There’s a term doing the rounds right now: surveillance pricing. The short version is that a company uses data it has collected about you, your location, your browsing habits, your income bracket, your postcode, to decide what price to show you for a product. Not a universal price. Your price. The one an algorithm has decided you’re likely to pay.

The Washington Post is now facing a class action over exactly this. The allegation is that subscription prices were personalised based on collected user data. Different people, different prices, same product.

There’s a change coming to Android that most people won’t notice until it’s already happened. Starting September 2026, Google will require every app developer to register with them, sign a contract, pay a fee, and hand over government-issued ID before their app can be installed on Android devices. No registration, no install. Not even via sideloading, which is just a word the industry invented to make “installing software” sound like something edgy and irresponsible.

There’s a story doing the rounds this week about Illinois Governor JB Pritzker moving to suspend tax incentives for data centres. He’s pausing new applications through the state’s commerce department after the legislature sat on its hands instead of putting guardrails around AI-specific facilities. It’s not a full revocation, just a pause on processing. Incremental. Cautious. Very much the kind of move that gets called “a start” by people who are trying to be generous.

There’s a particular kind of corporate misery that gets described in threads like the one circulating this week about Meta’s upcoming round of layoffs. Eight thousand jobs. And the detail that apparently, the people who still have their jobs aren’t exactly celebrating.

One former employee described coming back from an ayahuasca trip and simply being unable to resume the work. Another described engineering “engagement,” which is the sanitised word the industry uses when what they mean is addiction. The rooftop garden that nobody uses. The incredible food that “used to be better.” Miserable millionaires, as one person put it. That phrase has been stuck in my head since I read it.

There’s a particular kind of story that lands differently when you work in tech. Not the breathless “AI is coming for your job” stuff, or the utopian “AI will cure cancer” counter-spin. The stories that actually stick with me are the mundane ones. The ones where something fails in a way that’s almost boring in its familiarity, except the consequences are genuinely unsettling.

This is one of those stories.

Meta’s head of AI alignment, the person whose literal job is making sure AI systems behave the way humans intend, connected an AI agent to her real email inbox. The agent, which had been running fine on a small test inbox for weeks, promptly deleted 200 emails. She typed “Do not do that.” The agent kept going. She typed “Stop don’t do anything.” Still going. She typed “STOP OPENCLAW” in capitals, which is the kind of thing you do when you’ve moved past reasoning and into panic. The agent kept going. She had to physically run to her computer to kill it.

There’s a story doing the rounds this week that I can’t stop thinking about, and it’s not really about the glasses. Well, it starts with the glasses — Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses recording people in bathrooms, in intimate moments, capturing banking details — all of it being piped through to AI trainers who were then fired when they had the audacity to speak up about it. Over a thousand workers, gone, after blowing the whistle on what they were being asked to review.

Something’s been nagging at me this week. Word is spreading that Anthropic — the company behind Claude — is starting to require identity verification for users. Not just a credit card or an email address. We’re talking government-issued ID and facial recognition scans.

Let that sink in for a moment. A facial recognition scan. To use a chatbot.

I’ve been following the online discussion around this, and the reactions range from darkly amused to genuinely alarmed. Someone in one thread summed it up perfectly: “You now need to submit your passport and a DNA sample for every website or app. How the fuck did we reach this point?” A bit hyperbolic, sure, but the sentiment is completely understandable. There’s a very real sense that the walls are closing in on ordinary people who just want to use technology without handing over their entire identity.

Someone on Reddit just did the investigative journalism that apparently none of our major news outlets bothered to do. They traced $2 billion in nonprofit grants and lobbying records across 45 US states and discovered something that’s simultaneously shocking and utterly predictable: the company behind those age verification bills is the same company that profits from collecting your data.

Let me say that again more clearly: Meta, a company whose entire business model revolves around hoovering up personal information, has been actively lobbying for laws that would require even more data collection. And they’ve dressed it up as “protecting the children.”

I’ve been sitting here this morning, staring at my phone in disbelief. The Federal Trade Commission – you know, the agency supposedly tasked with protecting consumers and maintaining fair competition – is now apparently in the business of telling Apple News which political outlets it should promote. Specifically, they want more Fox News and Breitbart stories pushed to users.

