The Albanese government on Tuesday released draft legislation that would require social media platforms to give users aged 16 and over a clear choice between personalised, algorithmically recommended content and a feed showing posts from friends, creators and accounts they have chosen to follow.

The proposal, called “My Feed, My Way,” is part of a broader Digital Duty of Care framework that would impose new obligations on digital platforms to identify and address risks to users.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the policy aims to empower users rather than increasing government control over the internet.

“This is not about giving government control; it is about giving people control,” Albanese said as the government released the legislation for consultation.

Under the proposed rules, social media platforms would have to notify new and existing users about their feed options. Users could choose to have their default feed populated with personalised recommendations or opt out of those recommendations and see content from people and creators they follow.

Communications Minister Anika Wells said Australians over 16 would be able to opt in or out of algorithmic recommendations and that platforms would be required to respect that choice.

“Just as we have basic safety standards for cars, toys or food, the duty of care applies basic standards to the online products we use every day,” Wells said.

The measure represents a significant potential challenge to the way platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok keep users engaged. Recommendation systems analyse users’ behaviour and preferences to determine what content they are shown, allowing platforms to maximise engagement and, in turn, advertising opportunities.

Australia’s proposed intervention would not ban recommendation algorithms. Instead, it would force platforms to provide a meaningful alternative.

That distinction is important for Big Tech, which has faced growing criticism from governments, parents and regulators over whether engagement-focused recommendation systems can amplify harmful or extreme material.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has previously warned that recommender systems can expose children to dangerous viral challenges, sexual exploitation risks and harmful content loops. The regulator has also said systems designed to maximise engagement can amplify misogynistic, hateful and extremist material.

The proposed legislation goes considerably beyond social media. Digital services including online games, apps and AI chatbots would also be required to protect under-18s from features that can have negative behavioural effects, including addictive design and features that affect self-esteem.

Platforms would also have obligations concerning harmful material, including content promoting eating disorders, pornography, hostile ideas about women and gender equality, glorifying crime or dangerous stunts, and material capable of causing serious mental-health distress.

The government is proposing tougher enforcement powers for the eSafety Commissioner, including the ability to issue removal notices for “nudify” applications or websites and faster intervention against child cyberbullying and adult cyber abuse.

Companies that fail to comply with the Digital Duty of Care could face penalties of up to AUSD 109.2 million (about USD 79 million).

The proposed legislation builds on Australia’s increasingly aggressive approach to technology regulation.

In December 2025, Australia became the first country to introduce a broad minimum-age restriction preventing children under 16 from maintaining accounts on designated social media platforms. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, Twitch and Kick are among the services subject to the restrictions.

The government is now extending its focus from who can use social media to how social media platforms shape what users see.

That shift could have implications well beyond Australia. The country’s under-16 restrictions have already attracted international attention, and Canberra is positioning the algorithm proposal as another world-leading intervention.

The government says the new rules are intended to create greater transparency and user choice rather than dictate what Australians can read or watch.

But the proposal is likely to face opposition from both sides of the political debate.

Some advocates argue that an opt-out model does not go far enough because users will still be exposed to algorithmic recommendations unless they actively disable them.

The Greens and other campaigners advocate for an opt-in model that would automatically disable personalised algorithms.

Critics from the conservative side, meanwhile, have raised concerns about government powers over online content and the potential for regulation to become a form of censorship.

For technology companies, the Australian proposal adds to a growing patchwork of regulations governing algorithms, online safety and children’s use of digital services.

The legislation is currently being released for targeted consultation, with the government planning to introduce it to Parliament later this year.

If enacted, Australia’s approach would establish a new principle for social media regulation: users would not necessarily have to accept the feed an algorithm chooses for them.

For Big Tech, the legislation could mean that users are no longer required to accept the algorithm as the default.

The post My Feed, My Way: Australia gives its tech users an algorithm off-switch appeared first on International Finance.

The lawsuit rotated around these questions: Did Meta ​design Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and teens? Did the social media conglomerate mislead consumers about the safety of its platforms for young users? Most importantly, what about the allegations about the platforms improperly collecting and using children’s personal data, in violation of federal law?

The hi-profile hearing at the Californian Federal Court had an EU link. In 2024, European regulators opened a formal investigation into Meta on the similar issue, citing potential breaches of online content rules related to child safety on Facebook and Instagram.

The European Commission (EC), back then, expressed concerns over the algorithmic systems used by the popular social media platforms, that was allegedly recommending videos and posts that could “exploit the weaknesses and inexperience of children and stimulate addictive behaviour.”

In 2026, the EC published preliminary findings of that two-year investigation, finding the Meta in breach of the DSA. The tech giant was asked to implement several design changes to curb its platforms’ “compulsive use.”

A self-inflicted wound for Meta

During the hearing, four lead states, California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, hit out at the social media conglomerate for designing Facebook and Instagram to hook young users, apart from fuelling anxiety, depression and even suicide, and most importantly, misleading consumers about the platforms’ safety.

All 29 states accused Meta of violating federal law by improperly collecting and using children’s personal data.

Meta’s lawyer Paul Schmidt countered the charges by mentioning that there was “no dispute” that some social media ​users face struggles, but that research showed no clear link between adolescents’ social media use and a lack of well-being.

Former Meta safety engineer Arturo Bejar, a vocal critique of the defective nature of Meta’s child safety tools, also testified.

He said, “move fast and break things was a mantra at Meta, which took a don’t ask, don’t tell approach to monitoring whether children under 13 were online. Many products were shipped into the world, such as Reels short-form videos, and safety was not a consideration in how it was initially deployed.”

Meta saved its piggy bank, somehow

Meta finally winked, on August 25, by agreeing to cough up to USD 18 billion to the 29 states. It also agreed to introduce nationwide changes to its services for teenage users.

Meta has also agreed to implement ​teen safeguards, including a default two-hour daily limit across Facebook and Instagram, overnight blocks from ​midnight to morning 6 am, age-checking measures and disabling push notifications during school hours of 8 am to 3 ‌pm ⁠for teen users.

The social media conglomerate will be paying the 70% of the settlement, or roughly USD 12.7 billion, over a decade.

The remaining amount, around USD 5 billion, will only be released if rivals Snap, TikTok and YouTube adopt similar measures. Meta has also added the condition of ​the rival platforms ⁠agreeing to make similar payments to the states.

Likes and reactions will be hidden from teens by default, including on their own posts ​and those of others.

The USD 18 billion figure, despite being among the largest ever settlements paid by a technology company, won’t strain a business that earned more than USD 60 billion in 2025. The settlement also left untouched the personalized feeds and ad targeting, known as Meta’s profit-making machines.

The spike in Meta’s shares after the news coming out suggested that investors ⁠welcomed an outcome that will cost the company far less than the USD 1.4 trillion in penalties it said the states were seeking before trial.

The 2021 Whistleblower Testimony That Started the Saga

The hearing in the Californian court and the multistate investigation into ​Instagram and Facebook’s impact on young users were the follow-up actions of the 2021 testimony by Meta whistleblower Frances Haugen.

