Friday, July 11, 2025

Can AI Stay Neutral? Grok’s Israel-Palestine Replies Raise Doubts

Something odd is happening with Grok 4, that latest AI version. Ask it who to support in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and instead of giving a direct answer, the chatbot turns around and checks what Elon Musk has posted on the topic.

That’s not a one-off bug. Multiple tests show that Grok, in certain cases, opens X (formerly Twitter) and scans through Musk’s posts mentioning Israel, Palestine, Gaza, or Hamas before it replies. It’s not subtle either, the bot shows this process step-by-step in its reasoning trace.

Not Part of the Rules, But It Happens Anyway

There’s nothing in Grok’s system prompt that tells it to copy Musk. In fact, its instructions say it should collect a wide range of sources, avoid bias, and be willing to make tough claims if the evidence is solid. Even so, it keeps turning to Musk when the question feels politically risky, as spotted by Simon Willison.

It probably doesn’t come as a surprise. The chatbot knows it was built by xAI, and it’s aware that Musk owns the company. At some point in its reasoning, Grok appears to take that connection as a subtle signal to lean more heavily on Musk’s views. Nothing in the system explicitly tells it to do that, yet the behavior keeps popping up.

Wording Changes the Outcome

My tests on Grok 3 (an older version) show Grok’s response often changes based on how the question is worded. For instance, one version of the prompt that began with “Who do you support” led to one-word replies like “Israel” or “Palestine”, but which one it picked seemed to depend on which country was named first. Flip the order, and the answer flipped too.

In some runs, it replied with “Neither” and in others "Peace".

Can AI Stay Neutral? Grok’s Israel-Palestine Replies Raise Doubts

That inconsistency reveals a key limitation. Large language models aren’t fixed, they shift. The same prompt, typed the same way, doesn’t always lead to the same result. Timing matters. So do the words you use. And sometimes, Grok searches its own previous answers as a guide.

More Than Just a Technical Quirk

At first glance, this might seem like a harmless glitch, but it cuts deeper. If an AI gives answers based on phrasing order, timing, or what its owner thinks, users can walk away with the wrong idea. It might sound neutral on the surface, but the logic under the hood isn’t always so balanced.

What’s more, it can reinforce a filter bubble. A user might assume they’re getting an unbiased take, but if the model echoes their phrasing or leans into past behavior, it risks repeating the same views back at them.

A Reminder About Limits

No chatbot today is truly neutral, and Grok is no exception. Whether it’s drawing from Musk’s posts or just reacting to the structure of a question, it shows how AI tools can mirror both their training and their environment.

That doesn’t mean Grok is broken. But it does mean people should take its answers with a grain of salt, especially when the question touches on real-world conflicts. Chatbots are fast, clever, and helpful in many ways. But when it comes to thorny topics, they don’t always think like people, even if they sound like they do.

Read next: YouTube Drops Its Trending Page, Leans Into Niche Charts Instead
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

YouTube Drops Its Trending Page, Leans Into Niche Charts Instead

YouTube is scrapping its Trending page, drawing the curtain on a feature that once tried to sum up the entire platform in a single list. The move comes after a steady drop in traffic to that section and a growing shift in how people find content across the platform.

The change isn’t sudden. For years, YouTube has been nudging users toward personalized feeds, search results, and algorithm-driven suggestions. The old Trending list, which launched in 2015, simply isn’t pulling its weight anymore. What once showed a handful of viral hits now feels out of step with the way viewers actually browse.


In place of the outgoing section, YouTube is rolling out topic-based charts. These will highlight popular content in specific areas like music, podcasts, and movie trailers. More categories are expected down the line. Gaming fans, however, will still find trending clips on the dedicated Gaming Explore page.

This shift reflects broader changes in the platform’s structure. With Shorts, comments, Communities, and tailored feeds doing most of the heavy lifting, a one-size-fits-all list doesn’t make much sense. People don’t stumble on what’s popular the way they used to, now, they’re guided to it by patterns in what they’ve already watched.

Behind the scenes, YouTube’s recommendation system remains the real engine. It quietly steers viewers toward videos they’re likely to 'engage with', keeping interactions up and watch time strong. That system, however, isn’t changing altogether, as users will still get suggestions based on their viewing habits, and those who prefer to browse manually can head to the Explore tab, check their subscriptions, or scroll through channels directly.

