How fast can the Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jet really fly?

Did China ask its people 'not to respond to aliens'? Origin of bizarre claim on social media

MS Dhoni-CSK Fallout? Report claims failed stake sale talks triggered rift

Scientists reveal the SAFEST COUNTRY when catastrophe strikes the planet

Serial killer on the loose in South Korea's Jeju Island? Fourth body found in three days as more than a dozen people go missing

2/3rd of glacier detached, collapsed: ISRO satellite images reveal what triggered Nepal floods

Trump once again claims without him there would be ‘no Israel right now’

Foreign espionage attacks against German companies surge to 37%, Bitkom report reveals

Blake Lively wins partial legal fee from Justin Baldoni after $8M request

Why is Pakistan deploying Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones near India border?

'OH MY GOD! We've found other agents!': Investigators discover not one or two, almost 700 OpenAI AI agents went rogue, hacked Hugging Face

Lunar eclipse 2026: India timings, places to see and more. August Blood moon factsheet

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on global outreach tour 

Both pilots killed as training aircraft crashes in Lucknow – What we know

16-year-old charged with preparing terror attack on kindergarten in Norway

How the S-400 protects itself from enemy attacks

Nepal floods: Over 165 dead, 400 missing; US, India, China, World Bank mobilise aid

India's multi-layered watch: The new surveillance war

5 doomsday planes spotted in US skies hours after CIA director's secret trip to Russia

9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to finally face trial in 2028, nearly 27 years after horrific attacks

Islamabad hospital fire: What we know about one of the biggest facility that housed Imran Khan

Workers run for life while filming Nepal flash flood: Scary new visuals emerge from Rasuwa

Russian military planes enter South Korean air defence zone amid rising tensions with North Korea: What's happening

Ron Weasley Is Back! Rupert Grint set to return to Harry Potter universe on Broadway

400-year-old 'vampire' grave in Poland reveals non-existent genetic lineage

Dolly Parton, global icon and queen of country music, dies at 80

Nepal flash floods: Kailash Mansarovar yatra affected, close to 400 pilgrims out of contact

'If he is dead, they're putting on a pretty good show': Trump casts fresh doubt over Mojtaba Khamenei's fate

Man arrested near US Capitol with guillotine in pickup truck: What happened?

Why the Su-30MKI cockpit is painted bright turquoise green

WASHINGTON — One day in September, Elizabeth Leiba opened the LinkedIn app and saw a post by Aaisha Joseph, a diversity consultant with nearly 16,000 followers on the platform.

“Ima need #companies to stop sending their dedicated House Negros to ‘deal with the Blacks’ they deem out of control,” read the item. “It’s really not a good look — it’s actually a very #whitesupremacist and #racist one.”

The post was exactly the sort of thing Leiba, an instructional design manager at City College in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was looking for. These days, when she pulls out her phone in search of boisterous conversation, hot takes and the latest tea, she finds herself tapping LinkedIn, which since the killing of George Floyd has become a thriving forum for Black expression.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-announces-charges-against-chinese-malaysians-involved-in-worldwide-hacking-racket-328011">Also read|&nbsp;US announces charges against Chinese, Malaysians involved in worldwide hacking racket</a>

“I go onto Twitter and I get bored,” Leiba, 46, said. “Then I go right back to LinkedIn because it’s on fire. I don’t even have to go on any other social media now.”

It’s an unexpected development for what has long been the most polite and perhaps the dullest of the major social networks. LinkedIn was founded in 2003 as a place to network and post résumés — essentially, a directory of white-collar professionals. A few years ago, LinkedIn added a Facebook-like news feed that encouraged users to post links and updates, but it has never been a rollicking space. A team of editors helped enforce a mood best described as corporate.

“You talk on LinkedIn the same way you talk in the office,” Dan Roth, LinkedIn’s editor-in-chief, told The New York Times in August 2019. “There are certain boundaries around what is acceptable.”

Two staggering events have changed that. In early 2020, the pandemic hit, forcing millions to work from home and miss out on break-room chitchat — boosting LinkedIn as a place to vent. Then, the killing of Floyd in police custody in May put workers over the edge. Black grief went on display, uninhibited, at corporate America’s virtual water cooler.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/microsoft-to-buy-linkedin-for-262-billion-in-its-biggest-ever-deal-418">Also read|&nbsp;Microsoft to buy LinkedIn for $26.2 billion in its biggest-ever deal</a>

“I was just 43 years tired,” said Future Cain, a social- and emotional-learning director at a middle and high school in Wisconsin. “I was using LinkedIn to post positive things and uplift people during the pandemic, and I decided I can’t sit here quietly anymore.”

As protesters took to the streets to demand police reform, Leiba and Cain were among those who discovered that LinkedIn was a place to speak to the executive class on something like their home turf. Black users have taken to the site to call out racial discrimination in the workplace and share their stories of alienation on the job.

Not that it’s all serious: Much of the posting is exuberant — full of memes, Black cultural references and linguistic panache. This summer, Leiba shared a video about code-switching, in which a Black employee transforms while greeting colleagues of color (“Oh, hey, Black queen!”) and a white one (empty-headed hiking talk). “I’ve watched it at least fifty eleven times,” Leiba wrote.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/what-after-linkedin-will-twitter-get-bought-next-or-is-the-social-network-bubble-about-to-burst-472">Also read|&nbsp;What after LinkedIn: Will Twitter get bought next or is the social network bubble about to burst?</a>

These are the kinds of conversations, and ways of speaking, that cubicle-dwelling Black workers have typically held out of earshot of their white colleagues. As unusually charismatic posts appeared in my own feed this summer, it seemed clear that Black LinkedIn was emerging as a professional cousin to Black Twitter — the unapologetically Black digital space where people expose long-ignored injustices and pump their experience into the mainstream.

What’s less clear is how comfortable LinkedIn is with the development, having placed its content moderators in the incendiary position of determining what manner of race-related speech is appropriate for its virtual workplace of 706 million users.

Black users who post in forceful tones, and some of their allies, say they feel LinkedIn has silenced them — erasing their posts and even freezing their accounts for violating vague rules of decorum.

For example, the “House Negros” post that Joseph wrote in September vanished from the platform. Joseph, who lives in Brooklyn, New York, was able to see it when she viewed her own page, but no other users could — a practice known as shadow banning. (Later, LinkedIn added an unsigned note in red, saying the post had been removed for violating the site’s Professional Community Policies, which instruct users to “be civil and respectful in every single interaction.”) Joseph began a new item: “Let me say it louder since LinkedIn wanted to delete my post the first time.” The company removed that post, too, saying it included “harassment, defamation or disparagement of others.”

Theresa M. Robinson, a corporate training consultant in Houston, said LinkedIn had deleted a post she wrote about racism, then reinstated it after she complained. She said she never received an explanation. Two others, Cain and Madison Butler, who works in Austin, Texas, also said LinkedIn had restricted their commentary on race.

In the absence of clear communication from the company, these users are left guessing as to what the rules are — and feeling that the company is not just policing their tone but stifling their opportunity to force change in corporate America.

Nicole Leverich, a LinkedIn spokeswoman, wrote in an email: “We are not censoring content and have not made any changes to our algorithm to reduce the distribution of content about these important topics.” She added in an interview that LinkedIn was introducing a new process for notifying users when their posts were flagged for violating platform rules, and that some people hadn’t been phased in by the end of September.

The company acknowledged that it had erred in taking action against some users and restored content that was found, on appeal, not to violate its policies.

“If we make a mistake, we will own it,” said Paul Rockwell, head of LinkedIn’s trust and safety division. “We will be very clear — this is a learning opportunity for us. We’re going to continue to use that in our journey to get better and better. And we do want to nail this thing.”

Hard conversations about race

Few people think LinkedIn should look anything like the wilds of Reddit or Twitter, which have a certain amount of anonymity and even anarchy built into their DNA. Much of LinkedIn’s value — Microsoft acquired it in 2016 for $26 billion — is tied to its sense of professionalism and respectful conduct. Users must share their real names and credentials, and it’s understood that their current or prospective employers might well scan anything they post.

For Black people in the corporate realm, however, words like “professional” and “respectful” are red flags. Like the natural Black hairstyles that were once widely considered unprofessional, certain behaviors — being too Black, speaking too Black or talking too much about Black topics — have long limited advancement in companies with white cultures.

That’s what has changed on LinkedIn in the last few months. Black people are being, to use a technical term, Blackity-Black Black on LinkedIn. Much of the behavior is not so different from Black Twitter; users pepper their posts with clap emojis to emphasize every syllable, and GIFs celebrate cultural touchstones like Issa Rae’s “Insecure” and Jordan Peele’s “Get Out.” The difference is that it is all happening on a social network that mirrors the business world — a place that is predominantly white.

“It is liberating. It feels like it’s about time,” Joseph said. “We are taking back what was stolen from us — and that’s our voice. I’m talking specifically to my people in the way that we talk to each other in other spaces, and without regard for any outside audience. No longer having to stifle that has been freeing.”

Part of what Black LinkedIn has done is brought together Black professionals to be their authentic selves in front of their white colleagues. For many, it has been an existential relief, and may provide a blueprint for how Black employees choose to conduct themselves once the physical workplace reopens.

“The days of hiding and masking who you are and dealing with the BS — I just can’t even go back to that,” said Jessica Pharm, 33, who works in human resources at a manufacturing firm near Milwaukee. “Any company that gets me next is getting the full-on Jessica.”

Leiba posted on Sept. 17: “It means code-switching is OUT. It means the AFRO is coming at you on a daily basis. It means you’re getting these bangle earrings and the poppin’ lip gloss.”

Inevitably, not everyone accepts this kind of exuberance. Posts about Black Lives Matter and racial justice often attract the same kind of dismissive, and sometimes bigoted, responses found on other platforms: rejoinders that “all lives matter” or claims about Black-on-Black crime. But because the activity takes place on LinkedIn, these comments typically come with the user’s headshot, place of employment and entire work history attached.

“You start to see these people who are absolutely not OK with this focus on Blackness popping up in commentary, with their name and their company fully on display, giving zero deference to the moment,” said John Graham Jr., 39, a digital marketer and strategist at a California biotechnology company. “I find it telling that people would put their careers in jeopardy and their unconscious biases on full display.”

LinkedIn has also struggled internally with how to respond to the Black Lives Matter movement. In June, chief executive Ryan Roslansky publicly apologized for “appalling” racial comments some employees had made at a companywide staff meeting.

Rosanna Durruthy, LinkedIn’s head of diversity, inclusion and belonging, said in an interview that the company was engaging in hard conversations about race, both inside the company and out.

“We’re really beginning to focus very consistently on how we begin to address this externally” on the platform, she said.

‘Break down the status quo’

One of the most vociferous presences on Black LinkedIn is Butler, a human resources consultant and vice president at a startup. She has posted on LinkedIn since 2018 and with increasing frequency and fervor this year. The potential to speak truth to capital, she said, makes the resulting rounds of death threats worth it.

“There is something to be said about the access LinkedIn gives you to powerful CEOs and VCs to help change their outlook and how they support Black employees and founders,” said Butler, 29, referring to venture capitalists. “The conversation that has to happen in order to break down the status quo in corporate America isn’t happening on Instagram.”

Butler, who has about 40,000 followers, posts on LinkedIn daily. Her style is to be prescriptive, assail corporate norms and call out whitesplainers and trolls; she tends to close each missive with the hashtags #isaidwhatisaid, #thatsthetea and #blackgirlmagic. One recent post scolded companies that make a show of cheering on the Black Lives Matter movement but haven’t done right by their employees.

“Do the Black people in your organization feel like they matter, or do they feel like the Black stock photos you used to enhance your ‘wokeness’ footprint in the marketplace. If you can’t make the Black lives under your own roof matter, do not use Black Lives Matter as a brand strategy,” Butler wrote recently. “Don’t talk about it, be about it. Period.”

Other stars of Black LinkedIn target specific companies. Joseph, for example, has recently called out Wells Fargo, DoorDash, Microsoft and Google.

There has also been no shortage of criticism of LinkedIn itself. Users are holding the company to a standard it set for itself in June, when Melissa Selcher, chief marketing and communications officer, wrote an open letter on the platform.

“We have a responsibility to use our platform and resources to intentionally address the systemic barriers to economic opportunity,” she wrote. “We also believe we play a critical role in amplifying Black voices.”

Also in June, with Black Lives Matter protests spreading across the country, LinkedIn highlighted “Black Voices to Follow and Amplify,” a curated list of chief executives, media personalities and other influencers, including the Rev. Bernice King and Karamo Brown from the Netflix show “Queer Eye.” For the most part, members of the list post content that is general, motivational and safe.

Joseph and others took to LinkedIn to say the group contained too many establishment names and not enough activists. “Where are the Tamika Mallorys of LinkedIn on that list?” Joseph wrote, referring to a co-founder of the 2017 Women’s March.

“Black voices aren’t just corporate C-Suite ones,” wrote Patricia S. Gatlin, a talent sourcing specialist in Las Vegas.

“All Black voices need to be heard in this moment,” added Scott Taylor, a recruiter in Los Angeles. “Not just the ones your team of analysts think we should hear from.”

Leverich, the LinkedIn spokeswoman, said by email: “We use a number of factors in our selection, including members who have self-identified as Black, people from a variety of industries and with an interesting perspective to share. We’re constantly adding new voices and sorting through requests to join this program.”

In September, LinkedIn used its own company page to pose a question to its 13 million followers: “What are the best ways to normalize having conversations about race and anti-racism in the workplace? #ConversationsForChange”

The responses quickly turned sour. “LinkedIn, you can facilitate that objective by normalizing those conversations on your platform,” wrote Lenzy Ruffin, a communications strategist in Washington, D.C.

“The irony that you should post this!” wrote Abi Adamson, a diversity and inclusion consultant in London. “Kindly stop censoring Black content around racism. People like me have had our engagement go down astronomically when highlighting racism or how to be anti-racist. Help amplify our voices and stop silencing us.”

Sabrina McClimans, a graduate student in Seattle, asked the platform to “stop ‘accidentally’ disappearing the posts of Black women on your platform when they talk about race and anti-racism.”

Phil Molé, who works at a software company in Chicago, added: “I have seen cases in which individuals who harass Black women on this platform have maintained their accounts while those who speak out against racism and prejudice have had accounts suspended. It’s time for a thorough review of the way the issues are handled.”

LinkedIn did not respond to those comments. Philip Mix, a consultant in London, added to the thread after a day and a half, when there were 344 comments, saying he had gone through them “three times to make sure I wasn’t mistaken.” By his count, LinkedIn had replied to five users — four times to say “Thank you for sharing” and once with “Nicely put.”

Mix concluded: “Not sure if I’m more shocked or depressed by this miserably inadequate show from LinkedIn.”

WASHINGTON — One day in September, Elizabeth Leiba opened the LinkedIn app and saw a post by Aaisha Joseph, a diversity consultant with nearly 16,000 followers on the platform.

