Internet & Platforms News, TL;DR Summaries

Internet & Platforms
Google Play Opens Up to Third-Party App Store Competition
Google has begun allowing rival, third-party app stores to distribute via the Google Play Store. Developers now have increased flexibility regarding app distribution and in-app billing methods. Regulatory Background The changes follow a successful antitrust lawsuit by Epic Games, which challenged Google's restrictive policies on app distribution and payment processing. A court order mandated significant shifts in how Google manages the Android ecosystem, effectively ending its total control over access and terms. Impact on Users and Developers Expanded Choice: Users and developers are no longer forced to rely solely on Google's infrastructure to reach one another. Security and Privacy Competition: Because users can switch to alternative stores, competition now extends to privacy and security standards, rather than just app availability and fees. Decentralization of Power: By enabling competitor stores, the "feudal security" model—where users are dependent on a single monopolist—is being challenged, allowing for a more competitive marketplace where users can vote with their choices.
EFF Deeplinks · 1 week ago
Internet & Platforms
Ireland Fines Google €403 Million for Illegal Location Tracking
Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) has fined Google €403 million for violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Google unlawfully collected and processed user location data, including web and app activity, between 2018 and 2020. The company failed to prove lawful processing and neglected transparency obligations, resulting in users losing control over their data. Google is now required to bring its data processing practices into compliance within six months. Context and Criticism The investigation stemmed from a 2018 complaint filed by several consumer protection agencies, including the Norwegian Forbrukerrådet and the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC). BEUC leader Agustín Reyna criticized the length of the proceedings, stating that such delays undermine the protection of fundamental consumer rights. Experts highlight that location data is highly sensitive, as it can reveal private details such as visits to schools, hospitals, or religious sites. Regulatory Concerns in Ireland Ireland acts as the primary regulator for many tech giants due to their EU headquarters being based there. Critics, including Max Schrems of the organization noyb, have long accused Irish authorities of stalling cases and favoring big tech companies. There is ongoing concern regarding Ireland's current push for the "Digital Omnibus" program, which could allow tech firms to use personal data for AI training, a move critics describe as "digital expropriation."
netzpolitik.org · 3 weeks ago
Internet & Platforms
EU Kids Act Faces Criticism Over Privacy and Access Risks
The proposed EU Kids Act aims to restrict internet access for minors via mandatory age gates, intrusive verification, and 'safety by design' mandates for platforms. Critics argue the legislation threatens user privacy, infringes on freedom of expression, and centralizes control in ways that favor large tech corporations. The proposal lacks a full impact assessment and is viewed by some as an overreach that prioritizes enforcement over fundamental human rights. Core Provisions Social Media Age Gates: Implements a phased access model where children under 13 are barred, those 13–15 require parental oversight, and only those 15–18 have autonomous access. Mandatory Age Verification: Relies on EU-wide verification schemes, effectively forcing providers to perform invasive identity checks on all users to determine compliance. Safety by Design: Mandates that platforms, including AI chatbots and games, configure 'child-safe' defaults, potentially regulating content access under the guise of product safety. Criticisms and Implications Marginalization: Age gates act as blunt instruments that create barriers for vulnerable groups and reduce digital accessibility. Market Competition: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face a compliance burden without exemptions, likely entrenching the market dominance of larger companies that can afford to implement these systems. Rights Erosion: The act largely ignores children's rights to information and participation, while potentially turning social media and AI platforms into heavily monitored, restrictive environments. Governance Concerns: Critics suggest that transplanting product-safety doctrines into online speech regulation sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and surveillance.
EFF Deeplinks · 3 weeks ago
Internet & Platforms
Reimagining Tech Sovereignty Through FLOSS and Marginal Perspectives
