The spending has hurt the Silicon Valley giant’s cash flow, which turned negative. Meta said it would issue a new class of stock to help it raise more money.

© Scott Ball for The New York Times

The verdict should be seen as a warning for tech companies that New Mexico will hold them accountable, state Attorney General Raúl Torrez said at a news conference.

The penalty, one of the largest levied against a tech giant, stemmed from a lawsuit by New Mexico claiming the social media company had misled users about their data privacy.

© Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times

Proteste a Milano, il prof. Quattrociocchi: “Sui social la regia esterna è rara, contano bias e algoritmi”

“Non serve necessariamente una regia esterna”. Così Walter Quattrociocchi, professore ordinario alla Sapienza di Roma e direttore del Center of Data Science and Complexity for Society (CDCS), risponde ad Affaritaliani sulla possibilità che le proteste e i disordini possano essere sfruttati da Stati stranieri nell’ambito di operazioni di guerra ibrida. 

“Per parlare di guerra ibrida servono evidenze di un coordinamento intenzionale riconducibile ad attori esterni”, spiega il professore, sottolineando come le mobilitazioni possano essere il risultato di dinamiche spontanee: “Le proteste, anche quando degenerano, possono essere spiegate da dinamiche di contagio sociale che si sviluppano lungo linee identitarie”. 

A favorire questi processi sono anche i meccanismi cognitivi e le interazioni tra persone con idee simili: “Le persone tendono a cercare conferme alle proprie convinzioni, il cosiddetto confirmation bias, e a interagire con chi condivide le loro posizioni. È così che si formano le echo chamber, ambienti nei quali determinate narrazioni si rafforzano reciprocamente”.

Anche i social network possono essere utilizzati per tentare di destabilizzare un Paese, ma individuare una manipolazione non significa dimostrare che abbia prodotto effetti concreti: “Certamente esistono tentativi di manipolazione attraverso i social, ma tentare un’operazione di influenza e riuscire a orientare concretamente i comportamenti sono due cose molto diverse”, osserva Quattrociocchi. 

Le piattaforme, infatti, sono caratterizzate da dinamiche difficili da controllare, che possono favorire la diffusione di contenuti divisivi: “Gli algoritmi di raccomandazione, guidati da modelli di business fondati sull’attenzione, possono amplificare contenuti divisivi indipendentemente dalle intenzioni di chi li produce”. Per questo, avverte il professore, “dimostrare una regia esterna richiede quindi prove di coordinamento e attribuzione, non semplicemente contenuti virali”.

Sul fronte delle possibili contromisure, la priorità è comprendere i meccanismi attraverso cui si diffondono le informazioni e si consolidano le narrazioni online. “Prima ancora di cercare nemici esterni, dobbiamo comprendere il funzionamento ordinario delle piattaforme. Servono accesso ai dati, ricerca indipendente e trasparenza degli algoritmi per distinguere operazioni coordinate da fenomeni spontanei di contagio sociale”, sottolinea Quattrociocchi.

La soluzione, però, non deve tradursi in restrizioni dei diritti fondamentali: “La risposta non può essere limitare la libertà di espressione o il diritto di manifestare”. Il punto, conclude il professore, è capire “come identità collettive, bias cognitivi e incentivi economici delle piattaforme possano trasformare tensioni preesistenti in fenomeni di mobilitazione e polarizzazione, anche senza alcun intervento straniero”.

LEGGI LE NOTIZIE DEL CANALE NEWS

L'articolo Proteste a Milano, l’esperto: “Attacchi hacker o regia straniera? Spesso è solo contagio sociale” proviene da Affaritaliani.it.

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's (LPNH) X account—which has become infamous for its bigoted and controversy-ridden posts—is finally gone. But the state's spurious role in its banning raises free speech concerns.

Last week, New Hampshire Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to X's safety team, asking the company to suspend the account. Ayotte's letter made mention of several clear violations of X's content policies: "This account has openly called for the assassination of elected officials from the New Hampshire Democratic Party, has said it condones murdering elected officials for their policy positions, and most recently threatened a member of House leadership.…I'm calling on X to remove [the posts] and suspend the account immediately." 

