The European Commission wants to cut deals with private American space companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX to launch cutting-edge European navigation satellites due to continued delays to Europe’s next generation Ariane rocket system.
In a draft request to EU countries seen by POLITICO, the Commission is planning to ask for a green light to negotiate “an ad-hoc security agreement” with the U.S. for its rocket companies to “exceptionally launch Galileo satellites.”
The Commission reckons only SpaceX’s Falcon 9 heavy launcher and United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan system are up to the job of sending the EU’s new geo-navigation Galileo satellites — which weigh around 700 kilograms each — into orbit.
Seeking U.S. help to keep its flagship space program running puts a dent in the EU’s idea of strategic autonomy. Galileo is a point of pride for the EU, as it seeks to become less dependent on other regions for critical infrastructure, services and technology — a quest strongly backed by Paris.
The EU is having to seek assistance to launch new versions of its navigation satellites because the Ariane 5 rocket, developed by France-based ArianeGroup and launched from France’s South American spaceport in French Guiana, is to be retired in the next months.
The deployment of its replacement, Ariane 6, has been delayed; the newsystem is currently expected to carry out a maiden launch at the end of this year, with full commercial deployment starting next year.
The alternative to the Ariane series would have been launching Galileo satellites with Russian-built Soyuz rockets, a version of which are also used at the French Guiana site. However, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, two Galileo launches using Soyuz rockets have been cancelled, prompting the search for alternatives.
Galileo satellites beam highly accurate navigation and precise time data back to earth — and also provide a top secret encrypted service for use by government agencies. That means launches typically can only be carried out from EU territory under tight security rules.
“In view of the security sensitive information … included in Galileo satellites, an ad-hoc legally binding security agreement with [the] U.S. is necessary, in order to protect the integrity of the satellites and the Galileo constellation,” said part of a draft proposal from the Commission seen by POLITICO.
It will be up to EU countries to approve negotiations for an agreement, which would come under the umbrella of standing deals on the exchange of classified information, the proposal states.
Capacity to launch satellites and humans into space independently of other powers has been a key part of French efforts to develop the concept of strategic autonomy for Europe.
But the need to contract out launches of critical space infrastructure to private companies operating in the U.S. undermines the argument that Europe is able to manage its own alternative to the U.S. GPS, Russia’s Glonass and China’s BeiDou constellations.
“Analyses are … ongoing to ascertain whether or not launching with an alternative launch service provider would be feasible,” said Commission spokesperson Sonya Gospodinova, adding that no decision has yet been taken. Assessments are being made on technical compatibility, launch site security and cost, she said.
While SpaceX’s Falcon rocket is already operational, ULA only plans its first Vulcan mission in May.
The Paris-based European Space Agency, which isn’t an EU institution but helps manage Galileo and runs the French Guiana spaceport, had already been looking at alternative launch options for satellites.
[ad_2]
#turns #Elon #Musk #replace #stalled #French #rocket
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
Billionaire-entrepreneur Elon Musk acknowledged he has made mistakes on social media, in an at-times bizarre interview with the BBC overnight.
“Have I shot myself in the foot with tweets multiple times? Yes,” Musk said. “I think I should not tweet after 3 a.m.”
Revealing the scale of the job cuts at Twitter since Musk bought the company for $44 billion last October, Musk said around 1,500 people currently work for the social media platform, down from “just under 8,000,” after a series of what he described as “painful” layoffs.
Musk defended the job cuts, claiming they were necessary to stave off bankruptcy. “This is not a caring, uncaring situation. It’s like if the whole ship sinks then nobody’s got a job,” Musk said, claiming that he had been “under constant attack” since buying Twitter.
The “pain level has been extremely high” since buying Twitter, Musk said. “Were there many mistakes made a long the way? Of course. But all’s well that ends well, I feel like we’re headed to a good place.”
The billionaire defended Twitter’s move to phase out its previous system of verifying notable accounts and personalities with a blue tick, and introduce a system where any user can pay for the tick instead. Several news organizations, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, have said they would not pay to keep their blue ticks.
“It’s a small amount of money, so I don’t know what their problem is,” Musk said. “We’re going to treat everyone equally.”
He said legacy blue ticks would disappear next week.
