ReportWire

Tag: Mark Zuckerberg

  • Time’s 2025 Person of the Year goes to “the architects of AI”

    Time magazine is spotlighting key players in the artificial intelligence revolution for its 2025 Person of the Year, the magazine announced Thursday. “The architects of AI” are the latest recipients of the designation, which for more than a century has been given out on an annual basis to an influential person, group of people or, occasionally, a defining cultural theme or idea. 

    Previous Person of the Year title-holders have held varying roles in a vast range of occupations, with President Trump taking last year’s cover and Taylor Swift capturing the one before. In 2025, 

    Time’s 2025 honorific was given to the minds and financiers behind AI’s rise to renown and notoriety, including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son and Baidu CEO Robin Li, who spoke directly with the magazine for its feature story.

    “Person of the Year is a powerful way to focus the world’s attention on the people that shape our lives,” wrote Sam Jacobs, Time’s editor-in-chief, in an editorial piece about the magazine’s decision. “And this year, no one had a greater impact than the individuals who imagined, designed, and built AI.”

    Jacobs described 2025 as “the year when artificial intelligence’s full potential roared into view, and when it became clear that there will be no turning back or opting out,” adding: “Whatever the question was, AI was the answer.”

    The magazine prepared two separate covers for the issue. In one, artist Jason Seiler painted an interpretative recreation of the iconic 1932 photograph “Lunch Atop a Skyscraper,” an image that depicted workers seated side-by-side on a steel beam hanging high above New York City during the construction of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, which became a symbol of American resilience during the Great Depression. 

    A cast of tech industry characters at the forefront of AI development are perched on the beam in Seiler’s recreation. Mark Zuckerberg, of Meta, Lisa Su, of Advanced Micro Devices, Elon Musk, of xAI, Sam Altman, of Open AI, Demis Hassabis, of DeepMind Technologies, Dario Amodei, of Anthropic, and Fei-Fei Li, of Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Institute, are all pictured, along with Huang. 

    The second cover illustration, by artist Peter Crowther, places the same executives among scaffolding at what looks like a construction site for the giant letters “AI.”

    From left, cover art by Jason Seiler and Peter Crowther for TIME’s 2025 Person of the Year magazine spread.

    Jason Seiler/TIME; Peter Crowther/TIME


    “Every industry needs it, every company uses it, and every nation needs to build it,” Huang said of balancing the pressures to implement AI responsibly and deploy it to the public as quickly as possible. “This is the single most impactful technology of our time.”  

    Most of the industry figures pictured on Time’s cover did not speak to the magazine for the story, so this year’s spread mainly focuses on the implications — positive, negative and in between — of the companies they have built and the technology they continue forging. 

    AI often took center stage in 2025 in investigative news reports, economic and academic studies, and in Washington, D.C., as policymakers grappled with how to regulate its evolution while tech giants scrambled to trump their competitors’ inventions, as the use of some of them, like chatbots, grew to be commonplace, at times with tragic consequences.

    “For these reasons, we recognize a force that has dominated the year’s headlines, for better or for worse,” Jacobs wrote in his editorial. “For delivering the age of thinking machines, for wowing and worrying humanity, for transforming the present and transcending the possible, the Architects of AI are TIME’s 2025 Person of the Year.”

    Source link

  • Mark Zuckerberg’s Net Worth Drops As Meta’s AI Plan Spooks Investors

    Mark Zuckerberg fell to fifth place on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index — the lowest in nearly two years — as investors spooked by Meta Platforms Inc’s planned $30 billion debt sale sent the company’s shares spiraling amid a flurry of tech earnings shaking up the ranks of the world’s richest.

    Meta’s stock fell 11% — the most since 2022 — after the company said it was going to issue the biggest investment-grade bond offering of the year to boost spending on artificial intelligence research, dropping Zuckerberg’s net worth to $235.2 billion, according to the wealth index.

    He was leapfrogged by Amazon.com Inc.’s Jeff Bezos and Alphabet Inc.’s Larry Page, who hadn’t been among the four-richest people since October 2023. Alphabet’s shares climbed 2.5% after it reported revenue that beat analysts’ expectations amid a surge in demand for its cloud and AI services.

    READ: Mark Zuckerberg vs Mark Zuckerberg: The Legal Battle Over A Name

    Zuckerberg’s $29.2 billion drop was the fourth-largest one-day market-driven decline ever recorded by Bloomberg’s wealth index.

    Meta’s stock had gained 28% this year before Thursday’s swoon, adding $57 billion to Zuckerberg’s fortune. But doubts over Meta’s ballooning AI budget gave investors pause, with at least two analysts downgrading the company’s shares after it said it expected to spend up to $118 billion in capital expenditures this year and possibly more in 2026.

    Amazon shares have gained more than 30% since a mid-April low. Investors have cheered its cloud-computing unit, which has steadily grown as it has signed splashy deals with AI firms including Anthropic. The company reported third-quarter sales and profit that topped estimates, sending shares surging in after-hours trading. 
     

    (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)


    Source link

  • Those Viral Photos of Elon and Zuck Are AI. But Google Launched a New Way to Check for Fakes

    Photos appearing to show Elon Musk and several other Big Tech CEOs have gone viral in the past week on X and Bluesky. The mundane environments, including humble apartments and McDonald’s parking lots, should have given everyone a hint that they’re fake. But there’s a new way for the average person to check for themselves whether the images were made with AI. And it’s actually really useful.

    Right off the bat, it should be said that the vast majority of AI image detectors are not reliable. Many people think you can use tools that are openly available on the web and figure out if a given image is AI. But they’re not good. For example, people often ask Grok on X whether a photo was created with generative artificial intelligence. And it frequently gets the answer wrong. Sometimes in amusing ways.

    Google developed an AI watermark called SynthID a couple of years ago, but the company didn’t allow the average user to check whether an image had the watermark. That changed just a few days ago. Now anyone can upload an image to Gemini and ask if it has the SynthID watermark, which is invisible to the naked eye.

    The watermark is embedded in the pixels and every image created with Google’s AI creation tools will have it. Checking for the watermark is now easy for anyone who opens up Gemini.

    From Google’s announcement:

    If you see an image and want to confirm it has been made by Google AI, upload it to the Gemini app and ask a question such as: “Was this created with Google AI?” or “Is this AI-generated?”

    Gemini will check for the SynthID watermark and use its own reasoning to return a response that gives you more context about the content you encounter online.

    Obviously Gemini is less equipped to tell you if an image is AI if it wasn’t made with Google tools like Nano Banana Pro. And that’s the entire reason the company appears to be launching SynthID detection in Gemini in this moment. Nano Banana Pro launched last week and it’s allowing users to make incredibly realistic images, including images of Elon Musk and other tech CEOs that look very real.

    Some of those images have recently gone viral, like one that racked up nearly 9 million views on X before migrating to other platforms like Bluesky. The image shows Musk, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg all standing together in a small apartment.

     

    Other versions of the image include OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, with the men standing around in a parking lot, pictured at the top of this article. For some reason, Musk is seen smoking a cigar in a couple of them. Another image showed the men in the parking lot from a different angle. And still another had the men eating McDonald’s on the ground with a Cybertruck in the background.

    If you run any of these images through Gemini it confirms they all have the SynthID watermark. If you’re wondering whether an image appears too weird to be true, it’s probably a good idea to check with Gemini.

    Did you see that viral image of President Donald Trump with Bill “Bubba” Clinton in a very compromising position? Running that image through Gemini confirms it was made with Google’s AI image generator. Gemini won’t necessarily be able to ID every AI image with certainty. But if you run an image through Gemini and it tells you the “photo” has the SynthID watermark, you know it’s not real.

    Fake images are still going to be everywhere in the current social media environment. But at least Google has given the average user a new tool to identify at least some of the fakes for themselves. It’s only going to get harder and harder to recognize AI-generated content as the years progress. Sometimes you just need to apply some common sense. For example, do you think Elon Musk and Sam Altman would be hanging out in a parking lot together? Given their very public conflicts, that seems very unlikely.

    Then again, it seemed very unlikely that Musk and President Trump would become friendly again after the Tesla CEO accused Trump of being in the Epstein files. Weirder things have happened when billions of dollars are at stake.

    Matt Novak

    Source link

  • Meta Buried ‘Causal’ Evidence of Social Media Harm, U.S. Court Filings Allege

    Meta shut down internal research into the mental health effects of Facebook after finding causal evidence that its products harmed users’ mental health, according to unredacted filings in a lawsuit by U.S. school districts against Meta and other social media platforms.

    In a 2020 research project code-named “Project Mercury,” Meta scientists worked with survey firm Nielsen to gauge the effect of “deactivating” Facebook, according to Meta documents obtained via discovery. To the company’s disappointment, “people who stopped using Facebook for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness and social comparison,” internal documents said.

    Rather than publishing those findings or pursuing additional research, the filing states, Meta called off further work and internally declared that the negative study findings were tainted by the “existing media narrative” around the company.

