A new survey by UNESCO reveals that over 60% of online influencers fail to fact-check the content they share with their followers. The study, conducted by researchers at Bowling Green State University, surveyed 500 influencers across 45 countries about their content-sharing practices. It found that many influencers struggle to assess the reliability of information, with 42% relying on the number of likes and shares a post receives as a measure of credibility.
The survey also highlighted that only 37% of content creators use mainstream media as a source, with personal experiences and their own research being the top sources for content. While many influencers are aware of the challenge of misinformation, only 73% expressed interest in training to better handle disinformation and online hate speech.
UNESCO is responding to this need by launching a month-long training program designed to equip influencers with tools to combat disinformation. The course will teach content creators how to verify information, source from diverse outlets, and debunk false narratives, aiming to improve the overall quality of online information.
Vietnam’s Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh called on the United States to remove export restrictions on certain technologies during an event in Hanoi hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce. Chinh emphasised Vietnam’s interest in satellite communications development and revealed ongoing talks with SpaceX to boost aerospace cooperation. He also urged the US to recognise Vietnam as a market economy, a step that could lower trade tariffs.
The US currently restricts Vietnam’s access to technologies deemed critical to national security, though Vietnam is allowed to import conventional weapons and some advanced technologies. Chinh questioned the necessity of the embargo, stating, “We are not fighting anyone, so why do you keep the embargo?”
Despite potential US tariffs of up to 20% on imports under the next Trump administration, Chinh avoided addressing the issue directly. He instead highlighted Vietnam’s $25 billion in expected foreign investment this year and stressed the importance of maintaining strong US-Vietnam relations to tackle global challenges.
Australia’s House of Representatives passed a groundbreaking bill on Wednesday aiming to ban social media use for children under 16. The bill, supported by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government and the opposition, introduces strict measures requiring platforms to implement age-verification systems. Companies could face fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million) for breaches. The Senate will debate the bill next, with Albanese pushing for its approval before the year ends.
The law follows an emotional inquiry that highlighted cyberbullying’s devastating effects, including testimony from parents of children who self-harmed. While advocates argue the ban will protect young people’s mental health, critics, including youth groups and human rights organisations, warn it risks cutting off teens from vital social connections. Tech giants like Google, Meta, and TikTok have urged the government to delay the legislation until a proposed age-verification trial concludes in 2025.
Despite these concerns, public opinion overwhelmingly supports the ban, with recent polls showing 77% approval. Parent advocacy groups have praised the initiative as a critical step in addressing the negative impacts of social media on children. However, critics within parliament and civil rights groups have called for more nuanced solutions, emphasising the importance of balancing protection with privacy and self-expression rights.
If passed, Australia will become a global leader in stringent social media regulations, but the debate over how best to safeguard young users while respecting their freedoms is far from over.
Google and Meta are urging the Australian government to delay a proposed law that would prohibit social media use for children under 16, citing insufficient time to evaluate its potential effects. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government aims to pass the bill, which includes some of the strictest child social media controls globally, before the parliamentary year ends on Thursday. However, critics argue the rushed timeline undermines thorough debate and expert input.
The bill mandates social media platforms, not parents or children, to implement age-verification systems, potentially involving biometrics or government IDs. Platforms failing to comply could face fines of up to AUD 49.5 million ($32 million). While the Liberal opposition is likely to support the legislation, some independents and tech companies like TikTok and Elon Musk’s X have raised concerns about its clarity and impact on human rights, including freedom of expression and access to information.
Tech companies argue the government should wait for the results of an age-verification trial before proceeding. TikTok called the bill rushed and poorly consulted, while Meta described it as “inconsistent and ineffective.” Meanwhile, Elon Musk criticised the bill as a potential tool for broader internet control, amplifying debates over balancing child safety with digital freedoms.
As a Senate committee prepares a report on the legislation, the controversy underscores the global challenge of regulating children’s online activity without infringing on broader rights.
A United States federal appeals court is set to rule by 6 December on whether ByteDance, TikTok‘s Chinese parent company, must divest its US operations or face a ban. The ruling will address national security concerns raised by the Justice Department, which alleges that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses risks due to access to vast American user data. ByteDance has challenged the law as unconstitutional, arguing it unfairly targets TikTok and violates free speech.
