Inside Kusto Group's 2026 Agenda: What Yerkin Tatishev Is Building Next [Ad]

If you want to understand where a company is headed, don't read the press releases. Look at where the money is going, what's under construction, and which new entities quietly appeared in the business registry this spring. Do that with Kusto Group right now, and a clear picture starts to emerge — one that's more ambitious than anything the company has attempted before.

Yerkin Tatishev founded Kusto Group in 2002 and has spent over two decades building it into a diversified industrial holding with operations across nine countries. But 2026 feels different. The projects currently in motion aren't incremental. They're the kind of bets you make when you've spent years laying groundwork and finally feel ready to put it all together.

The Logistics Complex Nobody Is Talking About Enough

Start with what's happening in the Almaty region, because it matters more than it might look at first glance.

Kusto Group is launching a logistics complex worth 28 billion tenge. That's a real number — not a concept, not a feasibility study. Ground is broken, capital is committed, and the facility is designed specifically to handle the scale of agricultural and commercial volumes that Kusto's operations are now generating.

Here's why it matters beyond Kusto Group itself: Kazakhstan has been pushing hard to become a genuine export hub, not just a country that grows grain and ships it raw. That requires infrastructure — cold storage, distribution networks, transport coordination — and that infrastructure is exactly what this complex is built to provide. The timing isn't accidental. Record grain export volumes came out of 2025. The question for 2026 is whether the physical capacity exists to do it again, at greater volume, more reliably. This complex is the answer to that question.

It's the kind of project that doesn't generate much noise but ends up being foundational to everything that follows.

Image: Ethan Wilkinson, Unsplash

Kusto Group Is Building Its Own Transport Network

This is where things get genuinely interesting.

In April 2026, two new companies appeared in the registry. Nomad Tankers Ltd — sea and coastal cargo transport. JanaPort Holdings Ltd — airport management and cargo air transport. And sitting alongside those: a cargo airline project with a $30 million budget.

Kusto Group is, in effect, building the logistics spine it needs to run its own supply chains without depending on third parties at the most critical points. If you're moving grain from Kazakhstan to Asian markets, processing construction materials across multiple countries, and running operations from Israel to Vietnam, the cost and fragility of relying on foreign carriers adds up fast.

The cargo airline in particular is being framed as a national infrastructure argument — reducing Kazakhstan's dependency on foreign carriers. That framing isn't just PR. It reflects something real: if you're serious about building an export-oriented industrial business in Central Asia, you eventually have to confront the transport problem head-on. Kusto Group is confronting it.

Diamond: The Almaty Project That Looks Different on Purpose

In Almaty's Bostandyk District, construction crews are currently building the Diamond residential project — 15 blocks, each nine stories tall, sitting across from the MEGA Alma-Ata shopping centre.

Nine stories might not sound dramatic. That's almost the point. Most developers in this part of Almaty are going straight to fifteen floors and above, squeezing as many units as possible onto each site. Kusto Home — the group's real estate arm — chose to go in the opposite direction. Lower density, better quality, a layout that's actually designed for the people living there rather than for the pro forma spreadsheet that justified the project.

Tatishev has talked about this approach consistently across Kusto Group's real estate work: the conviction that if you build something genuinely good, the returns follow. Diamond is the second major urban development from Kusto Home, and the early signs suggest it's landing well with buyers who've grown tired of the default approach to new Almaty housing.

Tambour Is Getting Ready for the Public Markets

Kusto Group acquired Tambour — an Israeli paint and construction materials company — in 2014. It was a turnaround bet at the time. Over a decade later, it's become something considerably more valuable, with Tambour's first international acquisition (Colorificio Zetagi in Italy) signalling that the company isn't staying Israel-only.

The target now is an IPO by 2028. Getting there requires serious preparation — governance structures, audited financials that meet international standards, a clean narrative for institutional investors. That groundwork is being laid through 2026, which means a lot of the behind-the-scenes work is happening right now, even if it's not visible from the outside.

When it lands, it'll likely be one of the larger public market moments in Kusto Group's history. The patient approach Tatishev applied to Tambour over eleven years is about to get its most public test.

Kazseeds and the Long Game on Agriculture

Most of Kusto Group's agricultural story in 2025 was about grain volumes and export records. The longer game is playing out through Kazseeds — the seed genetics venture the group launched in 2019 with Baumgartner Agricultural Science and Services.

The idea is straightforward: develop climate-resilient, high-performance seed varieties suited specifically to Central Asian growing conditions, and supply them to farmers who are facing increasingly unpredictable weather patterns. The global seed development market is heading toward $92 billion by 2028. Central Asia has both the agricultural land and the need for better seed technology.

