Also, deepfakes are being used to spread political lies, manipulate financial markets, and even give fake medical advice that could put people’s lives at risk. For example, AI-generated “doctors” have appeared on TikTok, dispensing dangerous health guidance, complete with a fabricated backstory and digitally generated faces.

Deepfakes are already appearing on social media feeds and can be broadcast on television news segments. Experts warn that they could even make their way into commercial advertising, blurring the line between marketing and manipulation. And as technology keeps getting better, these mischievous acts will only get harder to spot and stop. However, no crime is perfect, and even the most sophisticated deepfakes usually contain subtle errors that, upon observation, can reveal their true nature.

Watch The Eyes, Not The Mouth

Eyes are surprisingly hard to fake properly. In deepfake videos, people may blink too little, too much, or in weird patterns. Sometimes the eyes look lifeless, like they’re staring through the camera instead of reacting to the moment. If something feels “off,” but you cannot explain why, it is often the eyes.

Check The Lighting And Shadows

Lighting usually gives deepfakes away. Shadows might fall in the wrong direction or change slightly when the face moves. The skin might look evenly lit, even when the environment should not allow it. Real lighting is messy. Fake lighting is often too clean.

Look Closely For Facial Glitches

This part takes a second viewing. Watch the edges of the face, the jawline, and around the hair. You might notice blurring, warping, or tiny glitches when the head turns. Sometimes the skin looks too smooth, like a filter that forgot to turn off.

Pay Attention To Lip Sync

Deepfakes are better at syncing lips now, but they still slip. Words might land a fraction of a second late, or the mouth shapes do not fully match the sounds. If you mute the video and watch the mouth, the mismatch becomes more obvious.

Notice How The Head And Body Move

Faces get all the attention, but bodies are harder to fake. The head might move unnaturally stiff, or the neck does not move quite right. Sometimes the face moves independently of the body, which your brain notices even if you don’t consciously think about it.

Listen To The Voice Carefully

Voices can sound flat, robotic, or emotionally wrong. Pauses may feel unnatural, or emphasis lands in strange places. Even when the voice sounds realistic, something about the rhythm can feel slightly off.

Watch Emotional Reactions

This is a big one. Real emotions are messy. Deepfakes often miss micro-expressions, those tiny reactions that happen before someone speaks. The smile comes too late. The anger feels rehearsed. The face doesn’t fully match the moment.

The post How to spot a deepfake video: Here is the tutorial appeared first on International Finance.

It was an explosive valuation underpinned by a massive expansion in the labour force itself. There are currently 50 million global creators, a population that exceeds the number of people working in many traditional industrial sectors. The workforce is growing at a compound annual growth rate of 10 to 20%, ensuring a steady supply of new talent and content inventory for platforms to monetise. Yet, despite the scale, the industry remains top-heavy. Research indicates that only about 4% of these 50 million creators are deemed professionals, defined as those earning more than $100,000 annually. The remaining 96% constitute a vast long tail of amateurs and aspiring professionals who are fighting for visibility in an increasingly saturated attention economy.

The economic engine of the creator economy is fuelled primarily by brand partnerships. Despite the hype surrounding direct-to-fan monetisation models, roughly 70% of creator revenue is still derived from brand deals. It statistically highlights a critical dependency (creators rely heavily on corporate marketing budgets) and explains why brands are paying such close attention. Brands are no longer viewing creator marketing as an experimental line item. They are a core component of their digital strategy. As digital media consumption rises, the efficacy of traditional interruptive advertising declines, forcing capital into environments where engagement is organic and trust is already established.

However, the integration of creators into the corporate machine requires sophisticated tooling, and the intersection of the creator economy and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) becomes vital. As Salesforce notes, a marketing CRM is now essential for managing the potentially overwhelming process of creator campaigns. Brands are moving away from ad-hoc spreadsheets to enterprise-grade systems that track engagement, attribute website visits to specific creator posts, and calculate the lifetime value of customers acquired through these channels. By treating every creator as a mini-campaign, brands can use CRM data to log interest, nurture leads, and optimise content strategies based on hard performance metrics rather than vanity metrics like likes or views.

The death of social graph

To understand the volatility and opportunity within such an economy, one must recognise the fundamental shift in how content is distributed. The industry has moved from the social graph to the interest graph, a transition that has redefined the mechanics of digital fame. In the era of the social graph (dominated by early Facebook and Instagram), content distribution was determined by connections. Users saw content because they followed a creator or were friends with them. Discovery was limited by the size of one’s network, favouring established celebrities and those who accumulated large follower counts early on.

Today, platforms like TikTok, YouTube Shorts, and Instagram Reels utilise the interest graph. The model serves content based on user behaviour and predicted interest regardless of social connections. The algorithm analyses dwell time completion rates and interaction signals to build a dynamic profile of what the user wants to see. It then surfaces content from anyone (even a creator with zero followers) that matches those interests. The shift has democratised virality, allowing a creator to reach millions overnight without spending years building a follower base. However, it has also introduced extreme volatility. A creator can have one video reach 10 million views and the next reach 10,000 because the concept of a follower is becoming less relevant. The algorithm does not guarantee that followers will see a creator’s posts. Meaning reach must be earned with every single piece of content.

The “meritocratic” pressure creates a relentless psychological grind for creators. The need to constantly feed the algorithm has precipitated a severe mental health crisis within the industry. Recent studies reveal that 62% of creators experience burnout and 52% suffer from anxiety. Most alarmingly, 10% of creators report having suicidal thoughts related to their work, a rate nearly double the national average for US adults. It’s a crisis exacerbated by financial instability, as 69% of creators report feeling financially insecure despite their public success.

The psychological toll is compounded by the nature of the relationship between creator and audience and is known as a parasocial relationship, a one-sided bond where a viewer feels a sense of intimacy and friendship with a media figure. Unlike traditional celebrities who are admired from afar, creators are relatable figures who film in their bedrooms and share their personal failures. Here, a pseudo-friendship is created that drives high conversion rates for brands because recommendations feel like advice from a trusted friend.

However, maintaining such a relationship requires constant identity work. Creators must balance authenticity with curation, presenting a filtered self that attracts followers while periodically revealing their “no filter” self to maintain relatability. The circular loop of performance is exhausting because the creator can never truly be “off” when their personality is the product.

In response to saturation and the pressure to sell a new trend, a new trend known as “de-influencing” has emerged, which involves creators telling their followers what not to buy. Far from being a rejection of the creator economy, de-influencing represents its maturation. It addresses audience fatigue and growing scepticism toward constant product promotion. By being honest about bad products, creators prove they are not mere shills, which paradoxically increases their influence and trustworthiness when they do recommend a product in the future.

