Ciente > Blog > News

EU Critiques Meta’s Platform Designs, Questions its “Intentional Addictive-ness”

Category: News

Discover the latest in technology, from breaking news to trending updates. Ciente.io brings together all key tech stories.

EU Critiques
News

EU Critiques Meta’s Platform Designs, Questions its “Intentional Addictive-ness”

EU Critiques Meta’s Platform Designs, Questions its “Intentional Addictive-ness”

The EU cracks down on Meta’s social media design as growing pains concerning teen mental health reshape regulatory frameworks.

Social media companies present the same basic argument: people use these apps because they enjoy them.

Europe is starting to call out that bluff.

It is focusing on new rules aiming directly at what Ursula von der Leyen called the “addictive designs” of platforms that keep users hooked. The features tech companies spent years perfecting to maximize engagement are now becoming regulatory targets- endless scrolling, autoplay, push notifications.

And it feels like this conversation was inevitable.

Parents, teachers, and even governments stopped perceiving social media as harmless entertainment, grasping it as an “attention casino” for children. The concerns are no longer abstract either.

European officials are openly linking these platforms to harmful behavior in teens- from anxiety to self-harm and cyberbullying.

What makes this shift interesting is that regulators are no longer merely circling content moderation. Earlier tech regulation focused heavily on removing illegal posts, misinformation, or hate speech. But Europe is now targeting the design itself.

That is a much bigger fight.

Because platforms are not addictive by accident- infinite scroll exists for a reason. Notifications are engineered to pull people back in. Autoplay is designed to remove stopping points. The business model is based on attention staying trapped inside the app for as long as possible.

Von der Leyen said the quiet part out loud when she argued these systems treat children’s attention as a commodity.

And once you frame it that way, the entire debate changes.

Now the question becomes: should companies be allowed to design digital products that deliberately psychologically hook minors?

Europe increasingly seems ready to answer “no.”

The really fascinating part is how quickly this momentum is spreading globally. Australia is already moving aggressively on teen social media access. Greece plans restrictions for under-15s. France, Britain, and several other European countries are debating similar measures.

Big Tech used to frame regulation as a government’s misunderstanding of innovation. That defense is becoming harder to sell when the products are openly compared to addictive systems.

And for the first time in a long while, regulators seem less intimidated by Silicon Valley than Silicon Valley is by regulators.

Anthropic
News

Anthropic’s Mythos Just Gave Banks a Terrifying Glimpse of the Future

Anthropic’s Mythos Just Gave Banks a Terrifying Glimpse of the Future

Anthropic’s Mythos AI is exposing banking vulnerabilities at machine speed- and regulators are starting to panic.

For years, banks assumed they had time.

Time to patch vulnerabilities. Time to update old systems. It’s time to modernize the infrastructure built decades ago slowly. Cybersecurity was treated like a constant race, sure, but one that still moved at human speed.

AI may have just broken that assumption completely.

According to Reuters, some of America’s largest banks are now scrambling to fix security weaknesses uncovered by Anthropic’s new AI model, Mythos. And the panic is not because Mythos found one catastrophic flaw. It is because the model is apparently effective at connecting hundreds of small, stagnant vulnerabilities into major attack paths.

That changes everything.

Banks traditionally prioritized fixing the critical threats first while lower-risk issues waited in line for weeks or months. But Mythos seems capable of turning those minor flaws into dangerous chains of exploits almost instantly. And these vulnerabilities that once felt manageable now suddenly feel urgent.

And honestly, this feels like one of the first real AI moments that cuts through the hype.

Not another image generator. Not another chatbot demo. It is AI colliding directly with critical infrastructure.

The scary part is how unprepared the system seems to be.

Reuters reports that banks are now patching flaws within days instead of weeks, rushing software upgrades, and even preparing for possible service disruptions caused by the speed of fixes. Some regulators are openly warning that cyber threats are now operating at machine speed while financial institutions still defend themselves at human speed.

That sentence alone should probably alarm people more than it does.

Because banks still run an enormous amount of legacy technology. Ancient code. Old infrastructure. Systems layered on top of systems over decades. AI does not get tired of digging through that mess. It does not overlook patterns. And it apparently does not need much time either.

What is even more interesting is that access to Mythos itself is limited. Only a handful of major institutions currently have direct access because the model is expensive and computationally demanding. Which creates an uncomfortable new divide: the biggest banks may get AI-powered defenses first, while smaller institutions struggle to keep up.

That is probably the clearest signal yet that the AI race is shifting away from novelty and toward power.

Companies and institutions with access to the strongest AI systems will not move faster. They may become dramatically harder to compete against- and dramatically harder to defend against, too.

Venmo
News

After an App Redesign, Venmo Takes User Privacy Seriously

After an App Redesign, Venmo Takes User Privacy Seriously

Venmo is finally making payments private by default- years after turning people’s financial activity into social content.

Venmo is finally doing something that feels painfully obvious: making users’ payment activity less public.

The company is redesigning its app, and one of the biggest changes is that new users’ payment posts will now default to “friends only” instead of being visible to everyone.

Which raises a very fair question.

Why did it take this long?

Venmo treated payments like social media content for years. Your coffee runs, rent payments, breakups, inside jokes, late-night food orders- all casually floating around in a semi-public feed because the app decided sharing by default was somehow normal behavior for a financial platform.

And people mostly accepted it because Venmo made the experience feel playful. Emojis. Comments. Reactions. It turned money into social interaction. The problem is that financial data remains financial data, even when it mimics memes and pizza emojis.

That became increasingly uncomfortable as journalists, researchers, and even random internet users continue to expose how much information could be pulled from Venmo’s public network. In one infamous case, reporters managed to trace connections tied to President Joe Biden through Venmo activity.

Other investigations revealed relationship drama, spending habits, political networks, and personal behavior patterns hidden inside supposedly harmless payment notes.

And the unnatural part was how long the tech industry defended this.

Silicon Valley assumes that people always trade privacy for convenience or social engagement. And Venmo has become one of the clearest examples of that mindset. The app was not accidentally public. Its design is meant to drive visibility through engagement.

But that’s changing.

Privacy-conscious is the norm. Because AI has made data collection feel more invasive than ever. Companies are suddenly realizing users do not necessarily want their financial transactions to function like Instagram stories.

The weird thing is that Venmo is framing this redesign as building “trust.” But trust isn’t created through better privacy settings after years of public-by-default behavior.

Trust is what you protect before users realize they need protecting in the first place.

Microsoft
News

Microsoft and OpenAI Renegotiate Contract, Agree on a Payment Cap

Microsoft and OpenAI Renegotiate Contract, Agree on a Payment Cap

OpenAI capping Microsoft’s revenue share signals a major shift in the AI alliance that helped create the modern AI boom.

The OpenAI-Microsoft partnership looked almost untouchable for the last few years.

Microsoft has been pouring billions into OpenAI- offering it massive cloud infrastructure through Azure and even integrating its models across products. And in return, it became the company closest to the center of the AI explosion. It was one of the most successful tech partnerships in recent memory.

Now that the relationship is starting to change.

According to reports, OpenAI and Microsoft have agreed to cap Microsoft’s revenue-sharing payments at $38 billion as part of a renegotiated deal between the two companies. And honestly, this feels like a very clear signal that OpenAI no longer wants to behave like a company tied too closely to a single tech giant.

That is the real story here.

The cap reportedly gives OpenAI more room to work with companies like Amazon and Google while also making the business more attractive to future investors ahead of a possible IPO. In other words, OpenAI is trying to evolve from “Microsoft’s AI partner” into something much bigger- an independent AI empire.

And that shift might have been inevitable.

The AI market has become too competitive and politically crucial for OpenAI to remain tightly locked into one ecosystem forever. The company needs flexibility. It needs leverage. And most importantly, it needs access to as much infrastructure and capital as possible.

Because AI at this scale burns money at a terrifying speed.

Training frontier models now costs billions. Datacentres are expanding everywhere. Compute demand is exploding.

OpenAI reportedly expects massive infrastructure spend for the rest of the decade. So while Microsoft remains deeply important to OpenAI, this deal suggests the relationship is becoming less exclusive and more strategic.

There is also something quietly fascinating happening underneath all this.

A few years ago, Microsoft felt like the clear winner in the partnership. It got early access to the hottest AI company and positioned itself ahead of Google in the race. But OpenAI’s rise has been so explosive that the balance of power may now be shifting to the other side.

That tends to happen when your partner becomes one of the most valuable private companies on earth.

