AI governance, once seen as a niche concern for legal teams and compliance officers, has now entered the boardroom. The rapid spread of generative AI tools across every industry has forced chief executives, chief risk officers, and boards to confront a reality they can no longer delegate. The question is no longer whether AI should be governed, but who is accountable for making sure it is governed well. For many organizations, the answer is still unclear.

Recent data highlights the cost of this ambiguity. According to a 2026 AI Impact Survey, 46% of organizations say AI governance and compliance issues are the reason their AI underperforms. That number is striking because it ties governance directly to business outcomes. It is not just about avoiding fines or legal trouble; it is about whether AI actually delivers value. When governance is an afterthought, AI projects stall, risk management becomes reactive, and trust erodes both internally and externally.

Yet many C-suite executives are still treating AI governance as something to postpone until regulations become clearer. They argue that the regulatory landscape is uncertain, so why build a framework around rules that may change? That logic is understandable but shortsighted. Waiting for regulatory clarity is not a strategy; it is a gamble with increasingly high stakes. The pace of AI adoption is far outstripping the pace of lawmaking, and the gap between the two is where risks multiply.

Three Forces Demand Urgent Leadership Attention

AI governance cannot be put on hold because of three converging forces. Each one alone would justify executive oversight. Together, they make delay almost indefensible.

Internal AI Policies Are Falling Behind Adoption

Employees are using AI tools in day-to-day decisions faster than most organizations can define rules for how those tools should be used. A marketing team drafts a campaign using ChatGPT, a salesperson summarizes a client call with an AI assistant, a developer auto-generates code with a copilot. These actions are already happening in almost every company, often without explicit approval or policy guidance. By the time a governance committee meets to discuss acceptable use, the AI tools have already become embedded in workflows.

This is not just a technology management problem. It is a leadership problem. When leaders do not set clear boundaries, they are implicitly sanctioning every uncoordinated use of AI across the enterprise. That creates inconsistent practices, unpredictable risks, and a false sense of security. Employees may believe they are being helpful and efficient, but they may also be exposing sensitive data, creating legally binding commitments, or violating industry regulations without knowing it.

The Regulatory Landscape Is Fragmented

Regulation is not converging; it is splintering. In the United States, some states are experimenting with their own AI frameworks, while federal action remains slow. Europe has adopted a comprehensive AI Act, and other regions are developing their own approaches. For multinational companies, this means staying compliant requires tracking multiple sets of rules that may conflict with one another.

Consider the sheer volume of legislative activity. More than 1,100 AI bills were introduced by state legislatures last year, and 130 of them were enacted into law. That number does not even include federal proposals or international regulations. The result is a maze of requirements that are pulling in different directions. A practice that is acceptable in one jurisdiction may be restricted in another. A data-handling procedure that complies with one law may violate the next. Leaders who wait for a stable, unified set of rules will be waiting for a very long time.

Focusing on regulatory prediction is also risky because AI regulations are not future-proof. AI use cases are evolving so quickly that specific rules can become redundant almost as soon as they are written. A governance framework built only on current laws will inevitably be brittle. Instead, leaders should focus on building resilience: the capacity to respond quickly and effectively as the regulatory environment shifts.

The Threat Landscape Now Includes Geopolitical Actors

AI-related threats are no longer limited to cybercriminals seeking financial gain. State-sponsored actors are using deepfakes, AI-generated disinformation, and sophisticated impersonation techniques to destabilize organizations, influence public opinion, and undermine trust. These threats are not hypothetical. They are occurring now, and they are increasing in scale and sophistication.

Geopolitical tensions amplify this risk. Organizations with global operations, critical infrastructure, or high-profile brands are particularly vulnerable. A well-timed deepfake of a CEO can move markets, damage customer confidence, and trigger regulatory intervention. An AI-generated disinformation campaign can erode public trust in a company's products or leadership. Traditional cybersecurity defenses are not enough to address these threats because the attack surface now includes reputation, identity, and information integrity.

This is why AI governance must be treated as part of enterprise risk management, not as a standalone compliance exercise. It requires leadership oversight because only executives can balance technical capability, commercial risk, and regulatory obligations into a coherent strategy.

Why Waiting Is Not a Good Idea

Some leaders justify inaction by arguing that they are waiting for the regulatory dust to settle. But the dust will not settle. The pace of AI innovation makes it nearly impossible for any legislative body to produce definitive, stable rules that anticipate every future use case. Regulations will continue to evolve, and organizations that wait for certainty will fall further behind.

The legal exposure is already real. Consider a simple example: an employee uses a general-purpose AI tool for sensitive legal conversations or to seek guidance on a legal matter. This use may not be protected by legal privilege. In the event of a dispute, any information entered into such tools is fully discoverable. What seems like a harmless shortcut, asking an AI assistant instead of a lawyer, can quickly unravel the legal protections an organization assumes it has. This is just one example of a much broader problem: organizations are rushing to implement AI without fully understanding where its legal protections begin and end.

There is also the question of liability. If an AI system makes a biased decision, who is accountable? If an AI-generated piece of content defames someone, who is sued? If a confidential document is fed into a public AI model and later appears in a search result, who is responsible? The answer in most cases will be the organization, not the individual employee or the vendor. Without proactive governance, leaders are effectively signing a blank check for future legal and reputational damages.

The business case for proactive governance is not just about avoiding downside risk. It is also about enabling safe adoption. Companies that have clear AI governance frameworks can move faster because their employees know what is allowed and what is not. They can innovate confidently, integrate AI into core processes, and respond to market demands without fear of regulatory surprises. In this sense, governance is not a constraint on AI adoption; it is a catalyst for it.

What Leadership Ownership Looks Like

Owning AI governance is not about predicting a regulation or building a static compliance checklist. It is about building three essential capabilities that allow an organization to adapt, respond, and thrive in an environment of constant change.

Getting Visibility into Specific Exposure

AI risk is not uniform. A healthcare company managing sensitive personal data has a very different risk profile from a logistics firm that uses AI for route optimization. A company that develops AI products faces different challenges than one that simply uses AI to improve internal operations. Leaders must have a clear picture of the data their organization works with, which of that data feeds into or is processed by AI systems, and which state, federal, and sector-specific rules actually apply to their specific use of AI.

Visibility also means understanding the consequences of exposure. Will an incident lead to financial loss, a regulatory fine, reputational damage, a lawsuit, or all four? How severe would the impact be, and how quickly could the organization recover? Without this clear picture, leaders cannot prioritize their investments or make informed decisions about risk tolerance.

Building visibility requires a cross-functional effort. Legal, IT, data governance, security, and business unit leaders must come together to map AI use cases, identify data flows, and assess vulnerabilities. It is not a one-time exercise. It must be ongoing, especially as new AI tools are adopted and existing ones are used in new ways.

Building a Flexible Governance Framework

Compliance is not something you can set and forget. Compliance plans are not everlasting in their efficacy. New regulations will emerge, new AI capabilities will be introduced, and new threats will appear. The focus should be on building structural resilience that endures over time.

One practical step is to use AI-assisted monitoring tools. These tools can track regulatory and threat developments across jurisdictions, flagging new rules or emerging risks before they become urgent. This gives leaders the information they need to act early rather than react late. Resilience also means the ability to adapt internal processes quickly, updating AI and data policies as new information is flagged by monitoring tools. A governance framework should be a living system, not a static document.

Flexibility also requires a culture of awareness. Employees at every level should understand their role in governance. Training is essential, but so is creating an environment where people feel comfortable raising concerns about AI use. Reporting mechanisms, clear procedures, and open communication are just as important as written policies. When employees are engaged, governance becomes part of daily decision-making rather than a bureaucratic obstacle.

Rehearsing Incident Response

A crisis scenario, such as a cyberattack, data exposure, or a disinformation campaign, requires an effective response. The first hours after an incident are absolutely critical. Without a prepared plan, organizations often struggle to coordinate their actions, communicate with stakeholders, and contain the damage.

Ideally, organizations should simulate such a real-world crisis to practice the necessary response procedures. Simulation exercises can reveal gaps in decision-making, clarify roles and responsibilities, and build the confidence needed to act under pressure. The goal is to react in a planned and coordinated manner that protects operations and restores trust. Rehearsing incident response is not a luxury for large enterprises; it is a fundamental requirement for any organization that relies on AI in its operations.

Executive ownership of AI governance is not a matter of assigning a chief AI officer or creating a new committee. It is about embedding risk visibility, adaptive governance, and crisis readiness into the very fabric of the organization. The advantage in the AI era will not belong to organizations that wait for regulatory clarity. It will favor those that proactively build these capabilities before a disruptive event forces their hand. Leaders who act now will not only close the governance gap; they will turn governance into a source of trust, resilience, and long-term competitive advantage.

Source: SecurityWeek News

The traditional security playbook for minimizing AI risk focuses on discovery. Security teams try to inventory every AI tool in use, then gate access with a Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB), apply Data Loss Prevention (DLP) rules, and continuously monitor usage. This model has worked for years to secure software-as-a-service sprawl, but it has clear limitations when applied to AI. The reason is simple: AI risk does not look like traditional application risk, and it cannot be contained with the same controls.

Why CASB and DLP Fall Short for AI

Conventional SaaS risk can usually be confined to an application, a file, or a structured data field. AI risk is different. It emerges in a prompt written by a user. It appears in a response generated by a model. And, in the scenario that organizations now dread most, it materializes in an action taken by an autonomous agent because of a malicious or manipulated prompt. None of these scenarios cleanly align with what CASB and DLP were designed to inspect.

A CASB asks whether a user is authorized to access a particular application and, in many cases, governs what the user can do inside that application. That question is still important, but it is not sufficient for AI. When a user interacts with an AI tool, the meaning behind the conversation matters. The same prompt that looks harmless in isolation can become risky when combined with previous context. The model might infer confidential details from indirect references, or it might be steered by an embedded instruction that a DLP rule would never catch. Traditional CASB controls do not evaluate the semantic and cumulative context of an AI conversation with enough depth.

This is the gap that must be addressed. Substance matters in AI. A prompt may appear innocent at first glance, but its wording, context, and purpose can make it dangerous. Exposure will not always come from a user pasting an account number or API key directly into a conversation. A user might unknowingly share sensitive details across multiple prompts. Those details can be described indirectly, but they are still enough for the model to understand and potentially act on them.

Consider information shared around a vendor contract that is about to close, or a summary of an outage incident report. In both cases, there is real business risk associated with the information being shared, even if the content does not match a DLP rule. A CASB cannot see this risk because the user is allowed to access the AI app. The risk appears later, inside the prompt itself. Security teams are then caught in a bind. If they squeeze CASB policies too tightly, users shift to unmanaged apps that no one can see. If DLP is too permissive, sensitive data inevitably leaks.

Security Must Inspect the Interaction

Controls should operate where exposure happens. For AI, that means looking closely at what is being asked, what the model generates in response, what tools the agent invokes, what data it retrieves or transmits, and whether the resulting actions are permitted. The focus must move beyond simply deciding whether to allow or block access to an AI service. The focus must move inside the exchange between a person and the model.

A few scenarios illustrate why this distinction matters. Using AI to develop a blog outline for publication is routine and low risk. But using it to create go-to-market copy that references an unannounced product puts sensitive information at risk. A software developer asking an AI tool a generic programming question is also low risk. But a request that includes proprietary logic, especially when linked to a real customer problem, is not safe.

Agentic workflows introduce even more complexity. An agent that retrieves information from an approved knowledge base is not inherently risky. But that same agent forwarding restricted internal documentation externally is clearly dangerous. Summarizing a publicly available document is low risk. Reconstructing confidential information from a partial context is not. Treating retrieved content as passive data is expected behavior, but when instructions are embedded cleverly enough that the agent ingests and follows them, prompt injection becomes a serious risk because the model cannot reliably distinguish data from instructions. Authenticating an agent or session is a baseline control, but it is not enough when a low-risk request can suddenly turn into a high-risk action. Security needs AI anomaly detection to decide what should be allowed in real time.

Extending Governance, Not Blocking Access

A default-deny posture does not hold up over time. Blocking AI access outright looks safe on paper, but employees still face deadlines and pressure to deliver. When official tools are locked down, usage shifts to personal accounts and unmanaged extensions that CASB was never configured to see. This is how shadow AI becomes deeply embedded in an organization, often with far less security oversight than the tools that were blocked.

Reducing AI risk is not a battle between CASB, DLP, and interaction-level inspection. All three are important, and they solve different layers of the same problem. CASB and DLP provide foundational visibility and control. They help discover SaaS and AI applications, govern access, catch known sensitive patterns, and support compliance reporting. What they cannot do is understand the meaning of a conversation, the sensitivity of a generated response, or the authorization status of an agent action. That requires an additional layer.

The shift in mindset is essential. Security teams should not try to lock AI down until it is safe by omission. They should give employees room to adopt and experiment with AI while keeping sensitive data and agent behavior inside clear boundaries. This means threat actors targeting AI through prompt injection and agent misuse must be treated as real, everyday risks now, not edge cases to be addressed later. It also means leveraging CASB and DLP for their strengths while adding an interaction layer that drills into the semantics of a prompt, the sensitive nature of the response, and whether an agent action is authorized.

The old question, “Can this person open the tool?” is the wrong question for AI. The right question is whether a particular prompt is safe, whether the response is safe, and whether the action is authorized. Building a security strategy around those questions allows employees to use AI productively while keeping sensitive data, intellectual property, and agent behavior within the boundaries set for safe use.

Source: SecurityWeek News

Der Kampf gegen McBride war nicht der glanzvolle Abschied, den sich viele Fans gewünscht hätten. Tyson wurde in der sechsten Runde zu Boden geschickt und erschien zur siebten Runde nicht mehr aus seiner Ecke. Sein Trainer riet ihm, den Kampf zu beenden, und Tyson folgte. Der ehemalige Champion wirkte erschöpft, körperlich wie emotional. In seiner letzten Pressekonferenz erklärte er, dass er seine Kraft nicht mehr habe und sich um seine Kinder kümmern wolle. Damit endete eine Ära, die von Triumph, Tragödie und unzähligen Schlagzeilen geprägt war.

Die wichtigsten Fakten im Überblick

• Mike Tyson verlor am 11. Juni 2005 gegen Kevin McBride durch Aufgabe nach der sechsten Runde.
• Tyson gab nach dem Kampf das Ende seiner aktiven Boxkarriere bekannt.
• Er wurde 1966 in New York geboren und gewann 1986 als 20-Jähriger den WBC-Schwergewichtstitel.
• 1990 verlor er seinen Titel überraschend gegen Buster Douglas.
• 1992 wurde Tyson wegen Vergewaltigung verurteilt und verbrachte drei Jahre im Gefängnis.
• 1997 sorgte er für einen Skandal, als er Evander Holyfield ins Ohr biss.
• 2002 verlor er gegen Lennox Lewis, seinen letzten großen Kampf vor der Niederlage gegen McBride.

Der Aufstieg eines Wunderkindes

Mike Tyson wurde am 30. Juni 1966 in Brooklyn, New York, geboren. Seine Kindheit war von Armut und Gewalt geprägt. Schon früh geriet er mit dem Gesetz in Konflikt und wurde in Besserungsanstalten geschickt. Dort entdeckte der Box-Trainer Cus D'Amato sein Talent. D'Amato, der bereits Weltmeister wie Floyd Patterson trainiert hatte, übernahm die Rolle eines Vaters und Mentors. Er formte den jungen Tyson zu einer Kampfmaschine und vermittelte ihm die Grundlagen des Peek-a-Boo-Boxstils, der auf Schnelligkeit, Druck und Ausweichbewegungen basiert.

1985 gab Tyson sein Profidebüt und gewann seine ersten Kämpfe fast alle durch Knockout. Sein aggressiver Stil und seine enorme Schlagkraft machten ihn schnell zu einem Phänomen. Am 22. November 1986 kämpfte er in Las Vegas gegen Trevor Berbick um den WBC-Titel. Tyson gewann in der zweiten Runde durch technischen Knockout und wurde mit 20 Jahren und vier Monaten der jüngste Schwergewichtsweltmeister in der Geschichte des Boxsports. Dieser Rekord gilt bis heute. Nur ein Jahr später vereinigte er die Titel der Verbände WBA und IBF auf sich und galt als unumstrittener Champion.

