Three reasons Meta will struggle with community fact-checking

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

Three reasons Meta will struggle with community fact-checking

Earlier this month, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta will cut back on its content moderation efforts and eliminate fact-checking in the US in favor of the more “democratic” approach that X (formerly Twitter) calls Community Notes, rolling back protections that he claimed had been developed only in response to media and government pressure. The move is raising alarm bells, and rightly so. Meta has left a trail of moderation controversies in its wake, from overmoderating images of breastfeeding women to undermoderating hate speech in Myanmar, contributing to the genocide of Rohingya Muslims. Meanwhile, ending professional fact-checking creates the potential for misinformation and hate to spread unchecked. Enlisting volunteers is how moderation started on the Internet, long before social media giants realized that centralized efforts were necessary. And volunteer moderation can be successful, allowing for the development of bespoke regulations aligned with the needs of particular communities. But without significant commitment and oversight from Meta, such a system cannot contend with how much content is shared across the company’s platforms, and how fast. In fact, the jury is still out on how well it works at X, which is used by 21% of Americans (Meta’s are significantly more popular—Facebook alone is used by 70% of Americans, according to Pew). Community Notes, which started in 2021 as Birdwatch, is a community-driven moderation system on X that allows users who sign up for the program to add context to posts. Having regular users provide public fact-checking is relatively new, and so far results are mixed. For example, researchers have found that participants are more likely to challenge content they disagree with politically and that flagging content as false does not reduce engagement, but they have also found that the notes are typically accurate and can help reduce the spread of misleading posts. I’m a community moderator who researches community moderation. Here’s what I’ve learned about the limitations of relying on volunteers for moderation—and what Meta needs to do to succeed: 1. The system will miss falsehoods and could amplify hateful content There is a real risk under this style of moderation that only posts about things that a lot of people know about will get flagged in a timely manner—or at all. Consider how a post with a picture of a death cap mushroom and the caption “Tasty” might be handled under Community Notes–style moderation. If an expert in mycology doesn’t see the post, or sees it only after it’s been widely shared, it may not get flagged as “Poisonous, do not eat”—at least not until it’s too late. Topic areas that are more esoteric will be undermoderated. This could have serious impacts on both individuals (who may eat a poisonous mushroom) and society (if a falsehood spreads widely). Crucially, X’s Community Notes aren’t visible to readers when they are first added. A note becomes visible to the wider user base only when enough contributors agree that it is accurate by voting for it. And not all votes count. If a note is rated only by people who tend to agree with each other, it won’t show up. X does not make a note visible until there’s agreement from people who have disagreed on previous ratings. This is an attempt to reduce bias, but it’s not foolproof. It still relies on people’s opinions about a note and not on actual facts. Often what’s needed is expertise.I moderate a community on Reddit called r/AskHistorians. It’s a public history site with over 2 million members and is very strictly moderated. We see people get facts wrong all the time. Sometimes these are straightforward errors. But sometimes there is hateful content that takes experts to recognize. One time a question containing a Holocaust-denial dog whistle escaped review for hours and ended up amassing hundreds of upvotes before it was caught by an expert on our team. Hundreds of people—probably with very different voting patterns and very different opinions on a lot of topics—not only missed the problematic nature of the content but chose to promote it through upvotes. This happens with answers to questions, too. People who aren’t experts in history will upvote outdated, truthy-sounding answers that aren’t actually correct. Conversely, they will downvote good answers if they reflect viewpoints that are tough to swallow. r/AskHistorians works because most of its moderators are expert historians. If Meta wants its Community Notes–style program to work, it should make sure that the people with the knowledge to make assessments see the posts and that expertise is accounted for in voting, especially when there’s a misalignment between common understanding and expert knowledge. 