The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google last year, claiming the company is a monopoly that unfairly and illegally uses its monopoly power to stifle competition in the search market.

According to The New York Times, after a ten-month trial, Judge Mehta has ruled against Google, concluding the company is not only a monopoly, but one that is abusing its market position.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta wrote in his ruling.

Google’s Exclusivity Deals

Throughout the case, Google’s attorneys tried to argue that the company holds the dominant position in the market purely because it is better.

“Google is winning because it’s better,” argued John Schmidtlein, Google’s lead attorney on the case.

In contrast, the DOJ maintained that Google’s deals have helped artificially keep it at the top, to the exclusion of other options. In particular, the DOJ scrutinized deals with Apple, Mozilla, and other vendors that have kept Google the default search engine across platforms.

As the Times points out, those deals gave Google access to a treasure trove of consumer data and search habits that gave it an even greater advantage in honing its search engine and shutting out rivals. Judge Mehta agreed with the DOJ’s case, calling out Google’s deals

Google has not achieved market dominance by happenstance. It has hired thousands of highly skilled engineers, innovated consistently, and made shrewd business decisions. The result is the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users.

But Google also has a major, largely unseen advantage over its rivals: default distribution. Most users access a general search engine through a browser (like Apple’s Safari) or a search widget that comes preloaded on a mobile device. Those search access points are preset with a “default” search engine. The default is extremely valuable real estate. Because many users simply stick to searching with the default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those access points. Google drives extraordinary volumes of user data from such searches. It then uses that information to improve search quality. Google so values such data that, absent a user-initiated change, it stores 18 months-worth of a user’s search history and activity.

The distribution agreements benefit Google in another important way. More users mean more advertisers, and more advertisers mean more revenues. As queries on Google have grown, so too has the amount it earns in advertising dollars. In 2014, Google booked nearly $47 billion in advertising revenue. By 2021, that number had increased more than three-fold to over $146 billion. Bing, by comparison, generated only a fraction of that amount—less than $12 billion in 2022.

Judge Mehta then broke down his ruling.

Specifically, the court holds that (1) there are relevant product markets for general search services and general search text ads; (2) Google has monopoly power in those markets; (3) Google’s distribution agreements are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects; and (4) Google has not offered valid procompetitive justifications for those agreements. Importantly, the court also finds that Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits.

On the Alleged Destruction of Communications and Evidence

The DOJ accused Google of intentionally deleting internal communication that could implicate it, even after it was warned to retain such communications. Judge Mehta declined to impose sanctions—while acknowledging Google’s actions could very well warrant them—only because it would not change Google’s liability.

Judge Mehta did, however, take note of Google’s tremendous effort to ensure there were no smoking guns that could be used against it in the form of internal communications, drawing a direct comparison to how many such smoking guns existed in Microsoft’s antitrust case decades ago.

Still, the court is taken aback by the lengths to which Google goes to avoid creating a paper trail for regulators and litigants….Google clearly to to heart the lessons from these cases. It trained its employees, rather effectively, not to create “bad” evidence. Ultimately, it does not matter. Section 2 liability does not rise or fall on whether there is “smoking gun” proof of anticompetitive intent.

Possible Penalties

Judge Mehta did not address penalties in this ruling, although the possibilities run the full gamut. At the very least, Google will likely face stiff monetary fines. The company may be prohibited from striking the kind of deals that have helped it maintain its dominance. Google may be forced to adopt a measure similar to what Apple was forced to do in the EU, namely give users a first-run option to choose their search engine, rather than defaulting to Google. At the most extreme end of the spectrum, the DOJ could seek to break up Google during the penalty proceedings.

Whatever the outcome, Google is sure to appeal, meaning this case is far from over.

The US Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is designed to protect the privacy of and personal information of minors under 13 years of age, as the DOJ highlights:

COPPA prohibits website operators from knowingly collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under the age of 13, unless they provide notice to and obtain consent from those children’s parents. It also requires website operators to delete personal information collected from children at their parents’ request.

The DOJ originally sued TikTok predecessor Musical.ly in 2019, resulting in court-ordered measures that TikTok must abide by to comply with COPPA. The DOJ says that TikTok has ignored the previous agreement and knowingly violated COPPA requirements:

According to the complaint, from 2019 to the present, TikTok knowingly permitted children to create regular TikTok accounts and to create, view, and share short-form videos and messages with adults and others on the regular TikTok platform. The defendants collected and retained a wide variety of personal information from these children without notifying or obtaining consent from their parents. Even for accounts that were created in “Kids Mode” (a pared-back version of TikTok intended for children under 13), the defendants unlawfully collected and retained children’s email addresses and other types of personal information. Further, when parents discovered their children’s accounts and asked the defendants to delete the accounts and information in them, the defendants frequently failed to honor those requests. The defendants also had deficient and ineffectual internal policies and processes for identifying and deleting TikTok accounts created by children.

As a result of TikTok’s actions, the DOJ says millions of children’s data has been collected, and children have been allowed to interact with adults on the platform, as well as access adult content.

“The Department is deeply concerned that TikTok has continued to collect and retain children’s personal information despite a court order barring such conduct,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer. “With this action, the Department seeks to ensure that TikTok honors its obligation to protect children’s privacy rights and parents’ efforts to protect their children.”

“TikTok knowingly and repeatedly violated kids’ privacy, threatening the safety of millions of children across the country,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC will continue to use the full scope of its authorities to protect children online — especially as firms deploy increasingly sophisticated digital tools to surveil kids and profit from their data.”

TikTok has a long history of violating child privacy, as well as the privacy of its users in general. The Center for Digital Democracy and the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood filed a complaint against the company in 2020 over child privacy. The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) investigated TikTok in early 2021, finding the company was violating the privacy of EU children.

“In just a few years, TikTok has become one of the most popular social media apps with millions of users across Europe,” Monique Goyens, Director General of BEUC, said at the time. “But TikTok is letting its users down by breaching their rights on a massive scale. We have discovered a whole series of consumer rights infringements and therefore filed a complaint against TikTok.

“Children love TikTok but the company fails to keep them protected. We do not want our youngest ones to be exposed to pervasive hidden advertising and unknowingly turned into billboards when they are just trying to have fun.

“Together with our members – consumer groups from across Europe – we urge authorities to take swift action. They must act now to make sure TikTok is a place where consumers, especially children, can enjoy themselves without being deprived of their rights.”

With the US already passing a ban on TikTok, the deadline for which is rapidly approaching, TikTok’s systemic abuse of privacy—and especially the privacy of its most vulnerable users—is making one of the strongest cases yet that the platform poses a serious threat.

First spotted by Kotaku, Game Informer’s official X account announced the news.

The Final Level: Farewell from Game Informer

After 33 thrilling years of bringing the the latest news, reviews, and insights from the ever-evolving world of gaming, it is with a heavy heart that we announce the closure of Game Informer.

From the early days of pixelated adventures to today’s immersive virtual realms, we’ve been honored to share this incredible journey with you, our loyal readers. While our presses may stop, the passion for gaming that we’ve cultivated together will continue to live on.

Thank you for being part of our epic quest, and may your own gaming adventures never end.

Game Informer (@gameinformer) | August 2, 2024

Game Informer’s closure is the end of an era, as it was the last print magazine in the US gaming industry. According to Kotaku, the entire staff was laid off as part of the closure.

Intense Google Search Ranking Volatility

Over the past few weeks, the search engine landscape has been tumultuous. The volatility in Google’s search rankings has left webmasters and SEO experts scrambling. Barry Schwartz of Search Engine Roundtable described the situation as “Google bursting at the seams,” reflecting the magnitude of the recent fluctuations. Schwartz noted, “The tools were really, really heavy. You can see SEMrush ranking cognitive SEO. All these tools were very, very heated.”

This sentiment was echoed by many in the SEO community. On social media, John Mueller, Google’s Senior Webmaster Trends Analyst, mentioned, “We’re seeing a lot of volatility over the past couple of weeks, but the past few days have been particularly significant. Something big seems to be brewing.” The comments section on Schwartz’s post alone garnered over 100 responses in less than 24 hours, highlighting the widespread concern and confusion.

SEO professionals are speculating on the possible causes of this upheaval. Some believe it could be a precursor to a major core update. “Google’s testing something, and we’re not sure what,” said SEO consultant Marie Haynes. “It’s crucial to stay alert and monitor these changes closely.”

Adding to the uncertainty, Google’s algorithm updates around deep fakes have also contributed to the ranking volatility. Schwartz reported that Google had adjusted to lower deep fake site rankings, citing a May Bloomberg article. “This crackdown has resulted in a significant drop in visibility for sites known to propagate deep fake content,” he explained.

Google’s John Mueller addressed these changes: “Our technology is improving in identifying and down-ranking deep fake content. We’re committed to ensuring the integrity of our search results.” This initiative is part of Google’s broader effort to combat misinformation and maintain trust in its platform.

Furthermore, the controversy surrounding Google’s autocomplete predictions, particularly related to former President Donald Trump, has stirred additional volatility. “Every election cycle, we see heightened scrutiny on autocomplete and search predictions,” Schwartz noted. “Google’s recent tweaks aim to address these concerns, but it’s a delicate balance.”

