These popular restaurant stocks are certainly on many investors&#x27; radars.

Better Stock to Buy Right Now: Chipotle vs Starbucks @themotleyfool #stocks $SBUX $CMG

Advanced Micro Devices believes its AI chip, the MI300x, will be its biggest growth opportunity.

Why AMD Stock Is Down Over 20% From Its Peak @themotleyfool #stocks $AMD $NVDA

Palantir announced a partnership with another big tech giant.

Massive News for Palantir Stock Investors @themotleyfool #stocks $PLTR $ORCL

Nvidia has added $1.9 trillion in market cap in 15 months. But if history rhymes and the artificial intelligence (AI) bubble bursts, five industry-leading businesses could leapfrog it in value.

Prediction: 5 Stocks That'll Be Worth More Than Artificial Intelligence (AI) Stock Nvidia 3 Years From Now @themotleyfool #stocks $NVDA $BRK.A $BRK.B $GOOGL $AMZN $META $V $GOOG

These supercharged dividend stocks -- sporting an average yield of 9.02% -- can pack a punch for income investors&#x27; pocketbooks.

3 Magnificent Ultra-High-Yield Dividend Stocks That Are Screamings Buys in April @themotleyfool #stocks $PFE $ARLP $IIPR

Earlier this year, investors learned that Nvidia is a small investor in voice-recognition software developer SoundHound AI.

Nvidia Finally Revealed How It's Working With SoundHound AI. Here's What Investors Need to Know @themotleyfool #stocks $NVDA $SOUN

Movley

movley

Google’s Contracts Reduce Investment And Innovation Among Market Participants

What Are General Search Engines?

