this time it takes aim directly at its ‘reputation abuse policy’

What Brussels has launched today is not just another technical note on how Google works, but a movement that points directly to the way in which it decides what we see when we search for information. An internal policy designed to combat spam has ended up at the center of a new European file because, according to the Commissionyou could be relegating content from legitimate media and publishers. An issue that, for the Commission, deserves to be thoroughly reviewed to determine if its application is having undesired effects. We are facing an action that opens an official procedure in which the Commission will evaluate whether Google is complying with the obligations of the DMA in relation to the treatment that publishers receive in its search engine. Brussels wants to check whether the access and positioning conditions comply with the equity criteria provided for services designated as gatekeeper. This initial phase does not involve attributing a violation, but it does activate a detailed process that will determine how the regulations are actually being applied. Politics under suspicion. Google includes ‘reputation abuse policy’ in its Search spam rules and presents it as a tool to address practices aimed at manipulating ranking in results when sites include content from commercial partners. From a technical perspective, the motivation makes sense: the ecosystem is full of practices that try to exploit gaps to obtain a better position in the results. The Commission’s question is whether this policy is affecting publications that use commercial collaborations within a legitimate editorial framework. For media outlets, these deals are an important source of revenue, and their demotion in Google Search can have real effects on audiences. Brussels wants to know to what extent its application may be penalizing actors who are not seeking to manipulate anything. The analysis will revolve around that fine line. DMA in action. The Digital Markets Law establishes its own regime for the platforms considered gatekeepersthe large platforms that act as a gateway between companies and users in the digital environment. These services are required to ensure that their internal rules are understandable, justified and reviewable by the Commission, even before there is demonstrated harm. The investigation is framed in that model: Brussels wants to validate that the policy applied by Google complies with the reinforced obligations that accompany that status. Blow to the revenue model. The executive vice president for a Clean, Fair and Competitive Transition, Teresa Ribera, was explicit about the point that most worries Brussels: “We are concerned that Google’s policies do not allow news publishers to be treated in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner in search results.” He also stressed that the loss of income comes “at a difficult time for the sector,” which makes this investigation more than just a technical review. A long and complicated relationship. Brussels has maintained constant scrutiny over Google for years, visible in sanctions like the 2,950 million euros imposed in September 2025 for practices in its advertising business, or in the 2017 Google Shopping fine, ratified by the European Court of Justice in 2024. This new investigation does not start from scratch: it adds to a history that reflects how the Commission has tightened its surveillance as the company’s activity has covered more sectors. Pressure from Washington. The case also comes at a time when some of the loudest criticism of the European digital framework comes from the United States. Donald Trump has denounced that measures like the DMA hurt American companies and has warned of possible additional tariffs if they persist. Without being part of the file, these statements illustrate the political context in which Google’s policy is examined and show how European regulation coexists with growing commercial sensitivity on the other side of the Atlantic. The possible outcomes. From now on, Brussels will examine documentation, ask Alphabet for clarification and evaluate whether the policy fits into the DMA’s obligations. If it detects non-compliance, it will inform the company of its conclusions and the measures it considers necessary to correct them. The procedure can be closed without sanctions, with internal adjustments by Google or with the imposition of formal obligations and, ultimately, fines. The Commission plans to complete the analysis within a period of up to twelve months. Images | sarah b | 1981 Digital In Xataka | Apple accepts crumbs in China: the 15% that shows who has the power

of television star to YouTuber entered into misfortune by animal abuse

For a while, Frank Cuesta, better known on his television journey as Frank de la Jungla, was one of the best known and loved television faces in the early last decade. When their programs stopped being issued, it was installed on the Internet, and from its animal sanctuary in Thailand, a drift that has culminated in a disastrous way began. It has been with audios that reveal a face as an animal abuse that has definitely put a public image that had been awakening doubts for years. Conflictive audios. Earlier this week some audios were leaked in which he referred to animals of the sanctuary aggressively (“we must have delicatas, which people like Suricatas whores.”), Among other animals that he acknowledged having bought for sale. I also talked about poisoning cats (“I’m going to make a mix of cat food with poison to eat the son of a bitch and burst inside. (…) If you have a cat, you keep it at home”) Already dogs (“I will put poison every fucking days until all the fucking dogs die (…) I will load them all”) that entered the sanctuary. The audios have been Filrated by his exsocio chi wildlifewith the purpose of uncovering little ethical behaviors of Cuesta. He also spread images in which the bad state in which animals such as pig or otter were seen, or told stories about the replacement of dead animals with similar ones to maintain the attention of their YouTube followers. The defense. His team has defended the audios talking about a passenger anger in the context of audios for a friend. Frank Cuesta has defended himself in a video in which he cries before the camera and that he has already retired from his networks stating that all he did was put laxative for dogs and cats not to approach the sanctuary. But as They have pointed out several of His criticsit is not only an improper behavior of an owner of an animal sanctuary, but also adds to a long trajectory of controversies and conflicts. The tip of the iceberg. The filtration of these audios is the last episode of the fall in disgrace of Cuesta in recent months, but it has not been the most serious event that has had to happen: it was recently bitten by a spit copperwhich put him on the verge of death. Before that, in 2024 He had suffered the onslaught of a deer that broke two ribs and contact with a poisonous frog. But his most controversial moments are those that imply problems with justice: he has to respond to Three demands of his ex -wife and was arrested by the Possession of protected animals. The Internet reaction. Frank Cuesta has established in recent years an active relationship with various youtubers and Influencersin order to get Collection for your sanctuary. Some of them have reacted to Frank Cuesta Audios: The Grefg has criticized it publicly And he has asked for explanations, while Plex has defended itstating that everything seen in videos is true. Other content creators, such as Rome Gallardo either Hetero white uncle They have also positioned themselves against Cuest Dalas Review. Success on television. The success came to Frank Cuesta after the program ‘Callejeros Travelers’ interviewed it for a delivery set in Thailand. His knowledge about reptiles gave him the opportunity to drive his own space, ‘Frank de la Jungla’. With him he obtained a wave, and continuity with the program ‘La Jungal at home’, shot this time in Spain. He would still make a third series with four, ‘Natural Frank’, before moving on to Discovery Max with ‘Wild Frank’, which he recorded 17 seasons. A presence on YouTube. Although Frank Cuesta has obtained his fame primarily from the almighty television, it has been with the YouTube accounts that he has managed since the late last decade where he has shaped a peculiar Fandom. The first construction of an animal shelter and after a Sanctuary away from Thailand For animals that do not belong to that same environment, it has kept their followers hooked on materials on animals, although it currently costs only the channel dedicated to the Libertad Sanctuary. The accounts of your channel. Frank Cuesta de YouTube channel has 4,150,000 subscribers. Virtually all its content is paid: direct, streamings and private webcams that reflect the day to day in the sanctuary. The controversy, without a doubt, It has fallen well In terms of figures: it is estimated that there could be 60,000 subscribers in the last month and a half, and with more than 12 million views of their videos at that same time, have entered between 3 and 16,000 euros for their videos in the last month. Political positions. Meanwhile, their political positions have been radicalized: He aligned with Vox In 2022, launching inconvenience statements, although later It was distanced from the game behind him Violent behavior of Ortega Smith. This positioning, which has intensified Over the yearsthe opposition of progressive sectors won him, also very critical of his peculiar way to face animal care. An uncertain end. All this (mainstream success, problematic channels on YouTube, radical political positioning, abundance scandals) are the ingredients of a cocktail that seems to have ended up exploding with the publication of the audios. It is significant that many of the creators of content that criticize him, as some of those mentioned above, usually invoice content aligned with conservative positions: they are the same as months ago they defended their content for that same reason. A true polvorín that still smooths: we will continue to talk about Frank de la Jungla. In Xataka | Disinformation circulates more freedom than ever on the Internet. Here are some technical tools to protect you

Could Mariano Rivera be expelled from the Hall of Fame if he is accused of covering up sexual abuse?

New York Yankees legend, Mariano Rivera lives hard moments with his wife Clara After appearing repeatedly in a lawsuit and supposedly having covered sexual abuse during a camp of his refuge of Hope church, which has made Many wonder if the Panamanian could lose his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Through a statement exposed by your lawyer Rivera dismissed the accusationsensuring that they are false and intend to seek economic compensation in the fact. “Mariano and Clara Rivera do not tolerate child abuse of any kind and the accusations that they knew or did not act against reports of child abuse are completely false“, His lawyer explained days ago in which they were the first statements of the family after the accusations. Both Mariano Rivera and his wife Clara say that the accusations for having undercover sexual harassment are false and have no foundation. Photo: AP Photo/Hans Pennink. However, Rivera’s ethical condition that led him to be the only player in the history of the Hall of Fame to be unanimously chosen now wobbles consequence of his alleged participation in the cover -up of abuse. Could Mariano Rivera lose his plaque in Cooperstown? To answer the question of whether Mariano Rivera could be exempted from the Hall of Fame is necessary The only similar background that exists and that can mark the pattern: what happened with Roberto Alomar. During 2011 Roberto Alomar was exalted to the Temple of the Immortals when he was listed as one of the best second base in history. However, Everything collapsed 10 years later, in 2021, when he received accusations for an alleged case inappropriate sexual behavior. In addition to being fired from Toronto Blue Jays, Alomar also lost his position as special MLB advisor to develop baseball in Puerto Rico after the reports of his inappropriate sexual behavior. Photo: AP Photo/Mike Groll. Although at the time the position of Alomar in the Hall of Fame was also put in trial, it remained in the museum for the explanation of President Jane Forbes Clark, who explained that although the fact is questioned and it does not represent the values ​​of the institution, the decision to select the Latin “reflects its eligibility and the perspective of the voters of the United States Baseball Writers Association at that time. ” However, The case ended up being a nightmare to Alomar who lost his work as an advisor to Toronto Blue Jays and was suspended from any activity related to baseball, including future participations in Cooperstown events. Other cases sounded at the time were those of Pete Rose and Joe Jackson, who were unable to enter the Hall of Fame for sports bets and love amaño respectively. A solid aspiring also to the Hall of Fame, the Venezuelan Omar Vizquel, was ascending among voters when he faced signs for domestic violence and abuse against a Bat Boy, which directly affects his percentage and accumulated less votes in later years . The summary is that It is almost impossible for Rivera to leave the Hall of Fame. But it is possible that he loses part of the credibility that he accumulated for 19 years in major leaguesin which it reached 652 saved for life. Continue reading: (tagstotranslate) Mariano Rivera

Mariano Rivera and his wife break silence in the face of accusations of covering up sexual abuse

The greatest closer of the Major Leagues, Mariano Riveraand his wife Clarahave been a trend in recent days due to an accusation of “covering up alleged sexual abuse” against a minor. The legend has come forward to deny the facts in a statement. Through his lawyers, Rivera sent a statement to the media USA Today Sports in which he defended himself against the accusation and described it as “completely false.” “Mariano and Clara Rivera “They do not tolerate child abuse of any kind and the accusations that they knew about or did not act on reports of child abuse are completely false,” the letter reads. In this way, it was also clarified that marriage Rivera learned of these accusations four years after the alleged abuse. They did so thanks to a letter that arrived through their lawyers and in which financial compensation was requested. “The first time the couple learned of the accusations was almost four years after the alleged incident, when they received a letter from a lawyer requesting a financial settlement,” they detail. “The lawsuit, which seeks financial damages for the alleged inaction of the Rivera about alleged incidents that were never reported to them, is full of inaccurate and misleading statements that we have no doubt will not stand up in a court of law,” they conclude. Case of alleged cover-up of Mariano Rivera and his wife The Panamanian and his wife are being accused in civil court for allegedly covering up alleged sexual abuse committed against a minor at a church camp, Refuge of Hope. The lawsuit made by a teenager identified as Jane Doe now seeks to obtain compensation for damages. The young woman alleges that she was sexually assaulted on several occasions at one of the church events in Mariano Rivera and where his wife is the shepherd. “Instead of taking sufficient measures to end the sexual abuse of Jane Doethe Rivera They isolated and intimidated each one separately. Jane Doe so that he would remain silent about him,” says part of the lawsuit. Mariano Rivera He retired from baseball in 2013 and dedicated himself and his wife to religious activities in Refuge of Hope. Later, the former pitcher of the Yankees was exalted to Hall of Fame. He remains the only player to receive a unanimous vote. Keep reading:· Mariano Rivera and his wife are sued for alleged cover-up of sexual abuse· Hispanic Mark Vientos offers to play first base in 2025 with Mets· The Mets show their new away jersey (PHOTOS)

Mariano Rivera denied having covered up the case of sexual abuse

Former New York Yankees pitcher and Hall of Famer, Mariano Rivera is in the midst of accusations of having covered up sexual abuse with his wife Clara. allegedly occurred at a camp at his Refuge of Hope church. Now, the Panamanian gave his first public statements on the matter, denying the accusations. It was through a statement released by his lawyer Joseph Ruta, who is addressing the legal problems, that Rivera established a position on the lawsuit filed, ensuring that the alleged fact is completely false. “Mariano and Clara Rivera do not tolerate child abuse of any kind and the accusations that they knew or did not act on reports of child abuse are completely false“, reads the text released by Ruta. Additionally, the Riveras explained through the litigator that They already knew that story after almost four years ago they received a letter where the plaintiff family was trying to obtain a financial agreement out of court. “The couple first learned of the allegations almost four years after the alleged incident, when they received a letter from an attorney requesting a financial settlement,” Ruta added. Also The official clarified that the entire lawsuit has “inaccurate” statementsso if there is a trial in the case, he is confident that everything will be resolved appropriately. “The lawsuit, which seeks financial damages for the Riveras’ alleged failure to act on alleged incidents that were never reported to them, is full of inaccurate and misleading statements that we have no doubt will not stand up in a court of law”Ruta closed. What happened to Mariano Rivera and what are they accusing him and his family of? Both Mariano Rivera and his wife Clara have appeared for a couple of days in a lawsuit in which, although they do not appear as named, their name is mentioned on many occasions regarding a young woman named Jane A Doe (to protect her identity ), that He was allegedly the victim of sexual abuse on two occasions by an individual called “MG.”. According to the document, Mariano and Clara were aware of the situation after the mother complained about the first incident. However, even though the Panamanians said that everything was going to be fine and they were going to resolve the incident, apparently the adults approached the young woman and tried to silence her by force. “Each one separately (Clara and Mariano) isolated and intimidated Jane A Doe into silence.“, reads one of the documents. “They took no measures to protect my daughter.“, he adds to the document in relation to Mariano and Clara. Before completing the claim, The mother spoke of a third abuse that occurred in 2021 in which a youth leader from the Riveras church allegedly committed the actthis despite previous incidents. The parent claims that ideal measures were not taken to protect her daughter. The legal problem for the Riveras comes years after the retirement of the legendary Major League closer in 2013. After saying goodbye to Yankee Stadium, Rivera joined Clara in Refuge of Hope and since then they have dedicated themselves together to preach the word of God. Keep reading:

Mariano Rivera denies accusation of covering up sexual abuse in a religious camp

Mariano Rivera denies accusations of covering up alleged sexual abuse The legendary former New York Yankees closer, Mariano Rivera, and his wife Clara, have categorically denied accusations of cover-up related to alleged sexual abuse suffered by a minor linked to the church they lead. Through a statement issued by their lawyer, Joseph A. Ruta, the couple described the allegations as “completely false.” “Mariano and Clara Rivera do not tolerate any type of child abuse, and the accusations that they knew or did not act on reports of abuse are absolutely unfounded,” Ruta said Thursday. The context of the accusation According to the lawsuit, the alleged abuse occurred at a summer camp organized by the Riveras’ church, as well as at the former pitcher’s residence in Rye, New York. The accusation details that the minor was abused by an older girl at the Ignite Life Center facilities in Gainesville, Florida. According to court documents, the Riveras allegedly intimidated the victim so that he would not report the incident. However, the couple’s lawyer maintains that they were never aware of the incidents until years later, when they received two letters—one in 2022 and another in 2023—requesting financial settlements. “The first notification came almost four years after the alleged incident. These letters sought economic agreements, which makes it clear that this lawsuit has financial motivations,” says the statement issued by Ruta. The Riveras’ position The Riveras’ defense argues that the accusations contain “inaccurate and misleading” statements and are confident that they will not succeed in court. “The lawsuit seeks economic damages for an alleged lack of action by the Riveras regarding incidents that were never reported to them. These accusations are completely unfounded,” Ruta said. For their part, the victim’s parents have stated that the Riveras failed to fulfill their commitment to guarantee the young woman’s safety during church activities. The case has generated considerable debate, given the impeccable reputation of Mariano Rivera, who is considered one of the best closers in baseball history. Keep reading: – Colombian Christian Rodríguez candidate for Comeback Player of the Year in the NFL – Santiago Giménez sent a criticism to the Mexican soccer clubs – Kylian Mbappé responded to Neymar

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.