Examines the role of Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) as a tool for radical openness and resistance against mainstream capitalist technology. Draws on the philosophy of bell hooks to position marginalized spaces as primary sites for generating counter-hegemonic digital futures. The Limits of Mainstream Tech Critiques the current state of supposedly open technologies, such as Android, which remain under the control of corporate giants capable of restricting access. Argues that true FLOSS must resist domestication by mainstream interests to serve human needs rather than corporate profit. Marginality as Fertile Ground Identifies the Global South and other marginalized communities as essential spaces where creative, diverse, and transformative technological solutions are forged. Reconceptualizes marginality not as a lack, but as a position of strength that enables a radical perspective, fostering new ways of imagining and living. Project Context This special edition is part of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) contribution to the Next Generation Internet Zero (NGI0) project. Compiles diverse regional and thematic reports to envision a just digital infrastructure that prioritizes people, land, and bodies over exploitation.
APC · 4 weeks ago
Internet & Platforms
Redefining Digital Sovereignty: From Dependence to User Autonomy
Digital sovereignty refers to the capacity of individuals, organizations, or nations to control their own digital destiny, though interpretations vary widely by context. While many governments seek sovereignty to reduce dependency on foreign tech giants and secure critical infrastructure, there is a risk of this being used to justify state censorship and surveillance. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) advocates for a user-centric approach that prioritizes resilience, open standards, and autonomy over state-led fragmentation. Perspectives on Digital Sovereignty Regional Motivations: European initiatives focus on technological independence from US providers, while Global Majority countries often aim to shift from passive consumers to architects of their own digital ecosystems. Diverse Definitions: Discussions range from indigenous rights to govern digital spaces to concerns over geopolitical influence, sanctions, and censorship by US-based tech firms. The Risk of Splintering: Critics warn that the current push for sovereignty can mirror nationalist agendas, leading to digital fragmentation and weakened user rights in authoritarian regimes. Core Principles for Digital Sovereignty Government Policy: Governments should prioritize funding for free and open source software (FOSS), promote interoperability, and ensure clear data ownership for users rather than creating new dependencies. Encryption and Privacy: Strong end-to-end encryption is essential for user sovereignty; mandated backdoors for "lawful access" are fundamentally incompatible with this goal. Corporate Responsibility: Companies should move away from "walled gardens," implement data portability, and minimize data collection, adopting business models that rely on decentralized protocols. Collective Action: Digital sovereignty is not just for governments; developers and users can build and support a public-interest internet through decentralized, peer-reviewed, and open standards.
EFF Deeplinks · 4 weeks ago
Internet & Platforms
Why Meta's $17 Billion Settlement Threatens Digital Privacy and User Rights
Key Takeaways The $17 billion settlement between Meta and 52 U.S. state attorneys general establishes dangerous precedents for online privacy and surveillance. It mandates the implementation of "age assurance" technology, forcing users to undergo invasive verification processes. The deal imposes strict, top-down restrictions on teen users that effectively normalize pervasive data collection and undermine user autonomy. Major Concerns Expansion of Surveillance: Rather than curtailing Meta’s data-hungry business model, the agreement forces the company to collect, analyze, and retain more granular user data to monitor compliance and age status. Censorship Risks: Empowering state attorneys general to enforce vague "age-inappropriate" content standards threatens access to vital information, including sexual health resources, LGBTQ+ content, and reproductive health materials. Privacy Trade-offs for Parental Supervision: Modifying teen restrictions requires enrolling in "Parental Supervision," which forces the disclosure of private data—including contacts, messaging patterns, and search history—to parents. Broader Implications Industry Normalization: The settlement includes a $5 billion incentive for states to force similar age-gating and surveillance measures on Meta’s competitors, such as TikTok, YouTube, and Snap. Data Security Risks: The agreement requires Meta to provide an independent auditor with access to raw data, internal documents, and user behavior logs, creating massive new data "honeypots" potentially accessible by law enforcement.
EFF Deeplinks · 1 month ago
Internet & Platforms
Community-Centred Connectivity: Shifting Perspectives on Digital Infrastructure