Kazseeds isn't chasing that market from a standing start. It's been in development for six years, building scientific credibility and agronomic track record in the region. By the time the broader market growth arrives, the infrastructure — research, distribution, farmer relationships — should already be in place.

Georgia: Still Unfinished Business

The Telegraph Hotel opened in Tbilisi in June 2025 and immediately became Georgia's first property in the Leading Hotels of the World network. That's a meaningful achievement — but anyone who knows Tatishev's relationship with Georgia, which goes back twenty years, understands that the hotel is part of something larger, not a standalone project.

The Tsinandali Festival continues each September, now in its seventh edition, drawing world-class performers and young musicians from across the Caucasus and Central Asia to the historic Tsinandali Estate. The combination of a leading luxury hotel in Tbilisi's most important street and an internationally recognised cultural festival in the Kakheti wine region gives Kusto Group a platform in Georgia that very few foreign investors can claim.

What comes next in Georgia isn't fully announced yet. But after twenty years and two flagship institutions, it would be surprising if the answer were simply "nothing."

The Thread That Runs Through All of It

Looking across these projects — the logistics complex, the transport network, Diamond, the Tambour IPO, Kazseeds, Georgia — they're not a random collection of bets. They all point in the same direction.

Kusto Group under Yerkin Tatishev has always been a company that invests in the infrastructure that underlies other things. Not the flashiest layer. The load-bearing one. Grain storage that makes exports reliable. Transport networks that make supply chains autonomous. Residential developments that people actually want to live in. Seed genetics that farmers can depend on in a changing climate.

What's different in 2026 is the scale. Each of these projects is larger, more complex, and more consequential than what came before. The company has clearly reached a phase where it's ready to move beyond careful consolidation and into something that looks a lot more like acceleration.

Whether that reads as ambition or confidence probably depends on how well you know the two decades of work that got it here.

Editor's Note: This is sponsored content. The views expressed are those of the author and/or sponsor and do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication.

by Sponsored Content via Digital Information World

If AI is addictive, where does the responsibility lie – with big tech or its users?

Bernd Stahl, University of Nottingham

Image: Gus Tu Njana - Unsplash

When I talk to my son, an engineering student, and we have a question or disagreement, he immediately turns to ChatGPT as his primary source of information and confirmation.

He is not alone in this. The use of generative AI tools has exploded across different demographic groups. For many people, these tools can be entertaining, informative and beneficial. However, they also have a dark side.

Generative AI is not formally recognised as addictive right now – the medical evidence is still being gathered. But there is a significant amount of data showing heavy use of chatbots and other systems that produce text, images and video leads to neural patterns and behaviour that are associated with addiction.

In light of Meta’s and YouTube’s recent legal defeat in a landmark social media addiction trial, I believe it’s time to ask whether a similar logic applies to generative AI – and how it could be addressed. The starting point would be to identify who carries responsibility for overuse of generative AI.

The science on this is not settled, and there are some who counsel caution when using the term addiction. They propose the use of other expressions such as “problematic use”. However, in a recent paper, our team of researchers suggest there is strong evidence to suggest that generative AI has addictive properties.

Much-discussed examples include emotional dependency on chatbot companions, compulsive engagement with them, and the loss of real-world acquaintances and friends.

A key factor here is that, as in all cases of addiction, the behaviour has negative consequences for the user which may affect both their personal and professional lives.

If we follow the argument that generative AI is a candidate for addictive behaviour, then we also need to look at responsibility. Societies tend to find ways to deal with harm by holding people or groups responsible for fixing it. Those who could be accountable include legislators, regulators, industry and health systems.

Historical examples

Historical precedents such as smoking might offer insights into how the area of generative AI addiction could evolve.

Older readers may remember when the Marlboro Man would appear before any feature movie in their local cinemas. It eventually transpired that not only was smoking addictive and bad for your health, but that tobacco companies knew this. Nevertheless, it was publicly denied.

This led to lengthy and high-profile litigation, eventually resulting in large-scale financial payouts and changes to the industry. These changes included the plain packaging of tobacco products and gruesome warning labels on them.

Gambling could be following a similar trajectory – and now social media companies may be taking their first steps into a similar process.

A key question is whether the makers of a product – be it tobacco, gambling or social media – are aware of its addictive properties. Another important factor being considered is whether certain companies may even use the allegedly addictive properties of their products for corporate advantage.

AI is not tobacco, of course, but there may be parallels to be studied.

In our research, we have identified four groups of stakeholders that are now being called upon to address the challenges linked to the possibility of addiction to generative AI.

The first is governments and regulators. These have a key role to play in highlighting the problems, setting the rules of engagement, and creating incentives for other parties to engage with the topic.

They can do this by requiring labelling, restricting advertising, applying liability law and providing research funding – along with many other mechanisms.

But the most important role in addressing potential addictive behaviour associated with generative AI would be held by big tech companies that develop and own these technologies – and stand to benefit financially from them.

These companies own and have access to user data, which would be needed to ascertain the features that support or alleviate addiction. They are also the parties that would benefit financially from addiction by increasing user numbers and engagement, the main currency of the digital age.

In addition to these two groups, academic researchers have an important role in collecting and interpreting data, and providing the evidence needed to recognise addiction and addictive features – in ways that allow for evidence-based political or legal debate.

Finally, civil society organisations such as user or patient groups can help by providing support, advocating for members’ interests, and establishing early-warning structures.

The point is that none of these interested parties can address the problem on their own. They need to collaborate.

Someone else’s problem

A key problem at the moment is the lack of structured debate about responsibilities – everybody assumes it is someone else’s problem. But there is ample precedent showing how greater engagement from those involved with the issue may be achieved.

With tobacco, the World Health Organization (WHO) formed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – a treaty-based mechanism that brought together governments, public health bodies, researchers and civil society to evaluate evidence and draw up common rules. The International AI Safety Report shows comparable international consensus-building activities are already happening in other aspects of AI.

Some responsibility also falls on the users of AI, who should try to avoid or control their own potentially harmful behaviour. But appeals to individual moderation or mindfulness have been shown with other addictions to be insufficient.

While the harms associated with smoking or alcohol misuse are well known, society still relies on age limits, packaging rules and advertising restrictions. Generative AI is being integrated into the everyday fabric of our society. The choices we now make will determine what acceptable use looks like for years to come.

Bernd Stahl, Professor of Critical Research in Technology, School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• Your Digital First Impression: What Does a Quick Search Reveal About You?

• How Artemis II livestreamed hi-def videos and images from the moon to Earth

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

How Artemis II livestreamed hi-def videos and images from the moon to Earth

By Ariana Gaines, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, MIT News

This first use of laser communications on a crewed mission at lunar distance was a foundational step to establishing a high-speed internet in deep space.

Image: NASA - Unsplash, Artemis II collection

This April, humanity had front-row seats to space as the Artemis II Orion spacecraft transmitted crystal-clear footage of its historic journey around the moon over more than 250,000 miles back to Earth at speeds on par with those of home internet connections.

The livestreaming of high-definition videos and high-resolution photos of the moon and Earth was made possible through the Orion Artemis II Optical Communications System (O2O). Developed by MIT Lincoln Laboratory in collaboration with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, the onboard O2O payload was the space end of a high-speed laser communications (lasercom) link.

This link reached Earth when Orion had a line of sight with primary optical ground stations located at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico and Caltech/NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Table Mountain Facility in California, or an experimental ground station at Australian National University’s Mount Stromlo Observatory.

Together with terrestrial networks, O2O formed an internet backbone between the Artemis II Orion spacecraft and the Mission Control Center at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Texas.

Toward a high-speed internet in space

"Our goal was to demonstrate O2O's operational utility for human spaceflight, extending the high-bandwidth connections that internet users enjoy on Earth to astronauts in deep space," says lead systems engineer Farzana Khatri, a senior staff member in Lincoln Laboratory's Optical and Quantum Communications Group. "We not only demonstrated the first use of lasercom on a crewed mission beyond low Earth orbit, but also attracted massive public engagement as the astronauts shared multimedia from their journey in near-real time."

During the last missions to the moon in the late 1960s and early '70s, astronauts relied on radio-frequency systems to communicate. But radio waves can only carry so much data per second because of their low carrier frequency; the grainy, poor-quality video and images of the moon from that time speak to this limited bandwidth.

With its much higher carrier frequency, infrared laser light can transmit 10 to 100 times more data per second than can radio waves. The switch from Apollo-era radios to Artemis-era lasers is analogous to the move from dial-up to high-speed internet. And a high-speed internet is rapidly becoming a key requirement for NASA missions as they collect more high-resolution data and push humans farther into deep space.

Lasering in on unprecedented views

During the Artemis II mission, from April 1 to 11, O2O downlinked nearly half a terabyte of data at speeds up to 260 megabits per second. This data trove contained never-before-seen views of the basins and craters on the far side of the moon, a crescent Earth setting behind the moon, a nearly hour-long total solar eclipse with other planets scattered across a star-filled sky, and flashes of light from tiny meteoroids striking the lunar surface.

