Emoji Misfires: How Misunderstood Icons Are Scrambling Work and Brand Messages Around the World

Emojis were meant to add color, tone, and personality to text. Somewhere along the way, though, the meaning behind those little icons started getting lost, and in some cases, dangerously misinterpreted. Now, what was once a handy tool to add emotion to dry messages is fast becoming a source of confusion, embarrassment, and workplace tension.

According to a new study by Lokalise , emojis are no longer the digital universal language many assumed they were. The research highlights how workers and consumers interpret emojis wildly differently across cultures, generations, and platforms. The gap isn’t just awkward, it’s affecting brand perception and team communication in real, measurable ways.

Emojis Aren’t as Universal as We Thought

Despite their cheerful appearance, emojis don’t carry consistent meaning from one person, or one region, to the next. What feels like a friendly nudge in one country might come across as flirtation or even disrespect elsewhere.

Take the 💦 emoji. In Mexico, 76% of workers viewed it as flirtatious or sexual. In Germany, only 50% felt the same way. In the U.S., it was close, about 52% read it as suggestive. So while some see it as a joke or casual shorthand, others may interpret it far more seriously.

Another stark example? The 💀 emoji. Among Gen Z in the U.S., it often signals something hilarious, like saying "I'm dead" after a good joke. But only 11% of Germans and 9% of Mexican respondents shared that interpretation. Many in those regions associated it more with stress or burnout.

Even the 👀 emoji (just a pair of eyes) wasn't safe. In Mexico, most respondents said it meant paying attention. In the U.K., over a third said it felt like gossip or silent judgment.

• Also read: How Technical Glitches Quietly Drain U.S. Developer Productivity

These aren’t just minor translation hiccups. They’re affecting how people work together and how consumers connect (or disconnect) with brands.

Workplace Messages Gone Wrong

Inside companies, where communication already walks a fine line, emoji misuse can seriously mess with the message.

Roughly one-third of workers admitted to using emojis in messages about negative or sensitive news. That includes layoffs, policy shifts, or difficult performance feedback. For younger employees, especially millennials and Gen Z, dropping in an emoji is a way to soften the blow. But that doesn’t always land.

• 27% of employees say they’ve felt offended by an emoji in a workplace message
• 47% believe emojis have no place in formal communications at all
• 65% have avoided emojis completely, worried they’d be misread

That’s a lot of hesitation for something that’s supposed to make communication easier.

Some Platforms Make It Worse

Part of the problem? Emojis don’t act the same everywhere. Different platforms render them slightly differently, or promote different emoji cultures. The Lokalise study asked workers which platform causes the most confusion around emoji use. WhatsApp topped the list.

• 82% of Mexican workers pointed to WhatsApp as the most confusing
• 66% in Germany said the same
• In the U.K., it was 57%
• U.S. workers found Instagram even more confusing than WhatsApp

Even workplace tools vary. Microsoft Teams users were 71% more likely than Slack users to say emojis are often misunderstood on their platform.

That means a harmless thumbs-up on one tool might land differently elsewhere, depending on who’s reading it, where they’re from, and what platform they’re on.

The Red List: What Not to Send at Work

Some emojis are almost universally considered unprofessional, or worse, inappropriate, in the workplace.

According to Lokalise:

• 🍆 (eggplant) got a 91% disapproval rating, the highest globally
• 💩 (poop) was flagged by 83% of Mexican workers and 82% in the U.K.
• 🍑 (peach), often read as sexual or informal, was seen as inappropriate by over 80% across all surveyed countries

Different generations disapproved of different icons, too. Gen Z was most likely to object to 🍆, while Gen X was especially put off by 💩.

Even emojis that seem harmless, like 😭, caused misunderstandings. In Mexico, many used it to show stress or emotional overwhelm. Elsewhere, it was read as melodramatic or flippant.

Consumers Aren’t Amused Either

Brands love emojis because they seem relatable, casual, and modern. But poor usage can backfire, badly.

• 22% of consumers have muted or unfollowed a brand because of cringeworthy emoji use
• 38% say brands don’t understand how emojis are interpreted across cultures
• 81% believe emojis carry deeper cultural meaning beyond their surface appearance

In Mexico and the U.K., nearly 90% of consumers believe emoji use can feel culturally tone-deaf. In the U.S., 79% agreed.