    Privately, however, a staffer insisted that the conclusions of the research were valid, according to the filing.

    “The Nielsen study does show causal impact on social comparison,” (unhappy face emoji), an unnamed staff researcher allegedly wrote. Another staffer worried that keeping quiet about negative findings would be akin to the tobacco industry “doing research and knowing cigs were bad and then keeping that info to themselves.”

    Despite Meta’s own work documenting a causal link between its products and negative mental health effects, the filing alleges, Meta told Congress that it had no ability to quantify whether its products were harmful to teenage girls.

    In a statement Saturday, Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the study was stopped because its methodology was flawed and that it worked diligently to improve the safety of its products.

    “The full record will show that for over a decade, we have listened to parents, researched issues that matter most, and made real changes to protect teens,” he said.

    Plaintiffs allege product risks were hidden

    The allegation of Meta burying evidence of social media harms is just one of many in a late Friday filing by Motley Rice, a law firm suing Meta, Google, TikTok and Snapchat on behalf of school districts around the country. Broadly, the plaintiffs argue the companies have intentionally hidden the internally recognized risks of their products from users, parents and teachers.

    TikTok, Google and Snapchat did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Allegations against Meta and its rivals include tacitly encouraging children below the age of 13 to use their platforms, failing to address child sexual abuse content and seeking to expand the use of social media products by teenagers while they were at school. The plaintiffs also allege that the platforms attempted to pay child-focused organizations to defend the safety of their products in public.

    In one instance, TikTok sponsored the National PTA and then internally boasted about its ability to influence the child-focused organization. Per the filing, TikTok officials said the PTA would “do whatever we want going forward in the fall… (t)hey’ll announce things publicly, their CEO will do press statements for us.”

    By and large, however, the allegations against the other social media platforms are less detailed than those against Meta. The internal documents cited by the plaintiffs allege:

    1. Meta intentionally designed its youth safety features to be ineffective and rarely used, and blocked testing of safety features that it feared might be harmful to growth.

    2. Meta required users to be caught 17 times attempting to traffic people for sex before it would remove them from its platform, which a document described as “a very, very, very high strike threshold.”

    3. Meta recognized that optimizing its products to increase teen engagement resulted in serving them more harmful content, but did so anyway.

    4. Meta stalled internal efforts to prevent child predators from contacting minors for years due to growth concerns, and pressured safety staff to circulate arguments justifying its decision not to act.

    5. In a text message in 2021, Mark Zuckerberg said that he wouldn’t say that child safety was his top concern “when I have a number of other areas I’m more focused on like building the metaverse.” Zuckerberg also shot down or ignored requests by Nick Clegg, Meta’s then-head of global public policy, to better fund child safety work. Meta’s Stone disputed these allegations, saying the company’s teen safety measures are effective and that the company’s current policy is to remove accounts as soon as they are flagged for sex trafficking.

    He said the suit misrepresents its efforts to build safety features for teens and parents, and called its safety work “broadly effective.”

    “We strongly disagree with these allegations, which rely on cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions,” Stone said.

    The underlying Meta documents cited in the filing are not public, and Meta has filed a motion to strike the documents. Stone said the objection was to the over-broad nature of what plaintiffs are seeking to unseal, not unsealing in its entirety.

    A hearing regarding the filing is set for January 26 in Northern California District Court.

    Reporting by Jeff Horwitz in San Francisco; Editing by Nick Zieminski and David Gregorio

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Meta prevails in historic FTC antitrust case, won’t have to break off WhatsApp, Instagram

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Meta has prevailed over an existential challenge to its business that could have forced the tech giant to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp after a judge ruled that the company does not hold a monopoly in social networking.

    U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued his ruling Tuesday after the historic antitrust trial wrapped up in late May. His decision runs in sharp contrast to two separate rulings that branded Google an illegal monopoly in both search and online advertising, dealing regulatory blows to the tech industry that for years enjoyed nearly unbridled growth.

    The Federal Trade Commission “continues to insist that Meta competes with the same old rivals it has for the last decade, that the company holds a monopoly among that small set, and that it maintained that monopoly through anticompetitive acquisitions,” Boasberg wrote in his ruling. “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so.”

    The federal agency had argued that Meta maintained a monopoly by pursuing an expression CEO Mark Zuckerberg made in 2008: “‘It is better to buy than compete.’ True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats.”

    During his April testimony, Zuckerberg pushed back against claims that Facebook bought Instagram to neutralize a threat. In his line of questioning, FTC attorney Daniel Matheson repeatedly brought up emails — many of them more than a decade old — written by Zuckerberg and his associates before and after the acquisition of Instagram.

    While acknowledging the documents, Zuckerberg has often sought to downplay the contents, saying he wrote the emails early in the acquisition process and that the notes did not fully capture the scope of his interest in the company. But the case was not about the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago, which the FTC approved at the time, but about whether Meta holds a monopoly now. Prosecutors, Boasberg wrote in the ruling, could only win if they proved “current or imminent legal violation.”

    The FTC’s complaint said Facebook also enacted policies designed to make it difficult for smaller rivals to enter the market and “neutralize perceived competitive threats,” just as the world shifted its attention to mobile devices from desktop computers.

    Meta said Tuesday’s decision “recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition.”

    “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America,” said Jennifer Newstead, chief legal officer, in a statement.

    The social media landscape has changed so much since the FTC filed its lawsuit in 2020, Boasberg wrote, that each time the court examined Meta’s apps and competition, they changed. Two opinions to dismiss the case — filed in 2021 and 2022 — didn’t even mention popular social video platform TikTok. Today, it “holds center stage as Meta’s fiercest rival.”

    Quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “that no man can ever step into the same river twice,” Boasberg said the same is true for the online world of social media as well.

    “The landscape that existed only five years ago when the Federal Trade Commission brought this antitrust suit has changed markedly. While it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down,” he wrote.

    Emarketer analyst Minda Smiley said Meta’s win “is not necessarily surprising considering the lengths it’s gone to in recent years to keep up with TikTok.”

    “But from a regulatory standpoint, Meta is far from out of the woods: next year, major social networks will face landmark trials in the US regarding children’s mental health,” she added. “Still, today’s win is surely a boost for the company as it battles criticism and questions over how its massive AI spending will ultimately benefit Meta in the long run.”

    Facebook bought Instagram — then a scrappy photo-sharing app with no ads and a small cult following — in 2012. The $1 billion cash and stock purchase price was eye-popping at the time, though the deal’s value fell to $750 million after Facebook’s stock price dipped following its initial public offering in May 2012.

    Instagram was the first company Facebook bought and kept running as a separate app. Up until then, Facebook was known for smaller “acqui-hires” — a type of popular Silicon Valley deal in which a company purchases a startup as a way to hire its talented workers, then shuts the acquired company down. Two years later, it did it again with the messaging app WhatsApp, which it purchased for $22 billion.

    WhatsApp and Instagram helped Facebook move its business from desktop computers to mobile devices, and to remain popular with younger generations as rivals like Snapchat (which it also tried, but failed, to buy) and TikTok emerged. However, the FTC has a narrow definition of Meta’s competitive market, excluding companies like TikTok, YouTube and Apple’s messaging service from being considered rivals to Instagram and WhatsApp.

    Investors didn’t appear surprised at the ruling. Shares of the Menlo Park, California-based company were down $1.52 at $600.49 in afternoon trading Tuesday, in line with broader market trends.

    Source link

  • The Algorithm Thinks You’re Ugly: An Interview With Artist Gretchen Andrew

    Gretchen Andrew at work. Courtesy Gretchen Andrew

    There is a direct line between lip fillers and the techno-apocalypse, and Gretchen Andrew draws that line with her latest Universal Beauty series. This series, recently acquired by the Whitney in New York, reveals the preferences of hidden algorithms that define our current beauty standards. Standards not even Miss Universe contestants can meet. In our conversation, Andrew and I discuss how impossible-to-achieve criteria are flattening people’s relationship to their bodies and homogenizing faces around the globe. What is at stake? “The whole diversity of humanity is lost,” according to the artist.

    Gretchen, an ex-Googler, is a Silicon Valley dropout. After becoming disillusioned by the way technology was designed to exploit users and experiencing a culture that penalized her for dressing like Cher from Clueless, Gretchen left tech to pursue a career in art. In the art world, she felt free to use technology subversively and wear short skirts as a form of 3.0 feminism. Her previous projects: Thirst Trap Glitch Gifs, in which she used SEO optimization hacks to make her vision board canvases the top search result for “contemporary art auction record,” capture the artist’s drive perfectly.

    A woman stands smiling with one arm extended in front of a gallery wall displaying four full-length portrait paintings of Miss Universe contestants in blue-toned backgrounds.A woman stands smiling with one arm extended in front of a gallery wall displaying four full-length portrait paintings of Miss Universe contestants in blue-toned backgrounds.
    There have always been beauty standards, Andrew says, but never before has there been a single, universal, international beauty standard. Courtesy Gretchen Andrew, Heft Gallery

    Gretchen could have continued further along this line, using her brilliance to expose technological loopholes while promoting her name. However, Universal Beauty marks a departure. Or perhaps an evolution or maturing. Not in Gretchen’s interests, but in her tactics. The focus is less about her explicitly and more about the technology that traps us all. Making us feel forever inadequate. Forever ugly. While keeping us craving more of this feeling. And Gretchen will be the first to admit that she is not above social media addiction. But admission, be it via her work or her words, is always the first step.

    First, congratulations on your acquisition by the Whitney. What can you tell us about the Facetune Portraits project, and about the work that was acquired?

    In Facetune Portraits, I look at how A.I.-driven beauty standards are impacting how we experience ourselves and how we experience others. I take what is normally an invisible force—whether it’s digital Facetuning or the way it’s impacting things like lip fillers and plastic surgery—and make it visible so that we can talk about it. In my Universal Beauty series, I look at Miss Universe contestants who are from all over the world—they’re completely gorgeous—and yet they’re not good enough for the algorithms, giving the rest of us absolutely no hope. Not only that, but the contestants are from all around the world. They should look completely different, but we see the homogenizing impact of A.I. when we see Miss Jamaica being given the same body as Miss Finland being given the same body as Miss Philippines. It’s compressing all humanity into a single unified look.

    Describe the Facetune aesthetic. What does the algorithm think is beautiful?

    We’ve grown so used to seeing each other and ourselves on a two-dimensional screen. And because screens are flat, our expectations of how we’re supposed to look are incorporating efforts to mimic that third dimension within the two-dimensional space of the screen. One example is having absurdly big lips. Some people really like the way that those big lips look from the front, but no one thinks that they look great from the side. That’s why we get memes around “duck lip.” There’s this distinct prioritization of making sure we look good on a screen. It reminds me of ancient Egyptian art. The reason why hieroglyphics have bodies that are contorted is that, within the two-dimensional surface, the Egyptians wanted to convey the three-dimensionality of the body. So they represented each body part from its most recognizable angle and sort of stuck it all together. That’s really what’s happening today with our cameras and algorithms: we are attempting to convey three dimensions in the 2D space of a screen.

    A framed portrait-style artwork shows a Miss Universe contestant wearing a bright red gown and a sash reading “USA” against a pale blue stage background.A framed portrait-style artwork shows a Miss Universe contestant wearing a bright red gown and a sash reading “USA” against a pale blue stage background.
    Gretchen Andrew, Facetune Portrait – Universal Beauty, USA, 2025. Oil On Canvas, 48″ x 24″. Photo by @larufoto Luis Ruiz

    What is lost when we do that?

    The whole diversity of humanity is lost. There have always been beauty standards, but never before has there been a single, universal, international beauty standard. We’re also losing connections to our actual bodies. We’re prioritizing how people look over what they do. We’re prioritizing how we look over how we feel. Within that prioritization, we lose a really important connection to ourselves. Another thing we’re losing is the celebration of the individual. I see not just a desire to be beautiful, but a desire to be like everyone else. That feels safer to people today than to actually look like yourself.

    How is this different than in the ‘90s, before there was social media, when media was dominated by a couple channels or Vogue, and these Western exports were setting the dominant beauty standard around the world?

    I think with A.I., the pace and the uniformity of that has increased significantly. Although there has been this Western beauty standard before, maybe there was a slightly different beauty standard in Japan or Kenya. With A.I., there has been an acceleration of this beauty standard convergence. Anybody—they don’t need massive Photoshop skills—can take their image, process it through a Facetune algorithm, and go to a plastic surgeon and say: Make me look like this, which is increasingly happening.

    I read a study out of Cornell that 0.2 percent of the data used to train A.I. comes from Africa and South America. Do you know where most of the data that’s training these beauty algorithms is coming from?

    We’re in a feedback loop, especially with social media. I’m sure you’ve noticed that if you post a photo of your face or other people, you’re more likely to get engagement. I don’t think that’s because that’s what people want to see. I think these platforms are driving more engagement in order to get more images of faces and bodies for training their algorithms. I think Instagram, by volume, must be Western. It’s also not so much who is using it as it is about the quantity of images that people are seeing. Influencers, for example, have so many more followers and get so much more exposure. It doesn’t matter how many regular people are using the app, the majority of people are seeing images that look like these influencers.

    A framed portrait-style artwork shows a Miss Universe contestant wearing a glittering silver gown and a sash reading “Puerto Rico” against a dark red stage background.A framed portrait-style artwork shows a Miss Universe contestant wearing a glittering silver gown and a sash reading “Puerto Rico” against a dark red stage background.
    Gretchen Andrew, Facetune Portrait – Universal Beauty, Puerto Rico, 2025. Oil on Canvas, 48″ x 24″. Photo by @larufoto Luis Ruiz

    What made you interested in addressing social media and beauty standards in your work?

    I like to find seemingly innocuous, frivolous and feminine things and use them as opportunities to have conversations about technology and its impact on our lives. Beauty standards seemed like a ripe area where a lot of people are not thinking about A.I. or the technological apocalypse, and so it became a very wide doorway to have these conversations. On top of that, I think a lot about the physical and metaphorical shapes that we as women contort ourselves into to meet societal expectations, especially as we age. I’m approaching 40, and my friends are getting Botox or plastic surgery. This project is not about shaming women for these things. It’s about understanding where standards come from and making decisions from there.

    Can you talk about your decision to turn these digital images into oil paintings via an oil paint printer?

    I wanted to create a portrait that shows both who we are and who we’re told to be at the same time. I wanted to represent this in a way that would be part of the history of portraiture. Portraits have always shown what we value at any given time. Look at me and my big family. Look at my jewels. Look at my land behind me. Within this current world of A.I., I wanted to investigate what is important to us, and I think what’s important to us is fitting in. It’s being accepted by the algorithm.

    What do you think about celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker who refuse to get plastic surgery?

    Celebrities like that are really important. They remind us that beauty can exist outside of the algorithm. But also, she’s not coming up today. She’s already a big deal, and she can make that stand now in a way that I think is very important and interesting. What I really want to see is somebody who’s very young make that same decision and succeed. I think it’s going to be a lot harder.

    Totally. I read the memoir Careless People by Sarah Wynn Williams. It’s such a damning portrait of Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. After I read it, I was so worked up, and I was like, ‘I have to get off social media.’ And then, of course, I didn’t. So my question is, what does awareness do? There’s an idea that it changes things. But my question is: does it?

    As far as what awareness does, I think it makes us cognizant that we are making a choice, even if we continue to use filters and get lip fillers. Technology has made things so seamless that we have slipped into an absurd world where people are injecting things into their lips that they have bought on Alibaba, and it happens to be cement. This is becoming normal so fast. I really believe social media is going to be the tobacco of our generation, with the impact on mental health. Here we are, knowing it’s bad for us, still smoking. When I hang up on this phone call, I’ll probably get on Instagram for a second. Awareness is not going to win the war, but it is at least a way to see what’s going on and maybe have a little bit more agency as an individual, even if societally we’re totally fucked.

    My last question is, if social media is like tobacco and it’s bad for us, why do you still use it?

    Because I’m addicted.

    Yeah, me too.

    More Arts interviews

    The Algorithm Thinks You’re Ugly: An Interview With Artist Gretchen Andrew

    Mieke Marple

    Source link

  • Meta’s victory over the Federal Trade Commission shows the market moves faster than antitrust enforcement

    The federal government’s yearslong case to label Meta a monopoly ended on Tuesday when a federal court ruled in favor of the tech giant. The ruling sets the important precedent that the current market in which a dominant firm competes is the relevant one to consider when determining whether or not it is a monopolist.

    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) first brought the lawsuit against Meta in December 2020, during the first Trump administration, alleging that the tech giant had run afoul of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the personal social networking market through its acquisition of then-nascent Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014, respectively. The case was dismissed in 2021, but refiled later that year. In April, Lina Khan, who served as the FTC chair when the case was refiled, said that “there’s no expiration date when it comes to the illegality of a transaction.”

    On Tuesday, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia contradicted Khan in his decision, saying the FTC must prove Meta continues to wield monopoly power “whether or not Meta enjoyed [such] power in the past.” Citing Heraclitus’ philosophy of universal flux, Boasberg says, “while it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down.”

    Determining whether Meta is a social networking or social media company was the critical point of contention. The FTC argued that Meta occupied the “personal social networking” (PSN) market, which comprises Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and MeWe. (Even the FTC excluded WhatsApp from its PSN market, despite complaining about Meta’s acquisition of it.) Successfully arguing that Meta was only a social networking company would make it easier to prove that it was a monopolist. Meta argued that, as a social media company, its competitors also include TikTok and YouTube, as well as social networking platforms.

    Boasberg found the FTC’s market definition to be overly narrow, and agreed with Meta that TikTok and YouTube should be considered its competitors in the social media market. Boasberg determined this to be the case based on the preponderance of controlled and natural experiments that found strong evidence of substitution between Facebook and Instagram, both of whose most popular feature is short-form video content, with TikTok and YouTube.

    By this more inclusive and accurate market definition, Boasberg ruled that Meta’s “modest share cannot establish monopoly power.” Even excluding YouTube from the social media market, Boasberg found that “Meta still would not hold a monopoly.”

    While Boasberg redacted market share estimates from his opinion, we can be confident that Meta’s is at or below 33 percent, given his citation of U.S. v. Aluminum Co., which found 33 percent market share insufficient for monopoly power. Boasberg noted that the Supreme Court has never found a party with less than 75 percent market share to be a monopolist.

    Meta’s victory over the FTC shows that markets evolve faster than antitrust litigation moves. In this case, antitrust enforcers assumed that Meta was immune to competition and that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp would foreclose the social networking market to newcomers. In reality, social networking and social media have become so intertwined that, if Meta hadn’t acquired Instagram and pivoted to focus on short-form video content, it could have gotten its lunch eaten by TikTok and YouTube.

    Jack Nicastro

    Source link

  • Meta Just Prevailed in Its Historic FTC Antitrust Case

    Meta has prevailed over an existential challenge to its business that could have forced the tech giant to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp after a judge ruled that the company does not hold a monopoly in social networking.

    U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued his ruling Tuesday after the historic antitrust trial wrapped up in late May. His decision runs in sharp contrast to two separate rulings that branded Google an illegal monopoly in both search and online advertising, dealing regulatory blows to the tech industry that for years enjoyed nearly unbridled growth.

    The Federal Trade Commission “continues to insist that Meta competes with the same old rivals it has for the last decade, that the company holds a monopoly among that small set, and that it maintained that monopoly through anticompetitive acquisitions,” Boasberg wrote in his ruling. “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so.”

    The federal agency had argued that Meta maintained a monopoly by pursuing an expression CEO Mark Zuckerberg made in 2008: “‘It is better to buy than compete.’ True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats.”

    During his April testimony, Zuckerberg pushed back against claims that Facebook bought Instagram to neutralize a threat. In his line of questioning, FTC attorney Daniel Matheson repeatedly brought up emails — many of them more than a decade old — written by Zuckerberg and his associates before and after the acquisition of Instagram.

    While acknowledging the documents, Zuckerberg has often sought to downplay the contents, saying he wrote the emails early in the acquisition process and that the notes did not fully capture the scope of his interest in the company. But the case was not about the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago, which the FTC approved at the time, but about whether Meta holds a monopoly now. Prosecutors, Boasberg wrote in the ruling, could only win if they proved “current or imminent legal violation.”

    The FTC’s complaint said Facebook also enacted policies designed to make it difficult for smaller rivals to enter the market and “neutralize perceived competitive threats,” just as the world shifted its attention to mobile devices from desktop computers.

    Meta said Tuesday’s decision “recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition.”

    “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America,” said Jennifer Newstead, chief legal officer, in a statement.

    The social media landscape has changed so much since the FTC filed its lawsuit in 2020, Boasberg wrote, that each time the court examined Meta’s apps and competition, they changed. Two opinions to dismiss the case — filed in 2021 and 2022 — didn’t even mention popular social video platform TikTok. Today, it “holds center stage as Meta’s fiercest rival.”

    Quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “that no man can ever step into the same river twice,” Boasberg said the same is true for the online world of social media as well.

    “The landscape that existed only five years ago when the Federal Trade Commission brought this antitrust suit has changed markedly. While it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down,” he wrote.

    Emarketer analyst Minda Smiley said Meta’s win “is not necessarily surprising considering the lengths it’s gone to in recent years to keep up with TikTok.”

    “But from a regulatory standpoint, Meta is far from out of the woods: next year, major social networks will face landmark trials in the US regarding children’s mental health,” she added. “Still, today’s win is surely a boost for the company as it battles criticism and questions over how its massive AI spending will ultimately benefit Meta in the long run.”

    Facebook bought Instagram — then a scrappy photo-sharing app with no ads and a small cult following — in 2012. The $1 billion cash and stock purchase price was eye-popping at the time, though the deal’s value fell to $750 million after Facebook’s stock price dipped following its initial public offering in May 2012.

    Instagram was the first company Facebook bought and kept running as a separate app. Up until then, Facebook was known for smaller “acqui-hires” — a type of popular Silicon Valley deal in which a company purchases a startup as a way to hire its talented workers, then shuts the acquired company down. Two years later, it did it again with the messaging app WhatsApp, which it purchased for $22 billion.

    WhatsApp and Instagram helped Facebook move its business from desktop computers to mobile devices, and to remain popular with younger generations as rivals like Snapchat (which it also tried, but failed, to buy) and TikTok emerged. However, the FTC has a narrow definition of Meta’s competitive market, excluding companies like TikTok, YouTube and Apple’s messaging service from being considered rivals to Instagram and WhatsApp.

    Investors didn’t appear surprised at the ruling. Shares of the Menlo Park, California-based company were down $1.52 at $600.49 in afternoon trading Tuesday, in line with broader market trends.

    Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Meta prevails in historic FTC antitrust case, won’t have to break off WhatsApp, Instagram

    Meta has prevailed over an existential challenge to its business that could have forced the tech giant to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp after a judge ruled that the company does not hold a monopoly in social networking.

    U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued his ruling Tuesday after the historic antitrust trial wrapped up in late May. His decision follows two separate rulings that branded Google an illegal monopoly in both search and online advertising, dealing yet another regulatory blow to the tech industry that for years enjoyed nearly unbridled growth.

    The Federal Trade Commission “continues to insist that Meta competes with the same old rivals it has for the last decade, that the company holds a monopoly among that small set, and that it maintained that monopoly through anticompetitive acquisitions,” Boasberg wrote in his ruling. “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so.”

    Meta Platforms Inc., the FTC had argued, has maintained a monopoly by pursuing CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s strategy, “expressed in 2008: ‘It is better to buy than compete.’ True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats.”

    During his April testimony, Zuckerberg pushed back against the FTC’s contention that Facebook bought Instagram to neutralize a threat. In his line of questioning, FTC attorney Daniel Matheson repeatedly brought up emails — many of them more than a decade old — written by Zuckerberg and his associates before and after the acquisition of Instagram.

    While acknowledging the documents, Zuckerberg has often sought to downplay the contents, saying he wrote them in the early stages of considering the acquisition and that what he wrote at the time didn’t capture the full scope of his interest in the company. But the case was not about the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago, which the FTC approved at the time, but about whether Meta holds a monopoly now. The FTC, Boasberg wrote in the ruling, could only win if it proved “current or imminent legal violation.”

    The FTC’s complaint said Facebook also enacted policies designed to make it difficult for smaller rivals to enter the market and “neutralize perceived competitive threats,” just as the world shifted its attention to mobile devices from desktop computers.

    Meta said Tuesday’s decision “recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition.”

    “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America,” the Menlo Park, California-based company said in a statement.

    The social media landscape has changed so much since the FTC filed its lawsuit in 2020, Boasberg wrote, that each time the court examined Meta’s apps and competition, they changed. Two opinions to dismiss the case — filed in 2021 and 2022 — didn’t even mention popular social video platform TikTok. Today, it “holds center stage as Meta’s fiercest rival.”

    Quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “that no man can ever step into the same river twice,” Boasberg said the same is true for the online world of social media as well.

    “The landscape that existed only five years ago when the Federal Trade Commission brought this antitrust suit has changed markedly. While it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down,” he wrote.

    Emarketer analyst Minda Smiley said Meta’s win “is not necessarily surprising considering the lengths it’s gone to in recent years to keep up with TikTok.”

    “But from a regulatory standpoint, Meta is far from out of the woods: next year, major social networks will face landmark trials in the US regarding children’s mental health,” she added. “Still, today’s win is surely a boost for the company as it battles criticism and questions over how its massive AI spending will ultimately benefit Meta in the long run.”

    Facebook bought Instagram — then a scrappy photo-sharing app with no ads and a small cult following — in 2012. The $1 billion cash and stock purchase price was eye-popping at the time, though the deal’s value fell to $750 million after Facebook’s stock price dipped following its initial public offering in May 2012.

    Instagram was the first company Facebook bought and kept running as a separate app. Up until then, Facebook was known for smaller “acqui-hires” — a type of popular Silicon Valley deal in which a company purchases a startup as a way to hire its talented workers, then shuts the acquired company down. Two years later, it did it again with the messaging app WhatsApp, which it purchased for $22 billion.

    WhatsApp and Instagram helped Facebook move its business from desktop computers to mobile devices, and to remain popular with younger generations as rivals like Snapchat (which it also tried, but failed, to buy) and TikTok emerged. However, the FTC has a narrow definition of Meta’s competitive market, excluding companies like TikTok, YouTube and Apple’s messaging service from being considered rivals to Instagram and WhatsApp.

