Tag Archives: author_name|Karissa Bell

Apple refreshes its AirPods Max with USB-C and new colors

Posted on by

After nearly four years, Apple finally delivered an update to its most premium headphones. But instead of a new generation of AirPods Max, the company simply refreshed the existing over-ear headphones with USB-C support and a handful of new colors. 

With the same $549 price tag, the updated AirPods Max will maintain their status as Apple’s most expensive AirPods, though the updates are mainly cosmetic. The over-ear headphones will now be available in five new colors: midnight, blue, purple, orange and starlight. Apple is also ditching the lightning connector for a USB-C port, much like it did with its Beats Studio Pro headphones. The lightly refreshed headphones go on sale September 20 and are available for pre-order now.

But anyone hoping for more significant upgrades will likely be disappointed. The latest AirPods Max will have the exact same design, with Apple’s “breathable knit mesh” band, stainless steel frame and memory foam cups. The company also didn't upgrade its chip from the H1, or add any new audio features to the almost four-year-old headphones. That may be because Apple is saving a bigger update for 2025. Bloomberg reported that Apple has an AirPods Max upgrade planned for the end of next year.

Those looking for upgraded audio, however, will find some major improvements elsewhere in the AirPods lineup. Apple introduced two new versions of its standard, non-pro buds with the AirPods 4. The in-ear buds come with the H2 chip, support "adaptive audio" features, and an option for active noise cancellation.

Catch up on all the news from Apple’s iPhone 16 event!

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/audio/headphones/apple-refreshes-its-airpods-max-with-new-colors-and-usb-c-174330979.html?src=rss

Meta’s Oversight Board separates death threats and ‘aspirational statements’ in Venezuela

Posted on by

Meta’s Oversight Board has weighed in on the company’s content moderation policies in Venezuela amid violent crackdowns and widespread protests following the country’s disputed presidential election. In its decision, the board said that Facebook users posting about the state-supported armed groups known as “colectivos” should have more leeway in making statements like “kill those damn colectivos.”

The company asked the Oversight Board for guidance on the issue last month, noting that its moderators had seen an “influx” of “anti-colectivos content” in the wake of the election. Meta specifically asked for the board’s input on two posts: an Instagram post with the words “Go to hell! I hope they kill you all!” that Meta says was directed at the colectivos, and a Facebook post criticizing Venezuela’s security forces that said “kill those damn colectivos.”

The Oversight Board said that neither post violated Meta’s rules around calls for violence and that both should be interpreted as “aspirational statements” from citizens of a country where state-supported violence has threatened free expression. “The targets of aspirational violence are state-backed forces that have contributed to the longstanding repression of civic space and other human rights violations in Venezuela, including in the present post-election crisis,” the board wrote in its decision. “By contrast, the civilian population has largely been the target of human rights abuses.”

The Oversight Board also criticized Meta’s practice of making political content less visible across its services. “The Board is also deeply concerned that in the context of Venezuela, the company’s policy to reduce the distribution of political content could undermine the ability of users expressing political dissent and raising awareness about the situation in Venezuela to reach the widest possible audience.” It recommended that Meta adapt its policies “to ensure that political content, especially around elections and post-electoral protests, is eligible for the same reach as non-political content” during times of crisis.

The case isn’t the first time the board has waded into the debate surrounding the role of political content on Meta’s apps. Earlier this year, the board accepted its first case related to a post on Threads, which is also expected to weigh in on Meta’s controversial decision to limit recommendations of political posts on the service. The board has yet to publish its decision in the case.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/metas-oversight-board-separates-death-threats-and-aspirational-statements-in-venezuela-100050434.html?src=rss

Report: A quarter of X advertisers plan to cut spending next year

Posted on by

X’s advertising woes are about to get a whole lot worse, according to a new report from Kantar, details of which were published by Advanced Television. The market research firm found that 26 percent of marketers plan to cut their spending on X in the coming year, and that advertisers’ trust in X is “historically low.”

