Red Kong XIX Member Oct 11, 2020 13,560 This is assuming that the handheld can play PS4 games natively without any issues, so they are not included in the poll. Hardware leaker Kepler said it should be able to run PS5 games, even without a patch, but with a performance impact potentially.  Hero_of_the_Day Avenger Oct 27, 2017 19,958 Isn't the rumor that games don't require patches to run on it? That would imply that support isn't mandatory, but automatic.   Homura ▲ Legend ▲ Member Aug 20, 2019 7,232 As the post above said, the rumor is the PS5 portable will be able to run natively any and all PS4/PS5 games. Of course, some games might not work properly or require specific patches, but the idea is automatic compatibility.  shadowman16 Member Oct 25, 2017 42,292 Ideally you'd want stuff to pretty much work out of the box. The more you ask devs to do, the less I imagine will want to support it... Or suddenly games get parred down so that they can run on handhelds (which considering how people hated cross gen for that reason, they'd hate it here as well). I personally would just prefer a solution where its automatic. I dont really care about a Sony handheld, dont really want devs to be forced to support the thing (considering how shit Sony is at supporting its peripherals - like the Vita or PSVR2)  Modest_Modsoul Living the Dreams Member Oct 29, 2017 28,418 🤷‍♂️   setmymindforopensky Member Apr 20, 2025 67 a lot of games have performance modes. it should run a lot of the library even without any patching. if there's multiplat im sure itll default to the PS4 ver. im not sure what theyd do for something like GTA6 but itll have a series S version so its clearly scalable enough. im guessing PSTV situation. support it or not we dont care.  reksveks Member May 17, 2022 7,628 Think Kepler is personally assuming the goal of running without patches is a goal and one that won't happen just cause it's too late to force it. It's going to be an interesting solution to an interesting problem  Servbot24 The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 47,826 Obviously not. Pretty absurd question tbh.   RivalGT Member Dec 13, 2017 7,616 This one sounds like it requires a lot of work on Sony's end, I dont think developers will need to do much for games to work. Granted moving forward Sony is likely to make it easier for devs to have a more input on this portable mode. Things working out of the box is likely the goal, and thats what Sony needs if they want this to work, but devs having more input on this mode would be a plus I think.  Callibretto Member Oct 25, 2017 10,445 Indonesia shadowman16 said: Ideally you'd want stuff to pretty much work out of the box. The more you ask devs to do, the less I imagine will want to support it... Or suddenly games get parred down so that they can run on handhelds (which considering how people hated cross gen for that reason, they'd hate it here as well). I personally would just prefer a solution where its automatic. I dont really care about a Sony handheld, dont really want devs to be forced to support the thing (considering how shit Sony is at supporting its peripherals - like the Vita or PSVR2) Click to expand... Click to shrink... depend on the game imo, asking CD Project to somehow make Witcher 4 playable on handheld might be unreasonable. but any game that can run on Switch 2 should be playable on PSPortable without much issue   Pheonix1 Member Jun 22, 2024 716 Absolutely they will. Not sure why people think it would be hard, if they hand them.the right tools most ports won't take long anyhow.   skeezx Member Oct 27, 2017 23,994 guessing there will be a "portable approved" label with the respective games going forward, regardless whether it's a PS5 or PS6 game. and when the thing is released popular past titles will be retroactively approved by sony, and up to developers if they want to patch the bigger games to be portable friendly. i guess where things could get tricky/laborious for developers is whether every game going forward is required to screen for portable performance, as it's not a PC so the portable will likely disallow for running "non-approved" games at all  AmFreak Member Oct 26, 2017 3,245 They need to give people some form of guarantee that it will get games, otherwise they greatly diminish their potential success. The best way to do this is to make it another SKU of the contemporary console. And with (close to) everything already running at 60fps and progression slowing to a crawl it's far easier than it had been in the past.  Ruck Member Oct 25, 2017 3,105 I mean, what is the handheld? PS6? Or an actual second console? If the former, then yes, if the latter then no   TitanicFall Member Nov 12, 2017 9,340 Nah. It might be incentivized though. There's not much in it for devs if it's a cross buy situation.   Callibretto Member Oct 25, 2017 10,445 Indonesia imo, PS6 will remain their main console, focusing on high fidelity visuals that Switch 2 and portable PC won't be able to run without huge compromise. PSPortable will be secondary console, something like PSPortal, but this time able to play any games that Switch2 can reasonably run. and for the high end games that it can't run, it will use streaming, either from PS6 you own, or PS+ Premium subs  bleits Member Oct 14, 2023 373 They have to if they want to be taken seriously   Vic Damone Jr. Member Oct 27, 2017 20,534 Nope Sony doesn't mandate this stuff and it's why their second product always dies.   fiendcode Member Oct 26, 2017 26,514 I think it depends on what the device really is, if it's more of a "Portal 2" or a "Series SP" or something else entirely (PSP3?). Streaming might be enough for PS6 games along with incentivized PS5/4 patches but whatever SIE does they need to make sure their inhouse teams are ALL on board this time. That was a big part of PSP/Vita's downfall, that the biggest or most important PS Studios snubbed them and the teams that did show up with support are mostly closed and gone now.   Callibretto Member Oct 25, 2017 10,445 Indonesia bleits said: They have to if they want to be taken seriously Click to expand... Click to shrink... from the last interview with PS exec about Switch 2 spec, it seems clear that PS have no plan to abandon high end console spec to switch to mobile hardware like Switch 2 and Xbox Ally. PS consider their high fidelity visual as advantage and differentiator from Nintendo. so with PS6, their top studio will eventuall make games that just won't realistically run on handheld devices. so having a mandate where all PS6 games is playable on handheld is simply unrealistic imo  danm999 Member Oct 29, 2017 19,929 Sydney Incentives, not mandates.   NSESN ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 27,729 I think people are setting themselves for disappointment in regards for how powerful this thing will be   defaltoption Plug in a controller and enter the Konami code The Fallen Oct 27, 2017 12,485 Austin Depends on what they call it. If they call it anything related to ps6, expect very bad performance, and mandates If they call it ps5 portable, expect bad performance and no mandates as it will be handled on their end If they call it a ps portable expect it to have no support from Sony and get whatever it gets just be happy it functions till they abandon it.  Metnut Member Apr 7, 2025 30 Good question OP. I voted the middle one. I think anything that ships for PS5 will need to work for the handheld. Question is whether that works automatically or will need patches.  mute ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 29,807 I think that would require a level of commitment to a secondary piece of hardware that Sony hasn't shown in a long time.   