Connect with us

Tech

What’s Scaleup Europe, the $5.7B fund that just backed satellite company ICEYE?

Published

on

Forget the European summer lull: startups can’t afford to stay still, and Brussels is following suit. In the middle of peak vacation time, the European Commission announced that the Scaleup Europe Fund was fully operational, with investments “expected in the coming weeks.” But its first deal was actually made public the very next day.

ICEYE, a Finnish satellite intelligence company now valued above $11 billion, is the first startup backed by this unique public-private vehicle, which co-led its Series F. Similar deals should follow soon; Scaleup Europe plans to deploy €5 billion ($5.7 billion) into growth-stage startups based in the EU or partnering countries and operating in strategic sectors.

“Space-based intelligence is becoming critical infrastructure for governments, and the Scaleup Europe Fund exists so companies like ours don’t have to leave Europe to compete globally,”  ICEYE CEO Rafal Modrzewski (pictured above) wrote on LinkedIn.

Even in less critical sectors, helping Europe build scaleups and keep them is key for its competitiveness and tech sovereignty — and that’s also the fund’s raison d’être. With the conviction that Europe misses out when its deep tech talent lacks late-stage funding or only finds it abroad, the Commission took the matter into its own hands, but it also partnered up.

Advertisement

Unlike other programs that are managed directly by European institutions and handing out public monies, Scaleup Europe is backed by private investors and run by Swedish asset manager EQT, which was selected via an open call to “experienced fund managers.”

Other candidates reportedly included Eurazeo, Northzone and Vitruvian Partners, with Atomico as final challenger. While it has offices across Europe, the firm may have been hindered by having its headquarters in London. But having pointed out the growth funding gap for years, still described Scaleup Europe as “urgent and necessary” when EQT was announced as the winner.

As for EQT, it described the initiative as a “big moment for Europe.” “Europe has proven its ability to create successful early-stage technology companies, the challenge is now to scale those businesses into becoming global leaders while maintaining their European roots,” EQT CEO and managing partner Per Franzén commented in a statement.

Notably, the Commission has given the fund manager some leeway as to where to invest — with a mandate “including but not limited to deep tech, life sciences, clean tech, advanced manufacturing, and digital technologies.” For EQT, this will overlap with the likes of AI, biotech, energy, robotics, semiconductors and space — as shown by ICEYE.

Advertisement

With ties to the Wallenberg family, which was initially listed as a potential anchor investor of the fund, EQT was arguably a front runner to run Scaleup Europe. With more than $300 million in assets under management, it will also be tasked with helping the fund reach its total fundraising target — starting with a “significant commitment” of its own capital. 

It is unclear how much capital Scaleup Europe has raised so far, but its first closing was anchored by a €1 billion investment from the Commission (approximately $1.15 billion) investing alongside institutional investors from all across Europe, credited as “founding investors.”

According to public information, these founding investors include German insurance giant Allianz; APG, representing Dutch pension fund ABP; Spanish bank-affiliated funds CriteriaCaixa and Santander-owned Mouro Capital; Italy’s Fondazione Compagnia San Paolo, Intesa Sanpaolo and Fondazione Cariplo; and Denmark’s EIFO and Novo Holdings.

Scaleup Europe’s fundraising is expected to extend into 2027, with a second fundraising round described as potentially open to non-European investors, as long as these are aligned with Scaleup Europe’s objectives. 

Advertisement

This might be a necessary compromise to raise the kind of capital Scaleup Europe is seeking. According to reports, the Commission suggested it could eventually expand to €25 billion ($28.9 billion). If it does, it would start belonging to the same category as Asian and U.S. growth funds. 

As it stands, Scaleup Europe’s €5 billion target already makes it an outlier in the EU — VC firms in continental Europe typically manage millions, rarely billions. But with the EIF’s European Tech Champions Initiative actively backing growth-stage VC firms as a fund-of-funds, this could quickly change. In other words, Scale Europe may soon just be there to fill the gap. 

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

Apple Executive Who Launched Apple Pay Is Retiring After 25 Years

Published

on

Jennifer Bailey, head of Apple Pay and Wallet since the service launched in 2014, is retiring in October after more than 25 years at Apple. Her exit is one of several senior departures ahead of Tim Cook handing the chief executive job to John Ternus on September 1.

Jennifer Bailey, who has run Apple Pay since the service launched in 2014, is retiring in October after more than 25 years at Apple. Services chief Eddy Cue announced her departure in a staff memo seen by Bloomberg News. A successor will be named before she goes.

Under Jennifer’s leadership, Apple Pay has changed the way hundreds of millions of our users pay,” Cue wrote. Bailey will stay on in an advisory role through the handover. Apple declined to comment.

The division she leaves behind is one of Apple’s most profitable. Apple Pay brings in more than $7.5bn a year on analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg, and functions as a reason for customers to stay on iPhone. Bailey also built Wallet, which began as a place to store card details and now holds keys for homes, cars and hotels, along with identification.