Kantar’s report, which is based on interviews with 18,000 consumers and 1,000 marketers from around the world, underscores just how far X’s advertising business has declined since Elon Musk took over the company. Over the last year and a half, the platform has seen numerous high-profile advertisers halt or slow down their spending amid concerns about hate speech and other toxic content.

Musk has also antagonized major advertisers, saying that brands worried about hate speech should “go fuck yourself.” he’s also accused advertisers of “blackmail,” and recently sued an industry group and several global companies for conducting an “illegal boycott” of the platform. Of note, Kantar found that only 4 percent of marketers believe X is safe for brands.

X didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The company told the Financial Times that “advertisers know that X now offers stronger brand safety, performance and analytics capabilities than ever before, while seeing all-time-high levels of usage.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/report-a-quarter-of-x-advertisers-plan-to-cut-spending-next-year-235447747.html?src=rss

Social media companies can’t be forced to block teens from seeing ‘harmful’ content, judge rules

Posted on by

A federal judge has ruled that social media companies can’t be required to block certain types of content from teens. The ruling will prevent some aspects of a controversial social media law in Texas from going into effect.

The ruling came as the result of tech industry groups’ challenge to the Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act, a Texas law that imposes age verification requirements and other policies for how social media companies treat teenage users. But, as The Verge points out, the measure also requires companies to “prevent the known minor’s exposure to harmful material,” including content that “glorifies” self-harm and substance abuse.

It’s that latter requirement that was struck down, with the judge saying that “a state cannot pick and choose which categories of protected speech it wishes to block teenagers from discussing online.” The judge also criticized the language used in the law, writing in his decision that terms like “glorifying” and “promoting” are “politically charged” and “undefined.”

At the same time, the judge left other aspects of the law, including age verification requirements and bans on targeted advertising to minors, in place. NetChoice, the tech industry group that challenged the law, has argued that measures like the Scope Act require major tech companies to increase the amount of data collected from minors.

The Texas law, originally passed last year, is one of many across the country attempting to change how social media platforms deal with underage users. New York recently passed two laws restricting social media companies’ ability to collect data on teenage users, and requiring parental consent for younger users to access “addictive” features like algorithmic feeds. California lawmakers also recently passed a measure, which has yet to be signed into law by the governor, that requires social media companies to limit notifications to minors and restrict them from “addictive” algorithms.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/social-media-companies-cant-be-forced-to-block-teens-from-seeing-harmful-content-judge-rules-221321184.html?src=rss

Starlink’s local bank accounts are frozen as X prepares to be shut down in Brazil

Posted on by

A judge in Brazil has blocked Starlink’s bank accounts in the country amid a deepening dispute with X. The move comes as the same Supreme Court judge has threatened to shut down X in the country, and is a direct response to the ongoing legal battle with the social media company, Reuters reported.

X owner Elon Musk has been feuding with Brazil Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes for months over demands to block certain accounts in the country. The company closed down its operations in Brazil earlier this month as a result of the court orders, which X has characterized as “censorship orders.”

Now, Moraes is apparently attempting to use one of Musk’s other companies, SpaceX-owned Starlink, in an attempt to get X to comply with the court order. “This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied—unconstitutionally—against X,” Starlink wrote in a statement on X. “It was issued in secret and without affording Starlink any of the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution of Brazil. We intend to address the matter legally.”

Moraes has also threatened to shut down X in the country entirely. On Wednesday, the judge said X would be shut down in Brazil if they didn’t appoint a legal representative in the country. X said in an update Thursday, shortly after that deadline had passed, that it “soon” expects Moraes to order the shutdown.

“We are absolutely not insisting that other countries have the same free speech laws as the United States,” the company wrote in a statement published in English and Portuguese. “The fundamental issue at stake here is that Judge de Moraes demands we break Brazil’s own laws. We simply won’t do that.” The company said it planned to publish Moraes' "illegal demands and all related court filings" in the coming days. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/starlinks-local-bank-accounts-are-frozen-as-x-prepares-to-be-shut-down-in-brazil-234046493.html?src=rss

X labeled an unflattering NPR story about Donald Trump as ‘unsafe’

Posted on by

X briefly discouraged users from viewing a link to an NPR story about Donald Trump's recent visit to Arlington National Cemetery, raising questions about whether the Elon Musk-owned platform is putting its thumb on the scale for the former president.