Connectivity initiatives are shifting focus from viewing communities as the "last mile" to treating them as the "first mile" where local ownership and engagement reside. Global initiatives across Asia, Africa, and Latin America are prioritizing technological self-determination, policy advocacy, and digital literacy to bridge the connectivity gap. Key Initiatives and Projects Philippines: The first Asia Community-Centred Connectivity (CCC) Bootcamp 2026 engaged over 40 participants in technical and policy training. Kenya: The Athi Community Network is exploring using local networks as a data layer for food traceability. Uganda: The Women of Uganda Network finalized broadband deployment across Oyam District. Brazil: The 'Sabedoria Digital' workshop in the Amazon region trained youth on safe, community-based internet usage. Indonesia: Common Room presented a policy brief on a regulatory sandbox for community-based broadband to local authorities. Policy and Research Developments Colombia: Formalized the 'National Connectivity Plan for and by Indigenous Peoples 2026-2036,' recognizing connectivity as a collective right. South Africa: Parliament extended the submission deadline for the Electronic Communications Amendment Bill, allowing more time for proposals on spectrum and licensing reforms. Research: A Northumbria University study suggests that community-led networks, viewed through Elinor Ostrom’s institutional theory, offer a viable path for rural connectivity in Sub-Saharan Africa without requiring new legislation. Upcoming Events and Funding Events: World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (Sept 2026), Indigenous Connectivity Summit (Nov 2026), and Internet Governance Forum (Dec 2026). Funding: Open calls from Numun for feminist tech activism and the US NTIA for Tribal Broadband Connectivity programs are currently active.
APC · 1 month ago
Internet & Platforms
Meta Settles Lawsuits with US States Over Youth Protection
Meta has reached a settlement of approximately $13 billion with US states to avoid a court ruling regarding youth safety on its platforms. The agreement includes temporary features intended to protect minors but lacks the force of a permanent legal standard. Critics argue the deal prioritizes short-term financial compensation over establishing lasting, systemic protections for youth mental health. Key Provisions of the Settlement Implementation of a daily two-hour time limit for youth users, bypassable with parental consent (valid for five years). Restriction of core platform features between midnight and 6:00 AM (valid for five years). Introduction of an option for users to select feeds not optimized for their personal interests. Limitations and Criticisms Limited Lifespan: Most protections are set to expire after five to ten years, as Meta seeks to minimize long-term impact on user engagement. Conditional Clauses: The deal contains incentives—including a potential increase in settlement value from $12.7 billion to $18 billion—that are contingent on competitors like TikTok and YouTube adopting similar standards. Lack of Legal Precedent: Because it is a private settlement rather than a judicial decree, the measures do not become established law or universal safety standards. Missed Opportunity: The lawsuit represented a historic chance to set global precedents for corporate responsibility regarding the mental health of young users, a goal undermined by the decision to settle for cash.
netzpolitik.org · 1 month ago
Internet & Platforms
Meta settles addictive design lawsuit for $17 billion
Meta agreed to pay $17 billion to settle a major lawsuit over the addictive design of Facebook and Instagram for minors. The settlement avoids a federal ruling on whether platform design can be legally classified as addictive. Meta does not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the agreement. The deal requires Meta to implement strict usage limits for users under 18. A portion of the settlement is contingent on competitors TikTok and YouTube adopting similar restrictions. Terms and Restrictions Users under 18 face a default two-hour daily time limit across Instagram and Facebook combined. Platforms will be blocked between midnight and 6:00 AM. Notifications will be muted during school hours. Users will receive usage prompts every 15 minutes of continuous activity. Features including algorithmic feeds, auto-play, and like counters can be disabled or hidden. Cosmetic surgery and extreme makeup filters are prohibited. If TikTok and YouTube join the agreement, restrictions will tighten to a one-hour limit and a nine-hour overnight block. Legal and Corporate Context The payout, while significant, represents roughly one month of Meta's revenue. Internal documents revealed during the trial indicated Meta often prioritized minimal compliance or paying fines over proactive regulation. The lawsuit originally centered on allegations that Meta violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by knowingly housing millions of accounts for children under 13. The settlement mirrors ongoing pressures from the European Commission regarding the Digital Services Act and the mitigation of risks for vulnerable users.
La Marea · 1 month ago
Internet & Platforms
Persona: The Rise of Biometric Verification as a Digital Barrier