Der Fall und die Rückkehr

Tysons Regentschaft schien unaufhaltsam. Er verteidigte seinen Titel mehrfach mit beeindruckenden Siegen, darunter gegen Larry Holmes und Michael Spinks. Doch am 11. Februar 1990 kam es in Tokio zu einer der größten Überraschungen in der Boxgeschichte. Der Außenseiter James "Buster" Douglas schlug Tyson in der zehnten Runde k.o. und nahm ihm alle Titel ab. Der Kampf markierte den Beginn eines Niedergangs, der sich über viele Jahre hinziehen sollte.

1992 wurde Tyson wegen Vergewaltigung der damals 18-jährigen Desiree Washington verurteilt. Er erhielt eine Haftstrafe von sechs Jahren, von denen er drei Jahre absaß. Nach seiner Entlassung 1995 feierte er ein viel beachtetes Comeback. Er gewann seine ersten Kämpfe schnell und holte sich 1996 den WBC-Titel gegen Frank Bruno zurück. Die Siegesstraße war jedoch nur von kurzer Dauer. Im selben Jahr verlor er gegen Evander Holyfield, den er 1997 im Rückkampf ins Ohr biss. Der Biss, bei dem Tyson seinem Kontrahenten ein Stück des Ohrläppchens abriss, gilt bis heute als einer der dunkelsten Momente im modernen Boxsport. Die Boxkommission entzog ihm daraufhin die Lizenz und verhängte eine hohe Geldstrafe.

Skandale und Schlagzeilen

Tyson lieferte nicht nur im Ring Schlagzeilen, sondern auch abseits davon. Er war bekannt für exzentrische Auftritte, verbale Ausfälle und kriminelle Vorfälle. Im Jahr 1999 wurde er zu einer kurzen Haftstrafe verurteilt, nachdem er zwei Autofahrer nach einem Unfall angegriffen hatte. 2002 geriet er erneut in die Schlagzeilen, als er in einem Hotel in Havanna Reporter mit Christbaumkugeln bewarf. Die Vorfälle zeigten einen Mann, der mit seinem Ruhm und seinen Dämonen zu kämpfen hatte. Trotzdem blieb er eine Popkultur-Ikone, dessen Name untrennbar mit dem Boxsport verbunden ist.

Auch sportlich gab es weitere Rückschläge. Am 8. Juni 2002 boxte Tyson gegen Lennox Lewis, den damaligen WBC- und IBF-Weltmeister. Lewis dominierte den Kampf und schickte Tyson in der achten Runde k.o. Es war die zweite K.o.-Niederlage seiner Karriere. Tyson zeigte zwar phasenweise seinen alten Biss, doch seinen besten Jahren war er längst nicht mehr auf dem Niveau. Nach dem Kampf wurde über ein Karriereende spekuliert, doch Tyson kämpfte weiter und bestritt noch zwei Kämpfe gegen geringere Gegner. Der Sieg gegen Clifford Etienne im Februar 2003 war sein letzter Triumph. Danach folgte die enttäuschende Niederlage gegen Danny Williams im Juli 2004, die Tyson mit Problemen im Knie erklärte.

Der letzte Akt gegen Kevin McBride

Der Kampf gegen Kevin McBride sollte ein Neustart werden. McBride war ein solider, aber limitierter Schwergewichtler, der nicht über die Klasse verfügte, die Tyson in seinen besten Zeiten gefürchtet hatte. Doch der Tyson von 2005 war nur noch ein Schatten seiner selbst. Er wirkte langsam, kraftlos und unsicher. In der sechsten Runde ging er zu Boden, zum ersten Mal in seiner Karriere gegen einen Gegner wie McBride. Als die Glocke zur nächsten Runde ertönte, blieb Tyson in seiner Ecke sitzen. Seine Sekundanten hatten das Handtuch geworfen, der Kampf war beendet. Die Zuschauer im Ring und vor den Bildschirmen waren gefasst von diesem erbärmlichen Anblick eines einstigen Champions.

Nach dem Kampf sprach Tyson offen über seine Lage. Er sagte, er habe nicht mehr das Herz, um weiterzukämpfen. Er wolle nicht länger vor der Öffentlichkeit sein, sondern sich um seine Kinder kümmern. Diese Worte klangen wie die Erkenntnis eines Mannes, der die Zeichen der Zeit erkannt hatte. Der Rücktritt wurde nicht mit einer großen Feier begangen, sondern mit leiser Resignation. Die Karriere von Mike Tyson endete nicht mit einem Triumph, sondern mit einer schmerzhaften Niederlage gegen einen weitaus weniger talentierten Boxer. Es war ein unrühmliches Ende für einen Sportler, der einst die Boxwelt im Sturm erobert hatte.

Das Vermächtnis eines Champions

Trotz des enttäuschenden Endes bleibt Mike Tyson eine Legende. Er hat den Boxsport geprägt wie nur wenige andere Athleten. Seine Schlagkraft, seine Schnelligkeit und seine aggressive Kampfweise revolutionierten das Schwergewicht. Er war der erste Boxer, der die Schwergewichtstitel aller großen Verbände gleichzeitig hielt. Seine Kämpfe waren Events, die Millionen von Menschen vor die Bildschirme lockten. Er wurde zum Weltstar, der auch außerhalb des Sports wahrgenommen wurde. Filme, Musikvideos und Werbespots nutzten sein Image, und sein Name wurde zum Synonym für bedingungslosen Siegeswillen.

Gleichzeitig ist Tysons Karriere eine Mahnung an die Gefahren von Ruhm, Geld und schlechten Entscheidungen. Seine Probleme mit dem Gesetz, seine Drogenexzesse und seine Unfähigkeit, sich nach der Karriere zurechtzufinden, sind fester Bestandteil seiner Geschichte. Dennoch hat er in späteren Jahren immer wieder gezeigt, dass er sich weiterentwickeln kann. Er trat als Entertainer auf, schrieb eine erfolgreiche Autobiografie und wurde zu einer Kultfigur, die sich selbst mit Augenzwinkern betrachtet. Der Rücktritt von 2005 war nicht der endgültige Abschied aus dem öffentlichen Leben, sondern der Beginn einer neuen Rolle.

Am 11. Juni 2005, dem Tag seiner letzten Niederlage, endete ein Kapitel. Doch die Erinnerungen an das Boxtalent Mike Tyson sind unvergessen. Die Bilder seiner besten Kämpfe, seine Fäuste, seine Dynamik und sein unvergleichlicher Wille werden immer Teil der Boxgeschichte bleiben. Für viele Fans gilt er trotz aller Fehler als einer der größten Schwergewichte aller Zeiten. Seine Geschichte lehrt, dass Ruhm vergänglich ist, aber dass ein außergewöhnlicher Sportler niemals ganz verschwindet. Sein Name bleibt unauslöschlich mit dem Boxsport verbunden, und die Nacht von Washington wird nicht das letzte ist, was man von Mike Tyson hört. Sein Leben bleibt ein Spektakel – ob im Ring oder daneben.

Source: Spiegel News

„Viele haben versagt“ – Mourinho übt Kritik

Auf die Frage nach den Gründen für die schwankenden Leistungen in der Vorsaison antwortete Mourinho mit ungewohnter Deutlichkeit: „Viele haben versagt. Das ist keine Kritik an einzelnen Namen, sondern eine Tatsache. Wenn man bei Real Madrid spielt, gehört es zu deinen Pflichten, Verantwortung zu übernehmen. In entscheidenden Momenten haben zu viele Spieler nicht das abgerufen, was man von ihnen erwarten darf.“ Der 63-Jährige vermied es, konkrete Namen zu nennen, ließ aber durchblicken, dass die Mannschaft in der vergangenen Spielzeit weit unter ihren Möglichkeiten geblieben sei.

Mourinho betonte, dass er keine Einzelkritik üben wolle, sondern die gesamte Mannschaft in die Pflicht nehme. „Wir haben einen Kader mit außergewöhnlichem Potenzial. Aber Potenzial allein reicht nicht. Es braucht Charakter, es braucht Siegermentalität, es braucht die Bereitschaft, im entscheidenden Moment über sich hinauszuwachsen. Das habe ich in der vergangenen Saison zu oft vermisst.“

Beeindruckt von Mbappé

Eine Ausnahme macht Mourinho dabei offenbar Kylian Mbappé. Der Franzose, der im Sommer 2024 zu Real Madrid gewechselt war, hat den Portugiesen nachhaltig beeindruckt. „Mbappé ist ein außergewöhnlicher Spieler. Nicht nur wegen seiner Tore, sondern wegen seiner Einstellung. Er trainiert hart, er will immer gewinnen, er nimmt Kritik an und arbeitet an sich. Ich bin froh, dass ich mit ihm zusammenarbeiten darf.“

Mourinho hob insbesondere die taktische Flexibilität des Franzosen hervor. „Er kann als Mittelstürmer spielen, er kann von links kommen, er kann Räume öffnen. Aber das Wichtigste: Er versteht das Spiel. Er weiß, wann er laufen muss, wann er stehen bleiben muss, wann er den Ball fordern muss. Das ist nicht selbstverständlich bei einem Spieler mit seinem Status.“

Der Trainer machte deutlich, dass er mit Mbappé noch große Pläne hat. „Er ist noch nicht am Ende seiner Entwicklung. Das ist das Schöne. Bei aller Klasse, die er bereits zeigt, gibt es noch Potenzial. Wir werden gemeinsam daran arbeiten, dass er noch konstanter wird.“

Vinícius Júnior und die Vertragsverlängerung

Ein weiteres Thema des Interviews war die Vertragsverlängerung von Vinícius Júnior. Der Brasilianer hatte in den vergangenen Monaten immer wieder mit Wechselgerüchten zu kämpfen gehabt. Mourinho stellte klar, dass Vinícius ein zentraler Bestandteil seiner Planungen ist. „Vinícius ist ein Spieler, der Spiele entscheiden kann. Er hat in den vergangenen Jahren bewiesen, dass er auf höchstem Niveau konstant liefern kann. Seine Verlängerung ist ein starkes Signal – für ihn, für die Mannschaft, für den Verein.“

Der Portugiese lobte auch die Persönlichkeit des Brasilianers. „Viele sehen nur den Tänzer, den Entertainer. Aber ich sehe einen jungen Mann, der unglaublich professionell ist. Er liebt diesen Verein, er will hier Geschichte schreiben. Das schätze ich sehr.“

Mourinho deutete an, dass Vinícius in seiner Planung eine noch wichtigere Rolle spielen könnte. „Er hat das Zeug zum Anführer. Nicht laut, sondern durch seine Leistung. Er ist auf dem Weg, einer der Führungsspieler dieser Mannschaft zu werden.“

„Ich bin viel reifer, weniger emotional“

Im Interview sprach Mourinho auch über seine persönliche Entwicklung seit seiner ersten Amtszeit bei Real Madrid (2010 bis 2013). „Ich habe mich sehr verändert, sowohl als Mensch als auch als Trainer. Ich bin viel reifer, weniger emotional, dafür kontrollierter. Wie immer lerne ich aus Fehlern. Aber nie mit dem Gefühl, dass ich dies oder jenes bereue. Ich finde, es hilft dir im Leben nicht, etwas zu bereuen. Man muss durch die Erfahrungen lernen.“

Der 63-Jährige fügte hinzu: „Ich würde nicht sagen, dass man einen langweiligeren Mourinho sieht. Langweiliger nicht.“ Diese Aussage deutet darauf hin, dass er seine emotionale Art nicht vollständig abgelegt hat, sondern sie nun gezielter einsetzt.

Mourinhos zweite Amtszeit bei Real Madrid

Mourinho war im Sommer 2026 erneut als Trainer von Real Madrid vorgestellt worden. Nach seiner ersten Amtszeit, in der er mit den Königlichen unter anderem die Meisterschaft 2012 und den Supercopa de España gewann, folgten Stationen bei Chelsea, Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur und zuletzt bei AS Rom sowie einem Engagement in der Türkei. Nun ist er zurück an der Concha Espina.

Seine Rückkehr war von vielen Beobachtern als Überraschung gewertet worden. Doch Mourinho selbst sieht sich als richtigen Mann zur richtigen Zeit. „Real Madrid ist nicht irgendein Verein. Das ist eine Institution. Ich habe in meiner Karriere viel erlebt, aber die Rückkehr hierher ist etwas Besonderes.“

In der Vorbereitung auf die Saison 2026/27 hat Mourinho bereits erste Akzente gesetzt. Er setzt auf eine Mischung aus erfahrenen Führungsspielern und jungen Talenten. Dabei scheut er sich nicht, auch unpopuläre Entscheidungen zu treffen.

Die vergangene Saison als Lehre

Die vergangene Saison war für Real Madrid aus Sicht vieler Fans enttäuschend verlaufen. In der LaLiga verpasste man die Meisterschaft deutlich, auch in der Champions League war bereits im Viertelfinale Schluss. Mourinho analysierte die Gründe dafür mit ungewohnter Offenheit. „Wir haben in der Vorsaison zu viele Punkte liegen gelassen. Gegen die vermeintlich kleineren Teams haben wir uns zu oft schwergetan. Das ist eine Mentalitätsfrage, keine Qualitätsfrage.“

Der Trainer kündigte an, dass sich das unter seiner Führung ändern werde. „Ich verlange von meinen Spielern, dass sie jedes Spiel ernst nehmen, egal gegen wen wir spielen. Wer bei Real Madrid nicht bereit ist, diesen Anspruch zu akzeptieren, der wird es schwer haben.“

Die Rolle der Führungsspieler

Ein wichtiger Baustein für Mourinhos Plan sind die erfahrenen Spieler im Kader. Neben Vinícius Júnior und Kylian Mbappé setzt er auf Spieler wie Jude Bellingham, der in der vergangenen Saison eine schwankende Form gezeigt hatte. „Jude ist ein unglaublicher Spieler, aber auch er muss lernen, mit Rückschlägen umzugehen. Er ist jung, er wird besser werden.“

Mourinho betonte, dass er von seinen Führungsspielern mehr erwartet als nur gute Leistungen auf dem Platz. „Sie müssen Vorbilder sein, im Training, in der Kabine, im Umgang mit den jungen Spielern. Das ist eine Verantwortung, die man nicht ablegen kann.“

Die Fans im Blick

Zum Abschluss des Interviews richtete Mourinho eine Botschaft an die Fans von Real Madrid. „Ich weiß, was dieser Verein den Menschen bedeutet. Ich spüre die Energie im Stadion, die Leidenschaft, die Emotion. Ich verspreche euch: Diese Mannschaft wird kämpfen, bis zur letzten Minute. Wir wollen Titel gewinnen, und wir werden alles dafür tun.“

Die Erwartungen sind hoch, die Aufgabe ist groß. Doch Mourinho wirkt entschlossen, seine zweite Amtszeit bei Real Madrid erfolgreicher zu gestalten als viele seiner jüngsten Engagements. Mit seiner Erfahrung, seiner taktischen Finesse und seiner klaren Ansprache könnte er genau die Richtung vorgeben, die der Verein in dieser Übergangsphase benötigt.

Source: REAL TOTAL News

Richardson's time of 10.65 seconds shaved 0.02 seconds off the previous championship record and set a new personal best, moving her to fourth on the all-time women's 100m list. The race, held under clear skies at the National Athletics Centre, saw the American explode out of the blocks on lane nine and hold off a late charge from Jamaica's Shericka Jackson, who took silver in 10.72 seconds. Defending champion Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce, also from Jamaica, secured bronze in 10.77 seconds.

A first global title after years of turmoil

Richardson's path to world championship gold has been anything but straightforward. She first burst onto the scene as a college prodigy at Louisiana State University, where she ran 10.75 seconds in 2019 to set the collegiate record. That performance announced her as a future star of American sprinting, and by 2021 she was widely expected to challenge for Olympic glory in Tokyo.