Patison Member Oct 27, 2017 761 It's difficult to say without knowing what they're planning with this device exactly. If they're fully going Switch route (or PS Vita/PS TV route) or more like a Steam Deck, which will run launch games perfectly and then, as time goes on, some titles might start looking less than ideal or be unplayable at all. Or Series S/X, just the Series S being portable — that would be preferable but also limiting but also diminishing returns between generations so might be worth it etc. And if that device happens at all and its development won't be dropped soon is another question. Lots of unknowns, but I'm interested to see what Sony comes up with, as long as they'll have games to support it this time around.  Jammerz Member Apr 29, 2023 1,579 I think it will be optional support. However sony needs to support it with their first parties to set an example and making it as easy as possible for other devs to scale down. For sony first party games maybe use nixxes to scale down so their studios aren't bogged down.  Hamchan The Fallen Oct 25, 2017 6,000 I think 99.9% of games will be crossgen between PS5 and PS6 for the entire generation, just based on how this industry is going, so it might not be much of an issue for Sony to mandate.   Advance.Wars.Sgt. Member Jun 10, 2018 10,456 Honestly, I'd worry more about Sony's 1st party teams than 3rd party developers since they were notoriously adverse making software with a handheld power profile in mind.   overthewaves Member Sep 30, 2020 1,203 Wouldn't that hamstring the games for ps6? That's PlayStation players biggest fear they don't want a series S type situation right? They treat series S like a punching bag.   Neonvisions Member Oct 27, 2017 707 overthewaves said: Wouldn't that hamstring the games for ps6? That's PlayStation players biggest fear they don't want a series S type situation right? They treat series S like a punching bag. Click to expand... Click to shrink... How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X?  Gwarm Member Nov 13, 2017 2,902 I'd be shocked if Sony released a device that let's you play games that haven't been patched or confirmed to run acceptably. Imagine if certain games just hard crashed the console? This is the company that wouldn't let you play certain Vita games on the PSTV even if they actually worked.   bloopland33 Member Mar 4, 2020 3,845 I wonder if they'll just do the Steam Deck thing and do a compatibility badge. You can boot whatever software you want, but it might run at 5 fps and drain your battery. This would be in addition to whatever efforts they're doing to make things work out of the box, of course. But it's hard to imagine them mandating developers ship a PS6 profile and a PS6P profile for those heavier games 5-7 years from now… ….but it's also hard to imagine them shipping this PS6-gen device that doesn't play everything (depending on how they position it). So maybe they Steam Deck it  vivftp Member Oct 29, 2017 23,016 My guess, every PS6 game will be mandated to support it. PS5 games will support it natively for the simpler games and will require a patch as has been rumored to run on lesser specs I think next gen we get PS3 and Vita emulation so the PS6 and portable will be able to play games from PSN from every past PlayStation  Mocha Joe Member Jun 2, 2021 13,636 Really need to take the Steam Deck approach and don't make it a requirement. Just make it a complementary device where it is possible to play majority of the games available on PSN.   overthewaves Member Sep 30, 2020 1,203 Neonvisions said: How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X? Click to expand... Click to shrink... I mean did you see the reaction here to the series S announcement lol. Everyone was saying it's gonna "hold back the generation".   reksveks Member May 17, 2022 7,628 Neonvisions said: How would that effect PS6? Are you suggesting that the Series S hamstrings games for the X? Click to expand... Click to shrink... Or the perception is that it does but the truth is that there is a lot of factors   Fabs Member Aug 22, 2019 2,827 I can't see the forcing handheld and pro support next gen.   level Member May 25, 2023 1,427 Definitely not Games already take too long to make. Extra time isn't something they'll want to reinforce to their developers.  gofreak Member Oct 26, 2017 8,411 I don't think support will be mandatory. I think they're bringing it into a reality where a growing portion of games can, or could, run without much change or effort on the developer's part on a next gen handheld. They'll lean on that natural trend rather than a policy - anything that is outside of that will just be streamable as now with the Portal.   Caiusto Member Oct 25, 2017 7,086 If they don't want to end up with another Vita yes they will.   mute ▲ Legend ▲ Member Oct 25, 2017 29,807 Advance.Wars.Sgt. said: Honestly, I'd worry more about Sony's 1st party teams than 3rd party developers since they were notoriously adverse making software with a handheld power profile in mind. Click to expand... Click to shrink... It does seem kinda unthinkable that Intergalactic would be made with a handheld in mind, for example.   AmFreak Member Oct 26, 2017 3,245 mute said: It does seem kinda unthinkable that Intergalactic would be made with a handheld in mind, for example. Click to expand... Click to shrink... Ratchet, Returnal, Cyberpunk, etc. also weren't made "with a handheld in mind".   Spoit Member Oct 28, 2017 5,599 Given how much of a pain the series S mandate has been, I don't see them binding even first party studios to it, especially ones that are trying to go for the cutting edge of tech. Since given AMDs timelines, is not going to be anywhere near a base PS5. I'm also skeptical of the claim that'll be able to play ps5 games without extensive patching.  Jawmuncher Crisis Dino Moderator Oct 25, 2017 45,166 Ibis Island No, I think the portable will handle portable stuff "automatically" for what it converts   knightmawk Member Dec 12, 2018 8,900 I expect they'll do everything they can to make sure no one has to think about it and it's as automatic as possible. It'll technically still be part of cert, but the goal will be for it to be rare that a game fails that part of cert and has to be sent back. That being said, I imagine there will be some games that still don't work and developers will be able to submit for that exception.  RivalGT Member Dec 13, 2017 7,616 I think the concept here is similar to how PS4 games play on PS5, the ones with patches I mean, the game will run with a different graphics preset then it would on PS4/ PS4 Pro, so in some cases this means higher resolution or higher frame rate cap. What Sony needs to work on their end is getting this to work without any patches from developers. Its the only way this can work.  Vexii Member Oct 31, 2017 3,103 UK if they don't mandate support, it'll just be a death knell for the format. I don't think they could get away with a dedicated handheld platform now when the Switch and Steam Deck exists   Mobius and Pet Octopus Member Oct 25, 2017 17,065 Just because a game can run on a handheld, doesn't mean that's all required for support. The UI alone likely requires changes for an optimal experience, sometimes necessary to be "playable". Small screen sizes usually needs changes.   SeanMN Member Oct 28, 2017 2,437 If PS6 games support is optional, that will create fragmentation of the platform and uncertain software support. If it's part of the PS6 family and support is mandatory, I can see there being concern that if would hold the generation back with a low capability sku. My thoughts are this should be a PS6 and support the same as the primary console. 

