In our day, we can’t quite see anything wrong with monopoly. We’re certain that our tech giants achieved their dominance fairly and squarely through the free market, by dint of technical genius.To conjure this image of meritocratic triumph requires overlooking several pungent truths about the nature of these new monopolies. Their dominance is less than pure.They owe their dominance to innovation, but also to tax avoidance.Of course, every big American corporation tries to limit the tax bill. Armies of accountants are a staple of capitalism; the manufacture of new deductions is one of our country’s greatest showcases of innovation. But the tech companies are especially slippery with the tax man. They have hatched schemes that their competitors – brick-and mortar firms, media companies – couldn’t dare attempt.

Apple is facing a lawsuit for infringing on an existing Animoji trademark, reports The Recorder. Animoji is the name Apple chose for the 3D animated emoji-style characters that will be available on the iPhone X. The lawsuit [PDF] was filed on Thursday by law firm Susman Godfrey LLP on behalf of Enrique Bonansea, a U.S. citizen living in Japan who owns a company called Emonster k.k. Bonansea says he came up with the name Animoji in 2014 and registered it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2015.

One of YouTube’s most influential vloggers has chastised the service’s leaders, claiming they are failing many of their most popular video creators.Specifically, Casey Neistat criticised the way the platform had made it impossible for some videos to generate advertising revenue, without clearly explaining the rules to its community.One of his own videos – an interview with Indonesia’s president – was temporarily ”demonetised” last week.YouTube has said it is listening.”We watched Casey’s video and appreciate him and the wider community voicing their concerns,” a spokeswoman told the BBC.”We know this has been a difficult few months, and we’re working hard to improve our systems. We’re making progress, but we know there is a lot more to do.”

As part of an ongoing legal battle to get the New York City Police Department to track money police have grabbed in cash forfeitures, an attorney for the city told a Manhattan judge on October 17 that part of the reason the NYPD can’t comply with such requests is that the department’s evidence database has no backup. If the database servers that power NYPD’s Property and Evidence Tracking System (PETS)—designed and installed by Capgemini under a $25.5 million contract between 2009 and 2012—were to fail, all data on stored evidence would simply cease to exist.FURTHER READINGNYPD can’t count cash they’ve seized because it would crash computersCourthouse News reported that Manhattan Supreme Court judge Arlene Bluth responded repeatedly to the city’s attorney with the same phrase: “That’s insane.”Last year, NYPD’s Assistant Deputy Commissioner Robert Messner told the City Council’s public safety committee that “attempts to perform the types of searches envisioned in the bill will lead to system crashes and significant delays during the intake and release process.” The claim was key to the department’s refusal to provide the data accounting for the approximately $6 million seized in cash and property every year. As of 2013, according to the nonprofit group Bronx Defenders, the NYPD was carrying a balance sheet of more than $68 million in cash seized.

100 procent av unga mellan 12-25 har någon gång använt Youtube. Och de yngsta i den gruppen är inne på sajten varje dag.– Det visar tydligt vilken dominerande roll och särställning Youtube har bland unga i Sverige, säger SVT Nyheters sociala medier-reporter Linnea Carlén.Sajtens särställning bland unga kommer fram i den stora undersökning om svenskarnas nätvanor som Internetstiftelsen gör varje år.– Sajten är en viktig del av deras vardag, säger Linnea Carlén.Alla i åldersgruppen 12-25 år har varit inne på sajten, men 12-15-åringarna använder Youtube varje dag.

I spåren av Harvey Weinstein-skandalen har tiotusentals personer vittnat om sina erfarenheter av sexuella övergrepp och trakasserier under hashtaggen #MeToo. Flera har också valt att namnge personer som de pekar ut som förövare och frågar sig varför media inte publicerar uppgifterna. Vad gäller egentligen för namnpublicering?För att reda ut begreppen har Kulturnyheterna pratat med SVT Nyheters ansvarige utgivare Charlotta Friborg och Allmänhetens Pressombudsman Ola Sigvardsson.– Det är alltid ansvarig utgivare som ytterst fattar beslut om att namnge exempelvis misstänkta eller dömda brottslingar. På SVT är vi generellt sett restriktiva med sådana namnpubliceringar, säger Charlotta Friborg.