    Source link

  • WIRED Roundup: Fandom in Politics, Zuckerberg’s Illegal School, and Nepal’s Discord Revolution

    Leah Feiger: Zoë, I am obsessed with this story. Before you continue, I think that it’s really important to say that Caroline, the lovely reporter of this story on your business desk, obtained 1,665 pages of documents about the dispute about Zuckerberg’s house. This story is canon now.

    Zoë Schiffer: Caroline Haskins is a complete star. Our fact-checking team literally cried when I asked them. They were like, “Wait, sorry, how many documents are we looking through?” I was like, “Yes.”

    Leah Feiger: Shout out to the WIRED research team.

    Zoë Schiffer: Absolutely. The school, I think we just have to say, is named after one of the Zuckerberg family chickens. It’s called the Bicken Ben School.

    Leah Feiger: I mean, hearing you say this, it’s, I know you’re being serious, but again.

    Zoë Schiffer: So, the Crescent City neighborhood in Palo Alto, where the Zuckerbergs live, as you can imagine, is some of the best real estate in the entire country. It’s filled with these gorgeous homes, a ton of greenery. Mark Zuckerberg has been expanding his presence throughout the years in this ultra fancy neighborhood. The plot of land that the Zuckerbergs live on has expanded to include 11 previously separate properties. This is so funny and just such a nightmare. If you’re living on the street, you paid whatever, $5 million for your house, and suddenly all of your neighbors are Mark Zuckerberg.

    Leah Feiger: Important to note that not all of them are connecting either. I don’t totally understand what that means. Do they walk through a neighbor’s porch to get to their horse’s pool? What does this entail?

    Zoë Schiffer: We have more questions. We have to Google Earth this. I think there’s some holes in this story that we need to fill in. The expansion first became a concern for Mark Zuckerberg’s neighbors, back in 2016, due to fears that his purchases were driving up the market pretty dramatically. But then, about five years later, neighbors started noticing that a school appeared to be operating out of the Zuckerberg compound. So, this is illegal to do without a permit, at least under the area’s residential zoning code. And so, naturally, the neighbors started to alert the city. Caroline Haskins, the reporter on the story, obtained over a thousand documents, like you said, outlining the resulting fight between the neighbors and the city authorities, basically arguing that, it felt to them like the Zuckerbergs were getting special treatment.

    Zoë Schiffer, Leah Feiger

    Source link

  • Apple is ramping up succession plans for CEO Tim Cook and may tap this hardware exec to take over, report says | Fortune

    Apple’s board of directors and senior executives have been accelerating succession plans for Tim Cook, sources told the Financial Times.

    After serving as CEO for 14 years, Cook may step down as early as next year, the report said.

    Apple’s senior vice president of hardware engineering, 50-year-old John Ternus, is widely seen as the most likely successor, but no final decisions have been made yet, sources told the FT.

    The engineer joined Apple’s product design team in 2001 and has overseen hardware engineering for most major products the tech company has launched ever since, according to Ternus’ LinkedIn profile.

    He has also played a prominent role during Apple’s most recent keynotes, introducing products like the new iPhone Air. Ternus had been rumored to be Cook’s potential successor, according to previous reports. 

    The company is unlikely to name a new CEO before its next earnings report in late January, and an early-year announcement would allow a new leadership team time to settle in before its annual events, the FT said. 

    The succession preparations have been long-planned and are not related to the company’s current performance, which is expecting strong end-of-year sales, people close to Apple told the FT.

    Apple did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment and declined to provide a comment to the FT.

    The $4 trillion company is expecting year-on-year revenue growth of 10% to 12% for its holiday quarter ending in December, fueled by the release of the iPhone 17 model in September.

    Ternus would take the helm of the tech giant at an important time in its evolution. Although Apple has seen sales success with iPhones and new products like Airpods over the past couple of decades, it has struggled to break into AI and keep up with rivals.

    Instead, Apple has even spending significantly less in AI investments compared to Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, and Microsoft. 

    Apple has been criticized by analysts this year for not having a clear AI strategy. And despite approving a multibillion-dollar budget to run its own models via the cloud in 2026, it was reported in June that Apple is even considering using models from OpenAI and Anthropic to power its updated version of Siri, rather than using technology the company has built in-house. 

    Its AI-enabled Siri, originally slated for 2025, will be delayed until 2026 or later due to a series of technical challenges, the company announced earlier this year.

    Apple has also lost a number of senior AI team members since January, many of whom have joined Meta’s AI and Superintelligence Labs during talent poaching wars this year. The exodus of Apple’s AI execs included Ruoming Pang, former head of Apple’s foundation models and core generative AI team, who joined Meta with a compensation package reportedly worth $200 million.

    The company is also dealing with increased competition from one of its most influential former employees.

    In May, Sam Altman’s OpenAI acquired startup io for about $6.5 billion, bringing in former Apple chief designer Jony Ive to build AI devices. The 58-year-old designer was instrumental in creating the iPhone, iPod, and iPad. 

    Cook, Apple’s former operations chief, turned 65 this month. He has grown the company’s market capitalization to $4 trillion from $350 billion in 2011, when he took over the CEO role from company co-founder Steve Jobs.

    Under Cook, Apple became the first publicly traded company to reach $1 trillion in market capitalization in 2018—then it became the first company to reach $3 trillion in market cap in 2022.

    But more recently, its stock price has been lagging behind Big Tech rivals Alphabet, Nvidia, and Microsoft, though Apple is trading close to an all-time high after strong earnings were reported in October.

    Apple has also dealt with tariff complications as U.S.-China trade tensions have disrupted its supply chain.

    Cook has previously said he’d prefer an internal candidate to replace him, adding that the company has “very detailed succession plans.”

    “I really want the person to come from within Apple,” Cook told singer Dua Lipa last year on her podcast At Your Service.

    Nino Paoli

    Source link

  • Ex-Meta exec says Mark Zuckerberg taught him a lesson in work-life balance: Now he has strict rules for meetings and emails at his $1 billion tax firm | Fortune

    When Martin Ott joined Facebook to lead its Northern and Central Europe operations as MD in 2012, the company was pre-IPO, pivoting from desktop to mobile phones, and had just a few thousand employees globally. 

    He’s one of the few leaders who witnessed Meta’s evolution firsthand from its scrappy early days under a twenty-something-year-old Mark Zuckerberg to one of the world’s most powerful platforms. 

    But the biggest lesson he took away from that period wasn’t about scale or speed—or grinding all hours of the day to make it. Ott credits Zuckerberg with teaching him the opposite: To focus on making the biggest impact you can during working hours.

    “One of the things I’m also passing on is, there’s only so many hours in a day,” Ott, who’s now CEO of Taxfix, the Berlin-based tax app valued at more than $1 billion, tells Fortune. 

    “Ask yourself, what is the real one thing you could do today to really have impact, make a difference? Ask yourself, do you need to be in that meeting or not?” 

    Tech billionaires say you need to work 24/7 to make it, but Ott says you’ll just burn out 

    It’s a refreshing stance, when so many tech leaders say the only way to make it is by always being on. 

    Lucy Guo, the cofounder of Scale AI and the world’s youngest female self-made billionaire, wakes up at 5:30 a.m. and ends her day at midnight. She previously told Fortune that people who crave balance are in the wrong job.

    Meanwhile, Twilio’s CEO Khozema Shipchandler previously told Fortune that the only gap he allows himself “to not think about work is six to eight hours on Saturdays.” 

    And then there’s Reid Hoffman, the visionary behind LinkedIn, who has said that work-life balance simply isn’t possible in the start up world—not least for founders. With the exception of dinner with family, he even admitted he expects employees to constantly be working.

    “That 24/7 only works so long,” Ott says, while adding that switching off is not only important for leaders, but also those working under them. “It’s also protecting team members from getting burned out. You don’t ever want to get there.” 

    “It is making sure that you’re not about 24/7 constant on, but being deliberate.”

    Balance and boundaries for emails and meetings

    As well as focusing only on the meetings where he can make a real impact, Ott has built deliberate practices to protect both his own and his team’s boundaries. 

    “So the most important thing is I structure my day.” Ott gets up early most mornings at around 5:30 a.m. and reads for half an hour before working out.

    “I exercise in the mornings, I go running here on the lake,” he says, adding that he tries to stay in touch with a support network and meditates for his mental health, too. “At times, I meditate every day, and then I drop it. Now I’m in the phase where I’ve dropped it and want to pick it up again.” 

    But even if Ott starts his day early, drafting emails before meetings begin, he’ll make sure they don’t land in his team’s inbox until they start work: “I start writing Slack messages and emails. Often, they only go out with a scheduling function at 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. So I don’t pull people out of their free time, which they need to recharge, because it is a marathon.”

    “Everyone tells you, when you start a company, or you’re running a company, there will be ups and downs. There will be constant crises. There’s a lot of pressure as well,” Ott adds. “You need to make sure you see it actually as a marathon, not a sprint. And that also means you have to maintain the high performance over a long period of time. And that doesn’t work 24/7.”

