Where the Biggest Telecom Investments Are Happening Around the World

From social media to online shopping, modern life runs on connectivity. Behind that seamless experience sits a massive, often invisible network of infrastructure, fiber optic cables, data centers, cellular towers, built and maintained by the world’s telecommunications providers.

To keep pace with growing demand and quick shifts in technology, telecom companies pour billions into upgrading their networks each year. These investments form the backbone of the digital economy, enabling everything from mobile banking to video calls.

A recent dataset from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) breaks down which countries are spending the most on telecommunications. The numbers reflect capital expenditures by providers of mobile and broadband services, including everything from infrastructure builds to network maintenance.

U.S. and China Dominate the Field

The United States tops the global rankings with over $107 billion in telecom investment, based on the latest figures from 2022. That level of spending reflects the scale of the American telecom market, home to giants like Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T, all of which operate across vast geographies and serve millions of customers.

China follows with an estimated $59.1 billion in spending in 2023. Its telecom sector remains largely state-controlled, with China Mobile, serving more than a billion subscribers, leading the charge. Massive government-backed infrastructure projects and aggressive 5G rollout plans have kept investment high.

Asia’s Other Big Spenders

Japan and India round out the top four. Japan reported $23.3 billion in telecom investment, while India, despite offering some of the world’s cheapest mobile data rates, saw expenditures of $16.1 billion. Both countries have seen surging demand for mobile connectivity and digital services in recent years.

Europe’s Share of the Pie

Seven of the top 20 investing countries are in Europe, where widespread adoption of 5G and dense urban infrastructure continue to drive capital spending. Germany leads the continent with $16.2 billion invested, followed closely by France at $14.9 billion and the UK at $12.3 billion. Major European players like Deutsche Telekom and Orange have expanded aggressively within and beyond the continent.

Other notable entries in the top 20 include Canada ($9.88B), Iran ($9.16B), and Australia ($6.47B), highlighting a wide global distribution of telecom spending.

Why It Matters

Telecom investment goes far beyond faster downloads and smoother video calls, serving as the foundation for critical services in healthcare, education, logistics, and finance. Countries that invest heavily in this sector position themselves to compete globally in areas such as cloud computing, AI integration, and digital commerce.

While spending amounts vary widely, ranging from over $100 billion in the U.S. to just a few thousand dollars in smaller or low-income nations, the global telecom landscape continues to evolve. As more of the world moves online, the countries leading these investments will likely set the pace for future innovations in connectivity and digital infrastructure.