The partnership is not breaking apart, far from it. Microsoft still has enormous influence, infrastructure control, and financial upside tied to OpenAI’s success. But this feels like the moment the relationship stopped being dependent and started becoming a negotiation.

And in the AI industry, control is becoming the most valuable currency of all.

Snowflake
News

OneTrust and Snowflake Partner Up to Make Consent Signals More Actionable

OneTrust and Snowflake Partner Up to Make Consent Signals More Actionable

Snowflake and OneTrust are baking consent into data sharing as AI makes privacy mistakes far more dangerous for brands.

For a long time, “user consent” in marketing basically meant one thing: annoying cookie banners that everyone clicked through without reading.

That system was always shaky, but AI is exposing just how messy it really is.

Snowflake and OneTrust just announced a partnership that allows companies to carry user consent signals directly into Snowflake’s data collaboration environment. Sounds technical. Because it is, but the bigger story here is much simpler: companies are starting to panic about what happens when AI trains on data it was never supposed to touch.

And that panic is justified.

Before AI exploded, ineffectual data governance was primarily a compliance headache. Maybe regulators fined you. Maybe legal got involved. Maybe consumers got angry for a few days online. But gen AI completely changes the scale of the problem.

Once questionable data enters an AI system, pulling it back out is not easy. In some cases, companies may have to retrain or even roll back entire models. That is expensive, messy, and terrible for trust. OneTrust’s strategy chief, Ojas Rege, basically admitted as much, saying rollback may be the “only remedy” in certain situations.

So now the industry is trying to solve a problem it probably should have addressed years ago: ensuring consent remains attached to the data wherever it goes.

That matters because modern marketing data travels across several points. Between brands, ad platforms, analytics systems, clean rooms, AI tools, and external partners, information is constantly floating. Somewhere along the way, the original permissions often become vague or disconnected.

AI makes that vagueness dangerous.

And honestly, this feels like the start of a much larger shift. Companies spent the last two years obsessing over how much data they could collect for AI. Now they are realizing the more important question is whether they are actually allowed to use it.

That changes the conversation entirely.

Because in the AI era, ineffective consent management is no longer just sloppy marketing. It is a business risk.

Substack
News

Substack Loses Brownie Points as Writers Move to Ghost and Beehiiv

Substack Loses Brownie Points as Writers Move to Ghost and Beehiiv

More creators are leaving Substack for Ghost and Beehiiv as frustrations grow over growth and platform control.

Substack felt like the future of media- for a little while.

Writers could leave collapsing newsrooms, build direct audiences, charge subscriptions, and finally “own” their work. It looked clean, independent, even rebellious. But now a growing number of creators are realizing something uncomfortable: they may not have owned as much as they thought.

According to a new report from The Verge, more writers are leaving Substack for rivals like Ghost and Beehiiv, frustrated by rising costs, platform dependence, and Substack’s increasing shift toward becoming a social network.

And honestly, this feels like a very familiar internet story.

Platforms usually begin by empowering creators. Then they grow. Then they optimize for engagement. Then, creators slowly realize the platform’s priorities are no longer actually aligned with theirs.

Substack’s biggest issue is what many writers now call the “Substack tax.”

The company takes a 10 percent cut of subscription revenue, which sounds manageable until newsletters scale. And for large publications, that can turn into tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

That is why its competitors are suddenly gaining momentum. They charge flatter fees, offer more customization, and offer creators a stronger sense of ownership over their audience and brand.

Because that is the real tension underneath all of this: creators no longer merely want monetization. They want control.

And Substack has begun to feel like it wants creators inside its ecosystem rather than building independent media businesses externally. The company has leaned heavily into all social nitty-gritty creators were running away from- algorithmic discovery, Notes, video features, and even social-style engagement systems. That helps Substack grow as a platform, but not every writer wants to become a part-time content creator feeding another recommendation engine.

There is also something bigger happening here. The internet is moving away from giant centralized platforms again. Slowly but noticeably.

Writers watched what happened to creators on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and even Twitter. Algorithms changed. The reach collapsed. Businesses disappeared overnight. So now many newsletter publishers are asking a smarter question earlier: if your audience lives on someone else’s platform, do you really own it at all?

Substack helped revive independent publishing. That part is real.

But creators increasingly seem to be treating it less like a permanent home and more like a launchpad they eventually plan to leave.