Mediaspace.global

#Apple uses #Meta’s privacy violations as defence for its own #DMA non-compliance – legitimately? In response to the EU Commission’s specification of the measures Apple should take to comply with the interoperability obligations under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), this week Apple defended itself with one argument: “companies with a track record of violating [users’] privacy” could “weaponize interoperability”. “Meta has made 15 requests (and counting) for potentially far-reaching access to Apple’s technology stack that, if granted as sought, would reduce the protections around personal data. [T]he end result could be that [..] Meta - which has been fined by regulators time and again for privacy violations - gains unfettered access to users' devices and their most personal data.” I agree that Meta’s massive data exploitation for perverse micro-targeting is a concern. For too long, Meta’s individual excesses have cast a shadow over the entire legitimate #advertising industry, prompting equally excessive legislative proposals, including a total ban of behavioural advertising. However, if – as Apple highlights – “abuse of the DMA’s interoperability mandate” by companies “violating” existing privacy laws is the concern, the solution cannot be for Apple to ignore the DMA mandate but the prevention of the abuse of such mandate and of the violation of privacy by bad actors. This, however, is not Apple’s job but that of law enforcement. When it comes to Meta, the solution is simple: Analogous to Articles 5(3), 6(2)(d) EU Data Act 2023/2854, it should be clarified that “any undertaking designated as a gatekeeper [..] shall not be an eligible third party” under the DMA. As I and others pointed out during the legislative process, including gatekeepers as beneficiaries of the rights granted under the DMA runs counter to its objectives. Gatekeepers already have enough power, including bargaining power to voluntarily enter balanced agreements with other gatekeepers. In any event, law infringements by gatekeepers may not serve as a justification for other gatekeepers to disregard obligations imposed on them. #CompetitionMatters #PrivacyMatters

There are a LOT of ongoing AI copyright lawsuits in the US right now. We've been keeping track at WIRED and, to make things easier on everyone, created this interactive visual guide. It'll be updated w/ any major developments: https://lnkd.in/gFeG48FP

Fascinating look at what 'we' are actually doing in #GenAI with #Claude. I'm in awe for two reasons: - 1. This research was done in a #privacyprotecting way. I'm excited that this is best practice being demonstrated. - 2. If you're in #Marketing, #Web20Development, or #Education, this is signal of the disruption that is already here. How big is this disruption? Remains to be seen, but #grateful for the opportunity to live in #interestingtimes. Link to Anthropic's release of the paper in the comments. Want to discuss it with me? Leave it in the comments or feel free to DM me.

It was encouraging to hear MPs, including DSIT shadow minister Dr Ben Spencer MP, Liberal Democrat DSIT spokesperson Victoria Collins MP, John Cooper MP, and Samantha Niblett MP, raise important concerns over the government's AI and copyright consultation yesterday. Copyright law is clear—the priority now should be to enhance transparency requirements for GAI firms to ensure that rightsholders' work is protected and not exploited.

BREAKING: Perplexity ($9B valuation) just bought a 4-person startup called Carbon - and this is sneaky brilliant. Check this out, because the AI race is exploding beyond chatbots, and Perplexity just made a power move: THE DEAL Perplexity didn't buy Carbon for their massive team (it's FOUR people) or their huge customer base. They bought them because this tiny team figured out how to let AI access your personal files while keeping them private and secure. Think about how crazy AI is: A 4-person team in Seattle got acquired by a $9B company because they solved one specific problem really well. WHY THIS IS BRILLIANT Perplexity started as an AI search company. Then they added chat. Now with Carbon, they can add your personal files - Notion pages, Google Docs, Slack messages, all of it. It's their second acquisition ever (after Spellwise in 2023). They're not out there buying everything - they're competing against Google, they gotta keep some powder dry. THE BIGGER PICTURE What's really interesting is the timing. Perplexity is quietly building an AI that can actually understand your work context. And this isn't just about searching your files - as critical as that is. It's about getting personal. It's about AI that understands YOUR world, not just THE world. WHY THIS MATTERS FOR ENTERPRISE Think about your current workflow: -Knowledge scattered across 10 different tools -Hours just finding the right information -Team keeps asking the same questions -New employees take time to get up to speed Carbon's technology basically says: "What if we could solve all of that at once?" THE TECHNICAL BRILLIANCE Carbon figured out how to do this without copying all your data, which is wild. Their RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) technology lets AI access information while keeping it in place. It's like having an assistant who can read any document you own, but doesn't need to take it home. I don't even get that. THE COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI are all working on similar problems. But Perplexity just showed us something super cool: Sometimes the best solution comes from a tiny team thinking differently about the problem. WHAT TO WATCH FOR Early 2025 is when we'll see these features launch. Here's what to look for: -How smoothly they integrate with existing tools -Whether they can maintain speed with all this extra context -If they can keep the interface simple despite the complexity -How they handle privacy and security

I sent this letter to Lisa Nandy, the UK’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, expressing concern at the government's proposals to change copyright law in favour of AI companies at the expense of the country’s creators. Her ministerial role positions her better than anyone to oppose the proposals and convey to other members of government how damaging they would be to the creative industries. If you're concerned about the proposals, I encourage you to contact her at [email protected].

How we replaced a $100k+ media buyer with an AI Agent built on Claude 🤖 We used to waste 90+ hours/week on repetitive client questions, performance analysis, and cohort reports. It was a time sink and a money pit. Now? A single AI Agent handles all of that—automatically. In just three months, it’s delivered: • Fully automated Meta, TikTok and Google Ads analysis • 90+ hours of weekly time savings • Thousands of dollars saved by catching mistakes we missed before • 2x faster creative iterations What’s even better: each new campaign makes it smarter, shifting our team’s focus from tedious busywork to strategic growth and innovation. Want the exact blueprint to build your own AI Agent for marketing ops? 1. Connect with me 2. Like this post 3. Comment “agent” I’ll DM you a FREE guide on how we did it.

When the Movement for an Open Web launched in 2020 many people thought we didn't stand a chance. The scale and power of the platforms made them look like immovable objects, and the idea of changing that through advocacy seemed to many to be impossible. But as 2024 draws to a close we can see that it is not.     The tectonic plates of technology antitrust are shifting and the idea of a post-platform world seems closer than many could have imagined. MOW has been a key player in many of these developments and we’re looking forward to maintaining this momentum in 2025 and making a more competitive and open web a reality. In the last few weeks alone, the DoJ’s earth-shattering announcement that they intend to break up Google has shifted the conversation around the future of tech – rather than talking about whether we should do something about Google, the world is now discussing exactly what we should do about Google.      Meanwhile, the CMA announced their latest report into the process of Privacy Sandbox following Google’s stunning backtrack of Cookie deprecation. Whilst the project is still notionally progressing, it seems to be on ice as wider regulatory issues are debated.    There’s a lot to do in 2025 as the US AdTech case develops, the EC’s Statement of Objections moves forwards and the UK CMA’s Sandbox case continues. MOW will be engaging with all of this and more over the coming months so keep an eye out for our newsletters to keep up to date.    Click here to read more.. 👉 https://lnkd.in/eCw4rAtc

🚨 The paper "Artificial Intelligence and Privacy," by Prof. Daniel Solove, is an EXCELLENT read for everyone in AI & privacy; make sure to 📍bookmark📍 and read it before the year ends! Interesting quotes below: "Privacy laws generally do not mandate that a site protect against scraping. It is up to organizations to protect user data in their terms of service and then to enforce their terms of service. But privacy laws should mandate protection against scraping. If an organization attempted to transfer massive amounts of personal data to third parties without consent, this practice would violate many privacy laws. Failing to prevent third parties from just taking the data is the functional equivalent of selling or sharing it." (page 27) - "Decisions derived from predictive models challenge the principles of due process. Justice traditionally dictates that individuals should not face penalties for actions they have not committed. However, predictive models enable judgments and potential repercussions based on actions that individuals have not undertaken and may never undertake. As Professor Carissa Véliz contends, “by making forecasts about human behavior just like we make forecasts about the weather, we are treating people like things. Part of what it means to treat a person with respect is to acknowledge their agency and ability to change themselves and their circumstances.” (page 39) - "One remedy that is increasingly being used is algorithmic destruction. For example, in In re Everalbum, Inc., the FTC ordered a company to delete “any models or algorithms” developed with data it had improperly collected. However, Li argues that the remedy of algorithmic destruction can be too severe and might “harm small startups and discourage new market entrants in technology industries.” Additionally, it is one thing for the FTC to order a small company to delete an algorithm, but what about a gigantic company such as Open AI? It is hard to imagine the FTC or any regulator ordering the deletion of a hugely popular algorithm with a multi-billion dollar value." (page 59) 👉 Link to the paper below. 👉 To receive my weekly AI newsletter, including MUST-READ research papers like this one, join 42,700+ people who subscribe to my newsletter (link below). #AI #Privacy #AGovernance #AIRegulation #AICompliance #DataProtection

Following a broad consultation, the Belgian Competition Authority is pleased to release the final version of its short guide of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). This guide aims to capture the opportunities offered by the DMA for "tech challengers", i.e., business and other users of gatekeepers' services, and to enable them to harness the benefits of this far-reaching instrument, including by means of interactions with national competition authorities. The guide is available on the website of the Belgian Competition Authority in English, Dutch and French; do not hesitate to use and distribute it widely. For any inquiries in relation to the guide (including translations in other languages) or otherwise (including non-compliance issues), please do not hesitate to write to [email protected] NL: https://lnkd.in/ezrjZ4r3 FR: https://lnkd.in/e6awEb6X EN: https://lnkd.in/dSCCEJ3N