 Hanna Barakat & Archival Images of AI + AIxDESIGN, CC BY-SA
Jessica Russ-Smith, Australian Catholic University and Michelle D. Lazarus, Monash UniversityIn the eyes of big AI companies such as OpenAI, the troves of data on the internet are highly valuable. They scrape photos, videos, books, blog posts, albums, painting, photographs and much more to train their products such as ChatGPT – usually without any compensation to or consent from the creators. In fact, OpenAI and Google are arguing that a part of American copyright law, known as the “fair use doctrine”, legitimises this data theft. Ironically, OpenAI has also accused other AI giants of data scraping “its” intellectual property. First Nations communities around the world are looking at these scenes with knowing familiarity. Long before the advent of AI, peoples, the land, and their knowledges were treated in a similar way – exploited by colonial powers for their own benefit. What’s happening with AI is a kind of “digital colonialism”, in which powerful (mostly Western) tech giants are using algorithms, data and digital technologies to exert power over others, and take data without consent. But resistance is possible – and the long history of First Nations resistance demonstrates how people might go about it. The fiction of terra nulliusTerra nullius is a Latin term that translates to “no one’s land” or “land belonging to no one”. It was used by colonisers to “legally” – at least by the laws of the colonisers – lay claim to land. The legal fiction of terra nullius in Australia was overturned in the landmark 1992 Mabo case. This case recognised the land rights of the Meriam peoples, First Nations of the Murray Islands, as well as the ongoing connection to land of First Nations peoples in Australia. In doing so, it overturned terra nullius in a legal sense, leading to the Native Title Act 1993. But we can see traces of the idea of terra nullius in the way AI companies are scraping billions of people’s data from the internet. It is as though they believe the data belongs to no one – similar to how the British wrongly believed the continent of Australia belonged to no one. Digital colonialism dressed up as consentWhile data is scraped without our knowledge, a more insidious way digital colonialism materialises is in the coercive relinquishing of our data through bundled consent. Have you had to click “accept all” after a required phone update or to access your bank account? Congratulations! You have made a Hobson’s choice: in reality, the only option is to “agree”. What would happen if you didn’t tick “yes”, if you chose to reject this bundled consent? You might not be able to bank or use your phone. It’s possible your healthcare might also suffer. It might appear you have options. But if you don’t tick “yes to all”, you’re “choosing” social exclusion. This approach isn’t new. While terra nullius was a colonial strategy to claim resources and land, Hobson’s choices are implemented as a means of assimilation into dominant cultural norms. Don’t dress “professionally”? You won’t get the job, or you’ll lose the one you have. Resisting digital terra nulliusSo, is assimilation our only choice? No. In fact, generations of resistance teach us many ways to fight terra nullius and survive. Since colonial invasion, First Nations communities have resisted colonialism, asserting over centuries that it “always was and always will be Aboriginal land”. Resistance is needed at all levels of society – from the individual to local and global communities. First Nations communities’ survival proclamations and protests can provide valuable direction – as the Mabo case showed – for challenging and changing legal doctrines that are used to claim knowledge. Resistance is already happening, with waves of lawsuits alleging AI data scraping violates intellectual property laws. For example, in October, online platform Reddit sued AI start-up Perplexity for scraping copyrighted material to train its model. In September, AI company Anthropic also settled a class action lawsuit launched by authors who argued the company took pirated copies of books to train its chatbot – to the tune of US$1.5 billion. The rise of First Nations data sovereignty movements also offers a path forward. Here, data is owned and governed by local communities, with the agency to decide what, when and how data is used (and the right to refuse its use at any point) retained in these communities. A data sovereign future could include elements of “continuity of consent” where data is stored only on the devices of the individual or community, and companies would need to request access to data every time they want to use it. Community-governed changes to data consent processes and legalisation would allow communities – whether defined by culture, geography, jurisdiction, or shared interest – to collectively negotiate ongoing access to their data. In doing so, our data would no longer be considered a digital terra nullius, and AI companies would be forced to affirm – through action – that data belongs to the people. AI companies might seem all-powerful, like many colonial empires once did. But, as Pemulwuy and other First Nations warriors demonstrated, there are many ways to resist. Jessica Russ-Smith, Associate Professor, Social Work and Deputy Head of School, School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University and Michelle D. Lazarus, Director, Centre of Human Anatomy Education, Monash University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