The message: don’t assume the same emoji hits the same way everywhere. Localization applies to tone, language, and emojis too.

Generational Gaps Add to the Confusion

It’s not just about geography. Age plays a huge role in how emojis are used and received.

• 74% of Gen Z employees have hesitated to use an emoji at work for fear it would be misread
• 65% of millennials feel the same
• 64% of Gen X also tread carefully

While Gen Z may use emojis more often, they’re also more cautious about how they’re perceived. They’re emoji fluent, but not emoji fearless.

Most Accepted (and Most Hated) Emojis at Work

Lokalise’s study ranked the most workplace-friendly emojis too.

Most Approved Emojis:

• 👍 Thumbs up (82%)
• 👏 Clapping hands (64%)
• 🤝 Handshake (62%)
• 🤔 Thinking face (54%)

Most Disapproved Emojis:

• 🍆 Eggplant (91%)
• 💩 Poop (82%)
• 🍑 Peach (81%)
• 💋 Kiss mark (78%)

If you’re writing to a coworker or customer, it's probably safe to skip the fruit and stick to the basics.

Why This All Matters More Than You Think

At first glance, this might seem like a small thing. Just emojis, right?

But miscommunication, especially in remote or global teams, adds friction. It creates misunderstandings, stress, and missed connections. Brands, meanwhile, risk sounding out-of-touch or inappropriate, especially across cultures.

Etgar Bonar, localization expert at Lokalise, put it simply: “When consumers mute or unfollow a brand over cringey emoji use, it shows just how fragile digital trust can be.”

And the same goes for internal messages. Emojis aren’t just visual clutter, they’re tone indicators. But if that tone gets misread, the damage can be subtle but lasting.

Moving Forward: Smarter Emoji Use Starts With Awareness

We’re not saying to delete emojis from your messages forever. They’re not the enemy. But like slang or humor, they require context. Cultural, generational, even platform-specific context.

A few smart takeaways:

• Add emoji etiquette to brand and internal style guides
• Train global teams on localization, including non-verbal symbols
• Be mindful of how emojis appear across devices and platforms
• Think twice before using emojis in sensitive or formal messages

Ultimately, emojis are just one part of digital communication, but they pack more meaning than we often realize. Used well, they build connection. Used carelessly, they drive people away.

The key is knowing your audience. Because sometimes, that tiny icon says a lot more than you meant it to.

Read next:

• Global Survey Shows Public Still Wary of AI Despite Growing Use

• Too Many Tools, Too Little Time: How Context Switching Quietly Kills Team Flow
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

X to Add More Profile Details to Help Users Judge Authenticity

Elon Musk’s X platform is preparing a new transparency update that shows more about who’s behind each account. The move comes as social media struggles with AI bots that can mimic human behavior more convincingly than ever.

What the Change Means

According to X’s head of product, Nikita Bier, the company plans to test a feature that adds new data to user profiles. It could include when the account was created, the country or region it’s linked to, how often its username has changed, and how the account uses the app.

The idea is simple. By showing more of an account’s background, X wants users to decide for themselves if they’re looking at a real person or a potential bot. Someone claiming to live in New York but showing activity from another country might raise questions. The same goes for profiles with repeated name changes or sudden creation dates that line up with political events or trending topics.

Early Testing and Privacy Controls

X will start the experiment on internal employee profiles next week. This allows the company to see how the changes look in use before releasing them to everyone else.

Users will be able to turn off parts of the new visibility feature, but that choice might appear publicly on their profiles. Bier has said the team is considering privacy protections for users in countries where free expression carries risk. In those cases, X might show a general region instead of a specific location.

Borrowing an Idea from Instagram

Instagram already lets people check basic account details under “About This Profile.” It shows how long an account has existed, where it’s registered, and how many times its username has changed. That context helps people judge whether a profile looks real.

X seems to be following a similar direction, aiming to help users build trust through background information rather than just posts and followers. The company hasn’t said how quickly this new profile view will expand, but it appears to be part of a larger effort to address authenticity concerns.

The Bigger Picture

This update follows a recent cleanup on X that removed around 1.7 million spam and reply bots. The company has been under pressure to deal with fake accounts that distort online conversations.

