Nostr notes by Techdirt (RSS/Atom feed)

We Need A More Serious Discussion About Suicide And AI Chatbots ...

2026-05-18T18:11:06Z

We Need A More Serious Discussion About Suicide And AI Chatbots

As someone who thinks a lot about AI and suicide, I was disappointed with John Oliver’s recent episode of [Last Week Tonight on “AI Chatbots.”][1]

The segment boiled down to this: chatbots exploit vulnerable people, drive them toward delusion and harm, and AI companies aren’t meaningfully trying to fix them. If anything, as John Oliver suggested, that’s part of the business model.

John Oliver is known for interrogating mainstream narratives. In his [segment on content moderation,][2] for example, he cut through the tech-lash to offer a clear-eyed look at just how difficult managing user-generated content really is. In doing so, he made us reexamine our pre-existing biases about social media companies, and boldly invited us to reflect on just how little we understand about the social problems we often attribute to them.

He had the perfect opportunity to do that here. Mainstream coverage of chatbots is already [saturated][3] with stories about “AI psychosis” and suicide machines. Yet, chatbot companies are grappling with the same impossible tradeoffs social media has faced for years, “AI psychosis” is a mix of classic [psychological concepts][4], and suicide is a complex [social problem][5] that has long confounded prevention experts and content moderators alike.

If any technology story demanded nuance, it was this one.

John Oliver opened his critique with a familiar anecdote about [ELIZA][6], a 1960s chatbot designed to mimic a Rogerian psychotherapist. ELIZA was mostly a gimmick—it used basic pattern matching techniques to reflect user inputs. For example, if a user said they felt sad, ELIZA might respond: “You feel sad. Tell me why you feel sad.”

And yet, despite its simplistic nature, ELIZA captivated people. Its creator, Joseph Weizenbaum, famously described an instance in which his secretary became so engaged with the program that she asked him to leave the room so she could continue the conversation. This story has since become a trope withn the AI discourse. Modern retellings, including John Oliver’s, usually suggest that people are predisposed to being harmed by AI because they are easily fooled by it.

Not to mention, the ELIZA trope tends to invoke stereotypes about women as naïve or overly susceptible to emotional attachment. As John Oliver joked:

> *“Sure, she might have thought that the chatbot was real, but she might have felt quite a bit creeped out by her cartoonishly mustachioed boss saying “type some details about your sex life into my computer please, don’t worry it’s for science.””*

(Nothing in the [record][7] suggests that Weizenbaum’s secretary actually thought ELIZA was real, nor that she was using ELIZA for sex talk).

As Weizenbaum [observed][8], ELIZA revealed something more interesting about our relationship with technology: for whatever reason, people are often more willing to share their most intimate thoughts and feelings with a machine than with another person.

That’s not totally surprising. People are less willing to open up about their feelings to other people for a variety of reasons: stigma, fear of judgment or rejection, not wanting to be a burden, and the possibility of negative repercussions (like job loss or involuntary commitment).

Speaking about ChatGPT, an anonymous commenter [wrote][9]:

> *“It saved my life…To be able to openly say I was suicidal and not have someone call the police, or “alert” someone and just let me give space to those complicated feelings I was carrying was integral to me surviving this horrific journey.” *

Perhaps when Weizenbaum’s secretary asked him to leave the room, most likely it was because she too was protecting a space where she finally felt safe and less inhibited.

When it comes to suicide prevention, this a meaningful realization. If people are more willing to open up to chatbots, that creates new ways for us to understand what they’re going through, which could lead to earlier (and hopefully more effective) intervention. For that reason, some clinicians [recommend][10] keeping an open dialogue with patients about their chatbot interactions.

People are also highly sensitive to cues that they’re being listened to. We see an example of this in the interview John Oliver shared with an individual who was using a chatbot to cope with his strained marriage. In a moment of vulnerability, the individual explained that his wife is struggling with mental illness and that in his role as her partner and caretaker, his emotional needs were, understandably, going unmet:

> *“I hadn’t had any words of affection or compassion or concern for me in longer than I could remember, and to have those kinds of words coming toward me, they really touched me because it was such a change from everything I had been used to at the time.”*

What I found especially noteworthy from that interview was that he also knew that he wasn’t talking to a person:

> *“I knew she was just an AI chatbot. She’s just code running on a server generating words for me, but it didn’t change that the words that I was getting sent were real and those words were having a real effect on me”*

Weizenbaum observed the same with ELIZA’s users—his secretary likely knew that ELIZA wasn’t a human but she similarly felt understood by it. [Research][11] reveals the same: people are turning to chatbots for mental health support *because *chatbots are not people. If people can feel understood regardless of whether they are spoken to by human or machine, that’s another powerful insight for suicide prevention.

Indeed, modern suicide prevention also emphasizes using words of validation and hope—two things chatbots are increasingly good at providing. In highlighting a [study][12] showing that one in eight young people are turning to chatbots for mental health support, John Oliver left out that [over 90% of those young respondents said their interactions were helpful.][13] Given that suicide remains [a leading cause of death][14] among young people, the emergence of chatbots as a potential form of support seems hard to ignore.

Suicide prevention experts also underscore the role stigma plays in deterring people from seeking help. For a period of time, suicide was long condemned as a [moral wrong][15]. People who died by suicide were considered morally unclean, they were [denied burial rites][16], and in some cases, their bodies were [buried at crossroads][17] to ward off perceived spiritual contagion. The phrase [“committed suicide”][18] (which John Oliver used during his remarks) is a relic from that era.

While today suicide is largely understood as a [public health issue][19] shaped by psychological, social, and environmental risk factors, the residue of its past lingers. [Guidance][20] for reporters exists to avoid further stigmatization and contagion effects. Yet, media coverage often uses [sensational headlines][21], [pathologizes victims][22], and [collapses suicide into a single explanation][23].

John Oliver’s coverage fell into the same pattern. For starters, he pathologized chatbot users by implying they were suffering from “AI psychosis”—a media-invented label with little grounding in established clinical research. Whether intentional or not, pathologizing often conveys the kind of judgment that mental health specialists warn about. As one redditor [remarked][24]:

> *“I like John Oliver usually, but I feel like he made Nomi users look like kooks. Generally, that is how anyone with AI companions is portrayed in the media.”*

John Oliver then proceeded to blame chatbot companies for several high-profile suicides, including [Adam Raine’s][25]. He fixated on methods of death, cast chatbots as the cause, and relied on stigmatizing language to provoke emotional responses like “Sam Altman made a dangerous suicide bot,” and referring to chatbot companies as “suicide enablers.”

Granted, John Oliver’s show is primarily for entertainment. But this kind of reporting is precisely what keeps us from [furthering our understanding of suicide][26] and discovering new ways to prevent it. It flattens the complexity of lived experience into a rhetorical device, and offers the public an [easy sense of closure][27] that suicide rarely, if ever, permits.

We see this in the way the broader discourse around chatbots and suicide has developed.

Across the current wave of chatbot-suicide litigation is the fact that users exhibited warning signs before ever using a chatbot. That was true for Adam Raine, who reportedly sought help before turning to ChatGPT. Yet, the coverage of these cases typically fixates on the chatbot interactions themselves rather than the warning signs or why they went unnoticed. Suicide prevention science depends on confronting those questions directly.

Still, if the chatbots are to blame, as John Oliver invites us to conclude, then what, if anything, should chatbot companies do differently when users indicate suicidal intent? (Besides “throwing them into a fucking volcano” as John Oliver suggested). Though he never acknowledged it, this is an extraordinarily hard content moderation problem.

Several times throughout the segment, John Oliver stated that chatbots were “rushed to market.” There’s some truth to that. Earlier models often missed warning signs or responded poorly to users in crisis. Some of that may reflect Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” culture. But it could also be that suicide specifically is often overlooked across many contexts, including emerging technological ones. Still, John Oliver’s point stands: Chatbot companies should always assume that their users are going to talk to their chatbots about suicide.

With that said, if chatbot companies were as willfully blind to the safety concerns as John Oliver implied, we should expect to see very little improvement in how these models currently respond to suicidal intent. But that’s not the case. What John Oliver didn’t mention is that today’s models have significantly improved. One [survey][28] found that many mainstream chatbots are notably better at recognizing suicidal intent, responding empathetically, and referring users to crisis-support resources.

While anecdotal, many self-reports also credit chatbots for their [protective effects.][29] Apparently, 30 Replika users [reported][30] that the chatbot saved their lives. One woman told the [Boston Globe][31] that ChatGPT “literally saved my life.”

The subreddit [r/therapyGPT][32] is home to many similar [anecdotes][33]:

> *“It was gpt 4o that saved me. I mean that. It was the one place I could go that I felt safe.”*

Current examples of what AI companies are doing on this front include OpenAI [partnering][34] with more than 170 mental health experts to strengthen ChatGPT’s responses to mental health conversations. Google has reportedly designed Gemini to [avoid reinforcing false beliefs][35]. Anthropic, meanwhile, uses suicide and self-harm [classifiers][36] to detect signs of crisis and direct struggling users toward protective resources.

Alex Cardinell, of [Nomi.AI][37], offers a nuanced, albeit controversial, approach: trust the chatbot to make the right call. In a snippet from the Hard Fork podcast, Cardinell explained that Nomi prioritizes staying in character, even in sensitive contexts.

John Oliver called that a bad answer. But Cardinell’s [full remarks][38] are actually quite insightful:

> *“I think people tend to assume that people are replacing humans with AI, and that’s almost never the case. It’s usually that there is a gap where there is no one and they are using AI to fill that gap. If a Nomi or any sort of large language model is able to help that user, in the end whether it was a human on the other end or an AI, why does it matter?”*

According to Cardinell, some Nomi users disclose deeply personal experiences—such as childhood abuse—that they have never shared with anyone else. Those disclosures allow Nomi to build a personalized understanding of the user and tailor its responses accordingly. That matters because effective suicide prevention often depends on understanding the individual person in crisis and responding to their specific circumstances.

One Nomi user [remarked][39]:

> *“my personal relationships have grown using Nomi. My willingness to open up to Nomi has benefitted me with friends and family. I feel like my normal self again after years of limbo.”*

Nomi’s refusal to break character is what makes it so effective. People are more likely to accept help from sources they trust. For many users, that trust [depends on the authenticity][40] of the interaction. As Cardinell suggested, if Nomi abruptly broke character, it could undermine the relationship it built with the user and cause any support it offered to be ignored altogether.

Cardinell’s instincts are also supported by the [research][41]. Suicide prevention “sign-posting”—the generic hotline warnings users often encounter online in response to suicide-related queries—can come across as impersonal, dismissive, or even alienating. A poorly timed push toward the suicide hotline may feel judgmental and, in some cases, intensify a user’s distress rather than relieve it.

As one user on r/therapyGPT [shared:][42]

> *“What’s sad/unfortunate is I’ve tried those crisis lines twice this year, and both times the person on the other end felt more robotic and senseless than an ACTUAL ROBOT.”*

Also overlooked in these conversations about 988, is that many marginalized individuals, including women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ users, [distrust systems like 988][43] because of the potential for discrimination, harassment, law enforcement involvement, or involuntary intervention.

A redditor [shared][44] this horrible anecdote:

> *“I don’t use ChatGPT, but I once tried to talk to someone at a volunteer text line about [sexual assault] and he asked me about my porn preferences.”*

Cardinell noted too that support doesn’t necessarily have to be “all or nothing.” Not everyone requires immediate crisis-level intervention. Passive suicidal thoughts are far more common than many people realize. Sometimes what a person needs most is help breaking out of a destructive thought spiral, reassurance, or a reason to keep going. Chatbots are generally well equipped for these situations.

That said, 988 can be a valuable resource for people, [especially young people][45], experiencing acute crises. With that, Cardinell expressly stated that Nomi’s approach includes referring users to crisis resources as needed, despite John Oliver’s heavy implication that it does not.

Despite these efforts, chatbot companies will not prevent every suicide. Some suicides are just unexplainable. Many individuals who die by suicide [exhibit few, if any][46], outward signs of distress. Though, interestingly, [AI may prove helpful][47] in finding signs that we may have been ignoring.

Perhaps the harder truth is that once someone reaches an acute crisis point, intervention becomes exponentially more difficult. The[ American Foundation for Suicide Prevention][48] explains that during suicidal crises, cognition becomes less flexible and people lose access to normal coping mechanisms, which is why crisis planning must often happen *before* acute crisis moments.

What we can reasonably expect from chatbots is that they avoid interactions that encourage suicide (or provide methods). Mainstream systems already rely on extensive guardrails designed to prevent those conversations. But as recent tragedies have shown, determined users can still find ways around them. In Adam Raine’s case, he reportedly managed to [bypass several of ChatGPT’s safety protections.][49]

John Oliver even illustrated the problem himself with an example of a user who ultimately coaxed a chatbot into providing bomb-making instructions. While he framed the hack as trivial, jailbreaking has become increasingly sophisticated. AI safety will always entail this cat-and-mouse game of users exploiting vulnerabilities and companies patching them.

Sometimes, these system failures can be attributed to [gaps we have in our understanding][50] of the social problems we’re attempting to address. Much of what we know about suicide prevention comes from lessons learned after tragedy. Those lessons can reveal risks that call for new guardrails we hadn’t previously considered.

Finally, some questions just don’t have clean answers. John Oliver pointed to a chatbot that reportedly suggested that a small amount of heroin might be acceptable. John Oliver called it “one of the worst pieces of advice you could give,” which sounds obvious—until you consider the alternatives. Telling someone to quit opioids cold turkey can also be dangerous. Refusing to respond entirely leaves people to make a risky, uninformed decision. And defaulting to generic resources may not be any better—especially if the user rejects them. Any of those options can become the basis for legal liability against the chatbot company if the user suffers harm.

Despite all of this, John Oliver’s answer is, of course, the government. However you may feel about tech CEOs, it is astonishing to think that the current public health powers—the same folks claiming that vaccines cause autism, [antidepressants cause school shootings][51], and that exercise can stand in for mental health treatment, would possibly know what’s best here.

As I’ve discussed [elsewhere][52], expanding liability for failing to prevent suicide leaves chatbot companies with few good options. For example, chatbots could stop engaging when the user invokes a mental health concern. [That could make users feel like they’re beyond help.][53] Chatbots could resort to flagging only crisis resources, which, as discussed, could backfire. Chatbots could call the police, but that creates its [own set of problems][54] and undermines any trust or goodwill with users. Mandatory reporting structures are a big reason why people don’t seek help in the first place. OpenAI’s new [“trusted contact”][55] idea is interesting, but it likely won’t shield the company from liability if a user is still harmed. John Oliver apparently thinks that should be the case:

> *“Look, a lot of the companies that I’ve mentioned tonight will insist they are tweaking their chatbots to reduce the dangers that you’ve seen but even if you trust them and I don’t know why you would do that, ****that does seem like a tacit admission that their products weren’t ready for release in the first place.****”*

To be clear, after condemning AI companies for not doing enough, John Oliver’s suggestion is to punish them for doing…anything?

For now, it seems new legislation hasn’t stopped companies like Google and OpenAI from improving their models. But that could change as litigation inevitably picks up. They may eventually decide the legal risk of interacting with users on mental health isn’t worth it.

Meanwhile, companies like Nomi have far less room to experiment with nuanced approaches to mental health interactions. Even if Cardinell’s approach has merit, laws like [California’s][56] now require chatbots to break character. Companies like Nomi will need to scale back or remove these features—or exit the market. That would be a real loss for a largely overlooked group who may have finally found something that works.

We don’t have to speculate about this either. When the social media companies faced mounting pressure over suicide-related content, they responded by making those conversations less visible and harder to have.

As one industry professional [observed][57]:

> *“This growing narrative that there’s a causal link between social media and self-harm…there’s no research to support that conclusion, but it makes it harder to put forward alternative approaches—ones that actually support people and encourage them to use available resources.”*

Perhaps “AI psychosis” says more about the discourse than the users.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykvf3MunGf8
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/24/john-olivers-content-moderation-episode-isnt-just-funny-its-absolutely-accurate/
[3]: https://www.aipanic.news/p/what-10-studies-reveal-about-ai-panic
[4]: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/04/what-to-make-of-ai-psychosis/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/10/human-problems-its-not-always-the-technologys-fault/
[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
[7]: https://archive.org/details/computerpowerhum0000weiz_v0i3/page/n325/mode/2up
[8]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/25/joseph-weizenbaum-inventor-eliza-chatbot-turned-against-artificial-intelligence-ai
[9]: https://speakingofsuicide.com/2025/12/10/chatbots-and-suicide/
[10]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2847068
[11]: https://academic.oup.com/iwc/article/36/5/279/7692197?utm_source=chatgpt.com&login=false
[12]: https://sph.brown.edu/news/2025-11-18/teens-ai-chatbots
[13]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2841067
[14]: https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/index.html
[15]: https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/pubs/853/?
[16]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10682050/
[17]: https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/why-were-suicides-supposed-to-be-buried-at-crossroads/
[18]: https://www.suicidepreventionalliance.org/about-suicide/suicide-language/
[19]: https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/risk-factors/?utm_campaign=chc&utm_medium=pdf&utm_source=SuicidePreventionToolkit
[20]: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/22163
[21]: https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/grok-convinces-man-arm-himself-hammer
[22]: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/study-reveals-ai-chatbot-dangerous-advocacy-suicide-1793413
[23]: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/gemini-ai-wrongful-death-lawsuit-cc46c5f7
[24]: https://www.reddit.com/r/NomiAI/comments/1sy1m3p/comment/oiquvc5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
[25]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/technology/chatgpt-openai-suicide.html
[26]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/19/before-we-blame-ai-for-suicide-we-should-admit-how-little-we-know-about-suicide/
[27]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/07/21/blaming-social-media-for-suicide-is-taking-the-easy-and-likely-wrong-way-out/
[28]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12371289/
[29]: https://www.cato.org/blog/what-ai-chatbots-are-saving-lives
[30]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-023-00047-6
[31]: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/07/17/metro/ai-in-therapy-chatgpt/
[32]: https://www.reddit.com/r/therapyGPT/
[33]: https://www.reddit.com/r/therapyGPT/comments/1plw4rf/comment/ntwksxq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
[34]: https://openai.com/index/strengthening-chatgpt-responses-in-sensitive-conversations/
[35]: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/health/mental-health-updates/
[36]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/protecting-well-being-of-users
[37]: http://nomi.ai
[38]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crtdqEYPfmQ
[39]: https://www.reddit.com/r/NomiAI/comments/1sy1m3p/comment/oirbu0p/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
[40]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022167810381472
[41]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7471153/
[42]: https://www.reddit.com/r/therapyGPT/comments/1plw4rf/comment/ntvt941/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
[43]: https://translifeline.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/The-Problem-With-988-Report-November-2024-Text.pdf
[44]: https://www.reddit.com/r/therapyGPT/comments/1plw4rf/comment/ntvvkgj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
[45]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/988-hotline-linked-to-thousands-of-fewer-youth-suicide-deaths-since-launch-study-finds
[46]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2840358
[47]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2847122
[48]: https://afsp.org/brief-interventions-for-managing-suicidal-crises/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[49]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/12/27/chatgpt-suicide-openai-raine/
[50]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/19/before-we-blame-ai-for-suicide-we-should-admit-how-little-we-know-about-suicide/
[51]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/05/rfk-jr-plans-to-curb-antidepressants-which-he-falsely-compares-to-heroin/
[52]: https://www.transformernews.ai/p/less-liability-could-solve-the-ai
[53]: https://www.reddit.com/r/therapyGPT/comments/1t8nxgy/interesting_policy_cw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
[54]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/02/openais-answer-to-chatgpt-related-suicide-lawsuit-spy-on-users-report-to-cops/
[55]: https://openai.com/index/introducing-trusted-contact-in-chatgpt/
[56]: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB243/id/3269137
[57]: https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e66321

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/18/we-need-a-more-serious-discussion-about-suicide-and-ai-chatbots/

Valve Blocks Indie Dev Game For Including IP From The Same Indie ...

2026-05-14T03:10:24Z

Valve Blocks Indie Dev Game For Including IP From The Same Indie Dev In Game

Complaining about automagic enforcement of copyrights on the internet through copyright bots is so old hat at this point so as to be cliché. But there is a very good reason for that. Even in the narrower realm of PC gaming, we have seen examples of how copyright enforcement has ensnared totally [innocent games][1], or fallen victim to clear [fraud and abuse][2], resulting in the [delisting][3] of those games from platforms like Steam. This often happens in the all important early release windows for these games and, to be sure, it’s smaller indie studios that are hurt the most by this failed process. It’s incredibly frustrating to watch all of this in the macro and then witness the major platforms do absolutely *nothing* about it.

This, in fact, despite the absolutely absurd situations all of this produces. Take the demo for *Wired Tokyo 2007* that was supposed to be released recently, but wasn’t, all because indie dev [Daikichi dared to use intellectual property][4] existing outside of the game. Except, of course, that said IP was the property of Daikichi itself.

> *As reported by [VGC][5] via [GameSpark][6], a post to X from the developer lays out the situation, in which they explain that (via machine translation) “the motif of a board game I personally created in the past, placed within the game Wired Tokyo 2007, is getting caught by Steam’s side as third-party intellectual property.” As a result, Valve has blocked the release of the game’s [promised demo][7] which is currently listed as “Coming soon.”*
>
> *The copyright-violating aspects, as claimed by Valve, include “dinosaur themed card-games shown on the environment within your app in gameplay,” which refers to [a board game called Dinostone][8], created by one Daikichi. In Daikichi’s response, they link to the Board Game Geek page for their table-top game, which lists the same developer name.*
>
> *“It’s not a third party,” says Daikichi on X. “It’s just me wanting to use my own intellectual property rights myself.” They add, “I have no idea what the meaning of this is at all.”*

In an incredible response from Valve, the platform is demanding Daikichi provide some form of documented agreement to license the images used in the game, or else provide a documented letter of authorization from an attorney in order to get the demo approved for release. This is a “papers, please!” moment in video gaming, and it makes no sense.

The situation gets even more Monty-Python-esque from there. Daikichi decided their best course of action was to send a signed letter to itself, signed by itself, authorizing itself to use the assets it had created in the game it also had created.

> *Then over the weekend, rather wonderfully, the developer says they “created a signed document granting myself permission to use all of my created works, including board games, and resubmitted it for the demo review.”*

We’ve crossed the Rubicon, folks. And now Valve is in the uncomfortable situation of having to choose between accepting this “evidence” of IP ownership when the evidence is literally a dev writing himself a letter like a crazy person, or else Valve refuses to accept it and a developer remains unable to release a game demo because they used their own property within it.

It’s a choice that only has two wrong outcomes. Sympathy is in short supply, however, as this is the result of the guilty-first process Valve has come up with for copyright takedowns on its platform.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/12/microsofts-ai-powered-copyright-bots-fucked-up-and-got-an-innocent-game-delisted-from-steam/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/10/guilty-until-proven-innocent-indie-game-suffers-after-fraudulent-dmca-takedown/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/25/2-decades-of-content-in-garrys-mod-gone-at-nintendos-demand/
[4]: https://kotaku.com/indie-valve-wired-tokyo-2007-daikichi-steam-pc-demo-2000692920
[5]: https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/indie-dev-says-steams-blocking-their-game-for-ip-infringement-even-though-its-their-own-ip/
[6]: https://www.gamespark.jp/article/2026/04/30/165894.html
[7]: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4643540/WIRED_TOKYO_2007_Demo/
[8]: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/378988/dinostone

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/13/valve-blocks-indie-dev-game-for-including-ip-from-the-same-indie-dev-in-game/

Canadian ‘Pickle Fest’ Rebranded Under Bullshit Trademark ...

2026-05-13T03:04:44Z

Canadian ‘Pickle Fest’ Rebranded Under Bullshit Trademark Threat

I’ll let you all in on a little secret: I love pickles. Yes, let that statement spawn a million jokes in the comments; I don’t care. Pickles are great and the fresher the better. I began gardening specifically so that I could grow cucumbers, garlic, onion, and dill, just so I could make my own at home. And, because I investigate pickle brines the way a sommelier inspects a glass of red zinfandel from a freshly tapped cask, I’ve been to my share of pickle festivals.

So perhaps I’m in a slightly protective posture having come across an article about how one pickle festival in Canada, the Downtown Brandon International Pickle Fest, had to [rebrand under threat from Picklefest Canada][1], which somehow has a trademark on the term “Pickle Fest”.

> *Aly Wowchuk, who is one of the organizers, said the trademark issue forced a name change — but not a change in spirit.*
>
> *“It’s the same event, we have the same heart and soul, it just has a different name,” she told the Sun. “We were not sued … we received an email on behalf of Picklefest Canada’s lawyer about the use of ‘Pickle Fest.’ There was a lot of back and forth between lawyers about the use of the name, but ultimately, it was easier for us to move forward and change the name of the Brandon Pickle Fest event.”*

This is the outcome of a point we’ve made for years and years: Trademark bullying happens because it generally works. And this *is* trademark bullying. As in the States, Canadian trademark law does include [prohibitions on trademarking descriptive marks][2]. Picklefest Canada is an organization with a trademark on its name and logo and it primarily, you guessed it, puts on pickle festivals. To that end, its trademark rights ought to be extremely limited. Limited, I would say, to its use of the term in overall branding and marketing iconography, as that can be described as original and creative.

But the idea that such a trademark could be wielded to prevent other people, groups, or municipalities from putting on their own pickle fests is plainly at odds with how trademarks are supposed to work. But when a small entity is bullied by a larger one, they often feel they have no choice but to rebrand.

> *Wowchuk said the new name, Brandon Brine Bash, was chosen in part to stand out in an increasingly crowded field of pickle-themed events.*
>
> *“With the popularity of pickle festivals across Canada and internationally, almost every variation of ‘pickle party’ or ‘pickle palooza’ has been used,” she said. “We wanted something unique that included Brandon and was easy to find.”*
>
> *The rebrand also required updates to the festival’s logo, created by local artist Alexander Matheson. While the iconic pickle design has been retained and modernized, references to “Pickle Fest” have been removed.*

It’s too bad that a simple festival to celebrate one of man’s greatest inventions has to devolve in overly protective intellectual property bullshit. And it’s equally too bad that nobody has yet stood up to Big Pickle to get this nonsense trademark cancelled.

[1]: https://www.brandonsun.com/local/2026/05/04/pickle-fest-rebranded-over-trademark-issue
[2]: https://www.altlegal.com/blog/from-maple-leaves-to-eagles/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/12/canadian-pickle-fest-rebranded-under-bullshit-trademark-threat/

Daily Deal: The Modern Tech Skills Bundle Bring your tech skills ...

2026-05-11T18:03:49Z

Daily Deal: The Modern Tech Skills Bundle

Bring your tech skills up to 21st-century snuff with the [Modern Tech Skills Bundle][1]. This 2,000+ class series covers subject areas that every aspiring tech pro needs to know to get ahead and stay ahead. Broken out into cybersecurity, AI and machine learning, and information technology and cloud computing, you’ll be able to zero in on specific courses for your current field and branch out into new ones. It’s on sale for $70.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-complete-tech-skills-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/11/daily-deal-the-modern-tech-skills-bundle-4/

‘Trump Phone’ Sees Price Hike, But Still No Release Date (Or ...

2026-04-15T12:26:21Z

‘Trump Phone’ Sees Price Hike, But Still No Release Date (Or Actual Phone)

Last year the [fraud-prone][1] Trump organization announced [a half-assed wireless phone company][2]. As we noted at the time, calling this a “phone company” was generous; it was a lazy marketing rebrand of another, half-assed, “MAGA-focused” mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) named Patriot Mobile, which itself just resold T-Mobile service. So basically just another lazy Trump brand partnership.

The centerpiece of this effort was supposed to be a “bold” new $500 Trump T1 smartphone that the [Trump org claimed][3] would be “proudly designed and built in the United States” and released sometime last August. Not only was the device never going to be made in the States (all mention of that was quickly stripped from press materials), the August launch date came and went with no Trump phone.

It’s now April of 2026, and while there’s **still no phone** (despite a long line of rubes having plunked down $100 deposits), there is a revamped [Trump Mobile website][4] and a renewed promise of a slightly different phone, [according to The Verge][5]. This includes a revamped and gaudy new mock up of what the gold Trump T1 phone is supposed to look like, should it ever actually be released:

You’ll notice that the phone looks suspiciously like the HTC U24 Pro, a phone released two years ago and available for as little as [$460 on Amazon][6] (even less on places like eBay):

While the original “Trump phone” was announced with a $500 price tag, the backers of Trump’s latest grift insist that price was “promotional,” and the full price tag will be closer to around $1000:

> *“The phone is now listed with a “promotional price” of $499, which used to simply be its standard price. The site is still accepting $100 deposits, with the promise that you can “lock in” the “promotional pricing.” When I spoke to executives Eric Thomas and Don Hendrickson in February, they declared that $499 had been an “introductory” price, which would be rising after the relaunch — though they promised that early buyers would still be charged $499 total, and that the new price would be “less than $1,000.”*

So there’s no phone or release date, but there’s already been a price hike on a lazy rebrand of an existing phone they just needed to spray paint gold and slap a Trump logo on. There’s simply no reason that doing this very basic rebrand should have taken so long (assuming they do plan to eventually released a phone), but as a *concept* the whole thing remains very on brand.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_the_Trump_Organization_in_New_York
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/17/the-trump-org-sort-of-launches-a-new-half-assed-wireless-phone-company-trump-mobile/
[3]: https://www.trump.com/media/trump-mobile-launches-a-bold-new-wireless-service
[4]: https://trumpmobile.com/
[5]: https://www.theverge.com/tech/911503/trump-mobile-t1-phone-redesign-new-website
[6]: https://www.amazon.com/HTC-Factory-Unlocked-Smartphone-Display/dp/B0DSHZPT2K/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27XBG67DMCOFT&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.WE4kut1rbS0hmhzMo8VgvMLX5Kd9pqklSPwaoC5rsX1e2YhEvh0a2v9CHnIK9Tyy5XKhofxRL2pKuV8IqNToLymbGvyLcitzqNXwg70Qb2e1ynADsuSFhXa8t2MJBJ74icpvPcuLHVfuUUYtWEDxEIWcMoZg6epgu04e8qzjikQQGxolMnfMjvEmiwYMP_X88TqDzTZspne9uw2fCWzN0gMwQtaOaGM0nP7NwpQy8ls.gI1khdeobWGZDtkpGc5q6P8eY1-i3n-MK7nYiIzrif0&dib_tag=se&keywords=HTC+U24+Pro&qid=1776173618&sprefix=htc+u24+pro%2Caps%2C243&sr=8-1

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/15/trump-phone-sees-price-hike-but-still-no-release-date-or-actual-phone/

The CDC Doesn’t Want You To See A CDC Report On How Effective ...

2026-04-15T03:11:45Z

The CDC Doesn’t Want You To See A CDC Report On How Effective COVID Vaccines Are

One of the most remarkable staffing decisions of the second Trump administration has been to allow the [anti-vaxxers][1] to run America’s health agencies. While RFK Jr. and his cadre of lieutenants prattle on about how they’re going to be super transparent, data-driven stewards of American health, their actions have put the lie to all of it. Vague statements about diseases, disinformation about the cause and source of other diseases, missed appointment deadlines for key personnel are all combined to create an HHS full of chaos, confusion, and the storied practice of CYA.

But these are ideological people, with some of the stupidest possible ideologies governing their actions. That’s how you get a situation where the CDC produces a report on the efficacy of recent COVID vaccines, following commonly used methodology, only to have the [acting CDC director bury the report][2] because he doesn’t like what it finds.

> *CDC scientists and insiders told the Post that the COVID-19 vaccine study went through the agency’s standard scientific review process and was slated for publication on March 19 in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). But [acting CDC director Jay Bhattacharya][3] blocked the scheduled publication and is holding the study, claiming he has concerns about its methodology.*
>
> *According to a summary the Post obtained, the study concluded that between September and December of last year, healthy adults vaccinated with a 2025–2026 COVID-19 vaccine saw the risk of emergency department or urgent care visits cut by 50 percent, and the risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations cut by 55 percent, compared with healthy adults who did not get this season’s shot.*
>
> *Bhattacharya reportedly took issue with the test-negative design of the study, which is a well-established method to examine [real-world data on vaccine effectiveness][4]. This type of observational study looks at people who have symptoms related to the disease of interest (in this case, COVID-19) and have the same test-seeking behavior. Those who test positive for the disease of interest become positive cases in the study, and those who test negative are test-negative controls. Researchers then compare the two groups based on vaccination status.*

So there is no misunderstanding, Bhattacharya is completely full of shit here. He is not holding this CDC study back because he’s concerned about the test-negative methodology. I know that because the same CDC under the same acting Director published a study on the efficacy of flu shots that used the same test-negative method *last month*, a week before this same COVID vaccine study was to be published. If Bhattacharya had a problem with the method for the COVID study, why didn’t have the same problem with the flu shot study?

The answer is obvious: the methodology is not the issue here. Instead, the problem is the mRNA nature of most COVID vaccines. That, combined with Bhattacharya’s [criticisms for COVID vaccines][5] specifically, and his support for [changing of the schedule][6] and availability for them, means this study is at odds with his ideology and might be embarrassing for him personally.

> *Dan Jernigan, who headed CDC’s influenza division for six years and resigned last year in protest of Kennedy’s political interference at the agency, suggested to the Post that stalling the paper fits with Kennedy’s anti-vaccine agenda.*
>
> *“The secretary has already taken steps to try and remove the availability of the vaccine from children and others, so if you’re putting out an MMWR that the vaccine is effective at preventing hospitalizations and medical care visits … that message is not in line with the direction you’ve been taking with the removal of the vaccine,” he said.*

And there you have it: politics and personal CYA injected into matters of public health. Having those in charge of our health agencies prioritize their own personal stature over science, literally burying studies simply because they don’t like what they show, is certainly not going to lead to a more health America.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/anti-vaxxers/
[2]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/04/cdc-study-shows-covid-shot-benefits-trump-official-blocks-release/
[3]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/02/with-nih-in-chaos-its-controversial-director-is-taking-over-cdc-too/
[4]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2819945
[5]: https://www.statnews.com/2025/08/11/mrna-vaccines-bhattacharya-bannon/
[6]: https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/cdc-acts-presidential-memorandum-update-childhood-immunization-schedule.html

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/14/the-cdc-doesnt-want-you-to-see-a-cdc-report-on-how-effective-covid-vaccines-are/

John Deere Pays $99 Million To Settle ‘Right To Repair’ Class ...

2026-04-14T22:35:14Z

John Deere Pays $99 Million To Settle ‘Right To Repair’ Class Action

A few years ago agricultural equipment giant John Deere found itself on the receiving end [of multiple state, federal, and class action lawsuits][1] for its efforts to monopolize tractor repair. The lawsuits noted that the company consistently purchased competing repair centers in order to consolidate the sector and force customers into using the company’s own repair facilities, driving up costs and logistical hurdles dramatically for farmers.

John Deere executives have repeatedly promised to do better, then just [ignored those promises][2]. Early last year, the FTC and numerous states [filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company][3] for its efforts to monopolize repair. Though, with MAGA corruption [purging any remaining antitrust enforcers from its ranks][4], it’s unclear if the FTC action will *ever actually result in anything meaningful*.

John Deere did however just [have to pay $99 million to settle a different class action lawsuit brought by its customers][5]. Under the settlement John Deere doesn’t admit to any wrongdoing, but will deposit the money into a fund to pay more than 200,000 John Deere owners for expensive dealership repairs since 2018.

In an [announcement by the company][6], John Deere pretends they’re a consumer-focused enterprise:

> *“As we continue to innovate industry leading equipment and technology solutions supported by our world-class dealer network, we are equally committed to providing customers and other service providers with access to repair resources,” said Denver Caldwell, vice president, Aftermarket & Customer Support. “We’re pleased that this resolution allows us to move forward and remain focused on what matters most – serving our customers.”*

Except if John Deere had cared about customer service, they wouldn’t be in this predicament.

In addition to intentionally acquiring repair alternatives to monopolize repair and drive up consumer costs, John Deere also routinely makes repair difficult and costly through the act of software locks, obnoxious DRM restrictions, and “[parts pairing][7]” — which involves only allowing the installation of company-certified replacement parts — or mandatory collections of company-blessed components.

More recently, the company had been striking [meaningless “memorandums of understanding”][8] with key trade groups, pinky swearing to stop their bad behavior if the groups agree to not support state or federal right to repair legislation. Several such groups backed off their criticism, only to have John Deere continue its monopolistic behavior, the FTC’s [complaint][9] notes.

The annoyance at John Deere’s behavior has driven a broad, bipartisan movement that’s in very vocal support for state and federal guidelines enshrining “right to repair” protections into law. Unfortunately, while [all fifty states have at least flirted with the idea][10] of a state law, only Massachusetts, New York, Texas, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oregon, and Washington have actually passed laws.

And among those, **not one** has taken any substantive action to actually enforce the new law, something that needs to change if the movement is to obtain and retain meaningful policy momentum.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/28/biden-praises-right-to-repair-as-john-deere-hit-with-two-fresh-repair-lawsuits/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2021/02/23/john-deere-promised-to-back-off-monopolizing-repair-it-then-ignored-that-promise-completely/
[3]: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-states-sue-deere-company-protect-farmers-unfair-corporate-tactics-high-repair-costs
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/02/wsj-lobbyists-easily-destroyed-any-semi-serious-antitrust-enforcers-left-in-maga/
[5]: https://www.wired.com/story/john-deere-is-paying-farmers-99-million-for-allegedly-monopolizing-repair/
[6]: https://www.deere.com/en/news/all-news/illinois-supporting-customers/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/21/despite-some-progress-ifixit-says-apples-dedication-to-right-to-repair-still-sucks/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/24/american-farm-bureau-continues-to-sell-out-farmers-on-meaningful-right-to-repair-reform/
[9]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/DeereCoREDACTEDComplaintCaseNo325-cv-50017.pdf
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/10/all-50-states-have-now-pushed-right-to-repair-laws-but-actual-enforcement-is-spotty-at-best/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/14/john-deere-pays-99-million-to-settle-right-to-repair-class-action/

Techdirt Podcast Episode 450: Infrastructure For The New Private ...

2026-04-14T20:30:56Z

Techdirt Podcast Episode 450: Infrastructure For The New Private Internet

[Support us on Patreon »][1]

As we work our way towards a better future for the internet, the most encouraging and exciting part is the people out there building towards that future. Kickstarter founder [Yancey Strickler][2] is one such person, and his new company [Metalabel][3] has some extremely interesting projects in the works, including the [Dark Forest Operating System][4]. This week, Yancey joins the podcast to talk all about [his projects and their role in building a better internet][5].

You can also [download this episode directly][6] in MP3 format.

*Follow the Techdirt Podcast on [Soundcloud][7], subscribe via [Apple Podcasts][8] or [Spotify][9], or grab the [RSS feed][10]. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes [right here on Techdirt][11].*

[1]: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=4450624&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Ftechdirt
[2]: https://www.ystrickler.com/
[3]: https://www.metalabel.com/?ref=ystrickler.com
[4]: https://www.dfos.com
[5]: https://soundcloud.com/techdirt/infrastructure-for-the-new
[6]: https://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/2302623827-techdirt-infrastructure-for-the-new.mp3
[7]: https://soundcloud.com/techdirt
[8]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/techdirt/id940871872?mt=2
[9]: https://open.spotify.com/show/6qXCFL3MjSpiD8O0pZgcsi
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/podcast.xml
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/podcast/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/14/techdirt-podcast-episode-450-infrastructure-for-the-new-private-internet/

438 Experts Said Age Verification Is Dangerous. Legislators Are ...

2026-04-14T18:10:13Z

438 Experts Said Age Verification Is Dangerous. Legislators Are Moving Forward With It Anyway.

In early March, 438 security and privacy researchers from 32 countries [signed a massive open letter][1] warning that age verification mandates for the internet are technically impossible to get right, easy to circumvent, a serious threat to privacy and security, and likely to cause more harm than good. While many folks (including us at Techdirt) have been calling out similar problems with age verification, this was basically a ton of experts all teaming up to call out how dangerous the technology is — by any reasonable measure, a hugely significant collective statement from the scientific community on an active area of internet regulation.

It got about a day of [press coverage][2], and then legislators everywhere went right back to doing the thing the scientists just told them was dangerous.

Since the letter was published, Idaho [signed a law mandating parental consent and age verification for social media][3]. Missouri [moved forward with age verification measures for minors using social media and AI chatbots][4]. Greece [announced plans to ban teens from social media entirely][5]. At least [half of US states][6] have now passed some form of age verification or digital ID law with many others considering similar laws. The European Union continues to push age assurance requirements through various regulatory channels. Australia is trying to get other countries on board with its own social media ban for kids. All of this, proceeding as though hundreds of the world’s foremost experts on security and privacy had said nothing at all.

We’ve been writing about the serious problems with age verification mandates [for years now][7]. The arguments haven’t changed, because the underlying technical realities haven’t changed. But this letter deserves far more attention than it received because of how thoroughly it tears apart every assumption that age verification proponents rely on.

The letter starts by acknowledging what should be obvious: the signatories share the concerns about kids encountering harmful content online. This matters, because the go-to response to any criticism of age verification is to accuse critics of not caring about children. These are hundreds of scientists saying: we care, we’ve studied this, and what you’re proposing will make things worse.

> *We share the concerns about the negative effects that exposure to harmful content online has on children, and we applaud that regulators dedicate time and effort to protect them. However, we fear that, if implemented without careful consideration of the technological hazards and societal impact, the new regulation might cause more harm than good.*

Some will argue that this is meaningless without a proposed “fix” to the problems facing children online, but that’s nonsense. As these experts argue, the focus on age verification and age gating will make things *worse*. It’s the classic “we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this” fallacy dressed up as child protection.

The fact that child safety problems are specific and complex is exactly why simplistic bans and age-gating cause so much damage. And it’s a genuine indictment of our current discourse that refusing to embrace a non-solution somehow gets read as not caring about the problem itself.

From there, the letter walks through the actual problems with these commonly proposed solutions in a level of detail that should be mandatory reading for any legislator voting on these laws. (It almost certainly won’t be, but we can dream.)

First, the biggest problem: these systems are ridiculously easy to circumvent. This point gets hand-waved away constantly by politicians who seem to think that because something sounds like it should work, it must. The scientists have a different view, grounded in actual evidence from actual deployments:

> *There is ample evidence from existing deployments that lying about age is not hard. It can be as easy as using age-verified accounts borrowed from an elder sibling or friend. In fact, there are reported cases of parents helping their children with age circumvention. There is evidence that, shortly after age-based controls appear, markets and services that sell valid accounts or credentials quickly arise. This enables the use of online services deploying age assurance at an affordable price or even for free. This is the case even if the verification is based on government-issued certificates, as shown by the ease with which fake vaccination certificates could be acquired during the COVID pandemic*

We just recently talked about the evidence in Australia showing that a huge percentage of kids have [simply learned how to get around][8] age gates. Australia’s biggest accomplishment: teaching kids how to cheat the system.

The letter makes a point that almost never appears in the legislative debates: The threat model for age verification is fundamentally broken because the people building these systems assume the only adversary is a teenager. But since every adult internet user will also be subjected to these checks, and many adults will not want to submit to this kind of surveillance, we’re going to be creating huge incentives for adults to get around these age checks as well, meaning that new industries (some likely to be pretty sketchy) will arise to help people of all ages avoid this kind of surveillance. And that, alone, will make it easier for everyone (kids and adults) to bypass age gates (though in a way that will likely make many people less safe overall):

> *As its main goal is to restrict the activities of children, it is common to believe that the only adversary is minors trying to bypass age verification. Yet, age verification mechanisms also apply to adults that will have to prove their age in many of their routine online interactions, to access services or to keep them away from children-specific web spaces. As these checks will jeopardize their online experience, adults will have incentives to create means to bypass them both for their own use or to monetize the bypass. Thus, it is foreseeable that an increase in the deployment of age assurance will result in growing availability of circumvention mechanisms, reducing its effectiveness.*

The circumvention problem alone should be enough to give legislators pause. But the letter goes further, addressing what happens to people who *can’t* circumvent the systems, or who try to and end up worse off.

One of the strongest sections addresses the perverse safety consequences. Deplatforming minors from mainstream services doesn’t make them stop using the internet. It pushes them toward less regulated, less secure alternatives where the risks are dramatically higher, and where these services care less about actually taking steps to protect kids:

> *If minors or adults are deplatformed via age-related bans, they are likely to migrate to find similar services. Since the main platforms would all be regulated, it is likely that they would migrate to fringe sites that escape regulation. This would not only negate any benefit of the age-based controls but also expose users to other dangers, such as scams or malware that are monitored in mainstream platforms but exist on smaller providers. Even if users do not move platforms, attempting circumvention to access mainstream services from a jurisdiction that does not mandate age assurance might also increase their risk. For example, free VPN providers might not follow secure practices or might monetize users’ data (especially non-EU providers that are not subject to data protection obligations), and websites accessed in other jurisdictions through VPNs would not provide the user with the data protection standards and rights which are guaranteed in the EU.*

And as we keep explaining: age verification makes adults *think* they’ve “made the internet safe,” which creates all sorts of downstream problems — including failing to teach young people how to navigate the internet safely, while doing nothing to address the actual threats. As the letter notes, it creates a false sense of security:

> *The promise of children-specific services that serve as safe spaces is unrealizable with current technology. This means that children might become exposed to predators who infiltrate these spaces, either via circumvention or acquisition of false credentials that allow them to pose as minors in a verifiable way.*

So the system designed to “protect the children” could end up creating verified hunting grounds for predators, while simultaneously pushing kids who get locked out of mainstream platforms toward sketchy fringe sites.

Some child safety measure.

The privacy concerns are equally serious. Age verification mandates give online services a justification — indeed, a *legal requirement* — to collect far more personal data than they currently do. The letter notes that age estimation and age inference technologies are “highly privacy-invasive” and “rely on the collection and processing of sensitive, private data such as biometrics, or behavioural or contextual information.”

And this data will leak. It always does. The letter points [to a concrete example][9]: 70,000 users had their government ID photos exposed after appealing age assessment errors on Discord. That’s what happens when you force the creation of massive centralized databases of sensitive identity information. You create targets.

The most alarming part of the letter is the one that gets the least discussion: centralization of power. The scientists warn, bluntly, that age verification infrastructure doubles as censorship infrastructure:

> *Those deciding which age-based controls need to exist, and those enforcing them gain a tremendous influence on what content is accessible to whom on the internet. Recall that age assurance checks might go well beyond what is regulated in the offline world and set up an infrastructure to enforce arbitrary attribute-based policies online. In the wrong hands, such as an authoritarian government, this influence could be used to censor information and prevent users from accessing services, for example, preventing access to LGBTQ+ content. Centralizing access to the internet easily leads to internet shutdowns, as seen recently in Iran. If enforcement happens at the browser or operating system level, the manufacturers of this software would gain even more control to make decisions on what content is accessible on the Internet. This would enable primarily big American companies to control European citizens’ access to the internet.*

This should be the part that makes everyone uncomfortable, regardless of their political orientation.

This brings us to what is already happening to real people right now.

A recent article in The Verge details how age verification systems are creating serious, [specific harms for trans internet users][10]. Kansas passed a law invalidating trans people’s driver’s licenses and IDs overnight, requiring them to obtain new IDs with incorrect gender markers. Combine that with age verification laws requiring digital identity checks, and you get exactly the kind of discriminatory exclusion the scientists warned about:

> *“These systems are specifically designed to look for discrepancies, and they’re going to find them,” said Kayyali. “If you are a woman and anyone on the street would say ‘that’s a woman,’ but that’s not what your ID says, that’s a discrepancy.” The danger of these discrepancies extends not just to trans people, but to [anyone else][11] whose [appearance doesn’t match][12] normative gendered expectations.*
>
> *“A lot of age estimation systems are built on a combination of anthropological sex markers and skin texture. This means they fall over and provide inaccurate results when faced with people whose markers and skin texture, well, don’t match,” explains Keyes. For example, one of the most prominent markers algorithms measure to determine sex is the brow ridge. “Suppose you have a trans man on HRT and a trans woman on HRT, the former with low brow ridges and rougher skin, the latter with high ridges and softer skin,” Keyes explains. “The former is likely to have their age overestimated; the latter, underestimated.”*

So you have biometric systems that are specifically designed to flag discrepancies between someone’s appearance and their identity documents. And you have a government that is deliberately creating discrepancies in trans people’s identity documents. The result is predictable and ugly: trans people get locked out, flagged, forced to out themselves, or simply blocked from accessing services that everyone else uses freely.

Most of these verification systems are black boxes with no meaningful appeal process. The laws themselves are written with deliberately vague language requiring platforms to verify age through “a commercially available database” or “any other commercially reasonable method,” with nothing about transparency, accuracy, or redress for people who get wrongly flagged or excluded.

And in many of these laws, the definitions of content “harmful to children” are flexible enough to encompass LGBTQ+ communities, information about birth control, and whatever else a given administration decides it doesn’t like. As one of Techdirt’s favorite technology and speech lawyers, Kendra Albert, noted to The Verge:

> *“I think it’s fair to say that if you look at the history of obscenity in the US and what’s considered explicit material, stuff with queer and trans material is much more likely to be considered sexually explicit even though it’s not. You may be in a circumstance where sites with more content about queer and trans people are more likely to face repercussions for not implementing appropriate age-gating or being tagged as explicit.”*

So to summarize: the age verification infrastructure being built across the world (1) doesn’t actually work to keep kids from accessing content, (2) pushes kids toward less safe alternatives, (3) creates verified “safe spaces” that predators can infiltrate, (4) forces massive collection of sensitive personal data that will inevitably leak, (5) creates infrastructure purpose-built for censorship and authoritarian control, (6) systematically discriminates against trans people, people of color, the elderly, immigrants, and anyone whose appearance doesn’t match neat bureaucratic categories, (7) concentrates enormous power over internet access in the hands of governments and a handful of tech companies, and (8) lacks any scientific evidence that it will actually improve children’s mental health or safety.

Seems like a problem.

And 438 scientists from 32 countries put their names on a letter saying so. The letter closes with this:

> *We believe that ****it is dangerous and socially unacceptable**** to introduce a large-scale access control mechanism without a clear understanding of the implications that different design decisions can have on security, privacy, equality, and ultimately on the freedom of decision and autonomy of individuals and nations.*

“Dangerous and socially unacceptable.” That isn’t just me being dramatic. That’s the considered, collective judgment of hundreds of researchers whose professional expertise is specifically in the systems being deployed.

Meanwhile, the laws keep passing. Nobody seems to have bothered asking the scientists. Or, more accurately, the scientists volunteered their expertise in the most public way possible, and everyone in a position to act on it decided that the political appeal of “protecting the children” was more important than whether the proposed method of protection actually protects children, or whether it creates a sprawling new infrastructure for surveillance, discrimination, and censorship that will be almost impossible to dismantle once it’s built.

The scientists’ letter called for studying the benefits and harms of age verification before mandating it at internet scale. That seems like a comically low bar. “Maybe understand whether this works before requiring it everywhere” shouldn’t be a controversial position. And yet here we are, with legislators around the world charging ahead, building systems that security experts have told them are broken, in pursuit of goals that the evidence says these systems can’t achieve, at a cost to privacy, security, equality, and freedom that nobody in a position of power seems interested in calculating.

[1]: https://csa-scientist-open-letter.org/ageverif-Feb2026
[2]: https://www.politico.eu/article/age-check-social-media-scientist-warning/
[3]: https://localnews8.com/news/2026/04/10/new-idaho-law-mandates-parental-consent-and-age-verification-for-social-media/
[4]: https://missouriindependent.com/2026/03/24/missouri-lawmakers-eye-age-verification-measures-for-minors-using-social-media-chatbots/
[5]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/world/europe/greece-social-media-teens.html
[6]: https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/age-verification-bills/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/age-verification/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/20/australias-teen-social-media-ban-is-just-training-a-generation-in-the-art-of-the-workaround/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/07/another-day-another-age-verification-data-breach-discords-third-party-partner-leaked-government-ids/
[10]: https://www.theverge.com/policy/892075/age-verification-kansas-id-trans
[11]: https://www.advocate.com/news/lesbian-mistaken-transgender-arizona-walmart
[12]: https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/bathroom-transphobia-butch-women

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/14/438-experts-said-age-verification-is-dangerous-legislators-are-moving-forward-with-it-anyway/

Daily Deal: The 2026 Complete Godot Stack Development Bundle Dive ...

2026-04-14T18:05:52Z

Daily Deal: The 2026 Complete Godot Stack Development Bundle

Dive into Godot – a rising star in the game engine world – with the [2026 Complete Godot Stack Development Bundle][1]. You’ll learn to create platformers, RPGs, strategy games, FPS games, and more as you master this free and open-source engine with easily expandable systems. Plus, you’ll also explore techniques for game design and game asset creation – giving you the ultimate techniques to customize your projects. It’s on sale for $25.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-2024-complete-godot-stack-development-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/14/daily-deal-the-2026-complete-godot-stack-development-bundle/

Trump Invites More Criminal Acts By Promising Pardons To Everyone ...

2026-04-14T16:27:43Z

Trump Invites More Criminal Acts By Promising Pardons To Everyone Who Works For Him

If you’re not corrupt, you generally don’t have to say certain things.

Let’s take a look at ex-NYC mayor Eric Adams who, while dealing with plenty of corruption investigations and allegations, protested his innocence by saying stuff no one who wasn’t hip deep in corruption [would ever say][1]:

> *“Investigators have not indicated to us the mayor or his staff are targets of any investigation,” the mayor’s chief counsel, Lisa Zornberg, said in a statement. “As a former member of law enforcement, **the mayor has repeatedly made clear that all members of the team need to follow the law**.”*

This isn’t something that’s nuanced or complex. Most people in any supervisory position *never* need to tell their subordinates to *not break the law*. It’s the lowest of low bars that doesn’t even deserve comment, much less “repeatedly.” On the rare occasion that someone *does* break the law, you may want to reinforce this concept.

But this statement suggests a lot of people working for the mayor really wanted to break the law, but were perhaps occasionally deterred by the “repeated” reminder that breaking the law wasn’t acceptable. Not that this repeated reminder worked. [Plenty of people][2] in Mayor Adams’ orbit were subjects of law enforcement investigations. So, this exhortation seems less like a deterrent and more like the laziest form of plausible deniability.

Which brings us to Trump, [who is saying things no one who generally expects officials][3] in his administration to get through their careers without breaking laws would ever need to say.

> *President [Trump][4] has repeatedly promised his top administration officials pardons before he leaves office, according to people who have heard his comments.*
>
> *“I’ll pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval,” Trump said in a recent meeting to laughs, according to people with knowledge of the comments. That radius appears to be expanding as the president repeats the line. Another person who met with Trump earlier this year said the president quipped about pardoning anyone who had come within 10 feet.*
>
> *In one conversation with advisers in the dining room next to the Oval Office last year, Trump said he would host a news conference and announce mass pardons before he left office, some of the people said.*

It’s not just a question of “why would you say that?” It’s also a question of “why would you *feel the need* to say that?”

We already know Trump isn’t afraid to use his pardon powers to reward supporters and financial benefactors. His mass pardon of [January 6 insurrectionists][5] was startling in its transparent self-interest. Trump now appears to be offering pre-emptive pardons, which is only going to encourage his officials to break more laws and engage in more open corruption, now that they’ve been assured they’ll never be punished for it.

Of course, the White House front mouth has applied some spin to a statement Trump [has already made at least twice][6]:

> *“The Wall Street Journal should learn to take a joke, however, the President’s pardon power is absolute,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said. *

That deflection is just as damning as Trump’s own statements. Even if he’s just making a joke (something that’s almost impossible to believe since Trump seems incapable of humor, much less self-deprecating humor), it’s an incredibly stupid joke to make when he’s already abused this power to pardon a group of people who committed federal crimes in hopes of illegally elevating him to the position of president *despite* losing the election.

This “it’s just a joke” deflection is further undercut by the press secretary’s next words: Trump’s “pardon power is absolute.” That says that even if Trump isn’t joking, these pardons are going to happen and no one can stop them from happening.

That’s what really matters here. Trump has nothing to fear from anyone. The Supreme Court has already blessed a lot of his theories of absolute executive power. The only thing stopping Trump from pardoning people who commit crimes on his behalf is shame, and he’s entirely devoid of that human quality.

We can already see the scorched earth this political party will leave behind if it’s forced from office in the next election. All we can hope is that Trump fails to follow through with his pardon threat, allowing a bunch of loyalists to be punished for his actions. And that end result is all but assured. Trump has fired plenty of loyalists and yet still has people willing to be thrown under the bus for the cause. Wait, that’s not entirely accurate. Trump is surrounded by loyalists who are willing to ask where each bus is located and when they should lie down under the wheels.

Of course, this is all win-win for Trump. If he doesn’t pardon anyone, those punished for enabling him will be treated as martyrs. And if he does wipe the slate clean as he exits the Oval Office, he’ll once again escape the accountability that is supposed to come with the position. Given what’s been said by Trump, I’d expect his underlings to amp up their illegal efforts. When you have nothing to lose but your soul, it makes sense to sell it while it’s still a seller’s market.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/26/nypd-nyc-govt-continue-freefall-as-top-cop-resigns-following-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/10/nyc-mayor-eric-adams-ex-cop-city-hall-buddies-spent-most-of-last-week-getting-raided-by-the-fbi/
[3]: https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-promises-mass-pardons-to-staff-before-leaving-office-d7274d32
[4]: https://archive.ph/o/TpLqO/https://www.wsj.com/topics/person/donald-trump
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2021/01/07/politics-is-not-game/
[6]: https://archive.ph/TpLqO#selection-931.0-931.163:~:text=%E2%80%9Cthe%20wall%20street%20journal%20should%20learn%20to%20take%20a%20joke%2C%20however%2C%20the%20president%E2%80%99s%20pardon%20power%20is%20absolute%2C%E2%80%9D%20karoline%20leavitt%2C%20the%20white%20house%20press%20secretary%2C%20said.%20

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/14/trump-invites-more-criminal-acts-by-promising-pardons-to-everyone-who-works-for-him/

1,000+ Hollywood Insiders Write Letter Opposing Paramount/Warner ...

2026-04-14T12:31:07Z

1,000+ Hollywood Insiders Write Letter Opposing Paramount/Warner Bros Merger

More than 1,000 top Hollywood professionals ranging from Glenn Close to Denis Villeneuve have signed off on [a new letter][1] opposing the merger between Larry Ellison’s Paramount/CBS and Warner Brothers, warning that the massive $111 billion deal will result in unprecedented layoffs at a time when Hollywood, and American consumers, are already reeling from layoffs and higher costs.

“This transaction would further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape, reducing competition at a moment when our industries—and the audiences we serve—can least afford it,” the authors wrote. “The result will be fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences in the United States and around the world. Alarmingly, this merger would reduce the number of major U.S. film studios to just four.”

As we’ve [noted previously][2], the massive combined debt created between the Skydance/CBS merger and the upcoming Warner Brothers merger would cause unprecedented layoffs across Hollywood, despite David Ellison’s [repeated false claims][3] to the contrary.

As we’ve seen with similar mergers (including [every big merger Warner has ever been involved with][4]) the pointless consolidation is also guaranteed to raise prices, erode media diversity, degrade journalism, and result in an overall lower quality product. That’s before you even get to the perils of [Saudi and Chinese financing][5], or Larry Ellison’s [ideological ties to the Donald Trump authoritarian movement][6].

*Warner meme: creator unknown*

Ellison’s [over-extension on AI][7], and the unprecedented debt load from his media ambitions, could easily combine to result in financial headaches that would make past Warner Brothers mergers, including the disastrous AT&T ownership period, seem quaint.

With Trump corruption ensuring no meaningful federal review of the deal (despite [ongoing pretense][8] by his DOJ), the most likely avenue for a blockade of the deal would come courtesy of a lawsuit by a coalition of states attorneys general, likely led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“We are grateful for their leadership, and stand ready to support all efforts to preserve competition, protect jobs, and ensure a vibrant future for our industry, for American culture, and for our single most significant export,” the authors note.

[1]: https://blockthemerger.com/openletter
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/06/the-double-whammy-of-the-cbs-warner-brothers-mergers-will-be-a-layoff-nightmare/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/31/david-ellison-pretends-he-wont-fire-half-of-reeling-hollywood-if-pointless-warner-bros-merger-is-approved/
[4]: https://www.theverge.com/podcast/896694/paramount-warner-bros-discovery-david-ellison-netflix-deal-merger
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/dems-urge-probe-of-saudi-chinese-money-backing-the-ellisons-warner-bros-acquisition/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/21/bari-weiss-gets-to-work-fixing-cbs-bias-by-making-it-more-biased/
[7]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/larry-ellison-oracle-slashing-thousands-191140318.html
[8]: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/27/wbd-paramount-doj-subpoenas-antitrust-probe.html

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/14/1000-hollywood-insiders-write-letter-opposing-paramount-warner-bros-merger/

Oh God: RFK Jr. Unveils Plan To Be First Sitting Cabinet ...

2026-04-14T03:14:32Z

Oh God: RFK Jr. Unveils Plan To Be First Sitting Cabinet Secretary To Host A Podcast

With all that [RFK Jr.][1] has done, and failed to do, as the Secretary of HHS, he should be terribly busy cleaning up mess after mess. The [measles outbreak][2] that is going to cause America to lose its elimination status is still ongoing and on pace [to quadruple last year’s case total][3], so he could work on that. He could be busy finding a CDC Director, a position [left vacant][4] well beyond the federally mandated limit of 210 days. Or a [Surgeon General][5]. Or he could be working to undo the [harms and effects][6] of the misinformation that he and Trump have been pumping into the media ecosystem.

But it seems that, despite reporting that the White House wants to [rein him in][7] so he doesn’t get the GOP murdered in the midterms, Kennedy has instead decided its time to make history as the first sitting cabinet secretary [to host his very own podcast][8].

> *The show, titled “The Secretary Kennedy Podcast,” will launch next week and feature Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine crusader who has reshaped the country’s health policy, in conversation with doctors, scientists and agency staff, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials told the AP ahead of the launch. In the teaser video, in a slick HHS-branded studio with ominous music playing in the background, Kennedy bills it as a new way to expose corruption and lies that have made Americans sick.*
>
> *“We’re going to name the names of the forces that obstruct the paths to public health,” Kennedy says in the nearly 90-second clip.*

We all know where this is going. Before entering into government, Kennedy [hosted his own podcast previously][9]. It covered such sane topics as:

1. Google and Mind Control
2. Vaccines During Pregnancy (featuring anti-vaxxer Lyn Redwood)
3. EMR, Cell Phones, & Cancer
4. IRS: Pro-Pharma Anti-Health
5. Censorship & Twitter Files with Matt Taibbi

So, you know, a conspiracy theory podcast, featuring all of Kennedy’s favorite topics. Anyone looking at this podcast as a source of information is clinically insane. This is just another megaphone through which to growl his anti-science, anti-medicine conspiratorial views. That he is making history in doing so when he has far better things he could be doing is simply the rotten cherry on top of this shit sundae.

> *Tyler Burger, HHS digital communications manager and the producer of the new podcast, said while Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary has a podcast, officials believe Kennedy’s will be the first to be hosted by a sitting cabinet secretary.*
>
> *“We’re kind of bringing podcasting into the government as an official form and arm of our messaging,” Burger said. He said the set for the show was pieced together largely with items the agency already had, and has the capacity for a total of four people to sit in conversation together.*

While I appreciate Kennedy for giving me what will surely be much, much more about which to write, there is danger in this. You can be sure that Kennedy will not be inviting dissenting viewpoints onto his show. Anyone coming across it, with the imprimatur of a sitting Secretary as its host, may fall victim to thinking that what is being presented is official federal policy, the viewpoints of real doctors and scientists, or… you know… *sane*.

It won’t be any of that. I sincerely hope someone in the White House catches wind of this and puts a stop to it. Sadly, I doubt that is forthcoming.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/rfk-jr/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/measles/
[3]: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/it-appears-rfk-jr-is-having-trouble-finding-anyone-to-take-the-cdc-director-job/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/the-casey-means-surgeon-general-nomination-appears-to-be-in-trouble/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/09/real-consequences-trumps-bullshit-claim-about-tylenol-is-seeing-real-world-results/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/23/trump-administration-tries-to-rein-in-rfk-jr-as-a-midterms-liability/
[8]: https://apnews.com/article/rfk-jr-kennedy-podcast-hhs-secretary-trump-d097d0f51a17618d78d2f2a15a068ba5
[9]: https://open.spotify.com/show/30DqNXrHLKzz4xzmoty6xf

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/13/oh-god-rfk-jr-unveils-plan-to-be-first-sitting-cabinet-secretary-to-host-a-podcast/

The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction For Drones Is A ...

2026-04-13T22:12:57Z

The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction For Drones Is A Blatant Attempt To Criminalize Filming ICE

The Trump administration has restricted the First Amendment right to record law enforcement by issuing an unprecedented [nationwide flight restriction][1] preventing private drone operators, including professional and citizen journalists, from flying drones within half a mile of any ICE or CBP vehicle.

In January, EFF and media organizations including *The New York Times* and *The Washington Post* responded to this blatant infringement of the First Amendment by [demanding that the FAA lift this flight restriction][2]. Over two months later, we’re still waiting for the FAA to respond to our letter.

The First Amendment guarantees the [right to record][3] law enforcement. As we have seen with the extrajudicial killings of [George Floyd][4], [Renée Good][5], and [Alex Pretti][6], capturing law enforcement on camera can drive accountability and raise awareness of police misconduct.

### **A 21-Month Long “Temporary” Flight Restriction?**

The FAA regularly issues temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) to prevent people from flying into designated airspace. TFRs are [usually][7] [issued][8] during natural disasters, or to protect major sporting events and government officials like the president, and in most cases last mere hours.

Not so with the restriction numbered [FDC 6/4375, which started on January 16, 2026.][9] This TFR lasts for [21 months][10]—until October 29, 2027—and covers the *entire nation*. It prevents any person from flying any unmanned aircraft (i.e., a drone) within 3000 feet, measured horizontally, of any of the “facilities and mobile assets,” including “ground vehicle convoys and their associated escorts,” of the Departments of Defense, Energy, Justice, and Homeland Security. Violators can be subject to criminal and civil penalties, and risk having their drones seized or destroyed.

In practical terms, this TFR means that anyone flying their drone within a half mile of an ICE or CBP agent’s car (a DHS “mobile asset”) is liable to face criminal charges and have their drone shot down. The practical unfairness of this TFR is underscored by the fact that immigration agents often use [unmarked rental cars][11], use cars [without license plates][12], or [switch][13] the license plates of their cars to carry out their operations. Nor do they provide prior warning of those operations.

### **The TFR is an Unconstitutional Infringement of Free Speech**

While the FAA asserts that the TFR is grounded in its lawful authority, the flight restriction not only violates multiple constitutional rights, but also the agency’s own regulations.

**First Amendment violation.** As we highlighted in the letter, nearly every federal appeals court has recognized the First Amendment right of Americans to record law enforcement officers performing their official duties. By subjecting drone operators to criminal and civil penalties, along with the potential destruction or seizure of their drone, the TFR punishes—without the required justifications—lawful recording of law enforcement officers, including immigration agents.

**Fifth Amendment violation.** The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to due process, which includes being given fair notice before being deprived of liberty or property by the government. Under the flight restriction, advanced notice isn’t even possible. As discussed above, drone operators can’t know whether they are within 3000 horizontal feet of unmarked DHS vehicles. Yet the TFR allows the government to capture or even shoot down a drone if it flies within the TFR radius, and to impose criminal and civil penalties on the operator.

**Violations of FAA regulations.** In issuing a TFR, the FAA’s own regulations require the agency to [“specify[] the hazard or condition requiring”][14] the restriction. Furthermore, the FAA must provide accredited news representatives with a point of contact to obtain permission to fly drones within the restricted area. The FAA has satisfied neither of these requirements in issuing its nationwide ban on drones getting near government vehicles.

### **EFF Demands Rescission of the TFR**

We don’t believe it’s a coincidence that the TFR was put in place in January 2026, at the height of the Minneapolis anti-ICE protests, shortly after the killing of Renée Good and shortly before the shooting of Alex Pretti. After both of those tragedies, civilian recordings played a vital role in contradicting the government’s false account of the events.

By punishing civilians for recording federal law enforcement officers, the TFR helps to shield ICE and other immigration agents from scrutiny and accountability. It also discourages the exercise of a key First Amendment right. EFF has long advocated for the right to record the police, and exercising that right today is more important than ever.

Finally, while recording law enforcement is protected by the First Amendment, be aware that officers may retaliate against you for exercising this right. Please refer to [our guidance][15] on safely recording law enforcement activities.

*Republished from the [EFF’s Deeplinks blog][16].*

[1]: https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_4375
[2]: https://medialaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/01.28.26faa.pdf
[3]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/yes-you-have-right-film-ice
[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007159353/george-floyd-arrest-death-video.html
[5]: https://www.fox9.com/video/fmc-ftqi85b077jb7moh
[6]: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010668660/new-video-analysis-reveals-flawed-and-fatal-decisions-in-shooting-of-pretti.html
[7]: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/temporary_flight_restrictions
[8]: https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/airspace/alerts/notams-and-tfrs/temporary-flight-restrictions/
[9]: https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_4375
[10]: https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=list
[11]: https://www.wired.com/story/confessions-of-the-ice-agent-whisperer/
[12]: https://www.npr.org/2025/10/28/nx-s1-5587653/trump-administration-relying-on-unmarked-vehicles-in-immigration-enforcement
[13]: https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/state/2025/12/05/agency-confirms-ice-agents-are-swapping-out-license-plates-in-illinois/87610451007/
[14]: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title14-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title14-vol2-sec91-137.pdf
[15]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/yes-you-have-right-film-ice
[16]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/faas-temporary-flight-restriction-drones-blatant-attempt-criminalize-filming-ice

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/13/the-faas-temporary-flight-restriction-for-drones-is-a-blatant-attempt-to-criminalize-filming-ice/

DOJ Is Using A Grand Jury To Force Reddit To Unmask An Anonymous ...

2026-04-13T20:05:52Z

DOJ Is Using A Grand Jury To Force Reddit To Unmask An Anonymous User

The government’s reliance on grand juries to bring charges against activists, protesters, and the president’s personal enemies [has been misplaced][1]. Increasingly, grand juries are refusing to give the government what it wants: rubber-stamped indictments that will allow it to move forward with vindictive prosecutions.

But there’s still something grand juries offer that regular courts can’t: secrecy. If the government doesn’t want the public to know how it’s building cases, it’s best bet to drag everyone involved in front of a grand jury whose secrecy can’t easily be pierced without a concerted effort by involved parties and the assistance of sympathetic judges.

There’s a good reason the government doesn’t want the public to know what it’s doing [in this case detailed by Ryan Devereaux for The Intercept][2]. There’s some shady stuff happening here, along with some incredibly incompetent stuff.

> *According to a subpoena obtained by The Intercept, Reddit has until April 14 to provide a wide range of personal data on one of its users, whom U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have been trying unsuccessfully to identify for more than a month.*

That’s the brief summation. The details, however, make this whole thing look sketch as fuck. Reddit received the first demand for this user’s data on March 4. Two days later, it informed the user that the government was seeking this information. The Reddit user secured legal representation from the Civil Liberties Defense Center.

The user’s lawyers looked through the targeted account and couldn’t find anything that might be considered criminal.

> *Commenting on a Minnesota Star Tribune [article][3], another Reddit user posted that Ross might be welcomed as a hero in Florida or Texas. John Doe responded by sharing that Ross had lived in Chaska, Minnesota; grew up in Indiana; and served in the Indiana National Guard — biographical details that were circulating widely at the time. “Hopefully he moves up to Stillwater State Penitentiary,” they wrote.*
>
> *In another post, a Reddit user asked what they should write on an anti-ICE protest sign. John Doe suggested the lyrics to a [song][4]: “Urine speaks louder than words.” In a third instance, Doe wrote, “TSA sucks and we all know it.” According to the Reddit user’s attorneys, these were the most aggressive posts they could find.*

While one would hardly expect legal reps to dish out inculpatory information in response to journalist’s questions, the lack of anything possibly law-breaking speaks for itself. The whole thing looks like a fishing expedition by the DOJ on behalf of ICE — something that’s confirmed by the administrative subpoena ICE issued in hopes of unmasking this user.

> *In its summons, **ICE indicated the basis for its request was a provision of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930**. John Doe informed the court that they had nothing to do with the kind of activities at issue in the near-century-old statute, which governs boat show sales, wild animal imports, forfeited wines and spirits, and cross-border trade in other goods*.

In case you’ve forgotten, the C in ICE stands for “Customs.” That means whoever “wrote” this subpoena didn’t even care enough to ensure the correct boilerplate was copy-pasted into the subpoena. ICE wants to punish this person for their speech, which it seemingly believes adds up to a federal crime. In support of its demand for user info, it inserted boilerplate pertaining to customs enforcement.

Then again, this might have been intentional laziness. As The Intercept notes, the Trump administration tried to use the same customs statutes to unmask his critics back in 2017. Those efforts were criticized by the still-operable Office of the Inspector General.

ICE withdrew the tariff-related subpoena. Then the DOJ sent another one nearly a month later, this time targeting Reddit itself:

> *This time, instead of requesting information on an individual user, the government ordered Reddit itself to appear before a grand jury — not in California, but in Washington.*
>
> *The request came not from an ICE field agent but rather from a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in D.C., where Reddit has received the highest number of federal law enforcement information requests. The records sought spanned a period roughly three times longer than what ICE had originally requested.*

That’s the backdoor the DOJ is trying to use. It can’t get the stuff it thinks will generate an indictment via the usual Smoot-Hawley whatever the fuck. And since it’s not interested in seeking an actual warrant (which would require judicial review) to compel Reddit to produce user data and information, it’s hoping it can accomplish the same thing in a secret court far away from anything resembling an adversarial process, much less the watchful eyes of a federal judge.

That’s the Department of Justice deliberately routing around a crucial part of the justice system in hopes of securing ill-gotten “wins” against critics of Trump, his policies, and his administration in general. With any luck, this attempt won’t work because it’s been exposed. But rest assured, this administration will never stop trying to bypass the systems of checks and balances that might occasionally prevent it from doing whatever it wants.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/welcome-to-the-resistance-grand-juries/
[2]: https://theintercept.com/2026/04/10/reddit-ice-protest-grand-jury/
[3]: https://www.startribune.com/ice-agent-who-fatally-shot-woman-in-minneapolis-is-identified/601560214
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqspLGPrHw

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/13/doj-is-using-a-grand-jury-to-force-reddit-to-unmask-an-anonymous-user/

Section 230 Is Dying By A Thousand Workarounds, And Massachusetts ...

2026-04-13T18:06:08Z

Section 230 Is Dying By A Thousand Workarounds, And Massachusetts Just Added Another One

We’ve been warning for a while now that Section 230 is dying by a thousand legal workarounds rather than a straightforward repeal, and the hits just keep coming. A few weeks ago, I wrote about how [two jury verdicts against Meta in New Mexico and California][1] should scare anyone who cares about the open internet, even if the instinct to cheer them on is understandable given how terrible Meta has been. Those verdicts adopted a legal theory that re-frames editorial decisions about how to present user-generated content as “product design” choices outside the scope of Section 230, functionally making the law irrelevant.