The new rules of monetisation

Given the fragility of algorithmic reach and the mental toll of the content grind, savvy creators are aggressively diversifying their revenue streams. The industry is moving beyond simple brand endorsements toward a more robust set of business models. Four primary pillars of monetisation are reshaping the landscape. They are donation, transaction, subscription, and membership.

The donation model functions as a digital tip jar relying on the altruism of the audience. Platforms like “Buy Me A Coffee” allow fans to make small one-off payments. While easy to set up, the model is highly unpredictable and often carries a stigma of begging, making it difficult to scale into a six-figure business. The Transactional model (selling a specific digital asset like an online course or eBook) allows creators to capture the full value of their IP immediately. These are launch-based business models, meaning revenue comes in spikes and requires constant marketing effort to find new customers.

The subscription model (popularised by Patreon) offers the holy grail of recurring revenue. By gating content behind a monthly fee, creators can generate a predictable income. However, one needs a large, loyal existing audience and a consistent content output to prevent churn. The most evolved form is the membership model, which combines subscription with community. Here, the value proposition shifts from access to content to access to peers. A model that boasts the highest retention rates because members stay for the community even if they consume less content.

A critical tool in this diversification strategy is the evolution of the “Link-in-Bio.” What started as a workaround for Instagram’s restriction on outbound links has morphed into the creator’s primary storefront. In 2025, tools like Hopp and PUSH.fm function as mini-websites that integrate branding, e-commerce, and lead capture. A creator might go viral on TikTok (the discovery engine) but will immediately funnel that traffic to their Link-in-Bio (the monetisation engine) to capture email addresses or sell merchandise. The defining playbook of the professional creator is simple. The rent reaches social platforms while owning the audience via email and direct sales.

Furthermore, the demographics of monetisation are shifting. Gen Z creators are approaching the industry with a different mindset than their Millennial predecessors. Data shows that 85% of Gen Z creators rely on native in-platform payouts, signalling a high trust in the platforms themselves, while Millennials are more likely to build diversified ecosystems off-platform. Gen Z values speed and transparency, rejecting “gatekeeping” and preferring “plug-and-play” tools that allow them to monetise from day one.

We are also witnessing the integration of Web3 technologies as a layer of ownership. While the speculative mania has faded, the utility of blockchain remains relevant for creators seeking true independence. Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and smart contracts allow creators to enforce royalties on secondary sales, ensuring they participate in the value appreciation of their work. By 2025, the global NFT market is valued at roughly $49 billion, with gaming and utility tokens driving the majority of transaction volume. Token-gating allows creators to build portable communities, where the membership list lives on the blockchain rather than on a centralised server, giving them protection against de-platforming.

AI, regulation, and the C-suite

As the creator economy professionalises, it is becoming increasingly intertwined with corporate power structures and advanced technology. The most significant disruptor is artificial intelligence. In 2025, nearly 91% of creators utilise AI in their workflow. We have entered the era of the “Content Centaur,” where human creativity is augmented by AI tools to script videos, generate thumbnail art, and even clone voices for dubbing. Efficiency is the name of the game, and it allows a single creator to output the volume of content that previously required a production team.

Beyond content creation, AI is automating the business side of influence. “AI Agents” are now capable of negotiating brand deals, managing calendars, and tracking invoices. Platforms are deploying autonomous agents that can scan brand databases, send personalised outreach emails, and negotiate preliminary contract terms without human intervention. For brands, it reduces the administrative burden of influencer marketing, which has historically been a high-friction channel involving endless email back-and-forth.

The rise of synthetic media and “Virtual Influencers” challenges the very definition of a creator. CGI or AI-generated personas like Lu do Magalu (Brazil) and Lil Miquela (USA) have amassed millions of followers and secured blue-chip brand partnerships. Lu do Magalu is the most followed virtual influencer in the world with over 46 million followers, acting as a virtual employee who never sleeps, never ages and never generates a scandal. The virtual influencer market is projected to reach $8.5 billion by 2030, offering brands total control over their messaging.

However, the corporate and technological convergence has drawn the eye of regulators. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has aggressively updated its guidelines to govern this decentralised workforce. The days of ambiguous disclosures are over. New guidelines mandate that disclosures must be “clear and conspicuous” and “unavoidable” to the average consumer. Crucially, these regulations explicitly cover AI. If a brand uses a virtual influencer or an AI voice, it must be disclosed to avoid deceiving consumers. The FTC now holds brands and agencies liable for the compliance of their influencers, forcing companies to implement strict monitoring tools to avoid fines that can reach over $50,000 per violation.

The rapid professionalisation is reflected in the corporate hierarchy itself. We are seeing the emergence of the “Chief Creator Officer” (CCO), a C-suite executive dedicated to shaping an organisation’s creative vision and managing relationships with the creator economy.

Companies like WPP Media in Australia have already appointed CCOs to bridge the gap between traditional marketing and the creator ecosystem. It’s a role that acknowledges that creativity is no longer just a marketing tactic. Without a doubt, it’s a core business driver. Furthermore, universities are beginning to offer formal education, with institutions like Syracuse University launching dedicated centres for the creator economy to train the next generation of digital entrepreneurs.

Profiting from epidemic of isolation

Loneliness is no longer merely a public health crisis. In 2025, it has evolved into a sophisticated asset class. As social disconnection reaches epidemic levels globally, the technology sector has pivoted to monetise isolation with ruthless efficiency. Data reveals that one in four adults globally now report feeling chronically lonely, with the figures spiking to 73% among Gen Z. What was once viewed as a societal failure is now being treated as a total addressable market projected to reach a valuation of $140 billion by 2030.

The economic shift is driven by the rise of artificial intelligence companions, which offer a simulation of intimacy that is available on demand and immune to rejection. The explosive growth of the new sector is undeniable. Companion apps have recorded an 88% year-over-year growth rate with over 220 million downloads globally. The demand is so potent that even industry giants like OpenAI have adjusted their safety guidelines. The company recently updated its policies to allow for “erotica for verified adults,” acknowledging the historical truth that intimacy (simulated or otherwise) is one of the few things consumers will reliably pay for online.

The business model behind this phenomenon is akin to a mobile game where emotional connection is gated behind microtransactions. Users can download a basic “girlfriend” or “boyfriend” bot for free, but must pay for the relationship to deepen. Features like image generation or the ability for the AI to “remember” previous conversations often require the purchase of tokens or premium subscriptions. It’s a “pay-to-remember” mechanic that monetises the user’s desire for continuity and care, turning emotional validation into a recurring revenue stream. The economics are starkly consolidated, with the top 10% of companion apps capturing 89% of the sector’s revenue, indicating that the winners are those who can most effectively simulate a parasocial bond.