Those hopes came crashing down at the US Olympic Trials in 2021, when Richardson won the 100m in 10.86 seconds to qualify for the Games, only to learn days later that she had tested positive for marijuana. The subsequent one-month suspension disqualified her result and kept her out of the Tokyo Olympics, where the women's 100m title was won by Jamaica's Elaine Thompson-Herah in 10.61 seconds.

Richardson's absence from Tokyo was a major talking point in the athletics world. She admitted to using the substance after learning of her biological mother's death during the trials, but the rules were clear, and she accepted the punishment. The setback, however, did not define her. She spent the following months training and rebuilding her career, determined to prove that her potential had not been wasted.

Resurgence and redemption in 2023

In the 2022 season Richardson struggled with consistency. She missed the US team for the World Championships in Eugene after finishing outside the top three at the US trials, watching from home as Jamaica swept the medals. Many doubted whether she could ever fulfill her early promise, especially as a new generation of sprinters like Jackson and Fraser-Pryce continued to dominate.

But Richardson began 2023 with a renewed mindset and a revamped start technique. She won the US Championships in 10.82 seconds, booking her place for Budapest and signalling that she was back to her best. Her semi-final in Budapest, however, nearly proved to be a disaster. A poor reaction time left her scrambling in the final metres, and she only advanced thanks to a time qualifier. The near-miss seemed to galvanise her for the final.

On the night of the final, Richardson was drawn in lane nine, the outermost lane, which many athletes consider a disadvantage because it is difficult to see competitors. She made no excuses, running a controlled and powerful race. Her reaction time of 0.133 seconds was not the fastest, but her top-end speed was unmatched. She hit the line with a glance to neither side, confirming her victory with a yell of emotion.

"I'm just happy, I'm blessed," she told interviewers after the race. "This is my first world title, and I'm ready for more."

Race analysis and key facts

• The final was run in warm, still conditions, ideal for sprinting.
• Richardson's winning time of 10.65 seconds is the fastest in the world this year and a championship record.
• Shericka Jackson's 10.72 seconds was a season's best, while Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce's 10.77 was her third-fastest time of the year.
• The race marked the first world 100m podium without a European or African athlete since 2015.
• Richardson is the first American woman to win the world 100m title since Tori Bowie in 2017.
• Her victory, combined with Noah Lyles's win in the men's 100m the previous day, gave the United States both sprint titles at the same World Championships for the first time since 2017.

Gina Lückenkemper's early exit

Germany's Gina Lückenkemper, the European champion from 2022, had hoped to reach her first World Championship final but was eliminated in the semi-finals. Running in the first of three semi-finals, she finished fifth in 11.18 seconds, well short of the two automatic qualifying spots. She later explained that back problems had hindered her performance, a complaint she had raised after her preliminary heat as well. The 28-year-old was visibly disappointed, knowing that a line drawn under her season would now focus on the 200m, where she has also, however, struggled to match her European form.

Lückenkemper's exit meant no German woman appeared in the 100m final, a significant drop from her achievements at the European Championships in Munich, where she upset a star-studded field to win gold. Her back issue, which appears to be a recurring problem, will likely require attention before the 200m and the relay.

Historical context and all-time greats

Richardson's breakthrough in Budapest also served as a changing of the guard in women's sprinting. Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce, at 36, showed her remarkable longevity by taking bronze, but she could not secure a fourth world 100m title. The race was the first time since 2013 that a Jamaican woman did not win the world 100m final. Jackson, the 200m world record-holder over 200m, settled for silver yet again, having also finished second to Fraser-Pryce in 2022.

Richardson now joins an elite club of American world champions in the women's 100m, including names like Gail Devers, Marion Jones, Tori Bowie, and Carmelita Jeter. Her time of 10.65 places her behind only Florence Griffith-Joyner (10.49), Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce (10.60), and Shericka Jackson (10.65, same time), tying her with the latter.

The victory is also a personal redemption for an athlete whose career could have been derailed by controversy. At the 2021 U.S. Olympic Trials, Richardson won the 100m in 10.86, but just a month later she was facing a suspension that would change her life. She used that time to reflect and has since become an outspoken advocate for mental health and fairness in sport, though she has not publicly called for changes to the marijuana ban.

Budapest 2023 is only the beginning for Richardson. She is expected to compete in the 200m, where she will face Jackson, the defending champion. Jackson, who holds the 200m world record at 21.34, will be the clear favourite, but Richardson's 100m form suggests that a double is not out of the question. The American has also hinted that she has more in store, telling reporters, "The 100m was just the beginning of what I want to show the world."

The women's 100m final at these championships will be remembered for its exceptional depth, with four women breaking the 11-second barrier. Beyond Richardson, Jackson, and Fraser-Pryce, Britain's Dina Asher-Smith finished fourth in 10.83, her best time in years, while Marie-Josée Ta Lou of Côte d'Ivoire took fifth in 10.94. The race showcased the global evolution of sprinting, but on this night, all eyes were on the American from Dallas, Texas, who finally delivered on the immense promise she had shown as a teenager.

For Richardson, the title is the culmination of a long journey back to the top. At just 23, she has already faced down enormous pressure, public criticism, and personal tragedy. Her victory in Budapest is a testament to her resilience and talent, and it sets the stage for a fascinating rivalry with Jackson and Fraser-Pryce in the years to come. The women's 100m, once a Jamaican-dominated event, now has a new queen from the United States.

Source: Spiegel News

The situation came into sharper focus with two WNBA games on the same evening, one in Chicago where New York Liberty took on the Sky, and another in Indianapolis where Toronto Tempo faced the Indiana Fever. The results were sobering for German basketball fans. New York Liberty, without both Sabally and Fiebich, fell 86-93 to the Chicago Sky at the Wintrust Arena in a game marked by defensive lapses and missed opportunities. Meanwhile, Toronto Tempo extended a painful losing streak to eleven games with a 95-101 loss to the Indiana Fever, with superstar Caitlin Clark once again proving to be the decisive factor. The two defeats were not only significant for the WNBA standings but also served as a reminder of how much the German veterans and the younger Sabally are needed by their respective teams.

Satou Sabally has not been able to play since June 24. The 28-year-old forward, who has been a cornerstone of the German national team for years, suffered a concussion during a game and has yet to receive the all-clear to return to the court. Concussion protocols in the WNBA are notoriously rigorous, and the coaching staff of the New York Liberty has been cautious with their star player. Every missed game only increases the uncertainty surrounding her readiness for the World Cup. The longer she remains without full training, the harder it will be to regain match fitness at the highest level. Germany relies on her ability to create offense, rebound, and lead the defensive effort. Without her, the team's attacking structure loses its most dynamic element.

Leonie Fiebich, the 26-year-old forward who has emerged as one of New York's most reliable two-way players, has also been forced to watch from the sidelines. She has not stepped onto the WNBA hardwood since early July, struggling with a recurring ankle issue. Ankles are notoriously tricky for basketball players, especially for athletes who rely on lateral movement and quick stops. Fiebich's size and shooting stroke are highly valued by both the Liberty and the national team, and her absence has been strongly felt. In the loss to the Sky, New York's bench could not offset the loss of her defensive versatility.

Nyara Sabally's Injury Compounds Family Woes

The Sabally family's troubles are not limited to Satou. Her younger sister Nyara, who has carved out a role with the expansion franchise Toronto Tempo, left a game against the Dallas Wings on the previous Wednesday with a calf injury. While the team initially hoped it was just a bruise, subsequent examinations have revealed something more serious. The Canadian broadcaster TSN reported that Nyara will be out for weeks, a timeline that puts her participation at the World Cup in serious doubt. Toronto Tempo dropped to an eleven-game losing streak in her absence, though the young team's struggles are hardly her fault alone.

Nyara's absence was especially glaring in the close 95-101 loss to the Indiana Fever. Caitlin Clark, the WNBA's record-breaking guard who has become the face of the league's new era, took full advantage of the Sabally-sized hole in Toronto's defense. Clark poured in 24 points to lead all scorers, orchestrating the Fever's offense with her characteristic flair. For a franchise like Toronto, which has struggled to find consistency in its inaugural season, losing one of its most promising young post players is a devastating setback.

The World Cup Beckons

All of this is happening at the worst possible time for German basketball. The FIBA Women's World Cup will be staged in Berlin from September 4 to September 13, and expectations are high that Germany can make a deep run on home soil. The team is not only a participant on this stage but a genuine medal contender, having assembled one of the most talented generations in its history. However, injuries to three crucial players threaten to derail those ambitions before a single ball is tipped in the German capital.

The opening match against Spain on September 4 is a heavyweight clash against a team that has consistently been among Europe's elite. Spain possess a mix of savvy veterans and young, athletic wings, making them one of the most dangerous opponents in the group phase. A healthy Germany would relish such a challenge; a depleted Germany could find itself in an early hole. Beyond the opener, Germany will also face unfamiliar opponents as the tournament progresses, and every group game matters for seeding and momentum.

The WNBA has agreed to pause its regular season on August 31 to allow players like Satou Sabally, Fiebich, Nyara Sabally, and Frieda Bühner to join their national teams. Bühner, who plays for the Portland Fire in the WNBA, has been waiting to link up with the DBB squad and is expected to fly to Berlin as soon as the league break begins. For the Sabally sisters and Fiebich, however, the question is not just when they can travel, but whether they will be physically able to contribute on the court.

Why This Generation Is Special

To understand the magnitude of these injuries, one only needs to look at the career trajectories of the players involved. Satou Sabally was the second overall pick in the 2020 WNBA Draft, an unprecedented achievement for German women's basketball. Born in Berlin to a Ghanaian father and a German mother, she grew up in the sport's grassroots before attending Erasmus University in Rotterdam and then starring at the University of Oregon. Her college career earned her numerous accolades and prepared her for a professional life in the United States, where she quickly became one of the league's most exciting forwards.

Leonie Fiebich took a different road. She developed in the German system, playing for teams like Eisvogel Freiburg and then moving to the Spanish league before catching the attention of WNBA scouts. Her breakout came during the 2025 season when she became a starter for the New York Liberty and helped the team capture a WNBA championship. Fiebich's basketball IQ is often described as elite; she knows where to be on defense, how to space the floor on offense, and she has that rare ability to make the right play consistently. In national team colors, she is just as indispensable.

Nyara Sabally may not yet have achieved the same individual fame as her sister, but she has already shown flashes of brilliance at both the college and professional levels. She played at the University of Oregon alongside Satou for a year, and after overcoming a torn ACL that cost her time, she developed into a strong shot-blocker and rebounder. Her move to Toronto Tempo in the expansion draft gave her an opportunity to grow into a leadership role, even as the team has struggled to win games. Her absence is a loss for the DBB not only in the paint but also in athleticism and defensive intensity.

Together, the Sabally sisters and Fiebich are more than just individual talents. They represent a new standard for German women's basketball. For years, the national team relied on players who competed in Europe; now, the core of the team is based in North America, facing the best competition in the world on a nightly basis. That experience is invaluable in international tournaments, where tempo, physicality, and defensive pressure are amplified. Having that trio in Berlin would give Germany one of the most formidable lineups in the tournament, capable of matching up with the best teams on the planet.

Injury setbacks are not uncommon in the lead-up to major championships. Players often carry niggles into the tournament, and coaching staffs work around their limitations. But the combination of a concussion, an ankle issue, and a calf strain is particularly concerning. Each injury requires a different recovery protocol. Concussions demand neurological rest and clearance, ankle problems require progressive loading and stability work, and calf injuries are notoriously prone to recurrence. The German medical staff must balance between pushing for quick returns and protecting the long-term health of the athletes.

The clock is ticking. The players themselves have been determined in their public statements, expressing their desire to represent Germany in a home World Cup. For Satou Sabally, it would be a dream to play at a major international tournament in front of family and friends in Berlin. Fiebich has spent years answering questions about her health and her commitment to the national team, and she has consistently highlighted the emotional impact of playing for the DBB. Nyara Sabally knows that this tournament could be her breakthrough moment on the world stage.

What Lies Ahead

In the coming days, the German federation is expected to provide updates on the trio's progress. The WNBA's regular season pause on August 31 is approaching quickly, and all three players will want to demonstrate at least some level of on-court work before joining the national team camp. If any of them is unable to fully recover, coach Thomaidis will have to reshuffle her rotation and turn to players who have stepped up in their absence, such as Frieda Bühner. Nevertheless, nobody in the German camp is ready to speak of a worst-case scenario just yet.

The upcoming friendly games and training sessions will be crucial. The DBB will likely schedule warm-up contests in Berlin or nearby, integrating the arriving WNBA players into the system. For Sabally and Fiebich, even playing limited minutes during those exhibition games would be a positive sign. For Nyara, the weeks-long timeline reported by TSN makes her participation a race against time. But sports medicine has seen miracles before, and a calf injury, though severe, is not automatically a tournament-ender if managed carefully.

As the basketball world turns its attention to Berlin, Germany's hopes rest on the fragile health of its stars. The road ahead is uncertain, but one thing is sure: if the Sabally sisters and Leonie Fiebich can recover and compete at their best level, this German team will be one of the most exciting stories of the 2026 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup. Fans across the country will continue to monitor every update, crossing their fingers and hoping that their beloved players will be fit to write the next chapter in German basketball history.

Source: MSN News

For years, political campaigns and committees have depended heavily on email as a primary tool for soliciting donations and mobilizing supporters. However, the competition for attention in crowded inboxes has led many organizations to push the boundaries of email best practices. Some have resorted to aggressive tactics, such as using misleading subject lines or sending repeated messages, which can trigger spam filters. The new Gmail program is designed to change that dynamic for a select group of politically oriented senders, offering them a more predictable path to reach potential donors and volunteers.

What is the Gmail Verified Sender Program?

According to details shared by Google, the Gmail Verified Sender Program is a framework that allows qualifying candidates, political parties, political action committees (PACs), and other political committees to have their emails delivered directly to the primary inbox instead of being filtered as spam. The program is similar to Google's existing Bulk Sender Guidelines, but it is specifically tailored to political entities. To participate, organizations must adhere to a set of strict technical and operational requirements, ensuring that only legitimate and security-conscious senders benefit from the program.

The program was first reported by a prominent national news outlet and has generated significant attention due to its timing. Launching on September 8 gives political campaigns less than two months to refine their email strategies before Election Day. This period is often the most critical for fundraising, as candidates seek to close funding gaps and mobilize late-deciding voters. The ability to avoid spam filters could provide a substantial advantage to those who qualify, allowing their messages to reach supporters' primary inboxes with greater reliability.

Requirements for Political Committees

To gain verified sender status, political committees must meet several conditions. First, they must send emails from a verified domain that is registered with the program. This domain must pass strict authentication checks, including SPF (Sender Policy Framework) and DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) validation. These protocols help confirm that the emails are genuinely from the claimed sender and not spoofed or forged. Additionally, senders must comply with Google's security standards, which include protecting their accounts against unauthorized access and ensuring that their mailing infrastructure is not compromised.

One of the most notable requirements is the spam rate threshold. Participants must maintain a spam complaint rate below 0.3% over a rolling 14-day average. In practical terms, this means that for every 1,000 emails delivered, fewer than three can be marked as spam by Gmail users. This is a demanding standard, as even a small percentage of users clicking the spam button can quickly push a campaign over the limit. Google has stated that it will monitor these rates continuously, and senders that fail to comply may be suspended or removed from the program. Once removed, their emails will return to the normal filtering system, which may result in more messages being diverted to the spam folder or promotional tab.

Google's Goals and User Control

In its public statements, Google has emphasized that the program is intended to connect people with emails they actually want to receive, while still giving users full control over their inboxes. The company points out that even with verified sender status, political committees do not receive a blank check. Gmail users can still mark any message as spam, block a sender entirely, or unsubscribe using the built-in unsubscribe link. These actions will not be disabled for verified senders, and users can continue to define their own preferences regarding political email.