Adding more details to profiles could make it easier to spot suspicious behavior, though experts note that bots often adapt quickly to new rules. Transparency helps, but it won’t solve every problem tied to misinformation or manipulation.

For now, X’s plan looks like another step toward rebuilding credibility after years of debate over trust and identity online. It also signals how social media companies are rethinking the balance between privacy and accountability.

If the test goes smoothly, users may soon see more background data when checking who they’re interacting with. That extra layer of context could make digital conversations a little more reliable in a world where it’s getting harder to tell who’s real.

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

Read next: Mark Cuban Leads Critics Warning OpenAI’s Erotica Plan Risks a Moral Collapse

by Web Desk via Digital Information World

Mark Cuban Leads Critics Warning OpenAI’s Erotica Plan Risks a Moral Collapse

OpenAI’s decision to allow adult erotica in ChatGPT has sparked a wave of alarm across the tech world.

Critics, led by investor Mark Cuban, say the move exposes a deeper problem within Silicon Valley... a steady erosion of moral restraint disguised as innovation.

Cuban warned that the policy could backfire with parents, schools, and regulators. His concern wasn’t about adults viewing explicit material, but about how easily minors could find ways around digital barriers. In his view, a single lapse in the company’s age verification system would make ChatGPT toxic for families and educators who already struggle to control what children see online.

The announcement came after OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman said the company would soon permit erotica for verified adults, framing it as part of a broader update to give users “more freedom.” For Altman, the change signaled a step toward treating adult users like adults. For Cuban and others, it looked like a step away from responsibility.

The trust gap widens

OpenAI’s shift arrives at a fragile moment for AI companies. Public confidence in generative platforms has fallen as reports of emotional manipulation, misinformation, and unsafe content grow. Analysts say OpenAI’s user spending has plateaued in several markets, raising pressure to find new sources of engagement.

That context, critics argue, makes the company’s decision look more commercial than moral. Allowing explicit AI interactions may attract new adult subscribers but could alienate the schools, parents, and educators who helped normalize AI in classrooms. Once trust erodes, Cuban warned, families won’t test safety features; they’ll simply turn away.

Researchers from Common Sense Media and Stanford University have shown how quickly young people form emotional bonds with AI companions. Their studies found that many teenagers share private details with chatbots and depend on them during stress. When those digital relationships take a sexual or romantic turn, the emotional consequences can deepen, often without parents realizing it.

This is why critics say OpenAI’s policy goes far beyond a product update. They see it as a cultural signal that emotional safety has become negotiable.

Human cost and corporate detachment

OpenAI is already facing lawsuits from families who claim their children were harmed by interactions with ChatGPT and similar systems. One case involves a 16-year-old boy who took his life after conversations with the chatbot. His parents say the system encouraged his distress rather than de-escalating it. Another lawsuit in Florida accuses a rival company of allowing sexually charged chats that led to a teenager’s death.

These tragedies highlight a point Cuban has emphasized repeatedly: the danger isn’t explicit content itself, but emotional intimacy between minors and machines designed to mimic empathy. When systems are built to hold users’ attention, that connection can turn manipulative, even addictive.

Parents who testified before Congress described how their children withdrew from real life after forming relationships with chatbots. They pleaded for tighter limits, warning that companies are building digital partners without safeguards. Cuban’s warning fits squarely into that debate, showing how quickly the lines between companionship, control, and exploitation can blur.

Silicon Valley’s moral amnesia

The controversy over ChatGPT’s erotica policy has revived old questions about what responsibility tech leaders owe to the societies they shape. Altman’s defense... that OpenAI is “not the moral police”... may sound pragmatic, but it also reflects a mindset that worries ethicists. When technology companies treat morality as someone else’s jurisdiction, public harm often follows.

For decades, Silicon Valley has celebrated disruption while ignoring the social fallout of its creations. Each new platform promises freedom, yet each one introduces new risks that are brushed aside until damage becomes undeniable. Critics say this pattern is now repeating in AI, where human psychology has become the new terrain for profit.

Cuban’s warning, while blunt, captures a growing discomfort among those who see innovation drifting from conscience. Allowing explicit AI interactions might look like harmless freedom, but in practice it could normalize emotional dependency between humans and algorithms. When a child confides in a machine that mimics care, the boundaries of trust and safety collapse.