As the digital community braces for what many anticipate to be a significant core update, the focus remains on adapting strategies to navigate these turbulent times. “The key is to stay informed and be ready to pivot,” advised Haynes. “This is just another chapter in the ever-evolving landscape of SEO.”

Upcoming Google Core Update: Publishers Brace for Impact

The anticipation surrounding the upcoming Google core update has reached a fever pitch. SEO experts and publishers alike are holding their breath, waiting to see how the changes will affect their rankings. Barry Schwartz of Search Engine Roundtable provided insights into the growing anxiety within the industry. “Publishers are growing very, very concerned,” Schwartz stated. “It’s been since September of 2023, when the helpful content update was released, that these publishers have been basically in the hole at Google.”

The core update, expected to roll out in August, has been the subject of much speculation. Google’s Senior Webmaster Trends Analyst, John Mueller, attempted to provide reassurance. “The next one, meaning the core update, isn’t extremely far away now,” Mueller mentioned during a recent online discussion. This somewhat vague statement has given the SEO community a glimmer of hope that the update will bring much-needed improvements to search rankings.

Publishers who have struggled since the last significant update are eager for a turnaround. “The March core update didn’t really do anything for us,” said a publisher who wished to remain anonymous. “We’re hoping this next update will finally address some of the issues we’ve been facing. It’s been a long and challenging wait.”

One of the critical issues that the upcoming core update is expected to address is the display of images in search results. Many webmasters have reported that images are not showing up correctly in the rich results section. Mueller clarified this point, saying, “It’s not really a bug; it’s more about Google not trusting or not finding that site to be quality enough for it to rank.” This statement has led to further discussions within the community about the importance of maintaining high-quality content and trustworthiness.

The anticipation is palpable, with SEO professionals preparing for various scenarios. “It’s like waiting for a storm,” commented SEO strategist Aleyda Solis. “We know it’s coming, and we have to be ready to adapt quickly. The impact of these core updates can be significant, and the best way to mitigate risks is to stay informed and flexible.”

In the meantime, Mueller advises to hold on a little longer and focus on quality. “We always recommend concentrating on the fundamentals of good SEO practices—quality content, user experience, and proper technical setup,” he said. As the digital world braces for the impending changes, one thing is clear: the upcoming Google core update is poised to be a major event, and those in the industry are preparing for the potential shifts it will bring.

Addressing Deep Fakes and Content Authenticity: Google Takes a Stand

As the digital landscape becomes increasingly complex, the proliferation of deep fakes and concerns over content authenticity has prompted Google to take decisive action. In response to rising concerns, Google has implemented several updates to its search ranking algorithms aimed at curbing the spread of deep fakes. Barry Schwartz from Search Engine Roundtable highlighted these efforts, noting that the changes have already had a noticeable impact. “Google made search ranking algorithm updates around deep fakes, and we’ve seen significant shifts in site visibility as a result,” Schwartz reported.

One of the key measures Google has taken involves prioritizing legitimate news sources over potentially misleading or harmful deep fake content. “When people search for a specific actor or public figure, Google aims to promote credible news articles over deep fake content,” Schwartz explained. This approach is designed to ensure that users are presented with accurate and reliable information, reducing the risk of misinformation spreading through manipulated media.

Google’s efforts to combat deep fakes extend beyond just algorithmic adjustments. The company has also updated its removal policies and procedures to address this growing issue. “Google’s updated ranking systems and removal help documentation now include specific guidelines for dealing with deep fakes,” Schwartz noted. “They’ve also improved their manual removal process, where if a deep fake is identified and removed, Google will automatically search for and remove similar or exact matches across other sites.”

John Mueller, Google’s Senior Webmaster Trends Analyst, emphasized the importance of these updates in maintaining the integrity of search results. “Our technology is continuously evolving to better detect and manage deep fake content,” Mueller said. “We look at various patterns and signals to identify sites that frequently host deep fake content and take appropriate action to ensure such content is less visible.”

The impact of these changes has already been felt by websites that previously hosted deep fake content. “One site, in particular, saw an 11% drop in traffic after Google’s initial update, and now they’ve experienced a further decline,” Schwartz mentioned. “This indicates that Google’s measures are effective and that they are committed to tackling the issue of deep fakes head-on.”

Despite these efforts, challenges remain in distinguishing between genuine content and high-quality deep fakes. Google’s approach uses advanced AI and machine learning techniques to enhance detection capabilities. “The technology is getting better at identifying deep fakes, but it’s a continuous battle,” Mueller acknowledged. “We are committed to improving our systems and ensuring that users have access to authentic and trustworthy content.”

As the fight against deep fakes continues, Google’s proactive stance serves as a crucial step in preserving the authenticity of online information. By prioritizing legitimate sources and enhancing detection methods, the company aims to create a safer and more reliable digital environment for users worldwide.

Autocomplete Adjustments in Wake of Trump Mentions: Google’s Balancing Act

Google’s autocomplete feature has long been a useful tool for users, predicting and suggesting search queries as they type. However, recent adjustments to this feature have sparked significant attention, particularly in the context of politically charged terms such as “Trump.” The changes were prompted by accusations of bias and manipulation from various political groups, which claimed that Google’s autocomplete suggestions were skewed against certain individuals, including former President Donald Trump.

Barry Schwartz from Search Engine Roundtable detailed these changes in a recent update, noting that Google has made a concerted effort to address these concerns. “Google has updated their autocomplete and search predictions in response to the controversy surrounding Trump-related queries,” Schwartz reported. “These updates are part of an ongoing effort to ensure that the autocomplete feature remains neutral and accurate.”

In response to the criticism, Google has refined its algorithms and provided more balanced suggestions. “Every election cycle, there’s always controversy around autocomplete predictions,” Schwartz explained. “This time, Google has been particularly diligent in monitoring and adjusting its algorithms to avoid any perceived bias.”

John Mueller, Google’s Senior Webmaster Trends Analyst, emphasized the importance of maintaining neutrality in search predictions. “Our goal is to provide users with the most relevant and useful suggestions without any bias,” Mueller stated. “We continuously review and update our algorithms to ensure that they reflect the most accurate and unbiased information.”

The adjustments have not gone unnoticed by the public. Some users have praised Google’s efforts to improve transparency and fairness in its search features. “It’s good to see Google taking steps to address these concerns,” commented one user on Schwartz’s post. “Autocomplete is a powerful tool, and it’s important that it remains impartial, especially when it comes to political figures.”

However, not everyone is convinced that the changes are sufficient. Critics argue that more needs to be done to ensure complete neutrality. “While it’s a step in the right direction, Google needs to be more transparent about how these adjustments are made,” said a commenter on a related forum. “Users deserve to know that their search experience is free from any kind of manipulation.”

Google has also introduced additional measures to increase user confidence in the autocomplete feature. According to Schwartz, the company is now more proactive in reviewing and responding to user feedback regarding search predictions. “Google is actively soliciting feedback from users to identify and correct any potential biases in autocomplete suggestions,” he noted. “This approach aims to create a more user-driven and transparent process.”

As the debate over search neutrality continues, Google remains committed to refining its autocomplete feature. By making these adjustments and soliciting user input, the company aims to ensure that its search predictions are both accurate and unbiased, fostering a more trustworthy search environment for all users.

Google’s Enhanced AI Capabilities and Content Indexing: Revolutionizing Search

Google has consistently been at the forefront of technological advancements, and its recent enhancements in AI capabilities and content indexing are no exception. These improvements are refining the user experience and significantly impacting how content is discovered and ranked.

Barry Schwartz from Search Engine Roundtable highlighted the impact of these advancements in a recent article. “Google’s AI algorithms have become increasingly sophisticated, allowing for more precise indexing of content generated with JavaScript,” Schwartz noted. “This is a significant development, as JavaScript-heavy websites have historically faced challenges in being fully indexed by search engines.”

John Mueller, Google’s Senior Webmaster Trends Analyst, explained the strides Google has made in this area. “We’ve invested heavily in improving our ability to index JavaScript content effectively,” Mueller stated. “Our enhanced AI capabilities mean that we can now process complex web pages more efficiently, ensuring that users find the most relevant and up-to-date information.”

The improvements in AI-driven content indexing also extend to multimedia content. Google has been working on better indexing of video and image content, making it easier for users to discover diverse media types. “Our goal is to provide a comprehensive search experience,” said Mueller. “By enhancing our ability to index videos and images, we’re ensuring that users have access to a wider array of content formats.”

These advancements have been met with positive reactions from the SEO community. “The improvements in indexing JavaScript and multimedia content are game-changers,” said SEO expert Marie Haynes. “It allows for more dynamic and interactive websites to be properly represented in search results, which is crucial for modern web development.”

However, these changes also come with challenges. As Google’s algorithms become more advanced, the bar for content quality is raised. “With enhanced AI capabilities, Google is better at discerning high-quality content from low-quality content,” Schwartz explained. “This means that webmasters need to focus even more on creating valuable, well-structured content to maintain their rankings.”

