Congratulations!

[Valid RSS] This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

Source: http://feeds.techdirt.com/techdirt/feed

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
  2. xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
  3. xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
  4. xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  5. xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
  6. xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  7. xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
  8. >
  9.  
  10. <channel>
  11. <title>Techdirt</title>
  12. <atom:link href="https://www.techdirt.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
  13. <link>https://www.techdirt.com</link>
  14. <description></description>
  15. <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 14:41:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
  16. <language>en-US</language>
  17. <sy:updatePeriod>
  18. hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
  19. <sy:updateFrequency>
  20. 1 </sy:updateFrequency>
  22.  
  23. 
  30. <site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">169489720</site> <item>
  31. <title>Trump Appointed Judge: No You Can’t Use Alien Enemies Act To Rendition Venezuelans</title>
  32. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/02/trump-appointed-judge-no-you-cant-use-alien-enemies-act-to-rendition-venezuelans/</link>
  33. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/02/trump-appointed-judge-no-you-cant-use-alien-enemies-act-to-rendition-venezuelans/#respond</comments>
  35. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
  36. <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 16:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
  37. <category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
  38. <category><![CDATA[alien enemies act]]></category>
  39. <category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
  40. <category><![CDATA[fernando rodriguez]]></category>
  41. <category><![CDATA[rendition]]></category>
  42. <category><![CDATA[south texas]]></category>
  43. <category><![CDATA[tda]]></category>
  44. <category><![CDATA[tren de aragua]]></category>
  45. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=497120</guid>
  46.  
  47. <description><![CDATA[Well look who else thinks Trump&#8217;s plan to use a centuries-old law to vanish people to El Salvador is batshit crazy: one of his own judges, Fernando Rodriguez Jr. I’m sure the admin will be out there calling him a far-left radical Marxist before long. Let&#8217;s be clear about how absolutely unhinged this whole thing [&#8230;]]]></description>
  48. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well look who else thinks Trump&#8217;s plan to use a centuries-old law to vanish people to El Salvador is batshit crazy: one of his own judges, Fernando Rodriguez Jr. I’m sure the admin will be out there calling him a far-left radical Marxist before long.</p>
  49. <p>Let&#8217;s be clear about how absolutely unhinged this whole thing is. Using the <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/tag/alien-enemies-act/">Alien Enemies Act</a> to rendition people to a foreign concentration camp is shameful. The law itself was part of a package of historically shameful bills from the earliest decades of the US, the Alien and Sedition Acts. Every other law from that collection of bad laws was rightly tossed in history&#8217;s garbage bin, except this one, which has been used only a few times. Even there, the short history of its usage is embarrassing to the US as well: the last time it was used was to inter Japanese Americans during WWII. You know, that thing we now recognize as a shameful event in American history.</p>
  50. <p>The courts have been <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/23/another-court-says-trump-admin-needs-to-stop-randomly-renditioning-people-to-el-salvador/">looking at this nonsense</a> and going &#8220;wtf are you doing?&#8221; Because here&#8217;s the thing: this law can only be used when we&#8217;re either at war or facing an invasion from a &#8220;foreign nation or government.&#8221; Last time I checked, Congress hasn&#8217;t declared war (yeah, that&#8217;s still their job, even if the entire country has been pretending otherwise for decades) and — shocking revelation here — no country has actually invaded us.</p>
  51. <p><del>Stephen Miller’s</del> Trump&#8217;s workaround? He just… declared by proclamation that the greatly exaggerated Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA), is totally working with Maduro. Evidence? Who needs evidence when you&#8217;ve got a proclamation? <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/02/ice-is-using-pure-bullshit-to-turn-people-into-venezuelan-gang-members-to-keep-hitting-its-daily-arrest-quota/">Certainly not</a> this government!</p>
  52. <p>Which takes us to <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.58.0_1.pdf">the ruling barring the use of the AEA</a> to remove Venezuelans. In short: the AEA requires things to happen that haven’t happened, and you can’t get around that by just having the President “declare” that it happened. That’s not to say the ruling is totally good, as there are some problematic aspects, even if it gets the larger picture correct.</p>
  53. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  54. <p><em>The question that this lawsuit presents is whether the President can utilize a specific statute, the AEA, to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of TdA. As to that question, the historical record renders clear that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.</em> <strong><em>As a result, the Court concludes that as a matter of law, the Executive Branch cannot rely on the AEA, based on the Proclamation, to detain the Named Petitioners and the certified class, or to remove them from the country.</em></strong></p>
  55. </blockquote>
  56. <p>The judge walks us through the AEA&#8217;s greatest hits (spoiler alert: it&#8217;s a very short playlist, and every track is garbage), noting how it&#8217;s only ever been used during actual, official, Congress-declared wars. You know, real ones, and not just because the president had a bad morning and decided to declare war on reality to justify shipping brown people to a foreign gulag.</p>
  57. <p>Without an actual declared war, the whole effort by the Trump administration hinges on a ridiculous interpretation of “invasion” or “predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. The judge starts out by exploring the meaning of those terms, including at the time the law was written back in the 18th century. And wouldn&#8217;t you know it? They were talking about actual military forces, not just people moving to America, trying to find a better life:</p>
  58. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  59. <p><em>In the significant majority of the records, the use of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” referred to an attack by military forces. This held true even when the historical record did not concern the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. The usages of “predatory incursion” at times referred to entries by Native Americans into the western territories, as did usages of “incursion.” But even these records refer to an organized group of armed individuals entering an area to attack a fort, settlement, or town, and the writer typically discussed the need for a military response to the entry. In only a few sources did the use of “invasion” or “predatory incursion” reference a non-military action. While the Court does not represent that its review constitutes a vigorous corpus linguistics analysis, the results provide a significant level of confidence that a complete review would generate similar conclusions.</em></p>
  60. </blockquote>
  61. <p>Also, it turns out that the Congressional record from the 18th century makes it clear that this is also what Congress intended:</p>
  62. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  63. <p><em>In addition, the Court located only one relevant historical record from the debates over the AEA. Representative Robert Harper moved to strike the phrase “predatory incursion” from the proposed legislation, based on his belief that the bill granted “very extensive” powers that “he did not think ought to be given except in case of serious attack.” 8 Annals of Congress 1786.</em></p>
  64. </blockquote>
  65. <p>Given that, the Court sees no way that the administration can properly argue that TdA has invaded or engaged in a “predatory incursion” into the country. While it admits that TdA is obviously dangerous and a real problem, and even accepts as given (more on that in a bit) that they can be tied to the Venezuelan government, it’s still a bridge too far to say that they invaded.</p>
  66. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  67. <p><em>Based on the plain, ordinary meaning of those terms in the late 1790’s, the Court concludes that the factual statements do not.</em> <strong><em>The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation. Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of “invasion” for purposes of the AEA</em></strong><em>. As for “predatory incursion,” the Proclamation does not describe an armed group of individuals entering the United States as an organized unit to attack a city, coastal town, or other defined geographical area, with the purpose of plundering or destroying property and lives. While the Proclamation references that TdA members have harmed lives in the United States and engage in crime, the Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack, or that Venezuela has threatened or attempted such an attack through TdA members. As a result,</em> <strong><em>the Proclamation also falls short of describing a “predatory incursion” as that concept was understood at the time of the AEA’s enactment</em></strong><em>.</em></p>
  68. </blockquote>
  69. <p>The judge basically said: &#8220;let me explain what words actually mean, since you seem confused.&#8221;</p>
  70. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  71. <p><em>For these reasons, the Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful. Respondents do not possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country.</em></p>
  72. </blockquote>
  73. <p>So what&#8217;s the bottom line here? The administration <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.57.0_1.pdf">can&#8217;t use this centuries-old law as their personal disappearing people machine</a> — at least not for Venezuelans in the Southern District of Texas.</p>
  74. <p>That said, there are still some parts of the ruling that are pretty scary, including that the judge feels that plenty of what Trump has done here is unreviewable by the courts as “political questions.” And he also makes it clear that Trump could use other laws to kick them out of the country (though, those other laws historically have more due process associated with them, which is why the admin went to the AEA in the first place).</p>
  75. <p>Specifically, the court says that it can’t determine if the factual claims made in the White House’s proclamation (such as that TdA is working for Maduro and therefore an agent of the state of Venezuela) are true or not. Rather, it can only interpret the words in the statute, such as “invasion” and “predatory incursion.”</p>
  76. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  77. <p><em>Based on the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the AEA, as well as the principles enumerated in Baker, the Court concludes that while</em> <strong><em>it may not adjudicate the veracity of the factual statements in the Proclamation, or the propriety of the steps taken by the President as to Venezuelan aliens and TdA members</em></strong><em>, the Court retains the authority to construe the AEA’s terms and determine whether the announced basis for the Proclamation properly invokes the statute.</em></p>
  78. </blockquote>
  79. <p>That could create problems down the road if it remains. In part, the judge is giving the administration a roadmap to continue doing what they want to do. And it gets even worse:</p>
  80. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  81. <p><em>Once a court defines the parameters of what conduct constitutes an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” for purposes of the AEA,</em> <strong><em>the court leaves to the Executive Branch the determination of whether such conduct has been perpetrated, attempted, or threatened</em></strong><em>. For example, a court may decide that one aspect of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” requires physical entry into the United States. In other words, a court may conclude that no invasion or predatory incursion has occurred or has been threatened if the alleged conduct does not involve the entry of individuals into the country. The court having determined the meaning of these terms,</em> <strong><em>it is left to the Executive Branch to determine whether a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated activity that includes such an entry</em></strong><em>. As to this decision,</em> <strong><em>the court may not delve into whether the Executive Branch possesses sufficient support for its conclusion, or whether the court agrees with the Executive Branch’s determinations</em></strong><em>. That analysis would require the Executive Branch to disclose to the court the domestic and foreign intelligence that undergirds the finding of an actual or threatened invasion or predatory incursion. And requiring the Executive Branch to do so would run counter to the admonition that “it is inconceivable that before an alien enemy could be removed from the territory of this country in time of war, the President should be compelled to spread upon the public record in a judicial proceeding the method by which the Government may detect enemy activity within our borders[.]”</em></p>
  82. </blockquote>
  83. <p>That creates a pretty big loophole for the Trump administration to go through even with this particular decision.</p>
  84. <p>So yeah, this is a win — a Trump-appointed judge looked at this legal nonsense and said &#8220;nah.&#8221; That&#8217;s huge. But don’t get too excited. The administration&#8217;s already shown they&#8217;re willing to do just about anything to justify their actions. They&#8217;re not going to let a little thing like &#8220;judicial interpretation&#8221; or &#8220;what words actually mean&#8221; stop them from trying again.</p>
  85. <p>The real question isn&#8217;t whether they&#8217;ll try to get around this ruling — it&#8217;s what creative legal interpretation they&#8217;ll cook up next. This particular dumpster fire is far from out.</p>
  86. ]]></content:encoded>
  88. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/02/trump-appointed-judge-no-you-cant-use-alien-enemies-act-to-rendition-venezuelans/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  89. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  92. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">497120</post-id> </item>
  93. <item>
  94. <title>T-Mobile Responds To Lawsuits That Its &#8216;Price Lock&#8217; Is Meaningless, With A New Meaningless &#8216;Price Lock&#8217; Offer</title>
  95. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/02/t-mobile-responds-to-lawsuits-that-its-price-lock-is-meaningless-with-a-new-meaningless-price-lock-offer/</link>
  96. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/02/t-mobile-responds-to-lawsuits-that-its-price-lock-is-meaningless-with-a-new-meaningless-price-lock-offer/#comments</comments>
  98. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Karl Bode]]></dc:creator>
  99. <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 12:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
  100. <category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
  101. <category><![CDATA[t-mobile]]></category>
  102. <category><![CDATA[5g]]></category>
  103. <category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
  104. <category><![CDATA[fcc]]></category>
  105. <category><![CDATA[price lock]]></category>
  106. <category><![CDATA[price lock guarantee]]></category>
  107. <category><![CDATA[prices]]></category>
  108. <category><![CDATA[telecom]]></category>
  109. <category><![CDATA[uncarrier]]></category>
  110. <category><![CDATA[wireless]]></category>
  111. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=493351&#038;preview=true&#038;preview_id=493351</guid>
  112.  