The letter referenced one particularly bold post from September (which the account later deleted). The post read: "We openly support the assassination of basically every elected democrat in New Hampshire. But if you don't have the balls to do it, then you should probably vote GOP." 

X suspended the account the day after Ayotte sent the letter.

The removal of the LPNH account has likely elicited a sigh of relief from the Libertarian Party's (L.P.) leadership, which has repeatedly tussled with LPNH over its extreme rhetoric, undermining of L.P. candidates, and constant creation of P.R. crises for the party. In 2024, the LPNH endorsed Donald Trump for president instead of Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, pushing the Libertarian National Committee to disaffiliate LPNH from the L.P.'s structure this past May. The Granite State Libertarian Party was designated the state's new L.P. affiliate in September.

Even though the LPNH has clearly violated X's terms and does not adhere to the most basic requirements for L.P. membership (such as pledging to uphold the nonaggression principle), the government should not tell private firms when to enforce their own policies. This sentiment was shared by Granite State L.P., which recently said in a social media post, "While a private company has a right to remove someone screaming about setting people on fire…the government should play zero part in that decision."

Jeremy Kauffman, the chair of the LPNH, is outraged but unsurprised, posting on Sunday that he and the LPNH are "exploring a lawsuit against the New Hampshire government." He tells Reason, "Ayotte's letter was a classic example of jawboning. When a governor sends a demanding letter like this to a private company, there is a clear implicit threat attached."

Speaking to Reason, Trace Mitchell, a technology and free speech expert at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, defines jawboning as, "when the government, through veiled threats or direct coercion, pressures a private entity to take an action that the government could not lawfully take or mandate itself." 

In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot make recommendations to private companies if those recommendations come with legal repercussions—even implied or veiled repercussions. Doing so would qualify as jawboning, which violates the First Amendment. Though Ayotte's letter could be construed as extralegal pressure, it does not imply a punishment for noncompliance and likely falls short of legally recognized jawboning.

Addressing Kauffman's proposed lawsuit, Mitchell says, "In this case he would likely have to show there is something beyond this letter…[like] outside communications, emails or text with X." 

Safety officers at X provided no comment to Reason to justify the suspension. It is not clear whether there was any external communication involved beyond the letter. Without a more definite connection between Ayotte's request and X's decision, Kauffman may struggle to win in court. Still, that doesn't make the governor's request any less concerning. 

While Ayotte's letter was a surprise, it was not unprecedented. As social media has become the public forum, all levels of government have tried to regulate what is said there. During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal officials under the Biden administration were revealed to be in near-constant communication with major social media firms, encouraging and recommending that misinformation be removed from the platforms. Many of these recommendations were paired with implied threats to review the firms' legal immunity for content posted on their platforms, which spawned a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court in 2024. 

Although the Court dismissed the case for lack of standing, some lawmakers have taken action to address concerns over jawboning, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) introducing the JAWBONE Act in June. The bill would make it easier for members of the public to sue government officials who pressure media networks, as well as require increased transparency for all federal communications to media networks.

Even if Kauffman cannot find legal remit, Ayotte's letter was a troubling move for the future of internet speech. Many of the offending posts referenced were months old or had been deleted before the letter was sent. The LPNH has likely been violating X's content policy for years, but X only took action after the government instructed it to.

You don't need a judge to see how that might be concerning. 

The post X Bans Former Libertarian Party Affiliate—After the State Requests It appeared first on Reason Magazine.

She’s been the platform's biggest female star since she was 15, and has the battle scars to prove it. Now she’s breaking free from her family’s control — and taking her 160 million followers with her.

A Times reporter and editors discuss the challenges of sifting through what’s real and what’s not in pursuit of the news.

Brazil spent years targeting electoral lies on the internet. Now, artificial intelligence is stumping the election authorities and reshaping a high-stakes race.

Draft rules on the export of artificial intelligence technology show how China is trying to balance national security risks with its desire to outpace the United States.

© Aly Song/Reuters

Draft rules on the export of artificial intelligence technology show how China is trying to balance national security risks with its desire to outpace the United States.

© Aly Song/Reuters