“Is that concrete all around, or is it in my head?” asked Ian Hunter in “All the Young Dudes,” the song David Bowie wrote for Mott the Hoople in 1972. Concrete is all around us, and we haven’t quite wrapped our heads around it. It’s one of the indispensable materials of modernity; as we try to decarbonize the built environment, it’s part of the problem, and innovations in its composition may become part of the solution. Understanding its history more clearly, the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition in Manhattan implies, just might help us employ it better. Concrete is “the second most used substance in the world, after water,” the museum’s founder/director/curator Carol Willis told AN during a recent visit. For plasticity, versatility, and compressive strength, reinforced concrete is hard to beat, though its performance is more problematic when assessed by the metric of embodied and operational carbon, a consideration the exhibition acknowledges up front. In tall construction, concrete has become nearly hegemonic, yet its central role, contend Willis and co-curator Thomas Leslie, formerly of Foster + Partners and now a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is underrecognized by the public and by mainstream architectural history. The current exhibition aims to change that perception. The Skyscraper Museum in Lower Manhattan features an exhibition, The Modern Concrete Skyscraper, which examines the history of material choices in building tall towers. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) The Modern Concrete Skyscraper examines the history of tall towers’ structural material choices, describing a transition from the early dominance of steel frames to the contemporary condition, in which most large buildings rely on concrete. This change did not happen instantly or for any single reason but through a combination of technical and economic factors, including innovations by various specialists, well-recognized and otherwise; the availability of high-quality limestone deposits near Chicago; and the differential development of materials industries in nations whose architecture grew prominent in recent decades. As supertalls reach ever higher—in the global race for official height rankings by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) and national, corporate, or professional bragging rights—concrete’s dominance may not be permanent in that sector, given the challenge of pumping the material beyond a certain height. (The 2,717-foot Burj Khalifa, formerly Burj Dubai, uses concrete up to 1,987 and steel above that point; Willis quotes SOM’s William Baker describing it as “the tallest steel building with a concrete foundation of 156 stories.”) For the moment, however, concrete is ahead of its chief competitors, steel and (on a smaller scale) timber. Regardless of possible promotional inferences, Willis said, “we did not work with the industry in any way for this exhibition.” “The invention of steel and the grid of steel and the skeleton frame is only the first chapter of the history of the skyscraper,” Willis explained. “The second chapter, and the one that we’re in now, is concrete. Surprisingly, no one had ever told that story of the skyscraper today with a continuous narrative.” The exhibition traces the use of concrete back to the ancient Roman combination of aggregate and pozzolana—the chemical formula for which was “largely lost with the fall of the Roman Empire,” though some Byzantine and medieval structures approximated it. From there, the show explores comparable materials’ revival in 18th-century England, the patenting of Portland cement by Leeds builder Joseph Aspdin in 1824, the proof-of-concept concrete house by François Coignet in 1856, and the pivotal development of rebar in the mid-19th century, with overdue attention to Ernest Ransome’s 1903 Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, then the world’s tallest concrete building at 15 stories and arguably the first concrete skyscraper. The exhibition includes a timeline that depicts concrete’s origins in Rome to its contemporary use in skyscraper construction. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) Baker’s lectures, Willis reported, sometimes pose a deceptively simple question: “‘What is a skyscraper?’ In 1974, when the World Trade Center and Sears Tower are just finished, you would say it’s a very tall building that is built of steel, an office building in North America. But if you ask that same question today, the answer is: It’s a building that is mixed-use, constructed of concrete, and [located] in Asia or the Middle East.” The exhibition organizes the history of concrete towers by eras of engineering innovation, devoting special attention to the 19th- and early-20th-century “patent era” of Claude Allen Porter Turner (pioneer in flat-slab flooring and mushroom columns) and Henry Chandlee Turner (founder of Turner Construction), Ransome (who patented twisted-iron rebar), and François Hennebique (known for the re-inforced concrete system exemplified by Liverpool’s Royal Liver Building, the world’s tallest concrete office building when completed in 1911). In the postwar era, “concrete comes out onto the surface [as] both a structural material and aesthetic.” Brutalism, perhaps to some observers’ surprise, “does not figure very large in high-rise design,” Willis said, except for Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. The exhibition, however, devotes considerable attention to the work of Pier Luigi Nervi, Bertrand Goldberg (particularly Marina City), and SOM’s Fazlur Khan, pioneer of the structural tube system in the 1960s and 1970s—followed by the postmodernist 1980s, when concrete could express either engineering values or ornamentation. The exhibition highlights a number of concrete towers, including Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) “In the ’90s, there were material advances in engineering analysis and computerization that helped to predict performance, and so buildings can get taller and taller,” Willis said. The current era, if one looks to CTBUH rankings, is dominated by the supertalls seen in Dubai, Shanghai, and Kuala Lumpur, after the Petronas Towers (1998) “took the title of world’s tallest building from North America for the first time and traumatized everybody about that.” The previous record holder, Chicago’s Sears (now Willis) Tower, comprised steel structural tubes on concrete caissons; with Petronas, headquarters of Malaysia’s national petroleum company of that name, a strong concrete industry was represented but a strong national steel industry was lacking, and as Willis frequently says, form follows finances. In any event, by the ’90s concrete was already becoming the standard material for supertalls, particularly on soft-soiled sites like Shanghai, where its water resistance and compressive strength are well suited to foundation construction. Its plasticity is also well suited to complex forms like the triangular Burj, Kuala Lumpur’s Merdeka 118, and (if eventually completed) the even taller Jeddah Tower, designed to “confuse the wind,” shed vortices, and manage wind forces. Posing the same question Louis Kahn asked about the intentions of a brick, Willis said, with concrete “the answer is: anything you want.” The exhibition is front-loaded with scholarly material, presenting eight succinct yet informative wall texts on the timeline of concrete construction. The explanatory material is accompanied by ample photographs as well as structural models on loan from SOM, Pelli Clarke & Partners, and other firms. Some materials are repurposed from the museum’s previous shows, particularly Supertall! (2011–12) and Sky High and the Logic of Luxury (2013–14). The models allow close examination of the Burj Khalifa, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Tower, Merdeka 118, and others, including two unbuilt Chicago projects that would have exceeded 2,000 feet: the Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle (Cesar Pelli/Thornton Tomasetti) and 7 South Dearborn (SOM). The Burj, Willis noted, was all structure and no facade for a time: When its curtain-wall manufacturer, Schmidlin, went bankrupt in 2006, it “ended up going to 100 stories without having a stitch of glass on it,” temporarily becoming a “1:1 scale model of the structural system up to 100 stories.” Its prominence justifies its appearance here in two models, including one from RWDI’s wind-tunnel studies. Eero Saarinen’s only skyscraper, built for CBS in 1965 and also known as “Black Rock,” under construction in New York City. (Courtesy Eero Saarinen Collection, Manuscripts, and Archives, Yale University Library) The exhibition opened in March, with plans to stay up at least through October (Willis prefers to keep the date flexible), with accompanying lectures and panels to be announced on the museum’s website (skyscraper.org). Though the exhibition’s full textual and graphic content is available online, the physical models alone are worth a trip to the Battery Park City headquarters. Intriguing questions arise from the exhibition without easy answers, setting the table for lively discussion and debate. One is whether the patenting of innovations like Ransome bar and the Système Hennebique incentivized technological progress or hindered useful technology transfer. Willis speculated, “Did the fact that there were inventions and patents mean that competition was discouraged, that the competition was only in the realm of business, rather than advancing the material?” A critical question is whether research into the chemistry of concrete, including MIT’s 2023 report on the self-healing properties of Roman pozzolana and proliferating claims about “green concrete” using alternatives to Portland cement, can lead to new types of the material with improved durability and lower emissions footprints. This exhibition provides a firm foundation in concrete’s fascinating history, opening space for informed speculation about its future. Bill Millard is a regular contributor to AN.