To assist webmasters in adapting to these changes, Google has provided detailed guidelines and tools. The Search Central blog frequently updates best practices for optimizing JavaScript content, and new tools in Google Search Console help webmasters understand how their content is being indexed. “We’re committed to supporting webmasters in this transition,” Mueller emphasized. “Our resources are designed to help them leverage these new capabilities to improve their site’s visibility.”

The evolution of Google’s AI capabilities and content indexing is a testament to the company’s commitment to innovation. By continually refining its algorithms and offering support to webmasters, Google is enhancing the search experience and fostering a more dynamic and accessible web. As these technologies continue to develop, the future of search promises to be even more intuitive and comprehensive.

Impact on News and Social Media: Navigating the Shifts

The advancements in Google’s AI capabilities and content indexing are profoundly reshaping the landscape of news and social media. These changes influence how news is consumed, shared, and ranked, presenting opportunities and challenges for publishers and content creators.

The most noticeable impact is on the visibility of news articles. With Google’s improved AI, the algorithms can better identify and prioritize high-quality journalism, thus influencing which stories appear in top search results. Barry Schwartz from Search Engine Roundtable commented, “The enhancements in AI have made it easier for credible news sources to surface. This is particularly crucial in an era where misinformation is rampant.”

John Mueller, Google’s Senior Webmaster Trends Analyst, elaborated on the importance of these improvements for news publishers. “Our goal is to ensure that users receive accurate and reliable information,” Mueller said. “By refining our content indexing processes, we can better distinguish between credible news sources and less reliable ones, promoting trust in the information users find.”

Social media platforms are also experiencing significant shifts due to these advancements. The improved content indexing allows for more effective integration of social media content into search results. This means relevant tweets, Facebook posts, and other social media content can appear alongside traditional web pages, providing a more comprehensive view of trending topics.

This integration has led to a symbiotic relationship between search engines and social media. “Social media is no longer just a platform for sharing; it’s becoming a crucial part of the search ecosystem,” said Marie Haynes, an SEO expert. “The ability to index and rank social media content means that users can access a broader range of perspectives on current events.”

However, these changes are not without their challenges. The rapid pace of information flow on social media can sometimes lead to the prioritization of sensational content over well-researched journalism. “It’s a double-edged sword,” Schwartz noted. “While it’s beneficial to have a diverse range of content, it also means that the algorithms need to be exceptionally good at distinguishing between quality and noise.”

To address these challenges, Google is refining its algorithms better to handle the dynamic nature of social media content. The company has introduced new features to help identify and rank high-quality social media posts. “We are committed to improving the visibility of valuable content on social media,” Mueller emphasized. “Our recent updates aim to ensure that the most relevant and informative posts are prominently displayed.”

The impact of these advancements extends to the advertising strategies of news and social media platforms. As Google’s algorithms become more sophisticated, the competition for top-ranking positions intensifies. This has led publishers to invest more in high-quality content and SEO strategies. “The bar has been raised,” Haynes observed. “Publishers need to focus on producing well-researched, engaging content that meets the quality standards set by Google’s AI.”

In conclusion, the advancements in Google’s AI capabilities and content indexing drive significant changes in the news and social media landscapes. These improvements are enhancing the quality and reliability of search results, fostering a more informed and engaged audience. As the digital ecosystem continues to evolve, these technologies will play a crucial role in shaping the future of information consumption and dissemination.

Ad Integrations and Reporting Issues: Navigating the New Challenges

Google’s recent advancements in ad integrations and reporting capabilities have ushered in a new era of precision and efficiency in digital advertising. However, these improvements have not come without their own set of challenges and concerns, particularly around reporting issues that have emerged.

The introduction of new ad integration features, such as the Click-to-WhatsApp messaging option and the For Your Consideration ad format, has been hailed by advertisers for their innovative approach to engaging users. PPC expert Greg Finn noted, “The Click-to-WhatsApp feature is a game-changer for international markets. It leverages the popularity of WhatsApp to create a seamless bridge between ads and direct customer interaction.”

Advertisers have faced significant hurdles despite these advancements due to recent reporting issues. Google confirmed last week that their ad reporting systems, including the Google Ads web interface and API, were experiencing significant delays and downtime. This disruption has affected advertisers’ ability to track campaign performance accurately and make informed decisions.

“Having reliable reporting is crucial for any advertising strategy,” said Ben Fisher, an industry analyst. “These outages have left many advertisers in the dark, unable to assess the effectiveness of their campaigns in real time. It’s a major setback, especially during critical times such as product launches or seasonal promotions.”

Google has acknowledged the problem and has been actively working on a resolution. The company said, “We are aware of the issues affecting Google Ads reporting and are committed to resolving them as quickly as possible. Our teams are working around the clock to restore full functionality.”

The reporting issues have also highlighted the dependency of advertisers on Google’s ecosystem. Many advertisers have expressed frustration over the lack of redundancy and backup systems. “It’s clear that there needs to be better contingency planning,” commented digital marketing consultant Jenny Halasz. “Advertisers are left vulnerable when these systems go down, impacting their ROI and overall business strategies.”

In response to these challenges, some advertisers are exploring alternative platforms and diversifying their ad spend to mitigate risks. “While Google remains a dominant player, this situation underscores the importance of not putting all your eggs in one basket,” Halasz added. “Exploring other channels like Bing Ads, Facebook, and emerging platforms can provide a buffer against such disruptions.”

Amidst these challenges, Google’s introduction of new tools like the PMax reporting updates and AI generation tools is a step towards more robust and versatile advertising solutions. These tools aim to provide deeper insights and more granular control over ad campaigns. “The new PMax reporting tools are promising,” said marketing strategist Mark Irvine. “They offer more detailed asset-level conversion reports and better YouTube video placement insights, which are invaluable for optimizing ad performance.”

As Google continues to refine its ad integration and reporting systems, the advertising community remains hopeful for a swift resolution to the current issues. The company’s commitment to enhancing its platform with new features and improved reliability is seen as a positive move towards maintaining its leadership in the digital advertising space. “Google has the resources and expertise to address these challenges,” Fisher concluded. “We expect them to bounce back stronger, but it’s a reminder for advertisers to stay agile and prepared for any eventuality.”

Final Thoughts: The Search Industry is in a State of Flux

The search industry is undeniably in a state of flux, marked by rapid advancements, shifting algorithms, and evolving user behaviors. As Google continues implementing updates and introducing new features, the landscape for search engine optimization (SEO) and digital marketing is becoming increasingly dynamic and complex.

Barry Schwartz, a veteran in the search industry, encapsulates this sentiment, stating, “We are witnessing an era of unprecedented change in the search industry. The volatility in Google’s search rankings, the ongoing updates to core algorithms, and the incorporation of AI-driven technologies are reshaping how we approach SEO and digital marketing.” This constant evolution demands that businesses and marketers stay agile and informed to maintain their competitive edge.

The recent search ranking volatility and the upcoming core update are prime examples of this flux. Marketers and webmasters are on edge, anticipating how these changes will impact their site rankings and traffic. “Every core update brings a mix of excitement and anxiety,” says SEO consultant Marie Haynes. “While these updates aim to improve search quality, they also require us to constantly adapt our strategies and stay ahead of the curve.”

The adjustments in Google’s handling of deep fakes and content authenticity highlight the growing importance of credibility and trustworthiness in the digital space. Google’s efforts to demote misleading content and promote reliable sources underscore its commitment to maintaining the integrity of its search results. “Google’s focus on combating deep fakes is crucial in today’s information landscape,” notes digital strategist Lily Ray. “As AI-generated content becomes more sophisticated, the need for robust measures to ensure authenticity is more important than ever.”

Similarly, the changes in autocomplete features, particularly in response to politically sensitive terms like “Trump,” reflect Google’s ongoing efforts to balance user demand with the need to prevent misinformation. “The adjustments in autocomplete are a testament to Google’s responsiveness to public concern and its proactive stance in managing search suggestions,” says search analyst Glenn Gabe. “It’s a delicate balance between providing relevant suggestions and avoiding the spread of biased or inaccurate information.”

The introduction of enhanced AI capabilities and improvements in content indexing further illustrate the transformative impact of technology on search. Google’s ability to better handle JavaScript and the integration of AI-driven features like the hidden gem stores and videos from sections are paving the way for more intuitive and user-friendly search experiences. “These advancements are setting new standards for how search engines interact with and present content,” comments AI expert Dawn Anderson. “It’s an exciting time, but it also means we have to continuously learn and adapt.”

As the search industry navigates these changes, it is clear that adaptability and innovation are key to thriving in this ever-evolving environment. The search engine giants’ focus on refining their algorithms and integrating AI technologies points to a future where search will be more personalized, accurate, and reliable. “We are at the forefront of a new era in search,” concludes Schwartz. “The challenges are significant, but so are the opportunities for those who can navigate this complex landscape.”

In this state of flux, staying informed and agile is essential for anyone involved in digital marketing and SEO. The changes we see today are just the beginning of a new chapter in the search industry that promises to be both challenging and rewarding for those who are prepared to embrace it.