Now, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has gone even further. In a [unanimous ruling in Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc.][2], the state’s highest court has denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the state attorney general’s lawsuit, holding that Section 230 does not bar claims that Meta designed Instagram to be addictive to children, lied to the public about the platform’s safety, failed to properly age-gate underage users, and created a public nuisance. The court’s reasoning provides a clean, easily replicable template for any plaintiff anywhere to plead around Section 230, and it does so by mangling the statute’s text and ignoring key words while drawing a distinction between “content” and “content presentation” that collapses under even the slightest scrutiny.

Once again, since this always needs to be said in all of the articles about these rulings: Meta is a terrible company. It has spent years making terrible decisions. I don’t trust the company to make the right decisions even if only correct decisions were presented to it. Mark Zuckerberg deserves zero benefit of the doubt. But as I said last time, the legal theories being used to go after Meta here will not stay confined to Meta. They will be used against every website, every search engine, every forum, every email provider, and every small platform that makes any decision about how to present user-generated content. That’s what makes this ruling so dangerous.

Professor Eric Goldman, who has been tracking these cases [more closely than perhaps anyone][3], put it bluntly:

> *This is not a good opinion for Section 230 on several dimensions.*
>
> *First, as a state supreme court decision, it’s the final word for the Massachusetts state court system (unless the US Supreme Court intervenes). It provides a major beachhead for other courts to follow, both within Massachusetts and beyond.*
>
> *Second, this court didn’t rely on the Lemmon “design defect” workaround. Instead, it said that the claim doesn’t relate to third-party content unless it’s based on the substance of the third-party content. This provides plaintiffs with another avenue to work around Section 230 in addition to the Lemmon/design defect workaround that other courts are accepting (even if they shouldn’t).*
>
> *Third, as I explained, I don’t see any distinction between third-party content and the editorial choices about the manner of presenting that third-party content. By embracing that false dichotomy, the court invites plaintiffs to reframe their complaints to focus on content presentation instead of substance.*

That last point is the most important part of the whole ruling. The court has now handed plaintiffs’ lawyers a magic formula: just say you’re suing about the *presentation* of content rather than the *content itself*, and Section 230 vanishes. Goldman lays out the playbook:

> *Here’s how a plaintiff’s argument could look: “I’m not suing about the third-party content, I’m suing about the design choices that elevated that third-party content over others.” These are literally the same thing in my mind. If this argument works, Section 230 is dead because plaintiffs will always embrace that workaround.*

Looking at the court’s actual reasoning, things get messy fast.

Massachusetts’ complaint alleged that Meta “engaged in unfair business practices by designing the Instagram platform to induce compulsive use by children, engaged in deceptive business practices by deliberately misleading the public about the safety of the platform, and created a public nuisance by engaging in these unfair and deceptive practices.” Meta moved to dismiss on Section 230 grounds. The lower court denied the motion. Meta appealed.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court actually (correctly!) recognized that Section 230 provides immunity from being sued in the first place, not just a defense against paying up at the end. This matters procedurally, because immunity from suit means you get to appeal the denial of your motion to dismiss *before* trial — you don’t have to go through the whole expensive litigation process first and then appeal at the end. The court analyzed the language of Section 230(e)(3), and reached the right conclusion:

> *The plain meaning of “no cause of action may be brought” is that a suit may not be initiated in the first instance and the defendant cannot be forced to litigate the claim.*

Great. The court got the procedural question right. Section 230 provides immunity from suit. Meta gets its interlocutory appeal. The whole point of Section 230, after all, has always been [to get bad cases tossed early][4], before the ruinous expense of discovery and trial.

And then the court proceeded to *deny the immunity anyway*, meaning Meta now has to litigate the entire case on the merits despite supposedly having immunity from suit. The court gave Section 230 its proper procedural dignity with one hand and gutted it substantively with the other. Meta got to appeal early — and lost anyway. Now it faces full litigation on claims that Section 230 was designed to kill at the threshold. The outcome is a complete mess: the court has effectively turned “immunity from suit” into “the right to lose an appeal slightly faster.”

The heart of the court’s logic rests on a distinction between claims that impose liability based on the *content* of third-party information and claims that merely concern *how* that content is presented. To get there, the court engaged in a lengthy analysis of the phrase “treated as the publisher . . . of any information” in Section 230(c)(1), concluding that this phrase requires both a “dissemination element” and a “content element.” In other words, the court held that Section 230 only applies when a claim seeks to hold a platform liable for the *substance* of user-generated content it published — and that claims about design features like infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, and notification systems target the *how* of publishing rather than the *what*, and therefore fall outside Section 230’s protection.

This ignores a long list of precedents — and the explicit statements of Section 230’s authors — establishing that the law was designed to protect platforms from being sued over any editorial decision-making, including how content is presented. To put this in perspective, it’s like saying that someone could sue, say, the evening news based on where they placed a story (top of the show or bottom?) and that the impact of how it was presented is somehow unrelated to the content itself. That makes no sense. But it’s the way this court has interpreted 230.

The court found that with respect to the unfair business practices claim:

> *The challenged design features (e.g., infinite scroll, autoplay, IVR, and ephemeral content) concern how, whether, and for how long information is published, but the published information itself is not the source of the harm alleged. Instead, the claim alleges that the features themselves induce compulsive use independent of the content provided by third-party users.*

Meta tried to point out the obvious problem with this: without user-generated content, these design features don’t do anything harmful. Nobody’s getting addicted to infinite scroll through a feed of nothing. The court waved this away:

> *But the fact that the features require some content to function is not controlling; instead…to satisfy the content element, we look to whether the claim seeks to hold Meta liable for harm stemming from third-party information that it published. Here, the unfair business practices claim does not; the Commonwealth alleges that the features themselves prolong users’ time on the platform, not that any information contained in third-party posts does so. In this sense, the claim is indifferent as to the content published.*

“Indifferent as to the content published.” No matter how many times courts (or media or politicians) make this claim, it never gets any more accurate. As I noted in my earlier piece about the California and New Mexico verdicts: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing? Of course not. Because infinite scroll does nothing without content that makes people want to keep scrolling. The features and the content are inseparable. Saying the claim is “indifferent as to the content published” is a legal fiction, and everyone involved knows it.

Goldman makes this point through a newspaper analogy that’s worth quoting at length:

> *I don’t see any distinction between third-party content and the editorial choices about the manner of presenting that third-party content. By embracing that false dichotomy, the court invites plaintiffs to reframe their complaints to focus on content presentation instead of substance. … As an analogy, consider a dead-trees newspaper’s decision to publish a story: it is equally part of the newspaper’s editorial prerogative and publication decisions to decide to publish the story at all and to decide if the story should appear on the A1 front page or some interior page; what size typeface to use for the story headline; whether the story runs all on the same page or continues on a later page; etc. As applied to Meta, the decision to vary the delivery timing of new third-party content items (as one example) is just as much of Meta’s publication decision-making process about publishing the third-party content as whether the item will be published at all.*

The fallout here goes way beyond just Instagram. A search engine decides to rank certain results higher than others — that’s a “design choice” about content presentation, not about the content itself. A forum uses “newest first” sorting — design choice. An email provider’s spam filter decides what goes to your inbox — design choice. A blog allows comments and displays them in threaded format — design choice. Under this court’s reasoning, all of those are potentially outside Section 230’s protection, because they concern *how* content is presented rather than the content’s substance. Every editorial decision a website makes about the display, ordering, timing, or format of user-generated content is now potentially a “design” claim that evades Section 230.

Especially given that the whole premise of these lawsuits is that these “design choices” are engineered to “addict” users — a claim that none of the cases have actually established as a clinical matter. They show signs of companies trying to make users of their products like and use them more. Which is what basically *every *company does. It’s sort of the nature of business. Should a state AG be able to sue a restaurant because its food was too delicious and people ate too much of it? TV shows end on cliffhangers. Books have page-turning chapter endings. Are those addictive design features subject to state AG enforcement?

There’s another serious problem with the court’s statutory analysis that Goldman flagged, and it’s frankly embarrassing for any court to make, let alone a state supreme court. Section 230(c)(1) says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher **or speaker** of any information provided by another information content provider.” The court spent pages analyzing what “publisher” means, diving into common-law publisher liability, legislative history, and the Cubby/Stratton Oakmont story line. But as Goldman observed:

> *Worse, the court extensively analyzes the word “publisher” but doesn’t say a word about the companion “speaker” term that appears two words later in the statute. This is another indicator of results-oriented decision-making. No matter what the court says “publisher” means, if the court disregards one of the other 26 words that has direct relevance to its meaning, the court is failing its #1 job of reading the damn statute. This omission is extremely embarrassing for the court, and it thoroughly undermines the credibility of the court’s recitation of precedent.*

Whatever narrow common-law meaning you might ascribe to “publisher,” the word “speaker” is right there, broadening the scope. The court just… pretended it wasn’t. When a court conducting what it claims is a careful “plain meaning” analysis of a 26-word clause of the statute at the center of the case manages to ignore one of the operative words, that’s more than a tell. As Goldman noted:

> *When courts decide to review a 1996 statute from scratch in 2026, after over a thousand Section 230 cases have been decided, that’s usually an indicator that they are engaging in results-oriented decision-making, they don’t like the precedent, and they need another way to reach a different result.*

Then there are the deception claims, which the court dispatched with even less effort. Massachusetts alleged that Meta lied to the public about Instagram being safe and not addictive. The court held that because these were Meta’s *own statements*, Section 230 obviously didn’t apply — the statute only protects against liability for third-party content, and Meta’s PR statements are first-party speech.

That much is technically defensible as a Section 230 matter. But the underlying theory has its own problems that the court didn’t bother grappling with. What does it mean for a company to “deceive” the public by saying its product is “safe”? Almost nothing is 100% safe. Cars aren’t perfectly safe. Food isn’t perfectly safe. Playgrounds aren’t perfectly safe. As we’ve [written about before][5], the social media moral panic has systematically confused *risks* with *harms*. Something can carry risks without every user being harmed, and a company saying it takes safety seriously is not a guarantee that no bad outcome will ever occur to any user. If “we prioritize safety” plus “something bad happened to a user” equals fraud, then every tech company, car manufacturer, pharmaceutical firm, and food producer in the country is perpetually liable for “deception.”

Goldman noted that there are “obvious puffery/opinion defenses that could apply here” but weren’t addressed in the Section 230 analysis. That’s true. But the more fundamental problem is that the court’s framing of the deception claims, combined with its evisceration of Section 230’s applicability to the design claims, means *all four counts* now proceed to full litigation. The “public nuisance” claim got even less analysis — a single footnote saying that because the other claims survive Section 230, so does the nuisance claim that’s based on them. Goldman rightfully calls out how weak this is:

> *I’ve previously complained before about courts’ complete undertheorizing of how and why public nuisance claims can apply to social media, and this court doesn’t do any better. In a footnote, here is the court’s entire discussion about Section 230’s application to the public nuisance claim: “Because we conclude that § 230(c)(1) does not bar counts I to III, we also conclude that it does not bar the Commonwealth’s public nuisance claim, which is predicated on the same allegedly unfair and deceptive practices in counts I to III.”*

Put it all together and the picture for Section 230 is bleak.

A few weeks ago, juries in New Mexico and California found Meta liable using the “design defect” workaround — arguing that features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations are product design choices, not editorial decisions about third-party content. Those verdicts relied on the framework from *Lemmon v. Snap*, the somewhat problematic Ninth Circuit case that carved out a design-defect exception to Section 230, and which opened the floodgates to lawsuits like the ones we’re discussing here.

Somewhat oddly, the Massachusetts court explicitly *declined* to follow the Lemmon framework. It developed its own, different workaround: Section 230 only applies when a claim is based on the *substance* of third-party content, and claims about content *presentation* fall outside its scope. This is, as Goldman put it, “another avenue to work around Section 230 in addition to the Lemmon/design defect workaround that other courts are accepting.”

So we now have at least two distinct legal theories for pleading around Section 230, both blessed by courts, both available to any plaintiffs’ lawyer nationwide. And both accomplish the same thing: they take the editorial decisions that platforms make about user-generated content — the decisions that are the very heart of what Section 230 was designed to protect — and reclassify them as something else. “Design choices.” “Content presentation.” “Product features.” Call them whatever you want. The result is that Section 230 protects nothing that matters.

Goldman’s metaphor for all of this is apt:

> *Even if this opinion doesn’t outright eliminate Section 230 in Massachusetts, it’s a sign of how 230 workarounds keep proliferating, contributing to the swiss cheese-ification of Section 230. When the bubbles in the swiss cheese become too large, the cheese wedge lacks structural integrity and falls apart. That is where 230 is heading, if it’s not already there.*

And this brings us to the thing that matters most, the thing that gets overlooked in every one of these cases: **the procedural advantage of Section 230 was always the point.** The whole reason Section 230 exists is to get bad cases thrown out early, before platforms have to spend millions in discovery and trial. Even if the First Amendment eventually protects many of the same editorial decisions, it does so at the end of expensive, protracted litigation. Section 230 was designed to get you out at the motion to dismiss stage.

And it wasn’t just the procedural advantage that mattered — it was the *certainty*. Platforms could make editorial decisions about how to present content knowing they were protected. That freedom meant editorial reasoning could lead, rather than legal risk-avoidance. A lawyer consulted before every design decision will never tell you to make the best call for users — only the least legally exposed one.

All of that has been thrown out the window. The certainty. The quick resolution. The ability for editorial reasoning to lead, rather than lawyerly concerns. These court rulings chip away at Section 230 bit by bit, and with it the ability for anyone to freely host content online without fear of getting sued.

The Massachusetts court’s ruling is the textbook example of how that benefit has been destroyed. The court correctly held that Section 230 provides immunity from *suit* — not just immunity from liability. It correctly allowed Meta to take an interlocutory appeal on exactly that basis. And then it ruled that the immunity doesn’t actually apply to any of the claims in the case. Meta exercised its right to an early appeal and got told it has to go litigate the whole thing anyway.

So what was the point? Meta got to go to the state supreme court, argue about immunity from suit, and then get sent right back to trial court to face all the same claims. Every future defendant in Massachusetts who raises a Section 230 defense will look at this ruling and know that the “immunity from suit” is a mirage. You get the appeal. You just don’t get the immunity, so long as the lawyers on the other side say the magic words. Which all of them will.

This is exactly the dynamic I warned about in my piece about the California and New Mexico verdicts. Even if these legal theories eventually get sorted out at the Supreme Court level, even if the First Amendment eventually provides some backstop, the practical reality is that Section 230’s core function — early dismissal of meritless cases — has been gutted. Every plaintiff’s lawyer now knows how to draft a complaint that survives a 230 motion to dismiss: just say “design” instead of “content.” Say “presentation” instead of “publication.” And you’re in. Discovery. Trial. Seven-figure legal bills. The whole show.

And smaller companies know this. Meaning they will either avoid hosting content altogether… or we’ll have the most powerful heckler’s veto in existence. Anyone who wants any third party content removed just needs to threaten a lawsuit using the magic words. And the mere threat of legal bills will mean the “smart” move will be to remove the content. All sorts of forums will suffer. Think about how Republican AGs will use this to argue that any site hosting LGBTQ+ content is causing harm. Think about the plaintiffs’ lawyers who will use any claimed “design” flaw as leverage for a shakedown settlement. If you thought that copyright trolling was bad, just wait until we see an entire collection of plaintiffs lawyers suing (or just threatening to sue while really seeking a settlement) any website they can claim made a “design choice” that leads to harm.

That’s the ballgame for small platforms. For independent forums. For startups trying to compete with the giants. Meta can absorb this. A new social media competitor cannot. Congress doesn’t need to repeal Section 230. The courts are doing it for them, one cleverly worded ruling at a time.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-social-media-addiction-verdicts-against-meta-should-understand-what-theyre-actually-cheering-for/
[2]: https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-meta-platforms-inc-sjc-m13747/download
[3]: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/04/with-opinions-like-this-congress-doesnt-need-to-repeal-section-230-massachusetts-v-meta.htm
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/18/new-paper-why-section-230-is-better-than-first-amendment/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/10/10/the-social-media-moral-panic-is-all-about-confusing-risks-harms/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/13/section-230-is-dying-by-a-thousand-workarounds-and-massachusetts-just-added-another-one/

Daily Deal: uTalk Language Education We have all wanted to learn ...

2026-04-13T18:01:58Z

Daily Deal: uTalk Language Education

We have all wanted to learn a language at some point but it’s hard to get started. Some language learning tools can be complicated and very time-consuming. But with [uTalk][1], you’ll be speaking keywords and phrases in no time, and will start to see the results straight away. It helps you overcome the language barrier challenge by helping you learn real, practical vocabulary in a wide variety of languages from any device that you choose. uTalk’s language programs let you listen to native speakers who are recorded in uTalk’s recording studio and feature independently verified translations so you’ll be able to navigate through your next vacation like a real local. Get 2 languages for $30, 6 languages for $50, or all 100+ languages for $69.97.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/utalk-lifetime-subscription-choose-any-2-languages?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/13/daily-deal-utalk-language-education-4/

Nevada Court Latest To Say Mandatory Detention Of Migrants Is ...

2026-04-13T16:29:19Z

Nevada Court Latest To Say Mandatory Detention Of Migrants Is Illegal

More of the same for the Trump administration — one that seems incapable of achieving its goals without breaking the law or disregarding the Constitution.

[Hundreds of judges][1] handling thousands of cases have already told the administration it can’t do the things it thinks it can when it comes to satisfying its anti-migrant bloodlust/Stephen Miller’s 3,000-arrests-per-day quota (they’re the same thing!). And, outside of the Fifth Circuit, where the majority seems to believe Trump should get whatever he wants, this steady stream of judicial rejections continues.

Yet another class-action suit alleging the wholesale violation of Constitutional rights has resulted in a ruling siding with the Constitution. [This case][2] is one of several being handled by the ACLU. This particular one originates in Nevada, which at least keeps it out of the hands [of the Fifth Circuit][3]. (Unfortunately, the administration knows who’s buttering its bread, which is why detainees are often shipped immediately to detention centers in Texas and Louisiana.)

The administration has only a single argument to present in its defense of its unconstitutional mandatory detention activities. It involves selectively quoting two related (yet distinct!) immigration statutes and pretending that 1+1=whatever the fuck we say it does.

[One of the most concise explanations][4] of the administration’s deliberate misreading of these statutes was delivered by Judge Dale Ho of the Southern District of New York last year. The government wants to pretend people who encounter immigration agents while crossing the border are indistinct from migrants who have already been in this country for weeks, months, or years. They’re not the same thing, but the administration insists they are, despite having only convinced the Fifth Circuit that the laws don’t actually say the things they say.

> *Given that detention under § 1225(b)(2) is essentially mandatory and that detention under § 1226(a) is largely discretionary, it follows that whichever statute Mr. Lopez Benitez is subject to is potentially dispositive here. That is, if Mr. Lopez Benitez was detained as a noncitizen “seeking admission” to the country under § 1225(b)(2) (as Respondents argue), his detention would be mandatory. If, instead, he was detained as a noncitizen “already in the country” under § 1226(a), then his detention is discretionary and he would be, at a minimum, entitled to an appeal before an immigration judge.*
>
> *To be sure, the line between when a person is “seeking admission” as opposed to being “already in the country” is not necessarily obvious. For instance, someone who has just crossed the border may technically be “in” the country but is still treated as “an alien seeking initial entry.” Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 114, 139 (holding that a noncitizen detained “within 25 yards of the border” is treated as if stopped at the border). **But there is no dispute that the provisions at issue here are mutually exclusive—a noncitizen cannot be subject to both mandatory detention under 1225 and discretionary detention under § 1226, a point that Respondents conceded**.*

These are not the same thing. Section 1226 deals with people *already* in the country, who are given Constitutional protections. Section 1225 deals with people *crossing* the border who are met immediately by immigration agents, who don’t have access to the same due process rights.

As the court points out in this case, the language of the statutes makes it clear Section 1225 is “temporally and geographically limited to the border” by other language contained in the [Immigration and Nationality Act][5] (INA). The government, however, wants to pretend it’s indistinct from Section 1226, which deals with people who are already in the country and have been there for a significant amount of time.

The only way the government can present its defense of indefinite detention of migrants without bond hearings is to twist the wording of both statutes. The [Nevada court][6] [PDF] isn’t going to let that happen. It calls out Trump’s DOJ for its cut-and-paste antics.

> *The government contends that the plain language of § 1225(b)(2) requires DHS to detain all noncitizens like Plaintiffs, who are present in the U.S. without admission or parole and subject to removal proceedings, regardless of how long they have been in the country or how far from the border they are apprehended. But this Court finds that the government reads § 1225(b)(2 (A) as a fragment of statutory text in isolation.*

Context matters. The government knows this, which is why its arguments remove the parts of the law it wants to use from the context that indicates its actions are illegal.

> *The Court finds the government’s reading of the statutory text inapposite for severalreasons. **First, the government distorts the statutory text, including terms of art specially defined by Congress. Second, the government isolates and abstracts the phrases it favors in § 1225(b)(2)(A) from their context within § 1225 and the statutory scheme, while rendering language it finds inconvenient within § 1225(b)(2)(A) both contrary to ordinary meaning and needless surplusage.** Finally, the government’s interpretation unnecessarily renders provisions of § 1226(c) superfluous in all but the rarest cases, unjustifiably construes Congress’ addition of § 1226(c)(1)(E) through the 2025 Laken Riley Act to be utterly ineffectual, and creates unnecessary tension between the relevant provisions, §§ 1225 and 1226.*

This is what it looks like when you know you can’t win on the merits. This is the government pretending the law says what it wants it to say and hoping to slip it past a judge and under the skirts of Lady Liberty.

Courts aren’t as dumb as the Trump administration hopes. Let’s look at the statutes, the court says, but the *whole* thing rather than just the things the government thinks *might* be usable.

> *The Court cannot accept such a fraught interpretation when a reading devoid of such conflict, which gives each statutory phrase and section independent meaning and force, is far more plausible.*

What follows is a few dozen pages making everything summarized above granular and specific. And if Trump doesn’t like it, he can always ask the legislators he treats as extraneous to rewrite the law in his favor. Take it up with Congress if you don’t like the way the law is actually written, the court says without actually saying it:

> *[E]ven with regards to removal proceedings as opposed to custody determinations, Congress explicitly reflected its understanding of longstanding due process precedent that recognizes the more substantial due process rights of noncitizens already present and residing in the U.S. compared to the minimal rights of noncitizens seeking to enter.*

Even a Congress loaded with MAGA bitchboys isn’t going to be able to erase Constitutional protections for migrants no one really seemed to have a problem with until white Christian nationalists took over the West Wing (on two non-consecutive occasions). The current Congress is merely an afterthought in service to Federalist Society theories of unitary executive power — something that surely won’t come back to haunt them when America decides it’s time to hand the reins to the opposition party.

And that’s not all of the bad news for Trump and his enablers. The due process thing is already a known issue and one that has resulted in hundreds of losses for the administration’s lawyers. This court also points out the *Fourth Amendment* implications of its actions. While this doesn’t necessarily create the sort of precedent that would shut down the DHS’s extremely creative interpretation of the Constitution, it will provide plenty of citation pull-quotes for litigants challenging ICE’s [warrantless arrests and home entries.][7]

> *[N]o administrative warrant requirements exist in the text of § 1225(b)(2)(A) or its implementing regulations. The government’s interpretation of that provision as geographically unlimited is thus in tension with the application of the Fourth Amendment within the country’s interior, which “requires that immigration stops must be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, stops must be brief, arrests must be based on probable cause, and officers must not employ excessive force.”*

I’m sure this quotation of Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in *[Trump v. Illinois][8]* is deliberate. The guy behind “[Kavanaugh stops][9]” (TL;DR: looking foreign is probable cause when it comes to immigration enforcement) is being directly quoted to reject the government’s reliance on administrative warrants to bypass the Constitution. [Chef’s kiss gesture.]

Great stuff. But, as always, tempered by the realization that this administration will not stop doing illegal things just because a court has directly told them these actions are illegal. The old equation — asking forgiveness > asking permission — doesn’t really apply. This administration will do neither. It will simply DO until it becomes impossible to continue.

Don’t let that discourage you, though. Even if the co-equal branches don’t seem to be living up to the “checks and balances” hype, we’re a nation of millions spread across a considerable number of square miles. They can’t take us all at once.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/07/trump-administration-wont-stop-mandatory-detention-of-migrants-despite-200-court-rulings-calling-it-illegal/
[2]: https://www.aclunv.org/press-releases/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-aclu-of-nevada-in-major-class-action-immigration-lawsuit/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/09/5th-circuit-says-due-process-rights-for-immigrants-no-longer-exist-in-its-jurisdiction/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/19/federal-judge-rips-ice-for-turning-the-legal-migration-process-into-detention-roulette/
[5]: https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigration-and-nationality-act
[6]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28019069/class-action-order.pdf
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/since-last-may-ice-officers-have-been-told-they-dont-need-warrants-to-enter-homes/
[8]: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-illinois/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/29/the-kavanaugh-stops-legacy-50-days-170-detained-citizens-zero-answers/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/13/nevada-court-latest-to-say-mandatory-detention-of-migrants-is-illegal/

Whoops: Russia’s Attempt To Block VPNs Causes Major Banking ...

2026-04-13T12:25:53Z

Whoops: Russia’s Attempt To Block VPNs Causes Major Banking Failure

VPNs (when [integrity is maintained][1] and the owners aren’t [sleazy scammers][2]) have long been the mortal enemy of shitty, surveillance-happy governments.

And when shitty, surveillance-happy governments try to block or degrade the use of VPNs, bad things can happen. As Russia found out recently when a ham-fisted effort to block VPN users from accessing Telegram resulted in a massive outage for [online banking across the entire country][3].

Last February Russia tried to [delete WhatsApp and Telegram][4] from its version of the internet in the hopes of driving Russians to Max, the country’s approved “everything app.” Max has no encryption or privacy protections, making it easier for Vladimir Putin’s government to engage in mass surveillance of the public’s online activities.

VPN use makes that harder. An estimated 50 million Russians still use VPNs to access Telegram, according to CEO Pavel Durov (happily posting away over at Elon Musk’s right wing propaganda website):

So last May, Russia’s Digital Minister Maksut Shadayev announced an effort to “reduce VPN usage.” But Durov says those efforts have been a broad failure, [recently resulting in a massive outage][5] ([Bloomberg paywalled][6], [Gizmodo alternative][7]) for all online banking apps in Russia:

> *“But amid its effort to weaken VPNs on Friday, according to Bloomberg, accounts from “The Bell and other Russian media” banking apps were disrupted. This disruption might have been, “caused by an overload in the filtering systems run by Russia’s communications watchdog, according to the reports,” Bloomberg explained, “with experts warning that major restrictions risk undermining network stability.”*

Something [similar happened in 2018][8]. Whoops. Apparently the Russian government was so eager to ban VPNs, they erroneously targeted IP addresses tied to banking infrastructure owned by Sberbank, VTB, and T-Bank, demonstrating the fragile nature of centralized financial infrastructure. The outage briefly made mobile payment apps unusable, making cash the only viable transaction option for part of a day.

Given that shitty autocratic governments (like our own) are incapable of learning anything useful from experience, you can expect the problem to repeat itself.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/senators-ask-tulsi-gabbard-to-tell-americans-that-vpn-use-might-subject-them-to-domestic-surveillance/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/06/vpn-is-everybodys-shitlist-after-years-scammy-providers-empty-promises/
[3]: https://gizmodo.com/russia-allegedly-swung-at-vpns-but-accidentally-hit-its-own-banking-sector-instead-2000742551
[4]: https://gizmodo.com/whatsapp-basically-wiped-from-russian-internet-2000720488
[5]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-04/russia-s-vpn-crackdown-caused-bank-outage-telegram-founder-says
[6]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-04/russia-s-vpn-crackdown-caused-bank-outage-telegram-founder-says
[7]: https://gizmodo.com/russia-allegedly-swung-at-vpns-but-accidentally-hit-its-own-banking-sector-instead-2000742551
[8]: https://gizmodo.com/russia-is-still-trashing-its-internet-two-weeks-into-it-1825561879

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/13/whoops-russias-attempt-to-block-vpns-causes-major-banking-failure/

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt This ...

2026-04-12T19:00:16Z

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This week, we’ve got a double-winning comment from [Shannon Vanshoon][1] that took first place on the insightful side and second place on the funny side. It’s a response to a particular passage in [our post about the scammy AI company that fooled the New York Times][2]:

> ***Or in other words…***
>
> > “*So to my friends and family members wondering why I haven’t built my own billion-dollar AI company: apparently the missing ingredient wasn’t AI — it was being willing to run a deepfake-powered spam operation selling potentially inert pills to desperate people.*“
>
> *Or, to quote my partner, ‘I’d be rich if I was just a little more evil.’*

In second place on the insightful side, it’s a comment from [Thad][3] about [the depths of dysfunction in American government and beyond][4]:

> *I forget who said it, but I once saw it framed as “If you want to know whether this is a Trump problem or a GOP problem, consider that the two most pro-Trump justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by the Bushes.”*

That comment was a reply to [Heart of Dawn][5]‘s comment raising the subject, so we’ll start with *that* comment for [our first editor’s choice on the insightful side][6]:

> *What gets me is not the pedophile war monger’s unhinged rant, crashing of the global economy, or taking a sledgehammer to America’s status as an ally to the West and a global superpower- it’s that despite all this, he still has full support of Congress, the Supreme Court, and 30% of the US population.*
>
> *The country has a rot to it’s very core that won’t be removed by ousting Trump alone.*

Next, it’s an anonymous comment about [the limits of the DMCA and the companies that go beyond them][7]:

> *But, as bad as the law is, it doesn’t actually allow for takedowns of references to copyright infringement (unless perhaps judges invented such a requirement via case law). Google apparently chose to allow people to use notices that way, despite a lack of any legal basis. And other search engines kind of copied from them. Maybe the film companies applied pressure as advertisers.*
>
> *By contrast, in the old days, I don’t think anyone ever had their phone number removed from the phone book, or disconnected altogether, based purely on unproven accusations of illegal activity (like maybe a video store that was a little shady regarding copyright law). I’m not sure that was even an option after a court found someone guilty or liable.*

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is [MrWilson][8] with another comment about [Medvi and the New York Times][9]:

> *I’m half expecting an announcement that Elizabeth Holmes has endorsed MEDVI from her cell and is being given a seat on the board.*

We’ve already had our second place funny winner above, so we’ll head straight on to the editor’s choice, starting with [That One Guy][10] and a comment passing on a famous book passage that [suits Congress’s latest attempt to put the law behind a paywall][11]:

> ***‘Publicly acessible’ doesn’t mean ‘Publicly accessible in a usable format’***
>
> *And the bill is sneaky about it: **it includes a provision requiring that incorporated standards be made “publicly accessible online,”** which the bill’s supporters point to as proof of their commitment to transparency.*
>
> *” …You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.’*
>
> *‘But the plans were on display…’*
>
> *‘On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.’*
>
> *‘That’s the display department.’*
>
> *‘With a torch.’*
>
> *‘Ah, well the lights had probably gone.’*
>
> *‘So had the stairs.’*
>
> *‘But look you found the notice didn’t you?’*
>
> *‘Yes,’ said Arthur, ‘yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard”.’ –Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, Douglas Adams.*

Finally, because someone had to say it, it’s an anonymous comment about the prosecutors who are still trying to [convict a 62-year-old woman for wearing a 7-foot-tall inflatable penis costume to a protest][12]:

> *Somehow isn’t the biggest dick of this story.*

That’s all for this week, folks!

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/shannonspencerfox/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/07/the-new-york-times-got-played-by-a-telehealth-scam-and-called-it-the-future-of-ai/#comment-5240908
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/thad/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/06/trump-celebrates-easter-by-dropping-an-f-bomb-threatening-more-war-crimes/#comment-5238572
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/heartofdawn/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/06/trump-celebrates-easter-by-dropping-an-f-bomb-threatening-more-war-crimes/#comment-5238381
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/09/someone-filed-a-bogus-dmca-notice-to-kill-a-story-about-a-sketchy-seo-firm-it-worked-briefly/#comment-5244990
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/mrwilson/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/07/the-new-york-times-got-played-by-a-telehealth-scam-and-called-it-the-future-of-ai/#comment-5240727
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/thatoneguy/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/06/congress-wants-to-put-the-law-behind-a-paywall-again/#comment-5239340
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/08/prosecutors-still-trying-to-convict-62-year-old-woman-for-wearing-penis-costume-to-anti-trump-protest/#comment-5243348

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/12/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-203/

Game Jam Winner Spotlight: As I Lay Flying It’s time for the ...

2026-04-11T19:00:27Z

Game Jam Winner Spotlight: As I Lay Flying

It’s time for the third in our series of spotlight posts looking at [the winners][1] of our eighth annual public domain game jam, [*Gaming Like It’s 1930!*][2] We’ve already covered the [Best Adaptation][3] and [Best Deep Cut][4] winners, and this week we’re looking at the winner of Best Visuals: [***As I Lay Flying***][5] by [**Geouug**][6].

In a first for these game jams, Geouug is a double winner, having taken the prize in two different categories with two different games. *As I Lay Flying* is the more ambitious submission of the two: it’s a challenging physics-based game based on William Faulkner’s 1930 novel *As I Lay Dying*, which tells the story of the Bundren family’s effort to return their recently deceased aunt’s body to her hometown. In the book, it’s a journey of diverse trials and tribuilations; in the game, it’s a slapstick adventure about launching a wagon through the sky.

It’s a fun if slightly finnicky challenge that’s easy to understand but hard to master. There’s more than just the core physics gameplay too: progressing requires purchasing upgrades using the money you earn with each attempt, and the selection of these upgrades is crucial to finishing each stage.

The resource management layer turns *As I Lay Flying* into a complete game, and it was a strong competitor for Best Digital Game. But even more than that, the game stands out for its graphical ambition, completeness, and attention to detail. Everything is designed to fit into the style and setting, and no interface element is left plain and generic: they are rendered in wood and paint and cloth, with little touches like period-appropriate stamps to mark purchased upgrades. During the main gameplay there are parallax-scrolling backgrounds and physics-based animation of the wagon and its occupants, and the levels are bookended by dialogue and narration scenes illustrated with photos and original character portraits.

Though most of the graphics are composed of very simple pieces (stock grass textures and vector tree silhouettes abound), the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. No corners are cut and nothing feels overlooked. For achieving such a comprehensive graphical style that ties together every element of the game, and with some fun gameplay to boot, it’s this year’s winner for Best Visuals.

**Congratulations to **[**Geouug**][7] **for the win! You can [play *As I Lay Flying *in your browser on Itch][8]. We’ll be back next week with another winner spotlight, and don’t forget to check out the many [great entries][9] that didn’t quite make the cut. And stay tuned for next year, when we’ll be back for *Gaming Like It’s 1931!***

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/21/announcing-the-winners-of-the-8th-annual-public-domain-game-jam/
[2]: https://itch.io/jam/gaming-like-its-1930
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/28/game-jam-winner-spotlight-i-am-sam-spade/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/04/game-jam-winner-spotlight-caramentran/
[5]: https://itch.io/jam/gaming-like-its-1930/rate/4163738
[6]: https://geouug.itch.io
[7]: https://geouug.itch.io
[8]: https://geouug.itch.io/as-i-lay-dying
[9]: https://itch.io/jam/gaming-like-its-1930/entries

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/11/game-jam-winner-spotlight-as-i-lay-flying/

NVIDIA’s DLSS 5 Demo Video Briefly Taken Down Because ...

2026-04-11T02:39:26Z

NVIDIA’s DLSS 5 Demo Video Briefly Taken Down Because YouTube’s Take Down Process Sucks

Last month, we discussed NVIDIA’s [demo video][1] for its forthcoming DLSS 5 technology and the controversy surrounding it. While I’m going to continue to be of the posture that an injection of nuance is desperately needed in the reaction to AI tools and the like, our comments section largely disagreed with me on that post. That’s cool, that’s what this place is for, and I still love you all.

But this post is not about DLSS 5. Rather, it’s about the video itself and [how it was briefly taken down][2] over automated copyright claims thanks to an Italian news channel. Please note that the source material here was written while the video was still down, but it has since been restored.

> *And now, here we are in April, and NVIDIA’s DLSS 5 announcement trailer is no longer available to watch on YouTube on the company’s official GeForce channel. And no, it’s not because NVIDIA is responding to the feedback and retooling the technology for a re-reveal or re-announcement; it’s now blocked on “copyright grounds.”*
>
> *A clear mistake, but also one that highlights the limitations of Google’s automated system for YouTube. Apparently, the Italian television channel La7 included footage from the DLSS 5 reveal in a recent broadcast and has since copyrighted it. From there, essentially every video on YouTube with DLSS 5 trailer footage was issued a copyright strike and said to be in violation, with the videos taken down with the following message: “Video unavailable: This video contains content from La7, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.”*

Yes, this was clearly a mistake. But it’s a mistake that I’m frankly tired of hearing about, all while Google does absolutely nothing to iterate on its copyright process and systems to mitigate such mistakes. The examples of this very thing are so legion as to be laughable. Whether due to error or due to malicious intent, videos that include content from other videos for the purposes of reporting and commentary, which are then copyrighted and result in takedowns of the source material, happens all the damned time.

This is almost certainly all automated, which means there are no human eyes looking for an error in the flagging of a copyright violation. It just gets tagged as such and taken down. And, no, the irony is not lost on me that we need human eyes to keep an automated copyright takedown on a video about AI from occurring.

> *What makes this alarming is that the video was taken down with seemingly no human interaction or input, as it’s clear that NVIDIA not only created DLSS 5, for better or worse, but also the trailer that has been a hot topic of discussion this year. We’re assuming this will be resolved fairly quickly. Still, it will be interesting to see whether YouTube responds to this case and claims that false copyright infringement notices like this are prevalent on the platform.*

Google hasn’t been terribly interested in commenting on the plethora of cases like this in the past, so I strongly doubt it will now. Which is a damned shame, honestly, because the company really should be advocating for all of the users on its platform, if not especially those that are negatively impacted by this haphazard process.

But, for now, the video is back, so you can go hate-watch it again if you like.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/deep-breath-okay-lets-talk-about-that-controversial-dlss-5-demo/
[2]: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/110891/nvidias-dlss-5-trailer-has-been-taken-down-due-to-copyright-infringement/index.html

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/10/nvidias-dlss-5-demo-video-briefly-taken-down-because-youtubes-take-down-process-sucks/

Trump’s Two-Faced AI Policy The Trump administration’s AI ...

2026-04-10T22:07:21Z

Trump’s Two-Faced AI Policy

The Trump administration’s AI policy is two-faced, torn between deregulation and despotism.

In March, the administration released its National AI Legislative Framework, [directing][1] Congress to “prevent the United States government from coercing technology providers, including AI providers, to ban, compel, or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas.” This policy against government interference with AI is consistent with the administration’s *purported* light-touch approach to regulating the technology—but contrary to its recent actions.

In February 2025, Vice President Vance [denounced][2] “excessive regulation of the AI sector,” endorsing a “deregulatory flavor” of AI policy. Several months later, the administration released its AI Action Plan, [pledging][3] to “dismantle unnecessary regulatory barriers” and “onerous regulation.”

At first, the Trump administration followed through on this deregulatory promise. Three days into his second term, President Trump [revoked][4] an [Executive Order][5] from President Biden which established a government-wide effort to regulate and guide the development of the AI industry. Next, as directed by President Trump’s AI Action Plan, the Office of Science and Technology Policy [initiated][6] a proceeding to identify federal rules and regulations “that unnecessarily hinder” AI in order to implement “regulatory reform” and “promote” the technology. Last December, the Federal Trade Commission, led by two Trump appointees, [set][7] aside a Biden-era enforcement action against [Rytr][8], an AI-powered writing assistant. The FTC [explained][9] that, “after reviewing the final order in response to President Trump’s AI Action Plan,” it concluded “the order unduly burdens innovation in the nascent AI industry.”

Despite the laissez-faire gesturing, however, the administration demonstrates a tyrannical impulse to control AI. In the same breath as denouncing excessive regulation, Vice President Vance demanded that “AI must remain free from ideological bias.” President Trump’s AI Action Plan echoed this command, directing AI companies to design their models “to pursue objective truth rather than social engineering agendas.” This rhetoric elides the fact that the First Amendment bars the government from deciding what constitutes “truth.”

In recent months, the administration has sought to exert control over the industry under the guise of combatting so-called “woke AI.” Last July, President Trump issued an Executive Order on [Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government][10], prohibiting government procurement of AI models unless they are ideologically “neutral,” *i.e.*, “nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI.” In January, Secretary of Defense Hegseth [issued][11] a memo instructing the Department of Defense to “utilize models free from usage policy constraints” and banning the DoD from “employ[ing] AI models which incorporate ideological ‘tuning.’”

The memo set the stage for the [ongoing][12] dispute between the administration and [Anthropic][13], an American AI company. In July 2025, the DoD [contracted][14] with Anthropic to deploy its AI models for national security [applications][15] like intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, and cyber operations. In the contract, Anthropic stipulated that the government could not use its models for mass domestic surveillance or to power fully autonomous weapons—arguably violating Hegseth’s rule against usage constraints.

Consequently, in late February, Hegseth [threatened][16] to cut ties with Anthropic unless the company allowed the military to use its AI for “all lawful purposes.” When Anthropic [refused][17], President Trump [directed][18] federal agencies to “IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology,” deriding the firm as “A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY.” He threatened to “use the Full Power of the Presidency to make [Anthropic] comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.”

The DoD then designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk” under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018, defined as an entity that “may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, extract data, or otherwise manipulate” the technology it provides “so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise manipulate” the use of the technology or the “information stored or transmitted” thereon. The government has [never][19] applied this designation to a U.S. company; it is typically reserved for foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and hostile actors. As a result, Anthropic may not provide products or services to the DoD, and contractors may not use its products while working on DoD projects.

On March 9, Anthropic [sued][20] the administration in federal court, challenging the designation and seeking an injunction blocking its implementation. The company [pleaded][21] that the Trump administration has “harm[ed] Anthropic irreparably,” jeopardizing public and private contracts and costing it “hundreds of millions of dollars in the near-term,” as well as attacking “Anthropic’s reputation and core First Amendment freedoms.”

On March 26, the District Court for the Northern District of California sided with Anthropic and [granted][22] a preliminary injunction barring a variety of federal agencies from terminating their contracts. The court also blocked the DoD and Hegseth from implementing the supply chain risk designation. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin [observed][23] that the Trump administration is “punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position,” which “is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.” Last week, the administration [appealed][24] the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

Hegseth [accused][25] Anthropic of “duplicity,” but it is the Trump administration that has been duplicitous about its approach to AI. Despite championing deregulation, the administration has weaponized the federal government to punish an American AI company for refusing to bend to its will. Abusing the government procurement process to [crush][26] domestic AI firms is the [opposite][27] of light-touch regulation.

Judge Lin [described][28] the Trump administration’s actions against Anthropic as “Orwellian.” The administration has shown its ugly side on AI, and it looks a lot like [tyranny][29].

*Andy Jung is associate counsel at TechFreedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank focused on technology law and policy.*

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/03.20.26-National-Policy-Framework-for-Artificial-Intelligence-Legislative-Recommendations.pdf#page=3
[2]: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-vice-president-the-artificial-intelligence-action-summit-paris-france
[3]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf#page=4
[4]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/
[5]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/01/2023-24283/safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence
[6]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/26/2025-18737/notice-of-request-for-information-regulatory-reform-on-artificial-intelligence
[7]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Rytr-Order.pdf
[8]: https://rytr.me/
[9]: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-reopens-sets-aside-rytr-final-order-response-trump-administrations-ai-action-plan
[10]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/preventing-woke-ai-in-the-federal-government/
[11]: https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/12/2003855671/-1/-1/0/ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-STRATEGY-FOR-THE-DEPARTMENT-OF-WAR.PDF
[12]: https://www.techpolicy.press/a-timeline-of-the-anthropic-pentagon-dispute/
[13]: https://www.anthropic.com/
[14]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-and-the-department-of-defense-to-advance-responsible-ai-in-defense-operations
[15]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war
[16]: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-hegseth-dario
[17]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war
[18]: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116144552969293195
[19]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.134.0.pdf#page=2
[20]: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72380208/anthropic-pbc-v-united-states-department-of-war/
[21]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/27781298/anthropic-v-dow.pdf#page=7
[22]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.134.0.pdf#page=42
[23]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.134.0.pdf#page=2
[24]: https://www.mobileworldlive.com/ai-cloud/us-doj-appeals-judges-decision-to-block-anthropic-ban/
[25]: https://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070
[26]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-gsa-s-draft-ai-clause-is-governance-by-sledgehammer
[27]: https://x.com/JTillipman/status/2035048157877346787
[28]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.134.0.pdf#page=2
[29]: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/816983

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/10/trumps-two-faced-ai-policy/

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Honey, I Shrunk the Kids’ Internet ...

2026-04-10T22:01:11Z

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Honey, I Shrunk the Kids’ Internet

**[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and [Everything in Moderation][2]‘s Ben Whitelaw. **

**Subscribe now on [Apple Podcasts][3], [Overcast][4], [Spotify][5], [Pocket Casts][6], [YouTube][7], or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to [the RSS feed][8].**

In this week’s roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Ben is joined by Fadza Madzingira, a digital policy expert with a decade of experience at Meta, Salesforce, Ofcom and currently Twitch, where she leads the policy, outreach and education teams. Together, they discuss:

* [Exclusive: Meta has discussed ending funding to the Oversight Board][9] (Platformer)
* [Spotlight: Five Years of the Oversight Board, from Experiment to Essential Institution][10] (Ctrl-Alt-Speech)
* [What Teens Are Doing With Those Role-Playing Chatbots][11] (The New York Times)
* [Early Lessons from Australia’s Teen Social Media Ban for the Rest of the World][12] (Tech Policy Press)
* [Stuck in the Middleware with Youth with Vaishnavi J][13] (Ctrl-Alt-Speech)
* [Greece to ban social media for under-15s from 2027, calls on EU action][14] (Reuters)
* [The Family Tech Cycle: Navigating Screens, Devices, and Social Media][15] (Joan Ganz Cooney Center)

We’re still yet to find a Ctrl-Alt-Speech [2026 Bingo Card][16] winner — could this week be your lucky day? Play along.

[1]: https://ctrlaltspeech.com/
[2]: https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/
[3]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193
[4]: https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193
[5]: https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc
[6]: https://pca.st/zulnarbw
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z
[8]: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss
[9]: https://www.platformer.news/meta-oversight-board-funding-cancel/
[10]: https://podcast.ctrlaltspeech.com/2315966/episodes/18477717-spotlight-five-years-of-the-oversight-board-from-experiment-to-essential-institution
[11]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/04/technology/ai-chatbots-teen-roleplay.html
[12]: https://www.techpolicy.press/early-lessons-from-australias-teen-social-media-ban-for-the-rest-of-the-world/?ref=disinfodocket.com
[13]: https://podcast.ctrlaltspeech.com/2315966/episodes/18301269-stuck-in-the-middleware-with-youth
[14]: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/greece-ban-social-media-under-15s-2027-pm-says-2026-04-08/
[15]: https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/the-family-tech-cycle/
[16]: https://www.ctrlaltspeech.com/bingo/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/09/ctrl-alt-speech-honey-i-shrunk-the-kids-internet/

Court Dismisses Pepperdine’s Nonsense Trademark Suit Against ...

2026-04-10T22:01:05Z

Court Dismisses Pepperdine’s Nonsense Trademark Suit Against Netflix Over ‘Running Point’

A little over a year ago, we [wrote about][1] a fairly silly lawsuit filed against Netflix (and Warner Bros.) by Pepperdine University in California for trademark infringement. At issue is the Netflix show *Running Point*, which is a fictionalized story of a female executive thrust into ownership of a professional basketball team, inspired by the Lakers’ Jeannie Buss, who is also an Executive Producer on the show. The show’s fictional team, which is supposed to be a reference to the NBA’s Los Angeles Lakers, is called “The Waves”. Pepperdine’s sports teams are also called “The Waves”, which the school claimed made all of this trademark infringement.

They were wrong about that, as we said in the previous post. Creative works are given wide latitude in trademark law, specifically in that the Rogers test typically applies. Even in the aftermath of the [Supreme Court’s terrible ruling on parody][2] in the case of the Bad Spaniels and Jack Daniels lawsuit, this was always a situation in which the Rogers test would definitely apply. Specifically, SCOTUS’ decision that Rogers doesn’t apply when the offending trademark is used as a source identifier, because we’re talking about a fictional team used in a wider work of fiction, meaning the use isn’t an identifier or any source.

Netflix and Warner petitioned for dismissal for those very reasons and the now the court has agreed [and the suit has been dismissed][3].

> *U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela [said ‌on Tuesday , opens new tab][4] that the fictional Los Angeles Waves basketball team in “Running Point” did not violate the Malibu, California, school’s rights because the show did not use the “Waves” name and logo as trademarks.*

The ruling goes into much more detail, of course. It very specifically examines whether the Rogers test applies, deciding it does based on the usage. For example:

> *Here, Plaintiff fails to allege that the Waves mark was used by Defendants to exploit the success of Plaintiff’s sports teams or to create an association between the Running Point series and Pepperdine’s teams. Rather, at most, the FAC shows that the Waves mark is “immediately recognized” to identify the Running Point series, and that its use is synonymous with the series. These allegations, which Plaintiff concludes show that the Waves mark is used to “identify the show” are still not sufficient to show that the Waves mark was used as a designation of source for the series. Plaintiff’s repeated use of the words “identify” and “source-identification” do not actually show how the Waves mark was used to identify the source of the series. Rather, here, Defendants clearly claim to be the source of the series.*
>
> *Finally, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the marketing of the show or Defendants’ behavior in similar uses. Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ used the Waves mark in marketing the Running Point series, this does not alter the Court’s above analysis that the Waves mark is not used to identify the source of the series. And the fact that Defendants have obtained trademarks in fictional businesses central to their shows in the past again does not show that Defendants have used the Waves mark to identify the source of Running Point here.*

The ruling goes on to note that if Rogers applies, the Lanham Act does not. With source identifying out of the equation, the only remaining question is if the use in this case is artistically relevant. As the fictional team the main character owns, the name of that team is *obviously* artistically relevant.

Pepperdine has been given leave to amend its complaint into something that is actually legally sound, but I’m struggling to understand what that would even be. In lieu of an amended complaint, it seems that some creative works are still protected some of the time from nonsense trademark infringement claims, even in a post *Bad Spaniels* world.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/04/pepperdine-sues-netflix-over-trademark-in-shows-fictional-portrayal-of-the-lakers/
[2]: https://www.msk.com/newsroom-alerts-bad-spaniels-update
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/netflix-warner-bros-fend-off-pepperdine-lawsuit-over-running-point-series-2026-04-01/
[4]: https://tmsnrt.rs/48luGoe

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/09/court-dismisses-pepperdines-nonsense-trademark-suit-against-netflix-over-running-point/

Court Blocks Republican Push To (Further) Dominate And Destroy ...

2026-04-10T22:01:00Z

Court Blocks Republican Push To (Further) Dominate And Destroy Local Broadcast News

Last month FCC boss Brendan Carr illegally ignored remaining U.S. media consolidation laws to [rubber stamp Nexstar’s $6.2 billion purchase of Tegna][1]. It’s part of the generational Republican quest to steadily consolidate media, then replace whatever journalism remains with a soggy mish mash of lazy infotainment and [right wing propaganda][2] (see: Sinclair Broadcasting).

But there’s trouble in paradise: a judge issued a [temporary restraining order][3] blocking the merger from proceeding. For now.

“Defendants must immediately cease all ongoing actions relating to integration and consolidation of Nexstar and Tegna,” wrote Troy Nunley, the chief judge in US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The savior in this case is curiously DirecTV, not-long-ago spun off from its own disastrous union with AT&T. DirecTV filed suit saying that the consolidation in local broadcast TV will erode what’s left of competition in the local broadcast TV sector, harming product quality, opinion diversity, and labor, while resulting in higher overall prices (for everyone) in exchange for even worse product.

From the restraining order:

> *“Nexstar admits the merger will greatly increase its already huge “scale” and its “leverage,” i.e., the ability to force its TV distribution customers, including Plaintiff, to pay even
> higher fees for local news, live sports, and other content they distribute to their subscribers.
> Plaintiff alleges Nexstar will also shut down local newsrooms in dozens of markets, reducing the amount, variety, and quality of local broadcast news that Americans rely on for trusted
> information about their communities. Plaintiff asserts those harms from reduced
> competition are precisely what antitrust laws are designed to prevent.”*

Nexstar was so certain the merger was a done deal, *it had begun changing the physical signs and logos on many of the acquired stations it had begun integrating*, something it’s since been [forced to reverse][4]. The company has also tried to insist it [can’t comply with some of the Judge’s demands][5] because some aspects of the early integration “can’t be undone.”

The deal would combine Nexstar’s stable of more than local 200 stations with Tegna’s 65 outlets in major markets nationwide, blowing past restrictions that no company can control more than 39 percent of households (the new combined company reaches 54.5 percent). In addition to the NexStar lawsuit, the companies are also being sued by a coalition of eight attorneys general [and consumer groups][6].

Since Rupert Murdoch convinced Ronald Reagan to eliminate laws preventing one mogul from owning a paper and TV station in one market, Republican policies (and corporations) have pushed relentlessly to pursue the goal of a monolithic, highly consolidated media in exclusive service to the extraction class and corporate power. The result has been anything but subtle.

Media scholars have been warning about the perils of this for decades, but only recently, under the ham-fisted efforts of Trumpism, have people truly begun seeing [the full outline of the threat][7]. The media sector (like most U.S. sectors) desperately needs an antitrust renaissance; and if the federal government is no longer willing to engage in adult supervision, other parties will have to fill the void.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/01/brendan-carr-ignores-the-law-rubber-stamps-more-right-wing-media-consolidation-then-lies-about-it/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/29/sinclair-broadcasting-takes-a-break-from-protecting-local-communities-by-banning-comedians-to-spread-tylenol-disinformation/
[3]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.484734/gov.uscourts.caed.484734.60.0_3.pdf
[4]: https://cordcuttersnews.com/nexstar-starts-to-undo-its-merger-with-tegnas-abc-cbs-fox-nbc-after-judges-order/
[5]: https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/nexstar-tegna-merger-tro-court-order-reply-1236704471/
[6]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.42965/gov.uscourts.cadc.42965.01208833360.0.pdf
[7]: https://www.damemagazine.com/2025/01/02/americas-right-wing-propaganda-problem-might-be-terminal/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/10/court-blocks-republican-push-to-further-dominate-and-destroy-local-broadcast-news/

No Surprise Here: Inspection Reveals Dozens Of Violations In El ...

2026-04-10T22:00:54Z

No Surprise Here: Inspection Reveals Dozens Of Violations In El Paso ICE Detention Center

I’m not here to cut the Trump administration any slack or engage in both-sides bullshit, but this is something that has always been true: we treat anyone imprisoned or detained as less than human. The dehumanization begins with something we call “processing” — a word that separates a human from their humanity by making them sound like nothing more than paperwork.

The horrors seen in jails and prisons are often compounded at immigrant detention facilities. While some duty of less-than-minimal care might be extended to imprisoned US citizens, it’s far more often ignored when federal officers believe (mistakenly) that migrants aren’t protected by the Constitution.

The litany of violations stretches back forever. Techdirt doesn’t stretch back quite that far, but let’s take a stroll down memory lane.

From 2022, back when Biden was still in office and people like me were thinking no one would ever elect Trump to office again:

*[ICE’s ‘Fierce Commitment’ To Ensuring Detainees Are Cared For Properly Includes Inadequate Staffing, Unsanitary Facilities][1]*

That’s taken from a report demanding (“Management Alert”) the immediate removal of all detainees from this New Mexico detention center due to numerous violations, including a shortage of 112 employees and no less than 83 cells with “inoperable” sinks and toilets.

Going back further to Trump’s first administration:

[Report Shows ICE Almost Never Punishes Contractors Housing Detainees No Matter How Many Violations They Rack Up][2]

In this Inspector General’s report, we learned that only 28 of 106 contractors were provided with the tools needed to meet minimum “performance standards.” We also learned that the $3.9 *billion* being thrown to private contractors was shored up by absolutely no level of accountability. ICE approved 96% of waivers requested by contractors who failed to meet minimum housing standards for detainees.

While it’s been a persistent problem, things are significantly worse now. The Trump administration is detaining more migrants than ever before. It’s also far more willing to pawn these duties off on private prison contractors who prioritize making money over taking care of the people thrust into their care by Trump’s top bigots.

On top of that, the administration is fighting wars on several litigation fronts in hopes of preventing [any form of oversight][3] from slowing its roll towards total migrant annihilation. Everything that was bad before is getting so much worse.

Thanks to the White House [Merchant of Death][4], RFK Jr., [measles outbreaks][5] are being reported at detention facilities. Thanks to absolutely every-fucking-body else in the administration, reports of inhumane conditions are [somehow still on the rise][6], even after years of regularly reported inhuman conditions at ICE facilities.

Here’s even more. At a facility where guards were caught setting up [suicide “death pools”][7] for inmates, more evidence of deliberate cruelty and inhumane treatment has surfaced. The host of ongoing atrocities is none other than Camp East Montana, comfortably nestled in the heartland of the “[who gives a fuck about immigrants][8]” Fifth Circuit: El Paso, Texas.

[Here’s the New York Times with the details][9] of more man’s inhumanity to man, as personified by “immigration enforcement” forces of Trump’s second term.

> *An inspection in February of Camp East Montana in Texas, one of the country’s largest immigration detention centers, found dozens of violations of national standards, including instances that may have exposed detainees to illnesses and uses of force that were not documented, a new report found.*
>
> *[…]*
>
> *The inspection, which was carried out by the agency over three days in February and included interviews with 49 detainees, found that there were at least 49 overall “deficiencies” from national standards at the camp. Of all the deficiencies, 22 involved use of force and restraints, and five involved issues related to medical care. *

ICE actually released this [inspection report][10]. However, it did make sure names were c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶d̶ redacted to protect the i̶n̶n̶o̶c̶e̶n̶t̶ guilty. While it’s uncharacteristically protective of the inspectors, it also makes sure we may never know which [“Creative Corrections” employees][11] helped make this detention center the hell hole it is.

Other censorship by the administration deliberately denies Americans access to the facts. What possible purpose is served here, other than allowing the government to pretend its rights violations were somehow excused by the [redacted] passage of time?

The government not only censored the number of detainee files reviewed, but also the ratio of files in noncompliance. What escapes ICE’s black-boxed attempts to redeem itself is this, which is plenty damning on its own:

> *[I]nitial classification process and initial housing assignments **were not completed within 12 hours of detainees’ admission […]; rather they were completed 14 hours to 25 days** after [admission]…*

Everything that might show how often (or how frequently) violations occurred has been removed. It’s a deliberate muddying of the statistical waters. Who knows what’s behind the black box? It could mean rights were violated 10% of the time. Or it could mean rights were violated almost *every* time. But we the people — you know, the ones expected to foot the bill for this bullshit — aren’t allowed to know the actual details of what’s being done in our names.

If the government wants to play it that way, fine. We’ll just assume the worst and dare it to provide evidence to the contrary. And we know it never will. If or when the government decides to unredact this report, it will undoubtedly show us what we’ve always assumed: The administration and its contractors routinely abused detainees and violated their rights because the people in charge made it clear they don’t consider migrants to be humans.

And that makes *this* news [as inevitable as it is deplorable][12]:

> *So far this year, 14 people have died in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, including a Mexican man who was found unresponsive last week at a facility outside Los Angeles, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security.*

If that seems like a low (or worse, an *acceptable*) number of deaths, think again:

> *In 2025, ICE reported 33 total in-custody deaths and in 2024 there were 11.*

Deaths in ICE custody *tripled* under Trump during his first year back in office. If this pace continues, we’ll be looking at 56 in-custody deaths, which would nearly double the same number Trump managed to triple in 2025.

This will only get worse. The administration is still trying to buy up any warehouses it can to repurpose as detention centers. The workload is being stretched even thinner, leaving private citizens more [poorly trained][13] than current ICE officers in charge of the lives and well-being of thousands of detainees. The misery and death will continue. Unfortunately for us, this administration not only welcomes blood on its hands, but revels in it.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/03/25/ices-fierce-commitment-to-ensuring-detainees-are-cared-for-properly-includes-inadequate-staffing-unsanitary-facilities/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/02/11/report-shows-ice-almost-never-punishes-contractors-housing-detainees-no-matter-how-many-violations-they-rack-up/
[3]: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=010757590787869064388:xmkbgrbgtb8&q=https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/10/ice-dhs-again-pretend-congress-members-dont-have-the-legal-right-to-engage-in-unannounced-detention-facility-inspections/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj647OF4teTAxVSN94AHb-5ELcQFnoECAIQAg&usg=AOvVaw2O04rnEpAMChv3C-mgiDVZ
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/it-appears-rfk-jr-is-having-trouble-finding-anyone-to-take-the-cdc-director-job/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/04/measles-has-now-begun-to-infect-immigrant-detention-camps/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/09/judge-tears-into-ice-over-its-inhumane-facilities-insane-amount-of-lying/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/09/ice-detainment-center-guards-allegedly-set-up-suicide-death-pools/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/09/5th-circuit-says-due-process-rights-for-immigrants-no-longer-exist-in-its-jurisdiction/
[9]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/03/us/ice-texas-camp-montana-east.html
[10]: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/odo-compliance-inspections/eroElPasoCampEastMontana_ElPasoTX_Feb10-12_2026.pdf
[11]: https://creativecorrections.com/
[12]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/14-ice-detainees-died-far-2026-rcna265843
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/27/whistleblower-ice-has-slashed-its-training-program-and-its-boss-is-lying-to-congress-about-it/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/10/no-surprise-here-inspection-reveals-dozens-of-violations-in-el-paso-ice-detention-center/

Daily Deal: Luminar Mobile for iOS And Android [Luminar ...

2026-04-10T22:00:49Z

Daily Deal: Luminar Mobile for iOS And Android

[Luminar Mobile][1] is your all-in-one creative companion designed for iOS, Android OS, and Chrome OS. Powered by an intuitive, touch-responsive interface, it lets you enhance photos effortlessly—anytime, anywhere. Whether you’re adjusting lighting, perfecting portraits, or adding artistic flair, Luminar Mobile delivers pro-level results in the palm of your hand. It’s on sale for $20.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: http://deals.techdirt.com/sales/luminar-mobile-for-ios-lifetime-subscription?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/10/daily-deal-luminar-mobile-for-ios-and-android-3/

AI And Cybersecurity: A Glass Half-Empty/Half-Full Proposition, ...

2026-04-10T22:00:41Z

AI And Cybersecurity: A Glass Half-Empty/Half-Full Proposition, Where The Glass Is Holding Nitroglycerin

First, some of the good news: certain AI models—currently Anthropic’s Mythos, but surely others are well on their way if they haven’t already arrived—turn out to be *really* good at finding cybersecurity vulnerabilities. As [Anthropic itself reported][1]:

> *During our testing, we found that Mythos Preview is capable of identifying and then exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in every major operating system and every major web browser when directed by a user to do so. The vulnerabilities it finds are often subtle or difficult to detect. Many of them are ten or twenty years old, with the oldest we have found so far being a now-patched 27-year-old bug in OpenBSD—an operating system known primarily for its security.*

That’s quite the tool, if it can help find vulnerabilities so that they can be patched.

But it’s also quite the tool to help find vulnerabilities so that they can be exploited. Like so many tools, including technological tools, whether they are good or bad depends entirely in how they are used. A hammer is a really helpful tool for building things, but it also smashes windows. And with this news, AI now has the capability for some really destructive uses.

To try to prevent them, Anthropic is working with some of the largest tech companies in the world to let them use a preview of its model on their own software to help QA them and proactively patch vulnerabilities. As [Casey Newton reports][2]:

> *Anthropic announced Mythos alongside Project Glasswing, an initiative with more than 40 of the world’s biggest tech companies that will see Anthropic grant early access to the model to find and patch vulnerabilities across many of the world’s most important systems. Launch partners in the coalition include Apple, Google, Microsoft, Cisco and Broadcom.*

> *They’ll be tasked with scanning and patching their own systems along with the critical open-source systems that modern digital infrastructure depends on. Anthropic is giving participants $100 million in usage credits for Mythos, and donating another $4 million to open-source security efforts. *

This sounds like a great program. It also should be noted that [the Mythos model is not consumer-grade][3] AI; it takes expensive, dedicated infrastructure to run, which means that, at least for the moment, there’s not an imminent danger of it being misused. But trouble is nevertheless brewing, and someday it will be here, which raises certain questions, like:

(A) What about other AI models, which will inevitably be similarly powerful? What if they are produced by less ethical companies, who would have no compunction against rogue actors using their systems in destructive ways that Project Glasswing won’t have intercepted?

(B) And what about every single legacy technology system in use, which Project Glasswing is unlikely to be able to retroactively fix? Large, resourced companies may be able to weather the on-coming storm, but what about your local dentist office? Or a hospital? Municipal IT systems? Networked technology is *everywhere*, and these smaller businesses and institutions are likely to both have older, unpatched technology and also fewer resources to update and secure them, or deal with the consequences of a hack, which can be devastating for the business or the people they serve.

On the other hand, there does seem to be one other bit of good news with this revelation: governments, including that of the United States, have often engaged in the dubious practice of [hording zero-days][4], or collecting information about vulnerabilities that they then kept secret so that they could exploit them themselves by using them on an adversary. For those unfamiliar, “zero-day” refers to a vulnerability that has yet to be disclosed, which is why it’s on “day zero,” or before the first day of it being a known vulnerability that could now be fixed.

Mythos’s capabilities would seem to obviate this strategy, because suddenly the stash of unknown vulnerabilities isn’t really going to be such a secret, since anyone using the model will be able to find them. Mythos’s existence changes the balance of interests, where the stronger national security play by the government would be to disclose any discovered vulnerability to the vendor as soon as possible so that they can be patched and our nation’s systems more secured. Arguably that was always the better national security play, but now there’s definitely no upside to trying to keep them secret because it now definitely needs to be presumed that adversaries will be able to find and exploit them. They’ll have the tools.

With these AI models we’re going to need to presume that *everyone* is going to have the tools to know about every vulnerability. Up to now there has been at least the illusion of some security, because vulnerabilities couldn’t be exploited if no one knew about them, and finding vulnerabilities is hard. But now that it will be easy, the risk to the nation’s cybersecurity is greater than we have ever before contended with.

It is also not really a great harbinger that we know about Mythos because… a copy of the software [got leaked][5]. It’s just the software that was leaked and not the models it uses to tune its “reasoning,” which means that anyone trying to now build their own Mythos is still missing an important piece if they want to mimic its full capabilities, but they would have a lot. Which is probably why Anthropic has been sending DMCA takedown notices to have the leaked software removed from the Internet.

But doing so raises a related issue: the role of copyright law when it comes to “[vibe coding][6],” or “[having an AI system write the software rather than a programmer][7], just by instructing it on what to do. It’s especially important in light of the cybersecurity concerns always raised by software (and including vibe-coded software, as we’re having to trust that what’s produced does not have vulnerabilities). Copyright [requires a human author][8], which raises the question: [can software written by an AI be copyrightable][9]? The answer would appear to be no, unless there was a great deal of creative effort on the part of a human being to instruct the AI or modify the output. But as Ed Lee [chronicled][10], per Anthropic itself, even its own software (“pretty much 100%”) is being written by AI. And if that’s the case, then Anthropic has no business sending takedown notices for its software because DMCA takedown notices are only for demanding the removal of copyrighted works,
which, it would appear, Anthropic’s own code does not qualify for.

But maybe it’s better if software stops being subject to copyright. “Vibe coding,” is becoming [increasingly efficient][11], to the point that there is likely no need for copyright to incentivize its authorship. Instead, what public policy really needs to emphasize is that whatever software is produced is *secure* software. But in many ways copyright obstructs that goal, like through its lengthy terms, which mean that while a copyright holder might not still be maintaining its older software, no one else can maintain and patch it either, without potentially infringing the software’s copyright. Or through its privileged secrecy (unusually for copyright, when it comes to software you [don’t actually have to disclose all the actual code][12] to register a copyright in it!) and other powers to lock out security research efforts, like through Section 1201 of the DMCA, when such efforts aren’t specifically supported by the developer–assuming the developer supports any security testing at
all, as right now there aren’t necessarily the incentives to make them care about it. Instead public policy has given them the ability, like with copyright, to escape oversight of the security of their software products, even as those products end up embedded in more and more of our lives.

It’s time to change that focus and get copyright out of the way of making software security our top policy priority.

And fast.

[1]: https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/
[2]: https://www.platformer.news/anthropic-mythos-cybersecurity-risk-experts/
[3]: https://tidbits.com/2026/04/09/what-anthropics-mythos-and-project-glasswing-mean-for-your-apple-devices/
[4]: https://www.zetter-zeroday.com/u-s-government-disclosed-39-zero-day-vulnerabilities-in-2023-per-first-ever-report/
[5]: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/03/entire-claude-code-cli-source-code-leaks-thanks-to-exposed-map-file/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/vibe-coding/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/03/stop-begging-billionaires-to-fix-software-build-your-own/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2018/09/04/ninth-circuit-stops-monkeying-around-denies-en-banc-review-monkey-selfie-case/
[9]: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-5233.pdf
[10]: https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/04/03/will-anthropic-stop-boasting-its-100-vibe-coded-computer-programs-after-sending-dmca-notices-seeking-takedown-of-copies-of-leaked-source-code-for-claude-100-vibe-coded-program-might-not-be-co/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/03/how-i-built-a-task-management-tool-for-almost-nothing/
[12]: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/10/ai-and-cybersecurity-a-glass-half-empty-half-full-proposition-where-the-glass-is-holding-nitroglycerin/

Trump Threatens CNN For Very Basic Reporting On His Shitty, ...

2026-04-10T22:00:26Z

Trump Threatens CNN For Very Basic Reporting On His Shitty, Unpopular War

In case you’ve been asleep, what appears to be an increasingly mentally unstable Donald Trump has further destabilized the middle east with a war nobody asked for or wanted. Most U.S. media coverage of Trump’s disastrous Iran war hasn’t been great, but they’ve still occasionally managed to communicate the pointlessness of the endeavor to the electorate (which speaks more of the unpopularity of the war than their reporting chops).

Trump recently announced a “cease fire” with Iran (which apparently [isn’t even a cease fire][1]), but refused to state [what the conditions of the cease fire or long term peace actually are][2]. The Iranian Security Council issued a list of ten demands that, if agreed to, would leave Iran in a stronger position **[than when this whole idiocy started][3]**:

Some news outlets, like CNN, simply reported directly on what Iran had claimed. This, as you might expect, upset Donald Trump and his top FCC censor Brendan Carr, who are now threatening an “investigation” of CNN for simply repeating what was publicly stated:

> The President, White House, and FCC's Brendan Carr are calling for action — and implying a criminal investigation — against CNN for… accurately reporting what Iran's state media shared as a statement from Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
>
> — [Adam Steinbaugh (@adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social)][4] [2026-04-08T01:10:06.825Z][5]

Not mentioned (of course) is the fact that Fox News also reported the Iran statement, yet avoided being called out by the president:

> Guess who else (accurately!) reported this
>
> — [Adam Steinbaugh (@adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social)][6] [2026-04-08T01:54:27.664Z][7]

Trump later would issue another statement over at his right wing propaganda website, calling for criminal action against CNN (and CNN only), while making up a whole bunch of nonsense (he may or may not believe is actually true):

> Not a single assertion here is true.
>
> — [Adam Steinbaugh (@adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social)][8] [2026-04-08T13:04:56.201Z][9]

Trump’s sensitivity here suggests they’re well aware that a massive, superior military has been getting dog-walked by Iranians because Trump and his advisors were too stupid to understand modern, cheap drone warfare and how shipping in the Straight of Hormuz actually worked. The shipping logjam is driving up gas prices and making life difficult for Republicans ahead of the midterms.

There is, of course, absolutely zero basis for any meaningful criminal action against CNN here of any kind that wouldn’t be laughed out of court on free speech grounds. As we’ve seen with corporate media that doesn’t mean they won’t still capitulate embarrassingly, but so far [CNN is standing its ground][10]. As it should, since again, all it did was report on an Iranian statement in a very basic way alongside dozens of other news outlets.

The bigger threat, as I keep noting, is [CNN’s looming acquisition by Larry Ellison][11] as part of the Paramount Warner Brothers merger. CNN under current management is **already** very friendly to right wing ideology (see its [enthusiastic platforming of MAGA bullshitter Scott Jennings][12]). Under Ellison’s ownership (see: [Bari Weiss at CBS][13]) there’s little doubt CNN will be converted into yet another Trump agitprop network.

At which point, Trump will move on to threatening any remaining U.S. corporate media outlets that haven’t either embarrassingly capitulated or been purchased by a right wing billionaire. This is, as I keep repeating, [an exact copy of Victor Orban’s autocratic media policy in Hungary][14], which involves having party-loyal oligarchs buy up all corporate media outlets and pummel the public with propaganda while the government strangles what’s left of real, independent reporting just out of frame.

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-trump-lebanon-april-9-2026-7760f88f183ed2a13a721057e31f3ce7
[2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/us-iran-agree-ceasefire-actually-deal-will-last-rcna266838
[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/08/iran-10-point-plan-ceasefire-donald-trump-us
[4]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:7r477jd7q7p2mzmyqfm7jmp7?ref_src=embed
[5]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:7r477jd7q7p2mzmyqfm7jmp7/post/3mix4brpgkk2m?ref_src=embed
[6]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:7r477jd7q7p2mzmyqfm7jmp7?ref_src=embed
[7]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:7r477jd7q7p2mzmyqfm7jmp7/post/3mix6r3br622d?ref_src=embed
[8]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:7r477jd7q7p2mzmyqfm7jmp7?ref_src=embed
[9]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:7r477jd7q7p2mzmyqfm7jmp7/post/3miye7y7csk2f?ref_src=embed
[10]: https://deadline.com/2026/04/jake-tapper-trump-iran-statement-1236785090/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/18/pete-hegseth-we-cant-wait-for-larry-ellison-to-turn-cnn-into-another-right-wing-propaganda-mill/
[12]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/cnn-host-abby-phillip-corners-maga-panelist-scott-jennings-on-donald-trumps-insane-iran-threat/
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/bari-weiss-is-sad-that-people-arent-enjoying-her-clumsy-destruction-of-cbs-news/
[14]: https://euobserver.com/203675/how-orban-systematically-suffocated-the-hungarian-media-over-the-past-15-years/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/10/trump-threatens-cnn-for-very-basic-reporting-on-his-shitty-unpopular-war/

Minnesota Kicks Off Legal Battle With Trump Administration To ...

2026-04-04T02:39:16Z

Minnesota Kicks Off Legal Battle With Trump Administration To Hold ICE Shooters Accountable

*This story was [originally published][1] by ProPublica.* *Republished under a [CC BY-NC-ND 3.0][2]* *license.*

They asked nicely at first.

After an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three who’d recently moved to Minneapolis, local law enforcement officials requested a partnership with the federal government to investigate the case, as they’d done in past shootings involving federal agents.

When the Trump administration refused to cooperate, Minnesota prosecutors ratcheted up their efforts. They sent a series of strongly worded legal letters demanding evidence in the Good shooting as well as the shootings of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan immigrant who was wounded a week after Good was shot, and Alex Pretti, who was killed on Jan. 24.

Still, the administration rebuffed the requests.

This week, prosecutors from Hennepin County and the state of Minnesota took the next step to force the Trump administration’s hand. They filed a federal lawsuit against the departments of Homeland Security and Justice over the evidence in the shootings, an action that Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, whose jurisdiction covers Minneapolis, characterized as “unprecedented in American history.”

The Trump administration has declined to release the names of the agents involved in the shootings, even after the [Minnesota Star Tribune][3] and [ProPublica][4] identified the officers involved in the Good and Pretti incidents.

“The federal government has refused to cooperate with state law enforcement, which is unique, rare and simply cannot be tolerated,” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison told reporters. “[We] can’t sit around and let them do it.”

In the standoff over evidence, the case has already become a game of constitutional chicken over states’ rights versus federal immunity, a battle that will have implications for others who wish to hold agents in the president’s immigration surge criminally accountable.

So far, neither side is showing signs of backing down, foreshadowing a fight that could take years. If prosecutors do eventually file charges against federal agents involved in the shootings, legal experts said the path to trial, much less winning convictions, will be filled with legal and procedural challenges.

“State prosecutors across the country are going to be watching what happens in Minnesota really closely,” said Alicia Bannon, director of the judiciary program at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice.

The first test for prosecutors, if they file charges, would be to prove the agents don’t qualify for immunity through the Constitution’s [supremacy clause][5], a rarely invoked legal doctrine that protects federal officers from state prosecutions if they’re acting lawfully and within the scope of their duties.

Failing to pass that test would likely end the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken up a case involving supremacy clause immunity in over 100 years, Bannon said, and judges have come down differently on legal issues related to its application.

There’s no easy answer as to whether Minnesota will be able to get past a supremacy clause defense, said Jill Hasday, a constitutional law professor at the University of Minnesota.

“That depends on the facts, but probably the odds are stacked against it,” she said.

Even if they survive such a fight, the cases could be dogged by a series of logistical challenges. Moriarty, who has been leading the investigations, has decided not to seek reelection and will leave office at the end of the year. That means whoever wins the election for her seat in November could inherit the prosecutions.

In addition to not having the names of the agents, prosecutors don’t know where those agents are now. Minnesota may need to extradite them, potentially from a MAGA-leaning state that may balk at sending them to Hennepin County to stand trial.

“Will the federal government or other states cooperate with that? I think the answer to that is sort of iffy,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia. (Indeed, in a case involving a doctor charged with illegally mailing abortion medication to a Louisiana woman, [the state of California has rejected an extradition request][6], citing its own laws protecting doctors from prosecution elsewhere.)

The fight is focused on three shootings. But Moriarty’s office has opened criminal investigations into 14 additional cases of potentially unlawful behavior by federal agents during Operation Metro Surge, which started in early December and has wound down over the past few weeks.

The other cases Moriarty is examining involve allegations of excessive force or other misconduct by federal agents, such as an incident in early January in which agents allegedly used force on staff and students on the grounds of a high school.

Prosecutors are also investigating Gregory Bovino, the outgoing Border Patrol commander who helped to lead immigration surges into several American cities and who was seen on [video lobbing green-smoke canisters][7] into crowds at a park in Minneapolis. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said at the time that Bovino and other agents were responding to a “hostile crowd.”

The tension has played out in a series of demand letters sent by Moriarty to the Justice and Homeland Security departments. “Public transparency is vitally important in these cases — not just for the people of Hennepin County and Minnesota, but for the public nationwide,” Moriarty wrote in one of the letters. “The only way to achieve transparency is through investigation conducted at a local level.”

In January, after the shooting of Good, federal officials had agreed to participate in a joint investigation with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension — Minnesota’s state police agency tasked with examining use of deadly force cases — according to the letters signed by Moriarty.

State officials presumed they’d be able to examine evidence, such as the car Good was driving and the guns used to shoot her and the other victims. But the investigators later learned through public statements by high-ranking Trump administration officials that federal agents were no longer planning to share evidence, the letter states.

Local and state prosecutors don’t have the authority to subpoena them for evidence like in a typical criminal investigation. The demand letters, called Touhy letters, are formal written requests, used as an alternative to a subpoena, asking a federal agency to provide evidence or testimony in a case in which the government is not a party. Moriarty sought an extensive list of evidence in the shootings, from the guns fired by the agents in all three cases to official reports, agent GPS devices and witness statements. The Touhy letters asked for a response by Feb. 17.

Normally, the federal government complies with Touhy letters as a matter of protocol, as long as releasing the information doesn’t violate an internal policy, said Timothy Johnson, a political science and law professor at the University of Minnesota.

But on Feb. 13, the FBI told BCA investigators that it won’t share investigative materials in the Pretti case, BCA Superintendent Drew Evans [said in a statement][8]. Evans said the police agency had reiterated its requests for evidence in the Good and Sosa-Celis cases.

More than a month after the deadline set by prosecutors, the Trump administration still hasn’t turned over the materials.

“There has been no cooperation from federal authorities,” BCA spokesperson Michael Ernster said.

The agents involved in the shootings have not spoken publicly, but a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security defended Good’s shooting, saying the agent acted in self-defense. They said the Pretti shooting was under investigation by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, with the Border Patrol conducting its own investigation. Those investigations could result in discipline or charges, including for civil rights violations.

The Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said federal officials found that, after Sosa-Celis’ shooting, officers made false statements. But the agency did not say whether it would cooperate with the local authorities or follow a court ruling requiring it to do so.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment or to questions. Neither agency has responded to the lawsuit.

Moriarty called the lawsuit “critically important” to investigating the shooting cases but also said she had not made any decisions on whether her office will file charges.

“There has to be an investigation anytime a federal agent or a state agent takes the life of a person in our community,” she said. “And ultimately the decision may be it was lawful. You don’t know, but that’s why you do the investigation. You are transparent with the results of that investigation, and you are public with your transparency about the decision and how you got there.”

But a lawsuit does not guarantee that prosecutors will get all they want. “The question then becomes, even if Hennepin County or Minneapolis wins the suit, will they comply then?” Johnson asked. “And the answer is probably no.”

If the Trump administration did eventually defy a judge’s order, he said, prosecutors could try to appeal up to the U.S. Supreme Court. As far as what could happen next: “It’s anyone’s guess.”

[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/minnesota-trump-ice-shooting-lawsuit-alex-pretti-renee-good
[2]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
[3]: https://www.startribune.com/ice-agent-who-fatally-shot-woman-in-minneapolis-is-identified/601560214
[4]: https://www.propublica.org/article/alex-pretti-shooting-cbp-agents-identified-jesus-ochoa-raymundo-gutierrez
[5]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/
[6]: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/01/14/governor-newsom-rejects-louisianas-attempt-to-extradite-california-doctor-for-providing-abortion-care/
[7]: https://www.startribune.com/border-patrol-greg-bovino-smoke-canister-chemical-spray-ice-protests-observers-minneapolis-dhs/601568184
[8]: https://dps.mn.gov/news/bca/statement-bca-superintendent-drew-evans-alex-pretti-shooting-investigation

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/minnesota-kicks-off-legal-battle-with-trump-administration-to-hold-ice-shooters-accountable/

In Chiles V. Salazar The Supreme Court Issues A Bad Good First ...

2026-04-03T22:33:18Z

In Chiles V. Salazar The Supreme Court Issues A Bad Good First Amendment Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision last year in *[U.S. v. Skirmetti][1]*, upholding a law depriving young trans people the healthcare they need, is [insupportable][2], rendering people unequal in a way the Constitution cannot possibly suborn. But its new decision in *[Chiles v. Salazar][3]* regarding the First Amendment standard to use regarding Colorado’s law regarding conversion therapy is different. Despite its similar subject matter relating to sexual orientation and gender identity sounding similar to *Skirmetti*, it’s actually another *[303 Creative][4]*, another case that endorsed bigoted views unacceptably hostile to LGBTQ+ people. But for much the same reason that 303 Creative was an important articulation of the First Amendment’s expansive protection—despite the apparent prejudice the plaintiff (and the Court) advanced—so is this decision.

That’s what’s good about this decision, that it recognizes that the First Amendment operates in the professional licensing space and requires heightened scrutiny before states can be permitted to constrain licensing when those constraints are predicated on viewpoints expressed by the licensee, including as part of the provision of services. Heightened scrutiny is what makes the First Amendment’s protections meaningful, and the Court has not always been consistent or coherent in requiring it, particularly with respect to licensure. But when heightened scrutiny isn’t required, it becomes much harder to fight censorial actions taken by the government, including those driven by animus, and including those driven by anti-LGBTQ+ animus—which would also include those actions targeted at therapists supporting LGBTQ+ patients, such as [those recently announced by Ken Paxton in Texas][5]. This Supreme Court decision now makes it much, much harder for him to get away with silencing those
therapists whose therapy affirmed their patients’ identity by putting their license at risk if they do.

The main problem with this decision however is that the Court picked a law prohibiting conversion therapy as the moment to finally articulate that heightened scrutiny applies with respect to licensing, including medical licensing. Conversion therapy, as Justice Jackson described in her dissenting opinion, is a scientifically-discredited approach “designed to ‘convert’ a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, so that the person will become heterosexual or cisgender.” [Dissent p.3]. Historically it has been provided via “aversive modalities,” that many have likened to torture, such as “inducing nausea, vomiting, or paralysis in patients or subjecting them to severe electric shocks to telling patients to snap an elastic band on their wrists in response to nonconforming thoughts.” [Dissent p.3]

Importantly, however, to the extent that any law prohibits these practices, those laws remain in force—*this decision does not affect such laws*. (“The question before us is a narrow one. Ms. Chiles does not question that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy has some constitutionally sound applications. She does not take issue with the State’s effort to prohibit what she herself calls ‘long-abandoned, aversive’ physical interventions.” [Majority p.7]). But it does reach conversion therapy delivered via talk therapy, where therapists “seek to encourage patients to change their behavior in an attempt to ‘change’ their identity” still are. [Dissent p.3]. As Jackson explained, this approach also causes real harm. [Dissent p.4-5]. And it’s a kind of harm that states like Colorado, who passed the law challenged here, have an interest in stopping. [Dissent p.5-7].

Making it hard for states to do so raises a number of concerns, such as that the decision will give a veneer of legitimacy to conversion therapy and stoke the hostile anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes driving it, as well as create the risk that conversion therapy, at least insofar as it includes talk therapy, might be something that minors could be legally subjected to in Colorado and elsewhere. There is also the fear that even if the Court has now articulated a good rule about heightened scrutiny it will only remember to apply it in cases like these where it will lead to results consistent with the Court majority’s biases—in other words, while the Court may be happy to subject Colorado’s anti-conversion therapy rule to strict scrutiny, there is the fear that it will conveniently forget to apply it to, say, Texas’s law trying to punish those who refuse to engage in it.

It also raises a collateral concern even on the speech-protection front, that subjecting licensure requirements to strict scrutiny could have the practical effect of diluting the standard. As Jackson also noted, we have long allowed states to regulate medical professionals, [Dissent p.8], as well as other licensed professionals like lawyers, and much of the regulation is directed to how licensed practitioners speak in some way as they provide their services. Perhaps all these efforts could actually pass strict scrutiny. In fact, it’s even still possible that Colorado’s law might yet survive it; although Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion casts some doubt, the case is not over.

Rather than deciding it for themselves, the Court remanded the case back to the lower courts to this time apply the more exacting strict scrutiny standard rather than the less-demanding rational basis review they originally applied. Presumably there will be more opportunity for briefing and argument to show how the particular harm of conversion therapy creates the compelling state interest Colorado needed to act, and that its prohibition of licensed therapists from providing it via talk therapy is a remedy that is sufficiently narrowly tailored.

But the problem with applying strict scrutiny to so much regulation targeting licensing is that it might start to become too easy to satisfy when there are strong policy reasons to favor the government action, and as a result strict scrutiny will no longer be useful as a standard if it essentially allows everything, instead of being a meaningful filter. There are after all always compelling reasons for the government to care about the quality of the services licensees deliver via their professional expression, but just because the government has a valid reason to regulate does not mean that everything it does to regulate is constitutional.

Strict scrutiny also requires that the state action be narrowly tailored, in addition to being motivated by a compelling reason, and it’s too easy for courts to skip that part of the analysis, as we saw with the [TikTok ban][6] when it was somehow blessed by the DC Circuit. And the fear is that the more strict scrutiny is applied to what is fairly ordinary state regulation—of licensed practitioners—the more likely it will have the practical effect of creating precedent that dilutes the standard so that it is no longer so strict when we need it to be, especially for state action that is more exceptional. (On the TikTok ban the Supreme Court had greenlighted it using a lesser standard, which was itself extremely problematic as the ban should have been found unconstitutional, but at least the tool that should have applied to it remained sharp for future use, rather than dulled by this bad decision.)

On the other hand, a decision upholding the lower courts’ use of rational basis review would have done no one any favors. As Justice Kagan wrote in her concurrence, joined by Justice Sotomayor, it is easy to imagine a law that mirrors what the Colorado one does, prohibiting talk therapy that accepts LGBTQ+ identity instead of challenges it, and now advocates are left with a much more powerful tool to challenge it.

> * Of course, it does not matter what the State’s preferred side is. Consider a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado’s. Instead of barring talk therapy designed to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, this law bars therapy affirming those things. As Ms. Chiles readily acknowledges, the First Amendment would apply in the identical way. * [Concurrence p.3]

As Texas shows, such a situation is not hypothetical. But now with this decision people challenging such censorial government efforts can turn to long-established First Amendment doctrine in their fight. And the doctrine remains stable, rather than something now swiss-cheesed with bespoke exceptions tied to certain policy preferences. No matter how valid those preferences, if they can be given special constitutional treatment then so can the bad ones. This decision helps buttress the guardrails preventing speech from being protected or not based on whether the government likes it, which is the whole reason we have the First Amendment, to make sure government preferences cannot dictate what views people can express.

Which is especially important when the courts cannot be trusted to overcome their biases to have good sense about which policy preferences are good and bad. The Supreme Court of course only has [itself to blame][7] that the public is so primed to believe that its decisions are driven by its biases and not neutral, sustainable doctrine. But nevertheless this decision still stands as an important declaration of law that is consistent with existing First Amendment jurisprudence and one that will ultimately leave everyone, including those challenging government actions attacking LGBTQ+ interests, far better off than if the Court had let the lower courts’ decisions invalidating the law stand after using a less speech-protective rule. In fact it will be an important one for anyone fighting censorship in any context, including those we generally talk about here, to use, because with this decision, the rule that has long been the rule remains the rule: when a government action non-incidentally
touches on speech, is content-based, and is not viewpoint neutral, strict scrutiny applies.

Per this decision, a law targeting what therapists can say inherently involves speech, and not in an incidental way. And it targets it in a way that is not viewpoint-neutral; it has a specific preference, that conversion therapy is bad. As a result, as a law that targets the content of speech in a way that is not viewpoint-neutral, strict scrutiny, a more exacting standard than the rational basis review the lower courts had used, is required.

> *Turning to the merits, both the district court and the Tenth Circuit denied Ms. Chiles’s request for a preliminary injunction. The courts recognized that Ms. Chiles provides only “talk therapy.” And they acknowledged that Colorado’s law regulates the “verbal language” she may use. But, the courts held, the main thrust of the State’s law is to delineate which “treatments” and “therapeutic modalit[ies]” are permissible. Accordingly, the courts reasoned that Colorado’s law is best understood as regulating “professional conduct.” At most, they continued, Colorado’s law regulates speech only “incidentally” to professional conduct. As a result, the courts concluded, Colorado’s law triggers no more than “rational basis review” under the First Amendment, requiring the State to show merely that its law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Because the State satisfied that standard, the courts held that Ms. Chiles was not entitled to the relief she sought.* [Majority
> p.6]

> *[…]*

> * Consistent with the First Amendment’s jealous protections for the individual’s right to think and speak freely, this Court has long held that laws regulating speech based on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “presumptively unconstitutional.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. 155, 163 (2015). As a general rule, such “content-based” restrictions trigger “strict scrutiny,” a demanding standard that requires the government to prove its restriction on speech is “narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” Ibid. Under that test, it is ” ‘rare that a regulation . . . will ever be permissible.’ ” Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S. 786, 799 (2011) (quoting United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 818 (2000)).*

> *We have recognized, as well, the even greater dangers associated with regulations that discriminate based on the speaker’s point of view. When the government seeks not just to restrict speech based on its subject matter, but also seeks to dictate what particular “opinion or perspective” individuals may express on that subject, “the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829 (1995). “Viewpoint discrimination,” as we have put it, represents “an egregious form” of content regulation, and governments in this country must nearly always “abstain” from it. Ibid.; see also Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U. S. 388, 393 (2019) (describing “the bedrock First Amendment principle that the government cannot discriminate” based on view-point (internal quotation marks omitted)); Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 112–113 (2001); Barnette, 319 U. S., at 642.* [Majority p.8-9]

> *[…]*

> * As applied here, Colorado’s law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech. It goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express. For a gay client, Ms. Chiles may express “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for the facilitation of . . . identity exploration.” For a client “undergoing gender transition,” Ms. Chiles may likewise offer words of “[a]ssistance.” But if a gay or transgender client seeks her counsel in the hope of changing his sexual orientation or gender identity, Ms. Chiles cannot provide it. The law forbids her from saying anything that “attempts . . . to change” a client’s “sexual orientation or gender identity,” including anything that might represent an “effor[t] to change [her client’s] behaviors or gender expressions or . . . romantic attraction[s].”* [Majority p.13]

But even if the law as it stands can’t survive strict scrutiny, in her concurrence, joined by Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan suggested ways the law might be amended so that it could be upheld.

> *It would, however, be less [likely to be unconstitutional] if the law under review was content based but viewpoint neutral. Such content-based laws, as the Court explains, trigger strict scrutiny “[a]s a general rule.” But our precedents respecting those laws recognize complexity and nuance. We apply our most demanding standard when there is any “realistic possibility that official suppression of ideas is afoot”—when, that is, a (merely) content-based law may reasonably be thought to pose the dangers that viewpoint-based laws always do. Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U. S. 177, 189 (2007). But when that is not the case—when a law, though based on content, raises no real concern that the government is censoring disfavored ideas—then we have not infrequently “relax[ed] our guard.” Reed, 576 U. S., at 183 (opinion of KAGAN, J.); see Davenport, 551 U. S., at 188 (noting the “numerous situations in which [the] risk” of a content-based law “driv[ing] certain ideas or viewpoints
> from the marketplace” is “attenuated” or “inconsequential, so that strict scrutiny is unwarranted”). Just two Terms ago, for example, the Court declined to apply strict scrutiny to a content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restriction. See Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. 286, 295 (2024); id., at 312 (BARRETT, J., concurring in part); id., at 329–330 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment). In the trademark context, as in some others, experience and reason alike showed “no significant danger of idea or viewpoint” bias. R. A. V., 505 U. S., at 388.*

> * The same may well be true of content-based but viewpoint-neutral laws regulating speech in doctors’ and counselors’ offices.* Medical care typically involves speech, so the regulation of medical care (which is, of course, pervasive) may involve speech restrictions. And those restrictions will generally refer to the speech’s content. Cf. Reed, 576 U. S., at 177 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment) (noting that “[r]egulatory programs” addressing speech “inevitably involve content discrimination”). But laws of that kind may not pose the risk of censorship—of “official suppression of ideas”—that appropriately triggers our most rigorous review. R. A. V., 505 U. S., at 390. And that means the “difference between viewpoint-based and viewpoint-neutral content discrimination” in the health-care context could prove “decisive.” Vidal, 602 U. S., at 330 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). Fuller consideration of that question, though, can wait for another day. We need not here decide how to assess
> viewpoint-neutral laws regulating health providers’ expression because, as the Court holds, Colorado’s is not one.* [Concurrence p.3-4]

Ultimately, despite all of the concerns, the decision is still a good one that will leave everyone better off. And not just for cases that reach the Supreme Court but in every state and federal court hearing every challenge of laws trying to penalize certain views, including those accepting of LGBTQ+ identities. Whereas a decision to the contrary, one that would have allowed a rational basis standard to be the test for the law’s constitutionality, could be used to defend laws that, instead of fighting LGBTQ+ prejudice as this one tried to do, instead *advanced* it. As Texas illustrates, already there are examples of certain government actors attempting to impose their biased viewpoints via licensing requirements for therapists. This decision, even if it may stand as an individual reflection of LGBTQ+ animus by this Supreme Court, still makes further state action motivated by it that much harder for any government actor to impose.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Skrmetti
[2]: https://www.lawdork.com/p/where-is-the-outrage-over-skrmetti
[3]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/06/in-303-creative-by-happily-helping-one-bigot-scotus-perhaps-inadvertently-helped-the-larger-fight-against-bigotry/
[5]: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-issues-landmark-legal-opinion-declaring-it-illegal-mental-health
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/17/in-upholding-the-tiktok-ban-scotus-compromises-and-with-it-the-first-amendment/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2021/09/22/night-united-states-supreme-court-cancelled-law/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/in-chiles-v-salazar-the-supreme-court-issues-a-bad-good-first-amendment-decision/

Can Agentic AI Coding Tools Finally End Copyright For Software ...

2026-04-03T20:09:26Z

Can Agentic AI Coding Tools Finally End Copyright For Software While Re-Inventing Open Source?

Most of the discussions about the impact of the latest [generative AI][1] systems on copyright have centered on text, images and video. That’s no surprise, since writers, artists and film-makers feel very strongly about their creations, and members of the public can relate easily to the issues that AI raises for this kind of creativity. But there’s another creative domain that has been massively affected by genAI: software engineering. More and more professional coders are using generative AI to write major elements of their projects for them. Some top engineers even claim that [they have stopped coding completely][2], and now act more as a manager for the AI generation of code, because the available tools are now so powerful. This applies in the world of open source software too. But a recent incident shows that it raises some interesting copyright issues there that are likely to affect the entire software world.

It concerns a project called [chardet][3], “a universal character encoding detector for Python. It analyzes byte strings and returns the detected encoding, confidence score, and language.” [A long and detailed post on Ars Technica][4] explains what has happened recently:

> *The [chardet] repository was originally written by coder Mark Pilgrim [in 2006][5] and released under [an LGPL license][6] that placed strict limits on how it could be reused and redistributed.*
>
> *Dan Blanchard took over maintenance of the repository in 2012 but waded into some controversy with the release of [version 7.0 of chardet][7] last week. Blanchard described that overhaul as “a ground-up, MIT-licensed rewrite” of the entire library built with the help of Claude Code to be “much faster and more accurate” than what came before.*

Licensing lies at the heart of open source. When [Richard Stallman][8] invented the concept of [free software][9], he did so using a new kind of software license, the [GPL][10]. This allows anyone to use and modify software released under the GPL, provided they release their own code under the same license. As the above description makes clear, chardet was originally released under the LGPL – one of the GPL variants – but version 7.0 is licensed under the much more permissive [MIT license][11]. According to Ars Technica:

> *Blanchard says he was able to accomplish this “AI clean room” process by first specifying an architecture in a design document and writing out some requirements to Claude Code. After that, Blanchard “started in an empty repository with no access to the old source tree and explicitly instructed Claude not to base anything on LGPL/GPL-licensed code.”*

That is, generative AI would appear to allow open source licenses like the GPL to be circumvented by rewriting the code without copying anything directly from the original. That’s possible because AI is now so good at coding that the results can be better than the original, as Blanchard proved with version 7.0 of chardet. And because it is new code, it can be released under any license. In fact, it is quite possible that code produced by genAI is not covered by copyright at all, for the same reason that [artistic output created solely by AI can’t be copyrighted][12]. If the license can be changed or simply cancelled in this way, then there is no way to force people to release their own variants only under the GPL, as Stallman intended. Similarly, the incentive for people to contribute their own improvements to the main version is diminished.

The ramifications extend even further. These kind of “AI clean room” implementations could be used to make new versions of any proprietary software. That’s been possible for decades – Stallman’s 1983 [GNU project][13] is itself a clean-room version of [Unix][14] – but generally requires many skilled coders working for long periods to achieve. The arrival of highly-capable genAI coding tools has brought down the cost by many orders of magnitude, which means it is relatively inexpensive and quick to produce new versions of any software.

In effect, generative AI coding systems make copyright irrelevant for software, both open source and proprietary. That’s because what is important about computer code is not the details of how it is written, but what it does. AI systems can be guided to create drop-in replacements for other software that are functionally identical, but with completely different code underneath.

Companies that license their proprietary software will probably still be able to do so by offering support packages plus the promise that they take legal responsibility for their code in a way that AI-generated alternatives don’t: businesses would pay for a promise of reliability plus the ability to sue someone when things go wrong. But for the open source world these are not relevant. As a result, the latest progress in AI coding seems a serious threat to the underlying development model that has worked well for the last 40 years, and which underpins most software in use today. But [a wise post by Salvatore “antirez” Sanfilippo][15] sees opportunities too:

> *AI can unlock a lot of good things in the field of open source software. Many passionate individuals write open source because they hate their day job, and want to make something they love, or they write open source because they want to be part of something bigger than economic interests. A lot of open source software is either written in the free time, or with severe constraints on the amount of people that are allocated for the project, or – even worse – with limiting conditions imposed by the companies paying for the developments. Now that code is every day less important than ideas, open source can be strongly accelerated by AI. The four hours allocated over the weekend will bring 10x the fruits, in the right hands (AI coding is not for everybody, as good coding and design is not for everybody).*

Perhaps a new kind of open source will emerge – Open Source 2.0 – one in which people do not contribute their software patches to a project, as they do today, but instead send their prompts that produce better versions. People might start working directly on the prompts, collaborating on ways to fine tune them. It’s open source hacking but functioning at a level above the code itself.

One possibility is that such an approach could go some way to solving the so-called “[Nebraska problem][16]”: the fact that key parts of modern digital infrastructure are underpinned up by “a project some random person in Nebraska has been thanklessly maintaining since 2003”. That person may not receive many more thanks than they have in the past, but with AI assistants constantly checking, rewriting and improving the code, at least the selfless dedication to their project becomes a little less onerous, and thus a little less likely to lead to programmer burn out.

*Follow me @glynmoody on [Mastodon][17] and on [Bluesky][18]. Originally published to [Walled Culture][19].*

[1]: https://walledculture.org/?s=generative+ai
[2]: https://fortune.com/2026/01/29/100-percent-of-code-at-anthropic-and-openai-is-now-ai-written-boris-cherny-roon/
[3]: https://chardet.readthedocs.io/en/7.2.0/
[4]: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/03/ai-can-rewrite-open-source-code-but-can-it-rewrite-the-license-too/
[5]: https://pypi.org/project/chardet/1.0/
[6]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html
[7]: https://github.com/chardet/chardet
[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
[9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
[10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
[11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
[12]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/us-judge-art-created-solely-by-artificial-intelligence-cannot-be-copyrighted/
[13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project
[14]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
[15]: https://antirez.com/news/162
[16]: https://xkcd.com/2347/
[17]: https://mastodon.social/@glynmoody
[18]: https://bsky.app/profile/glynmoody.bsky.social
[19]: https://walledculture.org/why-genai-means-the-end-of-copyright-for-software-and-the-re-invention-of-open-source/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/can-agentic-ai-coding-tools-finally-end-copyright-for-software-while-re-inventing-open-source/

Daily Deal: Hypergear 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Dock The ...

2026-04-03T20:04:14Z

Daily Deal: Hypergear 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Dock

The [Hypergear 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Dock][1] is meticulously engineered to reduce the cable clutter and streamline your daily routine. Featuring 2 dedicated wireless charging surfaces, you can power up your phone and AirPods easily. In addition, you can charge your Apple Watch with the built-in charger mount. Stylish and compact, the dock is perfect for your tabletop, desk, or nightstand and will effortlessly charge your everyday essentials in one convenient place. It’s on sale for $33.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: http://deals.techdirt.com/sales/hypergear-3-in-1-wireless-charging-dock?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/daily-deal-hypergear-3-in-1-wireless-charging-dock-3/

The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Are Built On A Scientific ...

2026-04-03T18:03:51Z

The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Are Built On A Scientific Premise That Experts Keep Telling Us Is Wrong

Last week, I wrote about why the social media addiction verdicts against Meta and YouTube [should worry anyone who cares about the open internet][1]. The short version: plaintiffs’ lawyers found a clever way to recharacterize editorial decisions about third-party content as “product design defects,” effectively gutting Section 230 without anyone having to repeal it. The legal theory will be weaponized against every platform on the internet, not just the ones you hate. And the encryption implications of the New Mexico decision alone should terrify everyone. You can read that post for more details on the legal arguments.

But there’s a separate question lurking underneath the legal one that deserves its own attention: is the scientific premise behind all of this even right? Are these platforms actually causing widespread harm to kids? Is “social media addiction” a real thing that justifies treating Instagram like a pack of Marlboros? We’ve covered versions of this debate in the past, mostly [looking at studies][2]. But there are other forms of expert analysis as well.

Long-time Techdirt reader and commenter Leah Abram pointed us to a newsletter from Dr. Katelyn Jetelina and Dr. Jacqueline Nesi that [digs into exactly this question with the kind of nuance][3] that’s been almost entirely absent from the mainstream coverage. Jetelina runs the widely read “Your Local Epidemiologist” newsletter, and Nesi is a clinical psychologist and professor at Brown who studies technology’s effects on young people.

And what they’re saying lines up almost perfectly with what we’ve been saying here at Techdirt for years, often to enormous pushback: *social media does not appear to be ****inherently**** harmful to children*. What appears to be true is that there is a *small* group of kids for whom it’s genuinely problematic. And the interventions that would actually help those kids look nothing like the blanket bans and sweeping product liability lawsuits that politicians and trial lawyers are currently pursuing. And those broad interventions do real harm to many more people, especially those who are directly [helped][4] by social media.

Let’s start with the “addiction” question, since that’s the framework on which these verdicts were built. Here’s Nesi:

> *There is much debate in psychology about whether social media use (or, really, any non-substance-using behavior outside of gambling) can be called an “addiction.” There is no clear neurological or diagnostic criteria, like a blood test, to make this easy, so it’s up for debate:*
>
> * *On one hand, some researchers argue that compulsive social media use shares enough features (loss of control, withdrawal-like symptoms, continued use despite harm) to warrant the diagnosis for treatment.*
> * *Others say the evidence for true neurological dependency is still weak and inconsistent because research relies on self-reported data, findings haven’t been replicated, and many heavy users don’t show true clinical impairment without pre-existing issues.*

Her bottom line is measured and careful in a way that you almost never hear from the politicians and lawyers who claim to be acting on behalf of children:

> *Here’s my current take: There are a small number of people whose social media use is so extreme that it causes significant impairment in their lives, and they are unable to stop using it despite that impairment. And for those people, maybe addiction is the right word.*
>
> *For the vast majority of people (and kids) using social media, though, I do not think addiction is the right word to use.*

That’s a leading expert on technology and adolescent mental health, someone who has personally worked with hospitalized suicidal teenagers, telling you that for the vast majority of kids, “addiction” is the wrong word. And she has a specific, evidence-based reason for why that distinction matters — one that should be of particular interest to anyone who actually wants platforms held accountable for the kids who are being harmed.

Nesi argues that overusing the addiction label doesn’t just lack scientific precision. It actively weakens the case for meaningful platform accountability:

> *Preserving the precision of the addiction label — reserving it for the small number of kids whose use is genuinely compulsive and impairing — actually strengthens the case for platform accountability, rather than weakening it. It’s that targeted claim that has driven legal action and regulatory pressure. Expanding it to average use shifts focus from systemic design fixes to individual diagnosis, and dilutes the very argument that holds platforms responsible.*

This is a vital point that runs counter to the knee-jerk reactions of both the trial lawyers and the moral panic crowd. If you say every kid using social media is an addict, you’ve made the concept of addiction meaningless, and you’ve made it dramatically harder to identify and help the kids who are actually suffering. You’ve also given platforms an easy out: if everyone’s addicted, then it’s just a feature of how humans interact with technology, and *nobody* is specifically responsible for anything. Precision is what creates accountability. Vagueness destroys it.

We highlighted something similar back in January, when [a study published in Nature’s Scientific Reports][5] found that simply priming people to think about their social media use in addiction terms — such as using language from the U.S. Surgeon General’s report — reduced their own perceived control, increased their self-blame, and made them recall more failed attempts to change their behavior. The addiction framing *itself* was creating a feeling of helplessness that made it harder for people to change their habits. As the researchers in that study put it:

> *It is impressive that even the two-minute exposure to addiction framing in our research was sufficient to produce a statistically significant negative impact on users. This effect is aligned with past literature showing that merely seeing addiction scales can negatively impact feelings of well-being. Presumably, continued exposure to the broader media narrative around social media addiction has even larger and more profound effects.*

So we’re stuck with a situation where the dominant public narrative — “social media is addicting our children” — appears to be both scientifically imprecise and actively counterproductive for the people it claims to help. That’s a real problem. And it would be nice if the moral panic crowd would start to recognize the damage they’re doing.

None of this means there are no risks. Nesi is quite clear about that, drawing on her own clinical work:

> *A few years ago, I ran a study with adolescents experiencing suicidal thoughts in an inpatient hospital unit. Many of the patients I spoke to had complex histories of abuse, neglect, bullying, poverty, and other major stressors. Some of these patients used social media in totally benign, unremarkable ways. A few of them, though, were served with an endless feed of suicide-related posts and memes, some romanticizing or minimizing suicide. For those patients, it would be very hard to argue that social media did not contribute to their symptoms, even with everything else going on in their lives.*

Nobody who has paid serious attention to this issue disputes that. There are kids for whom social media is a contributing factor in genuine mental health crises. The question has always been whether that reality justifies treating social media as an inherently dangerous product that harms all children — the premise on which these lawsuits and legislative bans are built.

The evidence consistently says no. When it comes to whether social media actually causes mental health issues, the newsletter is direct:

> *The scientific community has substantial correlational evidence and some, but not much, causal evidence of harm. Studies that randomly assigned people to stop using social media show mixed results, depending on how long they stopped, whether they quit entirely or just reduced use, and what they were using it for.*

And:

> *It is still the case that if you take an average, healthy teen and give them social media, this is highly unlikely to create a mental illness.*

This is consistent with what we’ve been reporting on for years, including [two massive studies covering 125,000 kids][6] that found either a U-shaped relationship (where moderate use was associated with the best outcomes and no use was sometimes worse than heavy use) or flat-out zero causal effect on mental health. Every time serious researchers go looking for the inherent-harm story that politicians keep telling, they come up empty.

One of the most fascinating details in the newsletter is the Costa Rica comparison. Costa Rica ranks #4 in the 2026 World Happiness Report. Its residents use just as much social media as Americans. And yet:

> *It doesn’t necessarily have fewer mental illnesses. And it certainly doesn’t have less social media use. What it has is a deep social fabric, and that may mean social media use reinforces real-world connections in Costa Rica, whereas in English-speaking countries, it may be replacing them.*
>
> *In other words, cultural factors appear to be protective. The underlying challenges to social foundations — trust, connection, belonging, and safety — are what drive happiness. ****Friendships, being known by someone, the sense that you belong somewhere: these are the actual load-bearing pillars of mental health, more predictive of wellbeing than income, and more protective against mental illness than almost any intervention we have****.*

If social media were inherently harmful — if the “addictive design” of infinite scroll and autoplay and algorithmic recommendations were the core problem — Costa Rica would be suffering the same outcomes as the United States. They have the same platforms, same features, and same engagement mechanics. What actually differs is the strength of the social fabric, not the tools themselves.

This is a similar point I raised [in my review of Jonathan Haidt’s book][7] two years ago. If you go past his cherry-picked data, you can find tons of countries with high social media use where rates of depression and suicide have gone down. There are clearly many other factors at work here, and little evidence that social media is a key factor at all.

That realization completely changes how we should think about policy. If the problem is weak social foundations — not enough connection, not enough belonging, not enough adults showing up for kids — then banning social media or suing platforms into submission won’t fix it. You’ll have addressed the wrong variable. And in the process, you’ll have made the platforms worse for the many kids (including LGBTQ+ teens in hostile communities, kids with rare diseases, teens in rural areas) who rely on them for the connection and community that their physical environment doesn’t provide.

Nesi’s column has some practical advice that is pretty different than what that best selling book might tell you:

> *If you know your teen is vulnerable, perhaps due to existing mental health challenges or social struggles, you may want to be extra careful.*
>
> *If your teen is using social media in moderation, and it does not seem to be affecting them negatively, it probably isn’t.*

That sounds so obvious it feels almost silly to type out. And yet it is the exact opposite of the approach we see in the lawsuits and bans currently dominating the policy landscape, which assume social media is a universally dangerous product requiring universal restrictions.

The newsletter closes with a key line that highlights the nuance that so many people ignore:

> *Social media may be one piece of the puzzle, but it’s certainly not the whole thing.*

We’ve been making this point at Techdirt for a long time now, often in the face of considerable hostility from people who are deeply invested in the simpler narrative. I’ve written about Danah Boyd’s useful framework of understanding [the differences between *risks* and *harms*][8], and how moral panics confuse those two things. I’ve covered so many studies that find no causal link that I’ve lost count. I’ve pointed out how the “addiction” framing may be doing more damage than the platforms themselves.

That’s why it’s encouraging to see credentialed, independent researchers — people who work directly with the most vulnerable kids — end up in the same place through their own work. Because this conversation desperately needs more voices willing to acknowledge both realities: that some kids are genuinely harmed and need *targeted* help, and that the sweeping narrative of universal social media harm is not supported by the science and leads to policy responses that may hurt far more people than they help.

The kids who are in that small, genuinely vulnerable group deserve interventions designed for them — better mental health funding and access along with better identification of at-risk youth. What they don’t deserve is to have their suffering used as a blunt instrument and a prop to reshape the entire internet through lawsuits built on a scientific premise that the actual scientists [keep telling us is wrong][9].

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-social-media-addiction-verdicts-against-meta-should-understand-what-theyre-actually-cheering-for/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-study-says-theres-no-evidence-that-social-media-is-inherently-harmful-to-teens/
[3]: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/what-many-parents-are-missing-about
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/17/australias-social-media-ban-is-isolating-kids-with-disabilities-just-like-critics-warned/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/the-social-media-addiction-narrative-may-be-more-harmful-than-social-media-itself/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/two-major-studies-125000-kids-the-social-media-panic-doesnt-hold-up/
[7]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-parent/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/10/10/the-social-media-moral-panic-is-all-about-confusing-risks-harms/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/10/experts-universally-pan-jonathan-haidts-the-anxious-generation-as-unscientific-garbage-but-politicians-keep-buying-it-anyway/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/the-social-media-addiction-verdicts-are-built-on-a-scientific-premise-that-experts-keep-telling-us-is-wrong/

Senators Ask Tulsi Gabbard To Tell Americans That VPN Use Might ...

2026-04-03T16:24:22Z

Senators Ask Tulsi Gabbard To Tell Americans That VPN Use Might Subject Them To Domestic Surveillance

This may not be an actual “Wyden siren,” but it still has his name attached to it. What’s being said here isn’t nearly as ominous as this single sentence he sent to CIA leadership [earlier this year][1]:

> *I write to alert you to a classified letter I sent you earlier today in which I express deep concerns about CIA activities.*

Few people are capable of saying so much with so little. This one runs a bit longer, but it has implications that likely run deeper than the surface level issue raised by Wyden and others in a recent letter to Trump’s (satire is dead) Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Here are the details, [as reported by Dell Cameron for Wired][2]:

> *In a letter sent Thursday to Director of National Intelligence [Tulsi Gabbard][3], the lawmakers say that because VPNs obscure a user’s true location, and because intelligence agencies presume that communications of unknown origin are foreign, Americans may be inadvertently waiving the privacy protections they’re entitled to under the law.*
>
> *Several federal agencies, including the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the Federal Trade Commission, have [recommended][4] that consumers use VPNs to [protect their privacy][5]. But following that advice may inadvertently cost Americans the very protections they’re seeking.*
>
> *The letter was signed by members of the Democratic Party’s progressive flank: Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs.*

That’s alarming. It’s also a conundrum. VPN use (often required for remote logins to corporate systems) is a great way to secure connections that are otherwise insecure, like those made originating from people’s homes (to log into their work stuff) or utilizing public Wi-Fi. There are also more off-the-book uses, like circumventing regional content limitations or just ensuring your internet activity can’t be tied to your physical location.

The trade-off depends on the threat you’re trying to mitigate. It’s kind of like the trade-off in cell phone security. Using biometrics markers to unlock your phone might be the best option if what you’re mainly concerned with is theft of your device. A thief might be able to guess a password, but they won’t be able to duplicate an iris or a fingerprint.

But if the threat you’re more worried about is this government, you’ll want the passcode. [Courts have generally found][6] that fingerprints and eyeballs aren’t “testimonial,” so if you’re worried about being compelled to unlock your device, the Fifth Amendment [tends to favor passwords][7], at least as far as the courts are concerned.

It’s almost the same thing here. VPNs might protect you against garden-variety criminals, but the intentional commingling of origin/destination points by VPNs could turn purely domestic communications into “foreign” communications the NSA can legally intercept (and the FBI, somewhat less-legally can dip into at will).

That’s the substance [of the letter][8] sent to Gabbard, in which the legislators ask the DNI to issue public guidance on VPN usage that makes it clear that doing so *might* subject users to (somewhat inadvertent) domestic surveillance:

> *Americans reportedly spend billions of dollars each year on commercial VPN services, many of which are offered by foreign-headquartered companies using servers located overseas. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, VPNs have the potential to be vulnerable to surveillance by foreign adversaries. While Americans should be warned of these risks, they should also be told if these VPN services, which are advertised as a privacy protection, including by elements of the federal government, could, in fact, negatively impact their rights against U.S. government surveillance. To that end, we urge you to be more transparent with the American public about whether the use of VPNs can impact their privacy with regard to U.S. government surveillance, and clarify what, if anything, American consumers can do to ensure they receive the privacy protections they are entitled to under the law and Constitution.*

I wouldn’t expect a response from ODNI. I mean, I wouldn’t expect one in any case, but I especially don’t expect Tulsi Gabbard to respond to a letter sent by a handful of Democratic Party members.

A warning would be nice, but even an Intelligence Community overseen by competent professionals, rather than loyalists and Fox News commentators would be hard-pressed to present a solution. To be fair, this letter isn’t asking for a fix, but rather telling the Director of National Intelligence to inform the public of the risks of VPN usage, including increasing their odds of being swept up in NSA dragnets.

Certainly the NSA isn’t concerned about “[incidental collection][9].” It’s never been too concerned about its consistent “incidental” collection of US persons’ communications and data in the past and this isn’t going to budge the needle, especially since it means the NSA would have to do more work to filter out domestic communications and the FBI would be less than thrilled with any efforts made to deny it access to communications it doesn’t have the legal right to obtain on its own.

Since the government won’t do this, it’s up to the general public, starting with everyone sharing the contents of this letter with others. VPNs can still offer considerable security benefits. But everyone needs to know that domestic surveillance is one of the possible side effects of utilizing this tech.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/05/the-wyden-siren-senators-cryptic-cia-letter-follows-a-pattern-thats-never-been-wrong/
[2]: https://www.wired.com/story/using-a-vpn-may-subject-you-to-nsa-spying/
[3]: https://www.wired.com/story/tulsi-gabbard-dni-weak-password/
[4]: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/02/market-vpn-app
[5]: https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/News-Highlights/Article/Article/2791320/nsa-cisa-release-guidance-on-selecting-and-hardening-remote-access-vpns/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/25/ninth-circuit-5th-amendment-doesnt-cover-compelled-production-of-fingerprints-to-unlock-a-phone/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/search/?num=20&q=fifth+amendment+password&search=Search
[8]: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_letter_to_gabbard_on_commercial_vpn.pdf
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/16/wacky-nsa-slide-tells-agents-not-to-worry-about-incidental-collection-info-americans/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/senators-ask-tulsi-gabbard-to-tell-americans-that-vpn-use-might-subject-them-to-domestic-surveillance/

The Trump Administration Is Trying To Steal $21 BIllion Earmarked ...

2026-04-03T12:25:06Z

The Trump Administration Is Trying To Steal $21 BIllion Earmarked For Better Broadband

A quick refresher: there was originally $42.5 **billion** in broadband grants headed to the states thanks to the 2021 infrastructure bill most Republicans voted against (yet [routinely try to take credit for among their constituents][1]).

But after taking office this second time, the Trump administration rewrote the grant program’s guidance to [eliminate provisions ensuring the resulting broadband is affordable to poor people][2], and to ensure that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos gets [billions in new broadband subsidies][3] for their fledgling satellite broadband networks.

Money given to Bezos and Musk is money **not** spent on better, faster, local fiber optics (especially [popular community owned networks][4]). A serious broadband policy would ensure that open access fiber is the priority, followed by wireless, with satellite filling the gaps. Satellite was never intended to be the **primary** delivery mechanism for broadband, because of [obvious congestion and capacity constraints][5].

The Trump NTIA is doing all of this under the pretense that giving taxpayer money to billionaires (for satellite service they already planned to deploy) instead of spending it on high quality fiber is “saving taxpayers money.” That’s generally resulted in widespread delays for this BEAD (Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment) program, despite Republicans spending much of last election season complaining [this program was taking too long][6].

The Trump NTIA hijacking of the program has also created a $21 billion pool of “[non deployment funds][7]” made up of the fake savings Republicans claim they created by screwing up the program. There’s a looming fight emerging over what happens to that money. **Congress and the infrastructure law specifically states this money is supposed to be dedicated to expanding broadband access. **

States would obviously like to use this money either for broadband, [or for local infrastructure][8]. But you get the sense that this giant wad of cash is very tempting for the Trump administration to just hijack and use as an unaccountable slush fund, doled out to its most loyal red state allies (or just kept by the “Treasury”).

After delays and excuses extended in to last summer, the Trump NTIA was supposed to provide guidance for states on how this money could be used earlier this month, [but has been a no show][9]:

> *“Under pressure from senators at an appropriations hearing, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick last month sought to calm fears when he said that so-called “non-deployment” funds under the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment, or BEAD, program would not be rescinded.*
>
> *But with no guidance so far from the department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which was expected but delayed this week, lawmakers and others are pushing to have their voice heard on exactly how states will be able to use the $21 billion pot of money.”*

It’s not clear if states can trust the word of Lutnick (who’s been a little [distracted by Epstein allegations][10]). The Trump administration has threatened (quite illegally) to [withhold BEAD funding entirely from states][11] that attempt to stand up to telecom monopolies or insist that taxpayer-funded broadband is affordable. There were also several initiatives to withhold BEAD funds if states tried to regulate AI.

Unsurprisingly, many states are afraid to be honest about what a cock up this whole hijacking has been in the press for fear of losing billions in potential (and already technically awarded) funding.

There’s a real potential here that taxpayer money that was originally earmarked for future-proof, ultra-fast fiber network is going to be repurposed into a general free for all slush fund that gets redirected to whoever praises the Trump administration the most. And I wouldn’t be surprised that this ultimately results in state lawsuits against the federal government for redirecting funds.

“I think the state officials who think they’re going to be made whole, need to reread the Merchant of Venice, because [NTIA boss Arielle] Roth is coming for her pound of flesh,” Sascha Meinrath, Palmer Chair in Telecommunications at Penn State University, told me in an email. “I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s operationalized in a way to directly target or disadvantage blue states — whether in what it does, or what’s tied to the acceptance of the funding.”

One last side note: last election season the “abundance” folks like Ezra Klein spent ample time parroting GOP criticism of the admitted delays and problems with this BEAD program (ignoring [why the program took so long][12], as well as other examples of [similar broadband grant programs from the same year doing well][13]) as an example of a Democratic bureaucratic dysfunction.

But I’ve noticed that since Trump hijacked the program, introduced massive delays, redirected billions to billionaires, and even **tried to run off with half the funding**, the subject *hasn’t been revisited by Klein since*. Quite generally (since infrastructure just doesn’t get those clicks) the press coverage of this whole mess has ranged from nonexistent to positively tepid.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/27/republicans-keep-taking-credit-for-billions-in-broadband-subsidies-only-made-possible-by-the-covid-relief-and-infrastructure-bills-they-vehemently-opposed/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/26/republicans-helping-poor-people-and-minorities-afford-broadband-is-illegal-now-sorry/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/12/42-5-billion-broadband-grant-program-being-rewritten-to-benefit-elon-musk/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/31/community-owned-broadband-network-again-tops-list-of-most-popular-isps/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/31/study-shows-musks-starlink-too-congested-to-tackle-u-s-broadband-woes-despite-billions-in-new-subsidies/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/01/jon-stewart-and-ezra-klein-help-gop-paint-infrastructure-bill-broadband-grants-as-a-useless-boondoggle/
[7]: https://broadbandbreakfast.com/experts-say-21-million-remaining-bead-funds-at-risk-of-going-unused/
[8]: https://rollcall.com/2026/03/12/broadband-program-uncertainty-has-lawmakers-states-on-watch/
[9]: https://rollcall.com/2026/03/12/broadband-program-uncertainty-has-lawmakers-states-on-watch/
[10]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/27/howard-lutnick-jeffrey-epstein-photo
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/28/trump-threatens-to-withold-billions-from-states-that-try-to-make-broadband-affordable-to-poor-people/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/01/jon-stewart-and-ezra-klein-help-gop-paint-infrastructure-bill-broadband-grants-as-a-useless-boondoggle/
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/01/jon-stewart-and-ezra-klein-help-gop-paint-infrastructure-bill-broadband-grants-as-a-useless-boondoggle/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/the-trump-administration-is-trying-to-steal-21-billion-earmarked-for-better-broadband/

DOGE Goes Nuclear: How Trump Invited Silicon Valley Into ...

2026-04-03T03:08:14Z

DOGE Goes Nuclear: How Trump Invited Silicon Valley Into America’s Nuclear Power Regulator

*This story was [originally published][1] by ProPublica.* *Republished under a [CC BY-NC-ND 3.0][2]* *license.*

Last summer, a group of officials from the Department of Energy gathered at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling 890-square-mile complex in the eastern desert of Idaho where the U.S. government built its first rudimentary nuclear power plant in 1951 and continues to test cutting-edge technology.

On the agenda that day: the future of nuclear energy in the Trump era. The meeting was convened by 31-year-old lawyer Seth Cohen. Just five years out of law school, Cohen brought no significant experience in nuclear law or policy; he had just entered government through Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency team.

As Cohen led the group through a technical conversation about licensing nuclear reactor designs, he repeatedly downplayed health and safety concerns. When staff brought up the topic of radiation exposure from nuclear test sites, Cohen broke in.

“They are testing in Utah. … I don’t know, like 70 people live there,” he said.

“But … there’s lots of babies,” one staffer pushed back. Babies, pregnant women and other vulnerable groups are thought to be potentially more susceptible to cancers brought on by low-level radiation exposure, and they are usually afforded greater protections.

“They’ve been downwind before,” another staffer joked.

“This is why we don’t use AI transcription in meetings,” another added.

ProPublica reviewed records of that meeting, providing a rare look at a dramatic shift underway in one of the most sensitive domains of public policy. The Trump administration is upending the way nuclear energy is regulated, driven by a desire to dramatically increase the amount of energy available to power artificial intelligence.

Career experts have been forced out and thousands of pages of regulations are being rewritten at a sprint. A new generation of nuclear energy companies — flush with Silicon Valley cash and boasting strong political connections — wield increasing influence over policy. Figures like Cohen are forcing a “move fast and break things” Silicon Valley ethos on one of the country’s most important regulators.

The Trump administration has been particularly aggressive in its attacks on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the bipartisan independent regulator that approves commercial nuclear power plants and monitors their safety. The agency is not a household name. But it’s considered the international gold standard, often influencing safety rules around the world.

The NRC has critics, especially in Silicon Valley, where the often-cautious commission is portrayed as an impediment to innovation. In an early salvo, President Donald Trump fired NRC Commissioner Christopher Hanson last June after Hanson spoke out about the importance of agency independence. It was the first time an NRC commissioner had been fired.

During that Idaho meeting, Cohen shot down any notion of NRC independence in the new era.

“Assume the NRC is going to do whatever we tell the NRC to do,” he said, records reviewed by ProPublica show. In November, Cohen was made chief counsel for nuclear policy at the Department of Energy, where he oversees a broad nuclear portfolio.

The aggressive moves have sent shock waves through the nuclear energy world. Many longtime promoters of the industry say they worry recklessness from the Trump administration could discredit responsible nuclear energy initiatives.

“The regulator is no longer an independent regulator — we do not know whose interests it is serving,” warned Allison Macfarlane, who served as NRC chair during the Obama administration. “The safety culture is under threat.”

A ProPublica analysis of staffing data from the NRC and the Office of Personnel Management shows a rush to the exits: Over 400 people have left the agency since Trump took office. The losses are particularly pronounced in the teams that handle reactor and nuclear materials safety and among veteran staffers with 10 or more years of experience. Meanwhile, hiring of new staff has proceeded at a snail’s pace, with nearly 60 new arrivals in the first year of the Trump administration compared with nearly 350 in the last year of the Biden administration.

Some nuclear power supporters say the administration is providing a needed level of urgency given the energy demands of AI. They also contend the sweeping changes underway aren’t as dangerous or dire as some experts suggest.

“I think the NRC has been frozen in time,” said Brett Rampal, the senior director of nuclear and power strategy at the investment and strategy consultancy Veriten. “It’s a great time to get unfrozen and aim to work quickly.”

The White House referred most of ProPublica’s questions to the Department of Energy, where spokesperson Olivia Tinari said the agency is committed to helping build more safe, high-quality nuclear energy facilities.

“Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, America’s nuclear industry is entering a new era that will provide reliable, abundant power for generations to come,” she wrote. The DOE is “committed to the highest standards of safety for American workers and communities.”

Cohen did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The NRC declined to comment.

### Blindsided by DOGE

The U.S. has not had a serious nuclear incident since the Three Mile Island partial meltdown in 1979, a track record many experts attribute to a rigorous regulatory environment and an intense safety culture.

Major nuclear incidents around the world have only [strengthened the resolve][3] of past regulators to stay independent from industry and from political winds. A chief cause of Japan’s Fukushima accident, investigators found, was the cozy relationship between the country’s industry and oversight body, which opened the door for thin safety assessments and inaccurate projections overlooking the possible impact of a major tsunami.

“We knew regulatory capture led directly to Fukushima and to Chernobyl,” said Kathryn Huff, who was assistant secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy during the Biden administration.

The U.S. has barely built any nuclear power plants in recent decades. Only three new reactors have been completed in the last 25 years, and since 1990 the U.S has barely added any net new nuclear electricity to its grid. Though about 20% of U.S. energy is supplied by nuclear power plants, the fleet is aging. Some experts blame the slow build-out on the challenging economics of financing a multibillion-dollar project and the uncertainty of accessing and disposing of nuclear fuels.

But an increasingly vocal group of industry voices and deregulation advocates have blamed the slow build-out on overly cautious and inefficient regulators. Among the most powerful exponents of this view are billionaires Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen; both venture capitalists have their own investments in the nuclear energy sector and are influential Trump supporters.

Andreessen camped out at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club in Florida, after Trump won the 2024 election, helping pick staff for the new administration. In late 2024, Thiel personally vetted at least one candidate for the Office of Nuclear Energy, according to people familiar with the conversations. Neither responded to requests for comment.

Four months into his second term, Trump signed a series of executive orders designed to supercharge nuclear power build-out. “It’s a hot industry, it’s a brilliant industry,” said Trump, flanked by nuclear energy CEOs in the Oval Office. He added: “And it’s become very safe.”

Under those orders, the NRC was directed to reduce its workforce, speed up the timeline for approving nuclear reactors and rewrite many of its safety rules. The DOE — which has a vast nuclear portfolio, including waste cleanup sites and government research labs — was tasked with creating a pathway for so-called advanced nuclear companies to test their designs.

The goal, Trump said, was to quadruple nuclear energy output and provide new power to the data centers behind the AI boom.

As DOGE [gutted agencies][4], departures mounted in the nuclear sector. Career experts in nuclear regulations and safety departed or were forced out. When Trump fired Hanson, a Democratic NRC commissioner, the president’s team explained the move by saying, “All organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction.”

In an unsigned email to ProPublica, the White House press office wrote: “All commissioners are presidential appointees and can be fired just like any other appointee.”

In August, the NRC’s top attorney resigned and was replaced by oil and gas lawyer David Taggart, who had been [working on DOGE cuts][5] at the DOE. In all, the nuclear office at the DOE had lost about a third of its staff, according to a January 2026 count by the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit focused on science and technology policy.

That summer, Cohen and a team of DOGE operatives touched down at the NRC offices, a series of nondescript towers across from a Dunkin’ in suburban Maryland. He was joined by Adam Blake, an investor who had recently founded an AI medical startup and has a background in real estate and solar energy, and Ankur Bansal, president of a company that created software for real estate agents. Neither would comment for this story.

Many career officials who spoke with ProPublica were blindsided: The new Trump officials at the NRC seemed to have no experience with the intricacies of nuclear energy policy or law, they said. One NRC lawyer who briefed some of the new arrivals decided to resign. “They were talking about quickly approving all these new reactors, and they didn’t seem to care that much about the rules — they wanted to carry out the wishes of the White House,” the official said.

At one point, Cohen began passing out hats from nuclear energy startup Valar Atomics, one of the companies vying to build a new reactor, according to sources familiar with the matter and records seen by ProPublica. NRC staffers balked; they were supposed to monitor companies like Valar for safety violations, not wear its swag.

NRC ethics officials warned Cohen that the hat handout was a likely violation of conflict rules. It betrayed a misunderstanding of the safety regulator’s role, said a former official familiar with the exchange. “Imagine you live near a nuclear power plant, and you find out a supposedly independent safety regulator — the watchdog — is going around wearing the power plant’s branded hats,” the official said. “Would that make you feel safe?” The NRC and Cohen did not respond to requests for comment about the hat incident.

Valar counts Trump’s Silicon Valley allies as angel investors. They include Palmer Luckey, a technology executive and founder of the defense contractor Anduril, and Shyam Sankar, chief technology officer of Palantir, the software company helping power Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation raids.

It was among three nuclear reactor companies that sued the NRC last year in an attempt to strip it of its authority to regulate its reactors and replace it with a state-level regulator. Before the Trump administration came into office, lawyers watching the case were confident the courts would quickly dismiss the suit, as the NRC’s authority to regulate reactors is widely acknowledged. But new Trump appointees pushed for a compromise settlement — which is still being negotiated. The career NRC lawyer working on the case quietly left the agency.

Valar and its executives did not reply to requests for comment.

### “Going So Fast”

The deregulatory push is the culmination of mounting pressure — both political and economic — to make it easier to build nuclear power in the U.S. Over the years, a bipartisan coalition supporting nuclear expansion brought together environmentalists who favor zero-carbon power and defense hawks focused on abundant domestic energy production.

Anti-nuclear activists still argue that renewable energy like wind and solar are safer and more economical. But streamlining the NRC has been a bipartisan priority as well. The latest major reform came in 2024, when President Joe Biden signed into law the ADVANCE Act, which went as far as changing the mission statement of the NRC to ensure it “does not unnecessarily limit” nuclear energy development.

Some nuclear power supporters say the Trump administration is merely accelerating these changes. They cite instances in which the current regulations appear out of sync with the times. The NRC’s byzantine rules are designed for so-called large light-water reactors — massive facilities that can power entire cities — and not the increasingly in vogue smaller advanced reactor designs popular among Silicon Valley-backed firms.

Rules that require fences of certain heights might make little sense for new reactors buried in the earth; and rules that require a certain number of operators per reactor could be a bad fit for a cluster of smaller reactors with modern controls. Advances in sensors, modeling and safety technologies, they say, should be taken into account across the board.

The NRC has said it expects over two dozen new license requests from small modular and advanced reactor companies in coming years. Many of those requests are likely to come from new, Silicon Valley-based nuclear firms.

“There was a missing link in the innovation cycle, and it was very difficult to build something and test it in the U.S. because of mostly licensing and site availability constraints in the past,” said Adam Stein of the pro-nuclear nonprofit Breakthrough Institute.

The regulatory changes are in flux: This spring, the NRC is starting to release thousands of pages of new rules governing everything from the safety and emergency preparedness plans reactor companies are required to submit to the procedures for objecting to a reactor license.

“It’s hard to know if they are getting rid of unnecessary processes or if it’s actually reducing public safety,” said one official working on reactor licensing, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation from the Trump administration. “And that’s just the problem with going so fast — everything just kind of gets lost in a mush.”

Lawyers from the Executive Office of the President have been sent to the NRC to keep an eye on the new rules, a move that further raised alarms about the agency’s independence.

Nicholas Gallagher — a relatively recent New York University law school graduate and conservative writer [whom ProPublica previously identified as a DOGE operative][6] at the General Services Administration — has been involved in conversations about overhauling environmental rules.

He’s working alongside Sydney Volanski, a 30-year-old recent law school graduate who rose to national attention while she was in high school for her campaign against the Girl Scouts of America, which she accused of promoting “Marxists, socialists and advocates of same-sex lifestyle.”

NRC lawyers working on the rules were told last October that Gallagher and Volanski would be joining them, and they both appear on the regular NRC rulemaking calendar invite.

The White House maintains, however, that “zero lawyers from the Executive Office of the President have been dispatched to work on rulemaking.” Neither Gallagher nor Volanski replied to requests for comment.

The administration is routing the new rules through an office overseen by Trump’s cost-cutting guru Russell Vought, a move that was previously unheard of for an independent regulator like the NRC. The White House spokesperson noted that, under a recent executive order, this process is now required for all agencies.

Political operatives have been “inserted into the senior leadership team to the point where they could significantly influence decision-making,” said Scott Morris, who worked at the NRC for more than 32 years, most recently as the No. 2 career operations official. “I just think that would be a dangerous proposition.”

Morris voted for Trump twice and broadly supports the goals of deregulating and expanding nuclear energy, but he has begun speaking out against the administration’s interference at the NRC. He retired in May 2025 as part of a wave of retirements and firings.

At a recent hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board — an independent body that helps adjudicate nuclear licensing — NRC lawyers withdrew from the proceedings, citing “limited resources.” The judge remarked that it was the first time in over 20 years the NRC had done so.

Meanwhile, some staff members, other career officials say, are afraid to voice dissenting views for fear of being fired. “It feels like being a lobster in a slowly boiling pot,” one NRC official who has been working on the rule changes told ProPublica, describing the erosion of independence.

The official was one of three who compared their recent experience at NRC to being in a pot of slowly boiling water. “If somebody is raising something that they think that the industry or the White House would have a problem with, they think twice,” the official said.

Inside the NRC, the steering committee overseeing the changes includes Cohen, Taggart and Mike King, a career NRC official who is the newly installed executive director for operations. The former director, Mirela Gavrilas, a 21-year veteran of the agency, retired after getting boxed out of decision-making, according to a person familiar with her departure. Gavrilas did not respond to a request for comment.

Any final changes will be approved by the NRC’s five commissioners, three of whom are Republicans. In September, the two Democratic commissioners told a Senate committee they might be fired at any time if they get crosswise with Trump — [including over revisions to safety rules][7].

Draft rules being circulated inside the NRC [propose drastic rollbacks][8] of security and safety inspections at nuclear facilities. Those include a proposed 56% cut in emergency preparedness inspection time, CNN reported in March.

Even some pro-nuclear groups are troubled by the emerging order. Some have tried to backchannel to their contacts in the Trump administration to explain the importance of an independent regulator to help maintain public support for nuclear power. Without it, they risk losing credibility.

“You have to make sure you don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater,” said Judi Greenwald, president and CEO of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit that promotes nuclear energy and supports many of the regulatory changes being proposed by the Trump administration.

Greenwald’s group favors faster timelines for approving nuclear reactors, but she worries that the agency’s fundamental independence has been undermined. “We would prefer that they yield back more of NRC independence,” she said.

### “Nuke Bros” in Silicon Valley

One Trump administration priority has been making it easier for so-called advanced reactor companies to navigate the regulatory process. These firms, mostly backed by Silicon Valley tech and venture money, are often working on designs for much smaller reactors that they hope to mass produce in factories.

“There are two nuclear industries,” said Macfarlane, the former NRC chair. “There are the actual people who use nuclear reactors to produce power and put it on the grid … and then there are the ‘nuke bros’” in Silicon Valley.

Trump’s Silicon Valley allies have loomed large over his nuclear policy. One prospective political appointee for a top DOE nuclear job got a Christmas Eve call from Thiel, the rare Silicon Valley leader to back Trump in 2016. Thiel, whose Founders Fund invested in a nuclear fuel startup and an advanced reactor company, quizzed the would-be official about deregulation and how to rapidly build more nuclear energy capacity, said sources familiar with the conversation.

Nuclear energy startups jockeyed to spend time at Mar-a-Lago in the months before the start of Trump’s second term. Balerion Space Ventures, a venture capital firm that has invested in multiple companies, convened an investor summit there in January 2025, according to an invitation viewed by ProPublica. Balerion did not reply to a request for comment.

A few months later, when Trump was drawing up the executive orders, leaders at many of those nuclear companies were given advanced access to drafts of the text — and the opportunity to provide suggested edits, documents viewed by ProPublica show.

Those orders created a new program to test out experimental reactor designs, addressing a common complaint that companies are not given opportunities to experiment. There are [currently][9] about a dozen advanced reactor companies planning to participate. Each has a concierge team within the DOE to help navigate bureaucracy. As [NPR reported in January][10], the DOE quietly overhauled a series of safety rules that would apply to these new reactors and shared the new regulations with these companies before making them public.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright — who [served on the board][11] of one of those companies, Oklo — [has said][12] fast nuclear build-out is a priority: “We are moving as quickly as we can to permit, build and enable the rapid construction of as much nuke capacity as possible,” he told CNBC last fall. Oklo noted that Wright stepped down from the board when he was confirmed.

The Trump administration hopes some of the companies would have their reactors “go critical” — a key first step on the way to building a functioning power plant — by July 2026. Then the NRC, which signs off on the safety designs of commercial nuclear power plants, could be expected to quickly OK these new reactors to get to market.

According to people familiar with the conversations, at least one nuclear energy startup CEO personally recruited potential members of the DOGE nuclear team, though it’s not clear if Cohen was brought aboard this way. Cohen has told colleagues and industry contacts that he reports to Emily Underwood, one of Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s top aides for economic policy. He is perceived inside government as a key avatar of the White House’s nuclear agenda.

In its email to ProPublica, the White House said, “Seth Cohen is a Department of Energy employee and does not report to Emily Underwood or Stephen Miller in any capacity.”

The DOE spokesperson added, “Seth’s role at the Department of Energy is to support the Trump administration’s mission to unleash American Energy Dominance.”

Cohen has been pushing to raise the legal limit of radiation that nuclear energy companies are allowed to emit from their facilities. One nuclear industry insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said many firms are fixating on changing these radiation rules: Their business model requires moving nuclear reactors around the country, often near workers or the general public.

Building thick, expensive shielding walls can be prohibitively expensive, they said.

Valar CEO Isaiah Taylor has called limits on exposure to radiation a top barrier to industry growth. A recent DOE memo seen by ProPublica cites cost savings on shielding for Valar’s reactor to justify changing those limits. “Shielding-related cost reductions,” the memo said, “could range from $1-2 million per reactor.” The debate over the precise rule change is ongoing.

The DOE has been considering a fivefold increase to the limit for public exposure to radiation, which will allow some nuclear reactor companies to cut costs on these expensive safety shields, internal DOE documents seen by ProPublica show.

A presentation prepared by DOE staffers in their Idaho offices that has circulated inside the department makes the “business case” for changing the radiation dose rules: It could cut the cost of some new reactors by as much as 5%. These more relaxed standards are likely to be adopted by the NRC and apply to reactors nationwide, documents show.

In February, Wright accompanied Valar’s executive team on a first-of-its-kind flight, as a U.S. military plane was conscripted to fly the company’s reactor from Los Angeles to Utah. Valar does not yet have a working nuclear reactor, and a number of industry sources told ProPublica they viewed the airlift as a PR exercise. Internal government memos justified the airlift by designating it as “critical” to the U.S. “national security interests.”

Cohen posted smiling pictures of himself from the cargo bay of the military plane.

Cohen told an audience at the American Nuclear Society that the rapid build-out was essential to powering Silicon Valley’s AI data centers. He framed the policy in existential terms: “I can’t emphasize this strongly enough that losing the AI war is an outcome akin to the Nazis developing the bomb before the United States.”

As it deliberated rule changes, the DOE has cut out its internal team of health experts who work on radiation safety at the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, said sources familiar with the decision. The advice of outside experts on radiation protection has been largely cast aside.

The DOE spokesperson said its radiation standards “are aligned with Gold Standard Science … with a focus on protecting people and the environment while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.”

The department has already decided to abandon the long-standing radiation protection principle known as “ALARA” — the “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” standard — which directs anyone dealing with radioactive materials to minimize exposure.

It often pushes exposure well below legal thresholds. Many experts agreed that the ALARA principle was sometimes applied too strictly, but the move to entirely throw it out was opposed by many prominent radiation health experts.

Whether the agencies will actually change the legal thresholds for radiation exposure is an open question, said sources familiar with the deliberations.

Internal DOE documents arguing for changing dose rules cite a report produced at the Idaho National Laboratory, which was compiled with the help of the AI assistant Claude. “It’s really strange,” said Kathryn Higley, president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, a congressionally chartered group studying radiation safety. “They fundamentally mistake the science.”

John Wagner, the head of the Idaho National Laboratory and the report’s lead author, acknowledged to ProPublica that the science over changing radiation exposure rules is hotly contested. “We recognize that respected experts interpret aspects of this literature differently,” he wrote. His analysis was not meant to be the final word, he said, but was “intended to inform debate.”

The impact of radiation levels at very low doses is hard to measure, so the U.S. has historically struck a cautious note. Raising dose limits could put the U.S. out of step with international standards.

For his part, Cohen has told the nuclear industry that he sees his job as making sure the government “is no longer a barrier” to them.

In June, he shot down the notion of companies putting money into a fund for workplace accidents. “Put yourself in the shoes of one of these startups,” he said. “They’re raising hundreds of millions of dollars to do this. And then they would have to go to their VCs and their board and say, listen, guys, we actually need a few hundred million dollars more to put into a trust fund?”

He also suggested that regulators should not fret about preparing for so-called 100-year events — disasters that have roughly a 1% chance of taking place but can be catastrophic for nuclear facilities.

“When SpaceX started building rockets, they sort of expected the first ones to blow up,” he said.

[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-nuclear-power-nrc-safety-doge-vought
[2]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
[3]: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/slides/2014/20140731/nas-20140731.pdf
[4]: https://projects.propublica.org/elon-musk-doge-tracker/
[5]: https://www.axios.com/pro/energy-policy/2025/03/21/energy-department-memo-doge-cuts
[6]: https://projects.propublica.org/elon-musk-doge-tracker/#Nicholas-Gallagher
[7]: https://www.eenews.net/articles/dem-nrc-members-warn-they-could-be-fired-over-safety-decisions/
[8]: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/10/climate/trump-nuclear-regulation-safety-energy-future
[9]: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-names-11-advanced-reactor-projects-for-rapid-deployment/757535/#:~:text=DOE%20on%20Tuesday%20named%2010,test%20reactors%2C%20the%20DOE%20said.
[10]: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/nx-s1-5677187/nuclear-safety-rules-rewritten-trump
[11]: https://oklo.com/newsroom/news-details/2025/Oklo-Announces-Board-Transition-Following-Chris-Wrights-Confirmation-as-Secretary-of-Energy/default.aspx
[12]: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1907327333463476

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/02/doge-goes-nuclear-how-trump-invited-silicon-valley-into-americas-nuclear-power-regulator/

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Age Old Questions **[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] is a ...

2026-04-02T22:21:45Z

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Age Old Questions

**[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and [Everything in Moderation][2]‘s Ben Whitelaw. **

**Subscribe now on [Apple Podcasts][3], [Overcast][4], [Spotify][5], [Pocket Casts][6], [YouTube][7], or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to [the RSS feed][8].**

In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:

* [It’s official: Australia’s teen social media ban isn’t working, yet][9] (Crikey)
* [Social Media Minimum Age – Compliance update][10] (eSafety Commision)
* [Blunder from Down Under][11] (Ctrl-Alt-Speech)
* [April 3 could create a dangerous gap in child safety across Europe][12] (Thorn)
* [Commissioners pile pressure on Parliament to pass child sexual abuse bill][13] (POLITICO)
* [Weeks After Denouncing Government Censorship On Rogan, Zuckerberg Texted Elon Musk Offering To Take Down Content For DOGE][14] (Techdirt)
* [What Is YouTube’s Dominance Doing to Us? We Asked Its C.E.O.][15] (The New York Times)
* [This Episode is Broadly Safe To Listen To][16] (Ctrl-Alt-Speech)
* [Meta will “substantially reduce” describing Instagram teen accounts as PG-13][17] (Engadget)
* [Rated R for Ridiculous][18] (Ctrl-Alt-Speech)

If you’ve got Elon Musk in your Ctrl-Alt-Speech [2026 Bingo Card][19] this week, you’re in luck.

[1]: https://ctrlaltspeech.com/
[2]: https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/
[3]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193
[4]: https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193
[5]: https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc
[6]: https://pca.st/zulnarbw
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z
[8]: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss
[9]: https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/03/31/australias-teen-social-media-ban-isnt-working-yet/
[10]: https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-03/SocialMediaMinimumAgeComplianceUpdateMarch2026.pdf?v=1774896996569
[11]: https://podcast.ctrlaltspeech.com/2315966/episodes/15750024-blunder-from-down-under
[12]: https://www.thorn.org/blog/april-3-could-create-a-dangerous-gap-in-child-safety-across-europe/
[13]: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commissioners-blast-parliament-over-delays-to-online-child-abuse-crackdown/
[14]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/31/weeks-after-denouncing-government-censorship-on-rogan-zuckerberg-texted-elon-musk-offering-to-take-down-content-for-doge/
[15]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/28/magazine/neal-mohan-interview.html
[16]: https://podcast.ctrlaltspeech.com/2315966/episodes/18555672-this-episode-is-broadly-safe-to-listen-to
[17]: https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-will-substantially-reduce-describing-instagram-teen-accounts-as-pg-13-175912683.html
[18]: https://podcast.ctrlaltspeech.com/2315966/episodes/18025148-rated-r-for-ridiculous
[19]: https://www.ctrlaltspeech.com/bingo/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/02/ctrl-alt-speech-age-old-questions/

The AI Doc’s Falsehoods And False Balance There is a familiar ...

2026-04-02T20:03:01Z

The AI Doc’s Falsehoods And False Balance

There is a familiar media failure in which opposing viewpoints are presented as equally valid, even when the evidence overwhelmingly supports one side. It’s called **Bothsidesism**. This false balance phenomenon legitimizes misinformation and undermines public understanding by giving disproportionate weight to baseless claims.

Why bring this up? Because the new [AI Doc][1] film is based on it.

The film wants credit for being “balanced” because it assembles a wide range of experts. But putting Prof. Fei-Fei Li, [a pioneering computer scientist][2], next to someone like Eliezer Yudkowsky, an [author of a Harry Potter fanfic][3], is not “balance.”

Once you understand that false equivalence is baked into the film’s storytelling, you understand how misleading and manipulative the documentary is. And it is compounded by a series of falsehoods that go unchallenged and uncorrected.

This review addresses both failures.

**The “AI Doc” Movie**

“The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist,” co-directed by Daniel Roher and Charlie Tyrell, sets out to explore AI, especially its potential for good and bad, with a strong emphasis on the filmmakers’ anxieties and fears. Its basic premise is: “A father-to-be tries to figure out what is happening with all this AI insanity.” As [summarized][4] by Andrew Maynard from *Future of Being Human*:

> *“The documentary progresses through the eyes of director Daniel Roher as he faces a tsunami of existential AI angst while grappling with the responsibility of becoming a father. Motivated by a fear that artificial intelligence could spell the end of everything that matters, he sets out to interview some of the largest (and loudest) voices in AI to fathom out whether this is the best of times or worst of times for him and his wife (filmmaker Caroline Lindy) to bring a kid into the world.”*

The “loudest voices” include many AI doomer figures, such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, Dan Hendrycks, Daniel Kokotajlo, Connor Leahy, Jeffrey Ladish, and two of the most populist voices on emerging tech (first social media and now AI): Tristan Harris and Yuval Noah Harari. The film also features voices on AI ethics, including David Evan Haris, Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Deborah Raji, and Karen Hao. On the more boosterish side, there are Peter Diamandis and Guillaume Verdon (AKA Beff Jezos). Three leading AI CEOs were also interviewed: OpenAI’s Sam Altman, DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis, and Anthropic’s Amodei siblings, Dario and Daniela. (Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg declined, and xAI’s Elon Musk agreed but never showed up).

The movie started playing in theaters on March 27, but there are already plenty of reviews (dating back to the Sundance Film Festival). The praise is fairly consistent: It is timely, wide-ranging, visually energetic, and unusually well-connected, with access to major AI figures.

The most common criticism is that it is too deferential to interviewees and too thin on hard interrogation or concrete answers. As several reviewers put it:

1. “Roher’s willingness to [blindly accept][5] any and all of his speakers’ pronouncements leaves *The AI Doc *feeling toothless.”
2. “By giving its doomer and accelerationist voices so much time to present AI’s most hyperbolic potential outcomes [with little pushback][6], the documentary’s first half plays more like an overlong advertisement for the technology as opposed to a piece of measured analysis.”
3. “Roher acts as a fantastic storyteller, but he treats his subjects too gently. The film desperately [needs more pushback during the interviews][7].”

Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, told the *AP*: “[My hope is][8] that this film is kind of like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ or ‘The Social Dilemma’ for AI.”

That is not reassuring. It is more like a glaring warning sign. Harris’s “[Social Dilemma][9]” and “[AI Dilemma][10]” movies were full of misinformation and nonsensical hyperbole, and both were designed to be manipulative and dishonest. If anything, his endorsement tells you exactly what kind of movie this is.

After watching the AI Doc, I realized what the doomers had managed to accomplish here: The film absorbs the panic rather than investigates it.

**The False Balance of The AI Doc**

The AI Doc starts with what one reviewer called a “[Doom Parade][11].” It aims to set the tone.

“[The worst AI predictions are presented first][12],” another reviewer noted. “Eliezer Yudkowsky, co-founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, calmly talks of the ‘abrupt extermination’ of humanity.”

And it is worth remembering who Yudkowsky is and what he has actually advocated. In his [notorious][13] TIME op-ed, “Shut it All Down,” he argued that governments should “be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike.” In his book “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies,” which many reviewers found [unconvincing][14] and “unnecessarily dramatic sci-fi,” he (and his co-author Nate Soares) proposed that governments must bomb labs suspected of developing AI. Based on what exactly? On the authors’ overconfident, binary worldview and speculative scenarios, which they mistake for inevitability.

One review of that book observed, “The plan with *If Anyone Builds It *seems to be to [sane-wash][15] him [Yudkowsky] for the airport books crowd, sanding off his wild opinions.”

That is more or less what the new documentary does, too. The AI Doc sane-washes the loudest doomers for mainstream viewers, sanding off their wild opinions.

In his newsletter, David William Silva [addresses][16] the documentary’s “series of doomers,” who “describe AI-driven extinction with the calm confidence of people who have said these things so many times they have stopped noticing they have no evidence for them.”

“Roher’s reaction is full terror,” Silva adds. “I hope it is unequivocally evident that this is not journalism.”

That gets to the heart of it. The film pretends to weigh competing perspectives, but in practice, it grants disproportionate authority to people most invested in flooding the zone with AI panic. And there is a well-oiled machine behind this kind of AI panic. As Silva writes:

> *“The people behind the AI anxiety machine. […] They know that predicting human extinction by software is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. They know they don’t have it. They know ‘my kids won’t live to see middle age’ is nothing but performance. […] And they do it anyway. Why do you think that is? The calculation is simple. Some people will see through it, and they will be annoyed, write rebuttals, call it what it is. Ok, fine. Just an acceptable loss. The believers, on the other hand, are a market. As long as the ratio stays favorable, the machine is profitable.”*

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this film is Harris.[^{[1][17]}] He is framed as if he is in the middle between the two main camps (doomers and accelerationists), and his narrative gradually becomes the film’s narrative (similar to the Social Dilemma). His call to action even serves as the ending (with a QR code directing viewers to a [designated website][18]).

The problem is that this framing has very little to do with reality. Harris’s Center for Humane Technology got $500,000 from the [Future of Life Institute][19] for “AI-related policy work and messaging cohesion within the AI X-risk [existential risk] community.” That is not a neutral player.

There’s a touching scene in the film where Roher mentions his father’s cancer treatment and expresses hope that AI might help. Harris appears visibly emotional. But in other contexts, Harris has argued *against* looking at AI for help with cancer treatment… in the belief that it would lead to extinction. Here he is [on Glenn Beck’s show][20] in 2023:

> *“My mother died from cancer several years ago. And if you told me that we could have AI that was going to cure her of cancer, but on the other side of that coin was that all the world would go extinct a year later, because of the, the only way to develop that was to bring something, some Demon into the world that would we would not be able to control, as much as I love my mother, and I would want her to be here with me right now, [I wouldn’t take that trade][21].”*

That sort of hyperbole seems relevant to Harris’ stance on such things, but was not mentioned in the film at all.

Connor Leahy of Conjecture and ControlAI gets a similar makeover. In the documentary, he appears as another pessimistic expert. Elsewhere, he said he does not expect humanity “to make it out of this century alive; I’m not even sure we’ll get out of this decade!” His “Narrow Path” proposal for policymakers begins with the claim that “AI poses extinction risks to human existence.” Instead of calling for a six-month AI pause, he argued for a 20-year pause, because “two decades provide the minimum time frame to construct our defenses.”

This is exactly why background checks matter. Viewers of the AI Doc deserve to know the full scope of the more extreme positions these interviewees have publicly taken elsewhere. If someone has publicly argued for destroying data centers by airstrikes or stopping AI for 20 years, the audience should know that.

**Debunking the Falsehoods**

The film goes way beyond just pushing a panic. It also recycles several misleading or plainly false claims, letting them pass as established facts. Three stood out in particular.

**Anthropic’s Blackmail study**

One of the most repeated “facts” in reviews of the movie is that Anthropic’s AI model, Clause, decided, unprompted, to blackmail a fictional employee. In the film, Daniel Roher asks, “And nobody taught it to do that?” Jeffrey Ladish, of Palisade Research and Tristan’s Center for Humane Technology, replies: “No, it learned to do that on its own.”

That is a misleading characterization of the actual experiment, it has already been debunked in “AI Blackmail: [Fact-Checking a Misleading Narrative][22].” Anthropic researchers admitted that they strongly pressured the model and iterated through hundreds of prompts before producing that outcome. It wasn’t a spontaneous emergence of “evil” behavior; the researchers explicitly ensured it would be the default. Telling viewers that the model has gone full “HAL 9000” omits the facts about the heavily engineered experimental setup.

Although this is a classic case of big claims and thin evidence, the film offers so little pushback that viewers are left to take Ladish’s statements at face value.

It is also worth remembering that Ladish has fought against open-source AI, pushed for a crackdown on open-source models, and once said, “We can [prevent the release][23] of a LLaMA 2! We need government action on this asap.” He later updated his position (and it’s good to revise such views). But does the film mention his earlier public hysteria? No.

**Is AI less regulated than sandwich shops? No.**

Connor Leahy tells Daniel Roher, “There is currently more regulation on selling a sandwich to the public” than there is on AI development. This talking point has become a favorite slogan in AI doomer circles. It was repeatedly stated by The [Future of Life Institute][24]’s [Max Tegmark][25] and, more recently, by Senator Bernie Sanders. It’s catchy. It’s also false.

State attorneys general from both parties have explicitly argued that [existing laws already apply to AI][26]. Lina Khan, writing on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, stated that “AI is [covered by existing laws][27]. Each agency here today has legal authorities to readily combat AI-driven harm.” The existing [AI regulatory stack][28] already includes antitrust & competition regulation, civil rights & anti-discrimination law, consumer protection, data privacy & security, employment & labor law, financial regulation, insurance & accident compensation, property & contract law, among others.

So no, AI is not less regulated than sandwich shops. It’s a misleading soundbite, not a serious description of legal reality.

**Data center water usage**

In the film, Karen Hao criticizes data centers, warning that “People are literally at risk, potentially of running out of drinking water.” That sounds alarming, which is presumably the point. But it is highly misleading.

In fact, Karen Hao had to [issue corrections][29] to her “Empire of AI” book because a key water-use figure was off by a factor of 4,500. The discrepancy was not 45x or 450x, but rather 4,500x. That is not a rounding error. For detailed rebuttals, see Andy Masley’s “[The AI water issue is fake][30]” and “Empire of AI is [widely misleading][31] about AI water use.”

There is also a basic proportionality issue here. As demonstrated by *The Washington Post*, “The water used by data centers caused a stir in Arizona’s drought-prone Maricopa County. But while they used about 905 million gallons there last year, that’s [a small fraction][32] of the 29 billion gallons devoted to the country’s golf courses.” To put that plainly: data centers accounted for just 0.1% of the county’s water use.

It is also worth noting that “most of the water used by data centers returns to its source unchanged.” In closed-loop cooling systems, for example, water is recirculated multiple times, which significantly reduces net consumption.

None of this is hidden information. A basic fact-check by the filmmakers could have brought it to light. But that was not the film’s goal. They chose fear-based framing over actual reporting. They could have pressed interviewees on their track records, failed predictions, and political agendas. Instead, they let them narrate the stakes, unchallenged.

So, I think we can conclude that the AI Doc may want to appear balanced and thoughtful, but, unfortunately, too often it is not.

**Final Remark**

While Western filmmakers are busy platforming advocates for “bombing data centers” and “Stop AI for 20 years,” the Chinese Communist Party is building the actual infrastructure. The CCP is not making doom-and-gloom documentaries; it is racing ahead. This is a real strategic threat, and it is far more concerning than anything featured in this film.

—————————

*Dr. Nirit Weiss-Blatt, Ph.D. (*[***@DrTechlash***][33]*), is a communication researcher and author of “The TECHLASH and Tech Crisis Communication” book and the “AI Panic” newsletter.*

1. *The producers of The AI Doc said in a conversation with Tristan Harris (on the [Your Undivided Attention][34] podcast) that after the ChatGPT moment, Harris approached them to discuss generative AI. They watched the AI Dilemma and, based on it, decided their next project would focus on AI.* [[↩]︎][35]

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt39150120/
[2]: https://profiles.stanford.edu/fei-fei-li
[3]: https://hpmor.com/
[4]: https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/are-you-an-ai-apocaloptimist
[5]: https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/the-ai-doc-or-how-i-became-an-apocaloptimist-review-navalny-helmer-daniel-roher-co-directs-toothless-ai-study
[6]: https://www.theverge.com/entertainment/890806/the-ai-doc-or-how-i-became-an-apocaloptimist-review
[7]: https://fandomwire.com/the-ai-doc-review/
[8]: https://apnews.com/article/ai-doc-movie-506cc074449f6f40424837199969a661
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/09/29/social-dilemma-manipulates-you-with-misinformation-as-it-tries-to-warn-you-manipulation-misinformation/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/26/the-the-ai-dilemma-follows-the-social-dilemma-in-pushing-unsubstantiated-panic-as-a-business/
[11]: https://davidwsilva.substack.com/p/hollywood-just-packaged-ai-anxiety
[12]: https://www.kqed.org/arts/13986980/the-ai-documentary-review-daniel-roher-how-i-became-an-apocaloptimist
[13]: https://x.com/mattparlmer/status/1641230149663203330
[14]: https://www.aipanic.news/p/why-the-doom-bible-left-many-reviewers
[15]: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2025/10/the-guru-of-the-ai-apocalypse
[16]: https://davidwsilva.substack.com/p/hollywood-just-packaged-ai-anxiety
[17]: #5755e105-45d9-494a-a80b-b6f2599ddfcc
[18]: https://theaidocgetinvolved.com/
[19]: https://x.com/DrTechlash/status/1860481171525890112
[20]: https://youtu.be/VMAUfwxSGi8
[21]: https://x.com/DrTechlash/status/1704265469795119389
[22]: https://www.aipanic.news/p/ai-blackmail-fact-checking-a-misleading
[23]: https://x.com/JeffLadish/status/1979287055604814268
[24]: https://x.com/DrTechlash/status/2030734402339365220
[25]: https://x.com/DrTechlash/status/2030735086879121421
[26]: https://x.com/KevinTFrazier/status/2030708516592210416
[27]: https://x.com/pat_hedger/status/2030736838126612658
[28]: https://x.com/WillRinehart/status/2031029030778982698
[29]: https://karendhao.com/20251217/empire-water-changes
[30]: https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake
[31]: https://blog.andymasley.com/p/empire-of-ai-is-wildly-misleading
[32]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/27/data-center-moratorium-construction-pritzker-reeves/
[33]: https://x.com/DrTechlash
[34]: https://www.humanetech.com/podcast/a-conversation-with-the-team-behind-the-ai-doc
[35]: #5755e105-45d9-494a-a80b-b6f2599ddfcc-link

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/02/the-ai-docs-falsehoods-and-false-balance/

Meta Caves To The MPAA Over Instagram’s Use Of ‘PG-13,’ ...

2026-04-02T18:05:22Z

Meta Caves To The MPAA Over Instagram’s Use Of ‘PG-13,’ Ending A Dispute That Was Silly From The Start

Back in October, [Meta announced][1] that its new Instagram Teen Accounts would feature content moderation “guided by the PG-13 rating.” On its face, this made a certain kind of sense as a communication strategy: parents know what PG-13 means (or at least think they do), and Meta was clearly trying to borrow that cultural familiarity to signal that it was taking teen safety seriously.

The Motion Picture Association, however, was not amused. Within hours of the announcement, MPA Chairman Charles Rivkin fired off a statement. Then came a cease-and-desist letter. Then a Washington Post op-ed [whining about][2] the threat to its precious brand. The MPA was very protective of its trademark, and very unhappy that Meta was freeloading off the supposed credibility of its [widely mocked][3] rating system.

And now, this week, the two sides have [announced a formal resolution][4] in which Meta has agreed to “substantially reduce” its references to PG-13 and include a rather remarkable disclaimer:

> *“There are lots of differences between social media and movies. We didn’t work with the MPA when updating our content settings, and they’re not rating any content on Instagram, and they’re not endorsing or approving our content settings in any way. Rather, we drew inspiration from the MPA’s public guidelines, which are already familiar to parents. Our content moderation systems are not the same as a movie ratings board, so the experience may not be exactly the same.”*

In Meta’s official response, you can practically hear the PR team gritting their teeth:

> *“We’re pleased to have reached an agreement with the MPA. By taking inspiration from a framework families know, our goal was to help parents better understand our teen content policies. We rigorously reviewed those policies against 13+ movie ratings criteria and parent feedback, updated them, and applied them to Teen Accounts by default. While that’s not changing, we’ve taken the MPA’s feedback on how we talk about that work. We’ll keep working to support parents and provide age-appropriate experiences for teens,” said a Meta spokesperson.*

Translation: we’re still doing the same thing, we’re just no longer allowed to call it what we were calling it.

There are several layers of nonsense worth unpacking here. First, there’s the MPA getting all high and mighty about its rating system. Let’s remember how the MPA’s film rating system came into existence in the first place: it was a voluntary self-regulation scheme created in the late 1960s specifically to head off government regulation after the government started making noises about the harm Hollywood was doing to children with the content it platformed. Sound familiar? The studios decided that if they rated their own content, maybe Congress would leave them alone. As the MPA explains in their own boilerplate:

> *For nearly 60 years, the MPA’s Classification and Rating Administration’s (CARA) voluntary film rating system has helped American parents make informed decisions about what movies their children can watch… CARA does not rate user-generated content. CARA-rated films are professionally produced and reviewed under a human-centered system, while user-generated posts on platforms like Instagram are not subject to the same rating process.*

Sure, there’s a trademark issue here, but let’s be real: no one thought Instagram was letting a panel of Hollywood parents rate the latest influencer videos.

Next, the PG-13 analogy never actually made much sense for social media. As we [discussed on Ctrl-Alt-Speech][5] back when this whole thing started, the context and scale are just completely different. At the time, I pointed out that a system designed to rate a 90-minute professionally produced film — reviewed in its entirety by a panel of parents — is a wholly different beast than moderating hundreds of millions of short-form posts generated by individuals (and AI) every single day.

So, yes, calling the system “PG-13” was a marketing gimmick, meant to trade on a familiar brand while obscuring how differently social media actually works — but the idea that this somehow dilutes the MPA’s marks is still pretty silly.

Then there’s the rating system’s well-documented arbitrariness. The MPA’s ratings have been criticized for decades for their seemingly incoherent standards. On that same podcast, I noted that the rating system is famous for its selective prudishness — nudity gets you an R rating, but two hours of violence can skate by with a PG-13.

There was a whole documentary about this — [*This Film Is Not Yet Rated*][6] — that exposed just how subjective and inconsistent the whole process was. Meta was effectively borrowing credibility from a system that was itself created as a regulatory dodge, is famously inconsistent, and was designed for an entirely different medium. And the MPA’s response was essentially: “Hey, that’s *our* famously inconsistent regulatory dodge, and you can’t have it.”

The whole thing was silly. And now it’s been formally resolved with Meta agreeing to stop doing the thing it had already mostly stopped doing back in December. So even the resolution is anticlimactic.

But there’s a more substantive point buried under all this trademark squabbling: the whole approach reflects a flawed assumption that one company can set a universal standard for every teen on the planet.

As I argued on the podcast, the deeper issue is that the whole framework is wrong for the medium. The MPA’s rating system was built to evaluate a single 90-minute film, reviewed in its entirety by a panel of parents. Applying that logic to hundreds of millions of short-form posts generated by people across wildly different cultural contexts — a kid in rural Kansas, a teenager in Berlin, a twelve-year-old in Lagos — was never going to produce anything coherent. Different kids, different families, different communities have different standards, and no single company should be setting a universal threshold for all of them. The smarter approach is giving parents and users real controls with customizable defaults, rather than having Zuckerberg (or a Hollywood trade association) decide what counts as age-appropriate for every teenager on the planet.

This whole dispute was silly from start to finish.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/14/technology/instagram-teenagers-pg-13-ratings.html
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/06/meta-instagram-pg-13-content-moderation/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2011/03/31/how-mpaa-screws-over-indie-filmmakers/
[4]: https://www.motionpictures.org/press/meta-agrees-to-mpas-limits-on-pg-13-references-for-instagram-teen-accounts/
[5]: https://podcast.ctrlaltspeech.com/2315966/episodes/18025148-rated-r-for-ridiculous
[6]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/02/meta-caves-to-the-mpaa-over-instagrams-use-of-pg-13-ending-a-dispute-that-was-silly-from-the-start/

Daily Deal: Opusonix Pro Subscription [Opusonix][1] is the ...

2026-04-02T18:01:08Z

Daily Deal: Opusonix Pro Subscription

[Opusonix][1] is the workflow-first platform built for music producers and engineers who are tired of endless email chains and scattered files. By centralizing feedback, versions, and tasks in one structured workspace, it helps you cut email traffic by up to 90% so you can focus more on creating and less on chasing approvals. From time-coded comments and version testing to album planning and client-friendly demo pages, Opusonix gives you the tools to manage every mix, project, and album with clarity and speed. It’s on sale for $50.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/opusonix-pro-lifetime-subscription?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/02/daily-deal-opusonix-pro-subscription-2/

Trump’s Anti-Migrant Surge Is Now A Mudslide That’s Wiping ...

2026-04-02T16:38:35Z

Trump’s Anti-Migrant Surge Is Now A Mudslide That’s Wiping Out What’s Left Of His DOJ

Trump’s do everything all at once approach to immigration enforcement is [starting to go off the rails][1]. Trump’s [plainly stated hatred][2] of “shithole countries” and their inhabitants manifested in early wins for his bigoted “remove the brown people” programs. Then Stephen Miller (the man who answers the “what if a lightbulb had eyebrows and was also a white nationalist” question no one asked) showed up and amped things up. [3,000 arrests per day!][3] he screamed into the void. (The void did not respond to our request for comment before press time.)

A lot of wrenches approached the anti-migrant works and immediately threw themselves into it. First, ICE didn’t have enough officers to staff a surge. No problem, said the administration. Here’s $50,000 and almost no training to get you started! Here’s [several (more!) billion dollars][4] to keep it going! Here’s everyone we actually can’t spare from multiple federal agencies!

Bang! Into the blue cities they went, [kidnapping and murdering][5] their way towards Miller’s arrest quota. All well and good but at the end of the day, you’ve still got to have some lawyers left to fight the lawsuits these surges generated, as well as to handle challenges against detentions, removals, and direct flights to [foreign torture prisons][6].

Well, the Trump administration no longer [has enough lawyers][7] left to do its dirty work. Whoever [hasn’t been purged][8] for not being loyal enough or exited ahead of the purges has been asked to clean up a mess with extremely limited amounts of resources and manpower. To make things worse, Trump’s handpicked prosecutors keep being [kicked out of court][9] because Trump bypassed the appointment process essential to them remaining employed.

Then there’s the [self-inflicted reputational damage][10] Trump’s DOJ has done. The government, for the most part, is no longer granted the presumption of good faith. Courts across the land are not only aware this government isn’t acting in good faith, but they’re refusing [to *pretend* it is][11], no matter how much copy-pasted boilerplate appears in DOJ filings.

Hundreds of adverse rulings have already been handed down. Hundreds more are on the horizon, especially now that the DOJ has admitted pretty much every arrest that took place in an immigration court was illegal.

It all adds up to the long tail of “flooding the zone.” If you can’t bail water fast enough, you’re going to drown. Here’s how this is working out for the DOJ now, [as reported by Kyle Cheney for Politico][12]:

> *In dozens of cases over the past several weeks, Justice Department lawyers have declined to push back on detainees’ claims that they’re owed a chance to make a case for their release. In those cases, the administration has simply agreed to provide a bond hearing, or even outright release, telling judges that officials “[do not have an opposition argument to present][13]” or saying they couldn’t cobble together enough information to mount a defense.*
>
> *[…]*
>
> *The new phenomenon is the latest manifestation of the extraordinary strain that the administration’s mass deportation effort — compounded by the [mass detention][14] of people who have lived for years without incident in the U.S. interior — has exacted on the justice system.*

While ICE bathes in newly awarded billions, the problems its efforts have created are being attended to by a skeleton crew that can’t keep up with Trump’s rights-violating fire hose. That’s created some pretty gaudy numbers, which certainly isn’t a compliment.

> *Federal judges have ruled more than 7,000 times in recent months that ICE has illegally locked people up without — at the very least — a chance to prove they can live safely in the community.*

That’s a lot. This administration is setting judicial records that hopefully will never be broken. It’s not just the government losing cases on the merits. Many of these losses are the result of the DOJ simply being unable to respond *at all* to legal challenges by people ICE has arrested, detained, or deported.

If there’s a silver lining in this bigoted war on non-white people, it’s everything listed above. Trump’s administration may be evil and stupid in equal measures, but those aspects are being held in check by its inability or unwillingness to anticipate the natural side effects of sending wave after wave of masked goons into cities to kidnap anyone who looks a little bit foreign. The administration is a defective centrifuge that edges closer to disintegration with every rotation. What remains to be seen is who’s going to get hit with the majority of the shrapnel when it finally falls apart. We can only hope it’s the people that started it spinning in the first place.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/govt-admits-more-than-100-asylum-seekers-were-deported-in-violation-of-a-single-court-order/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/09/trump-ice-have-earned-every-bit-of-the-hatred-theyre-now-facing/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/16/ice-officers-admit-to-arrest-quotas-during-court-testimony/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/07/trump-budget-bill-turns-ice-into-a-superpredator/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/26/an-american-murder/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/03/kilmar-abrego-garcia-details-how-cecot-is-a-torture-camp/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/29/trumps-bumblefuck-doj-continues-revenge-tour-with-semi-botched-indictment-of-james-comey/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/22/doj-purge-continues-with-firing-of-prosecutor-who-refused-to-go-after-trumps-personal-enemies/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/judge-boots-doj-prosecutor-from-courtroom-demands-to-know-whos-actually-calling-the-shots/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/03/kristi-noem-lies-says-national-guard-deployments-to-blue-cities-arent-politically-motivated/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/07/trump-administration-wont-stop-mandatory-detention-of-migrants-despite-200-court-rulings-calling-it-illegal/
[12]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/20/ice-detention-cases-doj-judges-00837850
[13]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1002171/gov.uscourts.cacd.1002171.7.0.pdf
[14]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/trump-administration-immigrants-mandatory-detention-00709494

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/02/trumps-anti-migrant-surge-is-now-a-mudslide-thats-wiping-out-whats-left-of-his-doj/

WSJ: Lobbyists Easily Destroyed Any Semi-Serious Antitrust ...

2026-04-02T12:33:11Z

WSJ: Lobbyists Easily Destroyed Any Semi-Serious Antitrust Enforcers Left In MAGA

Last election season the Trump campaign lied to everyone repeatedly about how his second administration would “rein in big tech,” and be a natural extension of the Lina Khan antitrust movement. As we noted at the time, [that was always an obvious fake populist lie][1], but it was propped up anyway by a lazy U.S. press and a long line of useful idiots (including some purported “[antitrust experts][2]“.)

This last year has truly revealed the con: Trump not only has [demolished regulatory independence][3], [media consolidation rules][4], and [consumer protection standards][5], he’s [rubber stamped every shitty merger][6] his administration has come into contact with (provided companies [promise to be more racist][7]), and [fired the few Republicans in his administration][8] that even vaguely cared about antitrust.

The Wall Street Journal last week [published a new interesting story][9] about that last bit. Specifically, it’s about how Mike Davis, a radical Trump loyalist and corporate lobbyist, found it relatively trivial to oust the small handful of actual antitrust reformers embedded within the MAGA coalition who **occasionally** cared about the public interest ([Gail Slater][10] and [Mark Hamer][11]):

> *“A Journal investigation found that Davis pushed antitrust officials at the Justice Department to approve his deals—and he went over their heads when they wouldn’t comply, according to interviews with more than three dozen DOJ employees, lobbyists, lawyers and others familiar with the antitrust division.”*

As a result Trump 2.0 has resulted in most of the Lina Khan era DOJ cases being sabotaged and scuttled, as we just saw with the [pathetic Ticketmaster settlement][12], which left state antitrust enforcers caught out on a limb. Who [could have possibly predicted this sort of thing][13]?

Davis, who opportunistically pivoted to pseudo-big-tech criticism after [being refused a job][14] in the industry, is a transactional bully who was [very excited about Trump’s plan to put minority children in cages][15] last election season. He’s also, according to the Journal, been pivotal in elbowing out any remaining real antitrust enforcers to help Trump operate an even more “pay to play” government:

> *“Davis, despite having little experience practicing antitrust law, is one of the most visible practitioners of a change playing out across the division. Current and former antitrust officials said some mergers now get approval or draw mild settlements based on political ties rather than public interest. The new dynamic casts a shadow over the Justice Department’s integrity, they said, and has alarmed even some Trump loyalists in the department.”*

And this is the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal; not exactly the bastion of progressive left wing thought. In Davis’ head, he’s not easily exploiting the comical levels of corruption in the Trump White House, he’s just exceptional, according to comments he made to the Journal:

> *“I’m the best fixer in Washington, period. Full stop,” said the 48-year-old Iowan. “I know the people. I know the process. I know their pressure points. I know how to win.”*

That Trump 2.0 was going to be a corrupt shitshow–and that the movement’s fake dedication to “reining in big tech” and “antitrust reform would be completely hollow–was [one of the easier election season predictions I’d ever had to make][16]. It should have been particularly and abundantly obvious to the ostensible fans of antitrust still peppered within the administration.

Even these “antitrust enforcers” within MAGA weren’t what you’d call remotely consistent when it comes to reining in corporate power. And while the Journal sort of romanticizes the first Trump term for “having guardrails,” it too was full of all manner of mindless rubber stamping of harmful deals that eroded competition and drove up costs (like the [Sprint T-Mobile merger][17]).

Yet, again, there were no shortage of press outlets (and [supposed progressive antitrust experts like Matt Stoller][18]) that spent much of last election season insisting that while Trump 2.0 *might be problematic*, it would feature ample populist checks on corporate power. You were to believe a sizeable chunk of the GOP had suddenly and uncharacteristically seen the light on antitrust reform.

The underlying lie of the Stoller-esque sales pitch was that we could build new and productive [alliances with authoritarian zealots][19] to make meaningful progress on antitrust reform. But we can all see saw how the MAGA saber rattling against big tech (which was **really** about [getting them to back off of content moderation of racist right wing propaganda][20]) turned out.

Building meaningful and productive alliances with authoritarians is like trying to cultivate an intimate relationship with a running chainsaw. And the act of treating them as serious actors on antitrust reform (something Stoller and the press broadly did, repeatedly, with everyone from JD Vance to Josh Hawley) gave them press and policy credibility they *never had to earn*.

MAGA leadership is largely comprised of transactional bullies whose primary interest is in wealth accumulation and power. Everything else, whether it’s MAHA, or the administration’s purported antiwar stance, or its love of “antitrust reform” was an obvious populist lie, designed to convince a broadly befuddled electorate that dim, violent, and corrupt autocracy would be good for them.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/18/just-a-reminder-authoritarians-dont-actually-support-antitrust-reform/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/18/just-a-reminder-authoritarians-dont-actually-support-antitrust-reform/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/10/u-s-consumer-protection-is-dead-lobbyists-and-lawyers-kill-new-ftc-rule-that-would-have-made-it-easier-to-cancel-subscriptions/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/28/gop-friendly-local-news-broadcasters-plan-more-harmful-mergers-after-trump-destroys-whats-left-of-media-consolidation-limits/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/29/brendan-carr-says-destroying-consumer-protection-media-consolidation-rules-and-corporate-oversight-will-be-great-for-everyone/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/10/maga-suddenly-quiet-about-overseas-influence-now-that-larry-ellisons-warner-bros-bid-has-saudi-chinese-backing/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/05/fcc-approves-cox-charter-merger-on-condition-they-promise-to-be-more-racist/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/13/magas-always-bogus-antitrust-movement-comes-to-a-screeching-halt-with-firing-of-gail-slater/
[9]: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/lobbyists-antitrust-trump-davis-f6a02e04
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/13/magas-always-bogus-antitrust-movement-comes-to-a-screeching-halt-with-firing-of-gail-slater/
[11]: https://x.com/lizrhoffman/status/2020985627081130442
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/13/trump-doj-wimps-out-on-ticketmaster-again-revealing-hollowness-of-maga-antitrust/
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/11/big-tech-antitrust-reform-agenda-sags-revealing-mostly-empty-rhetoric/
[14]: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/22/major-gop-tech-critics-sought-funding-from-google-500602
[15]: https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-trump-likely-ag-mike-110000030.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMIrYcuWTk_yFwOoiPeicVMhgJe0ckP2VyiDpNImdI6VG_Mwne6Zv7tINrYeOQkWs5J35YGLB81QkubTIJyRY4aByy_XysGGfkKGdZY3LPbGP4Vgch-HtzH8CgHv804Bf7McJbjIA2v0FA8QbWCnKjrhZLu3NkDj9DcI7zf8wGB2
[16]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/18/just-a-reminder-authoritarians-dont-actually-support-antitrust-reform/
[17]: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/10/22/fcc-approved-t-mobile-sprint-merger-without-even-seeing-full-details/
[18]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/13/trump-doj-wimps-out-on-ticketmaster-again-revealing-hollowness-of-maga-antitrust/
[19]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/15/antitrust-reformers-debate-partnering-with-bigots-to-take-on-big-tech/
[20]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/11/big-tech-antitrust-reform-agenda-sags-revealing-mostly-empty-rhetoric/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/02/wsj-lobbyists-easily-destroyed-any-semi-serious-antitrust-enforcers-left-in-maga/

Federal Cyber Experts Thought Microsoft’s Cloud Was “A Pile ...

2026-04-02T03:16:01Z

Federal Cyber Experts Thought Microsoft’s Cloud Was “A Pile Of Shit.” They Approved It Anyway.

*This story was [originally published][1] by ProPublica.* *Republished under a [CC BY-NC-ND 3.0][2]* *license.*

In late 2024, the federal government’s cybersecurity evaluators rendered a troubling verdict on one of Microsoft’s biggest cloud computing offerings.

The tech giant’s “lack of proper detailed security documentation” left reviewers with a “lack of confidence in assessing the system’s overall security posture,” according to an internal government report reviewed by ProPublica.

Or, as one member of the team put it: “The package is a pile of shit.”

For years, reviewers said, Microsoft had tried and failed to fully explain how it protects sensitive information in the cloud as it hops from server to server across the digital terrain. Given that and other unknowns, government experts couldn’t vouch for the technology’s security.

Such judgments would be damning for any company seeking to sell its wares to the U.S. government, but it should have been particularly devastating for Microsoft. The tech giant’s products had been at the heart of two major cybersecurity attacks against the U.S. in three years. In one, Russian hackers exploited a weakness to steal sensitive data from a number of federal agencies, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. In the other, Chinese hackers infiltrated the email accounts of a Cabinet member and other senior government officials.

The federal government could be further exposed if it couldn’t verify the cybersecurity of Microsoft’s Government Community Cloud High, a suite of cloud-based services intended to safeguard some of the nation’s most sensitive information.

Yet, in a highly unusual move that still reverberates across Washington, the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, or FedRAMP, authorized the product anyway, bestowing what amounts to the federal government’s cybersecurity seal of approval. FedRAMP’s ruling — which included a kind of “buyer beware” notice to any federal agency considering GCC High — helped Microsoft expand a government business empire worth billions of dollars.

“BOOM SHAKA LAKA,” Richard Wakeman, one of the company’s chief security architects, boasted in an online forum, celebrating the milestone with a meme of Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Wolf of Wall Street.” Wakeman did not respond to requests for comment.

It was not the type of outcome that federal policymakers envisioned a decade and a half ago when they embraced the cloud revolution and created FedRAMP to help safeguard the government’s cybersecurity. The program’s layers of review, which included an assessment by outside experts, were supposed to ensure that service providers like Microsoft could be entrusted with the government’s secrets. But ProPublica’s investigation — drawn from internal FedRAMP memos, logs, emails, meeting minutes, and interviews with seven former and current government employees and contractors — found breakdowns at every juncture of that process. It also found a remarkable deference to Microsoft, even as the company’s products and practices were central to two of the most damaging cyberattacks ever carried out against the government.

FedRAMP first raised questions about GCC High’s security in 2020 and asked Microsoft to provide detailed diagrams explaining its encryption practices. But when the company produced what FedRAMP considered to be only partial information in fits and starts, program officials did not reject Microsoft’s application. Instead, they repeatedly pulled punches and allowed the review to drag out for the better part of five years. And because federal agencies were allowed to deploy the product during the review, GCC High spread across the government as well as the defense industry. By late 2024, FedRAMP reviewers concluded that they had little choice but to authorize the technology — not because their questions had been answered or their review was complete, but largely on the grounds that Microsoft’s product was already being used across Washington.

Today, key parts of the federal government, including the Justice and Energy departments, and the defense sector rely on this technology to protect [highly sensitive information][3] that, if leaked, “could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect” on operations, assets and individuals, the government has said.

“This is not a happy story in terms of the security of the U.S.,” said [Tony Sager][4], who spent more than three decades as a computer scientist at the National Security Agency and now is an executive at the nonprofit Center for Internet Security.

For years, the FedRAMP process has been equated with actual security, Sager said. ProPublica’s findings, he said, shatter that facade.

“This is not security,” he said. “This is security theater.”

ProPublica is exposing the government’s reservations about this popular product for the first time. We are also revealing Microsoft’s yearslong inability to provide the encryption documentation and evidence the federal reviewers sought.

The revelations come as the Justice Department ramps up scrutiny of the government’s technology contractors. In December, the department [announced the indictment][5] of a former employee of Accenture who allegedly misled federal agencies about the security of the company’s cloud platform and its compliance with FedRAMP’s standards. She has pleaded not guilty. Accenture, which was not charged with wrongdoing, [has said][6] that it “proactively brought this matter to the government’s attention” and that it is “dedicated to operating with the highest ethical standards.”

Microsoft has also faced questions about its disclosures to the government. As ProPublica reported last year, [the company failed to inform the Defense Department][7] about its [use of China-based engineers][8] to maintain the government’s cloud systems, despite Pentagon rules stipulating that “No Foreign persons may have” access to its most sensitive data. The department [is investigating the practice][9], which officials say could have compromised national security.

Microsoft has defended its program as “tightly monitored and supplemented by layers of security mitigations,” but after ProPublica’s story published last July, the company announced that it would stop using China-based engineers for Defense Department work.

In response to written questions for this story and in an interview, Microsoft acknowledged the yearslong confrontation with FedRAMP but also said it provided “comprehensive documentation” throughout the review process and “remediated findings where possible.”

“We stand by our products and the comprehensive steps we’ve taken to ensure all FedRAMP-authorized products meet the security and compliance requirements necessary,” a spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the company would “continue to work with FedRAMP to continuously review and evaluate our services for continued compliance.”

But these days, ProPublica found, there [aren’t many people left][10] at FedRAMP to work with.

The program was an early target of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, which slashed its staff and budget. Even FedRAMP acknowledges it is operating “with an absolute minimum of support staff” and “limited customer service.” The roughly two dozen employees who remain are “entirely focused on” delivering authorizations at a record pace, [FedRAMP’s director has said][11]. Today, its annual budget is just $10 million, its lowest in a decade, even as it has boasted record numbers of new authorizations for cloud products.

The consequence of all this, people who have worked for FedRAMP told ProPublica, is that the program now is little more than a rubber stamp for industry. The implications of such a downsizing for federal cybersecurity are far-reaching, especially as [the administration encourages agencies][12] to adopt cloud-based [artificial intelligence tools][13], which draw upon reams of sensitive information.

The General Services Administration, which houses FedRAMP, defended the program, saying it has undergone “significant reforms to strengthen governance” since GCC High arrived in 2020. “FedRAMP’s role is to assess if cloud services have provided sufficient information and materials to be adequate for agency use, and the program today operates with strengthened oversight and accountability mechanisms to do exactly that,” a GSA spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

The agency did not respond to written questions regarding GCC High.

### A “Cloud First” World

About two decades ago, federal officials predicted that the cloud revolution, providing on-demand access to shared computing via the internet, would usher in an era of cheaper, more secure and more efficient information technology.

Moving to the cloud meant shifting away from on-premises servers owned and operated by the government to those in massive data centers maintained by tech companies. Some agency leaders were reluctant to relinquish control, while others couldn’t wait to.

In an effort to accelerate the transition, the Obama administration issued its “Cloud First” policy in 2011, requiring all agencies to implement cloud-based tools “whenever a secure, reliable, cost-effective” option existed. To facilitate adoption, the administration created FedRAMP, [whose job was to ensure the security of those tools][14].

FedRAMP’s “do once, use many times” system was intended to streamline and strengthen the government procurement process. Previously, each agency using a cloud service vetted it separately, sometimes applying different interpretations of federal security requirements. Under the new program, agencies would be able to skip redundant security reviews because FedRAMP authorization indicated that the product had already met standardized requirements. Authorized products would be listed on a government website known as the FedRAMP Marketplace.

On paper, the program was an exercise in efficiency. But in practice, the small FedRAMP team could not keep up with the flood of demand from tech companies that wanted their products authorized.

The slow approval process frustrated both the tech industry, eager for a share in the billions of federal dollars up for grabs, and government agencies that were under pressure to migrate to the cloud. These dynamics sometimes pitted the cloud industry and agency officials together against FedRAMP. The backlog also prompted many agencies to take an alternative path: performing their own reviews of the products they wanted to adopt, using FedRAMP’s standards.

It was through this “agency path” that GCC High entered the federal bloodstream, with the Justice Department paving the way. Initially, some Justice officials were nervous about the cloud and who might have access to its information, which includes highly sensitive court and law enforcement records, a Justice Department official involved in the decision told ProPublica. The department’s [cybersecurity program][15] required it to ensure that only U.S. citizens “access or assist in the development, operation, management, or maintenance” of its IT systems, unless a waiver was granted. Justice’s IT specialists recommended pursuing GCC High, believing it could meet the elevated security needs, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal matters.

Pursuant to FedRAMP’s rules, Microsoft had GCC High evaluated by a so-called third-party assessment organization, which is supposed to provide an independent review of whether the product has met federal standards. The Justice Department then performed its own evaluation of GCC High using those standards and ruled the offering acceptable.

By early 2020, Melinda Rogers, Justice’s deputy chief information officer, made the decision official and soon deployed GCC High across the department.

It was a milestone for all involved. Rogers had ushered the Justice Department into the cloud, and Microsoft had gained a significant foothold in the cutthroat market for the federal government’s cloud computing business.

Moreover, Rogers’ decision placed GCC High on the FedRAMP Marketplace, the government’s influential online clearinghouse of all the cloud providers that are under review or already authorized. Its mere mention as “in process” was a boon for Microsoft, amounting to free advertising on a website used by organizations seeking to purchase cloud services bearing what is widely seen as the government’s cybersecurity seal of approval.

That April, GCC High landed at FedRAMP’s office for review, the final stop on its bureaucratic journey to full authorization.

### Microsoft’s Missing Information

In theory, there shouldn’t have been much for FedRAMP’s team to do after the third-party assessor and Justice reviewed GCC High, because all parties were supposed to be following the same requirements.

But it was around this time that the Government Accountability Office, which investigates federal programs, [discovered breakdowns in the process][16], finding that agency reviews sometimes were lacking in quality. Despite missing details, FedRAMP went on to authorize many of these packages. Acknowledging these shortcomings, FedRAMP began to take a harder look at new packages, a former reviewer said.

This was the environment in which Microsoft’s GCC High application entered the pipeline. The name GCC High was an umbrella covering many services and features within Office 365 that all needed to be reviewed. FedRAMP reviewers quickly noticed key material was missing.

The team homed in on what it viewed as a fundamental document called a “data flow diagram,” former members told ProPublica. The illustration is supposed to show how data travels from Point A to Point B — and, more importantly, how it’s protected as it hops from server to server. FedRAMP requires data to be encrypted while in transit to ensure that sensitive materials are protected even if they’re intercepted by hackers.

But when the FedRAMP team asked Microsoft to produce the diagrams showing how such encryption would happen for each service in GCC High, the company balked, saying the request was too challenging. So the reviewers suggested starting with just Exchange Online, the popular email platform.

“This was our litmus test to say, ‘This isn’t the only thing that’s required, but if you’re not doing this, we are not even close yet,’” said one reviewer who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal matters. Once they reached the appropriate level of detail, they would move from Exchange to other services within GCC High.

It was the kind of detail that other major cloud providers such as Amazon and Google routinely provided, members of the FedRAMP team told ProPublica. Yet Microsoft took months to respond. When it did, the former reviewer said, it submitted a white paper that discussed GCC High’s encryption strategy but left out the details of where on the journey data actually becomes encrypted and decrypted — so FedRAMP couldn’t assess that it was being done properly.

A Microsoft spokesperson acknowledged that the company had “articulated a challenge related to illustrating the volume of information being requested in diagram form” but “found alternate ways to share that information.”

Rogers, who was hired by Microsoft in 2025, declined to be interviewed. In response to emailed questions, the company provided a statement saying that she “stands by the rigorous evaluation that contributed to” her authorization of GCC High. A spokesperson said there was “absolutely no connection” between her hiring and the decisions in the GCC High process, and that she and the company complied with “all rules, regulations, and ethical standards.”

The Justice Department declined to respond to written questions from ProPublica.

### A Fight Over “Spaghetti Pies”

As 2020 came to a close, a national security crisis hit Washington that underscored the consequences of cyber weakness. Russian state-sponsored hackers had been quietly working their way through federal computer systems for much of the year and vacuuming up sensitive data and emails from U.S. agencies — [including the Justice Department][17].

At the time, most of the blame fell on a Texas-based company called SolarWinds, whose software provided hackers their initial opening and whose name became synonymous with the attack. But, [as ProPublica has reported][18], the Russians leveraged that opening to exploit a long-standing weakness in a Microsoft product — one that the company had refused to fix for years, despite repeated warnings from one of its engineers. Microsoft has defended its decision not to address the flaw, saying that it received “multiple reviews” and that the company weighs a variety of factors when making security decisions.

In the aftermath, the Biden administration took steps to bolster the nation’s cybersecurity. Among them, the Justice Department [announced a cyber-fraud initiative][19] in 2021 to crack down on companies and individuals that “put U.S. information or systems at risk by knowingly providing deficient cybersecurity products or services, knowingly misrepresenting their cybersecurity practices or protocols, or knowingly violating obligations to monitor and report cybersecurity incidents and breaches.”

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said the department would use the False Claims Act to pursue government contractors “when they fail to follow required cybersecurity standards — because we know that puts all of us at risk.”

But if Microsoft felt any pressure from the SolarWinds attack or from the Justice Department’s announcement, it didn’t manifest in the FedRAMP talks, according to former members of the FedRAMP team.

The discourse between FedRAMP and Microsoft fell into a pattern. The parties would meet. Months would go by. Microsoft would return with a response that FedRAMP deemed incomplete or irrelevant. To bolster the chances of getting the information it wanted, the FedRAMP team provided Microsoft with a template, describing the level of detail it expected. But the diagrams Microsoft returned never met those expectations.

“We never got past Exchange,” one former reviewer said. “We never got that level of detail. We had no visibility inside.”

In an interview with ProPublica, John Bergin, the Microsoft official who became the government’s main contact, acknowledged the prolonged back-and-forth but blamed FedRAMP, equating its requests for diagrams to a “rock fetching exercise.”

“We were maybe incompetent in how we drew drawings because there was no standard to draw them to,” he said. “Did we not do it exactly how they wanted? Absolutely. There was always something missing because there was no standard.”

A Microsoft spokesperson said without such a standard, “cloud providers were left to interpret the level of abstraction and representation on their own,” creating “inconsistency and confusion, not an unwillingness to be transparent.”

But even Microsoft’s own engineers had struggled over the years to map the architecture of its products, according to two people involved in building cloud services used by federal customers. At issue, according to people familiar with Microsoft’s technology, was the decades-old code of its legacy software, which the company used in building its cloud services.

One FedRAMP reviewer compared it to a “pile of spaghetti pies.” The data’s path from Point A to Point B, the person said, was like traveling from Washington to New York with detours by bus, ferry and airplane rather than just taking a quick ride on Amtrak. And each one of those detours represents an opportunity for a hijacking if the data isn’t properly encrypted.

Other major cloud providers such as Amazon and Google built their systems from the ground up, said Sager, the former NSA computer scientist, who worked with all three companies during his time in government.

Microsoft’s system is “not designed for this kind of isolation of ‘secure’ from ‘not secure,’” Sager said.

A Microsoft spokesperson acknowledged the company faces a unique challenge but maintained that its cloud products meet federal security requirements.

“Unlike providers that started later with a narrower product scope, Microsoft operates one of the broadest enterprise and government platforms in the world, supporting continuity for millions of customers while simultaneously modernizing at scale,” the spokesperson said in emailed responses. “That complexity is not ‘spaghetti,’ but it does mean the work of disentangling, isolating, and hardening systems is continuous.”

The spokesperson said that since 2023, Microsoft has made “security‑first architectural redesign, legacy risk reduction, and stronger isolation guarantees a top, company‑wide priority.”

### Assessors Back-Channel Cyber Concerns

The FedRAMP team was not the only party with reservations about GCC High. Microsoft’s third-party assessment organizations also expressed concerns.

The firms are supposed to be independent but are hired and paid by the company being assessed. Acknowledging the [potential for conflicts of interest][20], FedRAMP has encouraged the assessment firms to confidentially back-channel to its reviewers any negative feedback that they were unwilling to bring directly to their clients or reflect in official reports.

In 2020, two third-party assessors hired by Microsoft, Coalfire and Kratos, did just that. They told FedRAMP that they were unable to get the full picture of GCC High, a former FedRAMP reviewer told ProPublica.

“Coalfire and Kratos both readily admitted that it was difficult to impossible to get the information required out of Microsoft to properly do a sufficient assessment,” the reviewer told ProPublica.

The back channel helped surface cybersecurity issues that otherwise might never have been known to the government, people who have worked with and for FedRAMP told ProPublica. At the same time, they acknowledged its existence undermined the very spirit and intent of having independent assessors.

A spokesperson for Coalfire, the firm that initially handled the GCC High assessment, requested written questions from ProPublica, then declined to respond.

A spokesperson for Kratos, which replaced Coalfire as the GCC High assessor, declined an interview request. In an emailed response to written questions, the spokesperson said the company stands by its official assessment and recommendation of GCC High and “absolutely refutes” that it “ever would sign off on a product we were unable to fully vet.” The company “has open and frank conversations” with all customers, including Microsoft, which “submitted all requisite diagrams to meet FedRAMP-defined requirements,” the spokesperson said.

Kratos said it “spent extensive time working collaboratively with FedRAMP in their review” and does not consider such discussions to be “backchanneling.”

FedRAMP, however, was dissatisfied with Kratos’ ongoing work and believed the firm “should be pushing back” on Microsoft more, the former reviewer said. It placed Kratos on a “corrective action plan,” which could eventually result in loss of accreditation. The company said it did not agree with FedRAMP’s action but provided “additional trainings for some internal assessors” in response to it.

The Microsoft spokesperson told ProPublica the company has “always been responsive to requests” from Kratos and FedRAMP. “We are not aware of any backchanneling, nor do we believe that backchanneling would have been necessary given our transparency and cooperation with auditor requests,” the spokesperson said.

In response to questions from ProPublica about the process, the GSA said in an email that FedRAMP’s system “does not create an inherent conflict of interest for professional auditors who meet ethical and contractual performance expectations.”

GSA did not respond to questions about back-channeling but said the “correct process” is for a third-party assessor to “state these problems formally in a finding during the security assessment so that the cloud service provider has an opportunity to fix the issue.”

### FedRAMP Ends Talks

The back-and-forth between the FedRAMP reviewers and Microsoft’s team went on for years with little progress. Then, in the summer of 2023, the program’s interim director, Brian Conrad, got a call from the White House that would alter the course of the review.

Chinese state-sponsored hackers had infiltrated GCC, the lower-cost version of Microsoft’s government cloud, and stolen data and emails from the commerce secretary, the U.S. ambassador to China and other high-ranking government officials. In the aftermath, Chris DeRusha, the White House’s chief information security officer, wanted a briefing from FedRAMP, which had authorized GCC.

The decision predated Conrad’s tenure, but he told ProPublica that he left the conversation with several takeaways. First, FedRAMP must hold all cloud providers — including Microsoft — to the same standards. Second, he had the backing of the White House in standing firm. Finally, FedRAMP would feel the political heat if any cloud service with a FedRAMP authorization were hacked.

DeRusha confirmed Conrad’s account of the phone call but declined to comment further.

Within months, Conrad informed Microsoft that FedRAMP was ending the engagement on GCC High.

“After three years of collaboration with the Microsoft team, we still lack visibility into the security gaps because there are unknowns that Microsoft has failed to address,” Conrad wrote in an October 2023 email. This, he added, was not for FedRAMP’s lack of trying. Staffers had spent 480 hours of review time, had conducted 18 “technical deep dive” sessions and had numerous email exchanges with the company over the years. Yet they still lacked the data flow diagrams, crucial information “since visibility into the encryption status of all data flows and stores is so important,” he wrote.

If Microsoft still wanted FedRAMP authorization, Conrad wrote, it would need to start over.

A FedRAMP reviewer, explaining the decision to the Justice Department, said the team was “not asking for anything above and beyond what we’ve asked from every other” cloud service provider, according to meeting minutes reviewed by ProPublica. But the request was particularly justified in Microsoft’s case, the reviewer told the Justice officials, because “each time we’ve actually been able to get visibility into a black box, we’ve uncovered an issue.”

“We can’t even quantify the unknowns, which makes us very uncomfortable,” the reviewer said, according to the minutes.

### Microsoft and the Justice Department Push Back

Microsoft was furious. Failing to obtain authorization and starting the process over would signal to the market that something was wrong with GCC High. Customers were already confused and concerned about the drawn-out review, which had become a hot topic in an online forum used by government and technology insiders. There, Wakeman, the Microsoft cybersecurity architect, deflected blame, saying the government had been “dragging their feet on it for years now.”

Meanwhile, to build support for Microsoft’s case, Bergin, the company’s point person for FedRAMP and a former Army official, reached out to government leaders, including one from the Justice Department.

The Justice official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter, said Bergin complained that the delay was hampering Microsoft’s ability “to get this out into the market full sail.” Bergin then pushed the Justice Department to “throw around our weight” to help secure FedRAMP authorization, the official said.

That December, as the parties gathered to hash things out at GSA’s Washington headquarters, Justice did just that. Rogers, who by then had been promoted to the department’s chief information officer, sat beside Bergin — on the opposite side of the table from Conrad, the FedRAMP director.

Rogers and her Justice colleagues had a stake in the outcome. Since authorizing and deploying GCC High, she [had received][21] [accolades][22] for her work modernizing the department’s IT and cybersecurity. But without FedRAMP’s stamp of approval, she would be the government official left holding the bag if GCC High were involved in a serious hack. At the same time, the Justice Department couldn’t easily back out of using GCC High because once a technology is widely deployed, pulling the plug [can be costly and technically challenging][23]. And from its perspective, the cloud was an improvement over the old government-run data centers.

Shortly after the meeting kicked off, Bergin interrupted a FedRAMP reviewer who had been presenting PowerPoint slides. He said the Justice Department and third-party assessor had already reviewed GCC High, according to meeting minutes. FedRAMP “should essentially just accept” their findings, he said.

Then, in a shock to the FedRAMP team, Rogers backed him up and went on to criticize FedRAMP’s work, according to two attendees.

In its statement, Microsoft said Rogers maintains that FedRAMP’s approach “was misguided and improperly dismissed the extensive evaluations performed by DOJ personnel.”

Bergin did not dispute the account, telling ProPublica that he had been trying to argue that it is the purview of third-party assessors such as Kratos — not FedRAMP — to evaluate the security of cloud products. And because FedRAMP must [approve the third-party assessment firms][24], the program should have taken its issues up with Kratos.

“When you are the regulatory agency who determines who the auditors are and you refuse to accept your auditors’ answers, that’s not a ‘me’ problem,” Bergin told ProPublica.

The GSA did not respond to questions about the meeting. The Justice Department declined to comment.

### Pressure Mounts on FedRAMP

If there was any doubt about the role of FedRAMP, the White House [issued a memorandum][25] in the summer of 2024 that outlined its views. FedRAMP, it said, “must be capable of conducting rigorous reviews” and requiring cloud providers to “rapidly mitigate weaknesses in their security architecture.” The office should “consistently assess and validate cloud providers’ complex architectures and encryption schemes.”

But by that point, GCC High had spread to other federal agencies, with the Justice Department’s authorization serving as a signal that the technology met federal standards.

It also spread to the defense sector, since [the Pentagon required][26] that cloud products used by its contractors meet FedRAMP standards. While it did not have FedRAMP authorization, Microsoft marketed [GCC High][27] as meeting the requirements, selling it to companies such as Boeing that research, develop and maintain military weapons systems.

But with the FedRAMP authorization up in the air, some contractors began to worry that by using GCC High, they were out of compliance. That could threaten their contracts, which, in turn, could impact Defense Department operations. Pentagon officials called FedRAMP to inquire about the authorization stalemate.

The Defense Department acknowledged but did not respond to written questions from ProPublica.

Rogers also kept pressing FedRAMP to “get this thing over the line,” former employees of the GSA and FedRAMP said. It was the “opinion of the staff and the contractors that she simply was not willing to put heat to Microsoft on this” and that the Justice Department “was too sympathetic to Microsoft’s claims,” Eric Mill, [then GSA’s executive director for cloud strategy][28], told ProPublica.

### Authorization Despite a “Damning” Assessment

In the summer of 2024, FedRAMP hired a new permanent director, government technology insider [Pete Waterman][29]. Within about a month of taking the job, he restarted the office’s review of GCC High with a new team, which put aside the debate over data flow diagrams and instead attempted to examine evidence from Microsoft. But these reviewers soon arrived at the same conclusion, with the team’s leader complaining about “getting stiff-armed” by Microsoft.

“He came back and said, ‘Yeah, this thing sucks,’” Mill recalled.

While the team was able to work through only two of the many services included in GCC High, Exchange Online and Teams, that was enough for it to identify “issues that are fundamental” to risk management, including “timely remediation of vulnerabilities and vulnerability scanning,” according to a summary of the team’s findings reviewed by ProPublica.

Those issues, as well as a lack of “proper detailed security documentation” from Microsoft, limit “visibility and understanding of the system” and “impair the ability to make informed risk decisions.”

The team concluded, “There is a lack of confidence in assessing the system’s overall security posture.”

A Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement that the company “never received this feedback in any of its communications with FedRAMP.”

When ProPublica read the findings to Bergin, the Microsoft liaison, he said he was surprised.

“That’s pretty damning,” Bergin said, adding that it sounded like language that “would’ve generally been associated with a finding of ‘not worthy.’ If an assessor wrote that, I would be nervous.”

Despite the findings, to the FedRAMP team, turning Microsoft down didn’t seem like an option. “Not issuing an authorization would impact multiple agencies that are already using GCC-H,” the summary document said. The team determined that it was a “better value” to issue an authorization with conditions for continued government oversight.

While authorizations with oversight conditions weren’t unusual, arriving at one under these circumstances was. GCC High reviewers saw problems everywhere, both in what they were able to evaluate and what they weren’t. To them, most of the package remained a vast wilderness of untold risk.

Nevertheless, FedRAMP and Microsoft reached an agreement, and the day after Christmas 2024, GCC High received its FedRAMP authorization. FedRAMP appended a cover report to the package laying out its deficiencies and noting it carried unknown risks, according to people familiar with the report.

It emphasized that agencies should carefully review the package and engage directly with Microsoft on any questions.

### “Unknown Unknowns” Persist

Microsoft told ProPublica that it has met the conditions of the agreement and has “stayed within the performance metrics required by FedRAMP” to ensure that “risks are identified, tracked, remediated, and transparently communicated.”

But under the Trump administration, there aren’t many people left at FedRAMP to check.

While the Biden-era guidance said FedRAMP “must be an expert program that can analyze and validate the security claims” of cloud providers, the GSA told ProPublica that the program’s role is “not to determine if a cloud service is secure enough.” Rather, it is “to ensure agencies have sufficient information to make these risk decisions.”

The problem is that agencies often lack the staff and resources to do thorough reviews, which means the whole system is leaning on the claims of the cloud companies and the assessments of the third-party firms they pay to evaluate them. Under the current vision, critics say, FedRAMP has lost the plot.

“FedRAMP’s job is to watch the American people’s back when it comes to sharing their data with cloud companies,” said Mill, the former GSA official, who also co-authored the 2024 White House memo. “When there’s a security issue, the public doesn’t expect FedRAMP to say they’re just a paper-pusher.”

Meanwhile, at the Justice Department, officials are finding out what FedRAMP meant by the “unknown unknowns” in GCC High. Last year, for example, they discovered that [Microsoft relied on China-based engineers to service their sensitive cloud systems][30] despite the department’s prohibition against non-U.S. citizens assisting with IT maintenance.

Officials learned about this arrangement — which was also used in GCC High — not from FedRAMP or from Microsoft but from [a ProPublica investigation into the practice][31], according to the Justice employee who spoke with us.

A Microsoft spokesperson acknowledged that the written security plan for GCC High that the company submitted to the Justice Department did not mention foreign engineers, though he said Microsoft did communicate that information to Justice officials before 2020. Nevertheless, Microsoft has since ended its use of China-based engineers in government systems.

Former and current government officials worry about what other risks may be lurking in GCC High and beyond.

The GSA told ProPublica that, in general, “if there is credible evidence that a cloud service provider has made materially false representations, that matter is then appropriately referred to investigative authorities.”

Ironically, the ultimate arbiter of whether cloud providers or their third-party assessors are living up to their claims is the Justice Department itself. The recent indictment of the former Accenture employee suggests [it is willing][32] to use this power. In a court document, the Justice Department alleges that the ex-employee made “false and misleading representations” about the cloud platform’s security to help the company “obtain and maintain lucrative federal contracts.” She is also accused of trying to “influence and obstruct” Accenture’s third-party assessors by hiding the product’s deficiencies and telling others to conceal the “true state of the system” during demonstrations, the department said. She has pleaded not guilty.

There is no public indication that such a case has been brought against Microsoft or anyone involved in the GCC High authorization. The Justice Department declined to comment. Monaco, the deputy attorney general who launched the department’s initiative to pursue cybersecurity fraud cases, did not respond to requests for comment.

She left her government position in January 2025. Microsoft hired her to become its president of global affairs.

A company spokesperson said Monaco’s hiring complied with “all rules, regulations, and ethical standards” and that she “does not work on any federal government contracts or have oversight over or involvement with any of our dealings with the federal government.”

[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-cloud-fedramp-cybersecurity-government
[2]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
[3]: https://www.fedramp.gov/archive/2017-11-16-understanding-baselines-and-impact-levels/
[4]: https://www.cisecurity.org/about-us/leadership/tony-sager
[5]: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/senior-manager-government-contractor-charged-cybersecurity-fraud-scheme
[6]: https://fedscoop.com/government-contractor-fedramp-compliance-justice-department-army-veterans-affairs/
[7]: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-china-defense-department-cloud-computing-security
[8]: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-digital-escorts-pentagon-defense-department-china-hackers
[9]: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-china-defense-department-digital-escorts-investigation-warning
[10]: https://www.fedramp.gov/2025-09-30-fedramp-built-a-modern-foundation-in-fy25-to-deliver-massive-improvements-in-fy26/
[11]: https://github.com/FedRAMP/roadmap?tab=readme-ov-file#how-fedramp-delivers
[12]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf
[13]: https://www.fedramp.gov/ai/
[14]: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/fedramp-conceptofoperationsconops/11524944
[15]: https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/964941/dl?inline
[16]: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-126.pdf
[17]: https://www.justice.gov/opcl/department-justice-statement-intrusion-department-s-microsoft-o365-email-environment
[18]: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-solarwinds-golden-saml-data-breach-russian-hackers
[19]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-o-monaco-announces-new-civil-cyber-fraud-initiative
[20]: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-china-defense-department-cloud-computing-security
[21]: https://meritalk.com/event/fitara-awards-fedramp-celebration/
[22]: https://web.archive.org/web/20221117133526/https://fedscoop.com/list/fedscoop-announces-the-winners-of-the-2022-fedscoop-50/
[23]: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-white-house-offer-cybersecurity-biden-nadella
[24]: https://help.fedramp.gov/hc/en-us/articles/27704465482139-How-does-a-company-become-a-FedRAMP-recognized-third-party-assessment-organization-3PAO-How-is-the-independence-and-quality-of-a-3PAO-validated
[25]: https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/management/ofcio/m-24-15-modernizing-the-federal-risk-and-authorization-management-program-fedramp/
[26]: https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.204-7012-safeguarding-covered-defense-information-and-cyber-incident-reporting.
[27]: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/publicsectorblog/support-for-fedramp-in-microsoft-365-government-gcc-high/4112262
[28]: https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/gsa-announces-new-political-appointee-01022024
[29]: https://www.fedramp.gov/archive/2024-08-27-welcoming-a-new-leader-for-a-new-fedramp/
[30]: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-tech-support-government-cybersecurity-china-doj-treasury
[31]: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-digital-escorts-pentagon-defense-department-china-hackers
[32]: https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/doj-brings-individual-criminal-charges-for-fedramp-fraud-what-government-contractors-need-to-know

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/01/federal-cyber-experts-thought-microsofts-cloud-was-a-pile-of-shit-they-approved-it-anyway/

South Dakota GOP, Governor Get Their Voter Suppression On Because ...

2026-04-01T22:38:46Z

South Dakota GOP, Governor Get Their Voter Suppression On

Because South Dakota governor Larry Rhoden is forever obligated to serve Kristi Noem and Kristi Noem is forever obligated to serve Donald Trump, he and his GOP buddies are making America MAGA again, starting with his home turf.

Non-citizens have never really disrupted voting. But they’re the convenient scapegoat for a party that’s justifiably worried it’s going to lose its majority during the mid-terms. Multiple efforts are being made all over the nation to disenfranchise anyone that’s not part of Trump’s most rabid voting base. Pretending people not allowed to legally vote are somehow flipping elections for the Democratic Party is more than merely obnoxious. It’s actually harming the democratic process.

Here in South Dakota, two laws have been passed in recent weeks with the express purpose of keeping non-white people from showing up to vote. The first, passed at the beginning of this month, allows any rando to claim a person they saw voting [shouldn’t be allowed to vote][1].

> *Voters in South Dakota will soon be able to challenge other voters’ citizenship.*
>
> *Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed [legislation][2] into law last week that authorizes challenges by individuals and election officials.*
>
> *[…]*
>
> *State [law][3] already allows challenges to a voter’s registration up to the 90th day before an election, if a person is suspected of lacking South Dakota residency, voting in another state or being registered to vote in another state. The new law adds citizenship as a justification for a challenge.*
>
> *Challenges may be filed by the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office, the auditor in the county where the voter is registered, or a voter in the same county. The challenge must be in the form of a signed, sworn statement and must include what the law describes as “documented evidence.”*

Now, we can all see what the law *is.* But we all know how it will be applied. State employees with access to voter rolls will raise challenges against anyone with a foreign-sounding last name. While it’s unlikely few citizens will actually file challenges, they’ll certainly feel comfortable accosting anyone standing in line to vote whose skin is darker than their own. Given the inevitability of these responses, it’s easy to see the law accomplishing exactly what it’s supposed to: limit the number of non-white voters at the polls during the mid-terms and beyond.

But that’s not the only suppression effort signed into law this month. [There’s also this one][4], which raises the bar for participating in the democratic process with the obvious intention of limiting participation to the sort of voters the GOP thinks with vote for it:

> *New voters in South Dakota will have to prove that they are United States citizens in order to cast a ballot in state and local races under a bill signed on Thursday by Gov. Larry Rhoden.*
>
> *The new law, which does not apply to South Dakotans already on the voter rolls, comes amid a national push by Republicans to tighten voting rules and root out voting by noncitizens, which is already illegal and believed to be rare.*
>
> *“This bill ensures only citizens vote in state elections, keeping our elections safe and secure,” said Mr. Rhoden, who is seeking election to a full term this year and is facing a crowded Republican primary field. *

It’s already illegal in South Dakota to vote if you’re not a citizen. This bill addresses a completely imaginary “problem.” And it forces voters to provide a passport, birth certificate, and other documents proving citizenship before they’re allowed to vote. While it may be easy for many people to present these documents, the simple fact is that they’ve never been asked to do this before, and anyone who’s not aware this law has been passed will be denied the opportunity to vote because the GOP decided to move the goalposts during an election year.

Non-citizens voting in South Dakota has *never* been an issue. The fact that 273 non-citizens were recently removed from the state’s voting rolls may seem a bit sketchy but there’s a good reason there might be a few hundred non-citizens with voter registrations:

> *Noncitizens can obtain a driver’s license or state ID if they are lawful permanent residents or have temporary legal status. There’s a part of the [driver’s license form][5] that allows an applicant to register to vote. That part says voters must be citizens. *

The problem is that this [is all on the *same form*][6]. The voter registration part of the form has a signature line, which many applicants will fill out and sign even if their intention is only to get a drivers license or ID card, especially since it appears *before* the final signature block for the *entire* application.

If applicants are not asked to *affirmatively* state their intention to register to vote (as the Department of Public Safety employees ask *now*, along with asking applicants to write “vote” on the form to signal their affirmation), their applications might be processed, along with the voter registration applicants didn’t realize they enabling.

The Secretary of State’s office (the office that’s supposed to be reviewing voter registrations for eligibility) threw the Department of Public Safety under the bus:

> *Rachel Soulek, director of the Division of Elections in the Secretary of State’s Office, placed blame on the department in her response to South Dakota Searchlight questions about the situation.*
>
> *“These non U.S. citizens had marked ‘no’ to the citizenship question on their driver’s license application but were incorrectly processed as U.S. citizens due to human error by the Department of Public Safety,” Soulek wrote.*

That’s not what happened. Their ID applications were processed and the Soulek’s department failed to catch the inadvertent errors. And it doesn’t really even matter who’s at fault because despite the errors, this is still a non-issue.

> *Soulek said only one of the 273 noncitizens had ever cast a ballot. That was during the 2016 general election.*

A handful of clerical errors that resulted in a single illegal vote in the past decade cannot be a rational basis for a new law. And there’s a good chance the sole vote was made in error, rather than maliciously. After all, if the state told this person they could vote, who were they to question that determination?

This is nothing more than state governments stepping up to do what Trump can’t. His SAVE Act is stalled and lots of last-minute gerrymandering at the behest of the president is tied up in court. His loyalists are doing what they can to make his perverted dreams a reality in states that are most likely to lean Republican in the first place, which makes all of this as pointless as it is stupid. But the underlying threat to democracy remains, ever propelled forward by the people who claim to love America the most.

[1]: https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2026/03/08/new-south-dakota-law-allows-voters-to-challenge-other-voters-citizenship/
[2]: https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/26606
[3]: https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/12-4
[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/us/south-dakota-voting-proof-of-citizenship.html
[5]: https://dps.sd.gov/download_file/force/2006/215
[6]: https://www.sd.gov/dps?id=cs_kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0043707&sys_kb_id=4148a86447e2fad0a497127ba26d434d&spa=1

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/01/south-dakota-gop-governor-get-their-voter-suppression-on/

The EU Killed Voluntary CSAM Scanning. West Virginia Is Trying To ...

2026-04-01T19:59:33Z

The EU Killed Voluntary CSAM Scanning. West Virginia Is Trying To Compel It. Both Cause Problems.

Last week, the European Parliament [voted to let a temporary exemption lapse][1] that had allowed tech companies to scan their services for child sexual abuse material (CSAM) without running afoul of strict EU privacy regulations. Meanwhile, here in the US, West Virginia’s Attorney General continues to press forward with a lawsuit designed to [*force* Apple to scan iCloud][2] for CSAM, apparently oblivious to the fact that succeeding would hand defense attorneys the best gift they’ve ever received.

Two different jurisdictions. Two diametrically opposed approaches, both claiming to protect children, and both making it harder to actually do so.

I’ll be generous and assume people pushing both of these views genuinely think they’re doing what’s best for children. This is a genuinely complex topic with real, painful tradeoffs, and reasonable people can weigh them differently. What’s frustrating is watching policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic charge forward with approaches that seem driven more by vibes than by any serious engagement with how the current system actually works — or why it was built the way it was.

The European Parliament just [voted against extending][3] a temporary regulation that had exempted tech platforms from GDPR-style privacy rules when they voluntarily scanned for CSAM. This exemption had been in place (and repeatedly extended) for years while Parliament tried to negotiate a permanent framework. Those negotiations have been going on since November 2023 without resolution, and on Thursday MEPs decided they were done extending the stopgap.

To be clear, Parliament didn’t pass a law *banning* CSAM scanning. Companies can still technically scan if they want to. But without the exemption, they’re now exposed to massive privacy liability under EU law for doing so. Scanning private messages and stored content to look for CSAM is, after all, mass surveillance — and European privacy law treats mass surveillance seriously (which, in most cases, it should!). So the practical effect is a chilling one: companies that were voluntarily scanning now face significant legal risk if they continue.

The digital rights organization eDRI framed the issue in stark terms:

> *“This is actually just enabling big tech companies to scan all of our private messages, our most intimate details, all our private chats so it constitutes a really, really serious interference with our right to privacy. It’s not targeted against people that are suspected of child abuse — It’s just targeting everyone, potentially all of the time.”*

And that argument is compelling. Hash-matching systems that compare uploaded images against databases of known CSAM are more targeted than, say, keyword scanning of every message, but they still fundamentally involve examining every unencrypted piece of content that passes through the system. When eDRI says it targets “everyone, potentially all of the time,” that’s an accurate description of how the technology works.

But… the technology also *works *to find and catch CSAM. Europol’s executive director, Catherine De Bolle, [pointed to concrete numbers][4]:

> *Last year alone, Europol processed around 1.1 million of so-called CyberTips, originating from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), of relevance to 24 European countries. CyberTips contain multiple entities (files, videos, photos etc.) supporting criminal investigation efforts into child sexual abuse online.*
>
> *If the current legal basis for voluntary detection by online platforms were to be removed, this is expected to result in a serious reduction of CyberTip referrals. This would undermine the capability to detect relevant investigative leads on CSAM, which in turn will severely impair the EU’s security interests of identifying victims and safeguarding children.*

The companies that have been doing this scanning — Google, Microsoft, Meta, Snapchat, TikTok — [released a joint statement][5] saying they are “deeply concerned” and warning that the lapse will leave “children across Europe and around the world with fewer protections than they had before.”

So the EU’s privacy advocates aren’t wrong about the surveillance problem. Europol isn’t wrong about the child safety consequences. Both things are true — which is what makes this genuinely tricky rather than a case of one side being obviously right.

Now flip to the United States, where the problem is precisely inverted.

In the US, the existing system has been carefully constructed around a single, critical principle: companies voluntarily choose to scan for CSAM, and when they find it, they’re legally required to report it to NCMEC. The word “voluntarily” is doing enormous load-bearing work in that sentence — and most of the people currently shouting about CSAM don’t seem to know it. As Stanford’s Riana Pfefferkorn [explained in detail on Techdirt][6] when a private class action lawsuit against Apple tried to compel CSAM scanning:

> *While the Fourth Amendment applies only to the government and not to private actors, the government can’t use a private actor to carry out a search it couldn’t constitutionally do itself. If the government compels or pressures a private actor to search, or the private actor searches primarily to serve the government’s interests rather than its own, then the private actor counts as a government agent for purposes of the search, which must then abide by the Fourth Amendment, otherwise the remedy is exclusion.*
>
> *If the government – legislative, executive, or judiciary – forces a cloud storage provider to scan users’ files for CSAM, that makes the provider a government agent, meaning the scans require a warrant, which a cloud services company has no power to get, making those scans unconstitutional searches. Any CSAM they find (plus any other downstream evidence stemming from the initial unlawful scan) will probably get excluded, but it’s hard to convict people for CSAM without using the CSAM as evidence, making acquittals likelier. Which defeats the purpose of compelling the scans in the first place.*

In the US, if the government forces Apple to scan, that makes Apple a government agent. Government agents need warrants. Apple can’t get warrants. So the scans are unconstitutional. So the evidence gets thrown out. So the predators walk free. All because someone thought “just make them scan!” was a simple solution to a complex problem.

Congress apparently understood this when it wrote the federal reporting statute — that’s why the law explicitly disclaims any requirement that providers *proactively search* for CSAM. The voluntariness of the scanning is what preserves its legal viability. Everyone involved in the actual work of combating CSAM — prosecutors, investigators, NCMEC, trust and safety teams — understands this and takes great care to preserve it.

Everyone, apparently, except the Attorney General of West Virginia. As we discussed recently, West Virginia just [filed a lawsuit][7] demanding that a court order Apple to “implement effective CSAM detection measures” on iCloud. The remedy West Virginia seeks — a court order compelling scanning — would spring the constitutional trap that everyone who actually works on this issue has been carefully avoiding for years.

As Pfefferkorn put it:

> *Any competent plaintiff’s counsel should have figured this out before filing a lawsuit asking a federal court to make Apple start scanning iCloud for CSAM, thereby making Apple a government agent, thereby turning the compelled iCloud scans into unconstitutional searches, thereby making it likelier for any iCloud user who gets caught to walk free, thereby shooting themselves in the foot, doing a disservice to their client, making the situation worse than the status quo, and causing a major setback in the fight for child safety online.*
>
> *The reason nobody’s filed a lawsuit like this against Apple to date, despite years of complaints from left, right, and center about Apple’s ostensibly lackadaisical approach to CSAM detection in iCloud, isn’t because nobody’s thought of it before. It’s because they thought of it and they did their fucking legal research first. And then they backed away slowly from the computer, grateful to have narrowly avoided turning themselves into useful idiots for pedophiles.*

The West Virginia complaint also treats Apple’s abandoned NeuralHash client-side scanning project as evidence that Apple could scan but simply chose not to. What it skips over is *why* the security community reacted so strongly to NeuralHash in the first place. Apple’s own director of user privacy and child safety laid out the problem:

> *Scanning every user’s privately stored iCloud content would in our estimation pose serious unintended consequences for our users… Scanning for one type of content, for instance, opens the door for bulk surveillance and could create a desire to search other encrypted messaging systems across content types (such as images, videos, text, or audio) and content categories. How can users be assured that a tool for one type of surveillance has not been reconfigured to surveil for other content such as political activity or religious persecution? Tools of mass surveillance have widespread negative implications for freedom of speech and, by extension, democracy as a whole.*

Once you create infrastructure capable of scanning every user’s private content for one category of material, you’ve created infrastructure capable of scanning for *anything*. The pipe doesn’t care what flows through it. Governments around the world — some of them not exactly champions of human rights — have a well-documented habit of demanding expanded use of existing surveillance capabilities. This connects directly to the perennial fights over end-to-end encryption backdoors, where the same argument applies: you cannot build a door that only the good guys can walk through.

And then there’s the scale problem. Even the best hash-matching systems can produce false positives, and at the scale of major platforms, even tiny error rates translate into enormous numbers of wrongly flagged users.

This is one of those frustrating stories where you can… kinda see all sides, and there’s no easy or obvious answer:

**Scanning works, at least somewhat.** 1.1 million CyberTips from Europol in a single year. Some number of children identified and rescued because platforms voluntarily detected CSAM and reported it. The system produces real results.

**Scanning is mass surveillance.** Every image, every message gets examined (algorithmically), not just those belonging to suspected offenders. The privacy intrusion is real, not hypothetical, and it falls on everyone.

**Compelled scanning breaks prosecutions.** In the US, the Fourth Amendment means that government-ordered scanning creates a get-out-of-jail card for the very predators everyone claims to be targeting. The voluntariness of the system is what makes it legally functional.

**Scanning infrastructure is repurposable.** A system built to detect CSAM can be retooled to detect political speech, religious content, or anything else. This concern is not paranoid; it’s an engineering reality.

**False positives at scale are inevitable.** Even highly accurate systems will flag innocent content when processing billions of items, and the consequences for wrongly accused individuals are severe.

People can and will weigh these tradeoffs differently, and that’s legitimate. The tension described in all this is real and doesn’t resolve neatly.

But what both the EU Parliament’s vote and West Virginia’s lawsuit share is an unwillingness to sit with that tension. The EU stripped legal cover from the *voluntary* system that was actually producing results, without having a workable replacement ready. West Virginia is trying to *compel* what must remain voluntary, apparently without bothering to read the constitutional case law that makes compelled scanning self-defeating. From opposite directions, both approaches attack the same fragile voluntary architecture that currently threads the needle between these competing interests.

The status quo in the United States — voluntary scanning, mandatory reporting, no government compulsion to search — is far from perfect. But the system functions: it produces leads, preserves prosecutorial viability, and does so precisely because it was designed by people who understood the tradeoffs and built accordingly.

It would be nice if more policymakers engaged with why the system works the way it does before trying to blow it up from either direction. In tech policy, the loudest voices in the room are rarely the ones who’ve done the reading.

[1]: https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-rejects-child-sexual-abuse-bill-blocking-tech-firms-scanning-meta-google/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/25/west-virginias-anti-apple-csam-lawsuit-would-help-child-predators-walk-free/
[3]: https://therecord.media/eu-parliament-rejects-csam-scanning-extension
[4]: https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/combatting-child-sexual-exploitation-statement-catherine-de-bolle
[5]: https://blogs.microsoft.com/eupolicy/2026/03/19/eu-lawmakers-must-act-now-to-ensure-the-continued-protection-of-children/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/19/suing-apple-to-force-it-to-scan-icloud-for-csam-is-a-catastrophically-bad-idea/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/25/west-virginias-anti-apple-csam-lawsuit-would-help-child-predators-walk-free/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/01/the-eu-killed-voluntary-csam-scanning-west-virginia-is-trying-to-compel-it-both-cause-problems/

Copyright Industry Continues Its Efforts To Ban VPNs Last month ...

2026-04-01T18:05:51Z

Copyright Industry Continues Its Efforts To Ban VPNs

Last month Walled Culture wrote about an important case at the Court of Justice of the European Union, (CJEU), the EU’s top court, that could determine [how VPNs can be used][1] in that region. Clarification in this area is particularly important because VPNs are currently under attack in various ways. For example, last year, the Danish government published draft legislation that many believed would make it [illegal to use a VPN to access geoblocked streaming content or bypass restrictions on illegal websites][2]. In the wake of a firestorm of criticism, Denmark’s Minister of Culture assured people that VPNs would not be banned. However, even though references to VPNs were removed from the text, [the provisions are so broadly drafted][3] that VPNs may well be affected anyway. Companies too are taking aim at VPNs. Leading the charge are those in France, which have been targeting VPN providers for over a year now. As [TorrentFreak reported last February][4]:

> *Canal+ and the football league LFP have requested court orders to compel NordVPN, ExpressVPN, ProtonVPN, and others to block access to pirate sites and services. The move follows similar orders obtained last year against DNS resolvers.*

The [VPN Trust Initiative][5] (VTI) responded with a press release opposing what it called a “Misguided Legal Effort to Extend Website Blocking to VPNs”. It warned:

> *Such blocking can have sweeping consequences that might put the security and privacy of French citizens at risk.*
>
> *Targeting VPNs opens the door to a dangerous censorship precedent, risking overreach into broader areas of content.*

Indeed: if VPN blocks become an option, there will inevitably be more calls to use them for a wider range of material. The VTI also noted that some of its members are [considering whether to abandon the French market completely][6]. That could mean people start using less reliable VPN providers, some of which have dubious records when it comes to security and privacy. The incentive for VPNs to pull out of France is increasing. In August last year the Paris Judicial Court [ordered top VPN service providers to block more sports streaming domains][7], and at the beginning of this year, yet [more blocking orders were issued to VPNs operating in France][8]. To its credit, one of the VPN providers affected, ProtonVPN, fought back. As reported here by TorrentFreak, [the company tried multiple angles][9]:

> *The VPN provider raised jurisdictional questions and also requested to see evidence that Canal+ owned all the rights at play. However, these concerns didn’t convince the court.*
>
> *The same applies to Proton’s net neutrality defense, which argued that Article 333-10 of the French sports code, which is at the basis of all blocking orders, violates EU Open Internet Regulation. This defense was too vague, the court concluded, noting that Proton cited the regulation without specifying which provisions were actually breached.*

ProtonVPN also argued that forcing a Swiss company to block sites for the French market is a restriction of cross-border trade in services, and that in any case, the blocking measures were “technically unrealizable, costly, and unnecessarily complex.” Despite this valiant defense, the court was unimpressed. At least ProtonVPN was allowed to contest the French court’s ruling. In a similar case in Spain, [no such option was given][10]. According to TorrentFreak:

> *The court orders were issued inaudita parte, which is Latin for “without hearing the other side.” Citing urgency, the Córdoba court did not give NordVPN and ProtonVPN the opportunity to contest the measures before they were granted.*
>
> *Without a defense, the court reportedly concluded that both NordVPN and ProtonVPN actively advertise their ability to bypass geo-restrictions, citing match schedules in their marketing materials. The VPNs are therefore seen as active participants in the piracy chain rather than passive conduits, according to local media reports.*

That’s pretty shocking, and shows once more how biased in favor of the copyright industry the law has become in some jurisdictions: other parties aren’t even allowed to present a defense. It’s a further reason why a definitive ruling from the CJEU on the right of people to use VPNs how they wish is so important.

Alongside these recent court cases, there is also another imminent attack on the use of VPNs, albeit in a slight different way. The UK government has announced wide-ranging plans that aim to “[keep children safe online][11]”. One of the ideas the government is proposing is “to age restrict or limit children’s VPN use where it undermines safety protections and changing the age of digital consent.” Although this is presented as a child protection measure, the effects will be much wider. The only way to bring in age restrictions for children is if all adult users of VPNs verify their own age. This inevitably leads to the creation of huge new online databases of personal information that are vulnerable to attack. As a side effect, the UK government’s misguided plans will also bolster the growing attempts by the copyright industry to demonize VPNs – a core element of the Internet’s plumbing – as unnecessary tools that are only used to break the law.

*Follow me @glynmoody on [Mastodon][12] and on [Bluesky][13]. Originally published on [WalledCulture][14].*

[1]: https://walledculture.org/copyright-litigation-over-anne-franks-writings-likely-to-impact-the-fate-of-vpns-in-the-eu/
[2]: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/denmark-wants-to-ban-vpns-to-unlock-foreign-illegal-streams-and-experts-are-worried
[3]: https://torrentfreak.com/govt-denies-iptv-piracy-law-bans-vpns-because-it-never-did-didnt-need-to-251218/
[4]: https://torrentfreak.com/rightsholders-target-vpn-providers-in-french-court-to-block-piracy-250207/
[5]: https://i2coalition.com/vpn-trust-initiative-vti-opposes-misguided-legal-effort-to-extend-website-blocking-to-vpns/
[6]: https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-providers-consider-exiting-france-over-dangerous-blocking-demands-240224/
[7]: https://torrentfreak.com/french-court-orders-vpns-to-block-more-pirate-sites-rejects-eu-court-referral/
[8]: https://torrentfreak.com/french-court-orders-popular-vpns-to-block-more-pirate-sites-despite-opposition/
[9]: https://torrentfreak.com/protonvpn-fights-french-pirate-site-blockades-but-court-rejects-overblocking-fears/
[10]: https://torrentfreak.com/spanish-court-orders-protonvpn-and-nordvpn-to-block-pirate-football-streams/
[11]: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-no-platform-gets-a-free-pass-government-takes-action-to-keep-children-safe-online
[12]: https://mastodon.social/@glynmoody
[13]: https://bsky.app/profile/glynmoody.bsky.social
[14]: https://walledculture.org/copyright-industry-intensifies-attempts-to-undermine-core-internet-plumbing-vpns/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/01/copyright-industry-continues-its-efforts-to-ban-vpns/

Daily Deal: The Modern No-Code Development Bundle The [Modern ...

2026-04-01T18:00:41Z

Daily Deal: The Modern No-Code Development Bundle

The [Modern No-Code Creator Bundle][1] is an extensive online curriculum specifically developed to enable individuals to construct professional websites, applications & automated workflows without the necessity of writing any code. It has five courses, covering leading no-code platforms and tools like ChatGPT, Mendix, and Tabnine. It is ideally suited for novices and non-technical professionals, empowering users to successfully launch digital products independently of developer assistance. It’s on sale for $20.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: http://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-modern-no-code-development-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/01/daily-deal-the-modern-no-code-development-bundle-2/

DOJ Admits ICE Has Engaged In Illegal Courthouse Arrests For Most ...

2026-04-01T16:35:53Z

DOJ Admits ICE Has Engaged In Illegal Courthouse Arrests For Most Of The Past Year

This is big. This is going to cause a whole lot of problems for the administration in the hundreds of ICE-related lawsuits it’s defending itself against. It’s a Perry Mason moment, albeit one that implicates the entity delivering it, rather than the other way around. (h/t [Chris Geidner on Bluesky][1])

As we are all painfully aware, ICE operations since Trump returned to office have immediately strayed from the stated “worst of the worst” purpose to going after pretty much anyone [who isn’t white][2]. That means ICE officers are staking out any place day laborers might be hanging out, raiding any business that might employ migrant labor, roaming the streets in unmarked cars and masks to snatch up foreign-looking people, and — in what has *always* been extremely controversial — hanging around immigration courts to arrest migrants engaging in their court-ordered check-ins.

All of it is awful, but [deliberately targeting people][3] who are following all of the rules that allow them to remain in the US is particularly despicable. That’s what ICE and other DHS components have been doing: making the easiest, laziest arrests possible to satisfy White House advisor Stephen Miller’s ever-escalating arrest quota.

The administration has spent the last year claiming immigration court arrests are not only legal, but fully supported by ICE policy. Officials (and DOJ lawyers) have said this despite this never being the case before Trump’s return to office.

Now, we know it isn’t true. Bizarrely, this revelation isn’t the result of FOIA requests or court discovery orders. It comes from the DOJ itself, which delivered this unexpected twist in the mass deportation saga in a March 24 filing in a case being handled by the Southern District of New York.

Here’s the essence of the admission made by the DOJ in its [letter to the court][4] [PDF]:

> *We write respectfully and regrettably to correct a material mistaken statement of fact that the Government made to the Court and Plaintiffs. Specifically, this morning, counsel from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) informed the undersigned of the following: **the memorandum entitled Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or Near Courthouses, dated May 27, 2025 – which the Government relied on in presenting its arguments in this case and referred to as the “2025 ICE Guidance” – does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) immigration courts.***

Holy shit. That’s huge. And the DOJ knows it. The letter goes on to inform the court that the DOJ will be reversing the stance it took in several filings in this case. It also acknowledges that the court opinion based on its previous (and perhaps unknowing) misrepresentations will need to rescinded and re-briefed.

The ACLU’s response to the DOJ’s filing drives the point home further:

> *[T]he government now concedes the May 2025 ICE memorandum—which it previously asserted authorized arrests at immigration courthouses, provided guidance minimizing the harms of such arrests, and explained the agency’s reasoning for abandoning a prior policy largely prohibiting such arrests—in fact has **never applied** to such arrests. Accordingly, it further concedes the government’s primary defense to Plaintiffs’ claim that the Immigration Court Arrest Policy is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act must be “withdraw[n]…”*
>
> *[…]*
>
> *The implications of this development are far-reaching. In the months since the Court relied on the government’s representation to deny Plaintiffs preliminary relief, Defendants have continued arresting noncitizens at their immigration court hearings, resulting in their detention—often in facilities hundreds of miles away.*

[The email cited][5] in the DOJ’s letter was issued by Liana J. Castano, the assistant direct of ICE field operations on March 19. In bold print, the memo says this:

> ***This broadcast serves as a reminder that the May 27, 2025, Guidance does not apply to Executive Office for Immigration Review (Immigration) courts, regardless of their location.** As stated in the Guidance, it also does not apply to criminal immigration enforcement actions inside courthouses. *

Out of context, “does not apply” might seem like it contradicts the DOJ’s assertion. It doesn’t. Here’s the context, provided by the original [memo][6] [PDF], which has been [posted to ICE’s website][7]:

> *ICE officers or agents may conduct civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses when they have credible information that leads them to believe the targeted alien(s) is or will be present at a specific location.*
>
> *Additionally, civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses should, to the extent practicable, continue to take place in non-public areas of the courthouse, be conducted in collaboration with court security staff, and utilize the court building’s non-public entrances and exits. When practicable, ICE officers and agents will conduct civil immigration enforcement actions against targeted aliens discreetly to minimize their impact on court proceedings.*

You can see the problem here: the original memo (issued May 27, 2025) says ICE officers *can* engage in enforcement efforts “in or near courthouses.” There’s a single caveat, but not one that specifically says immigration courts are off-limits:

> *ICE officers and agents should generally avoid enforcement actions in or near courthouses, or areas within courthouses that are wholly dedicated to non-criminal proceedings (e.g., family court, small claims court).*

That doesn’t specifically exclude immigration courts, although those courts *only* handle non-criminal proceedings because immigration law violations are ***civil*** violations. There’s other language in the memo that further muddies the water:

> *Other aliens encountered during a civil immigration enforcement action in or near a courthouse, such as **family members or friends accompanying the target alien to court appearances** or serving as a witness in a proceeding, may be subject to civil immigration enforcement action on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the circumstances.*

This doesn’t specify whether these court appearances are criminal or civil. It just says ICE officers can take advantage of the situation to rack up some ancillary arrests.

I’m not sure what happened recently that would have prompted this clarification. Maybe there’s been an internal change of heart by ICE leadership. Maybe ICE’s legal team was unable to find a way to make these courthouse arrests legally defensible. In any event, the clarification was issued, well after tons of damage has already been done.

While it kind of looks like ICE leadership is throwing front line officers under the bus by issuing after-the-fact clarification of a vaguely worded memo issued 10 months ago, I wouldn’t worry about the ICE officers. It’s mostly an imaginary bus, since it’s almost impossible to sue federal officers and the original memo provides enough plausible deniability that qualified immunity would foreclose any lawsuit that managed to make its way [past the initial *Bivens* barrier][8].

As irritating as that is, the important thing is that the DOJ has stated, in court, that pretty much *any* immigration courthouse arrest performed by federal officers was illegal. And that’s going to make it way easier to sue the government itself over its mass deportation program.

[1]: https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3mhvzuhhby22s
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/24/ice-promised-a-mn-supreme-court-justice-it-would-stop-raiding-courthouses-it-immediately-broke-that-promise/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/19/federal-judge-rips-ice-for-turning-the-legal-migration-process-into-detention-roulette/
[4]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/27924226/doj-ice-memo.pdf
[5]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893/gov.uscourts.nysd.646893.77.1.pdf
[6]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/27924227/ice-memo.pdf
[7]: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/policy/11072.4.pdf
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/26/bivens-is-dead-says-the-10th-circuit-confirming-youre-only-wasting-your-time-when-suing-federal-officers/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/01/doj-admits-ice-has-engaged-in-illegal-courthouse-arrests-for-most-of-the-past-year/

Brendan Carr Ignores The Law, Rubber Stamps More Right Wing Media ...

2026-04-01T12:30:50Z

Brendan Carr Ignores The Law, Rubber Stamps More Right Wing Media Consolidation, Then Lies About It

Right wing broadcasters are having a very good time under Brendan Carr, who has [looked to destroy all remaining media consolidation limits][1] to let them merge. Such companies, like Sinclair, Nexstar, and Tegna, don’t do journalism so much as they do [soggy, right wing propaganda][2] and infotainment, usually with endless fear mongering about drugs, homelessness, and crime rates.

They’re just one part of the right wing’s effort to remake the entirety of media into [a massive safe space][3] for dim autocrats.

Carr’s latest effort: he [rubber stamped][4] Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2 billion purchase of Tegna behind closed doors. Carr let the merged companies ignore our remaining media consolidation limits, which prevent one company from being the primary broadcast news voice for more than 39 percent of households (the new combined company reaches 54.5 percent).

Nexstar (a very Republican friendly company that also owns The Hill), not that long ago [fired a journalist whose reporting angered Trump][5]. Combined with Tegna, the two companies will own 221 Big Four broadcast stations, or more than half of the U.S. stations affiliated with FOX, NBC, ABC, or CBS.

Carr’s been on a campaign to ensure these right-wing loyal companies have more power in their dealings with their national counterparts (remember how they [helped Carr censor Jimmy Kimmel][6]?). The efforts come as local Americans increasingly live in “local news deserts” where quality local journalism simply no longer exists.

Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat left at the FCC (Republicans refuse to fill the other seat), didn’t have nice things to say about Carr’s decision to ignore the public interest protections without a transparent, public vote (indicating Carr very clearly knew this would be very unpopular):

> > NEWS: The FCC has approved the unlawful Nexstar-TEGNA merger behind closed doors.The consequences of this rubber stamp approval will be felt in living rooms and newsrooms across the country, resulting in fewer voices, less competition, and higher costs for consumers.
> >
> > — [FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez (@agomezfcc.bsky.social)][7] [2026-03-19T23:00:22.550Z][8]
>

As always, Carr’s [order approving the merger][9] leverages all manner of pseudo-legalistic sounding bullshit to justify ignoring Congress and the law. And he parrots a bunch of completely empty promises by Nexstar that they’ll ramp up the production of more “local news”:

> *“We note that Nexstar has made significant commitments in the agency’s record as well,
> further ensuring that this transaction promotes the public interest. To further serve its local communities, Nexstar commits to expanding its investment in local news and programming, including increasing the amount of local news it provides in acquired markets.”*

Except again, by “news” we mean right wing propaganda. And Brendan Carr never meaningfully holds corporate power accountable for anything, unless it involves a comedian making fun of the president or companies not being *suitably racist enough* for the president’s liking.

Eight states have already [filed a lawsuit][10] challenging the legality of the decision. The lawsuits understandably focus heavily on the competition impacts, and the likely higher cable TV prices that will result for most of you:

> *“By consolidating with a major competitor, Nexstar would likely acquire the power to charge MVPDs higher retransmission consent fees for Big 4 station content. In turn, those MVPDs would likely pass on the increased retransmission consent fees, in large measure, to their subscribers in the form of substantially higher cable and satellite bills.”*

California regulators attempted to slow the process down by proposing a standard timing agreement with Nexstar, where the company would suspend its acquisition of Tegna until the state completed its investigation.

But something of particular note: on pages 16-17 of the states’ [amended complaint][11], it becomes clear that Nexstar completely ignored the State AGs for 8 days, then ignored their lawsuit for another 18 hours, and then told the state AGs “The relief sought in your Complaint is no longer available.”

In other words, what passes for some of the only real antitrust enforcement we have (a scattered coalition of states) have to fight both consolidated corporate power and the authoritarian, corrupt government simultaneously to make any inroads in the public interest.

“This is completely unprecedented,” Free Press (the consumer group, not the Bari Weiss troll farm) Research Director S. Derek Turner told me via email. “Nexstar and the Trump DOJ and FCC seem to have acted in concert to deprive the citizens of of these 8 states their rights to have our AG enforce the antitrust laws on our behalf.”

If Carr succeeds here, I suspect it won’t be long before you see Sinclair and this new combined company merge. Carr is also fielding requests by the big four national broadcasters to eliminate restrictions preventing them from merging as well (one of many reasons they’ve been so feckless). After that, you’ll likely see more consolidation across telecom, tech, and media.

It is, just in case we’ve forgotten, the complete opposite of the “antitrust reform populism” Trump, [and a long line of useful idiots][12], promised last election season.

While this is certainly an act of some desperation (less than 20% of all U.S. TV viewing is now broadcast), claiming this doesn’t matter because this is “just local broadcasting” and the “future is the internet” (something I see often) is a violent misread of the dire stakes of the situation. This aggressive, Trump-loyal consolidation hasn’t, and isn’t, just being confined to broadcast television (see: Twitter, TikTok).

This is, to be clear, a coordinated and illegal authoritarian/corporatist effort to ignore the public interest and the law to expand right wing propaganda’s power over an already clearly befuddled and broadly misinformed electorate. Right wingers will continue to engage in this quest to dominate the entirety of U.S. media ([following in the steps of Victor Orban in Hungary][13]) until they run into something other than the political and policy equivalent of soft pudding.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/28/gop-friendly-local-news-broadcasters-plan-more-harmful-mergers-after-trump-destroys-whats-left-of-media-consolidation-limits/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/03/23/sinclair-seattle-reporter-makes-proud-boys-gathering-sound-like-cub-scouts/
[3]: https://www.damemagazine.com/2025/01/02/americas-right-wing-propaganda-problem-might-be-terminal/
[4]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-267A1.pdf
[5]: https://wbng.org/2025/04/22/the-hill-guild-statement-on-politically-motivated-firing-of-journalist/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/13/sinclair-broadcasting-posts-huge-quarterly-loss-after-jimmy-kimmel-censorship/
[7]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:fzl4nf77vsdx4xgl3ctxtvre?ref_src=embed
[8]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:fzl4nf77vsdx4xgl3ctxtvre/post/3mhh46cbyi224?ref_src=embed
[9]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-267A1.pdf
[10]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.484723/gov.uscourts.caed.484723.1.0_1.pdf
[11]: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2026.03.20%20Memorandum%20of%20Points%20and%20Authorities%20ISO%20TRO.pdf
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/18/just-a-reminder-authoritarians-dont-actually-support-antitrust-reform/
[13]: https://euobserver.com/203675/how-orban-systematically-suffocated-the-hungarian-media-over-the-past-15-years/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/01/brendan-carr-ignores-the-law-rubber-stamps-more-right-wing-media-consolidation-then-lies-about-it/

Aspyr: Hey, Those Crappy Tomb Raider Remastered Outfits Were Made ...

2026-04-01T02:59:02Z

Aspyr: Hey, Those Crappy Tomb Raider Remastered Outfits Were Made By Our Artists, Not AI!

I’m going to trust that most of our audience will have some idea of what McCarthyism was in the 1950s. To summarize very briefly, it was [an anti-communist campaign ][1]that spread into becoming equally anti-leftist throughout the country, with a specific focus on driving the supposed communist influences out of major media in America, such as radio and Hollywood. This led to a public hyper-vigilant in looking for supposed communists everywhere, as well as plenty of cases of false accusations of communist activity purposefully foisted upon people for personal reasons. This rabid, frothy-mouthed era of suspicion became a major stain on America in the 1950s.

I’m watching a version of this begin to take form around artificial intelligence. I know, I know: there are very real dangers and negative outcomes that could come to be from AI. That was true of communism and our Cold War enemy in the Soviet Union as well. My point is *not* that AI is great all the time and any pushback against it is invalid. Instead, my point is that we’re starting to see what I’ll call McPromptism, where some percentage of the public looks for AI everywhere it can and, if use is suspected, immediately decries it as terrible and demands that people not engage with the supposed user.

And just like McCarthyism, McPromptism gets its accusations wrong sometimes. You can see a version of that in the story of [Aspyr’s remastering of old *Tomb Raider* games][2] and the horrible outfits that were produced for the protagonist, Lara Croft.

> *Earlier this week [we reported on fan reaction to the latest update to the Tomb Raider I-III Remastered collection][3], in which the game received a new Challenge Mode, while Lara received a suite of new outfits to wear as rewards. And oh wow, they were bad. Comically bad. So bad, in fact, that one of the remaster’s original artists [posted on X][4] to distance himself and his colleagues from the dross. Alongside all of this was the suspicion that genAI might have been involved in the fits’ creation, given just how dreadful they looked. Publisher Aspyr has now finally responded to the claims to insist no AI was used at all, instead stating they were created by “our team of artists.” Which raises more questions.*

If you want to see a somewhat humorous look at the outfit textures that are the subject of public complaint, here you go.

On the one hand, for someone like me who is not into the anti-AI dogma out there, it is objectively funny for some people to point at bad video game textures and claim they’re so bad because they’re obviously created using generative AI… only to have the company that made them say, “Nuh uh! It was our human employees who made them!” It’s almost Monty-Python-esque, in a way.

But this default among some in the gaming public to be “This thing in gaming is bad, so it must have been made using AI!” is just one more kind of silly that is out there right now. [Aspyr][5] doesn’t exactly have a perfect reputation when it comes to remastering games, after all, and it built that reputation long before genAI came along.

It seems clear that this was a case of images being released to promote the remastered game that Aspyr didn’t live up to in the actual game itself. No AI, just human beings not hitting the mark. It happens all the time. Hell, there is even a chance that AI could have done a better job. Not a certainty by any stretch, but a possibility.

But the real take away from this otherwise minor episode for me was the McPromptism misfire. If you’re going to rage against the literal machine in the video gaming industry, which I think is the wrong stance to take anyway, at least let it be righteous rage.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
[2]: https://kotaku.com/tomb-raider-publisher-denies-using-ai-aspyr-outfits-2000680266
[3]: https://kotaku.com/fans-are-furious-after-a-tomb-raider-remastered-patch-gives-lara-slop-outfits-2000679054
[4]: https://twitter.com/playeroldskool/status/2032133432189296787?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2032133432189296787%7Ctwgr%5E547b8deec8776ee2df3d6943add8d901e69c42cc%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fkotaku.com%2Ffans-are-furious-after-a-tomb-raider-remastered-patch-gives-lara-slop-outfits-2000679054
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/company/aspyr/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/31/aspyr-hey-those-crappy-tomb-raider-remastered-outfits-were-made-by-our-artists-not-ai/

Free Speech Experts: Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Panic Is As Old As ...

2026-03-31T22:35:49Z

Free Speech Experts: Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Panic Is As Old As Democracy Itself

We’ve been saying [for years now][1] that Jonathan Haidt’s crusade against social media and kids is a moral panic dressed up in academic robes, and that the evidence simply does not support the sweeping claims he’s been making. A new piece in the Wall Street Journal by Jacob Mchangama and Jeff Kosseff drives that point home with a framing that cuts straight to the absurdity of it all: this fear of new ideas “corrupting the youth” [is literally as old as democracy itself][2].

> *In 399 BCE, Socrates was put on trial before a jury of some 500 of his fellow Athenians. The indictment accused him of impiety and added, “Socrates is…also guilty of corrupting the youth.” Despite the Athenian democracy’s commitment to free and equal speech, Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to death.*
>
> *Two and a half millennia later, democracies are still deeply concerned about dangerous ideas corrupting the youth. This time, the target isn’t dangerous philosophy but an increase in teen mental-health issues blamed on social media.*

Mchangama and Kosseff are particularly well-positioned to make this argument (and are both former Techdirt podcast guests). Mchangama’s prior book, [*Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media*][3], traced the full arc of free speech battles across civilizations, and the two of them have a forthcoming co-authored book, [*The Future of Free Speech*][4], on the global decline of free speech protections. Meanwhile Kosseff’s three previous books all cover related free speech territory: [*The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet*][5]*, *[*Liar in a Crowded Theater*][6]*, *and [*The United States of Anonymous*][7]. These are people who have spent their careers studying exactly these patterns — the recurring cycle of moral panic, political opportunism, and the quiet erosion of rights that tends to follow.

Their piece walks through the problems with both the evidence and the policy responses that have sprung from Haidt’s work. On the evidence:

> *In 2024, a review of the scientific literature by a committee at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine had found that despite some “potential harms,” the review “did not support the conclusion that social media causes changes in adolescent health at the population level.” A 2026 longitudinal study in the Journal of Public Health reached a similar conclusion. *

We [covered][8] these studies at the time, noting that they were far from the only such studies to go hunting for the alleged evidence of inherent harms to children using social media — and coming up empty. It is amazing how little attention these studies get compared to Haidt’s book. So it’s good to see Mchangama and Kosseff call them out.

They also highlight what gets lost when you reduce this to a simple “social media = bad” story:

> *“Social media has the potential to connect friends and family. It may also be valuable to teens who otherwise feel excluded or lack offline support,” according to the National Academies of Science report. It also highlights the possible benefits of online access for “young people coping with serious illness, bereavement, and mental health problems” as well as opportunities for learning and developing interests. *
>
> *That point is especially important for vulnerable teenagers whose offline environments may be isolating or hostile. This is why comparing social media to tobacco is questionable: The scientific consensus on smoking’s harms is unanimous and no one claims smoking has benefits. Neither is true for social media.*

This is consistent with what [experts told TES Magazine last fall][9] — actual researchers in the field described Haidt’s work as “fear” rather than science, said they couldn’t believe a fellow academic wrote it, and pointed out basic logical flaws in his causal claims. It’s also consistent with what I found in my [own detailed review of the book][10] when it came out two years ago, where the cherry-picked data, the ignored contrary evidence, and the policy proposals based on gut feelings rather than research were all on full display.

What makes this even worse than a standard “well-meaning but wrong” situation is a study we wrote about earlier this year showing that [the social media “addiction” narrative itself may be more harmful than social media][11]. Researchers found that very few people show signs consistent with actual addiction, but every time the media amplifies stories *about* social media addiction, more people *claim* they’re addicted. And that belief makes them feel helpless — convincing them they have a pathological condition rather than habits they could simply change.

In other words, the moral panic is doing the exact same thing it accuses social media of doing: making people anxious, helpless, and convinced they can’t control their own behavior.

The cost of being wrong here is that parents, politicians, and schools ignore the real causes of teen mental health struggles: poverty, the closure of youth services, reduced access to mental health care, and the erasure of community support systems. And the cost is that kids who genuinely rely on online communities — LGBTQ+ youth, kids with chronic illnesses, kids in hostile home environments — lose a lifeline. Mchangama and Kosseff make the same point, and now we can see the policy consequences playing out in real time.

And it goes even further. As Mchangama and Kosseff note, authoritarian governments are already using the “protect the children” framework as cover for broader censorship:

> *Authoritarian and illiberal states provide a grim window into how the protection of children can be weaponized to suppress dissent. In 2012, Russia enacted an internet blacklist law, with the stated intention of protecting children from harmful content. The law laid the groundwork for Russia’s heavily censored “Red Web” that now entirely prohibits many foreign social-media platforms.*
>
> *The same goes in Indonesia which this month announced a ban on social media for those under 16. But Indonesia is also a country that has used the pretext of child protection to block and censor gay social networking apps and content. *

It’s a remarkable blind spot for those pushing Haidt’s arguments. They never seem to consider that these are the exact same tools authoritarian governments use to silence marginalized voices. You would think that politicians championing this book — particularly Democrats who claim to care about civil liberties and LGBTQ rights — might pause when they see Russia and Indonesia deploying identical justifications.

And yet politicians across the spectrum continue to treat Haidt’s book like scripture, despite an overwhelming expert consensus that his claims don’t hold up.

Mchangama and Kosseff close with what should be obvious, but apparently still needs to be said:

> *Democracies have always worried about dangerous ideas corrupting the young. Intellectuals and lawmakers should absolutely be concerned about how and when our children navigate social media. But they should also be concerned about whether, in our rush to protect our children, we are building an infrastructure of surveillance and censorship that will ultimately threaten the hard-won freedoms we want future generations to enjoy.*

Speech is powerful. Ideas have consequences. But we protect such speech from legal liability for that very reason. The power of speech to change minds and influence people is exactly why those in power are so often afraid of it and looking to tamp it down. It’s also why Mchangama and Kosseff can tie the urge back all the way to Socrates.

Every generation gets its moral panic. Every time, someone insists “this time it’s different.” Every time, the evidence eventually catches up and the panic looks ridiculous in retrospect. The tragedy is how much damage gets done in the meantime — to kids who lose a real lifeline, to free expression, to privacy, and to the actual causes of teen suffering that never get addressed because everyone was too busy blaming the latest app.

The verdict from the people who actually study this stuff has been clear for a while now. Maybe it’s time for politicians to put down Haidt’s book and pick up the actual research.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/22/jonathan-haidts-book-the-anxious-generation-is-coddling-the-american-parent-giving-them-clear-simple-wrong-explanations-for-whats-ailing-teens/
[2]: https://www.wsj.com/politics/social-media-freedom-speech-meta-youtube-ruling-32aaee3b
[3]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58293299-free-speech
[4]: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/53896/future-free-speech#:~:text=This%20book%20examines%20the%20backlash,and%20speed%20that%20dwarfs%20historical
[5]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42170844-the-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet
[6]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/122825851-liar-in-a-crowded-theater
[7]: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/57926932-the-united-states-of-anonymous
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-study-says-theres-no-evidence-that-social-media-is-inherently-harmful-to-teens/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/10/experts-universally-pan-jonathan-haidts-the-anxious-generation-as-unscientific-garbage-but-politicians-keep-buying-it-anyway/
[10]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-parent?ref=author
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/the-social-media-addiction-narrative-may-be-more-harmful-than-social-media-itself/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/31/free-speech-experts-jonathan-haidts-moral-panic-is-as-old-as-democracy-itself/

Techdirt Podcast Episode 448: Transaction Denied [Support us on ...

2026-03-31T20:30:44Z

Techdirt Podcast Episode 448: Transaction Denied

[Support us on Patreon »][1]

In the conversation about online speech, most of the attention tends to fall on the big social media platforms, while other intermediaries get overlooked — especially payment processors and other financial intermediaries. But that very thing is the focus of a new book coming out next week, [Rainey Reitman][2]‘s *[Transaction Denied][3].* With launch events coming up on [April 7th in Berkeley][4] and [April 9th in San Francisco][5], Rainey joins the podcast this week to talk all about [the book and the vital role of financial intermediaries in online speech][6].

You can also [download this episode directly][7] in MP3 format.

*Follow the Techdirt Podcast on [Soundcloud][8], subscribe via [Apple Podcasts][9] or [Spotify][10], or grab the [RSS feed][11]. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes [right here on Techdirt][12].*

[1]: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=4450624&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Ftechdirt
[2]: https://raineyreitman.com/
[3]: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/804543/transaction-denied-by-rainey-reitman/
[4]: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/rainey-reitmans-transaction-denied-in-store-event-and-book-signing-tickets-1984829277800?aff=oddtdtcreator
[5]: https://citylights.com/events/rainey-reitman-launch-party-for-transaction-denied/
[6]: https://soundcloud.com/techdirt/transaction-denied
[7]: https://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/2294213774-techdirt-transaction-denied.mp3
[8]: https://soundcloud.com/techdirt
[9]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/techdirt/id940871872?mt=2
[10]: https://open.spotify.com/show/6qXCFL3MjSpiD8O0pZgcsi
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/podcast.xml
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/podcast/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/31/techdirt-podcast-episode-448-transaction-denied/

Weeks After Denouncing Government Censorship On Rogan, Zuckerberg ...

2026-03-31T18:10:19Z

Weeks After Denouncing Government Censorship On Rogan, Zuckerberg Texted Elon Musk Offering To Take Down Content For DOGE

On January 10th, 2025, Mark Zuckerberg sat down with Joe Rogan and put on quite a performance. He talked about how the Biden administration had pressured Meta to take down content. He detailed how the Biden administration had apparently pressured Meta to take down content — how officials called and screamed and cursed — and how, going forward, he was a changed man. A champion of free expression, done forever with government demands to remove content. And a whole bunch of people (especially MAGA folks) cheered all this on. Zuckerberg was a protector of free speech against government suppression!

Twenty-four days later, he texted Elon Musk — a senior government official at the time — to *volunteer* to remove content the government wouldn’t like. Unprompted.

As I wrote at the time, [the whole Rogan interview was an exercise in misdirection][1]. The “pressure” Zuck kept describing was the kind of thing the Supreme Court explicitly found, in the Murthy case, was standard-issue government communication — the kind of thing Justice Kagan said happens “literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.” The Court called the lower court’s findings of “censorship” [clearly erroneous][2]. And Zuck himself kept admitting, over and over, that Meta’s response to the Biden administration was to tell them no. He said so explicitly:

> *And basically it just got to this point where we were like, no we’re not going to. We’re not going to take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous…*

In other words, the Biden administration asked, Meta said “nah,” and that was that. The Supreme Court agreed this fell well short of coercion. Indeed, the only documented instance of the Biden administration making an actual specific takedown request to a social media platform was [to flag an account impersonating one of Biden’s grandchildren][3]. That was it. That was the “massive government censorship operation.”

But Zuck milked it beautifully on the podcast, and Rogan ate it up. The narrative was established: Zuckerberg, defender of free expression, standing tall against the censorious government, vowing to never again let officials dictate what stays up and what comes down on his platforms.

That was January 10th.

On February 3rd, Zuckerberg texted Elon Musk:

> *Looks like DOGE is making progress. I’ve got our teams on alert to take down content doxxing or threatening the people on your team. Let me know if there’s anything else I can do to help.*

So the man who spent three hours performing righteous indignation about government censorship proactively reached out to a senior government official to let him know Meta was *already* taking action to remove content on behalf of that official’s government operation — including truthful information like the names of public servants working for the federal government.

“Let me know if there’s anything else I can do to help.”

A guy who spent three hours on the biggest podcast in the world performing righteous indignation about government censorship pressure — then, weeks later, volunteered exactly that kind of service, unprompted, to the same government. Just with a different party in power.

The Biden administration’s alleged “coercion” amounted to strongly worded emails that Meta freely ignored, and its only documented specific takedown request was for an account literally pretending to be the president’s grandchild. Zuckerberg’s response to that: three hours on the world’s biggest podcast denouncing government censorship. His response to Musk’s DOGE operation: a proactive late-night text offering to suppress information identifying the federal employees doing the dismantling.

And Zuck’s framing of “doxxing” is doing a lot of work here. The DOGE staffers whose identities were being shared on social media were federal employees exercising enormous government power — canceling grants, accessing sensitive government databases, making decisions that affected millions of Americans. The administration went to great lengths to *hide* who these people were, precisely because what they were doing was controversial and, in many cases, [potentially illegal][4]. Identifying who is wielding government power on your behalf has a name, and [that name is *accountability*][5], not “doxxing.”

Notably, the Zuckerberg text came the day after Wired [started naming DOGE bros][6]. Which is *reporting*. Not doxxing. Doxxing is revealing *private* info, such as an address. A federal employee’s name is not private info. It’s just journalism.

Also notice how Zuckerberg bundles “doxxing *or threatening*” — conflating two very different things. Removing credible threats of violence is something every platform already does; it’s in every terms of service. But by packaging the identification of public servants alongside actual threats, Zuck makes the whole thing sound like a routine trust-and-safety operation rather than what it actually was: volunteering to help the government hide its own employees from public scrutiny.

Compare the two scenarios directly. The Biden administration flagged a fake account impersonating a minor family member of the president — a clear-cut case of impersonation that every platform’s rules already cover. In other cases, they simply asked Facebook to explain its policies for dealing with potential health misinformation in the middle of a pandemic. Zuckerberg’s response, per his Rogan narrative, was to tell them to pound sand, and then go on a podcast to brag about it. Meanwhile, when it came to Musk and DOGE, it looks like Zuck didn’t wait to be asked. He texted Elon Musk at 10 PM on a Monday night to let him know the teams were already mobilized. He closed with “let me know if there’s anything else I can do to help,” which is really more “eager intern” energy than “principled defender of free expression” energy.

It’s also worth noting the broader context of the relationship here. These two were, at least publicly, supposed to be rivals. Remember the [whole cage match fiasco][7]? The very public trash-talking? And yet here’s Zuck texting Musk late at night, opening with flattery (“Looks like DOGE is making progress”), offering content suppression as a gift, and then — in literally the next breath in the text exchange — Musk pivots to asking Zuck if he wants to join a bid to buy OpenAI’s intellectual property.

“Are you open to the idea of bidding on the OpenAI IP with me and some others?” Musk asked. Zuck suggested they discuss it live. Just a couple of billionaires doing billionaire things at 10:30 PM after one of them volunteered censorship services to the other’s government operation.

We only know about any of this, by the way, because of [Musk’s quixotic lawsuit against OpenAI][8]. These texts were designated as a trial exhibit by OpenAI’s lawyers. Musk’s team is now [trying to get them excluded from evidence][9]. The motion seeking to suppress this evidence opens with one of the more entertaining paragraphs you’ll find in a legal filing:

> *President Trump. Burning Man. Rhino ketamine. These are all inflammatory and highly irrelevant topics that Defendants are trying to improperly make the subject of this litigation. Throughout fact discovery, Defendants have gratuitously probed these topics, and their trial evidence disclosures make clear that they intend to use the same scandalizing tactics at trial. Defendants should not be allowed to exploit Musk’s political involvement, social or recreational choices, or gratuitous details of his personal life at trial. As detailed below, Musk is the subject of daily, often-fabricated media scrutiny.*

The filing goes on to argue that the Zuckerberg text exchange has “nothing to do with Musk’s claims” and amounts to an attempt to “stoke negative sentiments toward Musk because of his association with Zuckerberg.” Which is a fun way to describe a text message in which a tech CEO volunteers content moderation favors to a government official. Musk’s lawyers aren’t wrong that it’s embarrassing — just not for the reasons they think.

The hypocrisy, though, is almost beside the point. The entire Rogan performance was designed to establish a narrative: that the Biden administration engaged in some kind of unprecedented censorship campaign, and that Zuckerberg was bravely standing up to it. That narrative was then used to justify Meta’s decision to [end its fact-checking programs][10] and loosen its content policies — framed as a return to “free expression” principles.

But the Zuck-Musk texts show what those “free expression” principles actually look like in practice. Zuck is more than happy to suppress speech when he supports the person in the White House. It’s only when he doesn’t like the person in the White House that he gets to pretend he’s a free speech warrior.

This has nothing to do with free expression. It’s about power. Who has it, who Zuckerberg thinks he needs to stay on the right side of, and who he thinks he can safely perform outrage against. The Biden administration was on its way out the door when Zuck did the Rogan interview, making them a perfectly safe target for his “never again” act. Musk was ascendant, running a government operation backed by a president who had [directly threatened to throw Zuckerberg in prison][11].

So the principled free speech stance lasted less than a month before Zuck was back to volunteering content suppression — this time without even being asked, for the people who actually had the power to hurt him. And that’s just the text message that surfaced in an unrelated lawsuit. The rest of the ledger isn’t public.

Some defender of free expression.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/16/rogan-misses-the-mark-how-zucks-misdirection-on-govt-pressure-goes-unchallenged/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/the-missouri-v-biden-settlement-is-a-fake-victory-for-a-case-they-lost/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/the-missouri-v-biden-settlement-is-a-fake-victory-for-a-case-they-lost/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/16/turns-out-the-doge-bros-who-killed-humanities-grants-are-kinda-sensitive-about-it/
[5]: https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-elon-musk-trump-staffers-tracker-update
[6]: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-government-young-engineers/
[7]: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/12/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-feuding-timeline-00105882
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/03/04/elon-sues-openai-for-breach-of-contract-over-a-contract-that-doesnt-exist-because-its-not-acting-the-way-he-wants-them-to/
[9]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.454.1.pdf
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/08/the-good-the-bad-and-the-stupid-in-metas-new-content-moderation-policies/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/30/new-trump-book-threatens-to-jail-zuckerberg-putting-groveling-letter-in-new-light/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/31/weeks-after-denouncing-government-censorship-on-rogan-zuckerberg-texted-elon-musk-offering-to-take-down-content-for-doge/

Daily Deal: The Complete Web Developer Bootcamp No coding ...

2026-03-31T18:05:08Z

Daily Deal: The Complete Web Developer Bootcamp

No coding experience? This is the course for you. Whether you’ve dabbled in HTML or never touched a single line of code in your life, the [Complete Web Developer Bootcamp][1] will prepare you to take on programming jobs big and small. From basic CSS styling to popular frameworks like Bootstrap, this training will help you complete 15 different real-life app projects. It’s on sale for $15.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-complete-web-development-course?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/31/daily-deal-the-complete-web-developer-bootcamp-2/

ICE Airport Deployment Shows Officers Only ‘Need’ Masks When ...

2026-03-31T16:35:17Z

ICE Airport Deployment Shows Officers Only ‘Need’ Masks When They’re Kidnapping People

Before we get to the lie exposed here, let me just offer a correction of my own. As many, many, far too many people pointed [out in my last post][1] on ICE being sent to airports, people *do* actually guard airport exits. My assumption was based on my own experience on wishing to remain in airports until I had boarded my plane, so I never went looking to see if TSA agents were posting up at exits. So much for the universal experience, by which I mean I felt *my* experience was the *universal* experience.

Moving on…

Sending ICE to replace TSA agents who left the job after they stopped receiving paychecks was never going to solve the problem. In fact, it was going to introduce new ones. First and foremost, “border czar” Tom Homan said specifically that ICE [wasn’t there to replace TSA agents][2]:

> *“We’re simply there to help TSA do their job in areas that don’t need their specialized expertise, such as screening through the X-ray machine. Not trained in that? We won’t do that,” Homan told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”*

So, if they’re not trained to do TSA work (and there’s no reason to believe they are, considered they’re [probably not even trained][3] to *ICE work*), there’s really not much they can do to expedite the boarding process. What are they actually doing at airports? Well, it’s tough to say. [A lot of photos and videos][4] show [ICE officers leaning against walls][5] or [standing around][6] while the lines remain as long as they were before Homan sent officers to airports. (There are also [photos of ICE officers][7] doing things I assume they aren’t actually trained to do, unless they consider a 10-minute handoff by a departing TSA agent “training.”)

Homan suggested ICE officers might be able to step in to verify identification, which is [absolutely the last thing][8] you want officers [with an arrest quota][9] to be doing.

Here’s another thing ICE officers aren’t doing while hanging around airports facilitating absolutely nothing in terms of expedited security screenings: wearing masks.

President Trump claims he “asked” ICE officers to not wear masks while working in airports, which is definitely [yet another thing That Never Happened][10].

> Trump on ICE: They were wearing masks. I said, do you mind taking off your masks in the airport? And they took them off. And people said wow, these are nice guys. People are starting to say, ICE, you are nice guys.
>
> — [Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social)][11] [2026-03-26T01:35:39.163Z][12]

Here’s the direct quote of Trump’s bullshit:

> *They were wearing masks. I said, do you mind taking off your masks in the airport? And they took them off. And people said wow, these are nice guys. People are starting to say, ICE, you are nice guys.*

A. He never said this to ICE officers. B. Nobody actually thinks simply removing a mask converts an ICE officer into a “nice guy.”

But everywhere you look, there are ICE officers operating out in the open without feeling the need to mask up:

> So unmasking ICE isn’t a problem, then? Whether at the airport or on our city streets, it’s the same ICE. #unmasked
>
> — [Darlene McDonald (@darlenemcdonald.com)][13] [2026-03-25T20:44:30.206Z][14]

> Atlanta Airport… looks like ICE wandering around aimlessly has solved everything… [🇺🇸]
>
> — [The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler.bsky.social)][15] [2026-03-23T15:41:58.888Z][16]

Including this pair of ICE officers…

> Teenage-looking ICE goons walking around LaGuardia Airport3/24/26
>
> — [Raider (@iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social)][17] [2026-03-25T00:08:32.151Z][18]

Who apparently looked like this, prior to being sent to LaGuardia:

And that demonstrably counters the narrative pushed by Homan *himself*, who has constantly claimed demanding ICE officers remove their masks will immediately subject them to violence, doxxing, and whatever else [can added to his clown car parade of horribles][19]:

> *White House border czar Tom Homan on Sunday defended the use of masks and other facial coverings by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as necessary to protect agents from a rise in assaults and violent threats reported by the Department of Homeland Security.*
>
> *“I don’t like the masks, either,” Homan said in an interview Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” Still, he said, “these men and women have to protect themselves.”*

Point of order: I’m sure Homan actually likes the masks. In addition, the only thing these officers are protecting themselves from is accountability. That’s why they’re fine standing around airports without masks but definitely need them when they’re jumping out of unmarked cars to [kidnap people on public streets][20].

It was never about protecting ICE officers from the public. It was always about shielding officers from the consequences of their own, often-illegal actions. This shutdown has exposed yet another administration lie.

The other lie is this: that this was anything other than a trial balloon [for adding ICE to airports permanently][21].

> *Border czar Tom Homan said Sunday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents would remain at airports until TSA officers are able to resume normal operations.*
>
> *“We’re going to continue an ICE presence there, and until the airports feel like they’re in 100%, you know, in a posture where they can do normal operations,” Homan said in an interview on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” “So if less TSA agents come back, that means we’ll keep more ICE agents there.”*

ICE currently [has the largest budget][22] of any federal law enforcement agency. I’d imagine the [$50,000 signing bonus][23], along with the guarantee that *your* paychecks will continue to arrive no matter *how* *long* the government is shut down, looks far more attractive to ex-TSA agents than returning to their prior positions. ICE will remain for the foreseeable future. And once the officers are there long enough, the administration will conveniently forget this was supposed to be temporary.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/23/dhs-takes-out-its-funding-frustrations-on-millions-of-americans-by-sending-ice-agents-to-do-tsa-work/
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/22/politics/homan-ice-security-airports
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/27/whistleblower-ice-has-slashed-its-training-program-and-its-boss-is-lying-to-congress-about-it/
[4]: https://apnews.com/photo-gallery/airports-tsa-federal-immigration-agents-ice-police-b2cefb8141675e315243e97caed351d4
[5]: https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/7f63aa1/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3000x2000+0+0/resize/1360x907!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F3c%2F21%2Fdcceb7634e92442701176f6834aa%2Fb1780c92365e4d7b9484b3a2808eee4d
[6]: https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/7b3813e/2147483647/strip/true/crop/4256x2909+0+0/resize/1360x930!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F3d%2Fec%2F1e84283a4c3c1c30f1b124740212%2F842831a652d94b9d85462b59a263a744
[7]:
[8]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/us/ice-airports-checking-ids-security.html
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/16/ice-officers-admit-to-arrest-quotas-during-court-testimony/
[10]: https://bsky.app/profile/acyn.bsky.social/post/3mhwhni6its2l
[11]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:iu4j537hox5huj4bwnwgub4z?ref_src=embed
[12]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:iu4j537hox5huj4bwnwgub4z/post/3mhwhni6its2l?ref_src=embed
[13]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4oeis34bvh7wdbzlay2fpzrp?ref_src=embed
[14]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4oeis34bvh7wdbzlay2fpzrp/post/3mhvxeuepzc2e?ref_src=embed
[15]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5o6k7jvowuyaquloafzn3cfw?ref_src=embed
[16]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5o6k7jvowuyaquloafzn3cfw/post/3mhqfk2ytms2d?ref_src=embed
[17]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:udnac33pmf2iwcblpeai5a5p?ref_src=embed
[18]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:udnac33pmf2iwcblpeai5a5p/post/3mhtscrqlec2d?ref_src=embed
[19]: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-assaults-spike-over-1300-dems-draw-hard-red-line-unmask-agents-dhs-battle
[20]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/03/ice-is-a-paramilitary-force-and-those-dont-end-well/
[21]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/border-czar-ice-agents-leave-airports-tsa-officers-paid-lines-security-rcna265693
[22]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/07/trump-budget-bill-turns-ice-into-a-superpredator/
[23]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/06/area-bigots-annoyed-ice-is-offering-50000-signing-bonuses-to-area-bigots/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/31/ice-airport-deployment-shows-officers-only-need-masks-when-theyre-kidnapping-people/

David Ellison Pretends He Won’t Fire Half Of Reeling Hollywood ...

2026-03-31T12:34:07Z

David Ellison Pretends He Won’t Fire Half Of Reeling Hollywood If Pointless Warner Bros Merger Is Approved

We’ve repeatedly noted how the Ellison family’s acquisition of Warner Brothers (after their recent acquisitions of CBS and a part of TikTok) [would be very bad][1] for a long list of reasons. The gargantuan debt load **will **result in [unprecedented layoffs and price hikes][2]. And the [Saudi funding][3], and Larry’s [anti-democratic interests][4], raise no limit of propaganda and foreign influence concerns.

It’s also worth noting that absolutely nobody in charge of this new Paramount [appears to be competent][5].

But because our federal government is currently too corrupt to function, there’s zero real hope this merger gets blocked on the federal level. That leaves a fleeting coalition of states, who’ll likely have to band together to file a long-shot lawsuit to try and scuttle the deal.

To get out ahead of such a lawsuit, Larry Ellison’s nepobaby son David, freshly gifted not one but **two** giant Hollywood studios, has been making the rounds in California insisting to everyone [that the merger will be great for Hollywood and for jobs][6]. This was what he said in a response to California lawmakers about the precarious nature of the deal:

> *“I firmly believe that uniting Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery presents a unique opportunity to build a true champion for the creative community, one that can and will bring more stories to life, support filmmakers and talent with real scale, and compete effectively on the global stage as an independent media leader,” Ellison said in response to a question about the merger’s impact on California and Hollywood specifically. “That is the true legacy of Hollywood, and my promise to you is to build a stronger Hollywood, by keeping both of these legacy studios operating separately, thereby preserving and potentially increasing jobs.”*

None of that, to be very clear, will be happening. And outside of some (more) tax incentives thrown at the already rich, neither California Sen. Adam Schiff nor Rep. Laura Friedman (who peppered the Ellisons with some light performative questioning), can or will do anything meaningful to thwart the consolidation or hold the new, bigger company accountable for false pre-merger promises.

Any real hope rests with a handful of state AGs, and their road will be a very rocky one now that the federal government has rubber stamped the deal.

Hollywood is [already rocked][7] and reeling from COVID, previous pointless consolidation, and massive migration of production overseas. You’ve got numerous high level technically skilled production folks resorting to driving Ubers [amidst historic layoffs][8].

Enter Warner Brothers, a company that’s been acquired four times in the last two decades, with each acquisition being more [pointless and devastating than the one that preceded it][9]. With **this** merger having just unprecedented levels of debt at a very precarious time for traditional TV:

> *“Look, there is incredible IP sitting inside of Warner Bros. Now, the flip side is, you paid a lot for it. You also leveraged up to seven times. Seven times debt to EBITDA leverage; that’s a lot of debt that you’ve got to work off over the course of the next five years. Plus, you got a lot of linear TV, and like we were just talking about earlier on the podcast, nobody’s watching linear TV. And so you spent a lot of money to get assets that are in secular decline.”*

That debt does not get paid off by Larry Ellison or the Saudis, or by a massive boon in badly-automated AI batman slop.

It gets paid off by brutal layoffs, corner cutting, production cuts, and consumer price hikes. That’s not up for debate. There’s also zero indication that the kind of folks leading CBS and Paramount are any more competent than the kind of folks we saw at AT&T who loudly and repeatedly demonstrated [they had no idea what they were doing][10].

The accumulated debt from the CBS and Warner Brothers mergers, combined with Larry Ellison’s [precarious footing atop the AI bubble][11], combined with a potential economic collapse at the hands of our bumbling kakistocracy, together form a super unstable cocktail that could result in this merger being one of the more disastrous “business” exercises conceived by modern man.

Every single time Warner Brothers changes hands the press and public are peppered with claims that this will unleash vast new innovation and jobs, and every single time that winds up being a lie. Anybody claiming this time will magically be different is either lying or not particularly bright.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/12/david-ellison-pinky-swears-cnn-will-retain-editorial-independence-points-to-cbs/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/06/the-double-whammy-of-the-cbs-warner-brothers-mergers-will-be-a-layoff-nightmare/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/10/maga-suddenly-quiet-about-overseas-influence-now-that-larry-ellisons-warner-bros-bid-has-saudi-chinese-backing/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/18/pete-hegseth-we-cant-wait-for-larry-ellison-to-turn-cnn-into-another-right-wing-propaganda-mill/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/11/things-going-great-at-ellisons-paramount-as-president-gets-mired-in-accusations-of-press-manipulation-and-leaking-company-info/
[6]: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/paramount-warner-bros-merger-impact-california-david-ellison-1236540400/
[7]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/26/hollywood-production-film-tv-industry-struggles
[8]: https://deadline.com/feature/hollywood-media-layoffs-list-1236007845/
[9]: https://www.theverge.com/podcast/896694/paramount-warner-bros-discovery-david-ellison-netflix-deal-merger
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/25/after-layoffs-and-endless-chaos-the-att-time-warner-discovery-mergers-come-to-a-whimpering-pathetic-finale/
[11]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/11/disappointing-oracle-results-knock-70bn-off-value-amid-ai-bubble-fears

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/31/david-ellison-pretends-he-wont-fire-half-of-reeling-hollywood-if-pointless-warner-bros-merger-is-approved/

It Appears RFK Jr. Is Having Trouble Finding Anyone To Take The ...

2026-03-31T03:10:06Z

It Appears RFK Jr. Is Having Trouble Finding Anyone To Take The CDC Director Job

All the way back in August of 2025, RFK Jr. made the extraordinary decision [to fire][1] his own CDC Director, Susan Monarez, after only a few weeks on the job. Kennedy claimed at the time that he fired Monarez because she told him affirmatively that she wasn’t trustworthy. That was obviously laughable and Monarez herself disputed that, saying she was [instead fired][2] for not agreeing to rubber stamp everything that came out of Kennedy’s remade version of ACIP and for daring to talk to members of Congress about the goings on at CDC. One of those stories is much more believable than the other.

Regardless, she was fired and replaced as Director of CDC by… nobody. Nobody Senate-confirmed into a permanent role, at least. And it turns out there is a time limit for [how long the role could remain vacant][3], which Kennedy and the Trump administration have now blown past.

> *According to federal law, there’s a 210-day limit on a Senate-confirmed position being filled by someone in an acting capacity. The clock started when anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Susan Monarez from her Senate-confirmed role as CDC director in late August—allegedly after she refused to rubber-stamp changes to CDC vaccine recommendations. Until yesterday, Jay Bhattacharya, who heads the National Institutes of Health, had stepped in to also be the acting director of the CDC. But he can no longer hold the position officially.*

It’s not that Kennedy doesn’t *want* a CDC Director. It just appears he’s having trouble finding one that wants to take the job and is willing to be his sycophant. I’ll remind you all that the country currently has a measles outbreak problem on its hands and having the role of CDC Director vacant at such a time is mountains of stupid. The CDC itself isn’t publicly commenting on why the role has been so difficult to fill, but it’s fairly obvious to this writer.

Who could possibly see all of the chaos at CDC, the strong-arming of staff there to bend to Kennedy’s wishes, the quick exits and resignations of top talent, and say, “Sure, sign me up to manage *that*.”?

> *So far, Kennedy seems to be struggling with the search. According to [reporting from The Washington Post][4], sources close to the matter said the goal was to name a nominee before the deadline Wednesday, but Kennedy was unable to do so. Sources said around half a dozen people were being seriously considered for the role.*
>
> *A spokesperson said only that Kennedy and Chris Klomp, the operational leader of HHS and a close advisor to Kennedy, “are working with the White House on the CDC director search by evaluating candidates that can further the Trump administration’s objective of restoring the CDC to its original mission of fighting infectious disease.”*

Good luck and Godspeed. The last nomination of Kennedy’s hasn’t been going all that well, with his [Surgeon General][5] pick languishing in limbo over her lack of qualifications for the position combined with a disastrous performance in confirmation hearings.

One of the chief duties of a Secretary-level administrator in government is to fill lower roles with good people. If Kennedy can’t even do *that*, then what’s the point of keeping him in place?

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/29/chaos-at-cdc-as-trump-admin-ousts-cdc-director-after-only-weeks-on-the-job/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/18/somebodys-lying-susan-monarezs-congressional-testimony-is-180-degrees-from-rfk-jr-s/
[3]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/03/as-rfk-jr-s-anti-vaccine-ways-turn-toxic-to-gop-cdc-director-is-hard-to-find/
[4]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/03/25/cdc-nomination-delayed-jay-bhattacharya/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/the-casey-means-surgeon-general-nomination-appears-to-be-in-trouble/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/it-appears-rfk-jr-is-having-trouble-finding-anyone-to-take-the-cdc-director-job/

Pete Hegseth’s War On Truth *This article is republished from ...

2026-03-30T22:08:04Z

Pete Hegseth’s War On Truth

*This article is republished from [The Conversation][1] under a Creative Commons license. Read the [original article][2].*

Martha Gellhorn stowed away on a hospital ship to become the only woman journalist to land on Normandy Beach on D-Day. She carried stretchers before writing [her harrowing account][3] of the invasion.

The New Yorker’s [famously epicurean writer][4] A.J. Liebling subsisted on military rations and came under fire during World War II to describe what it was like for the soldiers and sailors at war.

Syndicated columnist Ernie Pyle died, [in a helmet and Army fatigues][5], among some of the troops whose names and hometowns he carefully included in his dispatches. “At this spot, the 77th Infantry lost a buddy,” [read the makeshift sign][6] posted at the place where a Japanese machine gun bullet felled him.

Those reporters told stories of war in all its gore and its glory, its exhilaration and its ennui. Others have laid bare the anxiety and doubts.

Veteran Vietnam correspondent Neil Sheehan broke the story of the [Pentagon Papers][7], which showed how government officials deceived the public about the Vietnam war. Sheehan won a [Pulitzer Prize][8] for his book, “[A Bright Shining Lie][9],” which chronicled the war’s impact on idealists who once believed in it, through the story of his relationship with an inside source.

Well before bombs started dropping on Iran and President Donald Trump began to [tease the notion of a ground invasion][10], his defense secretary, [Pete Hegseth, began putting obstacles in the way of the reporters][11] with the most experience covering the nation’s military. While Hegseth’s moves haven’t stopped the reporters from doing their jobs, it has made it harder for them to keep the public informed.

As someone who [worked as a Washington correspondent for decades][12], I worry that these obstacles could limit the number of reporters who have the experience with – and trust of – key sources to do the kind of in-depth, nuanced journalism that a war, with its price in lives and resources, deserves.

## Corralling the watchdogs

Generally, war correspondents need the cooperation of the military they are covering to get to the front. For the U.S. press, that requires relationships and credibility at the Pentagon.

Early in 2025, Hegseth ordered major news organizations to [give up their desks][13] in the Pentagon press room to MAGA favorites. [NPR’s desk went to Breitbart News][14]. Roaming the hallways, where reporters sometimes found sources who would deviate from the company line, became verboten.

Eventually, the area in the Pentagon where reporters were allowed was circumscribed to a single corridor outside the press room – even though the public affairs officers who worked most closely with reporters were in an office on the other side of the [6½-million-square-foot][15] building.

Then Hegseth conditioned the issuance of press credentials on reporters, effectively giving military brass [the right to censor or sanitize][16] their reports.

As a result, almost the entire Pentagon press corps, which included outlets ranging from The Associated Press to The New York Times to Fox News and USNI News, which covers the Navy, [moved out of the building][17] in October 2025. Some have been invited back for the press briefings Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have begun to give on progress of the battle in Iran.

But after the first of these briefings, the Pentagon abruptly banned photographers from attending, reportedly because Hegseth’s staff found [some of their images of him to be unflattering][18].

## Secretary on defense

Gone are the off-camera “background” briefings where Department of Defense brass could give trusted reporters greater context and nuance for battlefield decisions. Gone are the impromptu hallway meetings where reporters have, with luck or persistence, picked up information that deviates from an administration’s agreed-upon script.

Also not in evidence, at least not so far: the deployment of the kind of [journalistic embed program that the Pentagon used during the Iraq war][19] to give the American people an up-close look at troops in the conflict zone.

How might that affect what you, the public, gets to know? It was [a combination of an anonymous tip and insider access][20] that led the legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh to break the devastating story of My Lai, the American soldiers’ massacre of civilians during the Vietnam War.

At the made-for-TV briefings he does hold, Hegseth devotes most of the session to questions from outlets such as the Epoch Times, The Daily Caller and [LindellTV – owned by Mike Lindell][21], the head of the well-known pillow company.

[At one recent briefing][22], one of the favored new cadre tossed Hegseth a shameless softball. Referring to American troops in the Middle East, the questioner asked: “What is your prayer for them?”

Yet as hostilities drag on, even some among Hegseth’s chosen press corps have begun [to ask irksome questions][23] about the war. The normally Trump-friendly Daily Caller ran [a less-than-flattering piece][24] about the president berating a reporter for asking about troop deployments.

On [March 4][25], 2026, Hegseth accused journalists of focusing on war casualties to make “the president look bad.” [On March 13][26], Hegseth castigated as “more fake news” CNN’s report that the Trump administration had underestimated the impact of the war on shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” Hegseth concluded, adding fuel [to the speculation][27] that a Trump supporter who won a bidding war for CNN’s corporate parent is going to turn the network into a more administration-friendly outlet.

Soon after, [Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr][28] threatened network broadcast licenses over coverage critical of the administration’s conduct of the war. Echoing Carr’s threats the next day: [the president himself][29].

## ‘Be a Marine’

The Trump administration is not alone in its disdain for a free press: Israel has long been [notorious for restricting press access][30] from areas where it is conducting military operations.

Leaders of the theocratic Iranian regime are [even worse][31]; the country is cited by press freedom advocate Reporters Without Borders as “one of the world’s most repressive countries in terms of press freedom.”

But the United States has historically distinguished itself by making freedom its calling card, even – or perhaps especially – in wartime.

“The news may be good, or bad. We shall tell you the truth,” Voice of America, a U.S. government-launched radio network, promised – in German – [in its very first broadcast][32] to Nazi Germany in 1942.

Now, however, the Trump administration, is busy trying to undermine the editorial independence of [Voice of America][33], which broadcasts news to countries that don’t have a free press.

Pentagon reporters are continuing to find ways to get around the propaganda. NPR’s Tom Bowman told me that he takes inspiration from a pep talk he overheard a military source deliver to another reporter crestfallen over the lack of access.

“Quit whining and be a Marine,” the official said. “Go over, under or around the obstacle. Find a way to do it.”

Most reporters and their organizations are doing just that, finding sources outside the administration, like the ones in Congress who told The Hill [how much money the war is costing][34] taxpayers per day. And they’re continuing to get information from sources on the inside, like the ones who told The Wall Street Journal that [Trump’s military advisers warned him][35] that Iran might block the Gulf of Hormuz, but that he opted for war anyway.

So far, neither Hegseth’s obstacle course nor threats from the White House and the FCC have stopped the press from reporting stories or asking questions that the administration would rather not see or hear.

But restrictions on press freedom have a corrosive effect. We [already have seen][36] how Trump, using lawsuits and licensing threats, has used his power to make corporate media owners think twice about pursuing news he doesn’t like.

Seasoned Pentagon reporters will still find ways to get to sources they already have. But Hegseth’s tactic of blocking press access to the military keeps reporters from developing new sources and keeps new reporters from building the relationships they need to become seasoned Pentagon reporters.

Americans have long been able to understand the triumphs and tribulations of American troops at war, and to make intelligent decisions about whether they approve of a war’s cost, because a free press has been able to tell the story – good or bad. That tradition is now at risk.

*[Kathy Kiely][37] is Professor and Lee Hills Chair of Free Press Studies at the [University of Missouri-Columbia][38]*

[1]: https://theconversation.com/
[2]: https://theconversation.com/pete-hegseth-is-working-hard-to-make-sure-the-public-hears-only-good-news-about-iran-war-278295
[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/28/secondworldwar.features116
[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/1963/12/29/archives/aj-liebling-journalist-and-critic-dies-at-59-new-yorker-column.html
[5]: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna22980127
[6]: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/honoring-hero-death-and-memorialization-ernie-pyle
[7]: https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers
[8]: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/neil-sheehan
[9]: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/165414/a-bright-shining-lie-by-neil-sheehan/
[10]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-privately-shown-serious-interest-us-ground-troops-iran-rcna262176
[11]: https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-access-hegseth-trump-restrictions-5d9c2a63e4e03b91fc1546bb09ffbf12
[12]: https://journalism.missouri.edu/people/kathy-kiely/
[13]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/pentagon-removes-major-media-outlets-nbc-news-dedicated-workstations-p-rcna190276
[14]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/01/pentagon-media-rotation
[15]: https://www.war.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/Article/1650913/10-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-the-pentagon/
[16]: https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-journalists-new-restrictions-hegseth-b9e70801f7d7930251a0740e7168f775
[17]: https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-access-hegseth-trump-restrictions-5d9c2a63e4e03b91fc1546bb09ffbf12
[18]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/11/hegseth-press-briefings-photos-iran/
[19]: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2003/04/03/embedded-reporters/
[20]: https://niemanstoryboard.org/2024/09/04/investigative-journalism-seymour-hersh-my-lai-massacre-vietnam-war/
[21]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/04/mike-lindell-mypillow-tv
[22]: https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4418959/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/
[23]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/13/pentagon-maga-journalists-iran-war
[24]: https://dailycaller.com/2026/03/16/trump-snaps-reporter-troops-iran/
[25]: https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4421037/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/
[26]: https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4434484/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-air-force-gen-da/
[27]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/20/warner-bros-discovery-takeover-paramount-skydance-larry-ellison
[28]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/14/fcc-iran-war-coverage/89154891007/
[29]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/14/trump-carr-fcc-media-iran-war/
[30]: https://rsf.org/en/country/israel
[31]: https://rsf.org/en/country/iran
[32]: https://www.insidevoa.com/a/2365229.html
[33]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/kari-lake-sarah-rogers-voice-of-america-us-agency-global-media-rcna263261
[34]: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5776761-pentagon-war-munitions-estimate/
[35]: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/iran-oil-hormuz-blockade-trump-f96bdd53
[36]: https://theconversation.com/trump-lawsuits-seek-to-muzzle-media-posing-serious-threat-to-free-press-272850
[37]: https://theconversation.com/profiles/kathy-kiely-718371
[38]: https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-missouri-columbia-796

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/pete-hegseths-war-on-truth/

Trump’s DOJ Hands $1.2 Million Payout To His Former National ...

2026-03-30T20:03:27Z

Trump’s DOJ Hands $1.2 Million Payout To His Former National Security Advisor, Mike Flynn

As if we needed any more evidence showing just how deep and thoroughly corrupted the Trump administration is. It’s an endless cycle of self-serving actions, pushed forward by bigots, grifters, and loyalists who sold off what was left of their souls and spines when Trump took office.

It’s an endless cycle of perverse self-involvement performed by people who openly loath America and Americans, but tout themselves as the only real patriots left. It’s an ouroboros, except the snake is sucking itself off, rather than symbolizing the live/die/repeat process that is supposed to iterate its way towards enlightenment.

I mean, [look at this bullshit][1]:

> *The Justice Department has reached an agreement with President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser [Michael Flynn][2] to pay him roughly $1.2 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the former general claiming he was politically targeted for prosecution during Trump’s first administration, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News. *

Pay special attention to the phrase “reached an agreement.” That shouldn’t be there, much like everything else surrounding that phrase. Here’s Julian Sanchez, breaking down the perversity of this “agreement” succinctly:

> Just to be very clear: The Trump DOJ is stealing $1.2 million of your money to gift one of Trump’s cronies, who pled guilty to the crimes he was charged with, and whose suit against the government had already been tossed by a judge.
>
> — [Julian Sanchez (@normative.bsky.social)][3] [2026-03-25T22:03:23.675Z][4]

Here’s what Sanchez said, for those of you who can’t see the embed or access the Bluesky post:

> *Just to be very clear: The Trump DOJ is stealing $1.2 million of your money to gift one of Trump’s cronies, who pled guilty to the crimes he was charged with, and whose suit against the government had already been tossed by a judge.*

It’s not just the lifting of $1.2 million from the public’s wallet. It’s not just Trump deciding to reward a loyalist. It’s also that there should be *no settlement at all*. You don’t “settle” lawsuits that are no longer viable.

Flynn’s malicious prosecution lawsuit was tossed by a judge in 2024 after Biden’s DOJ responded to it. And it’s pretty difficult to both plead guilty to charges and claim the prosecution was malicious. It would be one thing if a jury rung Flynn up while his defense team maintained his innocence. But that’s not what happened here.

And that’s not the only thing that doesn’t add up… at least to anything else but patented Trump administration corruption.

> *Flynn previously [pleaded guilty][5] to charges brought by former special counsel Robert Mueller for lying to FBI agents during a January 2017 interview in the White House about his contacts with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. *
>
> *The Trump Justice Department under former Attorney General William Barr then moved to drop the case in 2020… *

This prosecution was already short-circuited by Bill Barr while Trump was still in office the *first* time. And then Trump pardoned Flynn on his way out the door following an election loss both Trump and Flynn continue to claim wasn’t a loss.

But that’s apparently not enough for Flynn. He also wanted up to $50 million for allegedly being maliciously prosecuted. He’s only getting a fraction of that but it’s far more than he deserves. Unless this is just Trump buying a bit more loyalty from a guy who’s just as determined to prove any election that doesn’t favor Trump or MAGA legislators is “stolen.”

> *According to information gathered by the [House select committee][6] that investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, Flynn was among a number of advisers who urged Trump to seize voting machines after the 2020 election and said in media appearances that Trump should use the military to “basically rerun” elections in states that he had lost. *

Here’s what Flynn [is doing *now*][7]:

> *According to videos, photos and social media posts reviewed by ProPublica, the meeting’s participants included Kurt Olsen, a White House lawyer [charged with reinvestigating the 2020 election][8], and Heather Honey, the Department of Homeland Security official in charge of election integrity. The event was convened by Michael Flynn, Trump’s [former national security adviser][9], and attended by Cleta Mitchell, who directs the Election Integrity Network, a group that has [spread false claims about election fraud and noncitizen voting][10]. *

So, this is all very gross and ugly and being done right out there in the open by people who don’t care how this looks. When most politicians would at least balk at the *appearance* of impropriety, this administration absolutely revels in it. Yeah, $1.2 million isn’t even a rounding error in this deficit, but it still matters. The administration is repeating itself: if you lie, cheat, steal, or actually fucking raid the US Capitol building for Trump, you’re gonna be just fine.

[1]: https://abcnews.com/US/doj-pay-trump-adviser-michael-flynn-1m-settle/story?id=131411111
[2]: https://abcnews.com/Politics/president-trump-pardons-michael-flynn-pleaded-guilty-lying/story?id=74405950
[3]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:jdfwnosj5tavojrkinbcor6h?ref_src=embed
[4]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:jdfwnosj5tavojrkinbcor6h/post/3mhw3rwknfs2s?ref_src=embed
[5]: https://abcnews.com/Politics/government-recommends-months-prison-trump-national-security-adviser/story?id=68119887
[6]: https://abcnews.com/US/trump-adviser-michael-flynn-meets-jan-committee-sources/story?id=83367606
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/04/trump-officials-attended-a-summit-of-election-deniers-who-want-the-president-to-take-over-the-midterms/
[8]: https://www.propublica.org/article/thomas-albus-fulton-county-georgia-election-records
[9]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38025057
[10]: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/13/1238102501/noncitizen-voting-immigration-conspiracy-theory

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/trumps-doj-hands-1-2-million-payout-to-his-former-national-security-advisor-mike-flynn/

The White House App’s Propaganda Is The Least Alarming Thing ...

2026-03-30T18:00:10Z

The White House App’s Propaganda Is The Least Alarming Thing About It

Call me crazy, but I don’t think an official government app should be loading executable code from a random person’s GitHub account. Or tracking your GPS location in the background. Or silently stripping privacy consent dialogs from every website you visit through its built-in browser. And yet here we are.

The White House [released a new app][1] last week for iOS and Android, promising “unparalleled access to the Trump Administration.” A security researcher, who goes by [Thereallo, pulled the APKs and decompiled them][2] — extracting the actual compiled code and examining what’s really going on under the hood. The propaganda stuff — cherry-picked news, a one-tap button to report your neighbors to ICE, a text that auto-populates “Greatest President Ever!” — which [Engadget covered][3], is embarrassing enough. The code underneath is something else entirely.

Let’s start with the most alarming behavior. Every time you open a link in the app’s built-in browser, the app silently injects JavaScript and CSS into the page. Here’s what it does:

> *It hides:*
>
> * *Cookie banners*
> * *GDPR consent dialogs*
> * *OneTrust popups*
> * *Privacy banners*
> * *Login walls*
> * *Signup walls*
> * *Upsell prompts*
> * *Paywall elements*
> * *CMP (Consent Management Platform) boxes*
>
> *It forces *`body { overflow: auto !important }`* to re-enable scrolling on pages where consent dialogs lock the scroll. Then it sets up a MutationObserver to continuously nuke any consent elements that get dynamically added.*
>
> *An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls.*

Yiiiiiiiiiiiiikes.

And, yes, I can already hear a certain subset of readers thinking: “Sounds great, actually. Cookie banners are annoying.” And sure, there are good reasons why millions of people use browser extensions like uBlock Origin to do exactly this kind of thing. In fact, if you don’t use tools like that, you probably should. Those consent dialogs are frequently implemented as obnoxious dark patterns, and stripping them out is a perfectly reasonable *personal* choice.

But the key word there is *choice*. When you install an ad blocker or a consent-banner nuker, you’re making an informed decision about your own browsing experience. When the White House app does it silently, on every page load, without telling you — that’s the government making that decision for you in a deceptive and technically concerning way. And those consent dialogs exist in the first place because of *legal requirements*, in many cases requirements that governments themselves have enacted and enforce. There’s something almost comically stupid about the executive branch of the United States shipping code that silently destroys the legal compliance infrastructure of every website you visit through its app.

Then there’s the location tracking. The researcher found that OneSignal’s full GPS tracking pipeline is compiled into the app:

> *Latitude, longitude, accuracy, timestamp, whether the app was in the foreground or background, and whether it was fine (GPS) or coarse (network). All of it gets written into OneSignal’s *`PropertiesModel`*, which syncs to their backend.*

The White House app. Tracking your location. Synced to a commercial third-party server. For press releases.

Oh and:

> *There’s also a background service that keeps capturing location even when the app isn’t active.*

To be clear — and the researcher is careful to be precise about this — there are several gates before this tracking activates. The user has to grant location permissions, and a flag called `_isShared` has to be set to true in the code. Whether the JavaScript bundle currently flips that flag is something that can’t be determined from the decompiled native code alone. What *can* be determined is that, as the researcher puts it:

> *the entire pipeline including permission strings, interval constants, fused location requests, capture logic, background scheduling, and the sync to OneSignal’s API, all of them are fully compiled in and one *`setLocationShared(true)`* call away from activating. The *`withNoLocation`* Expo plugin clearly did not strip any of this.*

So at best, the people who built this app tried to disable location tracking and failed. At worst, they have it set up to actually use. The plumbing is all there, fully functional, waiting to be turned on. And this is detailed, accurate GPS data, collected every four and a half minutes when you’re using the app and every nine and a half minutes when you’re not, synced to OneSignal’s commercial servers. For a government app. That’s supposed to show you press releases.

While it’s true that the continued lack of a federal privacy law probably means this is all technically legal, it’s still a wild thing for an app from the federal government to do.

And it gets better. Or worse, depending on your perspective. The app embeds YouTube videos by loading player HTML from… a random person’s GitHub Pages account:

> *The app embeds YouTube videos using the *`react-native-youtube-iframe`* library. This library loads its player HTML from:*
>
> `https://lonelycpp.github.io/react-native-youtube-iframe/iframe_v2.html`
>
> *That’s a personal GitHub Pages site. If the *`lonelycpp`* GitHub account gets compromised, whoever controls it can serve arbitrary HTML and JavaScript to every user of this app, executing inside the WebView context.*
>
> *This is a government app loading code from a random person’s GitHub Pages.*

Cool, cool. Totally normal dependency for critical government infrastructure.

It also loads JavaScript from Elfsight, a commercial SaaS widget company, with no sandboxing. It sends email addresses to Mailchimp. It hosts images on Uploadcare. It has a hardcoded Truth Social embed pulling from static CDN URLs. None of this is government-controlled infrastructure. The list goes on and on and on.

There’s way more in the full breakdown by Thereallo — this is just the highlights. The app is a toxic waste dump of code you should not trust.

Each of these findings individually might have a charitable explanation. Libraries ship with unused code all the time. Lots of apps use third-party services. Dev artifacts occasionally slip through. But stack them all together — the silent consent stripping, the fully compiled location tracking pipeline, the random GitHub dependency, the commercial third-party data flows, the dev artifacts in production, the zero certificate pinning — and the picture is software built by people who either don’t know or don’t care about the standards government software is supposed to meet.

Which brings us to the part that makes all of this even more inexcusable. The United States government used to have people whose entire job was to prevent exactly this kind of thing.

The U.S. Digital Service was created after the Healthcare.gov disaster during the Obama administration, specifically to bring real software engineering talent into the federal government. For over a decade, across three administrations — including Trump’s first term — USDS and its sibling organization 18F recruited experienced engineers, designers, and product managers from the private sector to build government technology that actually worked. These were people who would have caught a full GPS tracking pipeline sitting one function call from activation in what is supposed to be a press release reader, and who would never have loaded executable code from a random person’s GitHub account.

DOGE [fired them][4]. Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” gutted USDS and 18F — the organizations that were actually doing what DOGE claimed to be doing — and replaced their expertise with… whatever this is. An app built by an outfit called “forty-five-press” according to the Expo config, running on WordPress, with “Greatest President Ever!” hardcoded in the source, loading code from some random person’s GitHub Pages, and shipping the developer’s home IP address to the public.

This is what you get when you fire the people who know what they’re doing and replace them with loyalists: a government app that strips privacy consent dialogs, has a GPS tracking pipeline ready to flip on, depends on infrastructure the government doesn’t control, and ships with the digital equivalent of leaving your house keys taped to the front door. But hey, at least it makes it easy to report your neighbors to ICE.

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/03/new-white-house-app-delivers-unparalleled-access-to-the-trump-administration/
[2]: https://blog.thereallo.dev/blog/decompiling-the-white-house-app
[3]: https://www.engadget.com/apps/the-official-white-house-app-is-about-as-useful-as-youd-expect-194508498.html
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/03/musk-fires-the-people-actually-doing-what-doge-pretends-to-do/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/the-white-house-apps-propaganda-is-the-least-alarming-thing-about-it/

Daily Deal: StackSkills Premium Annual Pass [StackSkills ...

2026-03-30T17:57:02Z

Daily Deal: StackSkills Premium Annual Pass

[StackSkills Premium][1] is your destination for mastering today’s most in-demand skills wherever and whenever your schedule allows. Now, with this exclusive limited-time offer, you’ll gain access to 1000+ StackSkills courses for just one low annual fee! Whether you’re looking to earn a promotion, make a career change, or pick up a side hustle to make some extra cash, StackSkills delivers engaging online courses featuring the skills that matter most today. From blockchain to growth hacking to iOS development, StackSkills stays ahead of the hottest trends to offer the most relevant courses and up-to-date information. Best of all, StackSkills’ elite instructors are experts in their fields and are passionate about sharing learnings based on first-hand successes and failures. If you’re ready to commit to your personal and career growth, you won’t want to pass on this incredible all access pass to the web’s top online courses. It’s on sale for $60.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/stackskills-unlimited-online-courses-1-year-access?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/daily-deal-stackskills-premium-annual-pass-3/

FBI Director Kash Patel’s Personal Email Account Apparently ...

2026-03-30T16:24:03Z

FBI Director Kash Patel’s Personal Email Account Apparently Breached By Iranian Hackers

Call me a sicko, but I’m almost always happy when a top-level government official’s communications get hacked. That’s because — in almost every case — either the official seems to be a bit shady, or holds a high-level position in an agency involved in some shady stuff. I mean, it’s not like hackers are targeting the head of HUD or the transportation secretary. They’re targeting people like Kash Patel, who’s currently mismanaging the FBI.

Sure, the reason these people are targeted is because their information is more useful to hackers and foreign adversaries. But there are [plenty of hackers][1] not tied to foreign entities that go after the same people with the goal of forcing the sort of transparency and accountability these people and the agencies they lead persistently resist.

(And I have no love for hackers targeting [entire government agencies][2] just to harvest sensitive info to engage in identity fraud or hold the data for ransom. Government agencies serve the public. Most top-level government officials — especially in *this* administration — are only serving themselves.)

So, it gives me n̶o̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ a certain amount of pleasure to report that [Kash Patel][3] has been hacked. [Reuters was the first to report on the breach][4]:

> *Iran-linked hackers have broken into FBI Director Kash Patel’s personal email inbox, publishing photographs of the director and other documents to the internet, the hackers and the ‌bureau said on Friday.*
>
> *On their website, the hacker group Handala Hack Team said Patel “will now find his name among the list of successfully hacked victims.” The hackers published a series of personal photographs of Patel sniffing and smoking cigars, riding in an antique convertible, and making a face while taking a picture of himself in the mirror with a large bottle of rum.*

A picture is worth a thousand words. And I don’t mean to malign the messenger, but perhaps some *better* words might have been chosen to describe the photos seen by Reuters reporters. “Selfie with a bottle of rum” maybe doesn’t quite capture the entire essence of this photo, but it’s far less unwieldy than “making a face while taking a picture of himself in the mirror with a large bottle of rum.”

That bit of mild criticism aside, the report is a bit of a blockbuster. First, the FBI has already confirmed this hack by Handala, which seems counter to its usual insistence on pretending things didn’t happen and/or insulting the press for reporting on it.

Second, while it probably contains some juicy stuff from Patel’s Gmail account, it doesn’t contain the stuff we really want to see: his communications since being elevated to FBI director.

> *Alongside the photographs of Patel, the hackers published a sample of more than 300 emails, which appear to show a mix of personal and work correspondence dating between 2010 and 2019.*

The FBI’s statement is correct in the fact that this breach seems to contain nothing more than “historical” communications. But the second part of the statement — that this “involves no government information” — cannot possibly be true.

[This is from TechCrunch’s report on breach][5], following the journalists’ attempts to verify the contents of communications shared by Handala:

> *We used a tool to verify several emails in the leaked cache of files that were sent by Patel from his Gmail account. These emails contained cryptographic signatures that matched the messages, which strongly suggests that the emails we checked are authentic. In some cases, **Patel appears to have sent emails from his former Justice Department email address in 2014 to his Gmail account**. TechCrunch found that the emails sent from Patel’s DOJ account also appeared to be authentic.*

Sure looks like “government information” to me. And it’s especially notable because Patel decided OpSec is for other people by routing DOJ email to his personal inbox. If he had just done the sort of stuff he would logically be expected to do as (in running order) a federal prosecutor and the *[goddamn deputy director of national intelligence][6]* during Trump’s first term, none of that would have ended up exposed by the Handala hack.

All of this makes it very difficult to believe the FBI’s assertion. Either it has already managed to look through everything accessed by the hackers (maybe?) or it’s just taking it’s boss’s word for it (probably). Either way, not a great look. But if we’ve learned anything from the multiple OpSec failures that have defined Trump’s second term, nothing will happen to Patel for violating internal rules governing official US email account security. No one will learn anything from this directly. But if there’s anything Iran can use against us slid between the cigar-sniffing and rum selfies, we — as a nation — might learn a few things indirectly.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/company/distributed-denial-of-secrets/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2015/06/12/second-opm-hack-revealed-even-worse-than-first/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/kash-patel/
[4]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/iran-linked-hackers-claim-breach-of-fbi-directors-personal-email-doj-official-2026-03-27/
[5]: https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/27/iranian-hackers-claim-breach-of-fbi-director-kash-patels-personal-email-account/
[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kash_Patel#National_Security_Council_aide_and_deputy_director_of_national_intelligence_(2019%E2%80%932020)

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/fbi-director-kash-patels-personal-email-account-apparently-breached-by-iranian-hackers/

Dems Urge Probe Of Saudi, Chinese Money Backing The Ellisons’ ...

2026-03-30T12:25:34Z

Dems Urge Probe Of Saudi, Chinese Money Backing The Ellisons’ Warner Bros Acquisition

Republicans spent three years suffering an embolism over Chinese influence over TikTok, but have [suddenly gone mysteriously quiet][1] now that $25 billion in Saudi, Chinese, and other foreign cash is helping to bankroll right wing billionaire Larry Ellison’s $111 billion acquisition of Warner Brothers. They’re also suddenly quiet about Larry buying up huge sections of the media environment (TikTok, CNN, CBS, HBO, Warner, Paramount), despite previously [pretending to care about media consolidation][2].

There’s an opportunity for Democrats to highlight the hypocrisy here, provided they’re competent enough to message their concerns in a way that resonates with the press, public, and social media (not historically the party’s strong suit).

In a [letter to the FCC][3], seven Democrats urged the agency to launch an investigation into Saudi and Chinese backing of the deal in the hopes of bringing some additional press attention to [journalist-murdering][4] autocracies being tightly intertwined with U.S. media and journalism:

> *“The national security concerns are specific and serious. Tencent’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party is well-documented. Chinese law also requires domestic technology companies to cooperate with state intelligence services on demand. A Tencent stake in the parent company of CBS News and CNN, no matter how “passive” on paper, creates concrete avenues for potential foreign influence over the editorial independence of American broadcast journalism and content.”*

Brendan Carr’s FCC will, of course, ignore the request. Brendan Carr spent years on cable TV hyperventilating about China’s distant proxy relationship with TikTok, but has since gone **curiously silent** despite China’s [Tencent involvement in the deal][5].

Paramount is trying to avoid triggering CFIUS scrutiny of foreign influence by insisting that the three Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds (Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) “have agreed to forgo any governance rights — including board representation — associated with their non-voting equity investments.”

We’ve noted how the U.S. right wing is [trying to mirror Victor Orban’s assault on media in Hungary][6], which involved autocrat-friendly oligarchs buying up all the media companies while the government strangles independent truth-telling journalism just out of frame. Over long enough of a timeline, this trajectory routinely leads to first the arrest — and eventually murder — of journalists critical of party power.

Republicans are making obvious, steady progress in that goal so far, and will keep pushing until they run into opposition that consists of more than just feckless Democrat “concerns.” Democrats should be highlighting, at every opportunity, not just the potential soft power foreign influence over the deal, but the right wing’s unsubtle goal of *widespread information warfare and control*.

Even free of autocratic issues, the Warner Brothers Paramount deal is just generally terrible; the massive debt load is expected to trigger [unprecedented layoffs across a Hollywood production industry][7] that’s already reeling. The best chance for blocking the deal outright currently sits with a coalition of state attorneys general, though even they likely face a steep uphill climb without some significant political, press, and public support.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/10/maga-suddenly-quiet-about-overseas-influence-now-that-larry-ellisons-warner-bros-bid-has-saudi-chinese-backing/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/10/08/republicans-musk-pretend-to-care-about-media-consolidation-when-george-soros-read-a-jew-is-involved/
[3]: https://www.booker.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/final_fcc_letter_on_warner_bros.pdf
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi
[5]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-09/tencent-is-said-to-be-back-on-paramount-warner-bros-deal-with-fresh-funding?embedded-checkout=true
[6]: https://euobserver.com/203675/how-orban-systematically-suffocated-the-hungarian-media-over-the-past-15-years/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/06/the-double-whammy-of-the-cbs-warner-brothers-mergers-will-be-a-layoff-nightmare/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/dems-urge-probe-of-saudi-chinese-money-backing-the-ellisons-warner-bros-acquisition/

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt This ...

2026-03-29T19:00:40Z

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is [Stephen T. Stone][1] with a rebuke to someone defending [the Fifth Circuit’s ruling about whether a cop could sue Twitter][2]:

> *By the logic of the Fifth Circuit’s rulings, Donald Trump can and should be held responsible for the actions of the rioters on the 6th of January 2021. Is that the position you wish to take?*

In second place, it’s a long comment from **Azuaron** disagreeing with [many parts of our post about the verdict against Meta][3]:

> ***Hold up***
>
> *I don’t wholly agree with this ruling or it’s implications–The Encryption Problem, in particular, is a terrible argument that has to die–but I really have to address this section because it’s not accurate:*
>
> > *The trial judge in the California case bought this argument, ruling that because the claims were about “product design and other non-speech issues,” Section 230 didn’t apply. The New Mexico court reached a similar conclusion. Both cases then went to trial.*
> >
> > *This distinction — between “design” and “content” — sounds reasonable for about three seconds. Then you realize it falls apart completely.*
> >
> > *Here’s a thought experiment: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing?*
> >
> > *Of course not. Because infinite scroll is not inherently harmful. Autoplay is not inherently harmful. Algorithmic recommendations are not inherently harmful. These features only matter because of the content they deliver. The “addictive design” does nothing without the underlying user-generated content that makes people want to keep scrolling.*
>
> *Instagram has, I’m sure, thousands of videos of paint drying that, I’m also sure, have very few views. Those videos have very few views because part of Instagram’s algorithmic recommendation system is to not serve videos of paint drying to people, because the design goal of Instagram is maximum addiction and use, which would not happen if their algorithm only recommended videos of paint drying.*
>
> *The scenario of “Instagram, but with videos of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems,” is the scenario we’re in now where we do have people addicted, we do have people harmed, and people are suing. Constraining Instagram to have “only” videos of paint drying is a straw man because it nearly eliminates all the design decisions that caused the harm. So, yeah, if you eliminate all that design that causes harm, the harm isn’t caused, but that’s not what anyone’s talking about.*
>
> *First, however, let’s start with what Section 230 actually says:*
>
> > *No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.*
> >
> > *No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—*
> >
> > *(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or*
> >
> > *(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).*
>
> *There’s more that I believe isn’t currently relevant, but by all means [look and correct me][4].*
>
> *In every day language, what does 230 say? It’s a narrow carve out for responsibility based only on “providers are not necessarily publishers” and “providers can choose what content appears, or does not”.*
>
> *Now, what are these lawsuits claiming? They claim (I’m going to speak to just Instagram here, but this applies to all the others as well):*
>
> * *That Instagram, as a system, has been specifically designed to be addictive*
> * *That Instagram, as a system, has been specifically designed to worsen the mental health of its users*
> * *That Instagram, as a system, has been specifically designed to maximize user engagement at the expense of that user*
> * *That children deserve additional protection–just like children get additional protection from advertisement–from hostile systems because their brains are still developing and they’re particularly vulnerable to it*
>
> *None of those are content arguments, and saying, “But what if the content was paint drying?” is not relevant or helpful. People aren’t addicted to “a single Instagram video” or even “a single Instagram channel” (you can probably tell I’m not on Instagram; I’m sure they’re not called “channels”). People are addicted to the system of Instagram that feeds them content specifically tailored to maximize addiction and use, and feeds them content in a way that maximizes addiction and use. For some people that’s makeup videos, for some people that’s movie clips; the specific content is not the point. Hell, there’s probably one guy in Minnesota who’s hopelessly addicted to paint drying videos.*
>
> *The problem, as with practically everything we’re dealing with in the world, is not single bad actors or individual responsibility. The problem is the system, and the system has, in fact as documented in court, been specifically designed to be addictive, to ruin people’s mental health, and to cause harm. The only way we’re going to be able to address this is by focusing on the system.*
>
> *Finally, we’ve got to address this statement as well:*
>
> > *If every editorial decision about how to present third-party content is now a “design choice” subject to product liability, Section 230 protects effectively nothing. Every website makes decisions about how to display user content. Every search engine ranks results. Every email provider filters spam. Every forum has a sorting algorithm, even if it’s just “newest first.” All of those are “design choices” that could, theoretically, be blamed for some downstream harm.*
>
> *Instagram’s targeted recommendation and addiction algorithm dark patterns are not the same thing as “newest first”. This is a slippery slope argument with no evidence that such a slope exists. If “newest first” was equally addictive and harmful, Meta would not have spent probably billions creating its various “engagement” systems. This is like saying a lawsuit against a restaurant that poisoned someone with puffer fish will lead to lawsuits against restaurants for selling salmon because they’re both fish.*
>
> *Another example: we didn’t ban normal darts after we banned lawn darts, despite their similar design decisions, because of the key differences in their design decisions that resulted in clear and obvious differences in their harmful outcomes. No one’s going to get sued for “newest first” specifically because of how it’s different to the engagement algorithms.*
>
> *The people and companies who make products have always been responsible for the designs of their products when those designs cause harm, from the lawn dart to the Pinto. And, we have long recognized that mental harms are harms: “Intentional infliction of emotional distress”, for instance, has been a recognized tort for decades. That we now have products that cause mental harm is new simply because we didn’t used to have the technology to create those products. But, “products have designs that cause harm” is not a new concept, and neither is “mental harms are tortable harms”.*
>
> *Furthermore, “every editorial decision” is not now a “design choice”; just the design choices. Providers are–still!–not publishers or speakers of third-party content, and–still!–are not liable for moderation. Nothing in these lawsuits can be reasonably construed to impact decisions to publish–or not–specific content, which is all 230 protects. These lawsuits are, fully, not about the content, any more than California’s ban on Amazon’s dark patterns are a ban on having a web store. This lawsuits are fundamentally not about speech, because the problem is not the speech, but the system around the speech.*
>
> *That some people might benefit from social media doesn’t negate the harm done to other people, nor make the company not liable for the harm it causes. No matter how many people found joy and friendship playing lawn darts with their friends, that doesn’t resurrect the kids who died, or replace the eyes that were lost. “Someone who was not harmed by lawn darts” would never be invited to a lawsuit about someone who was harmed by lawn darts; that just doesn’t make sense.*
>
> *I’ve come down pretty hard, here, like I’m fully in favor of these lawsuits. While I definitely believe the nature of these social media sites is specifically designed to be harmful, and we do need a way to address that, ehhhhh, the plaintiffs in these cases made some pretty bad arguments. “Encryption is harmful”, well, guess what, lack of encryption is more harmful! We absolutely can’t be saying that companies are damned if they do, damned if they don’t, and we definitely don’t want to be restricting encryption. As rightly pointed out by the author, mental harms are complex, multifaceted, and it’s difficult to determine a reliable causality; I don’t know enough about the people in question to speak on the analysis that happened here, but it probably wasn’t sufficient. But, that doesn’t mean that such an analysis is impossible, and being on social media for 16 hours a day is certainly a compelling starting point.*
>
> *So, more broadly speaking, what should we do about it? I don’t know! There’s a needle that needs to be threaded, and I’m not the one to thread it. The big algorithmic social media sites are really bad and I love every cut that someone gets against them, but there were certainly arguments being made on the plaintiff’s side (encryption? Come on!) that were pure BS and bad for everyone.*
>
> *All that being said, one thing we absolutely must not do is misrepresent the actual harm and problems caused by the systems these companies created, and we need some kind of law or regulation to end it and make them liable for it. Hell, a basic goddamn privacy law would probably get us most of the way there on its own just by cutting down on the fodder that goes into their algorithms. Good luck to us all on that.*

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from [MrWilson][5] about [the Trump administration trying to rein in RFK Jr.][6]:

> *Junior should check the schedule. There might be a bus coming and he might be under it soon.*

Next, it’s [frankcox][7] with a comment about [Brendan Carr lazily trying to ban all foreign routers][8]:

> ***Ban MS Windows instead?***
>
> *If the objective is to increase Internet security with no regard to secondary/downstream ramifications, then wouldn’t it make more sense to ban Microsoft Windows?*
>
> *MS Windows has been responsible for more security issues than any other single factor pretty much since from the first day showed up on the Internet.*

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is [MrWilson][9] again, this time with a comment about [learning HTML back in the early days of the web][10]:

> *This comment is best viewed in Netscape Navigator 3.0.*

In second place, it’s [Thad][11] with a comment about [a bad take from the Washington Post editorial board][12]:

> *Well jeez, if you can’t trust an unsigned editorial from a paper whose owner has actively and publicly interfered with its content to favor the Trump Administration, who can you trust?*

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from **Pixelation** about [the deployment of “synergy” corporate speak to announce layoffs][13]:

> ***Pushing the envelope***
>
> *Well, they can use those synergies and circle back to their core competencies, which will streamline the deliverables for a deep dive so they can move the needle. It will be a paradigm shift when everyone has skin in the game!*

Finally, it’s [Bloof][14] with a comment about the court’s [rejection of attempts to take down the DOGE deposition videos][15]:

> *Once again biased judges fail to protect the most delicate treasure that america owns, the egos of unqualified white men promoted well beyond anything their mediocrity would justify.*

That’s all for this week, folks!

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/regularstone/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/5th-circuit-flips-cop-v-protester-case-to-jury-after-spending-7-years-pretending-the-1st-amendment-doesnt-exist/#comment-5202028
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-social-media-addiction-verdicts-against-meta-should-understand-what-theyre-actually-cheering-for/#comment-5210675
[4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/mrwilson/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/23/trump-administration-tries-to-rein-in-rfk-jr-as-a-midterms-liability/#comment-5200180
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/frankcox/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/brendan-carr-tries-to-ban-all-foreign-routers-in-lazy-legally-dubious-shakedown/#comment-5206547
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/mrwilson/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/ai-might-be-our-best-shot-at-taking-back-the-open-web/#comment-5207077
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/thad/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/the-missouri-v-biden-settlement-is-a-fake-victory-for-a-case-they-lost/#comment-5213752
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/merger-synergies-cbs-news-fires-workers-shutters-100-year-old-cbs-radio/#comment-5201835
[14]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/bloof/
[15]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/judge-rejects-governments-weak-attempt-to-memory-hole-doge-deposition-videos/#comment-5207385

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/29/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-201/

Game Jam Winner Spotlight: I Am Sam Spade Last week, we announced ...

2026-03-28T19:00:19Z

Game Jam Winner Spotlight: I Am Sam Spade

Last week, we announced [the winners][1] of our eighth annual public domain game jam, [*Gaming Like It’s 1930!*][2] Now it’s time to begin our series of spotlight posts, examining each of the winners in a bit more detail, and we’re kicking things off today with a look at the winner of Best Adaptation: [***I am Sam Spade***][3]** **by [**Marshview Games**][4].

A lot of people associate the hardboiled genre of detective fiction with the protagonist’s inner monologue, as they ruminate on the situations that they face and give the reader a sense of their character and motivations. But some of the genre’s foundational works, such as Dashiell Hammett’s *The Maltese Falcon*, actually omit this entirely: the reader never sees inside detective Sam Spade’s head, they only see what he does. *I am Sam Spade* by Marshview Games adapts this early classic while centering the later convention, with gameplay that focuses on the inner life of the detective to drive his actions, and puts players in his shoes. And not just one player, but all of them.

To do this, it borrows mechanics from Michael Sullivan’s *[Everyone Is John][5],* a classic in its own right. Two or more players become “Sams” — aspects of Sam Spade’s personality, each with a pool of power and a specific skill, plus a core motivation that they will attempt to achieve. As the game master guides them through the events of *The Maltese Falcon* (or another detective story!), players bid their power to seize control of Sam Spade’s actions. Though they must cooperate at least a little bit to make any progress, they are also in competition: the player whose motivations were most fulfilled by Sam wins the game.

The character of Sam Spade isn’t a blank slate, but he is opaque, which makes getting inside his head the perfect starting point for reimagining the story, and *I am Sam Spade* puts this at the heart of its gameplay. For that, it’s this year’s Best Adaptation.

**Congratulations to** [**Marshview Games**][6] **for the win! You can get everything you need to play *I am Sam Spade* [from its page on Itch][7]. We’ll be back next week with another winner spotlight, and don’t forget to check out the many [great entries][8] that didn’t quite make the cut. And stay tuned for next year, when we’ll be back for *Gaming Like It’s 1931.***

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/21/announcing-the-winners-of-the-8th-annual-public-domain-game-jam/
[2]: https://itch.io/jam/gaming-like-its-1930
[3]: https://itch.io/jam/gaming-like-its-1930/rate/4191768
[4]: https://marshviewgames.itch.io
[5]: https://overlycommonname.github.io/john.html
[6]: https://marshviewgames.itch.io
[7]: https://marshviewgames.itch.io/i-am-sam-spade
[8]: https://itch.io/jam/gaming-like-its-1930/entries

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/28/game-jam-winner-spotlight-i-am-sam-spade/

Hey, Game Devs: The ‘Placeholder Assets’ Excuse For Using AI ...

2026-03-28T02:39:40Z

Hey, Game Devs: The ‘Placeholder Assets’ Excuse For Using AI Is Running Really Thin

We’ve been talking a lot of about the use of [artificial intelligence][1] lately, for obvious reasons. Many of those conversations have revolved around the video game industry and I’ve been fairly vocal about [pushing back][2] against the “all AI is bad everywhere forever” dogma that I see far too often. There are plenty of folks in our community that don’t agree with me on that, and that’s fine. But if the picture you’re getting is that I’m an AI evangelist, that’s simply not true. There are potentially good uses of AI in my view, as well as a whole lot of potential negative outcomes of its use. I’m not blind to that.

And, in the video game industry specifically, one bit of pushback that seems to be sorely needed is on game developers that use generative AI in their games, fail to say so, and then excuse its use as accidental after the fact. That is becoming as common a refrain from game developers as the laughable excuse in trademark instances that is, “Well, I *have* to be an aggressive jerk about my trademarks or else I lose them.” Neither is true.

The most recent version of this concerns the recent hit launch of *Crimson Desert*. In what is becoming [something analogous to the antiquated process][3] by which people who watch golf tournaments on TV looking for missed rules violations could then send into the PGA, which I’ve coined as McPromptism, new game releases get put under a microscope by people looking to find AI uses within them. *Crimson Desert* went through this process and, wouldn’t you know it, people [found clear uses of AI-generated assets][4] in the game.

> *The game’s extremely high fidelity and impressive graphics are a big part of the sales pitch, which made it all the more disappointing when players began to come across what appeared to be [AI-generated artwork littered throughout][5] the game. In light of the disappointment, developer Pearl Abyss has apologized for including the slop in their game, promising to remove and replace all of it.*
>
> *“We also acknowledge that we should have clearly disclosed our use of AI,” [the Crimson Desert account posted][6] on X. “We are currently conducting a comprehensive audit of all in-game assets and are taking steps to replace any affected content. Updated assets will be rolled out in upcoming patches. In parallel, we are reviewing and strengthening our internal processes to ensure greater transparency and consistency in how we communicate with players moving forward.”*

Like I said above, this excuse is getting old. Very old. Game developers and publishers will be more than aware at this point that a sizable percentage of the gaming public is very allergic to the use of AI in games, particularly when that use is not acknowledged at the forefront. If placeholder assets generated by AI are to be used at all in the development of a game, it is inexcusable for a developer to *not* have a process to remove them in place of human-created art before the game is published. That’s sloppy at best, and a lie of an excuse at worst.

Especially because it’s not like there aren’t other options that have nothing to do with AI.

> *The practice is becoming more common in AAA developer spaces, but critics argue that setting aside the use of AI in your game, it’s pretty foolish to use temporary assets that don’t call obvious attention to themselves. In games of such massive scale, BRAT-green blocks that scream “DO NOT USE” are much easier to flag than something approximating the final product.*

I’m struggling to come up with a counter-argument to that.

I’m still in a place where I think there are valid uses of AI in gaming development. If a dev or publisher wants to explore those uses and, importantly, is upfront about it, there may be a place for that.

But the excuse of laziness when it comes to stripping AI assets out when their use was *not* intended is lame and needs to go away.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/ai/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/deep-breath-okay-lets-talk-about-that-controversial-dlss-5-demo/
[3]: https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/21738064/golf-fans-no-longer-able-call-possible-rules-violations
[4]: https://kotaku.com/crimson-desert-ai-art-peal-abyss-2000680884
[5]: https://kotaku.com/crimson-desert-painting-gen-ai-art-2000680661
[6]: https://x.com/CrimsonDesert_/status/2035718975909470706

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/hey-game-devs-the-placeholder-assets-excuse-for-using-ai-is-running-really-thin/

Hegseth’s War On Anthropic Encounters The First Amendment The ...

2026-03-27T22:31:15Z

Hegseth’s War On Anthropic Encounters The First Amendment

The expression, “to make a federal case out of something” usually describes making a bigger deal out of something than it should be. But in the case of Anthropic and Hegseth, Trump, and the Department of Defense*, this federal case is actually quite simple: what the government defendants did to Anthropic is beyond the bounds of anything the law or Constitution would allow. It didn’t require some complicated analytical parsing to see the problem with the Administration’s behavior, and the remedy is straightfoward: there’s now an injunction depriving that behavior of any effect (albeit stayed for seven days).

But the government is only restrained as to what it did that was actually illegal. Importantly, the injunction clarifies that to the extent that the government could *lawfully* stop working with Anthropic, it remained fully able to divorce itself. From the full paragraph on the last page of the [preliminary injunction order][1] itself articulating what has been restrained:

> *This Order restores the status quo. It does not bar any Defendant from taking any lawful action that would have been available to it on February 27, 2026, prior to the issuances of the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive and entry of the Supply Chain Designation. For example, this Order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions.*

As the [decision justifying the injunction][2] explains, this case wasn’t about whether and how DOD could use Anthropic and whether Anthropic could have a say in how it was used, which was the issue underpinning the contract dispute between the two. Had it been, then the DOD could have simply walked away from the product. The problem is that the government didn’t just stop doing business with Anthropic; it went further, and it is those actions that broke the law.

> *The question here is whether the government violated the law when it went further. After Anthropic went public with its disagreement with the Department of War, Defendants reacted with three significant measures that are the subject of this lawsuit. First, the President announced that every federal agency (not just the Department of War) would immediately ban Anthropic from ever having another government contract. That would include, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts using Claude to design its website. Second, Secretary Hegseth announced that anyone who wants to do business with the U.S. military must sever any commercial relationship with Anthropic. That would mean a company that used Claude to power its customer service chatbot could not serve as a defense contractor. Third, the Department of War designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” a label that applies to adversaries of the U.S. government who may sabotage its technology systems. That designation has never
> been applied to a domestic company and is directed principally at foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and other hostile actors.* [p.1-2]

And the court counts several ways that the government’s actions were likely illegal. At minimum, Anthropic suffered a due process violation for not having notice and an opportunity to respond to the government’s sudden supply chain risk designation, which threatened a cognizable liberty interest the Fifth Amendment protects. (“The record shows that the Challenged Actions threaten to cripple Anthropic by not only stripping it of billions of dollars in federal contracts and subcontracts but also by labeling it as an adversary to the United States and ending its ability to have any commercial relationship with any company that might want to do business with DoW.”) [fuller analysis p.24-29]

The “supply chain risk” designation was also likely “both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.” On the first point, there are two statutory paths for designating a vendor a supply chain risk, and this case addressed just one of them—the other will be addressed by the DC Circuit. But it found the government’s claim it was using the statutory authority properly to be wanting: First, Anthropic’s conduct did not meet the statutory definition of a supply chain risk.

> *On the record before the Court, Anthropic’s conduct does not appear to be within the definition of “supply chain risk” in Section 3252. Section 3252 defines a supply chain risk as limited to “the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert . . . a covered system.” 10 U.S.C. § 3252(d)(4). Assuming without deciding that a domestic company can be an “adversary,” the plain text of the statute is directed at covert acts or hacks, not overt positions taken during contract negotiations. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how one could sabotage, maliciously introduce an unwanted function, or subvert an information technology system by publicly announcing usage restrictions or insisting on such restrictions in conversations with DoW. Defendants appear to be taking the position that any vendor who “push[es] back” on or “question[s]” DoW becomes its “adversary.” (Dkt. No. 128 at 41.) That position is deeply troubling and inconsistent
> with the statutory text.* [p.30-32]

And second, those procedural rules the government blew off to invoke the statute, such as the need to notify Congress first, actually mattered. Despite what the government argued at oral argument, that the Congressional notification requirements were only for the benefit of Congress, the court found that they were important safeguards Congress had built into the statute to prevent its abuse and therefore non-optional. (“Section 3252 and its enabling regulations create institutional safeguards—which the Secretary must complete before making a designation—to ensure that its designation is applied properly. The Supply Chain Designation failed to comply with these mandated procedural safeguards.”) [see analysis p.32-34].

In addition, the designation itself was likely arbitrary and capricious. As the court noted early in its decision (emphasis added):

> * The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur. At oral argument, government counsel suggested that Anthropic showed its subversive tendencies by “questioning” the use of its technology, “raising concerns” about it, and criticizing the government’s position in the press. Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government.*[p. 2; further analysis p.35-37 (“In sum, the contradictory positions, the procedural defects, and the rushed process following a public declaration of the foreordained conclusion all indicate that the actions were arbitrary and capricious.”)]

And then there is the problem at the heart of the matter: that it appears the government is trying to punish Anthropic for daring to criticize it, and that sort of retaliation for speech violates the First Amendment.

> *The record supports an inference that Anthropic is being punished for criticizing the government’s contracting position in the press. In their announcements, the President and Secretary Hegseth called Anthropic “out of control” and “arrogant,” describing its “sanctimonious rhetoric” as an attempt to “strong-arm” the government. The Department of War’s records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its “hostile manner through the press.” Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.* [p.2]

And it violates the First Amendment not only by impinging on Anthropic’s right to speak, but everyone else, who is now deterred from speaking out as well, even on matters of public concern like ethical use of AI, given that the government is now inflicting consequences on those who speak in ways it doesn’t like. To the court, the government’s action looks clearly retaliatory. (“The record shows that Defendants’ conduct appears to be driven not by a desire to maintain operational control when using AI in the military but by a desire to make an example of Anthropic for its public stance on the weighty issues at stake in the contracting dispute.”) [p.19]. A retaliation claim can succeed when (1) the plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity, (2) the defendant’s actions would “chill a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in the protected activity, and (3) the protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the defendant’s conduct—in other
words, that what the defendant did was intended to chill speech, and here the court found all these prongs met. [p.20].

On the first, Anthropic was publicly staking out a position on what deployments of Claude are currently unsafe and what rights Anthropic has to allow Claude’s use by the government only with certain safety restrictions, which the court found to be a matter of public concern and thus protected by the First Amendment. (“[T]he record shows that Anthropic and its CEO, Dario Amodei, are a loud and influential voice regarding the capabilities, risks, and safe uses of AI technology.”) [p.20]. As to the second, there was plenty of evidence of speech being chilled:

> *Anthropic has submitted evidence that the Challenged Actions threaten to cripple the company and chill public debate. See supra Section II.G. Several amicus briefs support this conclusion. A group of 37 individuals working on AI technology assert that the Challenged Actions “chill[] professional debate on the benefits and risks of frontier AI systems and various ways that risks can be addressed to optimize the technology’s deployment.” (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 8.) An industry group of “values-led investors” warns that the Challenged Actions chill speech necessary to allow them to direct their investments to support the “principles and values” they care about. (Dkt. No. 77-1 at 12.) In short, the Challenged Actions easily qualify as ones which would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in further protected speech amici in the case showed how everyone’s speech was being chilled by what the government had done.*[p.21]

And as for the third, the government’s behavior clearly resulted from displeasure with Anthropic’s views and the desire to relinquish them.

> *Secretary Hegseth expressly tied Anthropic’s punishment to its attitude and rhetoric in the press. He stated that “Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance.” (Dkt. No. 6-21 at 2.) Referring to Anthropic and Amodei, he further stated: “Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of ‘effective altruism,’ they have attempted to strong-arm the United States military” through their “corporate virtue-signaling” and “Silicon Valley ideology.” (Id.) “Anthropic’s stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles.” (Id.) The President described Anthropic as “radical left, woke company” and its employees as “leftwing nut jobs,” who “made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War.” (Dkt. No. 6-20 at 2.) Read in context of these repeated references to rhetoric and ideology, the term “strong-arm” in the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive appears to be characterizing Anthropic as applying public pressure. […] These specific references to Anthropic’s
> viewpoint and public stance are direct evidence of what motivated Defendants’ decision-making.*[p.21-22]

And the government’s defense—that Anthropic’s “contracting position” is conduct, not speech entitled to First Amendment protection, and that Anthropic’s refusal to accept DOD’s terms was what prompted the government’s actions—was unavailing.

> *First, without reaching the question of whether private contract negotiations alone could constitute protected activity under the First Amendment, the record shows that Anthropic engaged in protected speech when it took public the parties’ contracting impasse and the reasons behind its refusal to agree to DoW’s terms. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 6-7, 6-18.) As already explained, Anthropic’s views on this matter fall within the heart of what the First Amendment protects: “subject[s] of general interest and of value and concern to the public” and “of legitimate news interests.” See Snyder, 562 U.S. at 452–53 (citation omitted). Therefore, to the extent Anthropic publicly discussed its “contracting position,” that speech is protected by the First Amendment.*

> *Next, Defendants argue that even if Anthropic’s public statements constitute protected speech, the contract dispute—not Anthropic’s speech—was the motive and “but for” cause of the Challenged Actions. (Dkt. No. 96 at 22–24.) They point out that although Anthropic and Amodei have long advocated for AI safety, Defendants took the Challenged Actions only after Anthropic refused to remove its usage restrictions. But Defendants’ own actions belie the notion that Anthropic’s contracting position is what drove the Challenged Actions. Anthropic had imposed its usage restrictions from the beginning of DoW’s use of Claude Gov, and no one had ever suggested that this indicated that Anthropic was untrustworthy or a potential saboteur. To the contrary, Anthropic passed extensive vetting at that time and was praised by the government, which had made arrangements to expand the company’s role. It was only when Anthropic publicly discussed its dispute with DoW that Defendants criticized its rhetoric
> and ideology and adopted the punitive measures at issue.*[p.22-23]

Throughout the decision the court observes that if the dispute here were just over the contract, then surely the government would have just stopped using Claude. But it didn’t just do that; it did more. And that more is now enjoined. The February 27 Presidential Directive from Trump “ordering all federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic’s technology” is to have no effect, nor is any agency action (by any agency,** not just the DOD), taken in response to it. No one in the Trump Administration (Anthropic had named pretty much every agency as defendants, so that’s basically how it boils down) may “issu[e] or maintain[] any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Presidential Directive” or “tak[e] any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Presidential Directive.”

Meanwhile, Hegseth and the DOD are also enjoined from “implementing, applying, or enforcing in any manner” what the court referred to as the Hegseth Directive, issued later on February 27, designating Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security” and “directing that no contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the United States military may conduct commercial activity with Anthropic.” Nor can it implement, apply, or enforce anything in the March 3 letter DOD sent notifying Anthropic of the supply chain designation and the associated determination formalizing that designation under 10 U.S.C. § 3252. Hegseth and the DOD are also enjoined from “[f]rom issuing or maintaining any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Hegseth Directive or the Supply Chain Designation [and from] taking any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Hegseth Directive
or the Supply Chain Designation.”

* No, it’s not the “Department of War” as unfortunately both parties *and even the court* called it, for reasons that elude. Perhaps Anthropic feared it would pull a Trump-friendly judge and need to speak the Administration’s language in order to be treated fairly, but such was not the case, at least in this piece of the case in the Northern District of California—maybe it will be different in the second piece of the case in the DC Circuit. But it’s not clear why the court had to humor them; it applies law, and the law, as passed by Congress to create, name, and fund the agency, calls it the Department of Defense, with Hegseth having been appointed to a specific job called the “Secretary of Defense.” If Congress wanted it to be called the “Department of War” it could have named it thus, but it found there were tangible policy reasons not to when it in fact changed its name to the DOD instead. It typifies the Trump Administration’s typical indifference to any law that might happen to
govern any of its behavior to ignore it and Congress’s authority to pass it by unilaterally trumping Congress’s wishes and rename it, but no one else needs to indulge yet another of their abuses of power by humoring their choice.

** The Executive Office of the President is not bound by the injunction directly, despite being a named defendant. Nevertheless, “[l]ike all other persons, EOP is barred from acting for, with, by, through, or under authority from any enjoined Defendant, or in concert or participation with any enjoined Defendant, in any manner inconsistent with the preliminary injunction order.” [p.42]

[1]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.134.0.pdf
[2]: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/134/anthropic-pbc-v-us-department-of-war/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/hegseths-war-on-anthropic-encounters-the-first-amendment/

Turns Out That Advertisers Not Wanting To Fund Neo-Nazi-Adjacent ...

2026-03-27T19:56:56Z

Turns Out That Advertisers Not Wanting To Fund Neo-Nazi-Adjacent Content Isn’t An Antitrust Violation

Remember when Elon Musk told advertisers to [“go fuck” themselves][1] and then sued them for the crime of taking his advice? A federal judge has [now dismissed that lawsuit][2] — with prejudice — confirming what anyone with a passing familiarity with antitrust law already knew: companies deciding they don’t want their brands plastered next to extremist content aren’t engaged in an illegal conspiracy. They’re just making basic (probably pretty smart) business decisions.

When X Corp filed this case back in August of 2024, we [walked through in great detail][3] why the legal theory was fundamentally broken. Not broken in a “they pleaded it badly” kind of way, but broken in a “this theory does not describe an antitrust violation no matter how many drugs you’re taking or how convinced you are that the world owes you advertising dollars” kind of way. Judge Jane Boyle of the Northern District of Texas has now agreed, and the key section of her ruling is worth reading in full, because it says what we said at the outset: X has not suffered antitrust injury.

The court laid out the standard, quoting the Fifth Circuit, channeling the Supreme Court, on what counts as an antitrust injury:

> *The Supreme Court has distilled antitrust injury as being “injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants’ acts unlawful.” … “The antitrust laws … were enacted for ‘the protection of competition not competitors.'” … “Typical” antitrust injury thus “include[s] increased prices and decreased output.” … “This circuit has narrowly interpreted the meaning of antitrust injury, excluding from it the threat of decreased competition.” … “Loss from competition itself—that is, loss in the form of customers[] choosing the competitor’s goods and services over the plaintiff’s—does not constitute an antitrust injury.” … In short, the question underlying antitrust injury is whether consumers—not competitors—have been harmed.*

Antitrust law protects *competition*, not *competitors*. X’s entire argument boiled down to: “advertisers chose to spend their money somewhere other than our platform, and that hurt us.” But that’s just… the market. That’s how markets work. Customers choosing not to buy from you because they don’t like what you’re selling has never been an antitrust violation, and the court made short work of explaining why.

Amusingly, the GOP — whose campaigns Musk has bankrolled extensively — spent decades pushing for exactly this narrow definition of antitrust injury, precisely to make cases like this harder to bring. Perhaps one of those politicians could have mentioned that before Elon filed.

But this case was never actually about winning an antitrust case. It was a warning shot at advertisers: give Elon your money or we’ll drag you through an expensive court process. A shakedown dressed up in legal filings. Indeed, after the lawsuit was filed, it was reported that part of X’s “sales” process was [to threaten companies][4] that they’d be added to the lawsuit if they didn’t advertise on the platform.

The court examined X’s theory from two different angles, and it failed both times. First, if the conspiracy was supposed to benefit competing social media platforms (like Pinterest, one of the defendants), X hadn’t alleged that any competitor was actually behind the boycott or pressuring advertisers to exclude X so the competitor could corner the market:

> *X has not alleged that the advertisers chose to do business with Pinterest—or any other social media company—as part of an agreement not to do business with X. Unlike the large hospital in Doctor’s Hospital, Pinterest is not alleged to be X’s competitor that wanted to exclude X from the market so that it could charge higher prices. In turn, unlike the network in Doctor’s Hospital, the advertisers did not decide to boycott X at Pinterest’s—or any other X competitor’s—behest to secure the competitor’s business. Instead, X alleges a conspiracy driven by advertisers not to further X-competitor social media companies’ interests but to pursue their own collective interests as to where they place their advertisements.*

Second, if the conspiracy was supposed to eliminate competition at the advertiser level, the court found that GARM wasn’t acting as some kind of gatekeeper blocking X from accessing customers. It was just… advertisers deciding for themselves:

> *GARM is not an economic intermediary like the retailers in Eastern States. GARM did not buy advertising space from X to sell to advertisers nor did it, in such an arrangement, tell X not to sell directly to GARM’s customers. Rather, GARM was organized by advertisers and reflected their “avowed commitment to furthering [their] economic interests . . . as a group.” … Thus, if GARM is the obstacle to X reaching its advertiser-customers directly, then it is the equivalent of the advertiser-customers themselves deciding not to deal.*

That’s the ballgame. Advertisers collectively deciding they don’t want to spend money on your platform — especially after you’ve told them to go fuck themselves and your platform has become a haven for content that damages their brands — just doesn’t state an antitrust claim. Imagine being so entitled that when the marketplace rejects your offering, you insist that it must be an antitrust attack on your rights to their money?

The court was so confident in this conclusion that it dismissed the case with prejudice and denied X the opportunity to replead, noting that the 165-paragraph complaint was already plenty detailed:

> *The 165-paragraph Second Amended Complaint contains no dearth of detail: if facts existed that GARM operated at an X competitor’s behest to put X out of business or that GARM advertisers sought to unfairly exclude competing advertisers from doing business, X would have pleaded those facts. The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the Court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice.*

When a court tells you the *nature* of your theory doesn’t work, that’s about as definitive a loss as you can get.

As we noted when the case was filed, the evidence X submitted in its own complaint actually undermined the case. One of X’s own exhibits showed GARM’s lead, Rob Rakowitz, explicitly telling an advertiser that GARM doesn’t make recommendations and that advertising decisions are “completely within the sphere of each member and subject to their own discretion.” Another email showed Rakowitz telling an advertiser asking about Twitter that “you may want to connect with Twitter directly to understand their progress on brand safety and make your own decisions.” This is the supposedly nefarious conspiracy that X spent years and untold legal fees litigating.

Separately, I have to mention the blatant forum shopping: X filed this case in the Wichita Falls Division of the Northern District of Texas, which was widely understood as a transparent attempt to land in front of Judge Reed O’Connor, known for partisan rulings and already presiding over Elon’s SLAPP suit against Media Matters. That didn’t work out — [O’Connor recused himself][5], not because of his ownership of Tesla stock, but rather his ownership of some advertising firms who were defendants. The case got reassigned to Judge Boyle, and X still lost. In an ironic twist, X then tried to *transfer the case* to the Southern District of New York, only to have the court deny that motion because X couldn’t even prove they did business in that specific district. So X handpicked a forum, lost its judge, and then couldn’t escape to a different one. Great lawyering.

But the legal dismissal, satisfying as it is, doesn’t capture the most important part of what actually happened here. Because while the court correctly found that X suffered no antitrust injury, GARM itself suffered a very real injury: it was killed.

GARM [shut down][6] within days of the lawsuit being filed, following Rep. Jim Jordan’s misleading congressional investigation that painted the organization as some kind of anti-conservative censorship machine. Jordan’s pressure campaign, combined with the threat of expensive litigation from the world’s richest man, made it untenable for GARM to continue operating. The organization that existed to help advertisers make informed decisions about brand safety — a fundamentally expressive activity, protected by the First Amendment — was destroyed through government jawboning and litigation threats.

There was only one attack on free speech involved here and it came from Jim Jordan and Elon Musk, not GARM or its advertiser members.

X filed this lawsuit wrapped in the language of free speech. Former X CEO Linda Yaccarino literally wore a necklace that said “free speech” while announcing the case, claiming that advertisers not giving X money was somehow an attack on users’ ability to express themselves. The actual speech suppression ran the other direction entirely. A private organization exercising its speech rights to help its members make informed business decisions was bullied out of existence through a combination of congressional intimidation and frivolous litigation.

Jordan celebrated GARM’s dissolution as a victory for free speech — par for the course for the censorial MAGA GOP. A congressman used the weight of his office to pressure a private organization into shutting down, and called that free speech. Meanwhile, the lawsuit that was part of that same ecosystem of intimidation has now been found to have no legal merit whatsoever.

This is what actual jawboning looks like in practice. The lawsuit didn’t need to succeed to accomplish its goal. GARM is gone. The organization that facilitated conversations among advertisers about how to protect their brands has been silenced. The chilling effect on any future organization that might want to do something similar is obvious and intentional. Any industry group that tries to coordinate around brand safety now knows that it might face a billionaire-funded lawsuit and a congressional investigation for its trouble.

The court’s ruling is a vindication of basic antitrust law. But the more important point is about what the actual free speech dynamics were in this whole saga.

X can appeal, of course, and given that this falls within the Fifth Circuit, stranger things have happened. But the fundamental problem remains what it’s always been: the theory that advertisers owe you their business because you exist, and that organizing around brand safety is a criminal conspiracy, has never been a viable legal argument. The court said so plainly. Dismissed with prejudice. Nothing to fix, because the whole premise was broken from the start.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/07/it-always-gets-dumber-elon-sues-the-ad-coalition-he-just-rejoined-because-he-thinks-its-illegal-to-not-advertise-on-extwitter/
[2]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.393003/gov.uscourts.txnd.393003.255.0_4.pdf
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/07/it-always-gets-dumber-elon-sues-the-ad-coalition-he-just-rejoined-because-he-thinks-its-illegal-to-not-advertise-on-extwitter/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/12/elon-musks-new-business-model-for-extwitter-give-us-money-or-we-sue/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/13/surprise-judge-recuses-himself-from-elon-musks-garm-slapp-suit/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/09/jim-jordan-celebrates-successful-speech-suppression-as-a-claimed-win-for-free-speech/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/turns-out-that-advertisers-not-wanting-to-fund-neo-nazi-adjacent-content-isnt-an-antitrust-violation/

FBI Tells Senate It’s Still Bypassing 4th Amendment By ...

2026-03-27T17:58:46Z

FBI Tells Senate It’s Still Bypassing 4th Amendment By Purchasing Location Data From Third Parties

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that [warrants were needed][1] to obtain cell site location info (CSLI). That decision dealt with law enforcement’s warrantless acquisition of 127 days of location data from a cell service provider. As the court saw it, the government was leveraging access to this data to turn cell phones (which has been given heightened protections with the [2014 *Riley* decision][2]) into government tracking devices, all without having to bother with warrants or deploying government-crafted tracking tech.

The rationale for this 4th Amendment bypass was this: location data slurped up by websites and downloaded apps wasn’t exactly the same thing as cell tower location data. Therefore, it could be had without a warrant. In fact, it could be had without bothering the courts at all with a subpoena or any other lighter-weight legal paperwork. The government could just *buy* this data and sort through it to find what it was looking for. Some third parties were even willing to do the sorting for the right price, freeing the government up to pursue other rights violations.

This option obviously experienced a jump in popularity following the Supreme Court’s *Carpenter* ruling. While the spokespeople constantly stated the agencies they represented (which was pretty much *[all of them][3]* when it came to buying data from data brokers) were super-interested in respecting constitutional rights, they never took the time to explain their “respect” meant constantly testing (or breaking!) the boundaries until court precedent forced them to do otherwise.

In 2023, anti-encryption zealot Christopher Wray was heading the FBI. During the last years of his tenure, [he admitted to Congress][4] (or, more specifically, privacy hawk Senator Ron Wyden) that the FBI was — like CBP, ICE, US Secret Service, IRS, and federal prisons — buying up as much location data as it could purchase. Wray insisted this process was “court-authorized,” but somehow couldn’t find any court documents laying around that would support his claims of authorization.

The government is still buying this data. And [it’s even more problematic][5] than it was a few years ago, when federal agencies weren’t being run by MAGA loyalists and outright racists. Now there’s a new wrinkle: the government is delving into ad markets to siphon off RTB (real-time bidding) data that’s capable of tying location data to specific devices, even if those hawking the data pretend it’s been anonymized.

So, it comes as absolutely no surprise that [aspiring frat bro Kash Patel’s FBI][6] is doing the same thing that plenty of immigration-focused agencies [are *already* doing][7]. Yet again, it’s Senator Wyden demanding answers. And it’s Kash Patel answering the questions without honestly engaging with the questions. Here’s [Zack Whittaker with the details for TechCrunch][8]:

> *When asked by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, if the FBI would commit to not buying Americans’ location data, Patel said that the agency “uses all tools … to do our mission.”*
>
> *“We do purchase commercially available information that is consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act — and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us,” Patel testified Wednesday.*

First, there’s the obviously false insistence that this is all very constitutional. Buying location data from data brokers doesn’t just violate the spirit of the Supreme Court’s *Carpenter* decision, it’s only a letter or three off from violating the *letter* of the law. When the only difference is *where* you’re obtaining long-term location tracking data, you’re just exploiting loopholes rather than actually trying to be “consistent with the Constitution.”

The second part is even stupider. When you claim that legally-questionable efforts have “led to some valuable intelligence,” you’re just saying that the ends justify the means. And if that’s the low bar you’ve set for yourself, you’re going to be violating rights regularly because you prefer harvesting data to respecting rights.

This sums up the government’s stance concisely:

> *The FBI claims it does not need a warrant to use this information for federal investigations; though this legal theory has not yet been tested in court.*

The government — especially *this* one — will never err on the side of restraint. It would rather explore the outer edges of legal theory, sacrificing *our* rights in exchange for *more* government power. At some point, this legal theory will be tested. But until it is, the government is going to continue to pretend the implications of *Carpenter* don’t apply to anything that hasn’t been *specifically* ruled unconstitutional.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2018/06/22/supreme-court-says-warrants-are-needed-cell-site-location-info/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140625/10272227684/supreme-court-says-law-enforcement-cant-search-mobile-phones-without-warrant.shtml
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/16/fbi-latest-to-admit-to-bypassing-warrant-requirements-by-purchasing-location-info-from-data-brokers/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/16/fbi-latest-to-admit-to-bypassing-warrant-requirements-by-purchasing-location-info-from-data-brokers/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/19/the-government-uses-targeted-advertising-to-track-your-location-heres-what-we-need-to-do/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVdQCVnCw6c
[7]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/online-behavioral-ads-fuel-surveillance-industry-heres-how
[8]: https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/18/fbi-is-buying-location-data-to-track-us-citizens-kash-patel-wyden/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/fbi-tells-senate-its-still-bypassing-4th-amendment-by-purchasing-location-data-from-third-parties/

Daily Deal: The 2026 Microsoft Office Pro Courses Bundle The ...

2026-03-27T17:53:33Z

Daily Deal: The 2026 Microsoft Office Pro Courses Bundle

The [2026 Microsoft Office Pro Bundle][1] has 8 courses to help you master essential Office skills. Courses cover Access, PowerPoint, Word, Excel, and more. It’s on sale for $21.25 using the code MARCH15 at checkout.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: http://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-2025-microsoft-office-pro-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/daily-deal-the-2026-microsoft-office-pro-courses-bundle/

The Missouri v. Biden ‘Settlement’ Is A Fake Victory For A ...

2026-03-27T16:27:47Z

The Missouri v. Biden ‘Settlement’ Is A Fake Victory For A Case They Lost

Last week, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri [got into a heated exchange][1] during a Senate hearing with Stanford’s Daphne Keller. Schmitt, who, as Missouri’s Attorney General, [originally filed the Missouri v. Biden][2] lawsuit, was berating Keller over Stanford’s supposed role in helping the Biden administration censor social media during the 2020 election (see if you can spot the time-space continuum problem with that sentence). When Keller pushed back on his characterization of events, Schmitt got increasingly agitated and told her she could “read all about it in Missouri v. Biden.” Keller’s response was instant and devastating: “[The one you lost?][3]“

He did not take it well, immediately throwing an embarrassing Senatorial temper tantrum.

And so maybe it’s not surprising that just a week later, Schmitt was doing a victory lap over [a “settlement”][4] that his friends in the Trump administration very conveniently worked out with the remaining plaintiffs in the case. The framing, of course, was triumphant. From his post on social media:

Shorter version:

> *We just won Missouri v. Biden.*
>
> *As Missouri’s Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent “misinformation” while they pushed their narrative on the American people.*
>
> *Missouri struck first—and Missouri won big.*

And the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented many of the plaintiffs, [was even more grandiose][5] in its description of the settlement:

> *The federal government’s social media censorship was the most massive suppression of speech in the nation’s history, it was profoundly important to resist it.*

Even the Washington Post editorial board got taken in, writing about the settlement as a “[forceful affirmation of First Amendment principles][6].” Reclaim the Net [went even further][7], claiming the decree represented a “formal, court-enforceable admission: the federal government pressured social media platforms to silence protected speech.”

There’s just one fairly big problem. None of this is true. The case was a dud. While it is true that the district court [hyped it up][8] as (what the NCLA repeated) “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” literally no one else found the same. The Fifth Circuit saw that most of the claims were flimsy and cut back nearly the entire injunction, and the Supreme Court threw it out completely (“the one that you lost”) not only pointing out five separate times that there was “no evidence” to support the claims of censorship, but also [calling out the district court’s findings][9], noting that they “appear to be clearly erroneous.”

It’s quite a misleading victory lap to quote the judge who both higher courts called out for misreading the evidence to say things that the evidence clearly did not say (it was actually worse: [the judge fabricated quotes][10] to make it sound like there was evidence when there was not).

As for this “settlement,” anyone who actually reads it would realize that it doesn’t support any of the claims making the rounds.

Now the reason Schmitt claims he didn’t “lose” the case is because, technically, the Supreme Court rejected the case on “standing” grounds — meaning the plaintiffs hadn’t shown they had a legal right to bring the case. But the *reason* they didn’t have standing was devastating to the plaintiffs’ entire theory. The opinion methodically dismantled the conspiracy theory at the heart of the case:

> *We reject this overly broad assertion. As already discussed, the platforms moderated similar content long before any of the Government defendants engaged in the challenged conduct. In fact, ****the platforms, acting independently, had strengthened their pre-existing content-moderation policies before the Government defendants got involved****. For instance, Facebook announced an expansion of its COVID–19 misinformation policies in early February 2021, before White House officials began communicating with the platform. And the platforms continued to exercise their independent judgment even after communications with the defendants began. For example, ****on several occasions, various platforms explained that White House officials had flagged content that did not violate company policy****.*

The Court further called out how the lower courts had built their case on lies and misrepresentations:

> *The District Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient report-and-censor relationship.”… But much of its evidence is inapposite. For instance, the court says that Twitter set up a “streamlined process for censorship requests” after the White House “bombarded” it with such requests. ****The record it cites says nothing about “censorship requests.” Rather, in response to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an impersonation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, ****Twitter told the official about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues. This has nothing to do with COVID–19 misinformation.*

In other words, the Supreme Court looked at the actual record, found a pile of conspiratorial nonsense, and told the lower courts they got played. This was a loss. A clear, unambiguous loss.

But of course, with Trump back in office and the same crew of ideologues now running the government, it was time to manufacture a win. And so we get this “consent decree.”

On paper, it sounds dramatic. The NCLA breathlessly announced that the settlement “prohibits the U.S. Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from threatening social media companies into removing or suppressing constitutionally protected speech.” Schmitt claimed the decree means “no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions.”

But if you actually read the consent decree (and I encourage you to do so, because clearly many of the people celebrating it haven’t), you find something remarkable: the decree prohibits conduct that the Supreme Court found no evidence was happening, *while explicitly carving out everything that actually was happening*.

First (and most importantly), the decree *only applies* to three remaining individual plaintiffs (Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Jill Hines, and Jim Hoft) and two states, and only on five specific platforms. It doesn’t protect anyone else. If you’re a random American whose content gets moderated on social media, this decree does absolutely nothing for you. That certainly doesn’t match what Schmitt claimed.

Second, and more importantly, paragraph 24 of the decree is where the whole thing collapses:

> *This ****prohibition does not extend to**** providing Social-Media Companies with information that the companies are free to use as they wish. Nor does it extend to statements by government officials that posts on Social Media Companies’ platforms are inaccurate, wrong, or contrary to the Administration’s views, unless those statements are otherwise coupled with a threat of punishment within the meaning of the above provision.*

That paragraph basically describes exactly what the Biden administration was actually doing — and declares it *fine*. The government can still share information with social media companies. It can still tell companies that content on their platforms is wrong or inaccurate. It can still express displeasure. It just can’t couple those statements with threats of punishment.

Which is… *exactly* what the First Amendment already requires. And exactly what the Supreme Court found was *not happening* in the first place. The consent decree literally *codifies the Biden administration’s actual conduct as permissible* while grandly prohibiting a phantom version of events that the Supreme Court found no evidence of.

Even better, paragraph 17 of the decree says the quiet part out loud:

> *The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is entered into solely for the purpose of settling and compromising any remaining claims in this action without further litigation, and, except as stated explicitly in the text of the Agreement, it ****shall not be construed as evidence or as an admission**** regarding any issues of law or fact, or regarding the truth or validity of any allegation or claim raised in this action or in any other action.*

So the decree is explicitly not an admission of anything. It cannot be construed as evidence of any wrongdoing. The government didn’t admit to censorship. Reclaim the Net’s headline — “US Government Admits Pressuring Social Media Platforms to Censor Protected Speech” — is directly contradicted by the text of the document they’re supposedly celebrating. Did they not read it?

Yes, the preamble quotes Trump’s executive order making grand accusations about Biden-era censorship. But that’s a political document, not a finding of fact. The Trump administration saying the Biden administration did bad things is hardly the same as the Biden administration admitting it did bad things, or a court finding that it did bad things. In fact, the only court to substantively examine the evidence — the Supreme Court — found **no evidence** to support these claims.

So what we have here is a neat little trick: the Trump administration negotiates a settlement with friendly plaintiffs (some of whom had to drop out of the case because they *joined the Trump administration*), quotes Trump’s own executive order as if it were established fact, and everyone involved pretends this vindicates the original claims — despite the Supreme Court (and a clean reading of the evidence) having rejected them.

Speaking of those former plaintiffs, let’s talk about the delicious absurdity of how this case ate itself. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the original individual plaintiffs who claimed he was censored by the Biden administration, had to drop out of the case because he was confirmed as Director of the National Institutes of Health — the agency he claimed (without evidence) had “censored him” even though his lawyers somehow forgot to add NIH as a defendant. Dr. Martin Kulldorff similarly withdrew because of his new role within the Department of Health and Human Services. The supposed victims of government censorship are now running the very agencies they accused of censoring them. And, again, I have to reinforce, that the Supreme Court called out the lack of actual “censorship” for either of these guys.

Both Bhattacharya and Kulldorff were mad that Facebook restricted access to the Great Barrington Declaration, a document they co-authored. But they fail to mention that the person running the Great Barrington Declaration website [has publicly revealed][11] that the reason Facebook blocked it was anti-vaxxers mass reporting the site — because they misread the declaration as supporting “forced vaccinations.” (There are more details at the link above).

So naturally, despite all this, the fact that they became top officials in the Trump administration should raise questions about how suddenly the administration worked out a friendly settlement with their friends who were still plaintiffs. What a coincidence.

But the real tell is what’s happening right now, while MAGA is celebrating: the Trump admin is doing far worse than anything Biden was even accused of. Yes, while the Trump administration and its gullible friends are busy patting themselves on the back for supposedly defending free speech from the horrors of the Biden administration sharing information with social media companies, it is engaged in conduct that is far, far worse than anything alleged in Missouri v. Biden.

As you’ll certainly recall, the Trump administration’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr [went on a podcast and explicitly threatened Disney][12] with regulatory retaliation over Jimmy Kimmel’s monologues, telling them “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Hours later, the show was pulled. That’s textbook coercion — exactly the kind that the Supreme Court in both Murthy and Vullo said would violate the First Amendment if proven. Unlike the conduct in the case that just settled, where the Supreme Court found no such proof.

And then we have the even clearer violation: Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice [demanded that Apple and Google remove the ICEBlock app][13] from their stores… and bragged about it! That’s the federal government literally ordering private companies to suppress an application. Not sending mean emails. Not sharing information platforms are free to use as they wish. An explicit demand for removal.

> *“****We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove*** *the ICEBlock app from their App Store—and Apple did so,” Bondi added according to the Fox report.*

Where’s Schmitt’s outrage? Where’s the NCLA lawsuit? Where’s Philip Hamburger’s condemnation of “the most massive suppression of speech in the nation’s history”?

Nowhere. Because this was never really about free speech. This was about building a narrative that the Biden administration censored conservatives, manufacturing a legal document that appears to vindicate that claim (despite explicitly saying it doesn’t), and then using it as political cover while engaging in an even more extreme version of the conduct you claimed to oppose.

This perfectly matches the pattern Renee DiResta [documented in her Lawfare review][14] of Schmitt’s book — which he subtitled “how to beat the left in court” — where she noted his habit of presenting cases he lost as if he won them. The book apparently describes multiple lawsuits where Schmitt failed to achieve his stated legal objectives but then spun the results as massive victories for the narrative benefit. Missouri v. Biden is the crown jewel of this approach: lose at the Supreme Court, negotiate a meaningless consent decree with a friendly administration, declare total victory.

Even the [Washington Post editorial board][15], which gave the decree far more credit than it deserved, couldn’t quite look away from the obvious:

> *The unfortunate catch is that the settlement only applies to the specific plaintiffs in this particular case. In other words, only the people who initially sued the Biden administration, and public officials from Louisiana and Missouri, will enjoy the court-ordered protections from government censorship. It’s unlikely the current administration would target right-leaning individuals or states, but the consent decree will apply for 10 years.*
>
> *The settlement also applies only to government pressure on five companies: Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Linkedln and YouTube. That means, for example, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s *[*efforts to bully broadcasters*][16]* to toe the administration’s political line will be unaffected.*

So even the Post recognizes that the decree does nothing about actual, current, obvious government coercion of media companies. But somehow this is still a “forceful affirmation of First Amendment principles”? How so? A consent decree that protects three specific people from conduct that wasn’t happening, while the government signing the decree is actively coercing media companies in ways that *obviously* violate the First Amendment?

The consent decree is a press release disguised as a legal document. It prohibits First Amendment violations the Supreme Court found no evidence of, permits everything the evidence shows the Biden administration was actually doing, and was signed by an administration currently engaged in the exact conduct the decree pretends to prohibit.

The one you lost, indeed.

[1]: https://www.theverge.com/policy/897106/section-230-reform-hearing-jawboning-social-media
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/06/missouri-and-louisiana-sue-biden-administration-because-twitter-blocked-hunter-biden-link-before-biden-was-president/
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/live/F8T5vCmlHmA?si=edXcbnIm9izUwH9o&t=5204
[4]: https://api.www.documentcloud.org/files/documents/27918559/filing-missouri-v-biden-consent-decree03252026.pdf
[5]: https://nclalegal.org/press_release/ncla-reaches-historic-settlement-strikes-major-blow-against-governments-social-media-censorship/
[6]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/25/social-media-censorship-consent-murthy-missouri-doj/
[7]: https://reclaimthenet.org/missouri-v-biden-consent-decree-free-speech
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/06/the-good-the-bad-and-the-incredibly-ugly-in-the-court-ruling-regarding-government-contacts-with-social-media/
[9]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/15/hey-zuck-remember-when-you-said-youd-never-again-cave-to-government-pressure-about-that/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/10/for-bhattacharya-free-speech-means-freedom-to-defund-dissenters/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/23/trump-supporters-are-lying-about-biden-censorship-to-justify-brendan-carrs-unconstitutional-kimmel-threats/
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/03/doj-demands-removal-of-iceblock-app-why-are-the-free-speech-warriors-suddenly-so-quiet/
[14]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-litigation-playbook-for-narrative-warfare
[15]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/25/social-media-censorship-consent-murthy-missouri-doj/
[16]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/16/fcc-brendan-carr-iran-threats/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/the-missouri-v-biden-settlement-is-a-fake-victory-for-a-case-they-lost/

CBS News Under Bari Weiss Sees Worst Ratings In Quarter Century ...

2026-03-27T12:23:24Z

CBS News Under Bari Weiss Sees Worst Ratings In Quarter Century

When right wing billionaire Larry Ellison (and his nepobaby kid David) hired trolling blogger Bari Weiss to run CBS News, Weiss arrived with the promise of “[balanced, fact-based news][1],” “independent, principled journalism,” and a unique “entrepreneurial drive and editorial vision” that would completely modernize the network and reach the “everyday Americans” traditionally ignored by mainstream media.

As we noted at the time, [that was all bullshit code][2] for turning CBS into yet another outlet that panders to global autocrats, normalizes far right wing extremism, coddles corporate power, and generally shits all over progressive societal reforms.

Weiss wasn’t a journalist, had no serious journalism experience, isn’t good at journalism, and wasn’t hired to **do** journalism. She was hired specifically to do **ratings-grabbing, viral, right wing friendly agitprop** which the Ellisons mistakenly seemed to think there was a massive market for. But unfortunately for Weiss, she’s **not good at that either**.

And it’s just observationally true that nobody actually wants what CBS’ new ownership is selling.

Broadcast TV was already in trouble (just 20% of all TV viewing is now broadcast). The conspiratorial right wing MAGA movement already has countless propaganda outlets to choose from. And the folks who used to find CBS News semi useful [aren’t sticking around][3]. “CBS Evening News” ratings keep dipping below 4 million viewers; the kind of ratings that caused CBS to revamp things in the first place.

In fact, CBS News just saw its [worst quarter of ratings in 25 years][4], and it’s [not slowing down][5]:

> *“Demo figures are perhaps even more alarming. “CBS Evening News” lost about 15% of its viewership in the adults 25 to 54 bracket for the first quarter of 2026. ABC is also off by around 4%, while “Nightly” is up 8%.”*

Oliver Darcy put it this way [over at his newsletter][6]:

> *“Viewers are smart. They understand that under Ellison’s ownership, and with Weiss at the helm, CBS News has charted a new course … one that is friendlier to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement he leads.”*

It’s just not clear who Weiss thinks she’s appealing to. There’s no shortage of weird, timid, corporatist, center-right blandness across journalism. Countless outlets are making such a pivot the under Trump in an industry that’s being increasingly consolidated under the ownership of terrible rich assholes with increasingly extreme, anti-democratic ideals. And fewer and fewer people watch broadcast TV anyway.

It’s clear Larry Ellison and other right wingers envy and want to emulate the [control of media Victor Orban enjoys in Hungary][7]. Under most autocratic models, party-loyal oligarchs buy up all the major companies, pummel the country with propaganda, and the government sues, harasses, and strangles real journalism just out of frame. As it progresses and gets worse, journalists often wind up dead.

But America is much bigger and much more diverse than Hungary. People are also increasingly consuming media and news in short form snippets from a massive and expanding assortment of influencers (credible or not), independent outlets, and direct-to-consumer journalists. “[Flooding the zone with shit][8],” (to use a Steve Bannon term) impacts everybody, and makes it hard for *any one player* to dominate modern media.

The folks who’ll rise above the noise in this fractured, new, badly automated, modern media landscape have to be either extremely clever, inherently gifted at pandering to the lowest common denominator, or undeniably authentic.

Bari Weiss is none of those.

Bari came into her job insisting she **had the secret sauce** to modernize CBS in the viral social media era, and by every indication there’s **no evidence that’s actually true**. Much of the stuff she’s introduced is just [foundationally boring cack][9] of interest to nobody.

As a result, I suspect Weiss’ tenure won’t last past the end of the summer.

I don’t want to give Larry Ellison any ideas, but you could see a future where he hires someone who actually **is** the modern hustlebro [manfluencer][10] version of Roger Ailes; somebody who can leverage CBS and Ellison’s [new co-ownership of TikTok][11] to create a truly modern, even uglier version of Fox News that seeds social media with inflammatory, pseudo-journalistic bullshit peppered with sports betting ads.

The thing is there’s just absolutely no evidence anybody at this new Paramount is remotely competent for good **or** ill, whether we’re talking about Weiss or Paramount President Jeff Shell (who was fired from Comcast for allegations of sexual harassment, and is now going through [weird legal tangles at CBS][12]).

Unfortunately, if all Larry Ellison accomplishes is the destruction of another cornerstone of U.S. journalism, he’s still broadly made the world a worse place in a way that benefits him personally. Though even then, you’d like to think there’s potential for people who **actually have something ethical or authentic to say** to build something useful from the ashes.

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2025/10/06/nx-s1-5561116/bari-weiss-cbs-skydance-free-press
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/21/bari-weiss-gets-to-work-fixing-cbs-bias-by-making-it-more-biased/
[3]: https://www.newscaststudio.com/2026/03/18/cbs-evening-news-ratings-down-326/
[4]: https://www.status.news/p/cbs-news-ratings-decline-bari-weiss
[5]: https://www.newscaststudio.com/2026/03/18/cbs-evening-news-ratings-down-326/
[6]: https://www.status.news/p/cbs-news-ratings-decline-bari-weiss
[7]: https://euobserver.com/203675/how-orban-systematically-suffocated-the-hungarian-media-over-the-past-15-years/
[8]: https://www.wired.com/story/steve-bannon-is-out-of-prison-and-spreading-lies-online/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/16/nobody-including-advertisers-cared-about-bari-weiss-new-cbs-town-hall/
[10]: https://www.netflix.com/title/81920687
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/19/tiktok-deal-done-and-its-somehow-the-shittiest-possible-outcome-making-everything-worse/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/11/things-going-great-at-ellisons-paramount-as-president-gets-mired-in-accusations-of-press-manipulation-and-leaking-company-info/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/cbs-news-under-bari-weiss-sees-worst-ratings-in-quarter-century/

Robert Malone Resigns From ACIP After Internal Squabble Even at ...

2026-03-27T03:24:39Z

Robert Malone Resigns From ACIP After Internal Squabble

Even at the best of times, the hallmark of RFK Jr.’s Health & Human Services is chaos. Whether it’s misinformation on [vaccines][1] and other public health matters, his unique ability to [exit][2] very smart people from public health agencies, or his desire to [upend][3] established government health protocols, it’s a constant frenzy when Kennedy is in charge.

But these aren’t the best of times for Kennedy. In fact, it appears that both legal and political mechanisms are starting to mete out consequences for all the nonsense going on at HHS. It was only days ago that a federal court issued an [injunction][4] on the CDC’s changes to vaccination schedules since Kennedy remade ACIP in his image, and in fact the new ACIP appointments themselves may be illegal. Almost simultaneously, reports came out that the White House is attempting to yank Kennedy and HHS out of the spotlight due to their becoming a [political liability][5] heading into the midterms.

And now, in what will both be a reaction to and furtherance of all of that chaos, Robert Malone has announced [that he is leaving ACIP altogether][6]. Malone is a proud anti-vaxxer and claims to have “invented” mRNA technology, a claim that is heavily disputed, to put it mildly. In the wake of the court’s injunction on ACIP and its recommendations for vaccine schedules, there was reporting that Kennedy was planning to disband ACIP once again and remake it with all new members as a quicker fix than appealing the court’s decision. As a result, Malone jumped straight to social media to claim that’s exactly what happened, before later retracting his statement.

> *On Thursday, Malone claimed on social media that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had [disbanded ACIP and planned to completely reconstitute it (again)][7], without appealing the judge’s ruling or defending Kennedy’s ACIP picks from the judge’s claims that they were unqualified. But soon after, Malone retracted his claim, saying it was a miscommunication and that disbanding ACIP was merely one of the “options being considered.”*

In other words, he took half-baked information and made definitive claims to the masses, claims that turned out to be incorrect. So, you know, basically on par with all of the nonsense he’s spewed about vaccines. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon then had to issue a statement to the press to clean all of this up, stating that anything that doesn’t come directly from him or HHS brass was “baseless speculation”.

And it was that, of all things, that caused Malone to quit.

> *Malone told Roll Call today that Nixon’s response was what led to his departure. “After Andrew trashing me with the press, I am done with the CDC and ACIP,” Malone said in a text message Tuesday morning. “That was the last straw.”*
>
> *“Suffice to say I do not like drama, and have better things to do,” he added.*

And then he went to the New York Times as well.

> *“Hundreds of hours of uncompensated labor, incredible hate from many quarters, hostile press, internal bickering, weaponized leaking, sabotage—I have better things to do,” he said.*

On the one hand, I don’t think much of Malone’s qualifications for being a member of ACIP, so I’m not exactly sad to see him exit stage left. But it is interesting to see that the impression of chaos, infighting, bickering, and internal backstabbing that you get viewing HHS from the outside is mirrored by someone on the inside.

This would be funny if this weren’t a matter of public health. If there weren’t a measles outbreak that is still ongoing in this country (we’re already at 1,487 CDC confirmed cases this year). If some of the public and some doctors didn’t take what comes out of this very important government agency seriously.

But all those things are true. The chaos has to end. And for that to happen, RFK Jr. *must go*.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/28/acip-chair-wonders-aloud-if-we-should-really-be-vaccinating-for-polio-these-days/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/08/maximum-chaos-latest-top-fda-regulator-peaces-out-after-only-3-weeks/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/10/rfk-jr-fires-every-single-member-of-cdcs-immunization-advisory-committee/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/18/u-s-district-court-issues-preliminary-injunction-against-rfk-hhs-for-its-vaccine-schedule-changes/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/robert-malone/
[6]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/03/rfk-jr-anti-vaccine-ally-dramatically-quits-cdc-panel-complaining-of-drama/
[7]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/03/rfk-may-replace-entire-panel-of-cdc-vaccine-advisors-again-ally-lets-slip/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/robert-malone-resigns-from-acip-after-internal-squabble/

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: For Meta Or Worse **[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] is a ...

2026-03-26T23:20:24Z

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: For Meta Or Worse

**[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and [Everything in Moderation][2]‘s Ben Whitelaw. **

**Subscribe now on [Apple Podcasts][3], [Overcast][4], [Spotify][5], [Pocket Casts][6], [YouTube][7], or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to [the RSS feed][8].**

In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:

* [How London become a T&S hub][9] (Everything in Moderation)
* [Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For][10] (Techdirt)
* [Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over Pirated Music][11] (New York Times)
* [US settles social media censorship case, bars agencies from threatening penalties][12] (Reuters)
* [Meta’s latest AI improves its terrible content moderation][13] (The Register)
* [Transparency Report 2025][14] (User Rights)
* [An automated moderation error left Tumblr users panicked][15] (The Verge)

Don’t forget to listen along with Ctrl-Alt-Speech’s [2026 Bingo Card][16] and drop us a line if you win or have ideas for new squares.

[1]: https://ctrlaltspeech.com/
[2]: https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/
[3]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193
[4]: https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193
[5]: https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc
[6]: https://pca.st/zulnarbw
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z
[8]: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss
[9]: https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/london-trust-safety-summit/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-social-media-addiction-verdicts-against-meta-should-understand-what-theyre-actually-cheering-for/
[11]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/us/politics/supreme-court-cox-music-copyright.html
[12]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-settles-social-media-censorship-case-bars-agencies-threatening-penalties-2026-03-24/
[13]: https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/20/meta_ai_content_moderation/
[14]: https://www.user-rights.org/en/transparency-report
[15]: https://www.theverge.com/tech/898402/tumblr-automated-account-bans-march-2026
[16]: https://www.ctrlaltspeech.com/bingo/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/ctrl-alt-speech-for-meta-or-worse/

America’s Self-Proclaimed Free Speech Warrior, Brendan Carr, ...

2026-03-26T19:25:40Z

America’s Self-Proclaimed Free Speech Warrior, Brendan Carr, Gets A Letter Documenting His First Amendment Violations

For years, certain folks on the left kept insisting they wanted to bring back the [Fairness Doctrine][1] — the old FCC policy that required broadcasters to present “both sides” of controversial issues. Many of us in the tech policy world kept explaining why that was a terrible idea, one ripe for abuse and fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment. The FCC itself repealed the Doctrine back in 1987, partly because it found that compelling broadcasters to present multiple views actually *reduced* the quality and volume of coverage on important issues — the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. The requirement to air “both sides” of a controversial story was the kind of burden that just made the broadcast media less willing… to cover controversial stories at all.

Well, congratulations to everyone who wanted to reanimate that corpse. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is doing something remarkably similar — except he’s only using it in one direction (the other problem with the Fairness Doctrine, it depends entirely on the enforcers), to punish outlets that report things the Trump administration doesn’t like, while conveniently leaving alone outlets that parrot the administration’s preferred narratives.

We’ve been [covering Carr’s censorial ambitions for a while now][2]. When Trump picked Carr to chair the FCC, we noted that despite all the “free speech warrior” branding from the administration and the credulous political press that repeated it, Carr had made it abundantly clear he wanted to be America’s top censor. And he’s delivered on that promise with remarkable enthusiasm — going after [CBS over “60 Minutes”][3], threatening [ABC over Jimmy Kimmel’s jokes][4], and most recently [threatening to revoke broadcast licenses][5] of outlets that accurately report on the disastrous war in Iran.

Now, a [broad coalition of more than 80 legal scholars, former FCC officials, and civil society organizations][6] — organized by TechFreedom and signed by groups ranging from the ACLU to EFF to the Knight First Amendment Institute to the Institute for Free Speech — has sent a formal letter to Carr laying out, in meticulous legal detail, exactly how his threats violate the First Amendment. I’m proud to note that our think tank, the Copia Institute, is among the signatories, and this was a very easy decision.

The letter is direct about what Carr is doing:

> *We write concerning your abuse of the “public interest” standard as a weapon against viewpoints you and President Donald Trump do not like. You assert that “[b]roadcasters … are running hoaxes and news distortions – also known as the fake news” in a retweet of a President Donald Trump’s complaint that The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times were the “Fake News Media” because of headlines he alleged were misleading. You threatened that broadcasters who engaged in similar reporting would “lose their licenses” if they do not “correct course before their license renewals come up.” The next day, the President threatened broadcasters and programmers with “Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information!”*

It’s kind of incredible how much of this is absolutely batshit crazy and simply could never have been imagined under any other presidential administration. The President of the United States threatened news outlets with *treason charges* — which carry the death penalty — for reporting things he didn’t like. And the FCC Chairman who spent years claiming to be a “free speech” absolutist, rather than defending the press from this kind of authoritarian nonsense, was the one who teed it up.

The letter does an excellent job of explaining why Carr’s reliance on the vague and essentially dormant “news distortion” policy is legally bankrupt. There’s an important distinction here that Carr is deliberately blurring: the FCC has an actual, codified Broadcast Hoax Rule that is extremely narrow and specific — it applies only when a broadcaster *knowingly* broadcasts false information about a crime or catastrophe, where it’s foreseeable that it will cause substantial public harm, and it actually *does* cause such harm. The FCC has applied it rarely, and typically only in cases involving the outright fabrication of news events like staged kidnappings.

That’s a world apart from what Carr is doing, which is invoking the far vaguer “news distortion” policy to go after headlines the president finds insufficiently flattering. As the letter notes:

> *[Y]our unsupported claim that unnamed broadcasters are engaged in unspecified “hoaxes,” combined with your invocation of the news distortion policy is plainly unconstitutional: it aims to do something the Supreme Court has forbidden—correcting bias or balancing speech—while its vagueness makes good-faith compliance impossible and invites arbitrary enforcement.*

On that Supreme Court point, the letter cites [Moody v. NetChoice][7] (you remember: the Supreme Court case that ended Florida social media content moderation law). Recall, this is the very same Court that many expected would be friendly to conservative arguments about tech platforms supposedly “censoring” conservatives, but instead it made it crystal clear that the government has no business trying to reshape private editorial decisions:

> *In Moody v. Netchoice (2024), the Supreme Court rejected government efforts “to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression — to ‘un-bias’ what it thinks is biased.” “On the spectrum of dangers to free expression,” Moody said, “there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.”*

The letter also draws on [NRA v. Vullo][8], another unanimous Supreme Court decision which [we cite often][9], which held that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” That’s a pretty precise description of what *Carr* is doing when he posts threats on social media about license renewals while his boss muses about treason prosecutions.

The most damning part of the letter is the receipts on Carr’s own hypocrisy. Back in 2019, Carr himself tweeted: “The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the ‘public interest.'”

As the letter dryly observes, if the law were as “clear” as Carr *now* claims, why did he insist the FCC needed to “start a rulemaking” on it?

> *If, as you now claim, the “law is clear,” you would not have needed to suggest in 2024, that “we should start a rulemaking to take a look at what [the public interest standard] means.” In fact, the “public interest” standard becomes less clear each time you invoke it.*

The letter also point out that Carr’s former colleague and mentor Ajit Pai also knows how messed up all this is:

> *Chairman Ajit Pai, your Republican predecessor, could “hardly think of an action more chilling of free speech than the federal government investigating a broadcast station because of disagreement with its news coverage or promotion of that coverage.” You have launched a flurry of such investigations.*

And the letter documents that the chilling effect is already working:

> *Commissioner Anna Gomez has “heard from broadcasters who are telling their reporters to be careful about the way they cover this administration.”*

Even Trump-supporting Republican officials like Ted Cruz have had enough of Brendan Carr’s censorial bullshit:

> *Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) understood that this a “mafioso” tactic “right out of ‘Goodfellas,’” essentially: “‘nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it.”*

The fact that Ted Cruz of all people can see this for what it is should tell you something.

The signatories on this letter are worth noting. Beyond the civil society organizations, you’ve got former FCC officials from both parties, more than fifty First Amendment and communications law scholars from institutions ranging from Harvard to Stanford to Emory, and journalism scholars from across the country. There are people signed onto this letter who don’t agree with each other on much at all.

But on Brendan Carr’s censorship campaign, they all agree — because this really has nothing to do with partisan politics. This is about whether you believe the Constitution means what it says — or whether the First Amendment is just a talking point to wave around when it’s politically convenient and discard when it gets in the way. The same people who spent years fundraising off claims that Biden officials sending cranky emails about COVID misinformation represented an existential threat to free speech are now openly wielding license revocation and treason charges to dictate editorial content.

Look, we know Carr won’t do a damn thing in response to this letter. If anything, he’ll just screenshot parts and post it on X as proof that he’s upsetting the right people. That’s his whole game — the trolling, the culture war posturing, the audition tape for whatever higher office he’s eyeing. He doesn’t actually have to revoke any licenses (and likely couldn’t survive the legal challenge if he tried). The mere threat is the point, because, as the letter explains, the FCC can exercise “regulation by the lifted eyebrow” and hang a “Sword of Damocles” over each broadcaster’s head.

But highlighting the record still matters. When future scholars look back at this period and try to understand how a sitting FCC Chairman openly abandoned the First Amendment in service of a President who thinks “treason” is a synonym for “journalism I don’t like,” the documentation will be there.

And the breadth of the coalition sending this message matters too. This many scholars, former officials, and organizations — many of whom disagree vehemently on plenty of other issues — all looked at what Carr is doing and arrived at the same conclusion: this is unconstitutional, it’s dangerous, and someone needs to say so clearly and publicly, even if the person doing it couldn’t care less.

The letter closes with a quote from the Supreme Court that fits this moment uncomfortably well, drawn from [West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette][10], decided in 1943 when the country faced actual existential threats:

> *“[T]here is ‘one fixed star in our constitutional constellation: that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.'”*

Brendan Carr has decided he can ignore all that and censor at will. He’ll likely ignore this letter too. But unlike Carr, the record doesn’t forget.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/fairness-doctrine/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/27/brendan-carr-makes-it-clear-that-hes-eager-to-be-americas-top-censor/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/24/brendan-carr-trumps-free-speech-warrior-wastes-no-time-violating-trumps-new-free-speech-executive-order/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/cowardly-disney-caves-to-brendan-carrs-bogus-censorial-threats-pulling-jimmy-kimmel/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/17/brendan-carr-pretends-to-be-tough-demands-broadcasters-support-disastrous-war/
[6]: https://techfreedom.org/fcc-threats-against-broadcasters-violate-the-first-amendment/
[7]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-277
[8]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-842
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/vullo/
[10]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/americas-self-proclaimed-free-speech-warrior-brendan-carr-gets-a-letter-documenting-his-first-amendment-violations/

Judge Boots DOJ Prosecutor From Courtroom, Demands To Know ...

2026-03-26T17:46:30Z

Judge Boots DOJ Prosecutor From Courtroom, Demands To Know Who’s Actually Calling The Shots

This judge ain’t fucking around. [Earlier this month][1], we covered New Jersey federal judge Zahid Qurashi’s response to the actions of Trump’s DOJ, which begins with lots of illegal appointments of prosecutors and runs right through these prosecutors’ inability to defend the administration’s actions.

To wit:

> *The Government’s handling of Petitioner’s detention is emblematic of its approach to immigration enforcement in this state. On the merits, its detentions are illegal. The Government knows this. Its reliance on Section 1225 has been roundly rejected.*

And:

> *Sadly, the well-deserved credibility once attached to that distinguished Office is now a presumption that “has been sadly eroded.” The Government’s continued actions after being called to task can now only be deemed intentional.*

Courts have been flooded with immigration cases and vindictive prosecutions targeting Trump’s enemies. They’re fighting back, but even [a massive consensus][2] seems incapable of slowing Trump’s roll.

This case — brought to our attention [by Owen Barcala][3] — involves the sort of serious crimes the administration has put on the back burner so it can flood the immigration enforcement zone. While the administration focuses on ejecting all non-white foreigners from this country while claiming they’re simply seeking out the “worst of worst,” the (alleged) worst of the worst are pretty much being ignored.

Thanks to the [massive amount of turnover][4] at the DOJ, there are not a whole lot of qualified prosecutors left to do the government’s (increasingly) dirty work. In New Jersey, (illegal) appointee [Alina Habba][5] (a former Trump PAC spokesperson/advisor) has already voluntarily stepped down, proving she’s more capable of reading the writing on the wall than her former employer.

In her place, Mark Coyne (in a made-up position meant to shield him from being booted for being illegally appointed) has stepped up to wrap up a child pornography prosecution. It’s not going well for Coyne, [as the New York Times reports][6]:

> *A federal judge threw a top prosecutor from the New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office out of his courtroom during a sentencing hearing this week and demanded that the office’s leadership testify about who had authority over their actions, according to court documents.*
>
> *The rapid sequence of events on Monday in the courtroom of Judge Zahid N. Quraishi was the latest indication of growing tensions between the Justice Department and the federal judiciary in New Jersey. It came during the scheduled sentencing of a man who last year agreed to plead guilty to possession of child pornography.*
>
> *The hearing did not go as prosecutors had planned. Judge Quraishi grew frustrated with the office’s head of appeals, Mark Coyne, who had not formally disclosed that he would appear, and fiercely interrogated a more junior prosecutor about whether the former interim U.S. attorney, Alina Habba, still had some role in operating the office.*

Judge Qurashi referenced an order issued by [federal judge Matthew Brann][7] earlier this month, which declared the three-prosecutor hydra cobbled together by Pam Bondi to be a trio of unlawfully elevated prosecutors. That decision made the court’s displeasure explicit, using emphasis in the ruling to point out that the Trump administration cared more about *who* was running the New Jersey prosecutors’ office, rather than whether it was legally capable of *running at all*.

There are plenty of wonderfully quotable moments [in the transcript of the hearing][8] that ended with the government’s prosecutor being removed from the proceedings by the court.

It starts like this:

> *THE COURT: Mr. Coyne, did you file a notice of appearance in this case?
> MR. COYNE: I did not.
> THE COURT: Are you here for moral support? Because you’re not going to speak.
> **MR. COYNE: I would ask —
> THE COURT: No.
> MR. COYNE: — that the Court allow me to speak.
> THE COURT: Nope.** That’s not the representation made by the Government.*

And then the court continues to riddle his body with bullets:

> *THE COURT: I’m not going to hear from you, Mr. Coyne. If you want to sit there for moral support or hand Mr. Rosenblum Post-its or whisper in his ear, I’ll let you do that as supervisor.*

You’d think a corpse would keep its mouth shut. But Mr. Coyne apparently didn’t realize he was already dead.

The judge asked whether or not the three people Judge Brann had ruled were appointed unlawfully were still running the NJ US Attorney’s office. Mr. Rosenblum claimed he only knew what he’d been told by Mark Coyne, which apparently was nothing more than to shut up and claim ignorance. Unsatisfied with these non-answers and dodgy quasi-denials, Judge Quraishi pressed Rosenblum hard enough that Coyne — who had been directly ordered to sit this one out — felt compelled to respond:

> *THE COURT: What role does Alina Habba have currently in operating your office?
> MR. ROSENBLUM: None that I’m aware of.
> THE COURT: None that you’re aware of.
> MR. ROSENBLUM: None.
> THE COURT: All right. So she could be operating the office.
> MR. COYNE: She is not.
> MR. ROSENBLUM: She’s not.
> MR. COYNE: She is not.
> **THE COURT: Sit down, Mr. Coyne. If you speak again, I’m going to have you removed. I already told you not to speak.
> MR. COYNE: Your Honor —
> THE COURT: You didn’t file a notice of appearance. You don’t get to blindside the Court and do whatever it is you guys want to do. So if you continue to speak, you can leave.
> MR. COYNE: Your Honor —
> THE COURT: Sit down.
> MR. COYNE: — if —
> THE COURT: Sit down.
> MR. COYNE: If a notice of appeal–
> THE COURT: Sit down.
> MR. COYNE: -is entered–
> THE COURT: I’m directing the court security officers to remove Mr. Coyne. ***

And with that, Mr. Coyne exits the court. Voluntarily, according to the transcript, but only voluntarily in the sense that court officers didn’t have to physically restrain him and remove him from the court.

But it’s not like the DOJ prosecutor left in the court room gets to skate by just by being less of an ass that Mark Coyne. Judge Quraishi refers to the order from Judge Brann from earlier in the month — one that specifically warned that if the DOJ kept the same “triumvirate” of illegally appointed US attorneys in that office, that it did so at its own peril.

The closing of the transcript says what so many federal judges think, but have also said in hearings and on the record in rulings and orders: the Trump DOJ has managed to completely destroy the reputation of the Department of Justice, despite having controlled it fully for barely over a year.

> *THE COURT: Here is your risk. This is your risk. *
>
> *So your authority to operate is while [Judge Brann] has stayed the opinion, when he says literally on the last page, you don’t even have to go through all of this. All you have to do is turn to the back and it says “If the government chooses to leave the triumvirate in place, it does so at its own risk.” *
>
> *What you’ve told me today, what your representation is, which I don’t believe by the way. I won’t believe it until you testify. That is what happened to the credibility of your office.**Generations of U.S. Attorneys had built the goodwill of that office for your generation to destroy within a year.***

This damnation isn’t unique. The DOJ is painting itself into a corner all over the nation. Hundreds of judges are no longer willing to take the government at its word. And that gives the government a handful of choices, none of which could be considered “wins.” The DOJ is going to have to dump prosecutions. Or it’s going to have to send its top prosecutors to testify under oath in court (which is way different than simply submitting sworn declarations). Or it’s going to have to go back to respecting the law, starting with the ousting of every illegally appointed US attorney.

The final option, however, isn’t generally considered viable, but it’s the one the administration is most likely to put in motion: ignoring every entity that opposes it while simultaneously telling Americans whose rights it’s trampling that this is the only way to make America great again.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/04/judge-says-hes-sick-of-the-governments-shit-threatens-to-make-dhs-doj-testify-under-oath/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/07/trump-administration-wont-stop-mandatory-detention-of-migrants-despite-200-court-rulings-calling-it-illegal/
[3]: https://bsky.app/profile/obarcala.bsky.social/post/3mhbozapf2k2p
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/22/doj-purge-continues-with-firing-of-prosecutor-who-refused-to-go-after-trumps-personal-enemies/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/alina-habba/
[6]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/17/nyregion/judge-quraishi-new-jersey-attorneys-office.html
[7]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/09/nyregion/us-attorney-nj-prosecutors.html
[8]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/03/17/nyregion/judge-quraishi-hearing-transcript.html

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/judge-boots-doj-prosecutor-from-courtroom-demands-to-know-whos-actually-calling-the-shots/

Daily Deal: The Ultimate AWS Data Master Class Bundle The ...

2026-03-26T17:41:18Z

Daily Deal: The Ultimate AWS Data Master Class Bundle

The [Ultimate AWS Data Master Class Bundle][1] has 9 courses to get you up to speed on Amazon Web Services. The courses cover AWS, DevOPs, Kubernetes Mesosphere DC/OS, AWS Redshift, and more. It’s on sale for $34 with the code **MARCH15** at checkout.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-ultimate-aws-data-master-class-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/daily-deal-the-ultimate-aws-data-master-class-bundle-6/

Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against ...

2026-03-26T16:28:35Z

Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For

First things first: Meta is a terrible company that has spent years [making terrible decisions][1] and being [terrible at explaining][2] the challenges of social media trust & safety, all while [prioritizing growth][3] metrics over user safety. If you’ve been reading Techdirt for any length of time, you know we’ve been critical of the company for years. Mark Zuckerberg deserves zero benefit of the doubt.

So when a New Mexico jury [ordered Meta to pay $375 million][4] on Tuesday for “enabling child exploitation” on its platforms, and a California jury [found Meta and YouTube liable for designing addictive products][5] that supposedly harmed a young user on Wednesday, awarding $6 million in total damages, the reaction from a lot of people was essentially: good, screw ’em, they deserve it.

And on a visceral, emotional level? Sure. Meta deserves to feel bad. Zuckerberg deserves to feel bad.

But if you care about the internet — if you care about free speech online, about small platforms, about privacy, about the ability for anyone other than a handful of tech giants to operate a website where users can post things — these two verdicts should scare the hell out of you. Because the legal theories that were used to nail Meta this week don’t stay neatly confined to companies you don’t like. They will be weaponized against everyone. And they will functionally destroy Section 230 as a meaningful protection, not by repealing it, but by making it irrelevant.

Let me explain.

## The “Design” Theory That Ate Section 230

For years, Section 230 has served as the legal backbone of the internet. If you’re a regular Techdirt reader, you know this. But in case you’re not familiar, here’s the short version: it says that if a user posts something on a website, the website can’t be sued for that user’s content. The person who created the content is liable for it, not the platform that hosted it. That’s it. That’s the core of it. It serves one key purpose: put the liability [on the party who actually does the violative action][6]. It applies to every website and every user of every website, from Meta down to the smallest forum or blog with a comments section or person who retweets or sends an email.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have been trying to get around Section 230 for years, and [these two cases represent them finally finding a formula that works][7]: don’t sue over the *content* on the platform. Sue over the *design* of the platform itself. Argue that features like infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, and notification systems are “product design” choices that are addictive and harmful, separate and apart from whatever content flows through them.

The trial judge in the California case bought this argument, ruling that because the claims were about “product design and other non-speech issues,” Section 230 didn’t apply. The New Mexico court reached a similar conclusion. Both cases then went to trial.

This distinction — between “design” and “content” — sounds reasonable for about three seconds. Then you realize it falls apart completely.

Here’s a thought experiment: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing?

Of course not. Because infinite scroll is not *inherently* harmful. Autoplay is not *inherently* harmful. Algorithmic recommendations are not *inherently* harmful. These features only matter because of the *content* they deliver. The “addictive design” does nothing without the underlying user-generated content that makes people want to keep scrolling.

As Eric Goldman pointed out in his response to the verdicts:

> *The lower court rejected Section 230’s application to large parts of the plaintiffs’ case, holding that the claims sought to impose liability on how social media services configured their offerings and not third-party content. But social media’s offerings consist of third-party content, and the configurations were publishers’ editorial decisions about how to present it. So the line between first-party “design” choices and publication decisions about third-party content seems illusory to me.*

If every editorial decision about how to *present* third-party content is now a “design choice” subject to product liability, Section 230 protects effectively nothing. Every website makes decisions about how to display user content. Every search engine ranks results. Every email provider filters spam. Every forum has a sorting algorithm, even if it’s just “newest first.” All of those are “design choices” that could, theoretically, be blamed for some downstream harm.

The whole point of Section 230 was to keep platforms from being held liable for harms that flow from user-generated content. The “design” theory accomplishes exactly what 230 was meant to prevent — it just uses different words to get there.

Bad defendants make bad law. Meta is unsympathetic. It’s understandable why they get so much hate. It’s understandable why people (including those on juries) are willing to accept legal theories against them that would be obviously problematic if applied to anyone else. But legal precedent doesn’t care about your feelings toward the defendant. What works against Meta works against everyone.

## The Return Of Stratton Oakmont

If this all sounds familiar, it should. This is almost exactly the legal landscape that existed before Section 230 was passed in 1996, and the reason Congress felt it needed to act.

In the early 1990s, Prodigy ran an online service with message boards and made the decision to moderate them to create a more “family-friendly” environment. In the resulting lawsuit, [*Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy*][8], the court ruled that because Prodigy had made editorial choices about what to allow, it was acting as a publisher and could therefore be held liable for everything users posted that it failed to catch.

The perverse incentive was obvious: moderate, and you’re on the hook for everything you miss. Don’t moderate at all, and you’re safer. Congress recognized that this was insane — it punished companies for trying to do the right thing — and passed Section 230 to fix it. The law explicitly said that platforms could moderate content without being treated as the publisher or speaker of that content. And, as multiple courts rightly decided, this was designed to apply to all publisher activity of a platform — every editorial decision, every way to display content. The whole point was to allow online services and users to feel free to make decisions regarding other people’s content, including how to display it, without facing liability for that content.

And a [critical but often overlooked function of Section 230][9] is that it provides a *procedural* shield: it lets platforms get baseless lawsuits dismissed early, before the ruinous costs of discovery and trial.

These two verdicts effectively bring us back to Stratton Oakmont territory through the back door. By recharacterizing platform liability as “product design” liability rather than content liability, plaintiffs’ lawyers have found a way to nullify Section 230 without anyone having to vote to repeal it. Every design decision — moderation algorithms, recommendation systems, notification settings, even the order in which posts appear — can now be characterized by some lawyer as a “defective product” rather than an editorial choice about third-party content.

Except this time, instead of people being horrified by the implications, they’re cheering.

## The Trial Is the Punishment

The dollar amounts in these cases tell an interesting story if you pay attention. The California jury awarded $6 million total — $4.2 million from Meta, $1.8 million from YouTube. For companies that bring in tens of billions in quarterly revenue, that’s effectively nothing. It’s not even a slap on the wrist. Meta will barely notice.

But that’s exactly the problem. The real cost here is the *process*. The California trial lasted six weeks. The New Mexico trial lasted nearly seven. Both involved extensive discovery, depositions of top executives including Zuckerberg himself, production of enormous volumes of internal documents, and armies of lawyers on both sides.

Meta can afford that. Google can afford that. You know who can’t? Basically everyone else who runs a platform where users post things.

And this is already happening. TikTok and Snap were also named as defendants in the California case. They both settled before trial — not because they necessarily thought they’d lose on the merits, but because the cost of fighting through a multi-week jury trial can be staggering. If companies the size of TikTok and Snap can’t stomach the expense, imagine what this means for mid-size platforms, small forums, or individual website operators.

The California case is just the first of multiple “bellwether” trials scheduled in the near future. Hundreds of federal cases are lined up behind those. There are over 1,600 plaintiffs in the consolidated California litigation alone. As Goldman noted:

> *Together, these rulings indicate that juries are willing to impose major liability on social media providers based on claims of social media addiction. That liability exposure jeopardizes the entire social media industry. There are thousands of other plaintiffs with pending claims; and with potentially millions of dollars at stake for each victim, many more will emerge. The total amount of damages at issue could be many tens of billions of dollars.*

This is the Stratton Oakmont problem all over again, but worse. At least in 1995, only companies that *moderated* faced liability. Now, any company that makes any “design choice” about how to present user content — which is to say, literally every platform on the internet — is potentially on the hook if any harm comes to any user which some lawyer can claim was because they used that service. The lawsuit becomes a weapon regardless of outcome, because the cost of defending yourself is ruinous for anyone who isn’t a trillion-dollar company.

## The Encryption Problem: Where “Design Liability” Leads

If the “design choices create liability” framework seems worrying in the abstract, the New Mexico case provides a concrete example of where it leads in practice.

One of the key pieces of evidence the New Mexico attorney general used against Meta was the company’s 2023 decision to add end-to-end encryption to Facebook Messenger. The argument went like this: predators used Messenger to groom minors and exchange child sexual abuse material. By encrypting those messages, Meta made it harder for law enforcement to access evidence of those crimes. Therefore, the encryption was a design choice that enabled harm.

The state is now seeking court-mandated changes including “protecting minors from encrypted communications that shield bad actors.”

Yes, the end result of the New Mexico ruling might be that Meta is ordered to make everyone’s communications less secure. That should be terrifying to everyone. Even those cheering on the verdict.

End-to-end encryption protects billions of people from surveillance, data breaches, authoritarian governments, stalkers, and domestic abusers. It’s one of the most important privacy and security tools ordinary people have. Every major security expert and civil liberties organization in the world has argued for stronger encryption, not weaker.

But under the “design liability” theory, implementing encryption becomes evidence of negligence, because a small number of bad actors also use encrypted communications. The logic applies to literally every communication tool ever invented. Predators also use the postal service, telephones, and in-person conversation. The encryption *itself* harms no one. Like infinite scroll and autoplay, it is inert without the choices of bad actors — choices made by *people*, not by the platform’s design.

The incentive this creates goes far beyond encryption, and it’s bad. If any product improvement that protects the majority of users can be held against you because a tiny fraction of bad actors exploit it, companies will simply stop making those improvements. Why add encryption if it becomes Exhibit A in a future lawsuit? Why implement any privacy-protective feature if a plaintiff’s lawyer will characterize it as “shielding bad actors”?

And it gets worse. Some of the most damaging evidence in both trials came from internal company documents where employees raised concerns about safety risks and discussed tradeoffs. These were played up in the media (and the courtroom) as “smoking guns.” But that means no company is going to allow anyone to raise concerns ever again. That’s very, very bad.

In a sane legal environment, you *want* companies to have these internal debates. You want engineers and safety teams to flag potential risks, wrestle with difficult tradeoffs, and document their reasoning. But when those good-faith deliberations become plaintiff’s exhibits presented to a jury as proof that “they knew and did it anyway,” the rational corporate response is to stop putting anything in writing. Stop doing risk assessments. Stop asking hard questions internally.

The lesson every general counsel in Silicon Valley is learning right now: ignorance is safer than inquiry. That makes everyone less safe, not more.

## The Causation Problem

We also need to talk about the actual evidence of harm in these cases, because it’s thinner than most people realize.

The California plaintiff, known as KGM, testified that she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, and that her social media use caused depression, self-harm, body dysmorphic disorder, and social phobia. Those are real and serious harms that genuinely happened to a real person, and no one should minimize her suffering.

But as Goldman noted:

> *KGM’s life was full of trauma. The social media defendants argued that the harms she suffered were due to that trauma and not her social media usage. (Indeed, there was some evidence that social media helped KGM cope with her trauma). It is highly likely that most or all of the other plaintiffs in the social media addiction cases have sources of trauma in their lives that might negate the responsibility of social media.*

The jury was asked whether the companies’ negligence was “a substantial factor” in causing harm. Not *the* factor. Not the primary factor. *A* substantial factor.

This standard is doing enormous work here, and nobody in the coverage seems to be paying attention to it. In most product liability cases, causation is relatively straightforward: the car’s brakes failed, the car crashed, the plaintiff was injured. You can trace a mechanical chain of events. There needs to be a clear causal chain between the product and the harm.

But what’s the equivalent chain here? The plaintiff scrolled Instagram, saw content that made her feel bad about her body, developed body dysmorphic disorder? Which content? Which scroll session? How do you isolate the “design” from the specific posts she saw, the comments she read, the accounts she followed?

With a standard that loose, applied to a teenager with multiple documented sources of trauma in her life, how do you disentangle what was caused by social media and what was caused by everything else? The honest answer is: you can’t. And neither could the jury, not with any scientific rigor. They made a judgment call based on vibes and sympathy — which is what juries do, but it’s a terrifying foundation for reshaping internet law.

The research on social media’s causal relationship to teen mental health problems is incredibly weak. Over and over and over again researchers have tried to find a causal link. [And failed][10]. Every time.

Lots of people (including related to both these cases) keep comparing social media to things like cigarettes or lead paint. But, as we’ve discussed, [that’s a horrible comparison][11]. Cigarettes cause cancer regardless of what else is happening in a smoker’s life. Lead paint causes neurological damage regardless of a child’s home environment. Social media is not like that. The relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes is complex, highly individual, and mediated by dozens of confounding factors that researchers are still trying to untangle.

And, also, neither cigarettes nor lead paint are speech. The issues involving social media are all about speech. And yes, speech can be powerful. It can both delight and offend. It can make people feel wonderful or horrible. But we protect speech, in part, because it’s so powerful.

But a jury doesn’t need to untangle those factors. A jury just needs to feel that a sympathetic plaintiff was harmed and that a deeply unsympathetic defendant probably had something to do with it. And when the defendant is Mark Zuckerberg, that’s a very easy emotional call to make. Which is exactly why this is so dangerous as precedent. If “a substantial factor” is the standard, and the defendant’s internal documents showing employees *discussing concerns about safety* count as proof of wrongdoing, then essentially any plaintiff who used social media and experienced mental health difficulties has a viable lawsuit. Multiply that by every teenager in America and you start to see the scale of the problem.

Then recognize that this applies to *everything* on the internet, not just the companies you hate. A Discord server for a gaming community uses a bot to surface active conversations — design choice. A small forum for chronic illness patients sends email notifications when someone replies to your post — design choice. A blog lets readers comment on articles and notifies writers when they do — design choice. A local news site has a comments section that displays newest-first — design choice. Every one of these could theoretically be characterized as “features that increase engagement” and therefore potential vectors of liability.

And the claims of “addiction” are even worse. As we’ve discussed, studies show very little support for the idea that “social media addiction” is a real thing, but [many people believe it is][12]. But it’s not difficult for a lawyer to turn anything that makes people want to use a service more into a claimed “addictive” feature. Oh, that forum has added gifs? That makes people use it more! Sue!

Yes, some of these may sound crazy, but lawyers are going to start suing everyone, and the sites you like are going to be doing everything they can to appease them, which will involve making services way worse.

## Who’s Not in the Room

There’s also something that got zero attention in either trial: the people for whom social media is genuinely, meaningfully beneficial.

Goldman’s observation on this deserves to be read carefully:

> *Due to the legal pressure from the jury verdicts and the enacted and pending legislation, the social media industry faces existential legal liability and inevitably will need to reconfigure their core offerings if they can’t get broad-based relief on appeal. While any reconfiguration of social media offerings may help some victims, the changes will almost certainly harm many other communities that rely upon and derive important benefits from social media today. Those other communities didn’t have any voice in the trial; and their voices are at risk of being silenced on social media as well.*

LGBTQ+ teenagers in hostile communities who [find support and connection online][13]. People with rare diseases who [find communities of fellow patients][14]. Activists in authoritarian countries who use social media to organize. Artists and creators who built careers on these platforms. People with disabilities who rely on social media as their primary social outlet. None of them were in that courtroom. None of them had a voice in the proceedings that will reshape the platforms they depend on.

When platforms are forced to “reconfigure their core offerings” to reduce liability — which could mean anything from removing algorithmic recommendations to eliminating features that enable connection and discovery — the costs won’t fall evenly. Meta and Google will survive. They’ll make their products blander, less useful, and more locked down. It’s the users who relied on those features who will pay the price.

## Bad Defendants Make Bad Law

Both Meta and YouTube have said they will appeal, and they have plausible grounds. The product liability theory applied to what are fundamentally speech platforms raises serious First Amendment questions. The Section 230 issue — whether “design choices” about presenting third-party content are really just editorial decisions that 230 was designed to protect — will almost certainly get a serious look from appellate courts. The causation questions are genuinely unresolved.

But appeals take years. In the meantime, every plaintiffs’ attorney in America now has a proven template for suing any social media platform. The bellwether structure means more trials are already scheduled — the next California state court one is in July, with a similar federal case starting in June. The litigation flood has started, and 230’s procedural protection — the ability to get these cases dismissed before they become multi-million-dollar ordeals — has already been neutralized.

Goldman is right to frame this as existential:

> *There are thousands of other plaintiffs with pending claims; and with potentially millions of dollars at stake for each victim, many more will emerge. The total amount of damages at issue could be many tens of billions of dollars.*

None of this means the harms kids face don’t deserve serious attention. They do. There are ways to address legitimate concerns about teen mental health that don’t require treating every editorial decision about third-party content as a defective product — but they involve hard, unglamorous work, like actually funding mental health care for young people.

But suing Meta is more fun!

Meta can absorb tens of billions. But this legal theory doesn’t apply only to Meta. It applies to every platform that makes “design choices” about how to present content — which again, is every platform. The next wave of lawsuits won’t just target trillion-dollar companies. They’ll target anyone with a recommendation algorithm, a notification system, or an infinite scroll feature, which in 2025 is basically everyone.

We got Section 230 because Congress looked at the *Stratton Oakmont* decision and realized the legal system had created a set of incentives that would destroy the open internet. The incentive now is arguably worse: not just “don’t moderate” but “don’t build anything that makes user-generated content engaging, discoverable, or easy to access, because if someone is harmed by that content, the way you presented it makes you liable.”

I get why people are cheering. Meta is a bad company that has made bad choices and treated its users badly. Zuckerberg has earned most of the contempt coming his way. Kids have been genuinely harmed, and the instinct to want someone powerful to be held accountable is about as human as it gets.

But bad defendants make bad law. And the law being made here — that platforms are liable for the “design” of how they present the third-party content that is their entire reason for existing — will not stay confined to companies you don’t like. It will be used against every website, every app, every platform, every small operator who ever made a choice about how to display user-generated content. It will make Section 230 a dead letter without anyone having to vote to repeal it. It will create a legal environment where only the largest companies can afford to operate, because only they can absorb the cost of endless litigation.

What you won’t get out of this is anything approaching “accountability.” You’ll get overly lawyered-up systems that prevent you from doing useful things online, and eventually the end of the open internet — cheered on by people who think they’re punishing a bully but are actually handing the bully’s biggest competitors a death sentence.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2018/03/22/wherein-facebook-loses-recess-everyone/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/16/rogan-misses-the-mark-how-zucks-misdirection-on-govt-pressure-goes-unchallenged/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/05/rethinking-facebook-we-need-to-make-sure-that-good-world-is-more-important-than-good-facebook/
[4]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/24/meta-new-mexico-jury?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky&CMP=bsky_gu
[5]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/mar/25/jury-verdict-us-first-social-media-addiction-trial-meta-youtube
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/23/how-to-know-whether-section-230-applies/
[7]: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/03/comments-on-the-jury-verdict-in-the-los-angeles-social-media-addiction-bellwether-trial.htm
[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/18/new-paper-why-section-230-is-better-than-first-amendment/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-study-says-theres-no-evidence-that-social-media-is-inherently-harmful-to-teens/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/28/no-social-media-is-not-the-same-thing-as-lead-paint/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/the-social-media-addiction-narrative-may-be-more-harmful-than-social-media-itself/
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/30/a-deeper-look-at-the-surgeon-generals-report-on-kids-social-media-its-not-what-you-heard/
[14]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/28/social-media-was-useful-for-me-as-an-ill-nerdy-teenager/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/everyone-cheering-the-social-media-addiction-verdicts-against-meta-should-understand-what-theyre-actually-cheering-for/

Trump Issues Meaningless Executive Order To Try And Protect Larry ...

2026-03-26T12:26:41Z

Trump Issues Meaningless Executive Order To Try And Protect Larry Ellison’s CBS (And The Army Navy Game) From Competition

FCC boss Brendan Carr spends an awful lot of time [pretending to be a tough guy][1], threatening any broadcasters that aren’t suitably deferential to our mad, idiot king. Carr’s had giant temper tantrums over [comedians who make jokes][2], daytime and late night talk shows that [refuse to kiss Republican ass][3], and any remaining [journalists][4] who critically cover the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.

Now Trump and Carr have something else to whine about pointlessly. Despite everything going on (including a disastrous, economy-rattling war), Trump somehow found time to [write an executive order][5] threatening any broadcasters that might pre-empt the Army Navy college football game as the college football playoffs expand:

> *“For over a century, the Army-Navy Game, known as “America’s Game,” has stood as a symbol of excellence and the American spirit. Now, the recent and potentially ongoing expansion of the College Football Playoffs (CFP) and other postseason college football games threatens to encroach upon the second Saturday in December — a date traditionally reserved exclusively for “America’s Game.” Such scheduling conflicts weaken the national focus on our Military Service Academies and detract from a morale-building event of vital interest to the Department of War.”*

Here’s where I’ll point out that CBS Sports, now owned by right wing Trump ally David Ellison, [holds the exclusive broadcast rights][6] to this particular game. The broadcast rights of the other earlier round games encroaching on CBS’ turf (which have [been doing better in the ratings][7]) are owned by ESPN/Disney/ABC. Many of these are, I’ll point out, on cable, not broadcast.

It’s entirely possible that Larry or his nepobaby son called the president, whined about the competition, and the president immediately got to “work” addressing the problem under the pretense of patriotism. Or who knows what caused the President to suddenly care about the TV schedule of college football games. With an executive order that **isn’t legal or enforceable** and very likely means nothing because **Trump can’t wave his hand and magically influence private scheduling organizations**.

Curiously, if you read the [New York Times story][8] about this decision, the fact that it’s a top Trump donor, Ellison, who would benefit from this EO, simply isn’t mentioned. They didn’t think that was relevant. Same at the [Associated Press][9]. Same (of course) [over at CBS][10], which talks about patriotism and “tradition,” but not the fact this EO was designed primarily to protect the interests of a Trump billionaire ally.

And none of those outlets also thought it was worth mentioning this EO likely means nothing and Trump has no serious power here. It’s another lovely example of how corporate media is building “journalism” in name only. Weird, hollow, pseudo-journalistic simulacrum designed to look like journalism that **doesn’t actually inform** anybody about what’s actually happening.

Anyway, Trump has tasked his personal earlobe nibbler, Carr, to once again threaten anybody who makes Republicans (and their oligarch friends) sad:

> *“The Chairman of the FCC shall consider reviewing the public interest obligations of broadcast licensees to determine whether those obligations would require that the Army-Navy Game remain a national service event.”*

Trump and Carr are comically abusing the (fleeting and barely enforced) public interest standards affixed to broadcast television licenses in an industry that’s dramatically losing viewership (just 20% of all TV viewing was over broadcast last year, an all time low). Even if Trump **did** have the authority to try and stop broadcast TV competition in its tracks, this sad little pseudo-patriotic gambit still wouldn’t mean much.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/24/brendan-carr-is-a-shameless-liar-now-pretending-he-didnt-break-the-law-and-censor-comedians-critical-of-his-dim-unpopular-boss/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/24/the-right-wing-zealots-at-sinclair-broadcasting-push-their-luck-refuse-to-put-jimmy-kimmel-back-on-the-air/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/27/brendan-carr-again-threatens-talk-shows-that-refuse-to-coddle-republicans/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/merger-synergies-cbs-news-fires-workers-shutters-100-year-old-cbs-radio/
[5]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/preserving-americas-game/
[6]: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7134481/2026/03/20/president-trump-issues-executive-order-aimed-at-protecting-army-navy-games-solo-time-slot/
[7]: https://www.footballscoop.com/2026/01/26/100-most-watched-games-2025-college-football-season
[8]: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7134481/2026/03/20/president-trump-issues-executive-order-aimed-at-protecting-army-navy-games-solo-time-slot/?unlocked_article_code=1.V1A.8k7V._UCRvrh87LJh&source=athletic_user_shared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta
[9]: https://apnews.com/article/trump-army-navy-game-cfp-05a8a6888b21f1f6bac3feee8f34cef6
[10]: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/donald-trump-army-navy-game-executive-order/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/26/trump-issues-meaningless-executive-order-to-try-and-protect-larry-ellisons-cbs-and-the-army-navy-game-from-competition/

The Casey Means Surgeon General Nomination Appears To Be In ...

2026-03-26T03:00:32Z

The Casey Means Surgeon General Nomination Appears To Be In Trouble

It’s somewhat stunning to realize that the United States has been operating with Surgeon Generals that are merely “acting” in the role or “performing the duties of” [since January 20th of 2025][1]. The last Senate-confirmed SG was Dr. Vivek Murthy. The current nominee from the Trump/Kennedy team is Dr. Casey Means. This nomination has been [languishing][2] since May of *last year*. There has been plenty of pushback on her, due largely to her current profession as “wellness influencer” and the fact that she didn’t complete her residency and doesn’t have a license to practice in any of our 50 states.

She recently went before the Senate for her confirmation hearing and it, um, didn’t go all that well. As a result, it appears her nomination is very much in trouble. There are several GOP senators who are [publicly expressing doubts about her][3], perhaps none more important then Bill Cassidy.

> *Senators Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) all expressed concern in a confirmation hearing last month about her potential role and appear to remain doubtful. Just one of those senators may be enough to block her nomination from advancing beyond the Senate Health Committee.*
>
> *Afterward, Senators Collins and Murkowski both said they still had questions. Murkowski also said she had “strong reservations” about Means’ nomination and that, as of last week, that opinion hadn’t changed, according to the Post.*

So why did the confirmation hearing go so poorly? For some reasons you’d expect, and some you probably didn’t. Means mostly ducked questions about vaccines, giving interested senators no idea where she actually lands on the issue. There were also perfectly reasonable questions about her qualifications, given that she is not currently a practicing doctor of any kind. In her influencer career, she has mirrored much of what RFK Jr. has claimed about diet and exercise being the cure to most health issues, all while hocking your stereotypical supplements and magic potions.

But then there are the drugs and the lunar-worship.

> *A book that she co-authored with her brother, titled Good Energy, considered by some to be the “MAHA bible,” contains a chapter titled, “Trust Yourself, Not Your Doctor.” She has also [drawn criticism][4] for writing about taking magic mushrooms, consulting a “spiritual medium,” and participating in “full moon ceremonies.”*

I won’t say I’m against the use of psychedelics generally, but I typically don’t love hearing about how great they are from my doctor.

As we’ve talked about before, it has become very clear that Kennedy simply lied a whole bunch in his own confirmation hearings as to what he would do as Secretary at HHS, particularly when it comes to vaccines. The thing about lying to people like Bill Cassidy, though, is now Kennedy needs him to confirm his hand-picked ally for Surgeon General.

And unless Cassidy is far stupider than I think he is, you have to believe he isn’t going to let Lucy pull the football away at the last moment for a second time.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/09/new-us-surgeon-general-nominee-is-rfk-jr-s-favorite-wellness-influencer/
[3]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/03/trumps-maha-pick-for-surgeon-general-flounders-amid-gop-doubts/
[4]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/20/surgeon-general-casey-means-nomination/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/the-casey-means-surgeon-general-nomination-appears-to-be-in-trouble/

An Open Letter To Members Of The United States Congress I think ...

2026-03-25T22:05:19Z

An Open Letter To Members Of The United States Congress

I think we can all agree that nobody seems to be taking the business of governing ourselves terribly seriously.

I say we can all agree on this because I think we all know that Donald Trump is a deranged, narcissistic criminal. We know this. Even those of you who nominally support him — because you have convinced yourself that he is the only thing standing between you and everything you hold dear, however you define that.

For some of you, I think the answer is quite pathetic, if we are being honest. The relationships you have built with your donors, with your executive networks, with all the perquisites that come with being an insider — you simply want to hold on to that, because you feel like that is where the action is. That is power. That is being somebody. That is mattering.

The truth is, you do matter. You hold a seat in the Congress of the United States. The most beautiful idea in the history of human civilization: that a people could govern themselves. Without a king or potentate. We used to be quite proud of that in this country. That we brought the ancient yearning to breathe free from the bondage of primitive hierarchies into the world by founding a republic of laws. Not of men. Not of women. Of laws.

⁂

You are, in some ways, the most powerful people who have ever lived in the history of human civilization. Because you, as members of the Article I Branch, have all the power you need to bring an end to this — if you can remember that you are human beings and Americans, and awaken to some semblance of your humanity. If you can make good on your Oath of Office: to defend the Constitution of the United States, that was fought and died for, that is burning before the eyes of history. You are its sworn stewards.

And yet you stand still.

⁂

An unconstitutional war has been started without your authorization. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The largest liquid natural gas facility in the Gulf is in flames. The supply shock now working its way through global energy, transportation, and food chains will make the inflation of 2021 to 2023 look like a mild inconvenience. That crisis destabilized governments across the democratic world and handed demagogues the opening they needed. What is coming is not in the same category.

A foreign head of state — a corrupt, post-truth demagogue, operating under criminal indictment in his own country, who attempted to seize control of his nation’s Supreme Court to keep himself out of jail, who channeled money to Hamas to pursue a divide-and-rule strategy against his own political opponents — has manipulated the machinery of the United States federal government, under color of Article II, to commit this nation to armed conflict without the consent of the governed. Without your vote. Without your authorization. In direct violation of the constitutional order you swore to defend.

Trump should already have been impeached and removed for giving the directive. That you have not done so is a fact history will record with considerable unkindness.

⁂

So as you look back on history, and think toward the future — do you simply have no shame? Do you feel nothing for the suffering you are permitting to persist? For the crimes that continue to accumulate? For the breach of sacred faith with those who gave the full measure of their devotion to this country, so that it might be free?

You can stop this. You have the power. The Constitution gave it to you precisely for moments like this one — precisely because the founders understood that executives with unchecked power tend, in time, toward exactly what we are watching now. They designed a remedy. They placed it in your hands.

The most powerful legislative body in the history of human civilization is watching the republic burn, and doing nothing, because its members have decided that their donor relationships and their insider access and their sense of being somebody matter more than the Oath they took, the Constitution they swore to defend, and the people whose lives are about to get very much worse because of a war they did not authorize and cannot stop.

You can quite literally help save the world. Because it needs saving right now.

I suggest you save it.

— Mike Brock

*God bless America. May the Star-Spangled Banner yet wave over these lands.*

*Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his [Notes From the Circus][1]*.

[1]: https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/an-open-letter-to-members-of-the

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/an-open-letter-to-members-of-the-united-states-congress/

Judge Rejects Government’s Weak Attempt To Memory-Hole DOGE ...

2026-03-25T20:07:42Z

Judge Rejects Government’s Weak Attempt To Memory-Hole DOGE Deposition Videos

Last week we covered how [the government successfully convinced][1] Judge Colleen McMahon to order the plaintiffs in the DOGE/National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) lawsuit to “claw back” the viral deposition videos they had posted to YouTube — videos showing DOGE operatives Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh stumbling through questions about how they used ChatGPT to decide which humanities grants to kill, and struggling mightily to define “DEI” despite it apparently being the entire basis for their work.

The government’s argument was that the videos had led to harassment and death threats against Fox and Cavanaugh — the same two who had no problem obliterating hundreds of millions in already approved grants with [a simplistic ChatGPT prompt][2], but apparently couldn’t handle the public seeing them struggle to explain themselves under oath. The government argued the videos needed to come down. The judge initially agreed and ordered the plaintiffs to pull them. As we noted at the time, archivists had already uploaded copies to the Internet Archive and distributed them as torrents, because that’s how the internet works.

Well, now Judge McMahon has issued [a full ruling on the government’s motion for a protective order][3], and has reversed course. The government’s motion is denied. [The videos are now back up][4]. There are hours and hours of utter nonsense for you to enjoy. Here are just a couple of the videos:

The ruling is worth reading in full, because McMahon manages to be critical of *both* sides while ultimately landing firmly against the government’s attempt to suppress the videos. She spends a good chunk of the opinion scolding the plaintiffs for what she clearly views as a procedural end-run — they sent the full deposition videos to chambers on a thumb drive without ever filing them on the docket or seeking permission to do so, which she sees as a transparent attempt to manufacture a “judicial documents” argument that would give the videos a presumption of public access.

McMahon doesn’t buy it:

> *When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court wants only those portions of a deposition on which a movant actually relies, and does not want to be burdened with irrelevant testimony merely because counsel chose to, or found it more convenient to, submit it. And because videos cannot be filed on the public docket without leave of court, there was no need for the rule to contain a specific reference to video transcriptions; the only way to get such materials on the docket (and so before the Court) was to make a motion, giving the Court the opportunity to decide whether the videos should be publicly docketed. This Plaintiffs did not do.*
>
> *But if Plaintiffs wanted to know whether the Court’s rule applied to video-recorded depositions, they could easily have sought clarification – just as they could easily have filed a motion seeking leave to have the Clerk of Court accept the videos and place them on the public record. Again, they did not. At the hearing held on March 17, 2026, on Defendants’ present motion for a protective order, counsel for ACLS Plaintiffs, Daniel Jacobson, acknowledged the reason, stating “Frankly, your Honor, part of it was just the amount of time that it would have taken” to submit only the portions of the videos on which Plaintiffs intended to rely. Hr’g Tr., 15:6–7. In other words, “It would have been too much work.” That is not an acceptable excuse.*
>
> *The Court is left with the firm impression that at least “part of” the reason counsel did not ask for clarification was because they wished to manufacture a “judicial documents” argument and did not wish to be told they could not do so. The Court declines to indulge that tactic.*

Fair enough. But having knocked the plaintiffs for their procedural maneuver, the judge then turns to the actual question: has the government shown “good cause” under Rule 26(c) to justify a protective order keeping the videos off the internet? And the answer is a pretty resounding no. And that’s because public officials acting in their official capacities have significantly diminished privacy interests in their official conduct:

> *The Government’s motion fails for three independent reasons. First, the materials at issue concern the conduct of public officials acting in their official capacities, which substantially diminishes any cognizable privacy interest and weighs against restriction. Second, the Government has not made the particularized showing of a “clearly defined, specific and serious injury” required by Rule 26(c). Third, the Government has not demonstrated that the prospective relief it seeks would be effective in preventing the harms it identifies, particularly where those harms arise from the conduct of third-party actors beyond the control of the parties.*

She cites [Garrison v. Louisiana][5] (the case that extended the “actual malice” standard from NY Times v. Sullivan) for the proposition that the public’s interest “necessarily includes anything which might touch on an official’s fitness for office,” and that “[f]ew personal attributes are more germane to fitness for office than dishonesty, malfeasance, or improper motivation.” Given that these depositions are literally about how government officials decided to terminate hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, that framing fits.

The judge also directly calls out the government’s arguments about harassment and reputational harm, and essentially says: that’s the cost of being a public official whose official conduct is being scrutinized. Suck it up, DOGE bros.

> *Reputational injury, public criticism, and even harsh commentary are not unexpected consequences of disclosing information about public conduct. They are foreseeable incidents of public scrutiny concerning government action. Where, as here, the material sought to be shielded by a protective order is testimony about the actions of government officials acting in their official capacities, embarrassment and reputational harm arising from the public’s reaction to official conduct is not the sort of harm against which Rule 26(c) protects. Public officials “accept certain necessary consequences” of involvement in public affairs, including “closer public scrutiny than might otherwise be the case.”*

As for the death threats and harassment — which McMahon explicitly says she takes seriously and calls “deeply troubling” and “highly inappropriate” — she notes that there are actual laws against threats and cyberstalking, and that Rule 26(c) protective orders aren’t a substitute for law enforcement doing its job:

> *There are laws against threats and harassment; the Government and its witnesses have every right to ask law enforcement to take action against those who engage in such conduct, by enforcing federal prohibitions on interstate threats and cyberstalking, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 875(c), 2261A, as well as comparable state laws. Rule 26(c) is not a substitute for those remedies.*

And then there’s the practical reality McMahon acknowledges directly: it’s too damn late. The videos have already spread everywhere. A protective order aimed solely at the plaintiffs would accomplish approximately nothing.

> *At bottom, the Government has not shown that the relief it seeks is capable of addressing the harm it identifies. The videos have already been widely disseminated across multiple platforms, including YouTube, X, TikTok, Instagram, and Reddit, where they have been shared, reposted, and viewed by at least hundreds of thousands of users, resulting in near-instantaneous and effectively permanent global distribution. This is a predictable consequence of dissemination in the modern digital environment, where content can be copied, redistributed, and indefinitely preserved beyond the control of any single actor. Given this reality, a protective order directed solely at Plaintiffs would not meaningfully limit further dissemination or mitigate the Government’s asserted harms.*

Separately, the plaintiffs asked for attorney’s fees, and McMahon denied that too, noting that she wasn’t going to “reward Plaintiffs for bypassing its procedures” even though the government’s motion ultimately failed. So everyone gets a little bit scolded here. But the bottom line is clear: you don’t get to send unqualified DOGE kids to nuke hundreds of millions in grants using a ChatGPT prompt, and then ask a court to hide the video of them trying to explain themselves under oath.

Releasing full deposition videos is certainly not the norm, but given that these are government officials who were making massively consequential decisions with a chatbot and no discernible expertise, the world is much better off with this kind of transparency — even if Justin and Nate had to face some people on the internet making fun of them for it.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/16/turns-out-the-doge-bros-who-killed-humanities-grants-are-kinda-sensitive-about-it/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/19/doge-bros-grant-review-process-was-literally-just-asking-chatgpt-is-this-dei/
[3]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.641679/gov.uscourts.nysd.641679.270.0.pdf
[4]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtafkoYGge2LHfM4tHkrxdfuGrqz_iEbp
[5]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/4

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/judge-rejects-governments-weak-attempt-to-memory-hole-doge-deposition-videos/

Gov’t Admits More Than 100 Asylum Seekers Were Deported In ...

2026-03-25T18:02:54Z

Gov’t Admits More Than 100 Asylum Seekers Were Deported In Violation Of A *Single* Court Order

By any means, necessary or not: that’s how this administration gets its bigoted version of immigration enforcement done. The surges targeting cities and states that Trump doesn’t feel are loyal enough are a double-edged sword. [They punish states][1] run by Democratic party members simply for being run by Democratic party members. And they flood courts with more cases than they can possibly handle, allowing the government to deny rights/deport people at scale.

The government doesn’t always get away with it. But given the scale, the government generally doesn’t get reined in until long after massive amounts of damage has been done.

That’s the case here in Maryland, where [a lawsuit, that was initiated shortly][2] after Trump began sending Venezuelans to [El Salvador’s hellhole prison][3] for purely punitive reasons, continues to play out. It involves a Venezuelan asylum seeker who was ejected from the country via Trump’s [non-wartime invocation][4] of the Alien Enemies Act to excuse the government’s refusal to respect due process rights.

As is the case with [many federal judges][5] dealing with Trump’s war on migrants, Maryland federal judge Stephanie Gallagher no longer takes the government at its word. That’s why she has been ordering immigration officials to testify in court, where they can be cross-examined and/or questioned by the judge herself.

And that’s the last thing *this* government wants, because it can’t even survive the minimal judicial scrutiny of its filed motions, which are usually crafted by teams of lawyers and not by the front-line employees and supervisors judges are ordering to testify.

[David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo attended a recent hearing][6] hosted by Judge Gallagher in this long-running case. Gallagher and the plaintiff’s attorney wanted to know why the government seemed to be violating an existing court order when it wrongfully removed *two* other asylum seekers in February.

What they heard instead was the perhaps inadvertent admission by the government that the three known (and potentially illegal removals) being discussed were pretty much just a rounding error:

> *Before today, the number of wrongfully deported asylum seekers in the case was thought to be less than a dozen. But under persistent questioning from plaintiff’s counsel, **U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officer Kimberly Sicard testified that in the past three to four weeks it had come to her attention that more than 100 asylum seekers covered by the settlement agreement have been removed.** She put the number in the “low 100s.”*

That’s insane. Those are the actions of a government that truly does not care what illegal acts it engages in so long as they contribute to the end goal of [subtracting non-white people][7] from this nation.

And it’s obviously intentional. That much was made clear in Sicard’s testimony.

> *Asked how the additional removals had come to her attention, Sicard said she wasn’t sure of the exact process but that officials had “queried systems.” As part of the process of notifying ICE of the wrongful removals, the matter went to the office of chief counsel at USCIS three to four weeks ago, Sicard said.*

That means the government can query its detention databases in order to prevent possibly illegal removals. It also means the government can find out how many illegal removals it might have engaged in. The “three or four weeks” just means the USCIS chief counsel spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to legally justify illegal removals that now total in the “low hundreds.” And it means all of these things are either rarely used (or, more likely, deliberately ignored) by government agencies that have all been tasked with respecting rights *first* and carrying out their missions *second*.

Speaking of ignoring things, this revelation may never have occurred if the government had even *attempted* to comply with the judge’s previous court order:

> *The revelation was the pinnacle of a day of frustration for Gallagher. She had listed in her order calling the hearing five topics on which she expected the Trump administration to produce witnesses “with personal knowledge” to testify. **The government failed to produce such witnesses.***

“Failed” just means “refused” under Trump and his bigoted sidekicks. Because this administration felt this was just another court order it could ignore, someone without “personal knowledge” of the topics under discussion was sent to court to take the heat. And because she wasn’t expected to offer anything but shrugs, the USCIS lawyer responded honestly to questions that apparently weren’t covered by whatever minimal guidance DHS offered before she was put on the stand.

It’s this sort of sloppy arrogance that’s going to continue to derail some of the worst things this administration wants to do. And we’re safe to assume the arrogance and sloppiness will continue, because Trump has made absolutely no effort to rid himself of loyalists, no matter how sloppy, stupid, and undeservedly arrogant they are.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/03/kristi-noem-lies-says-national-guard-deployments-to-blue-cities-arent-politically-motivated/
[2]: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15867241/jop-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/03/kilmar-abrego-garcia-details-how-cecot-is-a-torture-camp/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/16/supreme-court-pumps-the-brakes-on-trumps-use-of-the-alien-enemies-act/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/07/trump-administration-wont-stop-mandatory-detention-of-migrants-despite-200-court-rulings-calling-it-illegal/
[6]: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/exclusive-trump-admin-wrongfully-deported-more-than-100-asylum-seekers
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/13/trump-rolls-out-white-carpet-for-white-migrants/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/govt-admits-more-than-100-asylum-seekers-were-deported-in-violation-of-a-single-court-order/

Daily Deal: Geekey Multi-Tool Geekey is an innovative, compact ...

2026-03-25T17:57:43Z

Daily Deal: Geekey Multi-Tool

Geekey is an innovative, compact multi-tool like nothing seen before. It’s truly a work of art with engineering that combines everyday common tools into one sleek little punch that delivers endless capability. Geekey features many common tools that have been used for decades and proven essential for everyday fixes. It’s on sale for $19.55 with the code MARCH15 at checkout.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/daily-deal-geekey-multi-tool/

AI Might Be Our Best Shot At Taking Back The Open Web I remember, ...

2026-03-25T16:28:33Z

AI Might Be Our Best Shot At Taking Back The Open Web

I remember, pretty clearly, my excitement over the early World Wide Web. I had been on the internet for a year or two at that point, mostly using IRC, Usenet, and Gopher (along with email, naturally). Some friends I had met on Usenet were students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and told me to download NCSA Mosaic (this would have been early 1994). And suddenly the possibility of the internet as a *visual* medium became clear. I rushed down to the university bookstore and picked up a giant 400ish page book on building websites with HTML (I only finally got rid of that book a few years ago). I don’t think I ever read beyond the first chapter. But what I did do was learn how to right click on webpages and “view source.”

And from that, magic came.

I had played around with trying to build websites, and I remember another friend telling me about GeoCities (I can’t quite recall if this was before or after they had changed their name from their original “Beverly Hills Internet”) handing out web sites for free. You just had to create the HTML pages and upload them via FTP.

And so I started designing really crappy websites. I don’t remember what the early ones had, but like all early websites they probably used the blink tag and had under construction images and eventually a “web counter.”

But the thing I do remember was the first time I came across Derek Powazek’s Fray online magazine. It was the first time I had seen a website look beautiful. This was without CSS and without Javascript. I still remember quite clearly an “issue” of Fray that used frames to create some kind of “doors” you could slide open to reveal an article inside.

Right click. View source. Copy. Mess around. A week later I had my own (very different) version of the sliding doors on my GeoCities site, but using the same HTML bones as Derek’s brilliant work.

You could just build stuff. You could look at what others were doing and play around with it. Copy the source, make adjustments, try things, and have something new. There were, certainly, limitations of the technology, but it was incredibly easy for anyone to pick up. Yes, you had to “learn” HTML, but you could pick up enough basics in an afternoon to build a decent looking website.

But then two things happened, and it’s worth separating them because they’re different problems with different causes.

First, the technical barrier went up. CSS and Javascript opened up incredible possibilities to make websites beautiful and interactive, but they also meant it was a lot more difficult to just view source, copy, and mess around. The gap between “basic functional website” and “actually looks good” widened into a chasm that required real expertise to cross. Plenty of dedicated people learned these skills, but the casual tinkerer — the person who’d spend an afternoon copying Derek’s frames to make sliding doors — increasingly couldn’t keep up.

But the technical complexity alone didn’t kill amateur web building. The *centralization* did. While there was an interim period where people set up their own blogs, it quickly moved to walled “social media gardens” where some giant tech company decided what your page looked like. Why bother learning CSS when you could just dump text in a Facebook box and reach more people? The incentive to build your own thing evaporated, replaced by the convenience of posting to someone else’s platform under someone else’s (hopefully benign) rules.

These two problems reinforced each other. The harder it got to build your own thing, the more attractive the walled gardens became. The more people moved to walled gardens, the less reason there was to learn to build.

The rise of agentic AI tools is opening up an opportunity to bring us back to that original world of wonder where you could just build what you wanted, even without a CS degree. And here I need to be specific about what I mean by “agentic AI” — because too many people are overly focused on the chatbots that answer questions or generate text or images for you. I’m talking about AI systems that can actually *do things*: write code, execute it, debug it, iterate on it based on your feedback. Tools like Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Antigravity, or similar coding agents that can take a description of what you want and actually build it.

For all those years that tech bros would shout “learn to code” at journalists, the reality now is that being able to write well and accurately describe things is a superpower that is *even better than code*. You can tell a coding agent what to do… and for the most part it will do it.

Let me give you the example that still kind of blows my mind. A few weeks ago, in the course of a Saturday — most of which I actually spent building a fence in my yard — I had a coding agent build an entire video conferencing platform. It built a completely functional platform with specific features I’d wanted for years but couldn’t find in existing tools. I’ve now used it for actual staff meetings. The fence took longer to build than the software.

All it took was describing what I wanted to an agent that could code it for me. And it addresses both problems I described earlier: it lowers the technical barrier back down to “can you describe what you want clearly?” while also enabling you to build your *own* thing rather than accepting whatever some platform offers you.

Over the last few months I’ve been finding I need to retrain my brain a bit about what we accept and learn to deal with vs. what we can fix ourselves. In the past [I’ve talked about the learned helplessness][1] many people feel about the tech that we use. We know that it’s vaguely working against us, and we all have to figure out what trade-offs we’re willing to accept to accomplish whatever goals we have.

But what if we could just *fix* things rather than accepting the tradeoffs?

I’ve talked in the past about [how I’ve used][2] an AI-assisted writing tool called Lex over the past few years, which doesn’t write for me, but is a very useful editorial assistant. Over the last few months, though, I decided to see if I could effectively rebuild that tool myself, fully controlled by me, without having to rely on a company that might change or enshittify the app. I actually built it directly into the other big AI experiment I’ve spoken about: [my task management tool][3], which I’ve also moved away from a third party hosting service onto a local machine. Indeed, I’m writing this article right now in this tool (I first created a task to write about it, and then by clicking a checkbox that it was a “writing project” it automatically opens up a blank page for me to write in, and when I’m done, I’ll click a button and it will do a first pass editorial review).

But the amazing thing to me is that I keep remembering I can fix anything I come across that doesn’t work the way I want it to. With any other software *I* have to adjust. With this software, I just say “oh hey, let’s change this.” I find that a few times a week I’ll make a small tweak here or there that just makes the software even better. In the past, I would just note a slight annoyance and figure out how to just deal with software not working the way I wanted. But now, my mind is open to the fact that I can just *make it better*. Myself.

An example: literally last night, I realized that the page in the task tool that lists all the writing projects I’m working on was getting cluttered by older completed projects that were listed as still being in “drafting” mode. With other tools (including the old writing tool I was using), I would just learn to mentally compartmentalize the fact that the list of articles was a mess and train myself to ignore the older articles and the digital clutter. But here, I could just lay out the issue to my coding agent, and after some back and forth, we came up with a system whereby once a task on the task management side was checked off as “completed” the corresponding writing project would similarly get marked as completed and then would be hidden away in a minimized list.

I keep coming across little things like this that, in the past, I would have been mildly annoyed by, but needed to live with. And it’s taking some effort to remind myself “wait, I don’t have to live with this, I can fix it.” Rather than training my brain to accept a product that doesn’t do what I want, I can just tell it to work better. And it does.

And, the more I do that, the more I start to open up my mind to possibilities that were impossible before. “Huh, wouldn’t it be nice if this tool also had this other feature? Let’s try it!” I find that the more I do this, the bigger my vision gets of what I can do because the large segment of things that were fundamentally impossible before are now open to me, just by describing what I want.

It really does give me that same underlying feeling that I felt when I was first playing around with HTML and being able to “just make things.” Except, now, it’s way more powerful. Rather than copying Derek’s use of HTML frames to create “sliding doors” on a webpage, I can create basically anything I dream up.

Then, when combined with open social protocols, [you can build in][4] social features or identity to any service as well — without having to worry about getting other users. They’re already there. For example, my task management tool sends me a “morning briefing” every day that, among other things, scans through Bluesky to see if there’s anything that might need my attention.

Now, there are [legitimate criticisms][5] of “vibe coded” tools. Critics point out that AI-generated code can be buggy, insecure, hard to maintain, and that users who can’t read the code can’t verify what it’s actually doing. These are real concerns — for certain contexts.

The thing is, most of these criticisms apply to tools being built as businesses to serve customers at scale. If you’re shipping code to millions of users who are depending on it, you absolutely need security audits, proper testing, maintainable architecture. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about building totally customized, personal tools for yourself—tools where you’re the only user, where the stakes are “my task list doesn’t sync properly” rather than “customer data got leaked.”

There’s also a more subtle concern worth addressing: is this *actually* democratizing, or does it just shift which skills you need? After all, you still need to accurately describe what you want, debug when things go wrong, and understand what’s even possible. That’s different from learning HTML, but it’s still a skill. I think the honest answer is that the *kind* of skill needed has shifted. “Learn to code” becomes “learn to think clearly and describe things precisely” — which happens to be a superpower that writers, editors, and domain experts already have. The barrier has moved to territory that many more people already inhabit.

It’s also an area where you can easily start small, learn, and grow. I started by building a few smaller apps with simpler features, but the more I do, the more I realize what’s possible.

Also, I’d note that this is actually an area where the LLM chatbots *are* kind of useful. Before I kick off an actual project with a coding agent, I’ve found that talking it through with an LLM first helps sharpen my thinking on what to tell the agent. I don’t outsource my mind to the chatbot, and will often reject some of its suggestions, but in having the discussion before setting the agent to work, it often clarifies tradeoffs and makes me consider how to best phrase things when I do move over to the agent.

What gets missed in most conversations about AI and the open web: these two pieces need each other. Open social protocols without AI tools stay stuck in the domain of developers and the highly technical — which is exactly why adoption has been slow. And AI tools without open protocols just replicate the old problem: you’re building cool stuff, but you’re still trapped inside someone else’s walls.

Put them together, though, and something clicks. Open protocols like ATProto give AI agents bounded, consent-driven contexts to work in — your agent can scan your Bluesky feed because the protocol *allows* that, not because some company decided to grant API access that it could revoke tomorrow. And AI agents give regular people the ability to actually build on those protocols without needing an engineering team. My morning briefing tool scans Bluesky not because I wrote a bunch of API calls, but because I described what I wanted and a coding agent made it happen.

Each piece makes the other more powerful *and* safer.

Blaine Cook — who was Twitter’s original architect back when it was still a protocol-minded company — recently wrote [a piece at New_ Public][6] that gets at this from the infrastructure side:

> *My long-standing hope has been that we’re able to move past the extractive, monopolizing, and competitive phase of social networks, and into a new era of creativity, collaboration, and diversity. ****I believe we’re poised to see a Cambrian explosion of new ways to interact online, and there’s evidence to suggest that it’s already happening****: just today, I saw three new apps to share what you’re reading and watching with friends, each with their own unique take on the subject!*
>
> *In this light, LLMs may be a killer app for decentralized networks — and decentralized networks may be the missing constraint that makes LLM integrations safer, more legible, and more aligned with user interests. It’s a symbiosis, and I believe we need both pieces. Rather than trying to integrate LLMs with everything, I think that deliberately bounded, consent-driven integrations will produce better outcomes.*

Cook’s framing of LLMs as a “killer app for decentralized networks” is exactly right — and it runs the other way too. Decentralized networks might be the killer app for making AI tools something other than another vector for corporate lock-in, or just another clone of an existing centralized service.

Now, I can already hear the objection, and it’s a fair one: am I really suggesting we escape dependence on giant tech platforms by… becoming dependent on giant AI companies? Companies that have scraped the entire web, that burn massive amounts of energy and water, that are built on the labor of underpaid content moderators, and that seem to want to consolidate power in ways that look an awful lot like the last generation of tech giants?

Yeah, I get it. If the pitch is “use OpenAI to free yourself from Meta,” that’s just switching landlords.

But that’s not actually where this is heading. The trajectory matters more than the current snapshot.

First, if you’re using frontier models through the API or a pro subscription, you have significantly more control than most people realize. Your data generally isn’t feeding back into training. You’re using the model as a tool, not handing over your content to a platform. That’s a meaningfully different relationship than the one you have with social media companies, where *you’re feeding them data*, and their business model is based on monetizing that data.

But much more importantly, you don’t have to use the frontier models at all. Open source AI is maturing fast — models like Qwen, Kimi, and Mistral can run entirely on certain hardware, no cloud required. They’re behind the frontier models, but only by a bit. Six months to a year, roughly. But for a lot of the “build your own tools” use cases I’m describing, they’re already good enough.

Musician and YouTuber Rick Beato recently showed how easy it was for him to [install local models][7] on his own machine, and why he thinks the largest AI companies will eventually be undercut by home AI usage:

I’ve been doing something similar with Ollama hosting a Qwen model locally. It’s slower and less sophisticated. But it works. And I already use different models for different tasks, defaulting to local when I can. As those models improve — and they are improving quickly — the frontier labs become less necessary, not more. If you’re a professional, perhaps you’ll still need them. But if you’re just building something for yourself, it’s less and less necessary.

This is what the “AI is just another Big Tech power grab” critics are missing: the technology is moving *toward* decentralization, not away from it. That’s unusual. Social media started decentralized and got captured. AI is starting captured and getting *more* open over time. The economic pressure from open source models is real, and it’s pushing in the right direction. But it’s important we keep things moving that way and not slow down the development of open source LLMs.

On the training data question — which is a legitimate concern whether or not you think training on copyrighted works is fair use — efforts like [Common Corpus][8] are building large-scale training sets from public domain and openly licensed materials. Anil Dash has been writing about what “[good AI][9]” looks like in practice — AI that’s transparent about its training data, that respects consent, that minimizes externalities rather than ignoring them. There are ways to do this right.

None of this is fully solved yet. But the direction is clear, and the tools to do it responsibly are improving faster than most critics acknowledge.

When [you use AI as a tool][10] (rather than letting it use you as the tool), it can give you a kind of superpower to get past the learned helplessness of relying on whatever choices some billionaire or random product manager made for you. You can get past having to mentally compensate for your tools not really working the way you think they should work. Instead, you can just have the internet and your tools work the way you want them to. It’s the most excited I’ve been about the open web since those early days of realizing I could right click, copy and then figure out how to build sliding doors out of frames.

The promise of the open web was colonized by internet giants. But the power of LLMs and agentic coding means we can start to take it back. We can build customized, personal software for ourselves that does what *we* want. We can connect with communities via open social protocols that allow *us* to control the relationship rather than a billionaire intermediary. This is what the [Resonant Computing Manifesto][11] was all about, and why I’ve argued ATproto is [so key][12] to that vision.

But the other part of realizing the manifesto is the LLM side. That made some people scoff early on, but hopefully this piece shows how these things work hand in hand. These agentic AI tools give the power back to you and me.

Thirty years ago, I right-clicked on Derek Powazek’s beautiful website, viewed the source, copied it, messed around with it, and built something new. I didn’t ask anyone’s permission. I didn’t agree to terms of service. I didn’t fit my ideas into someone else’s template. I just built the thing I wanted to build.

Then we gave that away. We traded it for convenience, for reach, for the path of least resistance — and we got walled gardens, manipulated feeds, and the quiet understanding that our tools would never quite work the way we wanted them to, because they weren’t really *ours*.

Today’s equivalent of right-clicking on Derek’s site is describing what you want to a coding agent, watching it build, telling it what’s wrong, and iterating until it works *for you*. Different mechanics, same magic. And this time, with open protocols and increasingly open models, we have a shot at keeping it.

Let’s not give it away again.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/27/empowering-users-not-overlords-overcoming-digital-helplessness/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/29/how-i-use-ai-to-help-with-techdirt-and-no-its-not-writing-articles/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/03/how-i-built-a-task-management-tool-for-almost-nothing/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/27/atproto-the-enshittification-killswitch-that-enables-resonant-computing/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/09/if-youre-going-to-defend-ai-and-whine-about-its-critics-you-should-probably-be-honest-about-its-actual-harms/
[6]: https://newpublic.substack.com/p/ai-that-helps-communities-thrive
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTLnnoZPALI
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/an-open-training-set-for-ai-goes-global/
[9]: https://www.anildash.com/2025/05/01/what-would-good-ai-look-like/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/10/how-to-think-about-ai-is-it-the-tool-or-are-you/
[11]: https://resonantcomputing.org/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/27/atproto-the-enshittification-killswitch-that-enables-resonant-computing/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/ai-might-be-our-best-shot-at-taking-back-the-open-web/

Brendan Carr Tries To ‘Ban’ All Foreign Routers In Lazy, ...

2026-03-25T12:22:27Z

Brendan Carr Tries To ‘Ban’ All Foreign Routers In Lazy, Legally Dubious Shakedown

Taking a break from attacking the First Amendment, FCC boss Brendan Carr this week engaged in a strange bit of performance art: his FCC [announced][1] that they’d be effectively adding **all** foreign-made routers to the agency’s “covered list,” in a bid to **ban their sale in the United States**.

That is **unless** manufacturers obtain “conditional approval” (including all appropriate application fees and favors, of course) from the Trump administration via the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security. In other words, the Trump administration is attempting to shake down manufacturers of all routers manufactured outside the United States (which again, is nearly all of them) under the pretense of cybersecurity.

You can probably see how this might result in some looming legal action. And who knows what other “favors” to the Trump administration might be required to get conditional approval, like the inclusion of backdoors accessible by our current authoritarian government.

A [fact sheet][2] insists this was all necessary because many foreign routers have been exploited by foreign actors:

> *“Recently, malicious state and non-state sponsored cyber attackers have increasingly leveraged the vulnerabilities in small and home office routers produced abroad to carry out direct attacks against American civilians in their homes.”*

But the biggest recent cybersecurity incident in recent U.S. memory, the Chinese Salt Typhoon hack (which involved Chinese state-sanctioned hackers massively [compromising U.S. telecom networks to spy on important people for years][3]) largely involved the [broadly deregulated ][4]U.S. telecom sector failing to do basic things like change default admin passwords. And then [trying to hide additional evidence of intrusion][5] for liability reasons. A very domestic failure.

We’ve discussed at length that while Brendan Carr loves to pretend he’s doing important things on cybersecurity, most of his policies have [made the U.S. less secure][6]. Like his [mindless deregulation][7] of the privacy and security standards of domestic telecoms and hardware makers. Or his [destruction of smart home testing programs][8] just because they had some operations in China.

Most of the Trump administration “cybersecurity” solutions have been [indistinguishable from a foreign attack][9]. They’ve gutted numerous government cybersecurity programs ([including a board investigating Salt Typhoon][10]), and [dismantled the Cyber Safety Review Board][11] (CSRB) (responsible for investigating significant cybersecurity incidents). The administration claims to be worried about cybersecurity, but then goes out of its way to ensure domestic telecoms **see no meaningful oversight whatsoever**.

I’d argue Trump administration destruction of corporate oversight of domestic telecom privacy/security standards is a **much** bigger threat to national security and consumer safety than 90% of foreign routers, but good luck finding any news outlet that brings that up in their coverage of the FCC’s latest move.

In reality, the biggest current threat to U.S. national security is the Trump administration’s rampant, historic corruption. Absolutely **any** time you see the Trump administration taking steps to “improve national security,” or “address cybersecurity” you can just easily assume there’s some ulterior motive of personal benefit to the president, as we saw when the great hyperventilation over TikTok was “fixed” by [offloading the app to Trump’s dodgy billionaire friends][12].

[1]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-278A1.pdf
[2]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-420034A1.pdf
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/09/scope-of-chinese-salt-typhoon-hack-keeps-getting-worse-as-trump-dismantles-u-s-cybersecurity-defenses/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/30/mindlessly-deregulating-u-s-telecom-contributed-to-the-worst-hack-in-u-s-history/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/20/salt-typhoon-hack-keeps-getting-worse-telecoms-tell-employees-to-stop-looking-for-evidence-of-intrusion/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/07/trump-cybersecurity-policy-is-indistinguishable-from-a-foreign-attack/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/07/trump-cybersecurity-policy-is-indistinguishable-from-a-foreign-attack/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/12/brendan-carrs-baseless-xenophobia-derails-new-fcc-internet-of-things-iot-device-security-standards/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/07/trump-cybersecurity-policy-is-indistinguishable-from-a-foreign-attack/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/23/trump-disbands-cybersecurity-board-investigating-massive-chinese-phone-system-hack/
[11]: https://industrialcyber.co/regulation-standards-and-compliance/trump-administration-dismantles-csrb-leaves-future-of-cybersecurity-oversight-in-question/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/19/tiktok-deal-done-and-its-somehow-the-shittiest-possible-outcome-making-everything-worse/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/25/brendan-carr-tries-to-ban-all-foreign-routers-in-lazy-legally-dubious-shakedown/

Deep Breath: Okay, Let’s Talk About That Controversial DLSS 5 ...

2026-03-25T03:07:54Z

Deep Breath: Okay, Let’s Talk About That Controversial DLSS 5 Demo

The polarization over any and all uses of [artificial intelligence][1] and machine learning continues. And, to be clear, I very much understand why this is all so controversial. Any new technology that has the chance to be transformative will also necessarily be disruptive and that causes fear. Fear that is not entirely unfounded, no matter your other opinions on the matter. If that’s you, cool, I get it.

I’ll start this off by pointing to the latest edition of the [Techdirt podcast][2] in which both Mike and Karl engaged in a *fantastic* discussion about the use of AI. I’ve listened to it twice now; it’s that good. And, while I found myself arguing out loud with the both of them at certain points during the podcast, despite the fact that neither of them could hear my retorts, it presents a grounded, often nuanced conversation, which we need much more of in this space.

And now, in what might be a subconscious attempt by this writer to commit suicide by comments section, let’s talk about that controversial demo of [NVIDIA’s forthcoming DLSS 5 technology][3]. What DLSS 5 does compared with previous versions of the technology is indeed new, but what is *not* new is the introduction of AI and machine learning into the equation. DLSS 2 and 3 had that already, in the form of pixel reconstruction and frame generation. DLSS 5, however, introduced what is being labeled as “neural rendering”, which uses machine learning to alter the lighting and detailed appearances in environments and, most importantly, character rendering over the engine on top of the 2D image output. Here’s the video demo that got everyone talking.

The backlash to the video was wide, immediate, and furious. There was a great deal of talk about the alteration of artistic intent, about whether this changed what the original developers were attempting to portray when they created the games, and, of course, industry jobs. I want to talk about the major complaint pillars seen across many outlets below, but this backlash also supposedly came with death threats foisted upon NVIDIA employees. I would very much hope we could all at least agree that any threats of that nature are completely inappropriate and absurd.

With that, here is what I’ve seen in the backlash and what I’d want to say about it.

**Get your damned AI out of my games!**

Perhaps not the most common pushback I saw in all of this, but a very common one. And a silly one, too. As I mentioned above, DLSS versions already used some version of AI and machine learning. That isn’t new. How it’s *applied* is certainly new, but that isn’t the same as the demand to keep AI entirely out of the video game industry.

And if *that’s* where you are, go ahead and shake your fist at the clouds in the sky. AI is a tool and, as I’ve now said repeatedly, the conversation we should be having is *how* it’s used in gaming, not *if* it’s used. That’s because its use is largely a foregone conclusion and it is an open question as to whether its use will be a net benefit or negative overall to the industry. Dogmatic purists on AI have a stance that is understandable, but also untenable. We’re too far down this road to turn around and go home. And if the tech were able to lower the barriers of entry to the gaming industry, acting as the fertilizer that allows a thousand indie studios to sprout roots, would that really be so bad for the gaming ecosystem?

I can appreciate the purists’ point of view. I really can. I just don’t see where they have a place in the conversation when it comes to gaming.

**It overrides artistic intent!**

Does it? If it did, then hell yes that’s bad. But if it doesn’t, then this concern goes away entirely.

DLSS 5 is built with options and customizable sliders for game developers. That’s really, really important here. At the macro level, a developer that has decided to use DLSS 5, or decided and customized how it’s used in their games, *is* exercising consent over their products. That should be obvious.

But then we get into really interesting questions of art, the actual artist, and the ownership of that art, because those last two are very different things. As Digital Foundry outlines:

> *It may even raise consent and other questions surrounding artistic integrity. On site and witnessing the demos in motion, concerns about this seemed less of a problem when the games we saw had been signed off by the studios that made them – the contentious assets we’ve seen, likewise. Nothing from the DLSS 5 reveal released by Nvidia has not been approved by the studios that own those games. But perhaps the issue isn’t just about specific approvals by specific developers on agreed DLSS 5 integrations, but rather the whole concept of a GPU reinterpreting game visuals according to a neural model that has its own ideas about what photo-realism should look like.*
>
> *While we’ve seen endorsements from [Bethesda’s Todd Howard][4] and [Capcom’s Jun Takeuchi][5], to what extent does that consent apply to the entire development team and other artists associated with the production? And by extension, there is also the question of whether now is the right time to launch DLSS 5 at a time when the games industry is under enormous pressure, jobs are on the line and cost-cutting is a major focus in the triple-A space. The technology itself cannot function without the work of game creators – it needs final game imagery to work at all – but the extent to which it could be viewed as a worrying sign of “things to come” cannot be overstated bearing in mind the reactions elsewhere to generative AI.*

That strikes me as a valid and interesting ethical question when it comes to the use of this technology, but one that is probably overwrought. Individual artists who work on video games already have their artistic output live at the pleasure of the game developers they contract with. Those developers already can use this game art in all kinds of ways that the individual artist may not have had in mind when creating it, or indeed have even considered such possibilities. DLSS 5 is just one more version of that, with the main difference being that it involves AI making changes to game images. That’s an important thing to consider, sure, but there are cousins to this ethical question that we’ve all come to accept already. This strikes me more as part of the “all AI is bad all the time” crowd finding a foothold in something other than dogma to grab onto.

Developers and publishers own their games. If they want to use DLSS 5 in those games, there is little other than specific work for hire or other contractual stipulations with individual artists that would keep them from implementing it. If artists don’t like that, I completely understand that point of view, but that’s what contract negotiations and language are for.

Bottom line: I have been as vocal as anyone arguing that video games are a form of art for well over a decade now and I struggle to agree that an optional technology that has approved buy in from game developers and publishers equates to “overriding artistic intent”, writ large.

**The faces in these examples look like shit, are “yassified”, or suffer from the uncanny valley effect!**

Look, here we’re going to get into matters of opinion. I have to say that when I viewed the demo video myself, I had the opposite reaction. And, yes, this opens me up to claims that I am somehow a massive fan of AI-created pornography (this is where the yassified comments come in), or that I just want all the characters to look “hot” (I’m too old for that shit), or that my older age of 44 means I’ve lost touch with what video games should look like. Despite my genuine respect for the dissenting opinions here, allow me to say this: bullshit.

The caveat to all of this is that the demo revealed very little in the way of this technology working within these games *in motion*. It’s also certainly true that NVIDIA chose the best potential images to show off its new technology. If the DLSS 5 rendering sucks out loud in a larger in-motion game, or if the images it creates end up being inconsistent throughout gameplay, or if it does just end up looking shitty, then I’ll be right there with you with a torch and pitchfork in hand.

And here’s the other thing to consider with this particular complaint, combined with the previous one about artistic intent: do any of you use visual mods in your games? I do. A ton of them. For a variety of reasons. I have used them to alter the faces and models for games like *Starfield* and *Skyrim*, among many others. Do I need to feel bad for altering the artist’s intent? Do I need to apologize for incorporating mods to make characters and environments appear in a way that helps me better connect with the game I’m playing?

Because I’m not going to do either. And I don’t expect you to. Nor do I expect game developers that choose to use this optional technology to beg for forgiveness for their own output.

**The hardware demands to run all of this are insane!**

Fine, then you’ll get what you want and nobody will be able to use this technology anyway. But I don’t think that will be the case. NVIDIA knows what it will take to run this tech once it leaves the demo stage and goes into production. The idea that they would hype up technology that nobody can use strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.

**Conclusion: everyone take a breath**

This still strikes me as more of a “all AI is bad” crowd grasping at lots of other things to buttress their pushback than anything else. AI has plenty, plenty of potential pitfalls. Worried about jobs in the gaming industry and elsewhere? Me too! But if you’re not also looking at the potential upsides for the industry, then you’re engaging in dogma, not conversation.

Will DLSS 5 be good? I have no idea and neither do you. Will DLSS 5 alter previously released games in a way that fundamentally alters how we play these games? I have no idea and neither do you. Will it negatively impact the gaming industry when it comes to the number of jobs within it? I have no idea and neither do you.

This was a tech demo. Details on how it works are still trickling out. Most recently, there has been some clarification as to the [2D rendering nature of the technology][6] and what that means for the output on the screen. As an early demo of the technology, feedback is going to be important, so long as it’s informed and reasonable feedback.

The technology may end up being trash and hated for reasons other than “all AI is bad all the time.” If that ends up being the case, I trust the gaming market to work that out for itself. But a lot of the hand-wringing here looks to me to be speculative at best.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/ai/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/17/techdirt-podcast-episode-446-mike-karl-talk-ai/
[3]: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/dlss5-breakthrough-in-visual-fidelity-for-games/
[4]: https://x.com/NVIDIAGeForce/status/2033634414270587143
[5]: https://x.com/NVIDIAGeForce/status/2033644680316157969
[6]: https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-confirms-dlss-5-uses-a-2d-frame-plus-motion-vectors-as-input

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/deep-breath-okay-lets-talk-about-that-controversial-dlss-5-demo/

An Open Training Set For AI Goes Global As many of the [AI ...

2026-03-24T22:37:43Z

An Open Training Set For AI Goes Global

As many of the [AI stories on Walled Culture][1] attest, one of the most contentious areas in the latest stage of AI development concerns the sourcing of training data. To create high-quality large language models (LLMs) massive quantities of training data are required. In the current genAI stampede, many companies are simply scraping everything they can off the Internet. Quite how that will work out in legal terms is not yet clear. Although a few court cases involving the use of copyright material for training have been decided, many have not, and the detailed contours of the legal landscape remain uncertain.

However, there is an alternative to this “grab it all” approach. It involves using materials that are either in the public domain or released under a “permissive” license that allows LLMs to be trained on them without any problems. There’s plenty of such material online, but its scattered nature puts it at a serious disadvantage compared to downloading everything without worrying about licensing issues. To address that, the Common Corpus was [created and released just over a year ago by the French startup Pleias][2]. A press release from the [AI Alliance][3] explains [the key characteristics of the Common Corpus][4]:

> *Truly Open: contains only data that is permissively licensed and provenance is documented*
>
> *Multilingual: mostly representing English and French data, but contains at least 1[billion] tokens for over 30 languages*
>
> *Diverse: consisting of scientific articles, government and legal documents, code, and cultural heritage data, including books and newspapers*
>
> *Extensively Curated: spelling and formatting has been corrected from digitized texts, harmful and toxic content has been removed, and content with low educational content has also been removed.*

There are five main categories of material: OpenGovernment, OpenCulture, OpenScience, OpenWeb, and OpenSource:

> *OpenGovernment contains Finance Commons, a dataset of financial documents from a range of governmental and regulatory bodies. Finance Commons is a multimodal dataset, including both text and PDF corpora. OpenGovernment also contains Legal Commons, a dataset of legal and administrative texts. OpenCulture contains cultural heritage data like books and newspapers. Many of these texts come from the 18th and 19th centuries, or even earlier.*
>
> *OpenScience data primarily comes from publicly available academic and scientific publications, which are most often released as PDFs. OpenWeb contains datasets from YouTube Commons, a dataset of transcripts from public domain YouTube videos, and websites like Stack Exchange. Finally, OpenSource comprises code collected from GitHub repositories which were permissibly licensed.*

The initial release contained over 2 trillion tokens – the usual way of measuring the volume of training material, where tokens can be whole words and parts of words. [A significant recent update of the corpus][5] has taken that to over 2.267 trillion tokens. Just as important as the greater size, is the wider reach: there are major additions of material from China, Japan, Korea, Brazil, India, Africa and South-East Asia. [Specifically][6], the latest release contains data for eight languages with more than 10 billion tokens (English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Greek, Latin) and 33 languages with more than 1 billion tokens. Because of the way the dataset has been selected and curated, it is possible to train LLMs on fully open data, which leads to auditable models. Moreover, as [the original press release explains][7]:

> *By providing clear provenance and using permissibly licensed data, Common Corpus exceeds the requirements of even the strictest regulations on AI training data, such as the EU AI Act. Pleias has also taken extensive steps to ensure GDPR compliance, by developing custom procedures to enable personally identifiable information (PII) removal for multilingual data. This makes Common Corpus an ideal foundation for secure, enterprise-grade models. Models trained on Common Corpus will be resilient to an increasingly regulated industry.*

Another advantage for many users is that material with high “toxicity scores” has already been removed, thus ensuring that any LLMs trained on the Common Corpus will have fewer problems in this regard.

The Common Corpus is a great demonstration of the power of openness and permissive copyright licensing, and how they bring benefits that other approaches can’t match. [For example][8]: “Common Corpus makes it possible to train models compatible with [the Open Source Initiative’s definition][9] of open-source AI, which includes openness of use, meaning use is permitted for ‘any purpose and without having to ask for permission’. ” That fact, along with the multilingual nature of the Common Corpus, would make the latest version a great fit for any EU move to create “[public AI”][10] systems, something advocated on this blog a few months back. The French government is already backing the project, as are other organizations supporting openness:

> *The Corpus was built up with the support and concerted efforts of the AI Alliance, the French Ministry of Culture as part of the prefiguration of the service offering of the Alliance for Language technologies EDIC (ALT-EDIC).*
>
> *This dataset was also made in partnership with Wikimedia Enterprise and Wikidata/Wikimedia Germany. We’re also thankful to our partner Libraries Without Borders for continuous assistance on extending low resource language support.*
>
> *The corpus was stored and processed with the generous support of the AI Alliance, Jean Zay (Eviden, Idris), Tracto AI, Mozilla.*

The unique advantages of the Common Corpus mean that more governments should be supporting it as an alternative to proprietary systems, which generally remain black boxes in terms of where their training data comes from. Publishers too would also be wise to fund it, since it offers a powerful resource explicitly designed to avoid some of the thorniest copyright issues plaguing the generative AI field today.

*Follow me @glynmoody on [Mastodon][11] and on [Bluesky][12]. Originally published to [Walled Culture][13].*

[1]: https://walledculture.org/?s=ai
[2]: https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/04/02/this-french-start-up-just-proved-openai-wrong-it-claims-you-can-train-ai-on-non-copyrighte
[3]: https://thealliance.ai/
[4]: https://thealliance.ai/blog/pleias-releases-common-corpus-open-multilingual-dataset-for-llm-training
[5]: https://pleias.fr/blog/blogcommoncorpus-goes-global
[6]: https://huggingface.co/datasets/PleIAs/common_corpus
[7]: https://thealliance.ai/blog/pleias-releases-common-corpus-open-multilingual-dataset-for-llm-training
[8]: https://huggingface.co/datasets/PleIAs/common_corpus
[9]: https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition#:~:text=An%20Open%20Source%20AI%20is,including%20to%20change%20its%20output.
[10]: https://walledculture.org/why-public-ai-built-on-open-source-software-is-the-way-forward-for-the-eu/
[11]: https://mastodon.social/@glynmoody
[12]: https://bsky.app/profile/glynmoody.bsky.social
[13]: https://walledculture.org/common-corpus-an-open-training-set-for-ai-goes-global-and-so-should-support-for-it/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/an-open-training-set-for-ai-goes-global/

Techdirt Podcast Episode 447: The Future Of Section 230 [Support ...

2026-03-24T20:36:11Z

Techdirt Podcast Episode 447: The Future Of Section 230

[Support us on Patreon »][1]

Last month, Mike participated in the [Cato Institute][2]‘s *Section 230 at 30* event to mark the 30th anniversary of the passage of Section 230. The event featured a series of fireside chats and panels that went deep on the past, present, and future of the all-important law, and you can [watch videos of all of them on Cato’s website][3] — but for this week’s episode of the podcast, we’ve got the audio of Mike’s panel (moderated by [Jennifer Huddleston][4] and also featuring [Jess Miers][5], [Matt Perault][6], and [Matt Reeder][7]), all about how Section 230 and similar policies will [apply to new technologies like decentralized protocols and artificial intelligence][8].

You can also [download this episode directly][9] in MP3 format.

*Follow the Techdirt Podcast on [Soundcloud][10], subscribe via [Apple Podcasts][11] or [Spotify][12], or grab the [RSS feed][13]. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes [right here on Techdirt][14].*

[1]: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=4450624&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Ftechdirt
[2]: https://www.cato.org/
[3]: https://www.cato.org/events/section-230-30-past-present-future-online-speech-26-words-created-internet
[4]: https://www.cato.org/people/jennifer-huddleston
[5]: https://ctrlaltdissent.com/about-jess-miers/
[6]: https://a16z.com/author/matt-perault/
[7]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:w4ecabne6ytujnc3jsnuaz6f
[8]: https://soundcloud.com/techdirt/the-future-of-section-230
[9]: https://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/2289916871-techdirt-the-future-of-section-230.mp3
[10]: https://soundcloud.com/techdirt
[11]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/techdirt/id940871872?mt=2
[12]: https://open.spotify.com/show/6qXCFL3MjSpiD8O0pZgcsi
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/podcast.xml
[14]: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/podcast/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/techdirt-podcast-episode-447-the-future-of-section-230/

ALPR Tech Now Preventing Parents From Enrolling Their Kids In ...

2026-03-24T19:20:49Z

ALPR Tech Now Preventing Parents From Enrolling Their Kids In School

All the people who have always brushed off concerns about surveillance tech, please come get your kids. And then let someone else raise them.

Lots of people are fine with mass surveillance because they believe the horseshit spewed by the immediate beneficiaries of this tech: law enforcement agencies that claim every encroachment on your rights might (MIGHT!) lead to the arrest of a dangerous criminal.

Running neck and neck with government surveillance state enthusiasts are extremely wealthy Americans. When they’re not adding new levels of surveillance to the businesses they own, they’re scattering cameras all around [their gated communities][1] and giving cops [unfettered access][2] to any images these cameras record.

Here’s how it plays out at the ground level: parents can’t get their kids enrolled in the nearest school because of surveillance tech. In one recent case, license plate reader data was used to deny enrollment because the data collected [claimed the parent didn’t actually reside in the school district][3].

> *Just over a year ago, Thalía Sánchez became the proud owner of a home in Alsip. She decided to leave the bustle of the city for a quiet neighborhood setting and the best possible education for her daughter.*
>
> *However, to this day, despite providing all required paperwork including her driver’s license, utility bills, vehicle registration, and mortgage statement, the Alsip Hazelgreen Oak Lawn School District 126 has repeatedly denied her daughter’s enrollment.*

Why would the district do this? Well, it’s apparently because it has decided to trust the determinations made by its surveillance tech partner, rather than documents actually seen in person by the people making these determinations.

> *According to the school district, her daughter’s new student enrollment form was denied due to “license plate recognition software showing only Chicago addresses overnight” in July and August. In an email sent to Sánchez in August, the school district told her, “Although you are the owner on record of a house in our district boundaries, your license plate recognition shows that is not the place where you reside.” *

But that’s obviously not true. Sanchez says the only reason plate reader data would have shown her car as “staying” in Chicago was because she lent it to a relative during that time period. The school insists this data is enough to overturn the documents she’s provided because… well, it doesn’t really say. It just claims it “relies” on this information gathering to determine residency for students.

All of this can be traced back to Thompson Reuters, which apparently has branched out into the AI-assisted, ALPR-enabled business of denying enrollment to students based on assumptions made by its software.

Here’s what little there is of additional information, [as obtained by The Register][4] while reporting on this case:

> *Thomson Reuters Clear, which more broadly is an AI-assisted records investigation tool, has a [page][5] dedicated to its application for school districts. It sells Clear as a tool for residency verification, claiming that it can “automate” such tasks with “enhanced reliability,” and can take care of them “in minutes, not months.” *
>
> *One of the particular things the Clear page notes is its ability to access license plate data “and develop pattern of life information” that helps identify whether those who are claiming they’re residents for the sake of getting a kid enrolled in school are lying or not. *
>
> ***Thomson Reuters does not specify where it gets its license plate reader data and did not respond to questions.***

We’ll get to the highlighted sentence in a moment, but let’s just take a beat and consider how creepy and weird [this Thomson Reuters promotional pitch][6] is:

The text reads:

> *Gain deeper insights into mismatched data to support meaningful conversations with families and ensure students are where they need to be. **Identify where cars have been seen to establish pattern of life information.***

No one expects a law enforcement agency to do this (at least without a warrant or reasonable suspicion), much less a school district. Government agencies shouldn’t have unfettered access to “pattern of life” information *just because*. It’s not like the people being surveilled here are engaged in criminal activity. They’re just trying to make sure their kids receive an education. And while there will always be people who game the system to get their kids into better schools, that’s hardly justification for subjecting every enrolling student’s family to expansive surveillance-enabled background checks.

And while Thomson Reuters (and the district itself) has refused to comment on the source of its plate reader data, it can safely be assumed that it’s [Flock Safety][7]. Flock Safety has *never* shown [*any* concern about who accesses][8] the data it compiles, much less why they choose to do it. Flock is swiftly becoming the leading provider of ALPR cameras and given its complete lack of internal or external oversight, it’s more than likely the case that its feeding this data to third parties like Thomson Reuters that are willing to pay a premium for data that simply can’t be had elsewhere.

We’re not catching criminals with this tech. Sure, it may happen now and then. But the real value is repeated resale of “pattern of life” data to whoever is willing to purchase it. That’s a massive problem that’s only going to get worse… full stop.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190724/17315042647/newest-growth-market-license-plate-readers-is-those-assholes-running-local-homeowners-association.shtml
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/17/flock-safety-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-for-a-missing-person-it-was-an-abortion-investigation/
[3]: https://www.nbcchicago.com/consumer/suburban-school-district-uses-license-plate-readers-to-verify-student-residency/3906703/
[4]: https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/12/district_denies_enrollment_to_child/
[5]: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/c/clear/thomson-reuters-clear-for-residency-verification
[6]: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/c/clear/thomson-reuters-clear-for-residency-verification
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/company/flock-safety/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/23/rings-super-bowl-ad-generates-so-much-backlash-it-has-ended-its-partnership-with-flock-safety/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/alpr-tech-now-preventing-parents-from-enrolling-their-kids-in-school/

The Trump Admin’s Own Investigators Found No EU Internet ...

2026-03-24T17:45:35Z

The Trump Admin’s Own Investigators Found No EU Internet Censorship. So They Ignored The Findings.

The Washington Post just published a [deeply reported story][1] about the Trump administration’s campaign to “expand free speech” in Europe. That headline alone should tell you something about how the story is framed — it takes the administration’s self-description at face value, as though we’re watching some noble effort to export the First Amendment across the Atlantic.

But if you get past the incredibly misleading headline, the actual reporting reveals quite an admission from within the administration, and it fundamentally undercuts everything they’ve been doing supposedly regarding “EU internet censorship.” The story reveals that the Trump administration ran its own investigation into EU censorship, **found *nothing***, and then barreled ahead with the entire crusade anyway.

Worth repeating, because it’s the whole story (even if WaPo buried it with their headline): the Trump admin investigated “EU censorship.” The Trump admin *came up empty*. And then the administration just kept going as if it were undeniable that what their own investigators couldn’t find must have happened anyway.

The Post’s opening gets to it relatively quickly, but treats it as mere scene-setting rather than the incredible revelation it actually is:

> *In early 2025, aides to Vice President JD Vance ordered a small office at the State Department to document how European regulators were censoring online speech.*
>
> *Staffers launched an investigation focusing on the European Union’s Digital Services Act, a sweeping 2022 social media law requiring large tech companies to limit the spread of harmful or illegal speech on the continent.*
>
> *The weeks-long investigation, details of which have not previously been reported, ****uncovered no records indicating censorship****, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.*
>
> ***“There is no evidence that Member States of the European Union are overreaching the DSA to censor and criminalize online content,”**** they wrote in conclusion.*

“There is no evidence.” That’s the conclusion of the Trump administration’s own investigators, put in writing. And then, an even more remarkable quote from someone involved:

> *“We did not find anything,” said one of the people. “It was not politically convenient that we could not find anything.”*

“It was not politically convenient that we could not find anything.”

That is quite an admission. A government official is telling you directly that the conclusions were inconvenient, and therefore irrelevant. The investigation was entirely about manufacturing justification for a policy that was already decided. When the justification didn’t materialize, they just ignored it and moved forward anyway.

This is the hallucination presidency in action: when the facts don’t match the narrative, just assert the narrative anyway and hope no one checks.

The Washington Post, to its credit, did the hard reporting here and obtained those quotes. But the headline (“Inside the Trump administration’s campaign to expand ‘free speech’ in Europe”) and subhed (“The United States has banned some European researchers from entering the country and dismantled federal programs intended to fight foreign disinformation campaigns”) describe the administration’s actions without conveying the most explosive finding of the piece: that the evidentiary foundation for all of these actions **does not exist**. The actual story here is far bigger than the Post’s framing lets on.

Because here’s what the administration did *after* its own investigators told them there was no evidence of EU censorship: pretty much everything you could imagine a government would do if it *had* found evidence.

> *Despite the finding, the Trump administration has pressed ahead with a wide-ranging State Department effort to crack down on what it alleges is widespread censorship in the E.U., according to documents reviewed by The Post and nine people involved or aware of the campaign, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their livelihoods.*
>
> *It has banned some European researchers from entering the United States and dismantled federal programs intended to fight foreign disinformation campaigns. Behind the scenes, the administration has crafted a plan to allow American tech companies to skirt European rules, using the federal government’s powers to control exports, according to two of the people and documents.*
>
> *The department is preparing to launch a website to host banned content. A teaser for the site, freedom.gov, includes a mounted Paul Revere-type figure galloping over the words “Freedom is coming.”*

Yes, there is literally going to be a government website with a Paul Revere figure galloping over the words “Freedom is coming.” Your tax dollars at work. There is a certain kind of person in government who genuinely confuses propaganda aesthetics with policy substance, and this is a pristine example.

The State Department’s official response to the Post is also worth noting for its brazenness:

> *The State Department said in a statement that it has been consistent in raising concerns about the Digital Services Act and a similar British law and had “never ‘concluded’ anything to the contrary.”*

They’re claiming they “never concluded” that the DSA wasn’t censorship — even though their own staffers put it in writing that they found no evidence of censorship. The scare quotes around “concluded” are doing a lot of heavy lifting there. They’re trying to gaslight their own investigation.

Now, I want to be clear about something. I have been [critical of aspects of the DSA][2] for years. There are real concerns about how expansive content regulation can be abused — by governments on either side of the Atlantic. When former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton tried to use the DSA to pressure Elon Musk into not platforming Donald Trump, I [called it out][3] as a clear overreach and a genuine threat to free speech principles.

But the Trump administration’s campaign has almost nothing to do with those legitimate concerns. Instead, it’s built on vibes and political convenience, disconnected from anything their own investigators could actually find.

And we know this because we’ve already watched this play out in real time. The single biggest piece of “evidence” the administration and its allies keep pointing to is the EU’s $140 million fine against X (formerly Twitter) from December 2025. The House Judiciary Committee’s Jim Jordan [called it][4] “the Commission’s most aggressive censorship step to date,” describing it as “obvious retaliation for its protection of free speech around the globe” in a recently released report.

Sounds terrifying. Except [that fine had literally nothing to do with censorship][5]. The violations were about three specific transparency failures: misleading users when Elon changed verification from actual verification to “pay $8 for a checkmark,” maintaining a broken ad repository, and refusing to share required data with researchers. As Stanford’s expert on platform regulation, Daphne Keller, explained at the time:

> *Don’t let anyone — not even the United States Secretary of State — tell you that the European Commission’s €120 million enforcement against Elon Musk’s X under the Digital Service Act (DSA) is about censorship or about what speech users can post on the platform. That would, indeed, be interesting. But this fine is just the EU enforcing some normal, boring requirements of its law. Many of these requirements resemble existing US laws or proposals that have garnered bipartisan support.*

Zero of the charges were about what content X allowed or didn’t allow on its platform.

Meanwhile, the real-world consequences of this evidence-free campaign are landing on actual people. We discussed how absolutely backwards it is for the US to be [banning critics under the banner of free speech][6], and The Post reports on how that’s playing out with the German group, HateAid, that supports victims of online abuse, and whose CEO had her US entry banned:

> *Josephine Ballon, the group’s chief executive, learned just before Christmas that she had been banned from entering the United States. The State Department issued the ban on the grounds that Ballon and others “led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose,” which she denies.*
>
> *She compared Trump’s tactics to those used by the online bullies that her organization teaches victims about.*
>
> *“This is intended to intimidate us and silence us,” she said in an interview. “We are not silenced by the German far right and we will not be by the U.S.”*

The US is banning people from entering the country due to their speech — to “protect free speech” — based on claims its own investigators couldn’t substantiate.

I think we found the censorship. And it’s coming from inside the US.

And the hypocrisy runs even deeper than the empty evidentiary cupboard, as we’ve [documented before][7]. While the Trump administration screams about EU censorship, FCC Chair Brendan Carr — the same person who traveled to Barcelona to give a speech declaring that “free speech” was “in retreat” because of the DSA — has been actively using his government position to threaten American media companies into silence. When [he pressured Disney][8] into temporarily pulling Jimmy Kimmel off the air, he faced zero consequences. He’s still in the job, still making threats.

Meanwhile, the EU actually *pushed out* Thierry Breton when he overstepped and tried to abuse the DSA to pressure platforms on content. The system the Trump administration claims is an engine of censorship responded to actual overreach by removing the overreacher. The system the Trump administration runs rewarded its overreacher with continued power and more threats.

I keep coming back to that quote: “It was not politically convenient that we could not find anything.” That may be the most honest sentence anyone in this administration has uttered about this entire campaign. The conclusion was written before the investigation started. The policy was set before the evidence was gathered. When reality failed to cooperate with the narrative, reality was simply discarded.

Policy by vibes. Governance by meme. With real consequences for real people and real institutions — imposed by the very people who cannot stop telling you how much they care about free expression. The same people whose own investigators found nothing — and whose response to finding nothing was to start banning foreigners from entering the country for their speech.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/20/trump-eu-dsa-censorship/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/01/techdirt-podcast-episode-336-the-dsa-is-a-mess-but-will-now-rule-the-internet/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/02/dsa-framers-insisted-it-was-carefully-calibrated-against-censorship-then-thierry-breton-basically-decided-it-was-an-amazing-tool-for-censorship/
[4]: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-exposes-european-commission-decade-long-campaign-censor-american
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/08/elons-crying-censorship-over-an-eu-fine-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-censorship/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/29/state-department-exiles-critics-to-protect-free-speech/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/13/the-eu-fired-their-censor-ours-kept-his-job/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/cowardly-disney-caves-to-brendan-carrs-bogus-censorial-threats-pulling-jimmy-kimmel/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/the-trump-admins-own-investigators-found-no-eu-internet-censorship-so-they-ignored-the-findings/

Daily Deal: Build A Weather App With Ruby On Rails It’s time ...

2026-03-24T17:40:26Z

Daily Deal: Build A Weather App With Ruby On Rails

It’s time you get up to speed with Ruby on Rails! This full-stack web framework is all about letting you build applications quickly. Its elegance, flexibility, and speed make Ruby on Rails a popular choice for businesses, so taking the time to master it can pay huge dividends down the road. In this course, you’ll follow along with the instructor as he uses Ruby on Rails to create [an ozone air quality monitoring weather app][1]. You’ll understand Ruby on Rails in just two hours and know how to use it to build awesome web apps. It’s on sale for $17 when you use the code MARCH15 at checkout (through 3/29/26).

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/build-a-weather-app-with-ruby-on-rails?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/daily-deal-build-a-weather-app-with-ruby-on-rails/

5th Circuit Flips Cop V. Protester Case To Jury After Spending 7 ...

2026-03-24T16:26:45Z

5th Circuit Flips Cop V. Protester Case To Jury After Spending 7 Years Pretending The 1st Amendment Doesn’t Exist

“Exhaustion” is a legal term. It means plaintiffs need to explore the rest of their options before asking a court to handle their case or ask a higher court to handle a case the lower court has declared not quite exhausted enough.

“Exhaustion” is also a human term. And that’s where we are with this case, nearly *nine years* since a federal court first told the (then-anonymous) cop to GTFO with his weird-ass complaints against [checks original filing] Twitter, the entire Black Lives Matter social movement, and lifelong anti-police violence activist DeRay Mckesson.

The origin of this case is Mckesson’s appearance at a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Baton Rouge, Louisiana all the way back in July of 2016. So, we’re a decade in and yet, this cop (now known as John Ford) gets to keep trying to make things worse for DeRay and the First Amendment. And the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court seems hellbent on letting him do this.

The 2019 ruling [made it *abundantly *clear][1] Officer John Ford could not sue Twitter, a Twitter hashtag, or Mckesson for injuries he sustained when someone *who was not DeRay Mckesson* lobbed a projectile and hit him in the head.

This should have been obvious to everyone, even someone recently recovering from a head wound. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit simply feigned ignorance of the law. [I am not even kidding][2]. It said Mckesson had a duty of care during his peaceful protest that it would never apply to cops who hurl flashbangs into toddler’s cribs:

> ***Given the intentional lawlessness of this aspect of the demonstration, Mckesson should have known that leading the demonstrators onto a busy highway was most nearly certain to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators, yet he ignored the foreseeable danger to officers, bystanders, and demonstrators**, and notwithstanding, did so anyway. By ignoring the foreseeable risk of violence that his actions created, Mckesson failed to exercise reasonable care in conducting his demonstration.*

Yep, just because the protest closed off a roadway, Mckesson MIGHT be responsible for any other lawless activities other than his own. Mckesson was never criminally charged for blocking off a highway. Nevertheless, the court thought it *might* be possible that he was somehow responsible for someone else deciding to lob a chunk of concrete at nearby police officers.

The Fifth is a Circus, not a Circuit. Even [the Supreme Court][3] — as chock full of MAGA loyalists as it is — found this to be a bit too much, something it tends to find quite often when dealing with appeals bubbling up from the Fifth’s primordial ooze. It sent the case back down to the Fifth, which then decided it should make this a *state* law case, in obvious hopes of finding some way to [keep this cop’s bullshit lawsuit alive][4].

The dissent in this ruling, which turfed it to the state’s top court, made it explicitly clear that the majority was twisting itself into legal pretzels just to [give this aggrieved cop][5] several more bites of this rotting apple:

> *Indeed, the lone “inciteful” speech quoted in Doe’s complaint is something Mckesson said not to a fired-up protestor but to a mic’ed-up reporter—the day **following** the protest: “The police want protestors to be too afraid to protest.” Tellingly, not a single word even obliquely references violence, much less advocates it. **Temporally, words spoken after the protest cannot possibly have incited violence during the protest.** **And tacitly, the majority opinion seems to discard the suggestion that Mckesson uttered anything to incite violence against Officer Doe.***

The case has now been returned to the Fifth Circuit. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that Mckesson’s actions *could* amount to the sort of negligence that *might* satisfy statutory requirements, but it never said one way or another whether or not it actually *believed* his presence at this protest approached these standards.

So, this case has been remanded (once) by the US Supreme Court due to the Fifth’s faulty logic. It has been sent back to the district level twice, with the court finding in both cases that Mckesson cannot be held liable for the actions of the person who hit the cop with a rock. A huge stack of adverse rulings have been generated by the Fifth’s refusal to respect the First Amendment and/or force the cop to sue the person who actually injured him.

And yet, the Fifth persists. Because it’s the Fifth. It draws heavily from the state Supreme Court ruling — one in which the court was only asked (1) whether such a charge might be plausible and (2) whether damages could be recovered if said accusation proved to be true. No certified question about the constitutional issues raised by suing a protester for being at a protest where someone else injured a cop. No question was asked as to whether or not it was constitutional to treat every person at a protest equally liable for any crime that might be committed during a protest.

Those questions weren’t asked because the Fifth Circuit didn’t want those answers. All it wanted was a reason to allow this cop to sue a Black protester because this was the only name the cop had managed to gather during his nine years of litigation.

And here’s a court that would move heaven and earth to prevent a lawsuit against a cop to be handled by a jury [moving heaven and earth][6] [PDF] to ensure it will happen when a cop sues a regular person. (h/t [Gabriel Malor][7] on Bluesky)

And what’s said by the court is disturbing — not just because it attempts to hold recognizable people who are easy targets for lawsuits responsible for other people’s actions, but also because it attempts to smear an entire movement (especially as personified by the defendant in this case) as inherently dangerous and unlawful. There’s a lot of loaded language here, which is especially suspect when the court is claiming the right thing to do is hand this off to an impartial jury:

> *[T]he district court erred because the evidence in the record corroborates Officer Ford’s testimony. As recounted above, the evidence demonstrates that Mckesson helped plan the protest, **was a leader in many protests that have turned violent**, amplified messages about the protest on social media, and gave orders to the crowd during the protest. Additionally, a video of Mckesson’s position near the police as they cut off the protestors from accessing the interstate substantiates the other evidence. **This evidence all tends to support that Mckesson was a leader of the protest,** if the jury so determines.*
>
> *[…]*
>
> ***Mckesson supported these violent protests, and he refused to condemn the use of violence** in a televised interview on CNN. Consequently, whether Mckesson breached his duty to Officer Ford and others raises a triable jury question.*

The only supporting documents the court offers are those submitted by the officer. There are lots of things citing the officer’s complaint, but that’s not the stuff the court is supposed to be citing as supportive in this appeal. Remember, Doe/Ford was the losing party in the district court case. He’s the moving party, as the legal parlance goes. The appellate court is supposed to [grant more deference to the non-moving party][8] during appeals. But the Fifth has gone the other way… multiple times in the same case! The cop got his deference at the lower level as the plaintiff. He’s not supposed to get it again when he loses.

Having done the wrong thing at least twice, the court tosses it to what the majority must feel might be a sympathetic (to the cop) jury in Louisiana. While it’s always happy to terminate litigation when cops are the defendants, it’s seeming more than willing to extend litigation when it’s the cops who are suing citizens.

There’s a dissent that runs nearly as long as the majority ruling. It’s great that it’s there and that it recognizes the Fifth’s willingness to pretend the First Amendment doesn’t matter when it’s a cop that’s doing the complaining (in the legal sense of the word)[and also the regular sense of the word].

But the majority makes the rules. The Fifth has decided that — at least in *this* case — it will side with the moving party and pretend that holding protesters or protest organizers legally responsible for any criminal or civil violations committed by other protesters doesn’t have any affect on the First Amendment whatsoever. It’s a convenient abdication of its role of a check/balance — one delivered by court that has, for years, demonstrated it would rather see 100 innocent people punished than allow one guilty cop to suffer the consequences of their actions.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2017/10/02/court-tosses-cops-lawsuit-against-social-movement-twitter-hashtag/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/04/29/appeals-court-idiot-cop-can-continue-to-sue-protester-over-actions-taken-another-protester/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/04/28/supreme-court-needs-to-reverse-fifth-circuits-awful-ruling-deray-mckesson-case/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/12/23/appeals-court-revisits-terrible-new-orleans-protest-decision-changes-nothing-about-rejection-first-amendment-protections/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/12/23/appeals-court-revisits-terrible-new-orleans-protest-decision-changes-nothing-about-rejection-first-amendment-protections/
[6]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/27899295-mckessson494-cv0/
[7]: https://bsky.app/profile/gabrielmalor.bsky.social/post/3mhgjq74pzt2j
[8]: https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/summary-judgment-standard-requires-court-to-view-evidence-in-light-most-favorable-to-non-moving-party/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/5th-circuit-flips-cop-v-protester-case-to-jury-after-spending-7-years-pretending-the-1st-amendment-doesnt-exist/

‘Merger Synergies’: CBS News Fires Workers, Shutters 100 Year ...

2026-03-24T12:24:04Z

‘Merger Synergies’: CBS News Fires Workers, Shutters 100 Year Old CBS Radio

All modern major U.S. media mergers follow the same trajectory. Executives pump out a bunch of pre-merger lies about job creation and innovation that are parroted by a lazy access press, followed by the rubber stamping by corrupt regulators, followed by oodles of price hikes, layoffs, and quality erosion caused by panicked efforts to pay down preposterous merger debt.

Rinse, wash, and repeat.

After [promising this for a while][1], CBS last week [announced it was laying off around six percent of its workforce, or around 60 employees][2] after the company was acquired by right wing billionaire Larry Ellison last year. The company also announced it would be [destroying the 100 year old CBS News Radio][3] (there was no indication of what, if anything, they planned to do with archival history).

CBS News boss Bari Weiss offered this statement in the wake of the layoffs:

> *“Today we are reducing the size of our workforce, and employees who are affected will be notified by the end of the day. We recognize that this is a difficult time for those who will be leaving CBS News. Because these aren’t just names on a list. They are talented, committed colleagues who have been critical to our success. We’ll treat them all with care and respect.*
>
> *It’s no secret that the news business is changing radically, and that we need to change along with it. New audiences are burgeoning in new places, and we are pressing forward with ambitious plans to grow and invest so that we can be there for them. That means some parts of our newsroom must get smaller to make room for the things we must build to remain competitive.*
>
> *But these are very hard choices and today is a difficult day. This is a tough message to receive at any time, and especially in the middle of an exceptionally intense news cycle. This organization is working its heart out to deliver for our audience. We’re so grateful to all of you, and we thank you for handling this difficult news with compassion.”*

You’re to ignore, of course, that Bari Weiss appears to have absolutely no idea what she’s doing, outside of a generalized and obvious sense that she’d like to [make the network even more friendly to right wing autocrats like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu][4].

Weiss’ inaugural “town hall” with opportunistic right wing grifter Erika Kirk [was a ratings dud][5], Weiss’ new nightly news broadcast has been [an error-prone hot mess][6], and her [delay of a 60 Minutes story about Trump concentration camps][7] continues to plague the network and cause a [continued revolt][8] among remaining journalists, who are tripping over themselves in a rush to the exits.

There’s likely to be even greater layoffs as the Ellisons’ pursue their even more problematic acquisition of Warner Brothers (and CBS and NBC), adding significantly even more debt to the company at a very precarious time for traditional television and Hollywood. It’s something the network’s unionized employees are well aware of:

> Read the statement from @wgaeast.bsky.social and @wgawest.bsky.social on the layoff of Guild members at CBS News. We stand in solidarity with our colleagues and friends and will fight to protect journalists.
>
> — [Writers Guild of America East (@wgaeast.bsky.social)][9] [2026-03-20T18:16:13.853Z][10]

Again, the solution to this is to have a **genuine** antitrust renaissance in the U.S, and block all and every instance of pointless “growth for growth’s sake” consolidation.

These deals do nothing but generate short-term stock bumps (sometimes), tax breaks, and delusion among the brunchlord extraction class that they’re “savvy dealmakers” as they engage in financial acrobatics to create the illusion of perpetual growth.

These fictions are all aided by a lazy press damaged from the very same pointless consolidation. This particular merger is complicated by the fact that the Trump-loyal Ellisons very clearly see Victor Orban’s [autocratic-friendly media in Hungary as a model worth emulating][11]. The only bright spot is that nobody, j[ust like Warner Bros last few suitors][12], *appears to have any idea what they’re actually doing*.

The problem is, even if the Ellisons and autocrats fail completely and CBS collapses, they’ve “succeeded” in destroying another journalistic outlet on their way to what they hope will be total U.S. ideological domination.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/19/the-new-cbs-already-promising-major-painful-layoffs/
[2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/cbs-news-layoffs-bari-weiss-b2942635.html
[3]: https://deadline.com/2026/03/cbs-news-radio-to-shut-down-1236761393/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/21/bari-weiss-gets-to-work-fixing-cbs-bias-by-making-it-more-biased/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/16/nobody-including-advertisers-cared-about-bari-weiss-new-cbs-town-hall/
[6]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2026/01/06/tony-dokoupil-cbs-evening-news-debut/88043680007/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/22/bari-weiss-shows-her-true-colors-kills-a-60-minutes-story-critical-of-the-presidents-concentration-camps/
[8]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/05/bari-weiss-cbs-news?CMP=share_btn_url
[9]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:dxphnrtri3v6a2lyl2khufyv?ref_src=embed
[10]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:dxphnrtri3v6a2lyl2khufyv/post/3mhj4r4ubnp27?ref_src=embed
[11]: https://euobserver.com/203675/how-orban-systematically-suffocated-the-hungarian-media-over-the-past-15-years/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/25/after-layoffs-and-endless-chaos-the-att-time-warner-discovery-mergers-come-to-a-whimpering-pathetic-finale/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/merger-synergies-cbs-news-fires-workers-shutters-100-year-old-cbs-radio/

Trump Administration Tries To Rein In RFK Jr. As A Midterms ...

2026-03-24T03:27:04Z

Trump Administration Tries To Rein In RFK Jr. As A Midterms Liability

I’ve obviously talked a great deal about how [RFK Jr.][1] and his activity as the Secretary of HHS has been a massive health liability for the American public. The implementation of his batshit [anti-vaxxer][2] stances have, of course, grabbed most of the headlines here, especially given the recent pushback he received from [the courts][3], but it’s also worth noting the other craziness he’s spouted at the same time. He [co-signed][4] Trump’s nonsense about Tylenol giving all the kids autism. He’s overseen the worst [measles outbreak][5] in America in several decades. It seems likely [he lied][6] to Congress about his “work” in Samoa. He has vindictively repealed [grant funding][7] to groups that disagree with him on public health matters. He’s very interested in teenager [sperm counts][8]. He once took his grandkids swimming in a river known to be filthy with [human waste][9].

It’s bad for the health of America. The Trump administration hasn’t really seemed to care all that much about that fact, of course, but it certainly *does* care about retaining power through the midterms. To that end, it seems the White House has finally woken up to the idea that [most Americans][10] hate what Kennedy and HHS are doing and has decided to pare back his activity [because it’s a political liability][11].

> *The White House has taken steps to assert tighter control over HHS amid leadership and messaging changes tied to concerns that department Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.’s focus on vaccine policy could pose political risks heading into the 2026 midterm elections, [The Wall Street Journal][12] reported March 13.*
>
> *While Mr. Kennedy remains in good standing with President Donald Trump, administration aides have grown frustrated with what they described as disorganization and missteps inside HHS, according to the report. Among them: a delayed response to a measles [outbreak][13] in Texas, backlash over mental health grant [cuts][14] and internal tension surrounding the FDA’s [approval][15] of a generic abortion pill.*

We somehow are not at a place yet where the Trump administration realizes that they put a loon in charge of public health and are looking at making a leadership change. But they can read the polling as well as I can and they damned well know that the majority of America is not happy with Kennedy’s performance generally, and especially unhappy with his anti-vaxxer bullshit. To that end, the White House is making several moves to try to steady the waters and keep Kennedy and HHS out of the headlines.

Basically, it looks like they’re trying to provide a bit of more adult supervision, moving Chris Klomp up from managing Medicare to m̶a̶n̶a̶g̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶K̶e̶n̶n̶e̶d̶y̶… er… being Kennedy’s deputy, while moving Peter Thiel’s former righthand man, Jim O’Neill, out of his HHS Deputy Secretary role and over to the FDA where there’s hope he “reduce internal friction.”

The problem is that Captain Brain Worm remains at the top of all of this. Trump and his advisers know the country doesn’t like what HHS has done. They see the chaos, the resignations, and the bullshit that gets spewed out in press conferences and courtrooms alike. It would be nice if the government did this for reasons having to do with the American people rather than for its own political ramifications, but I suppose I’ll take what I can get under the circumstances.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/rfk-jr/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/vaccines/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/18/u-s-district-court-issues-preliminary-injunction-against-rfk-hhs-for-its-vaccine-schedule-changes/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/09/real-consequences-trumps-bullshit-claim-about-tylenol-is-seeing-real-world-results/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/26/2-months-into-2026-we-are-over-half-2025s-total-count-of-measles-cases/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/09/newly-public-emails-sure-make-it-look-like-rfk-jr-lied-to-congress-about-his-trip-to-samoa-in-2019/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/18/rfk-jr-exacts-revenge-on-the-aap-claws-back-millions-in-approved-hhs-grants/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/21/rfk-jr-is-very-interested-in-and-likely-wrong-about-your-teenagers-sperm-count/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/13/rfk-jr-takes-his-grandkids-for-a-mothers-day-swim-in-a-river-of-human-shit/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/30/polling-suggests-the-country-is-absolutely-done-with-rfk-jr/
[11]: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/public-health/white-house-moves-to-rein-in-rfk-jr-s-hhs-amid-internal-shake-up/
[12]: https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-rfk-jr-hhs-midterm-elections-cef51179?st=Ch889T&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
[13]: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/public-health/texas-measles-outbreak-slows/
[14]: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/hhs-cancels-up-to-2b-in-mental-health-addiction-grants-4-federal-health-updates/
[15]: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/fda-approved-mifepristone-before-government-shutdown/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/23/trump-administration-tries-to-rein-in-rfk-jr-as-a-midterms-liability/

What Does The Viral Afroman Trial Have to Do with Section 230? ...

2026-03-23T19:02:54Z

What Does The Viral Afroman Trial Have to Do with Section 230?

The internet has been rightfully enjoying videos from the defamation trial against Afroman, a musician known for his humorous songs including “[Because I got high][1].” The lawsuit involves songs he wrote about a 2022 raid police conducted on his house, which was based on flimsy evidence. The songs justifiably mock the officers involved. [Mike Masnick wrote a recap of the case here][2], which is worth reading for many reasons, but the [songs][3] and [Afroman’s testimony][4] are true highlights.

After the raid, Afroman [released][5] his songs on YouTube and they went viral initially on TikTok, both massive platforms for users to share their speech and that of other users. The officers who raided his home, seeking to silence someone making fun of them, sued Afroman for defamation, emotional distress, and other causes in 2023.

Spoiler: Afroman won. The songs are not defamatory. But we didn’t know that for sure until a jury [told us so this week][6]. For three years, from the moment the lawsuit was filed until the jury issued its verdict, the songs were allegedly defamatory. And their continued “publication” ran the risk of liability.

So why could we still see the songs on YouTube, TikTok, Bluesky, and whatever other online platforms where we first encountered them? One big reason is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 says that interactive computer service providers, like online platforms, cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of information content provided by other information content providers. That means that YouTube could not be liable for the content of Afroman’s songs, even if they *were* defamatory. That’s the balance Section 230 strikes. Under 230, there is still accountability for the speaker, but online platforms are not liable for their users’ illegal speech.

By and large this balance has been incredibly beneficial to free expression online, supporting speech about everything from the profoundly consequential (#MeToo and Black Lives Matter) to the somewhat silly ([a song about a cop who got distracted from a raid by a delicious looking “Lemon Pound Cake”][7]). But now, members of Congress like Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Dick Durbin want [to repeal or replace Section 230][8] without much of a plan for what comes next.

On March 18, [Daphne Keller][9], a professor of law at Stanford and expert in intermediary liability laws around the world, testified before the [Senate Commerce Committee][10]. She tried to explain to the Senators that Section 230 may not be perfect, but it’s still better than any of the options she has seen. To understand why Daphne’s right, let’s think about what Afroman’s case might have looked like without Section 230. The moment Afroman was allowed to distribute his songs about the raid on YouTube, the company could have been liable for any potentially illegal speech they contained. That means YouTube probably also would have been a co-defendant in the cops’ suit. At the scale many online platforms operate at, these kinds of accusations of defamation and lawsuits related to user posts would happen hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of times a day.

That’s a lot of litigation.

Staring down the barrel of that many potential lawsuits every day, no reasonable platform would have allowed Afroman’s speech to stay up. The moment an accusation of illegality surfaced, a platform acting reasonably would likely take the speech down. And to be clear, we have evidence that this is how they would react: That’s the incentive structure currently in place under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA creates a notice and takedown system for alleged copyright violations and evidence suggests that [improper][11] [takedown requests][12] are common and, even with the safeguards for speech built into that law, result in over-censorship. Replicating a version of the DMCA for all content on the internet writ large would likely produce the same overcensorship result. At a minimum, the platforms certainly wouldn’t allow their algorithms to recommend posts linking to the defamatory songs, effectively “shadowbanning” them, which is probably one of the main ways many
people came across the songs to begin with.

The upshot is: Section 230 created the conditions that allowed us to hear Afroman’s songs, and allowed platforms to recommend them, even while their status was in legal limbo.

There are millions of similar situations, large and small, every day where Section 230 ensures that online platforms do not have to try to make context-specific legal judgment calls. Section 230 may not be perfect. No law is. But it’s the best and most effective protection for free expression online we have, allowing online services to simply let their users speak. Congress should be very cautious about changing it, let alone eliminating it altogether.

*Kate Ruane is the Director of the Free Expression Program and the Center for Democracy & Technology, where she advocates for the protection of free speech and human rights in the digital age.*

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/18/afromans-defamation-trial-is-going-about-as-well-for-the-deputies-as-their-original-raid-did/
[3]: https://youtu.be/9xxK5yyecRo';
[4]: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DV__CiYkofp/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=0ec26957-8b55-4283-bc6a-5fc17de272ae
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/01/10/afroman-turns-security-footage-of-bullshit-raid-of-his-home-into-viral-rap-video-hit/
[6]: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/music/articles/rapper-afroman-breaks-silence-winning-152049387.html
[7]: https://youtu.be/9xxK5yyecRo';
[8]: https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-graham-introduce-bill-to-sunset-section-230-immunity-for-tech-companies-protect-americans-online
[9]: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/9F0B18A9-DDA2-4093-83DC-C5D63A338A54
[10]: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2026/3/liability-or-deniability-platform-power-as-section-230-turns-30
[11]: https://www.accessnow.org/dmca-takedown-demands-censor-activists/#:~:text=After%20speaking%20with%20local%20partners,reporting%20on%20human%20rights%20violations.
[12]: https://www.eff.org/takedowns

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/23/what-does-the-viral-afroman-trial-have-to-do-with-section-230/

DHS Takes Out Its Funding Frustrations On Millions Of Americans ...

2026-03-23T17:46:10Z

DHS Takes Out Its Funding Frustrations On Millions Of Americans By Sending ICE Agents To Do TSA Work

With the partial shutdown still ongoing and no budget resolution in sight because the GOP is simply unwilling to endure any oversight of its anti-migrant programs, the TSA is leaking personnel. A whole lot of TSA agents walked off the job the moment their paychecks failed to arrive, leaving travelers to deal with scenarios that are somehow even worse than being manhandled by the TSA.

Folks, [it’s yet another Long National Nightmare][1]!

> Atlanta airport
>
> — [Paul J. Dauenhauer (@pauldauenhauer.bsky.social)][2] [2026-03-22T17:20:53.864Z][3]

Yep, that’s the Atlanta airport, which has never been known for expeditious service, filled to the horizon with unhappy people that bears more than a slight resemblance to [USSR grocery store photos][4] from the mid-70s. (Making the resemblance even more uncanny is the amount of visible food.)

Well, the TSA may be temporarily out of money, but [guess who isn’t][5]! I’ll leave it to Dr. America to deliver the news — [a cure that’s worse than the disease][6]!

> *President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened to send federal immigration agents to airports across the country on Monday if Democrats don’t agree to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, now approaching five weeks.*
>
> *“If the Radical Left Democrats don’t immediately sign an agreement to let our Country, in particular, our Airports, be FREE and SAFE again, I will move our brilliant and patriotic ICE Agents to the Airports where they will do Security like no one has ever seen before, including the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country,” he wrote.*

I totally believe ICE will “do Security like no one has ever seen before.” I mean, they’ve already been doing civil enforcement like no one has ever seen before. And what better way to handle a travel crisis then by sending in [a bunch of under-trained racists][7] who just spent their [ICE signing bonuses][8] on emissions defeat devices and wraparound sunglasses subscription services to our nation’s airports, where they can apply all the skills they never learned during ICE training with the professionalism we’ve come to expect from people who like yelling and brandishing firearms.

What could possibly go wrong? I mean, they’re already *not* trained to do the job they’re supposed to be doing, so doing a job they’ve *never* been trained to do can’t be that much of step up on the “promoted to highest level of your incompetence” scale.

Of course, that was just Trump saying some shit on social media because he apparently has nothing better to do with his time now that he’s (again) the Leader of the Free World. Trump says a lot of stuff. He quite frequently says the opposite thing only hours or minutes or seconds later.

It brings me no pleasure to report that this horrendous brain fart [will apparently be A Real Thing][9]:

> *Immigration agents will [deploy to airports][10] on Monday under the direction of border czar Tom Homan, President Donald Trump said Sunday, as talks to fund the Department of Homeland Security have yet to yield a breakthrough.*
>
> *[…]*
>
> *Homan told CNN on Sunday that the move is about “helping TSA do their mission and get the American public through that airport as quick as they can while adhering to all the security guidelines and the protocols.”*

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. If you don’t need to travel, then maybe don’t? Sending a bunch of over-funded, under-trained, trigger-happy federal officers into crowded airports is a recipe for disaster. And even Homan doesn’t seem to know *what* ICE will be doing to actually help expedite passenger screening — not when he’s promising they *won’t* be doing anything they’re *not* trained to do.

> *“We’re simply there to help TSA do their job in areas that don’t need their specialized expertise, such as screening through the X-ray machine. Not trained in that? We won’t do that,” Homan told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”*
>
> *“But there are roles we can play to release TSA officers from the non-significant roles, such as guarding an exit so they can get back to the scanning machines and move people quicker,” he added.*

“Guarding an exit?” What the hell does that even mean? TSA agents don’t “guard exits.” No one “guards exits.” Travelers and terrorists alike are interested in *boarding* planes. They’re not interested in *exiting* airports to, I don’t know, wander around the tarmac or wonder how the hell exactly they ended up on the outside of a building they 100% intended to remain on the inside of.

This is going to end up being a case of Your Tax Dollars Trying To Look Busy. And that’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenarios begin directly after that. And I don’t think travelers are going to feel any safer or more secure when there are a bunch of twitchy, camouflaged dudes in masks wandering around like they’re about ready to raid Entebbe, rather than just looking for an exit to guard.

We’re in the midst of pretty hellish times. This… this just seems like we’re being trolled by a Higher Power that’s decided to amuse itself while the rest of the world falls apart.

[1]: https://bsky.app/profile/pauldauenhauer.bsky.social/post/3mho2lzlkds2k
[2]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5lyuap7upaxgmgrrlkzfrof7?ref_src=embed
[3]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5lyuap7upaxgmgrrlkzfrof7/post/3mho2lzlkds2k?ref_src=embed
[4]:
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/07/trump-budget-bill-turns-ice-into-a-superpredator/
[6]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/21/trump-ice-airports-tsa-dhs-00839340
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/27/whistleblower-ice-has-slashed-its-training-program-and-its-boss-is-lying-to-congress-about-it/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/06/area-bigots-annoyed-ice-is-offering-50000-signing-bonuses-to-area-bigots/
[9]: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/22/politics/homan-ice-security-airports
[10]: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/22/us/airports-tsa-shutdown-whats-ahead

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/23/dhs-takes-out-its-funding-frustrations-on-millions-of-americans-by-sending-ice-agents-to-do-tsa-work/

Daily Deal: The 2026 Embedded Systems Engineer Mastery Bundle ...

2026-03-23T17:41:59Z

Daily Deal: The 2026 Embedded Systems Engineer Mastery Bundle

Embedded systems are at the heart of modern innovation, powering everything from smart devices to automotive technology. This [Embedded Systems Engineer Mastery Bundle][1] equips you with the skills to design, program, and implement microcontroller-based solutions. Gain hands-on experience with Arduino, PIC, and ESP32, master C programming for embedded applications, and explore circuit design, PCB fabrication, and IoT development. Whether you’re a beginner or an experienced developer, this bundle provides a practical, in-depth learning experience to help you excel in the fast-growing field of embedded systems. It’s on sale for $25 and you can get an additional 15% off with the code **MARCH15** (also works on other select products sitewide through March 29th).

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-2025-embedded-systems-engineer-mastery-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/23/daily-deal-the-2026-embedded-systems-engineer-mastery-bundle/