  113. <description><![CDATA[In the wake of the Sprint T-Mobile merger, data suggests that wireless carriers&#160;immediately stopped trying to compete on price&#160;(exactly what deal critics had warned the Trump administration would happen when you reduce sector competition). Recently, T-Mobile imposed another $3-$5 per month price hike on most of its plans — including customers who believed they were under a [&#8230;]]]></description>
  114. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the wake of the Sprint T-Mobile merger, data suggests that wireless carriers&nbsp;<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/16/report-sprint-t-mobile-merger-immediately-killed-wireless-price-competition-in-u-s/">immediately stopped trying to compete on price</a>&nbsp;(exactly what deal critics had warned the Trump administration would happen when you reduce sector competition).</p>
  115. <p>Recently, T-Mobile imposed <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/18/t-mobile-users-surprised-that-companys-promise-of-no-price-hikes-wasnt-real/">another $3-$5 per month price hike on most of its plans</a> — including customers who believed they were under a “price lock” guarantee thanks to a 7-year-old promotion promising that their price would never change. But when users explored the fine print of that agreement it indicated that by &#8220;price lock,&#8221; T-Mobile <strong>actually</strong> meant it would pay your final monthly bill if the carrier raised the price <strong>and</strong> impacted customers decided to cancel. In other words, bullshit.</p>
  116. <p>T-Mobile was flooded with complaints and lawsuits over the practice, but it has so far faced absolutely no accountability for lying to users. Now T-Mobile is back with yet another, new &#8220;price lock&#8221; guarantee <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/taxes-and-fees-not-included-t-mobiles-latest-price-lock-is-nearly-meaningless/">that in no way locks in your pricing</a>. </p>
  117. <p>T-Mobile&#8217;s previous, shitty plans at least had &#8220;taxes and fees&#8221; included. This new promotion doesn&#8217;t do that, ensuring that T-Mobile can impose all manner of dodgy fake fees to <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/taxes-and-fees-not-included-t-mobiles-latest-price-lock-is-nearly-meaningless/">jack up the advertised price</a> and ignore its promise to not raise prices:</p>
  118. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  119. <p><em>&#8220;This will make the plans cost more initially than customers might expect, and it gives T-Mobile wiggle room to raise prices during the five years of the price guarantee since it could increase any fees that are tacked onto the new plans. The fine print in today&#8217;s press release describes taxes and fees as &#8220;exclusions&#8221; to the price guarantee.&#8221;</em></p>
  120. </blockquote>
  121. <p>U.S. telecoms have a long and proud history of imposing all sorts of bullshit and fake fees &#8212; many disguised to pretend they&#8217;re coming from government &#8212; to <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/10/01/hidden-fees-mean-us-cable-broadband-bills-can-be-45-higher-than-advertised/">jack up the below the line costs</a>. The Biden FCC and FTC had been <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/03/22/fcc-outlaws-sleazy-and-misleading-cable-tv-fees/">taking some steps</a> to<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/18/ftcs-lina-khan-takes-aim-at-sneaky-fees-on-her-way-out-the-door/"> combat that</a>, but the second Trump administration has effectively <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/20/trump-fcc-boss-to-destroy-whatevers-left-of-u-s-broadband-consumer-protection/">abandoned consumer protection entirely</a>. You know, for populism (?). </p>
  122. <p>So instead of cracking down on telecoms that lie about pricing, FCC boss Brendan Carr spends his days <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/04/fcc-boss-brendan-carr-investigating-verizon-for-not-being-racist-enough/">harassing companies that aren&#8217;t racist and sexist enough</a>, and bullying media companies that <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/656653/brendan-carr-fcc-anti-consumer-harassment-dei-trump">don&#8217;t kiss Donald Trump&#8217;s ass</a>.</p>
  123. ]]></content:encoded>
  125. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/02/t-mobile-responds-to-lawsuits-that-its-price-lock-is-meaningless-with-a-new-meaningless-price-lock-offer/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  126. <slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
  129. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">493351</post-id> </item>
  130. <item>
  131. <title>RFK Jr. Wants You To Know HHS Is Committed To Stopping Chemtrails From Poisoning You</title>
  132. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/rfk-jr-wants-you-to-know-hhs-is-committed-to-stopping-chemtrails-from-poisoning-you/</link>
  133. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/rfk-jr-wants-you-to-know-hhs-is-committed-to-stopping-chemtrails-from-poisoning-you/#comments</comments>
  135. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dark Helmet]]></dc:creator>
  136. <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 03:18:56 +0000</pubDate>
  137. <category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
  138. <category><![CDATA[chemtrails]]></category>
  139. <category><![CDATA[conspiracy theories]]></category>
  140. <category><![CDATA[dr. phil]]></category>
  141. <category><![CDATA[hhs]]></category>
  142. <category><![CDATA[nonsense]]></category>
  143. <category><![CDATA[rfk jr.]]></category>
  144. <category><![CDATA[vaccines]]></category>
  145. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=494709&#038;preview=true&#038;preview_id=494709</guid>
  146.  
  147. <description><![CDATA[RFK Jr.&#8217;s tenure at HHS must be put to an end. We already have ample evidence for that necessity, both in the form of his complete mismanagement of a ballooning measles outbreak that continues to expand, his vaccine skepticism that has led to him stating that he&#8217;s going to have the origin of autism all [&#8230;]]]></description>
  148. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RFK Jr.&#8217;s tenure at HHS <em>must</em> be put to an end. We already have ample evidence for that necessity, both in the form of his complete mismanagement of a ballooning <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/29/us-measles-cases-on-pace-to-eclipse-2019-1994-case-numbers/">measles outbreak</a> that continues to expand, his vaccine skepticism that has led to him stating that he&#8217;s going to have the <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/14/rfk-jr-commits-to-knowing-the-cause-of-autism-by-september-of-this-year/">origin of autism</a> all figured out in a couple of months despite years of research from actually qualified people being done, or even just the fact that a <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/16/brain-wormed-rfk-jr-sues-meta-cites-ai-chatbot-reply-as-proof-of-shadowbanning/">goddamned worm</a> ate part of his fucking brain.</p>
  149. <p>But now this is just getting ridiculous. In the midst of the measles problem that he really should be focusing on combatting, Kennedy instead went on Dr. Phil&#8217;s show. There he took questions about health from the audience and, in response to one question, committed to getting to the bottom <a href="https://gizmodo.com/rfk-jr-goes-full-tinfoil-pledges-to-stop-chemtrails-in-latest-dr-phil-interview-2000596357">of this whole chemtrail thing</a>.</p>
  150. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  151. <p><em>Toward the end of Dr. Phil’s town hall, an audience member named Emily&nbsp;<a href="https://youtu.be/ZofNzZ8UoPk?si=m4W4aqSiAFp9m_Ln&amp;t=4622">stated</a>&nbsp;that she was most concerned about the constant “aerosol injections” of aluminum, strontium, and other purported toxins being sprayed into the skies—a statement that RFK Jr. completely took at face value when asked how he was going to address this issue.</em></p>
  152. <p><em>“That is not happening in my agency. We don’t do that. It’s done, we think, by DARPA. And a lot of it now is coming out of the jet fuel—so those materials are put in jet fuel,” Kennedy responded, appearing to blame the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, part of the U.S. Department of Defense, for chemtrails. DARPA has long been a conspiracy bogeyman, though it’s not the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.noaa.gov/news/fact-check-debunking-weather-modification-claims">only government agency</a>&nbsp;that’s been accused of creating chemtrails.</em></p>
  153. <p><em>Kennedy added, “I’m going to do everything in my power to stop it. We’re bringing on somebody who’s going to think only about that, find out who’s doing it, and holding them accountable.”</em></p>
  154. </blockquote>
  155. <p>Let that sink in for just a moment. As HHS has <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/04/amid-the-measles-outbreak-hhs-cuts-1-8th-of-workforce/">cut 1/8th</a> of its workforce, including clinics and resources for fighting the measles outbreak, he is committing to bringing in a fulltime employee who will spend all of their time, <em>all of it</em>, &#8220;thinking only about&#8221; chemtrails. This isn&#8217;t just incompetence; it&#8217;s a criminal waste of taxpayer dollars, time, and energy on a conspiracy theory that many conspiracy theorists think is fucking stupid. Any brain cycles spent thinking about this by anyone is of zero value. And here is the head of healthcare in America not only taking it seriously, but promising to commit resources to it.</p>
  156. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  157. <p><em>Even among conspiracy theories, the logic underlying chemtrails is especially stupid. The theory goes that planes have been secretly seeding the skies with all sorts of chemical weapons that have been poisoning people for decades—weapons that conveniently leave behind easily visible trails. Some people claim these chemicals are also—or instead—being used to modify the weather.</em></p>
  158. <p><em>In truth, these trails are the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.spartan.edu/news/trails-in-the-sky-all-about-contrails/">product of condensation</a>&nbsp;that usually happens when jet fuel exhaust—mostly made out of water vapor but also containing small particles of soot—mixes with cold, humid air at high altitudes. In other words, they’re basically just temporary clouds made out of ice crystals (natural clouds are more often composed of water droplets). They’re formally known as contrails, short for condensation trails.</em></p>
  159. </blockquote>
  160. <p>And the head of HHS wants you to know he&#8217;s on the case. Because we&#8217;re apparently going to allow him to be and not impeach him or otherwise pressure the administration to put someone with a full intact brain in the position.</p>
  161. ]]></content:encoded>
  163. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/rfk-jr-wants-you-to-know-hhs-is-committed-to-stopping-chemtrails-from-poisoning-you/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  164. <slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
  167. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">494709</post-id> </item>
  168. <item>
  169. <title>Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Look What The Chat Dragged In</title>
  170. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/ctrl-alt-speech-look-what-the-chat-dragged-in/</link>
  171. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/ctrl-alt-speech-look-what-the-chat-dragged-in/#respond</comments>
  173. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
  174. <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 23:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
  175. <category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
  176. <category><![CDATA[character.ai]]></category>
  177. <category><![CDATA[meta]]></category>
  178. <category><![CDATA[ai]]></category>
  179. <category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
  180. <category><![CDATA[content moderation]]></category>
  181. <category><![CDATA[curtis yarvin]]></category>
  182. <category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
  183. <category><![CDATA[group chats]]></category>
  184. <category><![CDATA[marc andreessen]]></category>
  185. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=494753&#038;preview=true&#038;preview_id=494753</guid>
  186.  
  187. <description><![CDATA[Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation&#8216;s Ben Whitelaw. Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed. In this week&#8217;s round-up of the latest news in online [&#8230;]]]></description>
  188. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="https://ctrlaltspeech.com/">Ctrl-Alt-Speech</a> is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and <a href="https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/">Everything in Moderation</a>&#8216;s Ben Whitelaw. </strong></p>
  189. <p><strong>Subscribe now on <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193">Apple Podcasts</a>, <a href="https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193">Overcast</a>, <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc">Spotify</a>, <a href="https://pca.st/zulnarbw">Pocket Casts</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z">YouTube</a>, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to <a href="https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss">the RSS feed</a>.</strong></p>
  190. <p><iframe src="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2315966/episodes/17082421-look-what-the-chat-dragged-in?client_source=small_player&#038;iframe=true" loading="lazy" width="100%" height="200" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title='Ctrl-Alt-Speech, Look What The Chat Dragged In'></iframe></p>
  191. <p>In this week&#8217;s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:</p>
  192. <ul class="wp-block-list">
  193. <li><a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/04/27/2025/the-group-chats-that-changed-america">The group chats that changed America</a> (Semafor)</li>
  194. <li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-interview.html">Curtis Yarvin Says Democracy Is Done. Powerful Conservatives Are Listening</a> (New York Times) </li>
  195. <li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/apr/27/meta-faces-ghana-lawsuits-over-impact-of-extreme-content-on-moderators">Meta faces Ghana lawsuits over impact of extreme content on moderators</a> (The Guardian) </li>
  196. <li><a href="https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2025-04-27/social-media-moderators-lives-are-getting-worse.-big-tech-needs-to-take-responsibility">Social media moderators’ lives are getting worse. Big Tech needs to take responsibility </a>(The Bureau of Investigative Journalism)</li>
  197. <li><a href="https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-ai-chatbots-sex-a25311bf">Meta’s ‘Digital Companions’ Will Talk Sex With Users—Even Children</a> (Wall Street Journal)</li>
  198. <li><a href="https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2025/04/kids-should-avoid-ai-companion-bots-under-force-of-law-assessment-says/">Kids should avoid AI companion bots—under force of law, assessment says</a> (CalMatters)</li>
  199. <li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mom-work-in-tech-fear-ai-teach-daughter-stay-safe-2025-4">I&#8217;m a mom who works in tech, and AI scares me. I taught my daughter these simple guidelines to spot fake content</a> (Business Insider) </li>
  200. <li><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/80d9c4f8-653d-4f8c-89b8-b4d1e183a134">Playing ‘whack-a-mole’ with Meta over my fraudulent avatars</a> (Financial Times)</li>
  201. <li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/apr/30/meta-slowest-to-remove-scam-content-says-city-watchdog">Meta slowest to remove scam content, says City watchdog</a> (The Guardian)</li>
  202. </ul>
  203. <p>This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust &amp; Safety Fund, and by our sponsor <a href="https://www.modulate.ai/">Modulate</a>. In our Bonus Chat, we speak with Modulate CEO Mike Pappas about the evolving landscape of online fraud and how the company’s work detecting abuse in gaming environments is helping identify financial misconduct across different types of digital platforms.</p>
  204. ]]></content:encoded>
  206. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/ctrl-alt-speech-look-what-the-chat-dragged-in/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  207. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  210. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">494753</post-id> </item>
  211. <item>
  212. <title>DOGE Aide Involved In Dismantling Consumer Bureau Owns Stock In Companies That Could Benefit From the Cuts</title>
  213. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/doge-aide-involved-in-dismantling-consumer-bureau-owns-stock-in-companies-that-could-benefit-from-the-cuts/</link>
  214. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/doge-aide-involved-in-dismantling-consumer-bureau-owns-stock-in-companies-that-could-benefit-from-the-cuts/#comments</comments>
  216. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
  217. <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 20:48:52 +0000</pubDate>
  218. <category><![CDATA[apple]]></category>
  219. <category><![CDATA[tesla]]></category>
  220. <category><![CDATA[cfpb]]></category>
  221. <category><![CDATA[conflict of interest]]></category>
  222. <category><![CDATA[divestiture]]></category>
  223. <category><![CDATA[doge]]></category>
  224. <category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
  225. <category><![CDATA[gavin kliger]]></category>
  226. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=494415</guid>
  227.  
  228. <description><![CDATA[This story was originally published by ProPublica. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license. A federal employee who is helping the Trump administration carry out the drastic downsizing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau owns stock in companies that could benefit from the agency’s dismantling, a ProPublica investigation has found. Gavin Kliger, a 25-year-old Department of Government Efficiency aide, disclosed the [&#8230;]]]></description>
  229. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>This story was <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-gavin-kliger-stock">originally published</a> by ProPublica.</em> <em>Republished under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/">CC BY-NC-ND 3.0</a></em> <em>license.</em></p>
  230. <link rel="canonical" href="https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-gavin-kliger-stock"><meta name="syndication-source" content="https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-gavin-kliger-stock"><script type="text/javascript" src="https://pixel.propublica.org/pixel.js" async></script>
  231. <p>A federal employee who is helping the Trump administration carry out the drastic downsizing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau owns stock in companies that could benefit from the agency’s dismantling, a ProPublica investigation has found.</p>
  232. <p>Gavin Kliger, a 25-year-old <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/elon-musk-doge-tracker/">Department of Government Efficiency aide</a>, disclosed the investments earlier this year in his <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25553901-kliger-gavin-od-new-entrant-278-2025-2025-02-10/">public financial report</a>, which lists as much as $365,000 worth of shares in four entities that the CFPB can regulate. According to court records and government emails, he later helped oversee the layoffs of more than 1,400 employees at the bureau.</p>
  233. <p>Ethics experts say this constitutes a conflict of interest and that Kliger’s actions are a potential violation of federal ethics laws.</p>
  234. <p>Executive branch employees have long been subject to laws and rules that forbid them from working on matters that “<a href="https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/0/86D5B4F72AF0FBCB852585B6005A1A22/$FILE/Standards%20of%20Ethical%20Conduct%20508.pdf">will affect your own personal financial interest</a>.” CFPB employees are also&nbsp;<a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/protecting-the-publics-trust/">required to divest from dozens of additional, specific companies</a>&nbsp;that engage in financial services and thus either are or could be subject to agency supervision, rulemaking, examination or enforcement.</p>
  235. <p>The CFPB oversees companies that offer a variety of financial services, including mortgage lending, auto financing, credit cards and payment apps.</p>
  236. <p>Two of the companies in which Kliger is invested — Apple and Tesla — are on the CFPB’s list of prohibited holdings. Two other cryptocurrency holdings — Bitcoin and Solana — aren’t on the list but are nevertheless barred under agency guidance on investing in cryptocurrency firms.</p>
  237. <p>Court records show that Kliger was among a small handful of top CFPB and administration officials discussing the implementation of the layoffs in emails. Separately, a federal employee who works on the layoff team said that Kliger “managed” the firings of about 90% of the bureau’s staff earlier this month, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/alex-doe-doge-cfpb-declaration.pdf">sworn declaration</a>&nbsp;filed by lawyers opposing the administration.</p>
  238. <p>The employee, using the pseudonym Alex Doe for fear of retaliation, said they learned of Kliger’s role from colleagues and described Kliger keeping the CFPB employees “up for 36 hours straight to ensure that the notices would go out,” the declaration states. “Gavin was screaming at people he did not believe were working fast enough” and “calling them incompetent.”</p>
  239. <p>Among those fired were the bureau’s ethics team, according to an agency lawyer, who&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277287/gov.uscourts.dcd.277287.127.14.pdf">wrote in an April 25 court filing</a>&nbsp;that “I am not aware of anyone remaining at the CFPB who has the requisite expertise to fulfill the CFPB’s federal ethics requirements.”</p>
  240. <p>Ethics experts said that getting rid of government regulators who oversee companies and set industrywide rules could impact the share price of the businesses subject to that regulation, since doing away with oversight can free companies from compliance costs and the exposure that stems from enforcement actions.</p>
  241. <p>“Destroying the CFPB is likely to have, I believe, a direct and predictable effect on his financial stock,” Kathleen Clark, an expert on government ethics at the Washington University in St. Louis, said of Kliger.</p>
  242. <p>Unionized bureau employees have sued the agency’s acting director, Russell Vought, to stop the administration’s efforts to wind down its operations and reduce its staff. The subsequent months of litigation have been head-spinning.</p>
  243. <p>At the end of March, a district court judge issued a sweeping stay on the administration’s actions. Then on April 11, an appeals court in Washington, D.C., partially lifted that stay. In its order, the panel wrote that bureau leaders must conduct a “particularized assessment” before firing workers.</p>
  244. <p>Days later, most of the agency’s staff was notified that they were being fired.</p>
  245. <p>The bureau’s chief legal officer, Mark Paoletta, and two other lawyers conducted the court-ordered review, the government said in legal papers. In a recent filing, Paoletta wrote that the administration is attempting to achieve a “streamlined and right-sized Bureau.” Instead of 248 enforcement division employees and 487 in the supervision division, he wrote, he planned to keep 50 workers in each.</p>
  246. <p>But on Monday evening, amid vigorous dispute over the legality of the firings and the definition of “particularized assessment,”&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41898/gov.uscourts.cadc.41898.01208734554.0.pdf">the appeals court backtracked</a>, upholding the trial court’s initial stay on the mass layoffs as the case plays out. The CFPB then notified the more than 1,400 employees who’d been laid off that their firings were being rescinded. The lawsuit is ongoing, with oral arguments before the appeals court scheduled for next month.</p>
  247. <p>Kliger didn’t respond to voicemails or emails seeking comment for this story. The CFPB didn’t respond to a request for comment.</p>
  248. <p>In a statement, the White House said that “these allegations are another attempt to diminish DOGE’s critical mission.”</p>
  249. <p>Kliger “did not even manage” the layoffs, the statement said, “making this entire narrative an outright lie.”</p>
  250. <p>Asked to clarify Kliger’s role in the administration&#8217;s cuts, a spokesperson said, “You have 90 days from the start date to divest which is May 8th — it is only April 28th.” It’s unclear what rule the White House was referencing; the spokesperson did not respond to follow-up questions. But ethics experts said there are two scenarios that could apply: Sometimes, high-level government officials pledge to divest their holdings by a certain date to avoid conflicts of interest. And at the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-LXXXIV/part-9401">CFPB in particular, regulations give</a>&nbsp;employees 90 days to divest prohibited holdings.</p>
  251. <p>In either case, though, the employee is required to recuse themselves from any actions that could affect their investments.</p>
  252. <p>Delaney Marsco, a government ethics expert at the Campaign Legal Center, said Kliger’s holdings and his involvement in winding down the agency erode the public’s faith that government officials are serving its best interests.</p>
  253. <p>“When you have these facts, it raises the question, which is just as bad as when you have the actual violation because it makes the public question,” she said.</p>
  254. <p>Kliger owns between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in Apple, which the CFPB regulates. The company agreed to pay a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/apple-inc/">$25 million civil penalty</a>&nbsp;last October following a bureau investigation into Apple Card, a credit card in the company’s software. The bureau said that Apple did not have a proper transaction dispute system when it launched and also that it misled some customers about its financing. The company ​​agreed to the consent order, records show, “<a href="https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_apple-inc-stipulation_2024-10.pdf">without admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law</a>.”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.freep.com/story/money/personal-finance/susan-tompor/2024/10/23/apple-card-goldman-sachs-credit-disputes-interest-free-payments/75806805007/">In a statement at the time</a>, Apple said that “while we strongly disagree with the CFPB’s characterization of Apple’s conduct, we have aligned with them on an agreement.”</p>
  255. <p>Kliger also owns between $100,000 and $250,000 of Tesla stock. The company, founded by DOGE boss Elon Musk, falls under the bureau’s purview because it offers financing, a key area of scrutiny for the CFPB.</p>
  256. <p>Kliger also owns cryptocurrencies: between $1,000 and $15,000 of Solana and between $15,000 and $50,000 of Bitcoin.</p>
  257. <p>Any federal worker who “holds any amount of a cryptocurrency or stablecoin may not participate in a particular matter if the employee knows that particular matter could have a direct and predictable effect on the value of their cryptocurrency or stablecoins,” according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/News+Releases/E116F1FD24F94BB3852588770058A0FA/$FILE/LA-22-04.pdf">legal memo issued in July of 2022</a>, under then-President Joe Biden, by the independent federal agency tasked with advising executive branch employees on how to avoid conflicts of interests.</p>
  258. <p>An internal notice to CFPB employees the following month instructed anyone with such a holding to “immediately recuse yourself from working on any Bureau particular matter,” report the ownership and divest within 90 days, records reviewed by ProPublica show.</p>
  259. <p>Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second presidency, the administration has sought to significantly reduce the size, scope and nature of America’s consumer watchdog, which was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.</p>
  260. <p>ProPublica reported last month that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cfpb-investigation-capital-one-rocket-meta-carvana-greenlight">dozens of investigations the agency had launched were stalled amid stop-work orders</a>.</p>
  261. <p>In a recent court filing that supplements a newly released policy memo, Paoletta wrote that, in recent years, “the Bureau has also engaged in intrusive and wasteful fishing expeditions against depository institutions and, increasingly, non-depository institutions” and that it had “pushed into new areas beyond its jurisdiction such as peer-to-peer lending, rent-to-own, and discrimination as unfair practice.”</p>
  262. ]]></content:encoded>
  264. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/doge-aide-involved-in-dismantling-consumer-bureau-owns-stock-in-companies-that-could-benefit-from-the-cuts/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  265. <slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
  268. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">494415</post-id> </item>
  269. <item>
  270. <title>Colorado&#8217;s Social Media Moral Panic Bill Dies After Governor&#8217;s Thoughtful Veto</title>
  271. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/colorados-social-media-moral-panic-bill-dies-after-governors-thoughtful-veto/</link>
  272. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/colorados-social-media-moral-panic-bill-dies-after-governors-thoughtful-veto/#comments</comments>
  274. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
  275. <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 19:12:39 +0000</pubDate>
  276. <category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
  277. <category><![CDATA[1st amendment]]></category>
  278. <category><![CDATA[age verification]]></category>
  279. <category><![CDATA[colorado]]></category>
  280. <category><![CDATA[content moderation]]></category>
  281. <category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
  282. <category><![CDATA[jared polis]]></category>
  283. <category><![CDATA[moral panic]]></category>
  284. <category><![CDATA[phil weiser]]></category>
  285. <category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
  286. <category><![CDATA[protect the children]]></category>
  287. <category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
  288. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=494452</guid>
  289.  
  290. <description><![CDATA[Stop me if you&#8217;ve heard this one before: a state legislature, caught up in the moral panic about social media, passes yet another clearly unconstitutional bill that will waste taxpayer money on doomed legal battles. This time it&#8217;s Colorado, whose legislature passed a ridiculously bad social media regulation bill (SB25-086) that looks suspiciously similar to [&#8230;]]]></description>
  291. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stop me if you&#8217;ve heard this one before: a state legislature, caught up in the moral panic about social media, passes yet another clearly unconstitutional bill that will waste taxpayer money on doomed legal battles. This time it&#8217;s Colorado, whose legislature passed a <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-086">ridiculously bad social media regulation bill</a> (SB25-086) that looks suspiciously similar to bills that have already failed in <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/11/utahs-protect-the-kids-online-law-rejected-by-court/">Utah</a>, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/01/court-tosses-arkansas-age-verification-law-for-violating-the-1st-amendment/">Arkansas</a>, and other states. But this story has a slightly different ending.</p>
  292. <p>Like many such bills, this one had an age verification component, which would require massive privacy violations for all users, and also would have draconian and clearly unconstitutional requirements for websites to police certain specified “bad” content online, including suspending accounts of certain users based on Colorado claiming that some people don’t deserve social media accounts (which would clearly run afoul of <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2017/06/20/supreme-court-says-you-cant-ban-people-internet-no-matter-what-theyve-done/">the Supreme Court’s Packingham ruling</a> from 2017).</p>
  293. <p>In this case, though, Governor Jared Polis (who is often, though not always, good on internet issues) <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/governor-polis-signs-bills-protect-coloradans-privacy-and-healthcare-freedom-law-signs">chose to veto the bill</a> with a <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25922801/sb25-086-vs.pdf">very clear letter</a> explaining his (correct) reasons. He notes that while there are real concerns about problems online, much of the reasoning behind the bill feels like a moral panic, blaming the tech for how it is used:</p>
  294. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  295. <p><em>SB25-086 is intended to address legitimate concerns regarding the safety of children online. My administration takes very seriously our obligation to promote and protect the public safety of everyone across our state, especially minors, both in physical spaces and online ones, and we share the concerns that prompted this bill.</em> <strong><em>Just as when the telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell to connect people and ideas, it was later used for criminal activity and government surveillance, it&#8217;s also true that as social media platforms have become more popular, they too are used for illegal activity.</em></strong> <em>Notably, e-mail, including group listservs, can and is also used for illicit activity and receives a full exemption from the legislation.</em></p>
  296. <p><em>Despite good intentions,</em> <strong><em>this bill fails to guarantee the safety of minors or adults, erodes privacy, freedom, and innovation, hurts vulnerable people, and potentially subjects all Coloradans to stifling and unwarranted scrutiny of our constitutionally protected speech.</em></strong></p>
  297. <p><em>Make no mistake, I share the concerns of parents and law enforcement across our state about minors and adults exposed to illegal activity on social media platforms as well as in neighborhoods. This is why my office offered suggestions focused on strengthening tools to help law enforcement successfully apprehend criminals. Sadly, the bill sponsors rejected these ideas and passed legislation that, to my mind, unduly infringes on the speech, privacy, and liberty rights of all users.</em></p>
  298. </blockquote>
  299. <p>But it’s not just that the bill is based on a moral panic falsely targeted at the technology rather than specific abuses, it’s that the nature of the bill is deeply problematic and does away with some basic due process and privacy rights:</p>
  300. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  301. <p><strong><em>This law imposes sweeping requirements that social media platforms, rather than law enforcement, enforce state law.</em></strong> <em>It mandates a private company to investigate and impose the government&#8217;s chosen penalty of permanently deplatforming a user even if the underlying complaint is malicious and unwarranted.</em> <strong><em>In our judicial proceedings, people receive due process when they are suspected of breaking the law. This bill, however, conscripts social media platforms to be judge and jury when users may have broken the law or even a company&#8217;s own content rules. This proposed law would incentivize platforms, in order to reduce liability risk, to simply deplatform a user in order to comply with this proposed law.</em></strong></p>
  302. <p><em>Further, the costly and mandatory data and metadata collection requirements in this bill throw open the door for abuse by guaranteeing the availability of sensitive information such as user age, identities, and content viewed, and these reports could even be made public at the discretion of the Attorney General. This is not a speculative concern: people have been prosecuted for online searches related to reproductive health care access, and people have been detained and deported due to activity on social media platforms.</em></p>
  303. <p><strong><em>This kind of data collection threatens user privacy for those who may be searching for reproductive or gender affirming care in Colorado, as well as for our immigrant communities, especially without safeguards in the bill for how this data would be secured or shared.</em></strong> <em>This creates additional legal jeopardy, as well as the potential for blocking Colorado users from accessing or participating in social media to avoid costly compliance with this law. Importantly, recent U.S. Supreme Court cases suggest that content moderation laws that result in the deplatforming of users will not withstand constitutional scrutiny. For a state that prides ourselves on being forward-looking and innovative, this is simply an unacceptable outcome.</em></p>
  304. </blockquote>
  305. <p>He also notes that for all of the screaming about the supposed evils of the internet, the authors of the bill seem to ignore that many, many people are actually helped by the internet. And enabling government-backed censorship would create a huge mess:</p>
  306. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  307. <p><em>Of course, many Coloradans rely on friends they&#8217;ve made through online social networks to help them get through hard times and as a personal support structure. But social media platforms do more than provide a platform for free expression and engagement. These platforms are also inextricable from the successes of small businesses and individuals who make a living online.</em> <strong><em>Removing users as this bill demands will have devastating consequences on the livelihoods of many Coloradans that use social media platforms, with the largest economic impact being felt by content creators and small businesses that cannot afford website platforms or professional marketing campaigns</em></strong><em>. There have been instances across platforms of influencers, entrepreneurs, and even individual users being deplatformed for content related to breastfeeding, for example</em> <strong><em>this measure would give that action the full force of government</em></strong><em>. Any sales pitch-be it for wellness products, gunsmithing classes, or mental health supports for marginalized youth would be subject to a private entity&#8217;s interpretation of its legality, with an incentive to err on the side of deplatforming, and the consequence could be permanent removal. Stripping users of cost-effective customer engagement and marketing opportunities is a potential consequence of this law.</em></p>
  308. </blockquote>
  309. <p>He closes by also noting (as almost no other state does) the absolute ridiculousness of thinking that a single state should regulate the internet, which would create a 50-state statutory patchwork for businesses that operate without borders.</p>
  310. <p>It’s a great letter.</p>
  311. <p>Of course, almost immediately, the Colorado legislature sought to override his veto, and the Senate <a href="https://www.cpr.org/2025/04/25/polis-veto-override-social-media-bill/">voted to override Polis 29-6</a> the very next day. The sponsors of the bill didn’t address any of Polis’ stated concerns (including the fact that the Supreme Court had made it clear that a bill like this was unconstitutional). Instead, they trot out the usual propaganda about how they’re just out there “protecting the children” and who could possibly be against that?</p>
  312. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  313. <p><em>“I think it’s time that we dig deep and find the courage that is within all of us and the conviction that is within all of us to protect the children within the state of Colorado,” Sen. Lisa Frizell, a Castle Rock Republican and one of the bill’s main sponsors, said before the vote was taken.</em></p>
  314. <p><em>[….]</em></p>
  315. <p><em>“This bill gives us the tools to help remove predators and traffickers from using social media to harm our kids,” said Democratic Sen. Lindsey Daugherty of Arvada, one of the main sponsors. “This is not about censorship, it&#8217;s not about speech. It&#8217;s about standing up for the safety and dignity of our youngest and most vulnerable.”</em></p>
  316. </blockquote>
  317. <p>So much unconstitutional, unconscionable garbage is passed by legislatures under the false banner of &#8220;protecting the children.&#8221; As Polis rightly noted, this bill won&#8217;t do that — it will actually make many children significantly less safe by driving them away from supportive online communities and forcing them to hand over sensitive personal data. But these moral panic-driven authoritarians don&#8217;t care about the real-world consequences. They just want their name in the headlines with false claims of how they saved kids they actually put at risk.</p>
  318. <p>Thankfully, the override was halted earlier this week when the legislature realized it didn’t have the votes for the override in the larger House <a href="https://www.cpr.org/2025/04/28/colorado-legislature-polis-social-media-bill-veto-override-fails/">and punted on the bill</a>.</p>
  319. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  320. <p><em>The override effort failed when the state House laid over the vote to override the veto until May 9, which is after the legislative session ends. That prevented representatives from having to vote against the override after backing the bill.</em></p>
  321. <p><em>“The votes are not here,” said Rep. Andy Boesenecker, a Fort Collins Democrat and one of the lead sponsors of the bill. “That’s a fact.”</em>&nbsp;</p>
  322. </blockquote>
  323. <p>These bad bills keep popping up over and over again, so I&#8217;m sure we haven&#8217;t seen the last of this kind of bill. What&#8217;s particularly concerning is watching supposedly informed players jump on the moral panic bandwagon. Take current Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a leading candidate to replace Polis. As a former law professor specializing in internet and telecom law, Weiser should understand exactly why these bills are constitutionally problematic. Instead, he&#8217;s championing the same failed approaches we&#8217;ve seen crater in courtrooms across the country.</p>
  324. <p>It&#8217;s a stark reminder that when it comes to internet regulation, even those with the expertise to know better often can&#8217;t resist the siren song of &#8220;protecting the children&#8221; — even when their proposed solutions do anything but.</p>
  325. ]]></content:encoded>
  327. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/colorados-social-media-moral-panic-bill-dies-after-governors-thoughtful-veto/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  328. <slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
  331. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">494452</post-id> </item>
  332. <item>
  333. <title>Judge In Apple / Epic Case Is Spitting Mad At Apple’s Willful Contempt</title>
  334. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/judge-in-apple-epic-case-is-spitting-mad-at-apples-willful-contempt/</link>
  335. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/judge-in-apple-epic-case-is-spitting-mad-at-apples-willful-contempt/#comments</comments>
  337. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
  338. <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 17:58:13 +0000</pubDate>
  339. <category><![CDATA[apple]]></category>
  340. <category><![CDATA[alex roman]]></category>
  341. <category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
  342. <category><![CDATA[app store]]></category>
  343. <category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
  344. <category><![CDATA[contempt]]></category>
  345. <category><![CDATA[criminal contempt]]></category>
  346. <category><![CDATA[in app purcases]]></category>
  347. <category><![CDATA[luca maestri]]></category>
  348. <category><![CDATA[obstuction]]></category>
  349. <category><![CDATA[phil schiller]]></category>
  350. <category><![CDATA[tim cook]]></category>
  351. <category><![CDATA[yvonne gonzalez rogers]]></category>
  352. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=494645</guid>
  353.  
  354. <description><![CDATA[Back in 2021, Apple mostly won the antitrust case that Epic brought against it, and the Ninth Circuit largely agreed. The court rejected most claims about Apple&#8217;s App Store being an illegal monopoly. The company just had to make one small change: let developers tell users they could make purchases elsewhere. Simple enough. Instead, Apple [&#8230;]]]></description>
  355. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back in 2021, <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/10/apple-mostly-not-entirely-wins-against-epic-no-antitrust-violation-must-tweak-practices-to-comply-with-ca-law/">Apple mostly won</a> the antitrust case that Epic brought against it, and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/25/once-again-epic-fails-in-its-antitrust-quest-against-apple/">the Ninth Circuit largely agreed</a>. The court rejected most claims about Apple&#8217;s App Store being an illegal monopoly. The company just had to make one small change: let developers tell users they could make purchases elsewhere. Simple enough.</p>
  356. <p>Instead, Apple apparently decided that the best response was to design elaborate schemes to make that &#8220;elsewhere&#8221; as scary and expensive as possible, hide evidence of those schemes from the court, and then lie under oath about all of it. This strategy has worked out about as well as you&#8217;d expect, leading to what may be one of the most scathing judicial opinions you&#8217;ll ever read.</p>
  357. <p>As we noted at the time, this seemed like the correct outcome. Many of the antitrust claims from Epic seemed ridiculous and the court agreed, but the provisions forbidding app developers from even communicating to users that it was possible to do non in-app purchases seemed extremely restrictive and problematic.</p>
  358. <p>Apple should have been happy with this result. But Apple apparently was not. Yesterday, District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25924283/epic-v-apple-contempt-order.pdf">issued one of the most scathing rulings</a> I’ve ever seen a court issue, calling out what appears to be Apple’s willful decision to disobey the injunction and play games to avoid doing the little bit it was required to do.</p>
  359. <p>Let’s let the judge take it from here:</p>
  360. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  361. <p><em>To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing, and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Apple’s goal: maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, other purchasing mechanisms. Apple’s response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates with full page “scare” screens, static URLs, and generic statements. Apple’s goal: to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court’s Injunction.</em></p>
  362. <p><em>In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that</em> <strong><em>Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option</em></strong><em>. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance,</em> <strong><em>Alex Roman, outright lied under oath</em></strong><em>. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but</em> <strong><em>Tim Cook ignored Schiller</em></strong> <em>and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise.</em> <strong><em>Cook chose poorly</em></strong><em>. The real evidence, detailed herein, more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to</em> <strong><em>investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate</em></strong><em>.</em></p>
  363. </blockquote>
  364. <p>Cook chose poorly? Yikes. Being referred for criminal contempt? Double yikes.</p>
  365. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  366. <p><strong><em>This is an injunction, not a negotiation</em></strong><em>.</em> <strong><em>There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order.</em></strong> <em>Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases.</em></p>
  367. </blockquote>
  368. <p>Ouch.</p>
  369. <p>Apple has <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/08/spotify-and-epic-games-call-apples-revised-dma-compliance-plan-confusing-illegal-and-unacceptable/">a history of engaging in malicious compliance</a> to regulatory requirements, but this seems particularly egregious.</p>
  370. <p>The court&#8217;s ruling reveals a deliberate three-part strategy by Apple: First, design a system that would appear compliant while actually maintaining their monopoly. Second, hide evidence of this strategy through dubious privilege claims. And finally, when caught, lie about it under oath.</p>
  371. <p>The deliberate nature of Apple&#8217;s defiance is perhaps best captured in internal communications about their &#8220;scare screen&#8221; strategy.</p>
  372. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  373. <p><em>In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. (CX-206.) Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because</em> <strong><em>“‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.”</em></strong> <em>(Id. at .2.) From Mr. Onak’s perspective, of the “execs” on the project, Mr. Schiller was at the top. (Feb. 2025 Tr. 1340:4–6 (Onak).) One employee further wrote, “</em><strong><em>to make your version even worse you could add the developer name rather than the app name.”</em></strong> <em>(CX-206.4.) To that, another responded</em> <strong><em>“ooh &#8211; keep going.”</em></strong></p>
  374. <p><em>Again, Apple decided on the most anticompetitive option, that is, the “even worse” option of including the developer’s name rather than the app name …</em> <strong><em>All of this was hidden from the Court and not revealed in the May 2024 evidentiary hearings.</em></strong></p>
  375. </blockquote>
  376. <p>Apple folks tried to claim that when they said “scary” they didn’t mean “scary” and really said that “scary” was “a term of art” rather than what everyone knows it means:</p>
  377. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  378. <p><em>Mr. Onak testified that “in term of UX writing, the word ‘scary’ doesn’t . . . mean the same thing as instilling fear.” (Feb. 2025 Tr. 1340:10–12 (Onak).)</em> <strong><em>Rather, “scary” is a term of art that “means raising awareness and caution and grabbing the user’s attention.”</em></strong> <em>(Feb. 2025 Tr. 1340:13– 15 (Onak).) Mr. Onak repeatedly asserted that the team’s goal was simply “to raise caution so the user would have all the facts so that they can make an informed decision on their own.” (Feb. 2025 Tr. 1340:22–1341:2 (Onak).)</em> <strong><em>Mr. Onak’s testimony was not credible and falls flat given reason, common sense, and the totality of the admitted exhibits</em></strong><em>. The designers’ discussions contextualize their use of the word “scary” to indicate its ordinary meaning and, most applicable here, indicate the goal of deterring users as much as possible from completing a linked-out transaction.</em></p>
  379. </blockquote>
  380. <p>Beyond the psychological manipulation through the UI, Apple&#8217;s strategy centered on implementing a 27% commission on outside purchases — just a 3% discount from their usual rate for on-platform purchases — while knowing full well this would make external payment options economically unviable for developers.</p>
  381. <p>Apple senior management held a meeting after the injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, in which notes were taken, discussing two options: one where they didn’t charge for off-platform purchases (but which “would restrict the placement and appearance” of any links to off-AppStore purchasing options). The other one, which they went for, was to let them place the info more broadly, but take a 27% cut, rather than a 30% cut.</p>
  382. <p>Unfortunately for Apple, the notes for that meeting noted that a reason to reject the first proposal was that it would “create competitive pressure.” As the judge notes: that was exactly the point of the injunction, to create competitive pressure. So, Apple’s meeting to figure out how to minimize competitive pressure can be seen as seeking to get around the injunction.</p>
  383. <p>And then, on top of that, Apple went with a combination of both proposals to make it designed to stymie the injunction’s purpose. They included the link-out restrictions from the first proposal AND the commission from the second proposal.</p>
  384. <p>Even more damning, Apple’s internal notes reveal that Apple (most likely correctly) predicted that the 3% discount on commissions <strong>wouldn’t be economically viable, because the cost to run your own payment setup would likely exceed that 3%</strong>. And, Apple already knew that no one would sign up for this because they had used similar off-site commission programs in Korea and the Netherlands:</p>
  385. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  386. <p><em>At the time, Apple also knew of the virtually nonexistent adoption rates of the Netherlands and Korea programs. Those, similar to the at-issue program, additionally suggested to Apple the non-viable economics of the proposed program. See Feb. 2025 Tr. 1407:1-5 (&#8220;Q. [F]or example, as of October 2022, ten months into the Netherlands program and four months into the Korea program,</em> <strong><em>only one developer had signed up</em></strong> <em>for alternative payments across the two programs. A. That seems roughly correct, yes.&#8221;) (Oliver).</em></p>
  387. </blockquote>
  388. <p>If you only have one developer, you don’t have to say “roughly correct.” There’s no estimating there.</p>
  389. <p>But amazingly, it gets worse. Apple’s internal documentation more or less admits that they might be violating the injunction with this approach:</p>
  390. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  391. <p><em>Crucially, at this point, Apple’s notes reflect uncertainty about whether it could in fact impose a commission without violating the Injunction. In one slide deck, Apple’s notes explain that “[i]f we decided and had the ability to charge a commission, we believe there would be very little developer adoption of link-out, assuming a scenario where we would give a cost of payments discount at 3%.” (CX-859.33 (emphasis supplied).) Those same notes indicate that Apple planned to “[c]ome up with a couple of models in the spectrum of what we think the judge will accept” but to “[s]tart with the minimum.”</em></p>
  392. </blockquote>
  393. <p>The judge also points out that the exec who was pushing for the “no commission” approach, Phil Schiller, had closely followed the trial and read the injunction, while the execs pushing for the sketchy commission approach had not.</p>
  394. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  395. <p><em>Prior to the June 20 meeting, there were individuals within Apple who were advocating for a commission, and others advocating for no commission. (Feb. 2025 Tr. 1521:3–12 (Oliver).) Those advocating for a commission included Mr. Maestri and Mr. Roman. (Id. 1522:3–10 (Oliver).) Mr. Schiller disagreed. (Id. 1521:13–18 (Oliver).) In an email, Mr. Schiller relayed that, with respect to the proposal for “a 27% commission for 24 hours,” “I have already explained my many issues with the commission concept,” and that “clearly I am not on team commission/fee.” (CX-224.1.)29 Mr. Schiller testified that, at the time, he “had a question of whether we would be able to charge a commission” under the Injunction, a concern which he communicated. (Feb. 2025 Tr. 1177:24–1178:9 (Schiller).) Unlike Mr. Maestri and Mr. Roman,</em> <strong><em>Mr. Schiller sat through the entire underlying trial and actually read the entire 180-page decision. That Messrs. Maestri and Roman did neither, does not shield Apple of its knowledge (actual and constructive) of the Court’s findings.</em></strong></p>
  396. </blockquote>
  397. <p>When faced with judicial scrutiny of these practices, Apple didn&#8217;t just defend its actions — it launched an extraordinary campaign of document suppression and delay tactics that would ultimately backfire spectacularly.</p>
  398. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  399. <p><em>As testimony unfolded, and Apple attempted to justify its response, the Court became increasingly concerned that Apple was not only withholding critical information about its business decision for complying with the Injunction, but also that it had likely presented a reverse-engineered, litigation-ready justification for actions which on their face looked to be anticompetitive. The Court immediately ordered Apple to produce all injunction-compliance related documents</em></p>
  400. </blockquote>
  401. <p>And then Apple appeared to play games in providing the demanded documents:</p>
  402. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  403. <p><em>Apple engaged in tactics to delay the proceedings.</em> <strong><em>The Court later concluded that delay equaled profits</em></strong><em>. By September 30, 2024, Apple represented that it had produced around 89,000 documents out of the 1.5 million it had reviewed and expected to produce a few thousand more by October 7, 2024. (Dkt. No. 1024.) Apple, however, had asserted privilege over more than a third of responsive documents….</em></p>
  404. <p><em>Magistrate Judge Hixon largely found Apple’s privilege claims to be unsubstantiated after reviewing eleven exemplar documents (characterized by Epic as evidence of Apple’s overreach). (Dkt. No. 1056.)</em> <strong><em>Apple used this decision to delay further and “offered” to re-review all 57,000 documents for which it claimed privilege in full or in part.</em></strong> <em>Ultimately, Apple withdrew approximately 42.1% of its privilege claims.</em> <strong><em>Although Apple now tries to recast its re-review as “of its own accord,” that framing belies the reality that the documents should have never been withheld in the first instance.</em></strong> <em>(Dkt. No. 1151 at 5–6.) Ultimately, Epic and Apple hired three special masters to review Apple’s privilege claims after its re-review.</em></p>
  405. </blockquote>
  406. <p>But Apple&#8217;s strategy of obstruction eventually crumbled, revealing something even more serious: executives appearing to deliberately lie under oath.</p>
  407. <p>The judge describes how Apple hired some consultants, “Analysis Group” or “AG,” to conduct research on the value of their platform to try to find justification for the 27% costs charged to developers. They then told the court that they used that analysis as the basis of what to charge, even though the notes now prove that the decision was actually made about six months earlier. In other words, Apple execs appear to have lied under oath.</p>
  408. <p>On top of that, Apple execs claimed that they hadn’t evaluated if external costs of a developer running their own payment setup would exceed the 3% discount, even though it has since come out that they very much <em>did</em> do that analysis, and it was a key part of the decision to only discount commissions by 3%. More lies:</p>
  409. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  410. <p><em>Despite its own considerable evaluation, during the first May 2024 hearing,</em> <strong><em>Apple employees attempted to mislead the Court by testifying that the decision to impose a commission was grounded in AG’s report</em></strong><em>. (See, e.g., May 2024 Tr. 544:16–24 (Oliver); see also Dkt. No. 1324, Apple Trial Brief at 12.) The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance,</em> <strong><em>was replete with misdirection and outright lies</em></strong><em>. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.</em></p>
  411. <p><em>The Court finds that Apple did consider the external costs developers faced when utilizing alternative payment solutions for linked out transactions, which conveniently exceeded the 3% discount Apple ultimately decided to provide by a safe margin. (See CX-265.27 (Apple’s estimates of external costs for developers); Feb. 2025 Tr. 1627:15–1628:10 (Vij) (discussing external costs).) Apple did not rely on a substantiated bottoms-up analysis during its months-long assessment of whether to impose a commission, seemingly justifying its decision after the fact with the AG’s report.</em></p>
  412. </blockquote>
  413. <p>Also, given that the decision to charge 27% commissions happened in July of 2023, and the AG report was only delivered in January of 2024 (well after the decision was made), the same Apple exec then apparently lied and claimed the commission decision was made after the report was delivered, which the now-revealed notes show was just blatantly false:</p>
  414. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  415. <p><em>Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:</em></p>
  416. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  417. <p><em>Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct?</em></p>
  418. <p><em>A. The decision was made that day.</em></p>
  419. <p><em>Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what &#8212; what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases?</em></p>
  420. <p><em>A. That is correct. (May 2024 Tr. 202:12–18 (Roman).)</em></p>
  421. </blockquote>
  422. <p><em>Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.</em></p>
  423. <p><em>Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.</em></p>
  424. </blockquote>
  425. <p>Ouch.</p>
  426. <p>There’s a lot more as well, but the judge is rightly pissed off. She has issued an injunction making it pretty clear that Apple has to knock off all its tricks:</p>
  427. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  428. <p><em>PERMANENTLY RESTRAINS AND ENJOINS Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them, from:</em></p>
  429. <ol class="wp-block-list">
  430. <li><em>Imposing any commission or any fee on purchases that consumers make outside an app, and as a consequence thereof, no reason exists to audit, monitor, track or require developers to report purchases or any other activity that consumers make outside an app;</em></li>
  431. <li><em>Restricting or conditioning developers’ style, language, formatting, quantity, flow or placement of links for purchases outside an app;</em></li>
  432. <li><em>Prohibiting or limiting the use of buttons or other calls to action, or otherwise conditioning the content, style, language, formatting, flow or placement of these devices for purchases outside an app;</em></li>
  433. <li><em>Excluding certain categories of apps and developers from obtaining link access;</em></li>
  434. <li><em>Interfering with consumers’ choice to proceed in or out of an app by using anything other than a neutral message apprising users that they are going to a third-party site; and</em></li>
  435. <li>Restricting a developer’s use of dynamic links that bring consumers to a specific product page in a logged-in state rather than to a statically defined page, including restricting apps from passing on product details, user details or other information that refers to the user intending to make a purchase.</li>
  436. </ol>
  437. </blockquote>
  438. <p>Normally, I would say some of those go a bit far in limiting certain things that Apple would be expected to do, but… given just how much Apple tried to lie and mislead the court, it’s kinda what you’d expect. It also says it will not put a stay on this assuming Apple appeals “given the repeated delays and severity of the conduct.”</p>
  439. <p>While Apple also has to pay for the special master that it and Epic had to bring in to review the falsely claimed “privileged” documents, there aren’t any other sanctions (nor did Epic seek them). And that’s why there’s a criminal referral.</p>
  440. <p>What makes this ruling so remarkable isn&#8217;t just the scathing language or even the criminal referral — it&#8217;s the sheer pointlessness of Apple&#8217;s defiance. The company had won almost all of this case. All it had to do was make one small change. Instead, its executives chose to lie, obstruct, and treat the judicial system with contempt. Even with Tim Cook&#8217;s recent cozying up to Trump and the Trump/Bondi Justice Department&#8217;s tendency to view justice through the lens of personal loyalty (which might help make the criminal referral disappear), it&#8217;s hard to understand what Apple thought it would gain through such brazen actions.</p>
  441. <p>Yes, Apple managed to drag out its monopoly rents on app commissions for a bit longer. But it could have crafted a more open system that would have satisfied the court while preserving significant control over its platform (along with the associated commissions) — all without executives potentially facing criminal contempt charges. The short-term profits from delay hardly seem worth the cost of credibility with courts and regulators going forward.</p>
  442. <p>As Judge Gonzalez Rogers put it simply: Tim Cook chose poorly.</p>
  443. ]]></content:encoded>
  445. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/judge-in-apple-epic-case-is-spitting-mad-at-apples-willful-contempt/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  446. <slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
  449. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">494645</post-id> </item>
  450. <item>
  451. <title>Daily Deal: The Ultimate Python &#038; Artificial Intelligence Certification Bundle</title>
  452. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/daily-deal-the-ultimate-python-artificial-intelligence-certification-bundle-2/</link>
  453. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/daily-deal-the-ultimate-python-artificial-intelligence-certification-bundle-2/#respond</comments>
  455. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Daily Deal]]></dc:creator>
  456. <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 17:53:13 +0000</pubDate>
  457. <category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
  458. <category><![CDATA[daily deal]]></category>
  459. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=494549&#038;preview=true&#038;preview_id=494549</guid>
  460.  
  461. <description><![CDATA[The Ultimate Python and Artificial Intelligence Bundle has 9 courses to help you take your Python and AI knowledge to the next level. You&#8217;ll learn about data pre-processing and visualization, artificial neural networks, how to use the Keras framework, and more. It&#8217;s on sale for $40. Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated [&#8230;]]]></description>
  462. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-ultimate-python-artificial-intelligence-certification-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown">Ultimate Python and Artificial Intelligence Bundle</a> has 9 courses to help you take your Python and AI knowledge to the next level. You&#8217;ll learn about data pre-processing and visualization, artificial neural networks, how to use the Keras framework, and more. It&#8217;s on sale for $40.</p>
  463. <div class="wp-block-image">
  464. <figure class="aligncenter size-large"><a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-ultimate-python-artificial-intelligence-certification-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/cdnp2.stackassets.com/a97192c441da1b92a179ec20f49367cd8a492950/store/f17df3ff6e7700d1f062cc150e653171b1317e2787d9ee9f251bd27fa843/product_59217_product_shots1_wide.jpg?ssl=1" alt=""/></a></figure>
  465. </div>
  466. <p><em>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.</em></p></p>
  467. ]]></content:encoded>
  469. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/daily-deal-the-ultimate-python-artificial-intelligence-certification-bundle-2/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  470. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  473. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">494549</post-id> </item>
  474. <item>
  475. <title>Texas Lawyer Harassed At Home By Federal Agents, Fired By His Employer After He Tells His Story</title>
  476. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/texas-lawyer-harassed-at-home-by-federal-agents-fired-by-his-employer-after-he-tells-his-story/</link>
  477. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/texas-lawyer-harassed-at-home-by-federal-agents-fired-by-his-employer-after-he-tells-his-story/#comments</comments>
  479. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Cushing]]></dc:creator>
  480. <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 16:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
  481. <category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
  482. <category><![CDATA[clayton jackson]]></category>
  483. <category><![CDATA[dhs]]></category>
  484. <category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
  485. <category><![CDATA[immigration]]></category>
  486. <category><![CDATA[mass deportations]]></category>
  487. <category><![CDATA[police intimidation]]></category>
  488. <category><![CDATA[radley balko]]></category>
  489. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=494035&#038;preview=true&#038;preview_id=494035</guid>
  490.  
  491. <description><![CDATA[Radley Balko&#8217;s post on Substack details an ordeal, however brief, Texas appellate lawyer Clayton Jackson suffered through recently. A longer one possibly awaits, thanks to his employer firing him shortly after he went public with his recounting of this unwanted interaction. Balko&#8217;s opening paragraph explains why the Trump Administration has hit law firms and universities [&#8230;]]]></description>
  492. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-courage-to-be-decent" data-type="link" data-id="https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-courage-to-be-decent">Radley Balko&#8217;s post on Substack</a> details an ordeal, however brief, Texas appellate lawyer <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:qolrjibkgkieeio76iw736tf" data-type="link" data-id="https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:qolrjibkgkieeio76iw736tf">Clayton Jackson</a> suffered through recently. A longer one possibly awaits, thanks to his employer firing him shortly after he went public with his recounting of this unwanted interaction. </p>
  493. <p>Balko&#8217;s opening paragraph explains why the Trump Administration has <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/18/trump-tests-how-many-law-firms-he-can-destroy-before-someone-stops-him/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/18/trump-tests-how-many-law-firms-he-can-destroy-before-someone-stops-him/">hit law firms</a> and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/15/as-columbia-folds-harvard-shows-what-institutional-courage-looks-like/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/15/as-columbia-folds-harvard-shows-what-institutional-courage-looks-like/">universities</a> with punitive executive orders. It explains why it&#8217;s blocking <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/18/white-house-censoring-press-pool-reports-while-still-discriminating-against-ap/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/18/white-house-censoring-press-pool-reports-while-still-discriminating-against-ap/">certain news agencies</a> from attending press conferences and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/05/trump-brings-back-free-speech-by-checks-notes-threatening-to-imprison-protestors-and-expose-journalist-sources/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/05/trump-brings-back-free-speech-by-checks-notes-threatening-to-imprison-protestors-and-expose-journalist-sources/">threatening others</a> with further punishment for daring to report the facts. It&#8217;s why Trump has weaponized every aspect of the federal government to go after anyone who dares to criticize him or <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/23/trump-disbands-cybersecurity-board-investigating-massive-chinese-phone-system-hack/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/23/trump-disbands-cybersecurity-board-investigating-massive-chinese-phone-system-hack/">repudiate his claims</a>. These are not the acts of a president. These are the acts of an aspiring despot. Here&#8217;s how that&#8217;s working out right now:</p>
  494. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  495. <p><em>One of the more pernicious effects of authoritarianism is to make the everyday participation in civic life we take for granted feel subversive. The goal isn’t to police all behavior at all times. It’s to make us fearful to the point that we police our own behavior.</em></p>
  496. </blockquote>
  497. <p>And that&#8217;s where Clay Jackson comes in. While at a local gas station, he was approached by an employee who asked if he might be able to give a little legal advice to an immigrant family. The family&#8217;s father had recently been detained in an ICE workplace raid and the gas station attendant wondered if Jackson might be able to help.</p>
  498. <p>It turns out he could, even if it was out of his area of expertise, something that was further complicated by the language barrier. But Jackson did what he could. </p>
  499. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  500. <p><em>Later that afternoon, March 4, Jackson visited the family in their home. “It was a little difficult to communicate because everything had to be translated through the 10-year-old kid.” He met with them for less than an hour and told them their rights if they’re detained by ICE. “I said I’d help find them pro bono counsel who specialized in immigration.” </em></p>
  501. </blockquote>
  502. <p>Simple enough, even if it probably wasn&#8217;t enough (and what could possibly be under this government?). No good deed goes unpunished, not in this bizarre iteration of the Land of the Free. </p>
  503. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  504. <p><em>“A couple days later, on March 6, I was working from home at around 11:30 when I got a notice that my VPN had gone down,” he says. “I didn’t think much about it. It can cut out from time to time. About 10 minutes later, I got a knock at the door.”</em></p>
  505. <p><em>Two men were outside Jackson’s door, dressed in slacks and polos. They were not wearing badges.</em></p>
  506. <p><em>“I first thought they were going to try to sell me something. But as soon as I opened the door they said, ‘Are you Clayton Jackson?’ I think I shook my head or said ‘yeah,’ and then I heard, ‘We have information that you are obstructing an ongoing immigration investigation.’”</em></p>
  507. </blockquote>
  508. <p>Cool cool cool. Officers refusing to identify themselves or wearing anything clearly identifying their law enforcement agency just rolling on up on someone&#8217;s house to insinuate that they probably broke a federal law. Fortunately, Jackson is a lawyer. He demanded identification. They refused to provide it. They asked to come inside. He refused. And 15 minutes after they left, his WiFi suddenly started functioning again. But because it was out during this unwanted interaction, it wasn&#8217;t captured by his Ring devices. </p>
  509. <p>Whether or not the internet outage and the arrival of officers at Jackson&#8217;s door was just a coincidence is a mental exercise best left to the reader. It can mean whatever you want it to mean, but there&#8217;s nothing about this story that rings false. And it certainly serves no purpose for Clay Jackson to simply make this whole thing up, especially <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/ksvesq.bsky.social/post/3lnneyl2sx22v" data-type="link" data-id="https://bsky.app/profile/ksvesq.bsky.social/post/3lnneyl2sx22v">since it has now cost him his job</a>. And that makes his comments to Balko in his post extremely (and unfortunately) prescient:</p>
  510. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  511. <p><em>Jackson isn’t an immigration attorney, but he occasionally represents undocumented people in non-immigration matters. He is using his real name, but he asked that I not name his employer or describe the type of law he practices.</em></p>
  512. <p><em>“I thought, shit, now I’m going to have to get my employer involved. I’m going to have retain my own attorney. And now I have to worry about my clients. If they’re investigating me, are they going to start looking into my clients, too?”</em></p>
  513. </blockquote>
  514. <p>And, as careful as he was discussing this with Radley Balko, it still somehow wasn&#8217;t enough. It would be extremely interesting to see if his employer experienced a similar visit from, um&#8230; unmarked officers? (Is that the correct term?) Balko reached out to every law enforcement agency that might have been involved in this visit (ICE, local cops, the state police, etc.) and, of course, has received no responses. But there&#8217;s not much comfort to be taken from even the best-case scenario:</p>
  515. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  516. <p><em>Clay Jackson hasn’t heard anything more from the two officers who visited him, nor has he heard from whatever agency that employs them. It seems likely that his initial hunch was correct — this incident wasn’t the product of a top-down conspiracy to intimidate lawyers. It’s more likely that two cops were pissed off that someone had the audacity to help a scared and powerless family.&nbsp;</em></p>
  517. </blockquote>
  518. <p>Not when the outcome is losing your job and realizing that intimidation tactics &#8212; no matter how clumsily they&#8217;re deployed &#8212; still work. And when one side has all the power, even those who know the law and their rights are equally capable of getting fucked. </p>
  519. <p>If there&#8217;s anything we can all agree with, it&#8217;s Jackson&#8217;s take on the current political climate in his state &#8212; a statement that applies to this entire nation at this point in time:</p>
  520. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  521. <p><em>&#8220;[C]an I just be honest with you? I’m fucking scared to be in Texas right now.”</em></p>
  522. </blockquote>
  523. ]]></content:encoded>
  525. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/texas-lawyer-harassed-at-home-by-federal-agents-fired-by-his-employer-after-he-tells-his-story/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  526. <slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
  529. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">494035</post-id> </item>
  530. <item>
  531. <title>Brendan Carr&#8217;s FCC Abuses Run Face First Into Trump Court Efforts To Destroy Regulatory Power</title>
  532. <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/brendan-carrs-fcc-abuses-run-face-first-into-trump-court-efforts-to-destroy-regulatory-power/</link>
  533. <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/brendan-carrs-fcc-abuses-run-face-first-into-trump-court-efforts-to-destroy-regulatory-power/#comments</comments>
  535. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Karl Bode]]></dc:creator>
  536. <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 12:34:37 +0000</pubDate>
  537. <category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
  538. <category><![CDATA[5th circuit]]></category>
  539. <category><![CDATA[6th circuit]]></category>
  540. <category><![CDATA[brendan carr]]></category>
  541. <category><![CDATA[consumers]]></category>
  542. <category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
  543. <category><![CDATA[deregulation]]></category>
  544. <category><![CDATA[fcc]]></category>
  545. <category><![CDATA[fines]]></category>
  546. <category><![CDATA[free market innovation]]></category>
  547. <category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
  548. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=494509&#038;preview=true&#038;preview_id=494509</guid>
  549.  
  550. <description><![CDATA[So we&#8217;ve established by now that the second Trump administration is attempting to completely destroy regulatory authority, consumer protection, labor rights, and corporate oversight. Whether by precedent-ignoring court ruling, executive order, illegally firing commissioners, cronyism, or regulatory capture, the effort isn&#8217;t subtle, and is poised to usher forth a new golden age of corruption. That&#8217;s [&#8230;]]]></description>
  551. <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So we&#8217;ve established by now that the second Trump administration is attempting to completely destroy regulatory authority, consumer protection, labor rights, and corporate oversight. Whether by precedent-ignoring <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/23/5th-circuit-obediently-lets-att-off-the-hook-for-major-location-data-privacy-violations/">court ruling</a>, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/21/trump-eo-tries-to-destroy-whatever-corporate-regulatory-oversight-hasnt-been-already-killed-by-doge-and-the-supreme-court/">executive order</a>, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/19/trump-illegally-purges-ftcs-democratic-commissioners-gutting-whats-left-of-agency-independence/">illegally firing commissioners</a>, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/09/trump-2-0-to-slather-elon-musks-starlink-with-billions-in-taxpayer-subsidies-it-doesnt-deserve/">cronyism</a>, or <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/17/big-telecom-robocallers-love-brendan-carrs-plan-to-lobotomize-the-fcc/">regulatory capture</a>, the effort isn&#8217;t subtle, and is poised to usher forth a new golden age of corruption.</p>
  552. <p>That&#8217;s a problem for Trump FCC boss Brendan Carr, who has been trying to abuse now-nonexistent FCC authority to bully companies he thinks <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/04/fcc-boss-brendan-carr-investigating-verizon-for-not-being-racist-enough/">aren&#8217;t being sexist or racist enough</a>. Or to launch <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/23/60-minutes-producer-quits-after-trump-fcc-harassment-saying-show-can-no-longer-do-independent-journalism/">fake investigations into media companies</a> if they dare engage in journalism critical of the Trump administration. Or to harass companies he thinks <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/11/trump-fcc-boss-brendan-carr-harasses-google-for-not-carrying-right-wing-religious-programming/">don&#8217;t carry a suitable amount of right wing, religious programming</a>. </p>
  553. <p>As I wrote in a <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/656653/brendan-carr-fcc-anti-consumer-harassment-dei-trump">recent Verge profile of Carr&#8217;s first 100 days</a>, Carr will routinely proclaim that his agency has no power at all when it comes to protecting consumers or standing up to giants like AT&amp;T, but <em><strong>all the power in the world</strong></em> when it comes time for petty authoritarian bullshit.</p>
  554. <p>Recently, the Fifth Circuit declared the FCC no longer has the authority to leverage fines against companies for wrongdoing. Their ruling <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/23/5th-circuit-obediently-lets-att-off-the-hook-for-major-location-data-privacy-violations/">let AT&amp;T off the hook for decades of major abuse of sensitive consumer location data</a>, which repeatedly put the public at risk. </p>
  555. <p>The ruling is the latest in a series by Trumplican-stocked courts basically stating that U.S. regulators no longer have the authority to do&#8230; <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/09/the-corrupt-supreme-court-makes-a-reckless-mess-of-broadband-consumer-protection-and-everything-else/">anything corporate power doesn&#8217;t like</a>. Like the 6th Circuit ruling <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/03/trumplican-6th-circuit-just-killed-net-neutrality-and-whatever-was-left-of-pathetic-u-s-broadband-consumer-protection/">that the FCC can&#8217;t protect broadband consumers</a>. Or the 5th Circuit ruling that <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/29/deeply-unserious-5th-circuit-declares-8-billion-rural-fcc-broadband-subsidy-program-unconstitutional/">federal efforts to help poor people afford broadband are now illegal</a>. Like I said: not subtle.</p>
  556. <p>After the AT&amp;T privacy ruling, both Verizon and T-Mobile unsurprisingly sued the FCC (Verizon in the 2nd Circuit and T-Mobile in the DC Circuit) to have their own privacy fines overturned. &nbsp;Trump FCC pick Nathan Simington has <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-88A4.pdf">vowed</a>&nbsp;to vote against any fine imposed by the FCC &#8220;until its legal powers are clear&#8221; (spoiler: Trumplings don&#8217;t want regulatory authority to <strong>ever</strong> be clear, ever again). </p>
  557. <p>But it&#8217;s curious: in some of these latest cases Carr is having his FCC lawyers argue that the <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/att-court-win-over-fcc-could-make-it-impossible-for-agency-to-fine-carriers/">5th Circuit&#8217;s ruling should be ignored</a>:</p>
  558. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
  559. <p><em>&#8220;Carr repeatedly opposed Biden-era efforts to regulate telecom providers and is aiming to <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/isps-and-robocallers-love-the-fcc-plan-to-delete-as-many-rules-as-possible/">eliminate many of the FCC&#8217;s rules</a> now that he is in charge. But Carr has also been aggressive in <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/trumps-fcc-chair-invokes-rarely-enforced-news-distortion-policy-to-punish-media/">regulation of media</a>, and he doesn&#8217;t want the FCC&#8217;s ability to issue penalties completely wiped out.&#8221;</em></p>
  560. </blockquote>
  561. <p>Carr wants his cake and to eat it too. He&#8217;s the dog that caught the car. As his <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/27/under-cover-from-other-trumpy-bullshit-fccs-carr-quietly-starts-rubber-stamping-att-and-comcasts-policy-wishlist/">&#8220;delete, delete, delete&#8221;</a> deregulatory bonanza shows, Carr wants to be a loyal footsoldier in the Trump agenda of destroying all federal oversight of corporate power. But he also wants to be able to, you know, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/13/trump-fcc-tries-to-bully-comcast-away-from-its-already-flimsy-dedication-to-civil-rights/">harass Comcast for not being racist enough</a>. Or <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/23/60-minutes-producer-quits-after-trump-fcc-harassment-saying-show-can-no-longer-do-independent-journalism/">bully CBS for making King Donald sad</a> with facts. </p>
  562. <p>The FCC already has no remaining authority to hold your shitty broadband provider to account. And if this trajectory holds, they&#8217;ll no longer have the ability to police things like scams and robocalls, or to protect public cybersecurity safety, throwing our telecom networks into (further) disarray.</p>
  563. <p>Some of these folks are stripping away regulatory authority simply because, like Musk, they don&#8217;t want oversight of their often dubious &#8212; if not outright illegal &#8212; behaviors. Others have drunk decades of right wing and &#8220;free market&#8221; Libertarian Kool-Aid about how if you dismantle corporate oversight and regulatory autonomy, magic and innovation spills forth from the sidewalk.</p>
  564. <p>Of course here in reality, when you strip away oversight of large, politically-powerful corporations (like say, AT&amp;T or Comcast), most objective folks know those companies just double down on all their worst, anti-competitive, anti-consumer impulses. It&#8217;s been a generational effort by companies like AT&amp;T to turn the FCC into a pile of pudding, and it&#8217;s not, I regret to inform you, in service of the public interest.</p>
  565. <p>So on one hand, you have corporate power achieving its generational goal of destroying labor rights, consumer protection, and adult oversight. On the other hand, you have Brendan Carr and his legally-dubious efforts to behave like a full-diapered bully in pursuit of bigotry and religious extremism. If I had to bet between the two, I certainly know who I&#8217;d pick as the most likely winner (spoiler: it&#8217;s the one with more money). </p>
  566. <p>Either way this country loses. I don&#8217;t think the fact we&#8217;ve lobotomized all our federal regulators has received anywhere close to enough attention from our feckless, corporate press for what should be obvious reasons. We&#8217;re ushering in the golden age of corruption, and I&#8217;m not sure the impact of what&#8217;s coming is truly fathomable to your average American. </p>
  567. <p>Even in a best case scenario where Trump authoritarianism is destroyed, I&#8217;m highly doubtful that, in a country this corrupt, the incentive will ever exist to fully restore regulatory autonomy. This die is cast, the deadly impact is going to reverberate for generations, and I hope all the folks responsible &#8212; from Trumplings to &#8220;free market&#8221; think tankers &#8212; fully enjoy the brave new world they helped create.</p>
  568. ]]></content:encoded>
  570. <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/01/brendan-carrs-fcc-abuses-run-face-first-into-trump-court-efforts-to-destroy-regulatory-power/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  571. <slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
  574. <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">494509</post-id> </item>
  575. </channel>
  576. </rss>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

  1. Download the "valid RSS" banner.

  2. Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)

  3. Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.techdirt.com/techdirt/feed

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms

 
Copyright © 2002-9 Sam Ruby, Mark Pilgrim, Joseph Walton, and Phil Ringnalda