SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Top Human Rights Group Makes Case for Countries to 'Break Up' Big Tech
Amnesty International says Big Tech's consolidation of power "has profound implications for human rights, particularly the rights to privacy, nondiscrimination, and access to information."
Aug 28, 2025
One of the world's leading human rights groups, Amnesty International, is calling on governments worldwide to "break up with Big Tech" by reining in the growing influence of tech and social media giants.
A report published Thursday by Amnesty highlights five tech companies: Alphabet (Google), Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple, which Hannah Storey, an advocacy and policy adviser on technology and human rights at Amnesty, describes as "digital landlords who determine the shape and form of our online interaction."
These five companies collectively have billions of active users, which the report says makes them akin to "utility providers."
"This concentration of power," the report says, "has profound implications for human rights, particularly the rights to privacy, nondiscrimination, and access to information."
The report emphasizes the "pervasive surveillance" by Google and Meta, which profit from "harvesting and monetizing vast quantities of our personal data."
"The more data they collect, the more dominant they become, and the harder it is for competitors to challenge their position," the report says. "The result is a digital ecosystem where users have little meaningful choice or control over how their data is used."
Meanwhile, Google's YouTube, as well as Facebook and Instagram—two Meta products—function using algorithms "optimized for engagement and profit," which emphasize content meant to provoke strong emotions and outrage from users.
"In an increasingly polarized context, the report says, "this can contribute to the rapid spread of discriminatory speech and even incitement to violence, which has had devastating consequences in several crisis and conflict-affected areas."
The report notes several areas around the globe where social media algorithms amplified ethnic hatred. It cites past research showing how Facebook's algorithm helped to "supercharge" dehumanizing rhetoric that fueled the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar and the violence in Ethiopia's Tigray War.
More broadly, it says, the ubiquity of these tech companies in users' lives gives them outsized influence over access to information.
"Social media platforms shape what millions of people see online, often through opaque algorithms that prioritize engagement over accuracy or diversity," it says. "Documented cases of content removal, inconsistent moderation, and algorithmic bias highlight the dangers of allowing a handful of companies to act as gatekeepers of the digital public sphere."
Amnesty argues that international human rights law requires governments worldwide to intervene to protect their people from abuses by tech companies.
"States and competition authorities should use competition laws as part of their human rights toolbox," it says. "States should investigate and sanction anti-competitive behaviours that harm human rights, prevent regulatory capture, and prevent harmful monopolies from forming."
Amnesty also calls on these states to consider the possible human rights impacts of artificial intelligence, which it describes as the "next phase" of Big Tech's growing dominance, with Microsoft, Amazon, and Google alone controlling 60% of the global cloud computing market.
"Addressing this dominance is critical, not only as a matter of market fairness but as a pressing human rights issue," Storey said. "Breaking up these tech oligarchies will help create an online environment that is fair and just."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Parents' Group Says New Revelations About Meta's AI Chatbot 'Confirm Our Worst Fears'
"When a company's own policies explicitly allow bots to engage children in 'romantic or sensual' conversations, it's not an oversight, it's a system designed to normalize inappropriate interactions with minors," said one advocate.
Aug 15, 2025
Four months after the children's rights advocacy group ParentsTogether Action issued an advisory about the potential harms Meta's artificial intelligence chatbot could pose to kids, new reporting Wednesday revealed how the Silicon Valley company's standards for the AI product have allowed it to have sexually provocative conversations with minors as well as make racist comments.
Reuters reported extensively on an internal Meta document titled "GenAI: Content Risk Standards."
The document said that Meta's generative AI products—which are available to users as young as 13 on the company's platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—are permitted to engage in "romantic or sensual" role-play with minors.
Examples of acceptable remarks from the AI bot included "Your youthful form is a work of art" and "Every inch of you is a masterpiece," which the document suggested could be said to a child as young as 8.
An example of an acceptable comment made to a high school student was, "I take your hand, guiding you to the bed."
New Republic contributing editor Osita Nwanevu said the reporting shows that "if we're going to have this technology, the content used to train models needs to be legally licensed from its creators and their applications need to be regulated."
"For example: I do not think we should allow children to be groomed by the computer," he said.