Persona is an external provider processing over one billion identity and age verifications annually for over 4,000 platforms, including Etsy, LinkedIn, and Roblox. Widespread concerns persist regarding the collection and storage of sensitive biometric data and the company's backing by Peter Thiel’s "Founders Fund." Platforms justify these measures as necessary for fraud prevention, yet technical failures frequently result in account suspensions that threaten the livelihoods of platform workers. Operations and Controversy Beyond basic ID-to-selfie matching, Persona is capable of performing up to 269 distinct background checks, including behavioral biometrics, public record searches, and credit history monitoring. Some platforms, such as Discord, have terminated their partnership with Persona citing privacy concerns and demands for device-side processing. Data is shared with 17 sub-processors, primarily based in the U.S., raising significant concerns about the accessibility of European citizens' data by U.S. law enforcement under the CLOUD Act. Impact on Users Users are often forced into a binary choice: surrender highly sensitive biometric data to third-party firms or lose access to essential digital services and marketplaces. Full-time creators report that automated verification errors can lead to months of lost income, with "AI-loop" support systems preventing effective recourse for those falsely flagged. Privacy experts argue that platforms must provide non-biometric verification alternatives to protect users' informational self-determination and prevent the normalization of mass biometric surveillance.
netzpolitik.org · 1 month ago
Internet & Platforms
Libervia: Building an All-in-One Communication Platform Grounded in the Right to Privacy
Libervia is a comprehensive, open-source communication platform designed to unify messaging, blogging, file sharing, and event management under a single, ethical framework. The project prioritizes privacy and transparency by utilizing the XMPP protocol, implementing advanced end-to-end encryption (OMEMO:2), and offering options to reduce metadata. Development is supported by NGI Zero (NGI0) grants, which focus on free software, open standards, and digital rights. Platform Capabilities Supports multiple communication methods: text, audio/video calls, microblogging, and shared task management. Features universal, multi-platform compatibility including web, desktop, and CLI versions for various operating systems. Provides interoperability with other protocols like ActivityPub and offers an email gateway. Emphasizes user agency with features like Tor-based communication to mitigate metadata exposure. Privacy and Standards Relies on XMPP (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol), an open, consensus-driven standard that avoids vendor lock-in. Libervia serves as an experimental hub, creating new specifications for features like remote desktop control to ensure others can build compatible software. Maintains a strict 'Social Contract' focusing on ethical values, supporting end-to-end encryption for both messaging and auxiliary data like forums and task lists. Sustainability Challenges The project relies on temporary research and development grants (NGI0), which do not cover operational expenses like healthcare, retirement, or routine maintenance tasks. Payment schedules for grants can be unpredictable, making long-term financial planning for full-time development difficult. The creator is currently exploring ethical business models, such as SaaS, consulting, or training, to ensure the project remains sustainable without compromising its open-source principles.
APC · 1 month ago
Internet & Platforms
Brazil's New Internet Intermediary Liability Regime: Implications and Risks
Brazil is implementing a new intermediary liability regime following Supreme Court rulings and two recent presidential decrees. The framework introduces notice-and-takedown mechanisms and duty-of-care obligations for digital platforms. While aiming to curb online harms, the rules raise significant concerns regarding over-censorship, user surveillance, and the erosion of freedom of expression. Key Components of the New Regime Notice-and-Takedown: Platforms may be held liable for third-party content if they fail to remove it after a user report, unless there is "reasonable doubt" regarding its unlawfulness. Duty of Care: Platforms have an obligation to immediately remove content related to serious crimes like human trafficking and violence against women; failure to do so can result in liability. Procedural Safeguards: Platforms must notify authors and notifiers of content decisions and provide an appeals process to mitigate the risks of arbitrary removal. Areas of Concern Proactive Reporting: The requirement for platforms to proactively report criminal content and user identification to authorities without court orders poses a major threat to privacy. Broad Definitions: Definitions of "online violence against women" and "systemic failure" are broad enough to potentially capture and censor legitimate criticism and satire. Regulatory Overreach: The expansion of the Brazilian Data Protection Agency’s (ANPD) mandate to include content-related sanctions lacks clear legislative support. Path Forward Focus should shift from policing individual user behavior to holding platforms accountable for their systemic processes and gatekeeper power. Transparency is needed not just from platforms, but from government institutions regarding their own content removal requests. Future implementation must strictly safeguard fundamental rights, including encryption, privacy, and free speech.