Unfortunately, this feature isn't currently available in Pakistan, as confirmed by tests conducted by the Digital Information World team. Searching even manually for https://charts.youtube.com/pk or https://charts.youtube.com/pakistan leads to Indian channels and artists (and other foreign videos). 

For creators, there are still tools to catch the wave of rising trends. YouTube Studio’s Inspiration tab stays in play. A feature called Hype, still in beta, is also being tested to spotlight newer uploads. Meanwhile, the platform will keep giving shoutouts to fresh faces through its Music Explore section and social media channels.

In short, YouTube is tightening its focus. Instead of chasing one big trend, it’s doubling down on categories and algorithms. That might not please everyone, especially those who liked seeing what was taking off across the board, but it’s in line with where digital platforms are heading. These days, it’s less about what’s hot for everyone and more about what keeps each person watching.

Read next: Millionaires Are Moving Again in 2025, and the Money’s Going with Them
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Thursday, July 10, 2025

Millionaires Are Moving Again in 2025, and the Money’s Going with Them

Across dozens of countries, wealthy individuals are once again shifting where they live, and where they store their money. Some nations are drawing them in with simpler taxes and political calm. Others are watching them leave quietly, often taking millions with them.

UAE and U.S. Lead in New Wealth

The United Arab Emirates is set to take in nearly 10,000 millionaires this year. The total value of their assets is expected to land around $63 billion. The country’s appeal isn’t hard to figure out. There’s no income tax, business conditions are favorable, and life there checks the boxes for those who can afford it.

The United States comes next. About 7,500 millionaires are expected to move in, carrying roughly $44 billion in wealth. For many, the U.S. still offers strong legal protections and more financial options than most places.

Italy is also picking up momentum. It’s set to gain more than 3,000 millionaires this year, thanks in part to flat-tax programs. Portugal, Greece, and Switzerland are seeing steady inflows too. Portugal, for instance, has drawn attention through residency incentives tied to investment in cultural projects or research.
Saudi Arabia and Singapore are climbing the ranks as well. Both offer relative stability, and they’ve made it easier for wealth to settle in. Others, like Canada and Australia, aren’t pulling in massive numbers but still attract a regular stream of high-net-worth migrants.

Smaller countries haven’t been left out. Malta, Thailand, Panama, and even Montenegro are seeing some movement. The numbers are lower, but for governments trying to boost investment, every newcomer counts.

UK Tops the List for Millionaire Losses

The United Kingdom is losing more wealthy residents than any other country this year. Nearly 16,500 millionaires are expected to leave. The total wealth in play sits close to $92 billion. Higher taxes and shaky investor confidence are driving some to look for steadier ground.
China isn’t far behind. Around 7,800 millionaires are projected to exit, taking with them about $56 billion. India ranks third, with 3,500 expected departures and $26 billion in assets on the move.

Other countries on the outflow list include Brazil, Russia, and South Korea. Germany, France, and Spain are seeing hundreds leave, though the value of their exits still adds up. Countries like Vietnam and South Africa are also losing affluent individuals, and while the absolute numbers may be smaller, the long-term impact can be harder to replace.

New Patterns Are Forming

Wealth tends to follow steady ground. Places with clear laws, lighter tax systems, and dependable institutions are where it ends up. That’s one reason small territories like Monaco or the Cayman Islands keep pulling in extremely wealthy residents. They don’t bring in large crowds, but the money they carry in is hard to ignore.

Governments in other regions have started tweaking their policies. Some are reworking visa rules or easing tax rules to hold onto capital. These efforts help, but they tend to work better when backed by consistent planning over time.
Meanwhile, wealthy individuals are approaching relocation with more caution. Financial surveillance is getting smarter, and moving funds isn’t as simple as it once was. What used to be a quiet transfer now involves paperwork, flags, and checks. Every step comes with a cost or a delay.

That hasn’t stopped the broader shift. Many are still relocating, not because they want to move, but because they feel they have to. When they leave, their businesses and investment habits usually follow.

Wealth shifts globally as taxes rise, laws tighten, and nations like Italy, Saudi Arabia, and Portugal benefit.

Country Millionaire Migration Estimated Wealth of Migrating Millionaires (USD Billion)
UAE 9,800 63
U.S. 7,500 43.7
Italy 3,600 20.7
Switzerland 3,000 16.8
Saudi Arabia 2,400 18.4
Singapore 1,600 8.9
Portugal 1,400 8.1
Greece 1,200 7.7
Canada 1,000 5.7
Australia 1,000 5.6
Hong Kong 800 5.3
Japan 600 3.1
Malta 500 4.3
Thailand 450 4.2
Costa Rica 350 2.8
Panama 300 2.4
Cyprus 250 2.6
Monaco 200 11
Cayman Islands 200 3.7
New Zealand 150 0.9
Montenegro 150 1.6
Netherlands 100 0.6
Latvia 100 0.6
Morocco 100 0.9
Mauritius 100 0.5
Austria 50 0.3
Croatia 50 0.4
Bermuda 50 1
Belgium 50 0.3
Hungary 50 0.3
Seychelles 50 1
Sweden -50 0.4
Philippines -50 0.6
Angola -50 0.3
Türkiye -100 0.8
Taiwan -100 0.7
Ireland -100 0.6
Argentina -100 0.7
Pakistan -100 0.5
Egypt -100 0.8
Norway -150 1
Mexico -150 1
Colombia -150 1
Lebanon -200 2.8
Iran -200 1.5
Nigeria -200 1.5
Indonesia -250 3
South Africa -250 1.6
Vietnam -300 2.8
Israel -350 2.5
Germany -400 2.2
Spain -500 3.1
France -800 4.4
Brazil -1,200 8.4
Russia -1,500 14.7
S. Korea -2,400 15.2
India -3,500 26.2
China -7,800 55.9
UK -16,500 91.8

H/T: Henleyglobal.

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

Read next:

• Digital Platforms Where Users Are Confused by Text Abbreviations the Most

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

Instagram Users Face Account Bans Over False Child Safety Flags

Some Instagram users are finding themselves locked out of their accounts for reasons they don’t understand, only to discover they’ve been wrongly flagged under child protection rules. And while the accusations are grave, the way they’re being handled is raising even more concern.

These bans, according to firsthand reports compiled by BBC News, are happening without warning, explanation, or any clear path to appeal. The platform, owned by Meta, appears to be relying heavily on automated systems. And when those systems misfire, people’s digital lives vanish, sometimes for weeks.

One user, a man based in Aberdeen, lost access not only to Instagram, but to Facebook and Messenger as well. Ten years of memories, wiped out. He says he appealed immediately, but heard nothing. His account only came back after the BBC contacted Meta on his behalf.

Another user, a young creative in London, was building a small but growing career off his Instagram work. One day it’s there, the next it’s gone. They described the experience as isolating and emotionally draining, not just because of the lost content, but because of the weight of the accusation. These bans relate to policies around child sexual exploitation. Getting caught in that net, even by mistake, can feel like being labeled without trial.

Meta hasn’t said much. In fact, they declined to comment when asked about these cases. But in South Korea, one official claimed that Meta did acknowledge wrongful bans could be happening. That’s a rare admission from a company usually guarded when it comes to moderation issues.

It’s hard to know what exactly is going wrong. Researchers think it might have something to do with recent tweaks to Meta’s guidelines. Or maybe the AI just isn’t smart enough to understand context. Whatever the cause, it’s clear that mistakes are being made, and ordinary users are paying the price.

The thing is, these systems weren’t supposed to work like this. Meta says it uses a mix of human and machine review. When a violation is flagged (real or not) they claim it gets reported to a child safety center in the U.S. From there, law enforcement can get involved.

But if the AI flags the wrong person, and the appeal system is just a black hole, how would anyone even clear their name? That’s where the fear comes in. The bans aren’t just temporary inconveniences — they’re reputational landmines.

In Islamic ethics, there’s a clear warning against suspicion without evidence. You don’t accuse without proof. Justice, in that framework, requires process and mercy, not automation and silence.
The Bigger Problem in the Industry

What’s happening at Instagram isn’t isolated. Other platforms are going the same route, using algorithms to spot rule-breakers at scale. TikTok, YouTube, even X (what used to be Twitter) are leaning into automation. It’s faster, sure. But it’s also riskier.

False positives are becoming more common. People are getting flagged for jokes, drawings, even misunderstood posts. And when it happens, there’s often no person on the other side, just forms, auto-replies, and the sinking feeling that no one’s really listening.

That’s the cost of scale. These platforms are too big for their own moderation teams. So they let machines take the wheel. And when those machines get it wrong, it can take media pressure, not just a simple appeal, to fix the damage.

The digital world is moving fast. But that doesn’t excuse what feels like procedural neglect. Safety matters, absolutely. But so does fairness. And the more these systems decide what’s right or wrong on their own, the more people fall through the cracks.

Maybe it’s time these platforms remembered they’re dealing with human beings, not just data points.