For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) to much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Apple (AAPL) launched its first computer in 1976. Google (GOOGL) incorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/Bloomberg (Getty Images)It’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazon (AMZN) also laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforce (CRM) eliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilio (TWLO) slashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopify (SHOP) (headquartered in Canada but with much of its R&D teams in the U.S.) cut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbase (COIN) reduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about $500 billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.

Nature, Published online: 29 May 2025; doi:10.1038/d41586-025-01637-4The COVID-19 pandemic showed the value of changing direction in research. It should be incentivized, encouraged and celebrated.

Botox injections used to be a secret for (largely) women in their 40s and 50s. But growing numbers of (largely) women in their 20s and 30s are turning to “baby Botox,” or smaller doses that are intended to prevent aging rather than combat it.Baby Botox is just one intervention that doctors say younger people now frequently seek, and some view the trend with concern. Dr. Michelle Hure, a physician specializing in dermatology and dermatopathology, says younger patients aren’t considering the cost of procedures that require lifetime maintenance, and are expressing dissatisfaction with their looks to a degree that borders on the absurd.Hure traces the demand for “baby Botox” and other procedures to the start of the pandemic.“Everyone was basically chronically online,” she told Vox. “They were on Zoom, they were looking at themselves, and there was the rise of of TikTok and the filters and people were really seeing these perceived flaws that either aren’t there or are so minimal and just normal anatomy. And they have really made it front and center where it affects them. It affects their daily life and I really feel that it has become more of a pathological thing.”Hure spoke to Today, Explained co-host Noel King about the rise of “baby Botox” and her concerns with the cosmetic dermatology industry. An excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You told us about a patient that you saw yesterday, and you said you probably wouldn’t keep her on because her mentality really worried you. Would you tell me about that young woman?I had this patient who was mid-20s, and really a beautiful girl. I [didn’t] see a lot of signs of aging on her face, but she was coming in for Botox. There wasn’t a lot for me to treat. And at the end of the session she was asking me, “So what do you think about my nasolabial folds?”Basically, it’s the fold that goes from the corner of your nose down to the corner of your mouth. It’s the barrier between the upper lip and your cheek, and when you smile it kind of folds. Of course, the more you age, the more of the line will be left behind when you’re not smiling. And she was pointing to her cheek as if there was something there, but there was nothing there. And so I had to tell her, “Well, I don’t see that, you’re perfect.” It’s a phantom nasolabial fold. It didn’t exist.That sort of mentality where someone is perceiving a flaw that is absolutely not there — providers need to say no. Unfortunately, they’re incentivized not to. Especially if you have a cosmetic office, if you’re a med spa, if you have a cosmetic derm or plastic surgery office, of course you’re incentivized to do what the patient wants. Well, I’m not going to do that. That’s not what I do.That means you may get paid for seeing her in that visit, but you’re not getting paid for putting filler in her face. I think what I hear you saying is other doctors would have done that.Absolutely. One hundred percent. I know this for a fact because many times those patients will come to my office to get that filler dissolved because they don’t like it. In the larger practices or practices that are private equity-owned, which is a huge problem in medicine, you are absolutely meant to sell as many products, as many procedures as possible. Oftentimes I was told to sell as much filler as possible, because every syringe is several hundred dollars. And then if they’re there, talk them into a laser. Talk them into this, talk them into that. Then you become a salesman. For my skin check patients, I’m looking for skin cancer. I’m counseling them on how to take care of their skin. I was told, “Don’t talk to them about using sunscreen, because we want them to get skin cancer and come back.”I was pulled out of the room by my boss and reprimanded for explaining why it’s so important to use sunscreen. And so this is why I couldn’t do it anymore. I had to start my own office and be on my own. I can’t do that. That goes against everything that I believe in, in my oath. Because there is potential harm on many different levels for cosmetic procedures.What are the risks to giving someone a cosmetic procedure that they don’t really need?This is a medical procedure. There is always risk for any type of intervention, right? What gets me is, like, Nordstrom is talking about having injections in their stores. This is ridiculous! This is a medical procedure. You can get infection, you can get vascular occlusion that can lead to death of the tissue overlying where you inject. It can lead to blindness. This is a big deal. It’s fairly safe if you know what you’re doing. But not everyone knows what they’re doing and knows how to handle the complications that can come about. Honestly, I feel like the psychological aspect of it is a big problem. At some point you become dependent, almost, on these procedures to either feel happy or feel good about yourself. And at what point is it not going to be enough? One of my colleagues actually coined this term. It’s called perception drift. At some point, you will do these little, little, incremental tweaks until you look like a different person. And you might look very abnormal. So even if someone comes to me for something that is legitimate, it’s still: Once you start, it’s going to be hard for you to stop. If you’re barely able to scrimp together enough to pay for that one thing, and you have it done, great. What about all the rest of your life that you’re going to want to do something? Are you going to be able to manage it?I wonder how all of this makes you think about your profession. Most people get into medicine, it has always been my assumption, to be helpful. And you’ve laid out a world in which procedures are being done that are not only not helpful, they could be dangerous. And you don’t seem to like it very much.This is why it is a smaller and smaller percentage of what I do in my office. I love cosmetics to an extent, right? I love to make people love how they look. But when you start using cosmetics as a tool to make them feel better about themselves in a major way, it’s a slippery slope. It should be more of a targeted thing, not making you look like an entirely different person because society has told you you can’t age. It’s really disturbing to me.See More:

Image by Getty / FuturismDevelopmentsUnitedHealth, the largest healthcare insurer in the United States, reportedly went to extreme lengths to deny care to seniors and cut costs to pad out its profit margins.As The Guardian reports, nurse practitioners say that UnitedHealth pressed them to change patients' status to "do not resuscitate" — even after those same patients had "clearly expressed a desire that all available treatments be used to keep them alive.""They’re pretending to make it look like it’s in the best interest of the member," one practitioner told the British newspaper. "But it’s really not."UnitedHealth also allegedly tried to prevent patients from transferring hospitals, risking their health further.While the company has denied the allegations, the reporting paints an alarming picture of the state of healthcare in the United States, where insurance is treated much the same way as a tech company trying to maximize profits while cutting costs.UnitedHealth already has a lengthy track record of finding creative ways to deny people healthcare coverage, including deploying an AI that automatically denied and overrode claims for elderly patients.The company has attracted particular controversy after its CEO was murdered in December, in an apparent act of lethal anger at the injustices of a notoriously greedy and deficient system.The company has had a miserable year since then. Its shares have dropped almost 40 percent year to date, following a flood of damning reports.Following The Guardian's reporting today, UnitedHealth's stock price slid by more than six percent.The company has also been the subject of criminal and civil investigations into its practices, including medicare fraud, as Reuters reports.Last week, UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty abruptly resigned, citing "personal reasons" and drawing even more scrutiny over the company's operations.Whether the departure had anything to do with a continuous flood of bad press remains unclear. According to a whistleblower lawsuit cited by the Guardian, staffers at nursing homes were directly incentivized to leak sensitive resident records so that UnitedHealth sales teams could solicit their plans to them and their families.A patient who showed key symptoms of having suffered a stroke, for instance, was denied care by a remote and underqualified UnitedHealth employee, who suggested she was suffering from a less serious condition, according to UnitedHealth logs and records obtained by the newspaper. The delays caused by healthcare practitioners waiting to hear back from the insurer led to the patient's health deteriorating further.Per The Guardian, there have been countless other instances like it.In short, UnitedHealth seems far interested in cutting costs than ensuring people in senior homes stay healthy."How many of those people were further harmed because they never received the care that they needed?" former UnitedHealth nurse practitioner turned whistleblower Maxwell Ollivant told The Guardian. "When you just look at the percentage reductions in hospitalizations, it doesn’t say anything about patient outcomes."Share This Article

Friend requests Meta hypes AI friends as social media’s future, but users want real connections Two visions for social media’s future pit real connections against AI friends. Ashley Belanger – May 21, 2025 9:38 am | 1 Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more If you ask the man who has largely shaped how friends and family connect on social media over the past two decades about the future of social media, you may not get a straight answer. At the Federal Trade Commission's monopoly trial, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attempted what seemed like an artful dodge to avoid criticism that his company allegedly bought out rivals Instagram and WhatsApp to lock users into Meta's family of apps so they would never post about their personal lives anywhere else. He testified that people actually engage with social media less often these days to connect with loved ones, preferring instead to discover entertaining content on platforms to share in private messages with friends and family. As Zuckerberg spins it, Meta no longer perceives much advantage in dominating the so-called personal social networking market where Facebook made its name and cemented what the FTC alleged is an illegal monopoly. "Mark Zuckerberg says social media is over," a New Yorker headline said about this testimony in a report noting a Meta chart that seemed to back up Zuckerberg's words. That chart, shared at the trial, showed the "percent of time spent viewing content posted by 'friends'" had declined over the past two years, from 22 to 17 percent on Facebook and from 11 to 7 percent on Instagram. Supposedly because of this trend, Zuckerberg testified that "it doesn't matter much" if someone's friends are on their preferred platform. Every platform has its own value as a discovery engine, Zuckerberg suggested. And Meta platforms increasingly compete on this new playing field against rivals like TikTok, Meta argued, while insisting that it's not so much focused on beating the FTC's flagged rivals in the connecting-friends-and-family business, Snap and MeWe. But while Zuckerberg claims that hosting that kind of content doesn't move the needle much anymore, owning the biggest platforms that people use daily to connect with friends and family obviously still matters to Meta, MeWe founder Mark Weinstein told Ars. And Meta's own press releases seem to back that up. Weeks ahead of Zuckerberg's testimony, Meta announced that it would bring back the "magic of friends," introducing a "friends" tab to Facebook to make user experiences more like the original Facebook. The company intentionally diluted feeds with creator content and ads for the past two years, but it now appears intent on trying to spark more real conversations between friends and family, at least partly to fuel its newly launched AI chatbots. Those chatbots mine personal information shared on Facebook and Instagram, and Meta wants to use that data to connect more personally with users—but "in a very creepy way," The Washington Post wrote. In interviews, Zuckerberg has suggested these AI friends could "meaningfully" fill the void of real friendship online, as the average person has only three friends but "has demand" for up to 15. To critics seeking to undo Meta's alleged monopoly, this latest move could signal a contradiction in Zuckerberg's testimony, showing that the company is so invested in keeping users on its platforms that it's now creating AI friends (wh0 can never leave its platform) to bait the loneliest among us into more engagement. "The average person wants more connectivity, connection, than they have," Zuckerberg said, hyping AI friends. For the Facebook founder, it must be hard to envision a future where his platforms aren't the answer to providing that basic social need. All this comes more than a decade after he sought $5 billion in Facebook's 2012 initial public offering so that he could keep building tools that he told investors would expand "people's capacity to build and maintain relationships." At the trial, Zuckerberg testified that AI and augmented reality will be key fixtures of Meta's platforms in the future, predicting that "several years from now, you are going to be scrolling through your feed, and not only is it going to be sort of animated, but it will be interactive." Meta declined to comment further on the company's vision for social media's future. In a statement, a Meta spokesperson told Ars that "the FTC’s lawsuit against Meta defies reality," claiming that it threatens US leadership in AI and insisting that evidence at trial would establish that platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and X are Meta's true rivals. "More than 10 years after the FTC reviewed and cleared our acquisitions, the Commission’s action in this case sends the message that no deal is ever truly final," Meta's spokesperson said. "Regulators should be supporting American innovation rather than seeking to break up a great American company and further advantaging China on critical issues like AI.” Meta faces calls to open up its platforms Weinstein, the MeWe founder, told Ars that back in the 1990s when the original social media founders were planning the first community portals, "it was so beautiful because we didn't think about bots and trolls. We didn't think about data mining and surveillance capitalism. We thought about making the world a more connected and holistic place." But those who became social media overlords found more money in walled gardens and increasingly cut off attempts by outside developers to improve the biggest platforms' functionality or leverage their platforms to compete for their users' attention. Born of this era, Weinstein expects that Zuckerberg, and therefore Meta, will always cling to its friends-and-family roots, no matter which way Zuckerberg says the wind is blowing. Meta "is still entirely based on personal social networking," Weinstein told Ars. In a Newsweek op-ed, Weinstein explained that he left MeWe in 2021 after "competition became impossible" with Meta. It was a time when MeWe faced backlash over lax content moderation, drawing comparisons between its service and right-wing apps like Gab or Parler. Weinstein rejected those comparisons, seeing his platform as an ideal Facebook rival and remaining a board member through the