News

Thursday 2026-05-14

09:00 AM

South Africa Used AI To Write Its Now Withdrawn AI Policy. The Citations Were Fake. [Techdirt]

Given how often we’ve seen AI-generated fake citations show up in legal filings and even legal decisions, you’d think the lesson would have sunk in by now: if you’re going to use AI to help draft something, you have to actually check what it produces. Apparently that lesson has not reached every government ministry.

Researcher Damien Charlotin was hunting for hallucinated citations using software he’d built for exactly that purpose, when he flagged something worth pausing on: South Africa’s proposed national AI policy contained at least four citations that don’t appear to exist.

The policy that contained hallucinated citations was, in part, a policy about the dangers of AI-generated misinformation.

And, days later, South Africa withdrew the proposal entirely.

South Africa has withdrawn its first draft national AI policy after revelations that it ​contained fictitious sources in its reference list ‌which appeared to have been AI-generated.

“The most plausible explanation is that AI-generated citations were included without proper verification. ​This should not have happened,” Minister of ​Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi said.

“This ⁠failure is not a mere technical issue but ​has compromised the integrity and credibility of the ​draft policy,” he wrote in a post on X on Sunday.

Compromised the integrity and credibility of the policy? Bit of an understatement, I’d say.

And, look, it’s perhaps no surprise that those looking to put in place an AI policy would be using the tech themselves, but it’s difficult to think that they can regulate it well when they don’t even appear to understand how to use it well (and when not to use it at all).

Naturally, the minister’s takeaway is that the tech needs more regulation:

“This unacceptable lapse proves why vigilant human ​oversight over the use of ​artificial intelligence is critical. It’s a lesson we take with humility,” ​he wrote.

That really feels a lot like blaming the tech for humans making dumb decisions with the tech. He’s not wrong that we need human oversight of the tool. The power of AI tools is only recognized when they are there to assist humans, not replace them, but it’s not clear how a policy position fixes that.

To me, this is more evidence that we need to do a much better job educating people about what these tools can and can’t do. And that’s harder than it sounds, because the companies selling these products have spent years aggressively overselling what AI can do while burying the caveats about how it should actually be used. The gap between what vendors promise and what the tools actually deliver is a big part of why people keep reaching for them in exactly the wrong contexts.

Malatsi’s instinct — regulate harder — is understandable, but it addresses the wrong problem. The behavior you’re trying to regulate here isn’t malicious; it’s lazy and uninformed. Regulation is reasonably good at deterring bad intent. It has a much worse track record against ignorance. People are going to keep trying to force these tools to do things they’re not good at, regardless of what the rules say, because convenience and overconfidence are powerful forces. The better outcome comes when people learn, through repeated direct experience, that the tool fails in these situations — and when the companies selling these tools are honest about where they fail.

There are still genuinely useful ways to deploy AI, even if stories like this make people think that the tech is never good at anything. But using it to generate citations for official government policy documents, without verifying a single one, is not among them.

Of course, rather than actually dealing with any of this, expect a new crop of startups offering tools that claim to review your AI-generated content for hallucinated citations — and are just as unreliable.

Pluralistic: Billionaire solipsism, dictator solipsism, AI, and the fascist paradigm (13 May 2026) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]

->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Top Sources: None -->

Today's links



An aerial image of the planned city of Levittown, tinted light green. A circuit board bleeds through the open spaces on the town plan. Hovering over the town are Trump's disembodied, bloodshot eyes, in pouchy orange nests. Orange tentacles swarm over the town.

Billionaire solipsism, dictator solipsism, AI, and the fascist paradigm (permalink)

With great power comes great solipsism: the more power you wield over other people, the less real they become to you. To rule is to see people as aggregates, statistical artifacts, as a means to an end. It's how people seem when you're at the bottom of a k-hole.

Per Granny Weatherwax, this is the root of all evil: "Sin is when you treat people like things":

https://brer-powerofbabel.blogspot.com/2009/02/granny-weatherwax-on-sin-favorite.html

The problem (for powerful people) is that other people aren't things; they're people, with stubborn attachments to their own priorities and needs. This is a huge problem for social media bosses, since the force that keeps you stuck to their platforms is your love of your friends, which sucks (for social media bosses), because your friends refuse to organize their interactions with you to "maximize engagement." There is a group of platform users who are dedicated to maximizing your engagement: performers (which is why legacy social media platforms have reduced the quantum of your feed given over to your friends to a bare minimum and swapped in the amateur dramatics of theater kids). But even "influencers" demand treatment as people, not things (which is why legacy social media is squeezing out performers in favor of slop):

https://pluralistic.net/2026/04/17/for-youze/#forever

Running a social media service is especially solipsism-inducing, since the back-end of a social media service always reduces people to statistical artifacts to be steered, thwarted, or rewarded based on the degree to which they are "maximizing engagement." No wonder zuckermuskian social media bosses mythologize themselves as dopamine-hacking wizards who've built a mind-control ray. Skinnerism and solipsism fit together very neatly, seducing you into the belief that everyone else is a stimulus-responding automaton, programmed to think they have free will:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/07/rah-rah-rasputin/#credulous-dolts

(Of course, the AI boss version of this is the belief that everyone else is a "stochastic parrot":)

https://xcancel.com/sama/status/1599471830255177728

But in truth, any corporate boss is prone to solipsism. To maximize corporate profits, you must view other people – employees, suppliers and customers – as inconvenient problems to be solved, not true people with feelings and needs that are co-equal with your own.

This is why AI is so attractive to the ruling class. For corporate leaders, the fantasy of your own worth is always dangerously close to collapsing, due to the haunting knowledge that if you don't show up for work, everything continues as per normal; while if your workers don't show up for work, the shop closes down and stays closed. Bosses really want to be in the driver's seat, but ultimately they know that they're strapped into the back seat, playing with a Fisher Price steering wheel. AI is a way to wire that toy steering wheel directly into the drive-train: it's the fantasy that a boss can have an idea and the corporation will execute it, without any messy human needs or demands getting in the way:

https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/05/fisher-price-steering-wheel/#billionaire-solipsism

Solipsism is why bosses fetishize IP and ignore process knowledge. IP is the part of the job that the worker can explain (and that you can train an AI model on). Process knowledge is the part of the job that can't be abstracted, alienated or commodified. The very existence of process knowledge is the major impediment to de-skilling workers so they can be interchanged with other, more desperate, more timid workers (or with sycophantic AI):

https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/08/process-knowledge/#dance-monkey-dance

Of course, there's a whole group of powerful people outside of the political world who are gripped by solipsistic AI fantasies: politicians. Like social media bosses, politicians deal with people as statistical artifacts who respond to policy inputs with semi-predictable outputs:

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

And of course, politicians have their own detested class of workers whom they fantasize about replacing with chatbots: bureaucracies. When Trump et al bemoan the "deep state," they are engaged in the politicians' version of the corporate boss's solipsism: "I make policies, but to enact them, I have to convince civil servants to turn my agenda into action. This sucks. Can't we just have an all-powerful executive who decides on things and then those things just happen?"

Writing for Columbia's Knight First Amendment Institute, political scientist Henry Farrell and statistician Cosma Rohilla Shalizi have produced the definitive account of how AI psychosis has infected our political classes:

https://knightcolumbia.org/content/ai-as-social-technology

Farrell and Shalizi use this political AI psychosis to explain DOGE, framing DOGE as a project where politicians and their loyal vassals cut such a deep wound in the administrative state on the basis that general AI was about to emerge. With godlike AI around the corner, these bureaucrats – who insist on having opinions based on long experience and ethical sensibilities – could be replaced with sycophantic chatbots who'd turn the will of the unitary executive into policy without any filtration through unreliable, squishy humans.

This is a political version of my maxim that "the fact that an AI can't do your job doesn't stop an AI salesman from convincing your boss to fire you and replace you with an AI that can't do your job." Private sector bosses are easy marks for AI salesmen, and not just because they want to reduce their wage bills, but also because it will fulfill the solipsist's fantasy of a corporation that turns the singular genius of the boss into a product without any messy demands from workers (and, if you're Zuckerberg and convinced that you've created a mind-control ray, your product can be rolled out without any messy demands from your customers, either, since you've hypnotized them into doing as they're told).

The public sector version of this is the fantasy that you can eliminate the civil service and use an army of chatbots to do the job – not merely as a way of slashing the federal budget, but also as a way of purifying the transfer of the leader's will to the people without any intervening loss of fidelity resulting from the need to have your policies interpreted (and willfuly misinterpreted) by bureaucrats.

This is a very important framing, and it explains why fascists like Trump and dead-eyed technocrats like Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney are hell-bent on gutting their countries' civil service and replacing it with chatbots:

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2026/04/carney-ai-government-risks/

This is how Muskism and DOGE connect to Trumpism and AI: Musk doesn't believe other people are real. He calls them "NPCs" (non-player characters). He wants to put a microchip in your head so he can "replace your bad programming":

https://pluralistic.net/2026/04/21/torment-nexusism/#marching-to-pretoria

It's the fascist paradigm: the idea that people are incapable of self-rule, save for a very small number of singular geniuses who should be put in a position of absolute authority over all of us, to keep us safe from our own foolish impulses:

https://pluralistic.net/2026/05/12/donella-meadows/#paradigmatic

The Technocrats – a protofascist Italian movement that once captured the imagination of Musk's great-grandfather, and now are frequently quoted and alluded to by the likes of Mark Andreessen – were addicted to the quantitative fallacy that infects economics and other disciplines. That's the idea that every social process can be expressed as a mathematical model, which can then be optimized.

The problem, of course, is that much of the real world is qualitative, and the act of quantizing those qualia is a very lossy process. To quantize a qualitative question is to incinerate all the qualitative aspects and then do mathematics on the dubious quantitative ash that is left behind:

https://locusmag.com/feature/cory-doctorow-qualia/

In their paper, Farrell and Shalizi cite Ben Recht's maxim that "you can’t optimize a trade-off":

https://www.argmin.net/p/are-there-always-trade-offs

But of course, we optimize trade-offs all the time. That's what being a boss means, and it's also at the very core of self-determination: the right to decide what trade-offs you want to make. What Recht means is "you can't optimize a trade-off for everyone else." Those stubborn not-quite-people – customers, workers, bureaucrats – insist that they want different trade-offs.

In translating the will of a supreme leader to policy without any intervening need for buy-in by humans, fascist projects like DOGE seek to optimize trade-offs according to the preferences of the supreme leader. AI in government is grounded in the idea that a sufficiently deserving leader can be trusted to vibe-code the entire apparatus of state, checked only by his own sense of rightness:

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5680714-trump-morality-international-law/

Farrell and Shalizi forcefully make the point that statecraft is not a set of discrete problems with provably correct answers that must be solved. Government is a matter of making choices between mutually exclusive policies that have benefits and costs, and those costs and benefits befall different groups differently.

The idea that you can simply feed every fact about a society into a chatbot and order it to "solve" the nation reveals a profound ignorance about the nature of political contests. There's no empirical way of deciding whose priorities deserve to be realized and who must be disappointed. There isn't even an empirical way to compare the benefits that one group receives to the costs another group pays.

What's more, any system that uses LLMs to make high-stakes tradeoffs between different societal priorities will be relentlessly targeted by the groups that stand to win or lose based on those decisions, and by bureaucrats whose careers depend on making the number go up. They will poison the LLMs' training data, figure out how to trick it into deceiving their bosses about the situation on the ground.

Back in 2018, Yuval Harari predicted that LLMs would supercharge dictatorships by overcoming "authoritarian blindness" – when the suppression of political opinion is so effective that the first sign that a dictator has of his waning support is a mob that burns the presidential palace down. This prediction failed, because people who live under dictators have switched all the energy they used to use to put on a good show for the secret police into putting a good show on for the chatbots:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/26/dictators-dilemma/#garbage-in-garbage-out-garbage-back-in

Meanwhile, the "variability" introduced by bureaucrats who adapt political policies is a feature, not a bug. When a long-tenured public official receives a directive from on-high that they know will be a disaster if implemented unchanged, they can tweak the policy so that it is at least partially successful.

Fire that bureaucrat and hand the policy to a rigidly loyal LLM that will not deviate from its strict instructions and you will end up with nothing (rather than a perfect policy implementation). Indeed, you may end up with less than nothing, as resentful local populations sabotage your agenda.

Both Hayek and Marx agreed that people at the very periphery of the system have insights into local conditions that no boss/central planner can know (though they disagreed about what that fact implied). An LLM is the ultimate micro-manager, and government by Computer Says No would only work if the person writing the system prompt knew everything about everyone everywhere.

As Farrell and Shalizi write,

The frustrations of actually existing bureaucracy do not merely arise from inept or technically-inadequate solutions to the principal-agent problem. They emerge too from the collision of multiple incommensurable demands, each with its own problems and benefits, so that there are no optimal design solutions. Those who build or reform bureaucracies, like those who build other artifacts, need to satisfice across multiple intersecting needs and pathologies. Designs that neatly address one kind of problem may radically worsen others. Actually-existing AI has its own imperfections, some of which are endemic. Grafting AI systems onto existing bureaucracies will solve some problems but will worsen others and make altogether new ones. It will not eliminate the political difficulties of mediating across different, often non-commensurable, goals. Imagining replacing bureaucracy wholesale with AI is only plausible if one waves away the actual difficulties associated with real social technologies.


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)

#25yrsago Woz's programmable remotes https://web.archive.org/web/20010603184833/http://www.celadon.com/Industrial/PIC200/pic200oem.html

#25yrsago Furbeowulf http://www.trygve.com/furbeowulf.html

#20yrsago Diebold voting machines can be 0wned in minutes https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2006/05/11/report-claims-very-serious-diebold-voting-machine-flaws/

#20yrsago British farmer supplies gallows to totalitarian governments http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4754515.stm

#20yrsago Proposed law requires schools to censor MySpace, LJ, blogs, Flickr https://web.archive.org/web/20060521054806/http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/learning.now/2006/05/new_federal_legislation_would_1.html

#15yrsago Vernor Vinge on the promise, progress and threats of Augmented Reality https://www.ugotrade.com/2011/05/10/interview-with-vernor-vinge-smart-phones-and-the-empowering-aspects-of-social-networks-augmented-reality-are-still-massively-underhyped/

#15yrsago American oligarch buys the right to hire professors at Florida State U https://web.archive.org/web/20110511210435/https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-decisions-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680/

#15yrsago National Jukebox: public domain music archive from the Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/collections/national-jukebox/about-this-collection/

#15yrsago America’s net censorship bill is back and worse than ever https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/revised-net-censorship-bill-requires-search-engines-to-block-sites-too/

#10yrsago DNC Host Committee composed of GOP megadonors, Net Neutrality haters, fracking boosters and anti-Obamacare lobbyists https://web.archive.org/web/20160511160814/https://theintercept.com/2016/05/11/lobbyists-dnc-2016-convention/

#10yrsago Minnesota lawmakers propose bizarre, dangerous PRINCE law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/minnesota-legislators-go-crazy-pushing-dangerous-prince-act

#10yrsago NZ Prime Minister John Key ejected from Parliament over Panama Papers rant https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/prime-minister-john-key-thrown-out-of-debating-chamber-by-speaker/A5LQPMGB56QXTGE2ZFIK2MSRPE/?c_id=1&objectid=11637448

#10yrsago Putting two elevators in one shaft https://web.archive.org/web/20160512013856/https://www.wired.com/2016/05/thyssenkrup-twin-elevator/

#10yrsago Germany will end copyright liability for open wifi operators https://torrentfreak.com/germany-to-rescind-piracy-liability-for-open-wifi-operators-160511/

#10yrsago Save Firefox: The W3C’s plan for worldwide DRM would have killed Mozilla before it could start https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox

#5yrsago Let's eat all the cicadas https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/11/uniboob/#eat-the-brood#5yrsago

#5yrsago Cyclopedia Exotica https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/11/uniboob/#one-eye-and-three-dot-dot-dot


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, April 20, 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

I Had Lots of Questions About The China Summit. So I Talked To An Expert: My Brother! [The Status Kuo]

Kaiser Kuo is co-founder and host of the long-running Sinica Podcast, a weekly conversation on current affairs in China.

With the long-anticipated summit between the U.S. and China top of mind for much of the world, I thought we should hear from one of the leading experts on Sino-U.S. relations, Kaiser Kuo, who happens also to be my brother. I had lots of broad topics to cover, and he did not disappoint!

Subscribe now

JAY: President Trump is headed to China for a much anticipated summit with President Xi Jinping. After enduring a period that’s seen a global tariff war and a regional U.S. war with Iran, it feels like there is a lot more than usual at stake. What’s your take on those stakes?

KAISER: There is indeed a lot at stake in the meeting, so much so that I don’t believe either side has the appetite for a risky gambit. The two presidents and the nations they lead are in a standoff that I like to describe as Mutually Assured Disruption — alas, not my coinage. Each has its hand on a vital chokepoint in the other’s supply chain: the U.S. still has leverage over inputs for the design and manufacture of high-end semiconductors, as well as some of the chips that power the most advanced AI systems. China, as we all know, controls the overwhelming majority of the refining and processing of rare earth elements, needed for a huge range of American industries — including for advanced weapons.

Both sides want, at a minimum, to buy time to address their respective vulnerabilities. Ever since American restrictions on China’s access to tech started in the first Trump administration, and especially when those restrictions expanded dramatically in the Biden years, China has been going all-out to create a supply chain for leading-edge silicon it controls entirely, free of U.S. intellectual property. While Beijing has made considerable progress, there’s still a sizable gap — especially in the chips needed to train frontier AI models.

Meanwhile, Beijing showed its ability to disrupt the U.S. with its near-monopoly on rare earth refining and processing in response to Washington’s move to massively expand its “Entity List” of sanctioned Chinese companies in late September of last year. That move forced Trump to back down and accept a truce in Busan, Korea: industry panicked and markets tanked as the full extent of the rare earth export controls sank in, and Trump had little choice but to withdraw the expansion of the Entity List. Ever since, the U.S. has been moving more urgently to stand up its own (or allied) rare earths processing capabilities. Most of the experts I’ve heard discussing American progress on rare earths have noted the offtake agreements and price floors that should provide some incentive for firms to get into the rare earths processing business, but still see meaningful levels of production anywhere from two to five years away.

In any case, this is not a stable equilibrium. My sense is that Beijing believes it can meaningfully address its chip-related vulnerabilities before the U.S. can address its rare earth problem, given the Trump administration’s (and America’s) penchant for distraction and its own progress to date on even some notoriously difficult technologies, like extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography. But I also think Trump and those around him are confident that the U.S. can close the gap in rare earth mining and processing if it sets its mind to it, in another Operation Warp Speed.

Whatever the case, the real stakes are higher still, and even wildly optimistic hopes for this summit in Beijing don’t foresee a breakthrough in, say, climate cooperation, or pandemic preparedness, or addressing the huge issues around AI governance and safety. The best we can hope for is that Mutually Assured Disruption endures long enough for the baseline temperature to come down, for all the connections of business, education, and for people-to-people exchange that once constituted meaningful ballast in the relationship to be reconstituted.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world, from the E.U. to the U.S.’s beleaguered allies in both Europe and Asia, from Moscow to the Gulf States, and across the so-called Global South, will be watching with bated breath. Few states want to see Great Power rivalry intensify; adjusting to the “rupture” Canadian PM Mark Carney described in Davor, and hedging between the U.S. and China by middle powers is difficult enough as it is. Nor do they want to see the kind of “G2” world that Trump seems to prefer, where the fate of smaller nations is decided by Beijing and Washington. There’s much at stake for everyone.

JAY: I do feel for the ”middle powers” like Canada that are just trying to make it through this era.

Given how badly things are going at home and in his disastrous war of choice, it feels like Trump desperately needs some kind of foreign policy win. Is there anything you sense he is hoping to achieve through this meeting, and what’s the likelihood he actually gets it? We’ve heard very little about what the goal is, and the expectations appear to be set fairly low.

KAISER: Yes, the expectations are low, and not only within the U.S. punditry and its so-called “China-watchers,” but in China as well. It’s possible that Trump plans some kind of upside surprise, but neither of the likely candidates for such a surprise — a breakthrough in Iran or some kind of deal on Taiwan — is likely to be seen domestically as any unequivocal “foreign policy win.”

The Iran War is weighing on both economies, and there’s an opportunity for Beijing to play a bigger role. It’s clearly something the U.S. side wants: Scott Bessent has called on China to “step up,” and President Trump has reportedly raised the issue in preliminary discussions on more than one occasion. As I’ll get into later, there’s a lot of skepticism that Beijing can be persuaded to meaningfully advance the peace process, but I actually think China’s interests will be better served, both in terms of its domestic economy and its international clout, if it does try to play more of a role. It’s hard for me to imagine a better time.

Even if the summit does expedite the opening of Hormuz and a durable peace, I don’t think Trump will be able to spin it as much of a win. All the people who advanced 5D chess arguments about how Iran (and Venezuela) were about China all along will be miffed if Beijing proves instrumental in the peace and Gulf hydrocarbons start heading toward Chinese refineries again. For the rest of us, it will only underscore the pointlessness of the whole endeavor.

There’s been a lot of chatter on both sides of the Pacific over a potential deal involving Taiwan, sometimes involving a “grand bargain,” other times mooting the possibility of the U.S. side changing the language it uses on Taiwan (e.g., from “The U.S. does not support Taiwan independence” to “The U.S. opposes Taiwan independence”). My gut says no, but given Trump’s utter unpredictability, I don’t trust my gut when it comes to the American president. He has clearly cooled on Taiwan: after the failure of the first tranche of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP’s) efforts to bring down even one of the dozens of opposition (Kuomintang) legislators the DPP targeted in a massive recall vote last summer, Trump canceled Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te’s scheduled transit through the U.S., as well as a planned meeting between U.S. and Taiwanese defense officials. He has been openly critical of Taiwan’s trade surplus with the U.S., imposed initial 34% tariffs on the island’s exports to the States (later lowered to 15%), and perhaps most importantly de-prioritized deterring conflict over Taiwan in the National Security Strategy.

It’s possible that the Chinese side will push Taiwan toward the center of the agenda during the presidential meetings. Reports on pre-summit negotiations indicate that Chinese diplomats are still underscoring the centrality of Taiwan. But Xi will likely manage his expectations. Maintaining some bilateral stability will be the priority, and Chinese “America-watchers” understand that pushing too hard on the Taiwan issue will hurt Trump at home and may stoke anti-PRC flames in America just at a time when the polls show they’re beginning to die down. Beijing will count anything that meaningfully extends the ceasefire from Busan as a win.

JAY: Trump is unpredictable, I’ll grant that. Self-interest is pretty much the only thing we can count on him serving.

On the flip side, what does Xi Jinping hope to achieve through direct in-person talks? Is he facing the kinds of domestic or international pressures to show progress, or is this a chance for him to show dominance over the U.S.?

KAISER: I think Xi knows very well what optics play well for his domestic audience, and he will have been briefed that the same playbook — projecting nonchalance, coherence, confidence, reason, and stability — plays equally well to an international audience just for the contrast with Trump if nothing else. The power shift from the last time Trump came, in 2017 on the eve of the first trade war, is not lost on Chinese audiences. They’re all very aware that Beijing’s push to ready itself for an inevitable second trade war has paid off handsomely, and that China alone among major economies stood its ground after Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs were announced on April 2, 2025. They’ve watched as China has punched back hard with each new round, and how Trump dined on TACOs each time. “Trump Always Chickens Out” was especially true when it came to China.

In the last few months, since the beginning of the Iran War, China’s confidence has been further inflated, and it’s telling that before I left Beijing on April 21, I heard a lot of concern among my Chinese interlocutors over the potential for overconfidence and even hubris: We shouldn’t count America out, we mustn’t rest on our laurels, we should resist gloating. I personally thought that Beijing’s refusal to confirm that Trump was actually going to travel to China until only four days before his trip seemed rather gratuitous. But I don’t expect any deliberate snubs or provocations. I think Beijing still assesses him to be the same man: a narcissist who is susceptible to flattery and irreducibly transactional.

JAY: Xi has always had Trump’s number when it comes to sizing him up or facing him down. It’s been the same dynamic from the get-go.

The summit was originally scheduled before Trump launched his ill-fated war with Iran. That has scrambled the picture considerably, with questions over whether Iran can and will continue to be able to supply China with the oil it needs, and whether other Asian nations’ economies are vulnerable to supply disruptions of everything from LPG to fertilizer to helium for semiconductor manufacturing. How do you see the chaos and uncertainty of Iran War factoring into the summit?

KAISER: It’s such a pity that the original meeting was rescheduled because of the Iran War. It would have put Trump in Beijing from March 31 to April 2 — and the optics of Trump being in Beijing, leaving the Chinese capital on the one-year anniversary of “Liberation Day,” would have been delicious. A very clever Chinese planner might have arranged for him to sample Peking Duck on that day, and someone might have told him, “Mr. President, this is a Chinese taco.”

JAY: Okay, that’s funny.

KAISER: On the Iran War, it’s really generated two distinct narratives in the U.S., neither of which I think gets it right. The first, which you hear more from people who want to justify not only Iran but potentially Venezuela as well, says this was all ultimately about China. It was about dislodging it somehow from Latin America, in the case of Venezuela, and from the Middle East, in the case of Iran. The argument leans heavily on China’s dependence on imported oil, which makes superficial sense: Just in the case of Iran, roughly 45% of China’s imported oil was transiting the Strait of Hormuz before the war.

The second narrative says, no, China has actually come out ahead because of the Iran War. China sells more photovoltaic solar panels and more electric vehicles, as countries try to limit their exposure to oil and gas price shocks. China sits on enormous strategic petroleum reserves. China watches the United States burn through very expensive stockpiles of interceptor missiles. And China watches the so-called Pivot to Asia — which three successive presidencies have insisted was really, actually, seriously happening this time — get frustrated yet again. Meanwhile, it’s cleaning up diplomatically as the U.S. alienates its allies and China wins plaudits across the developing world.

What’s clear to me is that China would much rather none of this had happened at all. It’s not happy about burning through its petroleum reserve, or about gas that was $5 a gallon in Beijing when I was last there in late April, or shortages of the helium that’s needed for its all-important semiconductor industry. This is an important part of why, especially given China’s economic difficulties, I’m inclined to think Beijing will be open to leveraging its relationship with Tehran to speed along an end to the conflict.

JAY: We can all only hope that’s true. Whatever it takes to end this madness.

Looking back over the past year, whenever the U.S. attacks another country without international go-ahead, there’s inevitably a discussion of whether this gives China permission to attack Taiwan. Is that framing misguided? Should we be worried that China will leverage the current situation to make a move against the island?

KAISER: Yes, this was true with Russia and Ukraine in 2022: it’s not just the U.S. But China’s calculation on when or if it makes an aggressive move against Taiwan has very little to do with “permission,” or a perceived loss of American moral standing. Whether Xi Jinping is able at a given moment to point toward Washington and decry its hypocrisy for its naked transgressions of international law will not tip the balance one way or another. This framing focuses on a minor factor in China’s calculus. Compared, say, to the depletion in interceptors (and the low stocks of artillery and missiles because of American commitments to Ukraine), it hardly rates.

But even then, it’s highly unlikely we’ll see China make a move on Taiwan in the coming several years. Xi Jinping has absolutely gutted the PLA’s top brass, removing nearly all the other members of the Central Military Commission on corruption charges. This doesn’t strike me as something one does if one plans on undertaking the single diciest and central mission that the Chinese armed forces have been preparing for for many years. And this may strike many of your readers as counterintuitive, but I actually think that the fact that Xi Jinping has amassed as much power as he has during the 13 years of his rule serves not as a goad to military adventurism but actually as a curb on it. Yes, he does think about his legacy — but he knows that if he continues to build China into a wealthy, powerful, confident, technologically advanced nation without any major disruptions, that legacy is secure. He has no legitimacy deficit to address as far as Chinese nationalists are concerned. His reputation won’t suffer because he failed in his term in office to take Taiwan. But if, on the other hand, he gambles on Taiwan — risking intervention by the U.S., Japan, and Australia; a global depression once the world’s source of advanced semiconductors is under assault; and pariah status at least in the West — he bets it all, and for what? Even a bloody nose could prove politically fatal. The Russia example in Ukraine is anything but encouraging.

JAY: I feel better already! But I agree, Xi is shrewd and in no hurry, and Taiwan is far more valuable as a point of leverage than a point of conflict.

In past summits, the question of China’s human rights record has come up. Is that off the table this time, given the U.S.’s own horrifying record lately? Does the Chinese government have a freer hand to crack down as a result?

KAISER: It’s not like there was a time over the last 50-odd years where China felt constrained in its actions because it viewed the American record on human rights as spotless. Beijing has always had something it can point to, whether we believe those counterclaims to be valid criticisms or merely bad faith whataboutism. I’m sure that the Chinese side — spokespeople, the state media, pundits, perhaps Xi himself — has been primed with talking points should Trump or one of his entourage raise human rights issues. Knowing as they surely do that in light of Iran and especially Gaza, Trump will not likely win over international opinion (especially in the Global South) should he bring up human rights, Beijing might just be smart enough not to clap back and to leave the opprobrium to the global audience that will be watching, rapt.

And no, this doesn’t give the Chinese government a freer hand to crack down. As with Taiwan, I think this framing is more about American comfort levels with hypocrisy than about actual Chinese calculus.

JAY: Given inflation pressures in America, the existing tariffs only make things pricier, especially given how much comes from China to U.S. markets. Meanwhile, American farmers are eager to rebuild their lost markets in agricultural products. Is there any hope for a breakthrough on trade? What might that look like?

KAISER: I don’t hold out much hope that tariffs will be negotiated downward. China can live with current tariff levels. Exports to the U.S. dropped dramatically in 2025 after the April “Liberation Day” announcements, but China enjoyed a record trade surplus of $1.2 trillion for the year, and exports have grown way above expectations in the first months of 2026. Much of China’s exports were redirected toward developing nations, but also to Europe, where trade issues are nearing a breaking point. If you’re the Trump administration, that’s good news: You can continue to browbeat and insult your European allies, and they can’t all go running to China.

But I do expect that there will be some low-hanging fruit with big numbers attached: soybeans, as we saw in the Phase 1 trade deal in 2018 and again in Trump’s meeting with Xi in Busan last year, are likely to figure into this. China pledged to buy 25 million metric tons of soybeans annually for the next several years, and this figure might rise.

My most optimistic hope still within the realm of reason would be for a major investment agreement, similar in some ways to the $550 billion investment pledge that Trump wrested out of Tokyo. To be meaningful, it would probably need to be 11 digits — in the hundreds of billions of dollars — and would likely center on battery production in the U.S., with agreements on local hire numbers, commitments for union jobs, and of course technology transfer agreements. I don’t think this is likely, and I’m not holding my breath, but I expect something along these lines is coming down the pipe, if not in this meeting then perhaps in the year-end meeting in Washington that they now have planned.

JAY: Aside from areas of competition and tension, what are the areas of real cooperation that the two countries could work on?

KAISER: I have a long list of areas for real cooperation, many of them urgent, but almost none of them feasible under this administration. Almost anything environmental is a non-starter for the president who pulled out twice from the Paris Climate Agreement. Cooperation on pandemic prevention is, tragically, another non-starter. We seem to have learned all the wrong lessons from COVID: legally banning, rather than strengthening, collaboration between U.S. and Chinese researchers; pulling out of the WHO; defunding NIH and other centers of scientific research.

Though I’m not some kind of AI doomer, I’m far from cavalier about the risks, and given that the U.S. and China are the two countries in the world far, far ahead of the rest in their capabilities in AI (and in all the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution), a U.S.-China agreement on AI governance would have practically global impact. This, too, is likely to be frustrated by the fact that so many of the tech bros who have Trump’s ear regard the main goal of “AI governance” to be simply preventing China from catching up in the “AI race.”

And then there’s the nuclear arms race, now gaining speed. Trump fancied himself at one point an expert on nuclear arms reduction, and given the expansion and modernization of both the U.S. and Chinese nuclear arsenals now underway, I’d love to see the U.S. president rediscover and exercise that particular competency.

JAY: China is seen as a chief competitor of the U.S. In what areas is China truly pulling ahead of us, and where should we work to catch up?

KAISER: China is ahead in advanced robotics including humanoid robotics, in electric vehicles and batteries, in new battery chemistries, in ultrahigh voltage (UHV) electrical transmission, in manufacture of solar panels, in wind turbines including offshore wind, in high-speed railroad (with 50,000 km of high-speed rail line operating in China today), in 5G communications infrastructure, in shipbuilding, in consumer drones, and in the low-altitude economy (e.g., delivery drones and the eVTOL “flying taxi” solutions). China is also pulling ahead in nuclear power, with new safe nuclear power technologies like thorium or molten salt reactors and pebble-bed reactors.

JAY: So now I think we’re toast.

KAISER: You’ll notice how many of these are related to the energy grid and to renewables. Many people are already talking about China’s emergence as an “electrostate,” and the case can certainly be made: with its robust grid and continent-scale UHV transmission, its fast deployment of renewable energy, and its generally high capacity in electrical generation, China is in an enviable position and won’t face the same bottleneck the U.S. already faces in providing sufficient, affordable power for the datacenters that both countries are building out at scale.

China’s advantage is not in technology innovation itself, as most Americans understand it: It’s in its ability to diffuse technology and push for its adoption in enterprise, and of course in the sheer scale of its manufacturing, as well as its control of supply chains, and its ability to drive down costs through scale. We’re starting to come around to the idea that certain forms of industrial policy, deliberate vertical integration (as China has done by basically linking EVs to batteries and robotics) can really amplify these strengths. We tend in America to fetishize that ex nihilo, 0-to-1 innovation rather than the 1 to 100 scaling. That’s something we should really try to learn from China.

JAY: Sounds like we have a lot we could learn. Thanks for coming by to chat! I always learn a lot in our discussions. And folks, if you want to keep up to date on all things China, you can subscribe to Kaiser’s Sinica Podcast at the link in the blurb below.

Kaiser Kuo is the co-founder and host of the Sinica Podcast, the leading English-language current affairs show on China, and contributes to the World Economic Forum and to numerous publications. He has lived in China for over 20 years, and recently moved back to Beijing after 10 years in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He is the guitarist of the band Chunqiu (Spring & Autumn).

07:00 AM

DOJ Possibly Facing Contempt Charges After Admitting DHS Press Release Was False [Techdirt]

Let’s hope the word “possibly” can be stricken from this headline in the near future. And while contempt charges don’t mean much to an administration that is openly contemptuous of anything that hints at checks or balances, it would, at the very least, encourage other judges to stop treating the Trump DOJ like it’s worthy of anything less than contempt.

If nothing else, federal judge Melissa DuBose has at least forced the government to publicly admit it’s been lying to her.

A federal judge said Monday that the Trump administration had put her security at risk by posting a “patently false” allegation that she knowingly released an ICE detainee with an international warrant for murder.

Justice Department attorney Kevin Bolan profusely apologized to Rhode Island-based U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose for the press release posted last week by the Department of Homeland Security, which Bolan acknowledged “simply was not true.”

Let’s go live (because — for whatever reason — the press release is still “live”) to the DHS website posting, which leads off with this headline because it’s operated by unserious people who have chosen to serve an autocratic megalomaniac rather than the nation itself:

Activist Biden Judge Releases Violent Criminal Illegal Alien Wanted for Murder

A judge ordering the release of an arrestee on bail is rarely reason for a public statement by a federal agency. Normally, they’ve got better stuff to do that engage in personal attacks on judges who have done nothing more than interpreted the law and ruled accordingly.

Every alleged crime is noted in bold type in the press release, which also includes this statement from the DHS (emphasis in the original):

“Bryan Rafael Gomez is a criminal illegal alien from the Dominican Republic with an international warrant for homicide,” said Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis. “An activist judge appointed by Joe Biden released this wanted murderer back into American communities. This is yet another example of an activist judge trying to thwart President Trump’s mandate from the American people to remove criminal illegal aliens from our communities. Under President Trump and Secretary Mullin, DHS will continue to fight for the removal of criminal illegal aliens who have no right to be in our country.”

Even if you choose to ignore the headline and the politically motivated attacks on the judge, you’re still left with something that isn’t normally the way the federal government does business. After all, judges are part of a co-equal branch, and there’s little to be gained by pretending normal court stuff is “activism.”

There’s even less to be gained when it’s discovered that the government’s lawyers didn’t bother to apprise the judge of this homicide warrant the DHS is now using to attack the judiciary. And what’s left of the DOJ appears to have realized this belatedly. There’s a lot of contrition in this short filing that Assistant US Attorney Charles Calenda (who oversees the affected jurisdiction) hopes will defuse the judge’s righteous anger.

Signed by Assistant US Attorney Kevin Bolan, the response to Judge DuBose’s order to show cause blames ICE for misleading the judge, even though it was Bolan who ultimately did the misleading:

Before the response was filed, I had been informed by ICE about the Petitioner’s pending arrest warrant issued on January 24, 2023, from a court in the Dominican Republic and that I could not disclose that information. I was not aware that ICE had previously disclosed that same information on April 16, 2026. In failing to disclose the information regarding Petitioner’s criminal history, I relied on ICE’s representation that I was not permitted to disclose that information and understood that a legitimate law enforcement reason prevented disclosure. Judge DuBose, therefore, lacked that information about the Petitioner’s criminal background when she granted the petition.

I sincerely apologize to Judge DuBose, personally, and to the entire Court for the consequences of this lack of disclosure.

Sure, contrition is welcomed. But it’s not quite as welcome when (1) ICE had already disclosed this fact, (2) the DHS continues to post an unwarranted attack on this “activist judge,” and (3) nobody in the government appears willing to act honestly until a court forces them to do it.

The DOJ may have some plausible deniability, but that relies on everyone assuming this administration is so disjointed some fingers may not even know what other fingers are doing, which is something that needs to be addressed before we get to larger questions vis-à-vis right hands and left hands knowing what each other are up to.

And while the DOJ may have some legitimate complaints about being both understaffed and overwhelmed by immigration cases, the problem lies with Donald Trump and his cabinet full of bigoted middle managers. The administration is still hoping to eject nearly a half-million more people by the end of the year. Meanwhile, the DOJ continues to bleed talent thanks to loyalty purges and prosecutors walking off the job because they can’t stomach what they’re being commanded to do.

The solution is contempt charges. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a start. Judge DuBose says she’s looking at both the DOJ and DHS. If any entity should bear the brunt of this, it’s the DHS, which continues to post misleading invective targeting this judge, as well as being instrumental in the burial of information the judge should have had access to while making a release determination.

And while I understand that contempt charges just mean taxpayers will continue to bail out an administration unworthy of its tax dollars, it will at least contribute to the steady drip of adverse rulings. When enough of those pile up, it becomes a flood this administration won’t be able to contain.

05:00 AM

John Roberts Is The Driver Who Wants Credit For All The People He Didn’t Run Over [Techdirt]

John Roberts has a point: the Supreme Court—even this Supreme Court—sometimes gets things right. Maybe one could even fairly say it often gets things right. After all, just recently it produced good decisions in Case v. Montana, Cox v. Sony, and First Women’s Choice Centers v. Davenport, and arguably even Chiles v. Salazar, along with plenty more that have quietly taken their place in the annals of American jurisprudence with little fanfare but the staying power we look to the Court’s opinions for, to continue to speak well into the future about the contours of our law. These were decisions where there was significant accord among all the justices because the legal questions before them were just not that hard to resolve. Either statutory language, constitutional text, or previous precedent required certain results, and Roberts is correct: this Court is fully capable of producing them.

The issue, however, is that it doesn’t always. And when it doesn’t it is not because it’s getting tripped up by close calls where either the precedent or guiding text isn’t clear, or the facts are so unfortunate that they obscure what the law requires. The issue is that the law is as equally clear in cases where the Court produces deviant results as in the cases where the Court gets things right; it just doesn’t care to follow it consistently. If it wants a different result than what the law directs then that is the result it will find the votes for.

Roberts is of course also right that non-lawyers often can’t tell what the law indeed requires; the general public is much more likely to judge a decision based on how it affects the interests they favor. Which is why Roberts has a fair point to think the Court may be unfairly criticized in decisions like Chiles, First Women’s Choice Centers, or even 303 Creative, cases where interests many understand to be harmful to others nevertheless apparently prevailed. It is difficult, for instance, for non-lawyers to see how a win for those who discriminate is nevertheless a win for those who are discriminated against, because while a win for the former may seem like a loss for the latter in the short term, it’s the rationale being upheld by the decision that will ultimately amount to a more important gain for the vulnerable in the long term.

But one reason people are struggling to see these controversial but correct decisions as fortifications of their own future freedom is because they don’t believe that when their interests are at stake the Supreme Court will still apply the same principles this time in their favor. They fear that the Court will instead find a way to advance the interests it prefers, and it’s a fear that is eminently reasonable. The hypocrisy the justices regularly display in their jurisprudence when one of their favored interests is at stake forecloses any rational person having any faith in them as neutral jurists ably applying the law, even if it’s true that sometimes they are.

Roberts only has himself and his Court to blame for so many having that view. They have made it impossible for anyone to believe the Court will uphold principle and precedent because of how often it has not. It is happy to change the rules that we must all play by whenever it suits it, redrawing the rights we depend on as well as the ability to use the courts to shape them. And it’s not just laypeople who’ve noticed the problem but legal professionals. It’s lawyers, including members of the Supreme Court Bar who practice before them. It’s law professors, including those who have been teaching new generations of law students what were supposed to be timeless principles of American jurisprudence, which the Court so regularly and casually upends. It’s legal commentators, including those who specialize in watching this court. It is people who are experienced, if not expert—and if not at least as expert as anyone on the Court—in the American legal tradition who are calling foul. They are noticing how the Court keeps inventing arbitrary and imaginary rules, if not also facts, in order to arrive not where the law points but where the conservative justices steering the Court’s majority instead prefer to go.

It might be one thing if it were the rare case here and there in its busy docket where the Court has simply been sloppy in its jurisprudence. But the cases where the conservative majority has refused to produce jurisprudentially conservative results, instead elevating preferred outcomes over precedential reasoning, are hardly the exception; at this point it has become the apparently deliberate rule that when certain issues are on the table—partisan politics, reproductive freedom, LGBTQ+ rights, race relations, to name just a few areas where the conservative justices have particularly strong views—the Roberts Court will eagerly jump in to advance them, regardless of whether either substance or procedure—or consistency—even invites such an intervention, let alone their favored result. In fact it is fairly shocking to encounter the rare occasion where the Court has instead restrained itself—although it is certainly glad to when other interests the conservative majority is less dogmatically interested in advancing are instead on the table.

Furthermore, that its docket is so busy is entirely because the Court has abdicated any pretense of restraint, greedily helping itself to matters that historically would have been regarded as unripe for its consideration. In fact, it is a bit rich for Roberts to complain how the Supreme Court is being unfairly disrespected given the extent to which its new practice of aggressively insinuating itself in substantive adjudication of matters before there even is a lower court ruling or record ready for review has itself undercut the respect due the lower courts. What the Court has been doing, particularly with its Shadow Docket, goes far beyond the appellate review it is normally entitled to do. Not only does the Supreme Court’s incessant snatching of matters away from the lower courts prematurely arbitrarily diminish the lower courts’ power to render considered opinions on the questions before them, but it has also been having the practical effect of undermining their ability to speak with any authority on the law at all, let alone enforce it. Would only Roberts shed the same tears for the insult the lower courts have actually suffered as he does for himself as the cause of it.

Instead, and apparently without any capacity for introspection or self-reflection, he protests that the criticism increasingly directed at the Court is not also increasingly deserved. We should, he insists, be judging his Court based on what it gets right. But we do not celebrate a reckless driver for all the people he didn’t run over, or careless chef for all the diners he didn’t poison, or distracted doctor for all the patients he didn’t kill. In the American legal tradition we judge harshly those who cause injury to the public well-being, especially with behavior beyond the bounds of what law allows.

And with the Roberts Court there is so much to judge.

Daily Deal: 5-in-1 MagSafe Wireless & Wired Charging Station [Techdirt]

Simplify your daily charging experience and replace most of the chargers and cables on your desktop. The 5-in-1 Wireless & Wired Charging Station is a compact and powerful charging station to charge all your favorite gadgets at the same time, and can also double as a bedside lamp with 3 brightness levels. Having 3 wireless charging spots, and one USB-A port, it enables charging for up to 4 devices simultaneously, including iPhone, Apple Watch, AirPods Pro, AirPods with Wireless Charging Case, other Qi-compatible Android Phones, and Bluetooth earbuds. The Apple Watch Stand is for charging any Apple Watch from Series 1 to 9. Save your workspace and charge all your favorite techs in one elegant solution. It’s on sale for $40.

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

02:00 AM

Trump Already Has His ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ Card. Now He Wants A ‘Get Out Of IRS Audits’ Card [Techdirt]

In a ruling that will clearly be remembered as one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court, two years ago, the court gave Donald Trump a get out of jail free card, which he appears to be trying to take full advantage of with all the criming in his second term. But, as always with this guy, it’s never enough.

We’ve already covered in detail the ridiculous situation in which Donald Trump acting in his supposed personal capacity, while still being the president, sued his own IRS for $10 billion, because a contractor leaked his tax returns a while back (that contractor is currently in prison for doing so). Again, there is zero indication of any actual harm. Every president — and nearly all major candidates — for the past 50 years released their tax returns to the public. Except Trump.

A decade ago he claimed that it was because he was being audited, and promised to release them once the audit was over. But he’s never done anything. And, as many people have noted, when President Richard Nixon started this tradition of releasing the president’s tax returns, he was actually being audited by the IRS, and was able to release his returns without a problem.

Either way, a contractor (not an IRS employee) leaked some of Trump’s returns to ProPublica and the NY Times, which resulted in a few stories before the news cycle moved on within days. It certainly didn’t stop Trump from being elected in 2024. And even though the returns were leaked in 2019 and 2020, Trump waited until he was back in the White House (and, in charge of the IRS and the DOJ) to file this $10 billion lawsuit.

We’ve covered the ridiculous claim that the “two sides” (there aren’t two sides) were “negotiating a settlement” and how the judge in the case has tried to call timeout, noticing that since Trump is effectively negotiating with himself there’s no cause or controversy, and thus there may be no jurisdiction for the court to hear the case. There’s still briefing going on over that, but the NY Times reports that the supposed (not really) “negotiations” have continued, with Trump apparently proposing that the settlement include the IRS dropping audits of Trump, his businesses, and his family, which would just be a shocking level of corruption from an administration that has spent its first year and a half in office trying to be as blatantly corrupt as possible.

One of the settlement options the Justice Department and White House officials are reviewing is the possibility of the I.R.S. dropping any audits of Mr. Trump, his family members or businesses, according to two of the people.

Again, even though the news cycle moved on quickly, perhaps it should return to exactly what those leaked tax returns showed: which is that at a time when Trump was publicly claiming to be rolling in cash, he basically paid effectively no income taxes and was racking up massive losses — figures that raise serious questions about his financial entanglements and what he stood to gain from his first term in office.

To have the audits of what happened during those years completely dropped — and not just for him, but for his entire family and related businesses — is another form of a get out of jail free card. Call it a “tax cheat for life” card.

To do this at a time when the public is struggling, due almost entirely to Donald Trump’s ridiculous policies — tariffs driving up inflation massively, an illegal war quagmire in Iran driving up energy prices — is even more insulting to the public that Donald Trump is supposed to be working for. The same day this story came out, Trump was asked about whether he was thinking about the impact of his out-of-control war on Americans’ financial situation, and he responded “not even a little bit” and that “I don’t think about Americans financial situation. I don’t think about anybody.”

Well, except himself, apparently.

12:00 AM

Ken Paxton Pretends To Care About Consumers, Sues Netflix To ‘Protect The Children’ [Techdirt]

Flimsy and corrupt authoritarian populism is dedicated to pretending that the oligarchs and autocrats really care about the people. One way Trumpism has done this is by pretending they actually care about reining in corporate power. That’s included an elaborate, multi-year performance about how MAGA Republicans were going to curb abuses by “big tech” and bring back meaningful antitrust reform.

As we’ve warned and witnessed repeatedly, that’s always a lie. The Trump administration has relentlessly dedicated his second administration to devastating whatever was left of regulatory autonomy, consumer protection, and antitrust reform. If MAGA is taking aim at a company it’s almost always either to harass them for doing something Trump doesn’t like, or to help benefit a billionaire ally.

Texas AG Ken Paxton is no exception. Every so often Ken likes to take a break from fueling dangerous conspiracy theories and harassing trans people to pretend he’s being tough on corporate power. Ken’s latest gambit is a new lawsuit against against Netflix for… monetizing streaming advertising viewer data and creating “addicted” users:

“Netflix’s years-long bait-and-switch has led the company right to where it promised never to be: addicting children and families to its platform, mining those users for data, and then converting that data into lucrative intelligence for global advertising juggernauts.”

Granted Netflix is not unique here. In a country too corrupt to pass meaningful privacy laws (because MAGA Republicans just like Ken routinely work to kill them), nearly every company you interact with on a daily basis now monetizes your every movement and online choices, “anonymizes” it (a meaningless term), sells access to dodgy international data brokers, then repeatedly lies about it.

They do this because Republicans, corporate lobbyists, and many “centrist” Democrats have, quite unsubtly, worked tirelessly to dismantle corporate oversight and regulatory autonomy. Most companies have been eager to take advantage, including Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, who, like countless other CEOs, used to at least pay empty lip service to never tracking or monetizing consumer data.

Paxton’s lawsuit insists Netflix has built a vast surveillance economy that includes peoples’ kids viewing habits, violating Texas consumer protection law:

“Netflix built this surveillance machinery to scrutinize how users and their children behave—what they click, how long they linger, what they avoid, when they pause, what draws them in, what they replay or skip, where they are, what devices they use, what other devices are in their home, what other apps they interact with, and much more. Each action is a data point revealing something about the user. This is not simply about deciding what show to queue up next.It is about learning who the users and their children are.”

Again: almost every single company you interact with does this now. Many in ways that are far worse than Netflix (see: the entire unregulated data broker economy). Paxton knows this. So why single out Netflix? And why now?

Well, Netflix has been a recent thorn in the side of Trump-allied billionaire Larry Ellison’s efforts to acquire Warner Brothers, CNN, and HBO. Starting earlier this year, Trumpland made Netflix public enemy number one, pushing a pretty broad misinformation campaign targeting the company. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley went before Congress to accuse them of “pushing trans ideology.” More recently, Paramount has been trying to blame Netflix for all the negative criticism of their giant, terrible Warner Bros merger.

These sorts of lawsuits take a while to build momentum, so I suspect Paxton’s inquiry began during the mad conspiratorial heat of MAGA’s Netflix breakdown earlier this year, and is only culminating now. And I suspect Paxton will be eager to share any juicy and harmful tidbits found during trial prep to help frame the company (which in reality has been pretty amicable toward Republicans and trans bashing comedians) as a useful “woke” culture war prop.

That’s not to say Netflix doesn’t do anything wrong and isn’t (like every tech company) abysmal on surveillance and privacy, but it is to say that authoritarians don’t actually care about the public interest. And they certainly don’t actually care about mass commercialized surveillance, given they’ve played a starring role in cementing it and eliminating all accountability for it.

The American public’s broad and growing hatred of corporations and the extraction class has long been a fertile recruitment playground for autocratic zealots like Trump and Paxton, who love to put on adorable little stage plays where they pretend to be “reining in corporate power” and “embracing meaningful antitrust reform.” But it’s uniformly a performance always driven by ulterior motives.

If guys like Trump and Paxton actually cared about consumer privacy, they’d openly and loudly support a national privacy law that holds all companies (and executives, personally) accountable for privacy and security failures when it comes to consumer data. If they cared about consumer privacy, they’d relentlessly target data brokers that sell oceans of consumer data to any nitwit with a nickel (including foreign intelligence). They’d fund and staff U.S. regulators tasked with policing privacy abuses.

They don’t do that because that might impact them and their friends financially, and disrupt the U.S. government’s ability to spy on Americans without a warrant. So instead you get these highly selective and flimsy populist performances that single out administration “enemies” for failing to adequately bend the knee, while tricking rubes into thinking they’re being tough on corporate power.

Wednesday 2026-05-13

10:00 PM

Publishers: Google’s Ebook Ad “Ban” Blocked Legitimate Sellers, Not Pirates [TorrentFreak]

google paperwork colorsIn June 2024, Cengage Learning, Macmillan Learning, Elsevier, and McGraw Hill sued Google over Shopping ads that promoted pirated copies of their textbooks.

Last month, Google asked the court to throw out the last surviving copyright claim, arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Cox Communications v. Sony Music had effectively killed the publishers’ theory of liability.

The publishers clearly disagree. In the opposition brief filed a few days ago, they accept the Supreme Court’s Cox framework and argue that their facts fit the stricter requirements anyway. They also note that an effort by Google to limit advertisements for pirated ebooks had the opposite effect.

Inducement

Under the new Cox standard, contributory copyright infringement applies if one of two conditions is met. This includes inducement, which requires evidence that a defendant actively encouraged copyright infringement. According to the publishers, that is the case here.

The publishers argue the entire Google Shopping platform fits that description. For each of the 7,359 textbooks they identified, Google created an ad promoting an infringing copy, placed it at the top of search results, targeted it at users it predicted would click, and linked it to a pirate site that delivered the book.

Google previously noted that the shopping platform is largely automated and content neutral, which would disfavor inducement. However, the publishers’ brief cites several examples of “specific acts” by Google that “actively encourage” infringement.

‘Ad Ban Only for Legitimate Sellers’

The first act is what the publishers describe as Google’s inverted ebook advertisement policy. Google banned ebook ads from its Shopping platform in 2021, citing piracy concerns. According to the publishers, the ban didn’t have the desired effect.

The publishers say that the ban worked as advertised against legitimate ebook sellers, who were blocked from promoting licensed copies through Google Shopping. Pirate sellers, meanwhile, continued to advertise infringing copies on the same platform.

“Google was well-aware (including because Plaintiffs told Google) that its ‘ban’ was not really a ban, since Google was blocking ads for legitimate ebooks, but running ads for pirated ebooks, thus showing consumers only pirated ebook products,” the opposition brief reads.

The publishers don’t go into detail on how pirate sellers were able to circumvent the ban, but the result is that people were shown ads for pirate books, not legitimate ones.

Running ads for the very products a policy was meant to block, the publishers argue, is evidence of the intent that inducement requires. A company that flouts its own anti-piracy ad policy cannot then claim it had no idea what was happening on its platform.

‘No Neutral Conduit’

Google positioned itself as a neutral conduit that simply displays advertisements that are supplied by third parties. However, the publishers reject this and note that the search engine has a much more active role.

“Google is not a list-serve or modern-day bulletin board like Craigslist, passively allowing users to post listings. Google is a sophisticated ad agency at scale, actively deciding what to advertise, how to advertise it, and to whom to target the advertisement,” they note, in favor of their inducement argument.

No Craigslist

no craigslist

As a third category, the publishers stress that Google had the required knowledge of the allegedly infringing activities. They sent Google “hundreds of notices” identifying thousands of specific infringing ads and pirate merchants. These ads allegedly stayed online after the takedown notices were sent.

When the publishers complained to Google, the company allegedly flagged notices as “duplicative”, while threatening to stop reviewing all the publishers’ infringement notices for up to six months.

Tailored to Infringement

While satisfying the inducement prong would be sufficient, the publishers also argue that the second Cox element applies here. They argue that Google’s ads were “tailored to infringement” and not capable of “substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses.”

Google’s motion applied that standard at the platform level: Google Shopping overall has obvious non-infringing uses, so it cannot be ‘tailored to infringement.’ The publishers, however, counter that the standard applies one level down.

The publishers note that each shopping ad for pirate ebooks was individually tailored. These ads, created by Google, were used to promote pirate books and served no purpose other than to induce copyright infringement.

“Plaintiffs are suing Google for knowingly creating and serving specific advertisements for known pirate sellers that include links to known infringing products, thereby inducing infringement. That Google also advertises non-infringing fishing-poles and garden-hoses does not exempt Google from liability for advertising infringing ebooks,” they write.

Redactions and Reply

Google’s argument that much of its shopping platform is automated should also be rejected, the publishers note. They stress that there are still decision-making humans involved in the process.

The opposition brief includes large portions of redacted text, so there is likely more evidence than what’s shared in public.

Redacted text in the publishers’ brief

redact

Overall, however, the publishers ask the court to deny Google’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. This decision will determine whether the final copyright infringement claim survives. Before that decision is issued, Google will get the chance to reply.

A copy of the publishers’ opposition to Google’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is available here (pdf).

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

08:00 PM

The airplane oath [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

You’re flying over Mount Rainier and a hole opens up in the bottom of your airplane. In that moment, you think hard about what you’ve done, what you’re doing, and what matters.

My friend Ty actually had this happen. In that moment, she decided to stop wasting her days on a career that pleased her family, and committed, if she survived, to quit and go build something that mattered to her.

Of course, in the months that followed, honoring the commitment was hard. If it were easy, she would have done it far sooner.

But it’s an oath. The sort of promise you don’t negotiate.

The really cool thing is that you don’t need to avoid a possible plane crash to wake up, see what’s going on in your life and take an oath. You can do it simply because it’s May 13th.

What a chance we each have. To take agency, to make a deal and to honor it. Don’t wait for an excuse to care enough to take an oath. Simply begin.

      

07:00 PM

Kanji of the Day: 右 [Kanji of the Day]

✍5

小1

right

ウ ユウ

みぎ

左右   (さう)   —   left and right
右腕   (うわん)   —   right arm
右翼   (うよく)   —   right-wing (politics)
右手   (みぎて)   —   right hand
右足   (うそく)   —   right foot
右左   (みぎひだり)   —   right and left
右中間   (うちゅうかん)   —   between right and center fielders (center)
右折   (うせつ)   —   turning to the right
右側   (うそく)   —   right side
右上   (みぎうえ)   —   upper right

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 添 [Kanji of the Day]

✍11

中学

annexed, accompany, marry, suit, meet, satisfy, attach, append, garnish, imitate

テン

そ.える そ.う

添える   (そえる)   —   to garnish
添付   (てんぷ)   —   attaching (documents, etc.)
添加   (てんか)   —   addition
付き添い   (つきそい)   —   attendance (on)
寄り添う   (よりそう)   —   to get close
添加物   (てんかぶつ)   —   additive
添削   (てんさく)   —   correction
巻き添え   (まきぞえ)   —   getting mixed up in
添乗員   (てんじょういん)   —   tour conductor
添い寝   (そいね)   —   sleeping together

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

02:00 PM

Canadian ‘Pickle Fest’ Rebranded Under Bullshit Trademark Threat [Techdirt]

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

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

Aly Wowchuk, who is one of the organizers, said the trademark issue forced a name change — but not a change in spirit.

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

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

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

Wowchuk said the new name, Brandon Brine Bash, was chosen in part to stand out in an increasingly crowded field of pickle-themed events.

“With the popularity of pickle festivals across Canada and internationally, almost every variation of ‘pickle party’ or ‘pickle palooza’ has been used,” she said. “We wanted something unique that included Brandon and was easy to find.”

The rebrand also required updates to the festival’s logo, created by local artist Alexander Matheson. While the iconic pickle design has been retained and modernized, references to “Pickle Fest” have been removed.

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

09:00 AM

Prosecutors Had A Drugs-for-Votes Scheme “Locked Up.” Under Trump, They Were Told Not To Pursue Charges. [Techdirt]

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

To the narcotics agents investigating drug smuggling in Puerto Rico prisons, it seemed at first like a typical scheme: associates of an inmate gang sneaking drugs into the prison, gang members distributing them inside and bank records showing the money flowing.

Then the agents discovered something unusual.

Leaders of the prison gang known as Los Tiburones, or the Sharks, were selling drugs to inmates not only for money, but for their votes. Specifically, votes for now-Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón, a longtime Republican and supporter of President Donald Trump, investigators found.

To make sure the inmates — many of whom were addicted — complied, the gang’s leaders threatened violence and to withhold drugs, the investigators learned. Corrections employees in on the plan looked the other way as the gang, formally known as Group 31, ran the enterprise.

What at first seemed like a routine drug case had turned into something bigger. Puerto Rico, along with just a couple of U.S. states, allows inmates to vote. Puerto Ricans living in the territory can vote in all contests except federal general elections. It is a felony to willfully offer money or gifts in exchange for support at the polls. A conviction carries fines of as much as $250,000 and imprisonment of up to two years.

Investigators had gathered solid evidence of election fraud implicating both inmates and staff, and they were working toward determining whether González-Colón or her campaign was involved, four people with knowledge of the case told ProPublica. They requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the case.

But as federal prosecutors prepared an indictment against the inmates and staff in November 2024 — just days after Trump won the election and González-Colón clinched the governorship — they received a surprising directive. Their bosses in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico instructed them to exclude the voting-related counts against the inmates and all charges against the prison staff, an investigation by ProPublica found.

In December, they filed an indictment charging 34 inmates and associates with crimes including drug distribution resulting in at least four overdose deaths, money laundering and possessing a firearm. And while prosecutors described the drugs-for-votes scheme in the court filing, they did not include a single charge related to it.

Soon after Trump took office, the lead prosecutor, Jorge Matos, was told by a supervisor to take the investigation no further, according to four people familiar with the case.

“Before the election, it was definitely full steam ahead,” said one person familiar with the case. “After the election, that all changed.”

Matos, who left the Justice Department in June 2025, did not respond to phone calls or texts from ProPublica or attempts to reach him on social media.

For those working on the case, the decision to scrap the investigation was especially puzzling given the new president’s agenda; Trump issued executive orders in early 2025 aimed at eradicating drug traffickers and declaring election integrity “fundamental” to maintaining American democracy.

“We invested so much effort to make a difference,” said another person. “We’re frustrated, but there’s nothing we can do.”

People close to the case wondered if politics had played a bigger role than law and order. Trump congratulated González-Colón in a letter shared at her January 2025 inauguration saying, “I am so proud of your resounding victory.” That same month, she pushed to erect a statue of him at the Capitol building in San Juan alongside other presidents who’ve visited the island. “He deserves that,” she said, according to an official post from the Federal Affairs Administration of Puerto Rico on X.

W. Stephen Muldrow, the U.S. attorney for the District of Puerto Rico, was appointed by Trump in 2019 and has served continuously since then. His name appears on the indictment along with those of three assistant U.S. attorneys. Muldrow told ProPublica his office does not comment on open investigations other than in press releases or press conferences. While a couple of the inmates have accepted plea deals, most of the drug and money-laundering cases against the inmates and associates are still making their way through the court system.

In a follow-up email, a spokesperson for the office noted the indictment was filed during the Biden administration and under the previous governor of Puerto Rico.

Charging corrupt public officials “has always been and remains a top priority” of the office, wrote spokesperson Lymarie Llovet-Ayala.

“When sufficient admissible evidence exists to charge persons involved in public corruption, as required by the Justice Manual, the Puerto Rico U.S. Attorney’s Office will aggressively pursue such charges,” she wrote.

In court documents tied to a different case, in October 2025, a magistrate judge mentioned “an unrelated white-collar investigation involving the Governor of Puerto Rico.” Muldrow’s office responded in a filing, stating, “There is no white-collar investigation (or any other investigation) of Puerto Rico Governor Jenniffer González-Colón.”

González-Colón has not been charged with a crime. The governor declined ProPublica’s repeated requests for an interview and did not respond to written questions sent to her communications team.

Muldrow had a friendly working relationship with former Attorney General Pam Bondi when she was the state attorney general in Florida and he was an assistant U.S. attorney in the middle district of that state, according to people who know him.

A Department of Justice spokesperson said in an email, “Neither Attorney General Bondi nor Acting Attorney General Blanche was involved in any charging or investigative decision in this Biden administration prosecution.”

The attorney general’s office noted in a statement that the indictment mentioned allegations of voting coercion, and said: “This office did not limit the underlying investigation in any way.”

In May 2025, in a move that federal prosecutors and political observers alike said was highly unusual, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence seized the voting machines from Puerto Rico over concerns about “vulnerabilities,” according to testimony in March by Director Tulsi Gabbard to Congress.

A spokesperson from the office told ProPublica the seizure was at the request of the U.S. attorney’s office in Puerto Rico and was “not about any election in particular.” The goal was to “assess risk to this critical infrastructure, given similar infrastructure is used throughout the United States,” the spokesperson said in an email.

Muldrow didn’t answer questions from ProPublica about the matter.

Lydia Lizarribar, an attorney for Juan Carlos Ortiz-Vazquez, a Group 31 member who prosecutors named as one of the leaders of the drug operation, declined to comment on the case.

A Party “Stronghold”

The Puerto Rican prison system has a long and well-documented history of overcrowding, inadequate medical care and other human rights violations so egregious that in the late 1970s they prompted federal oversight that continued for decades.

The grim conditions spurred inmates to form advocacy groups like Group 31, which was officially created as a nonprofit to lobby corrections officials and lawmakers to improve inmates’ quality of life. Over time, federal prosecutors say, several of these groups operating in the prisons evolved into violent criminal organizations such as Los Tiburones and Ñetas, with memberships in the thousands.

The poor conditions were also the backdrop for a push in 1980 by the New Progressive Party governor at the time, Carlos Romero Barceló, to codify voting rights for prisoners.

Inmates have been aligned with the party ever since, political analysts said. Political parties in Puerto Rico differ dramatically from those on the mainland. They don’t adhere to a straight divide among Democrats and Republicans. Instead, the two main parties center much of their focus on whether Puerto Rico should become a state and so have Republicans and Democrats within each.

It’s not unheard of for politicians of all parties to court the inmate vote, but the New Progressive Party has made it a “stronghold,” said Fernando Tormos-Aponte, a political scientist with expertise on Puerto Rico and an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Pittsburgh.

“It’s been a huge advantage for them particularly as elections in Puerto Rico have been decided by small margins,” Tormos-Aponte said of the New Progressive Party. In the 2024 general election for governor, the party won 83% of the inmate vote, according to a ProPublica tally of voter returns on the State Elections Commission’s website.

Inmate votes were especially key in the 2024 gubernatorial primary as González-Colón, a longtime New Progressive Party member, was challenging the incumbent governor of the same party.

She won the primary by fewer than 30,000 votes, according to the State Elections Commission. Local news reports said that an estimated 5,000 prisoners voted territorywide.

In her first months in office, González-Colón signed a law allowing people with criminal records to obtain professional licenses in Puerto Rico.

In July, she signed off on a law expanding inmates’ ability to hold jobs in the private sector, calling it “part of a vision of social justice,” adding “we believe in the second chance, in the value of work and in the capacity for transformation of the human being.”

In March, González-Colón signed a law requiring the parole review board increase the pace at which parole denials are reconsidered. She said in a press release the law is aimed at a “fairer, more transparent system focused on rehabilitation.”

Political analysts said rumors have swirled over the decades about coercive tactics being used to mobilize the prison vote, raising significant questions about the extent to which that support comes in exchange for favors from the ruling party.

This time was different, sources said. They had evidence. Prosecutors had “locked up” the voting-for-drugs scheme among the gang, inmates and staff, and were deep into investigating a potential political connection when Muldrow’s office pulled the plug.

“These are the type of questions you would think an administration that has publicly declared this war on drug trafficking would investigate further,” Tormos-Aponte said of the Trump administration. “You would think it would be a priority.”

For the people familiar with the prison election fraud investigation, it was clear politics were at play in the decision to abandon charges prosecutors were confident they could win. What wasn’t clear, they said, was who was pulling the strings and how. It was “like you’re watching a puppet show but you can’t see the strings,” one person said.

“You know what you’re seeing isn’t telling the whole story,” the person said. “There was some kind of invisible hand.”

Drugs for Votes

Although they excluded drugs-for-votes charges, prosecutors didn’t scrub the Dec. 12, 2024, indictment of how they believed the operation worked.

Outside associates of Los Tiburones, the indictment alleged, primarily used drones to drop drugs on prison grounds. Then staff participating in the scheme helped in the “introduction and distribution” of the drugs inside the prison or acted as lookouts. The employees also allowed the gang members to enforce their own discipline system against those who didn’t do as they asked, including when voting. Punishments included withholding food from inmates or forcing them to sit with their arms folded while they were beaten and kicked. In four cases, the drugs led to overdose deaths, the indictment says.

The indictment also alleged that Los Tiburones made connections with government officials “for the purpose of reducing prison sentences,” and the gang mandated both the prisoners’ political affiliations and “who to vote for in primary and general elections.”

A relative of one of the prisoners told ProPublica that inmates had to show their ballots to gang leaders when they voted to avoid punishment.

Puerto Rico’s Civil Rights Commission, which for decades has sent observers to polls across the territory, reported “serious difficulties” in gaining access to several prisons during the 2024 general election. After being denied entry at multiple locations, the commission successfully sought a court order, but much of the day had already passed by the time the observers were allowed in.

“We strongly condemn the lack of diligence and indifference shown by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in hindering the functions of this Commission on the day of early voting in correctional institutions,” the agency later wrote in a special report on the 2024 elections.

The report said observers witnessed prisoners voting in cramped quarters that didn’t allow for privacy and having to hand their ballots to others to put in the box.

Ever Padilla-Ruiz, the commission’s executive director, told ProPublica that inmates sent written complaints to the office detailing their experiences of being pressured to vote in the primary — some for González-Colón and others for her opponent, Pedro Pierluisi. They did not mention any gangs by name, Padilla-Ruiz said.

He said inmates reported that inmate group leaders were “always sending messages” up until election day, adding that they were too afraid to say much more.

Several people familiar with the case said investigators had evidence that González-Colón had spoken to a Group 31 member, but they had not determined whether she was involved in vote buying.

One of the imprisoned gang leaders had bragged on Facebook about his connection to González-Colón, posting a picture of him talking with her on WhatsApp while the primary campaign for governor was underway, two sources said.

She clearly benefited from the scheme, they said. “There was no doubt about that,” one said, noting that thousands of votes were likely at stake.

The indictment notes that gang members were provided preferential treatment such as relaxed visitation policies and the use of Sony PlayStations, big screen TVs and cellphones, but investigators had not connected the privileges to González-Colón or her campaign.

“Latinos Are Winning”

González-Colón has been a longtime advocate for Puerto Rico statehood and has been engaged in Republican politics for more than 20 years. She was elected chair of the Republican Party of Puerto Rico in 2015 and two years later became resident commissioner, a role similar to a U.S. representative but with limited voting power in Congress.

She’s been an active participant in Latinos for Trump, praising the president over the years as “wise” and in 2019 saying on social media, “Latinos are winning under his leadership.”

As she continues to lobby for Puerto Rico to become the 51st state, González-Colón has also leaned in to her relationships with other members of Trump’s Cabinet, posting well wishes on social media to Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff, and congratulating Markwayne Mullin, the Homeland Security director Trump picked to replace Kristi Noem, calling him “my good friend.”

“I know he will provide strong leadership as he works with President Donald J. Trump to strengthen our nation’s security,” she wrote in a March Facebook post.

Experts on Puerto Rican finance and politics say the relationship between González-Colón and the Trump administration is symbiotic though lopsided.

“I see it more as a situation of unrequited love,” said Alvin Velazquez, an associate law professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law and an expert on Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy in 2017.

The territorial island, whose residents were granted U.S. citizenship in 1917, receives less federal funding than most states. Political leaders in Puerto Rico, González-Colón included, have perpetually lobbied for more support.

Republicans in turn have capitalized on González-Colón’s rise as she helped bolster GOP support among the Puerto Rican diaspora and other Latino voters on the mainland. Now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio endorsed González-Colón in her 2024 gubernatorial election.

Polls specifically isolating Puerto Rican voters show that Trump saw at least a 4 percentage point uptick in votes from Puerto Ricans living in states compared to the 2020 election, garnering 45% of the group’s vote in the 2024 election, according to the nonprofit research center Instituto Cervantes at Harvard University.

And perhaps most importantly, experts say, Trump has counted on González-Colón to support his strategic geopolitical initiatives in the region, including the controversial reopening of long-abandoned naval bases in Puerto Rico. González-Colón welcomed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the island in September and thanked Trump on X for “recognizing the strategic value Puerto Rico has to the national security of the United States and the fight against drug cartels in our hemisphere.”

That’s despite the sentiment among many Puerto Ricans who were angered by Trump’s response to Hurricane Maria in 2017 and a comedian at one of Trump’s 2024 campaign rallies who called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage.” And while Trump has said that González-Colón was “wonderful to deal with and a great representative of the people,” he later called Puerto Rico “one of the most corrupt places on earth.”

07:00 AM

Techdirt Podcast Episode 451: Preserving The Web In The Age Of AI [Techdirt]

Recently, Mike joined Dave Hansen, Mark Graham and Kendra Albert on a panel for the Future Knowledge podcast, a joint production of the Internet Archive and the Authors Alliance. The discussion covers a wide variety of questions related to keeping the web (and especially the historical record of the web) alive amidst the upheaval caused by AI technology, and you can listen to the whole thing here on this week’s episode.

You can also download this episode directly in MP3 format.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

They’re Weaponizing Maps. It Could Backfire. [The Status Kuo]

I’m writing for The Big Picture substack today about the immediate aftermath of the Callais ruling, which ranks up there with Dobbs as the worst decision of our lifetimes. The rapid moves by the former Confederate states to strip Black voters of representation is a disgrace. But to understand what exactly those states are doing with SCOTUS's blessing, we need to understand where these weaponized maps came from, and why we’ve never truly shaken free of Jim Crow.

The bad news is that they are ruthlessly using new maps to disenfranchise minority voters across the South in advance of the midterms. The silver lining is that they are going about it in a cocky way that leaves them vulnerable. You’ll want to understand this because the whole ballgame, including control of the House, could depend on it.

Look for my piece out later today in your inboxes if you’re already a subscriber. If you’re not yet subscribed, you can do so for free at the box below. Of course, we always appreciate our voluntary paid supporters who make our work possible!

Yes! Add Me to the Big Picture!

I’ll see you back here tomorrow for The Status Kuo.

Jay

04:00 AM

Defending the public's right to know [Tor Project blog]

This post is part of a spotlight series on the organizations defending the free internet.

Internet freedom has declined for 15 consecutive years. Beyond surveillance, the erosion of privacy and anonymity, and information manipulation, governments are targeting specific sites and services, or attacking infrastructure itself, causing shutdowns and deliberate disruptions for internet users. But how do we know when the internet is censored and how?

OONI, the Open Observatory for Network Interference, born out of the Tor Project, exists to answer that question. Through free software tools and open data OONI makes censorship measurable, verifiable, and actionable. This post is about what that looks like in practice.

Protecting the public record

OONI data is the world's largest open dataset on internet censorship: billions of measurements collected across tens of thousands of networks from 245 countries and territories since 2012. OONI's data exists because people around the world run OONI Probe and contribute measurements from the networks that they are connected to. Every new measurement adds to a shared public record.

Both its scale and methodology contribute to OONI's impact. Internet censorship often works by making interference hard to see. It can make a blocked website look broken, a throttled app look unreliable, or a shutdown look like a technical failure. OONI helps expose these tactics through open measurement methodologies, peer review, expert feedback, and comparison against control measurements, so that censorship claims can be tested, challenged, and verified.

To make this dataset user-friendly, OONI launched thematic pages in OONI Explorer focusing on the areas most frequently targeted: social media and messaging apps, news media, and circumvention tools. Each page includes short reports, longer research reports, and charts with the latest OONI data.

In 2025, a dedicated "Blocking of News Media" page helped surface findings that would otherwise require sifting through billions or raw measurements: the blocking of the independent media outlet Zawia3 in Egypt, the blocking of 12 news media websites in Jordan, and the blocking of The Wire in India during the military conflict with Pakistan.

Think about when censorship events tend to happen: elections, protests, armed conflict, national exams, and periods of political unrest. The moment when access to information matters most. OONI gives affected communities a shared factual basis at those moments to make accountability possible.

How journalists and media organizations use OONI

Image A screenshot of the OONI explorer showing blocking of news site dw.com in Russia, China, and Iran

In 2025, Meduza, one of the most prominent Russian media outlets in exile published an article introducing OONI tools and encouraging readers to use them. It's just one example how a newsroom can effectively use censorship measurement not just to report a story, but as an act of public education: helping audiences understand how network interference works, how it can be documented, and how they can contribute to that evidence base themselves.

When a news website is blocked, that's not just a technical event. It's the public losing access to reporting, communities losing access to timely information, and journalists losing access to their audiences. Documentation that can be cited and analyzed is what turns that event into something actionable.

The most concrete example of that chain in action is Kenya. OONI data served as evidence in a public-interest case challenging the unlawful disruption of internet access. The case was filed by a coalition that included BAKE, ICJ Kenya, Paradigm Initiative, the Kenya Union of Journalists, Katiba Institute, the Law Society of Kenya, and CIPESA. To support the petition before the High Court of Kenya, OONI produced a detailed research report, in the form of an expert opinion, documenting the blocking of Telegram during Kenya's 2023 and 2024 KCSE national exams.

This is a case where a journalists' union, digital rights organizations, legal advocates, and technical researchers were able to work from the same datasets to elevate internet disruption to a public-interest issue. And this case also helped set an important regional precedent: lawyers in Tanzania subsequently reached out to OONI for data to support legal efforts challenging the blocking of Twitter/X there, prompting OONI to publish a research report documenting the block.

Collective action for a collective internet

The Kenya-to-Tanzania ripple effect illustrates how internet censorship works across geographies. But also how we can fight it. A block on messaging apps isn't a standalone event. Journalists may lose access to sources. Activists may lose organizing channels. Circumvention tool developers may need to adapt. Researchers may need to verify what happened. Lawyers may need evidence. But everyone needs documentation.

OONI's open data model is built for exactly these moments. Protecting the free internet requires documenting censorship, sharing evidence, and building the collective capacity to respond.

Supreme Court Breaks Another Election To Make Sure Black Voters Are Disenfranchised [Techdirt]

Again, I feel like I’m going crazy here, but the obviously extremely partisan Supreme Court has struck again. I will repeat some of the basics, because it’s hard to believe how blatant all of this is. In November, a (Trump-appointed) judge threw out Texas’s new congressional maps, noting that the Texas state government had made it quite clear it was done for racial reasons, making it a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The judge wrote a detailed 160-page ruling showing how the Trump administration itself had essentially locked in the Texas legislature’s need to draw maps based on race, by threatening them with a civil rights complaint if they didn’t.

The Supreme Court, however, blocked that new map in December, saying that because of the upcoming midterm elections (still months away in December), Texas had to use those new maps (which had only been created in August) because (according to Samuel Alito) Texas voters needed “certainty.” Of course, they could have gone right back to the maps Texas had been using up until August — but somehow that would have shaken things up too much.

Then, a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court issued its Callais decision, effectively wiping out the remaining bits of the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana immediately declared a state of emergency and sought to throw out the map it had already started using for primary season — to redraw it in a much more racist way. And Samuel “the voters need certainty” Alito helped them along by rushing the certification of the Callais decision.

Now, just a few days later, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has also vacated an even more detailed ruling rejecting maps in Alabama for being racist. The conservative majority claims that this is in light of the ruling in Callais:

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in that case is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit with instructions to remand to the District Court for further consideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais

Now, that’s already odd for the same reason I raised earlier about the Supreme Court (led by Justice Alito) claiming back in December that they couldn’t overturn Texas’ new map (which has only been announced, and never actually used, months earlier) for the sake of “voter certainty.” Yet here they are issuing a ruling EIGHT DAYS before the Alabama primary.

What the fuck?

It’s bizarre for multiple other reasons as well, including that the Supreme Court already heard a related case regarding the map in Alabama and ruled that it violated the Voting Rights Act (Alito, naturally, dissented). The state went to redraw its map based on that, but the lower court rejected the new maps almost exactly a year ago in an astounding 571-page ruling.

Notably, while that ruling does find that the new maps violate the Voting Rights Act (in multiple ways), it also found that the maps directly violate the Fourteenth Amendment (this discussion is towards the end of that 571-page ruling, so perhaps Alito and the other conservative Justices didn’t read that far?). And, as much as the Court believes it can invalidate the Voting Rights Act, it cannot invalidate the Constitution.

So we have a ridiculously thorough 571-page district court ruling — finding that the maps violate not just the VRA but also the Fourteenth Amendment — and the conservative majority just waves it away. Yet the conservatives on the Supreme Court — the same group who said no last-minute map changes for “voter certainty” — just ordered that clearly discriminatory, unconstitutional map into use, because of how they changed their interpretation of the Voting Rights Act.

But, as Justice Sotomayor points out in her dissent, that would totally ignore the Fourteenth Amendment part!

At the end of that trial, the District Court concluded “with great reluctance and dismay and even greater restraint” that Alabama had not merely spurned the opportunity to remedy past discrimination, but in fact had intentionally violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Given that, the ruling in Callais could only possibly impact the VRA part of the lower court decision. Not the Fourteenth Amendment bit. But the majority on the Supreme Court just ignores that.

Nothing in the District Court’s Fourteenth Amendment analysis is affected by this Court’s opinion in Callais. Most obviously, Callais changed the legal standard for vote-dilution claims under §2. See 608 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19) (“[W]e must understand exactly what §2 of the Voting Rights Act demands”). It said not a word about the standard for Fourteenth Amendment intentional-discrimination claims like the one that the District Court decided on remand in round two.

Even worse, Sotomayor points out that in Callais itself, the majority had claimed that the earlier 2022 ruling regarding the Alabama maps (where they said it violated the VRA) remains good law. But this new ruling clearly contradicts that claim.

Callais also insisted that this Court’s prior decision in Allen remains good law. See id., at ___ (slip op., at 36) (“[W]e have not overruled Allen”). These cases are, of course, Allen. So if Allen is good law anywhere, then it must be good law here. This Court’s finding of racially discriminatory vote dilution is an inextricable, permanent feature of this case, and Alabama’s willful decision to respond by entrenching rather than remedying that dilution is, as the District Court correctly recognized, evidence of discriminatory intent

So, was Alito lying a week and a half ago when he said that Allen was still good law? Or did he just change his mind now, because he’s decided that he needs to proactively strip Black voters of their franchise for the sake of helping Republicans get a few more seats in the House?

And John Roberts wonders why people claim the Supreme Court is “partisan.”

Sotomayor also points out the ridiculousness of doing this a week before the election:

Even if Callais had something to say about the evidence necessary to establish discriminatory intent, it still would not be appropriate to vacate the decision below at this time. That is because Alabama’s congressional primary election is next week, and vacating the District Court’s injunction will immediately replace the current map with Alabama’s 2023 Redistricting Plan until the District Court acts, even though voting has already begun. Vacatur is an equitable remedy, and the Court should not lightly wield it to unleash chaos and to confuse voters.

Honestly, I’m a bit disappointed that she didn’t point to Alito’s “voters need certainty” claim for refusing to block Texas’ new maps back in December.

There is no good-faith reading of these events. Alito said Allen was still good law — then acted as if it wasn’t, twelve days later and eight days before an election. He said voters need “certainty” — then vacated a 571-page ruling finding unconstitutional discrimination with a week to go before Alabama’s primary. And the majority just waved away the Fourteenth Amendment finding entirely, as if they simply didn’t notice it was there.

John Roberts keeps insisting the Court isn’t partisan. At some point, the gap between that claim and what the Court actually does becomes its own kind of answer.

WaPo Gets All Hand-Wringy Because People Are Suggesting Trump Needs To Be Assassinated [Techdirt]

Let’s make one thing clear before I start digging into the Washington Post firing up its teapot-based Tempest Generator: I do not support the assassination of Donald Trump. I am understandably impatient with the “let nature take its course” progression we’ve observed so far, but I would not encourage anyone to expedite this process in bullet form.

That being said, what the fuck is the Washington Post even doing here?

Peyton Vanest was fuming about President Donald Trump when he grabbed his phone and hit record. “Somebody should,” he declared, pausing for dramatic effect. “Somebody should, you know?”

“If somebody knew what needed to be done, that person should probably just do it …” the 27-year-old progressive influencer continued, conspicuously not defining “it.”

[…]

Vanest’s vague plea — posted 18 days before the third apparent attempt on Trump’s life in less than two years — is part of a social media trend that has twisted the idea of a presidential assassination into a morbid joke. 

The “vague plea” that opens this (is it an op-ed or what is it exactly?) article by the Washington Post gathered “3.2 million views.” The way these paragraphs flow together invite an inference that cannot plausibly be made: that people fucking around on the internet somehow led to the shooting (mostly of the shooter) at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

So does this paragraph, which does little more than perform a bit of bias confirmation:

Know Your Meme found that interest in the “Somebody should do it” trend spiked after an armed man’s thwarted attack last month at the White House correspondents’ dinner in Washington, where Trump was scheduled to speak.

Was it actually a “trend?” Or did it start looking like a trend because interest “spiked” following this attempted attack? The article really wants the cart to proceed the horse but the data says the cart is just where it should be: a trailing interest indicator obviously provoked by the actions of “somebody” who may or may not have intended to “do it.”

Having reached a conclusion, WaPo writers Danielle Paquette and Joseph Woodrow Cox apparently went in search of evidence to support it. There’s no shortage of “experts” willing to state that the internet (or video games or music or phone use or processed sugars) causes violence, even when they’re doing nothing more than observing correlations.

Researchers who study how violence multiplies told The Washington Post they are concerned about the posts’ reach and impact.

The article then goes on to quote a single researcher — Tim Weninger of Notre Dame — who says he’s “never seen” anything quite like this. It follows that up with comments from six internet randos, all but one of which said they don’t seriously want anyone to kill Trump, even if they did post something akin to “someone should do it.” (Several paragraphs later, it adds another researcher, who only expresses a broader concern about the public’s embrace of Luigi Mangione and some “celebrations” of Charlie Kirk’s murder.)

As ridiculous as this whole article is, it’s nothing compared to wet-brained word salad delivered by a Trump administration spokesperson:

“Anyone who engages in or endorses political violence or assassination culture must be condemned in the harshest terms possible,” said White House spokesman Davis Ingle. “They should also immediately seek psychiatric help to treat their severe and debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has warped their brains and made them sick in the head.”

A. The party engaging in the most political violence is the Trump administration. Trump uses a lot of violent rhetoric. So do his political appointees. And let’s not forget that Trump supporters are, to date, the only people to express their disagreement with presidential election results by violently invading the US Capitol building for the sole purpose of preventing the election results from being certified. During this insurrection attempt, law enforcement officers were assaulted and people were killed. That’s reality. What’s happening on the internet is nothing compared to this violent assault on the very concept of democracy.

B. GTFO with this “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Psychiatrists can’t help people work their way through a stupid phrase the GOP has been using for the past few years because they can’t actually produce a coherent counterargument.

C. So what. We’re looking at a few viral posts made by people whose online reach far exceeds their ability to make anything happen. Compare that with actual politicians with an enormous amount of power and an army of MAGA faithful at their disposal:

U.S. elected officials have waded as well into the digital muck. ThenRep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Arizona) was censured for posting an animated video in November 2021 that depicted him appearing to kill Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and swinging two swords at Joe Biden. (“Everyone needs to relax,” Gosar’s then-digital director, Jessica Lycos, said at the time in a statement defending the post.) Trump shared a video in March 2024 that featured an illustration of then-President Joe Biden with his hands and feet tied. (“That picture was on the back of a pickup truck that was traveling down the highway,” Steven Cheung, now a White House spokesman, told The Post back then, adding that Democrats and “crazed lunatics” have called for “despicable violence” against Trump.)

Fuck off with that “as well” shit. Officials never need to “wade into the muck.” These Republicans do it because they want to. And they do it to provoke exactly the reactions they get when they do it. Yeah, they’re also doing it for the clicks, but they have the force and power of the government behind them, which makes these a bit less easy to laugh off as just some off-target meme-making by people who aren’t quite the digital natives they imagine themselves to be.

At the end of it all, here’s what this “someone should do it” posting actually represents: the feeling that nothing works the way it’s supposed to because this administration has chosen to destroy pretty much everything that actually makes America great.

“Are you advocating that someone should take a gun and shoot this person in the head? ‘No’ is the answer to that question,” Mark said. “But at the same time, we’re going to joke about this, and we’re going to say this stuff, because we’re all feeling the most desperate and desolate that we ever have.”

That’s the ugly truth. This nation is being run by thugs and bullies. Violence is the only language they know. To get through to them, sometimes you have to speak their language. Not many people are capable of doing that. Sooner or later, though, “someone” will.

Daily Deal: The Complete JIRA Agile Project Management Course [Techdirt]

In the Complete JIRA Agile Project Management Course, you’ll learn how to master JIRA Agile cloud software to help you streamline your projects while turning yourself into a project management professional! Whether you’re new to JIRA or Agile methodologies, an Agile Certified Scrum Master, product owner or software developer, this course will provide you the strategic and tactical essentials to get the most out of your JIRA Agile projects using a REAL web design example project, while saving you tons of time during the learning process. It’s on sale for $12.

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

Tuesday 2026-05-12

11:00 PM

ABC Shows A Backbone In FCC Fight, Shows FCC Manufactured A Controversy Surrounding James Talarico [Techdirt]

ABC/Disney, like most major media companies, has spent much of its time during America’s bout with authoritarianism being a feckless wimp. The company was quick to ditch its already fleeting embrace of civil rights to please our dim, racist president, and were just as quick to pay Trump a $15 million bribe to settle a baseless Trump lawsuit they could have easily won.

But as Trump’s health and power becomes more shaky, ABC appears to be showing the faint outline of a backbone.

ABC/Disney execs are now more directly accusing the Trump administration of violating the First Amendment with its endless threats to pull the company’s broadcast licenses if it platforms journalists, comedians, or talk show hosts who refuse to kiss the administration’s ass.

Quick background: we’ve noted repeatedly how Trump FCC boss Brendan Carr has been abusing the FCC’s dated “equal opportunity” (or “equal time”) rule to try and threaten daytime and late night talk shows with government retribution if they refuse to enthusiastically coddle Republicans.

Recently, the Carr FCC took the unprecedented step of demanding that ABC-owned Houston affiliate KTRK file a petition for declaratory ruling to the FCC, explaining to the agency why it didn’t file the appropriate paperwork for a February 2nd appearance by Democrat James Talarico on The View (the traction Talarico is making among Christians clearly seems to worry the administration).

So KTRK last week filed their petition for declaratory ruling. And it shows slightly more backbone that we’ve become used to, directly stating that the Trump FCC’s actions violate the First Amendment and are having a “chilling effect” on free speech. While the petition is technically on behalf of KTRK, it was signed by Paul Clement, a former Bush-era solicitor general and very experienced Supreme Court litigator.

Talk shows have historically been exempt from the dated, golden-era-of-television rules, which required that any airing of a political candidate on “publicly owned” airwaves is countered with the appearance from a candidate from the opposing party. But Carr isn’t interested in equilibrium; he’s interested abusing FCC authority to try and silence critics of Donald Trump and his increasingly unpopular policies.

ABC’s notice to the FCC notes that the target of the administration’s censorial rage, The View, was clearly granted a Bona Fide Exemption to the rule back in 2002. Most talk shows have broadly been viewed as exempt since 1984 or so (and increasingly so, as the Internet challenged TV’s supremacy). From the ABC filing:

“The View has been broadcasting under a bona fide news exemption granted to it more
than twenty years ago, consistent with longstanding Commission interpretations designed to
minimize the serious First Amendment problems inherent in the equal time regime.
The View’s exemption remains valid and the constitutional infirmities in the equal time doctrine are even more pronounced today, when the broadcast airwaves account for a slice of the numerous media options through which Americans get their political information.”

Carr’s FCC has also been threatening to pull ABC’s broadcast licenses in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel making fun of the president’s wife; but as we’ve previously reported, ABC only holds eight broadcast licenses in total; most in reality are owned by right wing affiliate companies already loyal to Trumpism.

Here’s an interesting bit of note: It appears that the Carr FCC staged things in advance with the help of those affiliates to make ABC-owned KTRK seem like it was doing something wrong.

First, the FCC tried to tell ABC and KTRK that The View being widely viewed as exempt is “not a position uniformly held by broadcasters that air the program” (it is).

But on pages 3-4 of ABC’s filing, they note that not only did those other affiliates not originally file the paperwork for the appearance (because there’s no need to given their exemption), the FCC personally reached out to a number of non-ABC owned affiliates to have them file paperwork late so it would appear that the ABC-owned KTRK was an outlier that did something wrong. From ABC’s filing:

“The Bureau neglected to note, however, that while certain ABC affiliates documented Talarico’s appearance in their online public inspection files, the filings were made more than two weeks after Talarico’s appearance and apparently at the request of the FCC, which reportedly promised to eschew enforcement for the late filing. KTRK Television received no such request and no such offer, despite the Bureau specifically contacting it about the Talarico appearance less than 10 days after it occurred.”

That’s really profoundly greasy behavior. These other affiliates, that the FCC pressured to file late notices of Talarico’s appearances, would be companies like Sinclair, Tegna, Nexstar, Gray Media, or Scripps, most of which are owned by Trump-loyalists and/or are seeking FCC approval for approval for mergers that illegally ignore the country’s last remaining media consolidation limits.

So again, the FCC accused ABC and its directly owned affiliate of something false, then told non-ABC owned affiliates to file paperwork they never would have otherwise planned to if they wanted merger approval to make it seem like KTRK did something wrong. And since a lot of these affiliates are already very Trump-friendly propaganda mills, the FCC likely didn’t have to apply much pressure.

While it’s always possible the Trump-stocked Supreme Court makes an insane ruling in Trump’s favor, these threats to pull broadcast licenses are not fights the Trump FCC wants to actually litigate. They’re designed to simply be a form of harassment that makes life so costly and difficult for companies that threat targets — and everybody else — just pre-emptively bows to pressure to censor.

Trump and Carr expect companies to pre-emptively quiver and not put up a costly fight. And while these threats have worked for a while (because our corporate media is broadly opportunistic and pathetic), Trump’s abysmal poll numbers in the wake of the Iran war and soaring gas prices are likely instilling new confidence even among the most weak-kneed companies.

07:00 PM

Early rejections [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Long after the fact, these are the best kind. They remind us of how far we’ve come. They’re proof that not giving up was a good idea. They are fuel for the next thing.

But, at the time, they’re pretty hard to live with.

All we can do is remind ourselves that it’s an unskippable part of a useful journey.

      

Kanji of the Day: 就 [Kanji of the Day]

✍12

小6

concerning, settle, take position, depart, study, per

シュウ ジュ

つ.く つ.ける

就任   (しゅうにん)   —   assumption (of office)
就職   (しゅうしょく)   —   finding employment
就職活動   (しゅうしょくかつどう)   —   job hunting
就労   (しゅうろう)   —   working
再就職   (さいしゅうしょく)   —   reemployment
就業   (しゅうぎょう)   —   employment
就学   (しゅうがく)   —   entering school
就職先   (しゅうしょくさき)   —   place of employment
就寝   (しゅうしん)   —   going to bed
就く   (つく)   —   to take (seat, position, course, office, etc.)

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 歓 [Kanji of the Day]

✍15

中学

delight, joy

カン

よろこ.ぶ

歓迎   (かんげい)   —   welcome
歓声   (かんせい)   —   cheer
歓喜   (かんき)   —   delight
大歓迎   (だいかんげい)   —   warm welcome
歓楽街   (かんらくがい)   —   entertainment district
交歓会   (こうかんかい)   —   reception
歓待   (かんたい)   —   warm welcome
歓談   (かんだん)   —   pleasant talk
歓び   (よろこび)   —   joy
歓迎会   (かんげいかい)   —   welcome party

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Sync with Garmin Connect [OsmAnd Blog]

Hello friends!
We are excited to announce a new feature that allows you to sync your activities from Garmin Connect™ with OsmAnd. This integration, now available for OsmAnd Pro users, enables you to automatically import your Garmin activities and view them in the Tracks section under a new folder called "Garmin Connect."

You can now easily access your Garmin activities within OsmAnd to use them for navigation, analysis, or sharing. This update makes it simpler to keep all your outdoor adventures in one place and seamlessy integrate your Garmin data with OsmAnd’s mapping tools.

Garmin Connect Sync

How it works

First, you need to sign in to OsmAnd web using an active OsmAnd Pro subscription. Then you will need to connect your Garmin Connect™ account with OsmAnd Web. Once connected, OsmAnd will automatically sync your activities from Garmin Connect™ and create a new folder called "Garmin Connect" in the Tracks section. All your synced activities will be stored in this folder, allowing you to easily access and manage them.

Connecting

To connect your Garmin Connect™ account with OsmAnd Web, follow these steps:

Go to OsmAnd Web Map > OsmAnd Account > Connected Apps and click on the "Connect" button.

Garmin Connect Sync

You will be redirected to the Garmin Connect™ login page. Enter your Garmin Connect™ credentials and authorize OsmAnd to access your Garmin Connect™ account. Here you can choose sharing of Historical data (see details below). Click to "Save" button for continuation.

info

Historic data: You can sync activities from the past 30 days by enabling this option on the Garmin Connect™ authorization page. Please note that activities older than 30 days cannot be imported automatically.

Garmin Connect Sync

After successful authorization, you will see the Garmin Connect™ menu in your OsmAnd Web account with two section - "My data" and "Settings".
"My data" section contains "Synced activities" folder with all synced activities from Garmin Connect™, button "Last synced" activity, and Button "View on Garmin Connect™" that will redirect to your Garmin Connect™ account.
In "Settings" section you can choose type of activities to sync and the disconnecting button.

Garmin Connect Sync

My Data

  • All your synced activities from Garmin Connect™ will be stored in the "Garmin Connect" folder in the Tracks section.
info

All new activities from Garmin Connect™ will be automatically synced with OsmAnd Web and added to the "Garmin Connect" folder. If you don't see your new activities in OsmAnd Web, please check that you have new activities available on your Garmin Connect™ account.

Garmin Connect Sync

You can view, analyze, and manage your activities directly within OsmAnd Web. This integration allows you to have all your outdoor adventures in one place, making it easier to track your progress and share your experiences with friends.

Garmin Connect Sync

The "Garmin Connect" tracks folder will be synced with OsmAnd mobile app, so you can also access your Garmin activities on the go. This means that you can view your Garmin activities on your mobile device and use them for navigation, analysis, or sharing with friends while you're out exploring.

  • The "Last synced" activity button opens last synced activity from Garmin Connect™ in OsmAnd Web. This allows you to quickly access your most recent activity and view it in detail.

Garmin Connect Sync

  • The "View on Garmin Connect™" button will redirect you to your Garmin Connect™ account Activities page, where you can view your activities in more detail and access additional features provided by Garmin Connect™.
    Not all activities from Garmin Connect™ may be synced with OsmAnd Web. Currently, only activites types what you choose in "Settings" > "Activites to sync" section will be synced.

Garmin Connect Sync

Settings

Here you can choose which types of activities to sync with OsmAnd Web. Go to "Settings" > "Activities to sync" and select the activity types you want to sync.

Garmin Connect Sync

After selecting the activity types, OsmAnd Web will automatically sync only those activities from your Garmin Connect™ account that match the selected types. This allows you to customize your syncing preferences and ensure that only relevant activities are imported into OsmAnd Web.

For disconnecting your Garmin Connect™ account from OsmAnd Web, go to "Settings" > "Disconnect" and click on the "Disconnect" button. This will revoke the access of OsmAnd Web to your Garmin Connect™ account and stop any further syncing of activities.
Your tracks from Garmin Connect™ will remain in the "Garmin Connect" folder in the Tracks section of your OsmAnd Web account, but no new activities will be synced until you reconnect your Garmin Connect™ account.


We appreciate your interest in us and thank you for taking the time to read this article. Join us on social media to keep up to date with the latest news and share your experiences. Your opinion is important to us.

Follow OsmAnd on Facebook, TikTok, X (Twitter), Reddit, and Instagram!

Join us at our groups of Telegram (OsmAnd News channel), (EN), (IT), (FR), (DE), (UA), (ES), (BR-PT), (PL), (AR), (TR).

Pluralistic: A fascist paradigm (12 May 2026) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]

->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Top Sources: None -->

Today's links



A king on a sumptuous, much elaborated throne; in one hand he holds a sceptre of office, in the other, the leashes for two fierce stone dogs that guard the throne. The king's head has been replaced with a character who was used as the basis for MAD Magazine's Alfred E Neumann. The new head sports a conical dunce cap. Behind the king is a UK Reform Party rosette. The background is an Egyptian temple, ganked from a Dore Old Testament engraving. The floor has been carpeted in sumptuous tabriz from the Ottoman court.

A fascist paradigm (permalink)

Yesterday, I attended a workshop on systems thinking and political change, which included a presentation on the work of Donella Meadows, whose Thinking in Systems is a canonical work on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_In_Systems:_A_Primer

"Systems thinking" is an analytical framework that treats the world as a mesh of interconnected, nonlinear components and relationships that can't be easily understood or steered. A complex system isn't merely "complicated." A mechanical watch is complicated, in that it has many parts that work together in ways that require training and specialized knowledge to understand. But it isn't "complex" because each part has a specific function that can be understood and adjusted.

In a complex system – say, an ecosystem – the parts are meshed in a web of unobvious relationships that make it difficult to predict what effect will follow from a given perturbation. When a blight kills off a plant species, the soil stability declines, resulting in landslides during the rainy season, changing the mineral content of nearby waterways, which creates microbial blooms or fish die-offs in a distant, downstream lake.

A slide showing a lever weighted down on one end by a circle labeled 'System' next to a fulcrum; the points along the lever are labeled with different potential interventions that can move the system, taken from the work of Donella Meadows.

But systems thinking isn't a counsel of despair that insists that you shouldn't do anything because you can never predict what will come of your actions. In Thinking in Systems, Meadows presents a hierarchy of leverage points for changing a system, ranked from least effective ("Constants, numbers, parameters") to most ("The power to shift paradigms to deal with new challenges"):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/doctorow/55264856861/

In all, Meadows theorizes 12 different "places to intervene in a system." The least effective of these – constants like taxes and standards, negative and positive feedback loops – are the sites of most of our political fights, and rightly so. They are the fine-tuning knobs of the system that adjust its margins. Once you have the rule of law ("the rules of the system"), you can drive change by amending, repealing or passing a law:

https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

But when you're confronted with a system that is significantly, persistently dysfunctional, you will likely have to work at sites that are further up the hierarchy, such as "the distribution of power over the rules of the system" or "the goals of the system"; or the most profound of all, "the paradigm out of which the system — its goals, power structure, rules, its culture — arises."

Thinking about paradigms is a form of "meta-cognition," which is to say, "thinking about how you think." Your paradigm encompasses all your assumptions, including your assumptions about how to proceed from your other assumptions: "if x, then y" is a paradigm.

The workshop where we were discussing all of this is part of a group whose goal is reversing the antidemocratic movement in our society and the climate emergency that is its backdrop. But as I listened to the speaker and the ensuing discussion, it occurred to me that Meadows' theoretical work was a very good way of describing the successes of the fascist movement in the UK and around the world.

Fascists like Farage and Trump are, at their root, anti-democratic. Their pitch is that the people are incapable of self-determination (as Peter Thiel puts it, "democracy is incompatible with freedom"). They want us to think that all our neighbors are irrational and foolish, and that we, too, are irrational and foolish, and that our safety and prosperity can only be safeguarded if we seek out those few people who are born to rule and liberate them from the petty niceties and regulations that democracy and the rule of law demand.

In other words, the paradigm of democracy is that all of us are capable of both wise self-governance and self-rationalized misgovernance, and each of us has a useful perspective to contribute. The fascist paradigm is that we can't be trusted to rule ourselves, and only the people who are born with "good blood" are capable of directing our lives:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/20/big-cornflakes-energy/#caliper-pilled

This is the theory behind "race realism" and "human diversity" and all the other polite names the modern fascist uses to obscure the fact that they're reviving eugenics. It explains the panic over DEI, a panic driven by the belief that lesser people are being elevated to positions of rule and authority that they are genetically incapable of carrying out.

That's why, whenever a disaster arises, fascists demand to know the gender, race and sexual orientation of the pilot, the ship's captain, or the official in charge. If the person who crashed the cargo ship into the bridge has brown skin, we can add another line to the ledger of costs associated with the doomed project to put people who were born to be bossed around in the boss's seat (of course, if the pilot turns out to be a white guy, that proves nothing, except that mistakes sometimes happen).

The revival of fascism in this century has been scarily effective, and at times it can feel unstoppable. Meadows' work on systems thinking provides an explanation for that efficacy – and suggests a theory of change for dispatching fascism back to the graveyard of history. Fascists have made changes to things like laws and feedback loops, rules and distribution of power, but this all stems from a more profound alteration to the system, at the level of the paradigm.

Which suggests that the real fight we have is over that paradigm: we have to convince our neighbors that they are smart enough to rule themselves, and so are we, and so is everyone else. We have to convince them that even the smartest and wisest person (including us, including them) is capable of folly and needs to have checks on their (our) authority.

We need to attack the theory of the "unitary executive" and every other autocratic ideology head on. We have to insist that these aren't just unconstitutional, but that they are ideologically catastrophic. "No kings," because even an omnibenevolent king isn't omniscient, and that means that omnipotence is always omnidestructive in the long run.

The fascist revival has been scarily effective and resilient – and systems thinking offers an explanation for both that efficacy and that resiliency.


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)

#25yrsago First aid for the dying dotcom http://modernhumorist.com/mh/0010/dotcom/

#20yrsago OpenStreetMap maps Isle of Wight, Manchester next https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapchester_Mapping_Party_2006

#20yrsago Fueling model rockets with Oreo fillings https://web.archive.org/web/20060616192646/https://www.popsci.com/popsci/how20/600152d7d441b010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

#20yrsago Legal guide for podcasters https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Welcome_To_The_Podcasting_Legal_Guide

#20yrsago Collection of 1100+ found grocery lists https://grocerylists.org/

#10yrsago Mayor of Jackson, MS: “I believe we can pray potholes away” https://www.wjtv.com/news/jackson-mayor-tony-yarber-we-can-pray-potholes-away/

#10yrsago What’s the best way to distribute numbers on the faces of a D120? https://web.archive.org/web/20160510182023/https://www.wired.com/2016/05/mathematical-challenge-of-designing-the-worlds-most-complex-120-sided-dice/

#10yrsago Billionaire Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel will be a California Trump delegate https://web.archive.org/web/20160510155226/https://www.wired.com/2016/05/investor-peter-thiel-will-california-delegate-trump/

#10yrsago McClatchy newspapers’ CEO pleased to announce that he’s shipping IT jobs overseas https://web.archive.org/web/20160510102956/https://www.computerworld.com/article/3067304/it-careers/newspaper-chain-sending-it-jobs-overseas.html

#10yrsago Peace in Our Time: how publishers, libraries and writers could work together https://locusmag.com/feature/cory-doctorow-peace-in-our-time/

#10yrsago Too Like the Lightning: intricate worldbuilding, brilliant speculation, gripping storytelling https://memex.craphound.com/2016/05/10/too-like-the-lightning-intricate-worldbuilding-brilliant-speculation-gripping-storytelling/

#5yrsago LA traveling toward free public transit https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/10/comrade-ustr/#get-on-the-bus

#5yrsago Biden's shift on vaccine patents is a Big Deal https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/10/comrade-ustr/#vaccine-diplomacy


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, April 20, 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

Broadcaster Loses FIFA World Cup Rights After 20 Years, Citing “Rampant Piracy” [TorrentFreak]

ballnetblockIn Malaysia, Astro has been the dominant pay-TV operator that held the FIFA World Cup broadcast rights since the early 2000s.

During the previous tournaments in Russia (2018) and Qatar (2022), the company marketed itself as “the Home of the World Cup” but that changed for the 2026 tournament this summer.

Last week, Malaysia’s Minister of Communications, Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, announced that the 2026 World Cup rights had gone to public broadcaster Radio Televisyen Malaysia and IPTV service Unifi TV, which is operated by Telekom Malaysia.

This means that, with help from the government, which paid RM24 million for the rights (~$6.1 million), many Malaysians will have access to free streams.

Shortly after the deal was announced, Astro confirmed that it lost the rights. While the company said that it remains determined to be the home for Malaysian sports fans, paying millions of dollars for the broadcasting rights was not economically viable.

Astro: Piracy Devalued Broadcast Rights

Unlike the publicly funded broadcaster RTM, Astro would have had to recoup its investment in the World Cup rights commercially. That’s a significant challenge, according to the broadcaster, which explains that rights costs and piracy are both on the rise.

“Rising costs, driven by inflation and escalating international sports broadcasting rights, have significantly increased the financial investment required,” the company wrote.

“Meanwhile, rampant piracy has diminished the value of such rights to all legitimate platforms. In particular, the 2018 and 2022 World Cup were extensively pirated events in Malaysia,” the broadcaster added in its press release.

It is rare for a major broadcaster to publicly cite online piracy as one of the reasons why their bid for the licensing rights has reached a clear ceiling. They clearly believe that at the current price point, piracy has eroded the value of the broadcast rights too much.

Piracy Might Drop Now

Intriguingly, piracy could drop significantly now that Astro no longer has the FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights. Through MyTV, matches will be publicly available to millions of Malaysians rather than sitting behind a paywall. That removes one of the strongest piracy incentives: the costs.

Competing with piracy is much easier for a public broadcaster with government funding, which can offer matches for free. As a result, people who pirated the World Cup in 2018 and 2022 may now move back to freely available licensed broadcasts, lowering the piracy rate.

Of course, those piracy rates could easily pick up again when matches end up behind a paywall in the future.

Piracy Incentives in China, India, and Elsewhere

With roughly a month until kickoff, FIFA has reportedly finalized broadcast deals in more than 175 territories, but final agreements have yet to be signed in China and India.

Reports suggest that disagreements about FIFA’s licensing fees have proven to be a stumbling block. With billions of views at stake, these countries are two of FIFA’s most important markets in terms of audience demand.

This demand would not simply disappear when there are no formal broadcasters. Instead, it would redirect to unofficial streaming, including pirate ones. This adds an interesting element to the negotiations, as rightsholders and FIFA certainly don’t want to breed piracy habits.

For now, the FIFA World Cup begins on June 11, with broadcasts through both legal and pirate channels. Whether 2026 turns out to be the most pirated World Cup yet has yet to be seen.

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

RSSSiteUpdated
XML About Tagaini Jisho on Tagaini Jisho 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML Arch Linux: Releases 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Carlson Calamities 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Debian News 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML Debian Security 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML debito.org 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML dperkins 2026-05-14 09:00 AM
XML F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository 2026-05-13 01:00 PM
XML GIMP 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Japan Bash 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML Japan English Teacher Feed 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Let's Encrypt 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Marc Jones 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Marjorie's Blog 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML OpenStreetMap Japan 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML OsmAnd Blog 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow 2026-05-14 09:00 AM
XML Popehat 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Ramen Adventures 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Release notes from server 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect 2026-05-14 09:00 AM
XML SNA Japan 2026-05-14 09:00 AM
XML Tatoeba Project Blog 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML Techdirt 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML The Business of Printing Books 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML The Luddite 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML The Popehat Report 2026-05-14 09:00 AM
XML The Status Kuo 2026-05-14 09:00 AM
XML The Stranger 2026-05-13 07:00 PM
XML Tor Project blog 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML TorrentFreak 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML what if? 2026-05-14 12:00 PM
XML Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed 2026-05-12 05:00 AM
XML xkcd.com 2026-05-14 12:00 PM