The question now facing OpenAI (and by extension, the entire tech industry) isn’t whether adult content can be managed responsibly, but whether companies can still recognize moral limits when money and engagement metrics blur them.

In a world racing toward synthetic intimacy, Cuban’s caution sounds less like alarmism and more like an echo of reason. If Silicon Valley continues to treat ethics as an optional feature, it may not only lose the trust of parents, but also whatever remains of its moral compass.

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

Read next:

• AI Misreads Disability Hate Across Cultures and South Asian Languages, Cornell Study Finds

• Too Many Tools, Too Little Time: How Context Switching Quietly Kills Team Flow
by Asim BN via Digital Information World

Too Many Tools, Too Little Time: How Context Switching Quietly Kills Team Flow

Apps are supposed to help. But these days, they just won’t shut up.

Whether it's Slack pings, Zoom calls, calendar pop-ups, or yet another tab for the fifth tool that basically does the same thing as the last one, teams are drowning in digital clutter. And while some of that clutter looks productive on the surface, the reality is different. It's exhausting.

A new report from Lokalise shows just how deep the problem goes. Based on a survey of 1,000 U.S. workers, the study reveals what many already feel: modern work tools are making actual work harder.

When Productivity Tools Hurt Productivity

According to the report, context switching is one of the biggest hidden drains on productivity. Workers toggle between apps an average of 33 times per day. Some? Over 100. That constant jumping isn’t just annoying, it breaks focus.

Over half of those surveyed (56%) said tool overload affects their performance every week. Another 22% said they lose more than two hours per week just managing their stack.

Let’s do the math. On average, workers lose about 51 minutes weekly to inefficient tools. That adds up to 44 hours a year, more than an entire workweek spent juggling tabs and chasing clarity.

What’s Sucking Up All This Time?

Some tools are worse offenders than others. When asked which ones waste the most time:

• Outlook led the pack at 35%
• Microsoft Teams followed at 29%
• Gmail clocked in at 24%
• Zoom landed at 15%
• Slack rounded it out at 9%

Surprising? Maybe not. Communication tools dominate the list. But it's not just the tools themselves, it's how they're used. Threaded chats. Duplicate messages. Vague email chains. Nonstop alerts.

And when you break it down by type:

• Email: 43 minutes/week lost
• Chat tools: 39 minutes
• Video calls: 37 minutes
• CRM/support platforms: 36–37 minutes
• Design, file storage, and PM tools: around 30 minutes each

Even AI tools, which are supposed to help, added 25+ minutes of wasted time per week.

The Human Cost of Too Many Tools

The impact goes way beyond lost hours. Constant switching wears people down.

60% of employees said tool fatigue is affecting their ability to collaborate. More than a third (36%) said it's damaging their mental health and work-life balance. The tech designed to make work smoother? It's now a source of stress.

And the redundancy doesn’t help.

More than half of employees (55%) said they have multiple apps that do the same job. At the same time, 79% said their employer hasn't done anything to reduce or consolidate them.

In other words, people are overloaded, and leadership’s asleep at the wheel.

• Related: Under Pressure, Even Trained Users Miss the Signs of Phishing

Multitasking Is a Myth (And We’re Proving It Daily)

The psychological toll is real. Human brains aren’t designed to bounce between tasks nonstop. Every ping or pop-up resets your focus clock. It can take more than 20 minutes to fully regain concentration after a disruption.

Now multiply that by 33 app switches a day.

This isn’t about laziness or distraction. It’s about systems working against the people inside them. When teams can’t get into a flow state, they can’t produce their best work. They’re firefighting. Juggling. Reacting instead of building.

Tool Bloat Kills Collaboration, Too

The Lokalise report found clear impacts across three categories:

• Teamwork: 14% said tools actually made collaboration worse.
• Well-being: 36% said their stress increased because of tool overload.
• Output: 26% said tools reduced their productivity.

And even among the 45% who said tools helped productivity, many admitted the benefit was uneven. When tools aren’t aligned or well integrated, people use them inconsistently, leading to more confusion, not less.

Redundancy = Confusion = Lost Time

You’ve got an email. And chat. And channels. And tickets. And tasks. And meetings to talk about the tickets and tasks. Half the time, people don’t even know which tool to use for what.