And by no means is it a trend limited to Western markets. In China, the “loneliness economy” is fuelled by a demographic shift in which the single population has exceeded 240 million people. Tech firms like Luobo Intelligence have launched “emotional robots” such as the Fuzai (or Fuzozo), which are marketed as “portable emotional companionship” for both single adults and the elderly. These devices bridge the gap between a pet and a chatbot, providing physical presence combined with algorithmic responsiveness.

The psychological implications of such an economy are profound. Platforms are manufacturing intimacy at scale using “micro-gestures” and first-person language to trigger the brain’s social reward systems. The signal to move away from generic broadcasting to millions and prioritise one-on-one relationship simulations has already been received by thousands of creators worldwide. However, the financial extraction is explicit. As companies refine these tools, they are proving that in a world of increasing isolation, the most valuable product is not content but companionship itself. By 2030, the sector will likely rival the traditional gaming industry in size, entirely built on the monetisation of the human need to be heard.

The age of ownership

The trajectory of the creator economy toward a half-trillion-dollar valuation by 2027 is a testament to a fundamental reorganisation of global commerce. We are witnessing the industrialisation of influence where the lines between personal identity and corporate entity are irrevocably blurred. What started as a quest for likes has evolved into a battle for ownership (ownership of audience, ownership of data, and ownership of revenue).

For brands, the message is clear. The creator economy is not a trend to be dabbled in but a market condition to be mastered. The shift from the social graph to the interest graph means that resting on the laurels of established followers is no longer a viable strategy. Relevance must be earned daily. For creators, the challenge is to transition from being renters of algorithmic reach to owners of sustainable businesses utilising tools like newsletters, membership sites, and smart contracts to insulate themselves from platform volatility.

As we look toward 2027, the winners will not necessarily be those with the loudest voices, but those with the most resilient infrastructure. Whether it is a solo creator using AI agents to manage a global merchandise empire or a multinational corporation appointing a Chief Creator Officer to navigate the nuances of parasocial trust, the future belongs to those who understand that in the digital age, influence is the most valuable currency of all.

The shift isn’t just about creators making money online. It shows how broken the old systems are. Platforms promise freedom, but they still hold the power. Algorithms decide who eats and who burns out. Brands talk about authenticity, yet most creator income still depends on selling trust to advertisers. That tension won’t disappear.

The smart move forward is ownership. Creators who don’t own their audience will keep riding a rollercoaster they don’t control. Brands that don’t respect creators as long-term partners will keep wasting money on short wins. Artificial intelligence will speed everything up, but it won’t fix the core problem: people are tired, lonely, and easy to monetise.

The creator economy has grown up, but it’s not healthy yet. The next phase won’t reward hype. It will reward creators and companies who build stable income and honest relationships.

The post Creator economy monetises isolation 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.

Government policies and subsidies have effectively made China a leader in the global automotive industry and electric vehicles. Domestic automakers have met the production targets that the Communist government’s policy wanted to achieve, but a new headache has emerged.

The world’s second-largest economy’s auto industry is making more cars than the global market can absorb. The industry players are finding it increasingly difficult to make a profit.

China’s EV glut problem

Compared to the United States, Chinese electric vehicles start at less than $10,000, whereas the average price of an EV remains at $35,000.

Liuzhou, a Chinese city with a population of 21 million, has a showroom in a shopping mall offering special deals on new cars, including 50% off on locally made Audis and a seven-seater SUV for about $22,300, more than 60% below its sticker price. These cars are made by China’s FAW (First Automobile Works).

With so many cars in one place, these deals are possible. A company called Zcar, which informed Reuters about its business practice of buying in bulk from automakers and dealerships, is now offering customers the option of choosing from among 5,000 vehicles.

An industry survey released in August 2025 revealed that many manufacturers were struggling with excess inventory. As a result, they have been unable to generate additional revenue, leading dealers to lower prices. Some retailers have registered and insured unsold cars in bulk, a strategy that enables automakers to count these vehicles as sold and allows dealers to qualify for factory rebates and bonuses from manufacturers.

“Unwanted vehicles end up in the hands of grey-market traders like Zcar, which pop up in fire sales on TikTok-style social media sites. These cars are rebranded as used (even though the odometer says otherwise) and exported overseas, or some wind up in weedy car graveyards. According to many industry figures and analysts, these practices are signs of a market that is vastly oversupplied and at risk of a shakeout, as is seen in the Chinese property market and the solar industry,” Reuters reported.

China’s emphasis on boosting sales for job creation and growth comes at the cost of profitability and healthy competition. It makes local governments compete with each other for cheap land and subsidies for automakers. They make production and tax-revenue commitments, which fuel overcapacity across the country.

During an interaction with Reuters, Rupert Mitchell, an Australia-based macroeconomics commentator who previously worked at a Chinese EV startup, said, “When there is a directive from Beijing that this is a strategic industry, every provincial governor wants the car factory. They want to be in good shape with the party. Ultimately, what happens is that it makes the existing auto sector double down on investment.”

A review by Reuters of thousands of car-sales listings, hundreds of government documents, state-media reports, court filings, and consumer-complaint records, as well as interviews with over 20 industry players, including dealers, buyers, analysts and manufacturing executives, shows how oversupply is enfeebling China’s auto market even as the industry emerges as a world power.

Foreign rivals are lagging Chinese brands in delivering new models, but the same government policies that spurred explosive growth and innovation in automaking are causing lose-lose transactions throughout the domestic sales chain.

The industry and commerce ministries did not address these issues publicly, issues like pressures facing the sector, the potential for consolidation or the extent to which government policies promoted oversupply.

The experts state that these issues have wider implications for China’s economy. The country’s GDP accounts for around 10% of the auto industry and related services. Chinese policymakers have long waved off American and European concerns about overcapacity caused by cheap Chinese exports, but Chinese officials have pledged to cool price wars in electric vehicles and solar panels in recent months.

According to consultancy Gasgoo Automotive Research Institute, Chinese automakers have the ability to make twice the 27.5 million cars they produced in 2024. The issue is particularly severe in gasoline cars, where demand collapsed as Beijing promoted EVs, while the number of EV factories mushroomed as companies and local authorities jumped in.

Another consultancy, AlixPartners, estimates that only 15 of the 129 electric vehicle and hybrid brands in China will be financially sustainable by 2030. This price war is now in its third year. Allowing that to happen would mean allowing many automakers to fail, an outcome that some analysts say would risk mass layoffs and falling consumer spending, an outcome many Chinese officials have resisted.

Yuhan Zhang, principal economist at The Conference Board’s China Centre, said, “That leaves automakers and local governments locked in a downward spiral. They feed and reinforce one another, trapping the market in a vicious cycle.”