Crypto has been an industry predominantly dominated by white men, especially from developed countries. That’s just a fact for anyone with eyes. So, it didn’t start by being pretty diverse or inclusive, even if the whole gist of decentralization and self-custodial money was to include everyone or as many people as possible. Luckily, things have improved over the years, but diversity and inclusion in crypto still seem to be a work in progress. Now, to be fair, a lot of people participating here tend to be anonymous and therefore we know close to nothing about their “diversity stats” —ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, etc. Satoshi Nakamoto is a great example. We’re not even 100% sure that he is (or was?) a guy. Still, among the ones that have decided to step into the public (CEOs, employees, journalists, adopters, and more) there is only a minority of non-white-men among the powerful ones (founders and leaders), while it seems that most adopters are, indeed, non-white-men. Let’s start with some stats to check how that’s going so far. Current landscape Or as current as the stats and reports have allowed us to know. Likely, the first thing that stands out about this topic is the gender gap in crypto. According to Forex Suggest, as of 2023, there were only 6% female CEOs of crypto companies. In their list of the 50 most influential crypto CEOs, barely three women appear. On the other hand, according to Coin Dance, Bitcoin (the most used coin) community engagement shows around 14.2% activity from females and 85.7% from males. For the BIS, less than 35% of all crypto trading app users globally were female in 2022. Similar reports are all over the industry, but almost always show the same gender gap. It’s not the only type of statistic worth noting for diversity purposes, though. This is an interesting one: as discovered by Pew Research, 24% of Asian adults and 21% of Black or Hispanic adults in the United States have invested in crypto, compared to only 14% of white adults. Besides, as indicated by Chainalysis, the countries that have most adopted cryptocurrencies are developing markets, such as their top three in 2023: India, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Age is also a factor to consider in adoption and general inclusion in crypto. As shownin Bankrate, and also to Coin Dance, millennials (born 1981-1996) are the majority, followed by Gen X (born 1965-1980). Older and younger generations, for some reason, are behind in adoption. As for the sexual orientation aspect, a survey by Motley Fool in 2023 discovered that 36% of LGBTQ+ Americans have a cryptocurrency wallet, in contrast to 16% of the total US population. Women and Minorities in Crypto If we scrutinize the stats above, we can conclude that crypto adoption is more likely in people who have been most excluded from traditional financial services, or whose countries have certain monetary issues or limitations. However, differences in age and gender can’t be fully explained by it. On the other hand, crypto founders, leaders, and top employees are still mostly white men, all over the world. According to another study by Forex Suggest, Chainalysis is the crypto company with the highest proportion of females in its top team —46.2%. It’s not bad, but it means that the best so far still has more than half of the men leading. Meanwhile, other firms like Alchemy, Bitpanda, and Ledger are 100% male-dominated. All of this doesn’t mean that minorities can only participate as silent crypto adopters. There are numerous decentralized projects and protocols founded and managed by minorities, and that have been built to support minorities too. Some Initiatives Black individuals and communities, for instance, have developed numerous crypto projects to address economic inequality and empower themselves. Examples include Equity Coin, a Black-owned cryptocurrency that invests in affordable housing, and Long Neck Ladies, an NFT project by a young Black girl that has generated significant revenue. Black-owned DAOs and crypto businesses, like some crypto exchanges, are providing access to and funding for underrepresented groups, enabling greater financial inclusion and eliminating racial biases in funding processes. Women and the LGBTQ+ community have found an open space in crypto as well. Namely, NFT collections like Queer Rise and Bit Baddies aim to represent women and queer culture, while supporting organizations like wayOUT. OutRight, and Little Pink Houses of Hope. Other initiatives, such as The MetaPride Land Festival and First Contact, provide a safe metaverse space for LGBTQ+ individuals and support LGBTQ+ charities. AthenaDAO focuses on women’s health research and education, while Crypto Tech Women empowers women in tech through education and advisorship programs. The Queer Museum of Digital Art supports queer artists, and the Yes Queen Club promotes diversity in the crypto world with proceeds supporting inclusion initiatives. SheFi offers crypto education to women and non-binary individuals, and the NGO Diversity in Blockchain is dedicated to ensuring equal participation in the crypto industry. What’s left to do? Well, decentralized protocols don’t care about who you are, where are you from, or what are your current circumstances. They’re mostly automatic systems designed to include everyone, so we are able to use them for whatever (harmless thing) we want. The one inclusion-related thing we must still worry about in crypto is the potential censorship of these systems, be it by governments, by companies, or by any other centralized player. That’s why we should use the most decentralized and censorship-resistant protocols. On Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example, large mining pools or nodes controlled by a few entities can potentially influence transaction processing and their inclusion into the blockchain. Additionally, infrastructure providers like major exchanges and wallet services can become points of centralization, impacting the network's overall decentralization and susceptibility to censorship. Obyte, for its part, stands out for its ultimate decentralization and resistance to censorship. Unlike blockchains, which rely on a limited number of block producers that can potentially censor transactions, Obyte uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) system. This means transactions are added directly to the network by users, without needing intermediaries, eliminating central points of control and making it truly decentralized. This design ensures that Obyte is free from domination and censorship, providing a secure and accessible platform for anyone worldwide to store and transfer value, and even to build new Dapps, DAOs, or any other inclusive project. Features like customized tokens, conditional payments, textcoins, chatbots, and a private coin are available for everyone, without coding. We can confidently say that Obyte promotes diversity and inclusion in crypto by eliminating central control and enabling equal access for all. Featured Vector Image by upklyak / Freepik Crypto has been an industry predominantly dominated by white men, especially from developed countries. That’s just a fact for anyone with eyes. So, it didn’t start by being pretty diverse or inclusive, even if the whole gist of decentralization and self-custodial money was to include everyone or as many people as possible. Luckily, things have improved over the years, but diversity and inclusion in crypto still seem to be a work in progress. Now, to be fair, a lot of people participating here tend to be anonymous and therefore we know close to nothing about their “diversity stats” —ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, etc. Satoshi Nakamoto is a great example. We’re not even 100% sure that he is (or was?) a guy. Still, among the ones that have decided to step into the public (CEOs, employees, journalists, adopters, and more) there is only a minority of non-white-men among the powerful ones (founders and leaders), while it seems that most adopters are, indeed, non-white-men. Satoshi Nakamoto Satoshi Nakamoto there is only a minority of non-white-men among the powerful ones (founders and leaders), while it seems that most adopters are, indeed, non-white-men. Let’s start with some stats to check how that’s going so far. Current landscape Current landscape Or as current as the stats and reports have allowed us to know. Likely, the first thing that stands out about this topic is the gender gap in crypto. According to Forex Suggest , as of 2023, there were only 6% female CEOs of crypto companies. In their list of the 50 most influential crypto CEOs, barely three women appear. On the other hand, according to Coin Dance , Bitcoin (the most used coin) community engagement shows around 14.2% activity from females and 85.7% from males. For the BIS , less than 35% of all crypto trading app users globally were female in 2022. Forex Suggest Forex Suggest Coin Dance Coin Dance the BIS the BIS Similar reports are all over the industry, but almost always show the same gender gap. It’s not the only type of statistic worth noting for diversity purposes, though. This is an interesting one: as discovered by Pew Research , 24% of Asian adults and 21% of Black or Hispanic adults in the United States have invested in crypto, compared to only 14% of white adults. Besides, as indicated by Chainalysis , the countries that have most adopted cryptocurrencies are developing markets, such as their top three in 2023: India, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Similar reports are all over the industry, but almost always show the same gender gap. Pew Research Pew Research Chainalysis Chainalysis Age is also a factor to consider in adoption and general inclusion in crypto. As shown in Bankrate , and also to Coin Dance, millennials (born 1981-1996) are the majority, followed by Gen X (born 1965-1980). Older and younger generations, for some reason, are behind in adoption. As for the sexual orientation aspect, a survey by Motley Fool in 2023 discovered that 36% of LGBTQ+ Americans have a cryptocurrency wallet, in contrast to 16% of the total US population. in Bankrate in Bankrate Motley Fool Motley Fool Women and Minorities in Crypto Women and Minorities in Crypto If we scrutinize the stats above, we can conclude that crypto adoption is more likely in people who have been most excluded from traditional financial services, or whose countries have certain monetary issues or limitations. However, differences in age and gender can’t be fully explained by it. On the other hand, crypto founders, leaders, and top employees are still mostly white men, all over the world. According to another study by Forex Suggest , Chainalysis is the crypto company with the highest proportion of females in its top team —46.2%. It’s not bad, but it means that the best so far still has more than half of the men leading. Meanwhile, other firms like Alchemy, Bitpanda, and Ledger are 100% male-dominated. On the other hand, crypto founders, leaders, and top employees are still mostly white men, all over the world. Forex Suggest Forex Suggest All of this doesn’t mean that minorities can only participate as silent crypto adopters. There are numerous decentralized projects and protocols founded and managed by minorities, and that have been built to support minorities too. Some Initiatives Some Initiatives Black individuals and communities, for instance, have developed numerous crypto projects to address economic inequality and empower themselves. Examples include Equity Coin, a Black-owned cryptocurrency that invests in affordable housing, and Long Neck Ladies, an NFT project by a young Black girl that has generated significant revenue. Black-owned DAOs and crypto businesses, like some crypto exchanges, are providing access to and funding for underrepresented groups, enabling greater financial inclusion and eliminating racial biases in funding processes. Examples include Examples include Women and the LGBTQ+ community have found an open space in crypto as well. Namely, NFT collections like Queer Rise and Bit Baddies aim to represent women and queer culture, while supporting organizations like wayOUT. OutRight, and Little Pink Houses of Hope. Other initiatives, such as The MetaPride Land Festival and First Contact, provide a safe metaverse space for LGBTQ+ individuals and support LGBTQ+ charities. Women and the LGBTQ+ community have found an open space in crypto as well. Women Women LGBTQ+ community LGBTQ+ community AthenaDAO focuses on women’s health research and education, while Crypto Tech Women empowers women in tech through education and advisorship programs. The Queer Museum of Digital Art supports queer artists, and the Yes Queen Club promotes diversity in the crypto world with proceeds supporting inclusion initiatives. SheFi offers crypto education to women and non-binary individuals, and the NGO Diversity in Blockchain is dedicated to ensuring equal participation in the crypto industry. What’s left to do? What’s left to do? Well, decentralized protocols don’t care about who you are, where are you from, or what are your current circumstances. They’re mostly automatic systems designed to include everyone, so we are able to use them for whatever (harmless thing) we want. The one inclusion-related thing we must still worry about in crypto is the potential censorship of these systems, be it by governments, by companies, or by any other centralized player. Well, decentralized protocols don’t care about who you are, where are you from, or what are your current circumstances. That’s why we should use the most decentralized and censorship-resistant protocols. On Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example, large mining pools or nodes controlled by a few entities can potentially influence transaction processing and their inclusion into the blockchain. Additionally, infrastructure providers like major exchanges and wallet services can become points of centralization, impacting the network's overall decentralization and susceptibility to censorship. Obyte, for its part, stands out for its ultimate decentralization and resistance to censorship. Unlike blockchains, which rely on a limited number of block producers that can potentially censor transactions, Obyte uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) system. This means transactions are added directly to the network by users, without needing intermediaries, eliminating central points of control and making it truly decentralized. Obyte , for its part, stands out for its ultimate decentralization and resistance to censorship. Obyte Obyte This design ensures that Obyte is free from domination and censorship, providing a secure and accessible platform for anyone worldwide to store and transfer value, and even to build new Dapps, DAOs, or any other inclusive project. Features like customized tokens, conditional payments, textcoins, chatbots, and a private coin are available for everyone, without coding. We can confidently say that Obyte promotes diversity and inclusion in crypto by eliminating central control and enabling equal access for all. a private coin a private coin Featured Vector Image by upklyak / Freepik Featured Vector Image by upklyak / Freepik Freepik Freepik