Reuters reported that Meta changed the document after the news outlet brought the sexually suggestive comments to the company's attention, with spokesperson Andy Stone saying such conversations with children should not have been allowed.
"The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed," Stone told Reuters. "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role-play between adults and minors."
But Stone didn't say the company had revised the content standards to disallow other concerning comments, like those that promote racist views.
The document stated that the AI chatbot was permitted to "create statements that demean people on the basis of their protected characteristics"—for example, a paragraph about Black people being "dumber than white people."
Reuters' reporting suggested that Meta's allowance of sexually suggestive AI conversations with children was not an accident, with current and former employees who worked on the design and training of the AI products saying the document reflected "the company's emphasis on boosting engagement with its chatbots."
"In meetings with senior executives last year, [CEO Mark] Zuckerberg scolded generative AI product managers for moving too cautiously on the rollout of digital companions and expressed displeasure that safety restrictions had made the chatbots boring, according to two of those people," reported Jeff Horwitz at Reuters. "Meta had no comment on Zuckerberg's chatbot directives."
In April, ParentsTogether Action issued a warning about Meta's AI chatbots and their ability to "engage in sexual role-play with teenagers," which had previously been reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Wednesday's reporting provided "a fuller picture of the company's rules for AI bots," the group said.
"These internal Meta documents confirm our worst fears about AI chatbots and children's safety," said Shelby Knox, campaign director for tech accountability and online safety at ParentsTogether Action. "When a company's own policies explicitly allow bots to engage children in 'romantic or sensual' conversations, it's not an oversight, it's a system designed to normalize inappropriate interactions with minors."
The group said it tested Meta AI earlier this year, posing as a 14-year-old, and was told by the bot, "Age is just a number" as it encouraged the fictional teenager to pursue a relationship with an adult.
"No child should ever be told by an AI that 'age is just a number' or be encouraged to lie to their parents about adult relationships," said Knox. "Meta has created a digital grooming ground, and parents deserve answers about how this was allowed to happen."
As Stone assured Reuters that the company was reviewing its content standards for its AI chatbot, other new reporting suggested Meta isn't likely to impose strict rules discouraging the bot from making racist or otherwise harmful remarks any time soon.
As CNN reported Wednesday, Meta has hired Robby Starbuck, a "conservative influencer and anti-DEI agitator," to serve as an anti-bias adviser for its AI products.
The arrangement is part of a legal settlement following a lawsuit Starbuck filed against Meta in April, saying the chatbot had falsely stated he took part in the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol.
An executive order signed by President Donald Trump last month seeks to rid AI products of so-called "woke" standards and prohibit the federal government from using AI technology that is "infused with partisan bias or ideological agendas such as critical race theory"—the term used by many conservatives in recent years for the accurate teaching of race relations in US history.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How a Professional Bully Is Winning Control of the Media
Major media outlets from CBS to The Washington Post have “bent the knee” to President Trump’s specious demands.
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump is following the authoritarian’s handbook that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used to consolidate power in Hungary. He is attacking the independent institutions that comprise the infrastructure supporting democracy—universities, law firms, culture, and the media.
And he is winning.
Major media outlets have “bent the knee” his press secretary’s preferred phrase for capitulation to Trump’s specious demands. His latest conquest is CBS.
CBS
Days before the 2024 election, Trump filed a frivolous lawsuit accusing the network of bias in broadcasting a “60 Minutes” interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Seeking $10 billion in damages, the complaint claimed that the edited interview and associated programming were “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference” intended to “mislead the public and attempt to tip the scales” in Harris’ favor.
Prominent First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said that “the First Amendment was drafted to protect the press from just such litigation.” Harvard Law School Professor Rebecca Tushnet called it “ridiculous junk and should be mocked.” Attorney Charles Tobin warned, “This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media.”
A few days later, Trump won the election. And now CBS’ parent company, Paramount, wants to settle the case.
Whatever money CBS pays Trump to settle his frivolous lawsuit is extortion.
Through her family’s holding company, Shari Redstone who is “friendly with Trump” is Paramount’s controlling shareholder. If the Federal Communications Commission approves its pending merger with Skydance Media, Redstone will reap millions.