This is not only a problem for Chinese automakers. Foreign brands are losing market share, with Chinese car sales going to foreign brands in the first seven months of this year at 31%, down from 62% in 2020, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM).

European governments are concerned that affordable Chinese-made cars will undermine their domestic automotive industries. In contrast, the United States has effectively banned Chinese cars due to national security risks and allegations of unfair competition.

Attracting EV manufacturers

The origins of this market date back to the 1990s in Beijing, when national policymakers aimed to position China at the forefront of significant technological changes, particularly in the auto industry. This shift occurred as people began transitioning from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles.

In 2009, it bought out a programme to promote automakers who are producing electric vehicles and consumers purchasing these cars, by bringing billions of dollars in subsidies. As a result, the EVs had not caught on by 2017.

That year, government officials drafted a car-making policy blueprint, a 13,000-character document known as the “Medium-and Long-Term Development Plan for the Automotive Industry,” which laid out a target of 35 million vehicles produced annually by 2025, twice the American annual sales record.

Chinese authorities, who had been trying to rein in an overheated property sector, started to discourage excess investment. The automaking blueprint became an expedient second economic pillar for local governments that had relied on land sales and real-estate tax revenue.

The 2017 plan also fanned a rush by local authorities to court electric vehicle makers. In 2024, China almost reached the goal, building over 31 million, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM).

The competition has set a playbook across China. The local governments offer incentives to automakers, and expect production and tax-revenue goals in return. Also, automakers have often prioritised meeting those goals over turning a profit, and over time, local governments have kept manufacturers that might have gone under in other markets afloat.

The right automaker can also be a massively profitable bet. The county government in Changfeng, Anhui province, lured BYD in 2021 with inexpensive land, and in return, the county, which was once the main producer of traditional flatbread, received a mega-factory from the EV maker.

Experts say they have calculated from property-sales filings published by the Chinese government that over five years, BYD bought 8.3 square kilometres of land in Changfeng at an average price 40% below the average price paid by other buyers.

In 2023, the year after BYD began production in Changfeng, the county’s economic growth outpaced the national rate by 9.1 percentage points. It was 5.6 percentage points higher in 2024.

The Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi started acquiring land in Beijing’s Yizhuang district for an electric vehicle factory in 2022, buying more than 206 soccer fields’ worth at an average price 22% below what others paid for industrial land, land-sales filings show.

Beijing mandated that the plant have a minimum annual revenue of 47 billion yuan, or about $6.6 billion, at full production. Xiaomi followed an open bidding process and did not receive discounts or incentives for the land, and it was the only bidder, according to tender information posted by Beijing’s municipal government.

In China, the Guangzhou officials published a policy document in June 2025. However, it stated that the city would aim to develop up to three makers of “new energy vehicles,” including fully electric cars and hybrids, to each produce 500,000 vehicles a year, while awarding up to 500 million yuan (about $70 million) a year to each automaker that built new production lines and made 100,000 vehicles in three years.

At least six other local governments between 2023 and 2025 issued policies to encourage automakers to expand output, policy documents show. Earlier this year, Chinese authorities began to raise the alarm about auto price wars, saying competition was unsustainable. In July, President Xi Jinping chided provincial officials, asking why every province was rushing to invest in a small number of technologies, including electric vehicles and artificial intelligence.

Automakers’ impossible growth

Excess capacity driving aggressive sales targets isn’t limited to China. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler had too many factories making too many cars in the early 2000s, and shut down more than a dozen plants in the United States. Pressure to meet sales targets and gain market share is higher in China, industry analysts and former executives say.

In recent years, the industry has started referring to this kind of competition as involution, a concept that describes self-destructive competition that rewards irregular practices.

Liang Linhe, the chairman of Sany Heavy Truck, one of China’s largest truck makers, said vehicle manufacturers are compelled to keep selling and producing, even at a loss, because this generates cash flow, which is essential to survival.

“It’s like riding a bicycle: As long as you keep pedalling, you might feel exhausted, but the bike stays upright,” Linhe said.

As losses mount, many carmakers are pedalling faster, leading some analysts to talk about a shakeout. In early 2025, EV brand Neta shut down operations after its parent filed for bankruptcy.

In 2024, Chinese tech company Baidu and automaker Geely laid off workers and restructured their joint venture, Ji Yue Auto, which was facing fierce competition.

Still, some say that an abrupt shock is unlikely. Consolidation could take years, and local governments would likely support struggling automakers, limiting the impact.

Michael Pettis, senior fellow at Carnegie China, said, “The problem of excess capacity in China is a systemic problem.”

The chief executive and co-founder of Chinese electric vehicle startup Xpeng, He Xiaopeng, said in 2023 that each automaker would have to sell three million cars a year by 2030 to stay alive, and only eight would survive by then. Xpeng sold 190,000 cars in 2024. A handful of large players are reaching or close to those volumes, and are well placed to be the survivors in a cull.

Geely said it aims to achieve five million vehicle sales per year by 2027, more than double the 2.2 million it sold last year. It is still unknown whether that target still applies. BYD, the industry leader, has set aggressive targets for 2025, but has slowed its expansion.

Its quarterly profit fell for the first time in more than three years in August, and it has internally adjusted its original plan to sell 5.5 million vehicles to at least 4.6 million. Most industry players are selling a fraction of that.

In 2024, as state-owned automakers like Changan, Dongfeng and FAW lagged their private peers in the EV race, the national regulator of government-owned firms announced that it wanted the state companies to expand market share and production, rather than profitability.

The automakers and the regulator, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, have not made any official statement regarding this so far. Changan stated that it aimed to quadruple sales of new-energy vehicles by 2030.

Will the market die?

Reuters reported that an influx of new cars has made it more challenging for dealers to turn a profit. This assessment comes from Chen Keyun, a retired dealer in Jiangsu province, and is supported by four other dealers.

Chen said the problems, such as dealers selling new cars at a loss and offloading them to traders who sell them on as zero-mileage “used” cars, are rooted in China’s “production-oriented” industrial model.

“Automakers have ignored the true level of demand but kept expanding capacity and increasing sales targets, forcing dealers to take more inventory,” he said.

A survey by the China Automobile Dealers Association reported that only 30% of dealers are profitable in August. The dealer groups in Henan, Sichuan provinces and the Yangtze River Delta publicly raised these issues and problems in June.

“We urge automakers to formulate sales guidance policies that align with market realities. If the sales channels collapse, the market will die!” the Henan Automobile Industry Chamber of Commerce said in an open letter to unspecified automakers.

Chen also stated that larger dealerships overpurchase inventory to hit automakers’ sales targets and obtain factory rebates.