Asked whether he would sell Twitter for the same amount he paid for it, Musk said he wouldn’t — unless the buyer was as committed to telling the truth as he claimed to be. Last month, Musk said he thought the company was now worth $20 billion.
The live interview took place in Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters, and the BBC was given “about 20 minutes’ notice” that it would be going ahead, according to the British public broadcaster. Asked why he had agreed to sit down with the BBC, Musk said: “Spontaneity.”
Addressing a row over the decision by Twitter to label the BBC’s Twitter accounted as “government-funded media,” Musk said the tag would be updated. “I actually do have a lot of respect for the BBC,” Musk said. “We want it as truthful and accurate as possible — we’re adjusting the label to ‘publicly funded.'”
The interview took some strange turns, with Musk at one point saying he was “no longer the CEO of Twitter” and repeating his claim that his dog had replaced him in the top job.
The interview went for longer than expected, with James Clayton, the BBC journalist interviewing Musk, attempting to end the discussion on several occasions, but the entrepreneur insisting on answering questions from users on Twitter Spaces.
[ad_2]
#Elon #Musk #tweet #3am
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
LONDON — As Elon Musk urged humanity to get a grip on artificial intelligence, in London ministers were hailing its benefits.
Rishi Sunak’s new technology chief Michelle Donelan on Wednesday unveiled the government’s long-awaited blueprint for regulating AI, insisting a heavy-handed approach is off the agenda.
At the heart of the innovation-friendly pitch is a plan to give existing regulators a year to issue “practical guidance” for the safe use of machine learning in their sectors based on broad principles like safety, transparency, fairness and accountability. But no new legislation or regulatory bodies are being planned for the burgeoning technology.
It stands in contrast to the strategy being pursued in Brussels, where lawmakers are pushing through a more detailed rulebook, backed by a new liability regime.
Donelan insists her “common-sense, outcomes-oriented approach” will allow the U.K. to “be the best place in the world to build, test and use AI technology.”
Her department’s Twitter account was flooded with content promoting the benefits of AI. “Think AI is scary? It doesn’t have to be!” one of its posts stated on Wednesday.
But some experts fear U.K. policymakers, like their counterparts around the world, may not have grasped the scale of the challenge, and believe more urgency is needed in understanding and policing how the fast-developing tech is used.
“The government’s timeline of a year or more for implementation will leave risks unaddressed just as AI systems are being integrated at pace into our daily lives, from search engines to office suite software,” Michael Birtwistle, associate director of data and AI law and policy at the Ada Lovelace Institute, said. It has “significant gaps,” which could leave harms “unaddressed,” he warned.
“We shouldn’t be risking inventing a nuclear blast before we’ve learnt how to keep it in the shell,” Connor Axiotes, a researcher at the free-market Adam Smith Institute think tank, warned.
Elon wades in
Hours before the U.K. white paper went live, across the Atlantic an open letter calling for labs to immediately pause work training AI systems to be even more powerful for at least six months went live. It was signed by artificial intelligence experts and industry executives, including Tesla and Twitter boss Elon Musk. Researchers at Alphabet-owned DeepMind, and renowned Canadian computer scientist Yoshua Bengio were also signatories.
The letter called for AI developers to work with policymakers to “dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems,” which should “at a minimum include: new and capable regulatory authorities dedicated to AI.”
AI labs are locked in “an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control,” the letter warned.
Rishi Sunak’s new technology chief Michelle Donelan unveiled the government’s blueprint for regulating AI, insisting a heavy-handed approach is off the agenda | Leon Neal/Getty Images
Back in the U.K., Ellen Judson, head of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at the think tank Demos, warned that the U.K. approach of “setting out principles alone” was “not enough.”
“Without the teeth of legal obligations, this is an approach which will result in a patchwork of regulatory guidance that will do little to fundamentally shift the incentives that lead to risky and unethical uses of AI,” she said.
But Technology Minister Paul Scully told the BBC he was “not sure” about pausing further AI developments. He said the government’s proposals should “dispel any of those concerns from Elon Musk and those other figures.”
“What we’re trying to do is to have a situation where we can think as government and think as a sector through the risks but also the benefits of AI — and make sure we can have a framework around this to protect us from the harms,” he said.
Long time coming
Industry concerns about the U.K.’s ability to make policy in their area are countered by some of those who have worked closely with the British government on AI policy.