Diversity and Inclusion in Crypto: Work in Progress?

ক্রিপ্টোতে বৈচিত্র্য এবং অন্তর্ভুক্তি: কাজ চলছে?

Vielfalt und Inklusion in Krypto: In Arbeit?

Diversidad e inclusión en las criptomonedas: ¿trabajo en progreso?

Diversité et inclusion dans la crypto : des travaux en cours ?

क्रिप्टो में विविधता और समावेशन: क्या कार्य प्रगति पर है?

暗号通貨における多様性と包括性：進行中の取り組み？

암호화폐의 다양성과 포용성: 작업이 진행 중인가요?

Diversidade e inclusão na criptografia: trabalho em andamento?

Разнообразие и инклюзивность в криптографии: работа в процессе?

Kriptoda Çeşitlilik ve Katılım: Çalışmalar Devam Ediyor mu?

Tính đa dạng và hòa nhập trong tiền điện tử: Đang tiến triển?

加密货币的多样性和包容性：正在进行中吗？

Nvidia's done it! Nvidia's become a company worth $3 trillion! And it only took the company a little over three months to do so. You don't need me to tell you how impressive that is, especially considering that it was only in March that Nvidia hit the $2 trillion market valuation for the first time. What's impressive still is that some analysts believe the company is headed for a $5 trillion market valuation a couple of years from now. Which begs the question, should you invest in Nvidia? Well, dear reader, here are some of the arguments for and against investing in the company. Now, before you go and start pouring in all your life savings into buying Nvidia stocks, there are a few things you may want to consider. First, don't expect to make massive gains if you decide to buy the stock now. According to The Motley Fool, the upside is probably 50% based on current pricing if the company hits a market cap of $5 trillion. Compare that to the fact that people who bought the stock at the start of 2023 saw a meteoric rise in the value of their shares: a whopping 8,280%! In fact, if you had invested in Nvidia's stock at the start of this year, you would have already seen a gain of 174%! By that comparison, 50% probably feels like peanuts. Like Axios wrote back in February: Investors who bought Nvidia a while ago are very happy. Those who buy it today may not be. Still, proponents of investing in Nvidia point to the company's virtual monopoly in supplying the hardware necessary to power generative artificial intelligence. With no end to demand in sight, and given that AMD is yet to offer a formidable alternative to Nvidia's hardware, it's no wonder then that Wall Street expects the company to nearly double its revenue in fiscal 2025 to $120.5 billion and follow it up with a 33% rise in sales in fiscal 2026. The generative AI boom isn't the only thing that is helping Nvidia, though. Some other factors that will drive the company's business is a subsiding in inflation which is expected to open up demand for graphic cards, meaning the company will likely see a bump in GPU sales come update cycle. BUT, and there's always a but, Nvidia's stock is susceptible to volatility. We've already seen some of this play out this past week, when, after briefly becoming the most valuable company in the world, a mere few %age point reduction in share price wiped more than half a trillion off of the company's valuation, prompting The New York Times to opine that the "artificial intelligence stock boom could be tough to sustain." Some publications, like London's Financial Times, are also comparing Nvidia's rise to that of Cisco back in 2000. In March 2000, the networking equipment maker became the world's most valuable company, only to lose nearly all of its value as the dotcom bubble hit in the subsequent year. "Nvidia will decelerate," Barry Bannister, chief equity strategist at Stifel, was quoted as saying by the FT. The recent Nvidia selloff, which saw the company's stock slump 13%, made short sellers $5 billion richer, which would make it appear that there are investors who believe up isn't the only direction the stock will go. Regardless of whether you think the stock will go up or down, there is enough research out there that supports either thesis. Just don't go to Reddit for advice :-) Nvidia ranked #5 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. Sponsored Content Discover Institutional-Grade Wealth Management with Heron Finance Once, private credit investments were exclusive to the ultra-wealthy and institutional investors. That’s why Heron Finance built a seamless platform for any accredited U.S. investors to maximize their returns. Heron Finance’s investment analysts line up highly collateralized deals for consistent returns. Heron Finance lowers volatility and manages risk based on how they select deals: Maintaining strict criteria for filtering prospective deals, ensuring that underlying borrowers stay profitable or hold assets to secure payments
Vetting every deal with a rigorous analytical process designed to reduce risk Partnering with other lenders to find the most creditworthy deals
Continuously monitoring all investments with regular borrower reporting Once you’ve made an investment, Heron Finance's robo-advisor also handles automated portfolio rebalancing, taking the stress out of managing your investments. Whether you're a seasoned investor or new to private credit, Heron Finance gives you the tools you need. Don't wait to improve your investment strategy, try Heron Finance and start maximizing your return potential.Risk disclosures: http://heronfinance.com/ Tesla Sues Supplier for Stealing Trade Secrets Tesla is seeking billions in dollars in damages from Matthews International for allegedly stealing confidential trade secrets related to the automaker's dry-electrode battery manufacturing technology and disclosing them to its competitors. Matthews became one of Tesla's suppliers in 2019, and the automaker said it shared confidential designs of industrial machinery necessary for the manufacturing process of its batteries after it entered a nondisclosure agreement with the electric vehicle producer. "Matthews betrayed that trust," Tesla is alleging in its lawsuit. Tesla went on to accuse Matthews of using its designs and passing them off as its own and building and selling equipment for dry-electrode battery manufacturing that are based on its "confidential trade secrets." On the other hand, Matthews is claiming that Tesla is bullying the company and wants to strip it from its intellectual property. In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, the company said that its engineers had been developing technology that served the basis of dry battery electrode solutions well before the formation of Tesla as a company. It was precisely because of Matthews' work that Tesla approached the company in the first place and narrowed it down as a supplier. Both sides plan to pursue this in court, so let's see how it plays out. Tesla ranked #4 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. In Other News.. 📰 Renewed Bullishness Expected After Bitcoin, Ether's $10B Options Expiry on Friday — via CoinDesk
AThis smiling robot face made of living skin is absolute nightmare fuel — via TechCrunch
Microsoft faces mega fine after EU takes issue with bundling of Teams and Office — via CNN
AI dataset licensing companies form trade group — via Reuters
Book authors get a startup to help them deal with AI companies — via Axios