“If you have managed to sell 16 out of the 20 units targeted for the month, what will you do with the remaining four units on the very last day of the month?” said one dealer in Jiangsu.

He went on to say that selling those cars even at fire-sale prices would mean qualifying for a bonus of around 80,000 yuan, or $11,200, and put him close to break-even.

Lang Xuehong, a deputy secretary-general of the CADA industry group, said dealers were selling at up to 20% below their cost, a level never before seen. In July 2025, EV brands Neta and Zeekr inflated sales in recent years, with Neta doing so for more than 60,000 cars.

The automakers had cars insured before they were sold so that the vehicles could be booked formally toward monthly sales targets. Neta’s parent, Hozon, which is in bankruptcy administration, could not be reached for comment.

Zeekr told Reuters in July that the cars had been insured with mandatory traffic insurance to ensure their safety while on display, and that they were legally new when sold to buyers.

Neta and Zeekr represent a widespread padding of sales figures across the industry, much of it involving zero-mileage used cars that have been insured and booked as sold, according to dealers and analysts.

Dealers and traders then export those cars as used, often with the blessing of local governments, or market them domestically through grey markets, as four regional dealer groups accused car companies of doing in June.

A livestream sales

In a rooftop parking lot at a mall in Chengdu, Wang Lihong rides a scooter with a selfie stick, shooting video for social media while livestreaming for Zcar, a grey-market trader that flips brand-new vehicles that dealers couldn’t sell. Hosts like Wang stream on platforms like Douyin, China’s TikTok.

Wang, who has 1.25 million followers, said recently that Zcar was Sichuan province’s largest seller of zero-mileage ‘used’ cars, available in March, June, September and December, “when dealers rush to meet the quarter or annual sales targets set by the automakers for cash rebates.”

The marketing director for Zcar, Zhou Yan, said that because it sources some vehicles directly from automakers in bulk, it can sell at deep discounts. Zhou also said that Zcar had acquired more than 3,000 Malibus in China from SAIC-GM, the American automaker’s Chinese joint-venture entity, and was selling them for under $14,000 apiece, down from a sticker price of $24,000.

GM told Reuters that “authorised dealers are the only official channels for our vehicle sales”, and that Zcar “isn’t a dealer affiliated in any way” with SAIC-GM.

Zcar said its Cheshi subsidiary bought 3,428 Malibus for wholesale distribution to dealers. Zcar also said it sells “popular, attention-getting models to draw people into our stores” and often sells at a loss.

The Malibus have not been reported in any previous trade. Audi did not have an opinion on what Zcar is doing, but said it does not condone grey-market trade, which it considers detrimental to the long-term value of its vehicles.

China’s auto industry hit a record in 2024, producing over 31 million vehicles as NEV production surged past 12 million. But too much capacity and excess inventory are creating real risks. The rapid growth that was once praised now threatens long-term stability, as fierce competition and price cuts could undercut profits for many automakers. Without better coordination, China’s car boom could turn into a costly overhang for companies and the economy alike.

The post China’s auto industry faces scrutiny appeared first on International Finance.

In reference to a well-known quote about Julius Caesar and his unyielding desire for power, Zuckerberg’s t-shirt said, “Aut Zuck aut nihil,” or “Zuck or nothing.” In contrast, the phrase “Mundus sine Caesaribus”—”a world without Caesars”—was printed on Graber’s shirt. The shirt served as a scathing indictment of Zuckerberg’s centralised vision.

In contrast to Zuckerberg’s centralised approach to building Meta, Graber aims to manage and develop Bluesky, a dominant social media platform that went live in early 2024, she tells TIME. She claims these digital firms have established virtual kingdoms where their CEOs present themselves as self-made kings.

In the hyper-centralised world of social media, where internet giants like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg make decisions on their own regarding privacy, censorship, and data harvesting for artificial intelligence, this message is becoming more and more relevant. While Bluesky’s daily usage increased by 500%, X lost 115,000 users the day after the election as consumers sought a haven from right-wing trolls, sponsored posts, and disinformation bots. However, X’s daily active user count in the United States was still ten times higher than that of Bluesky. Among the 35 million users of Bluesky today are Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, George Takei, and Stephen King. It’s the world’s biggest decentralised social network by far.

Beyond its sizable liberal fan base, Bluesky still has a way to go before becoming profitable and widely used. However, Graber asserts that her goal is not to overtake Musk or Zuckerberg as the dominant figure on social media. She declares, “We oppose centralised authority prescribing the rules for everybody else. We would rather not establish a future in which I am a more benevolent emperor. We envision a society in which monarchs are completely unnecessary.”

Bluesky’s interface visually resembles Twitter, with an endless scroll of text posts that are no longer than 300 characters. New users can quickly engage in discussions by using “starter packs,” which are user-generated collections of accounts centred around common interests. Topics such as memes, pop culture, politics, and sports are especially popular among users.

The primary distinction between Twitter and Bluesky is that the latter’s open-source protocol enables users to personalise their content feeds and algorithms. Like Reddit, Bluesky has seen the emergence of close-knit communities that have established censorship guidelines and communication methods. Additionally, because of Bluesky’s architecture, users can move their posts and follows to another platform as long as it uses the same protocol.

It wasn’t Graber who came up with Bluesky. In 2019, Jack Dorsey, a co-founder of Twitter, funded a small group of academics and announced Bluesky as a decentralised version of Twitter. Graber, who had formerly worked on bitcoin projects and had a long-standing interest in decentralised technology, offered to lead the company in 2021. Graber was living in a large communal home with other entrepreneurs during the lockdown in San Francisco.

According to Rose Wang, Graber’s former roommate and current COO of Bluesky, the company’s growth was influenced by the particulars of COVID-19. “How do you get people to feel safe together in this time? There were a lot of community challenges. I believe that our perspectives on creating communities online are greatly influenced by Jay’s and my experiences creating communities offline,” she said.

As per PitchBook, female-led companies in Silicon Valley remain rare, securing only 6% of venture capital deals. Graber says that her and Wang’s identities have shaped their approach to leadership. “As women with extensive online experience,” she explains, “we’ve made moderation a top priority—because we believe it’s essential to building a healthy social platform.”

Elon Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter in 2022. He initially argued in favour of making its algorithm open-source, which could be derived from Bluesky’s technology and research, but he swiftly stopped supporting Bluesky instead. After searching elsewhere, Graber and her team eventually raised $8 million and then $15 million in investment rounds. They also decided to turn Bluesky into a public benefit corporation, which means that they must work for the public and social good in addition to making money.

Demand surged in 2023 as Bluesky prepared to launch its invite-only system, with many potential users pleading with them to remove the platform’s limitations. However, Graber decided to keep Bluesky small until the decentralised tools were developed because they weren’t yet ready.

