A bold expansion into the Gulf

OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, is reportedly helping to develop one of the largest AI data centre campuses on the planet, a 10 square mile megaproject in Abu Dhabi that could eventually outsize the entire nation of Monaco.

The plans, first reported by Bloomberg, describe a 5 gigawatt facility that would draw as much power as five nuclear reactors and become a key node in OpenAI’s growing Stargate infrastructure programme. The UAE site is being built in partnership with G42, a powerful Abu Dhabi based tech group chaired by the country’s national security advisor, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Sources familiar with the project say OpenAI would act as one of the primary anchor tenants, though final details are still being worked out. If confirmed, it would mark OpenAI’s largest international infrastructure commitment to date, and one that dramatically raises the stakes in the global race for AI compute power.

Why Abu Dhabi?

For OpenAI, the UAE offers more than just open desert and deep pockets. The region has become a key strategic ally in the US led effort to expand AI capacity without ceding ground to China.

Abu Dhabi, in particular, has poured billions into tech development through sovereign funds and national champions like G42 and MGX. In return, it has sought deeper technological integration with major US firms, a goal reinforced during President Trump’s recent Middle East visit, where AI cooperation featured prominently on the agenda.

In fact, this new data centre forms part of a wider bilateral framework signed in May between the US and UAE to accelerate AI deployment across the Gulf. The accord could include the sale of over a million high end Nvidia chips to the UAE, a move intended to counter Beijing’s influence in the region.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has long praised the UAE’s ambition. For example, speaking in Abu Dhabi last year, he said the country “has been talking about AI since before it was cool.” His company’s relationship with G42 dates back to 2023, when the two announced a regional partnership to promote AI adoption across the Middle East.

The global AI infrastructure play

The Abu Dhabi build looks like being the most ambitious element yet in OpenAI’s “Stargate” initiative: a joint venture with SoftBank and Oracle aimed at rolling out hyperscale AI infrastructure around the globe. The programme is expected to channel up to $500 billion into global projects over the next four years.

OpenAI’s first Stargate campus is already under construction in Abilene, Texas. That site is expected to reach 1.2 gigawatts, making the planned Abu Dhabi facility more than four times larger. For context, Microsoft’s largest data centres currently consume less than 1 gigawatt.

It’s been reported that each site will serve as a supercharged AI hub, equipped with high density computing clusters and the latest generation of Nvidia and AMD chips. These are designed to handle the massive workloads required for training and deploying next gen language models, vision systems and multimodal tools.

According to OpenAI, demand for compute is growing faster than chipmakers can supply. Speaking earlier this year, Altman warned that “AI progress will soon be bottlenecked not by algorithmic innovation, but by energy and silicon.” It seems, therefore, that Stargate is OpenAI’s attempt to remove that bottleneck.

Power, partnerships and politics

The scale of the Abu Dhabi site is breathtaking. At full capacity, it would:

• Span over 10 square miles, which is larger than many cities and territories, including Monaco at 0.78 square miles.
• Consume 5 gigawatts of power, which is equal to around five large nuclear plants or roughly the output of the UK’s Hinkley Point C, when complete.
• House an ecosystem of tenants such as OpenAI, Oracle and others, although names have not yet been disclosed.

Oracle, which has been expanding its cloud footprint aggressively to support AI workloads, is reportedly involved in developing the first phase of the campus. Microsoft, OpenAI’s biggest backer, is also entangled via its recent $1.5 billion investment in G42. Microsoft President Brad Smith has since joined the G42 board.

Complex politics

The politics behind these partnerships is complex. G42’s historical ties to Chinese firms, including Huawei and the Beijing Genomics Institute, have caused alarm in Washington. In 2023, US lawmakers warned that such links could enable Chinese access to sensitive American tech via the back door.

Under pressure, G42 has since claimed to have exited all China related investments and operations. CEO Peng Xiao said to Bloomberg in January: “All of our China investments that were previously made are already divested. Because of that, we have no need anymore for any physical China presence.”

That change appears to have helped pave the way for closer US-UAE collaboration. That said, it seems that not everyone in Washington is convinced the threat has vanished. For example, some Trump administration officials are said to be uneasy about the symbolic and strategic risks of moving advanced AI infrastructure offshore, particularly to a region still watched closely by Chinese and Russian intelligence services.

Changing the AI landscape?

If built as planned, the Abu Dhabi super campus would not only change the geography of AI infrastructure, but could reshape how companies access and deploy AI globally.

For OpenAI’s users, especially enterprise clients, the move signals two big trends:

• More global redundancy and resilience. Spreading infrastructure across continents could make OpenAI services more stable, scalable, and compliant with local regulations, including data residency requirements.
• Faster innovation cycles. With massive compute on tap, OpenAI can continue training ever larger models, rolling out more powerful tools for business, research, and defence applications.

At the same time, the project highlights the deepening alliances between Big Tech and geopolitical power blocs. As AI becomes a strategic asset akin to oil or semiconductors, access to compute may increasingly shape who leads and who lags in the next digital revolution.

A new benchmark

For OpenAI’s rivals like Google DeepMind, Anthropic and Meta, the Abu Dhabi development looks like setting a new benchmark. Few others have announced anything on this scale. It also raises questions about whether public cloud infrastructure alone will be sufficient to keep pace, or if more firms will start investing in their own AI megastructures.

Environmental and other concerns

Despite the hype around the scale and the promise of the project, it also raises tough questions about energy use, environmental impact, export controls and the ethics of building frontier AI infrastructure in politically sensitive regions. These tensions are unlikely to go away anytime soon.

What does this mean for your business?

OpenAI’s reported potential leap into Abu Dhabi is more than just a headline grabbing land grab or another tech tie up. In fact, it appears to mark a pretty decisive moment in the evolution of AI infrastructure: where geography, politics, and compute capacity intersect on a global stage. If the deal goes ahead as anticipated, the Middle East may soon host the world’s largest AI campus, symbolising not just technical ambition but also a fundamental shift in where the power behind AI is physically rooted.

For OpenAI, the project signals a pragmatic move to secure the raw energy and silicon resources needed to train future generations of frontier models. The scale of the proposed facility underlines just how central compute has become to AI’s progress, and just how willing firms are to chase that capacity beyond their traditional home markets. Yet that ambition comes at a cost. The growing proximity between powerful AI companies and state linked partners in geopolitically complex regions raises real questions about governance, transparency, and the safe stewardship of cutting edge technologies.

UK businesses watching this from afar may be in two minds about its benefits. On the one hand, expanded infrastructure could eventually translate into more stable, powerful AI services, and potentially lower costs as scale economies kick in. For sectors already adopting generative AI at pace, such as finance, marketing, logistics and law, that’s a tantalising prospect. However, it also reinforces the extent to which global supply chains, regulatory alignments and geopolitical tensions now play an invisible but important role in the tools UK firms depend on.

Likewise, for policymakers, the Abu Dhabi campus could serve as a reminder of how fast the AI ecosystem is becoming a transnational infrastructure issue, one that affects everything from energy use and international trade to national security and data protection. The decisions being made in Abu Dhabi, San Francisco or Washington are no longer abstract for UK stakeholders, but they shape the very foundations of how AI is accessed and governed globally.

In the end, the success or failure of this move may depend as much on diplomacy and ethics as on architecture and engineering. Although the vision is immense, so too are the risks. Whether this data centre becomes a beacon of innovation or a lightning rod for criticism will depend on how carefully all those involved, OpenAI, G42, Oracle and the governments behind them, navigate the road ahead.

The post OpenAI New ‘Super Campus’ Could Be Bigger Than Monaco appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

Forced AI integration leaves users fuming

Meta AI, a chatbot integrated into WhatsApp, is being promoted as a virtual assistant that can answer questions and spark ideas, but its uninvited arrival has triggered an outcry. The feature is currently being rolled out in the UK and other countries, where it appears as a glowing blue circle in the search bar or activates when users type “@Meta AI” in chats or groups.