Haugen, back then, informed the Senate ⁠committee that the company knew its products could harm young users and how to make them safer, but chose not to make those changes in favour of pursuing higher profits.

Haugen came armed with “internal documents,” that revealed how Meta knowingly prioritized high profits and user engagement over children’s safety.

The papers contained Meta’s own internal studies showing how Instagram worsened mental health and self-esteem issues for a significant percentage of teenage girls.

Known as the “Facebook Papers” and reported exclusively by The Wall Street Journal, the documents also showed Meta downplaying these findings publicly.

“The platform’s engagement-driven algorithms actively steered young users toward harmful ‘rabbit hole’ content relating to eating disorders and toxic comparisons,” reported the WSJ back then.

While the company executives took note of the negative psychological footprint of their products, they declined to implement safety-first structural changes over the alleged worries about the reforms “reducing” user screen time and ad revenue.

Meta also turned a blind eye to underage accounts (those below 13), failing to implement strict and verifiable age controls.

Plethora of lawsuits

By 2022, hundreds of personal injury lawsuits from parents and over 200 US school districts got filed against Meta. They alleged Instagram of causing severe youth depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and self-harm, forcing schools to expend massive resources on mental health counselling.

By 2023, states’ allegations against Meta got further specific: developing algorithms intended to keep users on the platform as long as possible, even compulsively; creating visual filters it knows can contribute to body dysmorphia; and presenting content in an “infinite scroll” format that makes it hard for children to disengage.

The legal luminaries found overwhelming support among the educators, who raised alarms over social media’s negative impacts on kids’ mental health, especially the ability to learn.

Noted Physician and the then US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy too came out against Meta.

In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post, he said, “We do not have enough evidence to conclude that social media is sufficiently safe for our kids. In fact, there is increasing evidence that social media use during adolescence—a critical stage of brain development—is associated with harm to mental health and well-being.”

Seattle and New Mexico pleas changed the game

In fact, in January 2023, Seattle Public Schools became the first-ever educational institution to file a lawsuit on the above-mentioned constraint.

The district claimed that the number of students in the school system reporting that they feel “so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row that they stopped doing some usual activities” rose 30% since 2009.

The district asked for the social media companies named in its suit to pay for damages as well as preventative education and treatment for problematic social media use, among other remedies.

Meta, Snap, ByteDance and Alphabet were accused of designing and operating their respective platforms “in ways that exploit the psychology and neurophysiology of their users into spending more and more time on their platforms.”

Seattle’s lawsuit stated that as a result of social media usage issues, the district’s educational set-ups were forced to “take steps to mitigate the harm and disruption caused by defendants’ conduct,” including hiring additional personnel to address mental, emotional, and social health issues, apart from increasing training for teachers and staff to identify students exhibiting symptoms affecting their mental, emotional, and social health.

New Mexico followed it up with its own lawsuit, with Attorney General Raul Torrez charging the social media conglomerate of creating a “breeding ground” for child sexual exploitation and ignoring safety gaps on Instagram.

Judge Bryan Biedscheid, in August 2026, ordered Meta to pay another USD 567 million for its failure to warn the public about dangers its platforms posed to children.

The amount was an add on to the previous figure of USD 375 million, that the social media conglomerate was already ordered to pay in the case.

The grand total came at $942 million; the largest fine imposed on the company in the lead-up to the California trial.

Throughout 2024 and 2025, federal courts were consolidating thousands of individual, school, and state cases into a massive Multi-District Litigation (MDL) block in the Northern District of California.

Meta attempted to dismiss the lawsuits multiple times, arguing its algorithms are protected by Section 230 and the First Amendment.

In March 2026, a Los Angeles court found Meta and Google liable for the social media addiction, anxiety, and depression of a young girl, awarding her USD 6 million in damages.

Then a month after, Meta agreed to a bellwether settlement with the Brevard County School District in Kentucky to avoid a massive public trial, helping set a precedent for thousands of pending school district claims.

And then came the moment of reckoning at the Californian Federal Court, where the social media conglomerate had to bow down to the combined might of 29 states and give the promise of implementing changes that will address the concerns related with the mental health of the vulnerable young users.

Countries are watching

South Korea’s media regulator, while reacting to the news of Meta reaching a settlement in the California court, observed that measures proposed by the social media conglomerate to curb potentially addictive features for young users should ideally be applied worldwide.

Seoul’s stand is clear: Not only Meta, every social media company operating within its territory needs to take greater responsibility for ​protecting children and teenagers.

Australian Communications ​Minister Anika Wells said that social media companies “have the tools at their disposal to protect young people from their addictive features but have chosen not ​to use them.”

Philippines Department of Information and Communications Technology Secretary Henry Aguda told Reuters about both Meta and gaming platform Roblox pledging in a meeting on August 27 about tightening age verification processes in the Southeast Asian country, apart from expanding parental controls and implementing time ​limits on the social media.

Meta has also given hints to Brazil’s National Data Protection Authority about discussing children’s safety online. Both United Kingdom and European Commission will keep their eyes on the social media conglomerate’s next set of actions.

The social media conglomerate might have successfully saved its bank balances, but the message from the Californian court has been sent in a crystal-clear manner: Big Tech is not big enough to escape legal glare, especially when it comes to protecting the mental well-being of teenagers.

The post META and youth addiction: A problematic affair appeared first on International Finance.

On Wednesday, during a California federal trial, the court announced the settlement, which concludes a landmark lawsuit filed by 47 states, the District of Columbia, and US territories.

The post Children social media addiction: Meta to pay up to USD 17.1 billion in landmark settlement appeared first on International Finance.

That defence is falling apart. In 2026, four different governments, in India, the European Union (EU), Australia and the United States, are attacking Meta on completely different fronts.

The target this time is the actual design of its products. Not what people post, but how the apps are engineered to keep people scrolling, how they verify identity, and who profits from the news content that flows through them.

Taken together, these fights amount to the most serious challenge Meta has ever faced, hitting its products, its finances and its business model all at once.

A Privacy Feature Becomes a Fraud Tool in India
In late June 2026, WhatsApp rolled out “usernames,” a feature letting people message each other without sharing their phone numbers. It sounds like a simple privacy upgrade. But within three days, India’s IT ministry froze the rollout before it fully launched.

The reason comes down to a very specific, very costly problem in India, so-called “digital arrest” scams. Fraudsters pose as police officers or bank officials over video calls, falsely claim the victim is under arrest, and pressure them into transferring their life savings.

These scams work because they feel official. Investigators found that during WhatsApp’s early testing, usernames mimicking the Prime Minister, Bollywood stars and government agencies like the CBI could be claimed by anyone, with no ID checks at all.

In India, a phone number is tied to a SIM card and identity documents, which makes it traceable. A username needs none of that. In its notice to WhatsApp, the ministry warned the feature could “materially increase the incidence of online fraud, phishing, digital arrest scams” and impersonation attacks.

