top of page

Current Most Read

Elon Musk’s Bid to Acquire OpenAI: A Dangerous Power Grab?
UK Government Pressures Apple for Encrypted Data Access – Security Measure or Privacy Risk?
The Age of Anxiety: How Modern Tech is Making Us More Stressed

Modern-Day Slavery: A Hidden Crisis in the West

Writer's picture: Connor BanksConnor Banks
Persons hands in chains on a black background

Despite living in an era of increased awareness and legislation aimed at eradicating human trafficking and forced labour, modern slavery remains a pressing and hidden issue, even in developed nations. While most people believe that exploitation exists primarily in poorer, less-regulated parts of the world, the reality is far more troubling: many Western countries, including the UK, the US, and Italy, continue to see disturbing cases of forced labour and human trafficking across various industries. Recent revelations regarding modern slavery at a McDonald’s in Cambridgeshire and a bread factory supplying major UK supermarkets underscore just how pervasive this problem remains.


The McDonald’s and Bread Factory Case

In one of the most shocking cases of modern-day slavery in recent years, 16 individuals were trafficked from the Czech Republic and forced to work in deplorable conditions at a McDonald’s branch in Cambridgeshire and a bread factory that supplied major UK supermarkets such as Asda, Tesco, and Sainsbury’s. The workers, many of whom were vulnerable due to homelessness and addiction, had their wages stolen by a gang that controlled their movements through fear and confiscation of their passports.


Despite working excessive hours—some up to 100 hours a week—these victims saw very little of their earnings, as the bulk of their wages was funnelled into a single bank account controlled by their traffickers. The exploitation lasted for over four years, with warning signs, such as shared bank accounts and poor living conditions, repeatedly missed by employers and authorities.


This case highlights the ease with which modern slavery can slip through the cracks in even the most well-known and established companies. McDonald’s and large supermarket chains, brands synonymous with quality and global reach, failed to detect that their workers were victims of trafficking and labour exploitation for an extended period.


Luxury Brands in Italy: Slavery in the Shadows of Opulence

While the McDonald’s case sheds light on forced labour in industries like fast food and supermarket supply chains, the luxury sector is far from immune. In fact, high-end fashion brands—often associated with exclusivity and craftsmanship—have also been implicated in labour exploitation. In Italy, a country renowned for its luxury goods, brands such as Louis Vuitton, Salvatore Ferragamo, and Dior have come under fire for their involvement in modern slavery through subcontracted factories.


In 2023, investigations into Dior revealed that some of its subcontractors in Milan were employing migrant workers under highly exploitative conditions. These workers, many of whom were from China, were reportedly paid as little as €2 an hour while working long shifts in unsafe environments. Dior, a brand associated with opulence and craftsmanship, became the focus of a judicial investigation as authorities sought to address these abuses.


Additionally, Salvatore Ferragamo, another hallmark of Italian luxury, scored poorly in transparency rankings concerning labour practices. Many of these brands, despite their high prices, have been criticised for not ensuring that workers in their supply chains are paid fair wages or treated ethically. Reports indicate that subcontracted factories in Italy's fashion industry regularly exploit migrant labourers, forcing them to work long hours for very little pay under threats of deportation or violence.


The Price Tag Doesn’t Guarantee Ethics

The exploitation of workers in the supply chains of both global fast-food chains and luxury fashion brands reveals a disturbing truth: the price of a product does not equate to ethical practices. The allure of high-end fashion often masks the harsh reality of labour exploitation. Similarly, while McDonald’s and supermarket giants project images of corporate responsibility, their vast supply chains are susceptible to abuse.


What links these cases together is the way modern slavery remains hidden in plain sight. Consumers trust these brands, expecting that the price or reputation guarantees ethical production standards. Unfortunately, as these cases show, luxury and corporate responsibility can sometimes come at the expense of human dignity.


The Need for Stronger Regulation and Awareness

Cases like the one involving McDonald’s in the UK and luxury brands in Italy highlight the urgent need for stronger regulation and more robust enforcement of labour rights. While many countries, including the UK, have passed legislation such as the Modern Slavery Act, enforcement remains inconsistent. Companies are often required to publish modern slavery statements, but compliance is often more about ticking boxes than affecting meaningful change.


More importantly, consumers play a critical role in demanding accountability. By supporting brands with transparent, ethical practices and pressuring others to improve, individuals can help combat modern slavery.


Modern-day slavery is not a relic of the past. It continues to thrive in industries as varied as fast food and luxury fashion, hiding behind the veneer of quality and success. The recent cases in the UK and Italy should serve as a wake-up call for consumers, governments, and corporations alike to address this hidden crisis with the seriousness and urgency it demands.

Elon Musk’s Bid to Acquire OpenAI: A Dangerous Power Grab?

Elon Musk’s Bid to Acquire OpenAI: A Dangerous Power Grab?

12 February 2025

Connor Banks

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Elon Musk, the billionaire behind Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, has made an audacious $97.4 billion bid to acquire OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. This move, framed as a return to OpenAI’s non-profit origins, is widely seen as an attempt to consolidate even more power in the hands of Musk, whose growing influence within the U.S. government raises concerns about unchecked corporate control over artificial intelligence. Musk has long railed against OpenAI’s supposed deviation from its original mission, but in reality, this bid reeks of opportunism rather than altruistic desires.


Purple screen displaying "Introducing ChatGPT Plus" by OpenAI, with text about a pilot subscription for conversational AI. Green text and bars.

Elon Musk's Offer and OpenAI’s Response

Musk’s bid is backed by a consortium of investors, including Baron Capital Group, Valor Management, and Eight Partners VC. His stated goal is to bring OpenAI back to its original open-source, safety-focused AI development approach. However, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman swiftly rejected the offer, mocking Musk on social media and highlighting the hypocrisy of his sudden concern for OpenAI’s direction.


Altman responded with a direct statement: "No, thank you. But we will buy Twitter for $9.74 billion if you’re interested." This sarcastic retort not only dismissed Musk’s bid but also referenced Musk’s own tumultuous acquisition of Twitter (now X), which has been widely criticised for its erratic management and steep decline in value since Musk took control.


The truth is, Musk’s involvement with OpenAI was never about philanthropy. After co-founding the organisation, he left in 2018 when his attempts to take over leadership were rebuffed. Since then, he has aggressively criticised OpenAI while working to build his own competing AI company, xAI. Now, his attempt to purchase OpenAI seems more like a desperate bid to maintain relevance in the AI race rather than any genuine concern for the ethical development of artificial intelligence.


Musk’s Government Role: A Clear Conflict of Interest

In January 2025, Musk was appointed as a special government employee, leading the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration. This position grants him the power to shape federal regulations and policies, including those governing artificial intelligence. If he successfully takes over OpenAI, Musk would be in the unprecedented position of both owning one of the most powerful AI companies in the world and shaping the very laws that regulate it.


This clear conflict of interest is nothing short of alarming. With his control over DOGE, Musk could weaken regulatory oversight on AI safety while advancing his own corporate interests. His past behaviour, such as gutting Twitter’s moderation policies and prioritising his personal business empire over public responsibility, suggests that he is unlikely to use such power responsibly.


Why Musk’s Takeover is Dangerous

  • Unchecked AI Monopoly: OpenAI is a leader in artificial intelligence research. If Musk acquires it, he could suppress competing AI innovations while monopolising the most advanced AI models for his own ventures. His history of aggressively eliminating competition suggests he would not hesitate to turn OpenAI into a weaponised asset for his empire.

  • Commercialisation Over Ethics: Musk frequently denounces OpenAI for prioritising profits, yet his own companies are aggressively profit-driven. His AI startup, xAI, is already integrating its technology into his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). A Musk-owned OpenAI would likely prioritise revenue streams over genuine AI safety, contradicting his supposed concerns about ethical AI development.

  • Manipulating AI Regulation: Musk’s dual roles in business and government would give him extraordinary leverage over AI policy. He could push for deregulation that benefits his businesses, weakening necessary safeguards designed to prevent AI abuse and exploitation. This represents a profound threat to democratic oversight and technological ethics.


Deterioration of AI Research Transparency

While Musk preaches about open-source AI, he has a history of keeping key developments within Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI tightly controlled. Under his ownership, OpenAI could become more secretive, reducing transparency in AI research and hindering global cooperation on AI safety.


Regulatory and Legal Challenges

Given the blatant conflict of interest between Musk’s government role and his corporate ambitions, regulators must intervene. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice should investigate whether Musk’s bid violates antitrust laws. There are also potential national security risks, given AI’s increasing role in cybersecurity, defence, and misinformation control.


If Musk is allowed to acquire OpenAI, the repercussions could be catastrophic. AI development would become even more concentrated in the hands of a single, unaccountable billionaire with a track record of erratic decision-making and self-serving business practices.


The Bigger Picture: The Musk Empire Expands

Musk already wields enormous influence across multiple industries, from electric vehicles to space exploration to social media. His attempt to control OpenAI is not about altruism—it is about dominance. If successful, he would have an iron grip over the future of artificial intelligence, steering it in ways that serve his personal vision while sidelining competitors and regulatory oversight.


This would not just impact AI development; it would shape how society interacts with AI on a fundamental level, from automation in industries to political discourse and national security. Musk has demonstrated time and again that he is willing to put personal power over public good, and there is no reason to believe this situation would be any different.


Stopping the Takeover Before It’s Too Late

Elon Musk’s bid to acquire OpenAI is not about returning it to its non-profit roots. It is a power play, designed to give him unprecedented control over the future of artificial intelligence while weakening regulatory checks that could hold him accountable. His history of self-interest, government manipulation, and anti-competitive behaviour suggests that such a takeover would be disastrous for AI ethics, innovation, and public trust.


Regulators, lawmakers, and industry leaders must take immediate action to block this acquisition and ensure that AI development remains in the hands of those committed to ethical progress, not a billionaire seeking yet another empire to control.

bottom of page