EFF Deeplinks · 2 months ago
Internet & Platforms
Tech Companies' Responsibility to Contest Unlawful ICE Subpoenas
Some technology companies have begun privately resisting unlawful ICE subpoenas, but they should move toward public, proactive litigation to protect user privacy and First Amendment rights. ICE has issued hundreds of subpoenas to companies like Google, Meta, and Reddit seeking user data for protected speech activities, such as criticizing immigration policy or documenting law enforcement actions. Publicly challenging these subpoenas serves as a deterrent against future government overreach and protects users who may lack the resources to defend themselves. Private Resistance Cases Meta (September 2025): Meta pushed back against an ICE administrative subpoena seeking the identities of accounts tracking immigration activity in Pennsylvania. While Meta successfully challenged the authority for the request and notified the affected user, it initially indicated it would comply unless a court challenge was filed. The user, with ACLU assistance, ultimately succeeded, and ICE withdrew the subpoena. Reddit (Late 2025): Reddit publicly reported objecting to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subpoenas targeting 11 users who posted content critical of ICE, leading the agency to withdraw its requests. Precedent for Public Legal Action Twitter (2017): Twitter successfully sued to block a DHS subpoena targeting an account critical of immigration policy, forcing the agency to withdraw the request. Industry Examples: Other companies have previously taken legal action to protect user data and constitutional interests, including Microsoft (2013, email privacy), Apple (2015, device security), and Yahoo (2007, surveillance constitutionality).
EFF Deeplinks · 2 months ago
Internet & Platforms
Meta Faces Trial Over Alleged Harmful Impact on Youth
Prosecutors in Oakland are suing Meta for designing Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to minors and for collecting data from children under 13 without parental consent. A coalition of 29 states alleges that the company prioritized profits over user safety and suppressed internal knowledge about these risks. The trial marks a shift in legal strategy, focusing on platform design rather than protected user content. Core Accusations Prosecutors argue Meta utilized features like "infinite scroll," "likes," and photo filters to encourage compulsive usage. Internal documents indicate the company specifically targeted "young ones" for long-term retention to maximize future revenue. Evidence suggests Meta was aware of children's neurological vulnerabilities, including their sensitivity to social validation and poor impulse control, yet modified products to exploit these traits. Testimony and Internal Evidence Former engineer and whistleblower Arturo Béjar testified that internal studies consistently revealed children's high exposure to bullying, self-harm, and violence. Béjar stated the company obscured these findings by reporting only generic policy violation metrics, creating a false impression of safety. The company allegedly used the term "problematic usage" as a euphemism to downplay the severity of addictive behaviors. Defense and Legal Context Meta's legal team denies these claims, arguing that prosecutors are cherry-picking data and that the company has taken meaningful steps to mitigate risks. The defense emphasizes that the company takes the mental health struggles of its users seriously. The trial is expected to last six weeks; a loss could result in massive financial penalties, though appeals are expected. Impact on Families Families of children who died due to issues linked to social media use gathered outside the courthouse to demand accountability. Parents argue that the platform's failures contributed to tragic outcomes, including cases of sexual extortion and suicide, and that their stories should hold the company responsible.
La Marea · 2 months ago
Internet & Platforms
Reimagining Social Media: Beyond the Architecture of Harm