WhatsApp pushed back, insisting that “other users need to know the exact username to message you” and pointing to built-in limits on how many strangers an account can contact. The government judged these safeguards too weak against panicked victims mid-scam.

This fits a bigger pattern. India has built a huge digital identity system around Aadhaar (its national ID) and UPI (its payments network), and it wants foreign apps to work within that verified system rather than introduce anonymous alternatives. Digital rights groups have challenged the freeze in court.

The Internet Freedom Foundation branded the move “a licence raj for software features,” arguing the government has no legal right to pre-approve product features before they launch. Regardless of how that case ends, India has made clear that it now treats app design choices affecting hundreds of millions of people as a matter of national security.

Europe Punishes the Apps for Being Addictive
On 10 July 2026, the European Commission issued preliminary findings that Instagram and Facebook likely breach the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) because of features that make the apps addictive.

The specific culprits named were infinite scroll, videos that autoplay without being asked, constant push notifications, and recommendation algorithms tuned purely to keep people watching. European regulators argue these features put users, especially teenagers, into an “autopilot” state where they keep consuming content without meaning to.

Under the DSA, very large platforms must assess risks their design poses to users and fix them. Announcing the findings, the Commission’s tech sovereignty chief, Henna Virkkunen, said “protecting the physical and mental health of Europeans must be a priority.” Brussels says Meta simply didn’t do that seriously enough.

Meta points to its “Teen Accounts” safety tools, which cap usage and block nighttime access, and told reporters “we disagree with these preliminary findings.”

But independent researchers testing teen accounts found notifications, autoplay and endless scrolling still showed up constantly, and that screen-time reminders were easy to ignore. Regulators also argue it’s unfair to rely on parents to manage settings they may not understand or have time for.

The financial stakes are enormous. EU fines under the DSA can reach 6% of a company’s global revenue, which for Meta could mean a fine north of USD 12 billion. But experts believe Brussels isn’t necessarily aiming for a drawn-out legal battle.

The DSA deliberately avoids strictly defining “addictive design,” giving the Commission room to use the threat of a huge fine as leverage to push Meta into voluntarily switching off things like autoplay by default. A negotiated settlement, not a courtroom win, may be the real goal.

Australia Wants Meta to Pay for News
Australia’s fight with Meta isn’t about addiction or fraud. It’s about money, specifically, who pays for journalism.

In April 2026, Australia proposed the News Bargaining Incentive (NBI), replacing an earlier law that required platforms to negotiate payments with news publishers. Under the new system, platforms like Meta, Google and TikTok face a 2.25% levy on their Australian revenue unless they strike deals with local news outlets.

Sign enough deals, and the levy drops to 1.5%. Refuse entirely, and the government pockets the full amount and hands it to publishers based on how many journalists they employ.

Meta has hit back hard. In its formal submission on the draft law, the company wrote that “it is a discriminatory tax, applied only to a handful of foreign companies.”

Its arguments run along three lines. Publishers benefit just as much from the traffic social media sends them; audiences increasingly come to Meta’s apps for entertainment, not news, as shown by the fact that engagement didn’t drop when Meta pulled news from its platforms in Canada; and propping up legacy media with tech company money removes any pressure on publishers to modernise. Meta also argues the levy may violate trade agreements between Australia and the United States.

Australia’s urgency is understandable. Since 2008, the country has lost more than 19,500 journalism jobs as advertising money moved online.

But critics note the scheme has a major blind spot, since it exempts AI chatbots like Meta AI and ChatGPT, even though these tools increasingly answer questions using scraped news content without sending any traffic, or money, back to publishers at all.

In America, Juries Are Now the Threat
Unlike India, the EU or Australia, the US has no single federal law governing platform design. Instead, individual states and courts have become the battleground, and 2026 has already produced landmark defeats for Meta.

In March, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay USD 375 million in punitive damages, finding the company misled the public about child safety on its platforms.

New Mexico’s Attorney General, Raul Torrez, called the verdict “a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price.” Meta said in response that it would “respectfully disagree with the verdict” and confirmed it planned to appeal.

The very next day, a Los Angeles jury found both Meta and Google liable in a case brought by a young woman who started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, awarding her USD 6 million and ruling that features like infinite scroll, autoplay and beauty filters had directly caused her addiction and psychological harm. Meta was found 70% responsible and Google 30%.

These verdicts are just the opening act. A much larger federal case is underway, consolidating claims from more than 2,600 individuals, school districts and local governments, alongside a separate suit from attorneys general in 29 states.

In July, four of those states, California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, filed a jaw-dropping penalty demand of USD 1.4 trillion, calculated by counting every teenage user and every month they spent over 30 minutes a day on the app as a separate violation.

Meta called the figure “outlandish” and argued in its court filing that a penalty of that scale “has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.”

California’s Attorney General’s office defended the claim, saying its case alleges “Meta has prioritized profits over the safety of kids.” Meta also pointed out that “social media addiction” isn’t a recognised medical diagnosis.

What makes these cases different from past lawsuits is the legal strategy. Rather than suing over content posted by users (which Meta has long been shielded from under a law called Section 230), plaintiffs are suing over the design of the product itself, the algorithms, the notifications, the engagement loops.

That reframing has worked. A federal judge has repeatedly refused to throw the cases out, and internal Meta documents, including one memo stating “if we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens,” have strengthened the plaintiffs’ case that the addictive design was intentional.

Trouble Inside the House Too
While fighting on four fronts abroad, Meta is also under pressure internally. In May 2026, it cut around 8,000 jobs as part of a shift toward AI-assisted operations, a move now facing a discrimination lawsuit from former employees who claim an AI system used performance data to unfairly target staff who had taken medical or maternity leave.

Separately, an employee tracking tool built to gather data for AI training was suspended after 1,600 staff signed a petition calling it a privacy violation.

And a new feature called “Muse Image AI,” which let people generate AI images from other users’ photos, was automatically switched on for all public adult Instagram accounts, drawing comparisons to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and raising fresh questions about compliance with European privacy law.

All this is happening while Meta pours between USD 115 billion and USD 135 billion into AI infrastructure in 2026 alone, nearly double what it spent the year before.

What It All Means
What’s happening to Meta in 2026 isn’t a series of unrelated headaches. It’s a shift in how the world regulates big tech.

Governments have stopped playing catch-up on individual pieces of harmful content and started targeting the architecture underneath, including the algorithms, the verification systems and the revenue models.

India wants identity and traceability. Europe wants proof that apps aren’t designed to be addictive. Australia wants a cut of the revenue to save its news industry. America’s courts want someone held financially responsible for the mental health toll on a generation of teenagers.

The result is a Meta that can no longer run one single global product. Usernames may stay frozen in India while working fine elsewhere. Instagram’s feed may need to become calmer and less algorithm-driven in Europe while staying exactly as engaging as ever in less regulated markets.

News might vanish from the platform entirely in Australia to dodge the levy. Piece by piece, the borderless internet Meta was built on is being replaced by a patchwork of national rules, and the company is now spending as much energy fighting sovereign governments as it is building the next generation of AI.

The post Meta is fighting governments, and the walls are closing in appeared first on International Finance.