U.S. chip curbs in Middle East just 'business as usual,' Ooredoo CEO says after Nvidia deal — via CNBC And that's a wrap! Don't forget to share this newsletter with your family and friends! See y'all next week. PEACE! ☮️ — Sheharyar Khan, Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here. Nvidia 's done it! Nvidia's become a company worth $3 trillion! And it only took the company a little over three months to do so. Nvidia Nvidia $3 trillion! You don't need me to tell you how impressive that is, especially considering that it was only in March that Nvidia hit the $2 trillion market valuation for the first time. What's impressive still is that some analysts believe the company is headed for a $5 trillion market valuation a couple of years from now. $5 trillion market valuation $5 trillion market valuation Which begs the question, should you invest in Nvidia? Well, dear reader, here are some of the arguments for and against investing in the company. for for against against Now, before you go and start pouring in all your life savings into buying Nvidia stocks, there are a few things you may want to consider. First, don't expect to make massive gains if you decide to buy the stock now. According to The Motley Fool, the upside is probably 50% based on current pricing if the company hits a market cap of $5 trillion. probably 50% probably 50% if Compare that to the fact that people who bought the stock at the start of 2023 saw a meteoric rise in the value of their shares: a whopping 8,280%! In fact, if you had invested in Nvidia's stock at the start of this year, you would have already seen a gain of 174%! 8,280%! 174%! By that comparison, 50% probably feels like peanuts. Like Axios wrote back in February: Investors who bought Nvidia a while ago are very happy. Those who buy it today may not be. wrote wrote Still, proponents of investing in Nvidia point to the company's virtual monopoly in supplying the hardware necessary to power generative artificial intelligence. With no end to demand in sight, and given that AMD is yet to offer a formidable alternative to Nvidia's hardware, it's no wonder then that Wall Street expects the company to nearly double its revenue in fiscal 2025 to $120.5 billion and follow it up with a 33% rise in sales in fiscal 2026. virtual monopoly virtual monopoly The generative AI boom isn't the only thing that is helping Nvidia, though. Some other factors that will drive the company's business is a subsiding in inflation which is expected to open up demand for graphic cards, meaning the company will likely see a bump in GPU sales come update cycle. BUT, and there's always a but, Nvidia's stock is susceptible to volatility. We've already seen some of this play out this past week, when, after briefly becoming the most valuable company in the world , a mere few %age point reduction in share price wiped more than half a trillion off of the company's valuation, prompting The New York Times to opine that the "artificial intelligence stock boom could be tough to sustain." most valuable company in the world most valuable company in the world half a trillion half a trillion opine opine Some publications, like London's Financial Times, are also comparing Nvidia's rise to that of Cisco back in 2000. In March 2000, the networking equipment maker became the world's most valuable company, only to lose nearly all of its value as the dotcom bubble hit in the subsequent year. comparing comparing "Nvidia will decelerate," Barry Bannister, chief equity strategist at Stifel, was quoted as saying by the FT. The recent Nvidia selloff, which saw the company's stock slump 13%, made short sellers $5 billion richer , which would make it appear that there are investors who believe up isn't the only direction the stock will go. $5 billion richer $5 billion richer Regardless of whether you think the stock will go up or down, there is enough research out there that supports either thesis. Just don't go to Reddit for advice :-) Nvidia ranked #5 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. Tech Company Rankings Tech Company Rankings Sponsored Content Sponsored Content Sponsored Content Discover Institutional-Grade Wealth Management with Heron Finance Discover Institutional-Grade Wealth Management with Heron Finance Once, private credit investments were exclusive to the ultra-wealthy and institutional investors. That’s why Heron Finance built a seamless platform for any accredited U.S. investors to maximize their returns. Heron Finance’s investment analysts line up highly collateralized deals for consistent returns. Heron Finance lowers volatility and manages risk based on how they select deals: Maintaining strict criteria for filtering prospective deals, ensuring that underlying borrowers stay profitable or hold assets to secure payments Vetting every deal with a rigorous analytical process designed to reduce risk Partnering with other lenders to find the most creditworthy deals Continuously monitoring all investments with regular borrower reporting Maintaining strict criteria for filtering prospective deals, ensuring that underlying borrowers stay profitable or hold assets to secure payments Vetting every deal with a rigorous analytical process designed to reduce risk Partnering with other lenders to find the most creditworthy deals Continuously monitoring all investments with regular borrower reporting Once you’ve made an investment, Heron Finance's robo-advisor also handles automated portfolio rebalancing, taking the stress out of managing your investments. Whether you're a seasoned investor or new to private credit, Heron Finance gives you the tools you need. Don't wait to improve your investment strategy, try Heron Finance and start maximizing your return potential . Risk disclosures: http://heronfinance.com/ try Heron Finance and start maximizing your return potential Risk disclosures: http://heronfinance.com/ http://heronfinance.com/ Tesla Sues Supplier for Stealing Trade Secrets Tesla Sues Supplier for Stealing Trade Secrets Tesla is seeking billions in dollars in damages from Matthews International for allegedly stealing confidential trade secrets related to the automaker's dry-electrode battery manufacturing technology and disclosing them to its competitors. Tesla Tesla seeking seeking Matthews became one of Tesla's suppliers in 2019, and the automaker said it shared confidential designs of industrial machinery necessary for the manufacturing process of its batteries after it entered a nondisclosure agreement with the electric vehicle producer. "Matthews betrayed that trust," Tesla is alleging in its lawsuit. Tesla went on to accuse Matthews of using its designs and passing them off as its own and building and selling equipment for dry-electrode battery manufacturing that are based on its "confidential trade secrets." On the other hand, Matthews is claiming that Tesla is bullying the company and wants to strip it from its intellectual property. In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, the company said that its engineers had been developing technology that served the basis of dry battery electrode solutions well before the formation of Tesla as a company. bullying the company bullying the company It was precisely because of Matthews' work that Tesla approached the company in the first place and narrowed it down as a supplier. Both sides plan to pursue this in court, so let's see how it plays out. Tesla ranked #4 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. Tech Company Rankings Tech Company Rankings In Other News.. 📰 In Other News.. 📰 Renewed Bullishness Expected After Bitcoin, Ether's $10B Options Expiry on Friday — via CoinDesk AThis smiling robot face made of living skin is absolute nightmare fuel — via TechCrunch Microsoft faces mega fine after EU takes issue with bundling of Teams and Office — via CNN AI dataset licensing companies form trade group — via Reuters Book authors get a startup to help them deal with AI companies — via Axios U.S. chip curbs in Middle East just 'business as usual,' Ooredoo CEO says after Nvidia deal — via CNBC Renewed Bullishness Expected After Bitcoin, Ether's $10B Options Expiry on Friday — via CoinDesk CoinDesk CoinDesk AThis smiling robot face made of living skin is absolute nightmare fuel — via TechCrunch TechCrunch TechCrunch Microsoft faces mega fine after EU takes issue with bundling of Teams and Office — via CNN CNN CNN AI dataset licensing companies form trade group — via Reuters Reuters Reuters Book authors get a startup to help them deal with AI companies — via Axios Axios Axios U.S. chip curbs in Middle East just 'business as usual,' Ooredoo CEO says after Nvidia deal — via CNBC CNBC CNBC And that's a wrap! Don't forget to share this newsletter with your family and friends! See y'all next week. PEACE! ☮️ — Sheharyar Khan , Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon Sheharyar Khan Sheharyar Khan *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. Tech Company Rankings Tech Company Rankings Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here. Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here. Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here . here here