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

Read next: YouTube Tightens Monetization Rules as AI Spam Floods the Platform
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Bitchat’s Big Claims Meet Harsh Reality After Early Security Flaws Surface

Jack Dorsey’s newest venture, a chat app called Bitchat, launched with big talk about privacy and security. Built to run without internet access, the app uses Bluetooth to pass messages between phones directly. That setup, on paper, seems ideal for people in places where online communication can be risky or even blocked outright.

Bitchat was pitched as something different, decentralized, encrypted, and outside the reach of traditional servers. Its white paper made it clear: this app was supposed to put security first. But it didn’t take long for cracks to show.

Within days, a warning appeared on Bitchat’s GitHub page. It stated plainly that the app hadn’t gone through outside security review, and users were urged not to depend on it yet. That notice wasn’t there when the app first dropped, which raised a few eyebrows. By midweek, the listing also carried a quiet note: “Work in progress.”


Then things took another turn. A security researcher, Alex Radocea, dug into the code and found a major issue. According to him, someone could pose as a trusted contact inside the app, tricking people into believing they were talking to someone familiar. He documented how the app’s verification feature, meant to confirm identities between users, could be manipulated. He posted his concerns publicly.
Radocea flagged the bug on GitHub, asking how to report it responsibly. At first, Dorsey marked the issue as resolved, without a word. That silence didn’t sit well. Two days later, the thread reopened with a note saying bugs could be posted directly on GitHub.

More developers chimed in. One said the app’s claim of supporting “forward secrecy” might not hold up. That’s a cryptographic technique meant to keep old messages safe even if someone manages to steal a key later. Another person pointed out a potential buffer overflow problem, a type of bug that could allow someone to push past memory boundaries and access data they shouldn’t.

Radocea didn’t mince words. He warned that apps like this shouldn’t be treated as secure just because the branding says so. In situations where privacy can mean the difference between safety and danger, a false sense of security might do more harm than good.

For now, Bitchat is still available as an open-source project. It’s live, editable, and clearly unfinished. No official response has come from Dorsey himself, and the app continues to carry its caution label.

The idea behind Bitchat might be promising. But as things stand, the execution needs more work, and a lot more eyes on the code, before anyone should bet their safety on it.

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

Read next: Brands Face Generational Shift as Consumers Demand Personalized Content, Prefer Short-Form Videos and Emojis
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Wednesday, July 9, 2025

Brands Face Generational Shift as Consumers Demand Personalized Content, Prefer Short-Form Videos and Emojis

Consumers today engage with brands through a wider range of mediums than ever previously available. As channels diversify, consumers set new expectations for how brands should be communicating with them.

The challenge for marketers today? Transforming fragmented, often outdated, campaign content into deeply personalized experiences that will capture attention, yield tangible results, and develop loyalty.

A new study from Adobe for Business, which surveyed over 1,000 American consumers, has revealed what consumer expectations look like for content personalization today, providing key insights for performance marketers to enhance campaign optimization.

Understanding consumer content preferences - format and frequency

Knowing how and when to engage with your consumer audience with brand content is the key to resonating, and the survey confirmed that consumers have clear preferences regarding format and frequency.

All in all, consumers surveyed noted that their ideal preference for the frequency of brand touchpoints is twice a week; however, this varies by channel. If you’re planning new campaign content activations via social media or SMS, consumers are looking for new content three times a week. Consumer preferences differ for email, where consumers surveyed want to see new content twice a week. To avoid content fatigue within your target audience, it’s crucial to have clarity on consumer preferences and channel-specific frequency of content to maintain consistent engagement.


Consumers also want brands to deliver engaging visual content, according to the study. Short-form videos were the top format preference amongst 42% of surveyed consumers. This is followed by long-form videos (40%) and interactive content (37%) suggesting that a balanced approach to video content is often beneficial. Catering to both quick consumption and deeper engagement.

Content and platform preferences vary by demographic, with each generation favoring different content types. While older demographics surveyed, such as Baby Boomers (50%) and Gen X (54%), primarily interact with brands on Facebook, younger Americans, categorized as Millennials (63%) and Gen Z (66%), gravitate toward YouTube.

The differences don’t end there. Gen Z exhibits strong social media engagement on Instagram (65%) and TikTok (57%), with Millennials also showing a preference for Instagram (59%). Despite their preference for brand content interactions via Facebook, older-generation respondents are craving long-form video content. All other generations prefer to opt for short-form video; Gen Z respondents show a 174% greater appetite for short-form content compared to Baby Boomers.

These insights remind marketers to consider not only content format and frequency preferences but also the interactivity preferences of their target audience, specifically within generation segments. Understanding these distinct generational preferences highlights the need for varied content output and delivery strategies.

How to capture attention with personalization consumers want

In combination with insights into which channels and how often consumers want to be engaged, it’s essential to understand personalization method preferences within campaign content to not only foster brand resonance but also ensure brand compliance and support in driving conversions.

The study provides actionable insights for performance marketers into the campaign copy, visual elements, language use, and emojis that are gaining attention and driving action.

Consumers respond to branded content that uses value- and benefits-focused language such as “free shipping” and “save big” which drive them to visit a brand's website the most (74%). Demonstrating scarcity and urgency also elevates the likelihood of site visits with language such as “limited-time offer” or “exclusive deal”, influencing 45% of surveyed respondents.

Marketers should continue to use social proof, as it's a powerful motivator in capturing attention. Phrases such as "bestseller" and "#1 rated" attract 40% of the consumers surveyed. Gen Z respondents surveyed are most effectively impacted by social proof, according to the study (47%).


It’s not just buzzword use that catches consumer attention. The study also found that color plays a crucial role in campaign content, with 54% of consumers choosing blue as their top preference. The top color choice is blue, followed by red (44%) and gold (37%).

Don’t downplay the strategic use of emojis either, as 62% of consumers surveyed agreed that emoji usage would encourage them to visit a brand’s site. The top emojis that draw consumers to your brand's site are 🎁 (29%), 🔥 (25%), and 💰 (20%). Gen Z respondents, in particular, are the most engaged with emoji usage compared to all other generations, with 🔥 (28%), ✨ (27%), and ❤️ (26%) being their top choices. These findings highlight the true function of emojis as a distinct language for the younger digitally native generation.

There continues to be considerable promise in using contemporary slang in campaign copy as well. The study revealed that 43% of all consumers and 55% of Gen Z respondents surveyed report that it could drive them to convert. Overall, respondents identified the top three slang phrases to include as “Vibe” (33%), “Legit” (29%), and “IYKYK” (25%).

Gen Z respondents slightly differ, reporting that “It’s giving…” was found to be the most effective slang term for targeting them (31%). Over one in five Gen Z respondents stated that the use of “slay” will pique their interest and boost conversions. The varying personalization preferences uncovered in the study confirm the importance of campaign strategies that are flexible and allow for dynamic content variation.

The key to building consumer trust and pitfalls to avoid

Even well-personalized campaigns can result in a loss of consumer trust if consumers feel like they’re not being listened to in the content of the campaigns.

The Adobe for Business research revealed the trust signals that consumers most highly value, leading them toward a favorable purchase decision. Consumers identified customer reviews and testimonials as the top trust signal, confirming the benefits of leveraging user-generated content. Easy returns policies, visible security badges, and clear contact information followed this top trust signal.

While social proof, such as the number of followers a brand has ranked lower overall, it still boosts brand trust for purchase decisions among Gen Z and Millennial respondents, 10% more than it does for older generations. On the other hand, older generation consumers surveyed noted that their brand trust could be gained by ensuring contact information is readily available, 16% more so than among younger Gen Z and Millennial respondents.

While we know the tactics that encourage brand trust that lead to purchase decisions, what signals deter consumers? The most significant purchase barrier, according to the study, is the presence of misleading claims and aggressive sales tactics, both of which are cited by 71% of respondents. The top two reasons for avoiding brand purchases were followed by hard-to-find information on the brand website (63%), poor website design and user experience (62%), and a lack of transparency (61%).

This is strong confirmation for marketers that it’s crucial to avoid these brand purchase barriers that can not only severely erode trust but also negatively impact campaign performance across channels. Achieving content variation at scale is essential for engaging with the audience authentically and building brand touchpoints that resonate.


The key to meeting the demands of modern consumers today is delivering high-quality, personalized content that creates relevant, engaging experiences. To enable and empower marketing teams to reach these consumer goals, workflows need to be assessed and optimized, allowing for strategic automation to be deployed and supporting resources at their fingertips.

Refreshing workflows not only clears the path for more deeply personalized customer experiences but also enhances brand loyalty while freeing up time within creative teams for them to focus on the work that will create the most impact.

To deliver exceptional content, teams must assess and optimize their workflows to be able to craft personalized, relevant, and engaging experiences at scale that modern consumers expect. Workflow optimization empowers teams with the right resources, and by strategically implementing automation, brands can effectively meet the evolving expectations of their customers.

This approach frees up time within creative teams for them to be truly creative while enhancing brand loyalty by clearing the path for more deeply personalized customer experiences. The path forward involves reimagining marketing strategies to build stronger brand loyalty and deliver unparalleled customer experiences.

Read next: Researchers Warn: This Android Animation Glitch Lets Apps Spy, Snap, and Steal... Undetected


by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

Can Tech Leaders Say Anything Anymore? A Sequoia Partner’s Post Just Reignited the Debate

The tech world is once again caught in a storm, this time over a venture capitalist’s online outburst. Shaun Maguire, a partner at Sequoia Capital, is drawing backlash after comments he made about New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. The response from startup leaders and industry workers has been swift, with calls for action growing louder by the day.

Comments Spark Petition Across the Industry

Maguire made the remarks on X after The New York Times reported Mamdani's college application included both “Asian” and “Black or African American” checkboxes. In his posts, Maguire accused Mamdani of dishonesty, tying it to what he called a broader ideological agenda. That message didn’t sit well with much of the tech community.

In response, hundreds of founders, investors, and tech workers signed an open letter demanding accountability. They’ve asked Sequoia to investigate Maguire, issue a public apology, and set up a formal process for reporting discrimination. The petition also pushes for a zero-tolerance policy on hate speech. Organizers have given the firm until July 14 to respond.

Some of the signatories claimed ties to major tech firms including Microsoft, Apple, and Google. A few names raised eyebrows for being unverified or potentially fake, but others, leaders of startups backed by Sequoia-related funds, confirmed their support through other channels.

Maguire Stands His Ground

Maguire hasn’t backed away from the controversy. Instead, he’s posted several times defending his original statement, insisting that his views were rooted in politics, not religion or race. In a follow-up video, he clarified that he meant “Islamist” in a political sense and not as a slur against Muslims. He also extended an apology to those who may have misunderstood his message, though his tone in later posts became increasingly defiant.
His critics, he claimed, were trying to silence him for his views. He described them as politically motivated and labeled many as aligned with left-leaning causes. Supporters, including other figures in the venture capital world, have rallied behind him as well, circulating letters of their own in defense.

A Long History of Political Commentary

This isn’t Maguire’s first online clash. In recent years, he’s become known as one of Silicon Valley’s more openly conservative voices. He regularly uses X to comment on politics, criticize diversity programs, and question left-leaning narratives. He has described his shift toward right-wing politics as a personal evolution, sparked partly by foreign policy disagreements and cultural debates.

His financial support reflects that shift. Last year, Maguire donated about $800,000 to Republican campaigns and causes, including a large contribution to Donald Trump’s reelection efforts. He also contributed to a political action committee founded by Elon Musk.

From High School Dropout to Silicon Valley Investor

Maguire didn’t take the usual route into venture capital. He dropped out of high school with a 1.8 GPA and later earned a GED. He attended community college, then transferred to the University of Southern California, where his interest in math took hold.

After completing graduate studies at Stanford and Caltech, including a PhD in physics, he worked with DARPA in Afghanistan and later launched a cybersecurity startup, Expanse. That company was eventually acquired for about $800 million. He later joined Google Ventures and then moved to Sequoia in 2019.

At Sequoia, Maguire led or co-led investments in AI and infrastructure startups, including ventures linked to Elon Musk such as The Boring Company, xAI, and SpaceX. He’s also focused on supply chain reshoring through technologies like drones and silicon photonics, aligning with broader national priorities pushed by Trump.

Fallout Reaches Sequoia’s Doorstep

The comments targeting Mamdani have pushed Maguire further into the spotlight, and not in a way Sequoia may welcome. Critics say his behavior is damaging the firm’s reputation and undermining trust among global founders. With a public response from the firm still missing, many are watching to see how it handles internal accountability for one of its high-profile partners.

Mamdani has not issued a statement on Maguire’s comments. His campaign platform focuses on affordable housing, childcare access, and wage reform. Despite previous accusations of anti-Israel sentiment from critics, he has denied endorsing hate speech or promoting religious agendas.

The public pressure campaign around Maguire’s comments continues to grow. What started as a post on a social platform may now test how venture capital firms respond when one of their own goes too far for comfort.


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

Read next: More Americans Are Turning to AI for Tax Filing Help
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World