2. It won’t work without well-supported volunteers Meta’s paid content moderators review the worst of the worst—including gore, sexual abuse and exploitation, and violence. As a result, many have suffered severe trauma, leading to lawsuits and unionization efforts. When Meta cuts resources from its centralized moderation efforts, it will be increasingly up to unpaid volunteers to keep the platform safe. Community moderators don’t have an easy job. On top of exposure to horrific content, as identifiable members of their communities, they are also often subject to harassment and abuse—something we experience daily on r/AskHistorians. However, community moderators moderate only what they can handle. For example, while I routinely manage hate speech and violent language, as a moderator of a text-based community I am rarely exposed to violent imagery. Community moderators also work as a team. If I do get exposed to something I find upsetting or if someone is being abusive, my colleagues take over and provide emotional support. I also care deeply about the community I moderate. Care for community, supportive colleagues, and self-selection all help keep volunteer moderators’ morale high(ish). It’s unclear how Meta’s new moderation system will be structured. If volunteers choose what content they flag, will that replicate X’s problem, where partisanship affects which posts are flagged and how? It’s also unclear what kind of support the platform will provide. If volunteers are exposed to content they find upsetting, will Meta—the company that is currently being sued for damaging the mental health of its paid content moderators—provide social and psychological aid? To be successful, the company will need to ensure that volunteers have access to such resources and are able to choose the type of content they moderate (while also ensuring that this self-selection doesn’t unduly influence the notes). 3. It can’t work without protections and guardrails Online communities can thrive when they are run by people who deeply care about them. However, volunteers can’t do it all on their own. Moderation isn’t just about making decisions on what’s “true” or “false.” It’s also about identifying and responding to other kinds of harmful content. Zuckerberg’s decision is coupled with other changes to its community standards that weaken rules around hateful content in particular. Community moderation is part of a broader ecosystem, and it becomes significantly harder to do it when that ecosystem gets poisoned by toxic content. I started moderating r/AskHistorians in 2020 as part of a research project to learn more about the behind-the-scenes experiences of volunteer moderators. While Reddit had started addressing some of the most extreme hate on its platform by occasionally banning entire communities, many communities promoting misogyny, racism, and all other forms of bigotry were permitted to thrive and grow. As a result, my early field notes are filled with examples of extreme hate speech, as well as harassment and abuse directed at moderators. It was hard to keep up with. But halfway through 2020, something happened. After a milquetoast statement about racism from CEO Steve Huffman, moderators on the site shut down their communities in protest. And to its credit, the platform listened. Reddit updated its community standards to explicitly prohibit hate speech and began to enforce the policy more actively. While hate is still an issue on Reddit, I see far less now than I did in 2020 and 2021. Community moderation needs robust support because volunteers can’t do it all on their own. It’s only one tool in the box. If Meta wants to ensure that its users are safe from scams, exploitation, and manipulation in addition to hate, it cannot rely solely on community fact-checking. But keeping the user base safe isn’t what this decision aims to do. It’s a political move to curry favor with the new administration. Meta could create the perfect community fact-checking program, but because this decision is coupled with weakening its wider moderation practices, things are going to get worse for its users rather than better. Sarah Gilbert is research director for the Citizens and Technology Lab at Cornell University.

