Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In


Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here


Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.


Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.


Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

You must login to add post.


Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here
Sign InSign Up

Qaskme

Qaskme Logo Qaskme Logo

Qaskme Navigation

  • Home
  • Questions Feed
  • Communities
  • Blog
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask A Question
  • Home
  • Questions Feed
  • Communities
  • Blog

News

Share
  • Facebook
1 Follower
1k Answers
215 Questions
Home/News/Page 13

Qaskme Latest Questions

mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 18/09/2025In: Education, News

How do educational reforms & tech affect students from different socio-economic backgrounds? Are they increasing or decreasing inequalities?

they increasing or decreasing inequal ...

accesstoeducationeducationalreformeducationequityeducationpolicysocioeconomicinequality
  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful
    Added an answer on 18/09/2025 at 1:28 pm

     Education as a "Great Equalizer"… or Not? Decades have passed with people thinking that education is the great equalizer—the way that allows any individual, regardless of his/her background, to ascend to higher prospects. In reality, however, reforms and technologies tend to mimic the pre-existingRead more

     Education as a “Great Equalizer”… or Not?

    Decades have passed with people thinking that education is the great equalizer—the way that allows any individual, regardless of his/her background, to ascend to higher prospects. In reality, however, reforms and technologies tend to mimic the pre-existing inequalities in society.

    For affluent households: New reform and technology tend to function as boosters. Already, pupils who have established residences, private tutoring, decent internet, and good parents can utilize technology to speed up learning.

    For struggling families: The same reforms can become additional barriers. If a student lacks stable Wi-Fi, or parents are too busy holding down multiple jobs to facilitate learning at home, then technology becomes a barrier instead of a bridge.

    So the same policy or tool can be empowering for one child and suffocating for another.

    Technology: The Double-Edged Sword

    Educational technology is perhaps the most obvious instance of inequality unfolding.

    When it benefits:

    • Free online lectures (such as Khan Academy, Coursera, or YouTube tutorials) open up knowledge to beyond elite schools.
    • AI teachers and applications can provide customized guidance to students who do not have access to private tutors.
    • Virtual classrooms enable learning to keep going amidst crises (such as the pandemic).

    When it causes harm:

    • The digital divide—rural or low-income students might not have devices, reliable internet, or electricity at all.
    • Lots of tools rely on background knowledge or parental input, which isn’t distributed equally.
    • Better-resourced schools can afford newer tools, while others fall behind, establishing a “tech gap” that reflects wealth disparities.
    • This implies technology doesn’t necessarily democratize education—it is very dependent on access and context.

     Educational Reforms: Leveling or Layering?

    Changes such as curriculum revisions, changes to standardized testing, or competency-based learning tend to seek enhanced equity. But once more, effects can vary by socio-economic group.

    Positive impacts:

    • Policies that minimize memorization and encourage imagination/critical thinking help students who were otherwise stuck in the old ways of teaching.
    • Scholarships, lunches, and subsidized tablets benefit directly poorer students.
    • Inclusive policies (such as the use of several languages) benefit first-generation students.

    Unforeseen negative impacts:

    • Eliminating standardized tests with no substitutes at times advantages more affluent students who can use personal connections and extracurriculars to stand out.
    • “Progressive” instruction tends to need smaller classes, educated teachers, and resources—items not all equally shared.
    • Competitive reforms (such as performance-based school funding) have the potential to exacerbate gaps since low-performing schools continue to lag further behind.
    • Equity planning-less reforms have the potential to assist those already benefited first.
    • Apart from numbers, these disparities influence students’ attitudes toward themselves and their own futures.
    • An advantaged student might view technology as empowering: “I can explore, learn anything, go further.”
    • A disadvantaged student might find it alienating: “Everyone else has the tools I don’t. I’m falling behind, no matter how hard I try.”

    This gap in confidence, belonging, and self-worth is as significant as test scores. When reforms overlook the human factor, they inadvertently expand the emotional and psychological gap among students.

    How to Make It More Equal

    If we wish reforms and technology to narrow inequality, not exacerbate it, here are some people-first strategies:

    Access First, Then Innovation

    Prioritize that all students own devices, have internet access, and receive training before unveiling new tools. Otherwise, reforms merely reward the already privileged.

    Support Teachers, Not Just Students

    In schools with limited funds, teachers require training, mentorship, and encouragement to adjust to reforms and technology. Without them, changes remain superficial.

    Balance Online and Offline Solutions

    Not all solutions need to be online. Printed materials, public libraries, and neighborhood mentorship can offset the gaps for students without consistent connectivity.

    Equity-Focused Policies

    Subsidized phones, communally accessed village digital labs, or first-generation-friendly policies can equalize opportunities.

    Listen to Students’ Voices

    The best indicator of whether reforms are succeeding is to ask students about their experience. Are they energized or flooded? Included or excluded?

    Final Thought

    Technology and educational reforms aren’t good or bad in and of themselves—they’re mirrors. They will continue to reflect the existing inequalities, but they can be employed to challenge them as well. If done thoughtfully, with equity, access, and empathy as the priorities, they can provide options previously unimaginable to disadvantaged students. If done hastily, or biased towards the already-privileged, they could make education another platform on which the wealthy run further ahead and the poor are left farther behind.

    At the heart of the question is not merely tech or policy—it’s about justice. Who gets to learn, grow, and dream without obstacles? That’s what should inform all reform.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 169
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 17/09/2025In: Education, News, Technology

How to assess deeper learning, critical thinking, creativity rather than rote or recall?

deeper learning, critical thinking, c ...

creativethinkingcriticalthinkingdeeperlearningmetacognitionprojectbasedlearning
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice
    Added an answer on 17/09/2025 at 4:03 pm

    Why Old-Fashioned Tests Come Up Short Assignments and tests were built on the model of recall for years: reciting definitions, remembering dates from history, calculating standard math problems. These were easy to grade and standardize. But the danger is self-evident: a pupil can memorize just enougRead more

    Why Old-Fashioned Tests Come Up Short

    Assignments and tests were built on the model of recall for years: reciting definitions, remembering dates from history, calculating standard math problems. These were easy to grade and standardize. But the danger is self-evident: a pupil can memorize just enough to get through a test but exit without true understanding. Worse, they can “forget” everything in weeks.

    If we only measure what can be memorized, we are likely to reward short-term cramming instead of lifelong learning. And with all the AI around us, remembering is no longer the key skill.