The three-judge panel could uphold the law, leading to a likely appeal by ByteDance. Alternatively, the court might allow the law but criticise its fairness, requiring further certification of TikTok as a security risk. A ruling deeming the law unconstitutional could halt efforts to force ByteDance to sell TikTok’s US assets. Any outcome may result in further legal battles, including an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The case underscores tensions between US national security priorities and free market principles, with over 170 million Americans actively using TikTok. The final decision could shape the future of tech regulation and US-China relations.
The French government has initiated negotiations to acquire the advanced computing unit of IT firm Atos for €500M. This move seeks to safeguard critical technologies supporting the military and intelligence sectors. The agreement, which includes an initial payment of €150M, could rise to €625Mwith additional performance-based payouts. Atos’ advanced computing and cybersecurity operations generate €900M annually and employ 4,000 people.
Once a European tech leader, Atos has faced financial difficulties, with its survival hinging on an accelerated restructuring plan. The French state, emphasising national sovereignty, aims to maintain control over strategic assets. Finance Minister Antoine Armand stated that protecting key industrial activities is essential for ensuring the country’s security and independence.
The proposed deal reflects growing government interest in Atos’ assets, with nationalisation also being considered. Despite years of financial struggles, Atos shares surged 160% following the announcement, reflecting renewed investor optimism about its recovery and restructuring efforts.
Meta has proposed a unified system for age verification and safety standards across the EU to better protect teenagers online. The plan includes requiring parental approval for app downloads by users under 16, with app stores notifying parents for consent. Meta also advocates for consistent age-appropriate content guidelines and supervision tools for teens that parents can manage.
The proposal follows calls from incoming EU technology commissioner Henna Virkkunen, who emphasised protecting minors as a priority. Meta’s global head of safety, Antigone Davis, highlighted the fragmented nature of current European regulations, urging the adoption of uniform rules to ensure better protections for teens.
Although some EU frameworks like the Digital Services Act and Audiovisual Media Services Directive touch on youth safety, the lack of EU-wide standards leaves much to member states. Meta’s proposal aligns with ongoing discussions around the Child Sexual Abuse Material regulation, which aims to enhance online protections for minors.
Chinese big tech companies have emerged as some of the most influential players in the global technology landscape, driving innovation and shaping industries across the board. These companies are deeply entrenched in everyday life in China, offering a wide range of services and products that span e-commerce, social media, gaming, cloud computing, ΑΙ, and telecommunications. Their influence is not confined to China, they also play a significant role in global markets, often competing directly with US tech giants.
The rivalry between China and the US has become one of the defining geopolitical struggles of the 21st century. This competition oscillates between cooperation, fierce competition, and confrontation, influenced by regulatory policies, national security concerns, and shifting political priorities. The geopolitical pendulum of China-US tech firms, totally independent from the US election outcome, reflects the broader tensions between the two powers, with profound implications for global tech industries, innovation, and market dynamics.
The Golden Shield Project
In 2000, under Chairman Jiang Zemin’s leadership, China launched the Golden Shield Project to control media and information flow within the country. The initiative aimed to safeguard national security and restrict the influence of Western propaganda. As part of the Golden Shield, many American tech giants such as Google, Facebook, and Netflix were blocked by the Great Firewall for not complying with China’s data regulations, while companies like Microsoft and LinkedIn were allowed to operate.
At the same time, China’s internet user base grew dramatically, reaching 800 million netizens by 2018, with 98% using mobile devices. This rapid expansion provided a fertile ground for Chinese tech firms, which thrived without significant competition from foreign players. Among the earliest beneficiaries of this system were the BATX companies, which capitalised on China’s evolving internet landscape and rapidly established a dominant presence in the market.
The powerhouses of Chinese tech
The major Chinese tech companies, often referred to as the Big Tech of China, include Alibaba Group, Tencent, Baidu, ByteDance, Huawei, Xiaomi, JD.com, Meituan, Pinduoduo, and Didi Chuxing.
Alibaba Group is a global e-commerce and technology conglomerate, operating platforms such as Taobao and Tmall for e-commerce, AliExpress for international retail, and Alipay for digital payments. The company also has significant investments in cloud computing with Alibaba Cloud and logistics.