Currently, Graber oversees more than 100 content moderator contractors and 24 staff members who strive to eliminate harmful posts such as aggressive threats and child sexual abuse information. Dorsey was upset with Bluesky’s content moderation strategy and quit the board last spring, claiming that Bluesky was centralising and that its moderating tools were becoming overly intrusive.

To determine what people see and what they don’t, Graber contends that users should largely design their own moderation systems. She explains, “You have this open right to leave—where you can build your own thing if you disagree with the services, moderation actions, or design choices.”

According to Rudy Fraser, a technologist who started the feed, popular feeds on Bluesky include Science and Blacksky, for Black community building, with 370,000 monthly active users. “Some of the feeds are centred around people who are discovering shared affinity in gender or their identities. I want to create an open network so that communities and individuals who feel excluded from the current social media platforms and power structures can create their own spaces,” Graber noted.

Bluesky continues to lean far to the left politically, and conservatives have complained about being harassed or censored on the site. Additionally, Bluesky’s user growth has slowed considerably since its post-election surge. Furthermore, its 35 million users are insignificant compared to the hundreds of millions on X and Meta’s Threads, not to mention the billions on Instagram and TikTok.

Graber acknowledges that the platform has experienced several ups and downs, but remains unconcerned about the slow growth. To avoid the mistakes of previous social media platforms that prioritised growth over user experience, she feels comfortable taking her time. “Social networks can degrade the main experience of the feed because they have become too accustomed to believing that users are trapped because of the network effects. This monetisation model is likely to reach some natural limits where people grow weary of it, so it won’t last forever,” she explained.

Graber and Wang must now come up with a new revenue strategy that goes beyond using user data to build AI models or running constant advertisements. Graber says she is considering monetising Bluesky’s marketplaces through custom tools or subscription models, despite not having specific plans in place.

Graber and Wang are more than happy to let independent business owners create other platforms on top of Bluesky’s AT protocol, which are likewise open-sourced and compatible with one another, as Bluesky scuttles toward monetisation. Remember how standard email protocols served as the foundation for Gmail, Yahoo, and other inboxes. These new initiatives include Sky-light, a TikTok clone supported by Mark Cuban, and Flashes, an Instagram substitute that has received over 100,000 downloads.

The duo won’t stop anyone from constructing a Bluesky clone on top of the infrastructure. According to Wang, “Greensky can appear the following morning if Bluesky, the server, shuts down overnight. We are frequently asked, ‘How can we trust you?’ Don’t trust us, is our response. Have faith in the infrastructure.”

Only good days ahead

In April 2025, Bluesky rolled out a new verification system, taking the competition with X to the next level. The social platform formerly relied on an unconventional self-verification system, where users could “authenticate” themselves by including custom domains in their web handles. Now it’s adopting a more proactive and traditional verification strategy, with the Bluesky team reportedly identifying notable accounts and bestowing blue check marks.

“It’ll be a rolling process as the feature stabilises, and then we’ll launch a public form that people can use to request verification,” Graber said, adding that the highest-priority accounts right now are government officials, news organisations, journalists, and celebrities. A 2024 study from the MIT Technology Review reveals that Bluesky has grown, and so has the uptick in impersonators posing as public figures. To meet growing demand for ways to confirm that accounts are legit, some Bluesky power users have taken it upon themselves to create their own verification systems. As the app continues to attract celebrity users (former US President Barack Obama joined the platform earlier this spring), a more formal verification process will help reassure public figures that Bluesky is a safe digital hangout space.

In addition to this traditional, top-down verification approach, Bluesky offers “trusted verifier” status to a select group of vetted organisations. These organisations will be given a scalloped blue check mark on their Bluesky accounts. The initial batch of publications selected as trusted verifiers includes The New York Times and WIRED, with more in the works. This same system was initially followed by Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, where the rule was: you had to actually be famous and verifiable in the public eye.

While users cannot request verification directly, more importantly, Bluesky will not “sell” verification checkmarks like X and now Instagram and Facebook.

The post Can Bluesky stay small and win? appeared first on International Finance.

The 41-year-old Zhang Yiming, who resigned as CEO of ByteDance in 2021, is the 18th person to be named China’s richest person in the 26 years since the Hurun China Rich List was first released. Zhong Shanshan, a bottle water tycoon, lost ground to him after his wealth fell 24% to USD 47.9 billion.

Hurun claimed that despite a legal dispute over its United States-based assets, ByteDance’s worldwide revenue increased 30% to USD 110 billion in 2023, contributing to Zhang Yiming’s personal wealth growth.

While Colin Huang, the founder of PDD Holdings, dropped from third place to fourth place last year despite his company’s discount-focused e-commerce platforms, Pinduoduo and Temu, continuing to show robust revenue growth, Pony Ma, the low-profile founder of Tencent, came in third.

The list’s number of billionaires fell by 142 to 753, more than a third of its peak in 2021.

“China’s economy and stock markets had a difficult year,” Hurun Report Chairman Rupert Hoogewerf said, while adding that China’s real estate market has seen the sharpest declines in wealth, while consumer electronics is growing quickly, with Xiaomi founder Lei Jun adding USD 5 billion to his fortune in 2024.

“Solar panel, lithium battery and EV makers have had a challenging year, as competition intensified, leading to a glut, and the threat of tariffs added to uncertainties. Solar panel makers saw their wealth drop as much as 80% from the 2021 peak, while battery and EV makers were down by half and a quarter respectively,” Hoogewerf said, who is also the list’s chief researcher.

Life And Career Of Zhang Yiming

Zhang Yiming started his career at the travel website Kuxun, which was later purchased by Tripadvisor, while majoring in microelectronics and software engineering at Nankai University.

Following a brief period at Microsoft, Zhang Yiming started creating his applications and started several start-ups, one of which was a portal for real estate searches. Zhang Yiming reportedly felt stifled by Microsoft’s corporate rules. Even though he joined the start-up Fanfou, it faced a brief failure in 2009 due to alleged censorship in China. Fanfou’s website was developed in LAMP stack with Twitter-compatible APIs. However, it reopened in November 2010.

In 2009, when Expedia was about to acquire Kuxun, Zhang Yiming took over Kuxun’s real estate search business and started 99fang.com, his first company. He quit the business three years later.

To compete with Baidu’s news offering that included advertisements, Zhang Yiming eventually concentrated his efforts on news aggregation apps in 2012.

He started with the content platform Toutiao, an AI-powered news recommendation system that, without the assistance of editorial staff, customises news according to users’ interests.

After the app quickly reached millions of downloads, Zhang Yiming collaborated with Chinese smartphone makers to incorporate it into new phone models.