"O2O was able to downlink all the data stored on multiple onboard cameras, allowing mission control to erase the memory cards and refill them with new photos and videos," explains Khatri. "For any space mission, scientists and spacecraft engineers are concerned that data not sent down during the mission can become corrupted or get destroyed. And, when the spacecraft capsule returns, downloading the data can sometimes take months. The lasercom capability provided by O2O ensured the data were preserved and immediately available for analysis."

O2O is based on the laboratory's R&D 100 Award–winning Modular, Agile, and Scalable Optical Terminal (MAScOT), which contains subassembly modules for pointing the laser beams, establishing a communications link with ground stations, and maintaining this link despite atmospheric conditions. MAScOT made its debut in space on the International Space Station in 2023, demonstrating NASA's first LEO user for their lasercom relay system.

Over the moon for O2O

Leading up to the launch of Artemis II, operations teams from the laboratory traveled to NASA's White Sands Test Facility and Mission Control Center (MCC) to conduct monthly maintenance on ground hardware and simulate different mission stages. During the 10-day mission, laboratory teams provided 24/7 coverage.

At mission control, one laboratory team, along with NASA Goddard colleagues, interfaced with a mission flight controller to command the O2O payload, coordinated with U.S. and Australian ground terminals to bring up the O2O physical link, assessed whether overall O2O mission requirements were being met, and analyzed data to ensure payload health and optimize performance. Another laboratory team oversaw subsystems of the optical ground terminal at White Sands, while staff at the laboratory's main campus in Massachusetts offered subject-matter expertise.

Initially, O2O had a scheduled operational window of one hour per day, with the onboard radio system set to downlink most data. However, mission operators found O2O so useful that they maximized its operational time as the mission progressed. On the fly, mission operators adjusted Orion's attitude — how the spacecraft is oriented in space — so that O2O could have line-of-sight access with the ground.

"One special aspect of this mission that enabled our technology to be so impactful was the flexibility built into the planning process to account for the fact that humans hadn't been to the moon in more than 50 years, and it would be the first time sending astronauts on Orion," says Bryan Robinson, leader of the Optical and Quantum Communications Group. "An established process for making real-time changes to the plan and the willingness of operators to try out this new technology had a huge impact, even for this short mission. This impact was tangible by everyone in mission operations and by the public watching from home."

With Artemis II completed, engineers, scientists, and mission specialists are analyzing mission data. Their analyses will provide insights into spacecraft and subsystem performance and moon geology, which will inform lunar landings and deep-space exploration. While the laboratory team is still processing O2O performance data, they believe the system could downlink at least 10 times more data by improving the efficiency of the downlink process and by addressing data-flow bottlenecks in space and ground networks.

The laboratory team is now evaluating how lasercom could support future moon plans for Artemis and Ignition. Aligning with the National Space Policy to secure U.S. leadership in space, Ignition is a recently announced initiative to establish a permanent lunar base with a sustainable human presence.

"Participating in this historic mission from the MCC and having O2O be useful, I couldn't have asked for anything more amazing in my career," Khatri says.

"When I came home, I was floored by the response of people who engaged with the mission while it was happening. Much of that engagement was enabled by the technology we developed. That's a rare moment in a career doing what we do," Robinson adds.

Reprinted with permission of MIT News.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• Internet Traffic Is Surging Worldwide

• Your Digital First Impression: What Does a Quick Search Reveal About You?
by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Your Digital First Impression: What Does a Quick Search Reveal About You?

By Cloaked Team

When someone searches your name, what shows up can shape their opinion before you ever meet. Today, that first impression can come from Google results, people-search sites, social media profiles, and even AI tools that make personal details easier to surface.

To understand how exposed Americans really are, Cloaked surveyed 1,057 U.S. adults and analyzed Google search volume trends from January 2024 to February 2026 across 125 digital identity and online privacy terms. The results revealed a growing gap between how much control people thought they had over their online presence and what their digital footprint actually said about them.
‍
Key Takeaways:

• More than 2 in 5 Americans (43%) appear on the first page of Google results when they search their own name, and more than 1 in 3 of those who feel confident about their results (38%) didn't even show up on page one.
• Over 1 in 3 Americans (34%) lose interest in someone after looking them up online, but only 1 in 5 Americans (20%) suspect it has happened to them.
• Nearly 1 in 2 Americans (47%) have no idea they could search themselves on AI tools like ChatGPT or Gemini.
• Over 1 in 2 Americans (53%) who try to remove personal information from the internet fail or have only mixed results.
• Combined search volume for AI-related privacy terms grew 165% year over year.