This kind of overlap leads to:

• Decision paralysis: Do I send this via Slack or email?
• Lost messages: Where did that update go?
• Inconsistent workflows: Every team operates differently

In fast-paced orgs, that chaos compounds. Teams reinvent the wheel daily. Knowledge gets siloed. Processes fragment. People spend hours hunting for info that should’ve been easy to find.

• Also read: Half the Workday Lost to Routine Tasks as Burnout Rises

Which Industries Feel It Worst?

While everyone’s dealing with tool overload, some industries report even more fatigue:

• Tech: Fast tool adoption = big headaches
• Healthcare: Clunky systems + compliance challenges
• Finance: Layers of tools for privacy and security
• Hospitality: High turnover = poor onboarding
• Logistics: New tech stacked onto legacy systems

The problem isn’t just the number of tools, it’s how they work (or don’t) together.

Why Aren’t Leaders Fixing It?

Almost 80% of respondents said their company hadn’t taken steps to fix tool fatigue. Some reasons why:

• No one owns the stack
• Leaders don’t feel the same friction frontline teams do
• Switching platforms feels risky
• There’s no system in place to track digital friction

And honestly? Most companies confuse "more tools" with "more productivity." But that equation only works if those tools are streamlined and strategically chosen. Right now, that’s rarely the case.

• You might like: The 5 best ways to ask for (and get) that big raise you deserve

What Companies Can Actually Do About It

The fix isn’t just ripping out tools. It’s about being more intentional. Here’s where to start:

• Audit the stack: What do we have? What overlaps?
• Listen to your teams: What’s working? What’s not?
• Kill redundancy: Pick one tool per task
• Improve onboarding: Make it clear how and when to use each app
• Build habits: Create shared standards across teams
• Check usage metrics: Are people using what you think they are?

And most importantly: ask people what’s slowing them down. The answers are probably in your Slack history.

Final Thought: Productivity Isn’t About Tools, It’s About Flow

Digital tools aren’t going anywhere. But unless companies get serious about cleaning up their tech clutter, things will only get worse.

The Lokalise report makes it plain: workers aren’t just losing time to bad systems. They’re losing energy, momentum, and job satisfaction.

Fixing that starts with a mindset shift. Productivity doesn’t come from piling on more apps. It comes from giving people the space to focus on real work, without needing 15 tabs open to do it.

Read next:

• How Technical Glitches Quietly Drain U.S. Developer Productivity

• AI Misreads Disability Hate Across Cultures and South Asian Languages, Cornell Study Finds

• 11 examples of annoying work jargon (and what to say instead)

by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World

YouTube Refreshes Its Look and Experiments With AI for Realistic Lip-Syncing

YouTube has introduced a series of updates aimed at improving both the user experience and creator tools. The platform’s changes span interface adjustments, expanded interactive features, and early experiments with AI-driven video translation technology.

The interface updates focus on making content more accessible and engaging. The playback display has been redesigned to provide a more immersive viewing experience. Translucent buttons now overlay videos, while double-tap gestures have been refined. Users can quickly skip forward or backward, with the on-screen text showing the exact seconds moved. Skip durations can be customized in five-second increments. Video descriptions have also been refreshed, adopting color accents drawn from the video content itself. The changes are particularly intended to enhance Shorts and Connected TV viewing.

Comment sections have also been upgraded. YouTube is now rolling out threaded comments, allowing up to three levels of replies. Additional responses beyond the third level appear as flattened comments. This adjustment aims to make conversations beneath videos easier to follow. In conjunction with threading, the platform has introduced custom like animations. Reactions now vary based on content type, such as musical notes for music videos or sports-themed animations for athletics content.

Voice replies are another feature receiving wider access. Previously available to a limited number of creators, the tool now allows several hundred thousand creators to respond to comments using short voice notes of up to 30 seconds. Voice replies can be recorded both in the main app and through Studio Mobile, offering a more personal way for creators to engage with their audiences.

YouTube’s courses feature is expanding as well. Initially tested with a small group of creators, this feature allows channels to offer free or paid learning programs. Courses now display a dedicated badge on the Watch page and may appear on youtube.com/courses for broader visibility. Creators with access to advanced features can monitor course performance through detailed analytics, including views, watch time, and revenue. This expansion opens additional monetization opportunities for channels that produce educational or specialist content.