Its approach to policymaking has been “very consultative,” according to Sue Daley, a director at the industry body TechUK, who has been closely following AI developments for a number of years.
In 2018 ministers set up the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation and the Office for AI, working across the government’s digital and business departments until it moved to the newly-created Department for Science, Innovation and Technology earlier this year.
The Office for AI is staffed by a “good team of people,” Daly said, while also pointing to the work the U.K.’s well-regarded regulators, like the Information Commissioner’s Office, had been doing on artificial intelligence “for some time.”
Greg Clark, the Conservative chairman of parliament’s science and technology committee, said he thought the government was right to “think carefully.” The former business secretary stressed that is his own view rather than the committee view.
“There’s a danger in rushing to adopt extensive regulations precipitously that have not been properly thought through and stress-tested, and that could prove to be an encumbrance to us and could impede the positive applications of AI,” he added. But he said the government should “proceed quickly” from white paper to regulatory framework “during the months ahead.”
Public view
Outside Westminster, the potential implications of the technology are yet to be fully realized, surveys suggest.
Public First, a Westminster-based consultancy, which conducted a raft of polling into public attitudes to artificial intelligence earlier this month, found that beyond fears about unemployment, people were pretty positive about AI.
“It certainly pales into insignificance compared to the other things that they are worried about like the prospect of armed conflict, or even the impact of climate change,” James Frayne, a founding partner of Public First, who conducted the polling said. “This falls way down the priority list,” he said.
But he cautioned this could change.
“One assumes that at some point there will be an event which shocks them, and shakes them, and makes them think very differently about AI,” he added.
“At that point there will be great demands for the government to make sure that they’re all over this in terms of regulation. They will expect the government to not only move very quickly, but to have made significant progress already,” he said.
[ad_2]
#lighttouch #Elon #Musk #sounds #alarm
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
Elon Musk pledged Twitter would abide by Europe’s new content rules — but Yevgeniy Golovchenko is not so convinced.
The Ukrainian academic, an assistant professor at the University of Copenhagen, relies on the social network’s data to track Russian disinformation, including propaganda linked to the ongoing war in Ukraine. But that access, including to reams of tweets analyzing pro-Kremlin messaging, may soon be cut off. Or, even worse for Golovchenko, cost him potentially millions of euros a year.
Under Musk’s leadership, Twitter is shutting down researchers’ free access to its data, though the final decision on when that will happen has yet to be made. Company officials are also offering new pay-to-play access to researchers via deals that start at $42,000 per month and can rocket up to $210,000 per month for the largest amount of data, according to Twitter’s internal presentation to academics that was shared with POLITICO.
Yet this switch — from almost unlimited, free data access to costly monthly subscription fees — falls afoul of the European Union’s new online content rules, the Digital Services Act. Those standards, which kick in over the coming months, require the largest social networking platforms, including Twitter, to provide so-called vetted researchers free access to their data.
It remains unclear how Twitter will meet its obligations under the 27-country bloc’s rules, which impose fines of up to 6 percent of its yearly revenue for infractions.
“If Twitter makes access less accessible to researchers, this will hurt research on things like disinformation and misinformation,” said Golovchenko who — like many academics who spoke with POLITICO — are now in limbo until Twitter publicly decides when, or whether, it will shut down its current free data-access regime.
It also means that “we will have fewer choices,” added the Ukrainian, acknowledging that, until now, Twitter had been more open for outsiders to poke around its data compared with the likes of Facebook or YouTube. “This means will be even more dependent on the goodwill of social media platforms.”
Meeting EU commitments
When POLITICO contacted Twitter for comment, the press email address sent back a poop emoji in response. A company representative did not respond to POLITICO’s questions, though executives met with EU officials and civil society groups Wednesday to discuss how Twitter would comply with Europe’s data-access obligations, according to three people with knowledge of those discussions, who were granted anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations.
Twitter was expected to announce details of its new paid-for data access regime last week, according to the same individuals briefed on those discussions, though no specifics about the plans were yet known. As of Friday night, no details had yet been published.
Still, the ongoing uncertainty comes as EU regulators and policymakers have Musk in their crosshairs as the onetime world’s richest man reshapes Twitter into a free speech-focused social network. The Tesla chief executive has fired almost all of the trust, safety and policy teams in a company-wide cull of employees and has already failed to comply with some of the bloc’s new content rules that require Twitter to detail how it is tackling falsehoods and foreign interference.