Google's approach reflects a broader industry effort to improve email deliverability and security while respecting user preferences. The company has spent years refining its spam filters, which use machine learning algorithms and content analysis to identify unwanted messages. Political emails have always been a particularly tricky category because they operate at the intersection of free speech, commercial solicitation, and user consent. By creating a verified lane for legitimate political committees, Google hopes to reduce the need for aggressive filtering while still preventing abuse.

The program also aligns with Google's ongoing initiatives to authenticate email senders, which were first introduced to combat phishing and spoofing. As part of these broader efforts, Google has mandated that all bulk senders, regardless of content, must meet certain authentication requirements by October 1, 2026. The Verified Sender Program for political committees effectively extends these requirements but adds the benefit of inbox placement for those who qualify.

Political Fundraising Emails and Spam Filtering

Political fundraising emails are a unique challenge for spam filters. Campaigns often send high volumes of messages, and the content is inherently persuasive, frequently using emotionally charged language to drive donations. This type of content can resemble spam, especially when it is sent repeatedly or with urgent calls to action. Additionally, campaigns may use purchased or rented lists, leading to a higher likelihood of recipients marking the emails as spam if they did not explicitly opt in.

The new Gmail program is likely to have a significant impact on how campaigns approach their email operations. For committees that qualify, the benefit is clear: higher inbox placement rates, better visibility, and potentially higher donor conversion rates. However, the strict requirements also impose new burdens. Campaigns will need sophisticated email infrastructure, careful list management, and strong engagement monitoring to stay within the 0.3% spam threshold. Smaller campaigns with limited technical resources may find this challenging, which could create a divide between well-funded national committees and smaller local operations.

Years of Allegations About Bias

The announcement of the Verified Sender Program comes after years of controversy over how Gmail handles political emails. Republican committees and candidates have repeatedly claimed that Gmail's spam filters disproportionately target their fundraising messages, while Democratic emails are more likely to reach the inbox. These allegations gained traction during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles when high-profile Republican fundraisers noticed lower deliverability rates for their campaigns.

In 2022, the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that the company deliberately filtered Republican fundraising emails to reduce their effectiveness. The lawsuit drew widespread attention and led to public debate over whether tech companies were biased against conservative political speech. However, the case was ultimately dismissed by a federal judge, who ruled that Google's decisions were protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which grants platforms broad immunity for their content moderation decisions. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) also reviewed a related complaint and dismissed it, citing a lack of evidence that Google's actions constituted a violation of election law.

Google has consistently denied any political bias, stating that its spam filtering is based on user behavior and technical signals, not partisan preferences. The company has pointed out that spam detection is applied uniformly to all senders, and that political emails from both parties are subject to the same standards. The new Verified Sender Program may serve as a response to these long-running complaints, offering a transparent and neutral pathway for political committees of all affiliations to secure inbox delivery. By setting clear rules and requirements, Google can demonstrate that it is not singling out any particular group.

How the Program Could Impact the 2026 Midterms

The timing of the program is anything but accidental. With the 2026 midterm elections just weeks away, political committees are preparing to send an avalanche of emails in the final sprint to November 3. The ability to bypass spam filters could be a game-changer for campaigns, as email remains one of the most cost-effective ways to raise money. According to recent data, political fundraising emails generated billions of dollars in donations during the past election cycles, and a significant portion of that money comes from small-dollar donors who respond directly to email appeals.

For voters, the program could mean more political emails in their inboxes, at least from senders who meet the verification criteria. This is a double-edged sword. On one hand, supporters of a candidate may appreciate receiving spontaneous updates and donation requests. On the other hand, inbox fatigue is real, and an increase in political email volume could lead to more frustration, especially among those who have already made up their minds or are not interested in donating. Google's focus on maintaining a low spam rate is a mitigating factor, as campaigns will have to be careful not to over-send or irritate users, or they risk losing their verified status.

The program may also have implications for third-party vendors and email marketing agencies that work with political clients. These companies will need to adapt to the new requirements, potentially adjusting their sending infrastructure and list hygiene practices. Some agencies are already developing specialized tools to help political clients maintain their spam rates and comply with authentication standards. This could become a thriving niche industry as the program matures.

Broader Implications for Email Ecosystem

Beyond the immediate impact on political fundraising, the Gmail Verified Sender Program signals a broader shift in how email platforms are dealing with bulk senders. With the introduction of stricter sender guidelines in recent years, Gmail and other providers like Yahoo have pushed for greater accountability across the email ecosystem. These measures are designed to reduce the amount of unwanted email, improve security, and give users more control over their inboxes.

The political sender program takes this a step further by creating a tiered system of senders. Verified senders receive preferential treatment, while unverified senders may face stricter filtering. This could become a model for other categories of email, such as financial services, healthcare, or e-commerce. However, it also raises questions about fairness and the potential for gatekeeping. By defining who is a "qualifying" political committee, Google is making decisions that could influence which voices are amplified and which are relegated to the spam folder. While the criteria appear neutral on the surface, the enforcement and monitoring could lead to unintended biases.

Another important aspect is user education. Gmail users may not immediately understand why they are receiving more political emails from certain senders or why some messages that previously went to spam are now appearing in the main inbox. Google will need to communicate the existence of the Verified Sender Program clearly, so users can take deliberate action if they feel overwhelmed. The absence of a clear opt-out mechanism beyond the usual spam and block buttons could lead to user frustration, especially if the volume of political email increases significantly.

In conclusion, the Gmail Verified Sender Program is a notable development in the ongoing relationship between technology platforms and political communication. It introduces a structured, requirements-based approach that offers benefits to legitimate political committees while imposing strict conditions. The program starts on September 8, 2026, giving campaigns just under two months to adjust their strategies for the midterm elections. Whether it successfully balances the needs of senders, recipients, and regulators remains to be seen, but it is certain to influence how political email is delivered and perceived during the critical final stretch of the 2026 election cycle.

Source: Android Authority News

The event marks a significant milestone in Google’s push to expand beyond traditional Android smartphones and Chromebooks. According to reports, Google has invited members of the media to an in-person preview event, giving journalists and industry insiders their first official look at the hardware, software, and partnerships that will shape the Googlebook ecosystem.

Google’s New Laptop Platform: What We Know So Far

Google first announced Googlebooks in May as a new category of premium laptops built on the Android technology stack. Unlike traditional Chromebooks, which run on ChromeOS, Googlebooks are designed to bridge the gap between web-based productivity and native Android applications. This hybrid approach is intended to offer users the best of both worlds: the lightweight, cloud-centric experience of ChromeOS combined with the vast app ecosystem of Android.

The initiative has attracted several major hardware partners, including Acer, ASUS, Dell, HP, and Lenovo. These five companies are expected to be the first to launch Googlebook devices, with the initial wave arriving later this fall. The collaboration suggests that Google is taking a similar approach to its Pixel phone strategy, working closely with partners to deliver a consistent hardware experience while leaving room for differentiation.

The September 15 Event: What to Expect

According to a report from Chrome Unboxed, the September 15 event will be a full hardware showcase. It is expected to include a keynote presentation from Google leadership, covering the new computing platform, its underlying software architecture, and Google’s long-term vision for unifying its two major operating systems. The keynote will likely address how Googlebooks build on the existing strengths of ChromeOS and Android, while also explaining how the two will coexist in the future.

Media attendees will reportedly have access to dedicated demo stations where they can test Googlebooks from all five launch partners. This hands-on access is a clear sign that Google is confident in the maturity of the platform and wants to generate early buzz through detailed reviews and benchmark testing. Being able to photograph, film, and benchmark the devices will allow journalists to offer in-depth analysis before the products hit store shelves.

The event will also serve as a platform for Google to showcase the distinctive design language of Googlebooks. Leaked renders have already revealed a standout hardware feature: the Glowbar. This light bar, which is expected to be integrated into the lid or keyboard area, is designed to provide visual notifications and assist with Gemini-powered features. It is likely to become as iconic to Googlebooks as the Touch Bar was to certain MacBook models, though Google’s implementation is expected to be more functional and less divisive.

Aluminium OS: The Name Behind the Software

One of the most eagerly anticipated announcements at the September event is the official name of the operating system that powers Googlebooks. So far, Google has not publicly committed to a name, and the tech community has taken to calling it “Aluminium OS” based on leaked code references and internal documentation.

The choice of a metallic element as a placeholder name is reminiscent of Google’s earlier Android version naming conventions, which were once based on desserts before shifting to numbers. However, Aluminium OS is not an official Google branding; it is simply a term used by enthusiasts and journalists to describe the hybrid system. The actual name could be something entirely different, and Google is expected to leverage the September 15 event to make the announcement.

The software has been in development for several years, and Google has been careful to keep its branding under wraps. The company has consistently referred to it as “the operating system powering Googlebooks” in official communications, avoiding any codename leaks. This secrecy is typical of Google’s product launches, where branding decisions are often kept confidential until the last moment to maximize media impact.

Hardware Leaks and Partner Devices

Despite Google’s tight-lipped approach, leaks have provided a fairly clear picture of what the first Googlebooks will look like. Lenovo’s Googlebook 15 has surfaced in multiple leaked renders, showing a sleek, premium laptop with a large display and a keyboard that includes a dedicated Gemini assistant key. The device appears to feature a metal unibody construction, which aligns with Google’s promise of premium materials.

ASUS has also been spotted preparing its own Googlebook model, with renders indicating a similar design language to Lenovo’s offering. Both devices share the Glowbar, which is expected to serve as a notification light and a visual indicator for the Gemini voice assistant. The Glowbar’s placement and behavior could vary slightly between manufacturers, giving each a unique identity while maintaining a cohesive ecosystem look.

Dell, HP, and Acer have remained more secretive, but industry analysts expect their devices to launch alongside the first wave. Some reports suggest that HP and Dell will target enterprise users, while Acer and ASUS will focus on consumer audiences. Lenovo may bridge both worlds, offering configurations suitable for work and home.

Bridging ChromeOS and Android

At its core, the Googlebook platform is an ambitious effort to unify Google’s two operating ecosystems. ChromeOS has long been praised for its simplicity, security, and speed, but it has struggled with native app support. Android, on the other hand, offers millions of apps, but the experience on larger screens has historically been inconsistent.

Googlebooks aim to solve this by making Android apps run seamlessly on a desktop-style interface. The new OS will likely include a desktop mode similar to Samsung DeX, allowing users to resize windows, use keyboard shortcuts, and multitask with ease. At the same time, it will retain support for Progressive Web Apps, ensuring that the web productivity advantages of ChromeOS are not lost.

Developers are expected to play a crucial role in the platform’s success. If Google can demonstrate that Android apps can run flawlessly on Googlebooks, it could attract many more developers to optimize their apps for large screens. This would create a flywheel effect, making Googlebooks more appealing to consumers and businesses alike.

Gemini Integration and Glowbar Features

Artificial intelligence is set to be a major focus of the Googlebook experience. The Glowbar, which has appeared in both Lenovo and ASUS leaks, is likely to be closely tied to Gemini, Google’s advanced AI assistant. The light bar could provide visual cues when Gemini is listening, processing a request, or delivering a notification.

Google has already integrated Gemini into Android and ChromeOS in various ways, including AI-powered writing assistance, smart photo editing, and context-aware search. On Googlebooks, Gemini is expected to be more deeply embedded, perhaps offering system-wide AI features such as real-time translation, meeting summarization, and automated workflow suggestions.

The hardware controls around the Glowbar might include a dedicated assistant button, similar to the Copilot key on Windows laptops. This would allow users to invoke Gemini instantly from the keyboard, making it a core part of the interaction model rather than an afterthought.

Market Positioning and Consumer Appeal

Googlebooks are entering a competitive laptop market dominated by Windows and macOS. To succeed, Google will need to offer something that sets its platform apart. Premium materials, strong AI integration, and a seamless Android app experience could be the key differentiators.

Pricing will also be critical. If Googlebooks are positioned as premium devices, they will need to justify their cost against high-end Ultrabooks and MacBooks. However, some partners may offer mid-range configurations, as Lenovo’s Googlebook 15 might be a mainstream device rather than a flagship.

Google’s previous attempts at hardware have had mixed results, but the company has learned valuable lessons from its Pixel line. The Googlebook initiative benefits from years of refinement in both software and hardware, and the choice of multiple launch partners indicates that Google is committed to building an ecosystem rather than just a single product.

The Road Ahead

With the September 15 event just weeks away, excitement is building among tech enthusiasts and industry watchers. The reveal will likely clarify Google’s long-term strategy and set the stage for a new era of hybrid computing. Whether Googlebooks can disrupt the laptop market remains to be seen, but the combination of Android’s app ecosystem, ChromeOS’s simplicity, and AI-driven features makes it a compelling proposition.

For now, all eyes are on New York City, where Google will pull back the curtain on its newest platform. Consumers can expect to see hands-on impressions, benchmark results, and first-look videos emerge shortly after the event. The official branding for the operating system is likely to be announced during the keynote, followed by pre-order availability for some models.

As the launch date approaches, more details will inevitably surface. But one thing is clear: Google is serious about creating a new category of laptops, and September 15 will mark the beginning of that journey.

Source: Android Authority News

This incident came as a surprise because the first-generation Pixel Watch, released in 2022, is now several generations old. While it has been superseded by the Pixel Watch 2 and later models, Google has maintained software support for the device, including the Wear OS 4 update. Seeing a warning that the watch would no longer sync with Google Health led many owners to believe that Google was finally dropping support.

The warning that caused the panic

Reports from affected users indicated that the warning message was vague but alarming. It appeared to state that Google Health sync support would be removed from the device, which would have made it significantly harder to view health metrics such as heart rate, sleep data, and step counts within the Google Health app. This would have been a major downgrade for anyone relying on the first-generation Pixel Watch as their primary fitness tracker.

The message was particularly troubling because Google has been gradually transitioning its wearable ecosystem from the Fitbit platform to the new Google Health app. For users of older devices, the rollout has been accompanied by some uncertainty about which devices will continue to receive updates and which ones will eventually be left behind. A warning like the one seen this week only adds to that uncertainty.

Google responds quickly to reassure users

Fortunately, Google moved quickly to address the confusion. In a statement provided to the media, a company spokesperson confirmed that the warning was an error. Google says the Google Health App and Coach fully support legacy Pixel Watch and Fitbit devices. The spokesperson added that the bug that incorrectly displayed the message to some users has been fixed.

This is not the first time that a notification or server-side message has caused panic among users of aging smartwatches. In many cases, these warnings are the result of a configuration mistake or a faulty rollout, rather than a deliberate decision to discontinue support. Google's response suggests that the company is aware of the sensitivity of this issue and is keen to reassure long-time users that their devices are not being abandoned.

Understanding Google Health and Wear OS 4

Google Health is the company's newer health and fitness platform, designed to consolidate features from the old Fitbit app into a single integrated experience. It offers tools for activity tracking, sleep monitoring, heart health insights, and more. However, Google Health comes with a system requirement: it requires Wear OS 4 or later on Pixel Watch and other Wear OS devices. This means that devices running older versions of Wear OS may eventually lose access to certain Google Health features, unless they receive the necessary system update.

The original Pixel Watch is in a favorable position because it received the Wear OS 4 update. Owners who installed that update should meet the Google Health app's requirements. The watch also supports the Google Health Coach, a feature that provides personalized guidance based on health data. Google's statement confirms that all of these features remain available on the first-generation Pixel Watch.

The transition from Fitbit to Google Health

The transition from Fitbit to Google Health has been gradual. Google acquired Fitbit in 2021 after a long regulatory process, and since then, it has been integrating Fitbit's health-tracking capabilities into its own ecosystem. For a while, Fitbit users could use the existing Fitbit app on their devices, but Google Health is now the main destination for health data across both Pixel Watch and Fitbit devices. This shift has required careful planning to ensure that existing users are not left behind. The original Pixel Watch, which was the first new device to launch after the acquisition, benefited from a tight integration with Fitbit features even before the Google Health app appeared. Over time, Google has been updating the software stack to make the experience more seamless.

What about devices that have not received Wear OS 4?