    What Deeper Learning Looks Like

    Deeper learning is *transfer*—the capacity to apply knowledge to *new, unfamiliar* contexts. It takes the form of:

    • Critical thinking: Asking “why,” examining sources, challenging assumptions.
    • Creativity: Coming up with new ideas, seeing connections between subjects.
    • Problem-solving: Applying concepts in creative ways to understand actual situations.
    • Collaboration: Standing on one another’s shoulders, figuring out meaning collaboratively.
    • Self-reflection: Knowing one’s own strengths, weaknesses, and areas of improvement.

    The question is: how do we measure these?

    1. Open-Ended Performance Tasks

    Rather than multiple-choice, give students messy problems with no single best solution.

    • Example: Replace “What caused the French Revolution?” with “If you were a political leader in 1789, what reforms would you suggest to avoid revolution, and why?

    In this way, the student is asked to synthesize information, reconcile perspectives, and justify choices—thinking, not recalling.

     2. Portfolios & Iterative Work

    One essay illustrates a final product, but not the learning process. Portfolios allow students to illustrate drafts, revisions, reflections, and growth.

    • Example: A student of art submits sketches, experiments, mistakes, and complete pieces with notes on what they learned along the way.

    This is all about process, not perfection—of crucial importance to creativity.

    3. Real-World, Applied Assessments

    Inject reality into assessment.

    • Science: Instead of memorizing the water cycle, students develop a community plan to reduce waste of water.
    • Business: Instead of solving abstract formulas in school, students pitch a mini start-up idea, budget, marketing, and ethical limitations.

    These exercises reveal whether students can translate theory into practice.

    4. Socratic Seminars & Oral Defenses

    When students explain their thought process verbally and respond to questions, it reflects depth of understanding.

    • Example: Following in a research paper, the student has 10 minutes of Q&A with peers or teacher.

    If they can hold their ground in defending their argument, adapt when challenged, and expound under fire, it is a sign of actual mastery.

    5  Reflection & Metacognition

    Asking students to reflect on their own learning makes them more self-aware thinkers.

    Example questions:

    • “What area of this project challenged you most, and how did you cope?”
    • “If you were to begin again, what would you do differently?”

    This is not right or wrong—it’s developing self-knowledge, a critical lock to lifelong learning.

    6. Collaborative & Peer Assessment

    Learning is a social process. Permitting students to evaluate or draw on each other’s work reveals how they think in dialogue.

    • Example: In a group project, each student writes a short memo on their piece and how they wove others’ ideas together.

    Collaboration skills are harder to fake, but critically necessary for work and civic life.

    The Human Side

    Assessing deeper learning is more time-consuming, labor-intensive, and occasionally subjective. It’s not just a matter of grading a multiple-choice test. But it also respects students as human beings, rather than test-takers.

    It tells students:

    • We value your thoughts, not just your recall.
    • Mistakes and revisions are part of the process of getting better.
    • Your own opinion matters.

    This makes testing less of a trap and more of an honest reflection of real learning.

     Last Reflection

    While recall tests shout, “What do you know?”, deeper tests whisper, “What can you do with what you know?” That’s all the difference in an AI age. Machines can recall facts instantly—but only humans can balance ethics, see futures, design relationships, and make sense.

    The future of assessment has to be less about efficiency and more about authenticity. Because what’s on the line is not grades—it’s preparing students for a chaotic, uncertain world.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 167
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 17/09/2025In: Education, News, Technology

As AI makes essays/homework easier, how should exams, projects, coursework change?

how should exams, projects, coursewor ...

criticalthinkingdigitalassessmenteducationfutureofexamsprojectbasedlearning
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice
    Added an answer on 17/09/2025 at 3:29 pm

    The Old Model and Why It's Under Pressure Essays and homework were long the stalwarts of assessment. They measure knowledge, writing skills, and critical thinking. But with the presence of AI, it is now easy to produce well-written essays, finish problem sets, or even codes in minutes. That does notRead more

    The Old Model and Why It’s Under Pressure

    Essays and homework were long the stalwarts of assessment. They measure knowledge, writing skills, and critical thinking. But with the presence of AI, it is now easy to produce well-written essays, finish problem sets, or even codes in minutes.

    That does not mean students are learning less—it’s just that the tools they use have changed. Relying on the old model without adapting is like asking students to write out multiplication tables manually once calculators are employed everywhere. It’s not getting it.

     Redesigning Exams

    Exams are designed to test individual knowledge. When AI is introduced, we may need to:

    • Shift from recall to reasoning: Instead of “What happened in 1857?” ask “How might the outcome of the 1857 revolt have changed if modern communication technology existed?” This tests creativity and analysis, not memorization.
    • Use open-book / open-AI exams: Allow students to use tools but focus on how well they apply, critique, and cross-check AI’s output. This mirrors real-life work environments where AI is available.
    • In-person oral or viva testing: Requiring students to orally discuss their answers tells you whether they actually understand, even if they had AI help.
    • Timed, real-world problem-solving: For math, science, or business, create scenarios that require quick, reasonable thinking—not just memorization of formulas.

    Testing is less “what do you know” and more “how you think.”

     Rethinking Projects & Coursework

    Projects are where AI may either replace effort or spark new creativity. To keep them current:

    • Process over product: Teachers need to grade the process—research notes, drafts, reflection, even the mistakes—not just the polished final product. AI can’t get away with that iterative process so easily.
    • AI within the assignment: Instead of banning it, design assignments that require students to show how they’ve used AI. For example: “Employ ChatGPT to generate three possible outlines for your paper. Compare them, and explain what you retained and what you eliminated.”
    • Collaborative assignments: Group work encourages skills AI finds it difficult to replicate well—negotiation, delegation, creativity in group work.
    • Hands-on or practical elements: A project assignment could be an interview of grandparents, a science project would be the making of a small prototype. AI must complement but not replace lived experiences.

    This reverses coursework from being outsourcing-oriented to reflection, uniqueness, and human effort.

     Reframing Coursework Purposes Altogether

    If AI is already capable of doing the “garden variety” work, maybe education can focus on more higher-order goals :

    • Critical thinking with AI: Are students able to recognize errors, biases, or gaps in AI-generated work? That’s a skill used in the real world today.
    • Authenticity and voice: AI can generate text, but it can’t replicate the lived experience, feeling, or creative individuality of a student. Assignments could emphasize personal connections or insights.
    • Interdisciplinary study: Promote projects that combine math, art, history, or ethics. AI is good at doing one thing, but human learning thrives at points of convergence.

    The Human Side

    This’s not about “catching cheaters.” It’s about recognizing that tools evolve, but learning doesn’t. Students want to be challenged, but also supported. When it all turns into a test of whether they can outsmart AI bans, motivation falters. When, on the other hand, they see AI as just one of several tools, and the question is how creatively, critically, and personally they employ it, then education comes alive again.

     Last Thought

    Just as calculators revolutionized math tests, so will AI revolutionize written work. Prohibiting homework or essays is not the answer, but rather reimagining them.

    The future of exams, project work, and coursework must:

    • Distrust memorization more than thinking, applying, and creating.
    • Welcome AI openly but insist on reflection and explanation.
    • Strive for process and individuality as much as product.
    • Retain the human touch—feelings, experiences, collaboration—at its center.

    In short: assessments shouldn’t try to compete with AI—they should measure what only humans can uniquely do.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 1
  • 1
  • 183
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 17/09/2025In: Education, News, Technology

How to integrate AI tools into teaching & assessments to enhance learning rather than undermine it?

AI tools into teaching & assessme ...

aiforlearningaiineducationeducationstudentengagementteachingwithai
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice
    Added an answer on 17/09/2025 at 2:28 pm

    The Core Dilemma: Assist or Damage? Learning isn't all about creating correct answers—it's about learning to think, to reason, to innovate. AI platforms such as ChatGPT are either: Learning enhancers: educators, guides, and assistants who introduce learners to new paths of exploration. Learning undeRead more

    The Core Dilemma: Assist or Damage?

    Learning isn’t all about creating correct answers—it’s about learning to think, to reason, to innovate. AI platforms such as ChatGPT are either:

    • Learning enhancers: educators, guides, and assistants who introduce learners to new paths of exploration.
    • Learning underminers: crutches that give students answers, with students having skimmed assignments but lacking depth of knowledge.

    The dilemma is how to incorporate AI so that it promotes curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking rather than replacing them.

     1. Working with AI as a Teaching Companion

    AI must not be framed as the enemy, but as a class teammate. A few approaches:

    • Explainers in plain terms: Students are afraid to admit that they did not understand something. AI can describe things at different levels (child-level, advanced, step-by-step), dispelling the fear of asking “dumb” questions.
    • Personalized examples: A mathematics teacher might instruct AI to generate practice questions tailored to each student’s level of understanding at the moment. For literature, it could give different endings to novels to talk about.
    • 24/7 study buddy: Students can “speak” with AI outside of class when teachers are not present, reaffirming learning without leaving them stranded.
    • Brainstorming prompts: In art, creative writing, or debate classes, AI can stimulate the brainstorming process by presenting students with scenarios or viewpoints they may not think of.

    Here, AI opens doors but doesn’t preclude the teacher’s role of directing, placing, and correcting.

     2. Redesigning Tests for the Age of AI

    The biggest worry is testing. If AI can execute essays or equations flawlessly, how do we measure what children really know? Some tweaks would suffice:

    • Move from recall to reasoning: Instead of “define this term” or “summarize this article,” have students compare, critique, or apply ideas—tasks AI can’t yet master alone.
    • In-class, process-oriented evaluation: Teachers can assess students’ thinking by looking at drafts, outlines, or a discussion of how they approached a task, not the final, finished product.
    • Oral defenses & presentations: After having composed an essay, students may defend orally their argument. This shows they actually know what is on the page.
    • AI-assisted assignments: Teachers just instruct, “Use AI to jot down three ideas, but write down why you added or dropped each one.” This maintains AI as a part of the process, not a hidden shortcut.

    This way, grading becomes measuring human thinking, judgment, and creativity, even if AI is used.

     3. Training & Supporting Teachers

    The majority of teachers are afraid of AI—they think it’s stealing their jobs. But successful integration occurs when teachers are empowered to utilize it:

    • Professional development: Hands-on training where teachers learn through doing AI tools, rather than only learning about them, so they truly comprehend the strengths and shortcomings.
    • Communities of practice: Teachers sharing examples of successful implementation of AI so that best practices naturally diffuse.
    • Transparency to students: Instead of banning AI out of fear, teachers can show them how to use it responsibly—showing that it’s a tool, not a cheat code.

    When teachers feel secure, they can guide students toward healthy use rather than fear-policing them.

     4. Setting Boundaries & Ethical Standards

    Students need transparency, not guesswork, to know what is an acceptable use of AI. Some guidelines may be enough:

    • Disclosure: Ask students to report if and how they employed AI (e.g., “I used ChatGPT to get ideas for outlines”). This incorporates integrity into the process.
    • Boundaries by skill level: Teachers can restrict the use of AI in lower grades to protect foundational skill acquisition. Autonomy can be provided in later levels.

    Talks of ethics: Instead of speaking in “don’t get caught” terms, schools can have open discussions regarding integrity, trust, and why learning continues even beyond grades.

    5. Keeping the Human at the Center

    Learning is not really about delivering information. It’s about developing thinkers, creators, and empathetic humans. AI can help with efficiency, access, and customization, but it can never substitute for:

    • The excitement of discovery when a student learns something on their own.
    • The guidance of a teacher who sees potential in a young person.
    • The chaos of collaboration, argument, and experimentation in learning.

    So the hope shouldn’t be “How do we keep AI from killing education?” but rather:
    “How do we rethink teaching and testing so AI can enhance humanity instead of erasing it?”

    Last Thought

    Think about calculators: once feared as machines that would destroy math skills, now everywhere because we remapped what we want students to learn (not just arithmetic, but mathematical problem-solving). AI can follow the same path—if we’re purposeful.

    The best integrations will:

    • Let AI perform repetitive, routine work.
    • Preserve human judgment, creativity, and ethics.
    • Teach students not only to use AI but to critique it, revise it, and in some instances, reject it.
    • That’s how AI transforms from a cheat into an amplifier of learning.
    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 1
  • 1
  • 176
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 17/09/2025In: Education, News, Technology

What counts as cheating vs legitimate assistance when students use tools like ChatGPT?

cheating vs legitimate assistance

academichonestychatgptcheatinglegitimateassistancestudentethics
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice
    Added an answer on 17/09/2025 at 2:08 pm

     Why the Line Blurs Before, "cheating" was simpler to define: copying answers, plagiarizing a work, sneaking illegitimate notes onto a test. But with computer AI, it's getting cloudy. A student will prompt ChatGPT with an essay question, receive a good outline, make some minor adaptations, and submiRead more

     Why the Line Blurs

    Before, “cheating” was simpler to define: copying answers, plagiarizing a work, sneaking illegitimate notes onto a test. But with computer AI, it’s getting cloudy. A student will prompt ChatGPT with an essay question, receive a good outline, make some minor adaptations, and submit it. It looks on paper as though it were their own work. But is it? Did they read, think, and write—or did the machine do it all?

    That’s the magic of it: AI can be a calculator, a tutor, or a ghostwriter. Which role it fills is left to what a student does with it.

    When AI Seemingly Feels Like Actual Assistance

    • Brainstorming ideas: Allowing ChatGPT to plant ideas when stuck is like asking a friend for ideas. The student still needs to decide where to go.
    • Dissolve complicated concepts: When a physics or history concept is complicated to understand, having AI dissolve it for them into easier terms is tutoring, not cheating.
    • Practice skills: Students can practice questioning themselves with AI, restating notes, or simulating debates. It’s active learning, not cheating.
    • Polishing words: Requesting AI to proofread for grammar or make language more fluent is no different from spellcheck and Grammarly. The student’s thoughts in the text are still his or hers.

    AI is a helper system here. The student is still the only author of his or her thoughts, logic, and conclusions.

     When AI Blurs into Cheating

    Plagiarizing whole assignments: If the entirety or almost the entire assignment is done by AI with little to no contribution from a human, then the student is really skipping the learning process entirely.

    • Making answers on tests/quizzes: That is no different from cheating with illicit notes—it sabotages the test assumption.
    • Disguising the voice of AI as one’s own: When a student uses AI to compose “in their own voice” and presents it as original work, it’s really plagiarism—whether they copied a human or not.
    • Too much reliance on automation: If AI does all the thinking all the time, the student isn’t working on problem-solving, creativity, or critical thinking—the things learning is supposed to develop.

    Here, AI isn’t an assistant. It’s a substitute. And that negates the purpose of learning.

    Why Context Matters

    Assignments vs. learning objectives: If the assignment is thinking practice, then AI-written essays are cheating. If it’s clear communication, then working with AI as a language tool is okay.

    • Teachers’ expectations: Teachers might explicitly invite AI use as a research aid or study aid. Others do not. Students need to honor that boundary, even if they themselves don’t care.
    • Skill-building phase: A 12-year-old learning to build arguments likely shouldn’t be offloading writing to computer code. A graduate student is using AI to obtain citations, but then doing so might involve using common sense with tools.

    The Human Side

    Finally, the question is not “Is AI cheating?” but “Am I still learning?” Discriminating students who use ChatGPT can enhance understanding, save time, and feel in the process. Those who allow it to do their thinking for them may exhaust their own potential.

    The gray area will always be there. That’s why integrity is important: honesty in the use of AI, and why. Learning is optimal when teachers and students have trust, and the attention remains on development rather than grades.

    AI is excellent support when it augments your learning, but it cheats when it substitutes.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 1
  • 1
  • 169
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 10/09/2025In: Analytics, Company, News

Is platform dominance (Amazon, Google, Apple, Tencent) limiting space for new startups to grow?

(Amazon, Google, Apple, Tencent) lim ...

analyticscompanynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice
    Added an answer on 10/09/2025 at 1:58 pm

    The Platform Giants' Emergence Amazon, Google, Apple, Tencent (and meta-entities such as Meta, Microsoft, and Alibaba) are not merely companies — they're digital platforms. Amazon is not merely a shop; it's the infrastructure for e-commerce and cloud computing. Google is not merely a search engine;Read more

    The Platform Giants’ Emergence

    Amazon, Google, Apple, Tencent (and meta-entities such as Meta, Microsoft, and Alibaba) are not merely companies — they’re digital platforms.

    • Amazon is not merely a shop; it’s the infrastructure for e-commerce and cloud computing.
    • Google is not merely a search engine; it’s the internet gateway to billions of people.
    • Apple is not merely hardware; it’s an app-payment-services closed loop.
    • Tencent isn’t social media alone; it’s gaming, messaging, fintech, and a whole lot of everything, all within one ecosystem.

    Their size allows them to make the rules of the game, whereas startups will have the feeling of playing on the grounds of somebody else.

    The Double-Edged Sword for Startups

     The Opportunity Side

    • Access to Huge Markets
      Startups can reach billions of customers via app stores, online marketplaces, or ad networks.
    • Built-in Tools
      Cloud computing (such as AWS, Google Cloud) provides startups with infrastructure that could not have been imagined 20 years ago.
    • Trust by Association
      Individuals are more apt to trust a product when it is hosted on or distributed through a large platform.

     The Limitation Side

    • The “Platform Tax”
      App stores charge 15–30% commissions. Marketplaces charge large fees. For an infant startup, that margin is life and death.
    • Copycat Risk
      A startup demonstrates that a concept is viable, and voilà, the platform itself rolls out a similar feature. (See how Amazon Basics poaches business from sellers or how Apple includes features originally pioneered by tiny apps.)
    • Algorithm Dependency
      Perhaps it is Google search rankings, App Store ranking, or product listing on Amazon. Visibility is at the mercy of algorithms that startups have no control over. One small tweak can destroy their business in one night.

    The Human Side of the Fight

    • For entrepreneurs, going live on top of enormous platforms is akin to opening a shop in another person’s enormous mall.
    • Traffic is huge — millions of prospective buyers walking by every day.
    • But the building owner has the ability to increase rent, relocate your store down to the basement, or even steal your goods and start a competing shop next door.
    • This prompts gratitude and fear. Gratitude as platforms provide startups with visibility and infrastructure. Fear as dependence makes them incapacitated.

     A Bigger Economic Question

    1. Platform leadership is not limited to startups — it impacts innovation as a whole.
    2. If small firms can’t succeed, will we be missing the next great idea?
    3. If a handful of companies own most digital highways, are we heading toward a more centralized economy where innovation runs through them?

    Others are sure that startups don’t perish — they get bought. That’s great for founders (fat checks) and users (increased integration). But it also centralizes power one more time in the hands of monsters.

     The Future: Breaking or Bending the Cycle

    • Regulatory Pushback
      U.S., EU, and Asian governments are resisting monopoly conduct — from antitrust lawsuits to forcing app store price cuts. It may create room for startups.
    • Decentralized Alternatives
      Web3, blockchain technologies, and open-source platforms have the potential to minimize dependence on corporate behemoths by flipping power to communities. But they’re just in their infancy.
    • Ecosystem Partnerships
      Some goliaths are finding that nurturing startups can make their ecosystem flourish. Apple’s app store is successful because independent developers produce novel apps. Innovation disappears when the ecosystem becomes nasty enough.

    Bottom Line

    Platform dominance is both a curse and a blessing. It offers tools, reach, and visibility unimaginable a generation earlier to startups. But it also creates sensitive dependence — where one algorithmic tweak, policy update, or imitation gesture can erase years of effort.

    The future will probably be balance: regulation to avoid abuse, fresh decentralized platforms to offer options, and wiser cooperation that allows giants and startups to flourish side by side.

    Ultimately, innovation thrives when nobody controls the entire playground. The challenge of the coming decade is to make platforms launchpads and not speedbumps for tomorrow’s startups.

    See less
      • 1
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 2
  • 1
  • 212
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 10/09/2025In: Analytics, Company, News

Will subscription fatigue push companies back toward one-time purchases instead of recurring revenue models?

Will subscription fatigue push compan ...

analyticscompanynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice
    Added an answer on 10/09/2025 at 1:27 pm

     The Endless Universe of Subscriptions Consider your life: Netflix, Spotify, Prime, your cloud storage, your fitness app of choice, even your toothbrush or blade razor subscription. Modern business is obsessed with recurring revenue because it's predictable, stable, and scalable. But customers are bRead more

     The Endless Universe of Subscriptions

    Consider your life: Netflix, Spotify, Prime, your cloud storage, your fitness app of choice, even your toothbrush or blade razor subscription. Modern business is obsessed with recurring revenue because it’s predictable, stable, and scalable.

    But customers are beginning to feel the pinch — so-called subscription fatigue. The thrill of “$9.99 a month” dissolves when you discover you’re shelling out a dozen different services per month.

    How Subscriptions Took Over

    • For businesses: Subscriptions ensure consistent cash flow, keep customers “tied in,” and enable unlimited upselling. Investors adore them.
    • For consumers: They spread out expense, are less expensive at the beginning, and provide access to a product or service (e.g., music collections or computer upgrades) that used to cost an arm and a leg.

    The business model was great when there were no more than a few subscriptions. Today? It’s everywhere — from streaming and fitness to clothing and groceries.

    The Consumer Backlash: Subscription Fatigue

    1. Too Many to Manage
      They forget what they signed up for. A few dollars here and there accumulate to hundreds a month.
    2. Value Questions
      People are asking themselves: “Do I really use this enough to pay every month?” The answer is most likely no.
    3. The Illusion of Choice
      Subscriptions, conversely, are more a sense of coerced dependency. You don’t own the music, the films, or even the programs — you simply lease access. Cancel your subscription, and they’re gone.
    4. Economic Pressure
      When inflation and economic hardship strike, those periodic payments usually get cut first.
    5. Psychological Relief: Paying once feels cleaner. It’s yours. No monthly nag chippering away at your purse.
    6. Ownership Returns: People want to own their music, their movies, their gear — not live in an endless rental culture.
    7. Simplification: Consumers want fewer invoices to juggle and more control over spending.

    We already have pushback in some markets: game companies churning out one-time buy sets rather than infinite subscriptions, or software that allows you to pay for a “lifetime license.”

    But It’s Not a Complete Reversal

    Not all industries are able to turn back. Subscriptions are great for things that keep going naturally:

    • Entertainment (new TV programs, new music).
    • Services that need updating (cloud, antivirus, AI tools).

    Consumables (dinner kits, razors, vitamins).What. More probable than complete withdrawal is a hybrid model:

    • One-offs for those who crave simplicity.
    • Subscriptions for those who love ongoing service.
    • Models that are flexible where customers can toggle between them.

     The. Human. Side

    For parentsupper. Subscription fatigue is not everything about. It’s about mental load. Parents balancing school apps, streaming services, and online education software are feeling overwhelmed.

    Advice for younger consumers, especially Gen Z, there is a growing sense of indignation towards the idea of “owning nothing and paying forever.” They’re more likely to seek out alternatives that embody value and authenticity.

    For businesses, this means trust is on the line. If customers feel tricked into endless payments, they’ll leave — not just the subscription, but the brand itself.

     The Future of Subscriptions

    We’re heading toward a more consumer-driven subscription economy:

    • Firms will have to provide more explicit value, not merely hope inertia continues to keep customers paying.
    • Watch for more “freemium-to-own” models, where after some time, subscriptions can turn into ownership.
    • Bundling will expand further — consider “super subscriptions” where one payment purchases several services (such as Apple One or Amazon Prime).

    Bottom Line

    Yes, subscription overwhelm is real, and it’s already having companies reconsider. But rather than a wholesale failure of subscriptions, the future is more a balancing act: companies providing choice, transparency, and true value.

    For the customer, the solution is taking back control — making choices about what services truly add to life, and shedding the ones that merely empty the wallet.

    In brief: subscriptions aren’t going away, but they’ll need to grow up — less about paying unlimited amounts, more about building long-term trust.

    See less
      • 1
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 2
  • 1
  • 179
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 09/09/2025In: Analytics, Company, News, Technology

Will Web3 and blockchain-based ownership disrupt traditional finance and corporate governance?

traditional finance and corporate go ...

analyticscompanytechnology
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice
    Added an answer on 09/09/2025 at 3:23 pm

     Setting the Stage: What Web3 Promises Web3 is most accurately described as the second web age, where control and ownership shift from centralized powers (banks, corps, governments) to distributed communities based on blockchain. In essence, it promises two big disruptions: Finance (DeFi — decentralRead more

     Setting the Stage: What Web3 Promises

    Web3 is most accurately described as the second web age, where control and ownership shift from centralized powers (banks, corps, governments) to distributed communities based on blockchain.

    In essence, it promises two big disruptions:

    • Finance (DeFi — decentralized finance): instead of conventional banking, lending, and payments with peer-to-peer, smart-contract-based systems.
    • Corporate Governance (DAOs — decentralized autonomous organizations): instead of boardrooms and hierarchies with open, community-driven decision-making.
    • The question is — will this actually shake up traditional finance and governance, or will it be a niche in addition to the existing system?

    How Web3 Could Shake Finance

    • Banking Without Banks
      Millions of individuals in the world’s developing countries are “unbanked.” Web3 wallets will allow them to send, save, and borrow without needing a traditional bank account. Consider a rural Kenyan farmer receiving foreign remittances directly via blockchain, bypassing middlemen and high fees.
    • Smart Contracts
      These are enforceable contracts which can be coded onto the blockchain — no lawyer, no banker, no wait. As a concrete example, an artist might get automatic royalties every time her digital artwork is resold, something that the existing system cannot do.
    • Tokenization of Assets
      Property, stocks, even copyrights to music can be tokenized and bought and sold on the planet. That makes possible fractional ownership — you don’t need $1 million to purchase property; you might own 0.01% of a New York skyscraper.
    • Eliminating Gatekeepers
      Finance is controlled today by huge institutions — credit card networks, clearing houses, regulators. Web3 builds a second world of finance where people do business directly with one another. Institutions no longer get to be the central authority.

    How It Might Remodel Corporate Governance

    • DAOs Rather Than Boards
      A DAO is a code + community-led company. Decisions (employment, investment, alliances) are token-holder voted, not ordered by a board or CEO.
    • Radical Openness
      Voting and expenditure is open to view on the blockchain in a DAO. Compare that to typical corporations where shareholder power is frail at best and decisions are often made behind closed doors.
    • Global Participation
      Anyone, anywhere in the world, with tokens talks. That makes corporate governance borderless, no longer controlled by Wall Street or Silicon Valley.

     The Challenges & Human Realities

    As exciting as this is, reality is more complex:

    • Volatility & Risk
      Cryptocurrencies remain very volatile. A farmer may appreciate new access to capital, but when the currency plunges overnight, his savings vanish.
    • Regulation vs. Freedom
      Governments fear losing money streams (to crime, tax evasion, money laundering) out of their control. Overregulation can trap or kill Web3’s revolutionary power.
    • Human Behavior Doesn’t Disappear
      Even in DAOs, dominant players can hold more tokens and hold votes — same traditional power dynamics. The utopian dream of pure democracy traditionally conflicts with the reality of wealth concentration.
    • Complexity Barrier
      To most everyday humans, Web3 is intimidating — wallets, gas prices, private keys. Unless user experiences become more intuitive, it’ll be in the hands of tech-savvy elites.

    The Human Impact

    To the average consumer: Web3 might bring increased access and economic empowerment, but higher risk for scams, volatility, and no consumer recourse.

    • For entrepreneurs: It creates new means of raising capital (token sales, NFTs) outside of the banks and venture capital deals.
    • For workers: DAOs can provide employment that is not tied to a company in a country, but to anyone being able to contribute to projects — boundary-less employment.
    • For governments: Either a nightmare (loss of control) or an eventual opportunity (if they mature, they can establish global digital standards).

     The Future: Disruption or Integration

    It’s unlikely Web3 will completely replace traditional finance or governance. Instead, we’re heading toward a hybrid future:

    • Banks may integrate blockchain for settlement and cross-border payments.
    • Companies may adopt DAO-like elements for shareholder engagement, while keeping traditional leadership.
    • Regulators will likely build bridges between old systems (central banks, stock markets) and new systems (DeFi, DAOs).
    • Imagine it more of an evolution — and less of a “revolution” — in which Web3 pressures current institutions to be more open, efficient, and inclusive.

     Bottom Line

    Yes, Web3 and blockchain-based ownership can revolutionize finance and governance — but not a clean sweep. They will pressure, disrupt, and reconstruct old systems rather than removing them entirely.

    The most human way to think about:

    • Web3 is an empowerment technology, putting people more in charge of money and decisions.
    • But given over to cynical design and unjustice, it will also recreate old injustices in new digital form.
    • The real test is not whether Web3 will splinter things — but whether it will remain true to its vision of democratization, or whether human greed and power plays will pervert it into the same old practices.
    See less
      • 1
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 2
  • 1
  • 188
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 06/09/2025In: News

How do tariffs on critical minerals (like lithium, cobalt, and rare earths) affect the clean energy transition?

lithium, cobalt, and rare earths

news
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice
    Added an answer on 06/09/2025 at 4:28 pm

    Why critical minerals matter (quick primer) Clean-energy technologies — batteries, electric motors, wind turbines, PV inverters, and many grid technologies — depend on special metals and compounds (lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, rare earths, etc.). The International Energy Agency projects demandRead more

    Why critical minerals matter (quick primer)

    Clean-energy technologies — batteries, electric motors, wind turbines, PV inverters, and many grid technologies — depend on special metals and compounds (lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, rare earths, etc.). The International Energy Agency projects demand for these minerals will rise dramatically as countries electrify transport and build renewables — roughly a doubling (or more) of mineral needs for clean-tech by mid-century under current stated policies. That makes the supply chain for these minerals a strategic choke point for the energy transition.

    How tariffs and export rules change incentives (basic mechanics)

    • Tariffs (import duties) raise the price of foreign-sourced ores or refined products inside the importing country. That makes domestic mining and processing relatively more attractive.
    • Export restrictions / bans (a close cousin of tariffs) prevent raw materials from leaving a producing country unless they are upgraded domestically first — pushing companies to build local smelters and refineries.
    • Export controls / licensing (e.g., restricting who can buy or ship certain rare earths) are used for strategic reasons and can sharply reduce global availability even without an outright ban.
    • These tools change the economics: they encourage greater local processing and downstream manufacturing, but they also change prices and supply flows for the world.

    Short-term impacts: costs, delays, and supply shocks

    Higher upstream and downstream costs. If a major supplier imposes tariffs or export curbs, refined products and components become more expensive for manufacturers everywhere — raising the cost of batteries, motors and other clean technologies. That can slow deployment because projects become costlier and investors push back. (This effect has been seen when restrictions or tariffs target processed minerals needed by battery and EV makers.)
    Carnegie Endowment

    • Supply shocks and uncertainty. Sudden policy moves create immediate supply volatility. Manufacturers can’t pivot overnight to new suppliers or build new processing lines, so projects stall or get repriced.
    • Redistribution, not elimination, of emissions and jobs. If tariffs only shift processing from one country to another with dirtier production methods, you may see carbon leakage and environmental harm without net jobs gain in greener, higher-value parts of the chain.

    Medium- to long-term impacts: industrialisation, investment and geography

    • Local beneficiation and industrial policy wins. Export bans and tariffs have real bite: countries like Indonesia used ore export restrictions to incentivize domestic refining and EV battery investments — attracting downstream plants and jobs. That is the exact industrial policy outcome defenders want: more value-added onshore rather than exporting raw ores. (Indonesia’s nickel policy is a canonical example.)
    • Concentration moves from mining to processing. Even when mines are geographically dispersed, processing (smelting, refining, separation) often remains concentrated (notably in China). Tariffs or restrictions can accelerate attempts by other governments to build processing plants — but that takes capital, time, environmental permitting and technical know-how. Expect multi-year lags.
    • Stimulus for recycling and alternatives. Higher mineral prices make recycling and material-efficiency innovations more commercially attractive (reclaiming lithium or magnets becomes worthwhile), which can reduce long-run raw-material dependence.

    Geopolitics and strategic risk

    Because a handful of countries control large shares of refining capacity or critical deposits, trade measures can become geopolitical tools. If one major supplier tightens exports or another ramps tariffs, other countries respond with stockpiling, subsidies to onshore capacity, or even retaliatory trade measures — and that risks fragmentation of global markets. Examples in recent years show how export curbs and trade tensions can ripple through clean-tech supply chains.

    Environmental and social tradeoffs

    Local industrial gains can come with environmental costs. Rapidly building mines and smelters without strong environmental oversight can damage ecosystems and communities (deforestation, pollution). Some producing countries have used export bans for short-term political or fiscal gain while local communities pay the price.
    Climate Home News

    Cleaner domestic processing is not guaranteed. Shifting processing onshore should be paired with environmental standards; otherwise you merely move emissions and pollution, not reduce them.

    Who wins and who loses (distributional effects)

    Winners: Governments and firms able to capture more of the mineral value chain; workers in regions where processing plants are built; strategic planners who secure industrial capacity.

    Losers (often): Downstream manufacturers and project developers in countries that rely on cheap imported processed minerals (they face higher input costs); consumers if higher component prices translate into more expensive EVs, batteries or renewables; and communities near new mines or smelters if safeguards are weak.

    Does this speed or slow the clean energy transition?

    It can do both:

    Speed up by creating local industries that stabilize supply and reduce strategic exposure — which, over the long run, lowers the political risk of moving away from fossil fuels.

    Slow down in the short to medium term by raising costs, creating supply disruptions, and increasing uncertainty for companies building EV factories, battery plants and renewable projects. For example, tariffs or restrictions that raise battery component prices can directly increase EV costs and slow adoption.

    • Policy design lessons — how to use trade tools without sabotaging the energy transition
    • If a government wants the benefits (jobs, resilience, higher local value) while minimizing damage to climate goals, it should combine tariffs/restrictions with complementary policies:
    • Targeted, temporary measures. Use export curbs or duties to catalyze domestic processing but put clear timelines, performance conditions and environmental standards on beneficiaries. Avoid open-ended bans.
    • Scale with investment support. Pair trade measures with financing, permits, and tech transfers to ensure onshore facilities meet environmental and productivity benchmarks.
    • Keep downstream users exempt or cushioned. Provide transitional subsidies or duty drawbacks for domestic clean-tech manufacturers that need imported inputs while local supply ramps up.
    • Invest in recycling and substitution. Fund circular-economy projects and R&D for low-critical-mineral technologies to reduce long-run demand pressure.
    • Multilateral signalling and coordination. Where possible, coordinate with allies on strategic stockpiles, joint investments in processing, and standards to avoid destructive tit-for-tat trade wars. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act and similar regional strategies are examples of trying to build resilience without fragmenting markets.

    A few concrete, recent examples you might find helpful

    Indonesia’s nickel export policy (export bans on unprocessed nickel ores) pushed downstream investment and local smelting — reshaping the EV battery supply chain regionally, but also creating environmental and social tensions as extraction accelerated. That’s a textbook case of an export rule producing rapid industrial changes.

    China’s control over processing and occasional export measures for rare earths and related processing technologies illustrate how a dominant processor can exert global leverage — tightening supplies and pushing other governments to diversify or onshore processing capacity.

    Tariff and trade tensions (e.g., between large markets) can quickly raise costs for battery and grid projects where alternative processing capacity isn’t ready — analysts warn that protectionist spirals could undercut clean-energy plans in the short term.

    Bottom line — the human takeaway

    Tariffs and export restrictions on critical minerals are a double-edged sword. They are attractive levers for countries that want jobs, sovereignty and industrial development — and they can help build domestic capacity that makes the clean energy transition politically and strategically sustainable. But wielded badly, they are also a direct tax on the transition: higher prices, delayed projects, fractured supply chains, environmental harm from rushed development, and possible geopolitical escalation.

    A practical, pro-transition approach uses trade tools strategically and temporarily, while investing heavily in processing capacity, environmental safeguards, recycling, and international cooperation — so that the policy strengthens, rather than weakens, the global march to net zero.

    If you’d like, I can:

    • Draft a one-page policy brief that a minister could use to design a “tariff + investment” package for domestic battery industry development; or
    • Build a simple scenario model that shows how a 20% tariff on imported refined lithium would affect EV battery costs and project timelines (with rough numbers); or
    • Create a short slide deck summarizing the benefits/risks with the examples above.
    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 2
  • 1
  • 246
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 06/09/2025In: News, Technology

Should digital tariffs on AI models, cloud services, and data flows replace traditional tariffs on physical goods?

cloud services, and data flows repla ...

ainews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice
    Added an answer on 06/09/2025 at 4:10 pm

    What we mean by “digital tariffs” By “digital tariffs” I mean taxes, levies or customs-style duties applied to cross-border digital activity — things like data flows, remote cloud/AI services, digital advertising, streaming or the commercial use of foreign AI models. This is different from standardRead more

    What we mean by “digital tariffs”

    By “digital tariffs” I mean taxes, levies or customs-style duties applied to cross-border digital activity — things like data flows, remote cloud/AI services, digital advertising, streaming or the commercial use of foreign AI models. This is different from standard customs duties on imported physical goods: digital tariffs target transactions, data, or digital market access rather than the physical movement of items.

    Why the idea is appealing

    Economy has shifted — so have value chains. More value now sits in software, data, AI models and cloud platforms. Traditional tariffs aimed at protecting domestic manufacturing don’t capture those revenue sources or address digital “market access” asymmetries.

    Tax fairness / revenue reasons. Many countries felt large digital platforms paid too little tax where their users are located; this spurred digital services taxes and the OECD’s reform effort. Digital levies are a way to claim revenue from cross-border

    Policy objectives beyond revenue. Governments may want to incentivize local data storage, protect privacy/safety, or discourage importing services that harm domestic industry. A digital tariff is a blunt tool to achieve those goals when other policy options are limited.

    What digital tariffs can do well (the upside)

    • Raise revenue from non-physical value creation (digital advertising, platform services). This helped motivate many countries’ equalisation levies.
    • Encourage local investment or data localization when structured as a conditional levy (lower rates if data centers/local partners are used).
    • Offer policy leverage where international tax rules are slow to adapt — governments can act unilaterally to respond to public pressure.

    What they cannot replace in practice (limits vs. physical tariffs)

    • Border protection and industrial policy. Tariffs on goods change relative domestic prices, protect domestic producers from import competition and reshape supply chains in ways a digital levy cannot. You can’t “tariff” a foreign-made tractor the same way you tax a SaaS subscription — the economic levers are different.
    • Customs enforcement & provenance. Physical tariffs are enforced at borders where customs inspect shipments. Digital activity is less tangible, easier to route or relabel, and often falls under different tax/tariff legal frameworks.
    • WTO and trade-law realities. The WTO moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions has been repeatedly renewed, and it constrains multilateral acceptance of customs-style duties on pure digital transmissions — though that moratorium’s future is debated. Pushing a full replacement would require rewiring global trade rules.

    Real-world signs & recent moves (short snapshot)

    Several countries experimented with digital levies (equalisation levies, digital services taxes), but some jurisdictions are reversing or revising them as international tax frameworks and diplomacy evolve — e.g., India moved to remove its ad-targeted equalisation levy recently as it reshapes its approach. That shows the political and diplomatic balancing act these policies trigger

    Meanwhile, the OECD’s Pillar work (on reallocating taxing rights and minimum tax rules) has been the more multilateral route to address digitalisation’s tax challenges — not a customs-style tariff replacement.

    Political friction persists: unilateral digital levies have provoked threats of trade retaliation or countermeasures, so any broad replacement strategy risks escalating trade tensions.

    Key economic, legal and technical risks

    • Double taxation / diplomatic blowback. Unilateral digital levies can lead to disputes or retaliatory tariffs; they may also overlap with corporate income taxes creating double taxation.
    • Evasion and routing. Digital services can be restructured, routed through low-tax jurisdictions, or bundled in ways that defeat simple levies. That undermines both revenue and policy intent.
    • Measurement problems. How do you measure “use” or “consumption” reliably (users, clicks, compute hours, data ingress/egress)? Poor metrics produce inequitable rates and gameable incentives.
    • Fragmentation risk. If every country erects different digital tariffs, commerce will fragment, compliance costs will explode, and global digital supply chains will suffer — the exact opposite of the open network many economies depend on.
    • Conflict with trade commitments. Many trade agreements and the WTO framework assume non-discrimination and predictability; a wholesale shift to digital tariffs would require renegotiation of these commitments.
      White & Case

    How digital tariffs should be used — a pragmatic policy framework

    Rather than a “replace” strategy, think “complement and coordinate.” Here’s a balanced recipe:

    • Use targeted digital levies for specific objectives (revenue gap, consumer protection, data-localization incentives), not as blunt substitutes for goods tariffs.
    • Prefer tax-style instruments over customs-style tariffs where possible — e.g., place-based digital taxes that allocate taxing rights to user jurisdictions (the OECD approach) reduce trade frictions and legal risk.
    • Design clear metrics and thresholds. Only large multinational digital service providers should be in scope initially; exclude small cross-border sellers to avoid stifling SMEs.
    • Coordinate regionally and multilaterally. Work through blocs (EU, ASEAN, G20/OECD) to harmonize rules and avoid fragmentation. The WTO moratorium and OECD negotiations illustrate why multilateral paths matter.
    • Pair digital levies with domestic measures for fairness. If a levy raises prices for consumers, use part of the revenue to subsidize access, support digital literacy, or invest in local cloud/AI infrastructure.
    • Transparency & dispute resolution. Publish rules, use neutral metrics, and accept arbitration to avoid trade flareups.

    Distributional & development considerations

    For advanced economies, digital levies might be about fairness and revenue redistribution from large global platforms. For developing countries, digital tariffs could be tempting as quick revenue sources — but they risk scaring off investment or driving platforms to restrict services. Careful calibration and international support are needed so poor countries don’t pay the political or economic price for digital protectionism.

    Bottom line — the simple verdict

    Digital tariffs are useful tools, but they aren’t substitutes for traditional tariffs. They work on different economic levers and carry different risks.

    Policy mix is what matters. Use digital levies to capture digital value, protect users, or incentivize local investment — but retain traditional tariffs (and other instruments like subsidies, regulation and industry policy) for physical-goods protection and industrial strategy.

    International coordination is essential. If countries act alone, the result will be messy: trade friction, double taxation, and fragmented digital markets. The multilateral route (OECD, WTO, regional blocs) is slow, but it reduces blowback.

    If you want, I can:

    Draft a short policy memo (1–2 pages) that outlines how a medium-sized economy could introduce a targeted digital tariff while minimizing risks; or

    Build a one-page explainer comparing outcomes if a government replaced 25% of its goods tariffs with a digital levy (distributional effects, likely retaliation, revenue volatility); or

    Sketch two sample legislative clauses: one for a narrowly-targeted digital services levy, another for a carbon-adjusted import duty.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 2
  • 1
  • 203
  • 0
Answer
Load More Questions

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 548
  • Answers 1k
  • Posts 25
  • Best Answers 21
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • mohdanas

    Are AI video generat

    • 940 Answers
  • daniyasiddiqui

    How is prompt engine

    • 131 Answers
  • daniyasiddiqui

    “What lifestyle habi

    • 27 Answers
  • KevinGem
    KevinGem added an answer Служба по контракту дает возможность зарабатывать стабильно и легально. Выплаты приходят каждый месяц без сбоев. Условия известны еще до подписания… 03/02/2026 at 2:42 pm
  • avtonovosti_uuMa
    avtonovosti_uuMa added an answer автоновости [url=https://avtonovosti-1.ru/]автоновости[/url] . 03/02/2026 at 2:27 pm
  • vavada_skOn
    vavada_skOn added an answer vavada bonus na zakłady [url=www.vavada2004.help]www.vavada2004.help[/url] 03/02/2026 at 2:02 pm

Top Members

Trending Tags

ai aiineducation ai in education analytics artificialintelligence artificial intelligence company deep learning digital health edtech education health investing machine learning machinelearning news people tariffs technology trade policy

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help

© 2025 Qaskme. All Rights Reserved