Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Tech

Section 230 Is Dying By A Thousand Workarounds, And Massachusetts Just Added Another One

Published

on

from the pour-one-out-for-230 dept

We’ve been warning for a while now that Section 230 is dying by a thousand legal workarounds rather than a straightforward repeal, and the hits just keep coming. A few weeks ago, I wrote about how two jury verdicts against Meta in New Mexico and California should scare anyone who cares about the open internet, even if the instinct to cheer them on is understandable given how terrible Meta has been. Those verdicts adopted a legal theory that re-frames editorial decisions about how to present user-generated content as “product design” choices outside the scope of Section 230, functionally making the law irrelevant.

Now, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has gone even further. In a unanimous ruling in Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., the state’s highest court has denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the state attorney general’s lawsuit, holding that Section 230 does not bar claims that Meta designed Instagram to be addictive to children, lied to the public about the platform’s safety, failed to properly age-gate underage users, and created a public nuisance. The court’s reasoning provides a clean, easily replicable template for any plaintiff anywhere to plead around Section 230, and it does so by mangling the statute’s text and ignoring key words while drawing a distinction between “content” and “content presentation” that collapses under even the slightest scrutiny.

Once again, since this always needs to be said in all of the articles about these rulings: Meta is a terrible company. It has spent years making terrible decisions. I don’t trust the company to make the right decisions even if only correct decisions were presented to it. Mark Zuckerberg deserves zero benefit of the doubt. But as I said last time, the legal theories being used to go after Meta here will not stay confined to Meta. They will be used against every website, every search engine, every forum, every email provider, and every small platform that makes any decision about how to present user-generated content. That’s what makes this ruling so dangerous.

Professor Eric Goldman, who has been tracking these cases more closely than perhaps anyone, put it bluntly:

Advertisement

This is not a good opinion for Section 230 on several dimensions.

First, as a state supreme court decision, it’s the final word for the Massachusetts state court system (unless the US Supreme Court intervenes). It provides a major beachhead for other courts to follow, both within Massachusetts and beyond.

Second, this court didn’t rely on the Lemmon “design defect” workaround. Instead, it said that the claim doesn’t relate to third-party content unless it’s based on the substance of the third-party content. This provides plaintiffs with another avenue to work around Section 230 in addition to the Lemmon/design defect workaround that other courts are accepting (even if they shouldn’t).

Third, as I explained, I don’t see any distinction between third-party content and the editorial choices about the manner of presenting that third-party content. By embracing that false dichotomy, the court invites plaintiffs to reframe their complaints to focus on content presentation instead of substance.

That last point is the most important part of the whole ruling. The court has now handed plaintiffs’ lawyers a magic formula: just say you’re suing about the presentation of content rather than the content itself, and Section 230 vanishes. Goldman lays out the playbook:

Advertisement

Here’s how a plaintiff’s argument could look: “I’m not suing about the third-party content, I’m suing about the design choices that elevated that third-party content over others.” These are literally the same thing in my mind. If this argument works, Section 230 is dead because plaintiffs will always embrace that workaround.

Looking at the court’s actual reasoning, things get messy fast.

Massachusetts’ complaint alleged that Meta “engaged in unfair business practices by designing the Instagram platform to induce compulsive use by children, engaged in deceptive business practices by deliberately misleading the public about the safety of the platform, and created a public nuisance by engaging in these unfair and deceptive practices.” Meta moved to dismiss on Section 230 grounds. The lower court denied the motion. Meta appealed.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court actually (correctly!) recognized that Section 230 provides immunity from being sued in the first place, not just a defense against paying up at the end. This matters procedurally, because immunity from suit means you get to appeal the denial of your motion to dismiss before trial — you don’t have to go through the whole expensive litigation process first and then appeal at the end. The court analyzed the language of Section 230(e)(3), and reached the right conclusion:

The plain meaning of “no cause of action may be brought” is that a suit may not be initiated in the first instance and the defendant cannot be forced to litigate the claim.

Great. The court got the procedural question right. Section 230 provides immunity from suit. Meta gets its interlocutory appeal. The whole point of Section 230, after all, has always been to get bad cases tossed early, before the ruinous expense of discovery and trial.

Advertisement

And then the court proceeded to deny the immunity anyway, meaning Meta now has to litigate the entire case on the merits despite supposedly having immunity from suit. The court gave Section 230 its proper procedural dignity with one hand and gutted it substantively with the other. Meta got to appeal early — and lost anyway. Now it faces full litigation on claims that Section 230 was designed to kill at the threshold. The outcome is a complete mess: the court has effectively turned “immunity from suit” into “the right to lose an appeal slightly faster.”

The heart of the court’s logic rests on a distinction between claims that impose liability based on the content of third-party information and claims that merely concern how that content is presented. To get there, the court engaged in a lengthy analysis of the phrase “treated as the publisher . . . of any information” in Section 230(c)(1), concluding that this phrase requires both a “dissemination element” and a “content element.” In other words, the court held that Section 230 only applies when a claim seeks to hold a platform liable for the substance of user-generated content it published — and that claims about design features like infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, and notification systems target the how of publishing rather than the what, and therefore fall outside Section 230’s protection.

This ignores a long list of precedents — and the explicit statements of Section 230’s authors — establishing that the law was designed to protect platforms from being sued over any editorial decision-making, including how content is presented. To put this in perspective, it’s like saying that someone could sue, say, the evening news based on where they placed a story (top of the show or bottom?) and that the impact of how it was presented is somehow unrelated to the content itself. That makes no sense. But it’s the way this court has interpreted 230.

The court found that with respect to the unfair business practices claim:

Advertisement

The challenged design features (e.g., infinite scroll, autoplay, IVR, and ephemeral content) concern how, whether, and for how long information is published, but the published information itself is not the source of the harm alleged. Instead, the claim alleges that the features themselves induce compulsive use independent of the content provided by third-party users.