app's more recent shift to decentralization. Still defending MeWe's failed efforts to beat Facebook, he submitted hundreds of documents and was deposed in the monopoly trial, alleging that Meta retaliated against MeWe as a privacy-focused rival that sought to woo users away by branding itself the "anti-Facebook." Among his complaints, Weinstein accused Meta of thwarting MeWe's attempts to introduce interoperability between the two platforms, which he thinks stems from a fear that users might leave Facebook if they discover a more appealing platform. That’s why he's urged the FTC—if it wins its monopoly case—to go beyond simply ordering a potential breakup of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp to also require interoperability between Meta's platforms and all rivals. That may be the only way to force Meta to release its clutch on personal data collection, Weinstein suggested, and allow for more competition broadly in the social media industry. "The glue that holds it all together is Facebook’s monopoly over data," Weinstein wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, recalling the moment he realized that Meta seemed to have an unbeatable monopoly. "Its ownership and control of the personal information of Facebook users and non-users alike is unmatched." Cory Doctorow, a special advisor to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars that his vision of a better social media future goes even further than requiring interoperability between all platforms. Social networks like Meta's should also be made to allow reverse engineering so that outside developers can modify their apps with third-party tools without risking legal attacks, he said. Doctorow said that solution would create "an equilibrium where companies are more incentivized to behave themselves than they are to cheat" by, say, retaliating against, killing off, or buying out rivals. And "if they fail to respond to that incentive and they cheat anyways, then the rest of the world still has a remedy," Doctorow said, by having the choice to modify or ditch any platform deemed toxic, invasive, manipulative, or otherwise offensive. Doctorow summed up the frustration that some users have faced through the ongoing "enshittification" of platforms (a term he coined) ever since platforms took over the Internet. "I'm 55 now, and I've gotten a lot less interested in how things work because I've had too many experiences with how things fail," Doctorow told Ars. "And I just want to make sure that if I'm on a service and it goes horribly wrong, I can leave." Social media haters wish OG platforms were doomed Weinstein pointed out that Meta's alleged monopoly impacts a group often left out of social media debates: non-users. And if you ask someone who hates social media what the future of social media should look like, they will not mince words: They want a way to opt out of all of it. As Meta's monopoly trial got underway, a personal blog post titled "No Instagram, no privacy" rose to the front page of Hacker News, prompting a discussion about social media norms and reasonable expectations for privacy in 2025. In the post, Wouter-Jan Leys, a privacy advocate, explained that he felt "blessed" to have "somehow escaped having an Instagram account," feeling no pressure to "update the abstract audience of everyone I ever connected with online on where I am, what I am doing, or who I am hanging out with." But despite never having an account, he's found that "you don’t have to be on Instagram to be on Instagram," complaining that "it bugs me" when friends seem to know "more about my life than I tell them" because of various friends' posts that mention or show images of him. In his blog, he defined privacy as "being in control of what other people know about you" and suggested that because of platforms like Instagram, he currently lacked this control. There should be some way to "fix or regulate this," Leys suggested, or maybe some universal "etiquette where it’s frowned upon to post about social gatherings to any audience beyond who already was at that gathering." On Hacker News, his post spurred a debate over one of the longest-running privacy questions swirling on social media: Is it OK to post about someone who abstains from social media? Some seeming social media fans scolded Leys for being so old-fashioned about social media, suggesting, "just live your life without being so bothered about offending other people" or saying that "the entire world doesn't have to be sanitized to meet individual people's preferences." Others seemed to better understand Leys' point of view, with one agreeing that "the problem is that our modern norms (and tech) lead to everyone sharing everything with a large social network." Surveying the lively thread, another social media hater joked, "I feel vindicated for my decision to entirely stay off of this drama machine." Leys told Ars that he would "absolutely" be in favor of personal social networks like Meta's platforms dying off or losing steam, as Zuckerberg suggested they already are. He thinks that the decline in personal post engagement that Meta is seeing is likely due to a combination of factors, where some users may prefer more privacy now after years of broadcasting their lives, and others may be tired of the pressure of building a personal brand or experiencing other "odd social dynamics." Setting user sentiments aside, Meta is also responsible for people engaging with fewer of their friends' posts. Meta announced that it would double the amount of force-fed filler in people's feeds on Instagram and Facebook starting in 2023. That's when the two-year span begins that Zuckerberg measured in testifying about the sudden drop-off in friends' content engagement. So while it's easy to say the market changed, Meta may be obscuring how much it shaped that shift. Degrading the newsfeed and changing Instagram's default post shape from square to rectangle seemingly significantly shifted Instagram social norms, for example, creating an environment where Gen Z users felt less comfortable posting as prolifically as millennials did when Instagram debuted, The New Yorker explained last year. Where once millennials painstakingly designed immaculate grids of individual eye-catching photos to seem cool online, Gen Z users told The New Yorker that posting a single photo now feels "humiliating" and like a "social risk." But rather than eliminate the impulse to post, this cultural shift has popularized a different form of personal posting: staggered photo dumps, where users wait to post a variety of photos together to sum up a month of events or curate a vibe, the trend piece explained. And Meta is clearly intent on fueling that momentum, doubling the maximum number of photos that users can feature in a single post to encourage even more social posting, The New Yorker noted. Brendan Benedict, an attorney for Benedict Law Group PLLC who has helped litigate big tech antitrust cases, is monitoring the FTC monopoly trial on a Substack called Big Tech on Trial. He told Ars that the evidence at the trial has shown that "consumers want more friends and family content, and Meta is belatedly trying to address this" with features like the "friends" tab, while claiming there's less interest in this content. Leys doesn't think social media—at least the way that Facebook defined it in the mid-2000s—will ever die, because people will never stop wanting social networks like Facebook or Instagram to stay connected with all their friends and family. But he could see a world where, if people ever started truly caring about privacy or "indeed [got] tired of the social dynamics and personal brand-building... the kind of social media like Facebook and Instagram will have been a generational phenomenon, and they may not immediately bounce back," especially if it's easy to switch to other platforms that respond better to user preferences. He also agreed that requiring interoperability would likely lead to better social media products, but he maintained that "it would still not get me on Instagram." Interoperability shakes up social media Meta thought it may have already beaten the FTC's monopoly case, filing for a motion for summary judgment after the FTC rested its case in a bid to end the trial early. That dream was quickly dashed when the judge denied the motion days later. But no matter the outcome of the trial, Meta's influence over the social media world may be waning just as it's facing increasing pressure to open up its platforms more than ever. The FTC has alleged that Meta weaponized platform access early on, only allowing certain companies to interoperate and denying access to anyone perceived as a threat to its alleged monopoly power. That includes limiting promotions of Instagram to keep users engaged with Facebook Blue. A primary concern for Meta (then Facebook), the FTC claimed, was avoiding "training users to check multiple feeds," which might allow other apps to "cannibalize" its users. "Facebook has used this power to deter and suppress competitive threats to its personal social networking monopoly. In order to protect its monopoly, Facebook adopted and required developers to agree to conditional dealing policies that limited third-party apps’ ability to engage with Facebook rivals or to develop into rivals themselves," the FTC alleged. By 2011, the FTC alleged, then-Facebook had begun terminating API access to any developers that made it easier to export user data into a competing social network without Facebook's permission. That practice only ended when the UK parliament started calling out Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct toward app developers in 2018, the FTC alleged. According to the FTC, Meta continues "to this day" to "screen developers and can weaponize API access in ways that cement its dominance," and if scrutiny ever subsides, Meta is expected to return to such anticompetitive practices as the AI race heats up. One potential hurdle for Meta could be that the push for interoperability is not just coming from the FTC or lawmakers who recently reintroduced bipartisan legislation to end walled gardens. Doctorow told Ars that "huge public groundswells of mistrust and anger about excessive corporate power" that "cross political lines" are prompting global antitrust probes into big tech companies and are perhaps finally forcing a reckoning after years of degrading popular products to chase higher and higher revenues. For social media companies, mounting concerns about privacy and suspicions about content manipulation or censorship are driving public distrust, Doctorow said, as well as fears of surveillance capitalism. The latter includes theories that Doctorow is skeptical of. Weinstein embraced them, though, warning that platforms seem to be profiting off data without consent while brainwashing users. Allowing users to leave the platform without losing access to their friends, their social posts, and their messages might be the best way to incentivize Meta to either genuinely compete for billions of users or lose them forever as better options pop up that can plug into their networks. In his Newsweek op-ed, Weinstein suggested that web inventor Tim Berners-Lee has already invented a working protocol "to enable people to own, upload, download, and relocate their social graphs," which maps users' connections across platforms. That could be used to mitigate "the network effect" that locks users into platforms like Meta's "while interrupting unwanted data collection." At the same time, Doctorow told Ars that increasingly popular decentralized platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon already provide interoperability and are next looking into "building interoperable gateways" between their services. Doctorow said that communicating with other users across platforms may feel "awkward" at first, but ultimately, it may be like "having to find the diesel pump at the gas station" instead of the unleaded gas pump. "You'll still be going to the same gas station," Doctorow suggested. Opening up gateways into all platforms could be useful in the future, Doctorow suggested. Imagine if one platform goes down—it would no longer disrupt communications as drastically, as users could just pivot to communicate on another platform and reach the same audience. The same goes for platforms that users grow to distrust. The EFF supports regulators' attempts to pass well-crafted interoperability mandates, Doctorow said, noting that "if you have to worry about your users leaving, you generally have to treat them better." But would interoperability fix social media? The FTC has alleged that "Facebook’s dominant position in the US personal social networking market is durable due to significant entry barriers, including direct network effects and high switching costs." Meta disputes the FTC's complaint as outdated, arguing that its platform could be substituted by pretty much any social network. However, Guy Aridor, a co-author of a recent article called "The Economics of Social Media" in the Journal of Economic Literature, told Ars that dominant platforms are probably threatened by shifting social media trends and are likely to remain "resistant to interoperability" because "it’s in the interest of the platform to make switching and coordination costs high so that users are less likely to migrate away." For Meta, research shows its platforms' network effects have appeared to weaken somewhat but "clearly still exist" despite social media users increasingly seeking content on platforms rather than just socialization, Aridor said. Interoperability advocates believe it will make it easier for startups to compete with giants like Meta, which fight hard and sometimes seemingly dirty to keep users on their apps. Reintroducing the ACCESS Act, which requires platform compatibility to enable service switching, Senator Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) said that "interoperability and portability are powerful tools to promote innovative new companies and limit anti-competitive behaviors." He's hoping that passing these "long-overdue requirements" will "boost competition and give consumers more power." Aridor told Ars it's obvious that "interoperability would clearly increase competition," but he still has questions about whether users would benefit from that competition "since one consistent theme is that these platforms are optimized to maximize engagement, and there’s numerous empirical evidence we have by now that engagement isn’t necessarily correlated with utility." Consider, Aridor suggested, how toxic content often leads to high engagement but lower user satisfaction, as MeWe experienced during its 2021 backlash. Aridor said there is currently "very little empirical evidence on the effects of interoperability," but theoretically, if it increased competition in the current climate, it would likely "push the market more toward supplying engaging entertainment-related content as opposed to friends and family type of content." Benedict told Ars that a remedy like interoperability would likely only be useful to combat Meta's alleged monopoly following a breakup, which he views as the "natural remedy" following a potential win in the FTC's lawsuit. Without the breakup and other meaningful reforms, a Meta win could preserve the status quo and see the company never open up its platforms, perhaps perpetuating Meta's influence over social media well into the future. And if Zuckerberg's vision comes to pass, instead of seeing what your friends are posting on interoperating platforms across the Internet, you may have a dozen AI friends trained on your real friends' behaviors sending you regular dopamine hits to keep you scrolling on Facebook or Instagram. Aridor's team's article suggested that, regardless of user preferences, social media remains a permanent fixture of society. If that's true, users could get stuck forever using whichever platforms connect them with the widest range of contacts. "While social media has continued to evolve, one thing that has not changed is that social media remains a central part of people’s lives," his team's article concluded. Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience. 1 Comments