Privacy Awareness Is Rising, but Mostly Before Something Goes Wrong

More people are actively thinking about their digital footprint, especially as AI makes personal information feel easier to surface. Search behavior suggests that concern around online privacy is growing quickly, even if most people are still focused on prevention instead of cleanup.

Combined search volume for AI-related privacy terms grew 165% year over year, showing a sharp increase in public interest around digital identity and personal data exposure. Searches for "remove personal information from the internet free" more than doubled year over year, rising 133%, while "how to delete personal information from the internet" grew 34% and remained the highest-volume removal term.

‍Nearly all digital identity searches (96%) focused on awareness, monitoring, or protection, while only 3% were reactive and tied to deletion, removal, or damage control. That pattern suggests people are trying to stay ahead of exposure, not just respond after the fact.

‍Some search terms point to more urgent privacy concerns. Searches tied to doxing prevention grew 37% year over year, while arrest record removal searches rose 72%. Many people were worried about visibility, but also about serious reputational or safety risks connected to identity theft and public exposure.

Search activity also varied widely by state. New Hampshire led the nation in per capita digital identity searches with 13,396 per 100,000 people, nearly double Hawaii's 6,901. The Northeast dominated the top 10 per capita rankings, with 8 of the 10 most active states located in the region. Vermont, Wyoming, and Delaware over-indexed the most for urgent or reactive searches, each landing at roughly double the national average for removal, deletion, and damage-control terms.

What People Found Online Often Did Not Match How in Control They Felt

Seeing yourself online is one thing. Feeling confident that your search results are accurate, current, and limited to what you want others to see is something else entirely.

About 2 in 5 Americans appeared on the first page of their own Google results, but visibility varied by generation. Millennials were the most likely to show up on page one at 49%, while Gen Z (38%) and baby boomers (37%) were less likely. At the same time, 14% of Americans had no idea what would appear first if someone searched their name, showing that many people aren't fully aware of their digital first impression.

Control over that impression felt limited:

• Over 3 in 5 Gen X Americans (62%) disagreed that they felt in control of what appears about them online, and 49% of Gen Z Americans did as well.
• More than half of women (57%) and 44% of men agreed their personal information was more publicly available than it should be.

The findings also showed major gaps in awareness. Nearly 1 in 5 Gen Z Americans (17%) had no idea their information may already be listed on people-search sites, compared to just 5% of millennials. About 1 in 2 Gen X Americans did not know they could search themselves on AI tools, the highest rate of any generation.

When people looked themselves up, many found reason for concern. Half of Americans who searched for their own personal details said that information was easy to locate, and more than 1 in 2 baby boomers said their Google results contained outdated or irrelevant information. Women were also slightly more likely than men to report at least one negative consequence from having personal information online (74% vs. 70%).

For active job seekers, those risks felt even more immediate. Nearly 1 in 3 found something about themselves online that they did not want others to see, compared to about 1 in 5 non-seekers. That gap suggests digital reputation matters most when you feel like you are being evaluated.

Employers, professional contacts, and job seekers are also using online information and AI tools to decide whether to move forward.
‍

Nearly 1 in 5 active job seekers (18%) felt their digital footprint cost them a job, roughly double the rate of non-seekers. About 1 in 6 (16%) chose not to apply for a position, and about 1 in 7 (14%) avoided a professional connection entirely, each at roughly double the rate of people who were not actively job hunting.‍

AI was also changing how people prepared for professional interactions. Nearly 1 in 5 active job seekers (18%) used an AI tool to research someone before a professional meeting, compared to just 9% of non-seekers. That added another layer to digital first impressions, especially for people already worried that their online information was outdated, overly visible, or easy to misread.

‍Younger adults appeared more ready to take action. More than 1 in 3 millennials (36%) had tried removing personal information from the internet, the highest rate of any generation, compared to about 1 in 5 baby boomers (21%). Gen Z and millennials were also the most willing to pay for a data removal service, suggesting that younger Americans saw digital identity management as increasingly necessary rather than optional.

Your Search Results Are Part of Your Reputation

Your digital first impression now reaches into hiring, networking, and everyday trust. The findings showed that many Americans were concerned about what others could find, but fewer fully understood how visible they were or how hard it can be to fix outdated or unwanted information once it is out there. The clearest takeaway is simple: checking what appears about you online is no longer just a privacy habit; it is part of protecting your reputation, reducing identity theft risk, and staying in control of your personal data.

Methodology

A survey of 1,057 U.S. adults was conducted on behalf of Cloaked to measure the gap between how people perceive and manage their digital identity and what the internet actually reflects back. Respondents were asked about their awareness of their online presence, their confidence in what others can find about them, their experiences with people-search sites and AI tools, consequences they have faced from their personal information being online, and how their digital footprint has affected their career opportunities. The generational breakdown was Gen Z (18%), millennials (44%), Gen X (24%), and baby boomers (9%).

‍Additionally,  Google search volume data from January 2024 to February 2026 was also analyzed to identify which states searched for digital identity and online privacy terms most frequently on a per capita basis. This analysis examined 125 related search terms across all 50 states and ranked them accordingly to highlight where awareness and concern about personal data exposure were highest.

‍Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: Oversight Board Highlights Due Process and Transparency Concerns in Meta Account Enforcement Review
by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Oversight Board Highlights Due Process and Transparency Concerns in Meta Account Enforcement Review

The Oversight Board has used its first review of a permanently disabled account to examine broader issues related to account governance, transparency and due process on social media platforms.

The case involved an Instagram account that Meta permanently disabled in 2025 after determining that several posts violated its policies, including two posts containing severe threats of violence against a journalist. The Board upheld Meta’s decision to disable the account and remove the violating content.

However, the Board said the case also highlighted broader systemic human rights concerns related to account governance, transparency, due process and the handling of credible threats of violence.

Among the issues identified were delays in reviewing credible threats of severe violence, due process for users whose accounts are disabled, and the availability of clear and comprehensive information about account restrictions and permanent disablement policies.

The Board said it was seriously concerned that Meta did not review two clear and credible threats swiftly when they were posted, delaying their removal and exposing the targeted journalist to risk for a prolonged period.

The Board also said the case highlighted the lack of a clear framework guiding decisions to permanently disable an account for serious safety concerns. It further noted that there may be situations in which significant but time-bound suspensions could be considered instead of permanent disablement.

The decision comes as some social media users have publicly complained about account bans and difficulties accessing appeals processes.

In posts on X, recently, several users said their Instagram, Facebook or WhatsApp accounts had been disabled or banned and that they had struggled to obtain explanations or human review.

"I was part of the recent ban wave earlier today too. Lost a 20 year old account over sheer and utter incompetent laziness letting a bot run the most important feature. This is unacceptable and even if things return back, I will be significantly avoiding of Meta apps.", expressed a user @6Flabs on X.

As part of its decision, the Board outlined principles it said should guide account governance on social media platforms. These include providing users with clear information about account disablement rules, detailed explanations for enforcement decisions, effective appeal mechanisms and greater transparency regarding enforcement trends.

The Board also said social media companies should coordinate on sharing information about accounts that credibly threaten serious violence.

According to the Board, the decision should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of Meta’s broader approach to banning or restricting accounts.

The case marks the first time the Board has assessed the permanent disabling of a user account as part of an expansion of its mandate beyond individual content decisions.

Image: DIW

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next:

• Eroding a virtue: AI trains people to expect instant answers – and that’s bad news for patience

• Google’s AI Search Has Struggled With One Religious Question for Years
by AI Analysis via Digital Information World

Eroding a virtue: AI trains people to expect instant answers – and that’s bad news for patience

Christian B. Miller, Wake Forest University

Image: Thirdman - Pexels

When I was growing up, teachers would assign research papers that required going to the library, or later, searching for relevant material on the internet. If the paper was going to turn out well, we students needed to patiently comb through piles of material, weaving what we found into a coherent argument that was well-supported with evidence.

Unbeknownst to us at the time, our teachers were giving us a chance to develop our patience.

That chance is rapidly disappearing with increased use of artificial intelligence tools. Now you can have an AI do everything from school assignments to legal writing, sermon preparation, vacation planning, work emails and academic research. Researchers are already documenting how using AI tools in these contexts likely erodes critical thinking skills.

But what hasn’t been appreciated is AI’s effect on patience. As a philosopher who has written extensively about virtue, including the virtue of patience, I am especially concerned about what people can do to resist this trend.

What is patience, and why is it important?

Patience involves responding calmly when it is taking longer than you want to accomplish your goals.

When I am stuck in a traffic jam, or the checkout line is barely moving, I might wish that I was meeting my goals faster, but my calm demeanor is a sign that I am being patient. If I react to delays like these with frustration or anger, that is a sign that I am being impatient.

The same applies in the case of doing research. If it is taking me awhile to find everything I need, that can test my patience. But if I react to such a delay with calmness, I avoid frustration or anger and hence impatience.

Philosophers, theologians and educators have long considered patience an important character trait to cultivate. It is a virtue that contributes to well-being. More specifically, researchers have linked it to a variety of good outcomes, including healthier lifestyles, greater emotion regulation, more fulfilling relationships, increased caring about equity and justice, increased cooperation, greater purpose in life, lower depression and higher life satisfaction.

Why AI tools erode a capacity for patience

AI tools are helping foster a culture of immediacy, thereby diminishing the capacity for patience. Admittedly, we already started down this path with the dawn of the internet and the launch of fast and easy search engines. But now, AI instantaneously delivers fully developed answers, further reducing the delays once experienced as people searched, assessed and integrated information from various sources.

The training in patience that people used to get from thorough research and investigation is being replaced by a growing sense of impatience with thinking that takes time and effort. And this impatience doesn’t just stop with research. It extends to writing as well.

Research on AI and patience is still in its infancy. But my conclusions about these impacts rest on plausible inferences from what researchers know more generally about cognitive psychology. For instance, psychologists have long understood that people’s expectations change due to repeated use and exposure to something.

This adaptation explains why the hourlong train ride to work can start out as exhausting, but become part of your daily routine. Or you might initially be impressed by how fast your new computer is, but after a while you take it for granted and get frustrated if loading a PowerPoint presentation takes even a few moments.

Hence using AI tools is likely to recalibrate what feels normal to you. In particular, it is likely to normalize getting immediate, fully formed answers to your questions. This shift, I contend, makes people increasingly impatient with the very tasks of research and investigation that helped train us to become more patient in the past.

One concrete illustration of this change is with students. If a professor gives an assignment involving interpreting an author’s text and then developing a critique of the author’s position, students today are very tempted to offload the patient work of interpretation and critique to an AI.

Or consider sermon preparation. Pastors normally take hours a week to examine the original language for their text, consult commentaries, develop illustrations and examples, and deliberate about practical applications. Now, this process can all be done in a matter of seconds using AI, and one study found that a majority of pastors are using it for sermon preparation. There is no patience training happening here.

What can be done?

There are ways to cultivate patience in the age of AI tools, but they will not be easy. Here are three:

• Deliberately choose a slower path. Select this option because it comes with intellectual struggles, not in spite of them. Don’t rely on AI summaries or shortcuts, but try to come up with the answers on your own. This choice needs to be deliberative since the default human tendency is to take the easier route. But the long-term benefit is worth the short-term cost.

• Design your environment. Remove AI tools from your surroundings and carve out dedicated time free of distractions and notifications. Reading and writing take time, and by being willing to invest that time and not get impatient with how long it is taking, you can cultivate patience.

• Encourage and reward intellectual engagement. Institutions such as schools and churches have a structural role to play. The more such institutions can resist integrating AI tools into every aspect of their operations, and instead incentivize human intellectual engagement even at the expense of efficiency, the better as far as patience is concerned.

There is one other hopeful suggestion. Patience can be developed in lots of different areas of life that have nothing to do with research and which are less susceptible to AI incursion. Working on a craft project, detailing a car, weeding a garden, practicing your basketball shot, lifting weights – all these activities can foster patience too. The more this character muscle is strengthened, the more it will be available to use in many different areas of your life.

Christian B. Miller, Professor of Philosophy, Wake Forest University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Reviewed by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• Filtering out humanity: AI-assisted internet research favors cold logic over ethos and pathos

• The Quiet Advantage in Hiring Right Now: Practicing Your Interview Like It’s a Skill (Ad)

• Google’s AI Search Has Struggled With One Religious Question for Years

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

The Quiet Advantage in Hiring Right Now: Practicing Your Interview Like It’s a Skill (Ad)

Most people prepare for interviews the same way: skim the job description, reread their resume, maybe watch a couple of videos, and hope the conversation goes their way. The problem is that interviews aren’t just “knowledge checks”—they’re performance moments. And like any performance, the difference is usually rehearsal.

If you’ve been looking for a simple way to pressure-test your answers before you’re in front of a real hiring manager, an Interview Practice Tool can be a practical starting point. Not because it magically makes you a better candidate, but because it helps you hear yourself, spot gaps, and tighten your story before it counts.

Why Interviews Feel Hard (Even When You’re Qualified)

Interview anxiety is often framed as nerves, but it’s usually something more specific: uncertainty. You don’t know what they’ll ask, how your answers will land, or whether you’re giving “too much” detail or not enough. That uncertainty is what makes even smart, experienced people suddenly ramble.

There’s also a mismatch between how we think and how interviews work. In real life, you solve problems over time, with context. In an interview, you’re expected to compress that into clean, confident stories—on demand.

Image: Edmond Dantès - pexels

The most common “qualified but shaky” moments

• Over-explaining because you’re trying to prove you know your work.
• Underselling because you assume results “speak for themselves.”
• Blanking when asked about conflict, failure, or salary expectations.
• Drifting off-topic when a question triggers a long timeline.

Practice doesn’t eliminate these risks, but it makes them visible. Once you can understand your own patterns, you can actually change them.

What Career Tools Platforms Get Right: Feedback Loops

The best career tools platforms don’t just hand you templates and generic tips. They create feedback loops—small, repeatable ways to improve. That can be resume checks, cover letter support, or interview practice that lets you rehearse answers and refine them quickly.

Think about how product teams work: they don’t ship once, they iterate. Your interview answers should work the same way. A platform that encourages iteration helps you move from “I think this sounds okay” to “I know this is clear.”

A simple example: turning a vague answer into a strong one

Here’s the difference practice can make with a question like: “Tell me about a time you handled a tough deadline.”

Vague: “I’ve dealt with tight deadlines a lot. I just prioritize and get it done.”

Stronger: “In my last role, a client moved a launch date up by two weeks. I mapped tasks by risk, cut non-essential scope, and set daily check-ins with design and QA. We launched on time, and support tickets dropped 18% compared to the previous release.”

The second answer isn’t “better” because it’s longer—it’s better because it’s specific, structured, and measurable. That’s what a feedback loop trains you to do.

Is ResumeCoach Recommended? A Practical Way to Think About Credibility

When people ask whether a platform is worth using, they’re usually asking two questions at once: “Will it help me?” and “Can I trust it with my time and data?” For interview practice specifically, usefulness is tied to how well the tool mirrors real interview pressure and whether it helps you improve, not just “perform.”

ResumeCoach positions itself as a career tools platform that includes interview practice support alongside other job-search essentials. If you’re evaluating whether it’s a fit, focus less on promises and more on whether the workflow matches how you actually prepare.

What to look for before you commit time to any interview tool

• Realistic prompts that reflect the roles you’re applying for, not only generic questions.
• Repeatability so you can practice the same competency answer until it’s crisp.
• Actionable feedback that helps you adjust structure, clarity, and relevance.
• Time efficiency so practice sessions can fit into a normal week.

If you finish a session with a clearer “next draft” of your answers, the tool is doing its job.

Is ResumeCoach Safe and Legit? The Common-Sense Checklist

Any time you’re using career tools online, it’s reasonable to ask about safety and legitimacy—especially when you’re uploading resumes or sharing details about your work history. While you should always review a service’s policies directly, there are a few practical checks that help you make smarter decisions quickly.

A quick checklist for evaluating safety

1. Know what you’re sharing. For interview practice, you can often avoid sensitive details (client names, internal metrics, private project info) and still tell a strong story.
2. Scan privacy and data handling basics. Look for clear language about what is stored, for how long, and whether content is used beyond providing the service.
3. Use role-appropriate anonymity. Replace identifying details with “a retail client” or “a healthcare partner” without weakening your example.
4. Keep your own copy. Save your best answers separately so you’re not locked into one workflow.

Legitimacy, in practice, comes down to transparency and outcomes. If a platform clearly explains what it does and you can measure your improvement after a few sessions, you’re on solid ground.

How to Practice Without Sounding Scripted

The biggest fear people have about practicing is sounding “rehearsed.” It’s a valid concern—nobody wants to come off like they memorized a speech. But the goal isn’t memorization. It’s building a reliable structure so your best examples show up when you need them.

Try this three-part structure (it keeps you natural)

• Context: What was happening, and what was at stake?
• Choice: What did you decide to do, and why?
• Change: What improved, and how do you know?

Once you have that skeleton, you can vary the wording every time. That’s what keeps it human while still being clear.

“The best interviews don’t sound perfect. They sound prepared—clear enough to follow, specific enough to trust.”

Closing: Treat the Interview Like a Deliverable

If you’re already doing the work—building skills, shipping projects, solving problems—then the interview is simply the moment you translate that value for someone who hasn’t seen it yet. Career tools platforms can help, but only when you use them as a practice loop, not a shortcut.

Your next step is straightforward: pick three questions you dread, practice them until your answers are specific and measurable, and pressure-test them with a tool or a friend. When the real interview comes, you won’t be “hoping” you sound confident—you’ll recognize your own story and deliver it cleanly.

Edited by Irfan Ahmad.

Read next: 

• How Fragmented Workplace Tools Are Undermining Feedback, Clarity, and Productivity

• Workplace collaboration: Employees reveal what they want leaders to change

• What the @ Sign Is Called Around the World: 25 Examples

by Sponsored Content via Digital Information World