Later, in 2016, ByteDance launched its short-video platform Douyin (known as TikTok in the United States).

In 2018, it successfully entered foreign markets by purchasing the well-known American app Musical Dotly for USD 1 billion and merging it with TikTok.

On November 4, 2021, Zhang Yiming stepped down as CEO of ByteDance, completing a leadership handover announced in May 2021. According to Reuters, he still maintains over 50% of ByteDance’s voting rights.

Despite GIPHY Partnership, TikTok Faces Loops Threat

Meanwhile, the largest collection of GIFs and stickers in the world, GIPHY, is collaborating with TikTok, the top platform for short-form mobile video, to improve the direct messaging experience on the platform by recommending GIFs using artificial intelligence.

The entire company of GIPHY is owned by Shutterstock, a prominent worldwide creative platform that provides top-notch creative content to marketing, digital media, and transformative brand companies.

The businesses are advancing their collaboration by incorporating GIPHY’s API straight into TikTok’s messaging app, which will give users instant access to the ideal GIF and innovative new features for TikTok’s large user base. Through this partnership, GIPHY’s extensive and carefully chosen library will offer the TikTok community a smooth and customised means of expressing themselves in chats.

“We’re incredibly excited to deepen our partnership with TikTok and bring the power of GIPHY to their direct messaging experience. This integration represents a dynamic convergence of self-expression and creative communication that will further connect TikTok’s vibrant community in authentic and engaging ways,” Jason Stein, Senior Vice President of Business and Corporate Development at GIPHY said, as reported by PR Newswire.

However, ByteDance may face competition from Fediverse (group of social media platforms that are working together through a federated protocol to allow users to communicate and interact with one another between social networks), as Loops, an open-source TikTok clone, has started to accept sign-ups, as first reported by TechCrunch.

“The short-form, looping video platform will provide an open-source alternative to TikTok in the same way that Mastodon provides an alternative option for X, formerly Twitter. Loops was created by Daniel Supernault, the founder of the open-source Instagram alternative Pixelfed. The project is being financed by user-support,” the media outlet reported.

Loops may become a game-changing experiment for the Fediverse in the coming days, as online platforms like Mastodon, WordPress, Flipboard, and even Meta’s Threads have joined the entity since 2023. By implementing Fediverse’s protocol, Threads users can choose to have their content automatically become accessible on platforms like Mastodon.

“Loops will work much like TikTok, allowing users to post short-form videos as well as comment on and share clips. However, for new users, content will be held in a moderation que as they build their trust score. This trust score will also help the platform hide certain comments and apply warning labels to clips. Users with high trust scores will be able to post content immediately without having to wait for approval,” TechCrunch reported.

As with most open-source platforms, Loops is user privacy-oriented. The platform will not sell user data to third-party advertisers or allow user content to be used to train AI.

The post Business Leader of the Week: Meet Zhang Yiming, ByteDance founder & China’s new richest appeared first on International Finance.

According to Nikkei Asia, The Southeast Asian IT company Sea, which has stopped operating its Indian e-commerce portal Shopee, plans to increase investment in its e-commerce division as the market becomes more competitive.

ByteDance’s short video-sharing website TikTok debuted online. It has over 1.677 billion users globally out of which 1.1 billion are its monthly active users as of 2023. It also launched the online shopping service ‘TikTok Shop’ in 2021, starting in Indonesia.

“TikTok Shop has expanded into other regional markets, where Sea e-commerce unit Shopee, Alibaba-owned Lazada and Indonesia’s Tokopedia have dominated,” the report mentioned.

Last year, Shopee revoked a number of job offers for positions at its headquarters in Singapore. Additionally, the business required laid-off workers to reimburse it for damaged work computers.

Shopee earlier started a large-scale layoff programme in China, with some departments experiencing reductions of up to 60%.

When the government of India banned the company’s flagship game, ‘Garena Free Fire,’ along with 53 Chinese apps, Sea announced in March of last year that it would shut down operations of its e-commerce web Shopee in India. This decision drew criticism from the industry groups in the country.

However, the company claimed that the decision to stop doing business in India was not because the government had banned its well-known game, but rather because of ‘global market uncertainties.’

On the other hand, Sea is also the owner of Singapore Premier League football club Lion City Sailors FC, after Forrest Li acquired, privatised and renamed Home United.

Recently, the company raised USD 7.2 billion in an equity and convertible bond sale, which made it Southeast Asia’s largest fundraising company. The company said it planned to use the cash for strategic investments and potential acquisitions.

The post Singapore’s Sea to invest more in e-com platform Shopee appeared first on International Finance.

Yes, the fight has indeed started, but not in the ring. On July 5, Mark Zuckerberg posted his first tweet in 11 years, while posting the popular meme of identical Spider-Men facing off.

Elon Musk replied with a laughing face emoticon in reply to a tweet that said Meta’s new ‘Threads’ app has been made using a keyword with only the keys for Copy and Paste features.

However, the ‘News of The 2023’ is that Mark Zuckerberg, after taking on Snapchat and TikTok through Instagram’s ‘Story’ and ‘Reel’, has now chosen his next target in the form of Elon Musk, by launching ‘Threads’.

‘Threads’ Is An Instant Hit

While alternatives like ‘Mastodon’ and ‘Blue Sky’ saw an uptick in subscribers after Elon Musk took over Twitter in October 2022, none of them has been able to pose any problem for the micro-blogging platform, which, as per the 2023 stats, has 353.90 million users (3.93% decrease from 2022). It is worth mentioning that ‘Mastodon’ and ‘Blue Sky’ work on a new phenomenon called ‘Decentralized Social Media Protocols’.

However, things have been different for ‘Threads’. It has garnered 10 million subscribers (and the number is still growing), since its July 6 launch. However, regulatory constraints have ensured that the European Union countries won’t be able to enjoy the services of the app.

Brands like Billboard, HBO, NPR and Netflix have already set up their accounts on Threads.

Thread users will need an Instagram account to log in. After signing up, they can follow the same accounts they follow on Instagram.

The app has similarities with Twitter. Retweets will be called “Reposts” and tweets will be mentioned as “Threads”. Posts on Threads can be 500 characters long, compared to Twitter’s 280, while videos with a maximum span of five minutes can also be posted. Also, a post can be shared as a link on other platforms. Along with these, users can unfollow, block, restrict or report profiles/accounts. Post replies will have the ‘Filter’ option as well.

While Threads will have similarities with Mastodon, Meta is also reportedly planning to make the app compatible with ActivityPub, thus entering the domain of ‘Decentralized Social Media’, where social networks are going to be interoperable, and thus allowing the Threads users to take their accounts and followers to other ActivityPub-supported apps.