While Meta describes it as a helpful tool powered by its Llama language models, users have taken to social media to voice their frustration. For example, one X user compared the experience to “getting a clingy new roommate”, while another branded it “the most pointless and irritating AI integration into an app so far”. Others said they were switching platforms entirely because of Meta AI.

No off switch and no clear explanation

A key frustration appears to be the inability to opt out. Meta has not provided any settings to turn the feature off or hide it, and it hasn’t addressed why users weren’t given the choice. For many, the lack of transparency and consent is as troubling as the AI itself.

It’s been reported that some users have tried switching to WhatsApp Business to avoid the chatbot, and while some appear to have been successful, others have said the blue circle still appears. This inconsistency has also added to the confusion, and Meta has yet to confirm whether WhatsApp Business will remain AI free.

Other platforms too

It seems this isn’t an isolated experiment. For example, Meta AI is being pushed across multiple platforms including Facebook and Instagram, as part of Meta’s wider vision to integrate generative AI into everyday digital interactions. In the UK, it first appeared in Facebook Messenger in late 2024 and is now slowly extending into WhatsApp.

Some users say it’s unhelpful and intrusive

Beyond the issue of consent, it seems that many simply don’t find Meta AI useful. The chatbot often triggers when users are trying to search for chats or contacts, getting in the way rather than helping. This has left some disgruntled users describing it as “overkill” while others have expressed frustration about being perfectly capable of writing their own messages and not needing AI to write for them.

There also appears to be some scepticism over the chatbot’s actual utility. For example, early testers have reported that the responses are basic, repetitive, and in some cases completely irrelevant. Also, unlike standalone tools like ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini, Meta AI appears hardwired into an app many people use for private and professional communication.

Implications

For businesses that rely on WhatsApp, including customer service teams, delivery firms, and sole traders, the sudden appearance of an unremovable chatbot could create real problems. For example, if a customer sees the AI button and assumes it’s part of the company’s service, they might expect human responses that never arrive. Similarly, internal teams using WhatsApp for logistics or support may be distracted by or accidentally trigger the feature.

The bigger concern, though, may be around trust. For example, businesses increasingly choose platforms based on reliability, privacy, and user control. By pushing AI into WhatsApp without consent or clear controls, Meta perhaps risks undermining that trust, especially among SMEs and regulated industries where transparency and data protection matter.

What does this mean for your business?

If your business uses WhatsApp to communicate with customers or colleagues, now’s the time to take a closer look at how Meta AI could impact your workflows. The feature might not seem disruptive at first glance, but confusion, miscommunication, or reputational damage could follow if customers or employees don’t understand how it works, or who’s really responding.

Meta’s AI push may be part of a long term strategy to embed generative tools across its ecosystem, but this backlash shows that users expect more control over how and when they engage with AI. For now, switching to WhatsApp Business might delay the issue but it’s unlikely to be a permanent fix.

In the longer term, this controversy highlights a bigger shift in how users relate to everyday platforms. AI might be coming whether we like it or not but the question is whether companies like Meta will give us a say in how it’s deployed and used.

The post Backlash Over New WhatsApp AI Intrusion appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

More built in restrictions for younger teens

Meta’s Teen Accounts are getting tougher. Originally launched in September 2024 for Instagram, these accounts are designed to give 13 to 15 year olds a more protected experience by default. Now, new restrictions are being layered on top, and the whole setup is expanding to Facebook and Messenger for the first time.

Teen Accounts come with a suite of safety first settings, for example private profiles, stricter content filters, overnight notification pauses and limited messaging capabilities. Teens can’t be messaged by strangers, and they get reminders to step away from the app after an hour. So far, Meta says the changes have been well received, with a reported 97% of younger teens sticking to the default restrictions.

However, with growing pressure from regulators, charities and concerned parents, Meta says it’s now raising the bar even further.

Stricter limits on live streaming and messages

The biggest headline change is that teens under 16 will now need a parent’s permission to go live on Instagram. Meta says this is in response to widespread concerns from parents about the risks of strangers watching or contacting their children in real time.

There’s also a clampdown on direct messages. For example, Instagram’s existing tool to blur suspected nude images in DMs will remain on by default, and teens under 16 won’t be able to turn it off without a parent’s sign off.

These updates are due to roll out in the coming months. According to Meta, the aim is to “give parents more peace of mind across Meta apps” and strengthen the platform’s age appropriate protections.

Coming to Facebook and Messenger

Until now, Teen Accounts were exclusive to Instagram but, from this week, it seems that Facebook and Messenger will be joining the club. Teen users in the UK, US, Australia and Canada will be automatically moved into Teen Accounts, with more countries to follow soon. Much like Instagram, the Facebook and Messenger versions will restrict who can interact with young users, limit what kind of content they see, and introduce features to encourage healthy screen time habits.

Mock up screenshots released by Meta show Facebook users receiving alerts that their account will soon become a Teen Account, along with messaging prompts like “Soon your settings will be updated automatically to protect you from unwanted contact.”

This shift is part of Meta’s broader attempt to create a consistent safety experience across its ecosystem, but it also hints at a more strategic goal: heading off regulation by acting before governments step in.

Regulation, reputation and parental pressure

This latest move by Meta is motivated by a mix of factors, the main ones being:

• Public and political scrutiny intensifying. For example, in the UK, the Online Safety Act now legally requires platforms to prevent children from encountering harmful and illegal content. Failing to do so could land companies like Meta with serious consequences from Ofcom, which now holds enforcement powers.
• Meta has faced reputational damage for years over teen safety, from whistleblower claims about Instagram’s impact on teenage mental health to reports of underage users being served inappropriate content by the algorithm.
• Meta appears to be really listening to parents. A recent Ipsos survey commissioned by the company found that 94% of US parents believe Teen Accounts are helpful. The company says these accounts were created “with parents in mind,” and the latest changes respond to their most common worries, particularly around unwanted contact and exposure to sensitive content.

Critics say it’s not enough or still too vague

Despite the PR friendly messaging, not everyone is convinced. For example, campaigners have argued that Meta still hasn’t proven whether Teen Accounts are actually making a difference. Some have commented on the apparent silence from Mark Zuckerberg about the effectiveness of Teen Accounts and have questioned whether teens are still being algorithmically recommended harmful content, something Meta hasn’t publicly clarified.

Matthew Sowemimo, head of child safety policy at the NSPCC, has welcomed the new measures but stressed that they must be paired with proactive content moderation. In his words, “dangerous content shouldn’t be there in the first place.”

There are also some concerns about enforcement. For example, Teen Accounts depend heavily on users being honest about their age, but Ofcom research suggests 22% of 8 to 17 year olds claim to be over 18 on social media platforms. Meta has said it’s working on that, using AI tools and video selfies to better verify age, but even that raises its own ethical questions.

Some other critics have argued that Meta should take more responsibility anyway for its data driven commercialised practices, which essentially control young users’ experiences on Meta’s social platforms.

What are other platforms doing?

Meta isn’t alone in having to respond to several sources of pressure on this issue. Examples of other platforms taking similar measures, for similar reasons, include:

• Online platform for creating and playing user generated games, Roblox, has recently introduced new parental controls that allow parents to block individual games or experiences.
• YouTube and TikTok have both added time limits and privacy defaults for teen users, though their approaches differ in terms of enforcement and transparency.

That said, it seems that too few platforms have rolled out something as broad as Teen Accounts across multiple services. This move could represent a kind of rebalancing in the social media landscape, where platforms are now vying to be seen as the safest environment for young users, not just the most addictive. However, questions remain over how effectively any system can block determined teens from sidestepping restrictions.

What this means for parents, platforms and the public

The expansion of Teen Accounts appears to be a signal that Meta is taking the issue of online safety more seriously, or at least wants to be seen as doing so.

