Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 150 Shares18 Views

    in Elections

    Meta’s Antitrust Trial Begins as FTC Argues Company Built Social Media Monopoly

    The tech giant went to court on Monday in an antitrust trial focused on its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The case could reshape its business.The Federal Trade Commission on Monday accused Meta of creating a monopoly that squelched competition by buying start-ups that stood in its way, kicking off a landmark antitrust trial that could dismantle a social media empire that has transformed how the world connects online.In a packed courtroom in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, the F.T.C. opened its first antitrust trial under the Trump administration by arguing that Meta illegally cemented a monopoly in social networking by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp when they were tiny start-ups. Those actions were part of a “buy-or-bury strategy,” the F.T.C. said.Ultimately, the purchases coalesced Meta’s power, depriving consumers of other social networking options and edging out competition, the government said.“For more than 100 years, American public policy has insisted firms must compete if they want to succeed,” said Daniel Matheson, the F.T.C.’s lead litigator in the case, in his opening remarks. “The reason we are here is that Meta broke the deal.”“They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,” he added.The trial — Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms — poses the most consequential threat to the business empire of Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s co-founder. If the government succeeds, the F.T.C. would most likely ask Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, potentially shifting the way that Silicon Valley does business and altering a long pattern of big tech companies snapping up younger rivals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 75 Shares18 Views

    in Elections

    Inside Trump’s Pressure Campaign on Universities

    As he finished lunch in the private dining room outside the Oval Office on April 1, President Trump floated an astounding proposal: What if the government simply canceled every dollar of the nearly $9 billion promised to Harvard University?The administration’s campaign to expunge “woke” ideology from college campuses had already forced Columbia University to strike a deal. Now, the White House was eyeing the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university.“What if we never pay them?” Mr. Trump casually asked, according to a person familiar with the conversation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussion. “Wouldn’t that be cool?”The moment underscored the aggressive, ad hoc approach continuing to shape one of the new administration’s most consequential policies.Mr. Trump and his top aides are exerting control of huge sums of federal research money to shift the ideological tilt of the higher education system, which they see as hostile to conservatives and intent on perpetuating liberalism.Their effort was energized by the campus protests against Israel’s response to the October 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas, demonstrations during which Jewish students were sometimes harassed. Soon after taking office, Mr. Trump opened the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, which is scrutinizing leading universities for potential civil rights violations and serving as an entry point to pressure schools to reassess their policies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares24 Views

    in Elections

    Pete Marocco, Who Helped Gut Foreign Aid for Trump, Leaves State Department

    Pete Marocco, who worked with Elon Musk’s team to oversee the gutting of foreign aid and the dismantling of the main U.S. aid agency, has left the State Department, administration officials said on Monday.The abrupt departure comes in the middle of the department’s efforts to merge the remnants of that aid group, the U.S. Agency for International Development, into the department by mid-August.Mr. Marocco had been acting as the head of foreign aid at the department and would have overseen the remaining aid operations, which amount to only a fraction of those active before President Trump took office.Mr. Marocco is expected to take another job in the administration, U.S. officials say.The State Department did not provide official comment on Mr. Marocco’s departure. But a statement from the department’s press office that was attributed to a “senior administration official” praised Mr. Marocco for finding “egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars” during his tenure. The statement provided no examples of such abuses.Mr. Marocco’s critics said they planned to continue scrutinizing how he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have gutted foreign aid.“Pete Marocco’s tenure brought chaos to U.S.A.I.D., reckless and unlawful policy to the State Department, and dismantled longstanding U.S. foreign policy,” Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, said in a statement, adding, “His actions deprived millions of people around the world of lifesaving aid and jeopardized U.S. credibility with our partners.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares27 Views

    in Elections

    What If Mark Zuckerberg Had Not Bought Instagram and WhatsApp?