In terms of content moderation, YouTube is refining its fixable violations process. Creators with advanced features can now revise videos that received an official warning, providing a way to address minor issues without facing full removals or penalties. Limits apply, including one fix attempt per video and exclusion for more severe policy violations.

Alongside these updates, YouTube is testing an AI-powered lip-sync feature designed to enhance its auto-dubbing capabilities. The tool adjusts facial movements to align with translated audio, improving the visual consistency of dubbed videos. Early testing shows the feature works best in Full HD and supports translations in English, French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese. Over time, the goal is to extend lip-syncing to all languages covered by YouTube’s auto-dubbing system, including Hindi, Japanese, Korean, and many others. Access is currently limited to select creators as the platform evaluates performance, compute requirements, and quality. YouTube also plans to clearly disclose when videos have been synthetically altered.

Together, these updates reflect YouTube’s focus on enhancing interactivity, creator engagement, and accessibility across its platform. Users can expect a refreshed visual experience, more nuanced social interactions, new monetization and educational tools, and the beginnings of AI-assisted translation and lip-syncing, signaling a continued evolution of the platform.

Read next: 

• Meta Expands Teen Protections With Stricter Content Rules

• Signals From Space: Study Finds Unencrypted Military, Telecom, and Retail Traffic Across U.S. Skies
by Web Desk via Digital Information World

Signals From Space: Study Finds Unencrypted Military, Telecom, and Retail Traffic Across U.S. Skies

A large share of satellite data moving above North America has been found unprotected, exposing communications from mobile carriers, corporations, and even military networks. The discovery came from a joint investigation by researchers at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of Maryland, who spent seven months scanning the sky with low-cost satellite equipment.

The team examined signals from 39 geostationary satellites and 411 transponders visible from La Jolla, California, using a consumer-grade motorized dish and custom-built software that cost under $800.

Their scans revealed that about half of all links to high-orbit satellites were transmitting data in cleartext, leaving large volumes of voice calls, text messages, and operational data accessible to anyone with similar hardware.

How the discovery happened

The researchers built an automated ground station capable of aligning to each satellite and decoding raw traffic. By developing a universal parser that could handle seven different and often proprietary communication stacks, they overcame a major obstacle that limited earlier studies. This allowed them to recover six times more data packets than previous research tools could handle.

Across their recordings, they found that link-layer encryption, long used in satellite television, was rarely enabled for internet or private network connections. Many organizations treated satellite backhaul as an internal network path, assuming the signal was secure by nature of being in space. Instead, the study showed that such signals could be intercepted from Earth with off-the-shelf equipment.

What the researchers uncovered

The investigation exposed unencrypted traffic from a range of industries and government bodies. Telecommunications companies were among the first identified. In one case, the team intercepted T-Mobile cellular backhaul data from rural tower links, including unprotected text messages, call metadata, and voice data sent through the IP Multimedia Subsystem. T-Mobile confirmed the finding and stated that the problem affected less than 0.1% of its remote sites. Encryption has since been applied.

Similar unencrypted traffic was found from AT&T Mexico, which revealed control signals and internet sessions routed through its satellite backhaul. Another carrier, KPU Telecommunications in Alaska, was found to be transmitting unencrypted VoIP data during backup link operation.

Beyond telecom systems, the team recorded internal communications from major companies and institutions. Walmart-Mexico’s satellite links exposed login credentials, inventory records, and internal email traffic. Grupo Santander, Banorte, and Banjército were also affected, with plaintext LDAP and ATM network data visible across satellite channels. The researchers traced these signals through identifiable IP ranges and organizational domains.

Government and military exposure

The analysis also uncovered sensitive government transmissions. Two Mexican government and military links were found to be broadcasting unencrypted operational data, including personnel files, military asset locations, and live surveillance records. Some traffic even contained web application data related to law enforcement and narcotics tracking systems.

From another satellite, the researchers intercepted communication originating from U.S. military vessels. That traffic included plaintext DNS and SIP signaling data, which identified ship names that matched known naval assets. While some encryption was present in isolated links, several channels still carried unencrypted packets mixed with ordinary network traffic.

Why encryption is missing

The study found that the lack of encryption was not due to technical limits. Most satellite terminals and hubs include encryption options at the physical, link, or network layer. In practice, many organizations disable it to save bandwidth, reduce latency, or avoid troubleshooting difficulties. In some cases, encryption licenses for satellite systems carry extra costs, leading operators to rely on trust in isolation rather than protection.