For older devices that have not received the Wear OS 4 update, the situation may be different. The original Pixel Watch is covered, but some older Wear OS watches from other brands may not be eligible for the update. Google has previously stated that certain features require newer versions of Wear OS, so users of such devices might eventually lose access to full Google Health sync. However, Google's latest statement specifically addresses legacy Pixel Watch and Fitbit devices, which suggests that Fitbit-branded trackers are also safe for now.

How to check your watch's software version

For those who are unsure whether their Pixel Watch is running the correct version of Wear OS, Google has provided simple instructions. You can check the current software version by going to Settings on your watch, then navigating to System, followed by About, and finally Versions. This section will display the Wear OS version currently installed on the device. To check for updates, the path is similar: Settings, then System, then About, and then System updates. It is also possible to check for Wear OS app updates through the Play Store on the watch.

Keeping your watch updated is important not only for accessing Google Health but also for receiving security patches and performance improvements. Google has been fairly consistent in delivering updates to the Pixel Watch series, and the first-generation model has benefited from that support.

What this means for legacy Pixel Watch and Fitbit users

The confirmation that legacy devices remain supported is good news for owners of the original Pixel Watch and older Fitbit trackers. For some time, there have been questions about how long Google would continue supporting devices that were originally launched under the Fitbit brand. Google's statement suggests that the company is not planning to cut off these devices anytime soon.

It is also reassuring for users who may have been considering an upgrade solely due to the fear of losing support. While hardware improvements and new features in newer watches are compelling reasons to upgrade, software support is a key factor. Knowing that the first-generation Pixel Watch still works fully with Google Health removes some of the pressure to upgrade prematurely.

The original Pixel Watch, despite being several years old, still holds up well for everyday fitness tracking. It includes a wide range of sensors, a bright display, and access to thousands of apps through the Google Play Store. With the Wear OS 4 update, it gained features like the new Watch Face Format and improved notifications. The device remains a viable option for users who prefer to keep their existing hardware rather than purchase a new model.

Learning from the incident

While this particular warning turned out to be a bug, the incident serves as a reminder that communication around software support is important. In the wearable market, companies often make changes to apps and services that affect older hardware. When users see vague warnings, it is easy to interpret them as a sign of planned obsolescence. In this case, Google's quick clarification and fix should help restore confidence among Pixel Watch owners.

As the wearable industry evolves, the line between hardware and software continues to blur. The Google Health app and the underlying Wear OS platform are central to the experience on modern Pixel Watches. For owners of the first-generation device, the future remains positive. Google's response indicates that the company values its user base and is willing to address issues that could cause unnecessary worry.

There is also a practical lesson for users. If you receive a warning about support being discontinued, it is worth verifying the information before making decisions about upgrading or switching platforms. Checking official sources, forums, or the company's support pages can provide clarity. In many cases, as seen here, the warning is not as dire as it appears.

In the meantime, owners of the first-generation Pixel Watch can continue to use their devices as before, with full access to Google Health features. The watch remains supported, and the bug that caused the alarming message has been resolved. If you see a similar warning in the future, it is worth remembering that for at least this generation of devices, Google has committed to keeping them in the loop.

Source: Android Authority News

What is Rambler?

Rambler is a smart dictation feature integrated into the Gboard keyboard. It uses cloud-based AI models to process voice input and deliver polished transcriptions. Unlike traditional voice typing, Rambler can rewrite sentences in a specific style, remove filler words, make text shorter, and perform complex conversational edits. This makes it more than just a speech-to-text tool—it acts like a personal writing assistant powered by Gemini AI.

The feature was announced earlier this year as part of Google's broader push to integrate Gemini intelligence across its products. Gboard users with compatible Pixel devices can access Rambler directly from the keyboard. It is designed to handle everything from quick messages to longer documents, offering hands-free writing assistance that goes far beyond basic dictation.

Usage limits: what we know

Google's official support page for Rambler mentions that the feature relies on the cloud for its polished transcriptions. It also notes that Rambler is subject to usage limits, but initially did not explain the specifics. This ambiguity left users wondering what would happen once they crossed the invisible threshold.

Now, a Google representative has provided an answer in an email to Android Authority. The spokesperson confirmed that Rambler switches to offline mode after users have reached the usage cap. In other words, the cloud-based advanced features stop working, but the keyboard does not lose its voice typing capabilities entirely.

Offline mode: what remains available

The offline mode activated after hitting the cap is essentially the same voice typing experience found on previous Pixel phones. That means users can still dictate text and get basic punctuation and capitalization applied automatically. The update also clarified that offline Rambler continues to remove filler words from dictation—a pleasant surprise for those who feared a more drastic downgrade.

So, when offline, Rambler can still clean up your speech by eliminating "um," "uh," and similar pauses. It will add commas, periods, question marks, and capitalize the start of sentences. For many basic voice typing needs, this offline fallback will work just fine. It allows users to compose messages, emails, or notes without having to rely on a stable internet connection.

What you lose after reaching the cap

The advanced features that require cloud connectivity are notably missing in offline mode. These include stylistic rewrites—asking Rambler to rephrase a sentence in a more formal tone, for example—and complex conversational editing. You also cannot ask Rambler to make a block of text shorter or summarize your dictation. Commands like "rewrite this in a professional style" or "make this paragraph more concise" will be unavailable until connectivity is restored or the usage limit resets.

This means users who heavily rely on Rambler's AI-powered editing will need to plan their usage carefully. If you use the feature for long writing sessions, you might hit the cap sooner than expected. The exact limits are still not publicly detailed, but they appear to be designed to prevent excessive cloud resource consumption.

Why usage limits exist

Cloud-based AI features like Rambler are computationally expensive. Each request to rewrite a sentence or understand a complex voice command requires server-side processing. By imposing usage limits, Google can manage server load and ensure fair access for all users. This is a common approach in the industry—many AI assistants and cloud transcription services implement caps to control costs and maintain performance.

Google has not disclosed the specific thresholds for Rambler's usage limits. It is possible that the limits vary based on factors such as account history, subscription tier, or device generation. Users on newer Pixel phones or those enrolled in beta programs might see different limits than others. However, for now, the company is keeping the details under wraps.

How Rambler compares to standard voice typing

Standard voice typing on Android has improved over the years. It can transcribe speech accurately and even handle basic punctuation if the user speaks the punctuation marks. Rambler's offline mode is comparable to that experience but with additional cleanup capabilities, such as automatically removing filler words. That makes the offline fallback more useful than the legacy voice typing in some respects.

The advanced cloud-powered features are what truly differentiate Rambler from older systems. The ability to rewrite dictated text in a different style is a game-changer for professionals who draft emails or reports hands-free. Instead of merely transcribing words, Rambler can interpret the intent behind the dictation and transform the output to match a desired tone or format.

What this means for users

For casual users who occasionally dictate messages, the usage limit may never become an issue. Most everyday voice typing sessions are short and would not approach the cap. However, power users who dictate entire articles or conduct long interviews with their keyboard could run into the limit more frequently.

The good news is that having a fallback offline mode prevents the feature from becoming completely unusable. You can still dictate without internet, and the basic cleanup functions remain active. This ensures that Gboard remains a reliable tool even when you are traveling, in a remote area, or experiencing network issues.

Potential future improvements

There is hope that Google will gradually bring smarter transcriptions to the offline mode. As on-device AI models become more powerful and efficient, some of the cloud-based features could eventually run locally. This would remove the need for usage limits and allow for unlimited advanced voice editing.

Google has already demonstrated that on-device AI can handle complex tasks on modern smartphones. With the constant advancement of mobile processors and neural processing units, it is plausible that Rambler's advanced features could become fully offline in future iterations. Until then, users will have to contend with the usage cap and the shift to offline mode.

How to check your usage

Many users are curious about how to monitor their Rambler usage. Unfortunately, Google has not provided a built-in counter or notification system that shows how close you are to the limit. The only way to know you hit the cap is when the keyboard suddenly stops performing advanced rewrites and reverts to basic offline voice typing.

This lack of transparency could be frustrating for users who rely on Rambler for critical work. In the absence of a usage meter, users are advised to be mindful of their dictation volume, especially when using advanced commands. If you find that Rambler's advanced features are not responding, check your internet connection first, as connectivity issues can also trigger offline mode.

Practical tips for staying under the cap

• Use offline voice typing for simple messages and save cloud-powered Rambler for complex rewrites.
• If you need to dictate a long document, consider breaking it into sections and editing later to avoid hitting the cap.
• Keep your Gboard app updated, as Google may adjust usage policies or raise limits with new versions.
• Use Wi-Fi when possible, as cloud features may behave differently on cellular networks, but note that the usage cap is separate from connectivity.

Community reaction and expectation

The news about Rambler's usage limits has generated mixed reactions among users. Some are relieved that offline fallback exists, while others wish Google would have been more upfront about the limits. The company's clarification is a step in the right direction, but the lack of specifics about the cap remains a point of contention.

As with many AI-powered features, there is a delicate balance between capability and cost. Google's decision to implement usage limits is not unique, but the way it communicates these limits matters. Transparent communication helps users plan their usage and avoid abrupt interruptions.

In the meantime, Rambler continues to be a compelling addition to Gboard, offering a glimpse into the future of mobile voice input. With ongoing improvements in AI and on-device processing, the next generation of Rambler might not need usage limits at all. For now, users can appreciate the free tier of advanced voice transcription, with the knowledge that a basic offline mode will always be there as a safety net.

As Google refines Rambler, the company may also introduce more granular controls, allowing users to see their remaining cloud quota or choose when to use offline mode. Until then, this update provides clarity on a question that has been on many users' minds since the feature's launch: what happens when you reach the limit? Now you know.

Source: Android Authority News

What Was the Spotify Car Thing?

The Car Thing was Spotify's first and only piece of hardware. It featured a small touchscreen, a large physical dial, and four preset buttons, all designed to let drivers quickly browse playlists, skip tracks, and select albums while keeping their eyes mostly on the road. The device was not a standalone media player; it required a connected phone with an active Spotify Premium subscription to stream music. Instead, the Car Thing acted as a remote control of sorts, coordinating playback through the phone and sending commands to whatever speakers were connected via Bluetooth or auxiliary cable.

Spotify initially tested the device with a limited invite-only rollout, and later made it available to all United States residents for a short time. At one point, the price was reduced to just $29.99, and some users even received the device for free as part of promotional campaigns. Despite this aggressive push, the Car Thing never achieved mass adoption. Many reviewers complained about the redundant nature of the hardware, particularly because smartphones could already do everything the Car Thing could do. By July 2022, Spotify quietly announced it was discontinuing the product, less than a year after its full launch.

The Sudden Shutdown

While the discontinuation was not completely surprising, Spotify gave users little reason to expect a total bricking. The company initially said it would continue to support existing devices. But in late 2024, Spotify turned off the proprietary servers that the Car Thing relied on for authentication, discovery, and playback control. Without those servers, the device's screen became stuck at a login error or a "cannot connect" message. The hardware itself was still functional in a technical sense, but the software was useless. Owners were understandably frustrated, and many took to forums and social media to demand a refund or at least an open-source firmware release.

Spotify never released an official unlock, but a small but determined community of developers stepped in. Some focused on repurposing the Car Thing as a home automation controller, while others tried to load general-purpose Linux distributions onto the hardware. However, the extremely limited specifications of the Car Thing made such projects difficult. The device is built around a modest Qualcomm processor, accompanied by just a few gigabytes of storage and a minimal amount of RAM. It was never intended to run full-fledged applications or an entire desktop operating system. This meant that any community project had to be very targeted and efficient.

Mira Gives the Car Thing a New Purpose

That is where Mira comes in. Mira is an open source project hosted on GitHub that specifically aims to restore the Car Thing's original functionality as a Spotify controller. Instead of trying to turn the hardware into a general-purpose computer, Mira focuses on doing exactly what the Car Thing was designed to do, but without relying on Spotify's discontinued server infrastructure. The project recreates a local backend that communicates with Spotify's public API directly, allowing users to link their own Spotify accounts and regain control of their music playback.

According to the project's documentation, Mira is surprisingly full-featured. Once installed and linked to a Spotify account, the Car Thing can once again display album art, browse playlists, and control playback on connected devices. The physical knob, which was always the most satisfying part of the Car Thing, works as expected, allowing users to scroll through songs and menus with a satisfying click. The four preset buttons are also functional, so you can assign quick access to your favorite playlists or artists. There is even support for gesture controls on the touchscreen, which were part of the original firmware.

Voice Control Makes a Return

One of the more impressive features of Mira is its basic voice control capability. The original Car Thing supported voice commands for tasks like "play relaxing jazz" or "like this song." Mira brings that back using a lightweight local voice recognition engine. Once configured, users can press a button or use a wake word to issue playback commands. This is particularly valuable for drivers who want to keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road. While the voice control is not as comprehensive as a smart speaker, it covers essential actions such as play, pause, skip, previous, and volume adjustments.

The project also includes a web-based companion app that helps users manage their Car Thing, connect to Wi-Fi, and authenticate with Spotify. This is a significant quality-of-life improvement over the original setup process, which required a physical connection to a computer and relied on Spotify's servers. With Mira, the entire setup can be done wirelessly, and the project's developers have published step-by-step instructions that even moderately technical users can follow.

How to Get Started with Mira

Installing Mira on a Spotify Car Thing is not as simple as downloading an app from an app store. It requires some technical know-how, but the process has been streamlined compared to earlier jailbreak methods. Here is a high-level overview of what users need to do:

• First, ensure that your Spotify Car Thing is still in good physical condition and can be powered on.
• Connect the Car Thing to a computer using a USB cable, as the initial firmware installation requires a direct connection.
• Download the Mira firmware image from the project's official release page on GitHub.
• Use a flashing tool, such as the one provided by the project, to overwrite the stock firmware with Mira.
• Once the new firmware is installed, power up the Car Thing and follow the on-screen instructions to connect it to Wi-Fi.
• Scan the QR code displayed on the Car Thing using your phone to complete the Spotify account linking process.
• After linking, you can mount the Car Thing in your vehicle and start using it immediately.

The developers have also created a detailed troubleshooting guide that covers common issues such as Wi-Fi connectivity problems, Spotify authentication errors, and unresponsive touchscreens. In most cases, a clean flash and a reboot are enough to resolve any glitches.

A Thriving Ecosystem of Community Projects

Mira is by no means the only project aiming to salvage the Car Thing, but it is one of the most polished and focused. Other efforts have repurposed the hardware for unrelated tasks. For example, some DIY enthusiasts have turned their Car Thing into a wearable smartwatch, complete with a custom strap and a home screen showing notifications and weather. Others have hacked the device to serve as a dedicated voice assistant in their living room, using the built-in microphone and speaker to interact with home automation systems.

Still, for the vast majority of Car Thing owners, Mira is the easiest way to return the device to its intended role. The open source nature of the project also means that developers can continually improve it. New features are being added all the time, and the community is actively fixing bugs and adding support for different Spotify account types. The project is particularly popular among users in Europe, where Spotify remains the dominant streaming service and where the Car Thing had a small but loyal following.

Why a Dead Product Is Worth Reviving

From an environmental perspective, projects like Mira are valuable because they prevent electronic waste. The Car Thing is a well-built device with a high-quality display and sturdy controls. Tossing it into a drawer or a landfill simply because the manufacturer turned off a server is a wasteful outcome. By extending the life of the hardware, the open source community sends a strong message about the right to repair and the need for companies to provide long-term software support for their devices.

There is also the cost factor. Although the Car Thing is no longer sold legally by Spotify, new old-stock units occasionally appear on online marketplaces. Because they are considered outdated and unsupported, they are often sold for bargain prices. For a few dollars and a little bit of effort, savvy buyers can acquire a dedicated Spotify remote that works with Mira. That is a much cheaper alternative to purchasing a new Android Auto head unit or an aftermarket car stereo with Spotify built in.

However, it is worth noting that Mira still requires a Spotify Premium subscription, just like the original Car Thing. The project does not pirate music or bypass any paywalls. The entire point is to restore a seamless integration with Spotify's legitimate service after the company's official device drivers were abandoned.