Digitalization increasing risk of losing cultural identity: Sharingain (2025-06-14T11:39:00+05:30)
|
Women showcase the traditional art of winnowing rice during the Moatsu Festival, which began on May 1 in Mokokchung town. (Morung Photo) Moatsü Festival 2025 begins in Mokokchung with celebration and reflection: The Moatsü Festival 2025 (Mini Hornbill)—the premier celebration of the Ao Naga community—officially began on May 1 at the Imkongmeren Sports Complex, Mokokchung. Held under the theme “Celebrating Our Roots,” the three-day event is organized by Ao Senden and is being described as the largest Moatsü celebration to date. It is presented as a “collective celebration initiated by the Ao legislators and the government of Nagaland.” Naga cuisine recipes Sharingain Longkumer, Speaker of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and special guest of the opening day, expressed gratitude to the organizing committee for what he called a “privileged honour.” Reflecting on the blessings and achievements of the Ao community, he stated that the tribe has made significant contributions to the state across various sectors, attributing this progress to the grace of God.  A man demonstrates bamboo cutting using a dao during the Moatsu Festival, which began on May 1 in Mokokchung town. (Morung Photo)He emphasized the need for introspection, urging the community to reflect on the legacy of their forebears. “In this changing world, as we pursue progress, we often forget the blessings we already have,” he said. “Too often, what we have becomes a victim of what we desire. Desire and need are not the same.” Touching on culture and tradition, he remarked on how modernization and digitalization have made the world smaller, increasing the risk of losing cultural identity. “This should be a time of deep retrospection—of what we have, where we stand, and what direction we are taking.” Naga cuisine recipes He further reminded that Ao Senden is in its 45th year, with only five years to go before its golden jubilee. “As we approach that milestone, we must be clear in our vision and purpose. Let this be a time of awakening and revival for our tribe—to return to the simple values passed down by our forefathers and guide our youth with purpose.” Earlier, Limanungsang, DB, highlighted the historical and spiritual significance of the Moatsü Festival. He explained that the festival traditionally marks the completion of sowing seeds and is a time to seek divine blessings for an abundant harvest.  He credited the Ao Kaketshir Mungdang (Ao Students’ Conference) for standardizing the celebration to May 1–3 across all Ao villages—an effort to unify the community and ensure inclusivity, regardless of status or background. Limanungsang underscored that the festival is also a day of forgiveness—an opportunity to reconcile differences between villages, neighbours, families, and individuals. “Through forgiveness and togetherness,” he said, “blessings will follow, and the land will prosper.” The opening ceremony was compered by Dr Limasenla Jamir and Lanuakum Jamir. The event was hosted by Lanutoshi Aier, President of the Ao Students’ Conference (AKM). A welcome address was delivered by Thsüvisie Phoji, Deputy Commissioner of Mokokchung, followed by a special performance by the Note Grid School of Music.  Indigenous games such as spear throwing (Nü Tsüshishi), bamboo cutting (Nokjem) and winnowing rice (Jang Sepa Litet) saw enthusiastic participation from ward and range teams. The Inter-Ward Tug of War (Mepu Tsüngda Ar-Atsütep) was officially launched by Imkongmar, MLA and Advisor for Sericulture and Minority Affairs. Cultural stalls were inaugurated by Sharingain Longkumer, and the evening saw a folk song competition (Sobaliba Kenten Toktep) graced by TN Manen (IAS), Advisor for Law & Justice and Land Revenue. The day ended with a special performance by Dreamz Unlimited.On May 2, Ao Senden will host a grand civic reception for Chief Minister Dr Neiphiu Rio — reportedly, the first time Rio is accorded such a reception in Mokokchung. Digitalization increasing risk of losing cultural identity: Sharingain | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com |
Indian edtech sector bridging geographical divide: Report (2025-06-14T11:08:00+05:30)