Tencent, a massive tech conglomerate, is known for its social media and entertainment services. It owns WeChat, a widely used messaging app that offers payment services, social media features, and more. Tencent also has investments in gaming, owning major stakes in Riot Games, Epic Games, and Activision Blizzard, as well as interests in financial services and cloud computing.
Baidu, often called China’s Google, is a leading search engine provider. In addition to its search services, Baidu has a strong presence in AI development, autonomous driving, and cloud computing, particularly focusing on natural language processing and autonomous vehicles.
ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, has made a name for itself in short-form video content and AI-driven platforms. It also operates Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok, along with Toutiao, a popular news aggregation platform. ByteDance has expanded into gaming, e-commerce, and other AI technologies.
Huawei is a global leader in telecommunications equipment and consumer electronics, particularly smartphones and 5G infrastructure. The company is deeply involved in cloud computing and AI, despite facing significant geopolitical challenges.
Xiaomi is a leading smartphone manufacturer that also produces smart home devices, wearables, and a wide range of consumer electronics. The company is growing rapidly in the Internet of Things (IoT) space and AI-driven products.
JD.com, one of China’s largest e-commerce platforms, operates similarly to Alibaba, focusing on direct sales, logistics, and tech solutions. JD.com has also made significant strides in robotics, AI, and logistics technology.
Meituan is best known for its food delivery and local services platform, offering everything from restaurant reservations to hotel bookings. The company also operates in sectors like bike-sharing, travel, and ride-hailing.
Pinduoduo has rapidly grown in e-commerce by focusing on group buying and social commerce, particularly targeting lower-tier cities and rural markets in China. The platform offers discounted products to users who buy in groups.
Didi Chuxing is China’s dominant ride-hailing service, offering various transportation services such as ride-hailing, car rentals, and autonomous driving technology.
But what are the BATX companies we mentioned earlier?
BAXT
The term BATX refers to a group of the four dominant Chinese tech companies: Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Xiaomi. These companies are central to China’s technology landscape and are often compared to the US “FAANG” group (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google) because of their major influence across a range of industries, including e-commerce, search engines, social media, gaming, ΑΙ and telecommunications. Together, BATX companies are key players in shaping China’s tech ecosystem and have a significant impact on global markets.
China’s strategy for tech growth
China’s technology development strategy has proven effective in propelling the country to the forefront of several high-tech industries. This ambitious approach, which involves broad investments across both large state-owned enterprises and smaller private startups, has fostered significant innovation and created a competitive business environment. As a result, it has the potential to serve as a model for other countries looking to stimulate tech growth.
A key driver of China’s success is its diverse investment strategy, supported by government-led initiatives like the “Made in China 2025” and the “Thousand Talents Plan“. These programs offer financial backing and attract top talent from around the globe. This inclusive approach has helped China rapidly emerge as a global leader in fields like AI, robotics, and semiconductors. However, critics argue that the strategy may be overly aggressive, potentially stifling competition and innovation.
Some have raised concerns that China’s government support unfairly favours domestic companies, providing subsidies and other advantages that foreign competitors do not receive. Yet, this type of protectionist approach is not unique to China; other countries have implemented similar strategies to foster the growth of their own industries.
Another critique is that China’s broad investment model may encourage risky ventures and the subsidising of failures, potentially leading to a market that is oversaturated with unprofitable businesses. While this criticism holds merit in some cases, the overall success of China’s strategy in cultivating a dynamic and competitive tech landscape remains evident.
Looking ahead, China’s technology development strategy is likely to continue evolving. As the country strengthens its position on the global stage, it may become more selective in its investments, focusing on firms with the potential for global leadership.
In any case, China’s strategy has shown it can drive innovation and foster growth. Other nations hoping to advance their technological sectors should take note of this model and consider implementing similar policies to enhance their own competitive and innovative business environments.
But under what regulatory framework does Chinese tech policy ultimately operate? How does it affect the whole project? Are there some negative effects of the tight state grip?
China’s regulatory pyramid: Balancing control and consequences
China’s regulatory approach to its booming tech sector is defined by a precarious balance of authority, enforcement, and market response. Angela Zhang, author of High Wire: How China Regulates Big Tech and Governs Its Economy, proposes a “dynamic pyramid model” to explain the system’s intricate dynamics. This model highlights three key features: hierarchy, volatility, and fragility.