WASHINGTON — One day in September, Elizabeth Leiba opened the LinkedIn app and saw a post by Aaisha Joseph, a diversity consultant with nearly 16,000 followers on the platform. “Ima need #companies to stop sending their dedicated House Negros to ‘deal with the Blacks’ they deem out of control,” read the item. “It’s really not a good look — it’s actually a very #whitesupremacist and #racist one.” The post was exactly the sort of thing Leiba, an instructional design manager at City College in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was looking for. These days, when she pulls out her phone in search of boisterous conversation, hot takes and the latest tea, she finds herself tapping LinkedIn, which since the killing of George Floyd has become a thriving forum for Black expression. Also read| US announces charges against Chinese, Malaysians involved in worldwide hacking racket “I go onto Twitter and I get bored,” Leiba, 46, said. “Then I go right back to LinkedIn because it’s on fire. I don’t even have to go on any other social media now.” It’s an unexpected development for what has long been the most polite and perhaps the dullest of the major social networks. LinkedIn was founded in 2003 as a place to network and post résumés — essentially, a directory of white-collar professionals. A few years ago, LinkedIn added a Facebook-like news feed that encouraged users to post links and updates, but it has never been a rollicking space. A team of editors helped enforce a mood best described as corporate. “You talk on LinkedIn the same way you talk in the office,” Dan Roth, LinkedIn’s editor-in-chief, told The New York Times in August 2019. “There are certain boundaries around what is acceptable.” Two staggering events have changed that. In early 2020, the pandemic hit, forcing millions to work from home and miss out on break-room chitchat — boosting LinkedIn as a place to vent. Then, the killing of Floyd in police custody in May put workers over the edge. Black grief went on display, uninhibited, at corporate America’s virtual water cooler. Also read| Microsoft to buy LinkedIn for $26.2 billion in its biggest-ever deal “I was just 43 years tired,” said Future Cain, a social- and emotional-learning director at a middle and high school in Wisconsin. “I was using LinkedIn to post positive things and uplift people during the pandemic, and I decided I can’t sit here quietly anymore.” As protesters took to the streets to demand police reform, Leiba and Cain were among those who discovered that LinkedIn was a place to speak to the executive class on something like their home turf. Black users have taken to the site to call out racial discrimination in the workplace and share their stories of alienation on the job. Not that it’s all serious: Much of the posting is exuberant — full of memes, Black cultural references and linguistic panache. This summer, Leiba shared a video about code-switching, in which a Black employee transforms while greeting colleagues of color (“Oh, hey, Black queen!”) and a white one (empty-headed hiking talk). “I’ve watched it at least fifty eleven times,” Leiba wrote. Also read| What after LinkedIn: Will Twitter get bought next or is the social network bubble about to burst? These are the kinds of conversations, and ways of speaking, that cubicle-dwelling Black workers have typically held out of earshot of their white colleagues. As unusually charismatic posts appeared in my own feed this summer, it seemed clear that Black LinkedIn was emerging as a professional cousin to Black Twitter — the unapologetically Black digital space where people expose long-ignored injustices and pump their experience into the mainstream. What’s less clear is how comfortable LinkedIn is with the development, having placed its content moderators in the incendiary position of determining what manner of race-related speech is appropriate for its virtual workplace of 706 million users. Black users who post in forceful tones, and some of their allies, say they feel LinkedIn has silenced them — erasing their posts and even freezing their accounts for violating vague rules of decorum. For example, the “House Negros” post that Joseph wrote in September vanished from the platform. Joseph, who lives in Brooklyn, New York, was able to see it when she viewed her own page, but no other users could — a practice known as shadow banning. (Later, LinkedIn added an unsigned note in red, saying the post had been removed for violating the site’s Professional Community Policies, which instruct users to “be civil and respectful in every single interaction.”) Joseph began a new item: “Let me say it louder since LinkedIn wanted to delete my post the first time.” The company removed that post, too, saying it included “harassment, defamation or disparagement of others.” Theresa M. Robinson, a corporate training consultant in Houston, said LinkedIn had deleted a post she wrote about racism, then reinstated it after she complained. She said she never received an explanation. Two others, Cain and Madison Butler, who works in Austin, Texas, also said LinkedIn had restricted their commentary on race. In the absence of clear communication from the company, these users are left guessing as to what the rules are — and feeling that the company is not just policing their tone but stifling their opportunity to force change in corporate America. Nicole Leverich, a LinkedIn spokeswoman, wrote in an email: “We are not censoring content and have not made any changes to our algorithm to reduce the distribution of content about these important topics.” She added in an interview that LinkedIn was introducing a new process for notifying users when their posts were flagged for violating platform rules, and that some people hadn’t been phased in by the end of September. The company acknowledged that it had erred in taking action against some users and restored content that was found, on appeal, not to violate its policies. “If we make a mistake, we will own it,” said Paul Rockwell, head of LinkedIn’s trust and safety division. “We will be very clear — this is a learning opportunity for us. We’re going to continue to use that in our journey to get better and better. And we do want to nail this thing.” Hard conversations about race Few people think LinkedIn should look anything like the wilds of Reddit or Twitter, which have a certain amount of anonymity and even anarchy built into their DNA. Much of LinkedIn’s value — Microsoft acquired it in 2016 for $26 billion — is tied to its sense of professionalism and respectful conduct. Users must share their real names and credentials, and it’s understood that their current or prospective employers might well scan anything they post. For Black people in the corporate realm, however, words like “professional” and “respectful” are red flags. Like the natural Black hairstyles that were once widely considered unprofessional, certain behaviors — being too Black, speaking too Black or talking too much about Black topics — have long limited advancement in companies with white cultures. That’s what has changed on LinkedIn in the last few months. Black people are being, to use a technical term, Blackity-Black Black on LinkedIn. Much of the behavior is not so different from Black Twitter; users pepper their posts with clap emojis to emphasize every syllable, and GIFs celebrate cultural touchstones like Issa Rae’s “Insecure” and Jordan Peele’s “Get Out.” The difference is that it is all happening on a social network that mirrors the business world — a place that is predominantly white. “It is liberating. It feels like it’s about time,” Joseph said. “We are taking back what was stolen from us — and that’s our voice. I’m talking specifically to my people in the way that we talk to each other in other spaces, and without regard for any outside audience. No longer having to stifle that has been freeing.” Part of what Black LinkedIn has done is brought together Black professionals to be their authentic selves in front of their white colleagues. For many, it has been an existential relief, and may provide a blueprint for how Black employees choose to conduct themselves once the physical workplace reopens. “The days of hiding and masking who you are and dealing with the BS — I just can’t even go back to that,” said Jessica Pharm, 33, who works in human resources at a manufacturing firm near Milwaukee. “Any company that gets me next is getting the full-on Jessica.” Leiba posted on Sept. 17: “It means code-switching is OUT. It means the AFRO is coming at you on a daily basis. It means you’re getting these bangle earrings and the poppin’ lip gloss.” Inevitably, not everyone accepts this kind of exuberance. Posts about Black Lives Matter and racial justice often attract the same kind of dismissive, and sometimes bigoted, responses found on other platforms: rejoinders that “all lives matter” or claims about Black-on-Black crime. But because the activity takes place on LinkedIn, these comments typically come with the user’s headshot, place of employment and entire work history attached. “You start to see these people who are absolutely not OK with this focus on Blackness popping up in commentary, with their name and their company fully on display, giving zero deference to the moment,” said John Graham Jr., 39, a digital marketer and strategist at a California biotechnology company. “I find it telling that people would put their careers in jeopardy and their unconscious biases on full display.” LinkedIn has also struggled internally with how to respond to the Black Lives Matter movement. In June, chief executive Ryan Roslansky publicly apologized for “appalling” racial comments some employees had made at a companywide staff meeting. Rosanna Durruthy, LinkedIn’s head of diversity, inclusion and belonging, said in an interview that the company was engaging in hard conversations about race, both inside the company and out. “We’re really beginning to focus very consistently on how we begin to address this externally” on the platform, she said. ‘Break down the status quo’ One of the most vociferous presences on Black LinkedIn is Butler, a human resources consultant and vice president at a startup. She has posted on LinkedIn since 2018 and with increasing frequency and fervor this year. The potential to speak truth to capital, she said, makes the resulting rounds of death threats worth it. “There is something to be said about the access LinkedIn gives you to powerful CEOs and VCs to help change their outlook and how they support Black employees and founders,” said Butler, 29, referring to venture capitalists. “The conversation that has to happen in order to break down the status quo in corporate America isn’t happening on Instagram.” Butler, who has about 40,000 followers, posts on LinkedIn daily. Her style is to be prescriptive, assail corporate norms and call out whitesplainers and trolls; she tends to close each missive with the hashtags #isaidwhatisaid, #thatsthetea and #blackgirlmagic. One recent post scolded companies that make a show of cheering on the Black Lives Matter movement but haven’t done right by their employees. “Do the Black people in your organization feel like they matter, or do they feel like the Black stock photos you used to enhance your ‘wokeness’ footprint in the marketplace. If you can’t make the Black lives under your own roof matter, do not use Black Lives Matter as a brand strategy,” Butler wrote recently. “Don’t talk about it, be about it. Period.” Other stars of Black LinkedIn target specific companies. Joseph, for example, has recently called out Wells Fargo, DoorDash, Microsoft and Google. There has also been no shortage of criticism of LinkedIn itself. Users are holding the company to a standard it set for itself in June, when Melissa Selcher, chief marketing and communications officer, wrote an open letter on the platform. “We have a responsibility to use our platform and resources to intentionally address the systemic barriers to economic opportunity,” she wrote. “We also believe we play a critical role in amplifying Black voices.” Also in June, with Black Lives Matter protests spreading across the country, LinkedIn highlighted “Black Voices to Follow and Amplify,” a curated list of chief executives, media personalities and other influencers, including the Rev. Bernice King and Karamo Brown from the Netflix show “Queer Eye.” For the most part, members of the list post content that is general, motivational and safe. Joseph and others took to LinkedIn to say the group contained too many establishment names and not enough activists. “Where are the Tamika Mallorys of LinkedIn on that list?” Joseph wrote, referring to a co-founder of the 2017 Women’s March. “Black voices aren’t just corporate C-Suite ones,” wrote Patricia S. Gatlin, a talent sourcing specialist in Las Vegas. “All Black voices need to be heard in this moment,” added Scott Taylor, a recruiter in Los Angeles. “Not just the ones your team of analysts think we should hear from.” Leverich, the LinkedIn spokeswoman, said by email: “We use a number of factors in our selection, including members who have self-identified as Black, people from a variety of industries and with an interesting perspective to share. We’re constantly adding new voices and sorting through requests to join this program.” In September, LinkedIn used its own company page to pose a question to its 13 million followers: “What are the best ways to normalize having conversations about race and anti-racism in the workplace? #ConversationsForChange” The responses quickly turned sour. “LinkedIn, you can facilitate that objective by normalizing those conversations on your platform,” wrote Lenzy Ruffin, a communications strategist in Washington, D.C. “The irony that you should post this!” wrote Abi Adamson, a diversity and inclusion consultant in London. “Kindly stop censoring Black content around racism. People like me have had our engagement go down astronomically when highlighting racism or how to be anti-racist. Help amplify our voices and stop silencing us.” Sabrina McClimans, a graduate student in Seattle, asked the platform to “stop ‘accidentally’ disappearing the posts of Black women on your platform when they talk about race and anti-racism.” Phil Molé, who works at a software company in Chicago, added: “I have seen cases in which individuals who harass Black women on this platform have maintained their accounts while those who speak out against racism and prejudice have had accounts suspended. It’s time for a thorough review of the way the issues are handled.” LinkedIn did not respond to those comments. Philip Mix, a consultant in London, added to the thread after a day and a half, when there were 344 comments, saying he had gone through them “three times to make sure I wasn’t mistaken.” By his count, LinkedIn had replied to five users — four times to say “Thank you for sharing” and once with “Nicely put.” Mix concluded: “Not sure if I’m more shocked or depressed by this miserably inadequate show from LinkedIn.”

Black LinkedIn is thriving. Does LinkedIn have a problem with that?

An app launched this week in China allows access to some content on Western social media sites long banned domestically such as YouTube, marking the first product by a major Chinese tech firm that helps internet users bypass the Great Firewall.

Tuber was launched on third-party Android stores in China by a subsidiary of Qihoo 360, the biggest Chinese cybersecurity firm. The app, which has since seen millions of downloads, is not available on the Apple store just yet.

While such proxy apps are not new in China, where a virtual private network (VPN) service is typically needed to allow domestic users passage to sites such as Google or Facebook, the arrival of Tuber suggests a slight lowering of the Great Firewall.

While welcomed by internet users in China, some complained about the app`s slowness. References to sensitive political issues such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and the Hong Kong protests were also censored in part, according to Reuters checks.

Users of the app must also register with personal information such as their identity card numbers and real names, while being warned against flouting state interests and going against the country`s socialist system.

Qihoo 360 could not immediately be reached for comment.

An app launched this week in China allows access to some content on Western social media sites long banned domestically such as YouTube, marking the first product by a major Chinese tech firm that helps internet users bypass the Great Firewall.

An app launched this week in China allows access to some content on Western social media sites long banned domestically such as YouTube, marking the first product by a major Chinese tech firm that helps internet users bypass the Great Firewall. Tuber was launched on third-party Android stores in China by a subsidiary of Qihoo 360, the biggest Chinese cybersecurity firm. The app, which has since seen millions of downloads, is not available on the Apple store just yet. While such proxy apps are not new in China, where a virtual private network (VPN) service is typically needed to allow domestic users passage to sites such as Google or Facebook, the arrival of Tuber suggests a slight lowering of the Great Firewall. While welcomed by internet users in China, some complained about the app`s slowness. References to sensitive political issues such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and the Hong Kong protests were also censored in part, according to Reuters checks. Users of the app must also register with personal information such as their identity card numbers and real names, while being warned against flouting state interests and going against the country`s socialist system. Qihoo 360 could not immediately be reached for comment.

Chinese app allows small glimpse beyond 'Great Firewall'

WhatsApp's 5 new features Update -&nbsp;WhatsApp needs no introduction. The omnipresent messaging app has occupied space in our personal as well as professional lives. It keeps on bringing new features. Continuous WhatsApp update means users can get to experience new features.

WhatsApp's 5 new features are sure to make it more popular than it already is

These are WhatsApp's Top 5 new features:

Always mute

We can block an undesirable person but what to do when you can't block a person but still want tp ignore his/her messages?

WhatsApp has rolled out Always Mute option for its beta users on Android and iOS. While muting a chat, this option lets us 'Always mute' it instead of just 1 year. This option was spotted on WhatsApp's 2.20.197.3 update

&nbsp; 
WhatsApp new features: Storage usage section redesign

A better UI was spotted in the section that dealt with storage usage. This was spotted in Android Beta version v2.20.201.9

The better UI offered more visual cues to manage the storage in a much better way.

 
WhatsApp new features: Expiring media

This is an extension of 'expiring messages'. When a user sends an expiring media (Image, GIF, Video etc) It will get deleted from the recipient's phone as soon as he/she leaves the chat.

 
WhatsApp new features Update: Multi-device support

This feature lets a user use a single WhatsApp account on different devices. This was spotted in WhatsApp beta for Android 2.20.199.5

 
New wallpaper feature

This was spotted in WhatsApp beta for Android 2.20.199.5&nbsp;

This allows user to choose a different wallpaper based on the theme used in the app.

WhatsApp's 5 new features Update - WhatsApp needs no introduction. The omnipresent messaging app has occupied space in our personal as well as professional lives.

WhatsApp's 5 new features Update - WhatsApp needs no introduction. The omnipresent messaging app has occupied space in our personal as well as professional lives. It keeps on bringing new features. Continuous WhatsApp update means users can get to experience new features. WhatsApp's 5 new features are sure to make it more popular than it already is These are WhatsApp's Top 5 new features: Always mute We can block an undesirable person but what to do when you can't block a person but still want tp ignore his/her messages? WhatsApp has rolled out Always Mute option for its beta users on Android and iOS. While muting a chat, this option lets us 'Always mute' it instead of just 1 year. This option was spotted on WhatsApp's 2.20.197.3 update WhatsApp new features: Storage usage section redesign A better UI was spotted in the section that dealt with storage usage. This was spotted in Android Beta version v2.20.201.9 The better UI offered more visual cues to manage the storage in a much better way. WhatsApp new features: Expiring media This is an extension of 'expiring messages'. When a user sends an expiring media (Image, GIF, Video etc) It will get deleted from the recipient's phone as soon as he/she leaves the chat. WhatsApp new features Update: Multi-device support This feature lets a user use a single WhatsApp account on different devices. This was spotted in WhatsApp beta for Android 2.20.199.5 New wallpaper feature This was spotted in WhatsApp beta for Android 2.20.199.5 This allows user to choose a different wallpaper based on the theme used in the app.

WhatsApp Update: Top 5 new features in the messenger app

Apple TV+ free trial subscription - Apple TV+ may not be a direct competitor of likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. but it has carved a niche and some of its shows are getting rave reviews. For those of us who were worried about Apple TV+ free trial ending, here is the good news. Apple TV+ free trial subscription may now get extended.

Apple TV+ had previously offered 1-year free subscription. The streaming service started on November 1, 2019. That means the trial will end on the last day of October 2020. But Apple TV+ free trial will now last till Feb 2021.

As per Rene Ritchie and 9to5Mac, the extension of Apple TV+ subscription will now be offered. Apple is expected to send notifications soon.

However, in order to be eligible for the extension of subscription, you should have signed up for Apple TV+ between November 2020 and January 2020.&nbsp;

However, Apple TV+ free trial is still available to those who buy a new Apple device.

Apple TV+ free trial subscription - Apple TV+ may not be a direct competitor of likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. but it has carved a niche and some of its shows are getting rave reviews.

Apple TV+ free trial subscription - Apple TV+ may not be a direct competitor of likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. but it has carved a niche and some of its shows are getting rave reviews. For those of us who were worried about Apple TV+ free trial ending, here is the good news. Apple TV+ free trial subscription may now get extended. Apple TV+ had previously offered 1-year free subscription. The streaming service started on November 1, 2019. That means the trial will end on the last day of October 2020. But Apple TV+ free trial will now last till Feb 2021. As per Rene Ritchie and 9to5Mac, the extension of Apple TV+ subscription will now be offered. Apple is expected to send notifications soon. However, in order to be eligible for the extension of subscription, you should have signed up for Apple TV+ between November 2020 and January 2020. However, Apple TV+ free trial is still available to those who buy a new Apple device.