    Orianna Rosa Royle

    Source link

  • These are the 37 donors helping pay for Trump’s $300 million White House ballroom

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump says his $300 million White House ballroom will be paid for “100% by me and some friends of mine.”

    The White House released a list of 37 donors, including crypto billionaires, charitable organizations, sports team owners, powerful financiers, tech and tobacco giants, media companies, longtime supporters of Republican causes and several of the president’s neighbors in Palm Beach, Florida.

    It’s incomplete. Among others, the list doesn’t include Carrier Group, which offered to donate an HVAC system for the ballroom, and artificial intelligence chipmaker Nvidia, whose CEO, Jensen Huang, publicly discussed its donation.

    The White House hasn’t said how much each donor is giving, and almost none was willing to divulge that. Very few commented on their contributions when contacted by The Associated Press.

    A senior White House official said the list has grown since it was first released in October, but some companies don’t want to be publicly named until required to do so by financial disclosure regulations. No foreign individuals or entities were among the donors, according to the official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details that haven’t been made public.

    Here’s a look at the divulged donors:

    Tech giants (8):

    Amazon Background: Trump was once highly critical of company founder Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, but has been much less so lately. Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, an event attended by Bezos. Its video streaming service paid $40 million to license a documentary about first lady Melania Trump. Its cloud-based computing operation, Amazon Web Services, is a major government contractor.

    Apple Background: After an up-and-down relationship during Trump’s first term, CEO Tim Cook has sought to improve his standing with the president this time. Before returning to the White House, Trump hosted Cook at his Palm Beach estate, Mar-a-Lago, and said he had spoken with Cook about the company’s long-running tax battles with the European Union. Cook also donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. In the spring, Trump threatened the computing giant with tariffs after Apple announced plans to build manufacturing facilities in India. In August, Cook presented the president with a customized glass plaque with a gold base as the CEO announced plans to bring Apple’s total investment commitment in U.S. manufacturing over four years to $600 billion.

    Google Background: During his first term, Trump’s administration sued Google for antitrust violations. While a candidate last year, Trump suggested he might seek to break up the search engine behemoth. Once Trump won the election, Google donated $1 million to his inauguration, and its CEO, Sundar Pichai, joined other major tech executives in attending the ceremony. Google’s subsidiary, YouTube, agreed in September to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit with Trump after it suspended his account following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. According to court filings, $22 million of that went to the Trust for the National Mall, which can help pay for ballroom construction.

    HP Background: An original Silicon Valley stalwart, the company donated to Trump’s inaugural fund. HP ‘s CEO, Enrique Lores, participated in a White House roundtable event in September. Lores also previously met with President Joe Biden at the White House on multiple occasions as top CEOs endorsed that administration’s economic plans.

    Meta Background: Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg had been critical of Trump going back to 2016, and Facebook suspended Trump for years after the Jan. 6 insurrection. This time around, Meta contributed $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, and Zuckerberg attended.

    Micron Technology Background: The producer of advanced memory computer chips announced an April 2024 agreement with the Biden administration to provide $6.1 billion in government support for Micron to make chips domestically. Then, in June, Micron pledged $200 billion for U.S. memory chip manufacturing expansion under Trump. But at least $120 billion of that involved holdovers first announced during Biden’s administration.

    Microsoft Background: The company donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, twice what it spent for Biden’s or for Trump’s first inauguration. CEO Satya Nadella has also met with Trump numerous times, as Microsoft has supported the administration’s relaxation of regulations on artificial intelligence. He met previously with Biden, too. Trump has called for Microsoft’s president of global affairs, Lisa Monaco, to be fired because she was a deputy attorney general under Biden when the Justice Department led several investigations against Trump.

    Palantir Technologies Background: Co-founded by billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel, the firm concentrates on artificial intelligence and machine learning. It has seen profits soar thanks to lucrative defense and other federal contracts.

    Crypto (5):

    Coinbase Background: The major cryptocurrency exchange was founded by Brian Armstrong, a top donor to a political action committee that helped Trump and other pro-crypto candidates in 2024. Armstrong attended the first crypto summit at the White House in March. Coinbase also hired Trump’s co-campaign manager, Chris LaCivita, to its Global Advisory Council.

    Ripple Background: In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped a lawsuit filed during Trump’s first term, which accused the company of violating securities laws by selling XRP crypto coins without a securities registration. In his second term, Trump has eased regulations on digital assets, repealing an SEC accounting rule and a previous presidential executive order mandating more federal study and proposed changes to crypto regulations.

    Tether Background: A cryptocurrency company and major stablecoin issuer, Tether paid fines for misleading investors. CEO Paolo Ardoino has been to Trump’s White House, and, in April, the company hired former Trump administration crypto policy official Bo Hines to lead its domestic expansion efforts.

    Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss Background: Each Winklevoss twin is listed as a separate donor. Best known as Zuckerberg’s chief antagonists in “The Social Network,” the brothers founded the Gemini cryptocurrency exchange. Biden’s SEC sued Gemini for selling unregistered securities, but the case has been paused under Trump.

    Energy and industrial (4):

    Caterpillar Background: The equipment maker ‘s PAC has donated to candidates from both parties, but given more to Republicans. It has also said publicly that Trump’s tariffs, some of which the administration has now eased, could increase its costs and hurt earnings.

    NextEra Energy Background: NextEra is the world’s largest electric utility holding company. Trump says he’ll work to ensure tech giants can secure their own sources of electricity to power data centers, especially as they expand energy-hogging artificial intelligence operations. Google recently entered into an agreement to buy power from a shuttered nuclear power plant in Iowa owned by NextEra, which the company plans to bring back online in 2029.

    Paolo Tiramani Background: An American industrial designer who has donated to Trump’s political campaigns. Tiramani, with his son, runs BOXABL, a firm specializing in modular, prefabricated homes.

    Union Pacific Background: Trump has endorsed the company’s proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern, which would be the largest-ever rail merger. It also will be up to the president to appoint two more Republican members of the Surface Transportation Board, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the merger. In August, Trump fired one of the two Democratic members of the board.

    Philanthropy (3):

    Adelson Family Foundation Background: Founded to strengthen the state of Israel and the Jewish people, the foundation was created by Miriam Adelson, the majority owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, close Trump ally and longtime GOP megadonor. She’s also the widow of Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire founder and owner of Las Vegas Sands.

    Betty Wold Johnson Foundation Background: Based in Palm Beach, the foundation supports health, arts and culture initiatives, as well as environmental and educational programs. It’s named in honor of the mother of New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, who served as Trump’s ambassador to the United Kingdom during his first term.

    Laura & Isaac Perlmutter Foundation Background: The nonprofit based in Lake Worth Beach, near Palm Beach, focuses on promoting health care, social justice, the arts and community initiatives. Isaac is an Israeli American businessman and financier and former chair of Marvel Entertainment. He and his wife have donated to Trump’s presidential campaigns and affiliated PACs.

    Trump administration officials (3):

    Benjamin Leon Jr. Background: The Cuban American founder of Miami-based Leon Medical Centers is Trump’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to Spain.

    Kelly Loeffler and Jeffrey Sprecher Background: A former Republican senator from Georgia, Loeffler heads Trump’s Small Business Administration. Her husband is CEO of the energy market Intercontinental Exchange Inc. and chairs the New York Stock Exchange. The couple faced scrutiny in 2020 for dumping substantial portions of their portfolio and purchasing new stocks, including in firms making protective equipment, after Congress received briefings on the severity of the coming coronavirus pandemic.

    Lutnick Family Background: Howard Lutnick is Trump’s commerce secretary. A crypto enthusiast, he once headed the brokerage and investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald.

    Communications/entertainment (3):

    Comcast Background: The mass media and telecom conglomerate has often been criticized by Trump, including in April, when the president posted that Comcast was a “disgrace to the integrity of broadcasting.” The company owns NBC and is spinning off MSNBC. It could be interested in acquiring Warner Bros. Discover, and that would leave Comcast looking for government approval.

    Hard Rock International Background: A Florida-based gaming and tourism concern owned by the Seminole Tribe, the company operates a number of casinos, including the former Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Trump has for decades criticized federal exemptions allowing tribes to operate casinos.

    T-Mobile Background: The wireless carrier is indirectly linked to Trump Mobile, which the president’s family controls and offers gold phones and cell service in a licensing deal. Trump Mobile uses Liberty Mobile Wireless, a small, Florida-based network that T-Mobile says runs its operations on T-Mobile’s network. T-Mobile says that is unrelated to its decision to donate to Trump’s ballroom, which it says is meant to “restore and enrich the historic landmarks that define our nation’s capital.”

    Big Tobacco (2):

    Altria Group Background: The tobacco giant controls Philip Morris USA, maker of Marlboro. It has pressed for federal crackdowns on counterfeit and illegal vaping products. The company donated $50,000 to Trump’s inauguration.

