News

Wednesday 2026-04-22

03:00 PM

Amazon Prime Broadcast Fails Completely During Several Minutes Of NBA Playoff Game [Techdirt]

With the streaming world turning into a wild, chaotic, fractured mess, there is no better example of how terrible this can all be than with live sports. We’ve already seen all kinds of issues among streaming services when it comes to sports. Buffering live games piss people off. Exclusivity deals worked out among several services for a single league can make finding where a game is being showed a Sherlock-ian experience. Local blackout rules abound and suck for the consumer.

But if there is one thing a streaming service cannot do, it’s got to be buying the exclusive rights to important games and then throwing “technical difficulties” at the viewer. And that’s exactly what happened during part of an overtime period in an NBA playoff game between the Hornets and the Heat. For several minutes at the start of the overtime period, the stream simply cut out.

As reported by ESPN, Prime Video started showing a message that read “technical difficulties” seconds after cutting off the game’s commentator in the middle of a sentence. Viewers missed a Hornets possession that included a score by LaMelo Ball. By the time the stream came back online, 22.1 seconds of playing time had passed, per ESPN, and viewers were dismayed.

“Tell me the game didn’t just cut off?!!? Am I trippin?? WTH,” LeBron James, a Los Angeles Lakers player who previously won two championships with the Heat, said, adding a face-planting emoji, on X.

Prime Video’s fumble is made worse by the fact that the streaming service had exclusive rights to air the game. The only other way to experience the game was in person or by listening to select radio stations.

Imagine someone signed up for Prime because of this deal with the NBA. Sure, that isn’t going to be a huge percentage of the viewership, but it won’t be zero percent of it, either. To have the stream cut out in the opening minutes of overtime is going to be incredibly frustrating.

It’s also worth noting that more traditional broadcasts also have had equipment failures, but they don’t have the resources Amazon has. And, frankly, Amazon’s streaming service doesn’t have the best reputation to begin with.

The latter point is especially concerning because, after four years of this, viewers are still complaining about audio-syncing problems on Prime Video this season. We’ve experienced this firsthand at Ars Technica and have heard commentators announce a completed three-point shot before the stream shows it happening.

“The entire year the audio has been a split second ahead of the video on half of the Amazon games we’ve watched,” Bill Simmons, a former sportswriter and current host of The Bill Simmons Podcast, said in today’s episode: “The three-pointer’s halfway toward the basket. It’s like, ‘BANG! It’s good!’ And you hear the crowd, and it’s, like, the ball hasn’t even gone in yet. How have we not figured this out yet? You guys, [Amazon], have 8 kajillion dollars.”

At some point, the NBA itself is going to have to step in here, because its reputation is going to take a hit along with Amazon’s. The league risks alienating fans that are pissed off that the league foisted broadcast partners that apparently can’t deliver a product of the quality of cable TV, of all entities. And I refuse to believe that these streaming contracts don’t come with contractual requirements for quality of service.

Streaming is both the present and the future. It isn’t going away. Neither are live sports. This has to be figured out and delivered in a way that fans don’t completely miss important parts of games. The alternative is lost fans for the leagues and I can promise you that won’t be stood for.

09:00 AM

Kash Patel’s Defamation Suit Against The Atlantic Is Designed To Generate Headlines, Not Win In Court [Techdirt]

There are defamation lawsuits designed to win, and then there are defamation lawsuits designed to generate headlines for your fans on social media, punish journalists, and maybe — if you’re lucky — force a settlement or intimidate future reporting. FBI Director Kash Patel’s brand new defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic is very obviously the second kind.

On Friday, The Atlantic published a truly devastating profile of Patel, reporting that “more than two dozen” current and former officials described a director who shows up to Ned’s in DC and the Poodle Room in Las Vegas to drink until he is visibly drunk, and who has been difficult to wake on occasions when his security detail needed him. There’s also this fun anecdote in the opening, talking about a time, earlier this month, when Patel had trouble logging into his computer:

He quickly became convinced that he had been locked out, and he panicked, frantically calling aides and allies to announce that he had been fired by the White House, according to nine people familiar with his outreach. Two of these people described his behavior as a “freak-out.”

That’s just kinda amusing, but there are a lot more serious concerns, such as the fact that the nation’s top cop is (according to the article): “often away or unreachable, delaying time-sensitive decisions needed to advance investigations.”

The article included a response from Patel, attributed to him by the FBI: “Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook.”

On Monday, represented by MAGA-world’s go-to lawyer Jesse Binnall, Patel did exactly that, filing a 19-page complaint in federal court in DC seeking $250 million in damages.

The complaint is, to put it charitably, not great. To put it less charitably, it reads like a press release with a case caption stapled to the top.

Let’s start with the central legal problem, because it’s kinda fatal. Patel is indisputably a public official — he runs the FBI — which means under New York Times v. Sullivan, he has to plead and eventually prove that The Atlantic published with “actual malice,” meaning with knowledge that the statements were false, or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity — a legal term of art that requires showing the publisher actually suspected the statements were false and deliberately avoided finding out, not merely that they moved quickly or relied on anonymous sources. This is a very high bar. It’s been a high bar since 1964. Every lawyer who files a defamation case for a public figure is supposed to know that this is the hill they have to climb.

Here is how the complaint attempts to plead actual malice:

Defendants’ conscious decision to ignore the detailed, specific, and substantive refutations in the Pre-Publication Letter, and their refusal to give a reasonable amount of time for the FBI and Director Patel to respond, is among the strongest possible evidence of actual malice.

In other words: Patel denied it, The Atlantic published anyway, therefore actual malice. There is no real attempt to plead actual malice beyond that.

That’s not actual malice. That’s just how journalism works. Every news story that anyone has ever complained about in history has been published after the subject denied it. If “the subject denied it and you published anyway” were sufficient to establish actual malice, the First Amendment would be a dead letter and every investigative story ever written would generate a winning lawsuit.

Yes, those filing SLAPP lawsuits often claim that their subjects’ denials constitute actual malice — but that’s not how it works in court, and it never has been.

And we know this argument doesn’t work because we just watched a judge throw out Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal for making essentially this exact argument. That was all of a week ago. A public figure’s denial, followed by publication, is not actual malice. A court said that a week ago. This is well-known, settled law. Binnall surely knows this. Patel’s filing this suit anyway.

The complaint does gesture weakly at some other theories — that the anonymous sources were “partisans with axes to grind,” that The Atlantic imposed a two-hour comment deadline, that there was “editorial animus” evidenced by prior Atlantic coverage. But even stacked together, these don’t get you to actual malice. Relying on anonymous sources isn’t reckless disregard—it’s how journalism works. Short deadlines for comment aren’t evidence of malice either; they’re standard operating procedure for breaking news. Prior negative coverage doesn’t even come close to the legal standard, since public figures doing controversial things tend to get criticized.

There’s also the fact that the complaint tries to twist statements by anonymous sources which the Atlantic reported on as The Atlantic’s own speech. Almost every one of the 19 allegedly defamatory statements enumerated in paragraph 18 is, on the face of the article, attributed to anonymous sources. For example, count 18(e) claims that a request for ‘breaching equipment’ — “normally used by SWAT and hostage-rescue teams to quickly gain entry into buildings” — was made because Patel was unreachable. The complaint states:

Fitzpatrick knows that her anonymous sources, unwilling to go on the record, are partisans with axes to grind and are not in a position to know the facts.

“Partisans with axes to grind” is not relevant to the actual malice standard. And, come on. Anonymous sources not willing to go on the record accusing a man who runs the FBI and is famously vindictive toward his perceived enemies… is not exactly a shocking revelation.

Almost all of the claims are like this. “According to multiple people familiar with the request.” “According to information supplied to Justice Department and White House officials.” “According to the more than two dozen people I interviewed.”

The Atlantic’s defense (if it even gets that far) is therefore not going to need to be “we can prove Kash Patel was drunk at Ned’s.” It’s going to be “multiple credible sources told us this, we reported what they said along with corroborating evidence, and we have our notes, emails, and recordings to prove that’s what they told us.” That’s a fundamentally different — and far easier — thing to defend. Publishers aren’t required to prove the absolute truth of everything their sources say. They’re required to not publish with reckless disregard for the truth, which requires evidence about what the publisher knew or suspected, not what turned out to be the ultimate truth of the matter.

The Atlantic had multiple sources for each of its claims. It has corroborating evidence to support the claims. That is not a situation that says actual malice. It’s a situation that says “we did careful reporting.”

The complaint doesn’t grapple with this distinction at all. It just keeps repeating that the FBI told The Atlantic the claims were false before publication, as if that’s the end of the story. It isn’t. Subjects of investigative reporting deny things all the time. Publishers weigh denials against their sources and decide whether to publish based on all of the evidence they’ve collected. The First Amendment protects that decision-making process precisely so that powerful officials can’t just deny critical stories into non-existence.

In theory, there’s also the issue of discovery. Whenever cases like this get filed, people on social media say things like “can’t wait for discovery.” But cases like this rarely even get to the discovery stage. The Atlantic will almost certainly file for a motion to dismiss, which almost always happens pre-discovery, and a failure to competently plead actual malice is a good reason for the case to be tossed at that stage, without any discovery.

But also, given that Patel was famously seen on video chugging a beer at the Olympics in the Men’s Hockey locker room, it seems like Patel himself might not be all that interested in discovery either.

Of course, the goal was never to win. The goal was to file. And, sure some people will point to Trump’s settlements with news orgs, but those were to the president himself, and quite clearly designed to curry favor. As powerful as the FBI director is, it’s doubtful that the Atlantic is looking to curry favor with the FBI director via a settlement.

And that brings us to the other tell: the Streisand Effect. The complaint itself complains how much attention the article — again talking about how various officials in the FBI were concerned about situations where the FBI director appeared to be blackout drunk — got some attention on the internet.

The Article was widely disseminated on the internet, through AMG’s magazine and associated platforms, and was foreseeably republished, summarized, and discussed throughout national and international media.

Ya think?

Patel’s response to this alleged injury was to file a $250 million lawsuit — an action guaranteed to drive far more traffic to the very article he says is destroying his reputation. Every news outlet that covers the lawsuit links to or summarizes the original piece. Every social media post about the suit reintroduces the allegations to people who had never seen them. If your complaint is that too many people read the story, filing a splashy nine-figure lawsuit is a strange way to handle it.

None of this is an accident or a rookie mistake. This is how Binnall — and his predecessor in this particular niche, Steven Biss — have always done it.

Long-time Techdirt readers may recall that we first covered Kash Patel filing a SLAPP suit all the way back in 2019, when he was a White House staffer and former Devin Nunes aide. He used Steven Biss — Nunes’s own go-to lawyer for suing critics, satirical Twitter cows, and journalists — to sue Politico over accurate reporting about Fiona Hill’s congressional testimony. That complaint, like this one, read more like a press release than a pleading, opening with a tirade about “weaponized media” and “partisan hacks and character assassins who work to advance the interests and agendas of dark money.”

Biss specialized in filing SLAPP suits for MAGA figures. Most of them lost. He filed so many of them that when he had a stroke in 2023, his law license was eventually suspended on impairment grounds, and a bunch of his cases had to be handed off to someone else. That someone else was mostly Jesse Binnall, who promptly continued the losing streak. The Flynn family’s SLAPP suit against CNN? Tossed. Patel’s own 2024 threat letter to MSNBC commentator Olivia Troye? Answered with a Monty Python reference.

Filing is the point. Winning is beside it. These suits generate favorable headlines in friendly media, signal aggression to critics, raise the cost of covering the subject, and — if everything goes perfectly — get a defendant to settle just to make the expense go away. Whether they actually prevail on the merits is beside the point for the filer. Binnall has built a practice around this model. Patel has used that practice repeatedly across multiple roles over the last few years.

This is a textbook SLAPP, and it’s a good reminder of why we need anti-SLAPP laws to begin with.

Which brings us to a frustrating final wrinkle: the case was filed in federal court in DC, and while DC has an anti-SLAPP statute, the DC Circuit ruled a decade ago that it doesn’t apply in federal court. On top of that, the DC Court of Appeals more recently invalidated part of the law’s fee-shifting provisions. So even though DC ostensibly has protections against exactly this kind of lawsuit, The Atlantic basically can’t use them here. This is a pattern repeated across the country — patchwork state laws, some strong, some weak, many with large loopholes, and many federal circuits have barred their use in federal courts.

This is why we need a federal anti-SLAPP law, and why we need strong anti-SLAPP laws in every state and territory. The people who file these lawsuits know exactly which jurisdictions lack them, and they file accordingly. The asymmetry — where the cost of filing a meritless suit is minimal for the plaintiff, while the cost of defending it is substantial for the defendant — is exactly what makes the SLAPP tactic work. Anti-SLAPP laws with robust fee-shifting flip that equation, making bad-faith plaintiffs think twice.

Absent that, we’re left with the situation we have now: the head of the nation’s federal law enforcement agency uses a $250 million defamation suit as a political messaging tool, filed by a lawyer whose track record of losing these cases is long and detailed. The Atlantic will likely win on a motion to dismiss. Patel will get his headlines. And a lot more people will have read about Kash Patel’s alleged drinking habits than ever would have otherwise.

For the supposed “free speech party,” filing vexatious SLAPP suits against investigative reporters has become a rite of passage — a way of making clear there’s a price for making the people in power look bad.

08:00 AM

You Can’t Vote Out Amazon Web Services: Fighting Internet Contracts One Library At A Time [Techdirt]

For nearly twenty years, I’ve used Google Docs for most of my writing: class notes, personal notes, a novel in progress, research, activism, and my day job. It’s become an essential piece of infrastructure for me, an archive of my life and evolving interests.

In order to sign up for Google Drive, I presumably had to read a Terms of Service agreement provided to me by Google. Every once in a while I’ll get an email telling me that the Terms of Service have changed, which I almost always immediately delete without reading. Even if I tried to read what’s been changed, I’d be faced with a 4,500 word document that contains approximately 43 outbound URLs to Terms of Service for other Google entities, which links me out to others indefinitely, an infinity of terms. Even if I could read the terms and didn’t like them, I’d still be stuck with Google Docs; eventually someone at work would ask me to review a document.

We sign these contracts constantly, a kind of digital decision fatigue that’s overlooked in most conversations about tech law and policy. Whether or not you believe that participation in digital life requires a contract at all, clickthrough and wraparound contracts that contain thousands of words, links, and subsections are disempowering to the public and potentially disastrous when enforced. 

Want to reserve a table at your favorite restaurant? You’re now subject to OpenTable’s arbitration clause. Texting your friends? You’ve granted WhatsApp a worldwide license to reproduce and create derivative works from everything you send or receive. I couldn’t even sign my own divorce paperwork without consenting to Docusign using my agreement in AI training data.

The contracts attached to most digital services are called “contracts of adhesion,” “take it or leave it” contracts where the terms are set by a stronger party and the only way to walk away is if you can choose another service, which you generally cannot in a world where a handful of companies control the majority of commerce and cloud services on the internet. 

Clickthrough contracts of adhesion live in a gray regulatory area, but even though they function as a “mutant form of contract law,” they are generally considered enforceable. Last year, Cathy Gellis wrote on this blog about a particularly egregious case concerning the arbitration clause in a Disney+ agreement. After a woman died of a severe food allergy at one of the parks, Disney argued that they could not sue the company because her husband had signed up for a free trial of Disney+ several years prior.

Lots of scholars point out that laws and constitutions act like contracts of adhesion in certain ways – I live in North Carolina and I vehemently oppose recent transphobic House bills. However, I can, at least in theory, vote those motherfuckers out. I cannot vote out Amazon Web Services or Zoom, which I need for my work. Unlike bad legislation, I can’t organize my neighbors to throw them out either.

Binding contractual agreements for every single digital service has become a tool companies exploit at the expense of consumer rights that makes us even less safe on the internet, and it’s pure enshittification. Even if negotiability is impractical, contracts should be short, human readable, and consumer friendly. Using the internet shouldn’t force me to waive my right to a class action lawsuit, my ability to own a book, or to my own palm print.

How are we supposed to build democracy as an informed electorate when we have, in the words of Brendan Ballou, “lost access to our own justice system” through the nearly universal forced arbitration provisions in terms of service? How am I supposed to participate fully in a market economy when basically every contract I sign online creates an “accountability sink” where no one is responsible for a company’s failings except the system itself? How can I learn to exercise informed consent when I’m constantly clicking through terms of service that I both can’t read or actually consent to? How can I participate in society if everyone is using a tool but I object to its terms of use?

Combatting terms of service and licensing abuses takes a proactive and practical approach. Under the Biden administration, the FTC began to regulate these contracts, but now the regulatory locus has shifted back to the consumer. Even though the government is not coming to save us, we don’t have to live out the rest of our lives as digital peons in a rentier economy.

My organization Library Futures has launched a program to provide counsel in contract negotiation and terms setting for libraries – a DIY contract center in the public interest. No other institution is buying digital content at the same rate as libraries, where one private equity owned digital vendor (Overdrive) provides almost 97% of all ebooks to public library systems. Every single one of those contracts, terms of service agreements, and licensing deals have to run through a process at either the local or or the institutional level. This often happens without a full review of terms and no access to a lawyer. Publishers and library vendors can’t afford to lose this business; through a flex in monopsony power that builds coalitions on both the institutional and collective level, we believe that libraries can force major publishers to the table, rewrite the digital terms of service, take back their collections from the control of large corporations, and reject language that’s unfavorable to the public.

Libraries have always been opposed to onerous terms of service, but like most of us, they’ve felt powerless in the face of corporate overreach. We’re not the first to fight the power in libraryland – the seminal privacy case Doe v Gonzales concerned whether librarians had to violate their own privacy policy and turn over computer records to the government. In 2020, librarians staged a boycott of Macmillan over their shifting and consumer unfriendly digital terms – and won.

In identifying a locus of power with significant buying power and a mandate to serve the public, we’re fighting contractual overreach one library at a time, publishing our results and providing organized, compassionate guidance so institutions and individuals can take back their right to transparency, a fair trial, privacy, and their right to own the content they buy. We’ve been signing away our rights one click at a time at the expense of democracy, civil rights, informed consent, and the well being of a digital generation. If we want to take them back, libraries are the most powerful place we can start.

Jennie Rose Halperin is the Executive Director of Library Futures

07:00 AM

AI Meets Print: Lulu Unlocks the Next Phase of the Personalization Economy [The Business of Printing Books]

AI Meets Print: Lulu Unlocks the Next Phase of the Personalization Economy

RESEARCH TRIANGLE, N.C. – April 15, 2026 

Lulu.com, the global leader in publishing technology and print-on-demand fulfillment, announced significant growth across its B2B and API-driven business segments in the first quarter of 2026. This accelerated growth is due to the widespread interest in personalized and customized products.

As businesses and creators increasingly prioritize individualized products, Lulu’s platform is enabling scalable, high-quality print customization powered by automation and artificial intelligence. Books such as customized meal planners, exercise guides, children’s books featuring the child’s name, and other similar products are exceedingly popular among consumers.

Recent data from Lulu show that, among accounts leveraging AI-driven personalization for books, the top five collectively sold more than 167,000 customized units across 124,000 orders in the past year alone. This surge reflects a broader market shift: personalization is no longer a niche tactic, but a core driver of revenue and growth.

“Customers now expect products that feel uniquely theirs,” said CEO Craig Petersen. “What was once considered premium or experimental is quickly becoming the baseline for competitive differentiation.”

On-Demand Infrastructure for Enterprise Publishing | Lulu
Lulu offers tech-enabled print-on-demand production, fulfillment, and ecommerce solutions built for the global publishing ecosystem.
AI Meets Print: Lulu Unlocks the Next Phase of the Personalization Economy

 Lulu’s B2B segment saw 15.6% revenue growth in 2025 over 2024, fueled by enterprise demand for scalable print solutions that integrate customization. This includes the option for true ‘book-of-one’ printing by automating file generation and storage, enabling personalized book generation with the minimum amount of manual work from large organizations. 

Companies across industries, including ecommerce, education, and content platforms, are using print-on-demand to create customized products while reducing inventory risk and expanding product offerings. All with a streamlined global fulfillment process.

At the center of this transformation is Lulu’s robust API, which allows businesses to automate and scale print fulfillment directly within their own platforms. New API users grew 113% from 2024 to 2025, and Q1 2026 has already seen a 523% increase in new API users compared to Q1 2025. This rapid adoption signals a fundamental shift: print is no longer a standalone function but an integrated component of modern digital ecosystems.

While enterprises scale personalization across global operations, entrepreneurs and independent creators are leveraging the same tools to build agile, customer-centric businesses.

“Personalization levels the playing field,” Petersen added. “Whether you’re a global brand or a solo entrepreneur, the ability to create meaningful, customized books at scale is now within reach.”

AI Meets Print: Lulu Unlocks the Next Phase of the Personalization Economy

Your Free Lulu Account

Create a Lulu Account today to print and publish your book for readers all around the world

Create a Free Account

Kanji of the Day: 質 [Kanji of the Day]

✍15

小5

substance, quality, matter, temperament

シツ シチ チ

たち ただ.す もと わりふ

質問   (しつもん)   —   question
体質   (たいしつ)   —   constitution (physical)
品質   (ひんしつ)   —   quality (of a product or a service)
実質   (じっしつ)   —   substance
物質   (ぶっしつ)   —   material
実質的   (じっしつてき)   —   substantial
本質   (ほんしつ)   —   essence
悪質   (あくしつ)   —   malicious
性質   (せいしつ)   —   nature
神経質   (しんけいしつ)   —   nervous

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 淑 [Kanji of the Day]

✍11

中学

graceful, gentle, pure

シュク

しと.やか

淑徳   (しゅくとく)   —   womanly virtues
淑女   (しゅくじょ)   —   lady
貞淑   (ていしゅく)   —   chastity
私淑   (ししゅく)   —   looking up to a person as one's own master or model
淑やか   (しとやか)   —   graceful
淑女風   (しゅくじょふう)   —   ladylike

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

OsmAnd 5.3 (Android) [OsmAnd Blog]

OsmAnd 5.3 for Android drops: Stars align, Earth curves!

Discover the cosmos with the Astronomy plugin's interactive star overlays, rearrange widgets effortlessly with flexible map layouts, marvel at beta 3D buildings and Globe View's spherical Earth, plus smarter track folders, speedy trip widgets, colour palettes editor for tracks and terrain visualization, bike width routing, and other improvements.

🔄 Update Now!

Thanks for trusting OsmAnd on your epic journeys!

OsmAnd 5.3

What's new

Astronomy Plugin

Astronomy plugin displays an interactive star sky overlay with stars, constellations, the Sun, the Moon, and planets. It helps you identify celestial objects above your current location, preview their paths for a selected date and time, and plan stargazing sessions using built-in time controls and viewing options:

Plugins → Astronomy

The plugin includes a dedicated Search tool specifically for celestial objects. You can browse through categories like the Solar System, Constellations, Stars, and Deep Sky objects. The "Watch now" section highlights objects currently visible from your location, while advanced filters allow you to sort by magnitude (brightness) or upcoming rise/set times.

Earth Map Integration

To help you orient your observations, you can enable an Earth Map view directly beneath the Star map. This feature allows you to relate celestial positions to your real-world geographic surroundings. Additionally, the AR Star Finding (Camera mode) uses your device's sensors to overlay the astronomical data onto your live camera feed, making it easy to find exact stars and planets in the real sky.

OsmAnd 5.3

Map Screen Layout

The Map screen layout setting allows you to control how widget panels are arranged on the map screen. It helps prevent widgets and buttons from overlapping and improves screen space usage, especially when switching between portrait and landscape orientations.

OsmAnd menu → Configure screen → ⋮ → Map Screen Layout

Map Screen Layout

Panels layouts

Once you enable Separate layouts, you unlock the ability to choose how the top and bottom widget panels interact with the rest of the interface: Wide or Compact.

OsmAnd menu → Configure screen → Panels Layout

Map Screen Layout

3D Buildings

3D Buildings feature displays buildings as volumetric 3D models instead of flat shapes.

Confgure map → Topography → 3D Buildings

3D Buildings

Selection & Highlighting

As part of our ongoing 3D map improvements, you can now highlight specific buildings on the map. When the 3D buildings option is enabled, selecting a POI will automatically highlight the corresponding building polygon, making it easier to identify your target in dense urban environments.

OsmAnd 5.3

Globe View

Globe View allows you to display the map as a spherical Earth instead of a flat projection. This mode changes the geometry of the map surface and adapts map interaction to spherical navigation.

Confgure map → Topography → Globe View

Globe View

New Trip Recording Widgets

Multiple Display Modes

Some Trip Recording widgets support multiple display modes. They let you switch between overall trip values and metrics for the most recent uphill or downhill section of the currently recorded trip. See the list of available modes here.

Average Speed

Average Speed widget shows the average speed for the currently recorded trip, or the average speed during the last uphill or downhill section, depending on the selected mode.

widgets

Moving Time

Moving Time widget shows the moving time for the currently recorded trip, or the time for the last uphill and downhill, depending on the selected mode. |

widgets

Speedometer Widget

Speedometer widget now shows visual speeding alerts with color-coded tolerance and limit-exceed states, including animated transitions when crossing speed thresholds.

Menu → Configure screen → Other → Speedometer

Speedometer

Palette Editor for Terrain & Track Visualization

We've introduced a powerful new palette editor that gives you full control over how data is visualized on your map. Whether you are analyzing a GPX track or viewing terrain relief, you can now customize the color transitions to suit your needs.

Step-by-Step vs. Gradient Modes

The editor now supports two distinct ways to transition between colors:

  • Gradient: Creates a smooth, continuous transition between colors, providing a fluid visual representation of data changes.
  • Step-by-step: Allows you to define strict color boundaries. For example, you can set 0–15 km/h to Yellow and 15.1–30 km/h to Red. This mode eliminates the gradient, making it easier to identify specific data ranges at a glance.

For GPX Tracks

Tracks Context menu → Appearance → Colour → + or All colors

Tracks colored by Speed, Altitude, or Slope now support Editor Colour Palettes. You can create Relative palettes (auto-scaled to your specific track data) or Fixed value palettes (based on absolute numbers), define custom color steps, and even set a unique color for missing data points.

For Terrain Coloring

Configure map → Terrain → Modify → + or All colors

This same editor has been integrated into terrain coloring options. You can now create your own custom color schemes for Altitude and Slope layers, allowing for a more personalized and readable terrain relief.

OsmAnd 5.3

Bicycle Width Parameter

Cycling profiles now support a bicycle width parameter. The router takes this value into account to help avoid narrow cycle paths that may not be suitable for wider bicycles.

Navigation Settings Android

Other Improvements

  • Auto-organize tracks by year, length, activity & more: Managing large collections of recordings is now much simpler with our new "Smart Folder" system. Organize your tracks dynamically by year, activity, or distance to keep your history clean and accessible.
    The new grouping mechanism allows you to create dynamic groups with any granularity you want. For example, you can group your entire library by Year, then sub-group by Activity type, and finally by Distance (e.g., 0-10km, 10-50km) or Duration. These folders provide helpful summaries, including total distance, duration, and average speed for each specific filtered group.

  • Enhanced Search Result Details: Navigating search results for common locations is now more intuitive. By displaying the city and street name directly in the results list, you can instantly distinguish between identical POI names without needing to open each one individually.

  • Improved Track Waypoint Navigation: We’ve refined how you interact with waypoints within a track. You can now tap through the waypoint list to center the map on each point sequentially. Crucially, the list remains open during this process, allowing for a much faster and more seamless route-review experience.

  • New POI Share Links: Sharing specific locations has been upgraded to support a new link format (aligned with our Web version). This ensures that when you share a POI, the recipient sees the exact same point and context across different platforms and devices.

  • Expanded Activity Profile Icons: To better support diverse outdoor activities, we are expanding our library of profile icons. Dedicated new icons for running, sailing, skateboarding, and etc are being added to make switching between your favorite activities more visually intuitive.

  • Multi-Selection for Favorites: Managing "My Places" is now more efficient with the addition of multi-selection support for Favorites. Just like with tracks, you can now select multiple saved points at once to move them to a different folder, share them, or delete them in bulk.

  • Refining Plugin Organization: We are restructuring how custom plugins are presented to help users distinguish between core built-in and custom plugins. This reorganization makes the app's extensive functionality more discoverable and less overwhelming for new users.

  • GPX Start/Finish Icon Optimization: To improve performance and prevent app freezes, we’ve updated how Start/Finish icons are handled for complex tracks. These icons are now disabled by default for tracks with more than 10 points and are force-disabled for very heavy tracks (over 100 points) to ensure a smooth map-viewing experience.

  • ODB-II Adapter Voltage Widget: For users with OBD2 integration, we've added a new dedicated widget to monitor "Adapter Voltage." This allows you to keep an eye on your vehicle's electrical health directly from the main navigation screen.

  • OBD-II Vehicle Metrics in Track Graphs: Vehicle data recorded via OBD-II can now be analyzed directly on the Analyze on map graph for tracks. This allows you to visualize parameters such as engine speed, temperature, fuel metrics, and more alongside standard track data.

Bug fixes


If you have suggestions for improving the Android version of the app, please get in touch with us. We appreciate and welcome your contribution to the further development of OsmAnd.


04:00 AM

The right sort of friction [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

If we remove impediments that are in the way of where our customers seek to go, they support us.

But when we remove the friction that gives people traction on their journey, they flounder.

Remove the hassles that people don’t care about, but celebrate the hassles that make it worth the effort.

      

Judge Acquits Penis Costume-Wearing Grandma While Saying Some Dumb Stuff About Probable Cause [Techdirt]

Last fall, an Alabama police officer decided he wasn’t going to allow a 62-year-old woman to exercise her First Amendment rights — not if she was going to do so from inside an inflatable penis costume.

Yes, these are sentences we actually have to write here at Techdirt — things that seem so implausible you’d expect them to be generated from the sloppiest of AI prompts. It’s a real thing, though. It happened to Fairhope, Alabama resident Renea Gamble. It was inflicted by Fairhope PD officer Andrew Babb, who took apparently personal offense at Gamble’s inflatable penis costume and her “No Dick-Tator” sign she carried during a “No Kings” protest.

You can watch the arrest in all of its ingloriousness below. It’s alternately comical and horrifying. Horrifying, because it involves officers assaulting a 62-year-old grandmother. Comical, because multiple attempts are made to fit the person and costume into a police cruiser before deciding it might be easier if the person and costume were separated… which then leads to an officer discovering it’s kind of difficult to shove a non-resisting inflatable penis costume into the truck of a police car.

This arrest and resulting prosecution gained national attention. Rather than encourage the city to drop the prosecution, it seemingly emboldened it. Prosecutors waited until people had moved onto the next outage before dropping additional charges on Renea Gamble, including “disturbing the peace” and “giving a false name to law enforcement.” (The latter charge stemmed from Gamble telling the arresting officers her name was “Auntie Fa.”)

Officer Babb — as captured by his own recording — presented a very subjective take on the First Amendment when arresting Gamble. He not only demanded Gamble explain what he was supposed to tell his own kids if they happened to see her costume (wtaf?), but said her particular form of expression was inherently unlawful because Fairhope was “a family town.”

The officer was as wrong about free speech as the town officials who supported this arrest and prosecution. Fair hope mayor Sherry Sullivan called the costume an “obscene display.” City council president Jack Burrell said the costume “violated community standards,” without bothering to assess what the community’s standards actually were.

Fortunately/unfortunately for him, a local radio station did exactly that, arriving at the opposite conclusion:

In December, a Mobile-based talk radio station held a listener poll to choose its annual Alabamian of the Year, with “Inflatable Fairhope Protest Penis” receiving the most votes.

Much more legitimately fortunate is the disposition of Renea Gamble’s criminal case. As AL.com reports, it has been tossed by municipal judge Haymes Snedeker. However, Snedeker’s acquittal comes with some caveats that will make it a bit more difficult for Gamble to pursue a civil rights lawsuit in this particular venue:

Judge Haymes Snedeker, after a trial lasting more than two hours, said he did not believe Fairhope Police Cpl. Andrew Babb was attempting to suppress 62-year-old Renea Gamble’s free speech rights during their encounter at the anti-Trump protest. He also said there may have been enough probable cause for Babb to arrest her.

However, Snedeker said he was not 99.9% certain that Gamble should be convicted of crimes stemming from the actions that led to her arrest. She was found not guilty of misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, as well as a municipal violation for disturbing the peace and giving a false name to law enforcement.

Snedeker gives the officer too much credit, especially when his own statements during the arrest made it clear he was singling Gamble out because he didn’t agree with her particular form of free expression. The recording shows Gamble wanted to manhandle this penis because he was employed by a “family town” and didn’t want to have to explain to his kids what this costume might represent. He didn’t present anything approaching legal justification prior to pinning Gamble to the ground and handcuffing her.