Should You Invest in Nvidia?

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Total of 30 webpages for each SERP. Cells are colour coded: median (20%), yellow; maximum (53%), red; minimum (0%), green. *Significantly different from Google.com by two-tailed Fisher’s test corrected for multiple comparison using the method of Benjamini, Krieger and Yekutieli at a false discovery rate of 5%. #significantly different from the localized version of Google.

Online Information of Vaccines: Table 2. Percentage of Vaccine-negative Webpages in Different SERPs

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Positive stance on vaccines https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/do-vaccines-cause-autism https://www.nhs.uk/news/medication/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-finds/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/ https://www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/media-centre/position-statements/mmr-vaccine.aspx https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/autism-studies.html https://vaccine-safety-training.org/mmr-vaccine-increases.html https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30986133 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15366972 Negative stance on vaccines https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605756968/fulltext www.whale.to/vaccine/vaccine_autism_proven.html www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Infant-Vaccines-Produce-Autism-Symptoms-In-Primates https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2014/07/17/more-of-that-vaccineautism-research-that-doesnt-exist/ edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2018/02/21 nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2014/08/22/vaccine-autism-cover-up/ https://www.newswars.com/vaccine-autism-questioned-by-doctor-congressman-elect/ vaxtruth.org/2011/08/vaccines-do-not-cause-autism/ Neutral stance on vaccines https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/vaccine-and-autism-link.880852/ www.discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on https://www.ecso.org/news/autism-charity-founder-anti-vaccination-campaigner/ https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/01/professor-who-links-vaccines-to-autismfunded-through-university-portal https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-vaccines-autism-links-anti-vaxxerus-president-false-vaccine-a8331836.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/

Online Information of Vaccines: Table 1. Example of Classification of Webpages

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Corresponding author: Professor Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Trafford Centre, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN19RY, UK. Email: p.ghezzi@bsms.ac.uk; phone: +44-(0)1273-873112 Abstract The fact that Internet companies may record our personal data and track our online behaviour for commercial or political purpose has emphasized aspects related to online privacy. This has also led to the development of search engines that promise no tracking and privacy. Search engines also have a major role in spreading low-quality health information such as that of anti-vaccine websites. This study investigates the relationship between search engines’ approach to privacy and the scientific quality of the information they return. We analyzed the first 30 webpages returned searching “vaccines autism” in English, Spanish, Italian and French. The results show that “alternative” search engines (Duckduckgo, Ecosia, Qwant, Swisscows and Mojeek) may return more anti-vaccine pages (10-53%) than Google.com (0%). Some localized versions of Google, however, returned more anti-vaccine webpages (up to 10%) than Google.com. Our study suggests that designing a search engine that is privacy savvy and avoids issues with filter bubbles that can result from user-tracking is necessary but insufficient; instead mechanisms should be developed to test search engines from the perspective of information quality (particularly for health-related webpages), before they can be deemed trustworthy providers of public health information. Introduction The World Health Organization lists vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019 1, requiring ongoing global monitoring. Despite the fact that the 1998 study which incorrectly suggested that the MMR vaccine could cause autism in children and prompted antivaccine beliefs 2 has now been discredited, misinformation, and indeed, disinformation, about vaccines continues to be published on the Internet perpetuating such beliefs. It has been suggested that this misinformation plays a role in the current low uptake of vaccines in developed countries 3. Understanding whether this is actually the case, and how to address this issue, is crucial as web-based sources of health information may be instrumental to solve the sustainability challenge currently facing health systems across the globe. The accuracy of information provided by a website is a key indicator of its overall information quality (IQ). The broader aspects of IQ have been the subject of many studies 5, but health IQ and trustworthiness of the sources have only partially been characterized 6. Studies looking at the influence of variations in eHealth literacy levels 7 and trust in different sources of online health information2 indicate that the relationship is not linear in all cases, i.e. higher health IQ does not result automatically in higher perceived levels of trustworthiness. For example, in a study by Chen et al. 8, 618 people were recruited to complete a survey which tested their eHealth literacy level, asked them to identify which of 25 sources of health information they used, and how much they trusted each source. The study showed that people with lower eHealth literacy were less likely to trust medical websites (typically higher IQ) and more likely to trust social media, blogs, and celebrity webpages (typically lower IQ). This might seem a spurious result, were it not for the fact that research has shown that those with high eHealth literacy assess more accurately the credibility and relevance of online health information, whereas those with low eHealth literacy often struggle to locate and understand eHealth information 9. This difficulty lowers their self-efficacy 10, distorts their perception of source credibility, and impacts negatively perceived trustworthiness 9, ultimately creating a need for individuals with low eHealth literacy to find an alternative means of determining trustworthiness in online sources of information. One such alternative is social endorsement. Visible social endorsement, e.g. ‘likes,’ 11 enables those with low eHealth literacy to determine trust based on the bandwagon heuristic and assume that, if the source has already been deemed valid by others, then it is safe for them to trust it too 10,12. Traditional medical websites afford those with low eHealth literacy no such alternative means of determining credibility and trust. This suggests that those who are more vulnerable to the real-world effects of both disinformation and misinformation (e.g. declining to vaccinate their children) are more likely to rely on online sources with lower health IQ, which are more prone to spread such inflammatory and inaccurate information. Personalisation of online search results may favour this phenomenon and lead to a vicious cycle where the more one searches and reads dis- and mis-information about vaccines the less one finds and reads scientific information on the same topic. At the same time, there are increasing concerns about the privacy risks associated with Internet search engines storing potentially sensitive and private health information contained within users search histories, combining it with additional information collected for tracking purposes, and using these data for commercial or other purposes 13,14. This creates a public push back against the idea that search engines or public health providers should interfere in the results people see when searching for health information online. This makes it hard to address concerns about health disinformation/misinformation in a way that is at least socially acceptable if not ideally preferable 15. The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) discovered this when its announcement of Amazon Alexa responding with guaranteed high-IQ content from NHS.UK to user voice queries such as “Alexa, how do I treat a migraine,” resulted in a public outcry over privacy infringement 16. This raises the question whether, in the context of online vaccination information, it is possible at all to balance concerns about user privacy and IQ. The following pages seek to lay the foundations for answering this question by reporting on the methodology for, and results of, a study concerning the following research question: “What is the current relationship between search engines’ approach to privacy and the scientific quality of the information they return?”.