 New Delhi, (IANS): The Indian edtech sector is actively bridging the geographical divide in education and making quality learning accessible to millions, according to a report on Friday. The report jointly by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) and Grant Thornton Bharat released today at the India Digital Summit (IDS) showed that 98 per cent of teachers and 69 per cent of parents recognise the role of edtech in overcoming geographical barriers. It underlines that edtech platforms provide access to high-quality education services, resources, and courses that may not be available locally. This includes video lectures, interactive modules, and virtual classrooms, ensuring that students from diverse backgrounds can receive quality education regardless of their geographic location. The report also highlights that 94 per cent of students and 84 per cent of teachers find edtech content engaging, and the platforms are bridging the gap between academic knowledge and industry demands. This alignment is fostering employability across fields, supporting India’s vision for an inclusive, future-ready education system. About 85 per cent of students believe edtech improved their learning outcomes, while 86 per cent of users highlight the economic accessibility of edtech courses, and 87 per cent of students value its contribution to real-world skills like coding and AI, underscoring its relevance in workforce development. “Edtech platforms may prove to be a game changer as they remove the barriers of physical classrooms and can take education to the remote corners of the country. While doing so, the sector needs to solve certain hurdles like creating low-bandwidth solutions and safeguarding data privacy,” said Prateek Maheshwari, Co-Founder of PhysicsWallah (PW) and Chair of the India Edtech Consortium (IEC). “Technology is vital to education delivery, but effective outcomes need supportive environments. India’s EdTech sector is transforming education delivery, enhancing accessibility, and empowering learners and educators, fostering a more equitable knowledge economy,” added Dharmender Jhamb, Partner, Grant Thornton Bharat. The report also points out that by leveraging the 4A framework: academic quality, accessibility, affordability, and advancing employment, the Indian edtech sector has addressed key gaps in traditional education systems. Edtech’s commitment to accessibility is particularly evident in rural and underserved regions, where it plays a key role in increasing student participation.--IANS Indian edtech sector bridging geographical divide: Report | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com |
Germany considers 10% tax on internet giants (2025-06-09T12:52:00+05:30)
 Germany is weighing plans for a 10 percent digital tax for internet giants such as Alphabet and Meta, a senior official said Friday, despite the risk of stoking further trade tensions with the United States. "This is a question of tax justice," parliamentary state secretary in the digital ministry Philip Amthor told Die Welt newspaper. "Large digital corporations in particular are cleverly engaging in tax avoidance" while German businesses are "treated with no mercy, everything is taxed." "A fairer system must be created here so that this tax avoidance is addressed," he said about the plan to tax advertising revenue from platforms such as Meta's Instagram and Facebook. Germany's media and culture commissioner Wolfram Weimer said earlier the government was drafting a proposal for such a digital tax but would first invite Google and other big tech companies for talks. Weimer -- the former editor of Die Welt and other media -- on Thursday told Stern magazine that "the large American digital platforms like Alphabet/Google, Meta and others are on my agenda". He said he had "invited Google management and key industry representatives to meetings at the chancellery to examine alternatives, including possible voluntary commitments". "At the same time, we are preparing a concrete legislative proposal," Weimer added. This could be based on the model in Austria, which has a five percent tax, he said, adding that in Germany "we consider a 10 percent tax rate to be moderate and legitimate". He said that "monopoly-like structures have emerged that not only restrict competition but also over-concentrate media power. This puts media diversity at risk". "On the other hand, corporations in Germany are doing billion-dollar business with very high margins and have profited enormously from our country's media and cultural output as well as its infrastructure. "But they hardly pay any taxes, invest too little, and give far too little back to society."Weimer stressed that "something has to change now. Germany is becoming alarmingly dependent on the American technological infrastructure." Germany considers 10% tax on internet giants |
3 in 4 people experience abuse on dating apps. How do we balance prevention with policing? (2025-02-11T11:09:00+05:30)
|
A 2022 survey by the Australian Institute of Criminology found three in four app users surveyed had experienced online abuse or harassment when using dating apps. This included image-based abuse and abusive and threatening messages. A further third experienced in-person or off-app abuse from people they met on apps. These figures set the scene for a national roundtable convened on Wednesday by Communications Minister Michelle Rowland and Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth. Experiences of abuse on apps are strongly gendered and reflect preexisting patterns of marginalisation. Those targeted are typically women and members of LGBTIQA+ communities, while perpetrators are commonly men. People with disabilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and people from migrant backgrounds report being directly targeted based on their perceived differences. What do these patterns tell us? That abuse on apps isn’t new or specific to digital technologies. It reflects longstanding trends in offline behaviour. Perpetrators simply exploit the possibilities dating apps offer. With this in mind, how might we begin to solve the problem of abuse on dating apps? Trying to find solutionsSurvivors of app-related abuse and violence say apps have been slow to respond, and have failed to offer meaningful responses. In the past, users have reported abusive behaviours, only to be met with a chatbot. Also, blocking or reporting an abusive user doesn’t automatically reduce in-app violence. It just leaves the abuser free to abuse another person. Wednesday’s roundtable considered how app-makers can work better with law enforcement agencies to respond to serious and persistent offenders. Although no formal outcomes have been announced, it has been suggested that app users should provide 100 points of identification to verify their profiles. But this proposal raises privacy concerns. It would create a database of the real-world identities of people in marginalised groups, including LGBTIQA+ communities. If these data were leaked, it could cause untold harm. Prevention is keyMoreover, even if the profile verification process was bolstered, regulators could still only respond to the most serious cases of harm, and after abuse has already occurred. That’s why prevention is vital when it comes to abuse on dating apps. And this is where research into everyday patterns and understanding of app use adds value. Often, abuse and harassment are fuelled by stereotypical beliefs about men having a “right” to sexual attention. They also play on widely held assumptions that women, queer people and other marginalised groups do not deserve equal levels of respect and care in all their sexual encounters and relationships – from lifelong partnerships to casual hookups. In response, app-makers have engaged in PSA-style campaigns seeking to change the culture among their users. For example, Grindr has a long-running “Kindr” campaign that targets sexual racism and fatphobic abuse among the gay, bisexual and trans folk who use the platform. Other apps have sought to build safety for women into the app itself. For instance, on Bumble only women are allowed to initiate a chat in a bid to prevent unwanted contact by men. Tinder also recently made its “Report” button more visible, and provided users safety advice in collaboration with WESNET.
Similarly, the Alannah & Madeline Foundation’s eSafety-funded “Crushed But Okay” intervention offers young men advice about responding to online rejection without becoming abusive. This content has been viewed and shared more than one million times on TikTok and Instagram. In our research, app users told us they want education and guidance for antisocial users – not just policing. This could be achieved by apps collaborating with community support services, and advocating for a culture that challenges prevailing gender stereotypes. Policy levers for changeApps are widely used because they promote opportunities for conversation, personal connection and intimacy. But they are a for-profit enterprise, produced by multinational corporations that generate income by serving advertising and monetising users’ data. Taking swift and effective action against app-based abuse is part of their social license to operate. We should consider stiff penalties for app-makers who violate that license. The United Kingdom is just about to pass legislation that contemplates time in prison for social media executives who knowingly expose children to harmful content. Similar penalties that make a dent in app-makers’ bottom line may present more of an incentive to act. In the age of widespread data breaches, app users already have good reason to mistrust demands to supply their personal identifying information. They will not necessarily feel safer if they are required to provide more data. Our research indicates users want transparent, accountable and timely responses from app-makers when they report conduct that makes them feel unsafe or unwelcome. They want more than chatbot-style responses to reports of abusive conduct. At a platform policy level, this could be addressed by hiring more local staff who offer transparent, timely responses to complaints and concerns. And while prevention is key, policing can still be an important part of the picture, particularly when abusive behaviour occurs after users have taken their conversation off the app itself. App-makers need to be responsive to police requests for access to data when this occurs. Many apps, including Tinder, already have clear policies regarding cooperation with law enforcement agencies. Kath Albury, Professor of Media and Communication and Associate Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making + Society, Swinburne University of Technology and Daniel Reeders, PhD Candidate, ANU School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
Australia could tax Google, Facebook and other tech giants with a digital services tax – but don’t hold your breath (2025-02-04T11:58:00+05:30)
|
Tech giants like Google, Facebook and Netflix make billions of dollars from Australian users every year. But most of those profits are not taxed here.
To address this tax gap, some countries have introduced a new kind of tax called the digital services tax, or DST. It applies to revenue earned from users in a country, even if the company has no physical operations there. Some European Union member countries, the UK and Canada have all introduced such a tax. In Australia, it is estimated the five largest tech giants recorded A$15 billion in revenue in Australia last year, but combined they paid only $254 million in tax. Australia has never contemplated imposing a similar tax. New Zealand tried but backed down last week after the United States threatened to impose higher tariffs on New Zealand goods. So what’s holding Australia back? How 20th-century tax treaties create 21st-century problemsTo understand why Australia thinks its hands are tied on the taxation of the multinational tech giants, we need to step back in time. About 100 years ago, Australia and other developed nations decided to tax residents on all their income earned worldwide, while non-residents were taxed only on income earned locally. After the second world war, Australia entered into tax treaties so foreign companies selling to Australian customers would no longer be taxed here. Instead, those companies’ home countries would tax all their profits. As the world moved to digital products this century, it became easy for giant multinational enterprises offering advertising on social media (such as Facebook and Instagram), advertising on search platforms (Google), and streaming services (Netflix) to provide those services from abroad. Little or no activity is conducted through local branches. But countries where the sales are made have increasingly questioned the wisdom of having forfeited their taxing rights over income by foreign providers. The rise of the digital services taxThe obvious solution would have been to renegotiate the treaties. This would restore the right of countries like Australia to tax foreign companies’ profits made from local customers or users. However, treaty renegotiation is slow and complex. So several European countries, beginning with France in 2019, came up with a short-cut solution. They introduced a discrete new tax on sales of digital services, called digital services taxes (DSTs). While the specific design varies by country, most DSTs apply a low tax rate, typically between 3% and 5%, on revenue rather than profits. They target large digital platforms that earn money from users within the taxing country, regardless of the company’s location. Because DSTs are levied on revenue and are structured as separate from income tax, governments argued they could be introduced without breaching income tax treaties. The new taxes quickly became popular and spread widely. In Australia, the Greens have called for a DST, but both major parties have remained steadfast in their objection to a new tax. This is due to the concern that the US may impose retaliatory tariffs on Australian goods. How big is the tax loss?Australians are enthusiastic consumers of digital products. Depending on which companies are included in the calculation, the annual revenues vary between $15 billion and $26 billion a year, but only a fraction of that is taxed here. At a time when the federal budget is forecasting deficits for the foreseeable future, Australia is foregoing potentially millions in lost revenue from these digital giants. While Australia has avoided a DST as a solution to the income tax loss, it has been willing to regulate and tax foreign digital companies in other ways. Australia collects 10% goods and services tax, or GST, on digital services provided to Australian companies, including streaming platforms and app subscriptions. This helps ensure foreign providers are taxed similarly to domestic ones when it comes to the GST. Australia has also imposed non-tax obligations on digital giants such as the requirement that digital platforms pay Australian media outlets for using their news content. Serious hurdles for reformIn February, the Trump administration described DSTs as tools used by foreign governments to “plunder American companies” and warned retaliatory tariffs would be imposed in response. The accompanying White House fact sheet singled out Australia and Canada, arguing the US digital economy dwarfs those countries’ entire economies. It suggested any attempt to tax US tech companies would not go unanswered. Six weeks later, the US imposed a 10% tariff on most Australian exports to the US and a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium exports. The US sees its penal tariff plans as a useful negotiating tool to pressure trading partners into retreat on a broad range of peripheral complaints, including the digital services tax. To date, only two countries have retreated: New Zealand and India. Other countries are standing firm. In Australia, the Greens have called for the adoption of a DST, but the current and previous governments remain firm in their opposition. There is concern about antagonising the US at a delicate time when our broader trade relations are under scrutiny. For the foreseeable future, the digital giants will continue to earn billions from Australian users. Most of those profits will remain beyond the reach of Australian tax law. Fei Gao, Lecturer in Taxation, Discipline of Accounting, Governance & Regulation, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney and Richard Krever, Professor of Tax Law, The University of Western Australia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
As the ‘digital oligarchy’ grows in power, NZ will struggle to regulate its global reach and influence (2025-02-03T13:32:00+05:30)
|
The images of President Donald Trump at his inauguration surrounded by the titans of the global tech industry is a warning of what could come: a global digital oligarchy dominated by a tiny tech elite. Companies like Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, X Corp, and OpenAI (all based in the United States) now operate beyond the control of most governments. Countries like New Zealand are increasingly struggling to keep these companies in check. In the past decade, New Zealand has taken several measures to curb the influence of powerful tech companies through voluntary agreements and tax legislation. But the digital age has fundamentally changed national sovereignty – the right of individual countries to decide the rules within their own borders. Big tech companies are gradually taking on functions traditionally reserved for government institutions. For example, these companies have begun to function as the arbiters of speech, controlling the visibility of certain ideas and comments. As recently as this month, Meta obscured searches for left-leaning topics including “Democrats”, later blaming the issue on a “technical glitch”. And as was widely covered in the media, Amnesty International released a report claiming that Facebook’s algorithms “proactively amplified” anti-Rohingya content in Myanmar, substantially contributing to human rights violations against the ethnic group. New Zealand’s attempts to regulate big tech A number of governments are now facing the question of how to temper the influence of these companies within their current legal frameworks. As New Zealand (among others) has discovered in the past decade, influencing the behaviour of these companies is easier said than done. It has repeatedly found itself struggling to effectively manage big tech’s impact on its society and economy. In 2018, for example, New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner said Facebook had failed to comply with its obligations under the New Zealand Privacy Act. The company told the commission the Privacy Act did not apply to it. When the Christchurch terrorist attack was livestreamed on Facebook (owned by Meta), New Zealand authorities found themselves largely powerless to prevent the video’s spread across global platforms. This crisis prompted then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern to launch the Christchurch Call initiative aimed at combating online extremism by fostering collaboration between governments and tech companies. The goal was to develop and enforce measures such as improved content moderation, removal of extremist material, and the creation of safer online environments. While gaining support from more than 120 countries and tech companies, its effect depends on voluntary ongoing cooperation. Recent events suggest this ongoing cooperation is unlikely. In January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to get rid of content moderation in the US and possibly elsewhere. Zuckerberg has also pushed back against European Union regulations, claiming the EU’s data laws censored social media. Taxing big tech In 2019, New Zealand proposed a 3% digital tax on big tech revenue. A similar measure was introduced by France in 2020 and by Canada and Australia last year. While these proposals signify important steps toward holding big tech accountable, their implementation remains uncertain. Although the relevant tax provisions have been adopted in New Zealand, the law includes clauses allowing tax collections to be deferred until as late as 2030. Meanwhile, big tech continues to push back aggressively against regulation in various ways. These have included threatening reduced services (such as the brief closure of TikTok in the US) to leveraging their relationships with the Trump government against other countries. Using competition regulation to rein in big tech In December 2024, the Australian government unveiled draft legislation on big tech to level the playing field. The proposed law seeks to foster fair competition, prevent price gouging, and give smaller tech and news companies a chance to thrive in a landscape increasingly dominated by global giants. The legislation would grant the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the authority to investigate and penalise companies with fines of up to A$50 million for restricting competition. The targeted behaviour includes tactics such as restricting data transfers between platforms (for example, moving contacts or photos from iPhone to Android) and limiting third-party payment options in app stores. The proposed law aims to put an end to these unfair advantages, ensuring a level playing field where businesses of all sizes can compete and consumers have more choices. Democractic governance in the digital age The growing power of tech platforms raises critical questions about democratic governance in the digital age. There is an urgent need to reconcile the global influence of tech companies with local democratic processes and to create mechanisms that safeguard individual and national sovereignty in an increasingly digital world. Governments need to recognise these platforms are not immutable forces of nature, but human-created systems that can be challenged, reformed or dismantled. The same digital connectivity that has empowered these corporations can become the very tool of their transformation.  Alexandra Andhov, Chair in Law and Technology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
US ‘TikTok refugees’ are fleeing to Chinese app RedNote. It’s a new phase of the digital cold war (2025-01-24T11:13:00+05:30)
|
Social media giant TikTok is preparing to shut down its app in the United States this Sunday – the day that legislation signed by President Joe Biden last year banning the app takes effect. There is a slim chance this dramatic development might not happen if the US Supreme Court accepts a last minute legal argument from TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, that the ban is unconstitutional – or if ByteDance divests its US operations. But the 170 million users of TikTok in the US aren’t taking any chances. Many self-described “TikTok refugees” have begun to flee to alternative social media sites, mocking the alleged security concerns on TikTok in the process. “Goodbye to my Chinese spy” has become a new TikTok trend. The most popular alternative that has emerged is the Chinese social media app Xiaohongshu (known as RedNote in English). On January 13, the app surged to number one in the US Apple App Store, attracting more than 700,000 new users. This mass digital migration of social media users marks a new phase in the ongoing digital cold war between the US and China. But there are many questions about whether RedNote – or any other alternative platform – will be a viable, long-term refuge for US TikTok users if the ban goes ahead. What is RedNote?Owned by Shanghai-based Xingyin Information Technology and established in 2013, RedNote is a Chinese-language lifestyle, social networking and e-commerce platform. It has a hybrid style of Instagram-meets-Pinterest and approximately 300 million monthly active users – the majority of whom are in China. RedNote stores its users’ personal data in China, in compliance with China’s data protection and cybersecurity laws and other regulatory policies. But RedNote isn’t the only alternative platform users are migrating to. Another is Lemon8, also owned by ByteDance, which bills itself as a “lifestyle community”. First launched in Japan in 2020, it had the second top spot in the Apple App Store – after RedNote – earlier this week. The app allows existing TikTok users to migrate their account handles and data. Like TikTok, Lemon8 stores data of users outside China, including in the US and Singapore. However, if the US government does ban TikTok it could easily use the same rationale to ban Lemon8. Other local US-based alternative platforms, such as Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, are not seen as ideal options by many users. This is because they are less creator-friendly and lack a strong sense of community. Many see RedNote as the best alternative given its similar content style and algorithms to TikTok and community-driven appeal. More importantly, the platform is beyond the control of the US government and cannot be directly banned. At the time of writing, the hashtag “TikTok refugee” had garnered about 250 million views and over 5.5 million comments on RedNote. Some US users satirically explained their move to the platform out of spite:
A ‘Western awakening movement’Chinese users of RedNote are enthusiastically embracing TikTok refugees from the US. For example, they are producing tutorial videos to teach new users how to navigate the app. This hospitality is summed up by one popular comment from a Chinese user on the platform who said: “friends who come over from TikTok, I want to say, you are not refugees, you are brave explorers.” The new migration to RedNote has also intensified national pride of Chinese internet users. They vividly refer to the migration as a “Western awakening movement”, which allows US citizens to open their eyes to see the world outside the centre of the west. This phrase was coined in reference to the “self-strengthening movement” in China in the late 19th century – a reform effort aimed at modernising China by adopting Western technologies, knowledge and values. The unexpected migration has seen some RedNote-related stocks surge by as much as 20% earlier this week. People-to-people diplomacyThe positive interactions between American and Chinese internet users help promote the Communist Party of China’s idea of “people-to-people diplomacy”. This idea is best summed up by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who in July 2024 said
However, RedNote might not be a viable, long-term refuge for US TikTok users. Their sudden migration to RedNote could be more like a flash mob protest against the TikTok ban. It may not be easy for them to get used to a very different digital ecosystem – and make a decision to permanently reside on the Chinese app. RedNote has already posted a job ad to urgently recruit content moderators who understand English to cope with the dramatic growth of English-speaking users. It’s also worth nothing that the migration to RedNote is still very small, and only a fraction of the 170 million people in the US who use TikTok. The US government also has the authority to pressure Apple to remove RedNote from the US App Store if it thinks the migration poses a national security threat. Regardless of whether this happens, the mass migration of TikTok refugees to RedNote – even if it is temporary – shows the US’s regulation of digital technologies, driven by geopolitical competition, has significantly fractured the global internet. Fortunately, we have witnessed the spirit of optimism and humanitarianism among US and Chinese internet users amid the tension of the digital cold war. Jian Xu, Associate Professor in Communication, Deakin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
UNESCO: No phones in classroom! (2024-12-13T11:33:00+05:30)
 UNESCO to suggest global ban on smartphone use in classrooms! In order to reduce disruption in the classroom and promote better learning results, UNESCO advocated a global ban on smartphone use in classrooms. UNESCO’s Aim: In order to promote a more "human-centered vision" of education, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has called for a ban on the use of cellphones in classrooms. Motive: In order to lessen reliance on digital technology and promote better learning results, the UNESCO decided to outlaw smartphones in all schools globally. The overuse of cellphones or other digital devices in the educational sector is likely to lower academic achievement, which will have a negative effect on children's emotional development. Impacts of Mobile Use: Students' excessive use of technology, including computers, tablets, and cellphones, both in and out of the classroom, has the potential to disrupt learning and cause distractions. A new UNESCO study found a correlation between excessive usage of digital technology and poor student achievement. UNESCO commendations: According to UNESCO, governments are doing very little to control a crucial area of society. The government should concentrate on the areas that will promote education globally while using the fewest resources from digital technology, according to UNESCO. The government ought to put education first before everything else.The UNESCO report emphasized that not all technological advancements are equivalent to growth and cautioned against implementing digital tools in education hastily. It recommended decision-makers to strike a balance and avoid ignoring the social aspect of education, which benefits from in-person instruction and interaction. Gossips4fans - Bollywood, Hollywood and Tollywood Latest Information for you: UNESCO: No phones in classroom! |
Ericsson wins multi-billion 4G, 5G deal from Bharti Airtel for India ops (2024-12-05T14:13:00+05:30)
 |
Australia will impose a ‘digital duty of care’ on tech companies to reduce online harm. It’s a good idea – if it can be enforced (2024-12-02T13:43:00+05:30)
MART PRODUCTION/Pexels Lisa M. Given, RMIT UniversityIn an escalation of its battle with big tech, the federal government has announced it plans to impose a “digital duty of care” on tech companies to reduce online harms. The announcement follows the government’s controversial plans to legislate a social media ban for young people under 16 and impose tighter rules on digital platforms such as Google, Facebook, Instagram, X and TikTok to address misinformation and disinformation. In a speech last night, Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland explained why the government was planning to introduce a digital duty of care:
This is a positive step forward and one aligned with other jurisdictions around the world. What is a ‘digital duty of care’?Duty of care is a legal obligation to ensure the safety of others. It isn’t limited to just not doing harm; it also means taking reasonable steps to prevent harm. The proposed digital duty of care will put the onus on tech companies such as Meta, Google and X to protect consumers from harm on their online platforms. It will bring social media platforms in line with companies who make physical products who already have a duty of care to do their best to make sure their products don’t harm users. The digital duty of care will require tech companies to regularly conduct risk assessments to proactively identify harmful content. This assessment must consider what Rowland called “enduring categories of harm”, which will also be legislated. Rowland said these categories could include:
This approach was recommended by the recent review of the Online Safety Act. It is something that is already in effect elsewhere around the world, including in the United Kingdom as part of the Online Safety Act and under the European Union’s Digital Services Act. As well as placing the onus on tech companies to protect users of their platforms, these acts also put the power to combat harmful content into the hands of consumers. For example, in the EU consumers can submit online complaints about harmful material directly to the tech companies, who are legally obliged to act on these complaints. Where a tech company refuses to remove content, users can complain to a Digital Services Coordinator to investigate further. They can even pursue a court resolution if a satisfactory outcome cannot be reached. The EU act sets out that if tech companies breach their duty of care to consumers, they can face fines of up to 6% of their worldwide annual turnover. The Human Rights Law Centre in Australia supports the idea of a digital duty of care. It says “digital platforms should owe a legislated duty of care to all users”. Why is it more appropriate than a social media ban?Several experts – including myself – have pointed out problems with the government’s plan to ban people under 16 from social media. For example, the “one size fits all” age requirement doesn’t consider the different levels of maturity of young people. What’s more, simply banning young people from social media just delays their exposure to harmful content online. It also removes the ability of parents and teachers to engage with children on the platforms and to help them manage potential harms safely. The government’s proposed “digital duty of care” would address these concerns. It promises to force tech companies to make the online world safer by removing harmful content, such as images or videos which promote self-harm. It promises to do this without banning young people’s access to potentially beneficial material or online social communities. A digital duty of care also has the potential to address the problem of misinformation and disinformation. The fact Australia would be following the lead of international jurisdictions is also significant. This shows big tech there is a unified global push to combat harmful content appearing on platforms by placing the onus of care on the companies instead of on users. This unified approach makes it much more likely for tech companies to comply with legislation, when multiple countries impose similar controls and have similar content expectations. How will it be enforced?The Australian government says it will strongly enforce the digital duty of care. As Minister Rowland said last night:
Exactly what these penalty arrangements will be is yet to be announced. So too is the method by which people could submit complaints to the regulator about harmful content they have seen online and want to be taken down. A number of concerns about implementation have been raised in the UK. This demonstrates that getting the details right will be crucial to success in Australia and elsewhere. For example, defining what constitutes harm will be an ongoing challenge and may require test cases to emerge through complaints and/or court proceedings. And as both the EU and UK introduced this legislation only within the past year, the full impact of these laws – including tech companies’ levels of compliance – is not yet known. In the end, the government’s turn towards placing the onus on the tech companies to remove harmful content, at the source, is welcome. It will make social media platforms a safer place for everyone – young and old alike. Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