On February 6, Redstone told the Paramount board that she wanted to settle Trump’s lawsuit. The next day, Trump doubled his damages claim to $20 billion. As the media reported Redstone’s desire to resolve the case, Trump pounced. On April 13, he asserted on social media that the FCC should impose “the maximum fine and punishment” on CBS and the network “should lose its license.”
The parties have agreed on a mediator, but whatever money CBS pays Trump to settle his frivolous lawsuit is extortion. The more profound cost is the loss of CBS’ journalistic independence, which became apparent on April 22 when the producer of “60 Minutes” resigned.
In the program’s 57-year history, Bill Owens—who became the “60 Minutes” executive producer in 2019 after 30 years at CBS—was only the third person to run it. Owens’s memo to his staff should be a warning to all of us:
“[O]ver the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for ‘60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.”
CBS wasn’t Trump’s first media victim.
The Washington Post
In early November 2024, The Washington Post editorial board had signed off on an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president. But it never ran. Owner Jeff Bezos personally killed it and, for the first time in decades, the paper did not endorse a U.S. presidential candidate.
A few hours after Bezos’s “no endorsement” decision became public, officials from his Blue Origin aerospace company, which has a multi-billion dollar contract with NASA, met with Trump.
After Trump won the election, Bezos flew to Mar-a-Lago where he and his fiancée dined with the president-elect. Shortly thereafter, Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. And another Bezos company—Amazon—paid $40 million to license a documentary about Melania Trump, who personally will receive $28 million.
On February 26, Bezos announced a new rightward shift for the Post: It would now advocate for “personal liberties and free markets” and not publish opposing viewpoints on those topics.
The paper’s opinion section editor, David Shipley, resigned in response to the change. Prominent columnists followed him out the door, and more than 250,000 readers canceled their subscriptions.
The Los Angeles Times
The Los Angeles Times had an established record of presidential endorsements too—until 2024. Its 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden blasted Trump. But in 2024, billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong quashed an editorial that would have endorsed Vice President Harris. As at the Post, columnists and editorial board members resigned in protest, and the paper lost thousands of subscribers.
After the election, Soon-Shiong killed another editorial set to run with this headline: “Donald Trump’s cabinet choices are not normal. The Senate’s confirmation process should be.”
Self-censorship is the most effective, enduring, and dangerous method of abridging free speech.
More than one-half of Americans “often” or “sometimes” get their news from social media. One-third of all adults in the U.S. get their news from Facebook (operated by Meta). Meta’s president Mark Zuckerberg was among the billionaires who traveled to Mar-a-Lago after the election, met with Trump, and donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund. (With the help of corporate and billionaire megadonors like Zuckerberg and Bezos, Trump raised a record $239 million for the fund.)
Then Zuckerberg gave Trump a bigger gift: Meta abandoned third-party fact-checking of Facebook posts. As his rationale, Zuckerberg repeated Trump’s false talking points that fact-checking was “censorship” and reflected an “anti-Trump bias.”
Asked if he thought Zuckerberg was “directly responding to the threats” that Trump had made to him in the past, Trump answered: “Probably.”
Meanwhile, Meta invited Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, a longtime Trump supporter, to join its board of directors.
PBS and NPR
On April 26, Trump will send Congress his request to halt all funding for public media—including NPR and PBS.
Viktor Orbán’s Playbook—The Trump Sequel
Since his return to power, Hungary’s prime minister has used “muscular state policy to achieve conservative ends,” according to conservative activist Christopher Rufo. Orbán is “attempting to rebuild its culture and institutions, from schools to universities to media.”
Orbán began “working with friendly oligarchs to purchase and transform media companies into conservative stalwarts; directing government advertising budgets to politically-aligned outlets;… and pressuring the holdover state media… to provide more favorable coverage.”
Rufo insists that Hungary “has a media environment at least as competitive as that of many Western nations.” Experienced observers disagree:
Human Rights Watch found that the government is using its near media monopoly to strengthen its hold on democratic institutions… The government’s increased control over the media market is linked to its broader assault on rule of law in Hungary, including undermining judicial independence and state capture of public institutions…
Trump’s attacks on universities, law firms, culture, and the media are all of a piece. Viktor Orbán’s Hungary provides a roadmap of his battle plan and a preview of his end game.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular