#googlesearch — Public Fediverse posts

The Trophy-Sharing Cartel: How Europe’s Digital Markets Act Turns Google’s IP into a Public Utility

“A principled defense of IP cannot depend on whether one admires Google. Property rules worthy of the name…
#Europe #EU #Antitrust #Competition #DigitalMarketsAct #EuropeanCommission #Google #GoogleSearch #GuestContributor #innovation #intellectualproperty
https://www.europesays.com/europe/103038/

The Internet Was Built With Public Money

Its Private Gatekeepers Must Answer to the Public.

By Cliff Potts | WPS News

BAYBAY CITY, LEYTE, Philippines, July 27, 2026 — 0005 PhST

The European Union’s decision to fine Google €890 million—approximately US$1 billion—is more than another regulatory dispute between Brussels and an enormously profitable American corporation. It raises a question governments should have confronted decades ago: How did private companies acquire the power to determine who may be found, heard, read, and economically successful on a communications system built substantially with public money?

The European Commission imposed €460 million of the penalty because Google allegedly favored its own shopping, hotel, flight, and other commercial services in search results. Another €430 million concerned Google Play restrictions that prevented application developers from freely directing customers toward less expensive purchasing options outside Google’s store (European Commission, 2026; Reuters, 2026).

Google disputes the European findings and may challenge the penalties. However, the larger issue is not whether one particular search-result design was convenient or whether a developer signed a contract containing restrictive terms. The issue is whether a corporation that controls a primary gateway to information should be permitted to use that position to benefit its own businesses and disadvantage smaller competitors.

Google is not merely another website competing for attention. It operates infrastructure that determines whether millions of other websites receive attention at all.

The public built the foundation

The internet was not created in a Silicon Valley garage.

Its foundations emerged from decades of publicly funded research, including work by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation. NSFNET became the principal American internet backbone, growing from approximately 2,000 connected computers in 1986 to more than 2 million by 1993. The National Science Foundation retired that publicly supported backbone in 1995 as commercial internet services expanded (National Science Foundation, n.d.).

Private companies subsequently invested enormous amounts in fiber-optic networks, cellular systems, data centers, software, cloud computing, and consumer services. That investment should not be dismissed. Nevertheless, it was built upon protocols, research, networks, and technical knowledge created with substantial support from American taxpayers, public universities, government laboratories, and publicly funded researchers.

Tor offers another instructive example.

The onion-routing research that eventually produced Tor began at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. The technology was designed to permit private communication across public networks by passing encrypted traffic through multiple relays. Its developers later released the software publicly, and the independent Tor Project eventually assumed responsibility for its continued development (Tor Project, n.d.).

That public release was not merely charity. An anonymity network used only by government personnel would provide little anonymity because participation itself could identify a user as a government agent. A broad civilian network provided the crowd in which official users could disappear. At the same time, the technology became useful to journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers, researchers, abuse survivors, and people living under censorship.

Tor demonstrates that publicly financed technology can remain broadly available as civic infrastructure rather than becoming a privately controlled tollbooth.

Private companies became private governments

The problem is not that businesses were permitted to operate online. Commercial participation helped transform a specialized research network into a global communications system.

The problem is that elected governments allowed a handful of businesses to become the internet’s unelected governments.

Google influences what information people discover. Meta determines which publishers and creators reach audiences who have already chosen to follow them. Apple and Google control access to most mobile application users. Major cloud providers control systems upon which businesses, governments, publishers, and public services increasingly depend.

These corporations establish rules, impose penalties, change algorithms, restrict distribution, collect information, and decide which competing services are visible. Their decisions can destroy a small business or independent publication without a hearing, explanation, meaningful appeal, or democratic accountability.

An independent publisher such as WPS News does not need to be personally targeted to be harmed. A search company can reduce traffic to thousands of publishers simultaneously by changing an algorithm, placing its own services above independent results, or using artificial intelligence to answer questions directly without sending readers to the original reporting.

The injury may be impersonal, but it is still real.

A publisher can conduct research, produce original work, maintain a website, follow technical recommendations, and publish consistently—only to discover that access to readers depends upon machinery controlled by companies that may operate competing news, advertising, video, artificial-intelligence, or information services.

That is not an open marketplace. It is economic dependence upon a gatekeeper.

Regulation is not theft

Corporate defenders frequently describe regulation as government interference with private enterprise. That description ignores both the public origin of the network and the power these companies now exercise over others.

The public financed much of the road. Private companies built businesses beside it, improved portions of it, and created useful vehicles for traveling upon it. They were then allowed to erect tollbooths, redirect traffic toward their own stores, and decide which smaller operators could place signs along the highway.

Elected officials have every right—and a public duty—to question that arrangement.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act identifies exceptionally powerful technology companies as “gatekeepers” and subjects them to requirements intended to make digital markets fairer and more contestable. The law is explicitly designed to prevent dominant platforms from using control of essential services to suppress competition (European Commission, n.d.).

The €890 million penalty will not dismantle Google, democratize the internet, or guarantee traffic for independent publishers. Google can absorb a billion-dollar fine more easily than almost any small competitor can absorb a bad month.

Meaningful regulation must therefore do more than collect money. It must change behavior.

Dominant search services should not secretly favor their own commercial operations. Application stores should not prevent developers from informing customers about alternatives. Ranking systems that determine economic survival require greater transparency. Publishers should have enforceable rights concerning how their work is copied, summarized, indexed, and used to train or operate artificial-intelligence systems.

Governments did not spend decades creating a global communications network so that several corporations could privately determine who deserves access to the public.

American taxpayers paid for the foundation. Their parents paid for it. Their institutions built it. Their elected representatives are entitled to demand that the businesses occupying its most powerful gateways operate fairly.

The internet may no longer be publicly owned in any simple legal or physical sense. But it remains a public highway in function, necessity, and origin.

The public has every right to insist that its gatekeepers answer to the people traveling upon it.

References

European Commission. (2026). Digital Markets Act enforcement concerning Google Search and Google Play.

European Commission. (n.d.). Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and contestable digital markets.

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Birth of the commercial internet.

Reuters. (2026, July 23). Google hit with $1 billion EU fine in first penalties under landmark rules.

Tor Project. (n.d.). History of Tor and onion routing.

The Internet Was Built With Public Money

Its Private Gatekeepers Must Answer to the Public.

By Cliff Potts | WPS News

BAYBAY CITY, LEYTE, Philippines, July 27, 2026 — 0005 PhST

The European Union’s decision to fine Google €890 million—approximately US$1 billion—is more than another regulatory dispute between Brussels and an enormously profitable American corporation. It raises a question governments should have confronted decades ago: How did private companies acquire the power to determine who may be found, heard, read, and economically successful on a communications system built substantially with public money?

The European Commission imposed €460 million of the penalty because Google allegedly favored its own shopping, hotel, flight, and other commercial services in search results. Another €430 million concerned Google Play restrictions that prevented application developers from freely directing customers toward less expensive purchasing options outside Google’s store (European Commission, 2026; Reuters, 2026).

Google disputes the European findings and may challenge the penalties. However, the larger issue is not whether one particular search-result design was convenient or whether a developer signed a contract containing restrictive terms. The issue is whether a corporation that controls a primary gateway to information should be permitted to use that position to benefit its own businesses and disadvantage smaller competitors.

Google is not merely another website competing for attention. It operates infrastructure that determines whether millions of other websites receive attention at all.

The public built the foundation

The internet was not created in a Silicon Valley garage.

Its foundations emerged from decades of publicly funded research, including work by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation. NSFNET became the principal American internet backbone, growing from approximately 2,000 connected computers in 1986 to more than 2 million by 1993. The National Science Foundation retired that publicly supported backbone in 1995 as commercial internet services expanded (National Science Foundation, n.d.).

Private companies subsequently invested enormous amounts in fiber-optic networks, cellular systems, data centers, software, cloud computing, and consumer services. That investment should not be dismissed. Nevertheless, it was built upon protocols, research, networks, and technical knowledge created with substantial support from American taxpayers, public universities, government laboratories, and publicly funded researchers.

Tor offers another instructive example.

The onion-routing research that eventually produced Tor began at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. The technology was designed to permit private communication across public networks by passing encrypted traffic through multiple relays. Its developers later released the software publicly, and the independent Tor Project eventually assumed responsibility for its continued development (Tor Project, n.d.).

That public release was not merely charity. An anonymity network used only by government personnel would provide little anonymity because participation itself could identify a user as a government agent. A broad civilian network provided the crowd in which official users could disappear. At the same time, the technology became useful to journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers, researchers, abuse survivors, and people living under censorship.

Tor demonstrates that publicly financed technology can remain broadly available as civic infrastructure rather than becoming a privately controlled tollbooth.

Private companies became private governments

The problem is not that businesses were permitted to operate online. Commercial participation helped transform a specialized research network into a global communications system.

The problem is that elected governments allowed a handful of businesses to become the internet’s unelected governments.

Google influences what information people discover. Meta determines which publishers and creators reach audiences who have already chosen to follow them. Apple and Google control access to most mobile application users. Major cloud providers control systems upon which businesses, governments, publishers, and public services increasingly depend.

These corporations establish rules, impose penalties, change algorithms, restrict distribution, collect information, and decide which competing services are visible. Their decisions can destroy a small business or independent publication without a hearing, explanation, meaningful appeal, or democratic accountability.

An independent publisher such as WPS News does not need to be personally targeted to be harmed. A search company can reduce traffic to thousands of publishers simultaneously by changing an algorithm, placing its own services above independent results, or using artificial intelligence to answer questions directly without sending readers to the original reporting.

The injury may be impersonal, but it is still real.

A publisher can conduct research, produce original work, maintain a website, follow technical recommendations, and publish consistently—only to discover that access to readers depends upon machinery controlled by companies that may operate competing news, advertising, video, artificial-intelligence, or information services.

That is not an open marketplace. It is economic dependence upon a gatekeeper.

Regulation is not theft

Corporate defenders frequently describe regulation as government interference with private enterprise. That description ignores both the public origin of the network and the power these companies now exercise over others.

The public financed much of the road. Private companies built businesses beside it, improved portions of it, and created useful vehicles for traveling upon it. They were then allowed to erect tollbooths, redirect traffic toward their own stores, and decide which smaller operators could place signs along the highway.

Elected officials have every right—and a public duty—to question that arrangement.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act identifies exceptionally powerful technology companies as “gatekeepers” and subjects them to requirements intended to make digital markets fairer and more contestable. The law is explicitly designed to prevent dominant platforms from using control of essential services to suppress competition (European Commission, n.d.).

The €890 million penalty will not dismantle Google, democratize the internet, or guarantee traffic for independent publishers. Google can absorb a billion-dollar fine more easily than almost any small competitor can absorb a bad month.

Meaningful regulation must therefore do more than collect money. It must change behavior.

Dominant search services should not secretly favor their own commercial operations. Application stores should not prevent developers from informing customers about alternatives. Ranking systems that determine economic survival require greater transparency. Publishers should have enforceable rights concerning how their work is copied, summarized, indexed, and used to train or operate artificial-intelligence systems.

Governments did not spend decades creating a global communications network so that several corporations could privately determine who deserves access to the public.

American taxpayers paid for the foundation. Their parents paid for it. Their institutions built it. Their elected representatives are entitled to demand that the businesses occupying its most powerful gateways operate fairly.

The internet may no longer be publicly owned in any simple legal or physical sense. But it remains a public highway in function, necessity, and origin.

The public has every right to insist that its gatekeepers answer to the people traveling upon it.

References

European Commission. (2026). Digital Markets Act enforcement concerning Google Search and Google Play.

European Commission. (n.d.). Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and contestable digital markets.

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Birth of the commercial internet.

Reuters. (2026, July 23). Google hit with $1 billion EU fine in first penalties under landmark rules.

Tor Project. (n.d.). History of Tor and onion routing.

The Internet Was Built With Public Money

Its Private Gatekeepers Must Answer to the Public.

By Cliff Potts | WPS News

BAYBAY CITY, LEYTE, Philippines, July 27, 2026 — 0005 PhST

The European Union’s decision to fine Google €890 million—approximately US$1 billion—is more than another regulatory dispute between Brussels and an enormously profitable American corporation. It raises a question governments should have confronted decades ago: How did private companies acquire the power to determine who may be found, heard, read, and economically successful on a communications system built substantially with public money?

The European Commission imposed €460 million of the penalty because Google allegedly favored its own shopping, hotel, flight, and other commercial services in search results. Another €430 million concerned Google Play restrictions that prevented application developers from freely directing customers toward less expensive purchasing options outside Google’s store (European Commission, 2026; Reuters, 2026).

Google disputes the European findings and may challenge the penalties. However, the larger issue is not whether one particular search-result design was convenient or whether a developer signed a contract containing restrictive terms. The issue is whether a corporation that controls a primary gateway to information should be permitted to use that position to benefit its own businesses and disadvantage smaller competitors.

Google is not merely another website competing for attention. It operates infrastructure that determines whether millions of other websites receive attention at all.

The public built the foundation

The internet was not created in a Silicon Valley garage.

Its foundations emerged from decades of publicly funded research, including work by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation. NSFNET became the principal American internet backbone, growing from approximately 2,000 connected computers in 1986 to more than 2 million by 1993. The National Science Foundation retired that publicly supported backbone in 1995 as commercial internet services expanded (National Science Foundation, n.d.).

Private companies subsequently invested enormous amounts in fiber-optic networks, cellular systems, data centers, software, cloud computing, and consumer services. That investment should not be dismissed. Nevertheless, it was built upon protocols, research, networks, and technical knowledge created with substantial support from American taxpayers, public universities, government laboratories, and publicly funded researchers.

Tor offers another instructive example.

The onion-routing research that eventually produced Tor began at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. The technology was designed to permit private communication across public networks by passing encrypted traffic through multiple relays. Its developers later released the software publicly, and the independent Tor Project eventually assumed responsibility for its continued development (Tor Project, n.d.).

That public release was not merely charity. An anonymity network used only by government personnel would provide little anonymity because participation itself could identify a user as a government agent. A broad civilian network provided the crowd in which official users could disappear. At the same time, the technology became useful to journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers, researchers, abuse survivors, and people living under censorship.

Tor demonstrates that publicly financed technology can remain broadly available as civic infrastructure rather than becoming a privately controlled tollbooth.

Private companies became private governments

The problem is not that businesses were permitted to operate online. Commercial participation helped transform a specialized research network into a global communications system.

The problem is that elected governments allowed a handful of businesses to become the internet’s unelected governments.

Google influences what information people discover. Meta determines which publishers and creators reach audiences who have already chosen to follow them. Apple and Google control access to most mobile application users. Major cloud providers control systems upon which businesses, governments, publishers, and public services increasingly depend.

These corporations establish rules, impose penalties, change algorithms, restrict distribution, collect information, and decide which competing services are visible. Their decisions can destroy a small business or independent publication without a hearing, explanation, meaningful appeal, or democratic accountability.

An independent publisher such as WPS News does not need to be personally targeted to be harmed. A search company can reduce traffic to thousands of publishers simultaneously by changing an algorithm, placing its own services above independent results, or using artificial intelligence to answer questions directly without sending readers to the original reporting.

The injury may be impersonal, but it is still real.

A publisher can conduct research, produce original work, maintain a website, follow technical recommendations, and publish consistently—only to discover that access to readers depends upon machinery controlled by companies that may operate competing news, advertising, video, artificial-intelligence, or information services.

That is not an open marketplace. It is economic dependence upon a gatekeeper.

Regulation is not theft

Corporate defenders frequently describe regulation as government interference with private enterprise. That description ignores both the public origin of the network and the power these companies now exercise over others.

The public financed much of the road. Private companies built businesses beside it, improved portions of it, and created useful vehicles for traveling upon it. They were then allowed to erect tollbooths, redirect traffic toward their own stores, and decide which smaller operators could place signs along the highway.

Elected officials have every right—and a public duty—to question that arrangement.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act identifies exceptionally powerful technology companies as “gatekeepers” and subjects them to requirements intended to make digital markets fairer and more contestable. The law is explicitly designed to prevent dominant platforms from using control of essential services to suppress competition (European Commission, n.d.).

The €890 million penalty will not dismantle Google, democratize the internet, or guarantee traffic for independent publishers. Google can absorb a billion-dollar fine more easily than almost any small competitor can absorb a bad month.

Meaningful regulation must therefore do more than collect money. It must change behavior.

Dominant search services should not secretly favor their own commercial operations. Application stores should not prevent developers from informing customers about alternatives. Ranking systems that determine economic survival require greater transparency. Publishers should have enforceable rights concerning how their work is copied, summarized, indexed, and used to train or operate artificial-intelligence systems.

Governments did not spend decades creating a global communications network so that several corporations could privately determine who deserves access to the public.

American taxpayers paid for the foundation. Their parents paid for it. Their institutions built it. Their elected representatives are entitled to demand that the businesses occupying its most powerful gateways operate fairly.

The internet may no longer be publicly owned in any simple legal or physical sense. But it remains a public highway in function, necessity, and origin.

The public has every right to insist that its gatekeepers answer to the people traveling upon it.

References

European Commission. (2026). Digital Markets Act enforcement concerning Google Search and Google Play.

European Commission. (n.d.). Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and contestable digital markets.

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Birth of the commercial internet.

Reuters. (2026, July 23). Google hit with $1 billion EU fine in first penalties under landmark rules.

Tor Project. (n.d.). History of Tor and onion routing.

The Internet Was Built With Public Money

Its Private Gatekeepers Must Answer to the Public.

By Cliff Potts | WPS News

BAYBAY CITY, LEYTE, Philippines, July 27, 2026 — 0005 PhST

The European Union’s decision to fine Google €890 million—approximately US$1 billion—is more than another regulatory dispute between Brussels and an enormously profitable American corporation. It raises a question governments should have confronted decades ago: How did private companies acquire the power to determine who may be found, heard, read, and economically successful on a communications system built substantially with public money?

The European Commission imposed €460 million of the penalty because Google allegedly favored its own shopping, hotel, flight, and other commercial services in search results. Another €430 million concerned Google Play restrictions that prevented application developers from freely directing customers toward less expensive purchasing options outside Google’s store (European Commission, 2026; Reuters, 2026).

Google disputes the European findings and may challenge the penalties. However, the larger issue is not whether one particular search-result design was convenient or whether a developer signed a contract containing restrictive terms. The issue is whether a corporation that controls a primary gateway to information should be permitted to use that position to benefit its own businesses and disadvantage smaller competitors.

Google is not merely another website competing for attention. It operates infrastructure that determines whether millions of other websites receive attention at all.

The public built the foundation

The internet was not created in a Silicon Valley garage.

Its foundations emerged from decades of publicly funded research, including work by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation. NSFNET became the principal American internet backbone, growing from approximately 2,000 connected computers in 1986 to more than 2 million by 1993. The National Science Foundation retired that publicly supported backbone in 1995 as commercial internet services expanded (National Science Foundation, n.d.).

Private companies subsequently invested enormous amounts in fiber-optic networks, cellular systems, data centers, software, cloud computing, and consumer services. That investment should not be dismissed. Nevertheless, it was built upon protocols, research, networks, and technical knowledge created with substantial support from American taxpayers, public universities, government laboratories, and publicly funded researchers.

Tor offers another instructive example.

The onion-routing research that eventually produced Tor began at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. The technology was designed to permit private communication across public networks by passing encrypted traffic through multiple relays. Its developers later released the software publicly, and the independent Tor Project eventually assumed responsibility for its continued development (Tor Project, n.d.).

That public release was not merely charity. An anonymity network used only by government personnel would provide little anonymity because participation itself could identify a user as a government agent. A broad civilian network provided the crowd in which official users could disappear. At the same time, the technology became useful to journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers, researchers, abuse survivors, and people living under censorship.

Tor demonstrates that publicly financed technology can remain broadly available as civic infrastructure rather than becoming a privately controlled tollbooth.

Private companies became private governments

The problem is not that businesses were permitted to operate online. Commercial participation helped transform a specialized research network into a global communications system.

The problem is that elected governments allowed a handful of businesses to become the internet’s unelected governments.

Google influences what information people discover. Meta determines which publishers and creators reach audiences who have already chosen to follow them. Apple and Google control access to most mobile application users. Major cloud providers control systems upon which businesses, governments, publishers, and public services increasingly depend.

These corporations establish rules, impose penalties, change algorithms, restrict distribution, collect information, and decide which competing services are visible. Their decisions can destroy a small business or independent publication without a hearing, explanation, meaningful appeal, or democratic accountability.

An independent publisher such as WPS News does not need to be personally targeted to be harmed. A search company can reduce traffic to thousands of publishers simultaneously by changing an algorithm, placing its own services above independent results, or using artificial intelligence to answer questions directly without sending readers to the original reporting.

The injury may be impersonal, but it is still real.

A publisher can conduct research, produce original work, maintain a website, follow technical recommendations, and publish consistently—only to discover that access to readers depends upon machinery controlled by companies that may operate competing news, advertising, video, artificial-intelligence, or information services.

That is not an open marketplace. It is economic dependence upon a gatekeeper.

Regulation is not theft

Corporate defenders frequently describe regulation as government interference with private enterprise. That description ignores both the public origin of the network and the power these companies now exercise over others.

The public financed much of the road. Private companies built businesses beside it, improved portions of it, and created useful vehicles for traveling upon it. They were then allowed to erect tollbooths, redirect traffic toward their own stores, and decide which smaller operators could place signs along the highway.

Elected officials have every right—and a public duty—to question that arrangement.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act identifies exceptionally powerful technology companies as “gatekeepers” and subjects them to requirements intended to make digital markets fairer and more contestable. The law is explicitly designed to prevent dominant platforms from using control of essential services to suppress competition (European Commission, n.d.).

The €890 million penalty will not dismantle Google, democratize the internet, or guarantee traffic for independent publishers. Google can absorb a billion-dollar fine more easily than almost any small competitor can absorb a bad month.

Meaningful regulation must therefore do more than collect money. It must change behavior.

Dominant search services should not secretly favor their own commercial operations. Application stores should not prevent developers from informing customers about alternatives. Ranking systems that determine economic survival require greater transparency. Publishers should have enforceable rights concerning how their work is copied, summarized, indexed, and used to train or operate artificial-intelligence systems.

Governments did not spend decades creating a global communications network so that several corporations could privately determine who deserves access to the public.

American taxpayers paid for the foundation. Their parents paid for it. Their institutions built it. Their elected representatives are entitled to demand that the businesses occupying its most powerful gateways operate fairly.

The internet may no longer be publicly owned in any simple legal or physical sense. But it remains a public highway in function, necessity, and origin.

The public has every right to insist that its gatekeepers answer to the people traveling upon it.

References

European Commission. (2026). Digital Markets Act enforcement concerning Google Search and Google Play.

European Commission. (n.d.). Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and contestable digital markets.

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Birth of the commercial internet.

Reuters. (2026, July 23). Google hit with $1 billion EU fine in first penalties under landmark rules.

Tor Project. (n.d.). History of Tor and onion routing.

The Internet Was Built With Public Money

Its Private Gatekeepers Must Answer to the Public.

By Cliff Potts | WPS News

BAYBAY CITY, LEYTE, Philippines, July 27, 2026 — 0005 PhST

The European Union’s decision to fine Google €890 million—approximately US$1 billion—is more than another regulatory dispute between Brussels and an enormously profitable American corporation. It raises a question governments should have confronted decades ago: How did private companies acquire the power to determine who may be found, heard, read, and economically successful on a communications system built substantially with public money?

The European Commission imposed €460 million of the penalty because Google allegedly favored its own shopping, hotel, flight, and other commercial services in search results. Another €430 million concerned Google Play restrictions that prevented application developers from freely directing customers toward less expensive purchasing options outside Google’s store (European Commission, 2026; Reuters, 2026).

Google disputes the European findings and may challenge the penalties. However, the larger issue is not whether one particular search-result design was convenient or whether a developer signed a contract containing restrictive terms. The issue is whether a corporation that controls a primary gateway to information should be permitted to use that position to benefit its own businesses and disadvantage smaller competitors.

Google is not merely another website competing for attention. It operates infrastructure that determines whether millions of other websites receive attention at all.

The public built the foundation

The internet was not created in a Silicon Valley garage.

Its foundations emerged from decades of publicly funded research, including work by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation. NSFNET became the principal American internet backbone, growing from approximately 2,000 connected computers in 1986 to more than 2 million by 1993. The National Science Foundation retired that publicly supported backbone in 1995 as commercial internet services expanded (National Science Foundation, n.d.).

Private companies subsequently invested enormous amounts in fiber-optic networks, cellular systems, data centers, software, cloud computing, and consumer services. That investment should not be dismissed. Nevertheless, it was built upon protocols, research, networks, and technical knowledge created with substantial support from American taxpayers, public universities, government laboratories, and publicly funded researchers.

Tor offers another instructive example.

The onion-routing research that eventually produced Tor began at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. The technology was designed to permit private communication across public networks by passing encrypted traffic through multiple relays. Its developers later released the software publicly, and the independent Tor Project eventually assumed responsibility for its continued development (Tor Project, n.d.).

That public release was not merely charity. An anonymity network used only by government personnel would provide little anonymity because participation itself could identify a user as a government agent. A broad civilian network provided the crowd in which official users could disappear. At the same time, the technology became useful to journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers, researchers, abuse survivors, and people living under censorship.

Tor demonstrates that publicly financed technology can remain broadly available as civic infrastructure rather than becoming a privately controlled tollbooth.

Private companies became private governments

The problem is not that businesses were permitted to operate online. Commercial participation helped transform a specialized research network into a global communications system.

The problem is that elected governments allowed a handful of businesses to become the internet’s unelected governments.

Google influences what information people discover. Meta determines which publishers and creators reach audiences who have already chosen to follow them. Apple and Google control access to most mobile application users. Major cloud providers control systems upon which businesses, governments, publishers, and public services increasingly depend.

These corporations establish rules, impose penalties, change algorithms, restrict distribution, collect information, and decide which competing services are visible. Their decisions can destroy a small business or independent publication without a hearing, explanation, meaningful appeal, or democratic accountability.

An independent publisher such as WPS News does not need to be personally targeted to be harmed. A search company can reduce traffic to thousands of publishers simultaneously by changing an algorithm, placing its own services above independent results, or using artificial intelligence to answer questions directly without sending readers to the original reporting.

The injury may be impersonal, but it is still real.

A publisher can conduct research, produce original work, maintain a website, follow technical recommendations, and publish consistently—only to discover that access to readers depends upon machinery controlled by companies that may operate competing news, advertising, video, artificial-intelligence, or information services.

That is not an open marketplace. It is economic dependence upon a gatekeeper.

Regulation is not theft

Corporate defenders frequently describe regulation as government interference with private enterprise. That description ignores both the public origin of the network and the power these companies now exercise over others.

The public financed much of the road. Private companies built businesses beside it, improved portions of it, and created useful vehicles for traveling upon it. They were then allowed to erect tollbooths, redirect traffic toward their own stores, and decide which smaller operators could place signs along the highway.

Elected officials have every right—and a public duty—to question that arrangement.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act identifies exceptionally powerful technology companies as “gatekeepers” and subjects them to requirements intended to make digital markets fairer and more contestable. The law is explicitly designed to prevent dominant platforms from using control of essential services to suppress competition (European Commission, n.d.).

The €890 million penalty will not dismantle Google, democratize the internet, or guarantee traffic for independent publishers. Google can absorb a billion-dollar fine more easily than almost any small competitor can absorb a bad month.

Meaningful regulation must therefore do more than collect money. It must change behavior.

Dominant search services should not secretly favor their own commercial operations. Application stores should not prevent developers from informing customers about alternatives. Ranking systems that determine economic survival require greater transparency. Publishers should have enforceable rights concerning how their work is copied, summarized, indexed, and used to train or operate artificial-intelligence systems.

Governments did not spend decades creating a global communications network so that several corporations could privately determine who deserves access to the public.

American taxpayers paid for the foundation. Their parents paid for it. Their institutions built it. Their elected representatives are entitled to demand that the businesses occupying its most powerful gateways operate fairly.

The internet may no longer be publicly owned in any simple legal or physical sense. But it remains a public highway in function, necessity, and origin.

The public has every right to insist that its gatekeepers answer to the people traveling upon it.

References

European Commission. (2026). Digital Markets Act enforcement concerning Google Search and Google Play.

European Commission. (n.d.). Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and contestable digital markets.

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Birth of the commercial internet.

Reuters. (2026, July 23). Google hit with $1 billion EU fine in first penalties under landmark rules.

Tor Project. (n.d.). History of Tor and onion routing.

A Look Back at Web of Spider-Man #112 (1994)

Disclaimer: This is my original work with details sourced from reading the comic book and doing personal research. Anyone who wants to use this article, in part or in whole, needs to secure first my permission and agree to cite me as the source and author. Let it be known that any unauthorized use of this article will constrain the author to pursue the remedies under R.A. No. 8293, the Revised Penal Code, and/or all applicable legal actions under the laws of the Philippines.

Welcome back superhero enthusiasts, 1990s culture enthusiasts and comic book collectors! Today we go back to the year 1994 to explore a part of the Marvel Comics shared universe through the Web of Spider-Man monthly series.

In this review, we will be looking at the 3rd chapter of the Pursuit storyline. Spider-Man #45 showed a broken-hearted Spider-Man who starts his quest for vengeance against the Chameleon whom he holds responsible for the deception that happened in Amazing Spider-Man #388. As the webslinger continued his search for answers while hurting a lot of thugs, the Chameleon deceptively hires the service of a contractor to kill Spider-Man. That said, the tension really built-up a lot and we will find out what will happen next.

With those details laid down, here is a look back at Web of Spider-Man #112, published in 1994 by Marvel Comics with a story by Terry Kavanaugh and drawn by Alex Saviuk. This is the 3rd chapter of the Pursuit storyline.

Early story

The story begins deep within New York City. A bus full of prisoners and armed guards makes its way through the rough streets of the city. The guard notices that they are taking a long route and approached the bus driver – the Chameleon in disguise.

The Chameleon is aware that Spider-Man has been tracing him and he puts his sinister plan into action by suddenly hitting the brakes, helping the prisoners overcome the guards, and letting them loose in the city to spark chaos.

Spider-Man swings into action as prisoners get off the bus. Already stressed and obsessed with his search for the Chameleon, he lands on top of the bus and gains access through one of the windows. As the Chameleon fails to maintain his disguise, the webslinger notices him…

Quality

Following the events of the first two chapters, the storytelling in this comic book really turned intense as the stakes were raised. As expected, Spider-Man is doing things the hard way as his obsession for revenge against the Chameleon continues to burn strongly, and his wife Mary Jane is suffering from the loneliness connected with it.

On the raising of stakes in the plot, there is a theme about terrorism here which is dramatized through the Chameleon’s elaborate plan of setting off bombs in several parts of New York. As such, the story has this emphasis on chaos which works well with the webslinger’s state of madness and desperation. Along the way, Spider-Man’s humanity remains as dramatized in key points of the comic book.

In connection with the chaos and terrorism elements, the action here looked grounded with reality and Alex Saviuk’s style made the tale look gritty.

One notable part of this comic book shows the development of a separate sub-plot in Washington, D.C., which reflects developments that took place in Web of Spider-Man #109 to #111. It has a touch of politics and was effectively a distraction from the main story.  

Conclusion

Web of Spider-Man #112 (1994) is easily the most intense and most action-packed chapter of the Pursuit storyline. The themes of chaos and terrorism here easily overshadowed Spider-Man’s obsessive state and yet the creative team succeeded in moving the plot forward. That said, the stage is all set for the conclusion of the Pursuit storyline and I am looking forward to it.

Overall, Web of Spider-Man #112 (1994) is recommended.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

A Look Back at Web of Spider-Man #112 (1994)

Disclaimer: This is my original work with details sourced from reading the comic book and doing personal research. Anyone who wants to use this article, in part or in whole, needs to secure first my permission and agree to cite me as the source and author. Let it be known that any unauthorized use of this article will constrain the author to pursue the remedies under R.A. No. 8293, the Revised Penal Code, and/or all applicable legal actions under the laws of the Philippines.

Welcome back superhero enthusiasts, 1990s culture enthusiasts and comic book collectors! Today we go back to the year 1994 to explore a part of the Marvel Comics shared universe through the Web of Spider-Man monthly series.

In this review, we will be looking at the 3rd chapter of the Pursuit storyline. Spider-Man #45 showed a broken-hearted Spider-Man who starts his quest for vengeance against the Chameleon whom he holds responsible for the deception that happened in Amazing Spider-Man #388. As the webslinger continued his search for answers while hurting a lot of thugs, the Chameleon deceptively hires the service of a contractor to kill Spider-Man. That said, the tension really built-up a lot and we will find out what will happen next.

With those details laid down, here is a look back at Web of Spider-Man #112, published in 1994 by Marvel Comics with a story by Terry Kavanaugh and drawn by Alex Saviuk. This is the 3rd chapter of the Pursuit storyline.

Early story

The story begins deep within New York City. A bus full of prisoners and armed guards makes its way through the rough streets of the city. The guard notices that they are taking a long route and approached the bus driver – the Chameleon in disguise.

The Chameleon is aware that Spider-Man has been tracing him and he puts his sinister plan into action by suddenly hitting the brakes, helping the prisoners overcome the guards, and letting them loose in the city to spark chaos.

Spider-Man swings into action as prisoners get off the bus. Already stressed and obsessed with his search for the Chameleon, he lands on top of the bus and gains access through one of the windows. As the Chameleon fails to maintain his disguise, the webslinger notices him…

Quality

Following the events of the first two chapters, the storytelling in this comic book really turned intense as the stakes were raised. As expected, Spider-Man is doing things the hard way as his obsession for revenge against the Chameleon continues to burn strongly, and his wife Mary Jane is suffering from the loneliness connected with it.

On the raising of stakes in the plot, there is a theme about terrorism here which is dramatized through the Chameleon’s elaborate plan of setting off bombs in several parts of New York. As such, the story has this emphasis on chaos which works well with the webslinger’s state of madness and desperation. Along the way, Spider-Man’s humanity remains as dramatized in key points of the comic book.

In connection with the chaos and terrorism elements, the action here looked grounded with reality and Alex Saviuk’s style made the tale look gritty.

One notable part of this comic book shows the development of a separate sub-plot in Washington, D.C., which reflects developments that took place in Web of Spider-Man #109 to #111. It has a touch of politics and was effectively a distraction from the main story.  

Conclusion

Web of Spider-Man #112 (1994) is easily the most intense and most action-packed chapter of the Pursuit storyline. The themes of chaos and terrorism here easily overshadowed Spider-Man’s obsessive state and yet the creative team succeeded in moving the plot forward. That said, the stage is all set for the conclusion of the Pursuit storyline and I am looking forward to it.

Overall, Web of Spider-Man #112 (1994) is recommended.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

America Tags Philippines With 12.5% Tariff Over Forced Labor Concerns

The Philippines, which is already experiencing slower economic growth, higher inflation and having trouble attracting foreign investment, saw its exports to the United States subject to a higher 12.5% tariff as the Trump administration is convinced that the country failed to prevent the entry of goods produced with forced labor, according to a news report by the Manila Bulletin.

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Manila Bulletin news report. Some parts in boldface…

The country’s exports to the United States (US) are now subject to a higher 12.5-percent tariff after the Trump administration determined that the Philippines has failed to prevent the entry of goods produced with forced labor.

In a notice on Friday morning, July 24 (Philippine time), the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) said it is imposing a 12.5-percent tariff on the Philippines, in accordance with the directive of US President Donald Trump.

The USTR earlier included the Philippines in its investigation into the US’ top 60 trading partners as it sought to crack down on imports made with forced labor that were found to be harmful to American commerce.

In a report on the probe’s findings, the USTR said the Philippines “has failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.”

Apart from the Philippines, 40 other economies are subject to the 12.5-percent tariff.

“The US has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it. It’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” said USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer.

“Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” he added.

The USTR said it would exempt certain products from the tariff, including goods that cannot be produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the US, and products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if they were subjected to the tariffs.

Philippine goods exempt from the 12.5-percent tariff include most of the country’s major exports to the US, including semiconductors, its top export commodity. Also exempted are agricultural commodities such as coconuts, pineapples, and bananas, as well as raw minerals such as nickel ores and concentrates.

The US remains the Philippines’ largest export market, accounting for $13.46 billion, or 15.9 percent, of the country’s total exports in 2025.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Do you think the Philippines has been negligent on monitoring the entry of goods produced with forced labor? Does this new economic development dampen your trust in the government of the Philippines?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

America Tags Philippines With 12.5% Tariff Over Forced Labor Concerns

The Philippines, which is already experiencing slower economic growth, higher inflation and having trouble attracting foreign investment, saw its exports to the United States subject to a higher 12.5% tariff as the Trump administration is convinced that the country failed to prevent the entry of goods produced with forced labor, according to a news report by the Manila Bulletin.

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Manila Bulletin news report. Some parts in boldface…

The country’s exports to the United States (US) are now subject to a higher 12.5-percent tariff after the Trump administration determined that the Philippines has failed to prevent the entry of goods produced with forced labor.

In a notice on Friday morning, July 24 (Philippine time), the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) said it is imposing a 12.5-percent tariff on the Philippines, in accordance with the directive of US President Donald Trump.

The USTR earlier included the Philippines in its investigation into the US’ top 60 trading partners as it sought to crack down on imports made with forced labor that were found to be harmful to American commerce.

In a report on the probe’s findings, the USTR said the Philippines “has failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.”

Apart from the Philippines, 40 other economies are subject to the 12.5-percent tariff.

“The US has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it. It’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” said USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer.

“Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” he added.

The USTR said it would exempt certain products from the tariff, including goods that cannot be produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the US, and products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if they were subjected to the tariffs.

Philippine goods exempt from the 12.5-percent tariff include most of the country’s major exports to the US, including semiconductors, its top export commodity. Also exempted are agricultural commodities such as coconuts, pineapples, and bananas, as well as raw minerals such as nickel ores and concentrates.

The US remains the Philippines’ largest export market, accounting for $13.46 billion, or 15.9 percent, of the country’s total exports in 2025.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Do you think the Philippines has been negligent on monitoring the entry of goods produced with forced labor? Does this new economic development dampen your trust in the government of the Philippines?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

America Tags Philippines With 12.5% Tariff Over Forced Labor Concerns

The Philippines, which is already experiencing slower economic growth, higher inflation and having trouble attracting foreign investment, saw its exports to the United States subject to a higher 12.5% tariff as the Trump administration is convinced that the country failed to prevent the entry of goods produced with forced labor, according to a news report by the Manila Bulletin.

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Manila Bulletin news report. Some parts in boldface…

The country’s exports to the United States (US) are now subject to a higher 12.5-percent tariff after the Trump administration determined that the Philippines has failed to prevent the entry of goods produced with forced labor.

In a notice on Friday morning, July 24 (Philippine time), the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) said it is imposing a 12.5-percent tariff on the Philippines, in accordance with the directive of US President Donald Trump.

The USTR earlier included the Philippines in its investigation into the US’ top 60 trading partners as it sought to crack down on imports made with forced labor that were found to be harmful to American commerce.

In a report on the probe’s findings, the USTR said the Philippines “has failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition.”

Apart from the Philippines, 40 other economies are subject to the 12.5-percent tariff.

“The US has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it. It’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” said USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer.

“Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” he added.

The USTR said it would exempt certain products from the tariff, including goods that cannot be produced in sufficient quantities or at reasonable prices in the US, and products that could cause economy-wide disruptions if they were subjected to the tariffs.

Philippine goods exempt from the 12.5-percent tariff include most of the country’s major exports to the US, including semiconductors, its top export commodity. Also exempted are agricultural commodities such as coconuts, pineapples, and bananas, as well as raw minerals such as nickel ores and concentrates.

The US remains the Philippines’ largest export market, accounting for $13.46 billion, or 15.9 percent, of the country’s total exports in 2025.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Do you think the Philippines has been negligent on monitoring the entry of goods produced with forced labor? Does this new economic development dampen your trust in the government of the Philippines?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

Google (GOOGL) Faces $1 Billion EU Antitrust Fine And New Trade Friction https://www.byteseu.com/2228432/ #DigitalMarketsAct #Europe #google #GooglePlay #GoogleSearch #TheAlphabet #TradeTensions

Google (GOOGL) Faces $1 Billion EU Antitrust Fine And New Trade Friction

Get insights on thousands of stocks from the global community of over 7 million individual investors at Simply…
#Europe #EU #DigitalMarketsAct #EuropeanUnion #Google #GooglePlay #GoogleSearch #TheAlphabet #tradetensions
https://www.europesays.com/europe/102787/

Unijny bat na giganta. Google dostaje prawie miliard dolarów kary za faworyzowanie własnych usług i blokowanie płatności

Bruksela nie bierze jeńców w egzekwowaniu aktu o rynkach cyfrowych (DMA). Komisja Europejska uderzyła w Google dwiema karami o łącznej wysokości 890 milionów euro (blisko 1 miliard dolarów).

Sprawa dotyczy manipulowania wynikami wyszukiwania na korzyść własnych produktów oraz blokowania alternatywnych metod płatności w sklepie Google Play.

Wyszukiwarka pod lupą. Własne usługi na pierwszym miejscu

Pierwsza z kar, opiewająca na 460 milionów euro, to pokłosie dwuletniego śledztwa dotyczącego faworyzowania własnych rozwiązań w wynikach wyszukiwania Google Search. Urzędnicy wykazali, że gigant z Mountain View pozycjonował własne moduły – dotyczące zakupów, rezerwacji hoteli, transportu czy wyników sportowych – na samym szczycie strony, spychając niezależne serwisy na dalsze plan.

Google próbowało wdrażać poprawki, które sami przedstawiciele firmy określili mianem „największej degradacji jakości produktu w historii”. Dla Komisji Europejskiej modyfikacje te okazały się jednak niewystarczające, co doprowadziło do ostatecznego wystawienia rachunku.

Monopol w Google Play. Płatności tylko po myśli koncernu

Drugi mandat – w wysokości 430 milionów euro – uderza w politykę dystrybucji aplikacji mobilnych. Unia Europejska uznała za nielegalną praktykę uniemożliwianie deweloperom swobodnego informowania użytkowników o alternatywnych, często tańszych metodach płatności poza sklepem Google Play.

Zgodnie z wymogami DMA, twórcy oprogramowania muszą mieć pełną swobodę w oferowaniu własnych kanałów transakcyjnych oraz kierowaniu klientów do zewnętrznych sklepów czy stron WWW. Google przez lata blokowało takie działania, pobierając wysokie prowizje od każdej transakcji wewnątrz aplikacji.

60 dni na zapłatę. Widmo kolejnych sankcji

Google ma teraz 60 dni na uregulowanie 890 milionów euro lub złożenie oficjalnego odwołania od decyzji. Jeśli firma zignoruje termin, Unia Europejska zacznie naliczać karne odsetki i dodatkowe opłaty powiązane z globalnym dochodem koncernu.

To nie jedyny problem firmy w Europie – równolegle toczy się postępowanie nakazujące udostępnienie danych wyszukiwania konkurencji oraz botom AI, na co Google ma czas do stycznia 2027 roku.

Choć decyzja UE ma na celu ochronę konkurencji i docelowo obniżenie cen aplikacji dla konsumentów, dla zwykłego użytkownika może oznaczać dalsze demontowanie wygodnych, zintegrowanych funkcji w wyszukiwarce, do których zdążyliśmy się przyzwyczaić.

Google udostępnia Gemini 3.6 Flash i 3.5 Flash-Lite. Szybsze AI za mniejsze pieniądze, ale najmocniejsze narzędzie dostaną tylko nieliczni

Unijny bat na giganta. Google dostaje prawie miliard dolarów kary za faworyzowanie własnych usług i blokowanie płatności

Bruksela nie bierze jeńców w egzekwowaniu aktu o rynkach cyfrowych (DMA). Komisja Europejska uderzyła w Google dwiema karami o łącznej wysokości 890 milionów euro (blisko 1 miliard dolarów).

Sprawa dotyczy manipulowania wynikami wyszukiwania na korzyść własnych produktów oraz blokowania alternatywnych metod płatności w sklepie Google Play.

Wyszukiwarka pod lupą. Własne usługi na pierwszym miejscu

Pierwsza z kar, opiewająca na 460 milionów euro, to pokłosie dwuletniego śledztwa dotyczącego faworyzowania własnych rozwiązań w wynikach wyszukiwania Google Search. Urzędnicy wykazali, że gigant z Mountain View pozycjonował własne moduły – dotyczące zakupów, rezerwacji hoteli, transportu czy wyników sportowych – na samym szczycie strony, spychając niezależne serwisy na dalsze plan.

Google próbowało wdrażać poprawki, które sami przedstawiciele firmy określili mianem „największej degradacji jakości produktu w historii”. Dla Komisji Europejskiej modyfikacje te okazały się jednak niewystarczające, co doprowadziło do ostatecznego wystawienia rachunku.

Monopol w Google Play. Płatności tylko po myśli koncernu

Drugi mandat – w wysokości 430 milionów euro – uderza w politykę dystrybucji aplikacji mobilnych. Unia Europejska uznała za nielegalną praktykę uniemożliwianie deweloperom swobodnego informowania użytkowników o alternatywnych, często tańszych metodach płatności poza sklepem Google Play.

Zgodnie z wymogami DMA, twórcy oprogramowania muszą mieć pełną swobodę w oferowaniu własnych kanałów transakcyjnych oraz kierowaniu klientów do zewnętrznych sklepów czy stron WWW. Google przez lata blokowało takie działania, pobierając wysokie prowizje od każdej transakcji wewnątrz aplikacji.

60 dni na zapłatę. Widmo kolejnych sankcji

Google ma teraz 60 dni na uregulowanie 890 milionów euro lub złożenie oficjalnego odwołania od decyzji. Jeśli firma zignoruje termin, Unia Europejska zacznie naliczać karne odsetki i dodatkowe opłaty powiązane z globalnym dochodem koncernu.

To nie jedyny problem firmy w Europie – równolegle toczy się postępowanie nakazujące udostępnienie danych wyszukiwania konkurencji oraz botom AI, na co Google ma czas do stycznia 2027 roku.

Choć decyzja UE ma na celu ochronę konkurencji i docelowo obniżenie cen aplikacji dla konsumentów, dla zwykłego użytkownika może oznaczać dalsze demontowanie wygodnych, zintegrowanych funkcji w wyszukiwarce, do których zdążyliśmy się przyzwyczaić.

Google udostępnia Gemini 3.6 Flash i 3.5 Flash-Lite. Szybsze AI za mniejsze pieniądze, ale najmocniejsze narzędzie dostaną tylko nieliczni

Unijny bat na giganta. Google dostaje prawie miliard dolarów kary za faworyzowanie własnych usług i blokowanie płatności

Bruksela nie bierze jeńców w egzekwowaniu aktu o rynkach cyfrowych (DMA). Komisja Europejska uderzyła w Google dwiema karami o łącznej wysokości 890 milionów euro (blisko 1 miliard dolarów).

Sprawa dotyczy manipulowania wynikami wyszukiwania na korzyść własnych produktów oraz blokowania alternatywnych metod płatności w sklepie Google Play.

Wyszukiwarka pod lupą. Własne usługi na pierwszym miejscu

Pierwsza z kar, opiewająca na 460 milionów euro, to pokłosie dwuletniego śledztwa dotyczącego faworyzowania własnych rozwiązań w wynikach wyszukiwania Google Search. Urzędnicy wykazali, że gigant z Mountain View pozycjonował własne moduły – dotyczące zakupów, rezerwacji hoteli, transportu czy wyników sportowych – na samym szczycie strony, spychając niezależne serwisy na dalsze plan.

Google próbowało wdrażać poprawki, które sami przedstawiciele firmy określili mianem „największej degradacji jakości produktu w historii”. Dla Komisji Europejskiej modyfikacje te okazały się jednak niewystarczające, co doprowadziło do ostatecznego wystawienia rachunku.

Monopol w Google Play. Płatności tylko po myśli koncernu

Drugi mandat – w wysokości 430 milionów euro – uderza w politykę dystrybucji aplikacji mobilnych. Unia Europejska uznała za nielegalną praktykę uniemożliwianie deweloperom swobodnego informowania użytkowników o alternatywnych, często tańszych metodach płatności poza sklepem Google Play.

Zgodnie z wymogami DMA, twórcy oprogramowania muszą mieć pełną swobodę w oferowaniu własnych kanałów transakcyjnych oraz kierowaniu klientów do zewnętrznych sklepów czy stron WWW. Google przez lata blokowało takie działania, pobierając wysokie prowizje od każdej transakcji wewnątrz aplikacji.

60 dni na zapłatę. Widmo kolejnych sankcji

Google ma teraz 60 dni na uregulowanie 890 milionów euro lub złożenie oficjalnego odwołania od decyzji. Jeśli firma zignoruje termin, Unia Europejska zacznie naliczać karne odsetki i dodatkowe opłaty powiązane z globalnym dochodem koncernu.

To nie jedyny problem firmy w Europie – równolegle toczy się postępowanie nakazujące udostępnienie danych wyszukiwania konkurencji oraz botom AI, na co Google ma czas do stycznia 2027 roku.

Choć decyzja UE ma na celu ochronę konkurencji i docelowo obniżenie cen aplikacji dla konsumentów, dla zwykłego użytkownika może oznaczać dalsze demontowanie wygodnych, zintegrowanych funkcji w wyszukiwarce, do których zdążyliśmy się przyzwyczaić.

Google udostępnia Gemini 3.6 Flash i 3.5 Flash-Lite. Szybsze AI za mniejsze pieniądze, ale najmocniejsze narzędzie dostaną tylko nieliczni

Unijny bat na giganta. Google dostaje prawie miliard dolarów kary za faworyzowanie własnych usług i blokowanie płatności

Bruksela nie bierze jeńców w egzekwowaniu aktu o rynkach cyfrowych (DMA). Komisja Europejska uderzyła w Google dwiema karami o łącznej wysokości 890 milionów euro (blisko 1 miliard dolarów).

Sprawa dotyczy manipulowania wynikami wyszukiwania na korzyść własnych produktów oraz blokowania alternatywnych metod płatności w sklepie Google Play.

Wyszukiwarka pod lupą. Własne usługi na pierwszym miejscu

Pierwsza z kar, opiewająca na 460 milionów euro, to pokłosie dwuletniego śledztwa dotyczącego faworyzowania własnych rozwiązań w wynikach wyszukiwania Google Search. Urzędnicy wykazali, że gigant z Mountain View pozycjonował własne moduły – dotyczące zakupów, rezerwacji hoteli, transportu czy wyników sportowych – na samym szczycie strony, spychając niezależne serwisy na dalsze plan.

Google próbowało wdrażać poprawki, które sami przedstawiciele firmy określili mianem „największej degradacji jakości produktu w historii”. Dla Komisji Europejskiej modyfikacje te okazały się jednak niewystarczające, co doprowadziło do ostatecznego wystawienia rachunku.

Monopol w Google Play. Płatności tylko po myśli koncernu

Drugi mandat – w wysokości 430 milionów euro – uderza w politykę dystrybucji aplikacji mobilnych. Unia Europejska uznała za nielegalną praktykę uniemożliwianie deweloperom swobodnego informowania użytkowników o alternatywnych, często tańszych metodach płatności poza sklepem Google Play.

Zgodnie z wymogami DMA, twórcy oprogramowania muszą mieć pełną swobodę w oferowaniu własnych kanałów transakcyjnych oraz kierowaniu klientów do zewnętrznych sklepów czy stron WWW. Google przez lata blokowało takie działania, pobierając wysokie prowizje od każdej transakcji wewnątrz aplikacji.

60 dni na zapłatę. Widmo kolejnych sankcji

Google ma teraz 60 dni na uregulowanie 890 milionów euro lub złożenie oficjalnego odwołania od decyzji. Jeśli firma zignoruje termin, Unia Europejska zacznie naliczać karne odsetki i dodatkowe opłaty powiązane z globalnym dochodem koncernu.

To nie jedyny problem firmy w Europie – równolegle toczy się postępowanie nakazujące udostępnienie danych wyszukiwania konkurencji oraz botom AI, na co Google ma czas do stycznia 2027 roku.

Choć decyzja UE ma na celu ochronę konkurencji i docelowo obniżenie cen aplikacji dla konsumentów, dla zwykłego użytkownika może oznaczać dalsze demontowanie wygodnych, zintegrowanych funkcji w wyszukiwarce, do których zdążyliśmy się przyzwyczaić.

Google udostępnia Gemini 3.6 Flash i 3.5 Flash-Lite. Szybsze AI za mniejsze pieniądze, ale najmocniejsze narzędzie dostaną tylko nieliczni

Unijny bat na giganta. Google dostaje prawie miliard dolarów kary za faworyzowanie własnych usług i blokowanie płatności

Bruksela nie bierze jeńców w egzekwowaniu aktu o rynkach cyfrowych (DMA). Komisja Europejska uderzyła w Google dwiema karami o łącznej wysokości 890 milionów euro (blisko 1 miliard dolarów).

Sprawa dotyczy manipulowania wynikami wyszukiwania na korzyść własnych produktów oraz blokowania alternatywnych metod płatności w sklepie Google Play.

Wyszukiwarka pod lupą. Własne usługi na pierwszym miejscu

Pierwsza z kar, opiewająca na 460 milionów euro, to pokłosie dwuletniego śledztwa dotyczącego faworyzowania własnych rozwiązań w wynikach wyszukiwania Google Search. Urzędnicy wykazali, że gigant z Mountain View pozycjonował własne moduły – dotyczące zakupów, rezerwacji hoteli, transportu czy wyników sportowych – na samym szczycie strony, spychając niezależne serwisy na dalsze plan.

Google próbowało wdrażać poprawki, które sami przedstawiciele firmy określili mianem „największej degradacji jakości produktu w historii”. Dla Komisji Europejskiej modyfikacje te okazały się jednak niewystarczające, co doprowadziło do ostatecznego wystawienia rachunku.

Monopol w Google Play. Płatności tylko po myśli koncernu

Drugi mandat – w wysokości 430 milionów euro – uderza w politykę dystrybucji aplikacji mobilnych. Unia Europejska uznała za nielegalną praktykę uniemożliwianie deweloperom swobodnego informowania użytkowników o alternatywnych, często tańszych metodach płatności poza sklepem Google Play.

Zgodnie z wymogami DMA, twórcy oprogramowania muszą mieć pełną swobodę w oferowaniu własnych kanałów transakcyjnych oraz kierowaniu klientów do zewnętrznych sklepów czy stron WWW. Google przez lata blokowało takie działania, pobierając wysokie prowizje od każdej transakcji wewnątrz aplikacji.

60 dni na zapłatę. Widmo kolejnych sankcji

Google ma teraz 60 dni na uregulowanie 890 milionów euro lub złożenie oficjalnego odwołania od decyzji. Jeśli firma zignoruje termin, Unia Europejska zacznie naliczać karne odsetki i dodatkowe opłaty powiązane z globalnym dochodem koncernu.

To nie jedyny problem firmy w Europie – równolegle toczy się postępowanie nakazujące udostępnienie danych wyszukiwania konkurencji oraz botom AI, na co Google ma czas do stycznia 2027 roku.

Choć decyzja UE ma na celu ochronę konkurencji i docelowo obniżenie cen aplikacji dla konsumentów, dla zwykłego użytkownika może oznaczać dalsze demontowanie wygodnych, zintegrowanych funkcji w wyszukiwarce, do których zdążyliśmy się przyzwyczaić.

Google udostępnia Gemini 3.6 Flash i 3.5 Flash-Lite. Szybsze AI za mniejsze pieniądze, ale najmocniejsze narzędzie dostaną tylko nieliczni

Palestinian Arrested In Quezon City For Stealing Money Bag

For some time now, I have been monitoring the criminal acts committed by people who are present in different countries as foreigners. Here in the Philippines, a Palestinian man was arrested in Quezon City for stealing a bag containing a lot of cash from the café of a hotel, according to a news report by the Manila Bulletin.

As it turns out, the Palestinian already has a history of committing other forms of crime. Could it be possible that, apart from violence and terrorism, theft and an obsession of committing crime are parts of the Palestinian nature?

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Manila Bulletin news report. Some parts in boldface…

A 36-year-old Palestinian man was arrested after allegedly taking a money bag containing P5,020 and an empty cash box from a hotel café on Timog Avenue in Barangay South Triangle, Quezon City, at around 11:06 p.m. on Thursday, July 23.

The suspect, identified as “Ham,” was intercepted by hotel security personnel at the establishment’s exit after the incident was detected through the hotel’s CCTV monitoring system.

Initial investigation showed that the suspect entered the café and allegedly took the money bag and empty cash box without the knowledge or consent of the 24-year-old male cashier.

Recovered from the suspect were P5,020 in various peso bills and coins, the cash bag, the empty cash box, and a backpack.

Personnel of Kamuning Police Station (PS 10) later responded and took custody of the suspect from the hotel security personnel.

Further verification showed that the suspect had previous criminal records for estafa, unjust vexation, resistance and disobedience to a person in authority, use of a fictitious name, and concealing his true name in October 2025, as well as theft in May 2026.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Are there a lot of Palestinians living in your local community right now? Are you aware of the fact that a lot of Palestinians follow Islamic terrorists as their leaders? How many Palestinians do you think are present all over the Philippines today? Did you notice an increase of the number of foreign Islamists in your local community over the past twelve months? Do you think the national government is secretly allowing Palestinians to enter the Philippines as high-priority refugees with immigration in mind?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

Palestinian Arrested In Quezon City For Stealing Money Bag

For some time now, I have been monitoring the criminal acts committed by people who are present in different countries as foreigners. Here in the Philippines, a Palestinian man was arrested in Quezon City for stealing a bag containing a lot of cash from the café of a hotel, according to a news report by the Manila Bulletin.

As it turns out, the Palestinian already has a history of committing other forms of crime. Could it be possible that, apart from violence and terrorism, theft and an obsession of committing crime are parts of the Palestinian nature?

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Manila Bulletin news report. Some parts in boldface…

A 36-year-old Palestinian man was arrested after allegedly taking a money bag containing P5,020 and an empty cash box from a hotel café on Timog Avenue in Barangay South Triangle, Quezon City, at around 11:06 p.m. on Thursday, July 23.

The suspect, identified as “Ham,” was intercepted by hotel security personnel at the establishment’s exit after the incident was detected through the hotel’s CCTV monitoring system.

Initial investigation showed that the suspect entered the café and allegedly took the money bag and empty cash box without the knowledge or consent of the 24-year-old male cashier.

Recovered from the suspect were P5,020 in various peso bills and coins, the cash bag, the empty cash box, and a backpack.

Personnel of Kamuning Police Station (PS 10) later responded and took custody of the suspect from the hotel security personnel.

Further verification showed that the suspect had previous criminal records for estafa, unjust vexation, resistance and disobedience to a person in authority, use of a fictitious name, and concealing his true name in October 2025, as well as theft in May 2026.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Are there a lot of Palestinians living in your local community right now? Are you aware of the fact that a lot of Palestinians follow Islamic terrorists as their leaders? How many Palestinians do you think are present all over the Philippines today? Did you notice an increase of the number of foreign Islamists in your local community over the past twelve months? Do you think the national government is secretly allowing Palestinians to enter the Philippines as high-priority refugees with immigration in mind?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

Palestinian Arrested In Quezon City For Stealing Money Bag

For some time now, I have been monitoring the criminal acts committed by people who are present in different countries as foreigners. Here in the Philippines, a Palestinian man was arrested in Quezon City for stealing a bag containing a lot of cash from the café of a hotel, according to a news report by the Manila Bulletin.

As it turns out, the Palestinian already has a history of committing other forms of crime. Could it be possible that, apart from violence and terrorism, theft and an obsession of committing crime are parts of the Palestinian nature?

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Manila Bulletin news report. Some parts in boldface…

A 36-year-old Palestinian man was arrested after allegedly taking a money bag containing P5,020 and an empty cash box from a hotel café on Timog Avenue in Barangay South Triangle, Quezon City, at around 11:06 p.m. on Thursday, July 23.

The suspect, identified as “Ham,” was intercepted by hotel security personnel at the establishment’s exit after the incident was detected through the hotel’s CCTV monitoring system.

Initial investigation showed that the suspect entered the café and allegedly took the money bag and empty cash box without the knowledge or consent of the 24-year-old male cashier.

Recovered from the suspect were P5,020 in various peso bills and coins, the cash bag, the empty cash box, and a backpack.

Personnel of Kamuning Police Station (PS 10) later responded and took custody of the suspect from the hotel security personnel.

Further verification showed that the suspect had previous criminal records for estafa, unjust vexation, resistance and disobedience to a person in authority, use of a fictitious name, and concealing his true name in October 2025, as well as theft in May 2026.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Are there a lot of Palestinians living in your local community right now? Are you aware of the fact that a lot of Palestinians follow Islamic terrorists as their leaders? How many Palestinians do you think are present all over the Philippines today? Did you notice an increase of the number of foreign Islamists in your local community over the past twelve months? Do you think the national government is secretly allowing Palestinians to enter the Philippines as high-priority refugees with immigration in mind?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

Google Puzzlingly Fined $1B For Being Too Google For The EU’s Tastes

Apple’s Siri AI isn’t very smart. That’s why future iPhones will pair Siri with Google’s highly regarded Gemini…
#Europe #EU #Apple #EuropeanUnion #Google #GoogleSearch #searchengine
https://www.europesays.com/europe/102635/

Google Puzzlingly Fined $1B For Being Too Google For The EU’s Tastes https://www.byteseu.com/2226968/ #Apple #Europe #google #GoogleSearch #SearchEngine

https://www.europesays.com/uk/1110603/ Google Puzzlingly Fined $1B For Being Too Google For The EU’s Tastes #Apple #EU #Europe #European #Google #GoogleSearch #SearchEngine

Trump Threatens EU With New Tariffs In Response To Google Fine

President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that his administration is opening a Section 301 investigation into the European…
#Europe #EU #DonaldTrump #EuropeanUnion #Google #GoogleSearch #Section301
https://www.europesays.com/europe/102433/

Trump fires back at EU over Google’s $1B fine, launches probe

President Trump on Friday slammed the European Union for fining Google over allegedly violating its digital competition law,…
#Europe #EU #Americancompanies #discriminatorypractice #EuropeanUnion #Google #GooglePlay #GoogleSearch #PresidentTrump #SleepyJoeBidenAdministration #Trumpadministration
https://www.europesays.com/europe/102346/

https://www.europesays.com/people/164818/ Alphabet tops Q2 estimates as Google Cloud growth accelerates #Alphabet #AlphabetInc #ConsensusEstimate #GoogleCloud #GoogleSearch #RevenueGrowth #SundarPichai

EU Fines Google $1B, Trump Imposes New Tariffs

The European Commission has fined Google, claimingit breached the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The fine of €890.00…
#Europe #EU #contentservices #DMA #EuropeanUnion #Google #GooglePlay #GoogleSearch #preferentialtreatment #PresidentTrump #TheEuropeanCommission
https://www.europesays.com/europe/102196/

https://winbuzzer.com/2026/07/24/eu-fines-google-890-million-over-search-and-google-play-xcxwbn/

The EU has fined Google €890m over Search self-preferencing and Google Play anti-steering, with 60 days to end both practices or risk periodic payments.

#DigitalMarketsAct #Google #GoogleSearch #GooglePlay #EuropeanCommission #EuropeanUnion #Antitrust #BigTechGatekeepers #AppStores

https://winbuzzer.com/2026/07/24/eu-fines-google-890-million-over-search-and-google-play-xcxwbn/

The EU has fined Google €890m over Search self-preferencing and Google Play anti-steering, with 60 days to end both practices or risk periodic payments.

#DigitalMarketsAct #Google #GoogleSearch #GooglePlay #EuropeanCommission #EuropeanUnion #Antitrust #BigTechGatekeepers #AppStores

https://winbuzzer.com/2026/07/24/eu-fines-google-890-million-over-search-and-google-play-xcxwbn/

The EU has fined Google €890m over Search self-preferencing and Google Play anti-steering, with 60 days to end both practices or risk periodic payments.

#DigitalMarketsAct #Google #GoogleSearch #GooglePlay #EuropeanCommission #EuropeanUnion #Antitrust #BigTechGatekeepers #AppStores

https://winbuzzer.com/2026/07/24/eu-fines-google-890-million-over-search-and-google-play-xcxwbn/

The EU has fined Google €890m over Search self-preferencing and Google Play anti-steering, with 60 days to end both practices or risk periodic payments.

#DigitalMarketsAct #Google #GoogleSearch #GooglePlay #EuropeanCommission #EuropeanUnion #Antitrust #BigTechGatekeepers #AppStores

https://winbuzzer.com/2026/07/24/eu-fines-google-890-million-over-search-and-google-play-xcxwbn/

The EU has fined Google €890m over Search self-preferencing and Google Play anti-steering, with 60 days to end both practices or risk periodic payments.

#DigitalMarketsAct #Google #GoogleSearch #GooglePlay #EuropeanCommission #EuropeanUnion #Antitrust #BigTechGatekeepers #AppStores

Philippines Attracts 2.9 Million Foreign Tourists In First Half Of 2026

For the first half of this year, the Philippines attracted 2.9 million foreign tourists and 1.13 million of that came from the United States and South Korea combined, according to a news report by Business Mirror. The figure does not include the 260,717 overseas Filipinos or balikbayan.

When compared to its Asian neighbors’ first-half foreign tourist numbers, the Philippines is still way behind Vietnam which attracted 12.3 million and Japan which attracted 21 million.

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Business Mirror report. Some parts in boldface…

MORE relaxed visa entry requirements have enabled the Philippines to attract an increasing number of foreign tourists, lifting total visitor arrivals by 5.41 percent in the first half of the year.

Data from the Department of Tourism (DOT) showed 3.16 million inbound tourists from January to June 2026, of which 2.9 million were foreign nationals and 260,717 were overseas Filipinos. The latter are described as Philippine passport holders permanently residing abroad. This year’s arrivals are 76.5 percent of the 4.13 million total in the first half of prepandemic 2019.

The DOT stressed that the data are based on e-travel records provided by the Department of Information and Communications Technology, and are not final until Bureau of Immigration records are taken into account. E-travel registration is mandatory for those arriving in the Philippines except foreign diplomats, dignitaries, foreign government officials and their delegation, visiting business executives and students  sponsored by the Philippine  government or international organizations, and their immediate family members (9e visa).

Of the total foreign nationals, which were up 6.3 percent from the 2.73 million year on year (yoy), tourists from China and India were the most improved by 64.54 percent and 43 percent, respectively. Residents from both countries have been allowed to enter the Philippines visa-free for tourism purposes for 14 days.

The top 12 source markets of visitors for the Philippines all recorded increases, except for South Korea, with long-haul markets like Germany even showing monthly increases yoy, despite the ongoing tensions in the Middle East, which had jacked up jet fuel prices.

S. Korea plunges 13.7% – The United States continues to be the top source market for the Philippines with arrivals at 581,565 in the first half of the year, an increase of some 6.9 percent from the same period in 2025. Most of the market continues to be composed of Americans of Filipino decent, or Filipino immigrants, who visit the Philippines usually during the holiday season in December and January.

Some 300 Filipino-Americans are currently in the country as part of government’s long-running Very Important Pinoy (VIP) tour, and visiting destinations other than Metro Manila such as Cebu, Dumaguete, and Siquijor.

In second place are tourists from South Korea at 552,860, slumping by 13.7 percent, yoy. This was followed by Japan at 581,565 (+6.87 percent); China at 219,796 (+64.54 percent); Australia at 174,257 (+12.3 percent); and Canada at 156,763 (+15.6 percent), another haven of Filipino immigrants. Air Canada began offering direct flights from Vancouver to Manila in April last year, while flag carrier Philippine Airlines offers nonstop flights between Manila and Vancouver, and Toronto.

Tourists from Taiwan were in seventh place at 111,134, an increase of 11.85 percent; folowed by the United Kingdom at 92,829 (+1.7 percent); Singapore at 78,069 (0.35 percent); India at 60,583 (43.03 percent); Malaysia at 53,437 (+11.5 percent); and Germany at 48,657 (+6.9 percent).

Under the General Appropriations Act of 2026, the DOT committed to attract 6.7 million foreign tourists this year.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Do you think the Philippines will be able to attract 6.7 million foreign tourists by the end of this year? What do you think are the three most serious problems the Philippines has when it comes to attracting foreign tourists?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

Philippines Attracts 2.9 Million Foreign Tourists In First Half Of 2026

For the first half of this year, the Philippines attracted 2.9 million foreign tourists and 1.13 million of that came from the United States and South Korea combined, according to a news report by Business Mirror. The figure does not include the 260,717 overseas Filipinos or balikbayan.

When compared to its Asian neighbors’ first-half foreign tourist numbers, the Philippines is still way behind Vietnam which attracted 12.3 million and Japan which attracted 21 million.

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Business Mirror report. Some parts in boldface…

MORE relaxed visa entry requirements have enabled the Philippines to attract an increasing number of foreign tourists, lifting total visitor arrivals by 5.41 percent in the first half of the year.

Data from the Department of Tourism (DOT) showed 3.16 million inbound tourists from January to June 2026, of which 2.9 million were foreign nationals and 260,717 were overseas Filipinos. The latter are described as Philippine passport holders permanently residing abroad. This year’s arrivals are 76.5 percent of the 4.13 million total in the first half of prepandemic 2019.

The DOT stressed that the data are based on e-travel records provided by the Department of Information and Communications Technology, and are not final until Bureau of Immigration records are taken into account. E-travel registration is mandatory for those arriving in the Philippines except foreign diplomats, dignitaries, foreign government officials and their delegation, visiting business executives and students  sponsored by the Philippine  government or international organizations, and their immediate family members (9e visa).

Of the total foreign nationals, which were up 6.3 percent from the 2.73 million year on year (yoy), tourists from China and India were the most improved by 64.54 percent and 43 percent, respectively. Residents from both countries have been allowed to enter the Philippines visa-free for tourism purposes for 14 days.

The top 12 source markets of visitors for the Philippines all recorded increases, except for South Korea, with long-haul markets like Germany even showing monthly increases yoy, despite the ongoing tensions in the Middle East, which had jacked up jet fuel prices.

S. Korea plunges 13.7% – The United States continues to be the top source market for the Philippines with arrivals at 581,565 in the first half of the year, an increase of some 6.9 percent from the same period in 2025. Most of the market continues to be composed of Americans of Filipino decent, or Filipino immigrants, who visit the Philippines usually during the holiday season in December and January.

Some 300 Filipino-Americans are currently in the country as part of government’s long-running Very Important Pinoy (VIP) tour, and visiting destinations other than Metro Manila such as Cebu, Dumaguete, and Siquijor.

In second place are tourists from South Korea at 552,860, slumping by 13.7 percent, yoy. This was followed by Japan at 581,565 (+6.87 percent); China at 219,796 (+64.54 percent); Australia at 174,257 (+12.3 percent); and Canada at 156,763 (+15.6 percent), another haven of Filipino immigrants. Air Canada began offering direct flights from Vancouver to Manila in April last year, while flag carrier Philippine Airlines offers nonstop flights between Manila and Vancouver, and Toronto.

Tourists from Taiwan were in seventh place at 111,134, an increase of 11.85 percent; folowed by the United Kingdom at 92,829 (+1.7 percent); Singapore at 78,069 (0.35 percent); India at 60,583 (43.03 percent); Malaysia at 53,437 (+11.5 percent); and Germany at 48,657 (+6.9 percent).

Under the General Appropriations Act of 2026, the DOT committed to attract 6.7 million foreign tourists this year.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Do you think the Philippines will be able to attract 6.7 million foreign tourists by the end of this year? What do you think are the three most serious problems the Philippines has when it comes to attracting foreign tourists?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

Philippines Attracts 2.9 Million Foreign Tourists In First Half Of 2026

For the first half of this year, the Philippines attracted 2.9 million foreign tourists and 1.13 million of that came from the United States and South Korea combined, according to a news report by Business Mirror. The figure does not include the 260,717 overseas Filipinos or balikbayan.

When compared to its Asian neighbors’ first-half foreign tourist numbers, the Philippines is still way behind Vietnam which attracted 12.3 million and Japan which attracted 21 million.

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the Business Mirror report. Some parts in boldface…

MORE relaxed visa entry requirements have enabled the Philippines to attract an increasing number of foreign tourists, lifting total visitor arrivals by 5.41 percent in the first half of the year.

Data from the Department of Tourism (DOT) showed 3.16 million inbound tourists from January to June 2026, of which 2.9 million were foreign nationals and 260,717 were overseas Filipinos. The latter are described as Philippine passport holders permanently residing abroad. This year’s arrivals are 76.5 percent of the 4.13 million total in the first half of prepandemic 2019.

The DOT stressed that the data are based on e-travel records provided by the Department of Information and Communications Technology, and are not final until Bureau of Immigration records are taken into account. E-travel registration is mandatory for those arriving in the Philippines except foreign diplomats, dignitaries, foreign government officials and their delegation, visiting business executives and students  sponsored by the Philippine  government or international organizations, and their immediate family members (9e visa).

Of the total foreign nationals, which were up 6.3 percent from the 2.73 million year on year (yoy), tourists from China and India were the most improved by 64.54 percent and 43 percent, respectively. Residents from both countries have been allowed to enter the Philippines visa-free for tourism purposes for 14 days.

The top 12 source markets of visitors for the Philippines all recorded increases, except for South Korea, with long-haul markets like Germany even showing monthly increases yoy, despite the ongoing tensions in the Middle East, which had jacked up jet fuel prices.

S. Korea plunges 13.7% – The United States continues to be the top source market for the Philippines with arrivals at 581,565 in the first half of the year, an increase of some 6.9 percent from the same period in 2025. Most of the market continues to be composed of Americans of Filipino decent, or Filipino immigrants, who visit the Philippines usually during the holiday season in December and January.

Some 300 Filipino-Americans are currently in the country as part of government’s long-running Very Important Pinoy (VIP) tour, and visiting destinations other than Metro Manila such as Cebu, Dumaguete, and Siquijor.

In second place are tourists from South Korea at 552,860, slumping by 13.7 percent, yoy. This was followed by Japan at 581,565 (+6.87 percent); China at 219,796 (+64.54 percent); Australia at 174,257 (+12.3 percent); and Canada at 156,763 (+15.6 percent), another haven of Filipino immigrants. Air Canada began offering direct flights from Vancouver to Manila in April last year, while flag carrier Philippine Airlines offers nonstop flights between Manila and Vancouver, and Toronto.

Tourists from Taiwan were in seventh place at 111,134, an increase of 11.85 percent; folowed by the United Kingdom at 92,829 (+1.7 percent); Singapore at 78,069 (0.35 percent); India at 60,583 (43.03 percent); Malaysia at 53,437 (+11.5 percent); and Germany at 48,657 (+6.9 percent).

Under the General Appropriations Act of 2026, the DOT committed to attract 6.7 million foreign tourists this year.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Do you think the Philippines will be able to attract 6.7 million foreign tourists by the end of this year? What do you think are the three most serious problems the Philippines has when it comes to attracting foreign tourists?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

https://www.europesays.com/people/164153/ AI Is Actually Making Google Search Bigger #AI #AIMode #company #FIFAWorldCup #Google #GoogleSearch #LateQuarterEarning #pichai #SearchFunction #SearchQuery #SundarPichai #TechExecutive #tool #website #WednesdayEarningCall #year

https://www.europesays.com/people/163879/ Warren Buffett Just Said This About Berkshire Hathaway’s Massive Google Investment #BerkshireHathaway #CapitalAllocation #Google #GoogleCloud #GoogleSearch #GregAbel #InvestmentDecisions #WarrenBuffett

Europe’s Tech Fine Could Trigger New Tariffs, Undermining US Trade Deal

The European Union and the United States took one ultra-laborious step forward in ratifying their bilateral trade deal…
#Europe #EU #Bilateraltrade #EuropeanCommission #EuropeanUnion #Google #GoogleSearch #tradebloc #tradingpartners
https://www.europesays.com/europe/101475/

Cloudflare CEO: How AI Commerce Is Upending the Web Economy https://www.byteseu.com/2221927/ #AIAssistants #AIWebCrawling #Cloudflare #economy #GoogleSearch #InternetInfrastructure #MatthewPrince

Google hit with $1B fine in Europe

The European Union fined Google about $1 billion on Thursday for violating its digital competition law, finding the…
#Europe #EU #appdevelopers #CompetitionLaw #EuropeanCommission #EuropeanUnion #Google #GoogleSearch #KentWalker
https://www.europesays.com/europe/101310/

EU Fines Google €890 Million for DMA Violations

The European Commission fined Google €890 million for two violations of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), one tied…
#Europe #EU #EuropeanCommission #Antitrust #EuropeanUnion #googleplaystore #GoogleSearch
https://www.europesays.com/europe/101214/

https://www.europesays.com/people/163245/ Warren Buffett’s Primary Reason for Buying Alphabet is Mine and Should Be Yours #Alphabet #FreeCashFlow #GOOGL #Google #GoogleCloud #GoogleSearch #WarrenBuffett

A Look Back at Spectacular Spider-Man #211 (1994)

Disclaimer: This is my original work with details sourced from reading the comic book and doing personal research. Anyone who wants to use this article, in part or in whole, needs to secure first my permission and agree to cite me as the source and author. Let it be known that any unauthorized use of this article will constrain the author to pursue the remedies under R.A. No. 8293, the Revised Penal Code, and/or all applicable legal actions under the laws of the Philippines.

Welcome back superhero enthusiasts, 1990s arts and culture enthusiasts, Spider-Man fans and comic book collectors! Today we go back to the year 1994 to examine a small part of the Marvel Comics shared universe through a tale of the Spectacular Spider-Man monthly series.

Following the tragedy told in Amazing Spider-Man #388, Spider-Man got broken emotionally and he started lusting for revenge against the Chameleon in Spider-Man #45 which marked the beginning of the Pursuit storyline. Along the way, the webslinger became more intense, more violent and his marriage with Mary Jane got strained even more.

With those details laid down, here is a look back at Spectacular Spider-Man #211, published in 1994 by Marvel Comics with a story written by Mike Lackey and drawn by Sal Buscema. This is the 2nd chapter of the Pursuit storyline.

Early story

The story begins with Spider-Man overwhelming an entire gang of dangerous men on the rooftop of a building. Even though they were armed dangerous, the obsessed webslinger successfully hurt each of them until they fell down on the floor. He beat them all as he obsessively searched for answers about the Chameleon. One of them told Spider-Man they don’t know where the Chameleon is but they heard that he offered a million Dollars to hit him (Spidey). Realizing that he just had another dead end for his search, the webslinger traps them all with his web and then swings away to another destination.

Meanwhile at one of the units of a residential tower in New York, the Chameleon cannot help but smash a lot of things as he struggles with his anger and hatred with Spider-Man. He knows that it is a matter of time before the webslinger finds him…

Quality

In this 2nd chapter of the Pursuit storyline, things really intensified as the plot unraveled. As Spider-Man does his search for the Chameleon and answers, the said super villain executed his strategies that involve deception and deep resources that go beyond money. As such, the webslinger became the target of Tracer who has a powered suit of armor and high-tech weaponry.

As anticipated, Spider-Man remains driven by revenge in his quest for the Chameleon and because of his broken emotional state, he has gotten more violent with his physical action. He also turned sarcastic in key moments which is a lively reminder that this Spider-Man is no longer the friendly neighborhood hero he used to be. The famous webslinger is not completely unhinged here as his concern for bystanders showed he still has some humanity left within him.

When it comes to the Chameleon, this comic book portrays him to be very cunning and resourceful. His deception towards others might draw emotions from you and might make you wish he will suffer a lot once Spider-Man finds him.

Conclusion

As the 2nd part of the Pursuit storyline, Spectacular Spider-Man #211 (1994) delivers a portrayal of a deeply hurt Spider-Man whose lust for revenge keeps him going no matter what obstacles he faces. As readers, we witness his intense search for the dreaded villain Chameleon as well as his emotional deterioration. That said, this comic book has a somewhat depressing tone as Spider-Man’s life gets worse and his wife Mary Jane is suffering too. Ultimately, this comic book convinced me to continue with the storyline.

Overall, Spectacular Spider-Man #211 (1994) is recommended.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

SBMA And BCDA Agree To Use Port Of Subic Bay As Maritime Gateway For Pax Silica

The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) announced that it has sealed a formal agreement with the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) to make the Port of Subic Bay the preferred maritime gateway for Pax Silica.

Launched in late-2025, Pax Silica is a United States-led strategic coalition to secure the global supply chains for artificial intelligence and semiconductors. Pax Silica was designed to counter China’s dominance in technology manufacturing and earth minerals.

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the SBMA’s official announcement. Some parts in boldface…

The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) have agreed to make the Port of Subic Bay the preferred maritime gateway for the Pax Silica initiative.

The partnership was confirmed in the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between SBMA Chairman and Administrator Eduardo Jose L. Aliño and BCDA President and CEO Joshua M. Bingcang at the Bonifacio Technology Center in BGC, Taguig City, on July 20, 2026.

“Having the Port of Subic Bay as the preferred maritime gateway for Pax Silica Operations within the Luzon Economic Corridor is a great honor for the SBMA. It is, in fact, a crowning recognition of the invaluable role the Port of Subic Bay can play, on par with the initiatives to support the National Government regarding Pax Silica,” Aliño said.

“As part of the Luzon Economic Corridor, Subic Bay’s deep-water port and shipyard facilities are designed to transport raw materials like nickel and copper quickly, and processed tech goods between the port and the AI-native Economic Security Zone, or ESZ, in New Clark City,” he added. Meanwhile, Bingcang highlighted that the Port of Subic Bay offers a strategic advantage for the Pax Silica initiative. It serves as a critical gateway that enables the efficient movement of raw materials into the country and the timely delivery of finished products to customers,” PCEO Bingcang said. It serves as a critical gateway, enabling the efficient movement of raw materials into the country and the timely delivery of finished products to customers.