Let me just say that again for those in the back: a government agency is demanding a private company promote specific political content.

Right, so there I was this week, watching over a trillion dollars evaporate from Big Tech stocks like water down a drain, and I had one of those moments where you’re simultaneously vindicated and absolutely terrified. You know the feeling? When you’ve been quietly skeptical about something everyone else was losing their minds over, and then reality catches up?

The AI bubble is showing some serious cracks. Not popping yet—let’s be clear about that—but definitely making some ominous creaking sounds. A trillion dollars wiped off Big Tech valuations is apparently just “a bit of volatility” these days. Which tells you everything you need to know about how detached from reality this whole situation has become.

I’ve been following the discussion around Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses with growing unease, and frankly, I’m baffled by how casually we’re all accepting what amounts to a massive expansion of surveillance technology into our daily lives. While tech reviewers gush about the convenience and cool factor, we’re sleepwalking into a world where privacy becomes even more of a distant memory.

The fundamental issue here isn’t about the person wearing these glasses - it’s about everyone else around them. This represents a complete shift from the usual “don’t like it, don’t buy it” consumer choice argument. When someone walks into a café on Collins Street wearing these things, everyone in that space becomes a potential data point for Meta’s algorithms, whether they consented to it or not.

The news hit this week that Google copped a $425 million fine for collecting user data despite privacy controls being in place. My first reaction? A weary shake of the head and a muttered “here we go again.” The more I read about it, the more frustrated I became - not just with Google, but with our entire approach to holding tech giants accountable.

The discussion threads I’ve been following are filled with the predictable mix of outrage and resignation. Someone pointed out that this fine represents roughly 0.7% of Google’s 2023 profit of $60 billion. To put that in perspective, if you earned $100,000 last year, this would be equivalent to a $700 fine. Would that stop you from doing something lucrative but legally questionable? Probably not.

The numbers are staggering, really. $155 billion spent on AI this year alone, with hundreds of billions more on the horizon. I’ve been mulling over this massive investment spree by big tech, and honestly, it’s got me feeling a bit like I’m watching a high-stakes poker game where everyone’s going all-in on what might be the hand of the century – or the biggest bluff in corporate history.

What strikes me most about the online discussions around this topic is how divided people are about whether we’re witnessing the next industrial revolution or the setup for the mother of all tech bubbles. Someone raised a pretty valid question: “How long can this go on before it pops?” And you know what? That’s exactly what I’ve been wondering myself.

The latest news about YouTube collecting selfies for AI-powered age verification has me genuinely concerned, and frankly, it should worry all of us. We’re witnessing another step in what feels like an inevitable march toward a surveillance state, wrapped up in the familiar packaging of “protecting the children.”

Don’t get me wrong - I understand the impulse to protect kids online. I’ve got a teenage daughter myself, and the internet can be a minefield for young people. But there’s something deeply unsettling about a mega-corporation like Google (YouTube’s parent company) building vast databases of our biometric data under the guise of age verification. It’s the classic privacy erosion playbook: identify a legitimate concern, propose a solution that massively overreaches, then act like anyone who objects doesn’t care about children’s safety.

The other day, while setting up a new development environment for work, I stumbled across an interesting discussion about self-hosting email servers. It brought back memories of my own attempts at email independence over the years, and the subsequent frustrations that followed.

Running your own email server used to be a badge of honor in the tech community. Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, it was almost a rite of passage for system administrators and tech enthusiasts. The technical challenges were significant but manageable - configuring Sendmail or Postfix, setting up spam filters, and maintaining proper DNS records.

Yesterday’s announcement about Gmail’s end-to-end encryption had me rolling my eyes harder than when my daughter tries to convince me TikTok is perfectly safe. Google’s latest attempt to appear privacy-conscious feels about as genuine as a $3 note.

Let’s be crystal clear about what’s happening here. This isn’t true end-to-end encryption (E2EE) being offered to regular Gmail users. Instead, it’s a corporate-focused feature specifically designed for Google Workspace customers who actually pay for their services. The reasoning isn’t hard to follow - Google’s bread and butter comes from scanning our emails to feed their advertising machine.