Meta tried to point out the obvious problem with this: without user-generated content, these design features don’t do anything harmful. Nobody’s getting addicted to infinite scroll through a feed of nothing. The court waved this away:

But the fact that the features require some content to function is not controlling; instead…to satisfy the content element, we look to whether the claim seeks to hold Meta liable for harm stemming from third-party information that it published. Here, the unfair business practices claim does not; the Commonwealth alleges that the features themselves prolong users’ time on the platform, not that any information contained in third-party posts does so. In this sense, the claim is indifferent as to the content published.

“Indifferent as to the content published.” No matter how many times courts (or media or politicians) make this claim, it never gets any more accurate. As I noted in my earlier piece about the California and New Mexico verdicts: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing? Of course not. Because infinite scroll does nothing without content that makes people want to keep scrolling. The features and the content are inseparable. Saying the claim is “indifferent as to the content published” is a legal fiction, and everyone involved knows it.

Goldman makes this point through a newspaper analogy that’s worth quoting at length:

I don’t see any distinction between third-party content and the editorial choices about the manner of presenting that third-party content. By embracing that false dichotomy, the court invites plaintiffs to reframe their complaints to focus on content presentation instead of substance. … As an analogy, consider a dead-trees newspaper’s decision to publish a story: it is equally part of the newspaper’s editorial prerogative and publication decisions to decide to publish the story at all and to decide if the story should appear on the A1 front page or some interior page; what size typeface to use for the story headline; whether the story runs all on the same page or continues on a later page; etc. As applied to Meta, the decision to vary the delivery timing of new third-party content items (as one example) is just as much of Meta’s publication decision-making process about publishing the third-party content as whether the item will be published at all.

The fallout here goes way beyond just Instagram. A search engine decides to rank certain results higher than others — that’s a “design choice” about content presentation, not about the content itself. A forum uses “newest first” sorting — design choice. An email provider’s spam filter decides what goes to your inbox — design choice. A blog allows comments and displays them in threaded format — design choice. Under this court’s reasoning, all of those are potentially outside Section 230’s protection, because they concern how content is presented rather than the content’s substance. Every editorial decision a website makes about the display, ordering, timing, or format of user-generated content is now potentially a “design” claim that evades Section 230.

Advertisement

Especially given that the whole premise of these lawsuits is that these “design choices” are engineered to “addict” users — a claim that none of the cases have actually established as a clinical matter. They show signs of companies trying to make users of their products like and use them more. Which is what basically every company does. It’s sort of the nature of business. Should a state AG be able to sue a restaurant because its food was too delicious and people ate too much of it? TV shows end on cliffhangers. Books have page-turning chapter endings. Are those addictive design features subject to state AG enforcement?

There’s another serious problem with the court’s statutory analysis that Goldman flagged, and it’s frankly embarrassing for any court to make, let alone a state supreme court. Section 230(c)(1) says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The court spent pages analyzing what “publisher” means, diving into common-law publisher liability, legislative history, and the Cubby/Stratton Oakmont story line. But as Goldman observed:

Worse, the court extensively analyzes the word “publisher” but doesn’t say a word about the companion “speaker” term that appears two words later in the statute. This is another indicator of results-oriented decision-making. No matter what the court says “publisher” means, if the court disregards one of the other 26 words that has direct relevance to its meaning, the court is failing its #1 job of reading the damn statute. This omission is extremely embarrassing for the court, and it thoroughly undermines the credibility of the court’s recitation of precedent.

Whatever narrow common-law meaning you might ascribe to “publisher,” the word “speaker” is right there, broadening the scope. The court just… pretended it wasn’t. When a court conducting what it claims is a careful “plain meaning” analysis of a 26-word clause of the statute at the center of the case manages to ignore one of the operative words, that’s more than a tell. As Goldman noted:

When courts decide to review a 1996 statute from scratch in 2026, after over a thousand Section 230 cases have been decided, that’s usually an indicator that they are engaging in results-oriented decision-making, they don’t like the precedent, and they need another way to reach a different result.

Then there are the deception claims, which the court dispatched with even less effort. Massachusetts alleged that Meta lied to the public about Instagram being safe and not addictive. The court held that because these were Meta’s own statements, Section 230 obviously didn’t apply — the statute only protects against liability for third-party content, and Meta’s PR statements are first-party speech.

Advertisement

That much is technically defensible as a Section 230 matter. But the underlying theory has its own problems that the court didn’t bother grappling with. What does it mean for a company to “deceive” the public by saying its product is “safe”? Almost nothing is 100% safe. Cars aren’t perfectly safe. Food isn’t perfectly safe. Playgrounds aren’t perfectly safe. As we’ve written about before, the social media moral panic has systematically confused risks with harms. Something can carry risks without every user being harmed, and a company saying it takes safety seriously is not a guarantee that no bad outcome will ever occur to any user. If “we prioritize safety” plus “something bad happened to a user” equals fraud, then every tech company, car manufacturer, pharmaceutical firm, and food producer in the country is perpetually liable for “deception.”

Goldman noted that there are “obvious puffery/opinion defenses that could apply here” but weren’t addressed in the Section 230 analysis. That’s true. But the more fundamental problem is that the court’s framing of the deception claims, combined with its evisceration of Section 230’s applicability to the design claims, means all four counts now proceed to full litigation. The “public nuisance” claim got even less analysis — a single footnote saying that because the other claims survive Section 230, so does the nuisance claim that’s based on them. Goldman rightfully calls out how weak this is:

I’ve previously complained before about courts’ complete undertheorizing of how and why public nuisance claims can apply to social media, and this court doesn’t do any better. In a footnote, here is the court’s entire discussion about Section 230’s application to the public nuisance claim: “Because we conclude that § 230(c)(1) does not bar counts I to III, we also conclude that it does not bar the Commonwealth’s public nuisance claim, which is predicated on the same allegedly unfair and deceptive practices in counts I to III.”

Put it all together and the picture for Section 230 is bleak.

A few weeks ago, juries in New Mexico and California found Meta liable using the “design defect” workaround — arguing that features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations are product design choices, not editorial decisions about third-party content. Those verdicts relied on the framework from Lemmon v. Snap, the somewhat problematic Ninth Circuit case that carved out a design-defect exception to Section 230, and which opened the floodgates to lawsuits like the ones we’re discussing here.

