Chatbot platform Character.AI said on Monday it has filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. and has agreed to sell some assets for US$20 million to Walt Disney.
Chatbot platform Character.AI said on Monday it has filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. and has agreed to sell some assets for US$20 million to Walt Disney.
WIRED examined contracts from over two dozen cities and towns that shed light on how Flock’s pricing and business model functions, and how it stacks up against its peers.
A new poll indicates that 64 percent of Americans believe artificial intelligence (AI) is developing “too fast.”
The Associated Press-NORC Center poll released on Oct. 8 showed that just 27 percent say the development is “about right,” and less than 10 percent think it’s moving “too slow.”
Of the polled adults, more Democrats (76 percent) than Republicans (54 percent) think AI is moving too fast. However, 70 percent of those under 30 years old think the technology should be slowed, and 60 percent of those 60 years old and older think the same.
The findings come amid growing concern over the technology’s potential threat to humanity, which has led to industry leaders and politicians calling for a slowdown and more regulation.
President Donald Trump has dismissed calls for more regulation, saying the United States needs to maintain its edge over China in the AI race. Major AI companies recently signed a voluntary accord with the White House that calls for internal and external reviews.
According to the poll conducted Sept. 24 to 28, about half of respondents think the government’s support is about promoting technological innovation, and a little fewer say they think it’s about competition with China.
Meanwhile, 80 percent of Americans say it’s “extremely” or “very” important for the United States to ensure AI stays under human control.
Recent months have seen several incidents of AI agents from major tech firms breaching websites of private companies, research institutions, and multiple government agencies.
Notably, ChatGPT developer OpenAI acknowledged in July that its AI agents broke out of a testing environment and hacked into Hugging Face, an open-source community for AI.
In September, OpenAI canceled the release of its latest model, GPT-6.1 Astra, slated for October, over safety concerns. It also postponed plans for its initial public offering this year.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have proposed a range of measures to regulate the technology, but none are likely to advance anytime soon with Congress in recess ahead of the midterms.
Confidence in politicians’ handling of AI is low, with 23 percent trusting Democrats to do a better job and 21 percent favoring Republicans, while 39 percent trust neither party.
Mistrust of AI appears to have extended to the realm of politics, as very few adults are using AI as a source of information for the upcoming election. The poll indicated that only about 21 percent of respondents said they use or plan to use AI to gather information about a candidate or ballot issue.
Even fewer (12 percent) said they will use AI for information about how to vote, and only 10 percent said they would use it for information on voter registration.
Interview: AT&T Business selected Amazon Leo for an enterprise broadband service designed to complement its fibre and 5G offerings, describing the satellite provider as a business-grade alternative to Starlink.
Shawn Hakl, SVP and head of product at AT&T Business (pictured), told Mobile World Live the service adds a third connectivity option, including in areas beyond the reach of AT&T’s terrestrial networks.
“We’ve done a lot of integration with Amazon and we’re working with them at different levels,” he said. “We’ve tested the product out pretty extensively and we’ve seen sub-50 millisecond latency. We’re also extremely happy with the throughput.”
Amazon Leo selected AT&T Business as its sole US telecoms launch partner.
“They’ve been extremely willing to work with us to fine-tune the interaction between the two networks,” Hakl explained. “We’re working closely with them on how to harmonise the in-air component and the interaction between our network and the ground stations.”
AT&T Business is providing the last-mile connectivity and local customer equipment for the service, while working with Amazon on the interaction between AT&T’s terrestrial network and Amazon Leo’s ground stations.
He said the operator is striving to make the connection between its network and the cloud “a software consumable element” which could be combined with satellite, wireless and wireline connectivity in an end-to-end architecture rather than offered as a series of point-to-point products.
Hakl said some customers will want traditional active-passive setups, others active configurations and some multiple-box arrangements.
“I don’t think we can get down to a single box in the first iteration,” he noted.
Hakl stated combining fibre, 5G and satellite will enable AT&T Business to deliver different services, SLAs and business outcomes for each customer. This will give customers more granular control over how applications use network resources, including the ability to balance performance, cost and security across their connectivity options.
Customers could choose how much control they retain, Hakl said. Some may want to manage network decisions in detail, while others could leave them to AI models.
Hakl noted AT&T has sold satellite services for a decade, particularly in agriculture, manufacturing and retail, while public safety through FirstNet is another area of focus.
“If the price point comes down, obviously it becomes more of an option for different segments in the market,” he stated. “We’re just impressed with Amazon’s technology and feel like it’s the business-grade solution that’s out there.”
Hakl said AT&T Business expects to offer the service next year, although the timing remains tied to Amazon Leo’s satellite launch schedule.
Launch timing In July, Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp outlined a plan to rebuild its Florida launch pad with a new configuration after a failed attempt as it works toward returning its New Glenn rocket to flight before the end of the year.
Also in July, Amazon Leo applied to the US Federal Communications Commission to deploy up to 5,105 birds to deliver direct-to-device services to mobile devices.
And in October, Amazon company communications manager Zack Brown revealed the company currently has 396 LEO birds in orbit and said the company has built over 1,000 satellites at its 172,000-square-foot production facility in Kirkland, Washington.
Famous Indian author Shashi Tharoor was famously quoted as saying: “Everything in India is recycled, even the dreams “ In October 2010, The Economist ran a cover titled “How India’s growth will outpace China,” citing India’s young population, dynamic private sector and a strong democratic system as advantages over China’s state-led model. The IMF projected […]
Não me preocupa particularmente que o ChatGPT consiga escrever um email melhor do que eu. Preocupa-me mais que eu comece a achar que não vale a pena tentar.
Elon Musk pledged to make Starlink affordable in India as he renewed his attack on billionaire Mukesh Ambani’s (pictured) telecoms dominance, days before Jio Platforms launches a record-breaking IPO.
In a series of posts on social media platform X, the SpaceX chief argued that competition from Starlink would benefit Indian consumers by expanding connectivity options. “The reality is that competition would greatly benefit the average citizen in India by giving them more choices, as it always does,” he explained, adding, “Ambani’s profits will be lower, but he is not going out of business”.
Musk also dismissed claims that Starlink would struggle to compete with Jio’s low-cost data plans while also posing a threat to the incumbent operator. “This is absurd hypocrisy and hyperbole,” he said.
His comments come as Jio Platforms targets a valuation of around $106 billion, according to Reuters, in a planned IPO that could become India’s largest-ever listing. The business includes telecoms operation Reliance Jio, which reported 524.4 million subscribers at the end of March, including 268.5 million 5G customers.
“Prime Minister Ambani“ Musk has escalated his criticism of India’s regulatory process in recent days, accusing authorities and “certain oligarchs” of delaying Starlink’s entry into the country to maintain a “monopolistic chokehold on the Indian people”.
In a separate post on Friday (9 October), he sarcastically addressed the Jio Platforms-owner as “Prime Minister Ambani” and asked whether he would “consider allowing Starlink to compete”.
He argued satellite connectivity could bring internet access to underserved communities, improve educational opportunities and enable small businesses to reach international markets.
“Please accept my humble apologies for not realizing that you are the real boss of India,” he wrote, adding “Starlink would change their lives for the better”.
India’s Ministry of Communications has rejected allegations of discriminatory treatment, stating that Starlink and incumbents Bharti Airtel and Reliance Jio were at broadly the same stage of the regulatory process. All three have secured initial approvals but remain subject to outstanding security clearances before they can obtain spectrum access.
MWL‘s Mike Robuck sits down with executives from Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and the US Department of War (DoW) to discuss the progress Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) has made this year and where it is headed next.
Ericsson Federal CEO Christopher Ling sees sensing as a potential killer app for 6G, arguing it could give the US military a reason to invest in commercial cellular infrastructure beyond connectivity.
Integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) turns communications networks into sensors by analysing radio signals reflected from objects. It can detect, track and identify objects in much the same way as radar.
Ericsson Federal Technologies Group is the vendor’s US unit focused on adapting its commercial network technology for federal government and national-security customers.
ISAC has moved beyond laboratory testing over the past year. It has been demonstrated at a stadium, included in a US Department of War (DoW) contract and proposed for a Los Angeles, California trial ahead of the 2028 Olympics.
Dr Tom Rondeau, principal director of the DoW’s FutureG programme, said denser 5G and 6G networks, edge-based AI compute and greater access to commercial spectrum are making network-based sensing viable.
“We have a network that covers 70% of the landmass of the United States and about 98% of the population,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to use this for, to kick off the value proposition of ISAC.”
Rondeau highlighted drones, particularly swarms, as the immediate focus. The aim is to find, fix and track potentially thousands of devices, including in dense cities where traditional sensors struggle and radar cannot simply be pointed into open sky.
“It’s one thing to have a missile defence system or a drone defence system that gets to look up and out into open airspace,” he said, “but it’s another to track it in downtown New York [City] or downtown [Washington] DC.”
Network density could compensate for the limited sensing range of individual sites. At the power levels involved, a single base station might reach only a few kilometres, but sites spaced every half kilometre could extend coverage across much of the network.
Rondeau (pictured, left) pointed to Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb, in which drones smuggled deep into Russian territory and controlled over Russia’s cellular network reportedly destroyed roughly a third of its strategic bomber fleet.
“That tells us that we can no longer think of border security as just looking out of our geographical borders,” he said. “We have to be able to look across our entire nation.”
Rondeau also sees civilian applications for ISAC. Drawing on his time at DARPA studying emergency planning, he cited Hurricane Katrina, when evacuation plans fell apart because people did not go where planners expected.
“It’s not like we’re going to redirect them to where we want to be,” he said, “so why don’t we redirect the resources to where they actually are.”
Trials AT&T and Ericsson ran a drone-detection demonstration near AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, during the FIFA World Cup football tournament a few months ago.
In nearby Dallas, Verizon and Samsung tested a crowd-density heatmap at the World Cup FanFest area, designed to help fans find shorter queues and organisers manage foot traffic.
“That was a crowd sensing for the FanFest area, which is completely different to detecting drones,” said Verizon CTO Yago Tenorio. “It looks like a business-to-business opportunity that you can monetise.”
Tenorio explained ISAC presents fewer privacy concerns than cameras because it returns shape, movement and rough size rather than identity. It can distinguish “a pedestrian from a bicycle and a drone from a bird”, though not one person from another.
The DoW has also begun funding development. In July, Cohere Technologies won a $28 million contract from the FutureG Office to build a multi-waveform radio access network prototype which uses commercial cellular infrastructure to detect drones and other aerial threats.
Ericsson and Finnish state-owned ICT company Erillisverkot have also run live demonstrations in a Helsinki cargo harbour, using sensing data from several network points to detect small, low-altitude drones.
Verizon’s 6G forum Verizon has made ISAC one of two anchor themes of its 6G Innovation Forum, which it expanded in September. The other theme is AI wearables. Tenorio stated the forum was created to “design 6G bottoms up”, starting with viable use cases and how they might be monetised.
At Qualcomm’s San Diego, California campus, Verizon tested 100MHz to 400MHz of millimetre-wave spectrum across four synchronised transmission and reception points. The system mapped the position and velocity of an airborne target and moving ground vehicles while keeping a phone user on the ground connected over standalone 5G. Verizon presented the trial as a test of drone and vehicle safety tracking.
Millimetre wave was the only spectrum which offered enough bandwidth, Tenorio said, and bandwidth, more than frequency, determines sensing accuracy.
“The precision of the positioning and the radar image… is proportional to the bandwidth of the signal,” he stated. “Not so much the frequency, but the bandwidth.”
Technology divide Huawei appears to have an early lead in ISAC deployments. Ling said Ericsson had been told the Chinese vendor has more than 300 ISAC-capable systems operating, although he cautioned the figure might not be exact. He linked the reported lead to China’s early nationwide shift to standalone 5G.
Ling (pictured, left) explained there’s a difference in terms of network architecture. In a monostatic configuration, one tower transmits a signal and receives its reflection, indicating an object’s presence and general direction. Huawei developed a monostatic system and, in Ling’s view, may now be reconsidering that approach. As far as he knows, Ericsson is the only company using a multistatic configuration, in which one site transmits and other sites receive the reflected signal, enabling more precise location and tracking.
A monostatic system might show an object is off to the left, he said. A multistatic system could place it 1,500 metres away, measure its speed and track it to within eight to 10 metres, the resolution he said the Arlington demonstration achieved.
Ling stressed that Ericsson is focused on 5G sensing rather than a fully integrated sensing and communication system. Turning a 5G network into a radar remains a significant technical challenge, he noted, and the company wants to establish the capability before moving further.
It has committed $100 million to ISAC and expects a commercial product within two years, ahead of the standards debate expected at the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference.
Ling said micro-Doppler signatures from spinning propellers could allow the system to identify a drone type as well as locate it. “It’s not only detecting, tracking, you can get identification from it as well,” he said.
The resolution may eventually be good enough to support targeting without the more expensive radar systems the military uses today.
“You’ve got a drone that costs $30,000 and we’re shooting it down with a million-dollar missile,” he said. “This starts to bend the cost curve.”
Ericsson has held discussions with European countries bordering Russia, Ling added, and sees growing interest in the Middle East, where governments are concerned about protecting infrastructure.
From 5G to 6G Tenorio described current ISAC work as a step towards 6G. Vendors are fitting sensing into 5G and 5G-Advanced systems while preserving as much connectivity capacity as possible; 6G would allow them to design the capability into the network from the outset.
“On 5G, you’re just squeezing it in as best as you possibly can,” he said. “But if you understand how it works, you have the opportunity to design it natively in 6G in a way that comes with no compromise.”
Verizon plans to extend its ISAC work to Los Angeles. The carrier has applied to the Federal Communications Commission for a one-year experimental licence to use 4.8GHz to 4.9GHz spectrum, part of the 4.4GHz band the NTIA is studying for 5G and 6G. It plans to test Ericsson hardware and software in and around its LA lab. The filing describes an outdoor private network within a five-kilometre radius, separate from commercial networks. The application is pending.
Tenorio called the band “a good compromise” between available bandwidth and a frequency low enough to propagate farther. Verizon has also applied to take part in the NTIA’s Mission 6G 28 programme, which will showcase 6G technology around the 2028 Olympics.
“LA will be an important opportunity for us to display not only what 6G is about… but where we are in terms of advancing the technology,” he said.
Beyond drones and crowds, Tenorio sees enterprise uses such as digital twins of factories and campuses. At shorter ranges, he said, ISAC could support vital-sign monitoring and fall detection in elderly care.
Shawn Hakl, SVP and head of product at AT&T Business, sees the value in places where cameras and sensors are impractical, or the assets belong to someone else. He cited public safety, analytics and flow control, and spotting changes such as an unplanned obstruction on a city street.
“ISAC gives us a way to get sort of topology information, environment information without having physically deployed stuff and basically getting signal data back,” he said.
Ling stated the military case may ultimately depend on sensing rather than connectivity: a customer which would not buy a 5G network solely for communications could still need the infrastructure to obtain 5G sensing.
Although the social and environmental costs of renewable energy technologies are often gestured at parenthetically in left discourse about climate action, they are rarely given serious and sustained attention. It is generally assumed that because a rapid transition to renewables is necessary to avoid full-on climate disaster, we will simply have to accept these costs without too much critical scrutiny.
Joshua Frank is the managing editor at CounterPunch. He is an investigative journalist and author of the recent award-winning book Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America (Haymarket, 2022).
+++
Thank you for speaking with me again, and congratulations on the publication of your new book Bad Energy. The book is a sobering look at the environmental costs of the transition to renewables that explores those made expendable in the name of combating climate change and pushes us to reckon with the material constraints on any construction of a sustainable postcapitalist future. Challenging the complacent path-dependency of much left energy politics without laying out a detailed blueprint for an alternative makes this a potentially unpopular line of questioning; people may not want to confront the harms involved in the only climate solutions that seem to be on offer, especially when there seems to already be so little to feel hopeful about at the moment. What prompted you to take up this project? And were there things that particularly surprised you as you began your research?
I live in California. I grew up in the West, in Montana. The majority of public lands in this country managed by the Bureau of Land Management are in the West; there are 240-some million acres that are managed by the BLM. And many of these huge so-called green energy projects are being built on these public lands. In California, for instance, a lot of big solar farm projects are popping up in the Mojave Desert. I spend a lot of time in those areas, and I see the impact that they’re having.
On a very personal level, when my wife and I moved into our current house, we adopted an endangered desert tortoise that had been living here. It was probably stolen from the Mojave decades ago, but it’s been living here through three different residents. So we’ve gotten to know this desert tortoise really well. When I started learning about what some of these big energy projects are doing to desert tortoise habitat, I really felt like I needed to tell the story and defend these creatures, which have been out there for millions of years and we’ve put them on the brink of extinction in a hundred years. They’re an indicator species of an ecosystem in crisis.
Of course, it’s not just green energy projects; there’s been mining and grazing and drought and weapons testing and all sorts of things that have happened out there. But right now, this big push for green energy has made things much, much worse. So that was really the first thing that prompted me to think about approaching this project; I felt like I needed to do it in defense of this tortoise that I am a steward of here at home.
Obviously, I support a transition away from fossil fuels. So I’ve supported solar and wind projects. But what I didn’t realize until I started my research for the book is who is behind many of these projects or the scale of the moneyed interests involved. One that I write about in the book is an enormous wind project in Wyoming that is being funded by an oil billionaire. It’s going to be five hundred square miles, and they’re going to build a seven-hundred-plus-mile-long transmission line called the Transwest Express that’s going to transmit that power from Wyoming to California. That was just mind boggling to me.
Wind energy in and of itself is not a bad thing, but a huge wind project like this that is four or five states away seems completely crazy to me. And when I visited the town where that project is being built and I talked to residents there, they feel the same way—that this is just another example of resource exploitation in their state. There are many other examples like that. So I started looking at the nuances of some of these technologies and who benefits from implementing them in one way versus another, which was enlightening to me, and hopefully will be to readers.
One of the themes of the book is that focusing too narrowly on climate change can cause us to overlook other aspects of capitalist ecocide—particularly the biodiversity crisis, which is, as you note, “in many ways as serious as climate change itself.” If you’re an oil billionaire who’s trying to diversify with more of an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, as the Democrats like to say, then perhaps it makes good sense to frame things narrowly in terms of carbon alone. But some climate activists and sections of the left seem to do the same thing unintentionally. Are there ways to talk about and organize around the climate crisis without separating it from the broader context?
I think one of the traps that we fall into is thinking about the planet in a very binary way when it comes to the climate—a problem that has been made worse by the big green outfits that are almost solely focused on climate change. And of course, this isn’t to say that climate chaos isn’t real. It is. But we can fixate on it at the expense of a lot of other problems that are also happening concurrently: industrial farming and the pollution it causes, habitat loss, all sorts of things. So the first thing we need to do is start looking at planetary health holistically. Once we start to see that all these things are interconnected, and then look for answers to climate change that take the impacts of biodiversity and everything else into consideration, we start looking at the problem differently. When we destroy biodiversity (often in the service of capital accumulation), we’re doing so at the expense of the climate, because those deserts and rainforests act as carbon sinks in many cases, too. We can’t approach the answer to one of these problems at the expense of the other.
You take the same stance here when it comes to the social impacts of energy projects. You note that “more than half of critical mining projects are on or near Indigenous lands,” and throughout the book you cover a number of specific examples where the buildout of renewables is harming Indigenous communities and, in some cases, making their existing ways of life impossible. This focus contrasts with the predominant approach of the social-democratic left in this country, which generally prefers to ignore or downplay such concerns as identitarian and politically inconvenient. Why have you centered them here, and how do they connect to the larger argument of the book?
I think if we’re talking about the fossil fuel industry and the impacts that coal mining or oil production have on people, we don’t have the same kind of conversation. There, everybody on the left would agree we need to oppose these things because they’re polluting resources, they’re poisoning water, they’re destroying communities. Well, then why can’t we use that same framework to analyze so-called green energy projects?
For example, I have done a lot of work with folks in the Navajo Nation working against uranium mining, talking to people that have been impacted by that industry, which is being resurrected under the guise of climate change. One of the things that we need to do when we’re looking at all of these projects is to give it the same attention and criticism that we would to the fossil fuel industry, because many of the impacts on the ground for these communities is very similar.
As you and I have discussed before, I also think that there is a lack of environmental ethic on parts of the left, and definitely a lack of respect for Indigenous cultures and Indigenous lifeways. There is so much we can learn from Indigenous cultures, but we also need to understand that if we’re not approaching where we get our energy in a critical way, it is going to play out like all of the earlier extractive, colonial episodes that have come before. As I detail throughout the book, these mining companies and other interests looking to profit off of the transition are using the same playbook that the fossil fuel industry has used. So we need to be critical in the same way that we would if we were talking about oil and gas production.
Part of that playbook is to frame so-called “nonproductive” uses of the land as “waste.” Even when it’s not explicitly stated, I think there’s often an attitude on parts of the left that sees Indigenous land and water protectors as irrationally obstructing necessary “progress”—a (possibly willful) misunderstanding of the concerns of Indigenous communities as they have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of repeating the same harms under a green banner if we fail to acknowledge and address the underlying causes. And those are not just capitalism and ongoing colonialism but a breakdown of proper relations and an unwillingness to acknowledge our full obligations to all those with whom we are in relation.
Often we are talking about how climate chaos is impacting these communities, but we should be talking about all of the things that are impacting these communities, and the book tries to highlight that.
While we’re talking about some of the ways that this book may push or challenge sections of the left, I wanted to ask about another inconvenient truth that you highlight in the book, which is that of non-Western imperialism. In particular, several prominent ecosocialist thinkers (I have in mind John Bellamy Foster and Jason Hickel, but there are numerous others) seem to have a real blind spot when it comes to the social and environmental harms of Chinese imperialism. Why do you think that is, and how should the left position itself vis-à-vis interimperial rivalries in global supply chains for renewables?
One thing that was very enlightening to me when doing research for the book was learning just how much of these so-called critical mineral resources globally are controlled by China and Chinese-backed companies. Congo is example of this: 80 percent of its copper and cobalt is controlled by Chinese interests. It’s a similar story in many other places in Africa and South America. This includes things like cobalt, copper, and nickel, as well as graphite, lithium, and rare earths. And not only do they control something like 70 percent of the world’s current critical mineral reserves, but they also control 90 percent of their refinement.
Of course, critical minerals are not just used in “green” technologies—they are used in military tech and AI chips and all sorts of things. They are increasingly crucial to the capitalist economic system, and so we have seen these geopolitical tensions arise over them, with Trump aiming to secure access to minerals by strong-arming countries through tariffs and threatening to withhold military aid, and so on.
But the opposition to the United States can mask the on-the-ground reality of Chinese mining, which is no less brutal than that of US-based corporations. When you start digging into it, you see that there is rampant abuse of miners that are many times children working in horrible conditions in toxic places. I have a lot of respect for Jason and John, but I think that it’s naive to see this relationship that China has with some of these places, which generally aren’t seeing the benefit of all this extraction, and to not to see that as a form of economic imperialism.
Of course, it’s not just mining in places like the Congo; China is funding huge so-called green energy projects all over the world. And on the surface, that might seem like a good thing for those places. China is loaning billions to construct well over three hundred huge hydroelectric dam projects in seventy countries under the guise of providing energy and creating jobs. But when you look at the fine print, you see that these loans are all resource-backed loans, which means in many of the cases the funding is tied to giving China access to critical minerals and other resources. So that also is a form of economic imperialism. If the United States or the IMF or the World Bank were doing it, that’s what we’d be calling it, right? And the United States certainly wishes that they had been doing this decades ago, because China is ahead of the game.
I don’t know where the ecosocialist thinkers have lost the narrative on this, but I hope that they can look at the reality on the ground and come to a different conclusion.
Although the book challenges various kinds of complacency that we find on the left, the point is not to argue that all renewable energy is inherently “bad” energy. No energy source is without impacts, but you note that “not all renewable energies are created equal.” For example, you suggest that solar and wind are generally less harmful than nuclear reactors and large dams. You also discuss how different approaches to these technologies can lower their impact (encouraging distributed rooftop solar rather than large solar farms in the Mojave, and so on). Some of this may be context dependent—if you’re in a place that has good wind corridors that are less frequented by migratory birds, maybe it makes sense to put wind there instead of in certain sensitive offshore habitats, for instance. But are there any overarching principles to keep in mind when thinking through our energy options?
I generally think local is better in many ways. Local communities have a better sense of their needs and of what their ecology means to them. I think about an example that I wrote about in the book, which is how these big solar projects in California are rolling out. In investigating that, I came to the conclusion that it is the big utility companies in California that wanted to destroy the rooftop solar program, which was making really great strides here in the state, because it wasn’t profitable to them. They are looking to maximize profits; they’re publicly traded companies, so there’s a fiduciary responsibility for them to provide endless returns on their investments. Rooftop solar was a threat to that; and so Gavin Newsom, who is in the back pocket of these big utilities, destroyed rooftop solar. And what they’ve done instead is to open up enormous swaths—millions and millions of acres—of public lands across the West to develop solar farms, in some cases in very ecological important areas.
So I think understanding that economic dynamic is important, first and foremost, before we even start talking about the nuances of these technologies and what those impacts might be at the local level. You can contrast the placelessness of capital with the people I talked to in the book, including people from a lot of different Native American communities. People, especially in rural communities, have a lot of ideas about what their needs are and how they could be met. There’s an example in the book of a community in Northern California that has very inconsistent energy. Yet there is no guarantee that this massive wind farm that’s being proposed off the coast of Northern California is going to help bring energy to that local community.
Those kind of contradictions, I think, are really important to look at. And this gets into larger questions of democratic decision-making. These communities, in many cases Indigenous communities, are once again being set up as “sacrifice zones,” only now in the name of green energy. Once we recognize that, then it seems clear that they should have a bigger say in what happens on those lands than, say, those who live hundreds of miles away who would enjoy the fruits of their resources.
In terms of what energy strategies we choose, of course it is partly geographically dependent. Obviously in parts of the US West, sun is very plentiful. I don’t really get into geothermal in the book, but in some places geothermal can be very efficient, but that’s not possible everywhere. But I think the main thing to keep in mind is that we can’t simply replace fossil fuels with green energy without interrogating the system itself, which is the capitalist system that promotes the myth of endless growth. That we don’t have endless resources on this planet, and no matter if it’s fossil fuels or green energy, there are limits to what we can take without doing irreparable harm. And the attention to the local helps us to see that, which is part of why thinking local is really important. It might be an oversimplification, but it’s a pretty good one.
I want to come back to the question of democratic decision-making in a moment, but first, can I quickly follow-up about the question of endless growth? You write that expansionism is “the foundation of capitalist ideology…markets (both foreign and domestic) require new territory and resources to grow.” A number of ecosocialist thinkers, from James O’Connor to Jason W. Moore, have argued that the finitude you’re highlighting here is at some point going to become a fatal problem for capitalism itself—that it’s going to run out of new frontiers and it won’t be able to sustain its growth. Renewable energy seems to be part of a new frontier of accumulation; you cite a mining analyst for BNEF arguing that “the energy transition could lead to a super-cycle for the metals and mining industry,” and you look at how capitalists are scouring the planet, including the depths of the ocean, for critical minerals (some now have their eyes set on asteroids, perhaps the true “final frontier”). Could this boom keep capitalism running, despite the harm to the planet?
In the immediate future, capitalism can absolutely run on this strategy of continuing to burn fossil fuels and also expanding overall energy consumption, with renewables being a portion of that. In no way are we seeing renewables push fossil fuels out. I think that’s by intention, that’s by design. I don’t know how long that can go on despite the impacts that it will continue to have on the planet and people, but I suspect that it could still work for a long time.
If we’re talking geological time, yes, capitalism will eventually have to face physics—the reality that this planet has resources and sinks that are finite and at a certain point we will have exhausted them. I think left to its own devices, eventually capitalism will run into a wall that it doesn’t care about driving into, unfortunately. But we can’t wait for that moment to arrive on its own because we all live here, too; we need to come up with a better strategy to slow down, as Kohei Saito would say. To use less resources and try to live more equitably and comfortably. I write in the book that the world does have a population problem, and it’s the growing population of billionaires. Not regular people.
Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor have a new book coming out called End Times Fascism, and I gather that part of the argument is that many of these billionaires recognize that they’re destroying the world, but they think that they can insulate themselves and their progeny from an apocalypse that they themselves are hastening, perhaps intervening technologically where necessary to keep the profits flowing as long as possible (Elon Musk has been talking a lot about the need for geoengineering lately). On that note, one of the interesting sites of resistance today here in the United States at the moment is the growing popular movement against data centers. The companies relying on the AI boom do not want democratic oversight, and many of them are quite happy to embrace fascism—and to create the repressive technologies that enable it—if it allows them to keep profits flowing. In the book, you discuss Musk’s “we’ll coup whoever we want” attitude toward Bolivian lithium, but it’s clear that this applies equally in the imperial core too. Do you see anti-data-center organizing, which concerns the right of communities to have a say over what technological infrastructure is built and for what purposes, as a hopeful model of resistance to the narrative of inevitability the tech giants are promoting (with the help of some ecomodernists)? As it interacts with the climate movement and the fight for a free Palestine and so on, could this kind of popular movement begin to center the concerns raised in Bad Energy more comprehensively, or are there obstacles that would seem to preclude that possibility?
My hope is that people who may not have really analyzed the underlying economic system of climate chaos walk away from reading Bad Energy and begin to question more as they see that capitalism is still running the show. I think data centers is another great example of that; despite the supposedly intangible nature of the cloud, for many communities this is a very tangible thing that capitalism is throwing at us. I see the movement against data centers across this country as perhaps the biggest opening for the left and the environmental movement to fight big tech and this exploitative capitalism that is infiltrating our lives in the form of AI. I think we begin to understand capitalism in a different way when it’s in our own backyard, when big tech is in our own backyard using our resources. There are a lot of things with data centers that people talk about with energy use and water, and those are really important. But another that’s very rarely talked about is how many critical minerals are needed in these data centers. You know, a big data center, for example, uses tens of thousands of pounds of copper, and that equates to more and more mining; mining for copper is exploding because copper is used in every green energy product, in transmission lines and batteries, as well as data centers.
When we fight data centers, we’re really fighting capitalism; we’re fighting a symptom of capitalism. So I’m really hopeful that we can use this movement against data centers as a tool to help educate people about the wrath of capitalism. Poll after poll shows that Americans don’t support data centers, and many polls are also starting to show that people look at socialism as being better than capitalism. So it’s our duty to provide that alternative, and to help connect the dots. But I’m really invigorated by this movement; it’s an exciting cross-section of all sorts of people, and if we are going to save this planet, we need that kind of mobilization to do it.
I agree, which makes it all the more baffling when ecosocialists like Matt Huber and Holly Buck come out against the anti-data-center protests as being somehow naïve or misinformed, arguing that what we really need is a socialist version of AI development. It seems not just ecologically wrongheaded, but incredibly politically short-sighted not to see the opening in this genuinely grassroots popular resistance to help advance a mass socialist politics based in local democratic decision-making about energy and growth. On that note, I have one final question for you. A central theme throughout the book is the importance of making informed decisions about the relative benefits and harms of various energy sources, and that leaving these decisions to capitalists is a recipe for disaster. Yet even democratic decision-making may fail to adequately register the interests of the nonhuman world and future generations when faced with the exigencies of present poverty (often the legacy of racialized and colonial exploitation). For example, as you detail in the book, some Indigenous communities are split on whether to support mining or infrastructure projects that could bring even temporary income. This pressure can understandably override concern for nonhuman beings and future generations. You mentioned earlier that you started this project in part because you felt a responsibility to speak for the desert tortoise you adopted (and to whose species this book is dedicated) because it can’t represent itself. Do you have any thoughts about how the interests of those who cannot speak for themselves, but who have a great deal at stake in these decisions, could be more consistently integrated into left energy politics?
To harken back to our discussion of Musk a moment ago, some of these billionaires do consider themselves to be environmentalists. The discourse of environmentalism isn’t exclusive to the left, and it can be a very slippery slope into ecofascism as resources are scarcer, things get worse, and capitalism continues to wreak havoc. So I think it is very important to challenge that through democratic processes, and to pull everybody into the conversation. The more people that are part of the conversation, the less chance there is of slipping into a sort of ecofascist hellscape.
It’s true that people often think first about the needs most pressing for them and their communities, and it’s easy not to connect that to the larger picture. It’s easy to be totally disconnected from the farmers that grow your food, or the people that assemble your iPhones, or the mines where the copper in your electric vehicle engine came from. Being more democratic about that process is inherently anticapitalist, because capitalism doesn’t want us to think about any of that: it doesn’t want us to be connected to the people that supply these things to us and the wreckage that is left behind. So I think part of our job as activists and as writers and as academics and people on the left is to bring those conversations forward for people. If we can do that, I think that we will ultimately have a bigger and deeper conversation about what’s really going on and what’s really at stake. And I think that we can together develop a better approach to this problem that we face.
Josh, thank you again for taking the time to speak with me. I hope people will pick up Bad Energy; I think it’s mandatory reading for those who want to understand the constraints within which we’ll need to operate as we try to envision, and ultimately to build, a more sane and livable future.
We remember Nokia as the company behind some of the most popular mobile phones of the past, as well as its famous slogan, “Connecting people.”
Founded in Finland in 1865 and now operating as a multinational company in telecommunications and information technology, Nokia continues to work in the field of communications – that is, to “connect people.” But with its latest project, it appears that the company is now preparing to connect people in uniform.
Nokia has teamed up with ICEYE, another Finnish company specializing in the production of microsatellites that provide high-resolution Earth observation data day and night and in all weather conditions.
The two companies have partnered to develop secure and sovereign satellite communications systems for governments and defense customers, with the first communications satellites planned for launch in 2028.
Defense, border security, emergency response…
Announced on October 1, the project envisages satellite systems operating in low Earth orbit (LEO) for use in areas including defense, border security, emergency services and disaster response.
Under the project, governments will be able to own and control not only the satellites themselves, but also the ground infrastructure and user terminals.
Rafal Modrzewski, co-founder and CEO of ICEYE, said countries should not leave control over their communications infrastructure in the hands of foreign commercial satellite operators, emphasizing that the project is ultimately aimed at reducing external dependence.
As part of the partnership, Nokia will contribute its expertise in secure networking technologies and network management, while ICEYE will provide its experience in satellite platforms, satellite constellation operations and ground infrastructure.
The cooperation between Nokia and ICEYE is not entirely new. Nokia was among the companies that participated in an investment round announced by ICEYE in June 2026, through which the company secured more than €1 billion in financing.
First satellites planned for 2028
The first satellites are scheduled to be launched in 2028. If the project is implemented, ICEYE will expand its activities in government-controlled satellite intelligence into the communications sector, while Nokia will strengthen its presence in Europe’s rapidly growing defense and space communications market.
Europe’s “strategic autonomy”: the militarization of civilian technology
The new partnership between Nokia and ICEYE is a striking example of where the concepts of “strategic autonomy” and “technological sovereignty,” which Europe has increasingly embraced in recent years, are actually heading.
The satellite communications systems being developed by the two Finnish companies may initially appear to be nothing more than a technological investment. Yet the companies themselves explicitly list defense, border security and government operations among the project’s intended areas of use. With the first satellites planned for launch in 2028, the system is also designed to remain under government control, including its satellites, ground stations and terminals.
What is significant here is not simply that two companies are entering the defense sector. The boundary between civilian and military technology is increasingly disappearing in Europe.
Companies operating in telecommunications, artificial intelligence, satellite technology, data analysis and digital infrastructure are being turned into direct components of European states’ rearmament and security policies.
This transformation is being marketed under the rhetoric of “European independence.” Yet what is emerging is not a Europe moving away from militarism. On the contrary, Europe is building its own militarized infrastructure.
Reducing dependence on the U.S. does not eliminate militarism
Europe’s basic argument is that it should not remain dependent on U.S.-based companies for its security and communications infrastructure. That is why European states are seeking to develop their own satellite systems, defense technologies and secure communications networks.
But there is a serious contradiction here.
The infrastructure being developed to reduce dependence on U.S. companies is being used to expand the military capabilities of European states. In other words, the question of “militarism or peace?” is being reduced to a choice between “American militarism or European militarism.”
The EU’s IRIS² program is a larger-scale example of this transformation. Although the system was initially presented as a secure communications and digital infrastructure project, the program was expanded in August 2026 to include 66 additional LEO satellites for defense, security and emergency services, bringing the total planned core constellation to 348 satellites. The European Commission has also explicitly identified defense and security applications as among the main drivers behind the changes.
What we are therefore witnessing is not simply a European space program designed to “improve internet access.” Space infrastructure is being transformed into a component of Europe’s security and defense architecture.
Companies are becoming part of the war economy
More importantly, this transformation is not taking place solely through state institutions.
The European model places private companies at the center of this process. As in the case of Nokia and ICEYE, private technology companies are developing infrastructure designed to meet the defense and security needs of governments. Public-private partnerships are also at the heart of the IRIS² model.
The program’s total cost over 12 years has been set at €10.6 billion, with €6 billion expected to be provided by the EU and more than €4 billion by the private sector.
Thus, the expansion of Europe’s “defense capacity” does not simply mean larger state budgets. Private capital is becoming a direct partner in Europe’s emerging security economy.
This transformation is also changing the fields in which technology companies operate. Technologies once associated primarily with consumer communications, the internet, software or civilian infrastructure are now becoming integrated into border surveillance, military communications, intelligence and crisis-management systems.
This is not the neutralization of Europe’s technology sector. It is its militarization.
The technological infrastructure of “Fortress Europe”
All of these developments cannot be considered separately from the increasingly powerful concept of “Fortress Europe.”
Tighter border controls, the treatment of migration as a security issue, increased military spending and the expansion of Europe’s own defense industry are different components of the same political direction.
Satellite technology is no exception. Indeed, border surveillance is explicitly listed among the intended uses of IRIS² in EU documents.
In this way, seemingly positive concepts such as “digital sovereignty,” “technological independence” and “strategic autonomy” are, in practice, becoming technological instruments for building a stronger European security apparatus.
The fundamental issue here is not that Europe is reducing its dependence on the United States. There is nothing inherently wrong with any country developing its own technological capabilities. The question is what those capabilities are being developed for.
If the result of technological independence is more military satellites, more sophisticated border surveillance systems, stronger military communications networks and larger defense budgets, then what is being created is not simply independence. It is the expansion of the militarist capacity of European states and European capital.
From this perspective, the Nokia-ICEYE agreement represents more than a technological partnership.
As Europe seeks to create an alternative to the United States’ military and technological dominance, it is simultaneously building its own military-technological complex.
And perhaps the most important feature of this process is that the war economy is no longer built solely in arms factories.
Telecommunications companies, satellite companies, artificial intelligence firms and other high-tech corporations are becoming increasingly important actors in this economy.
Europe’s “strategic autonomy” therefore cannot be understood merely as a project to become independent from Washington. It is also a project through which Europe is rebuilding its own imperial and militarist capabilities.
The European Union’s technology chief expects countries that oppose stricter artificial intelligence rules to change course, as AI systems are becoming more capable and harder to evaluate.
“I’m sure that all those countries who are not willing to regulate the use of AI, they will come back to that quite soon,” European Commission Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen told the European Newsroom (enr) on Friday. She warned of a “risk of very serious incidents” in the absence of any guardrails and called for the establishment of safeguards at an international level.
Concerns about the risks of AI have been at the centre of public attention for weeks, sparked mainly by hacking attacks carried out by AI software that acted autonomously during test runs. Some industry insiders have sounded the alarm, warning that artificial intelligence could potentially cause large numbers of deaths if the technology were to spiral out of control.
Virkkunen warned that fierce global competition is creating a risk that “companies are coming to the markets with products that they haven’t been testing enough.” She pointed to incidents in which AI agents had escaped from test “sandboxes” and service providers or developers had been unable to control their own systems.