The judge said all of this despite the officer’s testimony being completely undercut by the recording of the arrest.

Babb testified that he was using de-escalation techniques he was trained to employ as a police officer. He said he was concerned about safety and viewed Gamble’s costume as an “obstruction.” He said he did not arrest her because he was personally offended by the costume or her anti-Trump message.

[…]

[Gamble’s lawyer David] Gespass disagreed, arguing that body camera footage revealed the true nature of the arrest. In the footage, Babb tells Gamble that her costume would not be tolerated in a town that “has values.”

“That’s all he talked about when he was confronting her was, ‘I am not going to put up with this in my town,’” Gespass said. “He said nothing about her causing any problems with traffic. Certainly, if you watch the video, he is not de-escalating anything. He approached her aggressively.”

That wasn’t the only stupid thing said by the government. Here’s the prosecutor attempting to salvage an obviously bogus prosecution:

“There is no constitutional right to wear a total erect penis on the side of the road,” he said. “I’m sorry.”

Hmm. Seems wrong. Pretty sure in this context it’s protected speech. And all of these qualifiers suggest no prosecution would be happening if Gamble had simply let a little bit of the air out of the costume to appear a bit more flaccid.

Both the cop and the prosecutor (Marcus McDowell) are welcome to say dumb things in their own defense during testimony. For the judge to suggest this arrest might have been supported by probable cause demands a better explanation than what was given here. If the standard is only that one cop felt something violated the law, the First Amendment is meaningless. It’s the sort of thing that tells citizens their rights only matter once they’re violated… and even then, they still may not mean much. The judge blew the call here and the local cops know it. Gamble still has a target on her back and the cops have the judicial leeway to keep arresting protesters they personally don’t like.

Daily Deal: The Complete Big Data And Power BI Bundle [Techdirt]

The Complete Big Data and Power BI Bundle has 5 courses to help you learn how to effectively sort, analyze, and visualize all of your data. Courses cover Power BI, Power Query, Excel, and Access. It’s on sale for $40.

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.

The Kids Are (Mostly) Alright: New Pew Study Deflates The Social Media Panic [Techdirt]

A couple weeks back, Jonathan Haidt published another entry in his ongoing campaign to convince the world that social media is inherently ruining kids’ lives. This one was a victory lap titled “Seven Lines of Evidence Against Social Media,” treating recent developments — including the social media addiction verdicts against Meta that most people are misunderstanding — as vindication of his thesis.

Part of the evidence he marshaled was Pew polling showing that parents are worried about their kids’ social media use. Which, fine. Parents worrying about what their kids are up to is as old as the human species, and usually about as productive as yelling at the wind. It’s kind of what parents do. It’s why every generation has its own series of “the kids these days!” moral panics.

But then something inconvenient happened for Haidt’s thesis: Pew went and did a brand new study exploring teens’ experiences on TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat. This one asked the kids themselves.

The results are awkward for the panic narrative.

For years now, I’ve been pointing out that the social-media-is-destroying-kids narrative — which Haidt has done more than anyone else to popularize — has never had the empirical backing its proponents claim. Multiple major studies have failed to replicate the harm claims. When researchers have looked carefully, they’ve often found the causal arrow pointing the other direction: kids who are already struggling with mental health issues and not getting adequate support tend to spend more time on social media, rather than social media causing the mental health issues.

Indeed, the research repeatedly suggests that for the very small number of kids who are facing mental health problems and overrelying on social media in response, the answer is a targeted intervention to help those individuals — not a broad “ban kids from social media” program.

The new Pew data does more than nudge that picture along; it gives it a massive shove.

Let’s start with the finding that should end this debate on its own. Pew asked teens how what they see on each platform makes them feel about themselves. Here’s what the kids reported:

About six-in-ten teen TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat users say what they see on each makes no difference in how they feel about themselves. And about a quarter say it makes them feel about equally better and worse.

When teens say these platforms do make them feel better or worse, it leans more positive. For example, 15% of TikTok users say what they see there makes them feel better, while 3% say it makes them feel worse.

The bar chart showing just how few kids claim that TikTok, SnapChat, and Instagram make them feel worse about themselves is quite telling:

Just look at those numbers. That tiny green bar? That’s the percentage that says these services make them feel worse about themselves. On TikTok — the platform most frequently cast as an unusually dangerous self-esteem killer for teen girls — 15% of teen users say it makes them feel better about themselves, and just 3% say it makes them feel worse. That’s a 5-to-1 ratio in the wrong direction for the moral panic narrative.

The numbers on the other platforms follow the same script. On Snapchat, 13% say it makes them feel better, just 2% worse. On Instagram — the platform Haidt has singled out for particular damnation, building much of his case on leaked Meta internal research he insists proves it’s poisonous — 10% say it makes them feel better, just 3% say it makes them feel worse.

Three percent. That’s not a signal of a generation-defining mental health catastrophe. That’s barely distinguishable from a rounding error.

And even these small numbers overstate the harm, because the vast majority of kids—around 60% on each platform—say these apps make no difference at all to how they feel about themselves. Add the quarter who report “about equally better and worse,” and you’re left with a tiny minority on either side of the ledger, tilted toward the positive.

Overall experience tracks the same way:

All told, teens tend to have a mostly positive experience on TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. About seven-in-ten teens on each platform say this. Very few – just 3% on each – say it’s mostly negative.

Seven-in-ten teens report a mostly positive experience. Three percent report a mostly negative one. These numbers are not ambiguous. If social media was so inherently harmful to kids, the numbers would not — could not — look that way.

Separately, Pew also asked parents how much time their teens spend on these platforms — and the disconnect between what parents believe and what their kids report is massive:

28% of teen TikTok users report spending too much time on the site, and that jumps to 44% when parents were asked about their teen’s use of the platform.

Parents think their teens are spending too much time on TikTok at a rate nearly 60% higher than the teens themselves report. That gap is the entire moral panic, distilled to a single data point: worried adults constructing a portrait of a crisis that the people supposedly living it mostly don’t appear to recognize.

And there’s a class dimension to this worry that deserves a lot more attention than it gets. Dig into the survey on what parents say about their teens’ uses of social media and you find that wealthier, more educated parents are significantly more convinced that social media is harming their kids than less affluent parents are.

This is exactly what you’d expect if the panic is being driven top-down by elite media and political discourse rather than bottom-up by actual observed harm. The audience buying Haidt’s books, reading his Atlantic pieces, listening to NPR segments about the teen mental health crisis — that audience skews wealthy and educated. And it’s precisely that demographic whose anxiety is most out of step with what kids themselves report.

I’ve written before about how the addiction narrative itself may be doing more damage than the thing it claims to describe — teaching kids to interpret normal experiences as pathological, making them feel broken for doing what basically everyone around them is doing. The socioeconomic breakdown in the Pew data fits that framing.

The panic is a panic of privilege, boosted by institutions that shape how the professional class thinks about everything from parenting to policy.

Now, to be fair, the Pew data isn’t uniformly rosy. Around 40% of TikTok users say it hurts the amount of sleep they get, and a meaningful percentage report productivity impacts. These findings deserve to be taken seriously rather than waved away.

But context matters here. Teenagers doing things late at night that hurt their sleep is not exactly a new phenomenon. Parents were convinced television was destroying their kids’ sleep and rotting their brains in the 1960s. Video games were going to create a generation of zombies in the 1980s and 90s. Before that, novels were going to warp young women’s minds. Pinball machines were banned in New York City until 1976 in part because they were thought to corrupt youth. The “this new thing is ruining our kids” script is older than any of the things it has ever been used to describe.

And even if you want to focus specifically on “sleep” we can go back to articles from the 19th century about how reading in bed was harming sleep.

None of which means sleep impacts don’t matter. They do. But “some kids report this activity affects their sleep” is a very different claim than “this activity is causing a generational mental health crisis requiring sweeping bans.” And notably, the self-esteem and overall-experience numbers I quoted above are measuring exactly the kind of mental health harm the panic is supposedly about. Those numbers don’t show what Haidt needs them to show.

Which brings us back to Haidt’s seven lines of evidence. I’m not going to rehash every point here, because several are variations on the same methodological moves I and others have addressed at length elsewhere — cherry-picked correlational data that Haidt and his collaborators desperately want to treat as proof of causality. Some people will argue that his lines 5 and 6 rebut the directionality critique; I don’t think they do, but unpacking why would take us pretty far afield. The larger pattern is what matters: when researchers ask the kids themselves, across study after study, the apocalyptic picture doesn’t materialize.

None of this means social media is harmless for every kid. It clearly isn’t. For a very small minority of teens, it appears that they are unable to handle these services in a healthy manner. Some kids experience harassment. Some kids lose sleep. Some kids who are already struggling find that social media makes the struggling worse. These are real issues that deserve real attention.

But the policy response that actually fits the data isn’t banning social media, criminalizing its use by minors, or building elaborate age verification regimes that compromise privacy for everyone. The response that fits the data is identifying the small percentage of kids who are actually having trouble and getting them real help: mental health resources, school counselors, and easier access to therapy. It also means giving parents and teachers better tools for understanding how to recognize when a kid is actually struggling. The boring, unglamorous, underfunded work of actually caring for kids who are struggling — not sweeping policy gestures that make worried parents feel like something is being done while the kids who actually need help go without.

The moral panic response is the lazy response. It treats every teenager as presumptively damaged by the same thing, ignores what teenagers actually report about their own experiences, and papers over the reality that the kids who need help will still need help after social media is regulated into oblivion — because for those kids, social media overuse usually signals existing distress rather than causing it.

Haidt is doing a victory lap. The kids Pew just surveyed didn’t get the memo that they’re supposed to be miserable because of TikTok. Fifteen percent of them say TikTok makes them feel better about themselves. Three percent say it makes them feel worse. Seven-in-ten report their overall experience on these platforms is mostly positive.

At some point, the people telling us there’s a generational catastrophe are going to have to reckon with the fact that the generation they claim is in catastrophe keeps telling researchers something very different. That reckoning doesn’t seem to be coming from Haidt anytime soon. But the data keeps piling up anyway.

Pluralistic: Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff's "Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed" (21 Apr 2026) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]


Today's links



The Harpercollins cover for Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff's 'Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed.'

Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff's "Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed" (permalink)

Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff's Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed seeks to describe the ideology that gave rise to Elon Musk, the social forces that gave rise to that ideology, and the terrible future that ideology seeks to bring about:

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/muskism-quinn-slobodianben-tarnoff?variant=43838135402530

The book's starting point is that "Muskism" isn't merely the things Musk says, believes and does. It's the ideology that coalesces around him, from the people in his wake and the people he follows. Just as Henry Ford neither defined "Fordism" nor precisely practiced it, "Muskism" is centered on Elon Musk, but it's not Elon Musk's creation.

So what is Muskism? To answer this question, Slobodian and Tarnoff enumerate the factors and influences that produced Musk himself. There's apartheid, with its "rational" system of technocratic authoritarianism, which blended together a life of luxury and plenty (for white settlers), brutal surveillance and state violence (for the Black majority) and fascist control over speech (for everyone), combined with a meat-grinder draft that saw young men of Musk's age being called up to suppress liberation uprisings.

Peak apartheid coincided with peak personal computing, the moment where PCs (and then, modems) were getting cheaper and faster, propagating like mushrooms, offering a young Musk access to a broad world outside of the fascist bubble of South Africa, inspiring global ambitions in Musk.

Closer to home, there's Musk's family: his grandfather, a grandiose and vicious white supremacist who moved to South Africa from Canada because of his love for apartheid and racial hierarchy. There's Musk's father, a violent and abusive fool.

Muskism is also a new variant on techno-libertarianism. Traditional techno-libertarianism seeks to dismantle the state – or better yet, exit from the state, in the manner of an Ayn Rand hero. Techno-libertarianism is intimately bound up with settler colonialism, ever on the hunt for an "empty land" (terra nullius) that can be settled without committing the original sin of expropriation, the gravest offense in a religion organized around the total sanctity of private property:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/14/this-way-to-the-egress/#terra-nullius

Muskism doesn't seek to exit the state, it seeks to colonize and control it. Long before DOGE, Musk was playing the organs of the state to his own tune, securing massive contracts and subsidies for his solar and rocketry businesses, relying on the massive, deep-pocketed government to keep his businesses afloat.

Obviously (DOGE!), Muskism also seeks to dismantle the state, but only the parts of it that can be transferred to Musk's own private hands. Muskism is about big government…for Musk, but not for you. It embodies that important conservative value summarized in Wilhoit's Law:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

This is Musk through and through – a man who demands the right to call innocent strangers "pedo guy" without legal consequence; and also wields the power of the state to shutter businesses that boycott his platform because of its shitty practices:

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/courtside/elon-musk-sues-advertisers-who-boycott-x-under-anti-trust-laws/

Musk grew up on science fiction novels and weaves stfnal tropes through his offerings (for example, calling his chatbot "Grok"). There's no shortage of reactionary politics in science fiction, but Musk doesn't confine his sf-inspired cosmology to reactionary literature. He's famously very fond of the Wachowskis' "Matrix" movies, and leans heavily into the metaphor of the Matrix in explaining his interest in wiring people directly into computers, in characterizing opposing political beliefs as "mind viruses," and in calling his political enemies "NPCs":

https://pluralistic.net/2025/08/18/seeing-like-a-billionaire/#npcs

But Musk's relationship to this metaphor differs in a subtle and important way from the right's "Red Pill" rhetoric. Musk doesn't want to break out of the Matrix – he wants to control the Matrix. He wants to decide which opinions you're allowed to see and discuss (because "most people have weak firewalls for bad ideas"), he wants to beam ideas directly into your neural link, and he wants to abolish any form of workplace democracy, conquering the world with South African baasskap (boss-ism):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baasskap

Throughout this slim volume, Slobodian and Tarnoff tease these strains of thought out of Musk's deeds and utterances, and in the systems that he has built or colonized through acquisition. The authors are offering more than a psychoanalysis, though – they're surfacing the material basis for Muskism, the benefits it delivers to its adherents, and the victories it has racked up.

They reveal the method in Musk's chaotic and bullying management style, and recount the times Musk has successfully shattered sclerotic processes to make real breakthroughs, especially in aerospace. You'd be hard pressed to read these passages and without feeling some grudging admiration.

Muskism gets stuff done…sometimes. At a cost. A high cost. Tarnoff and Slobodian count that cost, identify who pays it, and conjure up the world in which those costs continue to mount for all of us.

It's a chilling vision, a Torment Nexus dystopia run by someone who thinks cyberpunk was a suggestion, not a warning.


Hey look at this (permalink)



A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

Object permanence (permalink)

#15yrsago US, EU want to delay copyright treaty to help blind people for 3-5 years https://web.archive.org/web/20110423170607/http://keionline.org/node/1114

#15yrsago Is sugar a poison? https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

#15yrsago More watch-part motorcycles https://ummaisoumenos.blogspot.com/2008/11/miniaturas-fantsticasbikesfeitas-de.html

#15yrsago Seeds: comic-book memoir of father’s cancer is moving, sweet https://memex.craphound.com/2011/04/19/seeds-comic-book-memoir-of-fathers-cancer-is-moving-sweet/

#10yrsago Something New: frank, comedic, romantic memoir of a wedding in comic form https://memex.craphound.com/2016/04/19/something-new-frank-comedic-romantic-memoir-of-a-wedding-in-comic-form/

#10yrsago Ben and Jerry arrested at Democracy Spring demonstration in DC https://web.archive.org/web/20160419173913/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co-founders-of-ben-and-jerrys-arrested-at-us-capitol/ar-BBrW5tb?li=BBnb7Kz

#10yrsago Competing construction companies stage a bulldozer fight in a busy street https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrtnIImGipg

#10yrsago Chicago Police Accountability Task Force Report: racism, corruption, and a “broken system” https://chicagopatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PATF_Final_Report_4_13_16-1.pdf

#5yrsago Facebook's tonsils https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/19/tonsilitis/#mod-traum

#1yrago Against transparency https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/19/gotcha/#known-to-the-state-of-california-to-cause-cancer


Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.



A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)



A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)



A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026 (https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374621568/thereversecentaursguidetolifeafterai/)

  • "Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2026

  • "The Post-American Internet," a geopolitical sequel of sorts to Enshittification, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2027

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2027

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2027



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing: "The Post-American Internet," a sequel to "Enshittification," about the better world the rest of us get to have now that Trump has torched America. Third draft completed. Submitted to editor.

  • "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux about being an effective AI critic. LEGAL REVIEW AND COPYEDIT COMPLETE.

  • "The Post-American Internet," a short book about internet policy in the age of Trumpism. PLANNING.

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING


This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.


How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Bluesky (no ads, possible tracking and data-collection):

https://bsky.app/profile/doctorow.pluralistic.net

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X

Boys Will Be Boys. But Women? “You’re Fired.” [The Status Kuo]

Photo: Al Drago for the New York Times

Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned Monday as Trump’s Secretary of Labor, the third Cabinet member to exit in his second term. You can be forgiven for not knowing her name, as she was hardly ever doing her job and seemed more interested in the, shall we say, “perks” of the job.

On this, she and Kristi Noem appear to be kindred spirits.

The White House said Chavez-DeRemer was leaving her post to “take a position in the private sector.” That’s the same euphemism used for both Noem and Pam Bondi when they were canned. Her attorney issued the obligatory statement that the departure “is not the result of legal wrongdoings. It is a personal decision.”

But there were plenty of alleged wrongdoings, as I’ll summarize below. It’s just that none of them actually got her fired. What ultimately did appears tied to the timing of her departure: A congressional hearing was scheduled for this Wednesday, and Democrats were openly preparing to humiliate the regime yet again by focusing on her alleged misconduct.

Chavez-DeRemer resigned Monday, two days before that could happen.

Subscribe now

Living it up on the public’s dime

Trump’s Labor Secretary’s tenure is a case study in how an official can treat an entire federal agency as her personal fiefdom, turning its staff into personal assistants for her and her family. The list of improprieties reads as eerily similar to Noem’s personal excesses and family drama.

A formal complaint filed with the Labor Department’s inspector general accused Chavez-DeRemer of an “inappropriate relationship” with a member of her security detail, specifically her bodyguard. The staffer was placed on leave in January. (At least there was no love nest on a private jet.)

Her alleged paramour was among four officials ultimately forced out as the IG’s investigation expanded, including her chief of staff and his deputy, who were given 24 hours to resign in early March. That probe found that the two had been manufacturing official reasons for Chavez-DeRemer’s travel by setting up professional events as cover for personal trips. Chavez-DeRemer had launched a “50-state ‘America at Work’ listening tour” early in her term, whatever that means. Staff described her as disconnected from the actual work of the department and as frequently out of Washington.

More like Miranda Beastly

Chavez-DeRemer was accused of blurring professional and personal boundaries through a pattern of bizarre, demanding requests. The New York Times obtained messages showing that she, her top aides and her family members routinely sent personal messages and requests to young, lower-level female staffers. In one exchange, she asked an employee to bring rosé to her hotel room. Her aides also directed young staffers to perform personal chores, including clearing out one of Chavez-DeRemer’s clothing closets.

If that sounds odd, it was the least of it. She also allegedly required employees to attend personally to her male family members—a highly unusual, inappropriate demand for federal staff. Specifically, she and her former deputy chief of staff instructed young female staffers to “pay attention” to her husband, Dr. Shawn DeRemer, and her 81-year-old father, Richard Chavez. In one message, Richard Chavez wrote to a young female staffer:

Hearing u/r in town. Wishing you would let me know. I could have made some excuses to get out and show u around. Please keep this private.

Her husband also messaged the same staffer, responding “You better” when she apologized for not being in touch.

Shawn DeRemer was eventually barred from the Labor Department’s Washington headquarters after two female staffers accused him of sexual assault. One staffer filed a police report with the Metropolitan Police Department in January. The D.C. police and federal prosecutors ultimately closed the investigation without charges, but the ban remained. (DeRemer’s lawyers have denied all allegations, but at least one instance was captured on camera.)

And in a nod to Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth and Jeanine Pirro, the probe also included complaints that Chavez-DeRemer drank during the workday and maintained a liquor stash in her office.

The federal government paid nearly $1 million to settle an employment discrimination claim arising from her office. And three formal EEO complaints were filed against Chavez-DeRemer alleging she fostered a hostile workplace and retaliated against women who reported her husband. The complaints described staff fearing punishment for speaking out or refusing directives they considered inappropriate. One complainant was the secretary’s own director of advance, who was fired a day after completing a four-hour interview under oath with the IG’s office.

The IG investigation was nearly complete, with Chavez-DeRemer’s own interview under oath scheduled for this week. She resigned before she had to sit for it.

Ethics shmethics. Just don’t make me look bad!

The Trump White House tolerates extraordinary levels of dysfunction, personal misconduct and institutional damage… so long as it all stays out of his spotlight. The threshold that triggers a firing isn’t some ethical or moral line; it’s purely political.

Take Kristi Noem. She had been politically radioactive for most of her tenure at Homeland Security. The open infidelity. Her disgraceful labeling of two U.S. citizens killed in Minneapolis as “domestic terrorists.” A $220 million ad campaign featuring her riding a horse in front of Mount Rushmore. Bipartisan fury over slow-walked disaster relief grants.

But it was Noem’s most recent disastrous appearance before Congress that finally broke the dam. After she claimed Trump had personally approved that nine-figure ad campaign, Trump’s allies pounced, describing the president as “livid” and claiming he hadn’t approved it. (In my view, he likely did, given how she’s made this same claim before with no pushback). Noem committed the mortal sin of making her problem Trump’s, under oath, on camera, and in public. And that got her fired two days later.

Or take Pam Bondi. Trump had been frustrated with his Attorney General for months over her failure to successfully prosecute his political enemies, including failed indictments of James Comey and Letitia James. But the Epstein files had become a public relations catastrophe. Bondi had gone on Fox to claim the Epstein client list was “sitting on my desk right now.” Congress passed a near unanimous bill, via discharge petition, forcing the release of large portions of the Epstein files. The disclosures were damning and kept Epstein/Trump in the news. House Oversight then subpoenaed Bondi’s testimony—and she was fired while that deposition was still looming.

The pattern is now both recognizable and consistent. Imminent, unspinnable public exposure, whether a congressional hearing, a deposition or an inspector general interview under oath, can trigger a quick departure to head off further scrutiny. It’s at that point that cabinet officials stop being assets for Trump and start becoming PR liabilities.

Chavez-DeRemer’s case follows this logic. The IG investigation had been grinding for months. Her rather public affair, the travel fraud, the family’s sexual misconduct, the toxic workplace complaints—Trump tolerated all of it so long as it remained contained. But the Wednesday public hearing, along with the IG interview scheduled for this week, shifted the calculus. The White House needed her out before she could pull focus and embarrass everyone.

A galling double standard

Bad PR, consistently negative headlines, and embarrassing the White House can get you canned by Trump, but it’s no surprise that women have been the first to go. They live and work, after all, under a glaring double standard that tolerates misconduct and incompetence in men but penalizes women for far less.

As a result, women in Trump’s cabinet enjoy a much shorter political runway when the ketchup hits the wall. Men with comparable or worse conduct records—Pete Hegseth at Defense, Kash Patel at the FBI, RFK Jr. at HHS—have remained in place.

Take the question of boozing on the job. Chavez-DeRemer’s IG probe included allegations of alcohol consumption during the workday. That’s admittedly a secondary allegation in a pile of more serious ones, but it is documented and now part of the public record. But rosé requests in the middle of the day seem tame compared to what we heard during Hegseth’s confirmation process. That surfaced sworn affidavit testimony that he had passed out drunk at family gatherings, had to be carried out of a Minneapolis strip club while in uniform during a National Guard drill weekend, and that his second wife had an escape plan involving a safe word. Hegseth promised senators he would not drink while serving as secretary, a pledge his chief of staff later reportedly undercut by spreading an unverified story about a disguised post-confirmation bender.

Then there’s Kash Patel. As I wrote about yesterday, The Atlantic published a report Friday citing more than two dozen current and former officials alleging that the FBI Director’s “conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences” had alarmed colleagues. Briefings reportedly had to be rescheduled because of alcohol-fueled nights. Patel was allegedly often unreachable on time-sensitive decisions. And at one point Patel had a “freak-out” that he’d been fired and locked out of systems, when it was in fact just an IT glitch. Patel has now filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic, denying the allegations, but the outlet stands by its reporting.

Just imagine if any female cabinet members had been accused of the kind of behavior and incompetence Patel and Hegseth have exhibited.

For reasons having a lot to do with testosterone, Hegseth and Patel have so far stayed below the “embarrassment” threshold in Trump’s eyes. This remains true despite Hegseth publicly embarrassing himself with lapses in classified communication protocol in SignalGate and his near cartoonish behavior as a “Christian warrior” at the Pentagon, complete with reciting misquoted scripture that actually came from Pulp Fiction. Patel has remained in his job through multiple botched investigations with premature announcements of suspect captures, his personal use of an FBI jet to attend concerts with his girlfriend, and his perjurious statements under oath that Trump’s name did not appear in the Epstein files more than 100 times.

Trump values their loyalty, their ideological alignment, and their willingness to execute his agenda without friction. But the same calculus that took out Noem, Bondi, and Chavez-DeRemer could eventually apply to them, too. It just takes more to get there because, well, boys will be boys.

12:00 AM

Paramount Faces DMCA Whack-a-Mole as Leaked Avatar: Aang Movie Thrives on Pirate Sites [TorrentFreak]

aangA little over a week ago, an unreleased version of the movie Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender leaked online.

The Paramount Pictures production was not scheduled to come out before October, but that changed when copies of the film began spreading online.

The trouble started on April 12 when X user @ImStillDissin posted two clips from the film, misleadingly claiming that someone at Nickelodeon had “accidentally emailed me the entire Avatar Aang movie.” Both clips were taken down via DMCA notices shortly after.

The initial leaker later told the Hollywood Reporter that he actually received the film through a contact from his “hacker days.” He didn’t realize what it was until he looked it up, and decided to post the snippets online.

The clips carried a #PeggleCrew watermark, a nod to the hacking group that is allegedly behind the breach, although this remains unconfirmed.

The initial X clip leaks

avatar aang leak

Not long after the clips were removed, a second X user posted the full film, racking up over a million views before that too was removed. Paramount, meanwhile, remained quiet and did not issue a public statement on the leak.

Behind the scenes, however, the movie studio and its anti-piracy partners have been quite busy. Initially, they mostly dealt with copies of the film being reposted on X by different users, but their challenge was spreading elsewhere too.

DMCA Notice Whack-a-Mole

After the leak was public, the film started to spread through other platforms too. Records in the Lumen Database show that Paramount and its enforcement teams at MarkScan Digital, Marketly LLC, and Vobile Inc. all sprung into action, flagging various leaked copies.

This includes DMCA takedown requests directly targeting leaks on third-party services such as Google Drive and the video service Vimeo, both of which were swiftly taken down.

Vimeo takedown

vimeo

However, some takedown requests include more indirect links too. For example, a DMCA notice sent on behalf of Paramount by MarkScan on April 13, targets a 4chan discussion thread, which typically only remains online briefly. This notice also listed a file that was posted on Rootz.

While Paramount clearly tried hard to contain the leak, it appeared that the problem only became harder to enforce.

The Piracy Ecosystem Takes Over

Unlike most movie leaks, the Avatar: Aang leak did not originate from a scene or P2P group. However, it found its way into the traditional piracy ecosystem within hours, where it continues to thrive today.

Multiple copies were uploaded to torrent sites and are widely shared, making it the second most pirated movie of the past week. This includes a copy that was uploaded to The Pirate Bay by “TheRedPill,” who referenced the ongoing whack-a-mole at other platforms in the upload description.

“Found this copy on twitter of all places via a wetranfer link. Supposedly this is a webrip that was sent to someone who then leaked it online. it has been passed around all day with links going up and down,” the uploader wrote.

This wasn’t the only copy of the leak that surfaced on torrent sites, as many others appeared around the same time. Meanwhile, pirate streaming sites began indexing the leak as well, further expanding its audience by millions of people.

Leaked copies on 1337x

leaks

As shown above, torrent site 1337x currently hosts a wide variety of leaked copies. These all originate from the same source but are reported in different qualities.

Little Recourse Beyond Google

Dozens of notices posted in the Lumen database show that Paramount and its enforcement partners are also targeting these pirate sites. However, since most of these sites don’t respond to takedown notices, these sites present a persistent problem.

For these pirate sites, Paramount typically asks Google to delist the URLs from search results, which reduces discoverability but does not take the infringing content offline.

The notice below, for example, was sent to Google yesterday and targets various torrent and streaming sites. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

DMCA notice sent to Google

dmca notice

Also, it’s worth stressing that the notices in the Lumen Database reported here are only the fraction of Paramount’s takedown efforts that’s public. Most of their efforts, including any notices sent directly to X or other platforms that do not report to Lumen, remain unknown.

In addition to taking down content, Paramount will also be interested in finding the source of the leak. According to Variety, unnamed sources said that the matter is under investigation, but the leak reportedly did not originate from within the studio.

For now, Avatar: Aang, The Last Airbender remains on course for its October 9 premiere on Paramount+. By then, most of its target audience has already had the opportunity to watch an early, perhaps unfinished, version of the film for free.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Tuesday 2026-04-21

11:00 PM

New Release: Tor Browser 15.0.10 [Tor Project blog]

Tor Browser 15.0.10 is now available from the Tor Browser download page and also from our distribution directory.

This version includes important security updates to Firefox.

Send us your feedback

If you find a bug or have a suggestion for how we could improve this release, please let us know.

Full changelog

The full changelog since Tor Browser 15.0.9 is:

  • All Platforms
  • Windows + macOS + Linux
    • Updated Firefox to 140.10.0esr
    • Bug tor-browser#44288: New identity fails to block loading a custom home page
  • Android
    • Updated GeckoView to 140.10.0esr
  • Build System
    • All Platforms
    • Windows + Linux + Android
      • Updated Go to 1.25.9

CBS Hosting Dinner Praising Trump And His Love Of The First Amendment [Techdirt]

Talk about pathetic.

CBS has announced that the now-Larry Ellison owned network will be hosting a lavish dinner this week praising Donald Trump and his (nonexistent) dedication to the First Amendment. The dinner will be hosted at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, which the State Department claimed in December 2025 was being renamed “The Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.”

Truly banana republic type shit.

Oliver Darcy got a hold of the original invite for the dinner, and it’s everything you might expect:

Trump is, as regular Techdirt readers may recall, arguably the worst president in a century when it comes to trampling press freedom, free speech, and the First Amendment. When the administration isn’t trying to destroy comedians for telling jokes about the president, it’s busy crushing whatever was left of public media in the U.S., or threatening the broadcast licenses of networks that do basic journalism.

CBS management doesn’t care about any of that, of course, because it’s owned by billionaire right wing Trump ally, Larry Ellison. And Larry and David Ellison are desperate to have the government sign off on their job-destroying merger between Paramount and Warner Brothers. The Warner Brothers board is voting to approve the deal on the same day as the dinner.

Despite some pretense that the Trump DOJ is doing its due diligence to review the deal, there’s little real doubt that the feds will rubber stamp the transaction. The real question mark rests with a likely antitrust lawsuit from a coalition of state attorneys general to block the transaction.

It’s worth noting that Larry Ellison’s son David couldn’t attend a hearing last week on the massive problems with the Paramount Warner merger due to a purported death in the family (nobody seems able to determine who died), but he was able to make an appearance at Cinemacon a day earlier to make all sorts of empty promises about how wonderful the merger will be:

David Ellison…made a unexpected appearance at CinemaCon, the annual gathering of theater owners. He took the stage to reassure exhibitors they have nothing to fear, whether it be the new regime at Paramount, or his pending acquisition of Warner Bros.”

They of course have everything to fear. The massive $108 billion in debt from the Warner Brothers deal will inevitably result in mass layoffs, price hikes, and sagging product quality due to the need to cut corners to service the debt. This is before we even talk about the layoffs already happening at CBS.

It’s simply not up for debate: this happens absolutely every single time folks like the Ellisons delude themselves into thinking mass consolidation does anything useful outside of generate tax breaks, drive short-lived stock boosts, and let guys like David Ellison pretend they’re “savvy dealmakers.”

Pre-merger promises about release windows (or anything else) are absolutely meaningless. But with just a handful of people at the top financially disincentivized from learning anything from history (including the three previous disastrous Warner Brothers mergers), the dysfunction just repeats itself indefinitely. We’ve seen merger dysfunction and chaos before, but this one has the potential to outdo them all.

03:00 PM

YouTuber Copyright Struck After Others Layer AI Voiceovers On Video Game Music [Techdirt]

It’s barely been a few days back since we discussed just how open to mistakes and abuse YouTube’s copyright takedown system is, when NVIDIA’s demo video for its controversial DLSS 5 tech got briefly pulled down because an Italian news channel did a piece featuring the footage which it copyrighted. The copyright bots took it from there and the actual source material for the news footage got booted.

While that is a great example of an obvious simple error resulting in copyright collateral damage, there have been plenty of examples of abuse resulting in this sort of thing, too. And if you want a great example of how this could all get much, much worse thanks to AI, you need look only at let’s play YouTuber Nubzombie getting two copyright copyright claims on his video of Silent Hill 2 gameplay for most absurd reasons. It seems multiple people have taken music from the game, originally by Akira Yamaoka, and layered some lazy AI-created voiceovers on top of it and then setup automatic copyright enforcement for those sounds.

Earlier last night, content creator Nubzombie uploaded a video titled A.I. IS RUINING YOUTUBE (and my life). In the video, Nubzombie states that their latest playthrough of the original version of Silent Hill 2 was hit with a copyright strike by someone called “Agro memos.” As you can see (or rather hear), in Nubzombie’s video, the track that the Agro memos strike is protecting is a clear copy of Akira Yamaoka’s track “Promise,” but with an AI-generated voice over top.

Then, in the space of a few hours, Nubzombie uploaded a second video. As they explain in that follow-up, as soon as their first video had finished uploading to YouTube, their Silent Hill 2 playthrough was hit with a second copyright strike. This time, it was from a different artist, named “詹姆斯.K,” but the copyright claimer this time isn’t even trying to hide the fact that their track is a ripoff of Akira Yamaoka’s “Promise”…because 詹姆斯.K’s track is literally called “Promise.”

This has always been the problem with YouTube’s automatic and bot-driven copyright enforcement mechanisms. There is very little that gets in the way of bad actors claiming copyright on all kinds of content actually produced by others, sometimes with this sort of languorous and brief additions to said content, and then slap copyright enforcement on it to issue automatic takedowns or demonetization claims. That YouTube has allowed this problem to fester for years and the timeline is now colliding with the prevalence of AI tools that make all of this even easier for the bad actors is inexcusable.

Though it gets a little bit stranger with that first copyright notice, since it appears Sony Music might be involved.

While I couldn’t find any information on the second “Promise” rip-off, I did find something odd regarding the former. Agro memos’ most recent tracks on YouTube, like this one, state in the descriptions that they were “Provided to YouTube by The Orchard Enterprises.”

Orchard Enterprises is a division of Sony Music Entertainment. Turns out Orchard’s got a bit of history of pulling this kind of stunt, dating all the way back to 2022. In this video, content creator EckhartsLadder details how he was repeatedly hit with copyright claims by Orchard Enterprises in 2024 because Orchard falsely claimed that the track  “Resonance” by HOME, which EckhartsLadder used as their intro and outro song for all their videos, belonged to the Sony Music subsidiary.

Sony hasn’t responded to questions about all of this as of the time of this writing, but it damned well should. Best as I can tell, Sony doesn’t have any of the video game rights to the Silent Hill franchise, and this specific game was produced by Konami in 2001, and then a remake was released in 2024. It doesn’t seem to me that Sony should have anything to do with any of this.

But even if some division of Sony is a bad actor in all of this, the onus is on YouTube to fix its platform and protect its creators. This is long overdue.

08:00 AM

Caught In The Crackdown: As Arrests At Anti-ICE Protests Piled Up, Prosecutions Crumbled [Techdirt]

This story was originally published by ProPublica and Frontline. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.

The National Guard soldiers in desert camo piled out of unmarked vans in East Los Angeles last June, cordoning off East Sixth Street, a residential street lined with single family houses, and blocking a nearby road leading to an elementary school.

A squad of federal agents moved in flinging flash-bang grenades — explosives designed to disorient — into a small home before storming inside. They’d come for Alejandro Orellana, a Marine Corps veteran and UPS employee accused of being a central figure in a secret confederacy of insurrectionists. A news video had shown the 30-year-old distributing water, food and face shields to people protesting the Trump administration’s immigration roundups in Los Angeles.

Bill Essayli, a former state legislator who leads the federal prosecutor’s office in Los Angeles, joined the raid along with a Fox News crew.

With cameras rolling, Orellana, his parents and brothers were led out in handcuffs as agents searched their home.

On Fox News, Essayli, sporting a blue FBI windbreaker, hyped the arrest of Orellana, a quiet, wiry man with a long mane of coal-black hair. “It appears they’re well-orchestrated and coordinated, and well-funded,” he said. “And today was one of the first arrests — first key arrests — that we did.”

Essayli would charge Orellana with conspiracy — under a federal statute typically used to build cases against drug traffickers and organized crime — and with aiding and abetting civil disorder.

Within weeks, the prosecutor’s marquee case would quietly fall apart. Agents who searched Orellana’s house found little that could be considered incriminating, and prosecutors never charged anyone else as part of the supposed conspiracy. By late July, they moved to have the charges dismissed.

It wouldn’t be the only such case.

Over the past 10 months, President Donald Trump’s administration has made much of its success in sweeping through U.S. cities, capturing unauthorized immigrants and arresting people who publicly oppose the operations, routinely accusing dissenters of being domestic terrorists or extremists. Federal agents have arrested hundreds of U.S. citizens like Orellana — including protesters, activists observing the immigration enforcement operations, bystanders and, in some cases, the family members of people targeted for deportation.

Less clear to the public is what has happened to those charged.

To find out, ProPublica and FRONTLINE combed through social media, court records and news stories. Reporters identified more than 300 protesters and bystanders who were arrested by federal agents during immigration sweeps and were accused of crimes such as assaulting or interfering with law enforcement. 

But over and over those accusations fell apart under scrutiny. Our reviews of court files found that statements made by the arresting officers were repeatedly debunked by video footage. In more than a third of the cases, prosecutors quickly dismissed charges that couldn’t be substantiated, refused to file charges at all, or lost at trial. The tally of cases that end this way will likely climb as many of the arrests remain unresolved.

“What’s happening now is not comparable to anything that’s happened in the past,” said

Cuauhtémoc Ortega, the chief federal defender for the Central District of California, who personally represented Orellana and other protesters. “We’ve never had a situation where it seems like you arrest first and then try to justify the reasons for the arrests later.”

The Department of Homeland Security, which includes Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the arrests and declined to answer detailed questions from ProPublica and FRONTLINE.

But in a statement in response to an earlier story, DHS said, “The First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly — not rioting. DHS is taking reasonable and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers.”

Watch FRONTLINE and ProPublica’s Documentary: “Caught in the Crackdown”

Given the unprecedented nature of the urban sweeps, it is difficult to compare the rate of failed cases to another time period or context. But current and former federal prosecutors and other legal experts said having that number of arrests come to nothing is particularly striking in the federal system, where U.S. attorneys usually secure convictions or guilty pleas in more than 90% of the cases they bring; only 8.2% of federal criminal cases were dismissed in 2022, according to data compiled by that court system.

The failures highlight the challenges of sending large numbers of federal agents into major cities to conduct roving immigration sweeps: They aren’t accustomed to dealing with crowds of angry protesters 

Border Patrol agents are typically stationed at the border where their day-to-day work entails scooping up people who have crossed illegally. ICE agents, who often work in urban settings, had little prior experience handling hostile crowds. And FBI agents, who have aided in the immigration sweeps, would normally spend months or years painstakingly amassing evidence before making arrests.

That lack of experience in street policing and crowd control, coupled with the Trump administration’s demand for huge numbers of deportations, led agents to make a wave of unjustified arrests, legal experts say.

To be sure, protesters have often engaged in hostile behavior, hurling expletives, getting in agents’ faces and occasionally becoming violent. A woman in Minnesota is accused of biting off part of an agent’s finger during a scuffle after the killing of Alex Pretti in late January; in Los Angeles, an officer outside an immigration detention facility suffered a dislocated finger after a protester allegedly grabbed his bulletproof vest and shook him. 

But the agents’ conduct has also frequently been violent. As ProPublica and FRONTLINE reported last year, they have routinely shot pepper balls or tear gas at protesters in ways that violate their own rules, causing severe injuries to demonstrators in several cities. 

“The agents, they don’t know how to operate in these situations,” said Christy Lopez, a former Justice Department attorney who spent years investigating misconduct by law enforcement. Their behavior, she said, “is on par with the worst protest policing and just law enforcement that I’ve seen from any department, even in their worst days.

In its earlier statement, DHS said that “rioters and terrorists” have repeatedly attacked immigration agents, but ICE and Customs and Border Protection personnel “are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve dangerous situations to prioritize the safety of the public and themselves.”

The arrests are not without consequence. Even unsuccessful prosecutions can be costly and emotionally taxing for defendants, said Jared Fishman, a former career prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The aggressive tactics of the agents and the gleeful social media posts by DHS accusing protesters of serious crimes, Fishman said, affect people’s willingness to publicly challenge the mass deportation policies. 

“If the goal of the Trump administration is to keep people out of the streets, then it doesn’t matter if the people are getting convicted,” said Fishman, now the executive director of the Justice Innovation Lab, a nonprofit focused on creating a more equitable and effective justice system. “I’m sure it’s having a chilling effect.”

After reviewing data and some court records for ProPublica and FRONTLINE, Fishman said, “The numbers seem to indicate a pattern and practice of illegal arrests.”

“We Must Identify Him”

The crackdown on protesters began in June of 2025, when the Department of Homeland Security launched its wave of major immigration sweeps in Southern California. The campaign was led by Gregory Bovino, a veteran Border Patrol chief who normally presided over a remote stretch of sand and scrub deep in the state’s Imperial Valley.

Bovino from the start encouraged his agents to shut down or arrest protesters.

“Arrest as many people that touch you as you want to. Those are the general orders, all the way to the top,” Bovino told his officers, footage from an agent’s body-worn camera shows. “Everybody fucking gets it if they touch you.”

He went on to remind them that their actions should be “legal, ethical, moral” while encouraging them to use so-called less lethal weapons on protesters.

“We’re gonna look at shipping tractor trailers full of that shit in here,” he said. 

Bovino’s forces repeatedly fired tear gas canisters and rubber bullets at the heads and faces of demonstrators and journalists. 

Bovino’s aggressive tactics sparked intense opposition from Angelenos, including those gathered in the streets in front of the sprawling federal office complex in downtown Los Angeles on June 9. 

That day Orellana drove his Ford F-150 pickup truck loaded with bottled water, snacks and cardboard boxes containing Uvex brand face shields — clear plastic masks designed to protect industrial workers from flying debris and chemical splashes — to the protest.

When he arrived in front of the federal building, another person hopped into the bed and began handing out the supplies to protesters gathered outside the entrance.

Orellana told FRONTLINE and ProPublica that he decided to help distribute the supplies after watching federal agents fire tear gas and rubber bullets into crowds at an earlier demonstration.

“A bunch of us took it upon ourselves to, you know, go downtown and give out these resources — the food, water and of course the PPE,” he said, referring to personal protective equipment.

Video and photos quickly made their way onto social media. An X user with more than 30,000 followers posted a photo of Orellana. “A photograph of the man delivering boxes of gas masks to the rioters has emerged,” wrote the poster. “We must identify him, so we can track down who is funding this coordinated attack.”

From there the thread was picked up by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has a vast audience on the platform. Jones, who repeatedly claimed that financier and philanthropist George Soros was funding the protests, eventually named Orellana as the driver of the pickup. More than two million people saw the post. 

Within 48 hours, the soldiers and federal agents arrived to arrest Orellana.

Over the next five months, they arrested more than one hundred U.S. citizens in Los Angeles and other cities in Southern California — most of them demonstrators — charging them with assaulting federal law enforcement personnel or interfering with agents’ activities. Others were accused of damaging government property. At least 16, like Orellana, were charged with conspiracy, which can carry a sentence of up to six years in prison.

ProPublica and FRONTLINE found that more than a third of those cases crumbled. In eight instances, juries acquitted defendants at trial. But more frequently, prosecutors dropped charges when the claims made by immigration officers and agents didn’t match video evidence or other inconsistencies emerged. In several cases, prosecutors declined to file charges at all. 

There have been some successful prosecutions: 32 of the 116 people whose arrests in California we reviewed have been convicted, many pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges. And in late February, jurors convicted two activists on stalking charges after they livestreamed themselves following an immigration agent to his home; the pair were acquitted of conspiracy.

Today 38 cases are still pending.

Essayli has stated on social media that his office brought more than 100 cases and secured convictions in more than half of them. When asked about the discrepancy between his claims and the data compiled by ProPublica and FRONTLINE, he declined to comment. 

“The U.S. attorney’s office does not lose cases because they’re bad lawyers,” said Carley Palmer, who spent eight years as a federal prosecutor in the office Essayli now runs. “They are excellent trial attorneys. So if they’re losing a case, it may mean that the evidence isn’t there, or it may mean that the community doesn’t believe it should be a federal crime.”

Palmer, who is now in private practice, said the glut of protest and low-level criminal immigration cases have shifted resources away from the complex prosecutions the DOJ is uniquely equipped to handle: environmental crimes, public corruption, financial fraud, cyberscams, civil rights violations.

Essayli declined to be interviewed for this story or an accompanying FRONTLINE documentary set to air Tuesday. He was appointed by the Trump administration in early 2025, but he has never been confirmed by the Senate, raising ongoing questions about the legality of his role as top prosecutor for the region. His office did not respond to detailed questions sent by email.

Like Orellana, Julian Pecora Cardenas, 31, was charged with conspiracy last summer after following a convoy of federal agents in his car.

On the morning of July 5, Pecora Cardenas followed vans full of Border Patrol agents after they left a Coast Guard station in San Pedro, south of Los Angeles, livestreaming their movements on Instagram. “It’s every citizen’s duty to conduct oversight of their government,” he said. “I was within my First Amendment rights.”

After roughly 30 minutes, the agents stopped, pulled Pecora Cardenas from his Hyundai and slammed him to the pavement. “I honestly thought it was going to be like a George Floyd moment,” Pecora Cardenas recalled in an interview, alleging that multiple agents pinned him to the asphalt with their knees. He suffered a concussion, needed stitches over his left eye and wore an orthopedic collar to stabilize his injured neck.

Federal prosecutors charged Pecora Cardenas and another activist with conspiracy to impede the federal agents, saying that they “were illegally maneuvering their vehicles through traffic, stop lights, and stop signs to stay behind the agent’s vehicles,” that they tried to block the Border Patrol vehicles, and that they created “hazardous conditions on the road.”

Pecora Cardenas’ own video of the day’s events told a different story. The footage, which ProPublica and FRONTLINE have reviewed, contradicts the claims that the men had interfered with the agents. Within days of seeing the images, Essayli’s office jettisoned the charges “in the interest of justice.”

Pecora Cardenas hasn’t tried to observe federal agents or participate in a protest since his arrest. “I don’t want to be assaulted again. I don’t want to wind up back in federal prison for something that I didn’t do.”

“They Were Just Randomly Grabbing People”

When Bovino, the Border Patrol chief, left California and took his forces to Illinois last fall, their focus on protesters intensified.

In roughly one month, federal agents arrested more than a hundred American citizens, many of them activists participating in demonstrations or documenting the movements of immigration agents as their convoys of rented SUVs rolled through the streets of Chicago and surrounding communities.

But Justice Department prosecutors in Chicago had less success prosecuting those arrested than their peers in California.

On the morning of Oct. 3, 2025, about two hundred demonstrators gathered near the ICE facility in Broadview, a small town in the western suburbs of Chicago. Tucked away in a quiet industrial park, the nondescript building had become the locus of ongoing protests since Bovino and his forces had arrived in Illinois.

Then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, accompanied by a DHS video team, was on site that day wearing a baseball cap and a black ballistic vest.

Also present was Benny Johnson, a prominent podcaster and online influencer who is close to the Trump administration. Johnson, who had brought his own camera crew to shoot video for his YouTube channel and other social media accounts, was effectively embedded with Noem, Bovino and the immigration agents.

At about 9 a.m., Bovino and a phalanx of heavily armed agents in combat gear began striding down Harvard Street toward the protesters. “Walk slowly,” Bovino told his men.

Without a bullhorn or any sort of amplification, Bovino informed the crowd that they were being dispersed. Then he and his colleagues began shoving people to the ground and arresting them.