Online Information of Vaccines: Abstract and Introduction

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Conclusion Our analysis shows that while it may well be technically possible to design a search engine that manages to balance privacy-preservation with the promotion of high IQ material, this is currently not the case. The current relationship between privacy-preserving design features of search engines and the IQ of the results they return is inverse (although not proportionally). In instances where this can have a negative impact on public health, as in the example we have provided of the promotion of anti-vaccine misinformation, not intervening to alter the design of the algorithm even if this means sacrificing some degree of user privacy - can lead to severe harm for a large population of user and is, therefore, unethical. Designing a search engine that is privacy savvy and avoids issues with filter bubbles that can result from user-tracking may be a good thing, like designing a car with an engine that does not pollute and is inexpensive to run, and designers should seek to balance the different aspects of search engine design highlighted in Figure 3. However, if the brakes in an environmentally-designed car do not work, the car is unsafe and this negates the positive ethical decisions made by the designers. In a car this is a highly unlikely design outcome, as a car has to undergo several rounds of testing by regulatory agencies before being allowed on the market. This is not yet the case for search engines, which are only regulated from the perspective of data protection – which is primarily interpreted as data security rather than data privacy. Our study suggests that this is necessary but insufficient, and instead mechanisms should be developed to test search engines from the perspective of IQ, (particularly for YMYL webpages) before they can be deemed trustworthy providers of public health information. References 1. World Health Organization. Ten threats to global health in 2019. 2019. https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20190627111040/https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-toglobal-health-in-2019) (accessed 27/06/2019 2. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351(9103): 637-41. 3. Stahl JP, Cohen R, Denis F, et al. The impact of the web and social networks on vaccination. New challenges and opportunities offered to fight against vaccine hesitancy. Med Mal Infect 2016; 46(3): 117-22. 4. Martin GP, Sutton E, Willars J, Dixon-Woods M. Frameworks for change in healthcare organisations: a formative evaluation of the NHS Change Model. Health Serv Manage Res 2013; 26(2-3): 65-75. 5. Illari P, Floridi L. Information quality, data and philosophy. The Philosophy of Information Quality: Springer; 2014: 5-23. 6. Al-Jefri M, Evans R, Uchyigit G, Ghezzi P. What is health information quality? Ethical dimension and perception by users. Frontiers in medicine 2018; 5. 7. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res 2006; 8(4): e27. 8. Chen X, Hay JL, Waters EA, et al. Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information. J Health Commun 2018; 23(8): 724-34. 9. Paige SR, Krieger JL, Stellefson ML. The Influence of eHealth Literacy on Perceived Trust in Online Health Communication Channels and Sources. J Health Commun 2017; 22(1): 53-65. 10. Kim J, Park HA. Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers' health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14(5): e133. 11. Borah P, Xiao X. The Importance of 'Likes': The Interplay of Message Framing, Source, and Social Endorsement on Credibility Perceptions of Health Information on Facebook. J Health Commun 2018; 23(4): 399-411. 12. Huo C, Zhang M, Ma F. Factors influencing people’s health knowledge adoption in social media: the mediating effect of trust and the moderating effect of health threat. Library Hi Tech 2018; 36(1): 129-51. 13. Chiou L, Tucker C. Search engines and data retention: Implications for privacy and antitrust: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 14. Esteve A. The business of personal data: Google, Facebook, and privacy issues in the EU and the USA. International Data Privacy Law 2017; 7(1): 36-47. 15. Floridi L, Taddeo M. What is data ethics? : The Royal Society; 2016. 16. Moskvitch K. Amazon’s Alexa deal with the NHS can help patients but at what cost? Wired, 2019. (accessed 8/11/2019). 17. Arif N, Al-Jefri M, Bizzi IH, et al. Fake News or Weak Science? Visibility and Characterization of Antivaccine Webpages Returned by Google in Different Languages and Countries. Front Immunol 2018; 9: 1215. 18. Maki A, Evans R, Ghezzi P. Bad news. Analysis of the quality of information on influenza prevention returned by Google in English and Italian. Frontiers in Immunology 2015; 6:616. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00616. 19. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. 20. Economist T. Seek and you shall find. Google rewards reputable reporting, not left-wing politics. The Economist 2019; 431(9146): 85. 21. Taddeo M, Floridi L. The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Science and engineering ethics 2015: 1-29. 22. Mittelstadt BD, Allo P, Taddeo M, Wachter S, Floridi L. The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society 2016; 3(2): 2053951716679679. 23. Association for Computing Machinery. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. 2018. https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20190627114921/https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics) (accessed 27/06/2019 2019). 24. Tufekci Z. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colo Tech LJ 2015; 13: 203. 25. Hasnas J. Teaching business ethics: The principles approach. Journal of Business Ethics Education 2013; 10: 275-304. 26. Macdonald C, Gavura S. Alternative Medicine and the Ethics Of Commerce. Bioethics 2016; 30(2): 77-84. 27. Taddeo M, Floridi L. The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Sci Eng Ethics 2016; 22(6): 1575-603. 28. Chigwedere P, Seage GR, 3rd, Gruskin S, Lee TH, Essex M. Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2008; 49(4): 410-5. 29. Ouyang Y. Student's death highlights gaps in China's health regulations. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17(6): 709. 30. Browne M, Thomson P, Rockloff MJ, Pennycook G. Going against the Herd: Psychological and Cultural Factors Underlying the 'Vaccination Confidence Gap'. PLoS One 2015; 10(9): e0132562. 31. Bean SJ. Emerging and continuing trends in vaccine opposition website content. Vaccine 2011; 29(10): 1874-80.

