Isamu Noguchi (1904–1988) was one of the most influential designers and sculptors of the 20th century.

Belle Gibson is an Australian convicted scammer who falsely claimed to have been diagnosed with cancer, and that she was cured through a healthy diet

A federal judge has blocked key agencies within President Joe Biden’s administration from communicating with social media companies about certain online speech in an extraordinary ruling as part of an ongoing case that could have profound impacts on the First Amendment. The preliminary injunction granted by Donald Trump-appointed US District Judge Terry A Doughty in Louisiana on 4 July prohibits the FBI and the US Department of Health and Human Services, among others, from speaking with platforms for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” The ruling – which could obstruct the administration’s attempts to combat false and potentially dangerous claims about vaccines and elections – is a victory for Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri who have alleged that the federal government was overreaching in its attempts to combat Covid-19 disinformation and baseless election fraud narratives. Judge Doughty, who has yet to issue a final ruling, stated in his injunction that the Republican plaintiffs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.” He did make some exceptions that would allow the government to warn platforms about national security threats, criminal activity or voter suppression. The legal challenge follows ongoing allegations from right-wing officials and Republican lawmakers that the federal government – specifically, Democratic officials – have conspired with “Big Tech” to silence conservative voices, a long-running conspiracy theory that proponents will argue is substantiated by the latest decision. GOP attorneys general in the case have accused government agencies of a “systemic and systematic campaign” to control speech on social media platforms that accelerated during the Trump administration and experienced a “quantum leap” under President Biden. Attorneys for the Biden administration have disputed such claims and warned that an injunction could undermine national security efforts, pointing to the programs developed among government agencies to combat disinformation in the aftermath of the 2016 election. The Independent has requested comment from the White House. Missouri’s Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who originally filed the lawsuit with Louisiana’s Attorney General Jeff Landry, called the ruling a “big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day.” Though the case originated with those Republican officials, several additional plaintiffs added their name to the case, arguing that they also were unfairly targeted after spreading disinformation online. Plaintiffs also include vaccine conspiracy theorist and presidential hopeful Robert F Kennedy Jr and Jim Hoft, the founder of the far-right conspiracy theory-fuelled website The Gateway Pundit and a defendant in a defamation lawsuit filed by election workers who faced death threats over false reporting about them in the 2020 presidential election. This is a developing story Read More Twitter applies temporary reading limits amid ongoing problems with platform Biden renews call for assault weapons ban after ‘tragic and senseless’ spate of July 4 shootings Ex-New York congressman pardoned by Trump is planning to run again in Florida Suspicious powder found at the White House when Biden was gone was cocaine, AP sources say Biden renews call for assault weapons ban after spate of July 4 shootings Watch live: Joe Biden addresses National Education Association

By Foo Yun Chee BRUSSELS Amazon, Alphabet's Google, Microsoft and other non-European Union cloud service providers looking to

Historically Black Colleges and Universities are gearing up for an increase in applicants following a US Supreme Court

The Echo Pop is one of Amazon’s newest Alexa devices. With a flat speaker on

SEATTLE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun 8, 2023--

Meta will launch a paid-for, subscription-based version of Facebook and Instagram. The company will allow people to pay up to €13 to have no ads appear on those apps. The change has been made to comply with European Union regulations, it said. As such, it will only be available to people in the EU, the European Economic Area and Switzerland. The monthly subscription plans for users in the EU, European Economic Area and Switzerland, will cost 9.99 euros ($10.58) for web users, while iOS and Android users will have to shell out 12.99 euros a month. The difference is to account for the fees taken by Apple and Google for payments on its platforms, Meta said – a move that follows a similar price difference for Twitter’s premium offering. The EU regulations threaten to curb Meta’s ability to personalize ads for users without their consent and hurt its major revenue source. Users across the world will continue to be able to use the site for free, and will see no change to their experience as a result, Meta said. But offering the paid-for subscription version allows Meta to comply with “the requirements of European regulators”, the company said, after a recent ruling. Having the option of paying for a version of Facebook and Instagram with no ads means that people will have more clearly consented to having their data used for marketing, Meta suggested it in its announcement. That in turn means it will better comply with European regulations, it said. The world’s most popular social media network has been under antitrust pressure in the EU. In July, it lost its fight against a German data curb order as Europe’s top court backed the German antitrust watchdog’s power to also investigate privacy breaches. Offering a choice between a free, ad-supported plan and an ad-free paid subscription might lead to users opting for the former, helping Meta to comply with the regulations without affecting its ad business. Meta was fined 390 million euros earlier this year by Ireland’s Data Privacy Commissioner, and was told it cannot use the so-called “contract” as a legal basis to send users ads based on their online activity. The company later said it intended to ask users in the EU for their consent before allowing businesses to target ads in order to address evolving regulatory requirements in the region. Additional reporting by agencies Read More Threads is not dying, Mark Zuckerberg insists Letitia James and 32 other attorneys general sue Meta for ‘harming youth’ People’s Instagram posts are showing where they are not expected

The Reddit blackout protests didn't quite force the company to reverse course on its API

Cryptocurrencies are losing one of the main attractions that has made them so alluring since the birth of

BELMONT, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug 7, 2023--

PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun 7, 2023--