The top-down structure of China’s regulatory system is a hallmark of its hierarchy. Regulatory agencies act based on directives from centralised leadership, creating a paradox. In the absence of clear signals, agencies exhibit inaction, allowing industries to flourish unchecked. Conversely, when leadership calls for stricter oversight, regulators often overreach. A prime example of this is the drastic shift in 2020 when China moved from years of leniency toward its tech giants to implementing sweeping crackdowns on firms like Alibaba and Tencent.
This erratic enforcement underscores the volatility of the system. Chinese tech regulation is characterised by cycles of lax oversight followed by abrupt crackdowns, driven by shifts in political priorities. The 2020 – 2022 crackdown, which involved antitrust investigations and record-breaking fines, sent shockwaves through markets, wiping out billions in market value. While the government eased its stance in 2022, the uncertainty created by such pendulum swings has left investors wary, with many viewing the Chinese market as unpredictable and risky.
Despite its intentions to address pressing issues like antitrust violations and data security, China’s heavy-handed regulatory approach often results in fragility. Rapid interventions can undermine confidence, stifle innovation, and damage the very sectors the government seeks to strengthen. Years of lax oversight exacerbate challenges, leaving regulators with steep issues to address and markets vulnerable to overcorrection.
This model offers a lens into the broader governance dynamics in China. The system’s centralised control and reactive policies aim to maintain stability but often generate unintended economic consequences. As Chinese tech firms look to expand overseas amid domestic challenges, the long-term impact of these regulatory cycles remains uncertain, potentially influencing China’s ability to compete on the global stage.
The battle for tech supremacy between the USA and China
The incoming US President Donald Trump is expected to adopt a more aggressive, unilateral approach to counter China’s technological growth, drawing on his history of quick, broad measures such as tariffs. Under his leadership, the USA is likely to expand export controls and impose tougher sanctions on Chinese tech firms. Trump’s advisors predict a significant push to add more companies to the US Entity List, which restricts US firms from selling to blacklisted companies. His administration might focus on using tariffs (potentially up to 60% on Chinese imports) and export controls to pressure China, even if it strains relations with international allies.
The escalating tensions have been further complicated by China’s retaliatory actions. In response to US export controls, China has targeted American companies like Micron Technology and imposed its own restrictions on essential materials for chipmaking and electric vehicle production. These moves highlight the interconnectedness of both economies, with the US still reliant on China for critical resources such as rare earth elements, which are vital for both technology and defence.
This intensifying technological conflict reflects broader concerns over data security, military dominance, and leadership in AI and semiconductors. As both nations aim to protect their strategic interests, the tech war is set to continue evolving, with major consequences for global supply chains, innovation, and the international balance of power in technology.
Starbucks is manually processing barista payroll after a ransomware attack disrupted the third-party software it uses for scheduling. Despite the outage, the company assured employees they would be paid correctly and instructed store managers on manual workarounds to keep operations running smoothly.
The attack targeted Blue Yonder, a cloud services provider whose clients include major grocery chains and Fortune 500 companies. Blue Yonder has faced backlash as its systems remain compromised, with multiple companies, including Ford, assessing potential impacts. The cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike is assisting with recovery efforts.
Ransomware attacks have surged globally, with hackers targeting critical operations, especially during high-demand periods like the holiday season. Starbucks’ new CEO Brian Niccol now faces an additional hurdle on top of three straight quarters of declining sales.
The White House has engaged leading United States telecommunications executives in a high-level meeting to address a significant cyber-espionage campaign allegedly linked to China. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Deputy Adviser Anne Neuberger hosted the meeting, seeking industry insights and strengthening government-private sector partnerships to counteract future cyber threats.
Earlier this month, US authorities disclosed that hackers, purportedly linked to China, accessed surveillance data meant for law enforcement by breaching multiple telecom companies. Senator Mark Warner described the breach as the ‘worst telecom hack in our nation’s history.’
Though the identities of the companies and executives involved remain undisclosed, the meeting underscores the urgency of cybersecurity improvements amid escalating threats from state-sponsored actors. While China has categorically denied involvement, the incident amplifies concerns over Beijing’s alleged cyber activities targeting critical US infrastructure.
The discussions aim to establish better safeguards against sophisticated attacks, reinforcing collaboration between federal agencies and the telecom sector to bolster national cyber resilience.