Advertisement

Somewhat oddly, the Massachusetts court explicitly declined to follow the Lemmon framework. It developed its own, different workaround: Section 230 only applies when a claim is based on the substance of third-party content, and claims about content presentation fall outside its scope. This is, as Goldman put it, “another avenue to work around Section 230 in addition to the Lemmon/design defect workaround that other courts are accepting.”

So we now have at least two distinct legal theories for pleading around Section 230, both blessed by courts, both available to any plaintiffs’ lawyer nationwide. And both accomplish the same thing: they take the editorial decisions that platforms make about user-generated content — the decisions that are the very heart of what Section 230 was designed to protect — and reclassify them as something else. “Design choices.” “Content presentation.” “Product features.” Call them whatever you want. The result is that Section 230 protects nothing that matters.

Goldman’s metaphor for all of this is apt:

Even if this opinion doesn’t outright eliminate Section 230 in Massachusetts, it’s a sign of how 230 workarounds keep proliferating, contributing to the swiss cheese-ification of Section 230. When the bubbles in the swiss cheese become too large, the cheese wedge lacks structural integrity and falls apart. That is where 230 is heading, if it’s not already there.

And this brings us to the thing that matters most, the thing that gets overlooked in every one of these cases: the procedural advantage of Section 230 was always the point. The whole reason Section 230 exists is to get bad cases thrown out early, before platforms have to spend millions in discovery and trial. Even if the First Amendment eventually protects many of the same editorial decisions, it does so at the end of expensive, protracted litigation. Section 230 was designed to get you out at the motion to dismiss stage.

Advertisement

And it wasn’t just the procedural advantage that mattered — it was the certainty. Platforms could make editorial decisions about how to present content knowing they were protected. That freedom meant editorial reasoning could lead, rather than legal risk-avoidance. A lawyer consulted before every design decision will never tell you to make the best call for users — only the least legally exposed one.

All of that has been thrown out the window. The certainty. The quick resolution. The ability for editorial reasoning to lead, rather than lawyerly concerns. These court rulings chip away at Section 230 bit by bit, and with it the ability for anyone to freely host content online without fear of getting sued.

The Massachusetts court’s ruling is the textbook example of how that benefit has been destroyed. The court correctly held that Section 230 provides immunity from suit — not just immunity from liability. It correctly allowed Meta to take an interlocutory appeal on exactly that basis. And then it ruled that the immunity doesn’t actually apply to any of the claims in the case. Meta exercised its right to an early appeal and got told it has to go litigate the whole thing anyway.

So what was the point? Meta got to go to the state supreme court, argue about immunity from suit, and then get sent right back to trial court to face all the same claims. Every future defendant in Massachusetts who raises a Section 230 defense will look at this ruling and know that the “immunity from suit” is a mirage. You get the appeal. You just don’t get the immunity, so long as the lawyers on the other side say the magic words. Which all of them will.

Advertisement

This is exactly the dynamic I warned about in my piece about the California and New Mexico verdicts. Even if these legal theories eventually get sorted out at the Supreme Court level, even if the First Amendment eventually provides some backstop, the practical reality is that Section 230’s core function — early dismissal of meritless cases — has been gutted. Every plaintiff’s lawyer now knows how to draft a complaint that survives a 230 motion to dismiss: just say “design” instead of “content.” Say “presentation” instead of “publication.” And you’re in. Discovery. Trial. Seven-figure legal bills. The whole show.

And smaller companies know this. Meaning they will either avoid hosting content altogether… or we’ll have the most powerful heckler’s veto in existence. Anyone who wants any third party content removed just needs to threaten a lawsuit using the magic words. And the mere threat of legal bills will mean the “smart” move will be to remove the content. All sorts of forums will suffer. Think about how Republican AGs will use this to argue that any site hosting LGBTQ+ content is causing harm. Think about the plaintiffs’ lawyers who will use any claimed “design” flaw as leverage for a shakedown settlement. If you thought that copyright trolling was bad, just wait until we see an entire collection of plaintiffs lawyers suing (or just threatening to sue while really seeking a settlement) any website they can claim made a “design choice” that leads to harm.

That’s the ballgame for small platforms. For independent forums. For startups trying to compete with the giants. Meta can absorb this. A new social media competitor cannot. Congress doesn’t need to repeal Section 230. The courts are doing it for them, one cleverly worded ruling at a time.

Advertisement

Filed Under: addiction, content presentation, design features, editorial freedom, massachusetts, section 230

Companies: meta

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

Former NSA director Keith Alexander stepping down from Amazon’s board

Published

on

Retired Gen. Keith Alexander. (Amazon Photo)

Keith Alexander, a retired four-star Army general and former director of the National Security Agency, is leaving Amazon’s board of directors after more than five years.

Alexander, 74, informed the company April 7 that he wouldn’t stand for re-election at its annual meeting next month, according to the company’s proxy statement

“We’re grateful to General Alexander for his service on our Board since 2020 and for the many contributions he’s made to our company, and we wish him every success in the future,” a spokesperson said in a statement, responding to GeekWire’s inquiry.

No reason was given for his departure. Amazon’s board, which has fluctuated by one or two directors over time, will consist of 11 people after his departure.

Alexander joined Amazon’s board in September 2020, when Jeff Bezos was still CEO and the company was navigating a massive surge in demand during the early days of the pandemic. He previously chaired the board’s Security Committee, which oversees Amazon’s cybersecurity policies, data protection compliance, and response to significant cyber incidents.

Advertisement

Alexander served as commander of U.S. Cyber Command and led the NSA from 2005 to 2014, a tenure that included the surveillance disclosures of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

After retiring from the military, Alexander founded IronNet, a cybersecurity company, serving as CEO and president from 2014 to July 2023 and as board chair until February 2024. 

With his departure, eleven members of the board are up for re-election.

  • Jeff Bezos, founder and executive chair
  • Andy Jassy, president and CEO
  • Edith W. Cooper, co-founder of Medley Living and former EVP of Goldman Sachs
  • Jamie S. Gorelick, lead independent director; senior counsel at WilmerHale
  • Daniel P. Huttenlocher, dean of MIT Schwarzman College of Computing
  • Andrew Y. Ng, managing general partner of AI Fund; founder of DeepLearning.AI
  • Indra K. Nooyi, former chair and CEO of PepsiCo
  • Jonathan J. Rubinstein, former co-CEO of Bridgewater Associates
  • Brad D. Smith, president of Marshall University; former CEO of Intuit
  • Patricia Q. Stonesifer, former president and CEO of Martha’s Table
  • Wendell P. Weeks, chairman, CEO, and president of Corning

Amazon’s annual shareholder meeting will be held virtually May 20.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

OpenAI to rival Google’s AlphaFold with new AI model for life sciences research

Published

on

The model is the first release in OpenAI’s Life Science model series.

OpenAI has announced plans to roll out an early version of GPT-Rosalind, its AI reasoning model designed to support research across biology, drug discovery and translational medicine. 

In a statement on Thursday (16 April), OpenAI explained that on average, it can take up 15 years to move from target discovery to regulatory approval for a new drug in the US, with progress impacted by the difficulty of the underlying science, as well as the complexity of the research workflows.

The organisation said: “Scientists must work across large volumes of literature, specialised databases, experimental data and evolving hypotheses in order to generate and evaluate new ideas. These workflows are often time-intensive, fragmented and difficult to scale.”

Advertisement

Named after Rosalind Franklin, a pioneering figure in the field of DNA, GPT‑Rosalind is now available as a research preview in ChatGPT, Codex and the API for qualified customers through OpenAI’s access programme such as Amgen, Moderna, the Allen Institute and Thermo Fisher Scientific.

GPT-Rosalind is the latest in a series of AI models focused on life sciences applications, with the space becoming increasingly competitive. Last year, France’s Sorbonne University and Qubit Pharmaceuticals announced the “world’s most powerful” AI model for molecular simulation in pharmaceutical chemistry, FeNNix-Biol.

At the time, the research team claimed that FeNNix-Biol’s capabilities are beyond that of Google DeepMind’s AlphaFold, the Nobel Prize-winning deep-learning machine designed to transform our understanding of the molecular biology that underpins health and disease.

OpenAI said: “This is the first release in our life sciences model series and we view it as the beginning of a long-term commitment to building AI that can accelerate scientific discovery in areas that matter deeply to society, from human health to broader biological research. 

Advertisement

“Over time, we expect these systems to become increasingly capable partners in discovery – helping scientists move faster from question to evidence, from evidence to insight and from insight to new treatments for patients.”

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

The ‘Lonely Runner’ Problem Only Appears Simple

Published

on

The original version of this story appeared in Quanta Magazine.

Picture a bizarre training exercise: A group of runners starts jogging around a circular track, with each runner maintaining a unique, constant pace. Will every runner end up “lonely,” or relatively far from everyone else, at least once, no matter their speeds?

Mathematicians conjecture that the answer is yes.

The “lonely runner” problem might seem simple and inconsequential, but it crops up in many guises throughout math. It’s equivalent to questions in number theory, geometry, graph theory, and more—about when it’s possible to get a clear line of sight in a field of obstacles, or where billiard balls might move on a table, or how to organize a network. “It has so many facets. It touches so many different mathematical fields,” said Matthias Beck of San Francisco State University.

Advertisement

For just two or three runners, the conjecture’s proof is elementary. Mathematicians proved it for four runners in the 1970s, and by 2007, they’d gotten as far as seven. But for the past two decades, no one has been able to advance any further.

Then last year, Matthieu Rosenfeld, a mathematician at the Laboratory of Computer Science, Robotics, and Microelectronics of Montpellier, settled the conjecture for eight runners. And within a few weeks, a second-year undergraduate at the University of Oxford named Tanupat (Paul) Trakulthongchai built on Rosenfeld’s ideas to prove it for nine and 10 runners.

The sudden progress has renewed interest in the problem. “It’s really a quantum leap,” said Beck, who was not involved in the work. Adding just one runner makes the task of proving the conjecture “exponentially harder,” he said. “Going from seven runners to now 10 runners is amazing.”

The Starting Dash

At first, the lonely runner problem had nothing to do with running.

Advertisement

Instead, mathematicians were interested in a seemingly unrelated problem: how to use fractions to approximate irrational numbers such as pi, a task that has a vast number of applications. In the 1960s, a graduate student named Jörg M. Wills conjectured that a century-old method for doing so is optimal—that there’s no way to improve it.

In 1998, a group of mathematicians rewrote that conjecture in the language of running. Say N runners start from the same spot on a circular track that’s 1 unit in length, and each runs at a different constant speed. Wills’ conjecture is equivalent to saying that each runner will always end up lonely at some point, no matter what the other runners’ speeds are. More precisely, each runner will at some point find themselves at a distance of at least 1/N from any other runner.

When Wills saw the lonely runner paper, he emailed one of the authors, Luis Goddyn of Simon Fraser University, to congratulate him on “this wonderful and poetic name.” (Goddyn’s reply: “Oh, you are still alive.”)

Image may contain Dave Hunt Face Head Person Photography Portrait Book Indoors Library Publication and Adult

Jörg Wills made a conjecture in number theory that, decades later, would come to be known as the lonely runner problem.

Advertisement

Courtesy of Jörg Wills/Quanta Magazine

Mathematicians also showed that the lonely runner problem is equivalent to yet another question. Imagine an infinite sheet of graph paper. In the center of every grid, place a small square. Then start at one of the grid corners and draw a straight line. (The line can point in any direction other than perfectly vertical or horizontal.) How big can the smaller squares get before the line must hit one?

As versions of the lonely runner problem proliferated throughout mathematics, interest in the question grew. Mathematicians proved different cases of the conjecture using completely different techniques. Sometimes they relied on tools from number theory; at other times they turned to geometry or graph theory.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Once close enough for an acquisition, Stripe and Airwallex are now going after each other

Published

on

Jack Zhang was 34 years old, three and a half years into running a startup, and sitting across from one of the most powerful investors in Silicon Valley. Michael Moritz of Sequoia had invited him to his home — a place with, Zhang recalls, a couple of floors and a view straight to the Golden Gate Bridge — to make the case for selling.

