Coin Press - Meta's announcements and digital services?

NYSE - LSE

JRI	-1.01%	12.87	$
SCS	-1.8%	11.1	$
NGG	2.5%	65.57	$
BCC	-2.1%	98.3	$
AZN	1.29%	73.79	$
RIO	-2.15%	61.03	$
CMSC	-0.13%	22.83	$
GSK	0.57%	38.74	$
BTI	0.17%	40.51	$
CMSD	0.04%	22.71	$
BCE	-0.83%	22.97	$
RELX	0.18%	50.16	$
BP	-1.62%	33.86	$
RBGPF	100%	68.22	$
RYCEF	0.1%	9.92	$
VOD	0.95%	9.45	$

Meta's announcements and digital services?

Recent announcements by Meta, the technology conglomerate formerly known as Facebook, are raising questions about compliance with new and upcoming European digital regulations. In particular, critics argue that Meta’s proposed changes—ranging from expanded encryption options to the way it handles user data—could conflict with the European Union’s (EU) Digital Services Act (DSA).

The Digital Services Act is part of the EU’s broader effort to modernize internet governance, alongside the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and other legislation.

The DSA aims to:
- Increase Transparency: Large online platforms must disclose how their algorithms rank content and ads.
- Enhance Accountability: Platforms must tackle illegal or harmful content promptly, and offer clear mechanisms for users to report it.
- Protect User Rights: Users should be able to appeal content takedowns and have better insight into how and why posts are removed or demoted.

These rules place heightened responsibilities on big tech companies—those classified as “very large online platforms” with tens of millions of European users.

Meta’s Recent Announcements:
Over the past few months, Meta has shared several updates about its business strategy and platform operations, including:

- Increased End-to-End Encryption: Meta plans to make messaging on Facebook Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp more robustly encrypted.
- Data Collection and Personalization: Meta continues to prioritize data-driven ad targeting, which remains a central component of its revenue model.
- Content Moderation Tools: The company has signaled new automated detection systems to handle harmful content.

At first glance, these moves might appear aligned with a more privacy-focused approach. However, some experts contend that the heightened encryption and ongoing data collection practices might not fully align with the EU’s expectations for transparency, oversight, and user empowerment.
Potential Areas of Conflict

Algorithmic Transparency:
The DSA requires large platforms to provide clearer information on how content is promoted or suppressed. Critics say Meta’s push toward deeper encryption and minimal disclosure about proprietary ranking algorithms may hinder third-party audits.

User Rights and Appeals:
With increased automation in content moderation, users must have meaningful ways to appeal decisions. Observers note that Meta’s announcements have not specified whether appeals processes will be enhanced alongside new AI-driven moderation systems.

Data Governance and Consent:
Meta’s continued reliance on personalized advertising could come under scrutiny if user data is processed in ways that the DSA considers insufficiently transparent. The EU seeks stronger user consent mechanisms and clearer data usage disclosures, which might push Meta to adjust its business model in Europe.

Regulatory and Public Reactions

EU Officials:
While no formal statement has condemned Meta’s announcements outright, policymakers in Brussels remind all major platforms that “partial compliance” will not be enough under the DSA. Fines for non-compliance can reach up to 6% of a company’s global annual revenue.

Digital Rights Advocates:
Several advocacy groups argue that fully end-to-end-encrypted messaging, while privacy-enhancing, should not exempt a platform from accountability measures. They urge Meta to release more details about how it will reconcile encryption with obligations to remove illegal content.

Meta’s Response:
Thus far, Meta has reiterated its commitment to meeting the “highest regulatory standards” in Europe, pointing to ongoing investments in safety, content moderation, and user privacy. However, no specific roadmap for DSA compliance has been published.

What Lies Ahead:
As the DSA comes fully into force, large platforms like Meta will be closely monitored for breaches. A key question is whether Meta can strike a balance between encryption, monetization via targeted ads, and the new transparency and accountability requirements. Failure to do so could result in hefty fines or even a partial suspension of services within the EU.

Ultimately, the coming months will reveal how Meta’s strategies align—or clash—with Europe’s digital vision. If Meta can demonstrate robust compliance and meaningful user protections, it may preserve its market stronghold. If not, a confrontation with Brussels seems inevitable. Either way, the outcome will have sweeping implications for how major tech firms operate under a stricter European regulatory regime.

Low demand: electric vehicles clog Belgian port

EU calls for tougher measures for a ‘tobacco-free generation’

Featured

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Truth: The end of the ‘Roman Empire’

The fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD has long captivated historians and the public alike. For centuries, scholars have debated the precise causes of the Empire’s decline, offering myriad explanations—ranging from political corruption and economic instability to moral degeneration and barbarian invasions. Yet despite the passage of time and the wealth of research available, there remains no single, universally accepted answer to the question: why did the Roman Empire truly collapse?A central factor often cited is political fragmentation. As the Empire grew too vast to govern effectively from one centre, Emperor Diocletian introduced the Tetrarchy—a system dividing the realm into eastern and western halves. While initially intended to provide administrative efficiency, this division ultimately paved the way for competing centres of power and weakened the unity that had long defined Roman rule. Frequent changes of leadership and civil wars further sapped the state’s coherence, undermining confidence in the imperial regime.Economics played an equally crucial role. Burdened by expensive military campaigns to protect ever-extending frontiers, the Empire resorted to debasing its currency, provoking rampant inflation and eroding public trust. The resulting fiscal strains fuelled social unrest, as high taxes weighed heavily upon small farmers and urban dwellers alike. Coupled with declining trade routes and resource depletion, these pressures contributed to a persistent sense of crisis.Compounding these challenges was the growing threat from beyond Rome’s borders. Germanic tribes such as the Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths gradually eroded the Western Empire’s defensive capabilities. While earlier Roman armies proved formidable, internal discord had dulled their edge, allowing external forces to breach once-impenetrable frontiers.Modern historians emphasise that the Empire did not fall solely because of barbarian invasions, moral decay, or fiscal collapse; instead, its downfall was the outcome of a confluence of factors, each interacting with the other. The story of Rome’s fall thus serves as a stark reminder that even the mightiest of civilisations can succumb to the inexorable weight of political, economic, and social upheaval.

China Targets Dollar at US Critical Moment

China has intensified its financial offensive against the United States, deploying significant measures to undermine the dominance of the US dollar at a time when America faces mounting economic and geopolitical challenges. Reports indicate that the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has directed major state-owned banks to prepare for large-scale interventions in offshore markets, selling dollars to bolster the yuan. This move, seen as a direct challenge to the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, coincides with heightened US vulnerabilities, including domestic political instability and a ballooning national debt nearing $35 trillion.The strategy builds on years of Chinese efforts to internationalise the yuan and reduce reliance on the dollar. Since 2022, China has accelerated dollar sell-offs, with Reuters noting similar directives from the PBOC in October of that year amid a weakening yuan. More recently, Beijing has leveraged its position as a key holder of US Treasury securities—still over $800 billion despite gradual reductions—to exert pressure. Analysts suggest that China aims to exploit the US’s current economic fragility, exacerbated by inflation and supply chain disruptions, to advance its long-term goal of reshaping global financial power.Russia’s alignment with China has further amplified this campaign, with both nations increasing trade in non-dollar currencies. In 2023, yuan transactions surpassed dollar-based exchanges in Sino-Russian trade, a trend that has only deepened. Meanwhile, whispers of more aggressive tactics persist, including unverified claims of plans to confiscate US assets within China, encompassing government, corporate, and individual investments. While such measures remain speculative, they reflect the growing audacity of Beijing’s financial warfare.The timing is critical. The US faces a contentious election cycle and a Federal Reserve grappling with interest rate dilemmas, leaving the dollar exposed. China’s actions also resonate within the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), which has openly discussed de-dollarisation, with proposals for a unified currency gaining traction at recent summits. If successful, this could erode the dollar’s global hegemony, a cornerstone of American economic influence since the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944.Yet, China’s gambit carries risks. Flooding markets with dollars could destabilise its own economy, heavily reliant on export surpluses tied to dollar-based trade. Moreover, the US retains significant retaliatory tools, including sanctions and control over the SWIFT financial system. For now, Beijing’s “big guns” signal intent more than immediate triumph, but the message is clear: China sees this as America’s moment of weakness—and its opportunity to strike.