Meta and Google are expected to be the biggest financial beneficiaries of a potential TikTok ban in the US, according to a new analysis by eMarketer. The rise of TikTok and retail giant Amazon has placed significant competitive pressure on Google and Meta, which have dominated more than half of the US advertising market for years.

eMarketer estimates that if TikTok is banned, more than half of the advertising dollars currently spent on the platform in the US will shift to assets owned by Meta and Google. Specifically, Instagram and Facebook are projected to receive 22.1% and 17.1% of TikTok’s reallocated ad spend, respectively, while Google’s YouTube will capture approximately 10.7%.

Other social media platforms are also expected to benefit from the ban. Snapchat, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Reddit, and X (formerly Twitter) are likely to collectively receive around 18.3% of the reallocated TikTok ad spend. Notably, some of these platforms have already begun restructuring their apps to incorporate TikTok-like short video features.

Additionally, affiliated TV companies, publishers, and other digital media companies operating in social, search, and retail advertising spaces are anticipated to capture about 30% of the reallocated ad dollars.

Both Meta and Google appear well-positioned to capitalize on a potential TikTok ban by heavily investing in their own short video products, such as Reels and Shorts. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed last year that Reels alone accounts for over 50% of user time spent on Instagram. Similarly, Google reported that YouTube Shorts attracts more than 2 billion monthly logged-in users.

The likelihood of a TikTok ban has increased following recent Supreme Court arguments, with court observers predicting that the justices will approve the bipartisan legislation. If passed, the ban could take effect as early as January 19.

Meanwhile, a Bloomberg report published on Monday suggested that Chinese authorities are exploring a potential deal to sell TikTok to Elon Musk. However, TikTok has denied these claims.

The future of TikTok’s accessibility in the US now rests with the Supreme Court, which could issue a decision at any time.

After former US President Donald Trump announced his interest in acquiring the autonomous Danish island of Greenland, Republican members of Congress submitted a bill to the House of Representatives titled the Make Greenland Great Again Act.

The bill, which opened for signature on Monday, would authorize Trump to initiate negotiations with Denmark to purchase the territory starting at 12:01 a.m. on January 20.

While Democratic leaders in Congress have mocked Trump’s expansionist ambitions, some moderate Democratic members have signaled openness to the idea, according to Axios.

Trump first floated the idea of buying Greenland during his first term in 2019. Recently, he reiterated his desire to acquire the region, which is part of Denmark—a member of the EU and NATO—and did not rule out using military or economic force to achieve this goal. These statements have sparked reactions across Europe.

Adding to the speculation, Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., made a surprise visit to Greenland’s capital, Nuuk.

However, Danish and Greenlandic officials have consistently stated that the autonomous region is not for sale.

“We don’t want to be Danes, we don’t want to be Americans; of course, we want to be Greenlanders,” Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte B. Egede said at a press conference in Copenhagen on Friday.

Speaking to local and international media in Nuuk on Monday, Egede expressed his desire for closer ties with the United States.

According to Axios, Danish officials have contacted Trump’s team and emphasized their openness to expanding the US military presence in Greenland.

Greenlandic media outlet KNR also reported that the prime minister is open to cooperation with the United States on mining and trade issues and is willing to explore opportunities for collaboration with Trump.

Greenland has retained the right to declare independence from Denmark since 2009. The island, home to 56,000 inhabitants and reliant on substantial annual budget transfers from Copenhagen, has so far chosen not to pursue independence.

Greenland is expected to hold parliamentary elections before April 6.

Fires in Southern California have burned 45 square miles (about 11 kilometrekare), equivalent to the size of San Francisco.

Firefighters face numerous challenges, including water shortages. The damage caused by the wildfires has been described as “unimaginable,” according to officials.

The Los Angeles County Coroner’s Department reported at least 10 fire-related deaths in the city. Thousands of homes were destroyed, including at least five churches, a synagogue, seven schools, and two libraries. Bars, restaurants, banks, and grocery stores were also reduced to rubble.

One resident told Eyewitness News, “Pacific Palisades [a neighbourhood in Los Angeles] could be wiped off the map right now. There is no Pacific Palisades,” she stated.

As of Thursday night, the Palisades Fire was only 6 per cent contained. This fire grew rapidly, destroying more than 5000 homes and other buildings. Meanwhile, the Eaton Fire in Altadena and Pasadena damaged or destroyed another 4000-5000 homes and buildings.

Insurance companies refused to renew millions of policies from 2020 to 2022

Preliminary estimates indicate losses amounting to $57 billion, potentially exacerbating the state’s insurance crisis. Between 2020 and 2022, insurance companies refused to renew 2.8 million homeowners’ policies in California, including 531,000 in Los Angeles alone.

Looting has also emerged as a significant issue in the aftermath of the fires. There have been calls for the National Guard to protect property. Many families no longer recognize their neighbourhoods. One woman, speaking to ABC News, shared her experience, saying, “The only thing I could find was a tile with turtles on it from my bathroom. I took it to frame as a memento.”

She added that five of her friends had lost their homes in the Palisades Fire.

Firefighting hindered by fragile water infrastructure

The disaster has also exposed vulnerabilities in Los Angeles’ water system. Fire crews faced low water pressure and dry hydrants while combating the flames. Officials cited “tremendous demand” as a contributing factor.

Mark Pestrella, director of L.A. County Public Works, stated, “The municipal water systems that serve our homes and businesses operate effectively but were not designed to fight wildfires.”

In Pacific Palisades, three large water tanks, each holding one million gallons (3.8 milyon litre), were emptied. Janisse Quiñones, CEO of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), explained, “There was tremendous demand on our system in the Palisades.”

Despite the efforts of the DWP, which deployed 19 tanker trucks carrying between 7600 and 15,000 litres (2000 to 4000 US gallons) of water, the scale of the fires posed overwhelming challenges.

California’s water problems and private control

California’s water crisis is not limited to wildfire response. In 2022, during an unprecedented drought, urban water systems received just 5 per cent of their requested allocation, while agricultural tycoons like Lynda and Stewart Resnick used 150 billion gallons annually.

The Resnicks, owners of The Wonderful Company, control vast farmlands spanning an area four times the size of San Francisco. Their crops, such as pistachios, pomegranates, and almonds, are consumed by millions of Americans. Their company is valued at $5 billion, with the couple’s personal wealth exceeding $8 billion.

Secret 1994 meeting and the Kern Water Bank transfer

In 1994, state water officials, private companies, and agricultural landowners held a secret meeting in Monterey Bay to rewrite California’s water laws. These changes, known as the Monterey Amendments, abolished the “urban preference” rule, which prioritized urban areas during droughts.

The amendments also transferred ownership of the Kern Water Bank, a major state-built water storage facility, to private entities, including the Resnicks’ Westside Mutual. This facility, constructed with taxpayer money, is now 60 per cent owned by the Resnicks.