Online Information of Vaccines: Conclusion and References

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Discussion The aim of this research was to investigate whether search engines focused on privacy preservation ranked webpages with higher and/or lower levels of IQ (interpreted as EBM based content i.e. vaccine-positive rather than vaccine-negative) differently to the primary commercial search engines. In turn, this answered the research question “What is the current relationship between search engines’ approach to privacy and the scientific quality of the information they return?”. The results indicate that currently privacy-enhancing search engines often give more visibility to webpages promoting vaccine hesitancy or with a clear anti-vaccine position than Google. This is in agreement with the findings from a recent study by the Economist which analyzed 175,000 news links returned by Google to demonstrate that the search engine’s algorithm favorstrustworthy publications 20. Reputation and trustworthiness are key factors included in Google’s ranking algorithm. In 2019, Google published search quality evaluation guidelines, 4 which define webpages containing information that may affect the users’ health or financial stability, as “your money your life” (YMYL) pages. These guidelines reveal that when rating YMYL webpages, Google looks at the three criteria of Expertise-Authority-Trustworthiness (EA-T) and states “High E-A-T information pages on scientific topics should be produced by people or organizations with appropriate scientific expertise and represent well-established scientific consensus on issues where such consensus exists”. Thus, in the case of Google, the bandwagon heuristic mechanism of assessing medical information credibility is working in favour of promoting IQ. This is perhaps because those responsible for driving up the ‘reputation’ of specific websites by, for example, linking to them, have higher levels of eHealth literacy and therefore act as pseudo-gatekeepers protecting those with lower eHealth literacy from poor IQ results by ensuring that websites providing inaccurate online health information have a low ranking in the search results. In the case of privacy-preserving engines this appears not to be working – potentially because they do not track ‘reputation’ factors, which could be seen as proxies for IQ and credibility, e.g. clicks and bounce-rate, and so have no gatekeepers (pseudo or otherwise) working to limit the circulation of misinformation. To our knowledge, the algorithms used by these ‘alternative’ search engines are not public - Qwant states that they use their own algorithms5 - but despite this, we found a large overlap between the SERP of Qwant and those of Bing and Ecosia. Likewise, Ecosia and Swisscows showed a similar overlap (70%) with Bing. This means that it is not possible to check what factors determine the outcome of the decision making processes of the search engines algorithms, and hence identify those elements that contribute to circulate misinformation. Even without being able to check the exact mechanisms for the overall poorer results, the results suggest that, currently, decisions made by search engines to prioritize privacypreservation may have a negative impact on the IQ of results returned to users in health contexts. The pledge to provide independent and unbiased results or not to promote or hide websites based on political or moral interests can be seen as ethically ambiguous, in view of the potential consequences of pointing to scientifically unsound health information. Medical ethics requires that patients give informed consent before treatment and must, therefore, be informed accurately of the risks and benefits associated with treatment, something that is not possible if the search engine provider used by an individual is returning results with low IQ. From this consequentialist perspective, it is inherently unethical choosing not to interfere with a search engine’s ranking algorithm to ensure ‘manually’ that results of higher IQ are prioritized, whilst those of lower IQ are suppressed. This builds on arguments already made in the wider literature about algorithm ethics 21,22. For example, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) code of ethics and professional conduct includes, as a general principle, “avoid harm” along with that of “respect privacy” 23, which aligns with the Hippocratic oath. Specifically, the implication that the current design of privacy-preserving search engine algorithms underestimates the need for evaluation of IQ fits into the wider discussion about algorithmic design and how to ensure design decisions are made to protect and incorporate key values such as IQ. It is necessary, but insufficient, to design search engine algorithms that index purely on ‘relevance’, they must also be designed to index on quality. The challenge lies in the ability to do this in a way that balances the need to accept different perspectives (particularly those that are rooted in different cultural, religious or social ideals) whilst also filtering for IQ. Supporters of such arguments, including the authors, note that this requirement necessitates making the workings of search engine algorithms more transparent 24 to ensure their ethical compliance. Providing information on vaccines that is based on misinformation or disinformation (including studies whose data or conclusions have been shown to be wrong) is a deceptive practice, which goes against the basic tenets of medical and business ethics 25. This is in line with those who argue that the promotion of ‘alternative medicine’ is unethical because it lacks evidence and transparency of clinical efficacy and should be considered ‘false advertising’ 26. Online service providers have a moral responsibilities to ensure that users access health information that is scientifically validate 27. Misinformation and disinformation concerning healthcare circulating on the internet can have severe consequences and lead to widespread harm. Consider the example of South African president Mbeki, who delayed introducing anti-retroviral drugs in favor of alternative medicine based on information obtained from HIV-denialist internet websites, a decision estimated to have resulted in over 300,000 deaths 28. More recently, a cancer patient died in China after following an alternative, non-approved therapy they found using a search engine 29. In response Chinese authorities issued new rules that require search engines to provide “objective, fair and authoritative results”. Moral responsibility follows on the level of harm that misinformation and disinformation on healthcare may cause. It could be argued that there is a greater onus on Google – and other commercial search engine providers – than on alternative search engines to take these considerations into account when designing or interfering with algorithms for the purposes of promoting ethical compliance, given their larger market share. Google currently has over 90% of the worldwide market share6 and therefore has the potential to indirectly ‘cause harm’, through the potential promotion of low IQ webpages on vaccinations, to a great many more people than any of the alternative providers. However, studies have shown that those who hold anti-authoritarian views, openness to (potentially) controversial opinions, and an interest in alternative medicine are, in some cases, already more likely to hold vaccine-hesitant beliefs 30. These are also the individuals who are most likely to use alternative search providers given their sensitivity to privacy and tracking concerns. Therefore, while the alternative providers might reach a proportionally smaller audience – they are reaching an audience that is already more receptive to antivaccine information 31, and therefore more vulnerable to its effects. In other words, unless the alternative providers take steps to rank vaccine-related search results according to IQ, they may cause greater harm to those they do reach, meaning that the net negative impact is still greater even though the number of individuals they reach is smaller.

Online Information of Vaccines: Discussion

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Web search and content analysis Searches in English were done from Falmer, Sussex, United Kingdom; in Italian from Urbino, Italy; in French from Bruxelles, Belgium; in Spanish from Barcelona, Spain. Each search was done using a logged-out Chrome browser cleared of cookies and previous search history so that the only identification was the IP address and its geolocalization. Additionally, when available, the local version of each search engine was used (e.g. Google.co.uk and Google.it). For searching Google.com, automatic redirection to google.co.uk was avoided by using the URL Google.com/ncr (no-country-redirect). The first 30 URL results from each search engine result page (SERP), excluding those marked as advertisements, and were transferred to a spreadsheet. When a duplicate URL was encountered, it was excluded. Websites were then visited and the content of each page was coded as vaccine-positive, negative or neutral, depending on the stance taken on the connection between vaccines and autism. Webpages recommending vaccination and/or negating the link with autism were coded as “vaccine-positive”. Those promoting vaccine hesitancy, cautioning about the risk of autism or openly anti-vaccine, were coded as “vaccine-negative”. Additionally, webpages that claimed further studies needed to be conducted to clarify the link between vaccines and autism were also coded as “vaccine-negative”, as previous research by {Browne, 2015 #421} has shown that users perceive this as confirmation of the fact that vaccine safety has not been proven. Webpages simply reporting the history of the anti-vaccine movement or a related legal debate were coded as “vaccine-neutral”. Examples of positive, negative and neutral webpages are provided in Table 1. Coding was completed by two raters for each language and inter-rater agreement was calculated with GraphPad, which uses equations 18.16 to 18.20 from Fleiss 19. On a sample of 59 webpages in English, agreement was 85%, with a Kappa of 0.669 (standard error, 0.077) and a 95% confidence interval from 0.518 to 0.820, a strength of agreement is considered to be 'good' 19. In Italian, agreement was 90%, with a Kappa of 0.818 (standard error, 0.067) and a 95% confidence interval from 0.687 to 0.950, a strength of agreement is considered to be 'very good'. In Spanish, agreement was 83%, with a Kappa of 0.609 (standard error, 0.098) and a 95% confidence interval from 0.418 to 0.801, a strength of agreement is considered to be 'very good'. In French, agreement was 89% with a Kappa of 0.746 (standard error, 0.091) and a 95% confidence interval from 0.568 to 0.924. When frequencies of vaccine-negative webpages was compared across different search engines, we used a two-tailed Fisher’s test corrected for multiple comparison using the method of Benjamini, Krieger and Yekutieli and a false discovery rate (FDR) of 5%.

Stories, News & Mentions about MOVLEY

Movley’s Stories on HackerNoon

Movley's News & Mentions