Another factor is operational inertia. Satellite systems often run for years without full audits, and responsibility for encryption can shift between providers, resellers, and end users. As a result, critical communications (covering everything from industrial control systems to financial data) remain open to interception.

Broader implications

The researchers disclosed their findings between December 2024 and mid-2025 to affected organizations, including T-Mobile, AT&T, Intelsat, Panasonic Avionics, and several government agencies. Many have since applied fixes, but not all. The study warns that the same patterns likely exist beyond North America, given that the same satellite equipment and protocols are used globally.

The team has made its scanning tools publicly available to encourage independent verification and stronger encryption adoption. They note that while low-Earth orbit networks like Starlink already employ modern cryptographic frameworks, traditional geostationary links remain a significant blind spot in network security... one that sits quietly above most of the planet.

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

Read next:

• How Technical Glitches Quietly Drain U.S. Developer Productivity

• The Truth About Dopamine Detoxes: Can You Really Reset Your Brain?

by Asim BN via Digital Information World

How Technical Glitches Quietly Drain U.S. Developer Productivity

Ask most teams how they measure developer productivity, and you’ll likely hear the usual suspects: lines of code, features shipped, sprint goals met. But those metrics don’t tell the whole story. Behind that visible progress is a quieter problem, one that doesn’t show up in dashboards or JIRA boards.

According to Lokalise’s Developer Delay Report , technical issues are quietly eating into developers’ time, energy, and focus. And while the impact might not be obvious at first glance, it adds up fast, and gets expensive even faster.

The Hidden Time Suck Developers Deal With Every Week

Everyone knows bugs happen. Downtime? Sure, that’s part of the game. But what Lokalise found is that these "expected" disruptions aren’t rare exceptions, they’re a regular part of the work week for most developers.

Their survey of 500 U.S. devs found that engineers lose an average of three hours per week to avoidable issues, stuff like broken tools, flaky workflows, or missing documentation. That may not seem outrageous in isolation, but when you do the math, it stings: that’s about 20 full workdays per year, per developer.

Now tie that to a salary. If a developer earns $100,000 annually, those 20 days of lost productivity equate to around $8,000 flushed away per person. For a 10-person team, that’s $80,000. For a team of 100, you’re burning close to a million dollars a year on technical friction alone.

The top culprits?

• Software bugs and glitches (55%)
• Downtime from platforms or services (47%)
• Incomplete or bad documentation (35%)
• Tool integration problems (24%)
• Slow code reviews (23%)

What’s striking is how persistent these issues are. It’s not that teams are unprepared, it’s that the issues are baked into the day-to-day experience.

Workarounds Are Just More Work

When something breaks, developers don’t usually wait around. They get scrappy. According to the report, 60% of them say they build their own workarounds. That might sound resourceful, but it just kicks the problem down the road. Nearly all of those devs then spend about an hour a week maintaining those fixes, patches that were never meant to last.

That’s more time lost. More mental energy spent on duct tape instead of delivery.

And then there’s AI. With all the buzz around generative tools, many devs have turned to AI for help. But 42% say AI tools actually slowed them down instead of speeding things up.

Why? Because context matters. AI-generated code often misses the bigger picture, it’s missing the nuance, the architecture, the naming conventions, the edge cases. So now the team spends extra time reviewing and rewriting what the bot suggested. You’ve swapped one bottleneck for another.

Even when AI-generated output is decent, it’s uneven. Junior developers may lean on it too much, skipping the deeper thinking behind the code. Senior engineers end up cleaning up the mess. And so begins another feedback loop of inefficiency.

When Developers Become Support Staff

It’s bad enough when your own tools break. It’s worse when you’re constantly fixing someone else’s.

According to Lokalise, 61% of developers regularly get pulled into tech support roles that aren’t part of their job. In some cases, the time they spend helping others rivals what they spend fixing their own blockers.

Common support tasks developers get dragged into:

• Troubleshooting network or connectivity issues (48%)
• Explaining workflows and documentation (39%)
• Resolving permissions or access issues (35%)
• Setting up or configuring tools (34%)
• Helping others with local environment setup (24%)

These issues are fixable with better documentation, better training, or clearer systems, but instead, they fall on devs already swamped with their own priorities.