For parents, it offers a more unified, manageable set of controls across Instagram, Facebook and Messenger. For regulators, it may buy Meta some goodwill, though it doesn’t exempt the company from scrutiny. Also, for competitors, it may set a new benchmark in platform wide teen protections.

That said, as with all digital safety initiatives, the effectiveness will depend on execution, transparency, and the company’s willingness to be held accountable. Some may say that whether this is a genuine shift or just another layer of corporate risk management remains to be seen.

What does this mean for your business?

For a company often accused of doing too little, too late, this multi app expansion suggests a more joined up approach to protecting younger users. However, it also highlights the growing complexities in balancing child safety with platform growth, user freedom, and commercial goals.

The scale and scope of the changes, from parental controls on live streaming to AI led age verification, appear to indicate that Meta is serious about creating a more ring fenced space for teens. However, it remains to be seen whether these technical safeguards will hold up in practice. After all, digital workarounds are nothing new for today’s tech savvy teenagers, and critics are right to question the real world impact without full transparency on outcomes and data.

UK businesses in the digital and tech space should be paying close attention. As regulations like the Online Safety Act continue to tighten, the onus on companies to demonstrate proactive, meaningful protections will only increase. Platforms offering youth focused content or services may now face growing pressure to match, or even exceed, what Meta is implementing. For agencies and developers, this could mean rethinking how parental consent, privacy defaults and content moderation are built into products from day one, and not just bolted on later.

Meanwhile, parents may feel some relief from the growing consistency across Meta’s apps, but they shouldn’t be left holding the reins alone. As experts have pointed out, it’s not enough for tech firms to hand families the tools: they also need to take responsibility for the ecosystem they’ve built, including the algorithms and engagement models that still shape user experiences behind the scenes.

It seems, therefore, that the introduction of stricter Teen Account controls is a step in the right direction, but whether it sets a new gold standard or simply buys Meta more breathing room will depend on what comes next. For now, the move raises the bar, but also the questions.

The post Meta Tightens Teen Safety Rules appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

Why?

As data processing and storage requirements increase, data centres must handle increasingly complex AI workloads, pushing their energy and cooling demands ever higher. Amazon Web Services (AWS), like other operators, has set ambitious carbon reduction targets, but purchasing offsets can be costly and less transparent. In a new move, partnering with Orbital and integrating a new carbon removal material at an AWS data centre by 2025, the company is aiming to directly remove more CO₂ from its airflow than it produces, potentially at a lower cost than traditional offsets. It’s hoped that this approach will not only help AWS meet its sustainability commitments but also address the escalating operational and environmental pressures driving these changes.

Who is Orbital and what is the AWS deal?

Orbital, launched at the end of 2022 and led by CEO Jonathan Godwin, operates from facilities in Princeton, New Jersey and London. The start up uses an AI driven platform to rapidly discover and test advanced materials for climate focused solutions. In a lab, this work would traditionally take years. According to Amazon’s website, since establishing its research and development lab in early 2024, Orbital has seen a tenfold improvement in its carbon removal material’s performance, highlighting the revolutionary potential of AI driven materials discovery.

Through its multi year partnership with AWS, Orbital will supply a carbon removal material for integration at an AWS data centre by 2025. The goal is to capture more CO₂ than the facility emits, helping AWS meet its carbon reduction targets and potentially offering a more cost effective, transparent alternative to traditional offsets.

Carbon Removal at the Source

The principal idea behind the AWS Orbital collaboration is to use data centres themselves as a platform for direct carbon capture. Data centres rely on vast, sophisticated cooling systems to maintain the optimal temperatures required by the thousands of servers inside. These cooling systems constantly circulate large volumes of air, providing an excellent opportunity to integrate a carbon removal material that can filter out CO₂ molecules as they flow through.

How Does Orbital’s Carbon Removal Material Work?

Orbital’s CEO, Jonathan Godwin, recently explained the nature of the advanced carbon removing material it produces, describing it as “like a sponge at the atomic level”. The material’s tiny cavities are sized to interact specifically with CO₂, thereby allowing it to trap the gas while letting other, less harmful components of the air pass freely. By 2025, AWS plans to pilot this cutting edge carbon removal technology in one of its data centres, testing its scalability and real world performance.

A More Cost Effective Alternative

While some operators resort to carbon offsets to reduce their net emissions, these can be expensive and often involve complex verification processes. By capturing carbon directly from the air at the source, data centres could theoretically bypass intermediaries and reduce their reliance on offset markets. According to Jonathan Godwin, the added cost of incorporating Orbital’s carbon removal material amounts to roughly 10% of the hourly charge of renting a GPU chip for AI training, significantly less than the price of most carbon offsets. This cost effectiveness could make the proposition commercially attractive, helping data centre operators improve their environmental performance without eroding their bottom line.

Efficiency and Water Usage

While reducing CO₂ emissions is a crucial goal, the AWS Orbital partnership also aims to tackle other environmental challenges associated with large scale computing infrastructure. Data centres are thirsty operations, requiring huge amounts of water to maintain their cooling systems. Therefore, the ability to integrate more efficient, high performance materials into cooling processes could lead to reductions in both energy and water consumption.

Speaking about the partnership on the Amazon website, Orbital’s CEO Jonathan Godwin said, “Our partnership with AWS will accelerate the deployment of our advanced technologies for data centre decarbonisation and efficiency. Working with the market-leading AWS team will accelerate our development of products in cooling, water utilisation, and carbon removal.” In a similar vein, Howard Gefen, General Manager of AWS Energy & Utilities, stated, “AWS looks forward to collaborating with Orbital and their mission to drive data centre decarbonisation and efficiency.”

By designing materials that can capture carbon, improve cooling efficiency, and potentially reduce water consumption, Orbital’s platform looks as though it could open new pathways for sustainable data centre operations. The success of these early trials could lead the way to more widespread adoption of such materials throughout the data centre industry.

Technical and Logistical Challenges

Of course, the introduction of any new technology brings its own challenges. For example, trying to integrate an advanced filtration material into a complex data centre cooling system will alter airflow characteristics. Although this change could increase the workload on existing fans and pumps, Orbital believes the net effect will be positive. Also, the slightly higher energy required for pumping air through the new filters should be more than compensated for by the benefits of lower emissions and improved resource efficiency.

Another pressing consideration is handling the captured CO₂. Once the gas is isolated from the airstream, what then? While specific details of exactly how the carbon will be stored or reused are currently not being made clear, the partners will, no doubt, need robust protocols for managing the extracted greenhouse gases sustainably. Ensuring safe, long term storage or practical utilisation of this captured carbon is likely to be key to the project’s overall success.

Not The Only One Involved In Data Centre Carbon Capture

It should be noted here that Orbital is not alone in pursuing on-site carbon capture in data centres. For example, other tech giants such as Alphabet (Google) and Meta have filed patents related to similar concepts, and start ups like 280 Earth are also working on solutions to tackle data centre emissions at source. However, what appears to distinguish Orbital’s approach is its ability to move fast and iterate quickly. By using generative AI to design and test materials virtually, Orbital can arrive at promising formulations far faster than traditional lab based methods.

This accelerated materials discovery process looks like giving Orbital a potential edge in developing specialised compounds. For example, its carbon removal material is tailored to work effectively with hot, CO₂ laden air exiting data centre servers. Rather than building a generic carbon filter, Orbital can produce optimised materials that function well under real world operational conditions.

Wider Applications and Open Access to AI Models

Beyond this single pilot project, Orbital’s technology could also have a much broader impact. For example, the start up plans to make its open source AI model ‘Orb’ available to AWS customers via Amazon SageMaker JumpStart and AWS Marketplace. This means that other companies tackling their own materials and climate challenges, whether in semiconductors, batteries, or electronics, will soon have a powerful new tool at their disposal.

Such accessibility is critical. Orbital’s AI driven approach, therefore, does not appear to just offer one clever solution to a pressing sustainability issue, but could represent a new methodology for discovering and optimising advanced materials. By making these capabilities available in the cloud, Orbital and AWS hope to democratise materials R&D, thereby, hopefully, empowering a wider range of enterprises to contribute to sustainability driven innovation.