    Meta’s antitrust trial, in which the government contends the company killed competition by buying young rivals, hinges on unknowable alternate versions of Silicon Valley history.In 2012, when Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg cut a $1 billion check to buy the photo-sharing app Instagram, most people thought he had lost his marbles.“A billion dollars of money?” joked Jon Stewart, then the host of The Daily Show. “For a thing that kind of ruins your pictures?”Mr. Stewart called the decision “really lame.” His audience — and much of the rest of the world — agreed that Mr. Zuckerberg had overpaid for an app that highlighted a bunch of photo filters.Two years later, Mr. Zuckerberg opened his wallet again when Facebook agreed to buy WhatsApp for $19 billion. Many Americans had never heard of the messaging app, which was popular internationally but was not well known in the United States.No one knew how these deals would turn out. But hindsight, it seems, is 20/20.On Monday, the government argued in a landmark antitrust trial that both acquisitions — now considered among the greatest in Silicon Valley history — were the actions of a monopolist guarding his turf. Mr. Zuckerberg, in turn, was set to contend that were it not for these deals, his company — which has been renamed Meta — would just be an afterthought in the social media landscape.Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, is set to contend in the company’s antitrust trial that were it not for buying Instagram and WhatsApp, his firm might just be an afterthought in the social media landscape.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares17 Views

    in Elections

    UK Cuts Tariffs on Dozens of Products as Global Trade Tensions Rise

    British officials also announced more financing for exporters as the country sought to protect firms hurt by tariffs.The British government ramped up actions to help protect businesses and households from some of the economic tumult created by President Trump’s decision to raise tariffs and upend the norms of global trade.The government said on Sunday it would suspend tariffs on 89 products for about two years to help businesses and consumers save money. The products include those for construction, such as plywood and plastics, and everyday household items, such as pasta and fruit juices.Officials will also increase financing support for exporters by 20 billion pounds ($26 billion), through partial loan guarantees, and give small businesses access to loans of up to £2 million.As Mr. Trump raises tariffs on most imports, including those from Britain, to a 10 percent base line and even higher for certain goods like cars and steel, the British government has sought to calm anxieties at home. Officials have said they want to move quickly to support companies as they try to sustain fragile economic momentum.“This week, we witnessed the uncertainty of a changing world,” Rachel Reeves, the chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote in The Observer, a Sunday newspaper. In response, the government “must rise to meet the moment,” she wrote.The announcements on Sunday followed other interventions by the government in recent days to bolster protections for firms affected by tariffs. On April 6, the government eased rules on electric vehicle sales after Mr. Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on cars imported into the United States. British officials also relaxed regulations to speed up timelines for clinical trials to support the life sciences sector with Mr. Trump also expected to impose levies on the pharmaceutical industry.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares28 Views

    in Elections

    DOGE Cuts Hobble Office That Would Aid NASA and SpaceX Mars Landings

    The Astrogeology Science Center, which has helped astronauts and robots reach other worlds safely, is facing a substantial number of job reductions.An office in an obscure corner of the federal government that NASA has relied on to safely land astronauts on the moon and robotic probes on Mars is facing pressure to cut its tight-knit team of experts by at least 20 percent, according to two people familiar with the mandate.The thinning of the staff has already started at the Astrogeology Science Center in Flagstaff, Ariz., the people said, the result of an assortment of voluntary resignation offers put forward by the Department of Government Efficiency, led by the billionaire Elon Musk. More employees are expected to be laid off in the coming weeks, following a new open call for early retirements and resignations on April 4. The office, which is part of the U.S. Geological Survey under the Department of the Interior, has been subject to the cost-cutting efforts initiated in a mass email that Mr. Musk’s team sent across the federal government in January.Representatives for the Interior Department, the U.S.G.S. and the astrogeology center did not reply to requests for comment on the staff reductions or their potential ramifications.The cuts could affect crewed missions to Mars in the future, a key goal of Mr. Musk, who founded SpaceX. He has said he conceived of the company to make human life multiplanetary.Matthew Golombek, a geophysicist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who has worked on the selection of landing sites for multiple probes to Mars, described the Astrogeology Science Center’s precision mapping as “the gold standard that basically everyone in the community uses.”At the start of the year, the office had 53 employees. Eight are already set to leave, with more encouraged to consider the latest offer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares18 Views

    in Elections

    ‘The Last of Us’ Season 2, Episode 1: Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch

    It seems this season will be driven by one simple idea: that when Joel saved Ellie at the end of Season 1 and then lied to her, he made a mess.‘The Last of Us’ Season 2, Episode 1: ‘Future Days’“The Last of Us” began with a prologue that set up everything about to happen, in the episode and in the series. In a scene set in 1968, a scientist explained that his greatest fear was that a warming planet would provide the perfect incubating conditions for a mind-controlling fungus that could turn humans into brainless killers. There is obviously more to “The Last of Us” than just, “What if there were mushroom zombies?” But that idea put the plot in motion.The second season of “The Last of Us” begins with two prologues. In one, we meet Abby (Kaitlyn Dever), one of the surviving Fireflies from the Season 1 finale’s Salt Lake City massacre. Abby and her fellow resistance-fighters gather around their loved one’s graves to discuss a plan to retaliate against Joel Miller (Pedro Pascal), the man who slaughtered so many of their people. (“Slowly,” Abby says, when her allies say they will kill Joel.)In the other prologue, we flash back to the final scene from that finale, when Ellie (Bella Ramsey) made Joel swear that he took her away from the Fireflies because they had given up on finding a cure for the cordyceps plague. Joel gave Ellie his word, which she warily accepted.I expect there to be as many twists, turns, new characters and new story lines in Season 2 as there were in Season 1. But based on the premiere, it seems this season will also be driven by one simple idea: that when Joel saved Ellie from the Fireflies and then lied to her, he made a godawful mess.After the prologues, the episode jumps ahead five years. Joel and Ellie are now settled in Jackson, Wyo., the edenic survivor colony run in part by Joel’s brother, Tommy (Gabriel Luna), and Tommy’s wife, Maria (Rutina Wesley). Joel is making himself useful with his fix-it know-how, and Ellie has been honing her fighting skills and going on patrols, to gather supplies and to winnow down the numbers of the infected in the area. But while they seem reasonably content, something has soured between them.As I mentioned in my reviews last season, one of my great fascinations with any postapocalyptic story is in seeing how people make fortresses for themselves, sealed off from the surrounding mayhem — and also seeing how they try to build fulfilling lives inside their hidey-holes. So it’s a pleasure early in this episode to get reacquainted with Jackson, a place that has electricity, agriculture, law, and even culture in the form of music and dancing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares36 Views

    in Elections

    Ecuadorean President’s Opponent Contests His Re-Election Win

    In a divisive election season, Daniel Noboa pledged to bring law and order. His opponent immediately contested the results.Ecuador’s president, who unexpectedly surged in the polls to secure a shortened term in 2023, was declared the victor of the presidential election with a decisive lead on Sunday in a race that showed voters’ faith in his vows to tackle the security crisis with an iron fist.Daniel Noboa, 37, defeated Luisa González, 47, the handpicked successor of former President Rafael Correa.Both candidates accused the other of electoral violations throughout the election season, and Ms. González said she would not recognize the results of the election, in a speech from the headquarters of her party, Citizen Revolution.“I want to be very clear and emphatic: The Citizen Revolution has always recognized a defeat in the last elections when polls, tracking and statistics have shown it,” Ms. González said. “Today, we do not recognize these results.”Mr. Noboa celebrated his victory from the coastal town of Olón.“This day has been historic,” he said. “There is no doubt who the winner is.”The day before the election, Mr. Noboa declared a state of emergency in seven states, most of them González strongholds, raising fears that he was trying to suppress the vote among her supporters. The declaration restricts social activities and allows police and military to enter homes without permission.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More