    Reynolds American Background: With brands including Lucky Strike and Camel, the company has been active in lobbying to steer the Trump administration away from a Biden-proposed ban on menthol cigarettes.

    Defense/national security (2):

    Booz Allen Hamilton Background: A major defense and national security technology firm with extensive government contracts, it paid fines to settle lawsuits with the Justice Department under Biden. Booz Allen Hamilton agreed to pay more than $377 million in 2023 to settle allegations that it improperly billing costs to its government contracts. In January, it paid nearly $16 million to settle allegations that it submitted fraudulent claims in connection with government contracts.

    Lockheed Martin Corporation Background: The massive defense contractor has huge government contracts. It said in a statement that it “is grateful for the opportunity to help bring the President’s vision to reality and make this addition to the People’s House.”

    Individuals (7):

    Stefan E. Brodie Background: A biotech entrepreneur and co-founder of the chemical manufacturing company Purolite, Brodie and his family donated to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and affiliated committees. Brodie and his brother, Donald, were convicted in 2002 of circumventing U.S. sanctions on Cuba.

    Charles and Marissa Cascarilla Background: Charles Cascarilla is co‑founder of the blockchain firm Paxos. He and his wife are philanthropists who have advocated for financial technology sector deregulation.

    J. Pepe and Emilia Fanjul Background: Longtime Republican donors and Palm Beach residents, the couple controls U.S. sugar refining interests that includes the Domino brand.

    Edward and Shari Glazer Background: Members of the family that owns the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers and has a controlling stake in the Manchester United football club, the couple donated to Trump’s campaign. Edward is the founder and CEO of US Property Trust, which operates shopping centers, and the car dealership company US Auto Trust.

    Harold Hamm Background: The billionaire oil tycoon and pioneer of hydraulic fracturing heads the oil producer Continental Resources. He’s praised the Trump administration for aggressively moving to purchase oil to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve stockpile.

    Stephen A. Schwarzman Background: A Palm Beach resident and chair and CEO of the Blackstone Group, a global private equity firm he helped establish in 1985. Schwarzman has donated to Trump and his PACs previously and led his first-term President’s Strategic and Policy Forum.

    Konstantin Sokolov Background: Born in Russia, he immigrated to the U.S. and now heads the Chicago-based private equity firm IJS Investments. Sokolov has donated to many educational and charitable causes in the past, and to Trump’s political campaigns.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

    ___

    This story has been updated to correct the first name of an individual who donated to the White House ballroom. He is Harold Hamm, not Howard Hamm.

    Source link

  • Zuckerberg, Chan shift bulk of philanthropy to science, focusing on AI and biology to curb disease

    REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — For the past decade, Dr. Priscilla Chan and her husband Mark Zuckerberg have focused part of their philanthropy on a lofty goal — “to cure, prevent or manage all disease” — if not in their lifetime, then in their children’s. But during that time, they also funded underprivileged schools, immigration reform and efforts around diversity, equity and inclusion.

    Now, the billionaire couple is shifting the bulk of their philanthropic resources to Biohub, the pair’s science organization, and focusing on using artificial intelligence to accelerate scientific discovery. The idea is to develop virtual, AI-based cell models to understand how they work in the human body, study inflammation and use AI to “harness the immune system” for disease detection, prevention and treatment.

    “I feel like the science work that we’ve done, the Biohub model in particular, has been the most impactful thing that we have done. So we want to really double down on that. Biohub is going to be the main focus of our philanthropy going forward,” Zuckerberg said Wednesday evening at an event at the Biohub Imaging Institute in Redwood City, California. Three other Biohub institutes — in New York, San Francisco and Chicago, focus on addressing different scientific challenges.

    Chan and Zuckerberg have pledged 99% of their lifetime wealth — from shares of Meta Platforms, where Zuckerberg is CEO — toward these efforts. Since 2016, when Biohub launched, they have donated $4 billion to basic science research, a figure that does not include operating expenses for running a large-scale computer cluster for life science research. The organization says it is now on track to double that amount over the next decade, with an operating budget of about $1 billion a year.

    Last week, singer Billie Eilish told an audience that included Chan and Zuckerberg that rich people should do more to address the world’s problems.

    “Love you all, but there’s a few people in here who have a lot more money than me,” she said, to a smattering of applause. “And if you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? And no hate, but give your money away, shorties.”

    The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the couple’s charitable organization, has been faced with criticism recently for curtailing its other philanthropic work. Earlier this year, it stopped funding grants related to diversity, equity and inclusion, immigration advocacy and other issues currently in the crosshairs of the Trump administration — though the focus has been shifting to science and away from social issues for years, the couple says, long before the 2024 election.

    “So we basically looked at the ecosystem of science funding and decided that the place that we can make the biggest impact was on tool development,” Zuckerberg said. “And specifically working on long-term projects, 10 to 15 years, where the output of them was taking on a biological challenge that would produce a tool that scientists everywhere could use to accelerate the pace of science.”

    The organization earlier this year scrubbed its website’s mentions of DEI, including a statement saying “People of color and marginalized communities have experienced a long history of exploitation in the name of scientific research, and indeed science has itself been deployed as a tool of oppression.”

    “Going forward, Biohub will be our primary philanthropic effort and where we’ll dedicate the vast majority of our resources,” Zuckerberg and Chan said in a blog post Thursday. “We will continue our other philanthropic efforts as well, but the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will serve as infrastructure and support for our initiatives.”

    Zuckerberg and Chan’s increased commitment to science research comes as the Trump administration has cut billions in scientific research and public health funding.

    Chan, who had worked as a pediatrician and treated children with rare diseases, says what she wanted “more than anything was a way to see what was happening inside their cells — how genetic mutations were expressed in different cell types and what, exactly, was breaking down.”

    “Until now, that kind of understanding has been out of reach. AI is changing that. For the first time, we have the potential to model and predict the biology of disease in ways that can reveal what’s gone wrong and how we can develop new treatments to address it,” she said.

    On Thursday, Chan and Zuckerberg also announced that Biohub has hired the team at EvolutionaryScale, an AI research lab that has created large-scale AI systems for the life sciences. Alex Rives, EvolutionaryScale’s co-founder, will serve as Biohub’s head of science, leading research efforts on experimental biology, data and artificial intelligence. The financial terms were not disclosed.

    Biohub’s ambition for the next years and decades is to create virtual cell systems that would not have been possible without recent advances in AI. Similar to how large language models learn from vast databases of digital books, online writings and other media, its researchers and scientists are working toward building virtual systems that serve as digital representations of human physiology on all levels, such as molecular, cellular or genome. As it is open source — free and publicly available — scientists can then conduct virtual experiments on a scale not possible in physical laboratories.

    Noting that Biohub launched when the couple had their first child, Chan listed off some of the organization’s accomplishments, ranging from building the largest single-cell data set, contributing to one of the largest human cell maps, building sensors to measure inflammation in real-time in living cells and researching rare diseases.

    That work continues, with a focus on using AI to advance biomedical research.

    “And to anchor it back onto the impact on patients, you know, why do this?” Chan said. “It’s like, why is a virtual cell important? We have cured diseases for mice and for flies and for zebrafish, many, many times. And that’s great. But we want to make sure that we are actually using biology to push the forefront of medicine for people — and that is so promising.”

    Source link

  • Meta says it will invest $600 billion in the US, with AI data centers front and center

    Meta said on Friday that it’s investing $600 billion in US infrastructure and jobs by 2028. Although the announcement is light on specifics (and heavy on standard Big Tech self-congratulation), it sounds like much of it will go toward AI data centers.

    “At Meta, we’re focused on creating the next generation of AI products and building personal superintelligence for everyone,” the company wrote. “Data centers are crucial to reaching these goals and helping America maintain its technological edge.”

    If you feel like this isn’t the first you’ve heard of Meta and $600 billion in US spending, you’re right. That’s the figure Mark Zuckerberg gave during a September White House dinner with Big Tech CEOs. But more memorable was the hot-mic moment later captured between Zuckerberg and President Trump. “Sorry, I wasn’t ready,” the Meta CEO said to the president, referring to his $600 billion pledge. “I wasn’t sure what number you wanted to go with.”

    Meta’s announcement today includes figures intended to bolster its claim to be a champion of US infrastructure. The company says that, since 2010, its data centers have “supported over 30,000 skilled trade jobs and 5,000 operational jobs.” Meta adds that it’s currently bringing over $20 billion to US subcontractors.

    As for the “superintelligence” mention, it also surfaced when Zuckerberg announced data center investments in July. That term typically refers to a hypothetical point at which AI surpasses human cognitive abilities. (Steve Wozniak, Geoffrey Hinton and others want it banned until it’s proven safe and controllable.) The company views its AI glasses as a central part of that future. Zuckerberg said in July that anyone without them may eventually suffer from a “pretty significant cognitive disadvantage.”