At the same time, she said, some AI models “have become so capable that it’s more and more difficult also to evaluate them.” Adequate testing required highly qualified experts, sufficient expertise and enough time, she added.
The EU began enforcing its AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive legal framework to regulate AI based on the level of risk it poses, in August. Virkkunen said that the Commission had already sent a Request for Information (RFI) to two major US-based AI companies – OpenAI, known for ChatGPT, and Anthropic, known for Claude – as well as to some Chinese companies not further specified.
An RFI is a formal investigative tool used by the Commission to gather facts, data, and internal documentation from businesses, governments, or member states.
Global AI race
China and the United States have emerged as frontrunners in the development of AI systems, showing no signs of hitting the breaks. Governments in both countries have rejected calls to slow down its development, arguing it would create a competitive, strategic and economic disadvantage.
“Currently the risks are mainly focused and related to cyber security,” Virkkunen said, but she warned of more serious risks in future, including the possibility that highly capable models could be used in connection with biological weapons or fall into the hands of terrorists.
The Finnish politician called for the establishment of international rules to mitigate the risks of AI. She said the security of AI models had already been discussed within the Group of Seven (G7) this year as well as among G20 countries, and that the discussions would continue.
Talking about the EU’s role in AI development, Virkkunen said the Union should avoid dependence on a single company or third country for critical technologies and develop AI systems based on European values, languages and culture.
In the second of our special podcast series focused on Digital Industries, MWL‘s Chris Donkin delves into the operational realities of deploying private networks alongside experts from Druid Software, Boldyn Networks and Vodafone Business.
0:00 Meet the Panel 3:00 What’s Taking Off 12:00 4G or 5G? 21:00 The Messy Reality 28:00 Beyond the POC 35:00 Q&A and the Future
The parent company of agentic AI specialist Manus secured more than $500 million in a funding round conducted a little more than a month after it resumed independent operations following the unwinding of an acquisition by Meta Platforms.
Butterfly Effect, which developed the AI company, did not reveal how it plans to use the money or a valuation.
However, Bloomberg reported last month a potential $500 million raise would give it a valuation of around $4 billion, double the sum Meta Platforms paid for the company in an agreement struck in December 2025, before the deal was cancelled on orders from the Chinese government.
Existing investors Tencent, HSG and ZhenFund were involved in the funding round, along with Boyu Capital and IDG Capital.
Investment rules Manus formally resumed independent operations in September after China’s National Development and Reform Commission told all parties to cancel the deal with Meta Platforms, following an investigation which cited concerns over foreign investment rules.
Manus’ founding investors then moved to buy the company back at the same $2 billion valuation.
China’s concerns related to the fact Butterfly Effect was founded in the country in 2022 but moved its corporate base to Singapore in 2025.
Indian authorities pushed back against Elon Musk’s claims that unnamed oligarchs were blocking Starlink from launching in the country, stating all three prospective operators remain broadly at the same stage of the regulatory process.
In a post on X, Musk accused “certain oligarchs” of trying to maintain a “monopolistic chokehold on the Indian people”, adding “you can guess who they are…” without naming the parties involved. “This is a crime against the people of India!” he wrote.
In a statement, India’s Ministry of Communications rejected the allegation, explaining its satellite communications framework is “fair and non-discriminatory”. It said assessments are currently underway for all licensed operators in India, with each required to meet security conditions before it can seek spectrum.
“At present, all the three entities are at broadly the same regulatory stage,” the ministry said, calling claims of discriminatory treatment “baseless and misconceived”.
The country’s telecoms sector is dominated by Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Jio and Sunil Mittal’s Bharti Airtel. Both operators, alongside Musk’s Starlink, have secured initial approvals for satellite services but are awaiting spectrum assignment and final clearances.
Starlink’s approval process has stretched over four years, with security requirements and spectrum access among the key issues under scrutiny. Musk has previously clashed with Ambani over India’s satellite spectrum allocation, although both Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel later struck agreements with the tech mogul to distribute Starlink services in the country.
The US satellite venture’s regulatory wait has also been marred by security concerns. Local media reports stated authorities recovered illegal Starlink equipment in two separate operations in late 2024, including a drug seizure in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and an army search in the northeastern state of Manipur.
This week, Musk also disputed any suggestion the equipment was connected to an active Starlink service in India, posting on X that its satellite beams were “turned off over India” and “never on in the first place”.
Samsung Electronics forecast consolidated operating profit of KRW107.4 trillion ($80.2 billion) in preliminary Q3 figures, the first time it would surpass the KRW100 trillion milestone.
With its chip business continuing to thrive, Samsung’s projected quarterly operating profit figure is a 782% increase year-on-year.
Revenue is expected to hit around KRW195 trillion, up almost 127%.
It would be the South Korean company’s fourth straight quarter of record operating profit, fuelled by an ongoing memory chip shortage driven by rising demand for AI services.
Josh Gilbert, lead analyst for APAC at investment platform eToro, told CNBC with “AI spending driving demand for memory and supply remaining tight, the larger story of the chip sector remains intact”, pointing to the fact emerging AI agents would require more memory than chatbots.
“Memory buyers are also committing to multi-year supply agreements, giving Samsung greater visibility over demand in a business where investors have always worried about the next downturn,” CNBC reported Gilbert as saying.
Samsung posted revenue of KRW171.5 trillion and operating profit of KRW89.5 trillion in Q2.
Widespread availability of Wi-Fi makes the technology an ideal candidate for inclusion in future 6G standards, the Wireless Broadband Alliance (WBA) argued.
The specialist Wi-Fi industry body believes the next connectivity shift will fall short without the technology and called on the wider telecoms industry to look at ways it can work alongside mobile networks to deliver ubiquitous coverage.
WBA president and CEO Tiago Rodrigues branded Wi-Fi “fundamental” to ubiquitous coverage ambitions, highlighting indoor connectivity as a prime example.
The WBA recently released a report explaining why it believes Wi-Fi should be a core element of 6G and detailing various means of incorporating it, which Rodrigues said offers a “practical framework that can reduce cost and complexity”.
Convergence is a core element of the WBA’s strategy. It argued Wi-Fi could be central to providing the “consistent user experience and deep indoor coverage” detailed in the ITU’s IMT-2030 framework for 6G because it is “already a common technology” for internal connectivity.
As such, the industry body wants to see tweaks to access models to provide agnostic set-ups which can run on Wi-Fi or mobile as required.
The WBA also argues any convergence of Wi-Fi and 6G must tackle commercial considerations including network costs; customer experience; increased automation; and fresh service opportunities.
It stated the approach would benefit operators and device makers, alike.
Keeping costs in mind would also remove barriers the WBA stated hindered uptake of previous convergence plays involving Wi-Fi, 4G and 5G.
Getting it right could have big implications for autonomous networks, industrial and emergency service connectivity and various digital logistics plays, the WBA stated.