Advertisement

Apple Card and the company’s recently announced device upgrade subscription both grew out of the same division. Before Apple Pay, Bailey ran Apple’s online store, having joined in the early 2000s from a string of internet companies.

People familiar with the move describe her exit as a significant loss, and as a sign of what is coming. Apple has a demographic problem. A cohort of executives who grew wealthy over decades at the company are reaching retirement age together, and no longer need to work.

General counsel Kate Adams is retiring this year, and environment chief Lisa Jackson left at the start of 2026. Former finance chief Luca Maestri and marketing veteran Phil Schiller have stayed on in smaller roles but are probably near the end. Cue, retail boss Deirdre O’Brien and marketing head Greg Joswiak have each been at Apple for around four decades.

The largest change lands on September 1, when Tim Cook hands the chief executive job to John Ternus and becomes executive chairman. Ternus, 51, who built Apple’s hardware for more than two decades, is expected to make further personnel changes and has already brought a retired hardware leader onto his team.

Advertisement

The drain is not limited to the executive floor. Apple’s design studio has lost nearly every Ive-era designer, a gap Ternus has said he intends to close.

Josh Rosenstock, a senior director of corporate communications, is also leaving, in what Bloomberg reports is an unrelated move.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Simulating Lunar Regolith with COMSOL for Mission Safety and Space Infrastructure

Published

on

Current space exploration aims to establish permanent structures on the Moon, Mars, and eventually other planetary bodies. Successful lunar missions depend on understanding lunar regolith, the granular material covering the Moon’s surface, whose behavior is governed by low gravity, vacuum conditions, particle irregularity, electrostatic effects, and extreme thermal environments. This webinar will focus on two connected modeling problems related to lunar regolith: plume–regolith interaction during lunar landings and induction heating of porous regolith for thermal processing and melting. Together, these problems show how simulation with the COMSOL Multiphysics® software can help engineering and research teams predict, control, and utilize granular lunar material.

The first part of the talk will address plume–regolith interaction. During spacecraft landings, underexpanded rocket exhaust plumes impinge on the surface, producing compressible flow structures, erosion, particle ejection, and possible surface damage. High-speed dust can reduce visibility and threaten astronauts, equipment, and nearby assets. These issues are especially important for Artemis and future missions involving repeated landings and larger spacecraft. Modeling the coupled gas-particle response provides insight into landing-site safety, erosion patterns, ejecta trajectories, and mitigation strategies.

The second part of the webinar will examine induction heating of porous regolith, where electromagnetic energy is converted into heat to raise temperature, drive phase change, and potentially melt lunar soil. The discussion will emphasize temperature-dependent porous media properties, latent heat treatment, melt fraction evolution, and the differences between constant-property and piecewise-property models. By connecting these studies, the webinar will demonstrate how COMSOL-based workflows can quantify flow fields, particle transport, thermal response, and phase-change behavior while supporting safer operations, regolith processing technologies, and the development of future space infrastructure.

Register now for this free webinar!

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Why AI-driven purchase intent so rarely becomes a completed sale

Published

on

Presented by Rezolve Ai


When an AI assistant recommends a product or brand, it generates something valuable: a purchase-ready consumer with high intent and low friction in their decision. That consumer has already compared options, asked follow-up questions, and arrived at a conclusion. They want to buy.

What they encounter next is a commerce infrastructure that was not designed for them.

The gap between recommendation and purchase

The typical enterprise commerce stack was built for a specific model: a consumer who arrives at a brand’s website through search or a direct link, navigates product pages, adds to cart, and completes checkout through a multi-step form flow. That model assumed the consumer would do the work of bridging their intent to the transaction. Most commerce systems still assume exactly that.

Advertisement

Agentic commerce breaks that assumption. When intent is generated outside the brand’s owned environment, the handoff to transaction becomes a structural problem. Context doesn’t transfer. Sessions don’t persist. The consumer who asked an AI assistant for a recommendation and received one now faces the same friction-laden checkout process as someone who arrived with no prior intent at all.

Cart abandonment rates have remained stubbornly high for years. Baymard Institute research puts the average at 70%. That figure predates the agentic commerce era. As more purchase intent is generated through AI interfaces, and as the gap between that intent and a brand’s transaction layer widens, the abandonment problem is likely to get structurally worse before it gets better.

What the current stack wasn’t built to handle

The commerce infrastructure most enterprises operate today was assembled over two decades of incremental investment. Each layer added a capability: a search tool, a recommendation engine, a personalization layer, and a checkout system. Each was built to solve a specific problem within a human-initiated shopping journey.

None of it was built to receive intent from an AI agent.

Advertisement

When an AI system generates a purchase recommendation, it needs to do more than surface a product page. It needs to verify real-time inventory. It needs to apply pricing logic and promotional rules. It needs to respect brand policy around which products can be recommended together, which channels apply which discounts, and what the correct fulfillment path looks like for a given consumer. And it needs to do all of that without breaking the conversational context that made the recommendation possible in the first place.