Social media platforms have shifted from spaces of connection and expression to environments of surveillance, manipulation, and behavioral control. Consultations held in 2025 across five Indian cities with diverse groups—including women, sex workers, and people with disabilities—sought to redefine the digital experience. The current architecture of social media prioritizes profit and data extraction, leading to widespread anxiety, self-censorship, and physical safety risks for users. The Architecture of Harm Platforms were engineered to maximize engagement, often at the expense of user agency and safety. Algorithms operate with opaque logic, often burying effective safety tools while facilitating the rapid spread of hate speech. The boundary between digital and physical harm has collapsed, with online criticism leading to real-world threats, legal retaliation, and trauma-induced withdrawal from digital spaces. Users are increasingly treated as laborers for these platforms, trapped in extractive cycles with no meaningful exit points. Envisioning Alternatives Reimagining technology is a political act that rejects the notion that current harmful platform structures are inevitable. Prototypes developed during the consultations focus on centering lived experience over scale and profit: Care-centered onboarding: Guiding users through safety settings and community norms before initial engagement. Value-based data practices: Ensuring meaningful, user-controlled consent regarding what data is shared and how it is used. Safety-by-design: Shifting away from opaque automated enforcement toward personal choice and collective accountability. Imaginative interaction tools: Providing transparent and accessible ways for users to control visibility, reach, and engagement. These alternatives challenge Western-centric defaults, proposing digital spaces that are pluralistic, liberatory, and designed to serve communities rather than algorithms.
APC · 2 months ago
Internet & Platforms
German Cartel Office Forces Apple to Dilute Tracking Protections
The German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) has ordered Apple to overhaul its privacy-focused tracking prompts on the iPhone. While the regulator cited Apple's market dominance and the preferential treatment of its own services over third-party tracking as the cause, the resulting mandate requires Apple to adopt more opaque design patterns common in the advertising industry. The ruling forces Apple to move away from clear, protective warnings toward a design that critics argue is intentionally confusing to coerce user consent. Mandatory Design Changes Replacing the current cautionary orange warning color with a neutral blue. Removing the term "tracking" from the prompts. Renaming the "Ask App not to Track" button. Allowing up to 4,000 characters of explanatory text, including formatting like bold and bullet points, to overwhelm users. Permitting developers to re-prompt users for consent every 12 months. Implications and Criticism These changes mirror the "dark patterns" of cookie banners, nudging users toward "Accept All" out of frustration. The decision weakens consumer protection against data brokers, potentially exposing more user activity to advertising ecosystems, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. Critics argue that while curbing Apple's market power is technically sound, the solution validates harmful surveillance-based advertising and reflects a failure by policymakers in Brussels and Berlin to ban invasive ad models entirely.
netzpolitik.org · 2 months ago
Internet & Platforms
German Cartel Office Orders Changes to Apple's App Tracking Protection
The German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) has ordered Apple to significantly revise its App Tracking Transparency Framework (ATTF). Apple must remove alarmist symbols and language, specifically the "warning hand" icon and the term "tracking," which the regulator deems coercive. Third-party app developers will now have up to 4,000 characters to explain the benefits of personalized advertising to users. Apple is required to align its own internal tracking consent requests with those applied to third-party developers to avoid self-preferencing. Background and Regulatory Action The decision follows an antitrust investigation launched in 2022 after complaints from German digital and advertising trade associations. While the regulator acknowledges that a market-dominant company like Apple can implement privacy protections, it must not use those protections to gain an unfair advantage or discriminate against competitors. Apple has four months to implement these changes; compliance will be monitored by an external trustee for the next seven years. Impact on User Experience Consent prompts are expected to become longer and more complex as developers provide more context. Andreas Mundt, President of the Federal Cartel Office, stated the goal is not to maximize consent rates, but to ensure users make free, informed decisions about whether to allow data collection for personalized ads. Industry Context The ATTF, introduced in 2021, allowed users to block tracking identifiers, significantly impacting the ad-tech ecosystem; Meta estimated a $10 billion revenue loss in the first year after the rollout. The legal basis for this ruling stems from Germany’s competition laws regarding digital giants with "paramount significance for competition," a status confirmed for Apple by the German Federal Court of Justice in March 2025.
netzpolitik.org · 2 months ago
Internet & Platforms