Zuckerburg’s First Punch A Well-Timed One

As per the Guardian, Meta won’t accept ads on Threads for 2023.

“Currently, the main feed is a mixture of content that users follow, as well as content recommended from the algorithm. There are currently no plans to allow people to limit that to only people they follow. People will keep their usernames from Instagram, reducing the possibility of people name-squatting high-profile usernames,” the report stated.

While people are entitled to call ‘Threads’ the copycat version of Twitter, due to the similarities between the two, Mark Zuckerberg followed similar practices when he took on TikTok and Snapchat. However, the timing of the app’s launch couldn’t have been a better one, as since October 2022, Twitter’s brand value has taken a nosedive due to Elon Musk’s erratic way of handling the micro-blogging platform’s affairs.

It all started with Elon Musk firing the micro-blogging firm’s entire leadership and 70% of the staffers (it has gone over 80% now). These were followed by the chaotic launch of ‘Twitter Blue’. In the meantime, advertisers started pulling out of the platform.

Facing hate speech-related lawsuits across the countries due to its updated content moderation policy, failure to pay property rents, frequent service glitches and the list of troubles has only got bigger for the social media platform in the last nine months. Its valuation has gone down to USD 20 billion in March 2023, way down from the USD 44 billion, which Elon Musk paid while buying the platform in October 2022.

Elon Musk also admitted the difficulties faced by him while running Twitter’s administrative affairs. To address this, American media executive Linda Yaccarino was brought in as the micro-blogging platform’s new CEO a month back.

While analysts thought that the move will bring some sort of administrative sanity to the micro-blogging platform, things have gone southwards since then.

Twitter has now limited how much content users can view on a daily basis. Also, the users are now required to log in to view the site. Also, the platform restricted unverified accounts to viewing 600 tweets a day. The cap was later upped to 1,000.

Elon Musk defended these changes as “temporary limits” meant to address “extreme levels of data scraping” and “system manipulation”, while stating that AI companies were taking “vast amounts of data” from Twitter, which forced the latter to perform the ‘costly operation’ of deploying more servers.

The Final Words

Changes are always good and welcome, when they are backed by informed decision-making and employed in a smooth manner. For Twitter, unfortunately, policy changes since October 2022 have brought only frustration for the users and the latter have been pushed to quit the platform.

Mark Zuckerberg has chosen the right moment to pounce upon his rival. Thread has been immensely popular on day one itself. Those, who got tired of Elon Musk’s erratic way of running Twitter’s affairs and were looking out for alternatives, are now bracing the app.

If the duel between Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg gets compared with a cage fight, it’s right now standing at the 1-0 scoreline in the favour of the Meta boss. Will his Tesla counterpart, known for his online shenanigans, come up with a response? Let’s wait and watch.

The post IF Insights: Threads vs Twitter: Mark Zuckerberg delivers first punch to Elon Musk appeared first on International Finance.

The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York claimed in its lawsuit that the automakers were negligent in failing to include anti-theft devices in their vehicles, which would have made them much more difficult to steal, reports The Verge.

Hyundai and Kia have now agreed to a USD 200 million settlement on the matter.

According to the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the “Kia Challenge” has led to hundreds of car thefts nationwide, including at least 14 reported crashes and eight fatalities.

A group of thieves known as the “Kia Boys” were reportedly posting instructional videos on YouTube and TikTok about how to steal Kia vehicles. The videos gave a tutorial on how to bypass the vehicles’ security systems using tools as simple as a USB cable.

As per reports, the thefts were easy to pull off due to a manufacturing flaw in the Hyundai and Kia vehicles produced between 2015-2019. These vehicles lacked electronic immobilizers, a device which prevents thieves from breaking in and bypassing the vehicle’s ignition. The feature is standard equipment in the United States on nearly all vehicles from the same period made by other manufacturers. The flaw came to notice in September 2022.

A class-action lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Orange County, California, alleging that Kias built between 2011 and 2021 and Hyundai cars built from 2015 to 2021 were “deliberately” built without “engine immobilisers”.

As the challenge got viral on social media, police in several American cities reported a serious rise in car thefts.

Coming back to the USD 200 million settlement, it will only apply to around 9 million vehicles that lack push-button ignitions and anti-theft immobilizers. In February 2023, the companies also offered free software updates to extend the length of the alarm sound from 30 seconds to one minute and to require a key in the ignition switch to turn the vehicle on. The settlement also includes up to USD 145 million for out-of-pocket losses for consumers who had cars stolen, as per a Reuters report.

Talking about the ‘Kia Challenge’ on TikTok, The US state of Milwaukee has seen reported thefts of 469 Kia and 426 Hyundai vehicles in 2020 alone. The same numbers spiked in 2021 to 3,557 and 3,406 respectively.

The post Viral TikTok trend lands Hyundai, Kia in legal soup in the United States appeared first on International Finance.

According to a post shared by Instagram user Dijital Aglar, who is based in Turkey, Instagram is now displaying a row at the top of users’ DMs with the description “Latest Shares,” TechCrunch reported.

The screenshots uploaded by the account demonstrate that shared posts would also display the avatars of the friends you shared a Reel with.

For instance, if users share a brief video again, it will only display once with the buddy’s avatar with whom they most recently shared it. The corporation has verified the creation of this feature.

A Meta representative said, “We’re rolling out enhancements to how you may search for and rediscover Reels that were previously shared in messages.”

Instagram’s new broadcast channels, a one-to-many messaging feature that enables producers to interact directly with their fans at scale, were unveiled by Meta in February 2023.

The company stated in a blog post that creators can also use voice notes to convey their most recent updates and behind-the-scenes events. They could even make polls to get input from fans.

However, Meta will be ending its ‘Reels Play’ bonus program, which rewards content creators when they hit goals for views on their videos. The change, first reported by Business Insider, will affect creators on Facebook and United States-based content makers on Instagram.

The company won’t offer any new/renewed ‘Reels Play’ bonus deals, but will honour existing commitments over the next 30 days, according to the report.

“We are evolving the test of our Reels Play bonus on Instagram and Facebook as we focus on investing in a suite of monetization solutions to help creators earn steady streams of income,” Paige Cohen, a Meta spokesperson, told The Verge in an email.

“We will look into ways to run the program in a more targeted form, for example in potential new markets,” the official stated further.

The Reels bonus program has had its ups and downs since its launch in 2021, as it was trying to compete with TikTok. Content creators saw huge payouts, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, in the initial days.

However, over the course of 2022, some creators reported that payments had been shrinking and that it was becoming harder to make the same amount in bonuses.

The post New Instagram feature allows users to see recently shared reels appeared first on International Finance.