A threat actor known as Hazy Hawk has been observed hijacking abandoned cloud resources of high-profile organizations, including Amazon S3 buckets and Microsoft Azure endpoints, by leveraging misconfigurations in the Domain Name System (DNS) records. The hijacked domains are then used to host URLs that direct users to scams and malware via traffic distribution systems (TDSes), according to Infoblox. Some of the other resources usurped by the threat actor include those hosted on Akamai, Bunny CDN, Cloudflare CDN, GitHub, and Netlify. The DNS threat intelligence firm said it first discovered the threat actor after it gained control of several sub-domains associated with the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) in February 2025. It has since been determined that other government agencies across the globe, prominent universities, and international corporations such as Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Ernst & Young have been victimized by the same threat actor since at least December 2023. "Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Hazy Hawk is that these hard-to-discover, vulnerable domains with ties to esteemed organizations are not being used for espionage or 'highbrow' cybercrime," Infoblox's Jacques Portal and Renée Burton said in a report shared with The Hacker News. "Instead, they feed into the seedy underworld of adtech, whisking victims to a wide range of scams and fake applications, and using browser notifications to trigger processes that will have a lingering impact." What makes Hazy Hawk's operations noteworthy is the hijacking of trusted and reputable domains belonging to legitimate organizations, thus boosting their credibility in search results when they are being used to serve malicious and spammy content. But even more concerningly, the approach enables the threat actors to bypass detection. Underpinning the operation is the ability of the attackers to seize control of abandoned domains with dangling DNS CNAME records, a technique previously exposed by Guardio in early 2024 as being exploited by bad actors for spam proliferation and click monetization. All a threat actor needs to do is register the missing resource to hijack the domain. Hazy Hawk goes a step further by finding abandoned cloud resources and then commandeering them for malicious purposes. In some cases, the threat actor employs URL redirection techniques to conceal which cloud resource was hijacked. "We use the name Hazy Hawk for this actor because of how they find and hijack cloud resources that have dangling DNS CNAME records and then use them in malicious URL distribution," Infoblox said. "It's possible that the domain hijacking component is provided as a service and is used by a group of actors." The attack chains often involve cloning the content of legitimate sites for their initial site hosted on the hijacked domains, while luring victims into visiting them with pornographic or pirated content. The site visitors are then funneled via a TDS to determine where they land next. "Hazy Hawk is one of the dozens of threat actors we track within the advertising affiliate world," the company said. "Threat actors who belong to affiliate advertising programs drive users into tailored malicious content and are incentivized to include requests to allow push notifications from 'websites' along the redirection path." In doing so, the idea is to flood a victim's device with push notifications and deliver an endless torrent of malicious content, with each notification leading to different scams, scareware, and fake surveys, and accompanied by requests to allow more push notifications. To prevent and protect against Hazy Hawk activities, domain owners are recommended to remove a DNS CNAME record as soon as a resource is shut down. End users, on the other hand, are advised to deny notification requests from websites they don't know. "While operators like Hazy Hawk are responsible for the initial lure, the user who clicks is led into a labyrinth of sketchy and outright malicious adtech. The fact that Hazy Hawk puts considerable effort into locating vulnerable domains and then using them for scam operations shows that these advertising affiliate programs are successful enough to pay well," Infoblox said. Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

Jr. User Acquisition Manager (f/m/d)Kolibri GamesBerlin, Germany2 minutes agoApplyWe are Kolibri Games - a mobile games developer from Berlin. We believe that with the best people, we can make games that players will enjoy for years to come.Our games have defined the idle genre, and bring enjoyment to hundreds of millions of players all around the world. This is possible due to the talented people who make us who we are. ‘Kolibris’, as we call ourselves, are on a mission to continue making great games and we're looking for new talent to join our team. We strive to offer you a fair recruitment process and a great candidate experience, as well as a friendly environment to work in, with plenty of opportunities to learn and grow.Jr. User Acquisition Manager (f/m/d)We are looking for a User Acquisition Manager to work within our marketing team and help acquire new players for our current and future mobile games.Working with a highly experienced team, you will plan and manage marketing campaigns. Monitor and optimize our UA campaigns and help to increase our global game presence. We’re keen to find a passionate gamer with a quantitative mindset and a strong hypothesis-driven approach, who can dive into data and help optimize based on key KPIs and company goals.ResponsibilitiesPlan and execute user acquisition campaigns across various user acquisition channels: social media, video ad networks, and incentivized.Analyze and optimize UA campaigns based on internal performance KPIs.Test ad creatives and provide input and data-driven insights into creative development.Provide input for marketing automation.Manage day-to-day partner relations;Stay up-to-date with industry trends and explore new scaling opportunities.RequirementsAnalytical skills and mindset;A team player who can adapt easily to others;Highly motivated, hands-on, and a well-organized work approach;Basic knowledge of user acquisition campaign channels such as Meta, Google, Unity, TikTok.Proficiency in Excel/Google Sheets; basic data analysis and visualization skills.Clear verbal and written communication in English.Desirable skillsUp to 1 year of experience in digital marketing, preferably in performance/user acquisition marketing.Familiarity with mobile measurement platforms (e.g., Adjust, Appsflyer) is a plus.Bachelor’s degree in Marketing, Business, Economics, Data Science, or a related field.Passion for games, especially mobile gamesKolibri Games is an equal opportunity employer. We come from 40 different countries and many different backgrounds. We celebrate diversity and we are committed to creating an inclusive environment for all employees, regardless of their age, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, physical appearance or disability.We are an international studio, so don’t forget to send in your application in English. Although it is not mandatory, we always appreciate a cover letter stating your motivation to join us.We look forward to hearing from you!Your Benefits – We’re game to support youCompetitive Salary - We believe that top performers should receive top paymentLearning Budget - We believe in learning. A generous personal learning budget to spend on learning and development, including books, workshops and attending conferences. We also offer in-house training such as coding and German classesFlexible Working Hours and Home Office – We believe in a good work-life balanceEquipment - State-of-the-art technical equipment, including laptops and phones, which may also be used in your free timeKolicard - We offer you a monthly flexible budget of 50 euros that you can use for a gym membership, transportation, shopping etc.Mobility budget - We offer a monthly budget that will make your commuting to work easierRelocation - Relocation support to help you move to BerlinPension - Opportunity to save for your pension tax-freeBonus Level – We love to have a good time, tooFood and Drinks - Fresh fruits to keep you healthy and fresh coffee to keep you alert. We also have a fully stocked fridge with Smoothies, Coke, Club Mate, beer etcParties and Team Events - Apart from our regular parties, BBQs and movie nights we also have a team event budget you can use to buy games or sports equipment to make working here even more funCompany Holidays - Every year we go on an amazing company holiday to relax and bond as a teamFriday Celebrations - Company-provided dinner and drinks on Friday afternoons Create Your Profile — Game companies can contact you with their relevant job openings. Apply