Author: Admin

by Temitope Oladeji 15/04/2025 On Monday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the witness stand in a landmark antitrust trial that could reshape the future of his tech empire.  At the heart of the case is whether Meta, formerly known as Facebook, Zuckerberg, is accused of allegedly illegally monopolizing the social media market by acquiring rising competitors Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago. The trial, brought by the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC), marks one of the most significant legal challenges of Big Tech companies in recent years.  If the government prevails, Meta could be forced to be relieved from Instagram and WhatsApp, which are two of the most powerful platforms in the social media ecosystem today. FTC attorney Daniel Matheson called Zuckerberg as the first witness, seeking to establish that Meta’s acquisitions were calculated moves to eliminate competition.  Central to the government’s case is a series of internal communications suggesting that Zuckerberg viewed Instagram’s rapid growth as a threat and was frustrated by Facebook’s inability to keep pace with another competing photo-sharing platform. In one exchange highlighted by Matheson, Zuckerberg admitted, “That does seem to be what I’m highlighting,” when asked if his message conveyed concern about Instagram’s explosive growth.  Zuckerberg acknowledged being dissatisfied with Facebook’s efforts to counter Instagram at the time, though he framed it as a routine push for better performance. However, when pressed later about Instagram’s trajectory, Zuckerberg appeared irritated. “I don’t have the full timeline of Instagram’s development in my head,” he said, adding that someone else might better answer such specific questions. The FTC also focused on claims that after Meta acquired Instagram, the company initially deprioritized the app in favor of Facebook’s core platform, which Zuckerberg rejected the notion, saying, “In practice, we ended up investing a ton in it after we acquired it.” During opening arguments, FTC attorney Matheson alleged that Meta used its dominant position to stifle competition while consumer satisfaction declined.  He described Meta’s acquisitions as part of a broader strategy to “erect a moat” around its market power. Meta’s lead attorney, Mark Hansen, dismissed the FTC’s arguments as speculative and unfounded.  “This lawsuit, in summary, is misguided,” he said. “Any way you look at it, consumers have been the big winners.”  He further argued that Meta operates in a competitive environment and has significantly improved both Instagram and WhatsApp since acquiring them. The trial is widely seen as a major test of the FTC’s ability to rein in tech giants. The agency originally filed the case in 2020 under former President Donald Trump, arguing that Meta sought to eliminate threats by buying them a strategy summed up in an internal memo from Zuckerberg in 2008: “It is better to buy than compete.” According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies it saw as competitive threats.  The agency further accused the company of deploying platform policies designed to suppress emerging players, especially as mobile technologies began overtaking desktop-based social networking. Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012 for approximately $1 billion in cash and stock, a staggering figure at the time for a startup with no ads and just a niche user base. The final price dropped to around $750 million after Facebook’s stock declined following its IPO.  However, in 2014, Facebook added WhatsApp to its portfolio in a deal worth over $19 billion. As scrutiny of the company grew, Zuckerberg made concerted efforts to court political favor. During Trump’s presidency, he made multiple visits to the White House, contributed to the president’s inauguration fund, and revised Meta’s content moderation policies.  His purchase of a $23 million Washington, D.C. mansion was widely interpreted as an effort to remain close to the center of political power. As the trial continues, its outcome could set a precedent for how the United States government addresses the growing influence of tech empires and their systems of eliminating competition in an increasingly consolidated digital world.

by Temitope Oladeji 15/4/2025 Harvard University is facing a $2.2 billion freeze in federal funding after refusing to comply with a series of sweeping demands from the White House aimed at addressing alleged anti-Semitism activities in the University.  The investigation, which began under the former  Biden administration, echoed a tough stance initiated under the President Trump-era Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, imposed the freeze on Monday following the university’s defiant stance. The federal government had initially presented Harvard with a list of conditions on April 3, including the closure of diversity offices, changes to hiring and admissions policies, and cooperation with immigration authorities for vetting international students.  These demands were later expanded last week, with new calls for an “audit” of the political and ideological leanings of faculty and students. Harvard President Alan Garber responded in a letter to students and staff, firmly rejecting the federal directive.  He asserted that the university would not “negotiate over its independence or its constitutional rights,” emphasizing the importance of academic freedom and the institutional autonomous power of the academic institution. In response, the Joint Task Force announced an immediate suspension of $2.2 billion in multi-year federal grants and an additional freeze on $60 million in active government contracts.  The task force criticized what it called a culture of entitlement among elite institutions, stating: “Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities… The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable. It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support.” The funding freeze comes amid intensified scrutiny of university campuses following widespread student-led protests over Israel’s military actions in Gaza.  Some of these demonstrations turned violent and were met with heavy police intervention.  Republican politicians, including  President Donald Trump, have alleged that many of the protestors were sympathetic to Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization whose October 7, 2023, attack on Israel reignited the ongoing conflict. The Department of Education had previously announced investigations into 60 universities for alleged anti-Semitic incidents, with Harvard’s $9 billion in total federal funding placed under review earlier this year. Despite Harvard’s refusal to meet the latest demands, Garber expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue: “We are open to new information and different perspectives,” he said.  However, he drew a line at actions he described as overreach.  Garber said, “No government, regardless of which party is in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study they can pursue.” Harvard reported an operating surplus of $45 million on revenues of $6.5 billion in the last fiscal year, but the funding suspension could have far-reaching implications for research and academic programs. Republican Representative Elise Stefanik, a vocal critic of elite universities’ handling of anti-Semitism, praised the funding freeze. “Harvard is the epitome of the moral and academic rot in higher education,” she declared, renewing her call for the university to be defunded entirely. Harvard’s resistance to federal pressure stands in contrast to Columbia University, which has taken a more conciliatory approach following last year’s campus protests.  As tensions between academia and Washington escalate, the confrontation over Harvard’s funding is expected to have lasting implications across the U.S. higher education landscape.

by Temitope Oladeji 15/4/2025 During a high-profile meeting at the White House on Monday, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele made it clear he has no intention of returning a Salvadoran national mistakenly deported from the United States.  Speaking alongside President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, President Bukele dismissed the possibility of repatriating Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, the Trump administration admitted was wrongly deported under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. “The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” Bukele said, reiterating U.S. claims that Abrego Garcia is affiliated with the MS-13 gang. President Trump, who assumed office with a promise to overhaul immigration policy, praised Bukele’s administration for accepting deportees, including alleged gang members, and for making El Salvador’s prison system available to house them.  President Trump further vowed to increase deportations, saying he planned to send as many undocumented immigrants to El Salvador as possible. He also pledged the United States’ support in building new prisons in the Central American country to accommodate the influx. Under the President Trump administration, hundreds of people, many of them Venezuelans, have been deported to El Salvador using the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act.  Critics have raised alarm over the policy, especially after the wrongful deportation of individuals like Abrego Garcia. Human rights organizations have also condemned the conditions in El Salvador’s high-security prisons, where many deportees are held, citing widespread abuses and the lack of due process.  President Bukele’s sweeping anti-gang crackdown has led to the detention of tens of thousands, a move rights groups claim has violated fundamental legal protections. Bukele, however, defended his strategy. “I’m accused of imprisoning thousands,” he told Trump. “I like to say that we liberated millions.” President Trump responded enthusiastically to the remark, asking, “Do you think I can use that?” He then took the opportunity to criticize his Democratic rivals for what he described as their failure to control the southern border. The two leaders also discussed broader cooperation on security and migration, El Salvador’s adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender, and ongoing trade issues.  The meeting underscored the growing alliance between Trump and Bukele, both of whom have embraced hardline stances on crime and immigration.