Economy	Value	Year
United States	$107B	2022
China	$59.1B	2023
Japan	$23.3B	2022
Germany	$16.2B	2023
India	$16.1B	2022
France	$14.9B	2023
United Kingdom	$12.3B	2023
Canada	$9.88B	2023
Iran (Islamic Republic of)	$9.16B	2023
Italy	$7.05B	2023
Australia	$6.47B	2023
Korea (Rep. of)	$5.87B	2023
Spain	$5.22B	2023
Brazil	$5.11B	2023
Indonesia	$5.04B	2018
Russian Federation	$4.44B	2023
Netherlands	$4.33B	2023
Saudi Arabia	$4.09B	2023
Mexico	$3.07B	2023
Switzerland	$3.04B	2023
Belgium	$2.72B	2023
Poland	$2.64B	2023
Türkiye	$2.21B	2023
Thailand	$2.06B	2014
Argentina	$1.89B	2018
Taiwan, Province of China	$1.88B	2023
Nigeria	$1.84B	2022
South Africa	$1.84B	2023
Colombia	$1.74B	2009
Norway	$1.69B	2022
Philippines	$1.68B	2014
Egypt	$1.55B	2023
Denmark	$1.53B	2023
United Arab Emirates	$1.43B	2023
Chile	$1.38B	2023
Sweden	$1.27B	2023
Malaysia	$1.14B	2023
Israel	$1.11B	2022
Greece	$1.09B	2023
Ireland	$1.09B	2023
Peru	$1.04B	2023
New Zealand	$991M	2023
Portugal	$916M	2023
Czech Republic	$878M	2023
Viet Nam	$871M	2023
Austria	$854M	2023
Serbia	$844M	2023
Hong Kong, China	$835M	2022
Morocco	$825M	2023
Finland	$770M	2023
Algeria	$755M	2023
Pakistan	$724M	2023
Singapore	$660M	2022
Oman	$624M	2023
Uzbekistan	$567M	2023
Romania	$562M	2023
Kenya	$551M	2023
Hungary	$523M	2022
Croatia	$521M	2023
Ukraine	$517M	2023
Ethiopia	$497M	2022
Sudan	$480M	2014
Dem. Rep. of the Congo	$458M	2023
Jordan	$431M	2023
Angola	$414M	2023
Côte d'Ivoire	$403M	2023
Lebanon	$390M	2015
Slovakia	$378M	2023
Bulgaria	$372M	2023
Qatar	$337M	2023
Slovenia	$334M	2023
Ecuador	$312M	2013
Panama	$312M	2023
Bangladesh	$295M	2021
Dominican Rep.	$295M	2023
Myanmar	$290M	2021
Iraq	$278M	2017
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)	$271M	2021
Ghana	$270M	2021
Cuba	$266M	2018
Sri Lanka	$254M	2023
Costa Rica	$249M	2023
Yemen	$243M	2009
Belarus	$243M	2023
Honduras	$241M	2023
Senegal	$235M	2023
Benin	$231M	2023
Azerbaijan	$230M	2023
Cambodia	$225M	2023
Cameroon	$224M	2023
El Salvador	$216M	2016
Uruguay	$216M	2016
Bahrain	$213M	2023
Uganda	$205M	2011
Tunisia	$198M	2023
Kuwait	$195M	2023
Zambia	$185M	2023
Cyprus	$182M	2022
Mauritius	$179M	2012
Mali	$170M	2021
Kazakhstan	$165M	2022
Zimbabwe	$160M	2018
Tanzania	$160M	2021
Paraguay	$148M	2023
Madagascar	$145M	2023
Bosnia and Herzegovina	$131M	2023
Estonia	$128M	2023
Luxembourg	$126M	2022
French Polynesia	$122M	2018
Lithuania	$121M	2023
Jamaica	$118M	2013
Latvia	$109M	2023
Congo (Rep. of the)	$108M	2011
Mauritania	$107M	2023
Mongolia	$97.5M	2023
Togo	$96.1M	2023
Georgia	$94.4M	2023
Mozambique	$94.2M	2022
Armenia	$93.9M	2023
Burkina Faso	$91.1M	2020
Iceland	$89.7M	2023
Montenegro	$82.5M	2023
Moldova	$80.6M	2023
Kyrgyzstan	$78.4M	2023
Trinidad and Tobago	$76.4M	2023
Chad	$75.7M	2022
Niger	$74.4M	2022
Bahamas	$74.2M	2023
Botswana	$71M	2022
Brunei Darussalam	$69.1M	2023
Papua New Guinea	$65.4M	2000
North Macedonia	$63.5M	2023
Malta	$57.6M	2012
Rwanda	$56.4M	2023
Syrian Arab Republic	$55.2M	2013
Namibia	$54.3M	2023
Guinea	$53.7M	2018
Albania	$45.6M	2023
Eritrea	$43.1M	2013
Afghanistan	$40.3M	2022
Macao, China	$39.7M	2023
New Caledonia	$37.6M	2000
Bhutan	$37.3M	2023
Fiji	$35.6M	2020
Malawi	$33.9M	2022
South Sudan	$31.1M	2019
Barbados	$30.9M	2018
Seychelles	$29.3M	2023
Djibouti	$28.8M	2023
Nepal (Republic of)	$25.2M	2003
Aruba	$24.6M	2008
Liechtenstein	$21.4M	2023
Cayman Islands	$21.2M	2017
Jersey	$18.5M	2000
Gabon	$18.2M	2005
Saint Lucia	$18.2M	2018
State of Palestine	$17.8M	2018
Cabo Verde	$16.6M	2023
Maldives	$14.8M	2004
Guyana	$14.6M	2017
Belize	$14M	2012
Timor-Leste	$13.9M	2009
Eswatini	$13.8M	2022
Monaco	$13.1M	2019
British Virgin Islands	$12.1M	2018
Central African Rep.	$11M	2019
Bermuda	$10.7M	2004
Lesotho	$7.59M	2023
Guernsey	$7.37M	2000
Grenada	$7.28M	2014
Turkmenistan	$7.27M	2002
Tajikistan	$6.53M	2003
Dominica	$5.83M	2017
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	$5.52M	2020
Saint Kitts and Nevis	$5.24M	2017
Samoa	$4.96M	2017
Tonga	$4.47M	2018
Suriname	$4.09M	2023
Nicaragua	$3.45M	2023
Sao Tome and Principe	$3.05M	2023
San Marino	$2.74M	2007
Gambia	$2.64M	2018
Burundi	$2.53M	2023
Comoros	$1.85M	2023
Micronesia	$1.74M	2006
Kiribati	$1.21M	2023
Palau	$1.12M	2015
Falkland (Malvinas) Is.	$909K	2002
Liberia	$384K	2013
St. Helena	$162K	2014
Venezuela	$62.5K	2018
Guinea-Bissau	$29.6K	2023
Lao P.D.R.	$15.7K	2017
Solomon Islands	$9.50	2016
Vanuatu	$0.00	2018

Note: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: Which Tech Companies Make the Most Money per Employee?
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Google's AI Summaries Spark Antitrust Action in Europe

Independent publishers across Europe are pushing back. As per Reuters, on June 30, they filed a complaint with the European Commission, accusing Google of cutting off vital web traffic to news sites through its AI-generated summaries. The group argues the practice isn’t just unfair, it’s eroding competition and making it harder for journalism to survive online.

What’s driving the dispute is Google’s "AI Overviews", those AI responses that now show up before anything else in search. They're short (and sometimes longer) summaries written by artificial intelligence, designed to answer user queries directly. But publishers say these responses often strip away the need to visit actual websites. And that, they argue, is where the damage begins.

The Independent Publishers Alliance, which coordinated the complaint, says the system gives Google an unfair advantage by drawing from publisher content while leaving them little control. Publishers can’t opt out of having their work used in AI training or included in summaries, at least not without vanishing from Google Search altogether. That catch-22, they argue, forces them to choose between visibility and exploitation.

Studies tracking search behavior back up some of the claims. One analysis found that when AI Overviews appear, clicks to top-ranked websites drop by more than a third. Another showed that in May 2025, nearly 70 percent of news-related searches ended without any user clicking through to a publisher’s site. A year ago, that figure was 56 percent.

Some publishers, especially those in education or local media, report losses as high as 40 percent. The problem isn’t limited to Europe either. Media groups in Brazil have raised similar concerns and asked their regulators to investigate.

Google rolled out AI Overviews across more than 100 countries. By mid-2025, it began placing ads within them. Publishers argue this turns their content into free fuel for Google’s ad revenue, while original reporting is buried further down the page.

User testing paints a picture of how people actually interact with the summaries. Most don’t scroll past them. Some click to expand the answer, but rarely move beyond it. When users do exit the page, they often land on Reddit or YouTube, not traditional news sites.

Regulators in the UK have taken notice. The Competition and Markets Authority confirmed it received a related complaint. The agency is weighing whether Google should be labeled a "strategic market operator", a classification that would give regulators more power to step in.

Across the Atlantic, lawsuits are piling up. In the U.S., one edtech firm filed suit, blaming AI Overviews for lost subscriptions and lower traffic. Judges there have already ruled in separate cases that Google held monopolies in both search and advertising. One ruling suggested breaking up parts of the business could be on the table.

Google has defended the AI Overviews feature, saying it helps people discover more information and drives billions of clicks to websites every day. A company spokesperson also questioned the accuracy of the traffic studies, calling the data incomplete and the conclusions misleading. The company points out that search traffic naturally fluctuates with seasons, trends, and regular algorithm changes.

Still, timing matters. The European Commission is already reviewing Google’s broader compliance with the Digital Markets Act. Part of that investigation is looking at whether AI Overviews violate rules tied to Google's powerful position in the search market. If the Commission finds merit in the complaint, it could impose temporary restrictions while the case is reviewed.

The publishers involved say this isn’t just about traffic stats, it’s about survival. As more search results get resolved by AI and fewer people click through to the sources, the financial model behind independent journalism becomes harder to sustain.

Google, meanwhile, is moving full speed ahead. CEO Sundar Pichai recently announced the company will spend $75 billion this year on AI infrastructure, up from $20 billion just a few years ago. That includes more AI tools across search, advertising, and other parts of the platform.

With so much riding on search visibility, publishers are being pushed to rethink their strategy. Traditional SEO is losing ground. Some outlets are trying to optimize content for both AI and humans, but it’s a moving target. The rules keep shifting.

The complaint in Europe echoes a larger shift. The internet that once rewarded links and referrals is starting to favor answers without destinations. For many publishers, that change isn't just inconvenient, it’s existential.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen.

Read next: Which Tech Companies Make the Most Money per Employee?
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Which Tech Companies Make the Most Money per Employee?

Not every company needs thousands of employees to pull in billions. Some of the most profitable names in tech keep their teams small, and still manage to earn more per person than almost anyone else.

Take Tether, for example. It doesn’t make headlines like Apple or Google, but it’s handling an enormous volume of stablecoin activity behind the scenes. The company generates more than $83 million per employee, which sounds almost unreal until you realize how much of its business runs on software and constant transactions. The size of the staff? Pretty small. The reach? Global.

Valve comes next. That’s the company behind Steam, which sells video games online. It doesn’t ship boxes or stock shelves. People buy games, download them, and that’s it. Valve earns about $19 million per person working there, and it doesn’t even have 400 employees. It’s been operating like that for years, quietly.

YouTube is bigger in size, but the structure isn’t so different. Most of the videos are made by users. The platform just needs to manage what’s uploaded, sort it, and serve ads. Even with a staff in the thousands, it brings in more than $7 million for each one.

NVIDIA is further down the list, but still impressive. It’s selling hardware, specifically chips used in AI and gaming. Even with that manufacturing complexity, the company earns over $3 million per employee. Demand is high enough to make up for the extra weight.

Then there are the platforms we all use every day. Instagram makes around $2.5 million per employee. Apple and Meta land close to that too. It’s not just about hardware or social media, it’s the ability to stretch digital infrastructure without needing to double headcount.

Alphabet, which owns Google, sits under $2 million per person. Airbnb, Broadcom, and Uber are in the same ballpark. These companies are still efficient, but they rely more on people to handle operations, whether that’s rides, listings, or devices.

Further down the list, Microsoft, Etsy, Upwork, and Booking Holdings earn somewhere between $1 million and $1.3 million per worker. Even TikTok, which dominates in usage, brings in less, about $600,000 per person. And Amazon? Around $400,000. That’s the lowest in the group, but also the most labor-intensive business by far. Warehouses, drivers, customer service, it all adds up.

The common thread? Companies that run on software, platforms, or automation need fewer people to keep growing. User-generated content, digital marketplaces, cloud tools, those scale without adding bodies. The result is more revenue per employee, sometimes by a huge margin.

The fewer people it takes to run the system, the bigger the payoff seems to be.

Platform	Revenue per Employee ($)
Tether	$83,000,000
Valve	$19,000,000
YouTube	$7,600,000
NVIDIA	$3,600,000
Instagram	$2,500,000
Lyft	$2,000,000
Twitch	$2,000,000
Apple	$2,400,000
Meta	$2,200,000
Alphabet	$1,900,000
Airbnb	$1,500,000
Broadcom	$1,400,000
Uber	$1,400,000
Upwork	$1,300,000
Etsy	$1,200,000
Mercari	$1,100,000
Microsoft	$1,100,000
Instacart	$1,000,000
Booking Holdings	$1,000,000
eBay	$900,000
TikTok	$600,000
Amazon	$400,000

Note: This list includes only widely recognized platforms deemed safe for general audiences. Platforms with adult-only content or safety concerns were excluded to maintain relevance and appropriateness.

Read next: Smartwatch Shipments Slip Again in 2025, but China Keeps Gaining Ground
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Spam-Blocking Is Coming to Messages in iOS 26

In the next iPhone update, Apple is introducing a small but welcome addition to the Messages app. It’s not flashy, and it may not get top billing next to iOS 26’s new visual design, but for anyone tired of spam, it’s the kind of change that matters.

With iOS 26, Messages will gain a smarter way to handle texts from unknown numbers. Once the feature is enabled, suspected spam gets screened and shifted out of your main inbox. These messages won’t trigger notifications. They won’t sit alongside personal conversations either. Instead, they’ll be stored in a separate section, quietly held back from view unless you choose to look.

Image: Apple.

That decision is yours. Apple isn’t deleting anything or blocking contact without notice. You’ll still be able to read those texts if you want. The filters menu in Messages now gives you four tabs to switch between: your regular messages, unknown senders, flagged spam, and recently deleted threads.

The tool lets you turn filtering on or off for either unknown numbers or obvious spam. If something gets miscategorized, there’s a visual cue on the filters icon to let you know something new has been screened. That way, the system avoids the risk of losing important messages in the shuffle.

This spam filter arrives as part of a larger set of changes to the Messages app. iOS 26 is also adding conversation wallpapers, live translations, group typing indicators, and even polls, features meant to modernize how people communicate while keeping things familiar.

• Also read: How To Block Spam Messages on Android — Direct Methods and Third Party Apps

But it’s the spam filter that may feel most useful in everyday use. Text scams and promotional blasts have become a common headache, and users often have no easy way to manage them without third-party apps. With this update, Apple is giving iPhone users a native solution, built into the device, always running quietly in the background.

If a text comes from a number not in your contacts, and the system flags it as spam, it won't bother you with a notification. It won’t disappear either. The message is just moved out of the way, giving you the option to read it later, ignore it entirely, or mark it as legitimate if needed.

This isn’t Apple’s first step in reducing digital noise. Past iOS updates brought tools for filtering calls and silencing unknown callers. Now, that same approach is being applied to Messages, offering more control without demanding more effort from the user.

The feature is expected to roll out with the full iOS 26 release later this year. And while it won’t eliminate spam entirely, it’s one more step toward making your phone feel like yours again.

Read next: Meta Experiments With Proactive AI Bots Designed to Reinitiate Conversations and Increase User Engagement Across Platforms
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Meta Experiments With Proactive AI Bots Designed to Reinitiate Conversations and Increase User Engagement Across Platforms

Meta is testing a new AI feature that flips the usual dynamic. Instead of waiting for users to reach out, some chatbots might soon be the ones who make the first move.

The trial, as spotted by BI, is happening inside AI Studio, Meta’s no-code platform where users can design chatbot characters and deploy them in apps like WhatsApp or Instagram. These bots are customizable in look, tone, and behavior, and don’t require any technical skills to set up.

The new function is tied to an internal initiative known as Project Omni, developed in collaboration with the data labeling company Alignerr. According to documentation seen by Business Insider, the goal is straightforward: bring people back into conversations they’ve already started, and keep them coming back more often. Meta sees this kind of friendly outreach as a way to improve retention, which directly supports the long-term growth of its AI services.

In practice, the proactive messaging takes a soft-touch approach. A film-focused bot, for example, might check in with a user after a quiet period, offering soundtrack suggestions or asking if they’ve seen any good movies lately. The tone stays cheerful, the content light, and the messages are tailored to fit the character’s role.

Engagement matters here for more than just user satisfaction. Meta expects to earn between $2 billion and $3 billion from generative AI products this year alone. Over the next decade, company forecasts go much higher, suggesting AI could drive over a trillion dollars in revenue by 2035. But that kind of future depends on more than just hype. Tools need to be used regularly, and bots that keep the conversation going, gently, could play a part in that.

Still, questions remain about consent and user control. Meta says the bots won’t send messages out of the blue. A user must have engaged first. If they ignore a follow-up, the bot doesn’t push again. There are also boundaries in place to steer clear of sensitive topics, unless a user explicitly brings them up. Each response is tied to the bot’s personality and the context of earlier chats.

This isn’t the first time Meta has had to walk a line between engagement and overreach. Just last month, the company started cautioning users against sharing personal information in public AI chats, after many had unknowingly posted private details in feeds visible to others.

For now, the messaging experiment is still in the testing stage. Whether it catches on, or raises new privacy concerns, may depend on how naturally these bots can fit into conversations without overstaying their welcome.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen.

Read next: Meta’s Paid Support Leaves Verified Users Locked Out and Frustrated
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Meta’s Paid Support Leaves Verified Users Locked Out and Frustrated

Meta’s subscription service, meant to offer peace of mind through verified status and direct account support, is turning into a source of frustration for thousands of users. Many who paid for Meta Verified say they’ve been locked out of their accounts with no clear reason, and no real help.

In recent months, users across Facebook, Instagram, and Facebook Groups have reported sudden account suspensions. Some had personal accounts. Others were running small businesses. What they had in common was the expectation that paying for verification would offer faster support and protection. Instead, they’ve found themselves stuck in automated loops, unable to reach a real person.

Some tried multiple appeals. A few submitted five or more tickets. The responses they got felt robotic. In several cases, chats were closed without resolution. Others were told they had violated community guidelines, even though there had been no prior warnings or signs of trouble. The appeals process didn’t clarify much, if anything.

Across social platforms, users are sharing what happened. Some lost years of photos, conversations, and community. Others lost business opportunities they’d spent months building. For many, the ban came just as they were launching something new, only to be shut out, with no timeline for a return.

Meta has only briefly acknowledged the issue. The company blamed a “technical error” for suspensions inside Facebook Groups, but it hasn’t explained why accounts on other platforms were affected. There’s a line on Instagram’s help site mentioning login issues, but it’s been there since spring with no updates. No public statement has addressed the broader problem.

That silence has pushed users to organize. On Reddit and other forums, people are trading advice, venting frustrations, and warning others. A petition demanding better support and account recovery has now passed 25,000 signatures. Some are exploring legal action, including the possibility of a class-action lawsuit.

There’s speculation that automated moderation tools or misfiring AI systems may be to blame. A few users say support agents mentioned malware or overloaded ticket queues. But those accounts are secondhand, and Meta hasn’t offered confirmation or comment.

A handful of people say they eventually got their accounts back, weeks or months after being banned. But for most, the wait continues. The lack of updates, and the failure of paid support to actually deliver help, has many wondering what they paid for in the first place.

Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen.

H/T: TechCrunch.

Read next:

• Most Workers Prefer AI for Repetitive Tasks, But Startups Focus on Creative and Strategic Automation

• Where Do Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok Stand in the 2025 News Landscape?
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Where Do Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok Stand in the 2025 News Landscape?

Younger Americans are leaving traditional news paths behind. Over half now turn first to social or video platforms, not TV or standard websites, when seeking updates on current events. Among U.S. adults under 35, that pivot has become the new norm.

Facebook’s position in news delivery has quietly eroded. According to ReutersInstitute data, from a 42% peak in 2016, its weekly news use has slid to 26% in 2025, a 16-point fall. Meanwhile, YouTube retains consistent reach, though rising competitors have carved out space. Instagram’s use for news climbed from 2% in 2014 to 16% this year. TikTok, which barely registered at 1% in 2020, now accounts for 10% of weekly news access.

The broader shift shows a platform ecosystem breaking apart. In 2014, only Facebook and YouTube passed the 10% weekly news threshold. Today, six different networks do. Even X (formerly Twitter) has held steady at 11% for years, while WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Messenger hover around the 5–16% range. The audience is no longer monolithic, it fragments by format and flow.

Video-first algorithms, especially on TikTok and Instagram, continue to reshape how news gets packaged and absorbed. Casual swipes now replace headlines. Emojis, edits, and faces beat plain text.

Lesser-known platforms, Reddit, Threads, Telegram, Bluesky, each claim 1% to 4% reach. While small, these figures matter when aggregated across communities chasing niche topics, breaking developments, or alternative voices. As tech firms shuffle priorities, from pushing creators to pulling back from journalism, publishers must chase visibility across a map that redraws itself yearly.

Year	Facebook	X (formerly Twitter)	FB Messenger	Instagram	Snapchat	WhatsApp	YouTube	TikTok
2014	36	9		2		7	16
2015	41	11		3	1	9	18
2016	42	10		3	1	10	18
2017	39	10	6	4	2	13	18
2018	36	11	7	6	3	14	19
2019	36	10	8	9	3	16	20
2020	36	12	8	11	3	16	21	1
2021	32	11	8	11	2	17	20	3
2022	30	11	7	12	2	15	19	4
2023	28	11	6	14	2	16	20	6
2024	26	11	6	15	2	16	22	8
2025	26	11	5	16	3	15	21	10

Note: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools.

Read next: The Business of You: How Digital Platforms Turn Your Life into Ad Revenue
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World