Keeping Pace with Sustainability Targets

The urgency driving projects also comes from the large technology companies having pledged to reach net zero carbon emissions within the coming decades. Yet as AI models grow more complex, requiring ever more computational power, energy usage soars. Without new interventions, these data centres risk undermining carefully set climate targets.

AWS, as the world’s largest cloud computing provider by revenue, is under particular scrutiny. Millions of customers rely on its infrastructure, and sustainability commitments have become a point of competitive differentiation. By embracing on site carbon capture and making advanced materials more accessible, AWS is banking on not only working to meet its own targets but potentially setting a precedent that others in the industry may follow.

Potential Ripple Effects Across the Sector

If the AWS pilot proves successful, it could catalyse a wave of adoption in data centres across the globe. On site carbon capture may offer a more transparent and reliable way of verifying emissions reductions than conventional offsets. It might even allow data centre operators to generate their own carbon credits by capturing more CO₂ than they produce, thereby transforming a cost centre into a revenue stream.

Such a shift would, however, require careful economic, regulatory, and environmental considerations. For now, the AWS Orbital initiative is a test, albeit part of a “multi-year” commitment, but one that carries high stakes and considerable promise. This early pilot could be said to represent a proactive step towards embedding sustainability at the heart of AI driven infrastructure and an opportunity to ensure that the digital revolution does not come at an unacceptable environmental cost.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

In many ways, the AWS Orbital pilot project encapsulates the evolving relationship between digital infrastructure and the urgent need to address our environmental responsibilities. By attempting to capture carbon on site rather than relying solely on offsets, AWS is exploring a pathway that could be more transparent, cost effective, and efficient. Orbital’s rapid, AI driven approach to materials discovery highlights a significant shift in how quickly breakthroughs can be achieved, and the involvement of AWS, arguably one of the most influential players in the sector, puts added weight behind this experimentation.

However, the path forward is not going to be without its hurdles. For example, integrating new materials into data centres, ensuring that carbon can be meaningfully stored or reused, and consistently meeting demanding performance standards will all require careful planning and meticulous execution. Also, the costs, although promising at present, are likely to evolve alongside technological improvements and market conditions, meaning that careful economic analysis will remain crucial.

Beyond this specific partnership, due to last an unspecified but probably small number of years, it suggests that the integration of advanced materials and AI driven R&D could help carve out a more sustainable future for data centres worldwide.

The post Carbon Removal Material Trialled In Data Centre appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

Understanding the Legislation

This decision to reject TikTok’s appeal against the original decision of the court intensifies the ongoing debate over national security concerns and the influence of foreign owned applications on American users.

What Law?

The law in question, known as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), was signed into law by President Joe Biden on 24th April 2024. PAFACA aims to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing sensitive data of US citizens through software applications under their control. Specifically, it requires companies like ByteDance to either divest their ownership in applications operating within the United States or cease operations entirely.

The legislation actually identifies ByteDance and TikTok by name, thereby reflecting bipartisan concerns in the US over potential national security threats posed by foreign controlled apps, in this case a Chinese app.

The Key Fears Behind The Law

Essentially, the PAFACA legislation that TikTok has fallen foul of stems from concerns in the US that the Chinese government could exploit TikTok to gather data on American users or manipulate content to influence public opinion.

Dating back to the previous Trump presidency, US officials have expressed fears that TikTok’s extensive data collection practices could provide the Chinese Communist Party with access to sensitive personal information, thereby potentially posing a significant national security risk.

The fear is that ByteDance’s ties to China could make TikTok susceptible to coercion by the Chinese government, potentially leading to espionage or propaganda dissemination.

These concerns have been compounded by China’s national security laws, which could compel Chinese companies to share data with the government upon request.

TikTok Owned By A Chinese Company

TikTok, with over 170 million users in the United States, has become a focal point of this legislation due to its ownership by Chinese company ByteDance. Despite TikTok’s assertions that it operates independently and stores US user data on servers located outside of China, lawmakers clearly remain unconvinced.

Events Leading to the Original Ban Decision

The journey towards this latest legislative action began during the first Trump administration, which attempted to ban TikTok in 2020, citing national security concerns. However, these efforts were stalled by legal challenges, and the ban was never fully implemented. Under the Biden administration, scrutiny of TikTok persisted, culminating in the enactment of PAFACA in April 2024. Following the law’s passage, TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality, arguing that it infringed upon the free speech rights of American users and amounted to an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Appeals Court Ruling

However, on 6th December 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the law, rejecting TikTok’s arguments. The court stated that the legislation was “carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary” and was part of a broader effort to counter a “well-substantiated national security threat posed by the PRC (People’s Republic of China).” The ruling emphasised that the government’s concerns about potential data access and content manipulation by the Chinese government were persuasive and justified the law’s enactment.

The Implications for TikTok and the Social Media Landscape

The appeals court’s decision now places TikTok at a real crossroads. If ByteDance doesn’t sell TikTok by the 19th January 2025 deadline, TikTok will face a ban in the US anyway. This scenario will, of course, lead to significant upheaval in the social media market. For example, competitors like Meta’s Instagram, Google’s YouTube, and Snap’s Snapchat may stand to benefit from TikTok’s potential absence, as users and content creators seek alternative platforms. However, replicating TikTok’s unique algorithm and user experience also presents challenges, and a ban could disrupt the livelihoods of many content creators and small businesses that rely on the platform.

What has TikTok Said?

In response to this latest ruling, ByteDance has announced plans to appeal again, this time to the US Supreme Court, asserting that the law is based on “inaccurate, flawed, and hypothetical information” and that a ban would essentially censor US citizens. The company expressed hope that the Supreme Court would protect Americans’ right to free speech in this significant constitutional matter.

Complicated By Politics

The political landscape adds another layer of complexity. President elect Donald Trump, who is set to be inaugurated on 20th January 2025, has previously indicated opposition to a TikTok ban, despite attempting to implement one during his first term. It, therefore, remains unclear whether he will act to prevent the ban from taking effect, but any intervention would require navigating strong bipartisan concerns in Congress regarding national security and foreign influence.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The battle over TikTok highlights the challenges of trying to balance national security concerns with protecting free speech and supporting businesses in today’s connected digital world. The US government’s demand for ByteDance to sell TikTok reflects growing fears about foreign controlled technology companies, particularly those linked to China. At the same time, TikTok’s importance to millions of users and businesses can’t be ignored, thereby creating a complex situation with no easy answers.

The court’s decision to uphold the law signals that the US is now willing to take strong action to limit foreign influence in technology, even if it disrupts the market and affects consumers. If TikTok’s appeal to the Supreme Court fails, its potential ban in the US could create some major changes in social media. While rivals like Meta and YouTube may benefit, recreating TikTok’s unique algorithm and appeal won’t be simple. Many creators and small businesses that depend on TikTok could face serious challenges if the platform disappears.

For businesses that have embraced TikTok as a key part of their marketing and outreach strategies, this development could be highly disruptive. TikTok’s sophisticated algorithm has enabled brands to target audiences with unmatched precision, driving engagement and sales in ways other platforms struggle to replicate. A ban could leave businesses scrambling to find alternative platforms, many of which lack the same audience reach or content features that make TikTok so effective.

Small businesses, in particular, may feel the strain, as many have used TikTok to build their brand visibility with limited budgets. Losing access to the platform would mean rethinking marketing strategies, potentially investing in new campaigns, and navigating unfamiliar tools. This could also lead to increased competition on other platforms, driving up advertising costs as businesses flock to alternatives like Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and Snapchat.

However, the situation highlights the importance of diversification. Businesses reliant on TikTok should, if they haven’t already done so, begin exploring other platforms and spreading their efforts to ensure they are less vulnerable to the fate of a single app. A proactive approach could help businesses weather any potential disruptions while positioning them for future growth.