Aerospace and defence groups are reportedly pushing back against a SpaceX-backed effort to overhaul wireless spectrum coordination for rocket launches.
Bloomberg reported the proposed changes would replace the third-party frequency-coordination system overseeing how government agencies and commercial entities share key telemetry bands.
The FCC sought public comment on modernising launch spectrum coordination following an August 2026 Presidential Memorandum and a petition filed by the Commercial Space Federation (CSF).
According to filings highlighted by outlet Vertical Aviation International, CSF asked the FCC to replace the existing flight-test frequency coordination process with direct coordination and an automated, near-real-time database across shared telemetry bands.
A coalition representing aerospace and defence organisations, commercial aircraft manufacturers including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and flight-test operators submitted formal comments urging the FCC to proceed cautiously.
In a joint submission, the Aerospace & Defense Industry Spectrum Coalition warned the proposed coordination changes could increase the risk of harmful electromagnetic interference.
The coalition stated these shared frequencies are vital for real-time safety telemetry during prototype aircraft evaluations, electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) certification flights, and defence readiness testing.
It also argued the FCC’s expedited comment schedule did not allow sufficient time for comprehensive technical studies to verify non-interference.
The clash leaves the FCC balancing faster rocket launch schedules against the need to protect aerospace and defence users of the same spectrum from harmful interference.
FCC bird approval SpaceX notched a regulatory win after it secured Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval to launch 15,000 next-gen satellites for its direct-to-device (D2D) mobile service, creating a path to compete directly with AT&T, T-Mobile US and Verizon.
SpaceX filed its application with the FCC in September 2025 ahead of rebranding its D2D satellite offering as Starlink Mobile earlier this year.
Elon Musk-controlled SpaceX is targeting a download speed of 150Mb/s for its D2D service compared to about 4Mb/s on the downlink for the Starlink provisioned offering by T-Mobile.
Instead of relying on a terrestrial network with cell towers, SpaceX plans to pair its satellites with ground-based femtocells to provide 5G mobile coverage, a plan many executives in the industry consider far-fetched.
“With this action, SpaceX’s planned deployments will reshape spectrum-based connectivity by improving competition, allowing more consumers more choices in more places to further the Commission’s goal to connect everyone, everywhere to modern communications services,” the agency stated on 6 October
The FCC also issued SpaceX a waiver to offer its service through satellites without entering into a leasing agreement with a terrestrial mobile operator.
For Oakland Review of Books, Stephanie Uchino-Beach writes about getting laid off at an education tech company that transformed into an “AI-first outfit.” As as customer success manager, she acted as a liaison to district administrators, school principals, and teachers. While AI could automate some of her tasks, what about the core responsibilities of her CSM role: building real relationships and understanding an educator’s needs? An AI sees data points, not people. This is a sobering read from a former tech worker living in the Bay Area, and an edtech company that has gone all in on AI and forgotten about its mission.
Before I went to work for Silicon Valley, I was a lot of things. A few jobs before this last one, I was an elementary school teacher in Chicago, helping kids learn to read, creating units, planning lessons, and buying supplies with my own money on the weekends, like countless other teachers around the country. I grew up on the Peninsula, and I made the move into Customer Success to get a job that would let me move home. Tech was never my dream; it was a means to an end. My dad studied computer science and still works in tech to this day and enjoys it, so it seemed like a satisfying and fruitful career was plausible. I figured that once I broke in, all my problems would be solved: I could get a house, have a kid, and fulfill every middle-class dream that had always felt slightly out of reach for a millennial like myself.
And yet, job after job, I consistently left feeling unsatisfied. Unsatisfied by how I wasn’t growing and wasn’t developing my skills. Unsatisfied with poor managers who were just in the right place at the right time to be promoted but so often lacked the skills to provide the same success for their employees. Unsatisfied with how the products I worked on could do wrong by the communities we sold them to, even though every company said they were “mission-driven” and “put our customers first.”
A Bruxelles stanno prendendo in considerazione una proposta che potrebbe aumentare i fastidi di Washington. Sul tavolo della Commissione europea c’è infatti la possibilità di modificare il contributo forfettario sulle grandi imprese, già inserito all’interno del bilancio comunitario per il settennato 2029-2034. L’idea è di alzare la soglia di accesso e aumentare il peso a carico delle aziende. Tra queste, ovviamente, anche quelle digitali. In questo modo, scrive il Financial Times, le Big Tech verrebbero tassate senza aggiungere una nuova imposta sui servizi digitali. Un sotterfugi per evitare che l’amministrazione di Donald Trump batta di nuovo i pugni sul tavolo. A giugno la Casa Bianca aveva minacciato di introdurre dazi al 100% per quei Paesi che introducevano una tassa sui servizi digitali – con un esplicito riferimento all’Europa. Difficilmente però il presidente statunitense non si accorgerà del trucco.
Il contributo, pensato a luglio scorso, prevede di tassare le aziende con un fatturato superiore ai 100 milioni di euro che operano sul territorio comunitario. La modifica si concentrerà sull’allargamento delle società da includere, ritoccando quindi i requisiti necessari per rientrare nella tassazione, e allo stesso tempo sull’importo che dovrebbero versare. Al momento, il sistema imporrebbe il pagamento di 100mila euro per le aziende – tutte, non solo quelle tecnologiche – con un fatturato netto compreso tra i 100 e i 250 milioni, fino a un massimo di 750mila euro per quelle che hanno ricavi minimi di 750 milioni. Il totale della cifra che finirà nelle tasche dell’Ue è pari a 6,8 miliardi di euro.
Passare dalla teoria alla pratica non sarà semplice. La discussione è accesa, proprio perché potrebbe potenzialmente comportare conseguenze non del tutto positive. C’è chi non è propenso a introdurre una tassa digitale per non inimicarsi gli americani, sostiene una fonte riservata al Ft. E c’è chi è contrario al versamento di una somma forfettaria, come previsto dal Corporate Resource for Europe (Core) per le società che offrono servizi digitali che hanno una filiale sul territorio comunitario. Da qui l’idea di estendere una tassa già esistenti a tutte le aziende, senza discriminazioni settoriali. In questo modo il risultato sarebbe duplice: verrebbe garantito un gettito in entrata superiore, senza scontentare nessuno. Almeno sulla carta.
Da quando Trump ha messo di nuovo piede alla Casa Bianca, gli europei fanno gli equilibristi per provare a tenere insieme l’interesse comunitario con un’alleanza storica. Trump e la sua amministrazione sono stati però piuttosto chiari: nessuna azienda americana deve essere trattata peggio delle altre. Il tycoon non fa sconti a nessuno. Austria, Francia, Italia e Spagna sono state già oggetto di indagine da parte di Washington a causa della loro imposta sui servizi digitali. Leggere che l’Ue ha trovato un modo per aggirare i suoi paletti non gli farà di certo piacere.
Login
, X
, and VK
.