The Future of the Car Thing and Mira

As time goes on, the Car Thing will inevitably age. The hardware is stuck on old firmware, and the SoC is fragile by modern standards. But for now, Mira breathes new life into a device that many had written off. Whether you have a Car Thing sitting in a box or you find one at a garage sale, flashing Mira can turn it into a highly usable Spotify remote for your car or even your living room. The project is under active development, and its latest updates have added stability improvements and better audio feedback.

Source: Android Authority News

At a Glance

• Korek Telecom publicly challenges the CMC's authority in a legal dispute.
• The company argues that the regulator's actions exceed its statutory powers.
• The dispute raises questions about the independence and accountability of Iraq's telecom regulator.<

Source: Datacenterdynamics News

What Happened on Sunday

The carrier reported that the outage was first detected in the early hours of Sunday morning, when monitoring systems flagged unusual activity at several remote equipment sites. Initial troubleshooting pointed to a physical breach rather than a software or hardware failure. Upon dispatching technicians to the affected locations, the company discovered evidence of forced entry and damage to network equipment, including cut cables and disabled backup power systems.

According to a company spokesperson, the vandals appeared to have targeted specific infrastructure nodes that are essential for maintaining regional connectivity. The damage was extensive enough to cause a cascading failure, knocking out internet, voice, and data services for residential and business customers in the area. Emergency services and critical facilities were also impacted, though the carrier said it prioritized restoring service to hospitals and public safety agencies.

Impact on Customers

Customers took to social media throughout Sunday to report connectivity issues, ranging from slow speeds to complete loss of service. Many businesses were forced to close or operate on cash-only basis due to failed payment systems. Remote workers found themselves unable to access corporate networks, and students attending online classes experienced significant interruptions.

The carrier has apologized for the inconvenience and says it will provide compensation in the form of bill credits to affected customers. Details on the credit amount and eligibility are expected to be announced in the coming days. The company also set up a dedicated hotline for customers who rely on medical or safety alarms that use the network to function.

Investigation and Legal Action

The carrier is cooperating with local law enforcement and federal authorities to identify the vandals. Security teams have collected physical evidence from the sites, including fingerprints, tool marks, and footage from surveillance cameras. The company has also offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible. Law enforcement agencies have launched a dedicated task force to coordinate the investigation and have urged anyone with information to come forward.

In a statement, the carrier's chief security officer said, "We will not tolerate attacks on our infrastructure. These acts are not just crimes against our company, they are crimes against the communities we serve. We are committed to working with law enforcement to ensure that those responsible are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law." Depending on the jurisdiction, vandalism of telecom infrastructure can be charged as a felony, with penalties including substantial fines and imprisonment. If the outage is deemed to have endangered public safety, prosecutors may pursue more serious charges, such as criminal mischief or even terrorism-related offenses.

The Growing Threat of Physical Attacks

Sunday's incident is not an isolated one. Across the industry, telecom providers have reported an uptick in physical attacks on their networks. Copper theft has long been a problem, as scrap metal prices make the cables valuable. More recently, vandals have targeted fiber optic lines, sometimes cutting them in multiple places to disrupt service. These attacks are often attributed to malicious individuals, but some industry analysts point to the possibility of coordinated actions by actors seeking to cause maximum economic disruption.

The financial cost of such attacks is significant. In addition to the cost of repairs and replacement equipment, carriers face lost revenue, regulatory penalties, and damage to their reputation. A single major outage can cost millions of dollars. For example, a 2019 incident in California where a vandal cut fiber cables caused a widespread outage that affected emergency services in several counties. The damage took days to repair and led to calls for stricter penalties and increased security.

Types of Vandalism and Motivations

Physical attacks on telecom infrastructure can take many forms. One common type is copper theft, where thieves strip the metal from cables and sell it on the scrap market. The price of copper often influences the frequency of these thefts. Another type is deliberate cutting of fiber optic cables, which may be done by disgruntled employees, competitors, or individuals seeking to disrupt services. In some cases, vandals have set fire to equipment huts, used vehicles to ram down fences, or shot at cell towers.

The motivations behind these attacks vary. Some perpetrators are driven by financial gain, while others may have ideological or personal grievances. In recent years, there has been concern about insider threats, as current or former employees with knowledge of network architecture can cause significant damage. Understanding these motivations is crucial for developing effective prevention strategies. Carriers are increasingly using behavioral analytics and employee background checks to reduce internal risks.

Strengthening Physical Security

In response to the growing threat, many carriers are reevaluating their physical security measures. Traditional perimeter fencing and locks are no longer considered sufficient. Modern solutions include tamper-resistant enclosures, motion sensors, and high-definition CCTV cameras with facial recognition capabilities. Some providers are deploying drones to patrol remote facilities and using artificial intelligence to detect unusual behavior in real time.

However, security experts say that technology alone is not enough. Human vigilance remains critical. This includes regular patrols by security guards, community engagement, and partnerships with local law enforcement. Carriers are also improving their incident response plans to ensure that they can quickly restore service and gather evidence after an attack.

Industry Best Practices

Security audits are a key part of protecting physical infrastructure. Carriers are advised to conduct regular assessments of their sites to identify vulnerabilities and implement mitigation strategies. For example, equipment should be installed in hardened cabinets that are resistant to cutting and forced entry. Cables should be buried deeply and routed through protected conduits. Backup power systems should be located away from primary equipment to reduce the impact of a targeted attack.

Another important measure is redundancy. By building network diversity into their architecture, carriers can reroute traffic when a particular link is compromised. This not only minimizes downtime but also deters vandals, as the impact of their actions is reduced. In Sunday's case, the carrier said it was able to redirect some traffic to alternative paths, but the damage exceeded the available redundancy.

Collaboration within the industry is also essential. Carriers can share information about threats and best practices through forums and alliances. Some regions have established joint task forces with law enforcement to address infrastructure crimes. By working together, the industry can create a more formidable defense against vandals and thieves.

Restoration and Next Steps

The carrier announced that services were fully restored by Monday afternoon, after teams worked around the clock to replace damaged equipment and splice fiber cables. The company released a statement thanking customers for their patience and reassuring them that it is taking steps to prevent a recurrence. Maintenance crews have been deployed to inspect all critical sites for potential weaknesses.

In the coming weeks, the carrier plans to deploy additional security measures at the affected locations and other high-risk facilities. This includes enhanced fencing, additional cameras, and more frequent patrols. The company is also reviewing its monitoring systems to ensure that physical intrusions are detected and reported in real time. The goal is not only to catch the perpetrators of Sunday's attack but also to deter future incidents.

Legal and Community Consequences

Acts of vandalism on telecom infrastructure have far-reaching consequences. Beyond the immediate disruption, they can undermine public trust in essential services. In some cases, they can delay emergency responses and put lives at risk. That is why law enforcement agencies are treating these crimes with increasing seriousness. Penalties can include restitution for the full cost of repairs, which can be substantial.

Community members can also play a role in prevention. The carrier has asked residents near its facilities to remain vigilant and report any suspicious activity to the authorities. In many successful investigations, tips from the public have been crucial in identifying culprits. The reward offered by the carrier is one way to encourage people to come forward with information.

As the investigation continues, the carrier is determined to send a clear message that attacks on critical infrastructure will not be tolerated. The company's leadership has stated that it will continue to invest in security and work with the justice system to hold vandals accountable. With the increasing reliance on digital connectivity, protecting the physical backbone of the network is more important than ever. This incident serves as a stark reminder that the security of the digital world depends on the security of the physical world.

Source: Datacenterdynamics News

Purpose of the Policy

The primary purpose of this policy is to create a learning atmosphere where every participant feels valued and supported. In recent years, educational institutions worldwide have recognized that discrimination and harassment can severely undermine the academic experience. When learners face prejudice, their ability to concentrate, participate, and achieve their potential is diminished. The Academy’s policy addresses this directly by establishing a normative framework that explicitly rejects all forms of bias.

This policy is not merely a document; it is a declaration of values. It signals to learners, instructors, and staff that the Academy holds itself to a high standard of conduct. By codifying these expectations, the Academy aims to prevent incidents before they occur, while also providing a clear pathway for addressing violations when they do arise. The policy also serves an educational purpose: it informs learners of their rights and responsibilities, thereby promoting a culture of mutual respect that extends beyond the classroom.

Scope of Application

The Anti-Discrimination Policy applies to all learners participating in the Academy’s courses, whether delivered in-person or online. This broad scope is essential in an era where education increasingly happens across digital platforms. Online learning environments can sometimes feel detached from traditional institutional oversight, yet they are no less susceptible to discrimination and harassment. By explicitly covering virtual classrooms, discussion forums, and other digital spaces, the Academy ensures that every learner, regardless of how they access education, enjoys the same protections.

Moreover, the policy extends to all interactions related to the learning experience, including group projects, extracurricular activities, and communications through the Learning Management System (LMS). This comprehensive approach recognizes that discrimination can occur in both formal and informal settings. It also clarifies that the Academy’s responsibilities do not end at the classroom door but encompass all aspects of the learner’s journey.

Key Policy Guidelines

The policy outlines several specific guidelines designed to translate its principles into actionable expectations. These guidelines are structured to be clear, enforceable, and aligned with best practices in educational governance.

Respect and Dignity

At the core of the policy is the requirement that all learners treat their peers, instructors, and staff with respect. This principle is uncompromising: discrimination, harassment, or bullying of any kind will not be tolerated. This includes verbal, non-verbal, physical, or digital forms of abuse. The emphasis on dignity is deliberate; it reminds learners that respect is not merely the absence of harm but the active promotion of others’ worth and value. In practice, this means being mindful of language, avoiding stereotypes, and challenging discriminatory behavior when witnessed.

Reporting Concerns

The policy encourages learners to report any incidents of discrimination or harassment to their course instructor or the program coordinator. Reporting is a critical component of any anti-discrimination framework, yet it is often the most challenging step for victims. To address this, the policy emphasizes confidentiality and promises that all reports will be addressed promptly. By designating clearly identifiable individuals—such as instructors and coordinators—the Academy reduces barriers to reporting. Learners do not need to navigate a complex bureaucratic labyrinth; they can reach out to a trusted figure who can guide them through the process.

Confidentiality is paramount. The policy’s commitment to treating all reports with confidentiality is designed to protect the complainant from retaliation and to preserve the integrity of any investigation. The Academy acknowledges that reporting an incident can be daunting, and it seeks to create an environment where learners feel safe coming forward. At the same time, the policy ensures that reports are taken seriously and that appropriate action is taken, which in turn builds trust in the system.

Consequences of Policy Violation

Any violation of the Anti-Discrimination Policy may result in disciplinary actions. These actions can range from formal warnings to more severe measures, including removal from the course. The scale of consequences is intended to match the severity of the infraction, and the policy makes clear that serious or repeated violations will not be met with leniency. This enforcement mechanism is essential for the policy’s credibility. Without meaningful consequences, a policy is merely aspirational. By incorporating removal as a potential outcome, the Academy demonstrates that it will not compromise on its commitment to a safe learning environment.

Disciplinary processes will be conducted fairly, with due process for all parties involved. The Academy is committed to ensuring that any investigation is unbiased and that accused individuals have an opportunity to present their side of the story. This balance between accountability and due process is a hallmark of mature institutional policy, and it reassures all learners that the system is just.

Commitment to Inclusivity

The policy also articulates a positive commitment to inclusivity. It states that the Academy is dedicated to fostering a welcoming learning environment where diverse perspectives are valued and respected. This is more than a restatement of the prohibition on discrimination; it is an affirmative call to action. Inclusivity means actively creating space for voices that have historically been marginalized, adjusting teaching methods to accommodate different learning styles, and celebrating the richness that diversity brings to the educational experience.

This commitment extends beyond policy language to practical implementation. The Academy may offer training programs for instructors and staff on unconscious bias, inclusive pedagogy, and conflict resolution. It may also solicit regular feedback from learners on the climate of their courses. By operationalizing inclusivity, the Academy ensures that it is not just a passive recipient of diverse learners but an active champion of their success.

The Broader Context

The introduction of this policy occurs against a backdrop of increasing awareness of discrimination in educational settings. Studies have shown that students from minority backgrounds often face barriers to achievement due to biased treatment, and that LGBTQ+ students, students with disabilities, and those from religious minorities may experience harassment that impacts their mental health and academic performance. The Academy’s policy is a proactive response to this evidence, positioning it as a leader in the movement toward more equitable education.

Legal frameworks in many countries, such as Title IX in the United States, impose obligations on educational institutions to prevent discrimination based on sex, and other laws protect against discrimination based on race, disability, and age. However, institutional policies often go beyond legal minimums, reflecting a commitment to higher ethical standards. The Academy’s policy appears to embrace this ethos, covering a broad range of characteristics and establishing internal mechanisms that may be more accessible than external legal recourse.

The policy also resonates with the growing recognition that diversity enhances learning outcomes. When learners from different backgrounds collaborate, they bring unique viewpoints that enrich discussions and foster creativity. This is particularly relevant in an increasingly globalized world, where the ability to work across cultural boundaries is a valuable skill. By promoting an inclusive environment, the Academy not only protects learners from harm but also enhances their educational experience.

The Acknowledgment Requirement

An innovative aspect of the policy is the requirement that learners acknowledge and agree to it during the account creation process in the Learning Management System (LMS). This step ensures that every learner is aware of the policy before they begin their courses. It transforms the policy from a passive document into an active contract between the Academy and its learners. By requiring an explicit acknowledgment, the Academy eliminates any claim of ignorance and reinforces the importance of the policy’s principles.

This digital acknowledgment is also practical. It creates a record of acceptance that can be referenced in disciplinary proceedings if necessary. Moreover, it provides an early opportunity to educate learners about the standards of conduct expected of them. The LMS can be programmed to present the policy in a user-friendly format, perhaps with interactive elements or scenarios, to enhance understanding. This proactive approach is likely to reduce violations by ensuring that all learners start their journey with a clear understanding of the rules.

The acknowledgment is not a mere formality; it is a cornerstone of enforcement. It signals that the Academy is serious about its policy and that learners are entering into a mutual commitment. This kind of transparency benefits everyone. Learners know what to expect, instructors have a clear reference point for addressing behavioral issues, and the Academy can be confident that its expectations have been clearly communicated.

In conclusion, the Academy’s Anti-Discrimination Policy for Learners is a robust and forward-looking initiative. It covers a comprehensive range of characteristics, applies uniformly to in-person and online learners, and provides clear guidelines for behavior, reporting, and consequences. It also emphasizes a positive commitment to inclusivity and integrates the policy into the learner’s journey from the moment of account creation. This policy is more than just a set of rules; it is a reflection of the Academy’s core values and its dedication to creating a space where all learners can thrive. As educational institutions continue to evolve, such policies will likely become standard, and the Academy is positioning itself at the forefront of this important movement.

Source: Datacenterdynamics News

Scope and Applicability

The policy applies to every company within the InfraXmedia group, including InfraXmedia (Holdings) Ltd, which is registered in England with company number 14354660 and operates from 32-38 Saffron Hill, London EC1N 8FH, United Kingdom. As the data controller, InfraXmedia processes personal data on behalf of all group companies. The policy is designed to comply with UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, and any successor or amending legislation. It also recognizes data protection obligations beyond the UK and Europe, including in the USA, Canada, and Latin America.

Types of Personal Information Collected

InfraXmedia may collect personal information from various categories of individuals. For customers and business partners, this includes name, email address, phone number, job title, company name, country, and business address. In certain jurisdictions, a copy of a current passport or residence card may also be required. Marketing and event registrants provide contact details, preferences, and professional interests. Website visitors have their IP address, browser type, device information, and cookies collected, as outlined in the group's separate Cookie Policy. Employees and contractors also have personal data processed relevant to employment and contractual obligations.

