Meta seeks $29 billion from private capital firms for AI data centers, FT reports
FILE PHOTO: A Meta logo is pictured at a trade fair in Hannover Messe, in Hanover, Germany, April 22, 2024. REUTERS/Annegret Hilse/File Photo
(Reuters) -Meta Platforms is seeking to raise $29 billion from private capital firms to build artificial intelligence data centers in the U.S., the Financial Times reported on Friday.
The Facebook-parent has advanced discussions with private credit investors including Apollo Global Management, KKR, Brookfield, Carlyle and Pimco, the report said, citing people familiar with the matter.
Meta is looking to raise $3 billion in equity and $26 billion in debt, the report said, adding that the company is debating how to structure the fundraising and may also seek to raise more capital.
Such a fundraising comes at a time when Meta has doubled down its commitment to artificial intelligence, including a $14.8 billion investment in startup Scale AI.
Meta, Apollo Global, KKR, Brookfield, Carlyle and Pimco did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment.
Meta was working with its advisers at Morgan Stanley to arrange the financing, and it was considering ways that could make the debt more easily tradeable once it was issued, the FT report said.
(Reporting by Harshita Mary Varghese in Bengaluru; Editing by Maju Samuel)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Dr Wee: Review expanded SST
PETALING JAYA: Apart from a longer list of goods taxable under the expanded Sales and Services Tax (SST), another major concern of the people is the tax on raw materials and machinery, says Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong (pic). The MCA president said this will then set off a wave of price increases down the line, causing more pressure on the people. 'The SST brings a cascading effect because the raw materials and machinery will also be taxed after this. 'This silent inflation wave will surely be felt by all levels of society throughout the coming months,' said the Ayer Hitam MP in a Facebook video yesterday. He pointed out that back in 2018, more than 8,000 items were exempted from the SST. Under the expanded tax scheme set to take effect on July 1, the list has been significantly shrunk to only around 1,000 items, he said. He added that the expanded SST will not only apply to wellness and beauty-related services, it will also be applied to traditional products such as red dates, black fungus, dried longan and snow fungus. He stressed that many industries including rubber, plastics, medicine and oil palm, and the manufacturing sector have voiced their concerns about the expanded scheme as about 97% of goods in the market will be taxed. 'While we welcome the government's U-turn on the tax for imported fruits, it is not enough. 'The real issue and danger lies in the taxation of raw materials and industrial machinery,' he said. 'Politics aside, the people's welfare should be prioritised. It is better for the government to review the scheme or scrap it altogether,' he said, adding that the SST rate had already increased (from 6% to 8%) on March 1, last year. Dr Wee added that it was unfortunate that the expanded SST will start on July 1, the same day that the base electricity tariff and Port Klang tariffs are set to increase. 'The obvious solution for the government is still the GST, which is a fairer and more transparent taxation system. 'The main difference between both systems is that the GST taxes the end user – you use more, you pay more – while the SST taxes all levels of the supply chain and the end user has to pay a far higher price in the end,' he said. 'The GST ensures the stability and strength of the country while the SST will further burden the people and give businesses an excuse to raise prices,' he stressed. In announcing the expanded SST, the Finance Ministry said the measure is to strengthen the country's fiscal position by increasing revenue and broadening the tax base.
Malay Mail
8 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Texas keeps porn age-check law after US Supreme Court rejects free speech challenge in major online content ruling
WASHINGTON, June 28 — The US Supreme Court yesterday upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify visitors' ages, rejecting arguments that this violates free speech and boosting efforts to protect children from online sexual content. The court's decision will impact a raft of similar laws nationwide and could set the direction for internet speech regulation as concerns about the impact of digital life on society grow. Texas is one of about 20 US states to institute checks that porn viewers are over 18, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights. Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while a similar policy in France was blocked by the courts a week ago. US companies like Meta, meanwhile, are lobbying Washington lawmakers for age-based verification to be carried out by smartphone giants Apple and Google on their app stores. The Texas law was passed in 2023 by the state's Republican-majority legislature but was initially blocked after a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade association. A federal district court sided with the trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted adults' access to constitutionally protected content. But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the pornography trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority. Under the law, companies that fail to properly verify users' ages face fines up to $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if a child is exposed to pornographic content as a result. To protect privacy, the websites aren't allowed to retain any identifying information obtained from users when verifying ages, and doing so could cost companies $10,000 daily in fines. During arguments in January before the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing the Free Speech Coalition said the law was 'overly burdensome' and that its goal could be accomplished using content filtering programs. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of seven children, took issue with the efficacy of content filtering, saying that from personal experience as a parent, such programs were difficult to maintain across the many types of devices used by kids. Barrett also asked the lawyer to explain why requesting age verification online is any different than doing so at a movie theater that displays pornographic movies. The lawyer for the Free Speech Coalition — which includes the popular website Pornhub that has blocked all access in some states with age verification laws — said online verification was different as it leaves a 'permanent record' that could be a target for hackers. During the court's hearing of the case in January, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, both Republican appointees, seemed to suggest that advances in technology might justify reviewing online free speech cases. In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down, in an overwhelming 7-2 decision, a federal online age-verification law in what became a landmark free speech case that set a major precedent for the internet age. — AFP
The Star
10 hours ago
- The Star
Balancing privacy, safety and accountability
AS of Jan 1, Malaysia recorded 25.1 million social media users, making it one of the most connected populations in the region. Most of these users voluntarily share personal data far beyond what is needed, for example, posting locations, preferences, routines and sometimes even sensitive information like their children's school details, vaccination records, or holiday plans. Ironically, while there is widespread concern over government or institutional data collection, little attention is paid to how private corporations such as Meta (Facebook), ByteDance (TikTok) and X (formerly Twitter) actively profile users for commercial gain. Facebook once claimed it would never sell user data, yet it infamously shared user data with Cambridge Analytica. This incident became a major scandal in global privacy discussions and involved not just basic data, but detailed personal information used for targeted political manipulation. If there is real concern about data being misused, then platforms that profit from mass data harvesting should be examined with equal, if not greater, intensity. One of the most overlooked realities in the digital age is this: there is no such thing as a free service. Every time a user signs up for a 'free' app or platform, be it social media, navigation tools, or online games, it is an exchange. Users grant access to their personal data, including their usage patterns, preferences, device details and even contacts, in return for these services. Most people accept the terms and conditions without reading them, unknowingly agreeing to large-scale data collection. Unlike the limited data gathered for national digital services for cybersecurity or to improve performance, tech giants build multi-billion-dollar empires on the back of detailed personal data profiles. This raises the question: why is there so much concern when a government programme or national platform transparently collects data for operational or protective purposes, while the daily exploitation by foreign platforms goes largely unchecked? Tech giants like Google and Apple have perfected the art of data collection. Gmail, Google Docs, Google Drive, Apple iCloud, Siri and Google Photos are all part of systems that continuously collect and analyse user data. This includes not just basic data, but actual content like search terms, voice commands, photos, browse history and even location. Apple may advertise itself as being focused on privacy, but even its basic data (such as who you called, when and for how long) is stored. Google, meanwhile, uses user behavior data for advertising, product development and AI training. Is the public truly informed about how much their data powers Google's AI models or Apple's products? More importantly, where is the outrage when these tech companies push updates that make it harder to opt out of data sharing? It is necessary to ensure fairness, ethical governance and consent in all forms of data collection, whether by governments or private companies. Nevertheless, we must avoid one-sided anger. A responsible national policy that uses shared data to detect cybersecurity threats or improve digital services should not be attacked while corporate data collection for profit is ignored. Not only that, data is also crucial in fighting online dangers. Protecting Malaysians in cyberspace is becoming more and more critical as online threats continue to grow. Shared user data plays a key role in the fight against cybercrime, helping to automatically detect scams, fraud and cyberbullying early on. With such incidents on the rise, using data responsibly is essential for public safety. Nevertheless, for such programmes to earn public confidence, the role of government oversight cannot be forgotten. It is vital that the MCMC and all relevant agencies do their part by performing careful checks. They must ensure that any data collected is stored and managed securely according to the highest international standards, making sure strong protections are in place to prevent data breaches. The public's trust depends on this strict oversight and accountability. Instead of debating endlessly, Malaysians should support the government's efforts to build a convenient and safer digital environment for all. Malaysians should answer the question of whether the need to protect the safety of Malaysians is more important than unproven claims of data privacy breaches. Prof Dr Selvakumar Manickam Universiti Sains Malaysia Cybersecurity Research Center director