Adding to the uncertainty of TikTok’s future is the recent major change to the political landscape: Trump winning the US election. President elect Donald Trump has said he opposes a TikTok ban, despite trying to implement one during his first term. Whether he will act to prevent the ban when he takes office remains unclear, and he would need to address strong bipartisan concerns in Congress about national security.

This ongoing saga could be viewed as an example of the tension between globalisation and protecting national interests. As the 19th January 2025 deadline nears, the final outcome for TikTok will not only affect its users and creators but could also set a precedent for how governments handle foreign technology in the future.

The post TikTok Loses Appeal Against US Sell or Ban Law appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

What is Openvibe? 

Openvibe is an app based in Prague, Czech Republic, launched in mid 2024 with the mission of connecting the “open social web.” The app brings posts, interactions, and profiles from various decentralised social media platforms together in a single feed, allowing users to engage with these networks without having to switch between apps.

Openvibe supports several popular social networks, including Mastodon, Bluesky, and Nostr, platforms that are decentralised and operate independently of major corporations. Each network uses different protocols, for example, ActivityPub for Mastodon and AT Protocol for Bluesky, which can make it difficult for users to keep up across platforms. Openvibe addresses this by offering a unified space for cross platform interaction, simplifying engagement in a fragmented social media landscape.

Described by CEO Matej Svancer as “an easy-to-use gateway to the open social web,” Openvibe also aims to attract users who are exploring decentralised alternatives to mainstream networks. As Svancer says, “Our goal is to lower the barrier for users interested in decentralised platforms, offering a single, reliable app to manage them all.” 

What is Threads? 

Threads, introduced by Meta in 2023, is a social platform developed to offer a decentralised alternative to X (formerly Twitter). Built on the ActivityPub protocol, the same protocol that powers Mastodon, Threads aims to create an experience similar to X’s but with a greater focus on decentralisation and potential cross platform compatibility. Although Threads is a Meta product, it aims to support federation with other networks in the ‘fediverse’: a group of decentralised social media platforms interconnected through open protocols. This allows users to follow and interact with profiles across various decentralised platforms.

Since its launch, Threads has quickly gained popularity, particularly among users seeking alternatives to traditional social media platforms. However, the app is still in development, with many features not fully realised or accessible across other networks. Meta has stated that it is “committed to building out the Threads API to enhance user experience and support further integration with the fediverse.” 

Addressing the Issue of Social Media Fragmentation

X’s decline under Elon Musk has led many users to engage with alternative, decentralised social networks like Bluesky, Threads and Mastodon. This has split their attention across multiple social networks, each with its own unique features, protocols, and audiences. This social media fragmentation has made it challenging for these new users to maintain engagement and follow conversations across different platforms, particularly as each requires separate logins, notifications, and apps.

This fragmentation is what Openvibe seeks to address. By integrating multiple decentralised networks into one app, Openvibe allows users to view and interact with content from various platforms in a single feed. “We saw the need for a tool that could unify the open social web,” says Svancer, “where users could connect across networks without feeling overwhelmed.” 

What Threads Integration Brings to Openvibe 

Openvibe’s support for Threads brings significant new capabilities for users. Through this integration, users can log in with their Threads account, post and cross post content to Threads, reply to comments on Threads posts, and interact with other users, all within the Openvibe app. Those with federated Threads accounts can also view and interact with Threads content through Mastodon, enhancing the cross platform experience.

For Openvibe, therefore, adding Threads to its platform strengthens its unified feed, where users can stay updated on posts and interactions from all supported networks, including Mastodon, Bluesky, and Nostr. For users, this integrated experience allows them to seamlessly share content, follow profiles, and engage across platforms, all of which aligns with Openvibe’s mission to make the open social web more accessible.

As Openvibe’s team puts it, “Threads was one of the most requested features, and we’re excited to bring it to our users in a way that enhances their social media experience.” 

User Benefits of the Threads Integration 

The integration of Threads should bring convenience and efficiency to Openvibe users. This is because, for those with accounts on multiple networks, Openvibe reduces the need for separate apps, allowing users to cross post content and interact with a wide audience from a single interface. This streamlined approach helps users maintain a consistent presence across networks without the hassle of managing separate accounts.

From a broader perspective, Openvibe’s support for Threads also reflects a shift towards interoperability in social media, where platforms are becoming more interconnected. As users increasingly explore decentralised networks, Openvibe’s centralised solution simplifies access, enabling them to interact with various communities from one place.

Technical Issues and Challenges 

Although the Threads integration in Openvibe offers several benefits, it should be noted that there have been some technical challenges. For example, some users have reported issues logging in with their Threads accounts due to complications with OAuth, an authentication protocol that is not fully stable on Threads yet. Openvibe’s support team has said that it is actively working to address these issues, providing troubleshooting steps that include clearing browser caches, adjusting settings, and even reinstalling the Threads app when necessary. For example, Openvibe’s support team says, “We’re aware of the challenges with Threads login and are committed to resolving them,” and that, “Users should expect improvements as we work with Meta to stabilise the process.” 

Also, it should be noted that the Threads API remains limited in its current form, which restricts some features within Openvibe. For example, users can perform basic actions, such as posting and commenting, but certain advanced features available on the native Threads app are not yet accessible through Openvibe. However, Openvibe has committed to expanding its Threads functionality as the API evolves, assuring users that new features will be added as they become available.

Criticisms and Concerns 

While Openvibe’s integration of Threads has generally been well received, it has not been without criticism. One concern among users is that integrating a Meta owned platform like Threads might compromise Openvibe’s commitment to decentralisation. Although Threads operates on an open protocol, Meta’s involvement has raised questions about privacy and corporate control, particularly among users who prefer truly independent networks like Mastodon and Nostr.

Another concern is that adding support for mainstream platforms like Threads could dilute Openvibe’s focus on the open social web. Some users worry that by expanding its platform to include a Meta product, Openvibe could lose its appeal as a decentralised alternative and shift towards catering to a more mainstream audience. However, Openvibe has reassured users that its primary mission remains focused on providing a unified tool for decentralised networks, regardless of the platforms it supports.

What Does This Mean for Your Business? 

The integration of Threads into Openvibe marks a significant moment in the social media landscape, with implications not just for Openvibe itself but for other platforms like Meta, Threads, and X. For Openvibe, supporting Threads aligns with its mission to connect the decentralised social web, which it hopes will position it as a leading cross platform app that caters to users looking for interoperability across networks. By offering a seamless, unified interface, Openvibe hopes to strengthen its reputation as a powerful tool for decentralised communication and an attractive option for those wary of relying solely on major platforms.

For Meta and its Threads, this integration serves as a strategic advantage. It opens the door for Threads to tap into a broader, decentralised audience beyond Meta’s ecosystem, allowing the platform to expand its reach within the so called “fediverse.” As Threads evolves, Meta stands to benefit from the added legitimacy of interoperability with decentralised platforms, which could attract users disillusioned by X and seeking alternatives to corporate run networks. The move highlights Meta’s intent to build Threads as a decentralised alternative in the spirit of the open social web, albeit under its corporate umbrella.

For X, however, the Threads Openvibe integration signals increased competition. Since Elon Musk’s acquisition, X has faced criticism for policy changes and a more closed approach, driving some users towards alternative platforms. The availability of cross posting on Openvibe from Threads and other decentralised networks may contribute to an exodus of users who desire greater connectivity and fewer restrictions, challenging X’s once dominant position as the go to platform for real time communication.

The social media market as a whole may see more fragmentation as decentralised, user controlled networks continue to grow in popularity. Openvibe’s approach of uniting these platforms could alleviate some of the strain caused by users splitting time and content across multiple networks. By providing a single entry point, Openvibe is looking to enable a more integrated experience, which could encourage growth in decentralised networks and help them compete with the more established, corporate run social media giants.

For businesses that rely on social media platforms for marketing, Openvibe’s integration of Threads presents new opportunities. It could allow brands to maintain a consistent presence across multiple networks without the time and resource investment required to individually manage each one. This may not only save time but also broaden a brand’s reach to audiences who may be concentrated on specific networks. As cross platform engagement becomes easier, businesses may be able to focus on delivering cohesive messaging that reaches diverse user bases, giving them flexibility in an increasingly fragmented social media environment.

In the end, Openvibe’s support for Threads highlights a growing trend towards interoperability, reflecting the desires of users and businesses alike to interact across platforms freely and easily. As social media continues to evolve, the demand for connectivity without corporate boundaries will likely grow, creating a dynamic ecosystem where platforms that embrace openness and decentralisation may gain an edge in the increasingly competitive market.

The post New Social Cross Posting Abilities appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

The claim, made during Mr Trump’s appearance on the PBD Podcast, follows a contentious period for Apple and other tech companies under the EU’s stringent competition and digital service rules. For example, in September, Apple lost a significant legal battle over €13 billion (£11 billion) in unpaid taxes, with the EU’s highest court upholding the European Commission’s accusation of unlawful tax benefits provided by Ireland. Cook, as Mr Trump conveyed, criticised these findings as politically motivated.

Mr Trump recounted that Cook specifically highlighted a recent $15 billion fine, with additional charges reportedly raising the total to around $17 to 18 billion. This includes a €1.8 billion fine issued earlier this year over alleged breaches in music streaming competition, favouring rival services like Spotify. Cook reportedly expressed frustration over the EU using these fines as revenue, accusing the bloc of building an “enterprise” out of antitrust penalties.

The European Commission, however, has defended its approach, stating that fines for competition breaches are not only punitive but also serve as a deterrent. A Commission spokesperson highlighted that the fines contribute to the EU’s general budget, indirectly reducing the tax burden on citizens. This response reflects the EU’s firm stance that companies operating in Europe must respect its laws and competition standards.

Mr Trump also mentioned ongoing conversations with other tech leaders, including Google’s Sundar Pichai and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, as part of his campaign outreach to prominent figures in the tech sector. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, and owner of X (formerly Twitter) has also shown support for Mr Trump, who has been vocal in his criticism of the EU’s stringent digital regulations, promising changes should he return to the White House.

As Mr Trump continues to engage with tech executives, regulatory pressures on tech companies in the EU are likely to remain a significant point of contention. With new regulations such as the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, the EU is signalling a continued commitment to reining in large tech platforms, which could lead to further scrutiny and financial repercussions for major firms operating within its borders.

The post Trump Says Apple CEO Called with EU Concerns appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

What’s the Problem? 

Fake ads featuring celebrities, known as “celeb bait” scams by Meta, have become a plague on social media platforms in recent years, particularly ads promoting fraudulent investments, cryptocurrency schemes, and fake product endorsements. These scams use unauthorised images and fabricated comments from popular figures like Elon Musk, financial expert Martin Lewis, and Australian billionaire Gina Rinehart to lure users into clicking through to fraudulent websites, where they are often asked to share personal information or make payments under false pretences.

Deepfakes have been created using artificial intelligence to superimpose celebrities’ faces onto endorsement videos, producing highly realistic content that even seasoned internet users may find convincing. For example, Martin Lewis, founder of MoneySavingExpert and a frequent victim of such scams, recently told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that he receives “countless” notifications about fake ads using his image, sharing that he feels “sick” over how they deceive unsuspecting audiences.

How Big is the Problem? 

The prevalence of scams featuring celebrity endorsements has skyrocketed, reflecting a global trend in online fraud. In the UK alone, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) reported that celebrity related scams have doubled since 2021, with these frauds costing British consumers more than £100 million annually. According to a recent study by the Fraud Advisory Panel, financial scams leveraging celebrity endorsements rose by 30 percent in 2022 alone, a trend fuelled by increasingly sophisticated deepfake technology that makes these scams more believable than ever.

Not Just the UK 

The impact of celeb bait scams is even more significant worldwide. In Australia, for instance, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) reported that online scams, many featuring unauthorised celebrity endorsements, cost consumers an estimated AUD 2 billion in 2023. Social media platforms, particularly Facebook and Instagram, are frequent targets for these fraudulent ads, as scammers exploit their large audiences to reach thousands of potential victims within minutes.

The US has also seen similar issues, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) noting that more than $1 billion was lost to social media fraud in 2022 alone, a figure that has increased fivefold since 2019. Fake celebrity endorsements accounted for a large proportion of these losses, with reports indicating that over 40 percent of people who experienced fraud in the past year encountered it on a social media platform.

Identify and Block Using Facial Recognition 

In a Meta blog post about how the tech giant is testing new ways to combat scams on its Facebook and Instagram platforms, and especially celeb bait scams, Meta stated: “We’re testing the use of facial recognition technology.” 

According to Meta, this new approach will identify and block such ads before they reach users, offering a stronger line of defence in the ongoing battle against online scammers. The approach represents one of Meta’s most proactive attempts yet to address a persistent problem that has impacted both high profile public figures and unsuspecting social media users alike.

How Will Meta’s Facial Recognition Work? 

Meta’s facial recognition ad blocking approach will build on its existing AI ad review systems, which scan for potentially fraudulent or policy violating ads, but will introduce an additional layer of facial recognition that will work to verify the identities of celebrities in the ads. If an ad appears suspicious and contains the image of a public figure, Meta’s system will compare the individual’s face in the ad to their official Facebook or Instagram profile pictures. When a match is confirmed, and the ad is verified as a scam, Meta’s technology will delete the ad in real time.

David Agranovich, Meta’s Director of Global Threat Disruption, emphasised the importance of this shift in a recent press briefing, saying: “This process is done in real-time and is faster and much more accurate than manual human reviews, so it allows us to apply our enforcement policies more quickly and protect people on our apps from scams and celebrities.” Agranovich noted that the system has yielded “promising results” in early tests with a select group of 50,000 celebrities and public figures, who will be able to opt out of this enrolment at any time.

According to Agranovich, the swift, automated nature of the system is critical to staying ahead of scammers, who often adapt their techniques as detection methods improve. The facial recognition system is not only intended to remove existing scam ads but to prevent them from spreading before they can reach a wide audience. Agranovich has highlighted how a rapid response of this kind is essential in a digital landscape where even a brief exposure to these ads can lead to significant financial losses for unsuspecting victims.

When? 

This new measure is set to begin its rollout in December 2024.

Meta’s Track Record and Renewed Focus on Privacy 

It’s worth noting, however, that Meta’s deployment of facial recognition technology marks a return to a tool it abandoned in 2021 amid concerns over privacy, accuracy, and potential biases in AI systems. Previously, Facebook used facial recognition for suggested photo tags, a feature that drew criticism and prompted the company to step back from the technology. This time, Meta says it has implemented additional safeguards to address such concerns, including the immediate deletion of facial data generated through the scam ad detection process.

Privacy 

Privacy remains a contentious issue with facial recognition technology. Addressing privacy concerns over its new approach, Meta has stated that the data generated in making the comparison will be stored securely and encrypted, never becoming visible to other users or even to the account owner themselves. As Meta’s Agranovich says, “Any facial data generated from these ads is deleted immediately after the match test, regardless of the result.” Meta is keen to highlight how it intends to use the facial recognition technology purely for combating celeb bait scams and aiding account recovery. In cases of account recovery, users will be asked to submit a video selfie, which Meta’s system will then compare to the profile image associated with the account. This verification method is expected to be faster and more secure than traditional identity confirmation methods, such as uploading an official ID document.