Legal Bases for Processing

The policy identifies three main legal bases for processing personal information. First, InfraXmedia will process data to fulfil contractual obligations. Second, it may process data for legitimate business interests, which include marketing, event management, media services, and analytics. Third, where required, processing is based on consent obtained from the individual. The policy emphasizes that legitimate interest processing is carefully balanced against the rights and interests of data subjects. InfraXmedia acknowledges that legitimate business interests do not automatically override individual rights, and it will not process data where the impact on the individual outweighs the company's interests.

How Data Is Used

Personal data is used for a range of service-related purposes. This includes contacting subscribers about changes to subscriptions, reminding users of forgotten passwords or usernames, and responding to comments made on websites. InfraXmedia may also invite individuals to participate in research studies to share opinions and comments. Operational information, such as badge and app details for event attendance, is sent to registered attendees. The data is also used to track traffic flows and improve website usability, fulfil subscription orders, provide online communities, determine the effectiveness of promotional campaigns, and plan business activities through aggregated behavioural analysis.

Photography, podcasts, broadcasts, videos, and films captured at group company events may be managed and used for promotional purposes. This content can appear on InfraXmedia company websites and in marketing materials. Any transfer of such content to third parties is disclosed at the time of collection.

Marketing Communications

Under UK GDPR, InfraXmedia is permitted to contact staff members of limited companies, public limited companies, incorporated partnerships, trusts, foundations, and government institutions via business email addresses. This does not require prior consent if processing is based on legitimate interest, provided there is no disproportionate impact on the individual's rights and freedoms. The policy stresses that relying on legitimate interest brings additional responsibility to consider and protect people's rights and interests.

All marketing and product emails include an unsubscribe link, and individuals can opt out at any time by contacting the data team. The policy also addresses the Telephone Preference Service and Mailing Preference Service. If an individual is registered on either service, their subsequent submission of personal data via an InfraXmedia website is interpreted as consent to receive marketing for the time being. The policy makes clear that opting out is possible at any time.

Data Sharing and Disclosure

InfraXmedia may share data with other companies in its group, including its holding company and subsidiaries. It may also disclose personal data when compelled by law, such as for the prevention or detection of crime, the capture or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment and collection of tax or duty. No further consent is required for such legally binding requests. In the event of a sale or purchase of business assets, personal data may be disclosed to prospective sellers or buyers on a strictly confidential basis.

As part of its terms and conditions, InfraXmedia informs event attendees, broadcast participants, webinar registrants, and downloaders that personal data will be shared with sponsoring third parties for marketing communications. Data is also passed to speakers who receive questions during digital broadcasts. The list of sponsoring third parties is available on the group's website. Importantly, InfraXmedia only shares data with sponsors shown on that list at the time of registration, and it does not share or sell data outside of that condition.

International Data Transfers

Given the global nature of its operations, InfraXmedia may transfer personal data to regions outside the UK and EEA. To ensure adequate protection, the policy relies on several mechanisms. These include adequacy decisions from the UK or EU, standard contractual clauses, participation in the U.S. Data Privacy Framework, and separate data protection agreements where necessary. These measures are designed to maintain high standards of protection regardless of where the data is processed.

Statistics and Third-Party Services

InfraXmedia compiles and shares anonymised statistics about website usage, including traffic, usage patterns, user numbers, and sales information. This data does not contain personally identifying information. The group also uses third-party services that provide behavioural metrics, heatmaps, and session replay to better understand user experience. These services capture how users interact with websites, including IP addresses processed during a session and stored in de-identified form, device screen size, device type, browser information, geographic location at country level, and preferred language. The information is stored in pseudonymized user profiles, and third-party providers are contractually forbidden from selling the data collected on InfraXmedia's behalf.

Rights of Access

Individuals have the right to access their personal data and verify the lawfulness of processing. A subject access request must first be verified by reasonable means, and the individual may be asked to specify the information the request relates to. Requests are normally free of charge, but a reasonable fee may be charged if requests are manifestly unfounded or excessive. InfraXmedia may also refuse to respond in such cases.

Information is typically provided within one month, unless the request is complex. In those circumstances, the period may be extended by up to two months, with an explanation provided to the individual. If any held personal information is incorrect, individuals can contact the data team to have it updated as soon as practically possible.

Data Storage and Retention

Data collected by InfraXmedia may be transferred to and stored at destinations outside the UK and EEA. It may also be processed by staff operating outside these regions who work for InfraXmedia or its suppliers. By submitting personal data, individuals agree to this transfer, storage, and processing. InfraXmedia takes all steps reasonably necessary to ensure data is treated securely and in accordance with the policy.

Personal data is not kept for longer than necessary. When it is no longer required, all reasonable steps are taken to erase or dispose of it without delay. However, certain information may be retained for audit and tax purposes for up to six years, or longer if legislation requires.

Security Measures

InfraXmedia has implemented security procedures, technical measures, and organisational controls to safeguard personal information. Access to internal servers is limited to specialist IT systems suppliers and authorised personnel. The policy acknowledges that transmission of information via the internet is not completely secure, and while InfraXmedia does its best to protect personal data, transmission is at the individual's own risk.

IP Addresses and Cookies

Information about a user's computer, including IP address, operating system, and browser type, may be collected for system administration and to report aggregate information to advertisers. This statistical data does not identify any individual. The websites also use cookie technology to provide a personalised browsing experience, with further details available in the group's Cookies Policy.

Contact and Data Protection Authority

Questions or comments about the policy can be directed to the Data Controller, InfraXmedia (Holdings) Ltd, at 32-38 Saffron Hill, London EC1N 8FH, or by email to the Data Team. Individuals also have the right to contact the Information Commissioner's Office in the UK. The ICO's postal address is Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, and the UK helpline number is 0303 123 1113. This Data Protection and Privacy Policy was last updated on 25th April 2025.

Source: Datacenterdynamics News

Some have called the essay an anti-doomer piece, an attempt to counter fears that advanced AI could become catastrophic. That description is not quite right. Zuckerberg does not spend much time refuting doomsday scenarios. Instead, he tries to explain why he is personally excited about AI and why he thinks society should be, too. Yet in doing so, he keeps circling back to the many ways the technology is likely to go wrong. The odd part is that his own examples, meant to reassure, often illustrate how AI could make existing problems worse. The result is a document that may reinforce, rather than reduce, public anxiety about AI.

Why that matters has a lot to do with history. Social media remains a sensitive topic in the technology industry. Facebook and its parent company Meta have been blamed for a long list of societal problems, from misinformation and election interference to worsening teen mental health. A recent survey found that 64 percent of Americans believe social media has been harmful to democracy, and a similar share say it should be more heavily regulated. Those numbers cut evenly across partisan lines. Just over the weekend, a court fined the company $567 million in a case involving harm to children. Zuckerberg himself is not a popular figure with the U.S. public.

The connection to AI may seem indirect, but it is central. Many people do not trust technology executives to manage AI’s risks because they remember how social media was handled. Whether or not that mistrust is fair, it is real. Instead of acknowledging this and trying to rebuild trust, Zuckerberg’s manifesto repeatedly demonstrates how the trust was lost. The essay is full of sweeping assurances and idealistic examples that feel out of touch with how AI is actually being used today.

Key facts

• Zuckerberg published a 6,500-word essay arguing that everyone should have access to personal superintelligence.
• He wrote that people with competing interests naturally check and balance each other, leading to positive outcomes.
• His education example described personalized tutors with PhD-level knowledge for every subject.
• His legal example claimed that giving everyone a superintelligent lawyer would make the justice system fairer.
• He promised free or affordable AI access, including a dynamic auction market for users who want more compute.
• Critics say these examples ignore real problems such as AI-generated homework and legal-system complexity.

The philosophical tone is striking. Large parts of the essay are devoted to hazy generalities about intelligence, not the detail of Meta’s products. Consider this line:

As everyone gains more powerful tools, each person will become more capable of shaping the future, not less. … People and institutions with competing interests naturally check and balance each other to lead towards positive outcomes. The best and most realistic path to building a positive AI future is by delivering superintelligence to everyone.

This is presented as an earnest philosophical conclusion, but it could also be read as marketing for a product called Meta AI. For people who already distrust Zuckerberg, the gap between lofty language and commercial interest is hard to ignore. If someone is writing a 6,500-word essay to reassure the public, they might be expected to spend at least some time acknowledging the risks. Instead, Zuckerberg seems to be telling the very story people are skeptical of: that the technology he is building will not hurt anyone, and that whatever goes wrong will be balanced out by good actors.

Nowhere is the disconnect clearer than in education. Zuckerberg predicts that every student will have a personalized tutor and coach with a PhD in every subject and unlimited patience. He says students who need extra help will get it, and adults will be able to learn new job skills, new languages or new hobbies with a superintelligent learning assistant. The problem is that a consumer chatbot with these capabilities already exists. ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are widely used in classrooms, and the most common educational use is not to learn but to avoid learning. Students ask the chatbot to write essays, solve problem sets and complete assignments. Because there is no robust watermarking system, teachers cannot reliably tell whether a piece of work was generated by AI. That is not a future harm; it is happening right now.

A technology designed to help people learn can end up making education worse. That is a classic unintended consequence, and it is not something Zuckerberg addresses. When one of the most powerful people in the world refuses to acknowledge a real failure, it can make the rest of us nervous. It suggests that his vision of AI is not based on observation of how people use the tools but on a hoped-for narrative.

Zuckerberg’s legal example is similarly loaded. He asks readers to imagine a world in which only one person has a superintelligent lawyer. That person would have an unfair advantage, he says, even if they were wrong on the merits. Then he imagines everyone having such a lawyer, and concludes that justice would be carried out much more fairly and efficiently than it is today. This sounds good in theory. But there are other possibilities. Legal AI might add more complexity to an already bureaucratic system. It could encourage a wave of vexatious litigation, the legal equivalent of spam, that clogs courts and drives up costs. It could also amplify existing power imbalances, because not everyone will know how to use the tools effectively. Zuckerberg does not consider these scenarios.

The same problem appears in his description of Meta’s business model. He promises that everyone will have free or affordable access to the tools, and explains that people who want more compute will be able to participate in a dynamic auction mechanism. He argues that this will guarantee the lowest price possible and ensure that capacity goes to whatever people collectively find most valuable. It is true that access is an issue, and a freemium model can help. It is also true that dynamic markets for computing already exist. But consumer AI products do not expose end users to spot prices for a reason. Surge pricing is confusing and frustrating, especially when someone depends on the tool for work. Most people do not want their AI assistant to behave like a ride-hailing app during a storm. By describing an auction as if it were simply a great feature, Zuckerberg seems disconnected from the user experience of his own industry.

Meta’s choices are being watched closely. The company has invested heavily in open-source models and has integrated AI into Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook. Zuckerberg has said he wants to build a product used by billions of people, and he has positioned Meta as one of the leaders in the race toward superintelligence. But the broader context of social media mistakes makes his promises harder to accept. He has been called before Congress over data privacy and election interference. His company has faced repeated fines and investigations in Europe over antitrust and content moderation. The Cambridge Analytica scandal and the Facebook Papers are still part of public memory. For many people, the same institution that failed to protect young users is now asking the world to trust it with AI.

Other AI executives have taken a different approach. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, and Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, have both tried to communicate directly with the public about the dangers of their technology. They acknowledge the possibility of catastrophic failure, describe their safety precautions, and ask listeners to hold them accountable. They are not perfect communicators, and their safeguards have not always worked. But they seem to understand that trust must be built, not assumed. Zuckerberg’s manifesto, by contrast, asks the public to accept a future of superintelligence based on his own confidence.

There is an argument that Zuckerberg is simply being consistent. He has long said that social platforms should not be the arbiters of truth, and he has often used the language of freedom when talking about speech. The same instinct is visible in his AI vision: give everyone powerful tools and let the system work itself out. That instinct has not served him well in the past. It is not unreasonable to worry that it will not serve society well in the future.

The manifesto is not a policy paper or a technical document; it is a personal statement. It reveals how its author thinks about power, progress and responsibility. The public’s reaction to it says a lot about how far trust has fallen. Zuckerberg may believe that delivering superintelligence to everyone will make the world fairer. Many people, watching the current reality of AI in classrooms, courtrooms and workplaces, are waiting for evidence.

Source: TechCrunch News

EU AI Act and Transparency Requirements

The EU AI Act's Transparency Code, which took effect on August 2, requires AI companies to mark AI-generated or edited content in a way that other systems can identify. This regulation is part of a broader effort by the European Union to create a legal framework for artificial intelligence that balances innovation with fundamental rights and safety. The transparency obligations apply to various AI systems, including chatbots, image generators, and text generation tools, and are designed to help users distinguish between human-created and machine-generated content.

The code specifically asks AI providers to implement technical solutions that make AI outputs identifiable. These solutions can include digital watermarks, metadata tagging, cryptographic signatures, or other methods that are machine-readable and, where feasible, tamper-resistant. The European Commission has signaled that it expects companies to comply not just in letter but in spirit, meaning that watermarking should be robust enough to prevent easy removal or manipulation.

Anthropic's Watermarking Approach

Anthropic said that all models released after August 2 will automatically have technology to watermark both computer-generated text and files. For files, the company is using the C2PA open standard. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) is a widely adopted technical standard that embeds cryptographic metadata into digital files, allowing their origin and history to be verified. This standard is already used by camera manufacturers, news organizations, and other AI companies to provide content provenance.

The company said it will extend support for older models as well, adding that the watermark will travel when users copy and paste the text. This means that the watermark is not simply a header or footer attached to a document, but is integrated into the text itself. According to the support page, the watermark will persist even when text is copied from one application to another, and may survive some forms of editing. However, the company did not specify the limits of this persistence or how much editing would be required to remove the watermark.

Because the watermark is applied at the model level, it will be present no matter which Claude product or surface the text comes from. This includes the Claude platform API, Claude, Claude Code, Claude Cowork, and Claude Tag. By applying the watermark at the model level, Anthropic ensures that all downstream applications and interfaces benefit from the same transparency mechanism without requiring individual product teams to implement separate solutions.

Implications for Users and Developers

The watermarking approach has significant implications for developers and businesses that use Anthropic's AI models. For developers building applications on top of the Claude API, the watermark will be embedded in all text outputs automatically. This could affect use cases where clean, unmarked text is desired, such as creative writing, content generation, or chatbots. However, Anthropic's decision suggests that regulatory compliance takes precedence over convenience in the European market.

For users of Claude and related products, the watermark provides a degree of assurance about the origin of text they encounter. If a piece of text was generated by Claude, it can be identified as such by systems that recognize the watermark. This may help reduce the spread of AI-generated misinformation or make it easier for platforms to label AI content. At the same time, it raises questions about privacy and anonymity, as some users may not want their AI-generated drafts to be traceable.

The company acknowledged that it is not yet clear how much editing users need to do to remove the watermark. This is a critical question because many AI-generated texts are edited before publication, whether for style, accuracy, or length. If the watermark survives only light editing, it may be effective for casual readers but not for determined actors who want to strip provenance information. If the watermark is designed to survive heavy editing, it could be more robust but may also affect text quality or readability. Anthropic said it has been asked to clarify this detail and will update its guidance as more information becomes available.

Industry Context and Regulatory Pressure

Platforms are now rushing to watermark AI-generated content after backlash from users and to avoid regulatory scrutiny. The move comes amid growing public concern about the spread of AI-generated content without clear labeling. In recent months, several high-profile incidents have involved synthetic media being mistaken for authentic content, leading to confusion and mistrust. Regulators around the world have responded by proposing or enacting rules that require transparency, with the EU leading the way.

Last week, AI music platform Suno said it will mark tracks created on its platform after a spate of legal challenges. The music industry has been particularly vocal about AI-generated songs that mimic existing artists or are distributed without proper attribution. Suno's decision to adopt watermarking reflects a broader trend among AI companies to preemptively comply with emerging norms and legal expectations.

Last month, newsletter service Substack teamed up with Pangram to flag AI-generated content. The company's CEO, Chris Best, called out Claudefishing, a term used for people using AI to generate content. Claudefishing refers to the practice of creating AI-generated newsletters or articles and passing them off as original human work, often to build an audience or generate revenue. By partnering with Pangram, Substack aims to give readers and writers tools to identify AI-generated content and maintain trust in the platform.