Threads launched in early June 2023, with many seeing it as a Twitter (X) killer. The service became the fastest growing app to date, gaining 100 million users in its first five days. Growth has slowed since that milestone, although still continued at an impressive rate.

According to Instagram boss Adam Mosseri, the service has now crossed the 200 million mark.

I’m excited to share that we crossed the 200M milestone on @threads. My hope is that Threads can inspire ideas that bring people together, and this amazing community continues to grow. Thank you for investing your time and giving feedback that makes the place better for everyone.

mosseri | August 1, 2024

Threads has a distinct advantage over other social media platforms, including X, thanks to the huge user base Meta brings to the table. If Threads continues growing at the pace it is, it could eventually become one of the dominant social platforms.

Reddit recently started blocking nearly all search engines except Google, as part of its $60 million annual deal to give Google access to data for AI training. In an interview with The Verge, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman made clear that search engines need to pay-to-play, when it comes to Reddit’s data.

“Without these agreements, we don’t have any say or knowledge of how our data is displayed and what it’s used for, which has put us in a position now of blocking folks who haven’t been willing to come to terms with how we’d like our data to be used or not used,” Huffman told the outlet. He called out Microsoft, Anthropic, and Perplexity, saying it has been “a real pain in the ass to block these companies” that refuse to pay.

Microsoft Head of Search, Jordi Ribas, says Reddit’s actions harm competition in the search market.

Interestingly, in response to another user’s comment, Ribas takes issue with Huffman’s description, saying it respects Reddit’s terms and only crawls the site for standard search results.

If what Ribas says is correct, Reddit’s actions could set a significant precedent, one in which companies increasingly block search engines from crawling their content and linking to it unless they pony up.

The Contentious Interview

The partnership, which promised to pay Lemon $1.5 million annually along with a share of advertising revenue, was designed to have the former CNN host produce exclusive content for the platform. The deal was intended to kick off with a high-profile interview with Musk in March. However, the interview quickly became heated, with Lemon pressing Musk on sensitive topics such as his drug use, plans for X, and content moderation policies.

“I don’t have to answer questions from reporters,” Musk retorted during the interview. “Don, the only reason I’m doing this interview is because you’re on the X platform and asked for it. Otherwise, I would not do this interview.”

The day after the interview, Musk sent a terse message to Lemon’s agent stating, “contract is cancelled.” This abrupt termination led Lemon to seek legal redress, claiming that Musk and X never intended to honor the agreement.

Legal Battle and Allegations

Carney Shegerian, Lemon’s attorney, criticized Musk and X for their handling of the situation. “X executives used Don to prop up their advertising sales pitch, then canceled their partnership and dragged Don’s name through the mud,” Shegerian stated. “You don’t have to be a genius to see the fraud, negligence, and reputational damage here.”

The lawsuit alleges that Lemon had not signed a formal agreement because Musk assured him there was no need for paperwork. According to the complaint, Lemon was pressured into the deal and into making public appearances to promote X despite his personal reservations.

Elon Musk’s Response and X’s Position

Musk has not publicly commented on the lawsuit. However, in previous statements, he criticized Lemon’s approach, describing it as “basically just ‘CNN, but on social media’” and lacking authenticity. “It was really just Jeff Zucker talking through Don,” Musk tweeted, referencing the former CNN president, “so it lacked authenticity.”

The lawsuit also claims that X executives, including CEO Linda Yaccarino, were instrumental in coercing Lemon into the partnership to enhance the platform’s appeal to advertisers. Yaccarino praised the deal as “a new chapter for X” and a significant turning point for the platform.

The Broader Context

This lawsuit comes as Musk positions X as a leading platform for news and content. This strategy included partnerships with prominent figures such as former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Despite these efforts, the platform has faced challenges, including advertisers’ concerns over Musk’s erratic behavior and controversial statements.

Reactions on Social Media

The news of Lemon’s lawsuit has sparked significant discussion on social media, with many users on X weighing in on the controversy.

“Don Lemon sues Elon Musk for canceling his X deal… but let’s take a look at the X deal Lemon wanted,” tweeted Natalie F. Danelishen (@Chesschick01). “Don wanted control on every creator that was coming to the platform. Don wanted a voice into what type of news information would be on the platform.”

Don Lemon is a perfect example of the dumb person’s smart person. Elon is saying something unquestionably true and Don is struggling with it like he thinks he’s talking to a moron. He’s painfully stupid but he’s seen as an insightful person on the left.pic.twitter.com/gwnisNz9TU

— 𝙼𝚁. 𝙻𝙴𝙰𝙳𝚂𝙻𝙸𝙽𝙶𝙴𝚁 (@Lead_Flinger) March 18, 2024

“Don Lemon is a perfect example of the dumb person’s smart person,” commented @Lead_Flinger. “Elon is saying something unquestionably true and Don is struggling with it like he thinks he’s talking to a moron.”

Meanwhile, tech enthusiast Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) tweeted, “Don Lemon can’t stop talking about the Elon Musk interview. This time, he’s pretending to wonder if Elon hates him because he’s gay and black. Lemon, even gay black guys can’t stand you. Your interview was rubbish.”

Some users have expressed skepticism about Lemon’s claims. “It is very odd that Biden dropped out on X. Did he really write that letter by his own volition? We need #ProofofLife now!” tweeted Furiosa (@Sociali04281481).

“The fact that Lemon did not have a written contract makes his case weak,” noted legal analyst Scott Melker (@scottmelker). “It’s going to be a tough battle for him to prove verbal agreements in court.”

The Road Ahead

Lemon’s lawsuit seeks financial compensation and aims to address the broader issues of trust and integrity in media and technology collaborations. “Don is an accomplished and hard-hitting journalist who’s committed to defending his good name and holding X’s executives accountable,” Shegerian emphasized. We look forward to our day in court.”

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future agreements between media personalities and social media platforms, setting a precedent for how such partnerships are managed and dissolved. For instance, it’s common in media, entertainment, and sports to have handshake agreements that dissolve pre-contract for various reasons, and they typically don’t result in lawsuits.

As the legal battle unfolds, the case highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls of high-profile partnerships in the digital age. Lemon’s determination to hold Musk and X accountable underscores the importance of clarity and commitment in contractual agreements, especially in the fast-evolving social media landscape.

Background

Judge Nina Morrison, of the Eastern District of New York, ruled that Customs and Border Patrol needs probable cause and a valid warrant to seize and search travelers’ cell phones.

The ruling—at least in the Eastern District of New York—is a major blow to federal agents, who have long maintained that the Fourth Amendment does not apply at the border. As a result, it has become increasingly common for individuals to be forced to hand over their device and passcode, giving agents the ability to peruse their private information. In many cases, agents have made full copies of the contents of a person’s phone before returning it.

Judge Morrison’s ruling joins a number of similar decisions, helping set a legal precedent that may one day provide nationwide protection for travelers and their private data.

Why It Matters

Unfortunately, a number of the cases that have tackled the issue of data privacy at the border have involved individuals engaging in despicable behavior. For example, the plaintiff in the case before Judge Morrison was accused of possessing child sexual abuse material.

Criminal behavior is far from the only reason for protecting one’s data at the border, however. In fact, there are many legitimate reasons why perfectly law-abiding citizens should be concerned. Below are just a few examples.

Journalists

As Judge Morrison noted in her ruling, journalists have increasingly been targeted by CBP agents intent on searching their devices. This has especially been true among journalists who write about privacy and other politically sensitive topics. As Judge Morrison described, this action appears to be a coordinated effort to surveil journalists.

After formal complaints were filed regarding a series of such incidents in 2019, it was revealed that they may not have been the isolated acts of individual border agents who suspected that a particular traveler’s device contained contraband but instead part of a targeted effort to surveil journalists in particular: a non-public CBP database that contained the names of journalists covering migration issues and which pushed “alerts” to flag those journalists for secondary screening when they returned from international travel.

Judge Morrison goes on to say that this kind of surveillance, whether coordinated or not, severely undermines the ability of journalists to do their job.

And even without the specter of a larger, insidious effort targeting journalists at the border, there remains a considerable and undue risk that — without the safeguards of a judicial warrant — journalists’ sources in and outside the United States will be fearful of relaying information about matters of public concern to them.

Medical and Science Professionals

Medicals professionals are bound by law to protect their patients’ privacy. What happens, however, when agents seize a doctor’s devices, devices which may contain sensitive information?

Similarly, what about a scientist en route to a conference with sensitive research in their possession?

Entrepreneurs and Executives

Entrepreneurs and corporate executives often have access to sensitive information and corporate, and it’s not uncommon for them to bring projects with them so they can continuing working while traveling.

Unfortunately, under CBP’s interpretation of the law, such individuals could see their life’s work literally ripped from their hands and copied by other individuals. While that doesn’t mean the US government is going to steal their intellectual property, government agencies are no more immune to outside hackers or internal corruption than any other organization.

In short, once an individual loses control of their information, all bets are off on what may happen to it.

Religious Leaders

Religious leaders are another demographic that often are privy to private information, with a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the privacy of individuals who have confided in them. If a religious leader’s devices are confiscated, unlocked, and copied, is there any guarantee that sensitive information contained on those devices will remain private?

Other Considerations

As the above examples show, there are any number of situations—far more than what has been covered here—in which violating travelers’ privacy can have profoundly negative implications. And none of the above examples address the emotional toll of having one’s private data accessed by complete strangers, something Judge Morrison made special note of.

A person’s search history can reveal the questions that keep him up at night, including questions he might be too ashamed to ask his spouse or doctor. Data on a person’s cell phone may reflect information about her that is so private, she would not disclose it to her therapist or closest friend. It is not just that cell phones often contain intimate information available in microscopic detail — the number of steps the phone’s user took that day and where she took them, the results of recent blood work in the application where her doctor uploads all her medical records, or the calendar reminder for a meeting with her local Alcoholics Anonymous chapter or prayer group. It i s that the details, taken together, can provide a kaleidoscopic view of the user’s whole life.

In view of what’s at stake, what can travelers do?

Practical Steps to Protect Your Data

The first thing travelers must do is realize they must be proactive in protecting their data, especially in jurisdictions that are not covered by favorable decisions, like Judge Morrison’s. Unfortunately, this may at times result in a fair amount of inconvenience, but not nearly as much as losing control of one’s private data and having to deal with the fallout.

Below are a few steps travelers should consider taking.

Limit the Number of Devices

One of the biggest precautions travelers can take is limiting the number of devices they bring when traveling. A single smartphone is much easier to protect than a smartphone, tablet, and computer. The more devices that are in play, the more attack vectors agents have to compromise an individual’s privacy.

Disable Biometrics In Favor of Passwords/Passcodes

While fingerprints and facial recognition are convenient ways to unlock a device, they also represent a legal gray area.

A number of courts have ruled that law enforcement cannot force a person to hand over their password or passcode. Some of those courts, however, have ruled that biometric security measures do not have the same legal protection, meaning there is more of a legal basis for agents to force a user to provide a fingerprint or facial recognition unlock.

As a result, it’s better to simply disable biometrics and rely on good old-fashioned passcodes when traveling.

Log Out of Cloud Accounts

Most modern devices should be viewed as a doorway to an individual’s life, rather than the destination itself. In other words, with the rise of cloud computing, most users don’t just keep everything on a single device. Instead, that device is often connected to any number of cloud services that contain infinitely more data than resides on the device alone.

In fact, this concern was specifically mentioned by the Ninth Circuit Court in one of its rulings (via the Electronic Frontier Foundation).

With the ubiquity of cloud computing, the government’s reach into private data becomes even more problematic. In the “cloud,” a user’s data, including the same kind of highly sensitive data one would have in “papers” at home, is held on remote servers rather than on the device itself. The digital device is a conduit to retrieving information from the cloud, akin to the key to a safe deposit box. Notably, although the virtual “safe deposit box” does not itself cross the border, it may appear as a seamless part of the digital device when presented at the border.

Because of this, it’s important to log out of any cloud services before traveling, that way agents cannot gain access to the data stored on those accounts, even if they gain access to the device’s contents.

Importantly, this also means making sure that passwords to online accounts are properly cleared before traveling. Otherwise, agents could still gain access.

Use Full Disk Encryption

Every major operating system—Linux, macOS, Windows, Android, and iOS—provide the option for full disk encryption (FDE), with some enabling it by default. This is different than encrypting specific folders, such as a user’s home directory, and is far stronger.

Power Off Devices Rather Than Suspend

Travelers should make sure that devices are powered off when crossing a border, rather than merely suspending them. This is especially true of computers, but applies to mobile devices as well.

While computers, phones, and tablets have login screens designed to protect data when a device is suspended, or the screen is locked, these measures are not foolproof. There are a number of ways that lock screens can sometimes be bypassed.

As a result, for the best protection, it’s a good idea to completely power devices off.

Use Secure Boot On Windows and Linux Computers

Travelers should make sure Secure Boot is enabled on computers. Secure Boot is designed to protect the boot process and ensure that no outside software is introduced in an effort to gain access.

In many cases, Secure Boot is enabled by default, but one should check their UEFI settings to be sure.

Use Panic Mode, Lockdown Mode, or Duress Code

Most mobile devices have some form of feature designed to shut down the most vulnerable forms of attack. This is useful for those situations when a traveler must keep their phone while traveling.

For example, iOS has Panic Mode that disables facial recognition and fingerprint scanning, requiring the user enter a passcode. When the feature is activated, via Settings > Emergency SOS, a user can tap the power button five times to activate it.

Android has a similar feature called Lockdown. A user can simply hold the power button down and choose Lockdown from the on-screen popup.

GrapheneOS—a security hardened version of Android used by Edward Snowden, yours truly, and many other journalists—takes things a step further with a duress code. In other words, a user can set a duress code in GrapheneOS that can be given to someone instead of the phone’s real passcode. When the duress code is entered, the phone immediately and securely wipes all data from itself.

Legal Steps to Protect Private Data

While the above steps are practical measures travelers can take, there are legal factors to consider, as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

As the EFF highlights, even in areas not covered by the recent favorable court rulings, the border is not completely a legal Wild West.

However, the U.S. border is not a Constitution-free zone. The powers of border agents are tempered by our Fourth Amendment right to digital privacy, our First Amendment rights to speak and associate privately and to gather the news, our Fifth Amendment right to freedom from self-incrimination, and our Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom from discrimination.

The EFF goes on to point out that travelers must be aware of the distinction between routine searches and non-routine ones. For example, it is completely normal and routine for agents to search one’s bags or belongs, either via a metal detector or manually.

In contrast, the EFF maintains that searching, let alone copying, the contents of one’s digital devices constitutes a non-routine search, a position that at least some court decisions have supported.

In view of these issues, what should a person do?

Do Not Be Quick to Waive Constitutional Rights

The EFF makes the case that travelers—especially US citizens—should not be quick to waive their constitutional protections.

The constitutional protections described above can be waived. For example, the Fourth Amendment allows law enforcement officials to search people or their property if those people voluntarily consent to the search.

That said, whether consent is truly “voluntary” depends on the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the questioning and the youth of the person being questioned.66 There is a strong argument that a traveler’s compliance when border agents demand the unlocking of a device, the device password, or social media information, should never be treated as voluntary consent. Border screening is an inherently coercive environment, where agents exercise extraordinary powers, and travelers are often confused, tired after international travel, and/or rushing to make a connecting flight.

However, courts may rule otherwise. It is possible that if you unlock your device, and agents then search your device, a court will rule that you consented to the search. It will depend upon the totality of the unique circumstances surrounding your particular border crossing.

…the best way to avoid an inadvertent “consent” to search is to decline to unlock your device, provide the device password, or provide any social media information.

The EFF’s report is well worth a read, and goes into detail on the various factors that come into play when the individual is a foreign visitor or a permanent resident.

Conclusion

Until legislation or a Supreme Court ruling provides clear guidelines and protections that apply nationwide, the border will continue to be a gray area that affords more protections in some regions than in others.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed, and nowhere is that more true than when it comes to protecting one’s private data.

Following the steps in this article, as well as the excellent EFF report, can help travelers be as well-equipped as possible to protect their data at the border.

EFF Full Report.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Meta in March 2022, accusing the company of illegally collecting users’ biometric data. AG Paxton said the company was collecting users collecting the data without obtaining user consent, a violation of the state’s Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

In a press release Tuesday, Paxton’s office said Meta had agreed to the “largest settlement ever obtained from an action brought by a single state.”

This settlement is the largest ever obtained from an action brought by a single State. Further, this is the largest privacy settlement an Attorney General has ever obtained, dwarfing the $390 million settlement a group of 40 states obtained in late 2022 from Google. This is the first lawsuit brought and first settlement obtained under Texas’s “Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier” Act and serves as a warning to any companies engaged in practices that violate Texans’ privacy rights.

The lawsuit focused on Meta’s Tag Suggestions feature, that allowed users to tag others in photographs.

Unbeknownst to most Texans, for more than a decade Meta ran facial recognition software on virtually every face contained in the photographs uploaded to Facebook, capturing records of the facial geometry of the people depicted. Meta did this despite knowing that CUBI forbids companies from capturing biometric identifiers of Texans, including records of face geometry, unless the business first informs the person and receives their consent to capture the biometric identifier.

“After vigorously pursuing justice for our citizens whose privacy rights were violated by Meta’s use of facial recognition software, I’m proud to announce that we have reached the largest settlement ever obtained from an action brought by a single State,” said Attorney General Paxton. “This historic settlement demonstrates our commitment to standing up to the world’s biggest technology companies and holding them accountable for breaking the law and violating Texans’ privacy rights. Any abuse of Texans’ sensitive data will be met with the full force of the law.”

Streaming services have increasingly been turning to ad-supported plans to help attract new customers and drive growth in an economy where consumers are looking to reduce costs. Peacock, Amazon Prime, Netflix, and other now offer ad-based plans. In addition, there are services like Tubi that are gaining significant market share offering only ad-supported plans.

According to MacRumors, Apple is in talks with the UK’s Broadcaster’s Audience Research Board (BARB) to understand what it required to collect data to monitor advertising results. The company is reportedly talking with similar organizations in the US.

The revelation lends weight to the idea that Apple is about to make a serious push into ad-based plan options, since it will need to be able to provide data to advertisers that demonstrate the value of advertising on its platform.

Hopefully, Apple will apply its privacy-first approach to this new phase of Apple TV+ and ensure that any data collected protects the privacy of the end user.

The US government and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has long maintained that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply at the border. As a result, agents will detain individuals without probable cause or a warrant, demanding they hand over their electronic devices and passwords, often copying the entire contents of the devices before returning them.

In a case brought by Kurbonali Sultanov, Judge Morrison called out the government’s position that cell phones should be searchable without a warrant, saying it was a “remarkable” claim (documents courtesy of Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University).

The government takes the remarkable position here that cell phones should not be treated any differently for Fourth Amendment purposes than any other property a traveler carries across a border. Opp’n Br. It urges this Court to deem such searches “routine” and to hold that no individualized suspicion whatsoever is needed for border officials to search a traveler’s cell phone upon entry into the United States….In essence, the government argues that no practical limits should be placed on cell phone searches at the border whatsoever, as long as they fall into what agents categorize as a “manual” search (i.e., one unaided by extrinsic technology but limited only by the border agents’ time and interest in examining the phone’s contents).

And the government’s position fails to account for both the substantial privacy intrusions at issue here, as well as the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence concerning other advanced technologies that carry with them the potential to reveal vast amounts of the owner’s personal data.

Legal Precedent

Judge Morrison emphasized the sensitive nature of data that is available through a forcible search of one’s phone, and the intimate details of a person’s life such a search would reveal.

Until technology that can “translate people’s brain activity — like the unspoken thoughts swirling through our minds — into actual speech” meaningfully advances,8 reviewing the information in a person’s cell phone is the best approximation government officials have for mindreading. A person’s search history can reveal the questions that keep him up at night, including questions he might be too ashamed to ask his spouse or doctor. Data on a person’s cell phone may reflect information about her that is so private, she would not disclose it to her therapist or closest friend. It is not just that cell phones often contain intimate information available in microscopic detail — the number of steps the phone’s user took that day and where she took them, the results of recent blood work in the application where her doctor uploads all her medical records, or the calendar reminder for a meeting with her local Alcoholics Anonymous chapter or prayer group. It i s that the details, taken together, can provide a kaleidoscopic view of the user’s whole life.

Judge Morrison compares the situation to previous rulings that applied the Fourth Amendment to cell phone location data.

In Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 311–12 (2018), the Court concluded that cell-site location data, even though it is collected by (and thus not kept private from) third party cell phone companies, requires Fourth Amendment protection for precisely this reason….It reasoned that cell-site location data “provides an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts. As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his ‘familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.’”

Judge Morrison then makes the point that, if protections apply to location data, they should apply even more to data on one’s phone.

The logic of Carpenter applies with even greater force to the information contained on cell phones, which includes not only the historic and specific location information captured by cell-site data, but droves of other sensitive information that is “detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled.” Id. at 297. If the cell-site location records at issue in Carpenter hold “the privacies of life,” id.at 305 (citation omitted), then surely the heightened privacy interests associated with the far greater trove of information in a traveler’s cell phone data strike at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.

The case also shown a spotlight on issues involving journalists, in which many have seemingly been targeted by border agents, especially after writing pieces about sensitive political topics.

The amici brief filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press makes a persuasive case that warrantless searches of cell phones not only constitute an unjustified governmental intrusion into travelers’ private expressions of religion, personal associations, and journalistic endeavors — they also risk chilling the exercise of those rights. Specifically, amici assert that border searches of electronic devices burden freedom of the press by chilling reporter-source communications. Amici Br. 12. They argue that “[j]ournalists are particularly vulnerable to the chilling effects of electronic device searches, both because confidential or vulnerable sources may refuse to speak with reporters for fear that anything they say may end up in the government’s hands, and because such searches can be used to retaliate against or deter reporting critical of the government.”

Judge Morrison said there is evidence to support the belief that incidents with journalists were not random, nor were they the work of overzealous agents, but likely a “targeted effort to surveil journalists.”

Amici’s concerns are not hypothetical but instead are based on the recent experience of numerous journalists who were flagged for secondary inspection and were required to surrender their electronic devices for warrantless searches and, in some cases, downloading of the devices’ contact lists and contents based on these journalists’ ongoing coverage of politically sensitive issues, like migration through the U.S.-Mexico border.12 After formal complaints were filed regarding a series of such incidents in 2019, it was revealed that they may not have been the isolated acts of individual border agents who suspected that a particular traveler’s device contained contraband but instead part of a targeted effort to surveil journalists in particular: a non-public CBP database that contained the names of journalists covering migration issues and which pushed “alerts” to flag those journalists for secondary screening when they returned from international travel.13 And even without the specter of a larger, insidious effort targeting journalists at the border, there remains a considerable and undue risk that — without the safeguards of a judicial warrant — journalists’ sources in and outside the United States will be fearful of relaying information about matters of public concern to them. If journalists cannot reasonably assure their sources that border officials will not have broad discretion to access and download their contacts, notes, electronic messages, and recordings, the risk of chilling fundamental press activities is unduly high.

Conclusion

In her final conclusion, Judge Morrison ruled that probable cause and a warrant must be the bar that is met for the government to be given access to such an intimate look into the life of individuals.

The right to dissent is the “fixed star in our constitutional constellation.” W.Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Courts must be vigilant in protecting that right, whether in the context of barring compelled speech, see id., or — as here — guarding against government intrusion into the private, expressive activities of those who may hold disfavored viewpoints. Where the government seeks access to private devices that hold such a vast array of expressive content, only the standard conceived by the Founders and codified in the Fourth Amendment — probable cause and the approval of a neutral magistrate — can bear the weight of that obligation.

Judge Morrison’s ruling is a welcome one for journalists and non-journalists alike, shutting down what many believed to be a blatant example of unconstitutional government overreach. While the ruling applies primarily to the Eastern District of New York, Judge Morrison’s decision joins a growing list of similar decisions that have placed the burden on CBP to have a legitimate basis to search a traveler’s phone.

With the growing number of cases upholding the Fourth Amendment, a legal precedent is slowly being set that should lead to greater protections for individual privacy. In the wake of Judge Morrison’s ruling—at least in New York—users’ private data should be a bit more secure at the US border than it has been in decades.

More Information

Please see How to Protect Your Data At the US Border for more info and practical steps every traveler can take to protect their data.

X announced in mid-June that it was making likes private for everyone in an effort to cut down on bullying. Owner Elon Musk indicated the move was to allow people to like content they might otherwise be reluctant to, for fear of being attacked for their views.

Unfortunately, according to 9to5Mac, X has been sending emails out to some users to let them know their likes may not have been private after all.

“The X team received information that some likes may have remained publicly available,” reads the email. “We have contacted you because your X account may have been potentially affected by this security incident.”

It’s unclear what the “security incident” was, or what led to it.

Microsoft has been increasingly incorporating AI features across its platforms and services. While Microsoft began integrating AI early on, thanks to its deal with OpenAI, the company is taking its generative search to an all-new level.

The company made the announcement in a blog post:

After introducing LLM-powered chat answers on Bing in February of last year, we’ve been hard at work on the ongoing revolution of search. Bing continues to be trusted by hundreds of millions of users to find information, get answers to questions, and explore their curiosity. Today, we’re excited to share an early view of our new generative search experience which is currently shipping to a small percentage of user queries.

The company says its new search features are designed to provide more useful information, context, and sources for the user to conduct further research:

For example, if a user searches “What is a spaghetti western?” Bing shows an AI-generated experience that dives into the film subgenre, including its history and origins, top examples and more. The information is easy to read and understand, with links and sources that show where it came from or let the user dive deeper. The regular search results continue to be prominently displayed on the page like always.

This new experience combines the foundation of Bing’s search results with the power of large and small language models (LLMs and SLMs). It understands the search query, reviews millions of sources of information, dynamically matches content, and generates search results in a new AI-generated layout to fulfill the intent of the user’s query more effectively.

Interestingly, Microsoft addresses one of the biggest concerns many have about AI-powered search, saying the data shows websites are still receiving the same number of clicks:

We’ve refined our methods to optimize accuracy in Bing, applying those insights as we continue to evolve our use of LLMs in search. We are continuing to look closely at how generative search impacts traffic to publishers. Early data indicates that this experience maintains the number of clicks to websites and supports a healthy web ecosystem. The generative search experience is designed with this in mind, including retaining traditional search results and increasing the number of clickable links, like the references in the results.

OpenAI announced Thursday that it is launching a preview of its own search engine, SearchGPT. Google has been increasingly integrating AI into its search as well. With Bing’s new generative AI search, the search market is being redefined across the spectrum.

Why is this the case and how will this trend develop in the future?

Separation From the Digital World

There are many viable ways to separate yourself from digital experiences, and people everywhere are experimenting to find the right strategies for their needs.

·       Outdoor experiences. First, people are trying to spend more time outside. Technically, there’s nothing stopping you from looking at your phone even while you’re outside, but whether you’re hiking in the woods or just enjoying your own backyard, you’ll be far more likely to engage with your surroundings. For example, people are increasingly building (and enjoying) outdoor kitchens – even in their own backyards. It’s an opportunity to cook in a totally new environment, breathe fresh air, and soak up the sunshine – all of which are far superior to scrolling on social media. People are also increasingly hiking, camping, and pursuing other outdoor activities.

·       Tactile experiences. Many people are also turning to tactile experiences, rather than digital ones. There’s still a strong cohort of people who prefer reading physical books to digital ones, and increasingly large communities are coalescing around physical board games, rather than video games.

·       Digital limits (and detoxing). Even people who don’t want more outdoor or tactile experiences are finding ways to limit their digital experiences. They’re actively withdrawing from social media and uninstalling distracting apps. In some cases, they’re even setting time limits for themselves so they stay aware of how much time they’re actually spending staring at screens.

Why Are We Withdrawing From the Digital World?

What is it about the digital world that is so off-putting to so many?

·       Eye strain. Computer vision syndrome can affect you if you spend too much time staring at digital screens without the proper precautions. Even if you regularly take breaks and tweak the brightness settings on your favorite devices, you could end up with a headache at the end of the day if you spend too much time looking at screens.

·       Derealization. The internet is not a real place, even though it feels like one at times. Spending too much time online, even if you’re directly interacting with other people, can cause derealization and a feeling of separation from the natural world. At the very least, it can cause distortions in how you perceive things, from the political state of the world to interactions with your own family members.

·       Misinformation. Things you read online aren’t necessarily true. This was the case with mainstream media long before the smartphone age, but in many ways, the prevalence of misinformation has gotten worse. Many people are growing tired of hearing biased bickering between aggressive manipulators on every side of every issue.

·       Unsatisfying socialization. Socialization is best experienced in person, and there are several reasons why. Human beings evolved to pick up body language, tone of voice, and other subtle indicators of thoughts and feelings that simply aren’t present in online interactions. Additionally, physical locations and physical spaces play a role in how we interact with others; these aren’t present in digital environments.

On top of that, we’re experiencing more digital interactions than ever before.

·       Work. Increasingly, people are working with digital screens. Many people work remotely, staring at a computer for eight hours or more every day, and even those that don’t spend most of their time staring at screens anyway.

·       News and social media. Like it or not, the best way to consume news is still reading it online from reliable sources. If you want to stay informed and connected, social media and news websites must occupy at least some portion of your time.

·       Digitization of all media. Everything is becoming digitized. For example, some new books being released are exclusively digital and some cohorts almost exclusively interact through social media, rather than talking on the phone or meeting in person.

Where Do We Go From Here?

So where do we go from here as a society?

It’s difficult to say for sure because there are so many competing pressures. Even though there are significant drawbacks, online connections and novel technologies still have innate advantages and tremendous potential to change our lives for the better, so it’s likely that digital experiences will become even more important in the future. At the same time, even the most optimistic tech enthusiasts will be forced to confront the limitations of mostly online human life. 

What’s most important is that you can decide the balance for yourself, in your own life, regardless of what’s happening around you.

Amazon announced the deal in a blog post:

Amazon Prime Video and the NBA today announced an 11-year media rights agreement, beginning with the 2025-26 NBA season. In a landmark deal, Prime Video will present exclusive global coverage for 66 regular-season NBA games, including an opening-week doubleheader, a new Black Friday NBA game, and all games from the Knockout Rounds of the Emirates NBA Cup, including the in-season tournament’s Semifinals and Finals.

As part of the deal, Prime Video will also be the destination for NBA League Pass, both in the US and internationally.

“The digital opportunities with Amazon align perfectly with the global interest in the NBA,” said NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. “And Prime Video’s massive subscriber base will dramatically expand our ability to reach our fans in new and innovative ways.”

“Elevating our partnership with Amazon allows us to provide more games and access to fans who subscribe to Prime Video around the world at a time of historic interest in the WNBA and women’s basketball,” said WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert. “Amazon has demonstrated its dedication to the growth of our sport throughout our current partnership and will now be a significant contributor to the long-term sustainability of the WNBA for the players, league, and teams.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy voiced how thrilled he was with the deal:

Couldn’t be more excited about the long-term agreement we just signed with the NBA.

Starting in the 2025-26 season, Prime members will be able to stream an exciting slate of regular season games, the NBA Cup in-season tournament, the entire postseason play-in tournament, first and second round playoff games, and NBA conference finals every other season.

We’ve also expanded our relationship with the WNBA, and will be streaming 30 regular season games annually, 1/3 of all playoff games, and three WNBA finals over the 11 years.

We are honored to work with these amazing products and leagues, and can’t wait to keep innovating the viewing experience for fans.

The deal is a big win for Amazon’s streaming service in an increasingly competitive industry where exclusivity deals are key to preventing user churn.

The Importance of Follow-Ups

Initial contact on LinkedIn is merely the first step. To truly convert prospects into clients, follow-ups are essential. According to Cady (our name for her), the host of Snov.io’s video, “Your lead didn’t convert after your first message? Not a surprise. Everyone knows that follow-ups are key to turning prospects into happy customers.” Consistent and strategic follow-ups significantly increase the chances of conversion, making them a crucial component of any sales strategy.

Personalization is Key

One of the golden rules of effective follow-up messages is personalization. Generic, one-size-fits-all messages are unlikely to make an impact. Instead, tailoring each message to your interaction’s specific individual and context is crucial. “Personalization shows that you are genuinely interested in the recipient,” Cady explains. “It helps build a stronger connection and demonstrates your commitment to understanding their unique needs.”

With Snov.io, personalization has never been easier. The platform offers features like SpinTXS and dynamic content, allowing users to craft messages that resonate with each recipient. For instance, referencing specific details from previous conversations, mentioning shared interests, or highlighting mutual connections can make a follow-up message stand out. “Always tailor each message to the specific individual and context of your interaction,” Cady advises. “This approach significantly enhances the effectiveness of your follow-ups.”

Timing and Frequency

Timing is another critical element of successful follow-ups. It’s advisable to send follow-up messages within a few days of the initial contact to keep the memory of the interaction fresh. However, it’s also important to consider the recipient’s schedule and time zone. “Sending messages during business hours and on weekdays tends to be more effective than late at night or on weekends,” Cady suggests. “It ensures that your message is seen when your recipient is most likely to engage with it.”

Providing Value

A follow-up message should not be about your needs or objectives; it’s an opportunity to provide value to your prospects. Sharing relevant articles, resources, or insights that align with the recipient’s interests or industry can create a win-win situation. “Your message should touch on their professional goals and interests,” Cady explains. “Offering your assistance or expertise can significantly increase engagement and show that you are committed to helping them succeed.”

For example, if your prospect is interested in digital marketing trends, share a recent article or report. If they are facing a particular challenge, offer a solution or a helpful resource. “Providing value in every interaction is key,” says Cady. “It shows that you are not just interested in making a sale, but genuinely invested in their success.”

Clarity and Conciseness

When writing follow-up messages, clarity and conciseness are paramount. Avoid lengthy paragraphs or overly detailed explanations. Instead, highlight the key purpose of your message early on. Each message should have a clear and actionable next step, such as scheduling a follow-up call or meeting. “A well-defined call to action guides the recipient and increases the likelihood of a response,” notes Cady. “Make your intentions clear right away to avoid any confusion.”

Leveraging LinkedIn Features

Beyond messaging, utilizing LinkedIn’s various features can enhance your follow-up strategy. Endorsing your connections’ skills, commenting insightfully on their posts, and participating in relevant groups can keep your professional presence front and center. “It’s about actively participating in the LinkedIn community and building stronger connections,” Cady says. “Engagement through LinkedIn’s features can help reinforce your presence and make you more memorable.”

For example, if your connection posts an article or update, leave a thoughtful comment that adds value to the conversation. If they achieve a milestone or receive recognition, endorse their skills or congratulate them. “These small gestures can go a long way in building a stronger relationship,” Cady emphasizes. “It’s not just about what you say in your messages, but also about how you engage with your connections on the platform.”

Automation Tools

While personalization is key, LinkedIn automation tools can save time and ensure consistency. Tools like Snov.io LinkedIn Automation can automate sending connection requests, follow-up messages, and profile visits, mimicking human behavior to avoid detection by LinkedIn’s algorithms. “Automation should complement, not replace, human interaction,” Cady advises. “Automated follow-ups can be a game-changer, optimizing your LinkedIn networking efforts and ensuring you never miss a chance to nurture valuable connections.”

Combining Outreach Channels

To maximize your reach, consider combining LinkedIn outreach with other channels such as email. Snov.io simplifies this process, allowing users to integrate email and LinkedIn outreach seamlessly. “Reaching out through multiple channels increases your chances of conversion and ensures your prospects don’t miss your offer,” Cady points out. “This multi-channel approach keeps your message in front of your leads, making it harder for them to ignore.”

For instance, you might send an email follow-up a few days after your LinkedIn message, reiterating your key points and providing additional value. This reinforces your message and increases the likelihood of a response. “Combining channels allows you to engage with your prospects in multiple ways, increasing your chances of success,” says Cady.

Testing and Adapting

An iterative approach is vital for optimizing follow-up strategies. Testing different message formats, call-to-action phrases, and timing can help identify what works best. “Keep an eye on your response rates and adapt your approach based on the data,” Cady advises. “This iterative process allows you to refine your messages for maximum impact and continuously improve your strategy.”

For example, if particular messages or call-to-action phrases generate higher response rates, incorporate those elements into future follow-ups. “Data-driven insights can help you fine-tune your approach and achieve better results,” Cady emphasizes.

Mastering LinkedIn follow-ups requires a strategic approach that balances personalization, timing, value, and clarity. “The follow-up process on LinkedIn may seem more complex than email, but it’s an opportunity to establish meaningful connections with prospective clients,” Cady concludes. “Stay tuned for our next video, where we’ll help you build a follow-up strategy for any purpose.”

In the ever-evolving digital marketing and sales world, mastering the art of follow-ups on LinkedIn can be the difference between a missed opportunity and a successful conversion. By following these guidelines, marketers and sales professionals can navigate the ocean of sales opportunities more effectively and build lasting relationships with their prospects.

Additional Tips from Snov.io

“One of the biggest mistakes people make with LinkedIn follow-ups is being too generic. Your prospects can tell when they receive a canned message. Taking the time to personalize your follow-ups shows that you value their individual needs and are willing to invest the effort to build a genuine connection.”

“Effective follow-ups are about providing value. Whether sharing a useful resource, offering a solution to a problem, or simply showing appreciation for their time, each interaction should demonstrate your commitment to helping your prospect succeed.”

“Consistency is key. Follow-ups should be timely and relevant, but also part of a broader strategy that includes regular engagement on LinkedIn. This helps keep you top of mind and reinforces your professional presence.”

“Automation tools can be incredibly helpful, but they should be used wisely. The goal is to enhance your follow-up strategy, not to replace the human touch. By combining automation with personalized interactions, you can achieve the best of both worlds.”

By incorporating these insights and strategies into your LinkedIn follow-up process, you can improve your chances of converting leads into satisfied customers and build stronger, more meaningful connections with your prospects.

Critics have long speculated that OpenAI could launch its own search engine, using AI to revolutionize how people find information, much as Google revolutionized traditional search engines decades ago. In a blog post, the company says it is indeed testing an AI-powered search engine that it calls SearchGPT.

We’re testing SearchGPT, a prototype of new search features designed to combine the strength of our AI models with information from the web to give you fast and timely answers with clear and relevant sources. We’re launching to a small group of users and publishers to get feedback. While this prototype is temporary, we plan to integrate the best of these features directly into ChatGPT in the future.

OpenAI says SearchGPT will give users “up-to-date information from the web while giving you clear links to relevant sources.” Unlike traditional search engines, however, SearchGPT will give users the ability to ask follow-up questions, much like one would do in a normal conversation with another person.

The company says it is partnering with publishers and creators to help surface relevant content. SearchGPT will cite publishers prominently in search results and link to their content.

“AI search is going to become one of the key ways that people navigate the internet, and it’s crucial, in these early days, that the technology is built in a way that values, respects, and protects journalism and publishers,” said Nicholas Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic. “We look forward to partnering with OpenAI in the process, and creating a new way for readers to discover The Atlantic.”

OpenAI says it will provide a way for publishers to manage how they appear in the search engine.

In addition to launching the SearchGPT prototype, we are also launching a way for publishers to manage how they appear in SearchGPT, so publishers have more choices. Importantly, SearchGPT is about search and is separate from training OpenAI’s generative AI foundation models. Sites can be surfaced in search results even if they opt out of generative AI training.

SearchGPT is still in testing, but users looking to try it out can sign up for the waitlist here.

Google signed a deal with Reddit for $60 million per year to use the social media platform’s content for AI training. According to 404 Media, the deal appears to have another benefit for Google, making it potentially the only search engine able to access recent Reddit content.

WPN has confirmed 404’s findings. Conducting a search of Reddit by using the “site: reddit.com” option in non-Google search engines only returns results that are weeks old.

Interestingly, the one possible exception is Brave Search. Known for its web browser, Brave Search is a privacy-oriented search engine that uses its own index, unlike DuckDuckGo’s reliance on Bing.

In our test results, Brave is still surfacing results that are just a day or two old, not the weeks and months-old posts that Bing and DuckDuckGo are surfacing.

It’s unclear if Brave will continue to surface recent and relevant results from Reddit, or if its index will become as out-of-date as the other non-Google engines.

Either way, one thing is clear: Google is gaining tremendous value for its $60 million.

Surveillance pricing refers to third-party companies collecting consumer information—including browser history, credit history, location, demographics, and more—to build profiles that allow them to target consumers and charge higher profiles.

“Firms that harvest Americans’ personal data can put people’s privacy at risk. Now firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “Americans deserve to know whether businesses are using detailed consumer data to deploy surveillance pricing, and the FTC’s inquiry will shed light on this shadowy ecosystem of pricing middlemen.”

The eight companies the FTC has demanded information from include Mastercard, Revionics, Bloomreach, JPMorgan Chase, Task Software, PROS, Accenture, and McKinsey & Co.

The FTC wants information on the following areas:

• Types of products and services being offered: The types of surveillance pricing products and services that each company has produced, developed, or licensed to a third party, as well as details about the technical implementation and current and intended uses of this technology;
• Data collection and inputs: Information on the data sources used for each product or service, including the data collection methods for each data source, the platforms and methods that were used to collect such data, and whether that data is collected by other parties (such as other companies or other third parties);
• Customer and sales information: Information about whom the products and services were offered to and what those customers planned to do with those products or services; and
• Impacts on consumers and prices: Information on the potential impact of these products and services on surveilled consumers including the prices they pay.

The US lacks comprehensive privacy laws, unlike the EU, opening the door for companies to engage in predatory practices, including surveillance pricing. The Commission voted 5-0 to order the eight companies to turn over the information.

Hopefully, the FTC’s inquiry leads to better protections for consumer privacy.

Meta, along with Google and many other internet platforms, provide “free” services in exchange for using the customer as the product. The platforms use the customer’s data, including sometimes sensitive information, as the basis for targeted advertising.

The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) regulate how companies can use consumer data, and require them to provide an option that preserves consumer privacy. In response, Meta unveiled paid options in the EU, giving users the option to pay for an ad-free experience. The EU Commission previously ruled that this binary choice was in violation of the DMA, and that Meta needed to provide a free, ad-based option that would use less personal data and serve generic ads, rather than personalized ones.

In its latest ruling, the Commission’s Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network said Meta is misleading consumers with by the use of its “free” label.

• Misleading consumers by using the word ‘free’ while, for users who do not want to subscribe against a fee, Meta requires them to accept that Meta can make revenue from using their personal data to show them personalised ads.

The CPC also took issue with how difficult Meta makes it to find the Terms of Service and understand how personal data will be used, as well as continuing to show ads to accounts that have paid to not see them.

• Confusing users by requiring them to navigate through different screens in the Facebook/Instagram app or web-version and to click on hyperlinks directing them to different parts of the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy to find out how their preferences, personal data, and user-generated data will be used by Meta to show them personalised ads;
• Using imprecise terms and language, such as ‘your info’ to refer to consumers’ ‘personal data’ or suggesting that consumers who decide to pay will not see ads at all, while they might still see ads when engaging with content shared via Facebook or Instagram by other members of the platform;
• Pressurising consumers who have always used Facebook/Instagram free of charge until the new business model was introduced, and for whom Facebook/Instagram often constitute a significant part of their social lives and interactions to make an immediate choice, without giving them a pre-warning, sufficient time, and a real opportunity to assess how that choice might affect their contractual relationship with Meta, by not letting them access their accounts before making their choice.

Meta has until September 1 to reply and propose solutions. If Meta does not take appropriate measures to rectify the situation, “CPC authorities can decide to take enforcement measures, including sanctions.”

“We will not stand by and watch some sneaky practices that mislead consumers,” said Věra Jourová, Vice-President for Values and Transparency. “We are proud of our strong consumer protection laws which empower Europeans to have the right to be accurately informed about changes such as the one proposed by Meta. In the EU, consumers are able to make truly informed choices and we now take action to safeguard this right.”

“Consumers must not be lured into believing that they would either pay and not be shown any ads anymore, or receive a service for free, when, instead, they would agree that the company used their personal data to make revenue with ads,” added Didier Reynders, Commissioner for Justice. “EU consumer protection law is clear in this respect. Traders must inform consumers upfront and in a fully transparent manner on how they use their personal data. This is a fundamental right that we will protect.”