Blog

The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) has come out to debunk circulating rumors that corps members will soon be receiving the newly approved N70,000 minimum wage. The organization has now made it clear that no official word has been received from the government about adjusting the allowance for corps members. There have been whispers on social media suggesting that corps members’ bank accounts were being upgraded to accommodate the new pay. The NYSC has dismissed these claims as completely false. The scheme’s spokesperson, Eddy Megwa, has urged corps members to disregard such information, warning them not to be fooled by those spreading false hopes. The statement read in part, “The attention of National Youth Service Corps management has been drawn to misleading information circulating in the media regarding payment of N70,000 minimum wage to corps members and the directive to upgrade their accounts. This is an absolute falsehood which is far from the truth.” The recent signing into law of the National Minimum Wage Act 2019 Amendment Bill by President Bola Tinubu, which mandates a N70,000 minimum wage for Nigerian workers, has sparked widespread speculation. However, the NYSC has clarified that this development does not automatically translate to an increase in allowances for corps members. The NYSC has emphasized that any official updates regarding changes to corps members’ allowances will be communicated through proper channels. Until then, corps members should rely on verified information from official NYSC sources. “Corps members, parents and members of the public should note that no directive has been received from the relevant sector of government responsible for wages matters,” Megwa continued. “It is, therefore, impossible for the NYSC to issue any information on such. Corps members already know the approved channel and mode of communication in the scheme and should therefore ignore the directive accordingly.” In a bid to stem the tide of misinformation, the NYSC has cautioned bloggers and social media influencers against making unauthorized statements about the scheme’s management. The organization has stressed the importance of verifying information before disseminating it to the public. The scheme has urged corps members to remain patient and await official communication regarding any changes to their stipends.

X, formerly known as Twitter, has found itself in a privacy storm, after it was accused of secretly using the personal data of over 60 million European Union users to power its artificial intelligence endeavors. The social media platform, long a subject of data privacy concerns due to its extensive collection of user information for targeted advertising and platform enhancement, has taken a giant leap into controversy by allegedly bypassing the fundamental principle of consent. The controversy erupted when a keen-eyed user discovered a hidden setting on X that explicitly revealed the platform’s decision to repurpose post data from EU users as fuel for its Grok AI chatbot. This operation sent shockwaves through the digital landscape, sparking a firestorm of criticism and legal action. By purportedly using this data without explicit permission, X has not only breached the trust of its users but also raised serious questions about the boundaries of corporate power and individual privacy. The implications of such a massive data breach are far-reaching, potentially exposing millions of individuals to identity theft, targeted harassment, or discriminatory practices. The Irish Data Protection Commission, the EU’s primary watchdog for data privacy, quickly stepped into the fray, launching an investigation into X’s practices. While the DPC’s initial response involved legal proceedings to halt the unauthorized data processing, many felt it was a tepid reaction to such a blatant violation of user trust. Who Owns the Data? Privacy advocates, led by the outspoken Max Schrems and his organization Noyb, were not satisfied with the DPC’s approach. They escalated the matter by filing complaints in multiple European countries, accusing X of flagrant disregard for the GDPR. Noyb’s claims centered on X’s opacity about its data practices and its failure to obtain explicit, informed consent from users before using their data to train an AI model. This aggressive stance underscored the growing public and regulatory pressure on tech giants to respect user privacy and adhere to stringent data protection laws. Under the GDPR, companies like X need a good reason to use your personal information. Usually, they need your say-so. But X is trying to get away with using your data without asking by claiming it is good for their business. However, courts in Europe have already said that big tech companies can not just do whatever they want with users’ data. So, this is a big legal battle that will decide if companies or people have more power over digital lives. As the scandal unfolds, regulatory bodies across Europe are scrambling to investigate the allegations and determine the extent of the damage. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for robust data protection laws and stringent enforcement to safeguard the digital rights of citizens in the age of artificial intelligence.