These examples illustrate a wider shift in the AI industry toward voluntary transparency measures, even before regulations are fully enforced. Companies are realizing that building consumer trust is essential for long-term adoption of AI technologies. Watermarking is one of the most practical tools available today, as it does not require a complete overhaul of existing systems and can be integrated into the model output pipeline.

Other Companies and Standards

Apart from Anthropic, other companies like Black Forest Labs, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Synthesia have committed to adhering to the EU's code. This collective commitment suggests that watermarking is becoming a de facto industry standard, at least for text and image generation. OpenAI, for example, has experimented with cryptographic watermarks for text and has implemented visible labels for AI-generated images. Google has developed its own provenance technology called SynthID, which embeds an invisible watermark into images and audio. Meta has advocated for labeling AI-generated content on its social platforms and has introduced tools for creators to disclose AI use.

The variety of approaches highlights the technical challenges of watermarking different content types. Text watermarking is particularly difficult because text is discrete and can be rephrased or translated. Unlike images, where pixels can carry subtle signals, text consists of tokens that are easy to alter. AI companies have been researching ways to embed statistical patterns into token selection that can be detected later, but these patterns are not always robust against paraphrasing or other transformations.

C2PA, the standard Anthropic uses for files, is based on an older standard called Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) and was developed by a consortium that includes Adobe, Arm, Intel, Microsoft, and Truepic. C2PA provides a framework for signing content with cryptographic hashes and storing metadata about the content's creation and editing history. While C2PA is effective for files like images and PDFs, it is less straightforward for plain text copied into emails or documents, which is why Anthropic's model-level watermark for text is a separate mechanism.

Technical Considerations and Limitations

Watermarking AI-generated text is not a perfect solution. It requires careful design to ensure that the watermark does not degrade the quality or coherence of the output. Anthropic's support page notes that the watermark is part of the text, meaning it is integrated into the natural flow of words. This approach, often called semantic watermarking, works by biasing the model's token selection in a way that creates a detectable pattern without noticeably altering the text's meaning. Sophisticated detection algorithms can then identify the pattern and confirm the text's origin.

However, semantic watermarks have known vulnerabilities. If a user paraphrases the text extensively, translates it into another language, or manually rewrites key phrases, the watermark may be destroyed. Similarly, tools that summarize or condense text may inadvertently remove the watermark. Anthropic's statement that the watermark may persist through some editing suggests that the company is aware of these limitations but believes the watermark will survive typical copy-paste use cases.

Another challenge is interoperability. For watermarking to be fully effective, multiple AI companies need to adopt compatible detection systems. Unless there is a common standard or a shared database of watermark patterns, a platform that wants to label AI content may need to detect watermarks from each provider separately. The EU AI Act aims to address this by requiring that watermarks be machine-readable and identifiable by other systems, but the technical implementation is left to the companies.

Despite these challenges, the move by Anthropic and others signals a maturing industry that is beginning to take accountability seriously. As AI models become more powerful and more integrated into daily life, transparency will be a key factor in maintaining user trust and avoiding regulatory penalties.

What This Means Going Forward

Anthropic's watermarking announcement is a concrete step toward compliance with the EU AI Act and reflects the broader direction of the AI industry. The company has positioned itself as a safety-focused AI lab, and this decision aligns with that reputation. By applying watermarks at the model level, Anthropic ensures that all products and services built on its models will carry the transparency marker, making it easier for businesses and consumers to understand where content originates.

The effectiveness of this approach will depend on the robustness of the watermark and on the willingness of other platforms to recognize and act on it. For now, Anthropic has joined a growing coalition of AI companies that are taking the EU's transparency requirements seriously. The support page update provides a clear timeline and scope: all new models after August 2, plus older models through an extension, will be covered. The impact on copy-paste workflows is particularly notable, as watermarks will stay with text as it moves across applications, email clients, and web pages.

It remains to be seen how these watermarks will be perceived by users. Some may see them as a necessary safeguard, while others may view them as a nuisance or a potential privacy concern. Nevertheless, regulatory pressure and public demand for accountability suggest that watermarking will continue to expand across the AI industry, with Anthropic now playing a prominent role.

Source: TechCrunch News

The Series B was led by Peak XV Partners, an investor known for backing ambitious technology companies across the globe. The round values Blacksmith at $550 million, a sharp increase from the $60 million valuation it received when it raised a $10 million Series A less than a year ago. Existing investors GV and Y Combinator also participated, helping bring the company's total funding to $58.5 million.

Blacksmith was founded in 2024 with a simple mission: help companies build, test, and verify software more effectively before it goes live. The startup has quickly attracted a wide range of customers, from fast-growing startups to established technology firms. Today, Blacksmith says it serves more than 5,000 customers, including Mercury, Supabase, Clerk, Ashby, and Expensify. That number stood at just over 700 customers less than a year ago, representing a remarkable surge in adoption.

The AI coding boom and the validation problem

The rise of AI-powered coding tools such as Cursor, OpenAI's Codex, and Anthropic's Claude Code has made it significantly easier for software teams to generate code. Developers can now produce entire functions, modules, and even complete applications with minimal effort. However, the ease of generation has introduced a new challenge: ensuring that the code is correct, secure, and reliable.

Aditya Jayaprakash, co-founder and CEO of Blacksmith, says that validation has become the industry's biggest pain point. “Validating code is still a bottleneck, and it's an even bigger bottleneck because people are writing even more,” he said in an exclusive interview. The explosion in code volume means traditional testing approaches are no longer sufficient. Teams need faster, smarter ways to run tests, identify failures, and fix issues before they affect end users.

Blacksmith started as a cloud provider for continuous integration (CI) workloads. CI is a development practice where code changes are automatically built and tested every time a developer commits code. This process helps catch bugs early, but it can be slow and expensive, especially for teams generating large amounts of AI-assisted code. Blacksmith's platform was designed to make CI faster and more affordable, allowing companies to run the builds and tests needed to validate code without waiting for lengthy queues.

Expanding beyond CI with Codesmith

Recognizing that simply running tests faster was not enough, Blacksmith broadened its platform with an AI coding agent called Codesmith. This agent is designed to automatically fix failed code checks, reducing the manual effort developers need to spend on debugging. When a test fails, Codesmith analyzes the issue, identifies likely causes, and proposes or applies fixes. This capability is especially valuable in an AI-driven development environment, where code is generated quickly but may contain subtle errors.

The combination of fast CI infrastructure and AI-powered repair has resonated with customers. Jayaprakash noted that Blacksmith reached a $10 million annualized revenue run rate with just 10 employees, a remarkable achievement for such a young company. Since then, the workforce has grown to about 30 employees, and revenue has climbed to “tens of millions of dollars.” He declined to provide a specific updated ARR figure, though he did say some of its largest customers now spend more than $1 million a year on the platform.

The competitive landscape

Blacksmith is not alone in pursuing this opportunity. The market for AI-aware testing and validation is becoming increasingly crowded. Key competitors include GitHub Actions, which is widely used for CI/CD workflows, and Cursor Automations, which brings agentic coding capabilities directly into the popular editor. Validation capabilities are also being baked into AI coding tools like OpenAI's Codex and Anthropic's Claude Code, allowing developers to run tests and receive feedback without leaving their development environment.

In addition to these dedicated tools, large cloud providers are entering the space. Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud all offer AI-powered testing services that integrate with their broader developer platforms. Numerous other startups are also vying for a share of the market, each with a slightly different approach to the problem.

Despite this intense competition, Jayaprakash says Blacksmith is carving out a distinct position by focusing on two key differentiators: speed and affordability. Faster CI pipelines mean developers can get feedback in minutes rather than hours, which is crucial when AI is generating code at scale. Affordability is equally important, as teams that rely heavily on AI code generation may run thousands of tests daily, and cost can quickly become prohibitive.

Market context and investor confidence

The funding round comes at a time when investor interest in AI infrastructure and developer tools remains strong. As AI assistants become more capable, the software industry is grappling with how to manage the resulting flood of code, security risks, and quality concerns. Blacksmith's rapid growth suggests that companies are willing to pay for solutions that address these issues head-on.

Peak XV Partners, which led the Series B, has a strong track record of backing enterprise and developer-focused startups. The firm's decision to lead a round at a valuation of $550 million, less than a year after Blacksmith was valued at just $60 million, signals confidence in the company's execution and market opportunity. GV, formerly Google Ventures, and Y Combinator, where Blacksmith was likely incubated, also renewed their support. Y Combinator's continued participation highlights the startup's potential to become a major player in the developer tools ecosystem.

The broader CI/CD market has grown steadily over the past decade, but AI has supercharged the need for faster, more intelligent testing. According to industry analysts, the rise of AI-generated code is expected to multiply the number of software builds and tests that organizations need to run. This creates a significant tailwind for companies like Blacksmith that provide the infrastructure and tools to handle the increased load.

Customer adoption and real-world use cases

Blacksmith's customer list includes a mix of well-known names and emerging companies. Mercury, a banking platform for startups, likely uses Blacksmith to ensure its financial software remains reliable. Supabase, an open-source Firebase alternative, builds and tests large amounts of code and needs fast CI to keep up with its open-source community. Clerk, which provides authentication tools, and Ashby, an applicant tracking system, also require robust testing to maintain high-quality products. Expensify, a long-standing expense management company, has integrated the platform into its software development lifecycle.

The fact that Blacksmith has grown its customer base from 700 to more than 5,000 in under a year suggests strong product-market fit. Many of these customers are probably smaller startups looking for affordable CI solutions, but the presence of large spenders indicates that the platform can scale to enterprise needs as well. The company's ability to retain and expand accounts will be critical as it faces increasing competition from tech giants and other startups.

Future plans and broader ambitions

Looking ahead, Blacksmith plans to expand into a broader suite of coding tools, aiming to help developers not just test code but also write and merge it faster. Jayaprakash envisions a platform that covers the entire software delivery lifecycle, from initial code generation to production deployment. This would bring Blacksmith into direct competition with larger development platforms, but the company believes its deep focus on testing and validation gives it an edge.

The startup is likely to invest heavily in Codesmith and other AI capabilities. As large language models improve, these agents will become better at understanding codebases, anticipating failures, and suggesting fixes. Blacksmith may also add features such as security scanning, performance testing, and deployment verification to provide a complete suite of tools for modern software teams.

With its new funding and growing customer base, Blacksmith is well-positioned to become a key player in the AI-driven software development ecosystem. The challenge of validating code is not going away, and as more organizations adopt AI coding tools, the need for reliable testing infrastructure will only increase. Blacksmith's rapid rise demonstrates that even in a crowded market, a focused approach can yield impressive results.

Source: TechCrunch News

Born Larissa de Macedo Machado in Rio de Janeiro, Anitta grew up in a favela where opportunities were scarce. Her mother worked as a seamstress, her father sold car batteries. As a child, she sang in the church choir and dreamed of becoming a singer. “I hate to lose,” she says. “Everyone said I wouldn't make it, and that drove me.”

She began posting videos online and soon became a Brazilian pop sensation. Her 2013 hit “Show das Poderosas” made her a national star, and she later conquered Latin America and the United States with collaborations with Cardi B, Madonna, J Balvin and others. In 2020, Forbes ranked her among the most influential women in Brazil. With more than 50 million Instagram followers, she has become a cultural force far beyond music.

Yet her success did not come from a world of privilege. “If you grow up in that reality in Brazil, you have no access to education, to art,” she says. “It is hard even to develop ambition. You think it is impossible, not doable for people like us. You are born into that, and then you think in circles. You first have to learn to believe that you can succeed. It is a huge mental task.”

Feminism on Her Own Terms

Anitta has become known for her hyper-sexualized image. She has said that she sees her body as a source of power and freedom. When asked what feminism means to her, she rejects a single definition. “It is about the freedom for everyone to be who they want to be, without caring about society's expectations,” she says. “Women should not think that they have to do anything. They just have to do what matters to them. There is not just one feminism, not just one right way to be a feminist.”

The question remains: Why is a bare bottom in a thong feminist? “There are women who do not like showing their bodies. Some want to marry and be mothers. Others want a great office job and a career. But there are also women who want none of that, who simply want to be free and live differently,” she answers. “Everyone should do with their body what they want. If I feel good with my body and with showing it off and being sensual, then I do that. I am very free. I would never judge women who do not like that. It makes me sad when other women judge my lifestyle.”

“Girl from Rio,” her recent single, is a clear example of her approach. The song references Antonio Carlos Jobim's famous bossa nova classic “The Girl from Ipanema,” which describes a girl on the beach, her body, her elegant walk. Anitta flips the perspective. She sings from the point of view of the girls: “Where I come from, we don't look like models.” The lyrics mention curves, tan lines, life in the favela, and childhood siblings that one meets because a father had other children. “I am favela,” she sings. She tries to turn the male gaze around and make it her own, yet she still seems trapped in it.

Cosmetic Surgery and Uncomfortable Truths

Anitta has undergone numerous cosmetic procedures. She says they were recommended to her at the beginning of her career. “Yes, I was told that it was necessary, that I should do it,” she says. “I had never thought about it. But then I loved the idea. I hated my nose my whole life.”

She believes in being transparent about such operations. “The people nowadays, especially teenagers, look at photos on social media and become depressed or feel bad about their bodies.” At the same time, she refuses to treat her cellulite. “Many people tell me I should do something about it. That is a huge effort, and I don't feel like it. So I simply accept that I have it. If someone doesn't like it, that's not my problem, but theirs.”

“He Is Responsible for This Result”

Anitta currently lives in Miami, working on her international career. But the travel restrictions caused by the pandemic have kept her away from Brazil. She hears from her mother and friends about the situation at home. “Our president did not manage the pandemic well,” she says. “I know how wonderful and how big Brazil is, and the politics is so bad. It is extremely frustrating.”

In 2021, Brazil's coronavirus death toll passed 400,000. A congressional inquiry was investigating the government's response. Former health ministers testified that President Bolsonaro had ignored warnings, delayed vaccine contracts and promoted unproven treatments. Anitta had previously avoided political statements, but she later took a sharp turn. Asked if she would call Bolsonaro's actions genocide, she says: “Yes. Because when someone has the opportunity to prevent something, or to stop it, or to contain it, but then decides not to do any of that, then I agree with that word. Bolsonaro denied the virus, denied the pandemic, then he did not want to buy vaccines. He did not do his best. If someone says 'I don't care,' then yes, he is responsible for this result. Then it is his fault.”

Bolsonaro and his supporters have attacked her online. “They call me a slut and say I should shut my mouth,” she says. She has never met the president. “No, fortunately not.”

Learning Politics in Public

Anitta initially refrained from criticizing Bolsonaro during the 2018 election campaign. Many Brazilians were disappointed. She apologized, saying she had too little understanding of politics. Over time, she paid for tutoring and learned English, Spanish and later political science. “I did tutoring during the pandemic and streamed it live on Instagram once a week so my fans could learn with me,” she explains. “It's about simple questions: What does a president do? What does a mayor do? You have to make it very simple so that everyone can keep up. If people are not interested in politics, then politicians can simply lie to them and trick them.”

With the next presidential election approaching in 2022, Anitta plans to intervene again. “I definitely want to get involved. I want my audience to be informed and to understand who is electable and who is not. The people in Brazil must understand that the election is important. Because if they elect the wrong person, then it can have serious consequences for their lives in the next moment.”

No Makeup, No Apologies

Like many women during the pandemic, Anitta has reconsidered her daily beauty routine. “It is true! I don't wear any makeup right now, only a little lipstick and powder,” she says. “And it feels so good. During the pandemic we had many Zoom calls, and at first I would still get dressed up for them, but at some point I stopped and thought, oh well, I'll just show myself as I am. I feel free with that.”

That sense of freedom, she insists, is at the core of everything she does – from the way she dresses to the way she speaks about her body and her politics. She is determined to define her own version of empowerment in a country still shaped by deep inequality and conservative gender norms.

Source: Spiegel News