Stripe wanted to buy Airwallex for $1.2 billion. At the time, the Melbourne company had around $2 million in annualized revenue. The math was almost pretty irresistable: a revenue multiple somewhere near 600 times. Patrick Collison, Moritz argued, was a generational founder. The deal would “compound” into something extraordinary. Zhang listened. He walked around San Francisco for two weeks, restless, unable to think straight. At one point, he said yes.

Then he flew nearly 8,000 miles back home.

“I really went deep on what motivates me to build Airwallex,” he said early this week, speaking to this editor from overseas. “I was three and a half years into the business. The business was growing 100 times in 2018. And I only just sort of tasted what it [was like] to be an entrepreneur. And that’s what I’d been dreaming about.”

Advertisement

Two of his three co-founders had voted against the deal, which helped. But he says the clearest signal came from looking at the whiteboard back in his office. The vision was still there, unfinished: to build the financial infrastructure that lets any business operate anywhere in the world as if it were a local company.

That decision is looking increasingly prescient. Airwallex now claims more than $1.3 billion in annualized revenue and is growing at 85% year-over-year. It processes approaching $300 billion in annualized transaction volume. None of it has come easily — and Zhang argues that’s precisely the point.

It’s a conviction that runs a lot deeper than business strategy. Zhang grew up in Qingdao, a port city in northeastern China, and moved to Melbourne at 15 without his parents, barely speaking English, living with a host family. When his family’s finances collapsed, he took on four jobs to get through a computer science degree at the University of Melbourne, according to the Australian Financial Review — bartending, washing dishes, working graveyard shifts at a petrol station, picking lemons on a farm in the school holidays, which he has called the hardest job he ever had. He went on to spend years writing trading code in the front office of an Australian investment bank, a job that paid well and never felt “deeply fulfilling.”

Techcrunch event

Advertisement

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

Before Airwallex, he started roughly 10 businesses: a magazine at age 14, a real estate development company, import-export operations running wine and olive oil from Australia to Asia, textiles going the other direction, a burger chain.

Advertisement

He was running a Melbourne coffee shop when the idea for Airwallex took shape. While trying to pay coffee bean suppliers in Brazil, Indonesia, and Guatemala, his co-founder Max Li kept watching payments disappear into correspondent banking systems — flagged and frozen by American intermediary banks enforcing OFAC sanctions rules, sometimes bouncing back weeks after they were sent. “That pushed me to really look at how correspondent banking works,” Zhang said, “how SWIFT works, and how we could build our own global money movement network.”

That’s still the idea, just scaled up considerably. Airwallex now holds close to 90 financial licenses across 50 markets. Zhang estimates Stripe has roughly half that number at best. Getting those licenses has been immensely time consuming — in Japan alone, the process took seven years. In some emerging markets, the company had to acquire shell companies whose licenses were no longer being issued by central banks, then rebuild the technology underneath them entirely.

“You can’t really vibe-code an integration with Mexico’s central bank,” Zhang said. “We have to have a secure room — you have to do a biometric scan just to walk in to access the central bank integration.”

The point of holding these licenses isn’t regulatory window dressing. In Japan, for instance, Stripe and Square can process payments, but they’re required to immediately transfer funds out to the merchant’s bank account. Airwallex, with its fund transfer operator license, can hold those funds inside its ecosystem. That means a customer can issue bank accounts, issue cards, and spend money without it ever leaving the platform.

Advertisement

The foreign exchange economics alone are substantial: a U.S. merchant settling transactions in Australian dollars avoids the 2% to 3% conversion fee that processors like Stripe typically charge to move money back into U.S. dollars — and can use those local balances to pay local vendors, run payroll, and cover digital marketing expenses, all at interbank rates.

“You don’t really operate like a U.S. company anymore,” Zhang said. “You operate like a company with entities around the world, but without needing to physically set up those entities.”

The slow build was intentional, and Zhang has a framework for it that he returns to often: the “path of maximum resistance.” Every license, every bank integration, every local payment rail that Airwallex painstakingly assembled created a layer that makes it harder to compete against. “It took us six and a half years to get to $100 million in annual recurring revenue,” Zhang said. “But after that, it took just over three years to get to a billion.”

The competitive logic, in his telling, comes down to something basic about what it means to own infrastructure versus riding someone else’s. If you don’t control the end-to-end payment workflow and something goes wrong, you can’t access the underlying data to explain it to your customer. You can’t extend new products cleanly on top of someone else’s stack. “Building on top of other infrastructure,” he said, “is simply not scalable.”

Advertisement

For most of its life, Airwallex and Stripe have mostly operated in different geographies, selling to different buyers. That’s changing. As Stripe pushes deeper into international markets, and Airwallex makes its first serious moves into the United States, the overlap is growing.

The buyer for Airwallex has historically been the CFO’s office in Australia and Southeast Asia, where the company is already well-established — finance directors, treasury teams — which puts it in a different sales motion than Stripe, whose customer acquisition has been driven largely by U.S. developers choosing a default starting point for a new company. More than 90% of Airwallex customers land first on a business account product, and payments and spend management follow from there. Over half are using multiple products, says Zhang.

Still, there are challenges that Zhang doesn’t try to downplay. The biggest may be that Stripe is Silicon Valley’s golden child, its privately held shares having minted millionaires across the tech industry. Another is the accompanying brand gap. Airwallex needs to embed itself in the thinking of engineers and developers — not just finance teams — so that founders reach for it instinctively. “Our brand is just not there yet,” he said. “That’s a harder competition to win.”

It’s a competition being watched closely from a variety of vantage points. Sequoia backed Airwallex early — though the deal was sourced through Sequoia Capital China, which has since spun out and rebranded as Hongshan — and remains one of the company’s largest shareholders. The investment firm Greenoaks Capital holds stakes in both companies, too. Zhang shrugged off any suggestion of awkwardness around those overlapping cap tables. The investors, he noted, are betting on a large market.