Musk has publicly stated the company will comply with the bloc’s content rules.
“Access to platforms’ data is one of the key elements of democratic oversight of the players that control increasingly bigger part of Europe’s information space,” Věra Jourová, the European Commission vice president for values and transparency, told POLITICO in an emailed statement in reference to the EU’s code of practice on disinformation, a voluntary agreement that Twitter signed up to last year. A Commission spokesperson said such access would have to be free to approved researchers.
European Commission Vice President Věra Jourová said “Access to platforms’ data is one of the key elements of democratic oversight” | Olivier Hoslet/EPA-EFE
“If the access to researchers is getting worse, most likely that would go against the spirit of that commitment (under Europe’s new content rules),” Jourová added. “I appeal to Twitter to find the solution and respect its commitments under the code.”
Show me the data access
For researchers based in the United States — who don’t fall under the EU’s new content regime — the future is even bleaker.
Megan Brown, a senior research engineer at New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics, which relies heavily on Twitter’s existing access, said half of her team’s 40 projects currently use the company’s data. Under Twitter’s proposed price hikes, the researchers would have to scrap their reliance on the social network via existing paid-for access through the company’s so-called Decahose API for large-scale data access, which is expected to be shut off by the end of May.
NYU’s work via Twitter data has looked at everything from how automated bots skew conversations on social media to potential foreign interference via social media during elections. Such projects, Brown added, will not be possible when Twitter shuts down academic access to those unwilling to pay the new prices.
“We cannot pay that amount of money,” said Brown. “I don’t know of a research center or university that can or would pay that amount of money.”
For Rebekah Tromble, chairperson of the working group on platform-to-researcher data access at the European Digital Media Observatory, a Commission-funded group overseeing which researchers can access social media companies’ data under the bloc’s new rules, any rollback of Twitter’s data-access allowances would be against their existing commitments to give researchers greater access to its treasure trove of data.
“If Twitter makes the choice to begin charging researchers for access, it will clearly be in violation of its commitments under the code of practice [on disinformation],” she said.
This article has been updated.
[ad_2]
#Twitters #plan #charge #researchers #data #access #puts #crosshairs
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
KYIV — As the distant howl of air raid sirens echoes around them, a dozen Ukrainian soldiers clamber out of camouflaged tents perched on a hill off a road just outside Kyiv, hidden from view by a thick clump of trees. The soldiers, pupils of a drone academy, gather around a white Starlink antenna, puffing at cigarettes and doomscrolling on their phones — taking a break between classes, much like students around the world do.
But this isn’t your average university.
The soldiers have come here to study air reconnaissance techniques and to learn how to use drones — most of them commercial ones — in a war zone. Their training, as well as the supply chains that facilitate the delivery of drones to Ukraine, are kept on the down low. The Ukrainians need to keep their methods secret not only from the Russian invaders, but also from the tech firms that manufacture the drones and provide the high-speed satellite internet they rely on, who have chafed at their machines being used for lethal purposes.
Drones are essential for the Ukrainians: The flying machines piloted from afar can spot the invaders approaching, reduce the need for soldiers to get behind enemy lines to gather intelligence, and allow for more precise strikes, keeping civilian casualties down. In places like Bakhmut, a key Donetsk battleground, the two sides engage in aerial skirmishes; flocks of drones buzz ominously overhead, spying, tracking, directing artillery.
So, to keep their flying machines in the air, the Ukrainians have adapted, adjusting their software, diversifying their supply chains, utilizing the more readily available commercial drones on the battlefield and learning to work around the limitations and bans foreign corporations have imposed or threatened to impose.
Enter: The Dronarium Academy.
Private drone schools and nongovernmental organizations around Ukraine are training thousands of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) pilots for the army. Dronarium, which before Russia’s invasion last year used to shoot glossy commercial drone footage and gonzo political protests, now provides five-day training sessions to soldiers in the Kyiv Oblast. In the past year, around 4,500 pilots, most of them now in the Ukrainian armed forces, have taken Dronarium’s course.
What’s on the curriculum
On the hill outside Kyiv, behind the thicket of trees, break time’s over and school’s back in session. After the air raid siren stops,some soldiers grab their flying machines and head to a nearby field; others return to their tents to study theory.