He added that the partnership advances the Marcos administration’s whole-of-government approach to infrastructure development and investment promotion, while reinforcing the Luzon Economic Corridor through stronger integration of ports, industrial hubs, and emerging technology ecosystems that will generate quality jobs and long-term economic opportunities for Filipinos.

Also present during the signing ceremony were SBMA Senior Deputy Administrator for Operations Ronnie Yambao and BCDA Senior Vice President for Legal Services Atty. Diana Joyce N. Basco-Galera.

This partnership requires the SBMA to identify and evaluate specific land and port areas under its jurisdiction that can be strategically leveraged for the Pax Silica initiative. It also involves evaluating the infrastructure, utilities, logistics, and port support requirements for Pax Silica.

The partnership would also include the assessment of land use compatibility and traffic connectivity with existing and planned master development plans of both economic zones; exchange of non-confidential information relevant to infrastructure planning and operational coordination.

Both the BCDA and the SBMA would also conduct market sounding, logistics demand analysis, potential development phasing, and explore possible modes of cooperation or future project structures, subject to applicable laws and policies.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Were you surprised the SBMA and BCDA sealed the agreement on designating the Port of Subic for Pax Silica as a maritime gateway?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

SBMA And BCDA Agree To Use Port Of Subic Bay As Maritime Gateway For Pax Silica

The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) announced that it has sealed a formal agreement with the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) to make the Port of Subic Bay the preferred maritime gateway for Pax Silica.

Launched in late-2025, Pax Silica is a United States-led strategic coalition to secure the global supply chains for artificial intelligence and semiconductors. Pax Silica was designed to counter China’s dominance in technology manufacturing and earth minerals.

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the SBMA’s official announcement. Some parts in boldface…

The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) have agreed to make the Port of Subic Bay the preferred maritime gateway for the Pax Silica initiative.

The partnership was confirmed in the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between SBMA Chairman and Administrator Eduardo Jose L. Aliño and BCDA President and CEO Joshua M. Bingcang at the Bonifacio Technology Center in BGC, Taguig City, on July 20, 2026.

“Having the Port of Subic Bay as the preferred maritime gateway for Pax Silica Operations within the Luzon Economic Corridor is a great honor for the SBMA. It is, in fact, a crowning recognition of the invaluable role the Port of Subic Bay can play, on par with the initiatives to support the National Government regarding Pax Silica,” Aliño said.

“As part of the Luzon Economic Corridor, Subic Bay’s deep-water port and shipyard facilities are designed to transport raw materials like nickel and copper quickly, and processed tech goods between the port and the AI-native Economic Security Zone, or ESZ, in New Clark City,” he added. Meanwhile, Bingcang highlighted that the Port of Subic Bay offers a strategic advantage for the Pax Silica initiative. It serves as a critical gateway that enables the efficient movement of raw materials into the country and the timely delivery of finished products to customers,” PCEO Bingcang said. It serves as a critical gateway, enabling the efficient movement of raw materials into the country and the timely delivery of finished products to customers.

He added that the partnership advances the Marcos administration’s whole-of-government approach to infrastructure development and investment promotion, while reinforcing the Luzon Economic Corridor through stronger integration of ports, industrial hubs, and emerging technology ecosystems that will generate quality jobs and long-term economic opportunities for Filipinos.

Also present during the signing ceremony were SBMA Senior Deputy Administrator for Operations Ronnie Yambao and BCDA Senior Vice President for Legal Services Atty. Diana Joyce N. Basco-Galera.

This partnership requires the SBMA to identify and evaluate specific land and port areas under its jurisdiction that can be strategically leveraged for the Pax Silica initiative. It also involves evaluating the infrastructure, utilities, logistics, and port support requirements for Pax Silica.

The partnership would also include the assessment of land use compatibility and traffic connectivity with existing and planned master development plans of both economic zones; exchange of non-confidential information relevant to infrastructure planning and operational coordination.

Both the BCDA and the SBMA would also conduct market sounding, logistics demand analysis, potential development phasing, and explore possible modes of cooperation or future project structures, subject to applicable laws and policies.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Were you surprised the SBMA and BCDA sealed the agreement on designating the Port of Subic for Pax Silica as a maritime gateway?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

A Look Back at Spectacular Spider-Man #211 (1994)

Disclaimer: This is my original work with details sourced from reading the comic book and doing personal research. Anyone who wants to use this article, in part or in whole, needs to secure first my permission and agree to cite me as the source and author. Let it be known that any unauthorized use of this article will constrain the author to pursue the remedies under R.A. No. 8293, the Revised Penal Code, and/or all applicable legal actions under the laws of the Philippines.

Welcome back superhero enthusiasts, 1990s arts and culture enthusiasts, Spider-Man fans and comic book collectors! Today we go back to the year 1994 to examine a small part of the Marvel Comics shared universe through a tale of the Spectacular Spider-Man monthly series.

Following the tragedy told in Amazing Spider-Man #388, Spider-Man got broken emotionally and he started lusting for revenge against the Chameleon in Spider-Man #45 which marked the beginning of the Pursuit storyline. Along the way, the webslinger became more intense, more violent and his marriage with Mary Jane got strained even more.

With those details laid down, here is a look back at Spectacular Spider-Man #211, published in 1994 by Marvel Comics with a story written by Mike Lackey and drawn by Sal Buscema. This is the 2nd chapter of the Pursuit storyline.

Early story

The story begins with Spider-Man overwhelming an entire gang of dangerous men on the rooftop of a building. Even though they were armed dangerous, the obsessed webslinger successfully hurt each of them until they fell down on the floor. He beat them all as he obsessively searched for answers about the Chameleon. One of them told Spider-Man they don’t know where the Chameleon is but they heard that he offered a million Dollars to hit him (Spidey). Realizing that he just had another dead end for his search, the webslinger traps them all with his web and then swings away to another destination.

Meanwhile at one of the units of a residential tower in New York, the Chameleon cannot help but smash a lot of things as he struggles with his anger and hatred with Spider-Man. He knows that it is a matter of time before the webslinger finds him…

Quality

In this 2nd chapter of the Pursuit storyline, things really intensified as the plot unraveled. As Spider-Man does his search for the Chameleon and answers, the said super villain executed his strategies that involve deception and deep resources that go beyond money. As such, the webslinger became the target of Tracer who has a powered suit of armor and high-tech weaponry.

As anticipated, Spider-Man remains driven by revenge in his quest for the Chameleon and because of his broken emotional state, he has gotten more violent with his physical action. He also turned sarcastic in key moments which is a lively reminder that this Spider-Man is no longer the friendly neighborhood hero he used to be. The famous webslinger is not completely unhinged here as his concern for bystanders showed he still has some humanity left within him.

When it comes to the Chameleon, this comic book portrays him to be very cunning and resourceful. His deception towards others might draw emotions from you and might make you wish he will suffer a lot once Spider-Man finds him.

Conclusion

As the 2nd part of the Pursuit storyline, Spectacular Spider-Man #211 (1994) delivers a portrayal of a deeply hurt Spider-Man whose lust for revenge keeps him going no matter what obstacles he faces. As readers, we witness his intense search for the dreaded villain Chameleon as well as his emotional deterioration. That said, this comic book has a somewhat depressing tone as Spider-Man’s life gets worse and his wife Mary Jane is suffering too. Ultimately, this comic book convinced me to continue with the storyline.

Overall, Spectacular Spider-Man #211 (1994) is recommended.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

SBMA And BCDA Agree To Use Port Of Subic Bay As Maritime Gateway For Pax Silica

The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) announced that it has sealed a formal agreement with the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) to make the Port of Subic Bay the preferred maritime gateway for Pax Silica.

Launched in late-2025, Pax Silica is a United States-led strategic coalition to secure the global supply chains for artificial intelligence and semiconductors. Pax Silica was designed to counter China’s dominance in technology manufacturing and earth minerals.

To put things in perspective, posted below is an excerpt from the SBMA’s official announcement. Some parts in boldface…

The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) have agreed to make the Port of Subic Bay the preferred maritime gateway for the Pax Silica initiative.

The partnership was confirmed in the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between SBMA Chairman and Administrator Eduardo Jose L. Aliño and BCDA President and CEO Joshua M. Bingcang at the Bonifacio Technology Center in BGC, Taguig City, on July 20, 2026.

“Having the Port of Subic Bay as the preferred maritime gateway for Pax Silica Operations within the Luzon Economic Corridor is a great honor for the SBMA. It is, in fact, a crowning recognition of the invaluable role the Port of Subic Bay can play, on par with the initiatives to support the National Government regarding Pax Silica,” Aliño said.

“As part of the Luzon Economic Corridor, Subic Bay’s deep-water port and shipyard facilities are designed to transport raw materials like nickel and copper quickly, and processed tech goods between the port and the AI-native Economic Security Zone, or ESZ, in New Clark City,” he added. Meanwhile, Bingcang highlighted that the Port of Subic Bay offers a strategic advantage for the Pax Silica initiative. It serves as a critical gateway that enables the efficient movement of raw materials into the country and the timely delivery of finished products to customers,” PCEO Bingcang said. It serves as a critical gateway, enabling the efficient movement of raw materials into the country and the timely delivery of finished products to customers.

He added that the partnership advances the Marcos administration’s whole-of-government approach to infrastructure development and investment promotion, while reinforcing the Luzon Economic Corridor through stronger integration of ports, industrial hubs, and emerging technology ecosystems that will generate quality jobs and long-term economic opportunities for Filipinos.

Also present during the signing ceremony were SBMA Senior Deputy Administrator for Operations Ronnie Yambao and BCDA Senior Vice President for Legal Services Atty. Diana Joyce N. Basco-Galera.

This partnership requires the SBMA to identify and evaluate specific land and port areas under its jurisdiction that can be strategically leveraged for the Pax Silica initiative. It also involves evaluating the infrastructure, utilities, logistics, and port support requirements for Pax Silica.

The partnership would also include the assessment of land use compatibility and traffic connectivity with existing and planned master development plans of both economic zones; exchange of non-confidential information relevant to infrastructure planning and operational coordination.

Both the BCDA and the SBMA would also conduct market sounding, logistics demand analysis, potential development phasing, and explore possible modes of cooperation or future project structures, subject to applicable laws and policies.

Let me end this post by asking you readers: What is your reaction to this recent development? Were you surprised the SBMA and BCDA sealed the agreement on designating the Port of Subic for Pax Silica as a maritime gateway?

You may answer in the comments below. If you prefer to answer privately, you may do so by sending me a direct message online.

+++++

Thank you for reading. If you find this article engaging, please click the like button below, share this article to others and also please consider making a donation to support my publishing. If you are looking for a copywriter to create content for your special project or business, check out my services and my portfolio. Feel free to contact me with a private message. Also please feel free to visit my Facebook page Author Carlo Carrasco and follow me on Twitter at @CarloCarrascoPH as well as on Tumblr at https://carlocarrasco.tumblr.com/ and on Instagram athttps://www.instagram.com/authorcarlocarrasco

EU imposes €890 million competition fine on Google

FILE PHOTO – The Google logo is pictured on the Internet company’s pavilion at the CES technology trade…
#Europe #EU #Europeanbusinesses #EuropeanCommission #EuropeanUnion #Google #GooglePlay #GoogleSearch
https://www.europesays.com/europe/101136/

https://www.europesays.com/dk/134217/ Google fined €890m over EU competition breaches #Alphabet #Antitrust #CompetitionLaw #DigitalMarketsAct #DMA #EUFine #EuropeanCommission #Finland #Google #GooglePlay #GoogleSearch #helsinki #HennaVirkkunen #KentWalker #TeresaRibera