On Thursday, NPR reporter Stephen Fowler posted a link to a story in which he quoted an Army official who said that an employee at Arlington National Cemetery was “abruptly pushed aside” during an event attended by Trump and members of his campaign earlier this week. The outlet had previously reported that there was a “physical altercation” at the event with campaign staff over federal laws barring campaign activities at the cemetery.

Some users on X who attempted to click a link to the story were greeted with a warning message saying that X deemed that “this link may be unsafe.” It stated that it could be malicious, violent, spammy or otherwise violate the platform’s rules, but didn't explain why the link was flagged. Fowler posted a thread on X, each tweet of which contained a link to his story — the warning appeared to affect the first two instances of the link but not others, for reasons unknown. It’s highly unusual for such a warning to appear before a link to a mainstream website. Other links to NPR, as well as other coverage of Trump’s visit to Arlington, don’t appear to have such a label.

In a statement to an NPR reporter, an X spokesperson claimed the warning appeared due to a "false positive" and that it had been corrected. The company didn't explain further.

Notably, Musk has been a vocal supporter of Trump this election, and recently held a lengthy live streamed conversation with him on X. Musk has also publicly feuded with NPR in the past, adding a “state affiliated media” label to its account for several months last year. NPR hasn’t posted from its main account on X since the label was added last April.

Update August 29, 2024, 2:35 PM ET: This story was updated to add additional details from an X spokesperson and to indicate that the link is no longer labeled as "unsafe."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/x-is-labeling-an-unflattering-npr-story-about-donald-trump-as-unsafe-163732236.html?src=rss

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov has been charged and released from police custody

Posted on by

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov has been formally charged by French prosecutors and is barred from leaving the country amid their investigation into the Russian billionaire. Durov was officially charged Wednesday with “complicity in distributing child pornography, illegal drugs and hacking software” on the messaging app he founded, as well as “refusing to cooperate with investigations into illegal activity on the Telegram,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Durov, who was arrested outside of Paris on Saturday, was released from police custody after paying €5 million in bail. He is required to stay in France “under court monitoring” and check in at a police station twice a week while the investigation plays out. That could take months or possibly years, as The WSJ points out.

That means Durov, who is known for frequently moving around and working from other countries, will be stuck in France for the foreseeable future unless the charges against him are dropped. In an earlier statement, Telegram called the charges against its founder “absurd” and said that he should not be responsible for the actions of his app’s users.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-has-been-charged-and-released-from-police-custody-214333241.html?src=rss

Threads is making fediverse replies more visible in its app

Posted on by

Over the last six months, Meta has slowly begun to make good on its promise to make Threads compatible with the fediverse. The app allows users to share their posts to Mastodon and other Activity Pub-enabled services and began showing replies originating on those services earlier this summer.

Now, Threads is making those replies even more visible by allowing users who have opted in to fediverse sharing to see replies on other people’s posts. With the change, a new “fediverse replies” section will appear underneath posts that have drawn replies from Mastodon servers and other federated accounts.

How replies from Mastodon will appear on threads.
Threads

Practically, this means that a lot more fediverse content will be visible within Threads. Up until now, most users probably weren’t seeing that many replies from Mastodon and other sites unless they had a particularly large following or a post that was widely shared. But now, you’ll be able to see all those replies just by browsing Threads.