    Source link

  • Zuckerberg, Chan shift bulk of philanthropy to science, focusing on AI and biology to curb disease

    By BARBARA ORTUTAY

    REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — For the past decade, Dr. Priscilla Chan and her husband Mark Zuckerberg have focused part of their philanthropy on a lofty goal — “to cure, prevent or manage all disease” — if not in their lifetime, then in their children’s. But during that time, they also funded underprivileged schools, immigration reform and efforts around diversity, equity and inclusion.

1 of 4

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, right, speaks next to his wife, Priscilla Chan, co-founder and co-CEO of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), during an event at the Biohub Imaging Institute in Redwood City, Calif., Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Expand

On Thursday, Chan and Zuckerberg also announced that Biohub has hired the team at EvolutionaryScale, an AI research lab that has created large-scale AI systems for the life sciences. Alex Rives, EvolutionaryScale’s co-founder, will serve as Biohub’s head of science, leading research efforts on experimental biology, data and artificial intelligence. The financial terms were not disclosed.

Biohub’s ambition for the next years and decades is to create virtual cell systems that would not have been possible without recent advances in AI. Similar to how large language models learn from vast databases of digital books, online writings and other media, its researchers and scientists are working toward building virtual systems that serve as digital representations of human physiology on all levels, such as molecular, cellular or genome. As it is open source — free and publicly available — scientists can then conduct virtual experiments on a scale not possible in physical laboratories.

Noting that Biohub launched when the couple had their first child, Chan listed off some of the organization’s accomplishments, ranging from building the largest single-cell data set, contributing to one of the largest human cell maps, building sensors to measure inflammation in real-time in living cells and researching rare diseases.

That work continues, with a focus on using AI to advance biomedical research.

“And to anchor it back onto the impact on patients, you know, why do this?” Chan said. “It’s like, why is a virtual cell important? We have cured diseases for mice and for flies and for zebrafish, many, many times. And that’s great. But we want to make sure that we are actually using biology to push the forefront of medicine for people — and that is so promising.”

Associated Press

Source link

  • Jim Cramer Says Meta (META) CEO Zuckerberg Wants To “Win No Matter What”

    We recently published 10 Stocks on Jim Cramer’s Radar. Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed.

    After social media giant Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:META)’s shares fell following its latest earnings report, Cramer took the contrarian view and defended the firm’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. The CNBC TV host did not hold back when discussing the firm:

    Photo by austin-distel on Unsplash

    “[After David Faber commented that Cramer was frustrated with the conference call despite Meta’s sizable user base] I thought that the revenues were terrific. The reaction to the conference call is that, finally we’re at the point where people are spending too much. And he is spending too much. People did not like Mark Zuckerberg’s assurance that you have to spend.

    Source link

  • Meta will add a ‘huge corpus’ of AI content into its recommendation system

    It looks like Meta’s Vibes feed is just the start of the company’s pivot toward AI slop. In an earnings call, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that “we’re going to add yet another huge corpus of content” to Meta’s recommendation system, via AI’s ability to create and remix content — so you’re likely to see even more AI generated posts on Facebook and Instagram.

    “Social media has gone through two eras so far. First was when all content was from friends, family, and accounts that you followed directly. The second was when we added all the creator content,” he said, seemingly suggesting that AI content will be the third era.

    Zuckerberg added that recommendation systems that “deeply” understand AI content are “increasingly valuable” since they can “help you achieve your goals.”

    He then nodded to Vibes, calling it an example of a new type of content enabled by AI. Retention on the feed “is looking good so far, and its usage keeps growing quickly week over week,” he proclaimed. Furthermore, there are more opportunities to build “many more novel types of content aheads, as our new models become ready,” Zuckerberg added. To put some numbers to Vibes takeup, Meta CFO Susan Li said that users have generated over 20 billion images in the feed to date.

    Meta has already introduced a number of AI features across its social media platforms. Those include in-app photo and video editing via text prompts directly in Instagram Stories, AI chatbots across WhatsApp, Messenger, and Instagram, and a standalone Meta AI app that includes an AI assistant and discovery feed.

    Steve Dent

    Source link

  • Threads reaches 150 million daily users and is ramping up ads

    Threads has grown to 150 million daily active users. Mark Zuckerberg shared the latest milestone for the company’s text-based app during Meta’s third-quarter earnings call. The company previously reported in August that Threads had reached more than 400 million monthly users.

    Zuckerberg, who has mused that Threads could become Meta’s next billion-person app, said that it was “on track to become the leader in its category.” He also said that time spent in the app had increased by 10 percent, which he credited to improvements to the company’s AI recommendation systems.

    On Wednesday, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said that Meta was also “exploring” algorithm personalization controls for Threads. The company is currently testing the ability to “tune” Instagram’s algorithmic recommendations.

    As Threads has grown, Meta also confirmed that ads are ramping up on the platform. During the call with analysts, Meta CFO Susan Li said that “ads are now running globally” in the Threads feed. The company had previously brought ads to Threads users in 30 countries following a small test earlier this year. This week, the company also announced that it would expand the type of ad formats on Threads, including video ads. “We’re following our typical monetization playbook of optimizing the ads formats and performance,” Li said.

    Source link

  • Meet the billionaire couple who not only signed The Giving Pledge but actually delivered—donating nearly half their fortune while still alive | Fortune

    The Giving Pledge was designed to hold the world’s richest people accountable for donating at least half their fortunes in their lifetimes or wills–but so far, only John and Laura Arnold have actually done it.

    From well-known Wall Street energy trader to philanthropist, John Arnold began his career trading natural gas at Enron and later ran a hedge fund, Centaurus Partners. By 2012, he had retired and fully pivoted to philanthropy at 38 years old. 

    The Arnolds have donated over $2 billion to date, and more than $204 million in 2024, according to Forbes. Currently, their net worth is around $2.9 billion, meaning their donations amount to about 42 percent of their wealth. 

    In addition, John Arnold has a Forbes philanthropy score of 5 out of 5. The score is based on those who have donated more than 20% of their wealth. 

    Since launching their foundation, “Arnold Ventures,” in 2008, their philanthropic efforts have expanded to 150 employees across offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Houston. 

    How the Arnolds donate 

    John and Laura Arnolds’ approach to giving is data-driven, aiming to deliver real, measurable results from what they offer, and has been fundamentally focused on research. Their efforts include a variety of public policy issues, including health care, higher education, criminal justice, infrastructure, and more. 

    Emphasizing research and measurable outcomes, their philanthropy also reflects a broader belief that wealth should be used in real time—not preserved for future generations. In fact, John Arnold has previously noted that The Arnolds will not have a legacy foundation after their deaths.

    Most recently, “Arnold Ventures” joined the American Institute for Boys and Men to issue a call for new research on the long-term consequences of online sports betting as states continue to legalize the practice. 

    The Giving Pledge

    Launched in 2010 by Bill and Melinda French Gates and Warren Buffett, the Giving Pledge invites the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to publicly commit to giving away at least 50% of their wealth to philanthropy, either during their lifetimes or in their wills. 

    Some of the signers include Bezos’s ex-wife MacKenzie Scott (but not Jeff Bezos), Michael Bloomberg, Elon Musk, George Lucas, and Mark Zuckerberg.

    Despite hundreds of billionaires signing the Giving Pledge, they haven’t necessarily followed through. The pledge is a moral commitment rather than a legally binding contract—participants sign an open letter explaining their reasons for giving. They can choose which causes and charities to support.

    The Institute for Policy Studies’ 2025 report, The Giving Pledge at 15, highlights that Laura and John were the only participants technically in compliance with the pledge since signing in 2010. 

    “The Arnolds should be commended, they’ve boldly decided to give and to study how philanthropy can actually move money out the door instead of sequestering wealth. They’re among the most significant players in the Giving Pledge class when it comes to pushing real charity reform,” report co-author Bella DeVaan told Fortune in an interview.

    Among the 22 deceased U.S. Pledgers, only eight met their pledge before death—just one, Chuck Feeney, gave away his entire fortune while alive. 

    Furthermore, of the original 57 U.S. signers in 2010, 32 remain billionaires, with their net worth increasing by almost 300% since signing. Only 11 of the original group are no longer billionaires—but it’s mainly because their net worth dropped, not because they gave it away.

    “Wealth is accumulating incredibly quickly for the wealthiest people in America,” DeVaan added. The Giving Pledge is one of the few public commitments they make in lieu of stronger federal regulation or taxation—so its fulfillment is really important.” 

    John Arnold recently defended The Giving Pledge on X following a Fortune report about Peter Thiel saying he encouraged Elon Musk to abandon it due to concerns that his wealth would be donated to “left-wing nonprofits.”

    “The multitude of billion-dollar fortunes, whether in the 1s, 10s, or 100s, have the potential to be put to enormous benefit,” Arnold wrote. “I won’t offer unsolicited advice as to what I think someone should do with their money. I’d only suggest that figuring out what to do with it in a productive fashion can be as important as trying to make more.” 

    Jessica Coacci

    Source link