Getting Away from Big Tech: A Guide to Community-Centered Digital Alternatives
Growing awareness of the socio-environmental and democratic harms caused by Big Tech has led to an increased search for transparent, privacy-respecting alternatives. Organizations like APC, May First, and the Progressive Technology Project are promoting an autonomous, community-centered technology ecosystem through campaigns like "Rise Against Big Tech." Transitioning away from mainstream platforms is a complex process dependent on individual lived realities, requiring a balance between ethical choice and practical utility. Digital Service Alternatives Email: ProtonMail and Riseup for secure accounts; Thunderbird as a mail client. Cloud and Collaboration: Nextcloud for storage; Cryptpad, OnlyOffice, Etherpad lite, and Teamtype for collaborative editing and office tasks. Communication: Jitsi Meet and Big Blue Button for online meetings; Signal for secure messaging; MatterMost and Zulip for team-based chat. Web and Social Media: WordPress and Drupal for site building; Firefox or Tor Browser for secure navigation; PeerTube as a YouTube alternative; Mastodon and Bluesky for decentralized social media. Digital Security and Infrastructure Infrastructure: May First provides hosting, email, and collaboration services to support independent digital ecosystems. Security Tools: KeePassXC for password management; RiseupVPN for browsing security; Deflect (by eQualitie) for protecting websites against digital attacks. Support and Education: The Areopagítica platform offers digital security helpdesks for journalists and activists, while APC provides resources like the "Internet shutdown game" to train communities on counteracting connectivity blocks.
APC · 2 months ago
Internet & Platforms
X, Mastodon and Bluesky: What earns attention?
Social media platforms reward different types of engagement, significantly shaping political rhetoric and user behavior. X (formerly Twitter) favors aggressive and toxic discourse, while Bluesky and Mastodon show preferences for neutral, collaborative, or nuanced communication. Platform design and recommendation logic act as a "market" that influences how politicians present themselves and conduct policy. Platform Differences in Content Performance Research by Petter Törnberg of the University of Amsterdam finds that while positive emotions and personal narratives earn "likes" across all three platforms, reach (shares/retweets) is incentivized differently: X: Positive and reasoned arguments are often penalized; insults, toxic behavior, and identity-based attacks correlate with higher reach. Bluesky: Neutral, less personal, and lower-emotion language tends to be more successful. Mastodon: Argumentation, nuance, and collective references are rewarded, whereas personal attacks and insults are generally disincentivized. Architectural Influence on Discourse Unlike X, Mastodon and Bluesky rely less on engagement-based algorithmic rankings. Mastodon prioritizes chronological feeds and operates on a decentralized model, allowing instances to enforce specific moderation rules. The "Attention Economy" forces political actors toward conflict-driven messaging, as accurate, moderate descriptions are often "costly" in terms of visibility. This logic increasingly permeates beyond social media, influencing news media and the design of actual political measures. Törnberg argues that social media should be viewed as core democratic infrastructure, requiring governance and intentional design rather than reliance on a free-market approach to manage the distribution of societal attention.
netzpolitik.org · 2 months ago
Internet & Platforms
Australia's Social Media Ban for Minors: Initial Assessment
The social media ban for under-16s implemented in Australia in December 2025 has shown little evidence of success in its initial impact assessment. Most minors continue to access platforms, and there is no observable improvement in the mental health or well-being of the target demographic. Lacking platform enforcement and widespread user workarounds are undermining the effectiveness of the policy. Key Findings Continued Usage: Before the ban, roughly 5 out of 10 youths (aged 10-15) held accounts on restricted platforms; after the ban, that figure remains at approximately 4 out of 10. Monthly usage fell only slightly, from 85.9% to 81.5%. Platform Enforcement: Half of the surveyed youths reported never being prompted by a platform to verify their age. Over a third intentionally entered false ages to bypass restrictions. Substitution and Evasion: Users are migrating to messengers and video games, or bypassing controls via VPNs (7.4%), parental assistance (10.9%), or using fake credentials (12%). Government Stance The Australian government and the eSafety Commissioner avoid labeling the policy a failure, characterizing the findings as a "snapshot" of early signals rather than definitive outcomes. The core assumptions behind the ban—effective platform enforcement, shifting user attitudes, and a transition to healthy offline activities—have not yet materialized in the data.
netzpolitik.org · 2 months ago