Advertisement

Still, it brings up the valuation question. Stripe was valued at $159 billion in a February tender offer — up 74% from a year earlier — after processing $1.9 trillion in total payment volume in 2025. Airwallex, assigned an $8 billion valuation in December, is valued at roughly a twentieth of that. But according to Zhang, Stripe’s payment volume is only about six times Airwallex’s, not 20 times. At 85% annual growth and projecting $2 billion in revenue within the next year, Airwallex is closing the revenue gap faster than the valuation gap would suggest.

Whether the market eventually notices is a different question — one that an IPO, which Zhang says is at least three to five years away, would force into the open.

In the meantime, Zhang says he’s focused on longer-horizon targets: a million customers by 2030, $20 billion in annual revenue, average revenue per customer growing from around $12,000 to $13,000 today to roughly $20,000. A suite of AI-powered autonomous finance products — agents that don’t just surface data but actually execute transactions — is rolling out now. The thesis is that a decade of financial data across the entire corporate finance stack, from revenue collection to treasury management to vendor payments and expenses, has created a training set that no competitor can replicate overnight, he suggests.

Now to see if all that hard work is enough to eat into Stripe’s market share. For now, the competition seems to be playing out at a distance. Zhang and Collison were never friends, but they were friendly while merger talks were ongoing years ago. Last year, Zhang and Collison were both at Greenoaks Capital’s annual gathering. They didn’t speak.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Some Windows servers enter reboot loops after April patches

Published

on

Windows Server

Microsoft has confirmed that some Windows domain controllers are entering restart loops due to Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) crashes after installing the April 2026 security updates.

The company also warned that Windows admins may encounter this issue when setting up new domain controllers, or even on existing ones, if the server processes authentication requests very early in the startup process.

“After installing the April 2026 Windows security update (KB5082063) and rebooting, non‑Global Catalog (non‑GC) domain controllers (DCs) in environments that use Privileged Access Management (PAM), might experience LSASS crashes during startup,” Microsoft said in a release health dashboard update.

Wiz

“As a result, affected DCs may restart repeatedly, preventing authentication and directory services from functioning, and potentially rendering the domain unavailable.”

This known issue only impacts organizations using Privileged Access Management (PAM) and is unlikely to affect personal devices that aren’t managed by an IT department. The list of affected platforms includes systems running Windows Server 2025, Windows Server 2022, Windows Server 23H2, Windows Server 2019, and Windows Server 2016.

Advertisement

While Microsoft is still working on a fix, it advised IT administrators to contact Microsoft Support for Business for mitigation measures that can be applied even after deploying the April 2026 update.

Microsoft has addressed multiple domain controller issues caused by security updates in recent years, most recently resolving Windows Server authentication problems in June 2025, which were caused by the April 2025 security updates.

Almost a year earlier, in May 2024, it fixed another known issue that triggered NTLM authentication failures and domain controller reboots after deploying the April 2024 Windows Server security updates.

In March 2024, it released emergency out-of-band (OOB) updates to fix Windows domain controller crashes after installing the March 2024 Windows Server security patches.

Advertisement

Microsoft is now also investigating a separate issue causing this month’s KB5082063 Windows security update to fail to install on some Windows Server 2025 systems.

​On Wednesday, it also warned admins that some Windows Server 2025 devices may also prompt users to enter a BitLocker key after deploying the KB5082063 update.

AI chained four zero-days into one exploit that bypassed both renderer and OS sandboxes. A wave of new exploits is coming.

At the Autonomous Validation Summit (May 12 & 14), see how autonomous, context-rich validation finds what’s exploitable, proves controls hold, and closes the remediation loop.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Programming a Robotic Golf Club to Sink Shots on Impossible Mini-Golf Holes

Published

on

StuffMadeHere Robotic Golf Club Sink Shots
Shane Wighton of StuffMadeHere spent months poring over his robotic golf club’s algorithms, fine-tuning the improvement to truly understand ball physics. It now allows the thing to completely comprehend the complexities of ball movement and plot paths to overcome notoriously difficult mini golf holes designed to confound even the best players. The cameras installed around the course monitor the club, ball, and cup with laser-like precision at all times, feeding into the raw data that the system utilizes to make choices.



To complete the initial scan of each hole, someone must sit there and carefully drag a ball covered in reflective markings along each wall, ramp, and floor, while another person activates the optical sensor to only focus on the portions he actually needs. This keeps the captured geometry from becoming disorganized and full of errors. All scan data is then sent into a physics engine named MuJoCo. This program does forward simulations of the ball after impact, accounting for each bounce, skid, and roll that the ball makes, all of which is influenced by surface friction and bounciness levels.

StuffMadeHere Robotic Golf Club Sink Shots
However, matching the simulation to reality has proven to be a challenge. To ensure accuracy, he conducted a series of repeated tests, using motion capture recordings of real balls as a benchmark. An automatic solution attempted to get the numbers correct, but Wighton had to go in and manually change things until the virtual bounces matched exactly what the cameras observed in the real world.

StuffMadeHere Robotic Golf Club Sink Shots
Speed became the next issue he had to address. As it stands, a full simulation would take too long to complete while a player swings the club, so Wighton ended up running thousands of possible club angles and swing speeds ahead of time, for every possible ball starting position, and then each successful sequence that ended up in the cup was added to a large database of stored sequences.

StuffMadeHere Robotic Golf Club Sink Shots
When a real person swings the club, the cameras record the motion from the moment they begin the backswing, and the program takes action. It instantly compares the observed path of the club to a database of stored sequences, selects the winning one, and sends a signal to the motor on the club shaft. The motor whips the club head round in less than a second to the exact angle required for that sequence, and because the club head can swivel around a vertical axis without digging into the ground, the adjustment is seamless even during a quick swing.

StuffMadeHere Robotic Golf Club Sink Shots
Bounces on the ball, however, provide a whole new level of complexity. Following a collision with a wall, the ball’s spin might cause it to fly off at an angle or curve. The simulation accounts for this by considering the whole contact dynamics, rather than simply treating it as mirror reflections. Wighton devised a grid of measured points to capture slight slopes and abnormalities on the ground surfaces he dealt with, as they were not always perfectly level. This means that the physics engine may treat the landscape precisely as it is, rather than assuming everything is smooth as silk.

StuffMadeHere Robotic Golf Club Sink Shots
The heat from the lights and bodies in the room causes the camera tripods to expand somewhat, which would otherwise throw the camera’s precision off. To counteract this, he placed certain fixed reference markers in view, allowing the program to detect these little shifts and correct the entire coordinate system on the fly, ensuring that positions remain accurate even in difficult scenarios. Players simply push a button on the grip, swing the club as usual, and see the club head rotate in midair. The ball follows the predetermined course, soars past obstructions, and lands in the cup, even on holes that appear to be engineered to end your winning streak.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 6 leak teases the future of the best Android phones

Published

on

Qualcomm’s next flagship chip is starting to take shape as early leaks suggest the standard Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 6 might be far less of a compromise than expected.

According to regular tipster Digital Chat Station, Qualcomm is preparing both a standard and Pro version of the chipset. But based on the latest details, the gap between the two may not be as wide as in previous generations.

The biggest takeaway is that the standard model is tipped to use a new-generation Oryon CPU, which could be shared with the Pro variant. That’s a notable shift. It hints that both chips will be built on the same core architecture. They will not split performance tiers as aggressively. The main difference, at least so far, comes down to cache, with the standard chip said to feature 6MB of system-level cache. Meanwhile, the Pro model is expected to push higher.

On the graphics side, things get more interesting. The Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 6 is rumoured to pack an Adreno 845 GPU with a six-slice architecture, alongside 12MB of dedicated graphics cache. That’s a step up from earlier Elite chips, which used fewer slices. Consequently, it could translate to better scaling performance and efficiency. This will depend on workload.

Advertisement

This sliced GPU design, first introduced with the original Snapdragon 8 Elite, essentially splits the GPU into multiple sections. Each with its own clock speeds and processing resources. In theory, that allows for more flexible performance tuning. This helps especially in demanding tasks like gaming.

Advertisement

Earlier leaks have also pointed to a 2nm TSMC manufacturing process, along with updated support for next-gen RAM and storage. However, those higher-end specs may still be reserved for the Pro version. That model is also expected to carry more graphics memory, reportedly around 18MB, further widening the gap for power users.

Even so, the standard Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 6 is shaping up to be a serious flagship chip in its own right. If these leaks hold, it could offer most of the performance gains people actually care about. You may not need to stretch to the Pro tier to get the best phone.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Plasma Arcs Replace Flames in a Battery-Powered Camping Stove

Published

on

DIY Homemade Plasma Stove
Jay from the Plasma Channel wanted to take cooking off the grid, eliminating gas and those pesky open flames in the process. He pulled off the trick by putting together a portable burner that generates plasma discharges using rechargeable batteries and blasts them directly into a metal pan. Result? Slap this thing down on a table or picnic blanket and you’ll have a sizzling hot meal in minutes, like scrambled eggs or crispy bacon.



Jay’s plasma research resulted in a system of four distinct high-voltage sources arranged in a square formation. Each starts with a spark bouncing between electrodes that are only one centimeter apart. When the spark forms and is pushed up by the heat rising from it, it strikes the pan sitting on top, and voilà! Four of them functioning together means that the heat is uniformly distributed across the bottom of the pan. It’s a 600-watt beast that can cook two complete dinners on a single charge.


Fire-Maple “Fixed Star 1” Backpacking and Camping Stove System | Outdoor Propane Cooking Gear | Portable…
  • HIGHLY EFFICIENT – Our industry leading heat exchange technology minimizes wind impact and reduces boiling times by up to 30% compared to traditional…
  • COMPACT AND LIGHTWEIGHT – All accessories including stove, bowl and fuel canister fit into the 1 liter cook pot. THIS SET DOES NOT INCLUDE A FUEL…
  • INTEGRATED AND EASY TO USE SYSTEM – The 1 liter cooking pot and the stove are one integrated unit, the built in piezoelectric ignitor ignites the…

DIY Homemade Plasma Stove
The batteries power everything, in this case two massive lithium-polymer packs with a total output of twenty amp-hours. That implies the stove does not require a wall outlet to operate. A cooling fan prevents the electronics from overheating during extended operation. The outside shell is held together with strong adhesive and 3D printed elements, and the translucent panels let you to watch the arcs burning while the stove is in action.

DIY Homemade Plasma Stove
The custom coils, however, are the true core of the system. Jay created resin formers, coiled thousands of turns of thin wire on a machine, and then sealed it all up with more resin, making sure to remove all air bubbles. Trapped air would simply generate a rapid flashover, frying the coil. He upgraded the driver circuits to higher-quality capacitors and transistors because the off-the-shelf ones were failing under load.

DIY Homemade Plasma Stove
One of the initial issues was that the system kept burning up the circuit boards because all four drivers were attached to the same ground ring and were essentially battling each other. So Jay realized he needed to rewire each coil output to its own dedicated electrode pair; voila, no more electrical coupling and smooth sailing. Then there was the issue with the stainless steel bolts; at first, they were producing problems because the surface oxides were making poor connections and melting under current, but swapping to brass resolved that quickly.

DIY Homemade Plasma Stove
When you turn this device on, you hear a continuous hum from the drivers and fan, but when it’s at full power, the arcs produce a wilder, louder sound. The plasma channels are stretching and stabilizing. A thermal camera will show you the pan transitioning from cold to cooking temperature in about a minute. Water tests also proved that energy is being transferred: fifty milliliters of water being heated from seventy to one hundred seventy degrees in just over six minutes, even at reduced power. The plasma itself is a warm 6000 degrees Fahrenheit.
[Source]

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Today’s NYT Mini Crossword Answers for April 18

Published

on

Looking for the most recent Mini Crossword answer? Click here for today’s Mini Crossword hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Wordle, Strands, Connections and Connections: Sports Edition puzzles.


Need some help with today’s Mini Crossword? It’s the super-long one as always on Saturdays, and a few of the clues are tricky. But if you play all the other New York Times games, 13-Across will be easy. Read on for all the answers. And if you could use some hints and guidance for daily solving, check out our Mini Crossword tips.

If you’re looking for today’s Wordle, Connections, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands answers, you can visit CNET’s NYT puzzle hints page.

