against the three platforms that are now partnering under the Thrive Mental Wellbeing program for allowing content that led to suicides. In 2021, internal research that leaked to the public revealed that Meta knew its Instagram platform could have harmful impacts on teenage girls.

Studies have suggested that teens who self-harm are active on social media. They have also shown that increased use of social media by minors has led to increased suicidal ideation and depression among those groups.

A Welcome Move

Meta’s mental health initiative has been welcomed by tech safety advocates. Acknowledging the good intentions of Thrive, technology watchdogs say the program appears to be a safety measure that companies take when they’re pressured by advocates and lawmakers.

“We are glad to see these companies working together to remove the types of content associated with self-harm and suicide. Without proper regulatory guardrails, the jury is out on whether this will have a significant impact on the harms that kids and teens are facing online,” Chief Advocacy Officer at Common Sense Media, Daniel Weiss said.

Earlier this year, Meta announced that it would be removing and limiting sensitive and inappropriate content from teenagers’ feeds. The social media giant also said it was planning to hide terms and search results relating to eating disorders, suicide, and self-harm from all users.

On Thursday, September 12, Meta reported that it pulled down 12 million content pieces featuring self-harm and suicide from Instagram and Facebook between April and June 2024. The company hopes that Thrive will help keep graphic content off the three social platforms that are participating in the programs.

The post Meta’s Thrive Mental Health Initiative to Fight Self-Harm Content appeared first on Tech Research Online.

According to Yahoo Finance, the online review site alleges that Google has an unfair advantage in the local search market and advertising.

Anticompetitive Conduct

Yelp has considered Google’s conduct as anticompetitive for over a decade now. The California-based firm has been striving to compete with Google in local search and advertising by developing detailed reviews of local businesses like beauty parlors and restaurants.

The timing of the Yelp Google antitrust legal suit suggests that more businesses may take action against the search giant in the coming months. Besides businesses, government agencies have stepped up antitrust probes against big tech companies. In June this year, US agencies agreed to commence probes on OpenAI, Microsoft, and Nvidia.

Speaking in an interview, Aaron Schur, Yelp’s General Counsel said that Yelp drew from Google’s antitrust case ruling earlier this month to demonstrate that the tech giant used its monopoly power to dominate other spaces.

“Our case is asserting that Google has abused that illegal monopoly in general search that has already been decided by Judge Mehta, and it’s using that monopoly to self-preference that inferior content in the adjacent market of local search and also the local search advertising market,” Schur said.

Self-Preferencing

Yelp’s lawsuit is about stopping Google from prioritizing its reviews above those of competitors. The lawsuit outlines how Google sought to get users off its search page and onto the web fast. This move led to the creation of thriving ecosystems like Yelp that provided consumers with the information they were seeking.

However, Google decided to enter into this market when it noticed how lucrative it was to help users find which pizza to order or which handyman to hire.

“First and foremost we want Google to end its unlawful self-preferencing- which hurts consumers, hurts competition, and hurts the businesses that pay for local search advertising. That is really what we are focused on in this case,” Schur said.

In a statement released by Google’s spokesperson, the tech giant said it will mount a vigorous defense against Yelp’s allegations that the company considers to lack merit. Google says that Yelp’s claims are not new and that similar allegations had been dismissed by the Federal Trade Commission a few years ago.

A Long Battle

Yelp has been accusing Google of monopolizing the internet search market in the US and the EU for several years now. Specifically, the online review company has been accusing Google of using its dominance to place its reviews higher than those of rivals on search results.

In the wake of the landmark antitrust ruling, the US Department of Justice is considering pursuing a forceful break up of the tech giant. If this happens, this will be the first push to break up a company for illegal monopolization in two decades after efforts to split Microsoft failed. A forceful breakup of the tech giant would be the largest in the US since the 1980’s when AT&T was dismantled.

The DoJ may opt for a less severe option like requiring the tech giant to share data with rivals or eliminating its default status in mobile devices.

The post Yelp Sues Google for Self-Preferencing Customer Reviews appeared first on Tech Research Online.