Apple TV+ Subscription: Free trial will now last longer

Google&nbsp;must open talks with publishers in France about paying to use their content, an appeals court confirmed on Thursday, paving the way for an industry-wide deal in the country&nbsp;in a long-running dispute about revenues from online news.

The ruling came as the US internet giant announced it was close to a deal on compensating French media groups for news shown in&nbsp;Google&nbsp;search results.

Such a deal would represent a climbdown by&nbsp;Google, which has so far refused to comply with new EU rules giving more copyright protection to media firms for news displayed on search engines and social media.

France was the first European country to ratify the law, which&nbsp;could act as a lifeline to newspaper groups grappling with shrinking print sales.

In April, the French competition authority ordered&nbsp;Google&nbsp;to negotiate with the press in good faith,&nbsp;a ruling it appealed, accusing the authority of overstepping its jurisdiction.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/us-supreme-court-puzzled-over-google-oracle-high-tech-copyright-clash-333473" hreflang="en">US Supreme Court puzzled over Google, Oracle high tech copyright clash</a>

Google&nbsp;argues it should not have to pay to display items produced by news companies&nbsp;since they benefit by receiving millions of visits to their websites.

The French court's decision differs from last week's pledge by&nbsp;Google&nbsp;to pay $1 billion to publishers globally over the next three years for their news, as the French arrangement involves finding a sustainable methodology to remunerate publishers and news agencies.

Google's vehicle to remunerate news publishers, dubbed&nbsp;Google&nbsp;News Showcase, is set to launch in Germany, where it has signed up German newspapers including Der Spiegel, Stern, Die Zeit, and in Brazil with Folha de S.Paulo, Band and Infobae.

The French court's ruling comes hours after&nbsp;Google, the world's biggest search engine, said it was set to reach with a deal to pay French publishers for their news, the latest move to placate media groups and head off regulators siding with publishers.

"Our priority remains to reach an agreement with the French publishers and press agencies,"&nbsp;Google&nbsp;said in a statement.

"We appealed to get legal clarity on some parts of the order, and we will now review the decision of the Paris court of appeal."

The ruling confirms a decision in April by France's competition authority, which ordered&nbsp;Google&nbsp;to negotiate with publishers and news agencies "the remuneration due to them for any re-use of protected content".

Under the same decision, the antitrust regulator ordered&nbsp;Google&nbsp;to open talks within three months of being asked to do so by publishers.

Google must open talks with publishers in France about paying to use their content, an appeals court confirmed on Thursday, paving the way for an industry-wide deal in the country in a long-running dispute about revenues from online news.

Google must open talks with publishers in France about paying to use their content, an appeals court confirmed on Thursday, paving the way for an industry-wide deal in the country in a long-running dispute about revenues from online news. The ruling came as the US internet giant announced it was close to a deal on compensating French media groups for news shown in Google search results. Such a deal would represent a climbdown by Google, which has so far refused to comply with new EU rules giving more copyright protection to media firms for news displayed on search engines and social media. France was the first European country to ratify the law, which could act as a lifeline to newspaper groups grappling with shrinking print sales. In April, the French competition authority ordered Google to negotiate with the press in good faith, a ruling it appealed, accusing the authority of overstepping its jurisdiction. Also read: US Supreme Court puzzled over Google, Oracle high tech copyright clash Google argues it should not have to pay to display items produced by news companies since they benefit by receiving millions of visits to their websites. The French court's decision differs from last week's pledge by Google to pay $1 billion to publishers globally over the next three years for their news, as the French arrangement involves finding a sustainable methodology to remunerate publishers and news agencies. Google's vehicle to remunerate news publishers, dubbed Google News Showcase, is set to launch in Germany, where it has signed up German newspapers including Der Spiegel, Stern, Die Zeit, and in Brazil with Folha de S.Paulo, Band and Infobae. The French court's ruling comes hours after Google, the world's biggest search engine, said it was set to reach with a deal to pay French publishers for their news, the latest move to placate media groups and head off regulators siding with publishers. "Our priority remains to reach an agreement with the French publishers and press agencies," Google said in a statement. "We appealed to get legal clarity on some parts of the order, and we will now review the decision of the Paris court of appeal." The ruling confirms a decision in April by France's competition authority, which ordered Google to negotiate with publishers and news agencies "the remuneration due to them for any re-use of protected content". Under the same decision, the antitrust regulator ordered Google to open talks within three months of being asked to do so by publishers.

Now, French court asks Google to pay publishers for their content

Action Fraud, the UK centre for reporting cybercrime and fraud, said on Thursday that between August 2019 and August 2020, losses reported by victims amounted to $86,242,444.

Millions of pounds have been lost to ‘romance fraud’ when people confined to spells of isolation during the coronavirus pandemic turn to online dating and end up handing over money after fraudsters gain their trust and ask for help in non-existing emergencies.

From June to August, the centre received more than 600 reports per month for romance fraud, indicating the victims may have met, and begun talking to, romance fraudsters during the lockdown caused by the pandemic.

Diana Fawcett, chief executive of charity Victim Support, said: "Lockdown restrictions meant people could not meet in person for a number of months, which led to many seeking to form new connections online.

Romance fraud, or dating fraud, occurs when people think they have met the perfect partner online. They gain trust over a number of weeks or months and have the victims believe that they are in a loving, caring relationship. Fraudsters may be based anywhere across the globe.

The centre launched a multi-agency campaign throughout October to raise awareness of romance fraud and provide clear and unambiguous protection advice to the public, following a 26 per cent&nbsp;rise in reports in the past year.

Action Fraud, the UK centre for reporting cybercrime and fraud, said on Thursday that between August 2019 and August 2020, losses reported by victims amounted to $86,242,444.

Action Fraud, the UK centre for reporting cybercrime and fraud, said on Thursday that between August 2019 and August 2020, losses reported by victims amounted to $86,242,444. Millions of pounds have been lost to ‘romance fraud’ when people confined to spells of isolation during the coronavirus pandemic turn to online dating and end up handing over money after fraudsters gain their trust and ask for help in non-existing emergencies. From June to August, the centre received more than 600 reports per month for romance fraud, indicating the victims may have met, and begun talking to, romance fraudsters during the lockdown caused by the pandemic. Diana Fawcett, chief executive of charity Victim Support, said: "Lockdown restrictions meant people could not meet in person for a number of months, which led to many seeking to form new connections online. Romance fraud, or dating fraud, occurs when people think they have met the perfect partner online. They gain trust over a number of weeks or months and have the victims believe that they are in a loving, caring relationship. Fraudsters may be based anywhere across the globe. The centre launched a multi-agency campaign throughout October to raise awareness of romance fraud and provide clear and unambiguous protection advice to the public, following a 26 per cent rise in reports in the past year.

Romance fraud on the rise in UK amid coronavirus pandemic

Telecoms operators Orange Belgium announced on&nbsp;on Friday that it has selected&nbsp;Nokia&nbsp;to renew its networks and roll out 5G instead on Huawei.

Orange along with&nbsp;local rival Proximus&nbsp;had decided to progressively replace Huawei-made&nbsp;mobile equipment in Belgium and Luxembourg with Nokia equipment.

The Belgian division of the operators, which share their mobile network, signed an agreement last year to share their mobile network, which is why the decision to shift to Nokia was a collective one.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/british-parliaments-defence-committee-says-huawei-colludes-with-chinese-communist-party-333440">British parliament's defence committee says Huawei colludes with Chinese Communist Party</a>

Sources close to the matter said&nbsp;they had faced political pressure to drop Huawei as a supplier following US&nbsp;accusations that Huawei’s gear could be used for spying by Beijing.

The move by Orange and Proximus represents one of the first cases in Europe where commercial operators have dropped Huawei from their next generation mobile Internet, or 5G, networks in response to political pressure.

While the United States is pressing allies to bar Huawei from 5G networks on security grounds, China and Huawei deny the spying allegations.

Belgium’s capital Brussels is home to the European Union’s executive body and parliament, making it a strategic location and a matter of particular concern for US&nbsp;intelligence agencies.

"This is the outcome of a tender organised by operators and the result of the free market," a Huawei spokesman said on the issue.

"We embrace fair competition, the more diversified a supply chain the more competitive it becomes," he said, adding that Huawei has been supplying equipment in Belgium for more than a decade and its commitment remains unchanged.

Nokia announced late last month it had clinched a deal with Britain's biggest mobile operator BT&nbsp;to supply 5G radio equipment.

Telecoms operators Orange Belgium announced on on Friday that it has selected Nokia to renew its networks and roll out 5G instead on Huawei. Orange along with local rival Proximus had decided to progressively replace Huawei-made mobile equipment in Belgium and Luxembourg with Nokia equipment.

Telecoms operators Orange Belgium announced on on Friday that it has selected Nokia to renew its networks and roll out 5G instead on Huawei. Orange along with local rival Proximus had decided to progressively replace Huawei-made mobile equipment in Belgium and Luxembourg with Nokia equipment. The Belgian division of the operators, which share their mobile network, signed an agreement last year to share their mobile network, which is why the decision to shift to Nokia was a collective one. Also read: British parliament's defence committee says Huawei colludes with Chinese Communist Party Sources close to the matter said they had faced political pressure to drop Huawei as a supplier following US accusations that Huawei’s gear could be used for spying by Beijing. The move by Orange and Proximus represents one of the first cases in Europe where commercial operators have dropped Huawei from their next generation mobile Internet, or 5G, networks in response to political pressure. While the United States is pressing allies to bar Huawei from 5G networks on security grounds, China and Huawei deny the spying allegations. Belgium’s capital Brussels is home to the European Union’s executive body and parliament, making it a strategic location and a matter of particular concern for US intelligence agencies. "This is the outcome of a tender organised by operators and the result of the free market," a Huawei spokesman said on the issue. "We embrace fair competition, the more diversified a supply chain the more competitive it becomes," he said, adding that Huawei has been supplying equipment in Belgium for more than a decade and its commitment remains unchanged. Nokia announced late last month it had clinched a deal with Britain's biggest mobile operator BT to supply 5G radio equipment.

Orange venture in Belgium replaces Huawei and awards 5G contract to Nokia

In a bid to counter fake news and misinformation campaigns, Facebook on Wednesday said it will stop carrying political advertisements in the US for an undefined period post the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/us-election">presidential election </a>in the United States.&nbsp;

"(Though) ads are an important way to express voice, we plan to temporarily stop running all social issue, electoral or political ads in the US after the polls close on November 3, to reduce opportunities for confusion or abuse," Facebook, in a blogpost said.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/trumps-misleading-covid-19-posts-deleted-by-facebook-and-hidden-by-twitter-333111">Trump's misleading COVID-19 posts deleted by Facebook and hidden by Twitter</a>

Earlier, the social media giant vowed to prevent posting new political ads a week before the November 3 election.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-classifies-qanon-as-dangerous-bans-groups-and-accounts-333040">Facebook classifies QAnon as dangerous, bans groups and accounts</a>

The blog also said that Facebook would also add "specific information" on posts if a candidate or party declares "premature victory"

" (If) a candidate or party declares premature victory before a race is called by major media outlets," it said, "we will add more specific information in the notifications that counting is still in progress and no winner has been determined."

On Thursday, the social media giant took a crackdown on fake accounts that were praising US President Donald Trump.&nbsp;

Facebook said it has banned US marketing firm Rally Forge for coordinating the "inauthentic behaviour", by way of bogus accounts to comment on news pieces rather than publishing their own article.&nbsp;

It included criticism of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and appreciation of Trump and his Republican party.&nbsp;

In a bid to counter fake news and misinformation campaigns, Facebook on Wednesday said it will stop carrying political advertisements in the US for an undefined period post the presidential election in the United States.

In a bid to counter fake news and misinformation campaigns, Facebook on Wednesday said it will stop carrying political advertisements in the US for an undefined period post the presidential election in the United States. "(Though) ads are an important way to express voice, we plan to temporarily stop running all social issue, electoral or political ads in the US after the polls close on November 3, to reduce opportunities for confusion or abuse," Facebook, in a blogpost said. Also read | Trump's misleading COVID-19 posts deleted by Facebook and hidden by Twitter Earlier, the social media giant vowed to prevent posting new political ads a week before the November 3 election. Also read | Facebook classifies QAnon as dangerous, bans groups and accounts The blog also said that Facebook would also add "specific information" on posts if a candidate or party declares "premature victory" " (If) a candidate or party declares premature victory before a race is called by major media outlets," it said, "we will add more specific information in the notifications that counting is still in progress and no winner has been determined." On Thursday, the social media giant took a crackdown on fake accounts that were praising US President Donald Trump. Facebook said it has banned US marketing firm Rally Forge for coordinating the "inauthentic behaviour", by way of bogus accounts to comment on news pieces rather than publishing their own article. It included criticism of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and appreciation of Trump and his Republican party.

Facebook to temporarily stop posting political ads in US after presidential election

The other night, as President Donald Trump convalesced at Walter Reed, I took a spin through social media to see the latest news on his health.

Instead, what I found were a bunch of paranoid partisans posting grainy, zoomed-in photos, analyzing video footage frame by frame, and people straining to connect the dots on far-fetched conspiracy theories involving a cabal of nefarious elites staging an elaborate cover-up.

No, I didn’t stumble into a room for QAnon, the pro-Trump conspiracy theory. In fact, many of the people sharing bogus and unverified claims on my feeds were die-hard Democrats. Some of them were speculating, with no evidence, that Trump was faking his bout with COVID-19 to engender sympathy and boost his reelection chances. Others claimed that Trump had died and been replaced by a body double (nope), that he had gotten a secret vaccine from Russia and was quarantining until it took effect (also nope) or that he had deliberately contracted the disease to distract the public from a New York Times article about his taxes (creative, but doubtful).

None of these theories passed the smell test, but they were retweeted and shared thousands of times anyway. Zignal Labs, a firm that tracks online misinformation, said that the theory that Trump had faked his illness had been mentioned more than 85,000 times on social media and that the hashtag #TrumpCovidHoax, which trended on Twitter in the United States, had been mentioned more than 75,000 times.

To be clear, none of the rumormongering I saw from the left was comparable to a dangerous extremist movement like QAnon, which alleges that the world is controlled by a cabal of satanic pedophiles led by prominent Democrats. And it’s understandable that people would question the official narrative of Trump’s illness. Presidents have a long history of hiding their health problems from the public, and the barrage of conflicting, confusing and dishonest information emanating from Trump and his medical team this week has made it hard to take their claims at face value.

But it is notable how easily the conspiracist’s creed — that the official narrative is always a lie, and that the truth is out there for those willing to dig for it themselves — has penetrated our national psyche. After Trump tested positive for COVID-19 last week, social media sleuths raced to dissect every statement, tweet and photograph that might reveal clues about his real condition. (Is that lump in his jacket a hidden oxygen tank? Was that video edited to remove a telltale cough?)

Unsatisfied with the official explanations given by Trump’s doctors, they sought out their own sources, like the TikTok account of Claudia Conway, the 15-year-old daughter of the former presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway, who offered a grimmer prognosis.

And when the president did emerge from Walter Reed, armchair pulmonologists pored over his homecoming video as if it were a modern-day Zapruder film, looking for evidence that he was still in dire shape.

Trump’s hospitalization — a high-stakes medical drama starring a president who is known to exaggerate his own health — made for perfect conspiracy theory fodder. And according to several experts I talked to, the lack of reliable information coming from Trump administration officials made speculation about a cover-up inevitable.

“Conspiracy theorists love a vacuum,” said Kathryn Olmsted, a professor of history at the University of California, Davis, who has studied the history of conspiracy theories. “If they’re not getting answers, they’re going to come up with their own.”

Some of what’s happening is related to the dynamics of social media platforms, which favor bold, engaging claims over dry and careful ones. But there seems to be something else happening, too — a force that is pulling us all toward conspiracy theories these days, no matter our political persuasion.

On Tuesday, Facebook officially banned the QAnon movement from its services, labeling it a “militarized social movement.” The purge was good news for those of us who have watched QAnon morph from a fringe message board stunt to a dangerous quasi-religion that organizes mass harassment campaigns, spreads life-threatening misinformation and threatens its enemies with violence.

But while QAnon may be a singularly dangerous movement, the reflexive paranoia and rejection of authority it represents is not an isolated phenomenon, or one that is limited to far-right extremists.

On Monday, as I watched a video clip of the president standing on a White House balcony, I was struck by the realization that virtually no one was simply accepting the scene at face value. Democrats were theorizing about what secret maladies he was trying to cover up. Republicans were speculating about what signals he was trying to send to his political opponents. Everyone was “doing their own research,” and looking behind the curtain for the real story. There was no text, only subtext.

I thought of Martin Gurri, a media theorist whose work I find provocative, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions. In his book “The Revolt of the Public,” Gurri writes that social media, and the internet more broadly, have eroded the authority of long-standing mass-media gatekeepers — like the newspaper you’re reading right now — and replaced it with “vital communities” of digital insurgents who are united around shared interests.

These groups, Gurri writes, develop their own sources of authority. For one group, a phalanx of white-coated doctors standing outside Walter Reed might seem authoritative. For another group, a teenage girl’s TikTok feed or a QAnon believer’s YouTube channel might hold more sway. Every group creates its own evidentiary standards, and processes information in its own way. There is no “consensus reality” they can all agree to because the idea of a single, shared reality was an artifact of the 20th century, when most people got information from a handful of big mainstream sources.

I called Gurri, who told me that he wasn’t surprised that people were turning to conspiracy theories about Trump’s illness. Uncertainty always breeds distrust, and in the age of social media, he said, authority is held by people who can effectively get their message out — even if those messages are false or misleading.

&nbsp;

“Dissemination is validation,” he said. “If you can concoct something that travels on the web, then you’re on the same plane as any expert in the world.”

Gurri, a former CIA analyst, is skeptical that we will ever return to accepting information handed to us by elites at face value. There’s simply too much information now, traveling over too many channels, for people on any side to be satisfied with a single, straightforward answer to any question — whether it’s about the president’s blood oxygen levels, an imaginary pedophile cabal or something else entirely.

&nbsp;

I don’t think, as some of Gurri’s fans in Silicon Valley do, that authority and expertise are relics of a bygone age, and I don’t think we should let social media platforms off the hook for amplifying lies and propaganda. But as I look around my feeds this week, it’s hard not to wonder if he’s right that the internet — and the erosion of authority it has enabled — has made conspiracy theorists of us all.

&nbsp;

“This is not Trump,” Gurri said. “This is structural, and even if Trump loses in November, it’s going to continue.”

The other night, as President Donald Trump convalesced at Walter Reed, I took a spin through social media to see the latest news on his health. Instead, what I found were a bunch of paranoid partisans posting grainy, zoomed-in photos, analyzing video footage frame by frame, and people straining to connect the dots on far-fetched conspiracy theories involving a cabal of nefarious elites staging an elaborate cover-up.

The other night, as President Donald Trump convalesced at Walter Reed, I took a spin through social media to see the latest news on his health. Instead, what I found were a bunch of paranoid partisans posting grainy, zoomed-in photos, analyzing video footage frame by frame, and people straining to connect the dots on far-fetched conspiracy theories involving a cabal of nefarious elites staging an elaborate cover-up. No, I didn’t stumble into a room for QAnon, the pro-Trump conspiracy theory. In fact, many of the people sharing bogus and unverified claims on my feeds were die-hard Democrats. Some of them were speculating, with no evidence, that Trump was faking his bout with COVID-19 to engender sympathy and boost his reelection chances. Others claimed that Trump had died and been replaced by a body double (nope), that he had gotten a secret vaccine from Russia and was quarantining until it took effect (also nope) or that he had deliberately contracted the disease to distract the public from a New York Times article about his taxes (creative, but doubtful). None of these theories passed the smell test, but they were retweeted and shared thousands of times anyway. Zignal Labs, a firm that tracks online misinformation, said that the theory that Trump had faked his illness had been mentioned more than 85,000 times on social media and that the hashtag #TrumpCovidHoax, which trended on Twitter in the United States, had been mentioned more than 75,000 times. To be clear, none of the rumormongering I saw from the left was comparable to a dangerous extremist movement like QAnon, which alleges that the world is controlled by a cabal of satanic pedophiles led by prominent Democrats. And it’s understandable that people would question the official narrative of Trump’s illness. Presidents have a long history of hiding their health problems from the public, and the barrage of conflicting, confusing and dishonest information emanating from Trump and his medical team this week has made it hard to take their claims at face value. But it is notable how easily the conspiracist’s creed — that the official narrative is always a lie, and that the truth is out there for those willing to dig for it themselves — has penetrated our national psyche. After Trump tested positive for COVID-19 last week, social media sleuths raced to dissect every statement, tweet and photograph that might reveal clues about his real condition. (Is that lump in his jacket a hidden oxygen tank? Was that video edited to remove a telltale cough?) Unsatisfied with the official explanations given by Trump’s doctors, they sought out their own sources, like the TikTok account of Claudia Conway, the 15-year-old daughter of the former presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway, who offered a grimmer prognosis. And when the president did emerge from Walter Reed, armchair pulmonologists pored over his homecoming video as if it were a modern-day Zapruder film, looking for evidence that he was still in dire shape. Trump’s hospitalization — a high-stakes medical drama starring a president who is known to exaggerate his own health — made for perfect conspiracy theory fodder. And according to several experts I talked to, the lack of reliable information coming from Trump administration officials made speculation about a cover-up inevitable. “Conspiracy theorists love a vacuum,” said Kathryn Olmsted, a professor of history at the University of California, Davis, who has studied the history of conspiracy theories. “If they’re not getting answers, they’re going to come up with their own.” Some of what’s happening is related to the dynamics of social media platforms, which favor bold, engaging claims over dry and careful ones. But there seems to be something else happening, too — a force that is pulling us all toward conspiracy theories these days, no matter our political persuasion. On Tuesday, Facebook officially banned the QAnon movement from its services, labeling it a “militarized social movement.” The purge was good news for those of us who have watched QAnon morph from a fringe message board stunt to a dangerous quasi-religion that organizes mass harassment campaigns, spreads life-threatening misinformation and threatens its enemies with violence. But while QAnon may be a singularly dangerous movement, the reflexive paranoia and rejection of authority it represents is not an isolated phenomenon, or one that is limited to far-right extremists. On Monday, as I watched a video clip of the president standing on a White House balcony, I was struck by the realization that virtually no one was simply accepting the scene at face value. Democrats were theorizing about what secret maladies he was trying to cover up. Republicans were speculating about what signals he was trying to send to his political opponents. Everyone was “doing their own research,” and looking behind the curtain for the real story. There was no text, only subtext. I thought of Martin Gurri, a media theorist whose work I find provocative, even if I disagree with some of his conclusions. In his book “The Revolt of the Public,” Gurri writes that social media, and the internet more broadly, have eroded the authority of long-standing mass-media gatekeepers — like the newspaper you’re reading right now — and replaced it with “vital communities” of digital insurgents who are united around shared interests. These groups, Gurri writes, develop their own sources of authority. For one group, a phalanx of white-coated doctors standing outside Walter Reed might seem authoritative. For another group, a teenage girl’s TikTok feed or a QAnon believer’s YouTube channel might hold more sway. Every group creates its own evidentiary standards, and processes information in its own way. There is no “consensus reality” they can all agree to because the idea of a single, shared reality was an artifact of the 20th century, when most people got information from a handful of big mainstream sources. I called Gurri, who told me that he wasn’t surprised that people were turning to conspiracy theories about Trump’s illness. Uncertainty always breeds distrust, and in the age of social media, he said, authority is held by people who can effectively get their message out — even if those messages are false or misleading. “Dissemination is validation,” he said. “If you can concoct something that travels on the web, then you’re on the same plane as any expert in the world.” Gurri, a former CIA analyst, is skeptical that we will ever return to accepting information handed to us by elites at face value. There’s simply too much information now, traveling over too many channels, for people on any side to be satisfied with a single, straightforward answer to any question — whether it’s about the president’s blood oxygen levels, an imaginary pedophile cabal or something else entirely. I don’t think, as some of Gurri’s fans in Silicon Valley do, that authority and expertise are relics of a bygone age, and I don’t think we should let social media platforms off the hook for amplifying lies and propaganda. But as I look around my feeds this week, it’s hard not to wonder if he’s right that the internet — and the erosion of authority it has enabled — has made conspiracy theorists of us all. “This is not Trump,” Gurri said. “This is structural, and even if Trump loses in November, it’s going to continue.”

Why conspiracy theories are so addictive right now

The&nbsp;British parliament's defence committee on Wednesday highlighted&nbsp;''clear evidence of collusion'' between telecoms giant&nbsp;Huawei and the&nbsp;Chinese Communist Party.

The&nbsp;parliament committee has urged Prime Minister Boris Johnson&nbsp;to prepone the deadline set to remove all&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;equipment from the United Kingdom.

In&nbsp;July, Johnson had ordered&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;equipment to be purged from the nascent 5G network by the end of 2027. US&nbsp;President Donald Trump claimed credit for the British decision.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-parliamentary-committee-report-huawei-colluded-with-the-chinese-state-333431/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"The West must urgently unite to advance a counterweight to China’s tech dominance," Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the defence committee, said. "We must not surrender our national security for the sake of short-term technological development."

The Committee did not go into detail about the exact nature of the ties but said it had seen clear evidence of&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;collusion with "the Chinese Communist Party apparatus".

Huawei&nbsp;said the report ''is built on opinion rather than fact. We’re sure people will see through these groundless accusations of collusion and remember instead what&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;has delivered for Britain over the past 20 years."&nbsp;

Trump identifies China as the United States' main geopolitical rival, and has accused the Communist Party-ruled state of taking advantage over trade and not telling the truth over the novel coronavirus outbreak, which he calls the "China plague".

Washington and its allies say&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;technology could be used to spy for China.&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;has repeatedly denied this, and says the United States is simply jealous of its success.

British ministers say the rise to global dominance of&nbsp;Huawei, founded in 1987 by a former People's Liberation Army engineer, has caught the West off-guard.

The defence committee said it supported Johnson's decision to eventually purge&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;from 5G but noted that "developments could necessitate this date being moved forward, potentially to 2025 which could be considered economically feasible."

The British parliament's defence committee on Wednesday highlighted ''clear evidence of collusion'' between telecoms giant Huawei and the Chinese Communist Party.

The British parliament's defence committee on Wednesday highlighted ''clear evidence of collusion'' between telecoms giant Huawei and the Chinese Communist Party. The parliament committee has urged Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prepone the deadline set to remove all Huawei equipment from the United Kingdom. In July, Johnson had ordered Huawei equipment to be purged from the nascent 5G network by the end of 2027. US President Donald Trump claimed credit for the British decision. "The West must urgently unite to advance a counterweight to China’s tech dominance," Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the defence committee, said. "We must not surrender our national security for the sake of short-term technological development." The Committee did not go into detail about the exact nature of the ties but said it had seen clear evidence of Huawei collusion with "the Chinese Communist Party apparatus". Huawei said the report ''is built on opinion rather than fact. We’re sure people will see through these groundless accusations of collusion and remember instead what Huawei has delivered for Britain over the past 20 years." Trump identifies China as the United States' main geopolitical rival, and has accused the Communist Party-ruled state of taking advantage over trade and not telling the truth over the novel coronavirus outbreak, which he calls the "China plague". Washington and its allies say Huawei technology could be used to spy for China. Huawei has repeatedly denied this, and says the United States is simply jealous of its success. British ministers say the rise to global dominance of Huawei, founded in 1987 by a former People's Liberation Army engineer, has caught the West off-guard. The defence committee said it supported Johnson's decision to eventually purge Huawei from 5G but noted that "developments could necessitate this date being moved forward, potentially to 2025 which could be considered economically feasible."

British parliament's defence committee says Huawei colludes with Chinese Communist Party

After a long battle bwteeen Fortnite and Apple Inc, it is now Google Play Store which has been caught in a battle for commission rates with app developers.

South Korea has started a probe into the Google's plan of charging 30 per cent commission for the apps on the Google Play Store&nbsp; — similar to Apple.

While Google has been charging the same commission for some time, it has not been very strict about it, unlike PAple Inc. which was caught in a battle with the popular video game Fortnite.

Google has now announced that the policy will be strictly initiated from next year, but will apply to less than three per cent of the developers. However, South Korean app developers have raised concerns about this and feel that the commission fee of 30 per cent is a little too high, especially in the pandemic.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/google-faces-new-antitrust-case-in-india-over-abuse-in-smart-tvs-market-sources-333434">Also read|&nbsp;Google faces new antitrust case in India over abuse in smart TVs market: Sources</a>

Joh Sung-wook, chairperson of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), on Thursday said Google's plan was being investigated for possible "anti-competitive practises".

"Competition isn't working properly in the industry," she told lawmakers during a parliamentary audit.

"We are searching for anti-competitive practices in order to restore competition."

These comments have come after few South Korean companies knocked on the court's door to re-assess the permission granted to Google in this case and bring a change in this policy.

South Korea is an important marker for Google Play Store as the play store held a 63.4 per cent share of total app store sales in South Korea last year leaving behind Apple Store which only has 24.4 per cent.

After a long battle bwteeen Fortnite and Apple Inc, it is now Google Play Store which has been caught in a battle for commission rates with app developers. South Korea has started a probe into the Google's plan of charging 30 per cent commission for the apps on the Google Play Store — similar to Apple.

After a long battle bwteeen Fortnite and Apple Inc, it is now Google Play Store which has been caught in a battle for commission rates with app developers. South Korea has started a probe into the Google's plan of charging 30 per cent commission for the apps on the Google Play Store — similar to Apple. While Google has been charging the same commission for some time, it has not been very strict about it, unlike PAple Inc. which was caught in a battle with the popular video game Fortnite. Google has now announced that the policy will be strictly initiated from next year, but will apply to less than three per cent of the developers. However, South Korean app developers have raised concerns about this and feel that the commission fee of 30 per cent is a little too high, especially in the pandemic. Also read| Google faces new antitrust case in India over abuse in smart TVs market: Sources Joh Sung-wook, chairperson of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), on Thursday said Google's plan was being investigated for possible "anti-competitive practises". "Competition isn't working properly in the industry," she told lawmakers during a parliamentary audit. "We are searching for anti-competitive practices in order to restore competition." These comments have come after few South Korean companies knocked on the court's door to re-assess the permission granted to Google in this case and bring a change in this policy. South Korea is an important marker for Google Play Store as the play store held a 63.4 per cent share of total app store sales in South Korea last year leaving behind Apple Store which only has 24.4 per cent.

South Korean developers request change in 30% commission for Google Play Store

The landmark copyright lawsuit between tech giants&nbsp;Google and&nbsp;Oracle has puzzled and divided the&nbsp;Supreme Court of the&nbsp;United States of America.

Trying to resolve an $8 billion-plus copyright dispute, the shorthanded court, down one justice following last month's death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,&nbsp;heard oral arguments on Wednesday.

The case has been revived after&nbsp;Google's appeal to review&nbsp;a lower court ruling&nbsp;in which&nbsp;Oracle&nbsp;sought&nbsp;damages from the company for&nbsp;copying thousands of lines of computer code from its popular Java programming language without a license in order to make Android, a competing platform that has harmed&nbsp;Oracle's business.

To create Android, which was released in 2007, Google wrote millions of lines of new computer code. But it also used 11,330 lines of code and an organisation that's part of Oracle's Java platform.

Google says what it did is long-settled, common practice in the industry, a practice that has been good for technical progress. And it says there is no copyright protection for the purely functional, noncreative computer code it used, something that couldn't be written another way. But Oracle says Google committed an ''egregious act of plagiarism''&nbsp;and sued.

A jury cleared Google in 2016, but the US&nbsp;Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that decision in 2018, finding that Google's inclusion of&nbsp;Oracle's software code in Android was not permissible under US&nbsp;copyright law.

Google lawyer Thomas Goldstein told the justices that the disputed Java code should not receive copyright protection because it was the "the only way" to create new programs using the programming language.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Google still should have paid&nbsp;Oracle&nbsp;for a license to Java.

"Cracking the safe may be the only way to get the money that you want, but that doesn't mean you can do it," Roberts said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Goldstein on whether Google had simply piggybacked on&nbsp;Oracle's innovation.

Gorsuch asked, "What do we do about the fact that the other competitors, Apple, Microsoft ... have, in fact, been able to come up with phones that work just fine without engaging in this kind of copying?"

Oracle&nbsp;and Google, two California-based technology giants with combined annual revenues of about $200 billion, have been feuding since&nbsp;Oracle&nbsp;sued for copyright infringement in 2010 in federal court in San Francisco.

Google has said the shortcut commands it copied into Android do not warrant copyright protection because they help developers write programs to work across platforms, a key to software innovation.

The landmark copyright lawsuit between tech giants Google and Oracle has puzzled and divided the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Trying to resolve an $8 billion-plus copyright dispute, the shorthanded court, down one justice following last month's death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, heard oral arguments on Wednesday.

The landmark copyright lawsuit between tech giants Google and Oracle has puzzled and divided the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Trying to resolve an $8 billion-plus copyright dispute, the shorthanded court, down one justice following last month's death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, heard oral arguments on Wednesday. The case has been revived after Google's appeal to review a lower court ruling in which Oracle sought damages from the company for copying thousands of lines of computer code from its popular Java programming language without a license in order to make Android, a competing platform that has harmed Oracle's business. To create Android, which was released in 2007, Google wrote millions of lines of new computer code. But it also used 11,330 lines of code and an organisation that's part of Oracle's Java platform. Google says what it did is long-settled, common practice in the industry, a practice that has been good for technical progress. And it says there is no copyright protection for the purely functional, noncreative computer code it used, something that couldn't be written another way. But Oracle says Google committed an ''egregious act of plagiarism'' and sued. A jury cleared Google in 2016, but the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that decision in 2018, finding that Google's inclusion of Oracle's software code in Android was not permissible under US copyright law. Google lawyer Thomas Goldstein told the justices that the disputed Java code should not receive copyright protection because it was the "the only way" to create new programs using the programming language. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Google still should have paid Oracle for a license to Java. "Cracking the safe may be the only way to get the money that you want, but that doesn't mean you can do it," Roberts said. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Goldstein on whether Google had simply piggybacked on Oracle's innovation. Gorsuch asked, "What do we do about the fact that the other competitors, Apple, Microsoft ... have, in fact, been able to come up with phones that work just fine without engaging in this kind of copying?" Oracle and Google, two California-based technology giants with combined annual revenues of about $200 billion, have been feuding since Oracle sued for copyright infringement in 2010 in federal court in San Francisco. Google has said the shortcut commands it copied into Android do not warrant copyright protection because they help developers write programs to work across platforms, a key to software innovation.

US Supreme Court puzzled over Google, Oracle high tech copyright clash

Alphabet Inc's Google is facing a new antitrust case in India in which the U.S. tech giant is alleged to have abused its Android operating system's position in the smart television market, a source and two lawyers involved in the case told Reuters.

The case is Google's fourth major antitrust challenge in India, one of its key markets where it is currently facing public criticism from local startups for enforcing certain policies and company charges they contend hurt their growth.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/google-to-pay-usd-1-billion-to-news-publishers-for-their-content-331748">Google to pay USD 1 billion to news publishers for their content</a>

It also comes as Google faces new antitrust challenges in the United States, and a potential antitrust probe in China that is set to look into how it allegedly uses its dominance of its Android mobile operating system to stifle competition. Google has denied any wrongdoing.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has since June been looking into allegations that Google engages in anti-competitive practices by creating barriers for firms wanting to use or develop modified versions of Android for smart TVs, such as Amazon Fire TV's operating system, according to the source, who has direct knowledge of the case.

The case has been filed by two Indian antitrust lawyers, Kshitiz Arya and Purushottam Anand. They both confirmed the case filing against Google for alleged abuse in the smart television market, but declined to comment further.

The source said the CCI had directed Google to submit its written responses to the allegations and that the company has sought more time.

A Google spokesman declined comment, since the case with the antitrust body was pending. Amazon and the CCI did not respond to requests for comment.

Unlike Indian court cases, filings and details of cases reviewed by the CCI are not disclosed publicly.

The antitrust watchdog could order a wider investigation against Google if it finds merit in the allegations, or throw out the case completely.

Smart TVs, or WiFi-enabled TVs with apps for streaming services like Netflix and YouTube, have become increasingly popular in India.

Data from Counterpoint Research shows 8 million smart TV sets were sold in India in 2019. Three in five smart TVs sold in India are based on Google's Android system, which also powers nearly 99% of India's half a billion smartphone user base.

The latest case alleges that Google's agreements with companies such as Xiaomi and TV manufacturer TCL India effectively stop them from using both the Android system and a modified version of it on different devices they make, according to the source.

For example, if a company sells smartphones based on Google's Android, it cannot sell smart TVs running on competing platforms like the Amazon Fire TV system, according to the case against the Mountain View, California-based company, the source said.

And in reverse, if a company's smart TV is using Amazon's Fire operating system, then that company is restricted from offering Google's popular Play Store or the Google maps app on its smartphones.

Xiaomi India and TCL India, which is part of China's TCL Technology Group Corp, are both party to the case along with Google. Xiaomi did not respond to requests for comment while TCL declined to comment.

In 2018, the CCI fined Google 1.36 billion rupees($18.5 million) for "search bias," but a company appeal against that is pending. The CCI last year also started probing Google for allegedly misusing its dominant position to reduce the ability of smartphone makers to opt for alternate versions of its Android system.

Earlier this year, the CCI started reviewing a case alleging that Google abuses its market position to unfairly promote its mobile payments app in the country.

Alphabet Inc's Google is facing a new antitrust case in India in which the U.S. tech giant is alleged to have abused its Android operating system's position in the smart television market, a source and two lawyers involved in the case told Reuters.

Alphabet Inc's Google is facing a new antitrust case in India in which the U.S. tech giant is alleged to have abused its Android operating system's position in the smart television market, a source and two lawyers involved in the case told Reuters. The case is Google's fourth major antitrust challenge in India, one of its key markets where it is currently facing public criticism from local startups for enforcing certain policies and company charges they contend hurt their growth. Also read | Google to pay USD 1 billion to news publishers for their content It also comes as Google faces new antitrust challenges in the United States, and a potential antitrust probe in China that is set to look into how it allegedly uses its dominance of its Android mobile operating system to stifle competition. Google has denied any wrongdoing. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has since June been looking into allegations that Google engages in anti-competitive practices by creating barriers for firms wanting to use or develop modified versions of Android for smart TVs, such as Amazon Fire TV's operating system, according to the source, who has direct knowledge of the case. The case has been filed by two Indian antitrust lawyers, Kshitiz Arya and Purushottam Anand. They both confirmed the case filing against Google for alleged abuse in the smart television market, but declined to comment further. The source said the CCI had directed Google to submit its written responses to the allegations and that the company has sought more time. A Google spokesman declined comment, since the case with the antitrust body was pending. Amazon and the CCI did not respond to requests for comment. Unlike Indian court cases, filings and details of cases reviewed by the CCI are not disclosed publicly. The antitrust watchdog could order a wider investigation against Google if it finds merit in the allegations, or throw out the case completely. Smart TVs, or WiFi-enabled TVs with apps for streaming services like Netflix and YouTube, have become increasingly popular in India. Data from Counterpoint Research shows 8 million smart TV sets were sold in India in 2019. Three in five smart TVs sold in India are based on Google's Android system, which also powers nearly 99% of India's half a billion smartphone user base. The latest case alleges that Google's agreements with companies such as Xiaomi and TV manufacturer TCL India effectively stop them from using both the Android system and a modified version of it on different devices they make, according to the source. For example, if a company sells smartphones based on Google's Android, it cannot sell smart TVs running on competing platforms like the Amazon Fire TV system, according to the case against the Mountain View, California-based company, the source said. And in reverse, if a company's smart TV is using Amazon's Fire operating system, then that company is restricted from offering Google's popular Play Store or the Google maps app on its smartphones. Xiaomi India and TCL India, which is part of China's TCL Technology Group Corp, are both party to the case along with Google. Xiaomi did not respond to requests for comment while TCL declined to comment. In 2018, the CCI fined Google 1.36 billion rupees($18.5 million) for "search bias," but a company appeal against that is pending. The CCI last year also started probing Google for allegedly misusing its dominant position to reduce the ability of smartphone makers to opt for alternate versions of its Android system. Earlier this year, the CCI started reviewing a case alleging that Google abuses its market position to unfairly promote its mobile payments app in the country.

Google faces new antitrust case in India over abuse in smart TVs market: Sources

The great China decoupling is truly underway with India slowly emerging as a viable alternative. New Delhi has given its nod to partners of Apple and Samsung to set up their smartphone manufacturing in India.

India wants to become a smartphone production hub. As many as 16 global companies are ready to set up a base in India.

The Indian government has promised these firms incentives worth well over six billion dollars, and the biggest beneficiaries could be Samsung and Apple.

The South Korean electronics giant has won a place in the government's incentive programme. Three contract manufacturing partners of Apple are also on the list.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/distrust-of-china-jumps-to-new-highs-in-democratic-nations-333269">Also read:&nbsp;Distrust of China jumps to new highs in democratic nations</a>

Ambitious targets

India wants smartphone makers to produce phones and components worth more than 143 billion dollars over the next five years.

According to a report, 60 per cent of the products made locally will be exported. The incentives will generate two lakh direct and six lakh indirect jobs.

India wants to leverage the anti-China sentiment in the global markets. Since the outbreak of the&nbsp;coronavirus, decoupling from China has become the new buzzword as major companies have announced plans to move out of China.

Samsung has shutdown its mobile phone production in China. The company has expanded production in India and Vietnam. Hasbro began shifting its manufacturing last year. The toy maker wants to have only 50 per cent of its products to come from China by the end of this year.

Apple's supplier Foxconn is leaving China too. Reports say the company plans to invest one billion dollars to expand its factory in Chennai.

Electronics company Nintendo and tech company GoPro want to leave China too.

India has positioned itself to leverage this great China exit. In an effort to attract smartphone makers,&nbsp;New Selhi came up with an incentive scheme. These companies have been given a 6 per cent financial incentive on additional sales of goods for the next five years. This is likely to be offered as a tax rebate.

However, India faces an uphill battle.

Chinese smartphone makers dominate the Indian market. According to one report, these companies command an 80 per cent market share in India alone.

So, India must break this Chinese monopoly — anroad, as well as at home.

The great China decoupling is truly underway with India slowly emerging as a viable alternative. New Delhi has given its nod to partners of Apple and Samsung to set up their smartphone manufacturing in India.

The great China decoupling is truly underway with India slowly emerging as a viable alternative. New Delhi has given its nod to partners of Apple and Samsung to set up their smartphone manufacturing in India. India wants to become a smartphone production hub. As many as 16 global companies are ready to set up a base in India. The Indian government has promised these firms incentives worth well over six billion dollars, and the biggest beneficiaries could be Samsung and Apple. The South Korean electronics giant has won a place in the government's incentive programme. Three contract manufacturing partners of Apple are also on the list. Also read: Distrust of China jumps to new highs in democratic nations Ambitious targets India wants smartphone makers to produce phones and components worth more than 143 billion dollars over the next five years. According to a report, 60 per cent of the products made locally will be exported. The incentives will generate two lakh direct and six lakh indirect jobs. India wants to leverage the anti-China sentiment in the global markets. Since the outbreak of the coronavirus, decoupling from China has become the new buzzword as major companies have announced plans to move out of China. Samsung has shutdown its mobile phone production in China. The company has expanded production in India and Vietnam. Hasbro began shifting its manufacturing last year. The toy maker wants to have only 50 per cent of its products to come from China by the end of this year. Apple's supplier Foxconn is leaving China too. Reports say the company plans to invest one billion dollars to expand its factory in Chennai. Electronics company Nintendo and tech company GoPro want to leave China too. India has positioned itself to leverage this great China exit. In an effort to attract smartphone makers, New Selhi came up with an incentive scheme. These companies have been given a 6 per cent financial incentive on additional sales of goods for the next five years. This is likely to be offered as a tax rebate. However, India faces an uphill battle. Chinese smartphone makers dominate the Indian market. According to one report, these companies command an 80 per cent market share in India alone. So, India must break this Chinese monopoly — anroad, as well as at home.

Another win: Samsung and Apple strike deal with India; abandon China

Instagram, on Monday announced global expansion of its shopping service across IGTV. Instagram also plans to test the release on Reels, its rival to Tiktok. Instagram's shopping service lets you watch a video and checkout in a few taps. Instagram shopping service gives way to creators and influencers new ways to monetize their presence on Instagram.

As of today, users can purchase and view products across IGTV, Instagram Live and stories.

Expanding Instagram shopping service on IGTV may open a new revenue stream for the company. On IGTV, users can visit the seller's website or checkout in-app. This allows Instagram to collect seller's fee.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/instagram-turns-10-how-to-customise-icon-on-android-and-iphone-333138">Instagram turns 10: How to customise icon on Android and iPhone</a>

Instagram COO Justin Osofsky said that by bringing shopping to IGTV and Reel, they are making it easy to shop directly from videos.

There hasn't yet been an announcement from Instagram as to when exactly will Reels would get shopping features. However, the feature may be rolled out later this year.

Instagram, on Monday announced global expansion of its shopping service across IGTV. Instagram also plans to test the release on Reels, its rival to Tiktok. Instagram's shopping service lets you watch a video and checkout in a few taps.

Instagram, on Monday announced global expansion of its shopping service across IGTV. Instagram also plans to test the release on Reels, its rival to Tiktok. Instagram's shopping service lets you watch a video and checkout in a few taps. Instagram shopping service gives way to creators and influencers new ways to monetize their presence on Instagram. As of today, users can purchase and view products across IGTV, Instagram Live and stories. Expanding Instagram shopping service on IGTV may open a new revenue stream for the company. On IGTV, users can visit the seller's website or checkout in-app. This allows Instagram to collect seller's fee. Also Read | Instagram turns 10: How to customise icon on Android and iPhone Instagram COO Justin Osofsky said that by bringing shopping to IGTV and Reel, they are making it easy to shop directly from videos. There hasn't yet been an announcement from Instagram as to when exactly will Reels would get shopping features. However, the feature may be rolled out later this year.

Instagram announces expansion of shopping on IGTV, to do same for Reels

Instagram needs no introduction. The photo sharing app is the go to app for millions across the world to flaunt their style, make funny videos, or even support a cause. Instagram has given many taste of fame they never thought they'd get. These influencers have thousands of followers from across the world. Instagram changed the online game and it has turned 10. The iconic app went though many changes over the years. And now its taking a look back at its previous avatars.

Long before it was a globe spanning mega-phenomenon, Instagram had a classic look. A polaroid camera adorned the icon of the app. There is a special fan following for the classic icon. Instagram's icon underwent many changes after the owners decided to ditch the polaroid cam. And all these icons are now available again.

Here's how to change Instagram icon

<ol>
	<li>Load the app, tap icon in the lower right to go to your profile.</li>
	<li>Tap three line in the top-right hand corner. A menu will open</li>
	<li>Tap Settings. Now another menu will open. To access the 'hidden' menu to change Instagram icon, hold and drag the Settings menu downwards till confetti explodes across the screen</li>
	<li>Voila. All the icons are at your service. Select your favorite, confirm and you're done.</li>
</ol>

Instagram needs no introduction. The photo sharing app is the go to app for millions across the world to flaunt their style, make funny videos, or even support a cause.

Instagram needs no introduction. The photo sharing app is the go to app for millions across the world to flaunt their style, make funny videos, or even support a cause. Instagram has given many taste of fame they never thought they'd get. These influencers have thousands of followers from across the world. Instagram changed the online game and it has turned 10. The iconic app went though many changes over the years. And now its taking a look back at its previous avatars. Long before it was a globe spanning mega-phenomenon, Instagram had a classic look. A polaroid camera adorned the icon of the app. There is a special fan following for the classic icon. Instagram's icon underwent many changes after the owners decided to ditch the polaroid cam. And all these icons are now available again. Here's how to change Instagram icon Load the app, tap icon in the lower right to go to your profile. Tap three line in the top-right hand corner. A menu will open Tap Settings. Now another menu will open. To access the 'hidden' menu to change Instagram icon, hold and drag the Settings menu downwards till confetti explodes across the screen Voila. All the icons are at your service. Select your favorite, confirm and you're done.

Instagram turns 10: How to customise icon on Android and iPhone

Facebook Inc and&nbsp;Twitter&nbsp;took action on posts from US&nbsp;President Donald Trump on Tuesday for violating their rules against coronavirus misinformation by suggesting that COVID-19 was just like the flu.

Facebook took the post down but not before it was shared about 26,000 times, data from the company's metric tool CrowdTangle showed.

"We remove incorrect information about the severity of COVID-19," a company spokesman said.

The world's largest social media company, which exempts politicians from its third-party fact-checking program, has rarely taken action against posts from the Republican US&nbsp;president.

Twitter&nbsp;disabled retweets on a similar tweet from Trump on Tuesday and added a warning label that said it broke its rules on "spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19" but that it might be in the public interest for it to remain accessible.

<img alt="t" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="5c5ed150-d6db-4c41-83e3-57a261524924" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/_114786882_hidden.jpg" />

During the 2019-2020 influenza season, the flu was associated with 22,000 deaths in the United States, according to estimates from the US&nbsp;Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since the first case of the novel coronavirus was recorded in the United States at the beginning of this year, more than 210,000 people in the country have died of the disease caused by the virus, the world's highest death toll.

On Monday, Trump told Americans "to get out there" and not fear COVID-19 as he returned to the White House after a three-night stay in a military hospital outside Washington where he was treated for COVID-19.

"Silicon Valley and the mainstream media have consistently used their platforms to fearmonger and censor President Trump to serve their own agenda, even now during this critical moment in the fight against coronavirus," Trump campaign spokeswoman Courtney Parella said.

Twitter, which has been using labels to flag tweets with misinformation - including from the president - told Reuters it is currently trying to respond more quickly and more overtly.

Facebook removed a Trump post for coronavirus misinformation for the first time in August. The post included a video in which the president falsely claimed that children were "almost immune" to COVID-19.

Facebook Inc and Twitter took action on posts from US President Donald Trump on Tuesday for violating their rules against coronavirus misinformation by suggesting that COVID-19 was just like the flu.

Facebook Inc and Twitter took action on posts from US President Donald Trump on Tuesday for violating their rules against coronavirus misinformation by suggesting that COVID-19 was just like the flu. Facebook took the post down but not before it was shared about 26,000 times, data from the company's metric tool CrowdTangle showed. "We remove incorrect information about the severity of COVID-19," a company spokesman said. The world's largest social media company, which exempts politicians from its third-party fact-checking program, has rarely taken action against posts from the Republican US president. Twitter disabled retweets on a similar tweet from Trump on Tuesday and added a warning label that said it broke its rules on "spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19" but that it might be in the public interest for it to remain accessible. During the 2019-2020 influenza season, the flu was associated with 22,000 deaths in the United States, according to estimates from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since the first case of the novel coronavirus was recorded in the United States at the beginning of this year, more than 210,000 people in the country have died of the disease caused by the virus, the world's highest death toll. On Monday, Trump told Americans "to get out there" and not fear COVID-19 as he returned to the White House after a three-night stay in a military hospital outside Washington where he was treated for COVID-19. "Silicon Valley and the mainstream media have consistently used their platforms to fearmonger and censor President Trump to serve their own agenda, even now during this critical moment in the fight against coronavirus," Trump campaign spokeswoman Courtney Parella said. Twitter, which has been using labels to flag tweets with misinformation - including from the president - told Reuters it is currently trying to respond more quickly and more overtly. Facebook removed a Trump post for coronavirus misinformation for the first time in August. The post included a video in which the president falsely claimed that children were "almost immune" to COVID-19.

Trump's misleading COVID-19 posts deleted by Facebook and hidden by Twitter

Cornwall, in England’s far southwest, is known for antique fishing villages and snug, cliff-lined beaches. Soon it may be the scene of something very different: a small but growing space industry.

One day in a year or two, a modified Boeing 747 is expected to lift off from the long runway at the region’s airport, head out over the Atlantic Ocean and soar into the stratosphere. There, a rocket will drop from below a wing, fire its engines and ferry a load of small satellites into orbit, while the plane returns to the airport.

After six years of planning and fundraising, construction of a bare-bones spaceport, budgeted at about 22 million pounds ($28 million), is beginning this month at the airport in Newquay.

The anchor tenant is expected to be Virgin Orbit, a part of Richard Branson’s Virgin universe. Its selling point: Putting satellites into orbit via aircraft can be done faster and with less infrastructure than earthbound rockets. It plans to bring its 747 (called the Cosmic Girl) and other gear being tested in the Mojave Desert to Britain with the help of 7.35 million pounds from the U.K. Space Agency.

“At the beginning, people laughed at us,” said Melissa Thorpe, head of engagement for Spaceport Cornwall, the developer. “It took a lot of work to convince a lot of people.”

Among the better arguments: The spaceport, which is owned by the local government, could eventually provide 150 good jobs in what, despite its charm, is a region dependent on low-paid, seasonal work from tourism.

Britain is doubling down on the always risky space business after, some would say, years of neglect. Besides Cornwall, the government is putting money behind several other potential launch sites, including one on the remote north coast of Scotland, which is being tailored for an environmentally friendly rocket to be manufactured nearby.

This is all new for a country that does not have a deep history of rocketry or launching satellites into space. The case for spaceports in Britain is far from proven. In fact, some analysts say there are already too many such facilities, including in the United States.

The first — and, to date, only — British-made satellite-bearing rocket was launched from Woomera in Australia in 1971. That program, called Black Arrow, was scrapped after four launches for not being cost effective.

“You do have to pinch yourself that the U.K is within a few years of launching satellites,” said Doug Millard, space curator at the Science Museum in London. “That is something that never would have been considered not so long ago.”

A big reason for the turnaround is Brexit. The decision to pull away from the European Union has heightened awareness that Britain, which has largely relied on European and American space programs for services like satellite navigation, would be at risk without its own space infrastructure. This year the space agency’s budget was bumped up 10% to 556 million pounds (still a small fraction of NASA’s $22 billion).

Brexit has provided “a real stimulus to get us to think about what we actually need as a country in space,” said Graham Turnock, chief executive of the U.K. Space Agency.

But the decision to look skyward also coincides with the growing commercial use of space around the world, promoted by deep-pocketed investors like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Branson, but also pushed along by a range of less prominent entrepreneurs and businesses.

Key has been the emergence of much smaller and cheaper satellites, some the size of a shoe box and costing a relatively small $1 million or less. Some are used for observation, such as measuring how much oil is stored in a tank farm, valuable data for energy investors. Others are planned to provide internet connectivity on earth and a key link in the burgeoning Internet of Things, essential for self-driving cars and smart kitchens.

“We are right at the beginning of this journey,” said Mark Boggett, chief executive of London-based Seraphim Capital, which is managing a $90 million space fund.

The government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson put its own chips on such efforts by agreeing in July to spend 500 million pounds to acquire 45% of OneWeb, a satellite operator.

OneWeb filed for bankruptcy this year, but is involved in the hottest area of the satellite industry: the creation of so-called constellations, blizzards of coordinated satellites in low orbit, designed to provide blanket coverage for purposes like extending the internet to remote regions.

OneWeb is building its satellites at a factory co-owned by Airbus in Florida. The hope in the British government and space community is that OneWeb will build a future generation of satellites in Britain.

Overall, the government is trying to support activity in what is known as “new space,” a more agile and commercial approach to an industry traditionally dominated by government and military programs.

“OneWeb, and what we are doing on launch, is all about taking a really big role in that new economy,” Turnock said.

While Britain has participated in prestigious space activities like making a Mars rover for an upcoming European-Russian mission, it has catching up to do. Still, space experts say the direction the industry is moving could play to its advantage.

The launch vehicles that Britain is trying to nurture would be suited for smaller satellites that operate in low-Earth orbit, around 800 miles up, compared with about 22,000 miles for telecommunications giants that sometimes cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Smaller satellites also have much shorter life spans than the larger ones, implying the need for more of them, and more launches. Virgin Orbit says it plans to charge $12 million to take a nearly 700-pound payload of satellites into space.

Having nearby launch sites will fill a need for companies like In-Space Missions, a space service firm in Hampshire, outside London. Doug Liddle, the chief executive, said the company went all the way to New Zealand to launch a satellite this year, only to lose it when the rocket failed.

The new space economy is also more affordable for medium-size countries like Britain.

“The small-satellite approach now means we are not going to spend our entire national budget on our space program,” said Martin Sweeting, a founder and executive chairman of a British university spinoff called Surrey Satellite Technology, a pioneer in small satellites.

Space is also becoming far more accessible to startups like Open Cosmos, which offers to build satellites and arrange their launch and early operation at a cost of $10 million or less. The company is one of many technology businesses clustered in Harwell, a community near the University of Oxford.

Among the neighbors are clients like Lacuna Space, which plans to deploy satellites for a range of uses like tracking cattle on vast Latin American ranches, and potential suppliers like Oxford Space Systems, which builds satellite-mounted antennas that unfurl once in orbit to send data to ground receivers.

“It is a small ecosystem. Everybody knows each other,” said Rafel Jordá Siquier, 31, founder of Open Cosmos.

But not all the companies are startups. Airbus, the giant French maker of commercial aircraft, is also a major manufacturer of satellites and employs 3,500 people doing space work in Britain.

The company had been nervous about Brexit’s implications for those operations, but the government’s move into OneWeb offered some reassurance.

“The investment in OneWeb and focus of the U.K. on space is actually making Airbus go, ‘Look, the U.K. is a really good place to invest,’” said Richard Franklin, head of space and defense for Britain at Airbus.

That said, Britain’s ambitions face large unknowns and risks.

The launch technologies it is counting on are unproven. Virgin Orbit’s first test this year in the United States sputtered when the main rocket engine shut down. And the coronavirus pandemic has put huge financial strain on Branson’s empire, including the flagship, Virgin Atlantic. To help bolster the finances of the airline and other companies, the entrepreneur sold around $500 million of shares in Virgin Galactic, a space tourism business.

But Will Pomerantz, Virgin Orbit’s vice president for special projects, said the 747 would come to Cornwall “when they are ready and they need us.”

The satellite market is also both competitive and turbulent. Musk, Tesla’s founder, whose SpaceX has carried U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station and returned them safely to Earth, is building his own mega constellation satellite system, Starlink. Other technology companies are likely to follow, while many countries can now build satellites.

“One of the beautiful things about small sats is that anyone can make one,” said Alexandre Najjar, senior consultant at Euroconsult, a market research firm.

Still, Britain’s space entrepreneurs say having a launchpad near home might give them an edge.

”If we can get in a van and drive our spacecraft up to Scotland or Cornwall, the whole process becomes much more straightforward,” said Liddle, the satellite builder.

Cornwall, in England’s far southwest, is known for antique fishing villages and snug, cliff-lined beaches. Soon it may be the scene of something very different: a small but growing space industry.

Cornwall, in England’s far southwest, is known for antique fishing villages and snug, cliff-lined beaches. Soon it may be the scene of something very different: a small but growing space industry. One day in a year or two, a modified Boeing 747 is expected to lift off from the long runway at the region’s airport, head out over the Atlantic Ocean and soar into the stratosphere. There, a rocket will drop from below a wing, fire its engines and ferry a load of small satellites into orbit, while the plane returns to the airport. After six years of planning and fundraising, construction of a bare-bones spaceport, budgeted at about 22 million pounds ($28 million), is beginning this month at the airport in Newquay. The anchor tenant is expected to be Virgin Orbit, a part of Richard Branson’s Virgin universe. Its selling point: Putting satellites into orbit via aircraft can be done faster and with less infrastructure than earthbound rockets. It plans to bring its 747 (called the Cosmic Girl) and other gear being tested in the Mojave Desert to Britain with the help of 7.35 million pounds from the U.K. Space Agency. “At the beginning, people laughed at us,” said Melissa Thorpe, head of engagement for Spaceport Cornwall, the developer. “It took a lot of work to convince a lot of people.” Among the better arguments: The spaceport, which is owned by the local government, could eventually provide 150 good jobs in what, despite its charm, is a region dependent on low-paid, seasonal work from tourism. Britain is doubling down on the always risky space business after, some would say, years of neglect. Besides Cornwall, the government is putting money behind several other potential launch sites, including one on the remote north coast of Scotland, which is being tailored for an environmentally friendly rocket to be manufactured nearby. This is all new for a country that does not have a deep history of rocketry or launching satellites into space. The case for spaceports in Britain is far from proven. In fact, some analysts say there are already too many such facilities, including in the United States. The first — and, to date, only — British-made satellite-bearing rocket was launched from Woomera in Australia in 1971. That program, called Black Arrow, was scrapped after four launches for not being cost effective. “You do have to pinch yourself that the U.K is within a few years of launching satellites,” said Doug Millard, space curator at the Science Museum in London. “That is something that never would have been considered not so long ago.” A big reason for the turnaround is Brexit. The decision to pull away from the European Union has heightened awareness that Britain, which has largely relied on European and American space programs for services like satellite navigation, would be at risk without its own space infrastructure. This year the space agency’s budget was bumped up 10% to 556 million pounds (still a small fraction of NASA’s $22 billion). Brexit has provided “a real stimulus to get us to think about what we actually need as a country in space,” said Graham Turnock, chief executive of the U.K. Space Agency. But the decision to look skyward also coincides with the growing commercial use of space around the world, promoted by deep-pocketed investors like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Branson, but also pushed along by a range of less prominent entrepreneurs and businesses. Key has been the emergence of much smaller and cheaper satellites, some the size of a shoe box and costing a relatively small $1 million or less. Some are used for observation, such as measuring how much oil is stored in a tank farm, valuable data for energy investors. Others are planned to provide internet connectivity on earth and a key link in the burgeoning Internet of Things, essential for self-driving cars and smart kitchens. “We are right at the beginning of this journey,” said Mark Boggett, chief executive of London-based Seraphim Capital, which is managing a $90 million space fund. The government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson put its own chips on such efforts by agreeing in July to spend 500 million pounds to acquire 45% of OneWeb, a satellite operator. OneWeb filed for bankruptcy this year, but is involved in the hottest area of the satellite industry: the creation of so-called constellations, blizzards of coordinated satellites in low orbit, designed to provide blanket coverage for purposes like extending the internet to remote regions. OneWeb is building its satellites at a factory co-owned by Airbus in Florida. The hope in the British government and space community is that OneWeb will build a future generation of satellites in Britain. Overall, the government is trying to support activity in what is known as “new space,” a more agile and commercial approach to an industry traditionally dominated by government and military programs. “OneWeb, and what we are doing on launch, is all about taking a really big role in that new economy,” Turnock said. While Britain has participated in prestigious space activities like making a Mars rover for an upcoming European-Russian mission, it has catching up to do. Still, space experts say the direction the industry is moving could play to its advantage. The launch vehicles that Britain is trying to nurture would be suited for smaller satellites that operate in low-Earth orbit, around 800 miles up, compared with about 22,000 miles for telecommunications giants that sometimes cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Smaller satellites also have much shorter life spans than the larger ones, implying the need for more of them, and more launches. Virgin Orbit says it plans to charge $12 million to take a nearly 700-pound payload of satellites into space. Having nearby launch sites will fill a need for companies like In-Space Missions, a space service firm in Hampshire, outside London. Doug Liddle, the chief executive, said the company went all the way to New Zealand to launch a satellite this year, only to lose it when the rocket failed. The new space economy is also more affordable for medium-size countries like Britain. “The small-satellite approach now means we are not going to spend our entire national budget on our space program,” said Martin Sweeting, a founder and executive chairman of a British university spinoff called Surrey Satellite Technology, a pioneer in small satellites. Space is also becoming far more accessible to startups like Open Cosmos, which offers to build satellites and arrange their launch and early operation at a cost of $10 million or less. The company is one of many technology businesses clustered in Harwell, a community near the University of Oxford. Among the neighbors are clients like Lacuna Space, which plans to deploy satellites for a range of uses like tracking cattle on vast Latin American ranches, and potential suppliers like Oxford Space Systems, which builds satellite-mounted antennas that unfurl once in orbit to send data to ground receivers. “It is a small ecosystem. Everybody knows each other,” said Rafel Jordá Siquier, 31, founder of Open Cosmos. But not all the companies are startups. Airbus, the giant French maker of commercial aircraft, is also a major manufacturer of satellites and employs 3,500 people doing space work in Britain. The company had been nervous about Brexit’s implications for those operations, but the government’s move into OneWeb offered some reassurance. “The investment in OneWeb and focus of the U.K. on space is actually making Airbus go, ‘Look, the U.K. is a really good place to invest,’” said Richard Franklin, head of space and defense for Britain at Airbus. That said, Britain’s ambitions face large unknowns and risks. The launch technologies it is counting on are unproven. Virgin Orbit’s first test this year in the United States sputtered when the main rocket engine shut down. And the coronavirus pandemic has put huge financial strain on Branson’s empire, including the flagship, Virgin Atlantic. To help bolster the finances of the airline and other companies, the entrepreneur sold around $500 million of shares in Virgin Galactic, a space tourism business. But Will Pomerantz, Virgin Orbit’s vice president for special projects, said the 747 would come to Cornwall “when they are ready and they need us.” The satellite market is also both competitive and turbulent. Musk, Tesla’s founder, whose SpaceX has carried U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station and returned them safely to Earth, is building his own mega constellation satellite system, Starlink. Other technology companies are likely to follow, while many countries can now build satellites. “One of the beautiful things about small sats is that anyone can make one,” said Alexandre Najjar, senior consultant at Euroconsult, a market research firm. Still, Britain’s space entrepreneurs say having a launchpad near home might give them an edge. ”If we can get in a van and drive our spacecraft up to Scotland or Cornwall, the whole process becomes much more straightforward,” said Liddle, the satellite builder.

Britain is getting ready for its space race

John David McAfee, creator of the eponymous anti-virus software has been indicted on charges of tax evasion by the US Department of Justice (DOJ).&nbsp;

He has been arrested in Spain and is awaiting extradition.

Mcafee, who has been arrested over 22 times in past ten years is an English-American computer programmer and businessman. He founded the software company McAfee Associates in 1987 and ran it until 1994, when he resigned from the company. McAfee Associates achieved early success as the creators of McAfee, the first commercial antivirus software, and the business now produces a range of enterprise security software.

The US Justice Department announced the charges shortly after the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed it had brought civil charges against McAfee, alleging that he made over $23.1 million in undisclosed compensation from recommending seven cryptocurrency offerings on Twitter that were materially false and misleading. 
 
The indictment, filed under seal in June, was unsealed following his arrest in Spain where the United States is seeking to extradite him.

Mcafee posted this video in August this year and said: “Now that Ghislaine has been arrested, everyone is asking me how to avoid being collected by the authorities that might be pursuing you. Simple really — a four-step process.”

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Now that Ghislaine has been arrested, everyone is asking me how to avoid being collected by the authorities that might be pursuing you. 
 
Simple really -- a four step process: <a href="https://t.co/NaHZnSWPrx">pic.twitter.com/NaHZnSWPrx</a>
— John McAfee (@officialmcafee) <a href="https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1278716550728552448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

“McAfee leveraged his fame to make more than $23.1 million in undisclosed compensation” by recommending at least seven initial coin offerings or ICOs to his Twitter followers, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said.

McAfee’s recommendations were “materially false and misleading,” in that he tried to sell “virtually worthless” cryptocurrency tokens by encouraging investors to buy the securities without disclosing his own holdings, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleged.

(With inputs from Reuters)

John David McAfee, creator of the eponymous anti-virus software has been indicted on charges of tax evasion by the US Department of Justice (DOJ). He has been arrested in Spain and is awaiting extradition.

John David McAfee, creator of the eponymous anti-virus software has been indicted on charges of tax evasion by the US Department of Justice (DOJ). He has been arrested in Spain and is awaiting extradition. Mcafee, who has been arrested over 22 times in past ten years is an English-American computer programmer and businessman. He founded the software company McAfee Associates in 1987 and ran it until 1994, when he resigned from the company. McAfee Associates achieved early success as the creators of McAfee, the first commercial antivirus software, and the business now produces a range of enterprise security software. The US Justice Department announced the charges shortly after the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed it had brought civil charges against McAfee, alleging that he made over $23.1 million in undisclosed compensation from recommending seven cryptocurrency offerings on Twitter that were materially false and misleading. The indictment, filed under seal in June, was unsealed following his arrest in Spain where the United States is seeking to extradite him. Mcafee posted this video in August this year and said: “Now that Ghislaine has been arrested, everyone is asking me how to avoid being collected by the authorities that might be pursuing you. Simple really — a four-step process.” Now that Ghislaine has been arrested, everyone is asking me how to avoid being collected by the authorities that might be pursuing you. Simple really -- a four step process: pic.twitter.com/NaHZnSWPrx — John McAfee (@officialmcafee) July 2, 2020 × “McAfee leveraged his fame to make more than $23.1 million in undisclosed compensation” by recommending at least seven initial coin offerings or ICOs to his Twitter followers, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said. McAfee’s recommendations were “materially false and misleading,” in that he tried to sell “virtually worthless” cryptocurrency tokens by encouraging investors to buy the securities without disclosing his own holdings, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleged. (With inputs from Reuters)

Computer anti-virus creator John McAfee arrested in Spain on US tax evasion charges

Facebook and Twitter have pledged to keep their networks safe from misinformation about the coronavirus to protect the public’s health. But Monday, the sites were tested when President Donald Trump posted that people should not be afraid of the disease.

“Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of COVID. Don’t let it dominate your life,” Trump wrote on his Facebook and Twitter pages, saying he would be discharged from the Walter Reed military hospital after being treated there for COVID-19 the last few days. “I feel better than I did 20 years ago!”

Medical experts immediately took issue with the post. More than 200,000 Americans have died from the virus, and more than 35 million cases have been reported around the world. Dr. Bob Wachter, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said Trump’s tweet was “breathtakingly callous, inhumane &amp;amp; counterproductive.” Dr. Bernard P. Chang of Columbia University’s Department of Emergency Medicine warned that people should remain afraid of the virus.

But Facebook and Twitter did nothing about Trump’s post, even though the companies have publicised their coronavirus misinformation policies.

Facebook has said it does not allow coronavirus posts that can lead to direct physical harm, and will redirect people to a COVID-19 information center. Twitter also removes only posts that contain demonstrably false information with the “highest likelihood of leading to physical harm.”

For Facebook and Twitter, these details matter. They are paying close attention to whether or not Trump is giving a specific direction or command to engage in an activity that could immediately put people in danger. When he suggested in April that experts look into whether people could inject disinfectant to fight off the coronavirus, Facebook and Twitter used the same yardstick and took no action to remove clips and posts about the unproven treatment.

Trump and his director of social media, Dan Scavino, have hewed closely to the line of what is allowed on various social media accounts over the past four years, seemingly pushing the envelope as far as possible without inciting the tech companies to take punitive action.

Facebook did not respond to a request for comment. A Twitter spokesman said the tweet did not violate the company’s rules since it did not include a clear call to action that could potentially cause real-world harm.

By Monday evening, Trump’s tweet and Facebook post on COVID-19 had been viewed by more than 1 million people across both networks. Trump later posted a video reiterating that people should not let the virus dominate their lives. “Get out there,” he said. “The vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Facebook and Twitter have pledged to keep their networks safe from misinformation about the coronavirus to protect the public’s health. But Monday, the sites were tested when President Donald Trump posted that people should not be afraid of the disease.

Facebook and Twitter have pledged to keep their networks safe from misinformation about the coronavirus to protect the public’s health. But Monday, the sites were tested when President Donald Trump posted that people should not be afraid of the disease. “Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of COVID. Don’t let it dominate your life,” Trump wrote on his Facebook and Twitter pages, saying he would be discharged from the Walter Reed military hospital after being treated there for COVID-19 the last few days. “I feel better than I did 20 years ago!” Medical experts immediately took issue with the post. More than 200,000 Americans have died from the virus, and more than 35 million cases have been reported around the world. Dr. Bob Wachter, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said Trump’s tweet was “breathtakingly callous, inhumane &amp; counterproductive.” Dr. Bernard P. Chang of Columbia University’s Department of Emergency Medicine warned that people should remain afraid of the virus. But Facebook and Twitter did nothing about Trump’s post, even though the companies have publicised their coronavirus misinformation policies. Facebook has said it does not allow coronavirus posts that can lead to direct physical harm, and will redirect people to a COVID-19 information center. Twitter also removes only posts that contain demonstrably false information with the “highest likelihood of leading to physical harm.” For Facebook and Twitter, these details matter. They are paying close attention to whether or not Trump is giving a specific direction or command to engage in an activity that could immediately put people in danger. When he suggested in April that experts look into whether people could inject disinfectant to fight off the coronavirus, Facebook and Twitter used the same yardstick and took no action to remove clips and posts about the unproven treatment. Trump and his director of social media, Dan Scavino, have hewed closely to the line of what is allowed on various social media accounts over the past four years, seemingly pushing the envelope as far as possible without inciting the tech companies to take punitive action. Facebook did not respond to a request for comment. A Twitter spokesman said the tweet did not violate the company’s rules since it did not include a clear call to action that could potentially cause real-world harm. By Monday evening, Trump’s tweet and Facebook post on COVID-19 had been viewed by more than 1 million people across both networks. Trump later posted a video reiterating that people should not let the virus dominate their lives. “Get out there,” he said. “The vaccines are coming momentarily.”

How Facebook and Twitter handled Trump’s ‘don’t be afraid of COVID’ post

Online abuse is driving girls to quit social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, with nearly 60 per cent&nbsp;experiencing harassment, a global study showed on Sunday.

One in five girls and young women has abandoned or cut down on using a social media platform after being targeted, with some saying harassment started when they were as young as eight, the survey by girls’ rights group Plan International showed.

“Girls are being silenced by a toxic level of harassment,” said the organisation’s chief executive, Anne-Birgitte Albrectsen.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-failing-women-as-online-abuse-flourishes-says-amnesty-36559">Twitter failing women as online abuse flourishes, says Amnesty</a>

Attacks were most common on Facebook, where 39 per cent&nbsp;of girls polled said they had been harassed, followed by Instagram (23 per cent), WhatsApp (14 per cent), Snapchat (10 per cent), Twitter (9 per cent) and TikTok (6 per cent).

The charity, which will share the report with social media companies and lawmakers around the world, said the abuse was suppressing girls’ voices at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic was increasing the importance of communicating online.

It called on social media companies to take urgent action to address the issue and urged governments to pass laws to deal with online harassment.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/web-is-not-working-for-women-girls-internet-founder-285988">Web is not working for women, girls: Internet founder</a>

The study found reporting tools were ineffective in stopping the abuse, which included explicit messages, pornographic photos and cyberstalking.

Nearly half of girls targeted had been threatened with physical or sexual violence, according to the poll. Many said the abuse took a mental toll, and a quarter felt physically unsafe.

“It is time for this to stop. Girls should not have to put up with behaviour online which would be criminal on the streets,” the report said.

Facebook and Instagram said they used artificial intelligence to look for bullying content, constantly monitored users’ reports of abuse and always removed rape threats.

Twitter said it also used technology to catch abusive content and has launched tools to improve users’ control over their conversations.

The survey polled 14,000 girls and young women aged 15 to 25 in 22 countries including Brazil, India, Nigeria, Spain, Thailand and the United States.

Online abuse is driving girls to quit social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, with nearly 60 per cent experiencing harassment, a global study showed on Sunday.

Online abuse is driving girls to quit social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, with nearly 60 per cent experiencing harassment, a global study showed on Sunday. One in five girls and young women has abandoned or cut down on using a social media platform after being targeted, with some saying harassment started when they were as young as eight, the survey by girls’ rights group Plan International showed. “Girls are being silenced by a toxic level of harassment,” said the organisation’s chief executive, Anne-Birgitte Albrectsen. Also read: Twitter failing women as online abuse flourishes, says Amnesty Attacks were most common on Facebook, where 39 per cent of girls polled said they had been harassed, followed by Instagram (23 per cent), WhatsApp (14 per cent), Snapchat (10 per cent), Twitter (9 per cent) and TikTok (6 per cent). The charity, which will share the report with social media companies and lawmakers around the world, said the abuse was suppressing girls’ voices at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic was increasing the importance of communicating online. It called on social media companies to take urgent action to address the issue and urged governments to pass laws to deal with online harassment. Also read: Web is not working for women, girls: Internet founder The study found reporting tools were ineffective in stopping the abuse, which included explicit messages, pornographic photos and cyberstalking. Nearly half of girls targeted had been threatened with physical or sexual violence, according to the poll. Many said the abuse took a mental toll, and a quarter felt physically unsafe. “It is time for this to stop. Girls should not have to put up with behaviour online which would be criminal on the streets,” the report said. Facebook and Instagram said they used artificial intelligence to look for bullying content, constantly monitored users’ reports of abuse and always removed rape threats. Twitter said it also used technology to catch abusive content and has launched tools to improve users’ control over their conversations. The survey polled 14,000 girls and young women aged 15 to 25 in 22 countries including Brazil, India, Nigeria, Spain, Thailand and the United States.

'Toxic': Online violence against women 'flourishing'; driving them away from social media

Facebook Inc said on Thursday it would start promoting content from public Facebook Groups in users' news feeds and in search engine results, defying calls by watchdog groups to limit algorithmic recommendations ahead of US&nbsp;elections next month.

In a blog post, Facebook app chief Fidji Simo said the company would surface recommendations in news feeds by showing "related discussions" from public groups next to a link or post. Facebook Groups are communities that form around shared interests, and public groups' posts can be viewed by any user.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/big-tech-companies-may-be-handling-data-of-hong-kong-users-to-china-331385">Also read:&nbsp;Big tech companies may be handling data of Hong Kong users to China</a>

Simo said Facebook would also start showing conversations from public groups outside the app, such as in web searches.

Facebook declined to specify when the changes would be rolled out, with a spokesman saying only that US tests would begin "in a very limited capacity" in the coming weeks.

The company, which made groups a strategic priority last year, also said it was adding new moderation tools for the more than 70 million people running those communities to help them reject posts, lead discussions and arrange paid sponsorships.

According to an internal memo seen by The Verge, the groups push this year has been a success for engagement on the Facebook app, with posts up 31.9% year over year as of August.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/expansive-study-finds-consistent-facebook-usage-linked-to-ill-being-330948">Also read:&nbsp;Expansive study finds consistent Facebook usage linked to ill-being</a>

At the same time, the company has faced a series of scandals over extremist activity within groups, including the spread of thousands of Boogaloo, QAnon and militia groups and communities promoting health misinformation.

Facebook has gradually removed some such groups and limited recommendations to others.

Its new groups push comes days after Accountable Tech and a dozen other advocacy organisations called on Facebook to pause its use of group recommendations altogether until the results of the November&nbsp;3 elections are formally certified.

The coalition accused Facebook of prioritising groups despite red flags from researchers, warning the tools have become "hidden breeding grounds for disinformation campaigns and organizing platforms for extremists."

Adam Conner, a former Facebook executive who now leads technology policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said the company's decision risked accelerating those dynamics.

"Giving content from those groups wider distribution and easier discovery is a dangerous choice right before a contentious election during a pandemic," said Conner.

Facebook Inc said on Thursday it would start promoting content from public Facebook Groups in users' news feeds and in search engine results, defying calls by watchdog groups to limit algorithmic recommendations ahead of US elections next month.

Facebook Inc said on Thursday it would start promoting content from public Facebook Groups in users' news feeds and in search engine results, defying calls by watchdog groups to limit algorithmic recommendations ahead of US elections next month. In a blog post, Facebook app chief Fidji Simo said the company would surface recommendations in news feeds by showing "related discussions" from public groups next to a link or post. Facebook Groups are communities that form around shared interests, and public groups' posts can be viewed by any user. Also read: Big tech companies may be handling data of Hong Kong users to China Simo said Facebook would also start showing conversations from public groups outside the app, such as in web searches. Facebook declined to specify when the changes would be rolled out, with a spokesman saying only that US tests would begin "in a very limited capacity" in the coming weeks. The company, which made groups a strategic priority last year, also said it was adding new moderation tools for the more than 70 million people running those communities to help them reject posts, lead discussions and arrange paid sponsorships. According to an internal memo seen by The Verge, the groups push this year has been a success for engagement on the Facebook app, with posts up 31.9% year over year as of August. Also read: Expansive study finds consistent Facebook usage linked to ill-being At the same time, the company has faced a series of scandals over extremist activity within groups, including the spread of thousands of Boogaloo, QAnon and militia groups and communities promoting health misinformation. Facebook has gradually removed some such groups and limited recommendations to others. Its new groups push comes days after Accountable Tech and a dozen other advocacy organisations called on Facebook to pause its use of group recommendations altogether until the results of the November 3 elections are formally certified. The coalition accused Facebook of prioritising groups despite red flags from researchers, warning the tools have become "hidden breeding grounds for disinformation campaigns and organizing platforms for extremists." Adam Conner, a former Facebook executive who now leads technology policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said the company's decision risked accelerating those dynamics. "Giving content from those groups wider distribution and easier discovery is a dangerous choice right before a contentious election during a pandemic," said Conner.

Facebook steps up promotion of groups content in feeds, around the web

In a major development, Google &nbsp;has decided to pay USD 1 billion to publishers globally for their news content. The payment will be made over next three years. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the new product called Google News showcase will be launch first in Germany and in Brazil.

This has marked a major step that appears to pacify news publishers around the world who have fought Google for compensation for using their content.&nbsp;

Google showcase will be rolled out in Belgium, India, Netherlands and other countries. In Germany Google has signed up with German newspapers including Der Spiegel, Stern, Die Zeit, and in Brazil with Folha de S.Paulo, Band and Infobae.

"This financial commitment - our biggest to date - will pay publishers to create and curate high-quality content for a different kind of online news experience," Pichai said in a blog post.

Google parent Alphabet reported a net profit of $34.3 billion on revenue of almost $162 billion last year. 
The product, which allows publishers to pick and present their stories, will launch on Google News on Android devices and eventually on Apple devices.

"This approach is distinct from our other news products because it leans on the editorial choices individual publishers make about which stories to show readers and how to present them," Pichai said.

German publisher the Spiegel Group welcomed the project.

"With News Showcase and the new integration of editorial content like from Spiegel, Google shows that they are serious about supporting quality journalism in Germany. We are happy to be part of it from the start," said Stefan Ottlitz, managing director of the Spiegel Group.

The European Publishers Council (EPC), whose members include News UK, the Guardian, Pearson, the New York Times and Schibsted, however, was not enthusiastic.

"By launching a product, they (Google) can dictate terms and conditions, undermine legislation designed to create conditions for a fair negotiation, while claiming they are helping to fund news production," said EPC Executive Director Angela Mills Wade.

The product builds on a licensing deal with media groups in Australia, Brazil and Germany in June, which also drew a lukewarm response from the EPC.

Google is negotiating with French publishers, among its most vocal critics, while Australia wants to force it and Facebook to share advertising revenue with local media groups.

Google`s funding for news organisations has frustrated other internet publishers, such as weather websites and recipe tools, which say Google has hurt their revenue.

(With Reuters input) 
&nbsp;

In a major development, Google has decided to pay USD 1 billion to publishers globally for their news content. The payment will be made over next three years. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the new product called Google News showcase will be launch first in Germany and in Brazil.

In a major development, Google has decided to pay USD 1 billion to publishers globally for their news content. The payment will be made over next three years. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the new product called Google News showcase will be launch first in Germany and in Brazil. This has marked a major step that appears to pacify news publishers around the world who have fought Google for compensation for using their content. Google showcase will be rolled out in Belgium, India, Netherlands and other countries. In Germany Google has signed up with German newspapers including Der Spiegel, Stern, Die Zeit, and in Brazil with Folha de S.Paulo, Band and Infobae. "This financial commitment - our biggest to date - will pay publishers to create and curate high-quality content for a different kind of online news experience," Pichai said in a blog post. Google parent Alphabet reported a net profit of $34.3 billion on revenue of almost $162 billion last year. The product, which allows publishers to pick and present their stories, will launch on Google News on Android devices and eventually on Apple devices. "This approach is distinct from our other news products because it leans on the editorial choices individual publishers make about which stories to show readers and how to present them," Pichai said. German publisher the Spiegel Group welcomed the project. "With News Showcase and the new integration of editorial content like from Spiegel, Google shows that they are serious about supporting quality journalism in Germany. We are happy to be part of it from the start," said Stefan Ottlitz, managing director of the Spiegel Group. The European Publishers Council (EPC), whose members include News UK, the Guardian, Pearson, the New York Times and Schibsted, however, was not enthusiastic. "By launching a product, they (Google) can dictate terms and conditions, undermine legislation designed to create conditions for a fair negotiation, while claiming they are helping to fund news production," said EPC Executive Director Angela Mills Wade. The product builds on a licensing deal with media groups in Australia, Brazil and Germany in June, which also drew a lukewarm response from the EPC. Google is negotiating with French publishers, among its most vocal critics, while Australia wants to force it and Facebook to share advertising revenue with local media groups. Google`s funding for news organisations has frustrated other internet publishers, such as weather websites and recipe tools, which say Google has hurt their revenue. (With Reuters input)

Google to pay USD 1 billion to news publishers for their content

Foldable phones are said to be the future of smartphones. I got my hands on one such device to understand the technology better.

The Galaxy Z Fold 2 5G is Samsung's brand-new foldable phone. I spent a day with it and in the little time that I did, here’s what I think about it.

I will start with the design. You carry it around - either folded or unfolded, and it won’t go unnoticed. It's that attractive. When it’s unfolded, it becomes a tablet. And when folded, it takes the form of a phone - pretty much the same as the first iteration, but the Galaxy Z Fold 2 comes with major improvements.

Next comes the hinge mechanism -- a major component that sets its foundation and enables it to fold and unfold. When unfolded, the crease - on which the phone actually bends - remains noticeable, but it’s much better than the original Galaxy Fold. The gap between the hinge and the display has been reduced now. As a result, it’s smooth to use.

When closed, the hinge appears covered with a catchy metal piece, and it actually adds to the premium look of the phone. Some may not like the camera bump, but I find it cool. After all, the language of design is subjective. Also, I do like the matte finish at the back.

Interestingly, both the displays come with a punch-hole camera, another improvement over the first-generation Galaxy Fold. As a result, it leaves one with a neater display and a better viewing experience.

What really concerns me on the design front is the weight. It’s a little on the heavier side. It's felt more, when the phone is closed. As one would expect, the phone appears to be thick when it’s folded.

What I would have really liked is a foldable phone that is also much slimmer. Let's hope such a device is invented soon.

On the whole, the design of the Galaxy Z Fold 2 manages to impress.

That’s about the look and feel, but how are the displays? And most importantly, do the two displays with a flexible screen actually add value to the user experience?

One can easily notice that the cover display in the Galaxy Z Fold 2 has a better viewing area than the first model -- which is good.

The two displays are pretty much in sync. So, anything opened on the cover screen seamlessly shifts to the bigger screen once you unfold it.

The split screen feature is quite interesting. It takes multitasking to a whole new level.

You can work on multiple apps on a screen - just drag the apps that you want to launch and drop. Interestingly, you can decide which app would consume how much space on the screen.

When it comes to typing on the big screen, the keyboard spreads across in such a way that it becomes easy to type.

The Flex mode is another highlight of the phone. It allows you to fold and keep the phone at any angle, which means you can enjoy watching videos easily. It also makes video conferencing easier.

I am not sure about how many apps have been optimised for the Flex mode right now.

The display is bright and produces vibrant colours, but it easily catches fingerprint marks. It would be too early to say anything about the display’s durability.

Both the front and rear cameras appear to be promising. They capture detailed photos with lifelike colours. I will be able to comment more on the cameras once I get to use the phone for a longer period.

The speaker delivers a big loud sound. I can’t say much about the battery performance as of now because I've only used it for a day, but what I do realise is that it takes around 1 hour to charge from 13 per cent to 50 per cent.

I didn't face any lag or heating issues in the time I used the phone, but a detailed review of the phone will help me come out with a clear verdict.

The new foldable phone comes with major improvements over its predecessor, but does it justify the price tag of INR 1.5 lakh? I will comment on that when I get to use the phone for an extensive period.

But, for now, all I can say is that foldable phones are getting better and I can’t wait for them to go mainstream.

Foldable phones are said to be the future of smartphones. I got my hands on one such device to understand the technology better. The Galaxy Z Fold 2 5G is Samsung's brand-new foldable phone.

Foldable phones are said to be the future of smartphones. I got my hands on one such device to understand the technology better. The Galaxy Z Fold 2 5G is Samsung's brand-new foldable phone. I spent a day with it and in the little time that I did, here’s what I think about it. I will start with the design. You carry it around - either folded or unfolded, and it won’t go unnoticed. It's that attractive. When it’s unfolded, it becomes a tablet. And when folded, it takes the form of a phone - pretty much the same as the first iteration, but the Galaxy Z Fold 2 comes with major improvements. Next comes the hinge mechanism -- a major component that sets its foundation and enables it to fold and unfold. When unfolded, the crease - on which the phone actually bends - remains noticeable, but it’s much better than the original Galaxy Fold. The gap between the hinge and the display has been reduced now. As a result, it’s smooth to use. When closed, the hinge appears covered with a catchy metal piece, and it actually adds to the premium look of the phone. Some may not like the camera bump, but I find it cool. After all, the language of design is subjective. Also, I do like the matte finish at the back. Interestingly, both the displays come with a punch-hole camera, another improvement over the first-generation Galaxy Fold. As a result, it leaves one with a neater display and a better viewing experience. What really concerns me on the design front is the weight. It’s a little on the heavier side. It's felt more, when the phone is closed. As one would expect, the phone appears to be thick when it’s folded. What I would have really liked is a foldable phone that is also much slimmer. Let's hope such a device is invented soon. On the whole, the design of the Galaxy Z Fold 2 manages to impress. That’s about the look and feel, but how are the displays? And most importantly, do the two displays with a flexible screen actually add value to the user experience? One can easily notice that the cover display in the Galaxy Z Fold 2 has a better viewing area than the first model -- which is good. The two displays are pretty much in sync. So, anything opened on the cover screen seamlessly shifts to the bigger screen once you unfold it. The split screen feature is quite interesting. It takes multitasking to a whole new level. You can work on multiple apps on a screen - just drag the apps that you want to launch and drop. Interestingly, you can decide which app would consume how much space on the screen. When it comes to typing on the big screen, the keyboard spreads across in such a way that it becomes easy to type. The Flex mode is another highlight of the phone. It allows you to fold and keep the phone at any angle, which means you can enjoy watching videos easily. It also makes video conferencing easier. I am not sure about how many apps have been optimised for the Flex mode right now. The display is bright and produces vibrant colours, but it easily catches fingerprint marks. It would be too early to say anything about the display’s durability. Both the front and rear cameras appear to be promising. They capture detailed photos with lifelike colours. I will be able to comment more on the cameras once I get to use the phone for a longer period. The speaker delivers a big loud sound. I can’t say much about the battery performance as of now because I've only used it for a day, but what I do realise is that it takes around 1 hour to charge from 13 per cent to 50 per cent. I didn't face any lag or heating issues in the time I used the phone, but a detailed review of the phone will help me come out with a clear verdict. The new foldable phone comes with major improvements over its predecessor, but does it justify the price tag of INR 1.5 lakh? I will comment on that when I get to use the phone for an extensive period. But, for now, all I can say is that foldable phones are getting better and I can’t wait for them to go mainstream.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 2: First impressions of the foldable phone

Big tech firms may be complying to China's confidential&nbsp;requests and handling the data of Hong Kong users to the autocratic country, as per a senior US state department official.

The allegation of cooperation between Hong Kong authorities and major technology company comes after China passed a controversial security law in Hong Kong according to which authorities can demand user sensitive data and threaten action if their request is denied.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-google-twitter-block-hong-kong-govt-from-accessing-user-data-311243">Facebook, Google, Twitter block Hong Kong govt from accessing user data</a>

“There is a possibility that things are happening but because of the restrictions put on by the Hong Kong authorities, they [companies] would not be able to divulge this,” the state department official said.

US tech giants face a reckoning over how Hong Kong's security law will reshape their businesses, with their suspension of processing government requests for user data a stop-gap measure as they weigh options, people close to the industry say.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/hong-kong-google-facebook-and-twitter-resist-sharing-of-data-311313/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

While Hong Kong is not a significant market for firms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter, they have used it as a perch to reach deep-pocketed advertisers in mainland China, where many of their services are blocked.

But the companies are now in the crosshairs of a national security law that gives China authority to demand that they turn over user data or censor content seen to violate the law - even when posted from abroad.

“As we would with any new legislation, we are reviewing the new law to understand its implications. In the past, we’ve typically received only a relatively small number of requests from Hong Kong authorities, but we are pausing our responses to these requests as we conduct our review,” software and application developer Microsoft said in a statement.

"These companies have to totally reassess the liability of having a presence in Hong Kong," Charles Mok, a legislator who represents the technology industry in Hong Kong said.

If they refuse to cooperate with government requests, he said, authorities "could go after them and take them to court and fine them, or imprison their principals in Hong Kong".

The US internet firms are no strangers to governments demands regarding content and user information, and generally say they are bound by local laws.

The companies have often used a technique known as "geo-blocking" to restrict content in a particular country without removing it altogether.

But the sweeping language of Hong Kong's new law could mean such measures won't be enough. Authorities will no longer need to get court orders before requesting assistance or information, analysts said.

Big tech firms may be complying to China's confidential requests and handling the data of Hong Kong users to the autocratic country, as per a senior US state department official.

Big tech firms may be complying to China's confidential requests and handling the data of Hong Kong users to the autocratic country, as per a senior US state department official. The allegation of cooperation between Hong Kong authorities and major technology company comes after China passed a controversial security law in Hong Kong according to which authorities can demand user sensitive data and threaten action if their request is denied. Also read: Facebook, Google, Twitter block Hong Kong govt from accessing user data “There is a possibility that things are happening but because of the restrictions put on by the Hong Kong authorities, they [companies] would not be able to divulge this,” the state department official said. US tech giants face a reckoning over how Hong Kong's security law will reshape their businesses, with their suspension of processing government requests for user data a stop-gap measure as they weigh options, people close to the industry say. While Hong Kong is not a significant market for firms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter, they have used it as a perch to reach deep-pocketed advertisers in mainland China, where many of their services are blocked. But the companies are now in the crosshairs of a national security law that gives China authority to demand that they turn over user data or censor content seen to violate the law - even when posted from abroad. “As we would with any new legislation, we are reviewing the new law to understand its implications. In the past, we’ve typically received only a relatively small number of requests from Hong Kong authorities, but we are pausing our responses to these requests as we conduct our review,” software and application developer Microsoft said in a statement. "These companies have to totally reassess the liability of having a presence in Hong Kong," Charles Mok, a legislator who represents the technology industry in Hong Kong said. If they refuse to cooperate with government requests, he said, authorities "could go after them and take them to court and fine them, or imprison their principals in Hong Kong". The US internet firms are no strangers to governments demands regarding content and user information, and generally say they are bound by local laws. The companies have often used a technique known as "geo-blocking" to restrict content in a particular country without removing it altogether. But the sweeping language of Hong Kong's new law could mean such measures won't be enough. Authorities will no longer need to get court orders before requesting assistance or information, analysts said.

Big tech companies may be handling data of Hong Kong users to China

Microsoft&nbsp;Corp said on&nbsp;Monday that&nbsp;multiple&nbsp;Microsoft&nbsp;365 services, including Outlook.com and&nbsp;Microsoft&nbsp;Teams&nbsp;and other online services experience outage due to&nbsp;a recent change it introduced.

The outages were confirmed by an official spokesman and Downdetector which aggregates user reports of issues.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
User reports indicate Office 365 is having problems since 5:33 PM EDT. <a href="https://t.co/xVELvgTStJ">https://t.co/xVELvgTStJ</a> RT if you're also having problems <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Office365down?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Office365down</a>
— Downdetector (@downdetector) <a href="https://twitter.com/downdetector/status/1310694067735584768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 28, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

While&nbsp;Teams is a collobaoration tool that integrates with Office 365, Microsoft Word, Powerpoint and Excel are other online subcriptions the tech giant offers.

The developer of Windows and Office software said it did not "observe an increase in successful connections" even after it rolled back the change to mitigate the impact.

"A moment ago nothing was working, then I went into files in Teams and it was working, now nothing is working. Well I guess now I have an excuse to not do work and watch TV," one Twitter user tweeted.

"We're pursuing mitigation steps for this issue. In parallel, we're rerouting traffic to alternate systems to provide further relief to the affected users,"&nbsp;Microsoft&nbsp;said on its status page, without specifying how many users were affected.

Several other Twitter users complained that the outage meant they could miss their job interviews and deadline for college assignments.

The Xbox maker also said https://bit.ly/339pRgI they were working to evaluate other solutions while they investigate the root cause of the outage.

Microsoft Corp said on Monday that multiple Microsoft 365 services, including Outlook.com and Microsoft Teams and other online services experience outage due to a recent change it introduced.

Microsoft Corp said on Monday that multiple Microsoft 365 services, including Outlook.com and Microsoft Teams and other online services experience outage due to a recent change it introduced. The outages were confirmed by an official spokesman and Downdetector which aggregates user reports of issues. User reports indicate Office 365 is having problems since 5:33 PM EDT. https://t.co/xVELvgTStJ RT if you're also having problems #Office365down — Downdetector (@downdetector) September 28, 2020 × While Teams is a collobaoration tool that integrates with Office 365, Microsoft Word, Powerpoint and Excel are other online subcriptions the tech giant offers. The developer of Windows and Office software said it did not "observe an increase in successful connections" even after it rolled back the change to mitigate the impact. "A moment ago nothing was working, then I went into files in Teams and it was working, now nothing is working. Well I guess now I have an excuse to not do work and watch TV," one Twitter user tweeted. "We're pursuing mitigation steps for this issue. In parallel, we're rerouting traffic to alternate systems to provide further relief to the affected users," Microsoft said on its status page, without specifying how many users were affected. Several other Twitter users complained that the outage meant they could miss their job interviews and deadline for college assignments. The Xbox maker also said https://bit.ly/339pRgI they were working to evaluate other solutions while they investigate the root cause of the outage.

Microsoft Office 365, Teams and other online services experience outage

technology

Technology, News on Technology, stories on Technology, articles on Technology, Technology stories at Wion, Technology news, Technology latest news