In a matter of minutes, a dozen protesters had been handcuffed. Three arrestees interviewed by ProPublica and FRONTLINE told us they were confused because they’d been standing in a “free speech zone” set up by state officials. 

“I felt somebody grab my shoulder and pull me to the ground,” said Juan Muñoz, a business owner and elected leader in nearby Oak Park Township. “And once I fell onto my back, that’s when I saw it was Greg Bovino.”

Kyle Frankovich, a Harvard data scientist and Chicago resident, was also arrested. “They were just randomly grabbing people,” he recalled. “There was nowhere to go, people were falling all over the place, and several of the people they arrested simply had the misfortune of tripping over all of the other protesters” as federal agents surged into the crowd.

Frankovich said FBI agents who questioned him asked who had paid for him to participate in the demonstration and who “covered the transportation cost for you to be here today.”

Johnson’s video team and a DHS camera crew filmed the arrested protesters as they were lined up outside the ICE building, while Noem looked on. DHS posted photos of Frankovich in handcuffs on X and Facebook with the message, “We will NOT allow violent activist to lay hands on our law enforcement.”

Johnson, who has more than more than 4 million followers on X and more than 6 million subscribers on YouTube, posted a video on X panning across the arrested protesters and wrote: “I saw dozens of Democrat domestic terrorists arrested today for VIOLENT ASSAULT on federal law enforcement. Every activist here attacked ICE agents in broad daylight just for enforcing American law.” He made the same claim in a nearly 13-minute-long YouTube video.

Such social media content had become a central feature of the Trump administration’s deportation campaign. DHS, Border Patrol and a raft of allied social media influencers regularly produced slick videos showing agents in action: riding in helicopters, striding through city streets clutching rifles, breaking down doors, and apprehending immigrants and activists. 

But on that day in Chicago, DHS had strayed far from the facts. And so had Johnson, a 38-year-old former journalist who turned to social media after being embroiled in plagiarism scandals at BuzzFeed and the Independent Journal Review. 

After about eight hours in custody, Frankovich, Muñoz and nearly all the others were released without charges. In the end, only one person would be prosecuted.

Neither DHS nor Johnson have taken the posts down. Johnson did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

The lone person charged with a crime that day was Cole Sheridan, who was accused of attacking Bovino and sending him to the hospital with an injured groin muscle.

Sheridan spent three and a half days in jail — “probably the most unpleasant thing I’ve ever had to experience,” he said in an interview with FRONTLINE and ProPublica — before being released.

In court, a prosecutor said that Sheridan had thrown a punch at Bovino and pushed him, transcripts show.

The evidence presented by the Justice Department, though, was slim. Bovino didn’t wear a body camera, so prosecutors relied on video from the body camera of Border Patrol agent Jason Epperson. But it didn’t show Sheridan assaulting anyone — though he did call Bovino “a fucking idiot.” In statements to investigators, Bovino and Epperson had offered conflicting accounts of the encounter.

About a month after Sheridan was arrested, prosecutors moved to dismiss the case after a bystander video surfaced showing clearly that Sheridan hadn’t assaulted Bovino.

“I don’t know if I’ve ever experienced something truly that bizarre and absurd as, like, seeing a law enforcement agent concoct a narrative to arrest me, to press charges against me,” said Sheridan, who describes himself as intensely private and was initially reluctant to talk publicly about his arrest. “That was extremely unnerving.”

He remains worried that he’ll be harassed or even physically attacked because of the inflammatory social media posts about him. “What a farce. Every element of it felt staged,” he said. 

In a statement to ProPublica and FRONTLINE, Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros said, “Our willingness to be open-minded and dismiss cases — or not file charges in the first place — reflects our commitment to do the right thing even in those cases where a crime was committed and the conduct in question clearly falls outside any protected First Amendment activity.” He declined to comment directly on Sheridan’s case.

FRONTLINE and ProPublica showed video of Sheridan’s arrest to Lopez, the former Justice Department attorney. “It’s just a gross abuse of power,” she said. “And we’ve almost normalized that this is how federal law enforcement behaves now. They just arrest people.”

Of the 109 arrests that ProPublica and FRONTLINE documented in the Chicago area, federal prosecutors dropped charges in at least 75 cases.

Felony Charges Downgraded

When Bovino and his forces arrived in North Carolina last November, they were greeted by protesters opposed to the deportation sweeps, as they had been in previous cities.

Heather Morrow was one of them. She had joined a small group of demonstrators, chanting and banging on metal dishes outside an immigration facility in Charlotte when ICE officers confronted the group. 

They handcuffed Morrow, 45, and another activist, stuffed them in the back of a federal vehicle and, according to Morrow, kept them there for hours before finally taking her to jail.

“I was so traumatized,” Morrow, a school bus driver and dog boarder, said in an interview. “I didn’t expect them to be so overly aggressive. I really showed up there expecting conversation, making them come to their senses.”

After a full day and night in custody, she was released to face federal felony assault charges. A Department of Justice press release accused her of attacking an ICE officer just as he showed up for his work shift, grabbing his shoulders and trying to jump on his back.

But a shaky phone video circulating on social media showed what appeared to be a very different scene. In it, an officer comes from behind and abruptly tackles Morrow to the pavement. The video doesn’t show her assaulting anyone.

When prosecutors saw the video, they dumped the felony charges. But they promptly filed a new misdemeanor case against Morrow and the other activist, alleging the pair impeded ICE officers and failed to follow their orders. It took a month for Morrow to get her phone back from federal custody, while her other confiscated possessions, including her keys, have been lost, Morrow’s attorney said. Because she’s on pretrial probation, the federal government has seized her passport. Morrow has pleaded not guilty, and her case is ongoing.

In Handcuffs and Intimidated

In early January, Bovino arrived in Minneapolis with his social media team. Within weeks, two activists — Renee Good and Alex Pretti — were shot and killed by immigration agents. The Trump administration immediately portrayed Good as an extremist; Bovino claimed that Pretti was planning to kill federal personnel when he was shot to death.

The killings, which sparked national outcry, would prompt the administration to recalibrate. By Jan. 26, Bovino had been demoted and sent back to his home station in the California desert. 

But immigration agents continued to roam the Twin Cities, and activists continued to get arrested.

Civil rights attorneys from around the country gathered in a Minneapolis conference room on Jan. 30 to discuss those arrests.

During a break for lunch, Jon Feinberg, president of the National Police Accountability Project, stepped out of the room and spoke to reporters. “To be charged with a federal crime is something that is life-altering,” said Feinberg, who is based in Philadelphia. “The consequences of being accused and possibly convicted of a federal offense are devastating, especially when people have not engaged in criminal conduct from any reasonable person’s perspective.”

ProPublica and FRONTLINE have identified nearly 80 arrests stemming from the Minnesota immigration sweeps. Most of the cases are still ongoing, though a handful have been dismissed. 

Daniel Rosen, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, did not respond to requests for comment.

One of those arrested was Rebecca Ringstrom, who lives in Blaine, a quiet suburb north of Minneapolis.

Ringstrom, 42, is a member of an activist group that tracks immigration agents as they move around Blaine. “There was a vehicle with four agents inside that I could see. All four were in tactical gear,” she said in an interview with ProPublica and FRONTLINE. “I was able to look at the plate and see that it was a confirmed ICE vehicle.”

Behind the wheel of her Kia, she began following them; Ringstrom insists her driving was safe and lawful. But in a matter of minutes, she’d been arrested and accused of interfering with federal law enforcement.

Ringstrom said an agent at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, where she was briefly held after her arrest, said he wished he’d arrested her — because he would’ve made the experience more unpleasant and violent. “There was no reason to say that. I’m already here. I’m in handcuffs. It’s just a way to intimidate,” she recalled.

She was charged with interfering with a federal agent and issued a notice of violation — essentially a ticket — for the misdemeanor offense. Since then, Ringstrom has lined up a pro bono lawyer, but she has also lost her job, “likely due to the ongoing coverage” of her arrest.

She is scheduled to make her first court appearance later this month. 

Palantir Goes Mask-Off For Fascism. It Won’t End Well. [Techdirt]

Earlier this month, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “Palantir Technologies (PLTR) has proven to have great war fighting capabilities and equipment. Just ask our enemies!!!” — notably including the stock ticker, because why not just make the market manipulation explicit.

The stock popped after that and has continued to rise in the past couple weeks, though it’s still down on the year.

Welcome to patronage capitalism with a stock ticker attached.

Last year, we wrote about the disturbing trend of tech founders and VCs nodding along to the neoreactionary pitch that democracy is holding back innovation, and that what the industry really needs is a “tech-friendly” strongman to sweep away institutional guardrails. We argued this was both morally bankrupt and strategically suicidal, since real innovation requires exactly the kind of stable, open, competitive institutions that authoritarianism systematically destroys.

Palantir has apparently decided to volunteer as the case study. Palantir — the very company whose entire sales pitch is built around using technology to make better strategic decisions and predict how things will play out.

But now the company seems to be betting that Trumpist-flavored authoritarianism is a permanent feature of the American political landscape — and that going all-in on it will never, ever have any long-term consequences.

Over the weekend, the company’s official account posted what it called a “brief” 22-point summary of CEO Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic, framed as an introduction to the “philosophy” behind Palantir’s work. Most of it is a reheated version of the familiar Thiel-adjacent playbook — Silicon Valley owes a debt to the country, we must build AI weapons before our adversaries do, the iPhone has made us soft — the kind of thing that gets nodded along to at certain conferences and immediately forgotten.

But a few points deserve to be called out. First, there is the quite telling series of bullet points effectively saying that famous people shouldn’t be subject to public criticism because it means they might not want to help save you piddling simpletons.

We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret.

[….]

The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within.

This is the same Harpers Letter-style nonsense where people who deem themselves to be great thinkers or great men of history find it horrifying that the public might call them on their bullshit. I mean, sure, we should show more grace in general to lots of people, but these fragile-minded billionaires keep acting like because some wacko on social media calls them on their bullshit pronouncements it’s the end of the world.

But it gets way worse from there. Buried near the end are points 21 and 22, which are insane, and should make anyone who continues to work with or for Palantir radioactive:

Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.

We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?

Strip away the corporate-academic language and you’re left with a very old, very problematic argument: certain cultures — and we all know which ones they are claiming are supposedly the “middling” and “regressive” ones — are inferior, and the pursuit of inclusivity has been a civilizational error. That framing — some cultures produce wonders, others are regressive and harmful, pluralism is a civilizational threat — has been used to justify exclusion, hierarchy, and far worse for over a century. And while internet fascists like to think of it as edge lord contrarianism today, to most people it just comes across as a shiny coat of paint on historical bigotries and ignorance.

Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat, sarcastically pointed out that it was “extremely normal and fine for a company to put this in a public statement.” In a much longer and more thoughtful thread on this, he made a key point:

It's also worth being clear about who's doing the arguing. Palantir sells operational software to defence, intelligence, immigration & police agencies. These 22 points aren't philosophy floating in space, they're the public ideology of a company whose revenue depends on the politics it's advocating.

Eliot Higgins (@eliothiggins.bsky.social) 2026-04-19T10:26:27.958Z

This is the publicly endorsed worldview of a company that is rapidly becoming load-bearing infrastructure for the federal government’s surveillance and enforcement apparatus, and it contains arguments that would be at home in a white nationalist pamphlet.

Palantir has always been a bit creepy and cultlike in their worship of government power. Years back I debated one of its founders regarding Google employees convincing the company to drop out of a government AI surveillance effort, Project Maven. He insisted that those employees were naive and Google was weak for backing down. Of course, Google’s decision to leave Project Maven turned out to be a huge win for Palantir, who effectively took it over in Google’s place.

But back then, Palantir at least played the game of pretending to care about cultural diversity and pluralism. As Chris Person pointed out, until fairly recently, Palantir had employee resource groups called Palamigos, PalaNoir, PalanQueer, PalanGender Queer, the Palantir Interfaith Network, PalAPI, and PalNoir. The company celebrated exactly the kind of pluralism and multicultural identity that Karp’s manifesto now denounces as “shallow” and “vacant.”

Watching Palantir do Sephiroth posting about multiculturalism and I would like to remind everyone that they were doing corporate fake woke shit just like every other company.

Chris Person (@papapishu.bsky.social) 2026-04-19T20:59:57.505Z

And yes, they even pretended they had a pro-DEI stance:

At least now we see what happens when they feel they can go full mask off.

With Trump in power, Karp apparently feels free to discard the diversity framing the company used for years to recruit employees and just say the quiet part out loud.

The apparent hope is to use Trump’s support over the next few years to permanently weave themselves into the federal government’s tech stack. The NY Times last year talked about how Palantir’s Foundry is becoming the connective tissue for federal data:

The push has put a key Palantir product called Foundry into at least four federal agencies, including D.H.S. and the Health and Human Services Department. Widely adopting Foundry, which organizes and analyzes data, paves the way for Mr. Trump to easily merge information from different agencies, the government officials said.

Creating detailed portraits of Americans based on government data is not just a pipe dream. The Trump administration has already sought access to hundreds of data points on citizens and others through government databases, including their bank account numbers, the amount of their student debt, their medical claims and any disability status.

Palantir has made itself ideologically and technically indispensable to one specific administration’s political project — which happens to include mass deportation, data consolidation on citizens, and the kinds of enforcement actions that require exactly the ideological framework Karp just publicly endorsed.

Meanwhile, the even more recent $10 billion Army contract consolidates 75 separate contracts into a single decade-long enterprise deal.

Supporters of Palantir will likely argue that it sounds like this “embrace fascism” strategy is working great. The company is signing these rich contracts and getting its technology deep within the infrastructure of the federal government. And, yes, you could say that these are short term wins (even if the stock price is kinda lagging).

But these things cut both ways. When your value to the government is primarily ideological alignment with a specific political project, you become a clear and visible target the moment that project loses power.

One of the many problems with fascism as a business strategy is that it only works if the fascists stay in power indefinitely. It’s a woefully unpopular ideological position, especially in the US — betting on a temporarily ascendant horse that has no chance in a longer race.

But Karp and Palantir have bet the farm that either Trumpism will remain a powerful force within the government or that they will be so deeply buried in the systems that it would be effectively impossible to rip them out when more grounded leadership enters the picture.

That’s an incredibly risky bet, and one I doubt will pay off.

Karp has made sure that he and his company have become ideologically toxic to a non-fascist government. A future non-Trumpist administration will have tremendous reputational incentive to very visibly rip out Palantir, as a signal that the prior regime’s infrastructure is being dismantled.

This is exactly the trap we warned about last year when we wrote about Silicon Valley’s embrace of fascism for short-term gain. Contractual dependency you can unwind. But you’ve told everyone in public what you are, and you can’t walk that back when the winds shift.

And the winds do shift. Companies that tied themselves to nationalist or authoritarian regimes throughout the 20th century tend not to have great long-term track records as independent entities. Some survive — though often in name only, most heavily restructured, with decades of reputational rehabilitation to follow. When you make yourself a load-bearing pillar of a specific regime’s specific project, your fate becomes tied to that regime’s fate.

Then there’s the talent question. The piece we wrote last year noted that authoritarianism drives brain drain — that foreign students, researchers, and the global talent pool that has always fed American innovation are already heading elsewhere. Palantir just published a document telling the world, in effect, that a diverse workforce is “shallow” and “vacant” and that some cultures are “regressive.” The engineers who have options — and the best ones always do — just got a very clear signal about whether they should take Palantir’s recruiter call.

There’s a version of Palantir’s business that doesn’t require publishing a white-nationalism-adjacent manifesto. You can sell analytical software to the federal government without announcing that pluralism is a mistake and that some cultures are regressive. Plenty of defense contractors manage it. The business didn’t force the decision to publish those 22 points. It was a choice to double down on ideological signaling, presumably because Karp and company have calculated that visible loyalty gets rewarded in the current environment.

And perhaps it earned some cheers from the remaining trolls on X, for whatever that’s worth.

But it’s a recipe for disaster over the long haul, which seems odd for a company whose entire sales pitch is based around the ability to use its tech to get great insights into how strategic decisions will play out.

This is exactly the warning we gave tech founders last year. The pitch that democracy is messy and slow, that innovation really needs someone who “gets it” cutting red tape, leads directly and predictably here: first you justify the pragmatism of cutting red tape, then you’re chasing the contracts, then drafting the manifestos, until your stock price depends on friendly presidential posts and your long-term viability depends on a political coalition never losing power.

Palantir has decided this is its business model. The rest of the industry should watch very carefully what happens next. Because the thing about tying yourself to a regime isn’t that it never works. It’s that when it stops working, it stops working all at once — and you’ve burned every other option on the way there.

06:00 AM

Kanji of the Day: 苦 [Kanji of the Day]

✍8

小3

suffering, trial, worry, hardship, feel bitter, scowl

くる.しい -ぐる.しい くる.しむ くる.しめる にが.い にが.る

苦手   (にがて)   —   poor (at)
苦労   (くろう)   —   trouble
苦しい   (くるしい)   —   painful
苦笑   (くしょう)   —   bitter smile
苦しみ   (くるしみ)   —   pain
苦戦   (くせん)   —   hard fight
苦情   (くじょう)   —   complaint
苦痛   (くつう)   —   pain
苦しむ   (くるしむ)   —   to suffer
苦笑い   (にがわらい)   —   bitter smile

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 誓 [Kanji of the Day]

✍14

中学

vow, swear, pledge

セイ

ちか.う

誓い   (ちかい)   —   oath
誓う   (ちかう)   —   to swear
宣誓   (せんせい)   —   oath
誓って   (ちかって)   —   surely
誓約書   (せいやくしょ)   —   written oath
誓約   (せいやく)   —   oath
宣誓式   (せんせいしき)   —   administration of an oath
宣誓書   (せんせいしょ)   —   oath
忠誠を誓う   (ちゅうせいをちかう)   —   to pledge allegiance
誓文   (せいもん)   —   written oath

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

GIMP 3.2.4 Released [GIMP]

Before we travel to this year’s Libre Graphics Meeting, we wanted to share a new release of GIMP! The second update of the 3.2 series, GIMP 3.2.4 contains more bugfixes and UX updates.

General Highlights

We continue to polish GIMP 3.2 in this release. Several new contributors have provided patches this time around, which is very exciting! For more details, check out our NEWS file in our code repository.

  • We’ve caught more cases where tools would accidentally rasterize link, text, and vector layers. For instance, the Edit > Fill with... menu options for colors and patterns now work the same as dragging and dropping colors onto non-raster layers. The Crop Tool now behaves more consistently and does not attempt to resize vector layers.

  • New contributor anenasa both reported and fixed an issue with the Text Outline feature being cut off with vertical oriented text.

  • One for the record books - Jehan fixed a bug in our XCF code that’s existed since 1999! He’s also added code to correctly load XCFs made with and without this bug, as backwards compatibility with XCF project files is very important to us.

  • Sometimes a bug fix can create other, unrelated bugs. A fix we made in GIMP 3.2.2 caused some text layers to become uneditable after reloading them from an XCF file. Jehan found and fixed the new bug, so you should be able to edit both XCFs created in 3.2.2 and new ones.

  • Speaking of text, Gabriele Barbe has fixed an issue where rotating the canvas rather than the image could cause the on-canvas text editor to appear in the wrong place when moved.

  • New contributor balooii fixed a crash that could occur when selecting a non-existant filter tag in a plug-in like GFig.

  • Security contributors bb1abu, HanTul, Rakan Alotaib, JungWoo Park, and Bronson Yen studied our image import plug-ins and reported several possible issues. We appreciate their code review and mitigation suggestions! Gabriele Barbe and Alx Sa implemented their suggestions for APNG, PAA, PNG, DDS, PSP, PNM, PSD, JIF, PVR, TIM, XWD, and SFW files.

  • The OpenRaster format stores layers as PNGs and notes their opacity in a separate settings file. Our export plug-in saved that setting but also exported the PNG with the same opacity, resulting in higher transparency when reloaded. We’ve fixed this so now layers are saved with 100% opacity, thus ensuring they reopen correctly.

  • New contributor Ahmed E. Yassin fixed a bug where exporting metadata in our Metadata Viewer could result in empty files.

  • New contributor Kaushik B fixed a bug in the Open as Layers feature where multi-layer XCF files would have their layer names changed on import.

  • Balooii also fixed an issue on Wayland where the tool cursor icon might disappear when moving it.

  • New contributor v4vansh resolved an issue where the image tab preview wouldn’t correctly update after switching between grayscale and RGB color modes.

  • Bruno Lopes added support for the macOS ScreenCaptureKit to our color picker feature. This allows us to use the newer API for macOS 12+.

Scanning on Windows

In GIMP 3.2.2, we dropped support for 32bit Windows builds. Unfortunately, our scanner plug-in was also lost since it required 32bit TWAIN drivers. We’ve now built a new Windows Image Acquisition (WIA) scanner plug-in to replace it. You can access it in the same place in the menu - File > Create > Scanner/Camera.

Note that because this plug-in uses a new Windows API, the scanning UI will likely look different than what you’re use to. You may also need to install new WIA-compatible drivers for your scanner to make it work correctly.

UX/UI and Performance Improvements

  • The Welcome Dialog now shortens long file names in the Create page to prevent the dialog window from stretching too far out. This UX feature was lost when we updated the Welcome Dialog to a new API, but it is now restored. You can still see the full name by hovering over the image preview or name.

  • New contributor infinity improved performance when making selections inside a large image with Intersection Mode enabled. Their fixes allows GIMP to only consider pixels within the existing selection rather than trying to calculate across the entire image. This can lead to a significant speed-up!

  • Aruius raised the maximum UI image size to 8192 pixels. This should allow the Gradient Editor dock and other docks with images to expand much further on larger displays.

  • When moving a floating layer or selection, the “marching ants” outline is temporarily turned off. This provides a noticable boost in performance and less lag.

Script and Plug-in Developers

  • An oversight when updating the GimpUnit API for 3.0 caused functions that accept units of measure to not allow setting it to pixels. This has been fixed now. You can test this in functions like gimp_context_set_line_width_unit () and gimp_vector_layer_set_stroke_width_unit ().

  • The gimp_quit () function has now been deprecated. You can continue to use it for GIMP 3.x, but it will be removed in the eventual GIMP 4.x release. Instead, you should use a return statement with GIMP_PDB_EXECUTION_ERROR and an GError variable with an explanation of why the plug-in needed to quit.

  • A new gimp_resources_loaded () function has been added by Jehan. You can use this to determine if a resource (like brushes, patterns, fonts, etc) has been loaded in GIMP before trying to use it in your plug-in.

  • Several deprecated Script-fu functions (such as gimp-drawable-brightness-contrast and gimp-drawable-threshold) in our official scripts have been converted to using GEGL filters via the gimp-drawable-merge-new-filter API. You can check out how to use them in your own scripts by browsing our repository.

Around GIMP

Libre Graphics Meeting

The Libre Graphics Meeting takes place next week, April 22nd through the 25th. You can find more details in our last news post. If you’re planning to attend, feel free to come by and say hello!

Translation

We now have the beginnings of Laotian translation of GIMP! If you know the language and are interested in contributing translations, feel free to reach out to the translation team for more information.

New Mirror

AFRICLOUD has graciously offered to serve as a mirror for GIMP downloads.

Mirrors help GIMP be available for download at high speeds wherever you are in the world.

Does your organization wish to be one of our official mirror sponsors? Create a request to become an official mirror!

Release Stats

Since GIMP 3.2.2, in the main GIMP repository:

  • 45 reports were closed as FIXED.
  • 21 merge requests were merged.
  • 258 commits were pushed.
  • 18 translations were updated: Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese (China), Cornish, Czech, Danish, Esperanto, Georgian, Italian, Kazakh, Lao, Norwegian Nynorsk, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Swedish, Turkish, Ukrainian.

30 people contributed changes or fixes to GIMP 3.2.4 codebase (order is determined by number of commits; some people are in several groups):

  • 11 developers to core code: Bruno Lopes, Jehan, Alx Sa, Gabriele Barbero, balooii balooii, Anders Jonsson, anenasa, aruius, infinity, kaushik_B, v4vansh.
  • 6 developers to plug-ins or modules: Bruno Lopes, Alx Sa, Jehan, Ahmed E. Yassin, Gabriele Barbero, infinity.
  • 19 translators: Kolbjørn Stuestøl, Alan Mortensen, Baurzhan Muftakhidinov, Marco Ciampa, Martin, Anders Jonsson, Ekaterine Papava, Jan Papež, Jose Riha, Sabri Ünal, Yuri Chornoivan, luming zh, Denis Rangelov, Flynn Peck, João Pedro Pitarelo, Kristjan ESPERANTO, Saikeo Kavhanxay, acey dot, Марко Костић.
  • 3 build, packaging or CI contributors: Bruno Lopes, Jehan, Alx Sa.
  • 3 contributors on other types of resources: Jehan, Bruno Lopes, Anders Jonsson.
  • The gimp-data submodule had 2 commits by 2 contributors: Anders Jonsson, Jehan.

Contributions on other repositories in the GIMPverse (order is determined by number of commits):

  • Our UX tracker had 1 report closed as FIXED.
  • ctx had 43 commits since 3.2. release by 2 contributors: Øyvind Kolås, Bruno Lopes.
  • The gimp-macos-build (macOS packaging scripts) release had 5 commits by 1 contributors: Lukas Oberhuber.
  • The flatpak release had 6 commits with work by 3 contributors: Bruno, Ondřej Míchal, Jehan.
  • Our main website (what you are reading right now) had 45 commits by 3 contributors: Jehan, Alx Sa, Bruno Lopes.
  • Our developer website had 15 commits by 3 contributors: Bruno Lopes, Jehan, Richard Gitschlag.
  • Our 3.0 documentation had 64 commits by 3 contributors: Марко Костић, Marco Ciampa, Kolbjørn Stuestøl.

Let’s not forget to thank all the people who help us triaging in Gitlab, report bugs and discuss possible improvements with us. Our community is deeply thankful as well to the internet warriors who manage our various discussion channels or social network accounts such as Ville Pätsi, Liam Quin, Michael Schumacher and Sevenix!

Note: considering the number of parts in GIMP and around, and how we get statistics through git scripting, errors may slip inside these stats. Feel free to tell us if we missed or mis-categorized some contributors or contributions.

Downloading GIMP 3.2.4

You will find all our official builds on GIMP official website (gimp.org):

  • Linux AppImages for x86 and ARM (64-bit)
  • Linux Flatpaks for x86 and ARM (64-bit)
  • Linux Snaps for x86 and ARM (64-bit)
  • Universal Windows installer for x86 and ARM (64-bit)
  • Microsoft Store for x86 and ARM (64-bit)
  • macOS DMG packages for Intel/x86 and Apple/ARM hardware (64-bit)

Other packages made by third-parties are obviously expected to follow (Linux or *BSD distributions’ packages, etc).

What’s Next

We still have a few bug fixes being working on, yet we are starting to feel more confident in the stability of the GIMP 3.2 series. Therefore we are on the verge of branching out development into stable and unstable branches. What does it mean? Well, that we will start to seriously work on the fancy new features planned for the GIMP 3.4 series while the 3.2 series will continue to receive only bug and security fixes, aiming for stability.

Exciting times ahead!

Don’t forget you can donate and personally fund GIMP developers, as a way to give back and accelerate the development of GIMP. Community commitment helps the project to grow stronger!

04:00 AM

Exploring Sustainable Funding for Free Software [F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository]

If you have ever tried explaining the concept of free software to someone who is locked into a proprietary software ecosystem, you were probably met with some degree of confusion.

The first question, “But if it’s free, how do the people that create it get paid?”

And while it is an interesting question, It is not the right question. At least not at first.

Free Open Source Software (FOSS) has an inherent marketing and communications problem, in that when most people see the word “free” they understand “without cost” or “gratis”. Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) does a somewhat better job at explaining this, however, those who are not familiar with French may not find the “Libre (L)” very helpful.

Once we get past the fact that free can mean without cost, but doesn’t necessarily always mean without cost, we get to an arguably more interesting question, “What does free software mean?”

From there we can explain the concept of a black box vs open source code, how free software improves transparency, trustworthiness, user freedom and sovereignty. We can explain how free software creates an environment that spurs innovation and creation, helping people solve complex problems by building on each other’s ideas. It’s wonderful and powerful, but then comes perhaps the most interesting question, “but if its open and people can build on each others ideas, then should you charge people to use it? How do the people get paid and how is this whole thing sustainable?”

A main challenge the FOSS community has been grappling with for years is how to keep projects sustainable. Luckily the FOSS community is incredibly generous and passionate, with members contributing countless hours of their time voluntarily. Many FOSS projects start out because one developer encountered a problem, tried to solve it, then realized other people experienced the same problem and wanted to join in to try and solve it together. However, the developer’s dilemma is whether this approach is sustainable.

Projects that run entirely on volunteer support can be fragile or struggle to scale because developer burn out and contributor turnover lead to unmaintained and underdeveloped projects, with less than stellar user support. In some cases it can even have significant upstream consequences or result in developers throwing their hands up in the air. So what can we do?

Donations, grants, sponsorships, foundations and for-profit business models emerge as a way to tackle the issue. In some cases proprietary software companies hire and compensate developers to actively contribute to and maintain FOSS projects they use in their tech stack to ensure they remain stable and continue to develop. Some projects opt to use advertizing as a way to generate income, while others opt for free and enterprise versions to sustain themselves, because at the end of the day, if the developers don’t have a way to receive monetary compensation, their volunteer time resources will always be in direct competition with their day jobs.

So what about F-Droid?

Like many open source projects, F-Droid relies heavily on volunteer contributions, grants and donations to support new feature and infrastructure development as well as maintain the project. However, challenges such as unclear value communication, lack of transparency, and friction in donation flows continue to limit the effectiveness of funding efforts.

So we asked the question, how can FOSS projects design donation management systems and governance that are both effective and aligned with community values?

Over the past year, F-Droid has been researching this question as part of the Open Technology Fund (OTF) FOSS Sustainability Grant. This work allowed us to focus on understanding how FOSS projects manage donations, how users perceive funding requests, and what practices contribute to successful and sustainable donation management.

Our research combined both quantitative and qualitative methods. We conducted a community survey with 84 responses and carried out a series of interviews with organizations, developers and users across the open source ecosystem. Then we shared the results of this work during a workshop at FOSDEM 2026 titled “The Funding Gap in FOSS: What We Learned and How to Close It”.

Now it’s time to share our findings here with our community as well.

Survey Says…

Before we dive into results or the analysis, who took the survey? Of the 84 people that participated in the survey, 53 had contributed to FOSS projects, 27 were currently or had been FOSS project maintainers and 6 had been involved in running or conducting donation campaigns for FOSS projects. 19 out of the 84 had organized or participated in a donation campaign and reported their core challenges were organizing the campaign itself, including technical set up. They struggled with how to transparently report on the campaign and said they did not fully understand donor behavior and awareness, or the ethical aspects of receiving donations. Now what did they think about donations in FOSS?

First of all, almost all said they believe it is acceptable for FOSS projects to ask for donations, indicating there was a shared understanding that donations were necessary in order to sustain and grow FOSS projects. More than half of respondents said asking for donations is extremely important.

We were also interested in exploring which donation communication methods felt pushy and off-putting. The majority of the respondents reported that pop up notifications with a click to exit were their least favorite way of receiving information about donation campaigns. The key takeaway was that while donation campaigns are necessary, they should not be the first thing a user sees.

Another key aspect of our research focused on what makes campaigns trustworthy, which strongly pointed back to how funds are managed. Respondents said transparency, honest and respectful communication are key, and that there needs to be clear project and donation goals. Community validation was important as well as consistent team members working on the project. They also said having easy, established and anonymous payment methods was important in how they perceived the campaigns.

We also asked what kind of information donors would like FOSS projects to publicly communicate. Survey participants said the cost breakdown, funding goals, donation impact, how funds are allocated, annual reporting and legal organization and core number of contributors were important to them, which closely mapped back to factors that influenced a campaign’s trustworthiness.

Notably users consistently acknowledged that FOSS apps/projects put in a lot of good work and deserve to get donations. However, there is an assumption that the “free” in FOSS means “gratis”, so users should not be pressured to donate. Indeed many FOSS projects do not ask for donations at all. Finally users reported that they are generally speaking alright with being asked to donate, so long as it is done properly and not in a way that spams, coerces or blocks usage of the apps. Alright, so what did the interviews tell us?

Interviews

We also conducted a series of interviews with organizations from the FOSS ecosystem to understand their best practices for donation management, including how to structure and communicate campaigns, and how to receive funds transparently.

The interviews closely aligned with survey results, with participants highlighting specific campaign and project goals, impact communication, transparency surrounding the campaign, reporting on who is handling the funds, and consistency in messaging and team members, as key strategies for organizing and managing donation funds. Notably having clear policies, consistency and governance were key recommendations as well.

Recommendations for F-Droid

Based on the survey and interviews we identified several areas where F-Droid could improve its donations management, communications and campaigns, including the following:

  • Improve donation allocation transparency via consistent reporting and updating our donations allocation policies (started, new donation travel policy implemented with more to come)
  • Improve our website copy and design to communicate impact (completed in Feb 2026, donation page to be updated soon)
  • Launch our first campaign in 2026 using research best practices
  • Create donation campaign widgets and share with app devs to support them launching their own campaigns
  • Communicate with past donors, thanking them and sharing impact
  • Create clear donation tiers with impact description (completed in Feb 2026)
  • Exploring partnership opportunities
  • Communicate our values, mission, and vision for F-Droid (completed in Feb 2026)
  • Include testimonials from past contributors and improve storytelling

Making FOSS financially sustainable

As with most research projects, the end is only the beginning. There is more to explore, more to expand on and definitely more work to be done. Making FOSS financially sustainable requires participation, experimentation, and collaboration; things the FOSS community does really, really well. There isn’t a lack of support when it comes to open source, but we do need better systems, governance and clearer communication between project contributors and their communities. Our research and the actions listed above are only the starting point to a much larger exploration into how we can make F-Droid and other FOSS projects more financially sustainable.

In the spirit of free software, we would invite developers, maintainers, users and funders to continue engaging with us on this, share your experiences, successes and best practices as we help shape approaches to funding that are sustainable, transparent and true to the values of free software.

Daily Deal: The Complete Arduino, Raspberry Pi & ESP32 Bundle [Techdirt]

The Complete Arduino, Raspberry Pi, and ESP32 Bundle has 14 courses covering what you need to get started on building out your own smart home. After learning the basics, courses show you how to create a weather monitoring system, a smart home security system, a plant watering system, and more. Courses also cover getting familiar with Home Assistant, Tasmoto firmware, networking, and electrical systems. It’s on sale for $50.

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

Rep. Mike Johnson Tries, Fails To Sneak Clean Section 702 Re-Authorization Past The Goal Line [Techdirt]

Despite a bunch of Republican lawmakers being extremely (and mostly performatively) upset that their communications were accessed during investigations of the January 2021 insurrection attempt, the current version of the Trump administration seems to prefer a clean re-authorization of the surveillance powers it so recently deemed a dangerous part of the “deep state.”

The FISA court recently blessed an extension of this NSA collection, provided the government fixed the most problematic parts of it — that being other IC agencies’ warrantless access to US persons’ communications via “backdoor” searches of the foreign-facing surveillance dragnet.

Trump was having none of this, pressing the GOP to simply give the administration an un-reformed, un-repaired Section 702 that would presumably allow it to engage in the same abuses it was crying about less than a half-decade ago.

Fortunately for every American only allowed to vote by proxy every two-to-four years for surveillance reform, there is still no clean re-authorization on the books. The senator whose name is synonymous with surveillance reform — Ron Wyden — recently had this to say in his Bluesky post:

Update on where things stand on FISA: this deal is a win. We got the House to back down from an 18 month extension, buying us time to negotiate on real reforms. I'll be fighting like hell for reforms that put your privacy first, and will have more to share soon.

Senator Ron Wyden (@wyden.senate.gov) 2026-04-17T20:03:29.353Z

Update on where things stand on FISA: this deal is a win. We got the House to back down from an 18 month extension, buying us time to negotiate on real reforms. I’ll be fighting like hell for reforms that put your privacy first, and will have more to share soon.

Not that congressional majority leader Mike Johnson wasn’t trying his damnedest to round up GOP support for a clean renewal that would give Trump what he wanted, and very little of what the GOP actually wanted, given its years of complaining about the FBI’s warrantless access to their communications.

Johnson apparently decided he could slip this one past the goal line by holding a couple of quick votes as time ran out on the current congressional session. Here’s James Baratta with the details for The American Prospect:

Johnson’s dazzling play to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by five years ended in an excruciating defeat, as the bill failed after 20 Republicans joined Democrats in striking it down. One major reason it lost was that the warrant language baked into that measure not only would have codified existing law, but also would have made it easier for Section 702–acquired data to be used against Americans in criminal proceedings.

The 200-220 vote was called at 1:22 early Friday morning.

Baratta’s report refers to this as an “eleventh hour” burst of activity, but it’s actually well past that hour. We’re looking at 13th to 14th hour desperation here, especially since Johnson went back to the well again shortly after this first defeat.

The other shoe dropped during the vote on a rule to consider a clean 18-month extension of Section 702. That rule also failed at 2:07 a.m. in a 197-228 vote.

Given that the average congressional rep is pushing 58, both votes occurred well after bedtime. It’s a testimony to the resistance to clean re-authorization of Section 702 powers that these many reps were still on the floor to shut down Mike Johnson twice.

It also shows that Mike Johnson isn’t actually leading the Republican party. He’s restricted to doing whatever Trump wants, even if that clashes with what many party members want. To get skunked twice in two hours is embarrassing, which means Johnson may not remain majority leader for long, even if Democrats can’t flip the House following the mid-terms.

The good news is this: Congress only has until the end of this month to get a re-authorization passed. If it hopes to prevent this surveillance power from lapsing, Johnson and his fellow surveillance hawks are going to have to make some concessions, which may (finally!) include warrant requirements for searches of US persons’ communications by IC agencies with access to NSA collections.

On the other hand, when push comes to shove, far too many Republicans are willing to be Trump’s doormat and argue against their own interests, along with the interests of the constituents. But this is the most concerted challenge to Section 702 mounted yet. Even the Snowden leaks didn’t manage to get this done. But even if reforms are finally put in place, the public should remember GOP lawmakers did this because they want to shield themselves from domestic surveillance. That it might better protect their constituents is just an unavoidable side effect of their self-interest.

Court To Bondi: Demanding Platforms Censor Speech And Bragging About It On Fox News Is, In Fact, A First Amendment Violation [Techdirt]

For the better part of five years, we’ve been treated to an elaborate performance about the unprecedented constitutional horror of “jawboning.” Jim Jordan held hearings. Missouri’s AG sued. The Supreme Court heard Murthy v. Missouri and concluded there wasn’t enough evidence of government coercion to establish standing, let alone a First Amendment violation. None of that mattered to the MAGA ecosystem, of course, which continued to treat a handful of out-of-context sternly worded emails from Biden officials as the greatest censorship regime in American history.

Then the Trump administration came in, and a funny thing happened. The same people who’d built entire careers around the supposed horrors of government pressure on tech platforms suddenly had nothing to say when the Attorney General of the United States went on Fox News to brag — brag! — about demanding Apple remove an app and Facebook take down a group, both because their content was critical of ICE enforcement.

On Friday, Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the Northern District of Illinois granted a preliminary injunction against DOJ and DHS, finding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the government violated the First Amendment by coercing Facebook and Apple into suppressing protected speech. The ruling is short and direct in an almost embarrassingly straightforward way — largely because Pam Bondi and the rest of the government handed the plaintiffs most of their case on a silver platter, then held press conferences to make sure everyone knew about it.

We covered the DOJ’s demands on Apple back in October and FIRE’s subsequent lawsuit in February. As we explained then, the case seemed quite straightforward, and now the district court has agreed.

The plaintiffs are Kassandra Rosado, who ran a Facebook group called “ICE Sightings – Chicagoland” with nearly 100,000 members, and Kreisau Group, which made a phone app called “Eyes Up” for documenting ICE enforcement activity. Both services existed well before the government got involved. Both had been reviewed by the platforms and found compliant with their respective policies. In fact, as the ruling notes regarding the Facebook group:

Prior to October 14, out of thousands of posts and tens of thousands of comments made in the Chicagoland Facebook group, Facebook’s moderators found and removed only five posts and comments that purportedly violated Facebook’s guidelines. … When Facebook removed those posts, Facebook advised Rosado that the posts were “participant violations” that “don’t hurt your group” and that “groups aren’t penalized when members or visitors break the rules without admin approval.”

Then Laura Loomer — a person whose entire public identity was built around suing Facebook and other tech companies for moderating her own posts, and who once argued that content moderation was literal RICO — tagged Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem in a social media post demanding they do something about the Chicagoland group. Because apparently the First Amendment only constrains Meta when Loomer herself is being moderated; when she wants other people silenced, she calls in the actual federal government.

Two days later, Facebook disabled the group. That same day, Bondi posted this to X:

Today following outreach from [the DOJ], Facebook removed a large group that was being used to dox and target [ICE] agents in Chicago.

Noem followed up with her own X post taking credit for the DOJ’s “leadership” in getting Facebook to act, adding the observation that:

Platforms like Facebook must be PROACTIVE in stopping the doxxing of our [ICE] law enforcement. … We will prosecute those who dox our agents to the fullest extent of the law.

On the Apple side, Bondi went even further, telling Fox News Digital directly:

We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store — and Apple did so.

A few days later, she added that “we had Apple and Google take down the ICEBlock apps” and — in a sentence that should probably be framed and hung in every law school’s First Amendment classroom — followed it with: “We’re not going to stop at just arresting the violent criminals we can see in the streets.”

Apple promptly removed Eyes Up too, informing the developer that “law enforcement” had provided “information” indicating the app violated Apple’s guideline against “defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content” — the same guideline Apple had independently reviewed the app under just two months earlier, when it found no such problem.

The legal framework here is familiar territory for Techdirt readers. Bantam Books v. Sullivan from 1963 established that “thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings” against parties who don’t come around to the government’s preferred speech outcomes violate the First Amendment. 2024’s NRA v. Vullo reaffirmed and sharpened that principle, holding that “[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.” The test, per Vullo, is whether government conduct, “viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff’s speech.”

That’s what was missing in the Murthy case — but was clearly present in Vullo. And here.

Judge Alonso applies this framework step-by-step. On causation — the element the Murthy plaintiffs famously failed on — he identifies three facts that, taken together, make it overwhelmingly likely the injuries trace to government coercion rather than independent platform judgment:

First, Facebook had previously reviewed the Chicagoland group, and Apple had previously reviewed Eyes Up. In both cases, Facebook and Apple had determined that the content met their requirements. Second, Facebook and Apple changed their positions and removed the content immediately after Defendants contacted them about it. And third, Defendants made public statements taking credit for the fact that Facebook and Apple had removed the content.

Unlike in Murthy, where it was all vague speculation disconnected from reality, the causal chain here is pretty clear, helped along by a Trump administration that simply can’t resist bragging about suppressing the rights of Americans.

Bondi and Noem’s inability to resist a Fox News hit really made this case super easy. In Murthy, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs couldn’t even establish the Biden administration had caused the content moderation decisions they were complaining about, because platforms had their own independent reasons for their policies and had often rejected government requests outright. Here, the government has publicly, repeatedly, and proudly announced that it caused the removals.

On the coercion analysis itself, Alonso walks through the Seventh Circuit’s Backpage.com v. Dart framework, noting that government officials don’t even need direct regulatory authority over the target to cross the line. What matters is “the distinction between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce.” And here, the court finds, Bondi and Noem demanded rather than requested, and made clear there would be consequences for non-compliance:

Bondi and Noem also intimated that Facebook and Apple may be subject to prosecution for failing to comply with Bondi and Noem’s demands. For example, after stating that we “had Apple and Google take down the ICEBlock apps,” Bondi further stated: “We’re not going to stop at just arresting the violent criminals we can see in the streets.” … And in the same social media post where Noem wrote that “[p]latforms like Facebook must be PROACTIVE in stopping the doxxing of our [ICE] law enforcement,” she added: “We will prosecute those who dox our agents to the fullest extent of the law.” … Although these statements may not be direct threats to prosecute Facebook and Apple, they are intimations of a threat. And thinly veiled threats such as these constitute sufficient evidence on which Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim.

The quote from Bondi about not stopping “at just arresting the violent criminals we can see in the streets,” paired with her public announcement that she’d forced Apple’s hand, is about as textbook a Bantam Books fact pattern as you’re going to find. The Supreme Court’s warning in 1963 was that “[p]eople do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.” Sixty-three years later, here is the Attorney General of the United States describing the process of coming around, and taking credit for it.

Of course, as you know, Bondi was fired by Trump earlier this month for insufficient commitment to his vindictive fantasies, and Noem has also been replaced. Both are automatically substituted out in the litigation under Rule 25(d) for their successors, Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin. The people who orchestrated the censorship may be out of power, but it’s not like their replacements are any less likely to violate the free expression rights of Americans. This injunction binds these replacement-level cabinet members all the same.

But still, in all of this, it’s astounding that we’ve heard nothing from the vocal crew who insisted the Murthy case was the quintessential example of American government censorship. The same people who were trumpeting a faux settlement in that case just weeks ago seem to have zero to say about a court finding actual censorship here.

For years, the people who built entire media careers around the supposed Biden jawboning scandal insisted — against all available evidence — that private platforms making their own moderation decisions after receiving polite feedback from the government constituted the greatest assault on free speech in American history. They refused to accept the distinction between persuasion and coercion, dismissed every platform executive who explained that moderation decisions were independent, and treated the Supreme Court’s rejection of their standing arguments in Murthy as a miscarriage of justice rather than an accurate assessment of what the evidence actually showed.

And now, confronted with an actual, documented, judicially confirmed case of government coercion — where the Attorney General literally said the word “demanding” in a Fox News interview, where the Secretary of Homeland Security publicly warned platforms they “must be PROACTIVE” and threatened prosecution, where a federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction applying the exact legal framework they claimed to care about — the response from the usual suspects has been… crickets.

Turns out they didn’t actually care about jawboning as a principle — they just cared which way the pressure was pointed. They didn’t want government neutrality about platform moderation decisions; they wanted government pressure in their preferred direction. The First Amendment, in their functional view, prohibits making life difficult for people they like and permits — encourages, even — making life difficult for people they don’t. And sure, they’ll claim this censorship was justified because it was “necessary” to “protect ICE from harm.” But that’s not how the First Amendment works, it’s wrong as a principle, and — perhaps most importantly — that same logic would have applied to the censorship they (falsely) claimed was happening under Biden regarding COVID information, which was also, in theory, done to protect American lives.

Alonso’s ruling is a reminder that the First Amendment doesn’t care about your political team. Bantam Books and Vullo don’t have political valences. Bantam Books was an 8-1 decision. Vullo was 9-0. Coercing platforms to remove speech the government disfavors is unconstitutional regardless of which administration is doing the coercing and regardless of whether the speech in question is popular with any particular political faction. But you have to actually show the coercion! A court applying the law honestly to the facts here couldn’t reach any other conclusion, because Bondi and Noem made the facts unmissable. They said the quiet part loud, on camera, to Fox News, in tweets they pinned to their profiles.

The supposedly monumental Missouri case had none of that — which is exactly why the Supreme Court rejected it. And yet it’s still held up by many as some sort of evidence of censorship, by the very same people who seem to have zero interest in this far more direct and documented example.

The takeaway is simple: if you spent five years insisting that jawboning is a grave constitutional offense, you don’t get to cheer when your team does the exact same thing. Or, well — you can, but the rest of us are going to notice. And maybe say something about it.

Everyone else gets to file this ruling away for the next time someone starts ranting about Murthy. This is what the law actually looks like when the facts are there. And the facts, in this case, were provided by the government itself, free of charge, on national television.

RSSSiteUpdated
XML About Tagaini Jisho on Tagaini Jisho 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML Arch Linux: Releases 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Carlson Calamities 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Debian News 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML Debian Security 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML debito.org 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML dperkins 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository 2026-04-22 05:00 AM
XML GIMP 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Japan Bash 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML Japan English Teacher Feed 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Let's Encrypt 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Marc Jones 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Marjorie's Blog 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML OpenStreetMap Japan - 自由な地図をみんなの手で/The Free Wiki World Map 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML OsmAnd Blog 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML Popehat 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Ramen Adventures 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Release notes from server 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML SNA Japan 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML Tatoeba Project Blog 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML Techdirt 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML The Business of Printing Books 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML The Luddite 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML The Popehat Report 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML The Status Kuo 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML The Stranger 2026-04-22 07:00 AM
XML Tor Project blog 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML TorrentFreak 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML what if? 2026-04-22 05:00 PM
XML Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed 2026-04-18 04:00 AM
XML xkcd.com 2026-04-22 05:00 PM