Google Play Opens Up to Third-Party App Store Competition

Ireland Fines Google €403 Million for Illegal Location Tracking

EU Kids Act Faces Criticism Over Privacy and Access Risks

Reimagining Tech Sovereignty Through FLOSS and Marginal Perspectives

Redefining Digital Sovereignty: From Dependence to User Autonomy

Why Meta's $17 Billion Settlement Threatens Digital Privacy and User Rights

Community-Centred Connectivity: Shifting Perspectives on Digital Infrastructure

Meta Settles Lawsuits with US States Over Youth Protection

Meta settles addictive design lawsuit for $17 billion

Persona: The Rise of Biometric Verification as a Digital Barrier

Libervia: Building an All-in-One Communication Platform Grounded in the Right to Privacy

Brazil's New Internet Intermediary Liability Regime: Implications and Risks

Tech Companies' Responsibility to Contest Unlawful ICE Subpoenas

Meta Faces Trial Over Alleged Harmful Impact on Youth

Reimagining Social Media: Beyond the Architecture of Harm

German Cartel Office Forces Apple to Dilute Tracking Protections

German Cartel Office Orders Changes to Apple's App Tracking Protection

Getting Away from Big Tech: A Guide to Community-Centered Digital Alternatives

X, Mastodon and Bluesky: What earns attention?

Australia's Social Media Ban for Minors: Initial Assessment

Google Play Opens Up to Third-Party App Store Competition

Ireland Fines Google €403 Million for Illegal Location Tracking

EU Kids Act Faces Criticism Over Privacy and Access Risks

Reimagining Tech Sovereignty Through FLOSS and Marginal Perspectives

Redefining Digital Sovereignty: From Dependence to User Autonomy

Why Meta's $17 Billion Settlement Threatens Digital Privacy and User Rights

Community-Centred Connectivity: Shifting Perspectives on Digital Infrastructure

Meta Settles Lawsuits with US States Over Youth Protection

Meta settles addictive design lawsuit for $17 billion

Persona: The Rise of Biometric Verification as a Digital Barrier

Libervia: Building an All-in-One Communication Platform Grounded in the Right to Privacy

Brazil's New Internet Intermediary Liability Regime: Implications and Risks

Tech Companies' Responsibility to Contest Unlawful ICE Subpoenas

Meta Faces Trial Over Alleged Harmful Impact on Youth

Reimagining Social Media: Beyond the Architecture of Harm

German Cartel Office Forces Apple to Dilute Tracking Protections

German Cartel Office Orders Changes to Apple's App Tracking Protection

Getting Away from Big Tech: A Guide to Community-Centered Digital Alternatives

X, Mastodon and Bluesky: What earns attention?

Australia's Social Media Ban for Minors: Initial Assessment