Scaling the Solution and Potential Regulatory Hurdles 

Meta’s new system is set to be tested widely among a larger group of public figures in the coming months. Celebrities enrolled in the programme will receive in app notifications and, if desired, can opt out at any time using the Accounts Centre. This large scale trial comes as Meta faces increasing pressure from regulators, particularly in countries like Australia and the UK, where public outcry against celeb bait scams has surged. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is currently engaged in a legal dispute with Meta over its perceived failure to stop scam ads, while mining magnate Andrew Forrest has also filed a lawsuit against the company for allegedly enabling fraudsters to misuse his image.

Martin Lewis Sued Facebook 

In the UK, personal finance guru Martin Lewis previously sued Facebook for allowing fake ads featuring his image, ultimately reaching a settlement in which Meta agreed to fund a £3 million scam prevention initiative through Citizens Advice. Nevertheless, Lewis continues to push for stronger regulations, recently urging the UK government to empower Ofcom with additional regulatory authority to combat scam ads. “These scams are not only deceptive but damaging to the reputations of the individuals featured in them,” Lewis stated, highlighting the broader impact that celeb bait scams have beyond financial loss.

Despite the New Tech, It’s Still ‘A Numbers Game’ 

Despite Meta’s new approach, the company still faces a huge challenge. For example, Agranovich has admitted that, despite robust safeguards, some scams will still evade detection, saying, “It’s a numbers game,” and that, “While we have automated detection systems that run against ad creative that’s being created, scam networks are highly motivated to keep throwing things at the wall in hopes that something gets through.” As scam networks find new ways to bypass detection, Meta acknowledges that the technology will require continuous adaptation and improvement to keep up.

What About Concerns Over AI and Bias? 

In deploying facial recognition technology, Meta has also faced scrutiny over potential biases in AI and facial recognition systems, which have been shown to have variable accuracy across different demographics. The company claims that extensive testing and review have been undertaken to minimise such biases. Also, Meta has said it will not roll out the technology in regions where it lacks regulatory approval, such as in the UK and EU, indicating a cautious approach towards compliance and accountability.

Meta says it has “vetted these measures through our robust privacy and risk review process” and is committed to “sharing our approach to inform the industry’s defences against online scammers.” The company has also pledged to engage with regulators, policymakers, and industry experts to address ongoing challenges and align on best practices for facial recognition technology’s ethical use.

What Does This Mean for Your Business? 

Meta’s latest move to integrate facial recognition technology into its anti-scam measures signals a significant shift toward tackling the complex world of celeb bait scams. However, as Meta ventures back into using facial recognition, it’s clear the company must balance robust security with privacy, a concern that continues to shadow the rollout. While the technology holds promise, particularly in increasing detection speed and reducing the frequency of celebrity scams, it will undoubtedly be scrutinised by both users and regulators who have long questioned the use of facial recognition on such a broad scale.

For everyday Facebook and Instagram users, Meta’s new facial recognition feature could mean greater security and fewer encounters with fake ads that exploit public figures for fraudulent schemes. If successful, the initiative could lessen the risk of users falling victim to scams that impersonate well known personalities to promote fake investments or products. The added layer of facial recognition should serve as a safeguard, reducing the frequency of these fake ads in users’ feeds and building a safer browsing experience across Meta’s platforms.

For celebrities and public figures, this development is a significant step towards reclaiming control over their public images, which are often misused without permission. The new system will help protect their reputations, preventing unauthorised use of their likenesses in fraudulent ads. Figures like Martin Lewis, who has been vocal about the damage these scams cause, could benefit, as Meta finally implements more targeted measures to shield them from unauthorised endorsements.

The impact of this initiative may extend to legitimate advertisers as well. Meta’s crackdown on celeb bait scams will likely improve ad integrity on its platforms, helping businesses that rely on Facebook and Instagram to reach audiences without the risk of association with deceptive content. A cleaner, more trustworthy advertising environment could enhance user trust and, in turn, benefit brands that promote genuine products and services. As Meta focuses on strengthening its ad review systems, legitimate advertisers may find their content reaching more engaged, security conscious users who are less wary of the ads they encounter online. In this way, Meta’s facial recognition technology could not only shield users and celebrities from scams but also foster a more secure, credible marketplace for businesses across its platforms.

The post Meta Spoiling Celeb Scams appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

What is Open Source?

To understand the question about ‘open washing’, it’s important to understand what real open source is. Defined and stewarded by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), open source goes beyond simply sharing code. In fact, it means giving users the rights to view, modify, and redistribute the software without undue restrictions. According to the OSI’s Open Source Definition, true open source software adheres to ten principles, including free redistribution, access to source code, and the right to create derivative works. Open source licences must also be non discriminatory, ensuring that anyone, anywhere, can access and modify the software for any purpose.

These principles are meant to support innovation, community driven improvement, and freedom from vendor lock in, which is why open source has become so important in technology.

Not Everyone’s a Fan of Open Source

Despite the positive aspects of the principles of open source and its widespread use, not everyone is sold on it, with critics pointing to risks in security and sustainability. For example, while the transparency in open source code may allow anyone to inspect for flaws, it also enables malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities. In many cases, open source projects tend to lack dedicated security teams, meaning patches can be slow to release, leaving users exposed. Financial viability is another issue: many open source projects rely on volunteer developers or donations, making funding unpredictable and threatening long term support and innovation. Without the financial backing of licensing fees that proprietary software can leverage, sustaining high quality development and support over time is a challenge. Some critics also argue that while open source enables collaboration, it often lacks the reliability and consistent support associated with proprietary systems, creating potential pitfalls for users and developers alike.

So, What Is Open Washing?

‘Open washing’ is a term coined by internet policy researcher Michelle Thorne in 2009, referring to where using the word ‘open’ as a marketing term allows companies to appear open while maintaining control over their products. The term open washing is, therefore, along the same lines as the term ‘greenwashing,’ where companies claim to be environmentally friendly without substantive action. In open washing, companies appear to use “open” branding to exploit open source’s positive connotations without meeting its core values of transparency and accessibility. This co-opting of the term, therefore, undermines the foundational principles of openness, confusing consumers and diluting the legitimacy of the open source community.

Why Has Open Washing Become More Common?

Open source’s transformation from a fringe movement to a widely adopted practice has also made it highly attractive to companies looking to capitalise on its reputation. In the early 2000s, companies were wary of open source. For example, Microsoft’s then CEO Steve Ballmer even called Linux a “cancer” due to the licence requirements that would obligate them to make their entire codebase open if it incorporated open source elements. Today, however, open source is seen as innovative, ethical, and collaborative. It is endorsed by tech giants, governments, and educational institutions alike, with open source projects like Linux, Kubernetes, and TensorFlow at the core of many enterprise systems.

The Appeal of Open Washing in AI and Big Tech

The stakes are especially high in the field of AI. Many AI models, particularly those from major tech corporations, operate under significant secrecy, which allows them to avoid scrutiny on issues ranging from ethical concerns to regulatory compliance. Open washing appears, therefore, to have become a convenient way for these companies to leverage the credibility of open source without actually relinquishing control or opening their models for true public or scientific examination.

For example, research by Andreas Liesenfeld and Mark Dingemanse at Radboud University surveyed 45 models marketed as open source and found that few actually meet the standards of true openness. The researchers found that only a handful of models genuinely embody open principles. These included AllenAI’s OLMo and BigScience’s BloomZ.

In contrast, models from Google, Meta, and Microsoft often allow limited access to specific aspects, such as the AI model’s weights, but withhold full transparency into the training datasets or the processes behind fine tuning: factors that are crucial for replicability and accountability.

Regulatory Incentives for Open Washing

The regulatory environment has also further incentivised open washing, particularly with the introduction of the EU’s AI Act, which came into force on 1st August 2024. This legislation, set to shape the governance of AI in Europe, includes special exemptions for open source models. These exemptions mean that open source AI products face fewer compliance requirements, especially regarding dataset transparency and ethical considerations. However, the EU has yet to define “open source” for AI models explicitly, leading to a gap that companies can exploit by labelling restricted models as open.

This regulatory grey area appears to have encouraged large corporations to stretch the definition of open source. By classifying their models as ‘open’, they can benefit from reduced regulatory burdens while still keeping proprietary information hidden. This kind of open washing could, therefore, shield companies from scrutiny and enable them to bypass scientific and ethical standards that would otherwise apply.

Why Open Washing Undermines Openness and Transparency

The widespread practice of open washing could be seen as posing a risk to the integrity of the tech industry. For example, when companies brand restrictive products as open, they dilute the meaning of open source and weaken public trust. This practice could harm consumers and developers who assume these models are accessible for improvement, modification, or auditing. Without full transparency, end users and even governments can’t fully grasp the capabilities and limitations of these tools, potentially leading to misuse and ethical oversights.

What Does the Open Source Initiative Say About It?

The OSI is a global nonprofit organisation that promotes and protects open source software by maintaining the Open Source Definition, approving compliant licences, and advocating for open source practices across industries. It is also, therefore, one of the most outspoken critics of open washing. For example, the OSI says that “misuse of ‘open’ erodes the fundamental trust” in open source communities. According to the OSI, this dilution of open source principles not only misleads the public but also endangers the health of the open source ecosystem itself, as genuine open source projects may struggle to gain traction when overshadowed by well marketed, quasi open products.

Composite Measures of Openness

Recognising that transparency in AI is multi faceted, researchers have now proposed a composite measure of openness that includes access to datasets, training protocols, licensing clarity, and the model’s documentation. An example of this composite measure is a framework on openness in generative AI, presented at this year’s ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), by Andreas Liesenfeld and Mark Dingemanse, researchers from Radboud University’s Centre for Language Studies in the Netherlands, specialising in language and AI studies.

Their framework, with its 14 dimensions of openness, highlights how open source claims cannot rest on a single factor, such as access to model weights or basic documentation. Instead, the researchers say these claims should involve comprehensive access across multiple domains, offering the public, scientists, and policymakers a way to meaningfully assess openness. The idea is that by developing and implementing composite standards, the tech community could, therefore, discourage open washing and promote genuine transparency.

Clearer Definitions and Standards for Open Source AI

The current ambiguity around open source, particularly in AI, highlights the need for clearer standards. To tackle open washing, the OSI has recently started working on a formal definition for open source AI, collaborating with various stakeholders to address unique considerations, like access to training data and replicability. This evolving framework aims to set definitive standards for what constitutes open source in the AI landscape, with the goal of curbing open washing and providing a measure for consumers and regulators to gauge the authenticity of open source claims.

The Role of Public Awareness and Advocacy

To counter open washing, it may be important for both consumers and developers to recognise and question the authenticity of open source claims. Community driven transparency tools, such as open source databases and audit platforms, can play a role in empowering users to make informed decisions. As Dingemanse notes, “evidence-based openness assessment is essential for a healthy tech landscape.” Awareness campaigns and advocacy groups can also shed light on open washing practices, pressuring corporations to align with true open source standards.

What Does This Mean for Your Business?

As technology continues to evolve and embed itself deeper into everyday life, the importance of distinguishing genuine openness from ‘open washing’ becomes ever more critical. Open source software’s promise lies in its potential for transparency, innovation, and community driven growth. However, when companies engage in open washing, they undermine these principles, eroding public trust and complicating the regulatory landscape. This practice not only weakens the authenticity of open source initiatives but also risks obscuring the boundaries between proprietary and truly open technologies, leading to a diluted understanding of what “open” truly represents.

The movement to counter open washing is gaining momentum through research, community initiatives, and regulatory efforts, yet it ultimately depends on public awareness and industry accountability. Informed consumers and developers play a vital role in demanding transparency and authenticity from tech giants. With organisations like the Open Source Initiative working to refine definitions and create accountability standards, there is hope for a future where open source principles are upheld, respected, and protected. Clear standards and genuine openness are essential to sustaining an ecosystem where “open” means more than marketing, symbolising a commitment to collaboration, integrity, and the shared progress of technology.

With clearer definitions, regulatory oversight, and a strong community voice, it appears possible for the tech industry to preserve the values of openness and transparency while guarding against open washing. By holding companies accountable to genuine open source principles, users, developers, and policymakers could help ensure that “open” remains a meaningful and respected term in the technology landscape.

The post What Is ‘Open Washing’? appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

What Change In The Digital Marketing Act? 

Meta owned WhatsApp is making this major change because the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), a regulation aimed at promoting competition and reducing monopolistic practices in the tech industry, requires major platforms like WhatsApp to become interoperable with other messaging services. There must be interoperability between WhatsApp and other third party apps.

Meta is a “Gatekeeper” 

Under the DMA, WhatsApp’s owner Meta is regarded as being a “gatekeeper”, a large tech company that controls access to key digital services, such as messaging platforms, operating systems, or social networks. These companies have a significant impact on the market and must comply with strict rules to ensure fair competition. Gatekeepers like Meta are therefore required under the DMA, to open up their services to allow interoperability with smaller platforms, as well as follow regulations on data handling, user privacy, and transparency.

No need to install the other apps 

With this change, although WhatsApp and Meta’s Messenger must open up their platforms to allow messages to flow between different apps, a WhatsApp user will be able to communicate with someone on Telegram or Signal without needing those apps installed.

Will make it simple for users

Meta says it has designed a simple onboarding flow for users where they can learn more about third party chats and turn the feature on which means that although it’s mandatory to open the apps up, the feature still has an opt in element, to help users avoid risks like spam and scams. For example, users will have the option to choose which third party apps they want to receive messages from, and how they would like to manage their inbox.

Can keep third party app messages separate 

Meta says users will have the option to be able to keep third party chats separate from their current inbox, or to combine all chats in a single inbox. For example, users will be able to have third party messages delivered into a separate folder if they wish.

Two years in the making 

Meta says it’s been working on getting the interoperability ready for two years. The change, however, is still being tested, with full implementation expected to start in late 2024, although features will gradually roll out over time. Meta says it has built new notifications into WhatsApp and Messenger that will inform users about third party chats and will “remind users each time a new third-party messaging app becomes available.” 

Basic one on one messaging and file sharing features such as text, images, videos, and voice notes, are expected to be ready soon. Group chats and voice and video calls will be added later, with group chats pencilled in for 2025 and calls by 2027.

Maintaining E2EE 

Meta has been somewhat reluctant about this change but is committed to complying with the DMA’s requirements. The company has stressed the need to maintain end to end encryption (E2EE) throughout this integration, although it has acknowledged challenges in ensuring security when third party services are involved.

For example, Meta has said to send messages, the third party providers must construct message ‘protobuf’ structures: protocol buffers that define how messages are formatted, which are then encrypted using the Signal Protocol and then packaged into message stanzas in eXtensible Markup Language (XML). Meta says the Signal Protocol is required because of its high level of security.

What does this mean for your business? 

For Meta, with its WhatsApp and Messenger platforms, this shift toward interoperability marks a really significant transformation. As a designated “gatekeeper” under the DMA, Meta is reluctantly being compelled to adapt to a more open and collaborative environment. While the company has expressed some hesitation, particularly around ensuring the privacy and security of cross platform communications, it is clear that complying with the DMA is essential for maintaining its strong position in the European market. The challenge lies in balancing user security with the seamless integration of different messaging platforms, a feat Meta is tackling through encryption protocols and new user control features. Long term, this could push Meta towards further innovation, as competition intensifies in a more diversified and open messaging landscape.

For competitors like Telegram, Signal, and other smaller messaging apps, the changes present both an opportunity and a challenge. These platforms now have the ability to interact with WhatsApp’s vast user base, opening doors for increased visibility and growth. However, to ensure secure communication and match the standards set by Meta, these platforms will need to meet stringent security and technical requirements. The market itself is likely to see a shift toward greater collaboration between apps, but with increased competition to offer superior services and features, such as privacy tools or unique messaging options.

The post Sending WhatsApp Messages To Other Messaging Apps appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.