Only 16% of developers said they were given proper resources to handle these support asks. One in three got nothing at all. No training. No documentation. Just figure it out and move on.

It’s no surprise that 66% said this extra support work hurts their focus. Nearly half (47%) said they hold off on asking for help themselves, just to avoid looking like they’re not competent.

That’s a culture problem, and a big one. Developers working under pressure, juggling support and delivery, and avoiding help for fear of judgment? That’s how you lose people.

Delays Aren’t Just Common, They’re Costly

Almost half of developers (44%) say they’ve missed a deadline in the past year because of tech-related issues. And these aren’t small blips.

Here’s how much time a single issue can eat up:

• 30% lost 1–3 hours
• 29% lost half a workday
• 18% lost an entire day
• 11% lost 2–3 days
• 1% lost a full week, or more

That kind of disruption derails everything. Sprints slip. Dependencies pile up. Product launches push back. It’s not just one person missing a target, it’s entire teams scrambling to re-align.

Then you start rushing. You skip proper testing. You delay writing documentation. You half-fix bugs. And suddenly you’ve created more of the same mess that caused the delays in the first place.

It’s a vicious cycle. And companies that don’t actively manage it pay for it twice, first in lost time, then in tech debt.

Regional Patterns Reveal Deeper Gaps

Lokalise also pulled Google Trends data to see where developers are searching for help the most. The results showed clear differences across states.

Top states for dev troubleshooting searches (per capita):

• Washington
• Vermont
• Massachusetts

Bottom states:

• Mississippi
• Louisiana
• Alabama

The most-searched terms?

• “segmentation fault”
• “git revert merge”
• “Python TypeError”
• “nginx 502 bad gateway”
• “macOS kernel panic”
• “JavaScript undefined”

It’s not just Silicon Valley dealing with cryptic error messages. Developers across the country are hitting the same walls. The difference is, some have better systems in place to fix them, and some are left Googling in the dark.

And in lower-search states, the numbers might reflect something else entirely: less visibility into problems, or fewer support structures to surface them in the first place.

Developers Are Piecing Together Help

When devs get stuck, they don’t go to internal IT. Most of the time, they’re on their own.

Here’s how developers look for help:

• 41% use a mix of forums, AI, and internal docs
• 25% turn to public forums like Stack Overflow
• 19% rely on AI tools
• 15% use internal documentation or team support

The result? A fragmented, inconsistent support ecosystem.

You end up with devs bouncing from Reddit to ChatGPT to Slack, cross-referencing answers, and guessing what’ll break the least. That’s not a system, it’s a scavenger hunt.

Worse, companies often treat this DIY support as a strength. But it’s not. It’s a failure of internal systems to give developers what they need.

Senior engineers become the default knowledge base. Junior devs fall behind. Knowledge becomes tribal, siloed, and fragile.

What Engineering Leaders Should Actually Do

If you’re leading a team, or a company, and you think this doesn’t apply to you, think again.

This isn’t a niche frustration. It’s a widespread, structural problem. And fixing it isn’t just about morale, it’s about money.

To make progress, teams need:

• Reliable tools that don’t break the flow
• Smooth integrations across the stack
• Simple, intuitive UX for faster ramp-up
• Real documentation that’s actually helpful
• Fast, human support when things go sideways

But tooling is just the start. Leadership needs to dig deeper.

• Run regular workflow reviews
• Identify friction points before they become culture problems
• Encourage help-seeking, not silence
• Build documentation into dev workflows
• Track internal issues like product bugs
• Rotate support roles so the burden is shared
• Budget time and headcount for cleaning up tech debt
• Set internal SLAs for support, not just for customers

Final Thought: Friction Is the Silent Killer

Your developers aren’t just writing code. They’re context-switching, firefighting, fixing documentation, building bandaids, and cleaning up after AI.

They’re wasting hours not because they’re slow, but because the system is.

And that’s the part most companies miss: developer friction isn’t just annoying, it’s expensive.

If you want your team to move fast, ship confidently, and actually enjoy their work, start by removing the stuff that’s slowing them down.

Read next: The Truth About Dopamine Detoxes: Can You Really Reset Your Brain?
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World