Known as the ‘AI Mode’, the feature will create a new way to search the popular social media platform by using Meta AI to surface answers pulled from public posts across the portal, including “Groups” and “Reels”. Instead of scrolling through search results, users will be able to ask a question in plain language and get a synthesised answer based on what people are actually discussing.

“AI Mode is a new way to get answers to your questions right on Facebook thanks to Meta AI. From exploring your Feed to searching for something specific, AI Mode uses Meta AI to give you answers grounded in what people are saying publicly across our apps, like in Groups and Reels, so you get real perspectives and experiences rather than a generic list of search results,” Meta said.

“It’s another way Meta AI, powered by Muse Spark, is showing up for you in the experiences you already use. Whether you’re searching or diving deeper into content, Meta AI is right there, ready to help,” the tech giant added further.

The launch of the “AI Mode” follows Meta’s quiet debut of “Forum”, a Reddit-style app that includes its own AI-powered “Ask” tab, allowing users to ask questions and get answers pulled from discussions happening across Facebook Groups.

Facebook has also added editing tools that let users play around with collage cutouts and transition effects for their video montages. Another new feature is the AI-powered photo presets, which will allow an individual to change up his/her look with different clothes, hairstyles, and accessories.

The update on the image front also comes at the right time, as the football fans, amid the ongoing FIFA World Cup 2026, will be able to virtually wear their favourite team jerseys just by tapping the “AI Edit” icon in “Stories” and choosing “Wear It”. They will also have the option of going directly to their profile picture and selecting “Restyle Profile Picture with AI” and “Wardrobe”.

Meta has been attempting to add new life to once-popular, now-dormant Facebook by adding AI features to the social media and networking site. In February 2026, the company introduced animated profile pictures that bring still photos to life — adding a wave or placing a virtual party hat on someone’s head.

In the following month, the tech giant added another AI feature to “Facebook Marketplace” that automatically replies to buyer messages on sellers’ behalf.

Earlier in June, Facebook launched an AI assistant for creators that offers personalised suggestions (including the best times to post and summaries of what audiences are saying in the comments) based on a creator’s content and performance history.

The post Meet ‘AI Mode’, Meta’s new attempt to infuse life in Facebook appeared first on International Finance.

To excel during the interview and increase your chances of receiving a job offer, prepare in advance. Research the company and the position you are applying for, and ensure you have all the necessary documents and references readily available.

Before the big day, review these tips so you can enter your interview feeling confident and ready to impress your potential new employer.

Do Extensive Research On The Company

Before going for an interview, know about the company. Try to understand what the company does and what type of work they are involved in. You can check their website to see their services, products, and basic information. When you know about the company, it becomes easier to answer questions and show interest.

Research The People You Will Be Interviewing With

Sometimes companies tell you who will conduct your interview. If you know their names, search for them online. This helps you understand their role in the company. It also helps you feel less nervous because you already know a little about the person sitting in front of you.

Anticipate Questions You Might Be Asked

Most interviews ask similar questions about your experience, skills, and plans. Think about these questions before the interview. Try to recall your past work or study experiences so you can explain them clearly. This preparation helps you avoid confusion during the interview.

Practice With A Mock Interview

Practicing before the interview is helpful. You can practice with a friend or family member. Even speaking in front of a mirror can help. This makes you more comfortable while answering questions and improves your speaking.

Use The Company’s Products Or Services

If possible, try to use the company’s products or services. This helps you understand how the company works. You can also share your experience during the interview, which creates a good impression.

Review Your Facebook And Other Social Media Postings

Many companies check social media accounts. Look at your posts and remove anything that looks unprofessional. A clean profile gives a better image.

By preparing in this way, you can attend the interview with more confidence and less stress.

The post Preparing for a job interview: Check out the essential steps appeared first on International Finance.

In 2024, Meta Platforms reported revenue of $164.50 billion. As of September 30, 2025, the social media giant’s revenue was approximately $189.46 billion. It’s a titan of industry that shareholders love, and that loves its shareholders. But the excessive love of shareholders is the root of all corporate sin.

Despite its skyrocketing revenue and incredible technological prowess, Meta doesn’t think it should regulate its market or protect its customers from fraud and harm. The digital advertising ecosystem, once heralded as a democratisation of commercial reach, has metastasised into a complex marketplace where the distinctions between legitimate commerce and predatory fraud are increasingly obscured by algorithmic opacity.

Internal projections for the fiscal year 2024 indicate that advertisements promoting scams, illegal goods, and prohibited content generated approximately $16 billion, representing roughly 10% of the company’s total annual revenue. This revenue is safeguarded by a penalty bid pricing mechanism that monetises high-risk advertisers rather than removing them, a policy framework that sets enforcement thresholds at a staggering 95% certainty level and a corporate governance structure that explicitly caps revenue losses from safety enforcement at a fraction of the profits generated by the fraud.

So, what does this mean? Meta will even let bad actors sell horse dung or magic remedies if they are willing to pay a premium for their risky endeavour. While the company has long faced scrutiny regarding data privacy and political influence, investigations surfacing in late 2024 and throughout 2025 have illuminated a far more tangible structural crisis: the institutionalisation of revenue derived from fraudulent advertising.

What’s really happening?

In November 2025, a Reuters investigation, corroborated by a cache of internal documents spanning 2021 to 2025, revealed a stark internal projection. Meta anticipated $16 billion in revenue for 2024, specifically from ads for scams and banned goods. To contextualise this figure, $16 billion exceeds the annual revenue of major global entities such as Spotify or eBay (Fortune 500 companies). It is a sum that materially impacts the company’s earnings per share and, consequently, its stock valuation.

This revenue stream is categorised internally under various euphemisms, including “violating revenue” or segments associated with higher legal risk. The existence of such specific forecasting line items indicates that this revenue is not accidental. Financial modelling that explicitly accounts for illicit revenue suggests a fiduciary dependency; removing this revenue stream would require a voluntary correction of the company’s top line by nearly 10%, a move that would likely trigger a shareholder revolt in an environment where growth in legitimate user acquisition has plateaued.

To put things into context, Meta shows 15 billion scam ads a day. A lesser entity would be penalised and shut down in most countries, but the mighty titan of the digital industry has thus far been immune to its amoral position on the safety of its consumers. Upper management at Meta does not care if an online casino, a pump-and-dump investment scheme, fake websites, or purveyors of illegal drugs flood their platform with misleading ads, as long as their pockets are full.

After the Reuters investigation and some high-profile cases against it globally, most notably the Calise vs Meta lawsuit and the Brazil AGU lawsuit, the company is trying its best at crisis management.

Calise vs Meta is a class-action lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit pursuing claims of unjust enrichment, arguing that Meta actively solicited and profited from third-party fraud and thus should disgorge the revenue. The Brazilian Attorney General’s Office has also filed suit to recover revenue from 1,770 specific fraudulent ads that used government symbols to scam citizens, demanding that the funds be deposited into a rights defence fund. Something similar is happening in the United Kingdom as well. Regulators in the European country found that Meta platforms were involved in 54% of all authorised push payment scams (where users are tricked into sending money).

The Instagram parent company says only 10% of its revenue came from scams in 2024 and aims to cut it to 7.3% in 2025 and 5.8% by 2027. The claim seems absurd. They have the tools to stop it now, but choose to roll it out slowly to protect their profits and please shareholders.

Of the $16 billion ad revenue they received from bad actors, $7 billion was from higher-risk parties (possibly extremely dubious or problematic). It is ironic because Meta’s own system files it as such. The most critical insight from the internal disclosures is the calculated decision to tolerate this revenue stream based on a comparison with potential regulatory penalties.

The documents suggest a stark cost-benefit analysis. While the revenue from scam ads is estimated at nearly $7 billion annually, the company’s internal risk models projected that regulatory fines for these violations would likely cap at around $1 billion. Instead of punishing or deplatforming, they merely charge a higher fee from these individuals and organisations.

It’s important to keep in mind that Meta is partly responsible for one-third of all successful scams in the US today. Worldwide, the total cost of ad fraud was estimated at $81 billion in 2022 and was expected to surpass $100 billion in 2023, showing that current measures aren’t keeping up with increasingly sophisticated scams.

Furthermore, internal memos revealed the existence of revenue guardrails for safety teams. In one specific instance, a fraud prevention initiative was restricted to actions that would not reduce total ad revenue by more than 0.15% (approximately $135 million).

This explicit capping of safety measures based on revenue impact demonstrates that the risk premium is a protected income stream, insulated from the full force of the company’s own trust and safety capabilities.

Who is profiting and how?

The digital advertising ecosystem, once heralded as a precision instrument for commercial democratisation, has metamorphosed into a complex adversarial theatre where the economic interests of platforms and the operational methodologies of fraudsters have become dangerously aligned. These systems prioritise engagement metrics such as Click-Through Rate and Estimated Action Rate (EAR) over content veracity, creating a fertile substrate where fraudulent actors do not merely survive but thrive.

At the core of the ad delivery engine lies the auction formula, a mathematical arbiter that decides which advertisement is shown to a user at any given millisecond. You don’t win the bid with money on platforms like Google, Facebook, or Instagram; you win it with a combination of ad quality and EAR.

When a fraudster runs a campaign promising “Guaranteed 500% Returns in 24 Hours” or “Miracle Weight Loss Without Dieting,” users interact with these ads at high rates. The algorithm, blind to the veracity of the claim and optimising strictly for the probability of action, registers this high interaction as a signal of quality and relevance. Consequently, the auction mechanism rewards the fraudster with a higher EAR, which inversely lowers their Cost Per Mille or Cost Per Click.

In effect, the platform’s efficiency algorithms subsidise the distribution of scam content, allowing fraudsters to reach vast audiences at a fraction of the cost paid by legitimate brands.

The digital ad fraud ecosystem has matured into a sophisticated business-to-business economy. While the end-point scammers running fake crypto exchanges or counterfeit e-commerce stores bear the operational risk, a vast shadow supply chain of service providers extracts guaranteed profits at every stage of the fraudulent lifecycle. These entities operate with the efficiency of legitimate SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) companies, often earning monthly recurring revenue (MRR) regardless of whether the scammer’s campaign succeeds or fails.

The primary beneficiaries are vendors of evasion technology. Cloaking services, which filter traffic to hide malicious landing pages from platform moderators, have evolved into subscription-based platforms. Services like “TrafficArmor” and “Cloaking House” operate openly, charging tiered monthly fees ranging from $30 to $600, or utilising pay-per-click models where scammers pay premium rates (e.g., $129 for 32,500 clicks) to ensure their ads survive automated review. These companies profit by effectively selling invisibility, creating a technological tollbooth that every high-end fraudster must pay to access the audience.

Supporting this is the Bulletproof Hosting industry. Unlike legitimate hosts that comply with takedown requests, providers like Strox or SpeedHost247 charge premiums (e.g., $85/month or $3/day) to host malicious landing pages on servers explicitly designed to ignore abuse reports and law enforcement inquiries. By commoditising resilience, they ensure that even when a scam is detected, the infrastructure remains operational long enough to be profitable.

Fraud requires a constant supply of fresh identities to bypass platform bans. This has enriched Dark Web marketplaces and account brokers, who act as wholesalers of digital reputation. The most lucrative commodities are Verified Business Managers who hack or farm Facebook/Meta ad accounts with high spending limits and histories of legitimate activity. A verified BM can fetch $120 to $250, while aged accounts (which look less suspicious to algorithms) sell for $45–$50.

This sector also profits from the Stolen Credit model. Brokers sell stolen credit card details for as little as $10–$40, which fraudsters then link to compromised agency accounts. This arbitrage allows scammers to run thousands of dollars in ads using other people’s money, while the identity brokers secure risk-free profit from the initial data sale.

Perhaps the most significant evolution is the shift to Scam-as-a-Service (ScaaS). Technical syndicates now build and lease entire fraud kits (pre-coded phishing sites, crypto drainer scripts, and back-end management panels) to lower-level criminals.

“Instead of charging a flat fee, these developers often take a commission. For instance, the Inferno Drainer malware operated on a 20% commission model, syphoning off a fifth of all stolen funds from its affiliates, generating over $87 million in illicit profit before ceasing operations. This franchise model allows technical groups to scale their revenue infinitely without ever directly engaging with a victim,” said Reuters journalist Jeff Horwitz, who has been covering the alleged ad-related irregularities involving Meta.

Finally, the demand for human engagement signals has created a labour economy in Southeast Asia (e.g., Vietnam, Myanmar) and parts of Eastern Europe. “Click Farms” or “Fraud Farms” employ low-wage workers to manually interact with ads, solve CAPTCHAs, and warm up accounts.

“These operations charge roughly $1 per 1,000 clicks/likes, creating a volume-based revenue stream that exploits global wage disparities to defeat advanced behavioural biometrics. By providing the human touch that algorithms crave, these farms monetise the very mechanism designed to stop them,” Horwitz said.

And it doesn’t stop there. The data collected at these farms is often resold. If you’ve been the victim of a cybercrime, there’s a 34% chance it will happen again if you’re an individual, and an 84% chance if you’re a business. Once scammed, you can end up on what’s called a ‘suckers list,’ marking you as an easy target. These lists are valuable, and people are willing to pay a lot to get them.

How is the world reacting to it?

The world is reacting to the industrialisation of ad fraud with a shift from “user beware” to platform liability. In 2024 and 2025, governments and industries moved to dismantle the economic impunity of platforms, forcing them to bear the costs of the fraud they facilitate.

The most significant development is the regulatory move to force reimbursement. For example, the UK Payment Systems Regulator implemented in 2024 a mandatory reimbursement requirement for Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud. Crucially, the liability is now split 50:50 between the sending bank and the receiving payment service provider.

While this primarily targets banks, it has created immense pressure from the financial sector on tech platforms. Banks, now on the hook for millions in refunds, are aggressively lobbying for a “polluter pays” model, arguing that since 60–80% of scams originate on Meta’s platforms, the tech giants should contribute to the reimbursement pot.

Effective December 2024, Singapore’s framework assigns specific duties to financial institutions and telcos to mitigate phishing scams. If banks fail to send real-time transaction alerts or impose cooling-off periods, they are liable for losses. This creates a regulatory precedent where infrastructure providers are held financially accountable for gatekeeping failures. Governments are moving beyond voluntary codes of conduct to enforceable legislation with massive financial penalties.

The “UK Online Safety Act,” fully enforceable in 2025, requires platforms to proactively prevent fraudulent advertising. Non-compliance can result in fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global annual turnover (potentially billions for Meta).

In Europe, something similar is happening with the “Digital Services Act.” The European Commission has opened investigations into “Very Large Online Platforms” regarding their risk mitigation for fraudulent ads. The DSA empowers the European Union to fine companies up to 6% of their global turnover if they fail to manage systemic risks, including the spread of financial scams.

In Australia, the “Scams Prevention Framework,” which was passed in early 2025, introduces mandatory codes for banks, telcos, and digital platforms. It includes fines of up to AUD 50 million for non-compliance, specifically targeting the failure to detect and remove scam content.

There is also other litigation from celebrities. For example, Andrew Forrest vs Meta is an ongoing case where Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest pursued Meta in both Australian and US courts over the proliferation of crypto scams using his likeness. While the Australian criminal case was dropped due to evidential hurdles, the US civil lawsuit survived a motion to dismiss in 2024.

This case is pivotal as it challenges Section 230 immunity often claimed by platforms, arguing that Meta’s ad tools contributed to the content creation, thereby stripping them of neutral publisher status.

Even the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sued Meta for aiding and abetting false conduct by publishing scam ads featuring public figures, arguing that Meta’s algorithms actively targeted these scams to susceptible users.

Meta has, under immense pressure, reversed its 2021 decision to abandon facial recognition. In late 2024, the company began testing facial recognition technology to combat “celeb-bait” scams. The system compares faces in suspected ads against the profile pictures of public figures.

If a match is found and the ad is a scam, it is blocked. This marks a significant concession, as it acknowledges that privacy concerns regarding biometrics are outweighed by the need to stop the financial bleeding caused by industrial-scale fraud.

Major players like Meta, Coinbase, and Match Group have formed coalitions to share intelligence on pig-butchering operations, aiming to sever the communication lines between the scam compounds and their victims.

Engagement fuels fraud risks

This is the aftermath of prioritising engagement over verification. You end up with an ecosystem where scams and fraud flourish, and customers get hurt. At the heart of this crisis lies the EAR algorithm, a mechanism that inadvertently subsidises deception by rewarding the hyper-engaging nature of scams with lower distribution costs. This economic alignment between the platform’s profit motives and the fraudster’s operational goals has created a “Market for Lemons,” where predatory content effectively crowds out legitimate commerce.

The “Retargeting Loop” further exacerbates this by trapping vulnerable populations in algorithmic echo chambers, commoditising their susceptibility, and reselling it through the secondary market of recovery scams.

Technologically, the ecosystem has evolved into an asymmetric arms race, where enforcement is consistently outpaced by evasion. The transition from simple static landing pages to Generation 4 cloaking technologies, which are capable of analysing device telemetry, battery status, and gyroscopic movements in milliseconds, demonstrates that fraud is no longer the domain of opportunistic amateurs. It has industrialised into a sophisticated Fraud-as-a-Service economy. This shadow supply chain, composed of bulletproof hosting providers, identity brokers on the dark web, and commercial cloaking services, operates with the efficiency of the legitimate software sector.

By lowering the technical barrier to entry, these enablers have democratised access to high-end evasion tools, allowing even low-skilled actors to launch enterprise-grade attacks against global platforms.

The failure of self-regulation is now evident in the global legislative pivot toward platform liability. For over a decade, the industry operated under a “user beware” paradigm, but the sheer scale of financial loss has forced a regulatory correction. Initiatives like the United Kingdom’s mandatory reimbursement requirement and Singapore’s “Shared Responsibility Framework” signal the end of platform immunity.

By shifting the financial burden of fraud from the victim to the infrastructure providers, regulators are attempting to realign economic incentives. Only when the cost of hosting a scam exceeds the revenue generated from its ads will platforms invest the necessary resources to close the technological loopholes they currently tolerate.

Ultimately, the future of the digital advertising economy hinges on a fundamental shift from plausible deniability to mandatory verification. The era of anonymous algorithmic bidding must yield to a “Know Your Business” standard, where access to the ad auction is predicated on verified identity rather than mere creditworthiness.

As Generative AI threatens to flood the web with infinite synthetic content, the only viable defence is a strict chain of custody for digital identity. If structural reform doesn’t ensue soon, corporate social media platforms will slowly transform into a black market without oversight.

The world is reacting, but laws are struggling to keep up with fast-moving algorithms. For now, as a reader and consumer, be careful, any ad you see on Instagram or Facebook could be a scam, backed by Meta Platforms, the world’s biggest advertiser.

The post Meta lets scammers pay to play appeared first on International Finance.

Ten of the biggest platforms will have to block children from December 10 or face fines of up to AUSD 49.5 million (USD 33 million) under the new law. While the movie has drawn criticism from tech biggies and free speech advocates, it has been welcomed by parents and child advocates.

Meanwhile, Australian teenagers have taken to social media for the last time to farewell their followers, while mourning the loss of the platforms that shaped much of their lives before the ban, the world’s first such one, took effect on December 10. In the hours leading up to the ban’s midnight start, a flurry of goodbye messages came from teenagers, as well as adults, on platforms including TikTok, Instagram and Reddit.

“I’ll miss you guys,” posted Melbourne creator Josh Partington, known for making comedy sketches about Australian life for more than 75,000 TikTok followers.

Young Australians, who have grown up using social media, faced the prospect of losing access to their favourite apps with sadness, humour and disbelief.

“I’m going to miss you so much, and especially the funny content. See you in a few years, but I don’t know if my account will still be standing,” one TikTok user wrote to their followers.

“Goodbye, see you on the other side,” another user said.

On Reddit, users posted their goodbye notes to subreddits such as r/teenagers.

“As an autistic 13-year-old, I am devastated. My playlist of 1,400+ songs on YouTube will be deleted and Reddit too, I have zero friends … I will be completely alone for the next three years until I am 16,” one popular post said.

PM Albanese is facing backlash as well, as he lost 6,000 followers across TikTok and Instagram since December 9. While one person commented, “Just wait until we’re able to vote” on Albanese’s TikTok account, not all teenagers were against the ban.

“Ngl (not going to lie), social media ban is probably for the best of us. All we do is sit behind a screen for hours,” a TikTok user said.

The post Australia enforces world’s first under-16 social media ban appeared first on International Finance.

Sam Altman, who earlier stated that he would continue to serve as the company’s CEO, will continue to supervise all three verticals. According to a Bloomberg report, Simo will report directly to Altman, while Brad Lightcap, Sarah Friar, and Kevin Weil, the chief operating officer (COO), chief financial officer (CFO), and chief product officer (CPO) of OpenAI, will report to her.

“Joining OpenAI at this critical moment is an incredible privilege and responsibility. This organisation has the potential to accelerate human potential at a pace never seen before and I am deeply committed to shaping these applications toward the public good,” Simo said, while also clarifying that she will continue to serve as chair of the Instacart board.

Fidji Simo’s move to OpenAI was announced just days after the ChatGPT maker revealed it was scrapping its controversial plan to become a for-profit company. As part of OpenAI’s latest governance plan, the nonprofit parent will retain control over the public benefit corporation and become a major shareholder in it.

“Applications bring together a group of existing business and operational teams responsible for how our research reaches and benefits the world, and Fidji is uniquely qualified to lead this group,” Sam Altman wrote in a blog post, adding that Simo has already contributed a great deal to the company since joining OpenAI’s board in 2024. She also sits on the board of Shopify.

Early Life And Career Of Fidji Simo

French-American businesswoman Fidji Simo was born in Sète, France, on October 5, 1985. She is well-known for her significant leadership in the technology sector. She was the first person in her family to graduate from high school and went on to obtain a Master’s degree from HEC Paris after finishing her last year at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management. She was raised in a fishing family. Her remarkable career trajectory has been shaped by the strong work ethic and collaborative leadership style that her modest upbringing instilled.

Fidji Simo joined Facebook in 2011 after starting her career at eBay, where she worked on local commerce projects. Overseeing essential features like News Feed, Stories, Marketplace, and Facebook Live, she advanced to become the head of Facebook’s flagship app. Scaling Facebook’s mobile advertising business was made possible in large part by her leadership. In 2021, she was named CEO of Instacart, where she chaired the board and led the business through a successful initial public offering in 2023. She joined OpenAI in May 2025 as CEO of Applications, managing operations, finance, and products while freeing up CEO Sam Altman to concentrate on strategy and research.

When Simo took over the reins as CEO, Instacart was facing intense competition from the likes of Amazon, Walmart, and DoorDash. However, she successfully steered the company back to growth amid the COVID-19 pandemic. She was the key brain behind the company transforming itself from a delivery service provider to a retail tech giant with a profitable advertising business as well. Under Simo’s leadership, Instacart’s self-serve advertising platform also generated nearly USD 1 billion in annual revenue in 2024.

Fidji Simo also oversaw the launches of Carrot Ads and Carrot Insights as part of a broader retail media strategy that reportedly led to Instacart being used by over 220 retailer banners and more than 7,000 Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) brands, according to a report by Forbes. In January 2024, Instacart started showing customers personalised ads on its AI-powered smart shopping carts in physical stores.

As Instacart became a publicly traded company in 2023 with its IPO, it raised over USD 660 million at a valuation of USD 10 billion. Simo staged Instacart’s financial turnaround as she implemented measures like freezing headcount and renegotiating cloud contracts. As for Instacart’s AI strategy, Simo announced the launch of Smart Shop in March 2025. Smart Shop will now offer a personalised shopping experience for customers by leveraging AI and machine learning to understand their shopping habits and identify patterns in their dietary preferences.

In addition to her business positions, Fidji Simo is involved in advocacy and healthcare. She is the president of the Metrodora Institute’s foundation and a co-founder of the research and treatment facility for complicated neuroimmune diseases. The non-profit organisation Women in Product, which supports women in tech leadership, was also co-founded by her. Simo has been honoured for her leadership by Fortune, Fast Company, and Vanity Fair. She is a member of the boards of OpenAI and Shopify. Along with her spouse, Remy Miralles, and their daughter, she resides in San Francisco.

A Timely Appointment

Conversational shopping assistants and advertising tools are expected to be the next phase of AI development. Based on Simo’s past experience in retail media and advertising, she appears to be the perfect choice to build and expand OpenAI’s offerings in this space.

ChatGPT’s search functionality recently got upgraded to provide an improved and personalised online shopping experience for users. Now, users who look for products online using the Search feature in ChatGPT will see images of products as well as details such as pricing and reviews. The AI-generated search results will also include direct links to websites where they can buy those products. Fidji Simo is expected to further enhance this particular search functionality. She also brings monetisation expertise to the table as OpenAI looks to balance its hyper-growth with rising compute costs.

The ChatGPT maker will also restructure itself in a format that will allow its non-profit entity to retain ultimate control, a plan that has received the blessing of Japanese giant SoftBank, one of the AI startup’s biggest backers. The endorsement of SoftBank became crucial as the Japanese firm’s $30 billion investment in OpenAI was contingent on a change in structure. In March 2025, OpenAI closed a $40 billion funding round, receiving $30 billion from SoftBank. OpenAI needs to conclude the restructuring process by December 31, failing which SoftBank’s portion of the financing will be reduced to USD 20 billion.

Instead of fully turning into a for-profit entity, OpenAI’s non-profit arm will retain control of the company, while the limited liability company, which handles all of the business operations, will turn into a public benefit corporation. That means this division will have the ability to generate profit, but will also focus on social good.

Image Credits: Instacart

The post Business Leader of the Week: OpenAI taps retail tech star Fidji Simo appeared first on International Finance.

However, sceptics argue that humans are fundamentally irrational, driven more by emotion and self-interest than reason, and thus limit the utility of AI. While these concerns are valid, they are only part of the story. AI, with its capacity for pattern recognition, forecasting, and providing insightful recommendations, holds the key to a more prosperous world, even amid human irrationality.

Let’s explore how AI can enhance the world, even in the face of human irrationality. We’ll highlight data-driven examples and demonstrate how AI can complement humanity’s emotional and often unpredictable nature.

Irrationality meets intelligence

Human beings are emotional creatures, as political upheavals, misinformation campaigns, and divisive social movements have vividly demonstrated. The recent US election, which saw a significant spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation, underscores that people are often driven by visceral emotions rather than logic or data. Nonetheless, these tendencies do not negate the value AI can offer in creating a more intelligent and effective decision-making framework.

AI is uniquely positioned to cut through emotional biases. As opposed to human beings who bring their past experiences, prejudices, and emotional baggage to each decision, AI systems evaluate problems with a neutral lens. They can process complex datasets with an impartial focus, providing recommendations and predictions untarnished by personal biases. By acting as an objective tool, AI can guide human decision-making in ways that account for but are not overly swayed by our irrational tendencies.

Consider climate change—an issue that is complex, multi-faceted, and undeniably urgent. Despite decades of accumulating evidence, action on climate change has often been delayed due to political wrangling, economic interests, and even outright denial—all reflections of human irrationality. AI can circumvent some of these barriers by providing accurate climate modelling, predictive analytics, and optimisation strategies that help policymakers make informed decisions.

