Google has removed a key passage from its AI principles that previously committed to steering clear of potentially harmful applications, including weapons. The now-missing section, titled ‘AI applications we will not pursue,’ explicitly stated that the company would not develop technologies likely to cause harm, as seen in archived versions of the page reviewed by Bloomberg.
The change has sparked concern among AI ethics experts. Margaret Mitchell, former co-lead of Google’s ethical AI team and now chief ethics scientist at Hugging Face, criticised the move. ‘Having that removed is erasing the work that so many people in the ethical AI space and the activist space as well had done at Google, and more problematically, it means Google will probably now work on deploying technology directly that can kill people,’ she said.
With ethics guardrails shifting, questions remain about how Google will navigate the evolving AI landscape—and whether its revised stance signals a broader industry trend toward prioritising market dominance over ethical considerations.
US authorities are considering whether to add Chinese online retailers Shein and Temu to the Department of Homeland Security’s forced labour list, according to a Semafor report. The Trump administration has not reached a final decision and may opt against the move, sources said.
Both companies strongly denied any involvement in forced labour. Shein stated it complies fully with the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, while Temu emphasised its strict prohibition of involuntary labour through its Third-Party Code of Conduct.
Discussions on the retailers’ status come as tensions between the US and China escalate. Beijing recently imposed targeted tariffs on US imports and warned companies such as Google about possible sanctions, responding to the latest trade measures introduced by Washington.
The European Commission has unveiled new guidelines restricting how AI can be used in workplaces and online services. Employers will be prohibited from using AI to monitor workers’ emotions, while websites will be banned from using AI-driven techniques that manipulate users into spending money. These measures are part of the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which takes full effect in 2026, though some rules, including the ban on certain practices, apply from February 2024.
The AI Act also prohibits social scoring based on unrelated personal data, AI-enabled exploitation of vulnerable users, and predictive policing based solely on biometric data. AI-powered facial recognition CCTV for law enforcement will be heavily restricted, except under strict conditions. The EU has given member states until August to designate authorities responsible for enforcing these rules, with breaches potentially leading to fines of up to 7% of a company’s global revenue.
Europe’s approach to AI regulation is significantly stricter than that of the United States, where compliance is voluntary, and contrasts with China‘s model, which prioritises state control. The guidelines aim to provide clarity for businesses and enforcement agencies while ensuring AI is used ethically and responsibly across the region.
South Sudan has lifted a temporary ban on Facebook and TikTok, imposed following the spread of graphic videos allegedly showing the killings of South Sudanese nationals in Sudan. The National Communications Authority confirmed on 27 January that the disturbing content, which had sparked violent protests and retaliatory killings across South Sudan, has been removed from the platforms.
The videos, which documented ethnically targeted attacks in Sudan’s El Gezira state, had led to widespread outrage. Rights groups blamed the Sudanese army and its allies for the violence, while the army denounced the incidents as isolated violations. South Sudanese authorities urged for a balanced approach to addressing online incitement while protecting the public’s rights.
The unrest highlights the volatile relationship between social media and violence in the region. Authorities continue to call for action to address the root causes of such content while promoting accountability and safety.
A robotic puppy named ‘Jennie’ is offering a new way to provide companionship to people living with dementia, anxiety, and other mental health challenges. Developed by Tombot, Jennie is an AI-powered pet designed to mimic the comfort and emotional support of a real dog without the difficulties of pet care. Inspired by Tombot CEO Tom Stevens’ personal experience with his mother’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis, the robotic puppy was created to help reduce loneliness and distress.
Jennie stands out with her lifelike design, a collaboration with Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, best known for the Muppets. Equipped with advanced touch sensors and voice command technology, Jennie responds naturally to petting and verbal instructions, creating a realistic experience for users. Her sound effects, crafted from recordings of Labrador puppies, and an all-day battery life make her a practical and emotionally engaging alternative to traditional pets.
Research supports Jennie’s role in easing symptoms like agitation and hallucinations in dementia patients while also helping reduce anxiety and loneliness in broader mental health contexts. With over 7,500 preorders already received, Jennie’s impact is growing as Tombot explores registering her as a medical device, potentially expanding her reach to hospitals and care facilities worldwide.
Priced around $1,500, Jennie offers an accessible solution for those unable to care for live animals due to health or housing constraints. The US based company continues to improve Jennie’s capabilities with software updates, ensuring this robotic puppy remains a dynamic source of comfort for years to come.