As with previous updates, Threads’ support for other Activity Pub content is still limited. Users need to opt-in to fediverse sharing in order to view replies from other apps. The feature, which is still labeled as being in “beta,” notes that some replies may not be visible on the Meta-owned service. And Threads still doesn’t support replies to those replies, which drastically limits the ability to engage with other fediverse users. (In a follow-up, Meta engineer Peter Cottle said adding that functionality is “top of mind.”) But the update might help incentivize more users to open their accounts to the fediverse, which is an important step for anyone hoping to bring decentralized social media into the mainstream.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/threads-is-making-fediverse-replies-more-visible-in-its-app-194543494.html?src=rss

X is working on its own version of Zoom for some reason

Posted on by

X, in its quest to become an “everything app,” is working a new feature that seems to be geared more for its own employees than its actual users. The company is testing its own version of Zoom, called X Conference.

X employee Chris Park said the company was testing the tool internally, in a post on X spotted by TechCrunch. Based on Park’s screenshot and description of the tool, it sounds like it’s a fairly basic version of multi-person video conferencing compared with Zoom or Google Meet. He said the ability to pin speakers and improved notifications are “likely coming” to the tool, which he claimed was “already a really strong alternative to Google Hangouts, Zoom, AWS Chime, and certainly... Microsoft Teams.” Elon Musk also briefly weighed in, posting a fire emoji in response to Park’s post.

App researcher Nima Owji also spotted the feature earlier this month, posting a screenshot that indicates X Conference will support spatial audio and have built-in captions. But even with those features, it’s not at all clear that there is any demand for an X-owned video conferencing platform outside of its own employees.

The app already supports person-to-person video calls as well as public broadcasts over Spaces. X has repeatedly struggled with technical difficulties during high-profile streams, like Musk’s recent talk with Donald Trump. Musk blamed the issues on a “DDOS attack,” an explanation that has been questioned by some security experts and former employees.

While it’s unclear who X is targeting with its new video conferencing feature, it wouldn’t be the first time the company has ventured into seemingly corporate-friendly features. X also added a job search tool last year and Musk has said he wants X to make a “cool” version of LinkedIn.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/x-is-working-on-its-own-version-of-zoom-for-some-reason-194054470.html?src=rss

DC’s antitrust case against Amazon comes back to life

Posted on by

An appeals court has revived an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon filed by the Attorney General of Washington, DC more than three years ago. The online retailer must now face allegations that it illegally raised prices for consumers.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021 and cited Amazon’s practices related to third-party sellers on its platform. Specifically, it called out a provision in the company’s agreements with third-party sellers that allowed it to punish businesses that offered its products at lower prices on non-Amazon platforms. Karl Racine, the AG at the time, said these agreements allowed the company to “impose an artificially high price floor across the online retail marketplace.” Racine later expanded the case to include Amazon’s pricing tactics for wholesalers.

Amazon has disputed those allegations, and the case was dismissed in 2022. But an appeals court has now reversed that decision. “Viewed as a whole, the District’s allegations about Amazon’s market share and maintenance of its market power through the challenged agreements plausibly suggest that Amazon either already possesses monopoly power over online marketplaces or is close to a ‘dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power,’” the judge wrote.

“We disagree with the District of Columbia’s allegations and look forward to presenting facts in court that demonstrate how good these policies are for consumers," Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle told Engadget in a statement. "Just like any store owner who wouldn’t want to promote a bad deal to their customers, we don’t highlight or promote offers that are not competitively priced. It’s part of our commitment to featuring low prices to earn and maintain customer trust, which we believe is the right decision for both consumers and sellers in the long run.”

The reversal adds to Amazon’s antitrust woes. The company is also facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and more than a dozen states. The UK’s antitrust regulator has also opened an investigation centered around the company’s $4 billion investment into Anthropic.

In a statement, DC's current AG Brian Schwalb noted that the district “was the first jurisdiction to take antitrust enforcement action” against the company. “Now, our case will move forward, and we will continue fighting to stop Amazon’s unfair and unlawful practices that have raised prices for District consumers and stifled innovation and choice across online retail.”

Update, August 22 2024, 7:13 PM ET: This story has been updated to include a statement from Amazon.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/dcs-antitrust-case-against-amazon-comes-back-to-life-194314355.html?src=rss