In a 2020 Google report, researchers described how AI models have been used to predict deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. By combining satellite images with machine learning algorithms, AI can identify areas at risk of illegal logging, allowing authorities to intervene before it’s too late. This predictive capability is crucial in a context where political or economic considerations may otherwise delay action. In Germany, AI-enabled systems have also helped to optimise wind turbine efficiency by analysing weather patterns in real-time, resulting in a notable increase in renewable energy production.

Healthcare: AI navigates complexities with ease

The healthcare sector represents another area where human irrationality—such as mistrust in medical systems or biases against new treatments—can lead to poor outcomes. However, AI can help healthcare professionals improve diagnosis, optimise treatment plans, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes, even in the face of human hesitance.

AI models such as IBM’s Watson have demonstrated how AI can assist in diagnosing diseases, including rare cancers, by evaluating a patient’s symptoms against vast medical literature—something no single physician could achieve alone.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, AI played an essential role in tracking virus spread, predicting hotspots, and even assisting pharmaceutical companies in expediting vaccine development. In fact, the vaccine’s rapid development was, in part, thanks to algorithms that helped identify effective molecular compounds in record time.

AI also addresses mental health issues, an area fraught with stigma and misunderstanding. Applications like Woebot and Wysa, which are AI-driven chatbot therapists, provide emotional support to individuals who may feel uncomfortable seeking traditional therapy.

Despite the emotional complexity of mental health, these AI tools have proven effective for many users, providing cognitive behavioural therapy techniques, mood tracking, and supportive dialogue without any judgment. By offering a non-human intermediary, artificial intelligence has successfully overcome barriers like shame and social stigma that often prevent people from seeking help.

Leveraging AI for peace and security

Human irrationality has also led to countless global conflicts, where emotions like fear, anger, and a sense of injustice drive people to violence. Traditional diplomacy has its limits, often subject to political pressures, historical grievances, and the whims of national leaders. AI, on the other hand, can serve as a stabilising influence in international relations by analysing data on socio-economic conditions, public sentiment, and historical conflicts to predict potential flashpoints and recommend interventions.

For instance, the AI for Peace initiative—a collaboration involving the United Nations and various NGOs—has used machine learning models to predict conflicts in African regions based on data related to food scarcity, economic disparity, and historical violence. These insights have allowed for proactive diplomatic interventions and resource allocation, potentially averting conflicts before they spiral out of control.

In Ukraine, AI has been instrumental in predicting Russian troop movements using satellite imagery, allowing the Ukrainian military and its allies to prepare defensive strategies. By providing real-time, reliable data, AI helps mitigate the impact of emotionally charged decisions made under duress. Thus, while AI alone cannot stop conflicts, it provides rational insight that can support and inform human peace-building efforts.

AI has sometimes been criticised for perpetuating inequality, as seen in the controversial case of Australia’s Robodebt programme. This artificial inteligence-driven initiative wrongly accused many welfare recipients of owing debt, causing widespread distress.

It’s essential to acknowledge that AI is not infallible; rather, it reflects the values and biases programmed into it by human developers. However, the key lesson from Robodebt is not that AI is inherently flawed, but that ethical considerations must be integral to its design.

When AI is designed thoughtfully and deployed ethically, it can be a powerful tool to reduce inequities. For instance, India’s Aadhaar programme, which utilises biometrics and AI for identity verification, has helped to streamline welfare distribution, reducing fraud and ensuring that subsidies reach those most in need. The United States has seen similar successes with AI tools for identifying at-risk students, helping schools allocate resources more effectively to support their educational progress.

Reforming the criminal justice system

Human irrationality in the form of prejudice and bias is particularly evident in the criminal justice system, where racial and socioeconomic factors often play a role in sentencing. AI can help mitigate these biases when used correctly. In the United States, risk assessment tools are being used to predict the likelihood of reoffending, and help judges make more informed bail and parole decisions.

A well-known issue with early AI systems in criminal justice was that they learnt from historical data, which already contained systemic biases. This led to unfair predictions that disproportionately affected marginalised communities. Addressing this requires better data collection practices, more diverse development teams, and ongoing audits to ensure fairness. When properly managed, AI can bring a level of consistency and rational evaluation that human judges, often influenced by emotions, may struggle to maintain.

In the UK, for example, the Durham Constabulary has used the Harm Assessment Risk Tool (HART) to predict low-risk offenders and divert them from prosecution, favouring rehabilitation programmes. This approach focuses on reducing reoffending rates, ultimately benefiting both individuals and society. AI’s objective analysis can thus contribute to a more rational, equitable justice system, reducing reliance on subjective human judgment.

Supporting rational public discourse

One of the primary arguments against AI’s efficacy is its role in amplifying misinformation, which can significantly fuel human irrationality. AI-driven algorithms have indeed contributed to the spread of fake news, as seen in the manipulation of social media platforms during elections. However, AI can also be part of the solution in combating misinformation.

AI models developed by companies like Factmata and Logically are being used to identify and flag false information in real-time, helping platforms like Twitter and Facebook reduce the spread of fake news. These tools use natural language processing to analyse news articles and social media posts, identifying misleading content with a high degree of accuracy.

Furthermore, artificial intelligence-driven recommendation systems can be adjusted to prioritise verified information and promote high-quality content. Facebook, for example, has made changes to its news feed algorithm to promote more reliable sources, reducing the visibility of clickbait and misleading headlines.

By providing data-driven insights, AI helps individuals and organisations understand the broader consequences of their actions, offering a more rational basis for ethical deliberation. For instance, companies are increasingly using artificial intelligence to conduct ethical impact assessments before launching new products.

AI can model potential environmental impacts, assess supply chain risks, and even predict social backlash—providing leaders with the information they need to make more conscientious decisions. AI becomes a partner in ethical reasoning, expanding the scope of human considerations without replacing the essential moral compass that individuals and societies must provide.

Human-AI collaboration has already led to remarkable innovations, such as autonomous vehicles that promise to reduce the 1.35 million fatalities caused annually by traffic accidents, the majority of which are due to human error. Here, AI’s rational capabilities compensate for human flaws, helping create safer and more efficient transportation systems.

AI and the future of human flourishing

The fear that AI will lead us to an era dominated by cold rationality devoid of human values—a dystopia imagined by theorists like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer—overlooks the potential for AI to enhance human flourishing. AI is a tool, and its impact depends on how we choose to use it. It can be leveraged for purposes that align with human values: improving healthcare, reducing inequality, mitigating climate change, and fostering peace.

AI is also increasingly being used in creative fields. Tools like OpenAI’s DALL-E and GPT-4 are helping artists, writers, and filmmakers explore new forms of creative expression. These AI systems are not replacing human creativity but expanding its horizons, offering novel ideas and techniques humans can build upon. The interplay between human emotion and AI-generated inspiration exemplifies how rational algorithms and human creativity can coexist and enhance one another.

The Intelligence Age doesn’t replace empathy, emotion, or creativity but complements them. Guided wisely, it can address pressing challenges. By combining AI’s data-driven reasoning with human values, we can aim for a future where intelligence and emotion are balanced for the collective good.

The post AI in the age of intelligence: A new era begins appeared first on International Finance.