Current commerce stacks can’t do this reliably. The systems that hold the relevant data, inventory, pricing, order management, fulfillment, are not exposed in ways that AI agents can safely and accurately access. The result is a journey that starts with intelligence and ends with a broken experience: a link out to a product page, a generic checkout flow, and a consumer who arrived ready to buy and left without completing the transaction.

The conversion problem is an architecture problem

The industry has treated conversion optimization as a front-end problem for most of its history: better copy, cleaner checkout UX, fewer form fields, smarter retargeting. Those interventions were appropriate for the model they were built to serve.

The agentic commerce era introduces a different kind of conversion failure, one that front-end optimization cannot fix. When intent is generated externally, conversion depends on whether the back-end infrastructure can receive that intent, act on it accurately, and complete the transaction within the guardrails the brand has established. That is not a UX problem. It is an infrastructure problem.

Advertisement

Brands that are investing heavily in AI-powered discovery while leaving their execution layer unchanged are widening the gap between the promise AI makes on their behalf and the experience they can actually deliver. That gap has a cost, measured not just in lost transactions but in consumer trust that erodes each time the promise and the reality don’t match.

Rezolve Ai commissioned research across 1,500 US consumers in January 2025 that found consumers who encounter friction immediately after an AI recommendation are significantly less likely to complete a purchase than those who encounter friction at the top of a traditional funnel. The implication is direct: AI raises the expectation bar at the moment of intent. Brands whose infrastructure cannot clear that bar are paying a conversion penalty they may not even know they’re incurring.

What closing the gap requires

Closing the gap between AI-generated intent and completed transaction requires rethinking which layer of the commerce stack carries the most strategic weight in an agentic world. For most of the past decade, that weight sat with discovery and experience. The brands that invested most in search, personalization, and content won a disproportionate share.

In the agentic era, the weight shifts to execution. The brands that can reliably take AI-generated intent and turn it into a governed, accurate, brand-safe transaction will have a structural advantage over those whose infrastructure stalls at the handoff.

Advertisement

That is a different investment thesis than the industry has operated on. And most enterprise commerce roadmaps have not yet caught up to it.


Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

The best screens from each TV brand

Published

on

The Samsung S99H, or S95H as it’s also known in the US (the UK also has the S95H but with a different appearance, confusingly), is Samsung’s flagship OLED for 2026. As befitting its flagship status, it pairs vivid colour and picture quality with cinema-accurate reproduction that serious film fans will appreciate, all wrapped in a genuinely distinctive design.

Design-wise, the S99H makes no apologies for its appearance. The screen sits within a metallic frame, kept ultra-slim, with a wider backing panel extending past the edges that houses Samsung’s Object Tracking Sound (OTS+) 4.2.2-channel speaker array.

The effect is that sound comes from the correct part of the screen, delivering a properly precise soundstage. It’s a striking look, and it’s really built for wall mounting. The feet attach near the bottom corners of the screen, so you’ll need a very wide unit if you prefer it freestanding.

The S99H includes an advanced anti-glare filter. You can sit it opposite a window or beneath wall lights and reflections simply aren’t an issue. Connectivity is also generous, with four HDMI 2.1 inputs, two USB ports, Ethernet and an optical digital audio output. The S99H is also compatible with Samsung’s Wireless One Connect boxes, which add four further HDMI inputs, taking the total to eight, and let the TV sit cable-free in a room.

Advertisement

Tizen OS handles the smart side of things, offering pretty much every major streaming app alongside AI-driven search through Copilot and Perplexity. The interface isn’t the cleanest available, but the option to disable adverts helps considerably. There’s a dedicated gaming page, and Galaxy Watch gesture support is a nice touch for basic menu navigation.

At its core, the S99H features a QD OLED panel backed by Samsung’s OLED HDR Pro and OLED Brightness Booster features. The Booster pushes peak brightness into seriously high territory, so the set performs well in a bright living room, while HDR Pro handles upscaling and colour improvements. There’s also support for HDR10+ Advanced, Samsung’s answer to Dolby Vision 2, to deliver brighter images with better local tone mapping, alongside HDR10 and HLG.

Colour and brightness are both spectacular in Standard mode. Bright highlights erupt from inky blacks, and contrast is phenomenal. Switch to Filmmaker Mode and colour accuracy errors sit below the threshold of human visibility. It’s a subtle, immersive image that home cinema fans will genuinely appreciate.

Upscaling is close to masterful too, pulling HD and SD sources cleanly into 4K without smearing, with noise reduction handled before the upscaler does its work.

Advertisement

Gaming is a real highlight. The S99H supports 165Hz with AMD FreeSync Premium and NVIDIA G-Sync, and input lag in Game Mode measures 9.7ms. A dedicated gaming menu offers useful extras such as mini-map zoom and a raised brightness floor for dark areas.

Sound quality is impressive overall. The OTS+ system places effects accurately across the screen and beyond, with a wide dynamic range by TV standards. Very bright treble effects can occasionally sound a little brittle, and deep bass lines can produce some crackling artefacts at higher volumes.

The Samsung S99H delivers spectacular yet carefully judged pictures with standout connectivity options. It’s expensive, but for those seeking Samsung’s most accomplished OLED, this is the one to buy.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Kreios Space’s Satellite Will Scoop Thin Air to Fight the Drag That Kills Low Orbits

Published

on

Kreios Space Kongsberg Nanoavionics Air Breathing VLEO Satellite
Spanish startup Kreios Space just named Kongsberg NanoAvionics as the builder of the platform that will carry its experimental thruster into space. The goal is straightforward and ambitious: prove that a satellite can collect residual atmospheric gases at extremely low altitudes and turn them into continuous thrust, staying aloft where conventional craft fall quickly.


Kreios Space Kongsberg Nanoavionics Air Breathing VLEO Satellite
Very low earth orbit, particularly the zone between 150 and 300 kilometers up, has certain obvious advantages. Being so close to the surface results in crisper photos, much stronger signals, and much less lag. The catch has always been drag, as the thin air at that altitude acts as a powerful brake. Most satellites in that zone require huge fuel tanks, which add weight and shorten the lifespan, or both. Short-term missions have always been the best we could hope for.


LEGO Icons Hubble Space Telescope 11382
  • EXPLORE THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE – Celebrate one of humanity’s greatest scientific feats while enjoying a relaxing building experience with the…
  • REPLICA SPACE MODEL – Recreate the legendary space-based telescope with posable solar arrays and antennas, an opening aperture door and a detailed…
  • AUTHENTIC DETAILS – Remove the exterior panels to reveal a detailed instrument bay, which features gyroscopes alongside primary and secondary…

Kreios has developed an air-breathing electric propulsion system that challenges that equation. They’ve devised a system in which oxygen, nitrogen, and other particles are drawn in from the front of the spacecraft. These gases are then fed into a helicon plasma thruster, which converts them into plasma using radio-frequency power before expelling them all. The electricity comes from the sun. The key advantage is that there is no requirement for propellant tanks onboard. Lab versions of this thruster have already gone through several iterations, with the first becoming online in 2021. A second one was more advanced, contained an intake, and worked in a vacuum. A third went even further, testing with various gasses and power sources and achieving the best results yet.

Kreios Space Kongsberg Nanoavionics Air Breathing VLEO Satellite
Kreios chose NanoAvionics’ tried-and-true MP42 microsatellite bus for its first orbital mission. Once the optical payload is installed, the entire spacecraft will weigh approximately 200 kg. NanoAvionics will modify the bus, integrate cameras that take photos in visible and near-infrared light with sub-meter resolution, test the entire system, and manage commissioning early in orbit. Once that’s completed, Kreios will take over day-to-day operations. The demonstration will begin higher up, about 300-350 kilometers, and gradually float downward while the thruster fires at various heights. The engineers will be collecting performance data, sampling the local atmosphere, and photographing the entire process.

Kreios Space Kongsberg Nanoavionics Air Breathing VLEO Satellite
The MP42, on the other hand, isn’t exactly meant for drag-free VLEO, so the demo will be finished in about six to ten months, which is just as well, because the actual aim here is simply getting this thruster up and operating so Kreios can refine their future platforms. Their long-term goal is to construct satellites that can operate for seven years or longer below 200 kilometers.
[Source]

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Bumble Changes the Feature That Made It Different From Other Dating Apps

Published

on

Launched in 2014, Bumble rose in popularity as a unique alternative among dating apps with a policy requiring women to message first in matches between men and women. With Tuesday’s update, Bumble will let either person in a match send the first message.

The app’s previous requirement that matches must respond within 24 hours, or the match would expire, has been extended to 72 hours. 

“While women making the first move was a radical idea, being women-first was never about prescribing just one way to connect. It was about designing an experience with women’s needs in mind to create better outcomes for everyone,” Bumble CEO Whitney Wolfe Herd said in a statement (PDF).

“Today, our community is asking for more flexibility, less pressure and more opportunities to create real, meaningful connections and that is what this new experience provides. This evolution isn’t a departure from our founding vision, but the realization of it.”

Advertisement

CNET reached out to Bumble for comment on how it plans to stand out from other dating apps, including Hinge, Tinder, Match.com and OkCupid. 

Why is Bumble changing its chat experience?

The company said the changes reflect “member-backed insights around how dating has grown over the past decade.” 

The company said a recent survey of users found that nearly two-thirds (66%) of women preferred that men send the first message, and that more than half of those surveyed said that increasing the reply window from 24 hours would improve their experience. 

The survey also found that expectations in dating are evolving, with 62% of respondents saying they are more confident when given flexibility in how and when to begin a conversation with a match. 

Advertisement

The company says these changes build on other updates “to improve every stage of the dating journey.” For instance, Bumble is one of many dating apps that incorporate AI-powered features such as AI-generated prompts and profile feedback.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Zoom Screen-Sharing Bug Let People Fully Take Over Other Devices On A Call

Published

on

Cybersecurity researchers discovered a fairly insidious bug in Zoom that lets people quite literally take control of someone else’s device. This is done by exploiting a flaw in the screen-sharing function. The vulnerability has been found in the Zoom Workspace app for Windows, Mac, iOS Android and Linux.

Attacks do not require the victim to do anything and there’s no visible warning. When someone launches the annotation tool while sharing the screen, the vulnerability lets bad actors remotely execute malicious code for access.

However, it remains to be seen if this vulnerability has ever been used in the wild. The researchers that found it used AI prompts to develop the screen-sharing exploit in under 24 hours, illustrating how AI could assist in cyberattacks.

Advertisement

“This class of capability would previously have only been available to nation-state threat actors, but the model requiring elite teams, months of effort and weapons-grade budgets has collapsed,” the cybersecurity company wrote in a blog post. “Today, a single researcher was able to develop a nation-state-level exploit in less than a day.”

Zoom was notified about the bug and has deployed various fixes to mitigate the threat. It says “users can help keep themselves secure by applying the latest updates.” The vulnerability exists in all Zoom Workspace versions prior to the latest updates.

Something similar just happened to Apple computers, forcing the company to issue various macOS updates. The newest versions, including Tahoe 26.6.1, Sequoia 15.7.9 and Sonoma 14.8.9 are all safe.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Turning A Toy Game Boy Into A Real Game Boy

Published

on

In the world of children’s toys there are many offerings which are meant to look like devices used by older kids or even adults, with the Fisher Price Laugh & Learn Lil’ Gamer toy bearing quite the resemblance to Nintendo’s iconic Game Boy. Although this factoid could be filed away as amusing trivia before passing said toy to a child for its requisite physical abuse by said child, a purported adult can still have a lot of fun with this toy by modding it into a real Game Boy, as [KOUZEX] recently did.

Part of the challenge here is to not just treat it as an unconventional replacement shell for a genuine Game Boy, but to retain as much of the child toy’s look and feel as possible. This includes things like buttons and even the weird sliding blocks on the side.

For the functional components a Game Boy Color with a busted screen was chosen as a donor, with the GBC mainboard fitting almost perfectly inside its new shell. Wires were then soldered to bridge Nintendo’s PCB with the toy’s PCB to make the original buttons and speaker work. After blowing a fuse on the GBC mainboard due to likely some power back feeding, the toy’s PCB had its non-essential parts stripped, but fortunately without further damage to the grafted in electronics.

Advertisement

Most of this mod is quite straightforward, just with some creativity required to add a Select and Start button as these were notably absent from the original. The new, rather large replacement OLED screen is a nice upgrade too and actually fits pretty well with the chunky look of the child’s toy. Even as mostly a joke mod, it seems surprisingly functional.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Workers at OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta say AI is making their jobs harder, not easier

Published

on

The big picture: AI tools are being sold as a way to make work faster and easier. But employees at some of the companies building those tools say the opposite is happening inside their own workplaces. Current and former workers at OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and Google told the BBC that developing AI often involves long hours, weekend shifts, and constant pressure to meet product deadlines.

At OpenAI and Anthropic, some employees said major development pushes can last for weeks and involve more than 90 hours of work per week.

One former OpenAI technical employee said they worked at least 70 hours most weeks before leaving the company last year. They now work at another AI startup and said their schedule is closer to 50 to 60 hours a week, except during intense release periods known as sprints.

“You go in on Saturday or Sunday just to catch up or make sure things aren’t broken,” the person said.

Advertisement

That experience does not line up with the public message from many AI leaders. Google predicted several years ago that AI could help make a four-day workweek possible. Earlier this year, OpenAI encouraged companies to experiment with four-day schedules without cutting pay, saying AI would soon accelerate much of the work people do.

The former OpenAI employee said the company did not try a four-day workweek while they were there. Instead, they described regular “crisis meetings,” weekend work and “super cut-throat” performance reviews that could lead to sudden layoffs. OpenAI and Anthropic did not respond to the BBC’s requests for comment.

The workload is partly a result of the pace of the AI race. Companies are trying to improve models, build more computing infrastructure, and add AI features to products at the same time. That creates pressure on engineers, researchers and product teams to move quickly and fix problems as they arise.

Anthropic has said its Claude tool can work independently for seven hours on some tasks. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said AI will allow smaller teams to do more work. Yet employees say these systems are not reducing the amount of work expected from them. In many cases, they are simply being asked to produce more.

Advertisement

Meta workers described being moved onto AI teams with little warning. A current employee and a former employee told the BBC that workers called the process being “drafted.” The former employee said people often had little meaningful choice about joining an AI project.

“They just move you over,” the former employee said. “You can’t say no – or if you do, you have to quit.”

Those teams are working on AI systems for software engineering and other tasks, along with infrastructure that measures how well models can perform work typically done by people. The former employee said the work had no clear endpoint.

“You’re literally working in teams of people trying to replicate humans doing jobs,” the person said.

Advertisement

Meta has reportedly softened its reassignment approach, but workers said many employees had already been placed on AI projects. They described late nights, weekend work, and a feeling that they remained on call even when they were not actively working. A Meta spokesperson declined to comment.

The strain is not limited to people directly building AI models. Amin Shali, a former Google employee, said he left the company in May after seeing internal engineering systems fail more often. He said Google had shifted key resources, including processing units and memory storage, to AI projects, leaving other teams dealing with disruptions.

Shali said the problems often required engineers to work through the night. Since leaving Google, he said his sleep and health have improved. He said heavy use of AI tools at large companies “creates a bad culture with excess pressure on engineers.” A Google spokesperson declined to comment.

Research from UC Berkeley suggests that AI can increase workloads even when it makes individual tasks faster. The study followed hundreds of workers at a US tech company for eight months and found that employees using AI worked at a faster pace, handled more tasks and worked later into the day. They also had to spend time checking AI-generated output.

Advertisement

Neil Thompson, an innovation scholar at MIT, said companies are unlikely to give workers more free time when AI creates efficiency gains. Instead, those gains often lead to new tasks, more oversight, and higher expectations.

“People assume that 20% less work means four-day weeks,” Thompson said. “But new work emerges.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

The Censorship Industrial Complex Didn’t Exist Until The People Who Invented It Took It Over

Published

on

from the nonsense-peddlers-peddling-nonsense dept

For many, many years now we’ve been calling out how the entire narrative around the “censorship industrial complex” was absolute bullshit, made up by a group of either deliberate misinformation peddlers or confused “contrarian” journalists too stupid to understand how basic things work. And I say that as someone who has long been critical of efforts to “ban disinformation” online, and especially of attempts to regulate mis or disinformation.

So when the whole narrative of the “censorship industrial complex” came about, you’d think that I would have been on board, having called out years of efforts by politicians to pressure companies into removing certain speech along with a moral panic about “disinformation.”

But, reality matters. And that’s why, when stories started popping up about a vast collaboration between tech companies and governments to “censor” people based on ideological viewpoints, I looked at the details — and it was basically all bullshit.

The reality is that there are efforts at spreading disinformation and propaganda. And while I’m skeptical about how powerful or successful those can be… ironically, the one example that has caused me to reconsider my position is the success of the blatant lie about the “censorship industrial complex.”

Advertisement

Type Investigations and the MIT Tech Review teamed up to put together a deeply researched article highlighting how a group of bullshit peddling right-wing influencers basically invented the entire concept of the “censorship industrial complex” and were able to mainstream it across the right-wing mediasphere, deep into the Trump White House, and are likely a big part of the reason Elon Musk focused on killing USAID in his early days at DOGE. It’s quite a report. The key thing, though, is that a bunch of motivated propagandists took any effort at making internet websites safer… and insisted that they were about censorship. And then they would put together conspiracy cork boards insisting that these efforts were really controlled by the government.

The second Trump administration’s war on censorship has contributed to the dismantling of numerous government agencies, like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), among others. It’s razed the infrastructure that tracks and counters attempts by foreign powers to influence elections and popular opinion. It has also been used to justify sweeping travel bans and sanctions on targeted individuals and entire industries. It’s provoked tensions with the European Union over its tech regulations, which these critics say silence Americans. And it’s even reshaped US national security strategy.

Its reach, though, isn’t limited to US bureaucracy, academia, or civil society groups. The weaponization of ideas about censorship also affects the billions of people globally who get information, or interact with each other, online—which is to say, just about everyone. 

Much of what has been characterized as censorship is really part of an effort to make the internet safer. This could include work quantifying just how often people online have generated nonconsensual sexualized content of women and children; helping victims of online stalking, doxxing, and other crimes seek justice; or identifying whether someone we are interacting with online is genuine and not, say, a foreign agent posing as an American voter. 

At the center of it all is a dude named Mike Benz, who was outed as a racist internet troll who spent years pushing the “great replacement theory” and screaming about “white genocide,” who reinvented himself from a low level Trump staffer in Housing and Urban Development into a self-styled “cyber expert” in the State Department who claimed he had inside knowledge on the whole “censorship industrial complex.” The reality is that Benz worked in the State Department for just a few months after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and already had a history of insisting that basic trust & safety work — including fact checking, let alone limiting or banning someone for violating a site’s terms of service — was “censorship.”

Advertisement

At the center of this effort is Mike Benz, Rubio’s interview partner last April. Benz served a brief stint in Donald Trump’s first administration but has largely remained unknown, even as some of his ideas—including the conspiracy theory that Taylor Swift was a NATO asset and the pro-white-identity content he published anonymously before he joined the government—have gained followers. Our analysis uncovers just how integral he in particular was to spreading the CIC theory: We found him to be the most prolific creator of related content online, which was in turn picked up by right-wing media outlets and podcasts and eventually reached the highest echelons of power in the US. His work prompted congressional—and eventually presidential—action and generated both attention and financial benefits for Benz personally. (Benz did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

Last April, near the end of the interview at the State Department, Rubio shot Benz a friendly finger gun. 

“Thanks for your attention to this topic,” Rubio said. “I know you’ve been on this a long time.”

Benz spent much of the Biden administration trying to convince everyone of this vast censorship industrial complex. Notably, just days before this Type Investigations piece came out, Renee DiResta (who Benz and others falsely insist was a key player in this mythical censorship industrial complex) published a recording and transcript of the Twitter Spaces where a very credulous Matt Taibbi fell for Benz’s bullshit, leading to years of Taibbi spewing complete nonsense about the so-called “Twitter Files.”

Benz did not mention that he was appointed to this portfolio in November 2020. The Trump administration ended on January 20, 2021. His State Department tenure lasted roughly two months…over the holidays.

Taibbi bit immediately. He told Benz he’d sent him a DM, adding: “I’m very anxious to talk to you in a longer setting if that’s possible.” Benz, he said, “could probably be invaluable” to a huge project he was launching to map the same world.

Advertisement

Benz continued listing his bona fides: there was no close second with his knowledge, he said. He had delivered “eight or nine congressional briefings,” spoken with “four or five senators,” and briefed House and Senate committees. If Taibbi would talk to him privately, Benz said, he could describe “every single individual, institution, the chronology, the pretexts that were used, all of the dirty little tricks that were done each step of the way.”

“I can tell you literally everything,” he said.

“That’s great,” Taibbi replied.

As this new report points out, once Benz reached Taibbi (and via him, Michael Shellenberger), combined with Rep. Jim Jordan, you had a closed loop of utter bullshit, with each of them egging the others into deeper conspiracy theories on a foundation of confirmation bias and not bothering to check.

Advertisement

In a 2023 podcast interview, Shellenberger credited Benz with opening his eyes to the full extent to which conservative voices were being silenced. “We basically went from being concerned about bad forms of censorship by Twitter and other social media platforms to being concerned about government censorship,” Shellenberger said.

“We were, like, proverbially touching the elephant. We didn’t understand what the elephant was [until] we discovered your work, Mike.”

And it’s one thing if the damage to this were just about disinformation research. All that effort absolutely kneecapped the ability of the US to deal with foreign misinformation (and it’s mildly amusing watching MAGA folks now freaking out about how the US is so bad at responding to foreign influence campaigns, when they’re the reason that we destroyed our capacity). But as the Type Investigations article shows, the machinery Benz had spent two years building was also a big part of why Elon Musk shut down USAID, likely leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Benz deserves some of the credit for that apparently:

The agency had been a longtime obsession for Benz, who argued that it was an instrument of censorship as early as FFO’s first report in July 2022. An effort in Brazil to limit the spread of disinformation on messaging apps like WhatsApp and Telegram, FFO alleged, was a form of censorship financed by USAID and others. Later that year, Benz also accused USAID of funding what he called a “Countering Disinformation Guidebook for Digital Censorship.” In reality, it was a USAID primer for its overseas staff on how to recognize disinformation campaigns in the foreign countries where the agency operated. 

Our analysis shows that Benz and FFO were the dominant voices promoting conspiracy theories around USAID and censorship from 2022 until late 2024, when Benz talked about it on Rogan’s podcast. “USAID is effectively a ‘switch player’ to assist the Pentagon on the national security front, to assist the State Department on the national interest front, or to assist the intelligence community on a sort of clandestine operation front,” Benz alleged.

His appearance drew millions of viewers, including Musk. The trillionaire retweeted an X user’s glowing summary of the interview. “Mike Benz just revealed everything,” the user wrote, including “how ‘democracy’ was redefined to silence you.” 

Advertisement

This marked the first time Musk, newly installed at DOGE, had posted specifically about USAID. But Benz and Musk were already acquainted. The two had exchanged tweets and threads about censorship and other conspiracy theories for years.

Oh, and it should be mentioned that Marco Rubio hired Benz to spend his time sorting through what’s left of USAID to try to justify his bullshit claims, just as Musk had Taibbi and Shellenberger sniff through Twitter’s internal docs in the hopes that they would craft a narrative to support his prejudices.

The incredible bit to me here is that in both the Twitter Files nonsense and with the US government, Musk was always in a position where he could look at the source documents and details himself. He could speak to actual experts. Instead, he took the kook conspiracy theories from nonsense peddlers, assumed they were true because they fed into what he wanted to believe, and ran with them — with every bit of available evidence saying he was just swallowing propaganda.

The article also details the plumbing: how a small, heavily interconnected — and largely commonly funded — slice of the right-wing media ecosystem pumped these ideas back and forth until they looked like consensus:

Advertisement

In each case, our analysis found, CIC-related conspiracy theories on social media were supported by a number of conservative groups; key among them were FFO and AFL, which played a crucial role in obtaining government records they claimed showed evidence that conservatives were censored. FFO then used these documents to write exhaustive reports supposedly connecting the dots to explain how the censorship industry worked. AFL also instigated a number of lawsuits against supposedly CIC-implicated individuals and organizations. 

These materials were then amplified by a slew of right-wing media outlets, many with shared funding.

Much of that financing was funneled through the Informing America Foundation (IAF), a media-oriented grant-making organization that John Solomon helped to launch after leaving his position at The Hill back in 2019, following public scrutiny of columns about the Bidens and Ukraine. IAF funds a network of podcasts called Real America’s Voice, which includes shows run by key Trump allies like Steve Bannon, Jack Prosobiec, and the late Charlie Kirk, as well as Solomon himself. It also finances a network of what media scholars call “pink slime” websites, which are designed to look like nonpartisan local news but have a partisan slant. Benz appeared regularly on these podcasts and in these outlets, further embedding the CIC narrative in the right-wing information ecosystem—while simultaneously enhancing his own profile and revenue streams on X Premium and other platforms. 

As the article also notes, all of these jackasses pushing nonsense about a non-existent censorship industrial complex have basically all been either entirely silent or — worse — have effectively cheered on examples of the Trump administration actively censoring speech of critics. But, as free speech expert David Kaye mentions in that article, it seems like the claims about the censorship industrial complex is all fluff and nonsense to distract from the very real censorship of the Trump administration:

That’s why it’s important to look beyond the political narratives themselves and consider actions, says David Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and a former UN special rapporteur for free speech. “The administration probably realizes that … Americans do not generally feel censored by Europe or Brazil,” he says. But by focusing on Europe, Brazil, and the broader CIC idea, it hopes to “distract” from the fact that “Americans are definitely facing the most substantial censorship in, I don’t know, 100 years,” he adds—though “it’s actually the Trump administration” that is responsible.

The notion of a censorship-industrial complex is proving again and again to be a convenient and powerful pretext for silencing the loudest critics of those in power. “The very thing that they are accusing people of—censoring—is something that they’re now perpetuating,” says Jankowicz.  

Advertisement

And as the article points out, Benz is 100% on board with using the government to stifle speech. Just so long as it’s the speech of his ideological foes.

That, of course, may have been the goal all along. From the stage of the Heritage Foundation back in 2024, Benz spoke of the CIC as having its hand on a “God button” giving it the power to “control discourse on every political issue.” Now conservatives can wield that power themselves.

“Democracy is about the hearts and minds of the people,” he told the audience. “If you can simply shut off the ability to influence hearts and minds through censorship, you win by default.”

There’s much more in the article (also available at MIT Tech Review), and you should read it — not because you need convincing that Mike Benz is full of shit, but because bits of this conspiracy theory have leaked well outside of MAGA world. I still regularly run into perfectly reasonable non-MAGA people who believe some version of “the Biden administration worked with social media to silence conservatives.” It didn’t. But the story was told loudly enough, for long enough, by enough people who had a financial and/or political interest in telling it, that it became accepted wisdom among many.

And look at where it landed. The State Department shut down the office that tracked foreign influence operations, and Rubio announced it in a friendly video chat with the guy who spent a decade inventing the reason to shut it down. Rubio then banned five Europeans from entering the United States for the crime of advocating for content moderation rules he doesn’t like — calling them “agents of the censorship-industrial complex” — until a judge blocked it as “likely viewpoint discriminatory.” The State Department launched a website, freedom.gov, whose entire purpose is to relitigate other countries’ moderation decisions. And, of course, you have the Trump FCC chair going after broadcasters for airing jokes about the president and for platforming Democratic candidates.

Advertisement

Every one of those is actual censorship. Every one is the government using state power to punish speech it dislikes. None of those are a trust & safety team enforcing violations of its terms of service on its own private property.

So it was a disinformation campaign so successful that it kneecapped our ability to fight disinformation campaigns. That would be bad enough on its own. But the more lasting damage is that the censorship-industrial complex Benz spent a decade describing didn’t exist when he started describing it. But it exists now, and it’s controlled by Marco Rubio, Elon Musk… and Mike Benz.

Filed Under: censorship industrial complex, disinformation, jim jordan, marco rubio, matt taibbi, michael shellenberger, mike benz, misinformation, trust & safety, usaid

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025