Advertisement

Read more: Tips and Tricks for Solving The New York Times Mini Crossword

Let’s get to those Mini Crossword clues and answers.

completed-nyt-mini-crossword-puzzle-for-april-18-2026.png

The completed NYT Mini Crossword puzzle for April 18, 2026.

Advertisement

NYT/Screenshot by CNET

Mini across clues and answers

1A clue: What people pay Extra for?
Answer: GUM

4A clue: Pre-meal prayer
Answer: GRACE

6A clue: Physicist Bohr
Answer: NIELS

Advertisement

7A clue: Line up a shot
Answer: AIM

8A clue: Photo ___ (P.R. events)
Answer: OPS

10A clue: “Zootopia,” but not “Zoolander”
Answer: PGMOVIE

12A clue: TV show with the initials “TV”
Answer: THEVIEW

Advertisement

13A clue: New York Times game with weaving, interconnected answers
Answer: STRANDS

Mini down clues and answers

1D clue: More bleak
Answer: GRIMMER

2D clue: Dubai’s country, for short
Answer: UAE

3D clue: Nickname of Seth and Evan’s friend in “Superbad”
Answer: MCLOVIN

Advertisement

4D clue: “See you in the mornin’!”
Answer: GNIGHT

5D clue: Fancy term for “noticed”
Answer: ESPIED

7D clue: Many N.Y.C. addresses: Abbr.
Answer: APTS

9D clue: Uses a needle and thread
Answer: SEWS

Advertisement

11D clue: Egg cells
Answer: OVA

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Tech Moves: Hootsuite founder returns as interim CEO; Scowtt adds CFO; new role for former Edifecs CEO

Published

on

Ryan Holmes and Irina Novoselsky. (LinkedIn Photos)

Ryan Holmes is again leading Hootsuite, a Vancouver, B.C.-based social media management platform. Hootsuite’s focus will be “going even deeper with the businesses we serve, expanding what we can do with data and insights, and investing in AI to help both our customers and ourselves move faster and work smarter,” Holmes said on LinkedIn.

Holmes founded Hootsuite in 2009 and was CEO until 2020, when he transitioned to a board position. He is now interim CEO, taking over from Irina Novoselsky.

Novoselsky became CEO three years ago. In a LinkedIn post, she thanked her team and highlighted their accomplishments, including restoring the company to profitability, building a new enterprise sales engine, and acquiring Talkwalker.

Madhu Jagannathan. (LinkedIn Photo)

Scowtt, a Seattle-based startup that wants to reshape how advertisers optimize their returns on ad campaigns, named Madhu Jagannathan as chief financial officer. The startup announced a $12 million Series A funding round in December.

Jagannathan has served as CFO for multiple startups, including WorkWhile, Lob, Inrix, ChefSteps and others. He was a group finance manager for Microsoft earlier in his career, working with the worldwide services division and other divisions.

“I have been incredibly impressed with Madhu’s ability to scale organizations and manage enterprise-grade finance teams,” said Eduardo Indacochea, Scowtt’s CEO, adding that his vision will be “critical” to the company’s next phase of growth.

Advertisement
Venkat Kavarthapu. (LinkedIn Photo)

Venkat Kavarthapu is CEO of symplr, a Houston company using AI to optimize hospital and health plan operations. Kavarthapu joined from Cotiviti, where he served as executive VP. He was previously CEO of Bellevue, Wash.-based Edifecs, a healthcare payments company that Cotiviti acquired last year.

“After 25+ years in healthcare technology, I’ve seen a lot of change, but one thing hasn’t kept pace: healthcare operations are still too complex, and caregivers are still carrying too much of that burden,” Kavarthapu said on LinkedIn. Symplr, he added, is using AI to address these challenges.

Kevin O’Donnell. (LinkedIn Photo)

— Seattle-based Liminary named Kevin O’Donnell to the startup’s founding team as its fractional head of growth. He and Liminary founder and CEO Sarah Andrabi overlapped at Dropbox, where O’Donnell served as VP of international growth.

O’Donnell founded Global10x, which provides go-to-market and digital strategy consulting to SaaS companies. His other past roles include more than 15 years at Microsoft and VP of product at Nitro.

Liminary is building AI-native storage and memory technology that automatically recalls material from various sources when needed. “I joined Liminary because Sarah and I share a conviction that the next generation of AI must be both technically rigorous and deliver accurate, verifiable insights while preserving human perspective,” O’Donnell said in a statement.

Seattle Orcas, a Major League Cricket team, named Sean Cary as CEO, effective April 20. Cary has 25 years of sports leadership experience including roles in cricket, tennis, Australian Rules Football and the sporting goods industry. Early in his career, Cary played cricket for Western Australia.

Advertisement

Seattle Orcas began playing in 2023. Its owners include Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella as as well as current and former Microsoft executives and technology entrepreneurs Soma Somasegar, Sanjay Parthasarathy, Samir Bodas and Ashok Krishnamurthi.

Ryan Roland. (LinkedIn Photo)

UserTesting, a Bellevue, Wash.-based company that connects businesses with a global network of testers for user experience research, named Ryan Roland as its chief financial officer. He joins UserTesting from the health tech company Overjet and has held CFO and CEO roles at multiple San Francisco Bay Area companies.

“There’s a real opportunity to help organizations make better decisions by bringing customer context into how they build and operate,” Roland said in a statement.

UserTesting also named Neal Gottsacker as CTO earlier this month.

Patrick Knorr. (LinkedIn Photo)

— Longtime telecommunications leader Patrick Knorr has retired, departing his most recent role as an executive at Astound Business Solutions. Prior to Astound, Knorr was EVP of business solutions for Wave Broadband, a Kirkland, Wash., company acquired by Astound in 2018.

In a LinkedIn post recounting his career, Knorr noted that during his time at Wave the company made more than a dozen acquisitions and with Astound the team became “a truly national commercial brand serving major markets coast to coast.”

Advertisement

General Fusion, a Vancouver, B.C.-based fusion company, named Wendy Kei to its board of directors. Kei is board chair of Ontario Power Generation, among other board positions.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025