A key lesson: How to make civilian drones go the distance on the battlefield.
“In the five days we spend teaching them how to fly drones, one and a half days are spent on training for the flight itself,” a Dronarium instructor who declined to give his name over security concerns but uses the call sign “Prometheus” told POLITICO. “Everything else is movement tactics, camouflage, preparatory process, studying maps.”
Drone reconnaissance teams work in pairs, like snipers, Prometheus said. One soldier flies a drone using a keypad; their colleague looks at the map, comparing it with the video stream from the drone and calculating coordinates. The drone teams “work directly with artillery,” Prometheus continued. “We transfer the picture from the battlefield to the servers and to the General Staff. Thanks to us, they see what they are doing and it helps them hit the target.”
Private drone schools and nongovernmental organizations around Ukraine are training thousands of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) pilots for the army | John Moore/Getty Images
Before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many of these drone school students were civilians. One, who used to be a blogger and videogame streamer but is now an intelligence pilot in Ukraine’s eastern region of Donbas, goes by the call sign “Public.” When he’s on the front line, he must fly his commercial drones in any weather — it’s the only way to spot enemy tanks moving toward his unit’s position.
“Without them,” Public said, “it is almost impossible to notice the equipment, firing positions and personnel in advance. Without them, it becomes very difficult to coordinate during attack or defense. One drone can sometimes save dozens of lives in one flight.”
The stakes couldn’t be higher: “If you don’t fly, these tanks will kill your comrades. So, you fly. The drone freezes, falls and you pick up the next one. Because the lives of those targeted by a tank are more expensive than any drone.”
Army of drones
The war has made the Bayraktar military drone a household name, immortalized in song by the Ukrainians. Kyiv’s UAV pilots also use Shark, RQ-35 Heidrun, FLIRT Cetus and other military-grade machines.
“It is difficult to have an advantage over Russia in the number of manpower and weapons. Russia uses its soldiers as meat,” Ukraine’s Digital Transformation Minister Mykhailo Fedorov said earlier this month. But every Ukrainian life, he continued, “is important to us. Therefore, the only way is to create a technological advantage over the enemy.”
Until recently, the Ukrainian army didn’t officially recognize the position of drone operator. It was only in January that Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi ordered the army to create 60 companies made up of UAV pilots, indicating also that Kyiv planned to scale up its own production of drones. Currently, Ukrainian firms make only 10 percent of the drones the country needs for the war, according to military volunteer and founder of the Air Intelligence Support Center Maria Berlinska.
In the meantime, many of Ukraine’s drone pilots prefer civilian drones made by Chinese manufacturer DJI — Mavics and Matrices — which are small, relatively cheap at around €2,500 a pop, with decent zoom lenses and user-friendly operations.
Choosing between a military drone and a civilian one “depends on the goal of the pilot,” said Prometheus, the Dronarium instructor. “Larger drones with wings fly farther and can do reconnaissance far behind enemy lines. But at some point, you lose the connection with it and just have to wait until it comes back. Mavics have great zoom and can hang in the air for a long time, collecting data without much risk for the drone.”
But civilian machines, made for hobbyists not soldiers, last two, maybe three weeks in a war zone. And DJI last year said it would halt sales to both Kyiv and Moscow, making it difficult to replace the machines that are lost on the battlefield.
In response, Kyiv has loosened export controls for commercial drones, and is buying up as many as it can, often using funds donated by NGOs such as United24 “Army of Drones” initiative. Ukraine’s digital transformation ministry said that in the three months since the initiative launched, it has purchased 1,400 military and commercial drones and facilitated training for pilots, often via volunteers. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Serhiy Prytula Charitable Foundation said it has purchased more than 4,100 drones since Russia’s full-scale invasion began last year — most were DJI’s Mavic 3s, along with the company’s Martice 30s and Matrice 300s.
But should Ukraine be concerned about the fact many of its favorite drones are manufactured by a Chinese company, given Beijing’s “no limits” partnership with Moscow?
Choosing between a military drone and a civilian one “depends on the goal of the pilot,” said Prometheus, the Dronarium instructor | Sameer Al-Doumy/AFP via Getty Images
DJI, the largest drone-maker in the world, has publicly claimed it can’t obtain user data and flight information unless the user submits it to the company. But its alleged ties to the Chinese state, as well as the fact the U.S. has blacklisted its technology (over claims it was used to surveil ethnic Uyghurs in Xinjiang), have raised eyebrows. DJI has denied both allegations.
Asked if DJI’s China links worried him, Prometheus seemed unperturbed.
“We understand who we are dealing with — we use their technology in our interests,” he said. “Indeed, potentially our footage can be stored somewhere on Chinese servers. However, they store terabytes of footage from all over the world every day, so I doubt anyone could trace ours.”
Dealing with Elon
Earlier this month, Elon Musk’s SpaceX announced it had moved to restrict the Ukrainian military’s use of its Starlink satellite internet service because it was using it to control drones. The U.S. space company has been providing internet to Ukraine since last February — losing access would be a big problem.
“It is not that our army goes blind if Starlink is off,” said Prometheus, the drone instructor. “However, we do need to have high-speed internet to correct artillery fire in real-time. Without it, we will have to waste more shells in times of ongoing shell shortages.”
But while the SpaceX announcement sparked outcry from some of Kyiv’s backers, as yet, Ukraine’s operations haven’t been affected by the move, Digital Transformation Minister Fedorov told POLITICO.
Prometheus had a theory as to why: “I think Starlink will stay with us. It is impossible to switch it off only for drones. If Musk completely turns it off, he will also have to turn it off for hospitals that use the same internet to order equipment and even perform online consultations during surgeries at the war front. Will he switch them off too?”
And if Starlink does go down, the Ukrainians will manage, Prometheus said with a wry smile: “We have our tools to fix things.”
[ad_2]
#Ukraines #Drone #Academy #session
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he promised an era of openness for the social media platform. Yet that transparency will soon come at a price.
On Thursday, the social-networking giant will shut down free and unfettered access to reams of data on the company’s millions of users. As part of that overhaul, researchers worldwide who track misinformation and hate speech will also have their access shut down — unless they stump up the cash to keep the data tap on.
The move is part of Musk’s efforts to make Twitter profitable amid declining advertising revenue, sluggish user growth and cut-throat competition from the likes of TikTok and Instagram.
But the shift has riled academics, infuriated lawmakers and potentially put Twitter at odds with new content-moderation rules in the European Union that require such data access to independent researchers.
“Shutting down or requiring paid access to the researcher API will be devastating,” said Rebekah Tromble, director of the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University, who has spent years relying on Twitter’s API to track potentially harmful material online.
“There are inequities in resources for researchers around the world. Scholars at Ivy League institutions in the United States could probably afford to pay,” she added. “But there are scholars all around the world who simply will not have the resources to pay anything for access to this.”
The change would cut free access to Twitter’s so-called application program interface (API), which allowed outsiders to track what happened on the platform on a large scale. The API essentially gave outsiders direct access to the company’s data streams and was kept open to allow researchers to monitor users, including to spot harmful, fake or misleading content.
A team at New York University, for instance, published a report last month on how far wide-reaching Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election had been by directly tapping into Twitter’s API system. Without that access, the level of Kremlin meddling would have been lost to history, according to Joshua Tucker, co-director at New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics.
Twitter did not respond to repeated requests to comment on whether this week’s change would affect academics and other independent researchers. The move still may not happen at all, depending on how Twitter tweaks its policies. The company’s development team said via a post on the social network last week it was committed to allowing others to access the platform via some form of API.
“We’ll be back with more details on what you can expect next week,” they said.
Yet the lack of details about who will be affected — and how much the data access will cost from February 9 — has left academics and other researchers scrambling for any details. Meanwhile, many of Twitter’s employees working on trust and safety issues have either been fired or have left the company since Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion in late October.
In Europe’s crosshairs
The timing of the change comes as the European Commission on Thursday will publish its first reports from social media companies, including Twitter, about how they are complying with the EU’s so-called code of practice on disinformation, a voluntary agreement between EU legislators and Big Tech firms in which these companies agree to uphold a set of principles to clamp down on such material. The code of practice includes pledges to “empower researchers” by improving their ability to access companies’ data to track online content.
Thierry Breton, Europe’s internal market commissioner, talked to Musk last week to remind him about his obligations regarding the bloc’s content rules, though neither discussed the upcoming shutdown of free data access to the social network.