The move is raising alarm bells, and rightly so. Meta has left a trail of moderation controversies in its wake, from overmoderating images of breastfeeding women to undermoderating hate speech in Myanmar, contributing to the genocide of Rohingya Muslims. Meanwhile, ending professional fact-checking creates the potential for misinformation and hate to spread unchecked.

Enlisting volunteers is how moderation started on the Internet, long before social media giants realized that centralized efforts were necessary. And volunteer moderation can be successful, allowing for the development of bespoke regulations aligned with the needs of particular communities. But without significant commitment and oversight from Meta, such a system cannot contend with how much content is shared across the company’s platforms, and how fast. In fact, the jury is still out on how well it works at X, which is used by 21% of Americans (Meta’s are significantly more popular—Facebook alone is used by 70% of Americans, according to Pew).

Community Notes, which started in 2021 as Birdwatch, is a community-driven moderation system on X that allows users who sign up for the program to add context to posts. Having regular users provide public fact-checking is relatively new, and so far results are mixed. For example, researchers have found that participants are more likely to challenge content they disagree with politically and that flagging content as false does not reduce engagement, but they have also found that the notes are typically accurate and can help reduce the spread of misleading posts.

I’m a community moderator who researches community moderation. Here’s what I’ve learned about the limitations of relying on volunteers for moderation—and what Meta needs to do to succeed:

1. The system will miss falsehoods and could amplify hateful content

There is a real risk under this style of moderation that only posts about things that a lot of people know about will get flagged in a timely manner—or at all. Consider how a post with a picture of a death cap mushroom and the caption “Tasty” might be handled under Community Notes–style moderation. If an expert in mycology doesn’t see the post, or sees it only after it’s been widely shared, it may not get flagged as “Poisonous, do not eat”—at least not until it’s too late. Topic areas that are more esoteric will be undermoderated. This could have serious impacts on both individuals (who may eat a poisonous mushroom) and society (if a falsehood spreads widely).

Crucially, X’s Community Notes aren’t visible to readers when they are first added. A note becomes visible to the wider user base only when enough contributors agree that it is accurate by voting for it. And not all votes count. If a note is rated only by people who tend to agree with each other, it won’t show up. X does not make a note visible until there’s agreement from people who have disagreed on previous ratings. This is an attempt to reduce bias, but it’s not foolproof. It still relies on people’s opinions about a note and not on actual facts. Often what’s needed is expertise.

I moderate a community on Reddit called r/AskHistorians. It’s a public history site with over 2 million members and is very strictly moderated. We see people get facts wrong all the time. Sometimes these are straightforward errors. But sometimes there is hateful content that takes experts to recognize. One time a question containing a Holocaust-denial dog whistle escaped review for hours and ended up amassing hundreds of upvotes before it was caught by an expert on our team. Hundreds of people—probably with very different voting patterns and very different opinions on a lot of topics—not only missed the problematic nature of the content but chose to promote it through upvotes. This happens with answers to questions, too. People who aren’t experts in history will upvote outdated, truthy-sounding answers that aren’t actually correct. Conversely, they will downvote good answers if they reflect viewpoints that are tough to swallow.

r/AskHistorians works because most of its moderators are expert historians. If Meta wants its Community Notes–style program to work, it should make sure that the people with the knowledge to make assessments see the posts and that expertise is accounted for in voting, especially when there’s a misalignment between common understanding and expert knowledge.

2. It won’t work without well-supported volunteers

Meta’s paid content moderators review the worst of the worst—including gore, sexual abuse and exploitation, and violence. As a result, many have suffered severe trauma, leading to lawsuits and unionization efforts. When Meta cuts resources from its centralized moderation efforts, it will be increasingly up to unpaid volunteers to keep the platform safe.

Community moderators don’t have an easy job. On top of exposure to horrific content, as identifiable members of their communities, they are also often subject to harassment and abuse—something we experience daily on r/AskHistorians. However, community moderators moderate only what they can handle. For example, while I routinely manage hate speech and violent language, as a moderator of a text-based community I am rarely exposed to violent imagery. Community moderators also work as a team. If I do get exposed to something I find upsetting or if someone is being abusive, my colleagues take over and provide emotional support. I also care deeply about the community I moderate. Care for community, supportive colleagues, and self-selection all help keep volunteer moderators’ morale high(ish).

It’s unclear how Meta’s new moderation system will be structured. If volunteers choose what content they flag, will that replicate X’s problem, where partisanship affects which posts are flagged and how? It’s also unclear what kind of support the platform will provide. If volunteers are exposed to content they find upsetting, will Meta—the company that is currently being sued for damaging the mental health of its paid content moderators—provide social and psychological aid? To be successful, the company will need to ensure that volunteers have access to such resources and are able to choose the type of content they moderate (while also ensuring that this self-selection doesn’t unduly influence the notes).

3. It can’t work without protections and guardrails

Online communities can thrive when they are run by people who deeply care about them. However, volunteers can’t do it all on their own. Moderation isn’t just about making decisions on what’s “true” or “false.” It’s also about identifying and responding to other kinds of harmful content. Zuckerberg’s decision is coupled with other changes to its community standards that weaken rules around hateful content in particular. Community moderation is part of a broader ecosystem, and it becomes significantly harder to do it when that ecosystem gets poisoned by toxic content.

I started moderating r/AskHistorians in 2020 as part of a research project to learn more about the behind-the-scenes experiences of volunteer moderators. While Reddit had started addressing some of the most extreme hate on its platform by occasionally banning entire communities, many communities promoting misogyny, racism, and all other forms of bigotry were permitted to thrive and grow. As a result, my early field notes are filled with examples of extreme hate speech, as well as harassment and abuse directed at moderators. It was hard to keep up with.

But halfway through 2020, something happened. After a milquetoast statement about racism from CEO Steve Huffman, moderators on the site shut down their communities in protest. And to its credit, the platform listened. Reddit updated its community standards to explicitly prohibit hate speech and began to enforce the policy more actively. While hate is still an issue on Reddit, I see far less now than I did in 2020 and 2021. Community moderation needs robust support because volunteers can’t do it all on their own. It’s only one tool in the box.

If Meta wants to ensure that its users are safe from scams, exploitation, and manipulation in addition to hate, it cannot rely solely on community fact-checking. But keeping the user base safe isn’t what this decision aims to do. It’s a political move to curry favor with the new administration. Meta could create the perfect community fact-checking program, but because this decision is coupled with weakening its wider moderation practices, things are going to get worse for its users rather than better.

Sarah Gilbert is research director for the Citizens and Technology Lab at Cornell University.

Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy, bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

Andrew Wheeler of HPE Labs: Being a constant learner is key to being a good technologist

Andrew Wheeler, director of HPE Labs, speaking at the Discover 2025 event in Barcelona, Spain.

Cloudflare firewall reacts badly to React exploit mitigation

During the same window, Downdetector saw a spike in problem reports for enterprise services including Shopify, Zoom, Claude AI, and Amazon Web Services, and a host of consumer services from games to dating apps. Cloudflare explained the outage on its service status page: “A change made to how Cloudflare’s Web

CompTIA training targets workplace AI use

CompTIA AI Essentials (V2) delivers training to help employees, students, and other professionals strengthen the skills they need for effective business use of AI tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini. In its first iteration, CompTIA’s AI Essentials focused on AI fundamentals to help professionals learn how to apply AI technology

OPEC Receives Updated Compensation Plans

A statement posted on OPEC’s website this week announced that the OPEC Secretariat has received updated compensation plans from Iraq, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kazakhstan, and Oman. A table accompanying this statement showed that these compensation plans amount to a total of 221,000 barrels per day in November, 272,000

ITT Agrees to Buy Lone Star’s SPX Flow in $4.8B Deal

ITT Inc. has agreed to acquire industrial equipment manufacturer SPX Flow Inc. from Lone Star Funds in a $4.775 billion cash and stock deal. The deal will will consist of a combination of cash and $700 million in ITT common stock issued to Lone Star, according to a statement confirming an earlier report by Bloomberg News that the companies were nearing a deal. Charlotte, North Carolina-based SPX Flow makes products including valves and pumps under brands such as APV and Johnson Pump, as well as food processing equipment such as its Gerstenberg Schröder-branded butter maker. Lone Star Funds agreed in 2021 to take SPX Flow private for $3.8 billion including debt. The SPX Flow acquisition is the largest ever by Stamford, Connecticut-based ITT, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. ITT’s shares have gained 28% this year, giving it a market value of $14.3 billion. ITT’s history dates to 1920, with its genesis as International Telephone and Telegraph, a provider of telephone switching equipment and services, according to the company’s website. In 1995, that conglomerate was split into three divisions, including the company that became the current manufacturer of components and technology for a range of transportation, industrial and energy markets. WHAT DO YOU THINK? Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

Energy Department Launches Breakthrough AI-Driven Biotechnology Platform at PNNL

Richland, Wash.—U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright launched a new chapter to secure American leadership in autonomous biological discovery yesterday alongside scientists and private partners at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). As part of his visit to PNNL, Secretary Wright commissioned and signed the Anaerobic Microbial Phenotyping Platform (AMP2). PNNL scientists believe AMP2 will be the world’s largest autonomous-capable science system for anaerobic microbial experimentation. The platform supports the Trump Administration’s recently announced Genesis Mission, which calls on the Department of Energy (DOE) to transform American leadership in science and innovation with the development of artificial intelligence (AI). Built by Gingko Bioworks, AMP2 gives DOE scientists an unprecedented capability to explore the world of microbes—an invisible yet powerful workforce poised to boost biotech manufacturing as well as provide insights into basic life science questions. This first-of-its-kind capability will transform how the U.S. identifies, grows, and optimizes the use of microbes in days and weeks instead of years using automation and AI. “President Trump launched the Genesis Mission to ensure American leadership in science and innovation,” said Secretary Chris Wright. “This ongoing public-private partnership at PNNL will help do exactly that in the field of biotechnology. By launching AI-enabled, autonomous platforms like AMP2, our DOE National Laboratories are driving scientific breakthroughs faster than ever before and ensuring the United States leads the world in technologies that will better human lives and secure our future.” The AMP2 platform will serve as a prototype for DOE’s planned development of the larger Microbial Molecular Phenotyping Capability (M2PC). Together, the systems will establish the world’s largest autonomous microbial research infrastructure, and position the U.S. to lead in biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and next-generation materials innovation for decades to come. Secretary Wright visited PNNL as part of his ongoing tour of all 17 DOE National Laboratories. PNNL marks

Chevron, Gorgon Partners OK $2B to Drill for More Gas

Chevron Corp’s Australian unit and its joint venture partners have reached a final investment decision to further develop the massive Gorgon natural gas project in Western Australia, it said in a statement on Friday. Chevron Australia and its partners — including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Shell Plc — will spend A$3 billion ($2 billion) connecting two offshore natural gas fields to existing infrastructure and processing facilities on Barrow Island as part of the Gorgon Stage 3 development, it said in the statement. Six wells will also be drilled. Gorgon, on the remote Barrow Island in northwestern Australia, is the largest resource development in Australia’s history, and produces about 15.6 million tons of liquefied natural gas a year. WHAT DO YOU THINK? Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

USA Crude Oil Stocks Rise Week on Week

U.S. commercial crude oil inventories, excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), increased by 0.6 million barrels from the week ending November 21 to the week ending November 28, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) highlighted in its latest weekly petroleum status report. That EIA report was released on December 3 and included data for the week ending November 28. It showed that crude oil stocks, not including the SPR, stood at 427.5 million barrels on November 28, 426.9 million barrels on November 21, and 423.4 million barrels on November 29, 2024. Crude oil in the SPR stood at 411.7 million barrels on November 28, 411.4 million barrels on November 21, and 391.8 million barrels on November 29, 2024, the report revealed. Total petroleum stocks – including crude oil, total motor gasoline, fuel ethanol, kerosene type jet fuel, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, propane/propylene, and other oils – stood at 1.687 billion barrels on November 28, the report showed. Total petroleum stocks were up 5.5 million barrels week on week and up 58.5 million barrels year on year, the report pointed out. “At 427.5 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are about three percent below the five year average for this time of year,” the EIA noted in its latest weekly petroleum status report. “Total motor gasoline inventories increased by 4.5 million barrels from last week and are about two percent below the five year average for this time of year. Finished gasoline and blending components inventories increased last week,” it added. “Distillate fuel inventories increased by 2.1 million barrels last week and are about seven percent below the five year average for this time of year. Propane/propylene inventories decreased 0.7 million barrels from last week and are about 15 percent above the five year average for this

Today’s $67 Per Barrel Is Only $44 in 2008 Dollars

Today’s $67 per barrel is only $44 per barrel in 2008-dollars. That’s what Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB) Chief Commodities Analyst Bjarne Schieldrop said in a SEB report sent to Rigzone by the SEB team on Wednesday. “The ‘fair price’ of oil today ($67 per barrel) is nominally not much different from the average prices over the three years to April 2008,” Schieldrop highlighted in the report. “Since then, we have had 52 percent U.S. inflation. And still the nominal fair price of oil is more or less the same. Today’s $67 per barrel is only $44 per barrel in 2008-dollars,” he added. “In real terms the world is getting cheaper and cheaper oil – to the joy of consumers and to the terror of oil producers who have to chase every possible avenue of productivity improvements to counter inflation and maintain margins,” Schieldrop continued, noting that, as they successfully do so, “the consequence is a nominal oil price not going up”. In the report, Schieldrop went on to outline that a “cost-floor of around $40 per barrel” multiplied by “a natural cost inflation-drift of 2.4 percent” comes to $0.96 per barrel. He added that, since 2008, the oil industry has been able to counter this drift with an equal amount of productivity. “The very stable five year oil price at around $67 per barrel over the past three years, and still the same today, is implying that the market is expecting the global oil industry will be able to counter an ongoing 2.4 percent inflation per year to 2030 with an equal amount of productivity,” Schieldrop said. “The world consumes 38 billion barrels per year. A productivity improvement of $0.96 per barrel equals $36 billion in productivity/year or $182 billion to 2030,” he added. Schieldrop outlined in the report that the

Crescent Says Signed Over $900MM Non-Core Divestments

Crescent Energy Co has entered into more than $900 million worth of sales involving non-core assets this year, the Houston, Texas-based oil and gas producer said. Crescent set a target of offloading non-core assets worth around $1 billion when it announced its acquisition of Vital Energy Inc on August 25. The latest divestment involves its non-operated DJ Basin assets, which will be acquired by an unnamed private buyer for $90 million. Mostly located in Weld County, Colorado, the assets produce about 7,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day (boed), with oil accounting for about 20 percent, Crescent said in an online statement. In its quarterly report November 2 Crescent said it had signed over $700 million worth of non-core divestitures including all its Barnett, conventional Rockies and Mid-Continent positions. In its latest divestment update, Crescent said, “The company has recently closed its previously announced conventional Rockies and Barnett divestitures and expects the remainder of its announced non-core asset sales to close before year-end”. On April 22 Crescent said it had sold non-operated Permian Basin assets to an unnamed private buyer for $83 million. The assets, in Reeves County, Texas, had a projected 2025 production of approximately 3,000 boed, with oil comprising over 35 percent. On August 25 it announced its $3.1-billion all-stock, debt-inclusive purchase of Tulsa, Oklahoma-headquartered Vital. Expected to close before the year ends, the combination will create a “top-10 independent”, a joint statement said. The enlarged Crescent will have a “scaled and focused asset portfolio with flexible capital allocation across more than a decade of high-quality inventory in the Eagle Ford, Permian and Uinta Basins”, the companies said. Vital shareholders will receive 1.9062 Crescent shares for each Vital share. On a diluted basis, Crescent and Vital shareholders will own approximately 77 percent and 23 percent of the combined entity

With AI Factories, AWS aims to help enterprises scale AI while respecting data sovereignty

“The AWS AI Factory seeks to resolve the tension between cloud-native innovation velocity and sovereign control. Historically, these objectives lived in opposition. CIOs faced an unsustainable dilemma: choose between on-premises security or public cloud cost and speed benefits,” he said. “This is arguably AWS’s most significant move in the sovereign AI landscape.” On premises GPUs are already a thing AI Factories isn’t the first attempt to put cloud-managed AI accelerators in customers’ data centers. Oracle introduced Nvidia processors to its Cloud@Customer managed on-premises offering in March, while Microsoft announced last month that it will add Nvidia processors to its Azure Local service. Google Distributed Cloud also includes a GPU offering, and even AWS offers lower-powered Nvidia processors in its AWS Outposts. AWS’ AI Factories is also likely to square off against from a range of similar products, such as Nvidia’s AI Factory, Dell’s AI Factory stack, and HPE’s Private Cloud for AI — each tightly coupled with Nvidia GPUs, networking, or software, and all vying to become the default on-premises AI platform. But, said Sopko, AWS will have an advantage over rivals due to its hardware-software integration and operational maturity: “The secret sauce is the software, not the infrastructure,” he said. Omdia principal analyst Alexander Harrowell expects AWS’s AI Factories to combine the on-premises control of Outposts with the flexibility and ability to run a wider variety of services offered by AWS Local Zones, which puts small data centers close to large population centers to reduce service latency. Sopko cautioned that enterprises are likely to face high commitment costs, drawing a parallel with Oracle’s OCI Dedicated Region, one of its Cloud@Customer offerings.

HPE loads up AI networking portfolio, strengthens Nvidia, AMD partnerships

On the hardware front, HPE is targeting the AI data center edge with a new MX router and the scale-out networking delivery with a new QFX switch. Juniper’s MX series is its flagship routing family aimed at carriers, large-scale enterprise data center and WAN customers, while the QFX line services data center customers anchoring spine/leaf networks as well as top-of-rack systems. The new 1U, 1.6Tbps MX301 multiservice edge router, available now, is aimed at bringing AI inferencing closer to the source of data generation and can be positioned in metro, mobile backhaul, and enterprise routing applications, Rahim said. It includes high-density support for 16 x 1/1025/50GbE, 10 x 100Gb and 4 x 400Gb interfaces. “The MX301 is essentially the on-ramp to provide high speed, secure connections from distributed inference cluster users, devices and agents from the edge all the way to the AI data center,” Rami said. “The requirements here are typically around high performance, but also very high logical skills and integrated security.” In the QFX arena, the new QFX5250 switch, available in 1Q 2026, is a fully liquid-cooled box aimed at tying together Nvidia Rubin and/or AMD MI400 GPUs for AI consumption across the data center. It is built on Broadcom Tomahawk 6 silicon and supports up to 102.4Tbps Ethernet bandwidth, Rahim said. “The QFX5250 combines HPE liquid cooling technology with Juniper networking software (Junos) and integrated AIops intelligence to deliver a high-performance, power-efficient and simplified operations for next-generation AI inference,” Rami said. Partnership expansions Also key to HPE/Juniper’s AI networking plans are its partnerships with Nvidia and AMD. The company announced its relationship with Nvidia now includes HPE Juniper edge onramp and long-haul data center interconnect (DCI) support in its Nvidia AI Computing by HPE portfolio. This extension uses the MX and Junipers PTX hyperscaler routers to support high-scale, secure

What is co-packaged optics? A solution for surging capacity in AI data center networks

When it announced its CPO-capable switches, Nvidia said they would improve resiliency by 10 times at scale compared to previous switch generations. Several factors contribute to this claim, including the fact that the optical switches require four times fewer lasers, Shainer says. Whereas the laser source was previously part of the transceiver, the optical engine is now incorporated onto the ASIC, allowing multiple optical channels to share a single laser. Additionally, in Nvidia’s implementation, the laser source is located outside of the switch. “We want to keep the ability to replace a laser source in case it has failed and needs to be replaced,” he says. “They are completely hot-swappable, so you don’t need to shut down the switch.” Nonetheless, you may often hear that when something fails in a CPO box, you need to replace the entire box. That may be true if it’s the photonics engine embedded in silicon inside the box. “But they shouldn’t fail that often. There are not a lot of moving parts in there,” Wilkinson says. While he understands the argument around failures, he doesn’t expect it to pan out as CPO gets deployed. “It’s a fallacy,” he says. There’s also a simple workaround to the resiliency issue, which hyperscalers are already talking about, Karavalas says: overbuild. “Have 10% more ports than you need or 5%,” he says. “If you lose a port because the optic goes bad, you just move it and plug it in somewhere else.” Which vendors are backing co-packaged optics? In terms of vendors that have or plan to have CPO offerings, the list is not long, unless you include various component players like TSMC. But in terms of major switch vendors, here’s a rundown: Broadcom has been making steady progress on CPO since 2021. It is now shipping “to

Nvidia’s $2B Synopsys stake tests independence of open AI interconnect standard

But the concern for enterprise IT leaders is whether Nvidia’s financial stakes in UALink consortium members could influence the development of an open standard specifically designed to compete with Nvidia’s proprietary technology and to give enterprises more choices in the datacenter. Organizations planning major AI infrastructure investments view such open standards as critical to avoiding vendor lock-in and maintaining competitive pricing. “This does put more pressure on UALink since Intel is also a member and also took investment from Nvidia,” Sag said. UALink and Synopsys’s critical role UALink represents the industry’s most significant effort to prevent vendor lock-in for AI infrastructure. The consortium ratified its UALink 200G 1.0 Specification in April, defining an open standard for connecting up to 1,024 AI accelerators within computing pods at 200 Gbps per lane — directly competing with Nvidia’s NVLink for scale-up applications. Synopsys plays a critical role. The company joined UALink’s board in January and in December announced the industry’s first UALink design components, enabling chip designers to build UALink-compatible accelerators. Analysts flag governance concerns Gaurav Gupta, VP analyst at Gartner, acknowledged the tension. “The Nvidia-Synopsys deal does raise questions around the future of UALink as Synopsys is a key partner of the consortium and holds critical IP for UALink, which competes with Nvidia’s proprietary NVLink,” he said. Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, sees deeper structural concerns. “Synopsys is not a peripheral player in this standard; it is the primary supplier of UALink IP and a board member within the UALink Consortium,” he said. “Nvidia’s entry into Synopsys’ shareholder structure risks contaminating that neutrality.”

Cooling crisis at CME: A wakeup call for modern infrastructure governance

Organizations should reassess redundancy However, he pointed out, “the deeper concern is that CME had a secondary data center ready to take the load, yet the failover threshold was set too high, and the activation sequence remained manually gated. The decision to wait for the cooling issue to self-correct rather than trigger the backup site immediately revealed a governance model that had not evolved to keep pace with the operational tempo of modern markets.” Thermal failures, he said, “do not unfold on the timelines assumed in traditional disaster recovery playbooks. They escalate within minutes and demand automated responses that do not depend on human certainty about whether a facility will recover in time.” Matt Kimball, VP and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, said that to some degree what happened in Aurora highlights an issue that may arise on occasion: “the communications gap that can exist between IT executives and data center operators. Think of ‘rack in versus rack out’ mindsets.” Often, he said, the operational elements of that data center environment, such as cooling, power, fire hazards, physical security, and so forth, fall outside the realm of an IT executive focused on delivering IT services to the business. “And even if they don’t fall outside the realm, these elements are certainly not a primary focus,” he noted. “This was certainly true when I was living in the IT world.” Additionally, said Kimball, “this highlights the need for organizations to reassess redundancy and resilience in a new light. Again, in IT, we tend to focus on resilience and redundancy at the app, server, and workload layers. Maybe even cluster level. But as we continue to place more and more of a premium on data, and the terms ‘business critical’ or ‘mission critical’ have real relevance, we have to zoom out

Microsoft loses two senior AI infrastructure leaders as data center pressures mount

Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Microsoft’s constraints Analysts say the twin departures mark a significant setback for Microsoft at a critical moment in the AI data center race, with pressure mounting from both OpenAI’s model demands and Google’s infrastructure scale. “Losing some of the best professionals working on this challenge could set Microsoft back,” said Neil Shah, partner and co-founder at Counterpoint Research. “Solving the energy wall is not trivial, and there may have been friction or strategic differences that contributed to their decision to move on, especially if they saw an opportunity to make a broader impact and do so more lucratively at a company like Nvidia.” Even so, Microsoft has the depth and ecosystem strength to continue doubling down on AI data centers, said Prabhu Ram, VP for industry research at Cybermedia Research. According to Sanchit Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, the departures come at a sensitive moment because Microsoft is trying to expand its AI infrastructure faster than physical constraints allow. “The executives who have left were central to GPU cluster design, data center engineering, energy procurement, and the experimental power and cooling approaches Microsoft has been pursuing to support dense AI workloads,” Gogia said. “Their exit coincides with pressures the company has already acknowledged publicly. GPUs are arriving faster than the company can energize the facilities that will house them, and power availability has overtaken chip availability as the real bottleneck.”

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs). In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE