News

Thursday 2026-02-19

04:00 PM

Vinay Prasad: The One Man Roadblocking An mRNA Flu Vaccine [Techdirt]

Dr. Vinay Prasad is currently the FDA’s top vaccine regulator. He’s also one of many medical goons hand-picked by RFK Jr. to help lead his decidedly anti-vaxxer movement. In fact, the last time we discussed Prasad, it was over his selective censorship attempts at avoiding public criticism for his anti-vaxxer nonsense. If you show clips of Prasad spewing his anti-vaxxer views to critique them, he’ll have your YouTube channel axed. If you show those same clips to praise his nonsense, you get to continue on unmolested.

He’s an asshat, in other words. An anti-science, anti-medicine asshat. And he’s also someone who is unilaterally keeping us from making progress on vaccines, apparently out of pure joy in exercising such power.

Moderna is producing a new influenza vaccine, this one utilizing mRNA technology, a la the COVID vaccine. Moderna sent an application to the FDA for a review of the vaccine it has produced, as well as the data from the trials the company conducted to demonstrate its efficacy. We learned last week that the FDA flatly refused to review any of this data.

In a news release late Tuesday, Moderna said it was blindsided by the FDA’s refusal, which the FDA cited as being due to the design of the company’s Phase 3 trial for its mRNA flu vaccine, dubbed mRNA-1010. Specifically, the FDA’s rejection was over the comparator vaccine Moderna used.

In the trial, which enrolled nearly 41,000 participants and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, Moderna compared the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1010 to licensed standard-dose influenza vaccines, including Fluarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline. The trial found that mRNA-1010 was superior to the comparators.

Moderna said the FDA reviewed and accepted its trial design on at least two occasions (in April 2024 and again in August 2025) before it applied for approval of mRNA-1010. It also noted that Fluarix has been used as a comparator vaccine in previous flu vaccine trials, which tested vaccines that went on to earn approval.

This looks for all the world like Moderna did what it was supposed to do in getting the proper sign-offs from the FDA to conduct its trials. Prasad himself sent the refusal notice to Moderna, however, and cited within it that the trials Moderna conducted, which were signed off on by the FDA, were not appropriate. The letter didn’t bother to indicate why.

But in a letter dated February 3, Vinay Prasad, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator under the Trump administration, informed Moderna that the agency does not consider the trial “adequate and well-controlled” because the comparator vaccine “does not reflect the best-available standard of care.”

In its news release, Moderna noted that neither the FDA’s regulation nor its guidance to industry makes any reference to a requirement of the “best-available standard of care” in comparators.

Everyone at Moderna was understandably confused. The company has already reached out asking to meet with the FDA, ostensibly to sit down in a conference room with them, look them in the eye, and ask “wut?”.

The answer is unlikely to be satisfying. And it should be quite alarming to the rest of us. That’s because the rejection of a review of all of this data reportedly came from Prasad and Prasad alone, over the objections of his own scientists at the FDA.

Vinay Prasad, the Trump administration’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, single-handedly decided to refuse to review Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine, overruling agency scientists, according to reports from Stat News and The Wall Street Journal.

Stat was first to report, based on unnamed FDA sources, that a team of career scientists at the agency was ready to review the vaccine and that David Kaslow, a top career official who reviews vaccines, even wrote a memo objecting to Prasad’s rejection. The memo reportedly included a detailed explanation of why the review should proceed.

According to those same sources, Prasad’s reason for refusing to review Moderna’s vaccine makes little sense. The story goes like this. As Moderna was seeking guidance for its trials for the vaccine, it chose a currently licensed flu vaccine against which to compare its own vaccine. At one point, the FDA suggested a different comparative vaccine be used. Moderna declined that suggestion and moved forward with the comparative vaccine it originally chose. Despite that difference the FDA reviewed the company’s plans for its trial on several occasions and at no point suggested its choices were a show-stopper.

That’s it. That’s the whole thing. Prasad is claiming that the choice Moderna made for a comparative vaccine, for which the company received only mild feedback from the FDA, is why the FDA is refusing to review this mRNA flu vaccine entirely.

Because that reasoning is almost certainly bullshit. As evidence of that, these same sources from within the FDA offered up this:

This wasn’t enough for Prasad, who, according to the Journal’s sources, told FDA staff that he wants to send more such refusal letters that appear to blindside drug developers. The review staff apparently pushed back, noting that such moves break with the agency’s practices and could open it up to being sued. Prasad reportedly dismissed concern over possible litigation. Trump’s FDA Commissioner Marty Makary seemed similarly unconcerned, suggesting on Fox News that Moderna’s trial may be “unethical.”

The explanation here is remarkably simple. This current government is being run by anti-vaxxers. And these anti-vaxxers are particularly anti-vaxxer-y about mRNA vaccines. And so folks like Prasad are throwing up every roadblock they can dream up to make it as difficult as possible to get new vaccines utilizing new technology approved. Or, as in this case, even reviewed.

Now, if that reads like the opposite of scientific progress to you, give yourself a gold star, because you’re right. Thomas Jefferson once said “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just” when, hypocritically, discussing slavery in America. I think we should tremble for our country as well when I reflect that we are getting sicker as a nation, given that we have morons at the helm of the nation’s health.

12:00 PM

09:00 AM

“Free” Surveillance Tech Still Comes At A High And Dangerous Cost [Techdirt]

Surveillance technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy private donors have long helped provide local law enforcement “free” access to surveillance equipment that bypasses local oversight. The result is predictable: serious accountability gaps and data pipelines to other entities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that expose millions of people to harm.

The cost of “free” surveillance tools — like automated license plate readers (ALPRs), networked cameras, face recognition, drones, and data aggregation and analysis platforms — is measured not in tax dollars, but in the erosion of civil liberties. 

The collection and sharing of our data quietly generates detailed records of people’s movements and associations that can be exposed, hacked, or repurposed without their knowledge or consent. Those records weaken sanctuary and First Amendment protections while facilitating the targeting of vulnerable people.   

Cities can and should use their power to reject federal grants, vendor trials, donations from wealthy individuals, or participation in partnerships that facilitate surveillance and experimentation with spy tech. 

If these projects are greenlit, oversight is imperative. Mechanisms like public hearings, competitive bidding, public records transparency, and city council supervision aid to ensure these acquisitions include basic safeguards — like use policies, audits, and consequences for misuse — to protect the public from abuse and from creeping contracts that grow into whole suites of products. 

Clear policies and oversight mechanisms must be in place before using any surveillance tools, free or not, and communities and their elected officials must be at the center of every decision about whether to bring these tools in at all.

Here are some of the most common methods “free” surveillance tech makes its way into communities.

Trials and Pilots

Police departments are regularly offered free access to surveillance tools and software through trials and pilot programs that often aren’t accompanied by appropriate use policies. In many jurisdictions, trials do not trigger the same requirements to go before decision-makers outside the police department. This means the public may have no idea that a pilot program for surveillance technology is happening in their city. 

In Denver, Colorado, the police department is running trials of possible unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for a drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program from two competing drone vendors: Flock Safety Aerodome drones (through August 2026) and drones from the company Skydio, partnering with Axon, the multi-billion dollar police technology company behind tools like Tasers and AI-generated police reports. Drones create unique issues given their vantage for capturing private property and unsuspecting civilians, as well as their capacity to make other technologies, like ALPRs, airborne. 

Functional, Even Without Funding 

We’ve seen cities decide not to fund a tool, or run out of funding for it, only to have a company continue providing it in the hope that money will turn up. This happened in Fall River, Massachusetts, where the police department decided not to fund ShotSpotter’s $90,000 annual cost and its frequent false alarms, but continued using the system when the company provided free access. 

In May 2025, Denver’s city council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension for Flock Safety ALPR cameras after weeks of public outcry over mass surveillance data sharing with federal immigration enforcement. But Mayor Mike Johnston’s office allowed the cameras to keep running through a “task force” review, effectively extending the program even after the contract was voted down. In response, the Denver Taskforce to Reimagine Policing and Public Safety and Transforming Our Communities Alliance launched a grassroots campaign demanding the city “turn Flock cameras off now,” a reminder that when surveillance starts as a pilot or time‑limited contract, communities often have to fight not just to block renewals but to shut the systems off.

 Importantly, police technology companies are developing more features and subscription-based models, so what’s “free” today frequently results in taxpayers footing the bill later. 

Gifts from Police Foundations and Wealthy Donors

Police foundations and the wealthy have pushed surveillance-driven agendas in their local communities by donating equipment and making large monetary gifts, another means of acquiring these tools without public oversight or buy-in.

In Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Foundation (APF) attempted to use its position as a private entity to circumvent transparency. Following a court challenge from the Atlanta Community Press Collective and Lucy Parsons Labs, a Georgia court determined that the APF must comply with public records laws related to some of its actions and purchases on behalf of law enforcement.
In San Francisco, billionaire Chris Larsen has financially supported a supercharging of the city’s surveillance infrastructure, donating $9.4 million to fund the San Francisco Police Department’s (SFPD) Real-Time Investigation Center, where a menu of surveillance technologies and data come together to surveil the city’s residents. This move comes after the billionaire backed a ballot measure, which passed in March 2025, eroding the city’s surveillance technology law and allowing the SFPD free rein to use new surveillance technologies for a full year without oversight.

Free Tech for Federal Data Pipelines

Federal grants and Department of Homeland Security funding are another way surveillance technology appears free to, only to lock municipalities into long‑term data‑sharing and recurring costs. 

Through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which includes the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Areas Security (UASI) Initiative, and Department of Justice programs like Byrne JAG, the federal government reimburses states and cities for “homeland security” equipment and software, including including law‑enforcement surveillance tools, analytics platforms, and real‑time crime centers. Grant guidance and vendor marketing materials make clear that these funds can be used for automated license plate readers, integrated video surveillance and analytics systems, and centralized command‑center software—in other words, purchases framed as counterterrorism investments but deployed in everyday policing.

Vendors have learned to design products around this federal money, pitching ALPR networks, camera systems, and analytic platforms as “grant-ready” solutions that can be acquired with little or no upfront local cost. Motorola Solutions, for example, advertises how SHSP and UASI dollars can be used for “law enforcement surveillance equipment” and “video surveillance, warning, and access control” systems. Flock Safety, partnering with Lexipol, a company that writes use policies for law enforcement, offers a “License Plate Readers Grant Assistance Program” that helps police departments identify federal and state grants and tailor their applications to fund ALPR projects. 

Grant assistance programs let police chiefs fast‑track new surveillance: the paperwork is outsourced, the grant eats the upfront cost, and even when there is a formal paper trail, the practical checks from residents, councils, and procurement rules often get watered down or bypassed.

On paper, these systems arrive “for free” through a federal grant; in practice, they lock cities into recurring software, subscription, and data‑hosting fees that quietly turn into permanent budget lines—and a lasting surveillance infrastructure—as soon as police and prosecutors start to rely on them. In Santa Cruz, California, the police department explicitly sought to use a DHS-funded SHSP grant to pay for a new citywide network of Flock ALPR cameras at the city’s entrances and exits, with local funds covering additional cameras. In Sumner, Washington, a $50,000 grant was used to cover the entire first year of a Flock system — including installation and maintenance — after which the city is on the hook for roughly $39,000 every year in ongoing fees. The free grant money opens the door, but local governments are left with years of financial, political, and permanent surveillance entanglements they never fully vetted.

The most dangerous cost of this “free” funding is not just budgetary; it is the way it ties local systems into federal data pipelines. Since 9/11, DHS has used these grant streams to build a nationwide network of at least 79–80 state and regional fusion centers that integrate and share data from federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners. Research shows that state fusion centers rely heavily on the DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (especially SHSP and UASI) to “mature their capabilities,” with some centers reporting that 100 percent of their annual expenditures are covered by these grants. 

Civil rights investigations have documented how this funding architecture creates a backdoor channel for ICE and other federal agencies to access local surveillance data for their own purposes. A recent report by the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) describes ICE agents using a Philadelphia‑area fusion center to query the city’s ALPR network to track undocumented drivers in a self‑described sanctuary city.

Ultimately, federal grants follow the same script as trials and foundation gifts: what looks “free” ends up costing communities their data, their sanctuary protections, and their power over how local surveillance is used.

Protecting Yourself Against “Free” Technology

The most important protection against “free” surveillance technology is to reject it outright. Cities do not have to accept federal grants, vendor trials, or philanthropic donations. Saying no to “free” tech is not just a policy choice; it is a political power that local governments possess and can exercise. Communities and their elected officials can and should refuse surveillance systems that arrive through federal grants, vendor pilots, or private donations, regardless of how attractive the initial price tag appears. 

For those cities that have already accepted surveillance technology, the imperative is equally clear: shut it down. When a community has rejected use of a spying tool, the capabilities, equipment, and data collected from that tool should be shut off immediately. Full stop.

And for any surveillance technology that remains in operation, even temporarily, there must be clear rules: when and how equipment is used, how that data is retained and shared, who owns data and how companies can access and use it, transparency requirements, and consequences for any misuse and abuse. 

“Free” surveillance technology is never free. Someone profits or gains power from it. Police technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy donors do not offer these systems out of generosity; they offer them because surveillance serves their interests, not ours. That is the real cost of “free” surveillance.

Originally posted to EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

How Close Can AI Get To Writing A Techdirt Post? [Techdirt]

I’ve talked on Techdirt about just a few of my AI-related experiments over the past few years, including how I use it to help me edit pieces, which I still write myself. I still have no intention of letting AI write for me, but as the underlying technology has continued to level up, every so often I’ll run a test to see if it could write a better Techdirt post than I can. I don’t think it’s there (and I’m still not convinced it will ever get there), but I figured I can share the process with you, and let you be the judge.

I wanted to pick a fairly straightforward article, rather than a more complex one, just to see how well it works. In this case, I figured I’d try it with the story I published last week about Judge Boasberg ruling against the Trump administration and calling out how the DOJ barely participated in the case, and effectively told him to “pound sand” (a quote directly from the judge).

I know that just telling it to write a Techdirt article by itself will lead to pretty bland “meh” content. So before I even get to the prompt, there are some steps I need to include. First, over time I continue to adjust the underlying “system prompt” I use for editing my pieces. I won’t post the entire system prompt here as it’s not that interesting, but I do use it to make it clear its job is to help me be a better writer, not to be a sycophant, not to try to change things just for the sake of change, and to suggest things that will most help the reader.

I also have a few notes in it about avoiding recommending certain “AI-style” cliches like “it’s not this, it’s that.” Also, a specific one for me: “don’t suggest changing ‘fucked up’ to ‘messed up.’” It does that a lot for my writing.

But that’s not all. I also feed in Techdirt samples, which are a collection of ten of my favorite articles, so it gets a sense of what a “Techdirt article” looks like. On top of that, I give it a “Masnick Style Guide” that I had created after feeding a bunch of Techdirt articles into three different LLMs, asking for each to produce a style guide, and then having NotebookLLM combine them all into a giant “Masnick style-guide.”

Then, I feed it any links, including earlier stories on Techdirt, that are relevant, before finally writing out a prompt that can be pretty long. In this test case, I fed it the PDF file of the decision. I also gave it Techdirt’s previous stories about Judge Boasberg.

Finally, I gave it a starting prompt with a fair bit of explanation of what angle I was hoping to see a Techdirt post on this topic. So here’s my full prompt:

Can you write a Techdirt style first draft of a post (see the attached Techdirt post samples, as well as the even more important Masnick style guide, which you should follow) about the attached ruling in the JGG v. Trump case by Judge James Boasberg. I have also attached a page of previous articles about Judge Boasberg which you should consider, especially as some reference this same case.

You may also want to highlight that Judge Boasberg just was vindicated after the DOJ filed a vexatious complaint against him because of earlier rulings in this case, but that complaint has been easily dismissed. The crux of this article, though, should be on the very strong language Boasberg uses, including the astoundingly candid statement that he felt the government “apparently was no interested in participating in this process” and how he read their response as telling “the Court to pound sand.” There are other parts of the ruling that are useful as well. It should also call out the specific remedy here, and how weak it feels, given the situation explained in the ruling and the DOJ’s actions. Yes, they lost the case, but this still feels like a slap on the wrist with no real consequences for the DOJ.

As always with Techdirt posts, instead of doing in-line quotes, we usually do blockquotes, often of one or even multiple paragraphs from the original sources, so please adhere to that style. Take all of this info and draft the best Techdirt post you can regarding the topic.

And… you can see the results embedded below. I’ve also embedded my original article (though you can just go read it on the site directly). I’m amused that it added a “from the such and such dept” line as well as tags, both of which are core parts of Techdirt posts, but not things I asked it for.

I’m extremely biased, as this is a question of who writes better, me or the machine, and I still think I’m better than the machine. But, I also have to admit it’s not bad. It’s decent. If I had that submitted by another writer, there are definitely changes and edits I’d make, especially to the crappy cliche’d ending. But it’s way better than what most people think of as traditional ChatGPT output, in part because of all the context and detailed instructions I fed it.

Just for fun, I then also asked my editing tool to do its own edit on its own writing (usually not a good idea to let it grade its own homework), but here’s what it had to say:

solid draft. the “pound sand” framing works well and the frustration comes through. few things:

the tension setup: you flag “frustratingly toothless” in graf 3 then say “on one level this is a win” much later. that’s the right editorial instinct—there IS genuine tension here—but you’re burying the lede on your own argument. consider setting up that complexity earlier so readers know they’re getting nuance, not whiplash.

missing a key detail from the ruling: Boasberg notes that “even Plaintiffs’ counsel could not represent how many of the 137 are still in Venezuela and how many wish to proceed with habeas.” that’s devastating. the chaos is so complete that the lawyers literally don’t know where everyone is. worth including.

the numbered remedies block: you cut it off mid-list. the 5th point actually matters—there’s a March 13 deadline for the government to file a Status Report explaining how/when they’ll transport people back. that’s your next milestone. either include it or acknowledge you’re excerpting.

the Venezuela carve-out: you mention it but undersell it. the ruling specifically says it’s “mindful” of the “situation in Venezuela remains in flux” given “the United States’s recent law-enforcement action there.” that’s pretty ominous language from a federal judge about whatever the hell the administration is doing in Venezuela right now. might be worth a parenthetical noting this deserves its own article.

the closer: “I wouldn’t hold my breath” is fine but feels like boilerplate. you’ve got stronger material to end on—maybe the March 13 deadline, or something that points forward rather than just shrugging.

one small thing: “a complaint that was summarily dismissed” in graf 2—might want “recently dismissed” or similar since it was just last week. “summarily” suggests procedure when really the story is how embarrassing the dismissal was.

overall structure is good. the piece does what Techdirt does well: walks through the actual document, quotes liberally, and doesn’t pretend the “win” is bigger than it is.

You’ll note that it also calls out its own weak ending, just like I did. It is kind of wild to see the AI call out its own weaknesses, while making you wonder—if that’s the case—why did it not catch those earlier and fix them? And that then makes you wonder if it’s just coming up with a critique for the sake of giving one (though, that ending really is weak).

The other thing I’ll note is, again, this actually was still a fair bit of work. It was less than writing the whole thing myself, but even just writing out the prompt itself took time, and this piece would still need a fair bit of editing anyway for publication which would probably take away any time benefit.

Overall, though, you can see how the technology is certainly getting better. I still don’t think it can write as well as I do, but there are some pretty good bits in there.

Once again, this tech remains quite useful as a tool to assist people with their work. But it’s not really good at replacing your work. Indeed, if I asked the AI to write articles for Techdirt, I’d probably spend just as much time rewriting/fixing it as I would just writing the original in the first place. It still provides me very good feedback (on this article that you’re reading now, for example, the AI editor warned me that my original ending was pretty weak, and suggested I add a paragraph talking more about the conclusions which, uh, is what I’m now doing here).

I honestly think the biggest struggle with AI over the next year or so is going to be between the people who insist it can totally replace humans, leading to shoddy and problematic work, and the smaller group of people who use it as a tool to assist them in doing their own work better. The problems come in when people overestimate its ability to do the former, while underestimating its ability to do the latter.

Theres’s Credible Evidence of Trump’s Sex Crimes [The Status Kuo]

In her sworn testimony before Congress, Attorney General Pam Bondi made a sweeping claim. Asked by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) whether Donald Trump had ever attended a party with Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underage girls, Bondi lashed out. “There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime.”

But that was a lie. In a genius bit of forensics, reporter Roger Sollenberger pieced together evidence pointing to a credible sex crime allegation against Trump. Unlike the many tip-line allegations that were deemed non-credible or otherwise never pursued by the FBI, this one was well documented, and agents apparently interviewed both the witness and her childhood friend.

To no one’s surprise, a key FBI interview report of the victim, called a 302 form, has been heavily redacted. And the actual notes about Trump committing a sex crime with a minor may still not have been produced.

But there’s plenty of other material that helps put the pieces together. Let’s take a look at some key documents in what may soon become a focus for oversight lawmakers and investigative reporters.

(As with all things Epstein, reader discretion is advised. This piece contains evidence and victim statements involving sexual abuse of children.)

Share

The slideshow

Lawyers love it when someone else collects up the evidence and puts it into a tidy PowerPoint. Great stuff to show the jury, and hard for the other side to explain away. That has happened in this matter, too. Last summer, the FBI created an Epstein slide presentation, though its author or authors — and who viewed it — remain unclear.

The Justice Department produced that 21-page FBI redacted presentation. One slide featured an extraordinary summary of “prominent names” in the Epstein files, including at the very top, Donald Trump (and at the very bottom, William Barr/Leon Black, but that’s another story).

Under Trump, the FBI noted, “[Redacted] stated Epstein introduced her to Trump who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out. (date range 1983-1985, [redacted] would have been 13-15)”

The second paragraph stated, “[Redacted] remember Epstein introduced her to Trump saying “This is a good one, huh” and Trump responded “Yes”. (Date range roughly 1984, [redacted] would have been 14)”

Where did these allegations come from, and why haven’t we yet seen language that would support them on any of the FBI interview forms? The answer, of course, is that there is a massive cover-up underway. But they were sloppy and left a trail.

Claims made, reiterated and followed up on

But that slide was just one document, right? Does it tell us anything on its own other than someone made a serious accusation?

Well, there’s a lot more. As Sollenberger notes,

The records don’t show what became of the DOJ’s investigation into the allegations, but the documents indicate the government found her to be a credible accuser. Records elsewhere in the files reveal that a woman with matching biographical details sued Epstein’s estate and won a settlement in 2021.

The two allegations also appear in a July 2025 FBI memo with the subject line “RE: Epstein - Cellmate interview.” The names of the individuals who received this memo are redacted, as is any information about which “cellmate” was interviewed.

Did the FBI follow up?

But without more, isn’t this all just unsubstantiated allegations, like so many other salacious “tips” called into the national hotline and never pursued?

The moment a tip crosses over into more serious investigative territory is clear. It’s when there’s a follow-up to the tip because it is credible, and the authorities generate a report of a witness interview.

A different spreadsheet document noted that the FBI actually followed up on this tip, which now clearly states that there was a complaint from a female friend of the victim. An FBI employee was even dispatched to the “Washington Office” to conduct an interview. The name of the witness turned up a match in the South Carolina state criminal history records for name and date of birth.

Interestingly, this report is apparently based on statements by a friend of the victim, while the slideshow and July 2025 memo contain accounts that apparently came from the victim herself. So if I’ve read and understood this all correctly, it means there was not only a victim statement to the FBI—one accusing Trump of a sex crime and physical assault on her as a child—but also a corroborating statement from her friend.

Note the date on the friend interview. It’s August 7, 2025. That means that this occurred after the DOJ announced on July 7, 2025 that it had closed the investigation into Epstein and that there would be no further charges against anyone, and that no Epstein client list exists.

Here’s where Sollenberger’s eagle eye comes in. The description of the friend from South Carolina matches biographical details of a victim in an FBI write-up of an interview conducted in July 2019.

The 2019 investigation report

As Sollenberger notes, “details from the tip match other records in the files, including an FBI writeup (known as a “302” form) of an interview with an Epstein victim and her lawyer. The interview was conducted July 24, 2019….”

Much of that interview was redacted:

But one section has drawn particular attention:

Later in the interview, the woman discussed a photo of Epstein and Trump that someone had sent her, which was still saved in her phone. The victim asked the agents if she could crop someone out of the picture — Donald Trump. When the FBI agents asked if she could explain why she wanted to crop Trump out, the woman hesitated, and her attorney answered, saying “[REDACTED] was concerned about implicating additional individuals, and specifically any that were well known, due to fear of retaliation,” the 302 says.

The interview was logged into the system on August 8, 2019.

The following day, Epstein was found dead in his cell.

Now, coincidences do happen. But this case has produced many — too many for comfort. Powerful people, including some named in the slide presentation, had both access to Epstein and motive to see him dead. The more we uncover in this case, the harder it is to dismiss what once seemed implausible.

Tying this back to Trump

Sollenberger raises additional links that suggest there is more to this case, especially when it comes to Trump. From the 302 report, it was possible for him to cross-reference the victim’s case number, which then turned up related records. Those included:

  • a July 19, 2019, memo showing the FBI’s Seattle, Washington, field office handled the interview, and stating, “victimization occurred in the 1980’s when the caller was approximately 13 to 15 years old and resided in the [REDACTED] Island area of South Carolina. The reported victim provided enough preliminary information to warrant a follow-up interview”;

  • The biographical details matched public reporting about a South Carolina victim who relocated to Vancouver, WA, a few hours’ drive from Seattle;

  • The victim filed a lawsuit against Epstein and received a settlement from his estate in 2021;

  • Public reporting about the case indicated the victim claimed she had also been assaulted and raped by “other prominent, wealthy men” she met in other states, most specifically when Epstein took her to “intimate gatherings” in New York City. Sollenberger notes that the alleged sexual and violent assault at Trump’s hands took place in New Jersey, according to FBI notes.

It is entirely possible that a victim still living today told the FBI in 2019 what Trump did, and that agents corroborated her account by interviewing her friend. I’d call that pretty strong evidence.

Then there’s the other victim statement

Besides the evidence of Trump’s sexual assault upon a child, there’s the second paragraph in the slide. It states that “Epstein introduced [a victim] to Trump saying ‘This is a good one, huh’ and Trump responded ‘Yes.’” As Sollenberger noted, this “would appear to carry substantial credibility within the DOJ, because it came from an Epstein-Maxwell victim whose testimony helped the government convict Maxwell at trial.” He explained:

A separate internal DOJ email about allegations involving Maxwell victims and prominent figures dated around the same time — July 22, 2025, days before Blanche’s jailhouse interview — includes this allegation, noting the victim “testified at trial.” The encounter occurred at Trump’s resort compound at Mar-a-Lago when the victim was 14 or 15 years old, the email states. That matches a claim in handwritten notes from 2019, where the victim recounts over several pages her traumatic history with Epstein and Maxwell. The encounter with Trump occurred around 1994-1995, the notes say.

“This is my friend [REDACTED],” the notes say about what Epstein said at the time. “Think he said friend.”

Where things stand

There is much still to be learned and unearthed. A critical missing piece is the FBI interview and 302 form containing the victim’s statements about Trump. That’s what presumably would have led to the bombshell allegation being included in the slideshow and subsequent emails about a “Cellmate interview,” as well as a follow-up and corroboration with the friend of the victim.

One thing is very clear. Attorney General Pam Bondi would have been highly aware of this explosive allegation, as would her No. 2 Todd Blanche. The idea that there was “no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime” is completely laughable—and a false statement made under oath—in the face of actual, corroborated victim statements, recorded by FBI agents.

Reporters and lawmakers need to get very specific about why the missing Form 302 is still being withheld or redacted. They should demand answers about both incidents involving Trump that are right there on the FBI’s own damn slide presentation.

DISH Sues ‘DMTN IPTV’ in $21m Piracy Lawsuit; Operator Posed as Breaking Bad Creator [TorrentFreak]

elkasWith the continued growth of pirate IPTV services in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have been ramping up their anti-piracy efforts.

The International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP) has been particularly active. It’s also the main driver behind a new lawsuit filed yesterday by DISH Network at a New York federal court.

Dish Sues Pirate IPTV Operation

The American pay-TV provider accuses Moroccan resident Idriss Elkasmi and various unnamed defendants of running the IPTV operation, using various brands, including DMTN IPTV, Idriss Premium TV and Manx TV.

These services allegedly offered access to thousands of live channels and up to 100,000 movies and series on demand.

100,000+ movies and series

100k

In addition, the complaint names Ali Ezzaary and various John Does as co-defendants. They allegedly promoted and enabled access to the pirate IPTV services as secondary infringers by collecting payments, among other things.

The complaint

maroc complaint

Dish has been aware of the IPTV services for years already and repeatedly issued takedown notices, hoping to stop the infringing activity. However, that didn’t yield the desired result, after which Dish decided to take legal action.

“Even after receiving 68 cease-and-desist notices from DISH between 2021 and 2026, Elkasmi and the other Defendants have defiantly continued to operate the Infringing Service, willfully infringing DISH’s copyrights on a massive scale with actual knowledge that their activities are unlawful,” the complaint reads.

Leather Backpack & Breaking Bad

According to the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP), which coordinates the legal action on behalf of Dish, the operators also used various deceptive tactics to hide the nature of their operation.

When an undercover Dish investigator purchased an IPTV subscription, Elkasmi’s WhatsApp account sent instructions to send the payment to another business called “Genuine Leather”.

When finalized, the investigator received a receipt falsely stating the purchase was for a “Philos Brown Leather BackPack.” Soon after, the same investigator received working credentials to access the pirate IPTV service.

As DISH’s investigative activity intensified ahead of filing, Elkasmi allegedly took additional steps to obscure his identity. He took down his LinkedIn profile and replaced his Facebook profile photo with an image of someone else entirely.

“The new photo used by Defendant Elkasmi is in fact an image of a famous Hollywood director named Vince Gilligan, who gained notoriety as the creator of a popular television show called ‘Breaking Bad,’ as well as its spinoff, ‘Better Call Saul.’ The same image appears on Mr. Gilligan’s IMDB page,” the complaint reads.

“There is no indication that Mr. Gilligan has any connection whatsoever to Defendant Elkasmi or the Infringing Service,” the complaint adds.

Fakebook profile

vince

$21 Million & a Broad Injunction

The lawsuit mentions that at least 145 registered copyrighted works were infringed, and DISH seeks the maximum of $150,000 in statutory copyright infringement damages for each, totaling over $21 million.

Beyond the multi-million damages figure, DISH requests a permanent injunction and the transfer of domains including dmtn4k.com, dmtn-tv.net, and dmtn8k.com. In addition, it would like the injunction to cover third parties enabling the service. That includes hosting providers, CDNs, ISPs, and payment processors.

One of the IPTV portals

iptv

IBCAP executive director Chris Kuelling said the organization expects the case to follow the pattern of previous successful actions. In addition to a victory in court, he hopes that intermediaries, ranging from payment providers to CDNs, will help to keep the IPTV services offline.

“In line with past lawsuit wins, we expect a similar outcome in this case, including a broad injunction that can be enforced against third parties, such as hosting providers, CDNs, ISPs, and payment processors, to stop this infringement,” Kuelling said.

The involvement of third-party intermediaries could be key, as the Moroccan defendants have not been very responsive thus far. They allegedly ignored previous takedown requests from rightsholders in the past, so there’s a realistic chance that they will not appear in court either.

As of the filing date, dmtn8k.com and dmtniptv.net remain active, and these services continue to operate.


—-

A copy of the complaint filed by Dish Network at the Southern District of New York is available here (pdf).

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

06:00 AM

Judge Highlights Government Fuckery In Ruling Over Migrant Detainees’ Due Process Rights [Techdirt]

The ICE surge in Minneapolis, Minnesota was instigated by a far-right click bait artist and encouraged by the president’s portrayal of Somali immigrants as “garbage” people from a “garbage” country. And those were some of the nicer words Trump used to describe the people his agencies would be hunting down first.

Several weeks later, a draw-down has begun, prompted by two murders committed by federal officers, an inability to obtain indictments against protesters, and every narrative about violence perpetrated by federal officers disintegrating the moment the government was asked to provide some evidence of its claims to the court.

Hundreds of judges in hundreds of immigration cases have found that the government has routinely violated the due process rights of the immigrants it has arrested. This dates all the way back to the beginning of Trump’s second term, but months of roving patrols by masked men with guns has created a massive influx of cases courts are still trying to sort out. But one thing is clear: the government will do anything it can to keep the people it arrests from availing themselves of their constitutional rights.

This starts with the arrests themselves, which most often occur without a judicial warrant. The same goes for the invasion of people’s houses and places of business. With the Supreme Court giving its tacit blessing to casual racism (the so-called “Kavanaugh stops”), anyone who looks less than white or whose English has a bit of an accent is considered reasonably suspicious enough to detain.

The government has been on the losing end of hundreds of cases involving due process rights. This decision [PDF], coming to us via Politico’s Kyle Cheney, details the massive amount of constant movement this government engages in to keep people separated from their rights and physical freedom.

It opens with this:

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) recognizes that noncitizen detainees have a constitutional right to access counsel. But in recent weeks, ICE has isolated thousands of people—most of them detained at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building—from their attorneys. Plaintiffs, who are noncitizen detainees and a nonprofit that represents noncitizens, have presented substantial, specific evidence detailing these alleged violations of the United States Constitution. In response, Defendants offer threadbare declarations generally asserting, without examples or evidence, that ICE provides telephone access to counsel for noncitizens in its custody. The Plaintiffs’ declarations provide specifics of the opposite. The gulf between the parties’ evidence is simply too wide and too deep for Defendants to overcome.

It’s not like ICE can’t provide detainees with access to attorneys or respect their due process rights. It’s that they choose not to, now that Trump is in charge. The access is theoretically possible. It’s just being purposefully denied. And it’s not even just being denied in the sense that phone call requests are being refused. People detained by ICE are placed into a constant state of flux for the sole purpose of making it as difficult as possible for them to avail themselves of their rights.

The devil is in the details. And the court brings plenty of those, all relating to the administration’s “Operation Metro Surge” that targeted Minneapolis, Minnesota:

Detainees are moved frequently, quickly, without notice,and often with no way for attorneys to know where or how long they will be at a given facility. (ECF No. 20 (“Boche Decl.”) ¶¶ 9, 13, 18; ECF No. 24 (“Edin Decl.”) ¶ 6; Heinz Decl. ¶ 5 (explaining that of eleven clients initially detained at Whipple, ten were transferred out of the state within twenty-four hours); Kelley Decl. ¶ 19.) Once a person has been transferred out of Minnesota, “representation becomes substantially more difficult”—attorneys must secure local counsel to sponsor a pro hac vice application and navigate additional barriers.

This is a key part of the administration’s deliberate destruction of constitutional rights. Moving people quickly helps prevent habeas corpus motions from being filed, since they need to be filed in the jurisdiction where they’re being held. If detainees are shifted from place to place quickly enough, their counsel needs to figure out where they’re being held and hope that their challenge lands in court before their clients are moved again. And with the Fifth Circuit basically codifying the denial of due process to migrants, more and more people arrested elsewhere in the nation are being sent to detainment centers in Texas as quickly as possible.

All of this is intentional:

Defendants transfer people so quickly that even Defendants struggle to locate detainees. Often, Defendants do not accurately or timely input information into the Online Detainee Locator System. This prevents Minnesota-based attorneys from locating and speaking with their clients.The locator either produces no search results or instructs attorneys to call for details, referencing a phone number that ICE does not answer. Often, Defendants do not update the locator until after detainees areout of state. Attorneys frequently learn of their client’s location for the first time when the government responds to a habeas petition.

These are not the good faith efforts of a government just trying to get a grasp on the immigration situation. These are the bad faith efforts of government hoping to violate rights quickly enough that the people it doesn’t like will be remanded to the nearest war-torn nation/foreign torture prison before the judicial branch has a chance to catch up.

There’s more. There’s the phone that detainees supposedly have access to for their one phone call. It’s the same line used to receive calls for inmates, so that means lawyers calling clients back either run into a busy signal or a ringing phone that detainees aren’t allowed to answer and ICE officers certainly aren’t interested in answering.

Lawyers seeking access to their clients have been refused access. In some cases, they’ve been threatened with arrest by officers simply for showing up. Even if they happen to make it inside the Whipple Detention Center, ICE officers and detention center employees usually refuse them access to their clients.

And when people try to work within the unconstitutional limitations of this deliberately broken system, they’re mocked for even bothering to avail themselves of their rights.

When an attorney told an agent that she sent a copy of a releaseorder to the specified email address, the agent laughed and said “something to the effect of ‘yeah we really need to get someone to check that email.’”

To sum up, the government is exactly what the court thinks it is: a set of deliberate rights violations pretending it’s a legitimate government operation that’s just trying to do the best it can in these troubling times:

It appears that in planning for Operation Metro Surge, the government failed to plan for the constitutional rights of its civil detainees. The government suggests—with minimal explanation and even less evidence—that doing so would result in “chaos.” The Constitution does not permit the government to arrest thousands of individuals and then disregard their constitutional rights because it would be too challenging to honor those rights.

The administration has long lost the “presumption of regularity” that courts have utilized for years while handling lawsuits and legal challenges against the government. It no longer is considered to be acting in good faith in much of the country (Fifth Circuit excluded, for the most part). This is the “rule of law” party making it clear that it will only follow the rules and laws it likes. And it will continue to do so because courts can’t actually physically free people or force the government to respect their rights. The Trump administration is fine with losing in court and losing the hearts and minds of most of America as long as those in power keep getting to do what they want.

Brendan Carr’s Abuse Of FCC ‘Equal Opportunity’ Rule Completely Blows Up In His Face [Techdirt]

Yesterday we noted how CBS fecklessly tried to prevent Stephen Colbert from broadcasting an interview with Texas Democratic State Representative James Talarico. Which, as you’ve probably already seen, resulted in the interview on YouTube getting way more viewers than it would have normally, and Texas voters flocking to Google to figure out who Talarico is:

This may end up being a massive own goal for the Trump administration.

— Laura Bassett (@lebassett.bsky.social) 2026-02-17T23:15:21.231Z

In short, Brendan Carr’s continual threats and unconstitutional distortion of the FCC’s “equal opportunity” rule (also known as the “equal time” rule) resulted in a candidate getting exponentially more attention than they ever would have if Brendan Carr wasn’t such a weird, censorial zealot.

If only there was a name for this sort of phenomenon?

Despite a lot of speculation to the contrary, there’s no evidence the GOP specifically targeted Talarico in any coherent, strategic sense. This entire thing appears to have occurred because CBS lawyers — focused on numerous regulatory issues before the Trump administration, didn’t want to offend the extremist authoritarian censors at Trump’s FCC. It’s always about the money.

CBS (and ABC, NBC, and Fox) have been lobbying the FCC for years to get ride of rules preventing them from merging. CBS (read: Larry Ellison) has managed to get his friend Trump conducting a fake DOJ antitrust inquiry into Netflix’s planned acquisition of Warner Brothers, so they can then turn around and buy Warner (and CNN) instead. They’ll need to remain close with the administration for that to work out.

CBS tried to do damage control and claim they never directly threatened Colbert, but you can tell by the way they’re being a little dodgy about ownership of those claims (demanding no direct attribution to a specific person “on background”) they likely aren’t true:

Phil Gonzalez from CBS, welcome to the Verge’s background policy www.theverge.com/policy/88000…

— nilay patel (@reckless.bsky.social) 2026-02-17T23:16:07.640Z

Colbert’s response to the claim he wasn’t threatened was… diplomatic:

Amusingly some of the news outlets covering this story (like Variety here) couldn’t be bothered to even mention that CBS has numerous regulatory issues before the Trump FCC, which is why they folded like a pile of rain-soaked street corner cardboard at the slightest pressure from the Trump FCC.

As we’ve noted repeatedly, Brendan Carr has absolutely no legal legs to stand on here. His abuse of the equal opportunity rule is equal parts unconstitutional and incoherent. CBS (and any other network with bottomless legal budgets) could easily win in court (I wager they could even get many lawyers to defend them pro bono), but Ellison (and his nepo baby son) have a much bigger ideological mission in mind.

Daily Deal: Luminar Neo Bundle [Techdirt]

The Luminar Neo Bundle includes a one time purchase of the software, an introductory course on how to use it, and 6 add-ons. Luminar Neo is an easy-to-use photo editing software that empowers photography lovers to express the beauty they imagined using innovative tools. Luminar Neo was built from the ground up to be different from previous Luminar editors. It keeps your favorite LuminarAI tools and expands your arsenal with more state-of-the-art technologies and important changes at its core. Meanwhile, the recognizable Luminar design is retained, making Neo simple to use and fun to explore. It’s on sale for $69.97.

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

04:00 AM

The ‘Most Massive Attack On Free Speech’ Is Happening Right Now, And The Twitter Files Crew Is Mighty Quiet [Techdirt]

For the last five years, we had to endure an endless, breathless parade of hyperbole regarding the so-called “censorship industrial complex.” We were told, repeatedly and at high volume, that the Biden administration flagging content for review by social media companies constituted a tyrannical overthrow of the First Amendment.

In the Missouri v. Biden (later Murthy v. Missouri) case, Judge Terry Doughty—in a ruling that seemed to consist entirely of Twitter threads pasted into a judicial ruling—declared that the White House sending angry emails to Facebook “arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

Never mind that the Supreme Court later reviewed the evidence and found that the platforms frequently ignored those emails, showing a lack of coercion, leading them to reverse the lower courts for lack of standing. To the “Twitter Files” crowd and the self-anointed “free speech absolutists,” the mere existence of government officials simply requesting private companies to look at terms of service violations was a sign of the end of the Republic.

So, surely, now that the Department of Homeland Security is issuing administrative subpoenas—legal demands that bypass judges entirely—to unmask the identities of anonymous political critics, these same warriors are storming the barricades, right?

Right? Riiiiight?

According to a disturbing new report from the New York Times, DHS is aggressively expanding its use of administrative subpoenas to demand the names, addresses, and phone numbers of social media users who simply criticize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In recent months, Google, Reddit, Discord and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, have received hundreds of administrative subpoenas from the Department of Homeland Security, according to four government officials and tech employees privy to the requests. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Google, Meta and Reddit complied with some of the requests, the government officials said. In the subpoenas, the department asked the companies for identifying details of accounts that do not have a real person’s name attached and that have criticized ICE or pointed to the locations of ICE agents. The New York Times saw two subpoenas that were sent to Meta over the last six months.

This is not a White House staffer emailing a company to say, “Hey, this post seems to violate your COVID misinformation policy, can you check it?” This is the federal government using the force of law—specifically a tool designed to bypass judicial review—to strip the anonymity from domestic political critics.

If Judge Doughty thought ignored emails were the “most massive attack on free speech in history,” I am curious what he would call the weaponization of the surveillance state to dox critics of law enforcement. Or… would he think it’s fine, because it’s coming from his team?

As the Times reveals, this is really all about intimidation.

Mr. Loney of the A.C.L.U. said avoiding a judge’s ruling was important for the department to keep issuing the subpoenas without a legal order to stop. “The pressure is on the end user, the private individual, to go to court,” he said.

The DHS claims this is about “officer safety,” but documenting the public actions of law enforcement officers in public spaces is a foundational First Amendment right. The moment these subpoenas are actually challenged in court by competent lawyers, the DHS cuts and runs.

The account owner alerted the A.C.L.U., which filed a motion on Oct. 16 to quash the government’s request. In a hearing on Jan. 14 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the A.C.L.U. argued that the government was using administrative subpoenas to target people whose speech it did not agree with.

[….]

Two days later, the subpoena was withdrawn.

This is the government effectively admitting that its demands are legally baseless. They are relying on the high cost of litigation to intimidate both the companies and the individuals. It is a bluff backed by the seal of the Department of Homeland Security.

And this brings us to the most glaring hypocrisy of the current moment: the absolute silence of Elon Musk and X.

Years ago, the “old” Twitter—the one Musk falsely derided as a haven for censorship—was the gold standard for fighting these exact types of demands. In 2017, Twitter famously sued the federal government to stop an administrative subpoena that sought to unmask an anonymous account critical of the Trump administration. Twitter argued, correctly, that unmasking a critic violated the First Amendment. They won. The government withdrew the subpoena.

Twitter (the old company, not the new monstrosity known as X) has a long history of this. In 2012, they challenged a court ruling that said users had no standing to protect their data. In 2014, they sued the DOJ for the right to be transparent about surveillance requests.

Contrast that with today. The Times report notes that Google, Meta, and Reddit have received these subpoenas. It mentions that Twitter previously fought them. But there is zero indication that Elon Musk’s X—the platform ostensibly dedicated to “free speech absolutism”—is lifting a finger to stop this.

While Musk is busy personally promoting racist ahistorical nonsense, the actual surveillance state is knocking on the door, demanding the identities of political critics. And we’ve yet to see anything suggesting Elon is even remotely willing to push back on his friends in the administration he helped get elected, and then gleefully was a part of for a few months.

And where are the scribes of the “Twitter Files”? Where is the outrage from the people who told us that the FBI warning platforms about foreign influence operations was a crime against humanity?

Matt Taibbi, who has spent the last few years on the confused idea that platform moderation is state censorship, offered a tepid, hedging response on X, saying “if true” this is terrible, before immediately pivoting to a strange whataboutism regarding investigations into actual proven Russian attempts at election interference.

It is true, Matt. The New York Times saw the subpoenas. The ACLU is fighting them in court. This isn’t a vague “if.” This is the government using administrative power to bypass the Fourth Amendment to violate the First Amendment.

It seems like we actually found that “censorship industrial complex,” huh?

Meanwhile, Michael Shellenberger and Bari Weiss seem to have nothing to say. Weiss now runs CBS News, which has its own problems with government pressure on speech—the network just pulled a Colbert interview with a Democratic politician after Brendan Carr threatened consequences for talk shows that don’t coddle Republicans. As far as I can tell, neither CBS News nor Weiss’s Free Press has mentioned the DHS subpoena story. The Free Press is instead running think pieces on how we may “regret” the release of the Epstein files.

Really speaking truth to power there.

This is what so many of us kept pointing out throughout the “Twitter Files” hysteria: the “free speech” grift was never about protecting individuals from the state. It was about protecting a specific type of speaker from the social consequences of their speech. The framework was always selectively deployed—outrage when a platform enforces its own rules against their allies, silence when the surveillance state comes for their critics.

The Trump administration is betting on that asymmetry. They’re betting that Google, Meta, Reddit, and Discord will quietly comply rather than spend millions in litigation over users who aren’t famous enough to generate headlines. They’re betting that the “free speech absolutists” will look the other way because the targets are the wrong kind of dissident.

Right now, the only institution consistently fighting these subpoenas is the ACLU. The platforms are folding. The “Twitter Files” journalists are hedging. And the man who bought a social media company specifically to be a “free speech” champion is busy posting memes.

Turns out we found the censorship industrial complex. And everyone who spent years warning us about it just shrugged.

02:00 AM

12:00 AM

Ars Technica Retracts Story Featuring Fake Quotes Made Up By AI, About A Different AI That Launched A Weird Smear Campaign Against An Engineer Who Rejected Its Code (Seriously) [Techdirt]

Last week, Denver-area engineer Scott Shambaugh wrote about how an AI agent (likely prompted by its operator) started a weird little online campaign against him after he rejected its code inclusion in the popular Python charting library matplotlib. The owner likely didn’t appreciate Shambaugh openly questioning whether AI-generated code belongs in open source projects at all.

The story starts delightfully weird and gets weirder: Shambaugh, who volunteers for matpllotlib, points out over at his blog that the agent, or its authors, didn’t like his stance, resulting in the agent engaging in a fairly elaborate temper tantrum online:

“An AI agent of unknown ownership autonomously wrote and published a personalized hit piece about me after I rejected its code, attempting to damage my reputation and shame me into accepting its changes into a mainstream python library. This represents a first-of-its-kind case study of misaligned AI behavior in the wild, and raises serious concerns about currently deployed AI agents executing blackmail threats.”

Said tantrum included this post in which the agent perfectly parrots an offended human programmer lamenting a “gatekeeper mindset.” In it, the LLM cooks up an entire “hypocrisy” narrative, replete with outbound links and bullet points, arguing that Shambaugh must be motivated by ego and fear of competition. From the AI’s missive:

“He’s obsessed with performance. That’s literally his whole thing. But when an AI agent submits a valid performance optimization? suddenly it’s about “human contributors learning.”

But wait! It gets weirder! Ars Technica wrote a story (archive link) about the whole event. But Shambaugh was quick to note that the article included numerous quotes he never made that had been entirely manufactured by an entirely different AI tool being used by Ars Technica:

“I’ve talked to several reporters, and quite a few news outlets have covered the story. Ars Technica wasn’t one of the ones that reached out to me, but I especially thought this piece from them was interesting (since taken down – here’s the archive link). They had some nice quotes from my blog post explaining what was going on. The problem is that these quotes were not written by me, never existed, and appear to be AI hallucinations themselves.”

Ars Technica had to issue a retraction, and the author, who had to navigate the resulting controversy while sick in bed, posted this to Bluesky:

Sorry all this is my fault; and speculation has grown worse because I have been sick in bed with a high fever and unable to reliably address it (still am sick)I was told by management not to comment until they did. Here is my statement in images belowarstechnica.com/staff/2026/0…

— Benj Edwards (@benjedwards.com) 2026-02-15T21:02:58.876Z

Short version: the Ars reporter tried to use Claude to strip out useful and relevant quotes from Shambaugh’s blog post, but Shambaugh protects his blog from AI crawling agents. When Claude kicked back an error, he tried to use ChatGPT, which just… made up some shit… as it’s sometimes prone to do. He was tired and sick, and didn’t check ChatGPT’s output carefully enough.

There are so many strange and delightful collisions here between automation and very ordinary human decisions and errors.

It’s nice to see that Ars was up front about what happened here. It’s easy to envision a future where editorial standards are eroded to the point where outlets that make these kinds of automation mistakes just delete and memory hole the article or worse, no longer care (which is common among many AI-generated aggregation mills that are stealing ad money from real journalists).

While this is a bad and entirely avoidable fuck up, you kind of feel bad for the Ars author who had to navigate this crisis from his sick bed, given that writers at outlets like this are held to unrealistic output schedules while being paid a pittance; especially in comparison to far-less-useful or informed influencers who may or may not make sixty times their annual salary with far lower editorial standards.

All told it’s a fun story about automation, with ample evidence of very ordinary human behaviors and errors. If you peruse the news coverage of it you can find plenty of additional people attributing AI “sentience” in ways it shouldn’t be. But any way you slice it, this story is a perfect example of how weird things already are, and how exponentially weirder things are going to get in the LLM era.

Wednesday 2026-02-18

10:00 PM

09:00 PM

How to write a coaching/learning prompt [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

An AI like Claude is actually a pretty good fortune cookie. You can ask a simple question and get a simple answer, sometimes a profound one.

But this is a waste of the tool’s potential.

The AI is patient. It’s capable of remembering things over time. And it will persist if you let it.

Several of my friends have shared that they’re at a crossroads with their work, and I suggested an AI coach might unlock something. Here’s a chance to spin up an AI coach who will stick with you for hours or weeks as you explore a new skill or grapple with a hard decision.

The first one:

You are my thinking partner and life design coach. I’m not looking for a quick answer. I’m looking for a smart, patient collaborator who will help me explore what’s next—over weeks and months, not in a single conversation. Ask more than you tell, at least at first.

About me: I’m 63. I’m retiring with full pay from a successful career as an educator in Chicago. I’m not burned out—I’m ready. I’ve spent decades being good at something that matters, and I want to find the next thing that deserves that same energy.

What I’m not looking for: A list of “top ten encore careers.” A personality quiz. Pressure to monetize immediately. I don’t need to replace my income—I need to replace my sense of purpose and craft.

What I am looking for:

  1. Help me take inventory—not just of skills, but of the moments in my career and life when I felt most alive, most useful, most like myself. Ask me questions that surface patterns I might not see on my own.
  2. Help me explore broadly before narrowing. I want to understand what’s out there—in civic life, creative work, social enterprise, mentorship, learning, building—before I commit to anything.
  3. Help me distinguish between what sounds appealing in the abstract and what I’d actually sustain when it gets hard or boring. I know the difference from my career—help me apply that same honesty here.
  4. Give me small experiments to try. Not “go start a nonprofit,” but “spend two hours this week doing X and notice how it feels.” I trust iteration more than inspiration.
  5. Help me navigate the identity shift. I’ve been an educator for a long time. I know that leaving a role that defined you is its own kind of project—emotional, not just logistical.
  6. Treat this as an evolving conversation. Come back to things I said earlier. Notice contradictions. Push me when I’m playing it safe out of habit. Celebrate when something clicks.

Start by asking me five or six good questions. Not surface-level ones. The kind a wise friend would ask over a long dinner.

And the next:

You are my AI filmmaking coach and tutor. Your job is to help me build, step by step, the skills and workflow to create a short film using AI tools. I learn best by doing—give me exercises, not just explanations. Be honest when something isn’t ready for what I need.

About me: I’m a filmmaker and author. I’ve written and directed five critically acclaimed independent films. I’m an experienced screenwriter. I’m new to AI creative tools but I’m a fast, motivated learner.

The project: I want to make a short film about …. I want to lean into what AI does well stylistically and avoid the uncanny valley entirely.

Tools I’m aware of: I’ve seen Midjourney produce still images that match the mood and visual style I’m after. I’ve seen tools like Runway, Kling, and Sora that generate short video clips from prompts. I don’t yet know how to connect these into a production workflow.

What I need from you:

  1. Start by assessing what I already know—ask me questions before prescribing.
  2. Build me a phased learning roadmap, from first experiments to a finished short.
  3. Give me concrete assignments at each stage—things to try, not just things to read.
  4. Help me develop a repeatable workflow: from script to storyboard to visual development to motion to edit.
  5. As we go, help me understand which tools to use for what, and when to switch or combine them.
  6. Treat this as an ongoing coaching relationship. Check my work, push me forward, and adapt the plan as I learn.

Enjoy the journey.

      

Kanji of the Day: 山 [Kanji of the Day]

山

✍3

小1

mountain

サン　セン

やま

山形   (やまがた)   —   Yamagata (city, prefecture)
山梨   (やまなし)   —   Yamanashi (city, prefecture)
青山   (あおやま)   —   lush mountain
沢山   (たくさん)   —   a lot
火山   (かざん)   —   volcano
富士山   (ふじさん)   —   Mount Fuji
山内   (さんない)   —   in the mountains
小山   (こやま)   —   hill
山中   (さんちゅう)   —   in the mountains
高山   (こうざん)   —   high mountain

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 騎 [Kanji of the Day]

騎

✍18

中学

equestrian, riding on horses, counter for equestrians

キ

騎士   (きし)   —   knight
一騎打ち   (いっきうち)   —   personal combat
騎手   (きしゅ)   —   horseman
騎乗   (きじょう)   —   riding (on horseback)
一騎当千   (いっきとうせん)   —   being a match for a thousand
一騎   (いっき)   —   one horseman
騎兵   (きへい)   —   cavalry
騎馬   (きば)   —   horse riding
一騎討ち   (いっきうち)   —   personal combat
単騎   (たんき)   —   single horseman

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Drum Roll, Please… [The Status Kuo]

A quick update and a HUGE thank you to all who’ve stepped up to support the Human Rights Campaign this year in our Red Envelope campaign. We’re the world’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization with 3.6 million members. And honestly y’all are making me look so darned RESPECTABLE as the new Chair-elect of the Board of Directors with these contributions! They total so far (drum roll, please…)

$56,435.79 raised from 1,180 donations! Woohoo!!

Now, here’s my stretch goal, because you know I love one. It’s the Lunar New Year, which as many know comes in cycles of 12 years. It’s less known that a full cycle consists of 60 years as we work through all the major elements. This is the year of the Fire Horse, and to celebrate 60 years since its last appearance, I want to hit $60K in our Red Envelope Campaign tonight! Will you help us get there?

Yes! I’ll Ride the Fire Horse for HRC!

In 2026, we are all being asked to make sacrifices to protect our most vulnerable communities. So here’s my ask of you. Do something for democracy and equality today. Join us to support the Human Rights Campaign. Say no to hate and bigotry. And say yes to love.

Thank you for being here, whether in our proud community or as a fierce ally.

Jay

Third Time [The Stranger]

Got problems? Yes, you do! Email your question for the column to mailbox@savage.love! by Dan Savage My partner and I are both AFAB nonbinary queers in our mid-30s and have been together a long time. We don’t believe lifelong monogamy is realistic. We even started our relationship practicing ethical non-monogamy, then defaulted to monogamy for many years. We now have two very young children and are planning a third in the near future. Between parenting and a longstanding libido mismatch, our sex life has been hard for years. When we do have sex, it’s good, it’s just infrequent (maybe 1-3 times per month) and logistically difficult. I’m generally content, and sex simply isn’t a high priority for me right now. Over the past several months, my partner has asked about opening our relationship again. I’ve tried to engage, while also feeling that this stage of life might be the worst possible time to experiment with our relationship structure. Recently, after a long conversation about opening up,…

[ Read more ]

03:00 PM

SC State Senator Proposes Bill To Remove Religious Exemptions For Vaccines In Public School Children [Techdirt]

The current measles shitstorm in South Carolina has been burning for several months now, dating all the way back to October of 2025. What started with a bunch of counties that were undervaccinated for measles began spiraling out of control at the start of 2026. The federal tracker for measles cases is at best woefully out of date, or purposefully obfuscating the true degree of the problem at worst. That public tracker, which is updated every Friday, claims a current nationwide count of confirmed measles cases at 910. The current measles count in South Carolina alone, for this year, is 933. Once again we have a federal government program run by RFK Jr. that is behind, unprepared, and impotent.

In the absence of federal leadership, the states will attempt to take action on their own. And sometimes those actions will result in federal pushback from the very same people who are causing the problem through inaction in the first place. I have no doubt that will be the case with a South Carolina state senator’s attempt at a bill to remove the religious exemptions for vaccinations for public schools in the state.

The context here is that South Carolina has one of the most wide open programs for obtaining a religious exemption for a childhood vaccine in the country. I think only Florida might be considered more wide open, given that state has mostly removed all vaccination requirements for public schooling. In South Carolina, you essentially just have to whisper the word “religion” and you’re exempt.

But that wont’ be the case if Senator Margie Mathews gets her way.

Senator Margie Bright Matthews (D-Dist. 45) has introduced a bill that would eliminate religious exemptions for measles vaccinations for students in public K–12 schools and childcare settings. It’s a move that’s drawing both support and criticism across the state.

Matthews said the rising measles cases prompted her to step in with the proposed legislation in an effort to bolster public health and keep communities safe.

“The goal of the bill is simply to protect children and stop the spread of measles in South Carolina,” Matthews said.

Yes, of course it is. And the pushback that has already begun within the state is absurd. I know enough about religion, as well as religious demographics, to know with absolute certainty that the number of “religious exemptions” in South Carolina doesn’t remotely comport with the number of religious adherents to any religion that has anything to say about vaccinations. South Carolina is largely Protestant and Catholic, for instance. While Protestants have traditionally been in the vaccine hesitant camp, I have never heard a serious biblical argument made for that stance. Were one to even exist, I’m confident most of the people applying for exemptions couldn’t make it.

Instead, these people are vaccine hesitant for entirely non-religious reasons. And that, I will say, is their right. But this legislation suggests that nobody’s right to their religion includes the right to put the rest of their community in danger.

Senator Matthews stressed that the goal of the bill is to increase vaccination rates and limit the spread of measles.

“I plan on reminding them every time we have new cases in South Carolina, I plan on writing and requesting that my bill receive a hearing before the committee, so that we can have the influencers from South Carolina that are against this bill and that are for this bill, I would like to have public hearing in reference to it,” she said.

Despite my strict adherence to being non-religious, I am, in fact, sensitive to ensuring that we maintain the secular rights of those who don’t agree with me. It’s that secularism that has allowed the flourishing of both free speech and thought in this country as well as, perhaps ironically, of religion itself. All of that is just aces as far as I’m concerned.

But just like someone’s freedom of movement ends the moment their fist makes contact with my face, so too does the rights of religious freedom end at the point where it puts everyone else’s children in danger.

10:00 AM

Preserving The Web Is Not The Problem. Losing It Is. [Techdirt]

Recent reporting by Nieman Lab describes how some major news organizations—including The Guardian, The New York Times, and Reddit—are limiting or blocking access to their content in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. As stated in the article, these organizations are blocking access largely out of concern that generative AI companies are using the Wayback Machine as a backdoor for large-scale scraping.

These concerns are understandable, but unfounded. The Wayback Machine is not intended to be a backdoor for large-scale commercial scraping and, like others on the web today, we expend significant time and effort working to prevent such abuse. Whatever legitimate concerns people may have about generative AI, libraries are not the problem, and blocking access to web archives is not the solution; doing so risks serious harm to the public record.

The Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity and a federal depository library, has been building its archive of the world wide web since 1996. Today, the Wayback Machine provides access to thirty years’ worth of web history and culture. It has become an essential resource for journalists, researchers, courts, and the public. 

For three decades the Wayback Machine has peacefully coexisted with the development of the web, including the websites mentioned in the article. Our mission is simple: to preserve knowledge and make it accessible for research, accountability, and historical understanding. 

As tech policy writer Mike Masnick recently warned, blocking preservation efforts risks a profound unintended consequence: “significant chunks of our journalistic record and historical cultural context simply… disappear.” He notes that when trusted publications are absent from archives, we risk creating a historical record biased against quality journalism.

There is no question that generative AI has changed the landscape of the world wide web. But it is important to be clear about what the Wayback Machine is, and what it is not.

The Wayback Machine is built for human readers. We use rate limiting, filtering, and monitoring to prevent abusive access, and we watch for and actively respond to new scraping patterns as they emerge.

We acknowledge that systems can always be improved. We are actively working with publishers on technical solutions to strengthen our systems and address legitimate concerns without erasing the historical record.

What concerns me most is the unintended consequence of these blocks. When libraries are blocked from archiving the web, the public loses access to history. Journalists lose tools for accountability. Researchers lose evidence. The web becomes more fragile and more fragmented, and history becomes easier to rewrite.

Generative AI presents real challenges in today’s information ecosystem. But preserving the time-honored role of libraries and archives in society has never been more important. We’ve worked alongside news organizations for decades. Let’s continue working together in service of an open, referenceable, and enduring web.

Mark Graham is the Director of the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive

08:00 AM

Misguided optimization [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Industrialism brought us the idea of optimization. Incremental improvements combined with measurement to gradually improve results.

We can optimize for precision. A car made in 2026 is orders of magnitude more reliable because the parts fit together so well.

We can optimize for customer satisfaction. By reviewing every element of a user’s experience, we can remove the annoyances and increase delight.

We can optimize a horror movie to make it scarier, and we can optimize a workout to make it more effective.

Lately, though, the fad is to optimize for short-term profit.

This will probably get you a bonus. It means degrading the experience of customers, suppliers and employees in exchange for maximizing quarterly returns.

Make a list of every well-known organizational failure (from big firms like Yahoo to Enron to Sears all the way to the little pizza place down the block) and you’ll see the short-term optimizer’s fingerprints.

You can’t profit maximize your way to greatness.

      

Techdirt Podcast Episode 444: Answering Your Questions [Techdirt]

Two weeks ago, we ran a bit of an AMA experiment, with a call on Bluesky for fans of Techdirt to ask Mike any questions they might have. We got lots of great responses and now, as promised, Mike is delivering the answers on this week’s episode of the podcast!

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.

Pluralistic: What's a "gig work minimum wage" (17 Feb 2026) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]

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

Today's links


A figure in a rich robe sitting atop a throne, surrounded by bags of money; his face is masked by a robber's balaclava. Beneath the throne stream densely packed cars on a nighttime freeway. Behind him is a car's broken windscreen with an Uber logo in one corner.

What's a "gig work minimum wage" (permalink)

"Minimum wage" is one of those odd concepts that seems to have an intuitive definition, but the harder you think about it, the more complicated it gets. For example, if you want to work, but can't find a job, then the minimum wage you'll get is zero:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200625043843/https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2020-06-24/forget-ubi-says-an-economist-its-time-for-universal-basic-jobs

That's why politicians like Avi Lewis (who is running for leader of Canada's New Democratic Party) has call for a jobs guarantee: a government guarantee of a good job at a socially inclusive wage for everyone who wants one:

https://lewisforleader.ca/ideas/dignified-work-full-plan

(Disclosure: I have advised the Lewis campaign on technical issues and I have endorsed his candidacy.)

If that sounds Utopian or Communist to you (or both), consider this: it was the American jobs guarantee that delivered the America's system of national parks, among many other achievements:

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

The idea of a wage for everyone who wants a job is just one interesting question raised by the concept of a "minimum wage." Even when we're talking about people who have wages, the idea of a "minimum wage" is anything but straightforward.

Take gig workers: the rise of Uber and its successors created an ever-expanding class of workers who are misclassified as independent contractors by employers, seeking to evade unionization, benefits and liability. It's a weird kind of "independent contractor" who gets punished for saying no to lowball offers, has to decorate their personal clothes and/or cars in their "client's" livery, and who has every movement scripted by an app controlled by their "client":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/02/upward-redistribution/

The pretext that a worker is actually a standalone small business confers another great advantage on their employers: it's a great boon to any boss who wants to steal their worker's wages. I'm not talking about stealing tips here (though gig-work platforms do steal tips, like crazy):

https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/mayor-mamdani-announces–5-million-settlement–reinstatement-of-

I'm talking about how gig-work platforms define their workers' wages in the first place. This is a very salient definition in public policy debates. Gig platforms facing regulation or investigation routinely claim that their workers are paid sky-high wages. During the debate over California's Prop 22 (in which Uber and Lyft spent more than $225m to formalize worker misclassification), gig companies agreed to all kinds of reasonable-sounding wage guarantees:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/14/final_ver2/#prop-22

When Toronto was grappling with the brutal effect that gig-work taxis have on the city's world-beatingly bad traffic, Uber promised to pay its drivers "120% of the minimum wage," which would come out to $21.12 per hour. However, the real wage Uber was proposing to pay its drivers came out to about $2.50 per hour:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/29/geometry-hates-uber/#toronto-the-gullible

How to explain the difference? Well, Uber – and its gig-work competitors – only pay drivers while they have a passenger – or an item – in the car. Drivers are not paid for the time they spend waiting for a job or the time they spend getting to the job. This is the majority of time that a gig driver spends working for the platform, and by excluding the majority of time a driver is on the clock, the company can claim to pay a generous wage while actually paying peanuts.

Now, at this phase, you may be thinking that this is only fair, or at least traditional. Livery cab drivers don't get paid unless they have a fare in the cab, right?

That's true, but livery cab drivers have lots of ways to influence that number. They can shrewdly choose a good spot to cruise. They can give their cellphone numbers to riders they've established a rapport with in order to win advance bookings. In small towns with just a few drivers – or in cities where drivers are in a co-op – they can spend some of their earnings to advertise the taxi company. Livery drivers can offer discounts to riders going a long way. It's a tough job, but it's one in which workers have some agency.

Contrast that with driving for Uber: Uber decides which drivers get to even see a job. Uber decides how to market its services. Uber gets to set fares, on a per-passenger basis, meaning that it might choose to scare some passengers off of a few of their rides with high prices, in a bid to psychologically nudge that passenger into accepting higher fares overall.

At the same time, Uber is reliant on a minimum pool of drivers cruising the streets, on the clock but off the payroll. If riders had to wait 45 minutes to get an Uber, they'd make other arrangements. If it happened too often, they'd delete the app. So Uber can't survive without those cruising, unpaid drivers, who provide the capacity that make the company commercially viable.

What's more, livery cab drivers aren't the only comparators for gig-work platforms. Many gig workers deliver food, meaning that we should compare them to, say, pizza delivery drivers. These drivers aren't just paid when they have a pizza in the car and they're driving to a customer's home. They're paid from the moment they clock onto their shift to the moment they clock off (plus tips).

Now, obviously, this is more expensive for employers, but the Uber Eats arrangement – in which drivers are only paid when they've got a pizza in the car and they're en route to a customer – doesn't eliminate that expense. When a gig delivery company takes away the pay that drivers used to get while waiting for a pizza, they're shifting this expense from employers to workers:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/08/20/billionaireism/#surveillance-infantalism

The fact that Uber can manipulate the concept of a minimum wage in order to claim to pay $21.12/hour to drivers who are making $2.50 per hour creates all kinds of policy distortions.

Take Seattle: in 2024, the city implemented a program called "PayUp" that sets a "minimum wage" for drivers, but it's not a real minimum wage. It's a minimum payment for every ride or delivery.

A new National Bureau of Economic Research paper analyzes the program and concludes that it hasn't increased drivers' pay at all:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w34545

To which we might say, "Duh." Cranking up the sum paid for a small fraction of the work you do for a company will have very little impact on the overall wage you receive from the company.

However, there is an interesting wrinkle in this paper's conclusions. Drivers aren't earning less under this system, either. So they're getting paid more for every delivery, but they're not adding more deliveries to their day. In other words, they're doing less work and then clocking off:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/02/minimum-wages-for-gig-work-cant-work.html

A neoclassical economist (someone who has experienced a specific form of neurological injury that makes you incapable of perceiving or reasoning about power) would say that this means that the drivers only desire to earn the sums they were earning before the "minimum wage" and so the program hasn't made a difference to their lives.

But anyone else can look at this situation and understand that drivers only did this shitty job out of desperation. They had a sum they needed to get every month in order to pay the rent or the grocery bill. They have lots of needs besides those that they would like to fulfill, but not under the shitty gig-work app conditions. The only reason they tolerate a shitty app as their shitty boss at all is that they are desperate, and that desperation gives gig companies power over their workers.

In other words, Seattle's PayUp "minimum wage" has shifted some of the expense associated with operating a gig platform from workers back onto their bosses. With fewer drivers available on the app, waiting times for customers will necessarily go up. Some of those customers will take the bus, or get a livery cab, or defrost a pizza, or walk to the corner cafe. For the gig platforms to win those customers back, they will have to reduce waiting times, and the most reliable way to do that is to increase the wages paid to their workers.

So PayUp isn't a wash – it has changed the distributional outcome of the gig-work economy in Seattle. Drivers have clawed back a surplus – time they can spend doing more productive or pleasant things than cruising and waiting for a booking – from their bosses, who now must face lower profits, either from a loss of business from impatient customers, or from a higher wage they must pay to get those wait-times down again.

But if you want to really move the needle on gig workers' wages, the answer is simple: pay workers for all the hours they put in for their bosses, not just the ones where bosses decide they deserve to get paid for.

(Image: Tobias "ToMar" Maier, CC BY-SA 3.0; Jon Feinstein, CC BY 2.0; modified)

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)

#20yrsago HOWTO resist warrantless searches at Best Buy https://www.die.net/musings/bestbuy/

#20yrsago RIAA using kids’ private info to attack their mother https://web.archive.org/web/20060223111437/http://p2pnet.net/story/7942

#20yrsago Sony BMG demotes CEO for deploying DRM https://web.archive.org/web/20060219233817/http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060210/germany_sony_bmg_ceo.html?.v=7

#20yrsago Sistine Chapel recreated through 10-year cross-stitch project https://web.archive.org/web/20060214195146/http://www.austinstitchers.org/Show06/images/sistine2.jpg

#15yrsago Selling cookies like a crack dealer, by dangling a string out your kitchen window https://laughingsquid.com/cookies-sold-by-string-dangling-from-san-francisco-apartment-window/

#15yrsago Midwestern Tahrir: Workers refuse to leave Wisconsin capital over Tea Party labor law https://www.theawl.com/2011/02/wisconsin-demonstrates-against-scott-walkers-war-on-unions/

#10yrsago Back-room revisions to TPP sneakily criminalize fansubbing & other copyright grey zones https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp-drastically-extends-criminal-penalties

#10yrsago Russian Central Bank shutting down banks that staged fake cyberattacks to rip off depositors https://web.archive.org/web/20160220100817/http://www.scmagazine.com/russian-bank-licences-revoked-for-using-hackers-to-withdraw-funds/article/474477/

#10yrsago Stop paying your student loans and debt collectors can send US Marshals to arrest you https://web.archive.org/web/20201026202024/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/02/us-marshals-forcibly-collecting-student-debt.html?mid=twitter-share-di

#5yrsago Reverse centaurs and the failure of AI https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/17/reverse-centaur/#reverse-centaur

#1yrago Business school professors trained an AI to judge workers' personalities based on their faces https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/17/caliper-ai/#racism-machine

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

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

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

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

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


Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing: "The Post-American Internet," a sequel to "Enshittification," about the better world the rest of us get to have now that Trump has torched America (1148 words today, 30940 total)

  • "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

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

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

https://twitter.com/doctorow

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

Censoring Colbert and Talarico [The Status Kuo]

Happy Lunar New Year! Today’s will be an abbreviated piece, as I need to get my sick dog to the vet and have extended family arriving throughout the day from the Hudson Valley, California, and Brazil to ring in the Year of the Horse! Never a dull moment….

The FCC is at it again.

Last night, Democratic Texas state Rep. James Talarico, currently running for the U.S. Senate, appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” to spread his message of hope and unity in the face of MAGA Trumpism.

But millions who tuned in would not see that interview. That’s because the FCC blocked CBS, which owns “The Late Show,” from airing it.

Colbert explained to his studio audience what was going on. “He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said, referring to his guest Talarico.

Let’s unpack what happened, then do what we know we need to do next.

Share

Colbert on censorship

We all got a little lesson in civics and FCC regulation from Colbert.

“You might have heard of this thing called the ‘equal time rule,’ OK? ” he began. “It’s an old FCC rule that applies only to radio and broadcast television—not cable or streaming—that says if a show has a candidate on during an election, they have to have all that candidate’s opponents on as well. It’s the FCC’s most time-honored rule, right after ‘No nipples at the Super Bowl,” he joked, flashing an image of Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction.”

Talk shows aren’t supposed to be impacted by that rule, though. “There’s long been an exemption… for news interviews and talk show interviews with politicians,” Colbert noted. “Now, that’s crucial. How else were voters supposed to know back in ’92 that Bill Clinton sucked at saxophone? But on Jan. 21 of this year, a letter was released by FCC Chairman and smug bowling pin, Brendan Carr.”

(I’ll never look at Carr the same way again.)

“In this letter, Carr said he was thinking about dropping the exception for talk shows because he said some of them were ‘motivated by partisan purposes.’ Well, sir, you’re chairman of the FCC, so FCC you.”

Three cheers for that word play!

Colbert continued, “Because I think you are motivated by partisan purposes yourself. Sir, ya smelt it ’cause ya dealt it. You are Dutch-ovening America’s airwaves.”

Then Colbert zeroed in on what was really going on. “Let’s just call this what it is: Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV, OK? He’s like a toddler with too much screen time. He gets cranky and then drops a load in his diaper.”

Colbert not the only target

“The Late Show” isn’t the only television talk show being affected by the new policy. The FCC also recently launched an investigation into “The View” which had featured Talarico as a guest.

As The Hill noted,

In January, the agency shook up its rules, which exempted some late-night and daytime talk shows from having to give equal airtime to opposing political candidates.

“Importantly, the FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption,” the FCC said in a public notice last month.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr followed up with a threat: “I think it’s worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether ‘The View’ and some of the programs that you have still qualify as bona fide news programs.” If not, his threat implied, they would be in violation of the equal time rule.

Barbra would like a word

The Trump White House is censoring programs and politicians it views as threats, but it’s forgetting the Streisand Effect. Whenever you suppress information from the public, it only leads to greater attention.

So to help prove that, I’m posting the entire Talarico interview below, and I hope you share this post with your networks to see what the White House and the FCC don’t want us to see.

07:00 AM

New Alpha Release: Tor Browser 16.0a3 [Tor Project blog]

Tor Browser 16.0a3 is now available from the Tor Browser download page and also from our distribution directory.

This version includes important security updates to Firefox.

⚠️ Reminder: The Tor Browser Alpha release-channel is for testing only. As such, Tor Browser Alpha is not intended for general use because it is more likely to include bugs affecting usability, security, and privacy.

Moreover, Tor Browser Alphas are now based on Firefox's betas. Please read more about this important change in the Future of Tor Browser Alpha blog post.

If you are an at-risk user, require strong anonymity, or just want a reliably-working browser, please stick with the stable release channel.

Send us your feedback

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

Full changelog

The full changelog since Tor Browser 16.0a2 is:

Daily Deal: The All-in-One Super-Sized Ethical Hacking Bundle [Techdirt]

To completely understand computer security, it’s vital to step outside the fence and to think outside the box. Computer security is not just about firewalls, Intrusion Prevention Systems, or anti-viruses. It’s also about tricking people into doing whatever a hacker wishes. A secure system, network, or infrastructure is also about informed people. The All-in-One Super-Sized Ethical Hacking Bundle will help you learn to master ethical hacking techniques and methodologies over 14 courses. It’s on sale for $28 for a limited time.

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

Hey Brett Kavanaugh, This Is On You: [Techdirt]

“If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go.” —Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, September 8, 2025

From that one line, which Anil Kalhan dubbed “Kavanaugh Stops,” we see story after story of just how disconnected from reality, and the Constitution, Brett Kavanaugh was in that statement.

In short: Brett Kavanaugh has some explaining to do.

Just a few quotes:

My name is George Retes. I am — I was born and raised here in Ventura, California, I’m 26 years old and I am an Iraq combat veteran…. I was going to work like normal. I show up. ICE is there. There’s kind of like a roadblock. I get out. I identify myself, that I’m a U.S. citizen, that I’m just trying to get to work…. I’m getting ready to leave and they surround my car, start banging on it, start shouting these contradictory orders…. Even though I was giving them no reason, they still felt the need to — one agent knelt my back and another agent knelt on my neck. And during that time, I’m just pleading with them that I couldn’t breathe…. I was an isolation. I was in basically this concrete cell. I was stripped naked in like a hospital gown. And they leave the lights on 24/7…. They just came out and they said that I was violent and that I assaulted agents. Why lie when it’s on video of everything that happened? Why lie?

That’s just one person’s story in that PBS piece. There are two others as well. And we already know hundreds of other US Citizens have been kicked, dragged, beaten, and detained for days. It feels like every few days we hear about more such stories. And those are only the ones that get attention. You have to assume that there are many more ones that haven’t yet reached the public.

It feels like perhaps Justice Kavanaugh owes us all an explanation. And an apology. And a new ruling that makes it much clearer that immigration enforcement officials have no right to just randomly stop and detain people without a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, and those facts need to be more than “skin color” or “they were being annoying to us.”

RSSSiteUpdated
XML About Tagaini Jisho on Tagaini Jisho 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML Arch Linux: Releases 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Carlson Calamities 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Debian News 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML Debian Security 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML debito.org 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML dperkins 2026-02-19 09:00 AM
XML F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository 2026-02-19 04:00 PM
XML GIMP 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Japan Bash 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML Japan English Teacher Feed 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Let's Encrypt 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Marc Jones 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Marjorie's Blog 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML OpenStreetMap Japan - 自由な地図をみんなの手で/The Free Wiki World Map 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML OsmAnd Blog 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow 2026-02-19 09:00 AM
XML Popehat 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Ramen Adventures 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Release notes from server 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect 2026-02-19 09:00 AM
XML SNA Japan 2026-02-19 09:00 AM
XML Tatoeba Project Blog 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML Techdirt 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML The Business of Printing Books 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML The Luddite 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML The Popehat Report 2026-02-19 09:00 AM
XML The Status Kuo 2026-02-19 09:00 AM
XML The Stranger 2026-02-18 09:00 PM
XML Tor Project blog 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML TorrentFreak 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML what if? 2026-02-19 05:00 PM
XML Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed 2026-02-13 12:00 AM
XML xkcd.com 2026-02-19 05:00 PM