“We cannot rely only on the assessment of the platforms themselves. If the access to researchers is getting worse, most likely that would go against the spirit of that commitment,” Věra Jourová, the European Commission’s vice president for values and transparency, told POLITICO.
“It’s worrying to see a reversal of the trend on Twitter,” she added in reference to the likely cutback in outsiders’ access to the company’s data.
While the bloc’s disinformation standards are not mandatory, separate content rules from Brussels, known as the Digital Services Act, also directly require social media companies to provide data access to so-called vetted researchers. By complying with the code of practice on disinformation, tech giants can ease some of their compliance obligations under those separate content-moderation rules and avoid fines of up to 6 percent of their revenues if they fall afoul of the standards.
Yet even Twitter’s inclusion in the voluntary standards on disinformation is on shaky ground.
The company submitted its initial report that will be published Wednesday and Musk said he was committed to complying with the rules. But Camino Rojo — who served as head of public policy for Spain and was the main person at Twitter involved in the daily work on the code since November’s mass layoffs — is no longer working at the tech giant as of last week, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal discussions within Twitter. Rojo did not respond to a request for comment.
American lawmakers are also trying to pass legislation that would improve researcher access to social media companies following a series of scandals. The companies’ role in fostering the January 6 Capitol Hill riots has triggered calls for tougher scrutiny, as did the so-called Facebook Files revelations from whistleblower Frances Haugen, which highlighted how difficult it remains for outsiders to understand what is happening on these platforms.
“Twitter should be making it easier to study what’s happening on its platform, not harder,” U.S. Representative Lori Trahan, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a statement in reference to the upcoming change to data access. “This is the latest in a series of bad moves from Twitter under Elon Musk’s leadership.”
Rebecca Kern contributed reporting from Washington.
This article has been updated to reflect a change in when the European Commission is expected to publish reports under the code of practice on disinformation.
[ad_2]
#Elon #Musk #war #researchers
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
Rahul Gandhi has congratulated Elon Musk on his taking over Twitter, and has asked that the Opposition’s voice in India be not stifled.
What Rahul, wittingly or unwittingly, overlooks is that the big business which is taking over the media all over the world, looks only at its own interests, not the interests of others.
The take over of Twitter by Elon Musk in America is akin to the take over of CBN IBN by Mukesh Ambani, or of NDTV by Gautam Adani in India.
When I was Chairman of the Press Council of India, I came to know that the owner of one of the big Hindi newspapers, having perhaps the largest circulation in India, also owns about 50 other businesses e.g. mining, coal, iron&steel, real estate, etc. The newspaper was only a small business compared to his other businesses.
Why then was he interested in publishing the newspaper ? It was obviously to help his other businesses, e.g. by publishing something favourable to a Minister, who in return would help him in his other businesses.
Historically, the media arose in the 18th century in Europe as an organ of the people against feudal oppression. At that time all the organs of power were in the hands of feudal authorities, kings, aristocrats, etc. Hence the people had to create new organs which would serve their interests. The media ( which was then print media mainly in the form of leaflets, pamphlets, etc, not regular daily newspapers ) was one of the main organs created by the people for waging their struggle against feudalism, and it was used by great writers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Thomas Paine, Junius, etc. The media then represented the voice of the future, as contrasted to the feudal state organs, which only wanted to preserve the status quo.
Later, the role of the media changed. It was taken over by businessmen, and stopped representing the people. However, it still fulfilled a useful purpose by conveying news truthfully to the people. In India, great journalists like Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi, Nikhil Chakrabarty, etc fulfilled this role, like William Lloyd Garrison, Edward Murrow, and Walter Cronkite in America.
Now the wheel has turned totally around. Now the worldwide trend is to totally emasculate the media, deprive it of whatever freedom it had, and make it an organ dedicated solely to serving the commercial interests of the proprietor.
This trend is most visible in Indian television today, which has turned largely into what is called euphemistically as ‘godi media’. Now all pretences of conveying the truth have been dropped, and instead one hears only a single refrain.
Rahul Gandhi’s message is only wishful thinking, and Elon Musk is unlikely to pay any heed to it. He has invested 43 billion dollars in buying Twitter, and will only be interested in having good returns from this huge investment.
Author Justice Markandey Katju is former Chairman , Press Council of India and former Judge , Supreme Court of India. Author can be reached at justicekatju@gmail.com
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors’ and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house.