The European Commission has concluded its preliminary investigation into social media platform X and is poised to decide on a fine amounting to millions of euros, according to reports from Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper. The probe’s findings and implications are expected to be revealed soon.
The investigation, conducted under the European Union‘s strict digital regulations, signals the bloc’s commitment to ensuring compliance from major tech companies operating within Europe. Details about the specific breaches or concerns raised during the probe have not yet been disclosed.
The European Commission has not commented on the report. The decision to impose a substantial fine would mark a significant move in enforcing its Digital Services Act, aimed at holding tech platforms accountable.
The Indian government has issued notices to ride-hailing companies Ola and Uber, launching an investigation into allegations of price discrimination. Concerns have arisen over reports and user complaints suggesting that iPhone users are being charged significantly higher fares for the same rides compared to those using Android devices. This investigation, led by the Central Consumer Protection Agency (CCPA), aims to determine if these price discrepancies are indeed occurring and whether they constitute unfair trade practices.
The government has previously expressed strong opposition to differential pricing, deeming it an unfair and discriminatory practice. India is a crucial market for both Ola and Uber, with intense competition among various ride-hailing services. The outcome of this investigation could have significant implications for the industry, potentially impacting pricing models and consumer trust.
Beyond the ride-hailing sector, the CCPA will also examine potential pricing disparities in other sectors, including food delivery and online ticketing platforms. The broader investigation aims to identify and address any instances where consumers may be facing discriminatory pricing based on factors such as the device they use or other personal characteristics.
Ensuring fair and transparent pricing practices in the digital economy is crucial. As technology continues to shape our daily lives, it is essential to address concerns about potential algorithmic biases and discriminatory practices that may be embedded within digital platforms. The Indian government’s action sends a clear message that such practices will not be tolerated and that consumer protection remains a top priority.
Major tech platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, and X, have pledged to strengthen efforts to combat online hate speech under an updated European Union code of conduct. The revised framework, part of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), mandates stricter measures to reduce illegal and harmful content online.
Companies will collaborate with public and non-profit experts to monitor their responses to hate speech notifications, aiming to review at least two-thirds within 24 hours. Advanced detection tools and transparency regarding recommendation systems will also play key roles in reducing the reach of harmful content before removal.
The EU plans to track compliance closely, requiring platforms to provide country-specific data on hate speech classifications, including race, gender identity, and religion. These measures align with broader efforts to ensure accountability in tech governance.
EU officials emphasised that adherence to the revised code will influence regulatory enforcement under the DSA, marking a significant step in the battle against online hate.
TikTok faces an uncertain future as the US government’s 19 January 2025 deadline approaches, demanding ByteDance divest its US operations or face a nationwide ban. The ultimatum, backed by the Supreme Court’s apparent readiness to uphold the decision, appears to be the culmination of years of scrutiny over the platform’s data practices and ties to China. Amid this mounting pressure, reports suggest Elon Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter), could acquire TikTok’s US operations, a proposal that has sparked debates about its feasibility and geopolitical implications.
Now, let’s see how it began..
How did the TikTok odyssey begin?
The story of TikTok began in 2014 with Musical.ly, a social media app enabling users to create and share lip-sync videos. Founded in Shanghai, it quickly gained traction among US and European teenagers. By 2017, Musical.ly had over 100 million users and caught the attention of ByteDance, a Chinese tech giant that acquired it for $1 billion. In 2018, ByteDance merged Musical.ly with its domestic app Douyin, launching TikTok for international audiences. Leveraging powerful machine-learning algorithms, TikTok’s ‘For You Page’ became its defining feature, captivating users with an endless stream of personalised content.
The US clock strikes 'ban or divest TikTok' 12
By 2018, TikTok had become one of the most downloaded apps globally, surpassing giants like Facebook and Instagram. Its cultural influence exploded, reshaping how content was created and consumed. From viral dance challenges to comedic skits, TikTok carved out a unique space in the digital world, particularly among younger users. However, its meteoric rise also brought scrutiny. Concerns emerged over user data privacy and potential manipulation by its parent company ByteDance, which critics claimed had ties to the Chinese government.
The ‘ban or divest’ saga
The incipit of the current conflict can be traced back to 2020 when then-President Donald Trump attempted to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned WeChat, citing fears that Beijing could misuse US data or manipulate public discourse through the platforms. The courts blocked Trump’s effort, and in 2021, President Joe Biden revoked the Trump-era orders, but initiated its review of TikTok’s data practices, keeping the platform under scrutiny. Despite challenges, TikTok continued to grow, surpassing 1 billion active users by 2021. It implemented community guidelines and transparency measures to address content moderation and concerns about misinformation. It also planned to store US user data on Oracle-operated servers to mitigate fears of Chinese government access. However, bipartisan concerns over TikTok’s influence persisted, especially regarding its ties to the Chinese government and the potential data misuse. Lawmakers and US intelligence agencies have long raised alarms about the vast amount of data TikTok collects on its US users and the potential for Beijing to exploit this information for espionage or propaganda. Therefore, last year, Congress passed a bill with overwhelming support requiring ByteDance to divest its US assets, marking the strictest legal threat the platform has ever faced.
The 19 January 2025 deadline and the rumours about Elon Musk’s potential acquisition of TikTok
By 2024, TikTok was at the centre of a geopolitical storm. The US government’s demand for divestment or a ban by 19 January 2025 intensified the platform’s challenges. Amid these disputes, Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter), has emerged as a potential buyer for TikTok’s US operations. Musk’s ties to US and Chinese markets via Tesla’s Shanghai production hub position him as a unique figure in this debate. If Musk were to acquire TikTok, it could bolster X’s advertising reach and data capabilities, aligning with his broader ambitions in AI and technology. However, such a sale would involve overcoming numerous hurdles, including ByteDance’s valuation of TikTok at $40–50 billion and securing regulatory approvals from both Washington and Beijing. On the other hand, ByteDance, backed by Beijing, is resisting the sale, arguing that the conditioning violates free speech and poses significant logistical hurdles.
The US clock strikes 'ban or divest TikTok' 13
TikTok has attempted to safeguard its US user base of 170 million by planning to allow users to download their data in case the ban takes effect. It has also reassured its 7,000 US employees that their jobs and benefits are secure, even if operations are halted. While new downloads would be prohibited under the ban, existing users could retain access temporarily, although the platform’s functionality would degrade over time.
The looming deadline has sparked a surge in alternative platforms, such as RedNote (known in China as Xiaohongshu), which has seen a significant influx of US users in anticipation of TikTok’s potential exit.
TikTok’s cultural legacy and future
The fate of TikTok in the US hangs in the balance as President-elect Donald Trump considers an executive order to delay the enforcement of the ‘ban or divest’ law by up to 90 days. The potential extension, supported by figures from both political sides, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Trump’s incoming national security adviser Mike Waltz, aims to provide ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese owner, additional time to divest its US operations and avoid a nationwide ban. With over 170 million American users and substantial ad revenue at risk, lawmakers are increasingly wary of the disruption a ban could cause, signalling bipartisan support to keep the app operational while addressing national security concerns. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew’s attendance at Trump’s inauguration further hints at a shift in relations between the platform and the new administration. Meanwhile, the uncertainty has already driven US users to explore alternatives like RedNote as the clock ticks down to the Sunday deadline.
Either way, TikTok’s impact on culture and technology is undeniable. It has redefined digital content creation and inspired competitors like Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts. Yet, its journey highlights the challenges of navigating geopolitical tensions and concerns over data privacy in a hyper-connected world. As the 19 January deadline looms, TikTok stands at a crossroads. Whether it becomes part of Musk’s tech empire, succumbs to a US ban, or finds another path, its legacy as a trailblazer in short-form video content remains secure. The platform’s next chapter, however, hangs in the balance, as these TikTok developments underscore the broader implications of its struggles, including the reshaping of the social media landscape and the role of government intervention in regulating digital platforms.
As war forced thousands of Lebanese families to flee their homes, mechanical engineer Hania Zataari developed an AI chatbot to streamline aid distribution. The tool, linked to WhatsApp, collects requests for essentials like food, blankets, and medicine, helping volunteers reach those in need more efficiently. With support from donors abroad, the project has delivered hundreds of aid packages to displaced families in Sidon and beyond.
Many displaced people have struggled to access government assistance, leaving volunteers to fill the gap. Economic turmoil has further strained resources, with aid organisations warning of severe funding shortages. Despite these challenges, the chatbot has helped distribute crucial supplies, with volunteers working tirelessly to match demand with available resources.
Researchers see potential in the technology but question its scalability in other regions. The chatbot’s success, they argue, lies in its local adaptation and cultural familiarity. While it cannot solve Lebanon’s crisis, for the families relying on it, the tool has made survival a little easier.
