June 25, 2025 • 15 mins
In today's episode of Hashtag Trending, hosted by Jim Love, we delve into several pressing technology and policy issues. First, we explore the backlash against Apple's new liquid glass interface introduced in iOS 26, which is being criticized for severe readability issues. This design update aimed at unifying the user experience across all Apple platforms is facing criticism for its lack of accessibility. Next, we discuss the No Fakes Act in the U.S. Congress, a legislative effort aimed at addressing the problem of AI-generated deep fakes. This bill, while intending to protect victims, is drawing fire for potentially creating a broad censorship infrastructure that could impact free speech and innovation. Lastly, we examine the escalating 'algorithmic arms race' in hiring practices, where both employers and job seekers are increasingly relying on AI. This dynamic is raising concerns about hidden biases in hiring algorithms and the loss of human judgment in recruitment processes. Additionally, we touch on Microsoft's recent controversy involving the sanctioning of International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, which has led to significant backlash and concerns over digital sovereignty. Tune in to explore these topics and more.
00:00 Introduction and Welcome
00:21 Apple's Liquid Glass Interface Controversy
02:46 The No Fakes Act: Balancing Protection and Censorship
06:30 AI in Hiring: An Algorithmic Arms Race
09:44 Microsoft's Controversial Compliance with US Sanctions
14:49 Conclusion and Contact Information
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Apple's liquid glass interface?
Sparks a readability backlash.
The No Fakes act is it protecting victimsor creating censorship infrastructure and.
AI may be creating a hiring arms race.
Welcome to Hashtag Trending.
I'm your host, Jim Love.
Let's get into it.
(00:21):
Apple's new liquid glass interfaceis facing serious user backlash as
beta testers struggle with widespreadreadability problems across iOS 26.
The design announced that Apple'sWorldwide Developer Conference in
2025 as Apple's broadest design updateever uses a new effect described as
(00:42):
glass like transparency to createa new user experience and unify
that across all Apple platforms.
It's an attempt to have a major leap indesign after years of minimal changes.
But early users are reporting some issuesinstead of a stunning visual display.
The translucent control center createswhat some beta users are calling
(01:06):
a visual mess, where buttons andsliders blend into the background
making them nearly impossible to use.
The problems extendbeyond the Control Center.
Notifications on the lock screenbecome invisible, depending on the
wallpaper colors and even apple's ownpress materials show concerns about
readability issues with light gray texton translucent backgrounds in Apple Music.
(01:30):
Critics argue that the interfaceviolates accessibility standards.
Definitely not compliant with theAmericans with Disabilities Act.
Say some even withaccessibility features on.
Apple has responded quickly, releasingiOS 26 beta two yesterday with improved
background blur in Control Center.
(01:52):
However, fundamental readability issuesstill remain unresolved across the system.
The controversy recalls iOS Seven'stroubled 2013 launch when Apple's last
major design overhaul was also accused ofprioritizing aesthetics over usability.
But this time it feels different.
(02:12):
Apple is positioning Liquid Glass asa preparation for future augmented
reality devices where visual claritywould become even more critical.
Industry observers are notingthat Apple may have missed the
mark by adopting glass morphs.
The design trend popular since2020, rather than leading with
something truly innovative.
(02:34):
With the Fall public launch,approaching Apple faces pressure to
solve these basic usability problemsor risk alienating users with an
interface they literally can't read.
The Electronic Frontier Foundationwarns that the US Congress faces a
choice between protecting victims ofAI generated deep fakes and preserving
(02:55):
free speech as the latest version ofthe No Fakes Act draws sharp criticism
from digital rights advocates.
There's no questions that the billattempts to address a real harm.
People.
Largely women and children have beenterrorized by things like revenge porn
and fake nudes with some young victimsdriven to suicide by AI generated content
(03:19):
so, so-called deep fakes that can generateincredibly realistic images in minutes.
Make this problem far worse.
So the legislation would create thefirst federal right, allowing people
to sue over unauthorized digitalreplicas of their voice or likenesses.
But the Electronic Frontier Foundationwarns that the updated bill is creating
(03:41):
what they call a whole new censorshipinfrastructure that could fundamentally
change how the internet operates.
Here's where the collision happens.
The bill now requires platforms not onlyto remove reported content, but also
filter future uploads and take down toolsused to create unauthorized replicas.
(04:04):
The EFF argues that the billwould be a disaster for internet
speech and innovation warning.
It creates broader censorshipmechanisms than even copyright law.
The stakes are deeply personal.
Victims need rapid remedies when facingAI generated abuse that can harass and
even destroy reputations overnight.
(04:25):
The EFF points out from the pointof view of content creators.
The bill offers weaker safetymechanisms than existing copyright law.
No simple counter notice processes,forcing speakers to run to court
within 14 days to defend themselves.
The legislation also threatens anonymousspeech by allowing anyone to get
(04:45):
subpoenas from court clerks, not judgesto unmask users based on mere allegations.
Critics warn this creates a heckler'sveto where bad actors can silence
critics with false alarms and doxing.
The recording Academy, MotionPicture Association and major
entertainment companies back, thebill as essential to protect creators.
(05:09):
Tech platforms have mixedreactions with some reportedly
comfortable with provisions thatcould burden smaller competitors.
And the fundamentalissue remains unresolved.
How do you give victims fast effectivetools against AI abuse without
creating censorship systems that can beweaponized against legitimate speech?
(05:31):
The bill does include carve outsfor parody and commentary, but as
the EFF notes, those will be cold.
Comfort for those whocannot afford to litigate.
Congress must threadthis needle carefully.
Victims deserve protection, but wheredo we weigh the cost of fundamental
free speech rights that protect us all?
(05:51):
It's something that requires anintelligent and nuanced debate and
a spirit of goodwill to resolve.
Unfortunately, it comes at a time withthe most polarized Congress in history.
That is unlikely to be able toresolve this and up north in Canada.
Will the government take any action onthis given that they can't seem to get
(06:12):
basic privacy and security bills throughCanadian parliament and that they prefer
to sneak through fairly draconian setsof regulations in other legislation.
The hopes in the great whitenorth for an intelligent nuance
debate aren't great either.
The job market has become an algorithmicarms race where AI generated resumes,
(06:35):
battle AI screening systems whileskilled job openings remain unfilled.
And while hidden biases in the softwaremay be systematically blocking.
Qualified candidates.
Resume builder's latestsurvey reveals the scope.
99% of employers now use AI in hiringwhile job seekers fight back with
(06:56):
AI application bots and can submithundreds of applications daily.
One engineering manager reportedreceiving 150 applications within
seven minutes of posting a role.
But here's the cruel paradox.
54% of hiring managers say they care ifcandidates use AI to write resumes, even
(07:18):
though they're using AI to screen them.
When 625 hiring managers were askedabout red flags, AI generated resumes
topped the list ranking higher thanemployment gaps or lack of achievement.
Yet few people understand themonster that they've created.
A case in the US has been filed toexpose how applicant tracking systems
(07:41):
operate as black boxes, and nobodyreally knows how they score candidates.
\ One individual after 100 straightrejections suspected software was
flagging his profile, potentiallyblacklisting him across the entire system.
And even if that weren't true,computer scientists warned that these
scoring algorithms can shut out jobseekers through mechanical errors like
(08:05):
misclassifying, job titles, or moretroubling algorithmic mistakes that
systematically penalize certain groups.
Harvard researchers found thatthese systems screen out millions of
qualified workers for arbitrary reasonslike resume gaps or not matching
every qualification in a lengthy jobdescription, and the human cost is stark.
(08:26):
The person who we talked about earlierraised a lawsuit and only got hired when
a human recruiter called him directlyleading to an interview and a job offer at
Allstate where he's been promoted twice.
It's a great illustration of what is lostwhen algorithms replace human judgment.
And meanwhile, the arms race escalates.
(08:48):
AI tools meant to help job seekersbeat algorithmic screening, often
backfire, creating generic applicationsthat trigger automated rejections.
Companies deploy ever moresophisticated AI to filter the
flood of AI generated applications.
Creating a feedback loop that removeshumans from both sides of the equation.
(09:09):
Perhaps the solutionisn't more automation.
There are a number of areas where AIand automation can help in HT functions.
Automating simple questions and processes,making self-serve actually work.
But perhaps the engagement and hiring ofhumans is something where for the time
being, only humans can lead the way.
(09:31):
finally, Warren Buffett said ittakes 20 years to build a reputation
and five minutes to ruin it.
If you think about that,you'll do things differently.
That applies to people and to companies.
And in that light, it appears thatMicrosoft might be rethinking some recent
actions in cutting off internationalcriminal court Chief Prosecutor, Karim
(09:53):
Kahn's, email access, Microsoft appearsto have realized the true impact of what
they've done, and now they're tryingdesperately to reframe what happened.
Here's what we found out about thestory from multiple sources, and
we've reported on this in parts.
In February, president Trump sanctionedprosecutor Karim Khan, the lead prosecutor
(10:15):
at the International Criminal Court
.This happened after the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu andformer defense Minister Yo Gallant.
Now, the sanctions for issuingthese warrants were severe freeze
any property Khan had in the UnitedStates, and a restriction on his
(10:36):
admission into the US One couldquestion whether these were fair.
But they fall within US law andpresumably could be litigated there,
but the sanctions took another step.
Imposing sanctions on not justKhan, but any person, institution
or company providing financialmaterial or technological support.
(11:01):
Read that last one.
Technological support tosanctioned individuals facing
potential fines and imprisonment.
And that's where Microsoftenters the picture.
Microsoft, presumably afraid ofthe sanctions, implemented them
canceling Khan's email address,throwing the court into an upheaval.
(11:23):
. Khan was ultimately able to switchto Swiss email provider Proton
mail, according to ICC staffers,interviewed by the Associated Press
who ran the story in the first place.
Now, everyone knows if your emailwas shut down and you had to pick
up from scratch somewhere else,how difficult that could be.
(11:45):
The implications are clear,
even though this individual was actingin another sovereign country with the
full support of the government of thatcountry, Microsoft was bound to obey the
edict of a foreign government, the US.
It is exactly what those inEurope who are arguing for digital
sovereignty are warning about
(12:06):
and it's exactly whatMicrosoft has been promising.
They'd never let happen as they tryto persuade European governments to
use their cloud and their software.
So it's no wonder that Microsoft PresidentBrad Smith has been forced to backpedal
now, claiming his company was not in anyway involved in the cessation of services
to the ICC, which raises the question ifcutting off the Chief prosecutor's email
(12:30):
doesn't constitute cutting services.
What exactly does?
The reality is that it appears tomany that the tech giant folded under
US government pressure and is nowtrying to find plausible deniability.
Microsoft argues vainly that theysimply disconnected one individual
(12:50):
under sanctions while keepingservices running for the institution.
But the real impacttells a different story.
. Reportedly, six senior ICC officials haveresigned over sanctions concerns and some
NGOs have stopped working with the court.
And at least 10 Dutch governmentorganizations are now seeking
alternatives to US cloud services.
(13:12):
According to the IntermacGroup director Ludo Bao.
The timing couldn't be worse forMicrosoft's European expansion.
Just weeks before the ICC incident,Smith toured Brussels promising
to defend European interestsfrom geopolitical volatility.
As Dutch software expert BertHubert noted a few weeks ago, they
(13:34):
issued all these grand statementsand promises that this would never
happen, and now it happens Anyway.
So Microsoft's word gamescan't change the reality.
While the company seems to have founda bit of courage and now promises, it
will resist pressures in the future,we'll see whether that happens or not.
The reality is that when pressuredin the present tense, the company
(13:57):
chose to comply with a specious UScompliance order and execute that.
Against someone in another sovereigncountry, and if that isn't a
digital kill switch in action,we'd like to know what he is.
Further, this came to theworld's attention because of the
position of the individual andthe backlash that it generated.
(14:21):
If you were a single individual,perhaps a whistleblower or even a
staunch advocate of positions notacceptable to the US administration,
would Microsoft defend you?
Or would you lose your key services anda note to the US authorities in case
you're thinking about coming after us.
(14:41):
We're staying north of the 49thParallel and we use open source software
And that's our show as always,especially what I'm telling you.
What I think.
We love to hear what you think.
You can reach us now at the Contact usform at our new improved open source
software website@technewsday.com or.ca.
(15:03):
Take your pick.
I'm your host, Jim Love.
Have a wonderful Wednesday.
I.
Apple's liquid glass interface?
Sparks a readability backlash.
The No Fakes act is it protecting victimsor creating censorship infrastructure and.
AI may be creating a hiring arms race.
Welcome to Hashtag Trending.
I'm your host, Jim Love.
Let's get into it.
(00:21):
Apple's new liquid glass interfaceis facing serious user backlash as
beta testers struggle with widespreadreadability problems across iOS 26.
The design announced that Apple'sWorldwide Developer Conference in
2025 as Apple's broadest design updateever uses a new effect described as
(00:42):
glass like transparency to createa new user experience and unify
that across all Apple platforms.
It's an attempt to have a major leap indesign after years of minimal changes.
But early users are reporting some issuesinstead of a stunning visual display.
The translucent control center createswhat some beta users are calling
(01:06):
a visual mess, where buttons andsliders blend into the background
making them nearly impossible to use.
The problems extendbeyond the Control Center.
Notifications on the lock screenbecome invisible, depending on the
wallpaper colors and even apple's ownpress materials show concerns about
readability issues with light gray texton translucent backgrounds in Apple Music.
(01:30):
Critics argue that the interfaceviolates accessibility standards.
Definitely not compliant with theAmericans with Disabilities Act.
Say some even withaccessibility features on.
Apple has responded quickly, releasingiOS 26 beta two yesterday with improved
background blur in Control Center.
(01:52):
However, fundamental readability issuesstill remain unresolved across the system.
The controversy recalls iOS Seven'stroubled 2013 launch when Apple's last
major design overhaul was also accused ofprioritizing aesthetics over usability.
But this time it feels different.
(02:12):
Apple is positioning Liquid Glass asa preparation for future augmented
reality devices where visual claritywould become even more critical.
Industry observers are notingthat Apple may have missed the
mark by adopting glass morphs.
The design trend popular since2020, rather than leading with
something truly innovative.
(02:34):
With the Fall public launch,approaching Apple faces pressure to
solve these basic usability problemsor risk alienating users with an
interface they literally can't read.
The Electronic Frontier Foundationwarns that the US Congress faces a
choice between protecting victims ofAI generated deep fakes and preserving
(02:55):
free speech as the latest version ofthe No Fakes Act draws sharp criticism
from digital rights advocates.
There's no questions that the billattempts to address a real harm.
People.
Largely women and children have beenterrorized by things like revenge porn
and fake nudes with some young victimsdriven to suicide by AI generated content
(03:19):
so, so-called deep fakes that can generateincredibly realistic images in minutes.
Make this problem far worse.
So the legislation would create thefirst federal right, allowing people
to sue over unauthorized digitalreplicas of their voice or likenesses.
But the Electronic Frontier Foundationwarns that the updated bill is creating
(03:41):
what they call a whole new censorshipinfrastructure that could fundamentally
change how the internet operates.
Here's where the collision happens.
The bill now requires platforms not onlyto remove reported content, but also
filter future uploads and take down toolsused to create unauthorized replicas.
(04:04):
The EFF argues that the billwould be a disaster for internet
speech and innovation warning.
It creates broader censorshipmechanisms than even copyright law.
The stakes are deeply personal.
Victims need rapid remedies when facingAI generated abuse that can harass and
even destroy reputations overnight.
(04:25):
The EFF points out from the pointof view of content creators.
The bill offers weaker safetymechanisms than existing copyright law.
No simple counter notice processes,forcing speakers to run to court
within 14 days to defend themselves.
The legislation also threatens anonymousspeech by allowing anyone to get
(04:45):
subpoenas from court clerks, not judgesto unmask users based on mere allegations.
Critics warn this creates a heckler'sveto where bad actors can silence
critics with false alarms and doxing.
The recording Academy, MotionPicture Association and major
entertainment companies back, thebill as essential to protect creators.
(05:09):
Tech platforms have mixedreactions with some reportedly
comfortable with provisions thatcould burden smaller competitors.
And the fundamentalissue remains unresolved.
How do you give victims fast effectivetools against AI abuse without
creating censorship systems that can beweaponized against legitimate speech?
(05:31):
The bill does include carve outsfor parody and commentary, but as
the EFF notes, those will be cold.
Comfort for those whocannot afford to litigate.
Congress must threadthis needle carefully.
Victims deserve protection, but wheredo we weigh the cost of fundamental
free speech rights that protect us all?
(05:51):
It's something that requires anintelligent and nuanced debate and
a spirit of goodwill to resolve.
Unfortunately, it comes at a time withthe most polarized Congress in history.
That is unlikely to be able toresolve this and up north in Canada.
Will the government take any action onthis given that they can't seem to get
(06:12):
basic privacy and security bills throughCanadian parliament and that they prefer
to sneak through fairly draconian setsof regulations in other legislation.
The hopes in the great whitenorth for an intelligent nuance
debate aren't great either.
The job market has become an algorithmicarms race where AI generated resumes,
(06:35):
battle AI screening systems whileskilled job openings remain unfilled.
And while hidden biases in the softwaremay be systematically blocking.
Qualified candidates.
Resume builder's latestsurvey reveals the scope.
99% of employers now use AI in hiringwhile job seekers fight back with
(06:56):
AI application bots and can submithundreds of applications daily.
One engineering manager reportedreceiving 150 applications within
seven minutes of posting a role.
But here's the cruel paradox.
54% of hiring managers say they care ifcandidates use AI to write resumes, even
(07:18):
though they're using AI to screen them.
When 625 hiring managers were askedabout red flags, AI generated resumes
topped the list ranking higher thanemployment gaps or lack of achievement.
Yet few people understand themonster that they've created.
A case in the US has been filed toexpose how applicant tracking systems
(07:41):
operate as black boxes, and nobodyreally knows how they score candidates.
\ One individual after 100 straightrejections suspected software was
flagging his profile, potentiallyblacklisting him across the entire system.
And even if that weren't true,computer scientists warned that these
scoring algorithms can shut out jobseekers through mechanical errors like
(08:05):
misclassifying, job titles, or moretroubling algorithmic mistakes that
systematically penalize certain groups.
Harvard researchers found thatthese systems screen out millions of
qualified workers for arbitrary reasonslike resume gaps or not matching
every qualification in a lengthy jobdescription, and the human cost is stark.
(08:26):
The person who we talked about earlierraised a lawsuit and only got hired when
a human recruiter called him directlyleading to an interview and a job offer at
Allstate where he's been promoted twice.
It's a great illustration of what is lostwhen algorithms replace human judgment.
And meanwhile, the arms race escalates.
(08:48):
AI tools meant to help job seekersbeat algorithmic screening, often
backfire, creating generic applicationsthat trigger automated rejections.
Companies deploy ever moresophisticated AI to filter the
flood of AI generated applications.
Creating a feedback loop that removeshumans from both sides of the equation.
(09:09):
Perhaps the solutionisn't more automation.
There are a number of areas where AIand automation can help in HT functions.
Automating simple questions and processes,making self-serve actually work.
But perhaps the engagement and hiring ofhumans is something where for the time
being, only humans can lead the way.
(09:31):
finally, Warren Buffett said ittakes 20 years to build a reputation
and five minutes to ruin it.
If you think about that,you'll do things differently.
That applies to people and to companies.
And in that light, it appears thatMicrosoft might be rethinking some recent
actions in cutting off internationalcriminal court Chief Prosecutor, Karim
(09:53):
Kahn's, email access, Microsoft appearsto have realized the true impact of what
they've done, and now they're tryingdesperately to reframe what happened.
Here's what we found out about thestory from multiple sources, and
we've reported on this in parts.
In February, president Trump sanctionedprosecutor Karim Khan, the lead prosecutor
(10:15):
at the International Criminal Court
.This happened after the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu andformer defense Minister Yo Gallant.
Now, the sanctions for issuingthese warrants were severe freeze
any property Khan had in the UnitedStates, and a restriction on his
(10:36):
admission into the US One couldquestion whether these were fair.
But they fall within US law andpresumably could be litigated there,
but the sanctions took another step.
Imposing sanctions on not justKhan, but any person, institution
or company providing financialmaterial or technological support.
(11:01):
Read that last one.
Technological support tosanctioned individuals facing
potential fines and imprisonment.
And that's where Microsoftenters the picture.
Microsoft, presumably afraid ofthe sanctions, implemented them
canceling Khan's email address,throwing the court into an upheaval.
(11:23):
. Khan was ultimately able to switchto Swiss email provider Proton
mail, according to ICC staffers,interviewed by the Associated Press
who ran the story in the first place.
Now, everyone knows if your emailwas shut down and you had to pick
up from scratch somewhere else,how difficult that could be.
(11:45):
The implications are clear,
even though this individual was actingin another sovereign country with the
full support of the government of thatcountry, Microsoft was bound to obey the
edict of a foreign government, the US.
It is exactly what those inEurope who are arguing for digital
sovereignty are warning about
(12:06):
and it's exactly whatMicrosoft has been promising.
They'd never let happen as they tryto persuade European governments to
use their cloud and their software.
So it's no wonder that Microsoft PresidentBrad Smith has been forced to backpedal
now, claiming his company was not in anyway involved in the cessation of services
to the ICC, which raises the question ifcutting off the Chief prosecutor's email
(12:30):
doesn't constitute cutting services.
What exactly does?
The reality is that it appears tomany that the tech giant folded under
US government pressure and is nowtrying to find plausible deniability.
Microsoft argues vainly that theysimply disconnected one individual
(12:50):
under sanctions while keepingservices running for the institution.
But the real impacttells a different story.
. Reportedly, six senior ICC officials haveresigned over sanctions concerns and some
NGOs have stopped working with the court.
And at least 10 Dutch governmentorganizations are now seeking
alternatives to US cloud services.
(13:12):
According to the IntermacGroup director Ludo Bao.
The timing couldn't be worse forMicrosoft's European expansion.
Just weeks before the ICC incident,Smith toured Brussels promising
to defend European interestsfrom geopolitical volatility.
As Dutch software expert BertHubert noted a few weeks ago, they
(13:34):
issued all these grand statementsand promises that this would never
happen, and now it happens Anyway.
So Microsoft's word gamescan't change the reality.
While the company seems to have founda bit of courage and now promises, it
will resist pressures in the future,we'll see whether that happens or not.
The reality is that when pressuredin the present tense, the company
(13:57):
chose to comply with a specious UScompliance order and execute that.
Against someone in another sovereigncountry, and if that isn't a
digital kill switch in action,we'd like to know what he is.
Further, this came to theworld's attention because of the
position of the individual andthe backlash that it generated.
(14:21):
If you were a single individual,perhaps a whistleblower or even a
staunch advocate of positions notacceptable to the US administration,
would Microsoft defend you?
Or would you lose your key services anda note to the US authorities in case
you're thinking about coming after us.
(14:41):
We're staying north of the 49thParallel and we use open source software
And that's our show as always,especially what I'm telling you.
What I think.
We love to hear what you think.
You can reach us now at the Contact usform at our new improved open source
software website@technewsday.com or.ca.
(15:03):
Take your pick.
I'm your host, Jim Love.
Have a wonderful Wednesday.
I.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.