Last week, we announced the winners of our eighth annual public domain game jam, Gaming Like It’s 1930! Now it’s time to begin our series of spotlight posts, examining each of the winners in a bit more detail, and we’re kicking things off today with a look at the winner of Best Adaptation: I am Sam Spade by Marshview Games.

A lot of people associate the hardboiled genre of detective fiction with the protagonist’s inner monologue, as they ruminate on the situations that they face and give the reader a sense of their character and motivations. But some of the genre’s foundational works, such as Dashiell Hammett’s The Maltese Falcon, actually omit this entirely: the reader never sees inside detective Sam Spade’s head, they only see what he does. I am Sam Spade by Marshview Games adapts this early classic while centering the later convention, with gameplay that focuses on the inner life of the detective to drive his actions, and puts players in his shoes. And not just one player, but all of them.

To do this, it borrows mechanics from Michael Sullivan’s Everyone Is John, a classic in its own right. Two or more players become “Sams” — aspects of Sam Spade’s personality, each with a pool of power and a specific skill, plus a core motivation that they will attempt to achieve. As the game master guides them through the events of The Maltese Falcon (or another detective story!), players bid their power to seize control of Sam Spade’s actions. Though they must cooperate at least a little bit to make any progress, they are also in competition: the player whose motivations were most fulfilled by Sam wins the game.

The character of Sam Spade isn’t a blank slate, but he is opaque, which makes getting inside his head the perfect starting point for reimagining the story, and I am Sam Spade puts this at the heart of its gameplay. For that, it’s this year’s Best Adaptation.

Congratulations to Marshview Games for the win! You can get everything you need to play I am Sam Spade from its page on Itch. We’ll be back next week with another winner spotlight, and don’t forget to check out the many great entries that didn’t quite make the cut. And stay tuned for next year, when we’ll be back for Gaming Like It’s 1931.

We’ve been talking a lot of about the use of artificial intelligence lately, for obvious reasons. Many of those conversations have revolved around the video game industry and I’ve been fairly vocal about pushing back against the “all AI is bad everywhere forever” dogma that I see far too often. There are plenty of folks in our community that don’t agree with me on that, and that’s fine. But if the picture you’re getting is that I’m an AI evangelist, that’s simply not true. There are potentially good uses of AI in my view, as well as a whole lot of potential negative outcomes of its use. I’m not blind to that.

And, in the video game industry specifically, one bit of pushback that seems to be sorely needed is on game developers that use generative AI in their games, fail to say so, and then excuse its use as accidental after the fact. That is becoming as common a refrain from game developers as the laughable excuse in trademark instances that is, “Well, I have to be an aggressive jerk about my trademarks or else I lose them.” Neither is true.

The most recent version of this concerns the recent hit launch of Crimson Desert. In what is becoming something analogous to the antiquated process by which people who watch golf tournaments on TV looking for missed rules violations could then send into the PGA, which I’ve coined as McPromptism, new game releases get put under a microscope by people looking to find AI uses within them. Crimson Desert went through this process and, wouldn’t you know it, people found clear uses of AI-generated assets in the game.

The game’s extremely high fidelity and impressive graphics are a big part of the sales pitch, which made it all the more disappointing when players began to come across what appeared to be AI-generated artwork littered throughout the game. In light of the disappointment, developer Pearl Abyss has apologized for including the slop in their game, promising to remove and replace all of it.

“We also acknowledge that we should have clearly disclosed our use of AI,” the Crimson Desert account posted on X. “We are currently conducting a comprehensive audit of all in-game assets and are taking steps to replace any affected content. Updated assets will be rolled out in upcoming patches. In parallel, we are reviewing and strengthening our internal processes to ensure greater transparency and consistency in how we communicate with players moving forward.”

Like I said above, this excuse is getting old. Very old. Game developers and publishers will be more than aware at this point that a sizable percentage of the gaming public is very allergic to the use of AI in games, particularly when that use is not acknowledged at the forefront. If placeholder assets generated by AI are to be used at all in the development of a game, it is inexcusable for a developer to not have a process to remove them in place of human-created art before the game is published. That’s sloppy at best, and a lie of an excuse at worst.

Especially because it’s not like there aren’t other options that have nothing to do with AI.

The practice is becoming more common in AAA developer spaces, but critics argue that setting aside the use of AI in your game, it’s pretty foolish to use temporary assets that don’t call obvious attention to themselves. In games of such massive scale, BRAT-green blocks that scream “DO NOT USE” are much easier to flag than something approximating the final product.

I’m struggling to come up with a counter-argument to that.

I’m still in a place where I think there are valid uses of AI in gaming development. If a dev or publisher wants to explore those uses and, importantly, is upfront about it, there may be a place for that.

But the excuse of laziness when it comes to stripping AI assets out when their use was not intended is lame and needs to go away.

The expression, “to make a federal case out of something” usually describes making a bigger deal out of something than it should be. But in the case of Anthropic and Hegseth, Trump, and the Department of Defense*, this federal case is actually quite simple: what the government defendants did to Anthropic is beyond the bounds of anything the law or Constitution would allow. It didn’t require some complicated analytical parsing to see the problem with the Administration’s behavior, and the remedy is straightfoward: there’s now an injunction depriving that behavior of any effect (albeit stayed for seven days).

But the government is only restrained as to what it did that was actually illegal. Importantly, the injunction clarifies that to the extent that the government could lawfully stop working with Anthropic, it remained fully able to divorce itself. From the full paragraph on the last page of the preliminary injunction order itself articulating what has been restrained:

This Order restores the status quo. It does not bar any Defendant from taking any lawful action that would have been available to it on February 27, 2026, prior to the issuances of the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive and entry of the Supply Chain Designation. For example, this Order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions.

As the decision justifying the injunction explains, this case wasn’t about whether and how DOD could use Anthropic and whether Anthropic could have a say in how it was used, which was the issue underpinning the contract dispute between the two. Had it been, then the DOD could have simply walked away from the product. The problem is that the government didn’t just stop doing business with Anthropic; it went further, and it is those actions that broke the law.

The question here is whether the government violated the law when it went further. After Anthropic went public with its disagreement with the Department of War, Defendants reacted with three significant measures that are the subject of this lawsuit. First, the President announced that every federal agency (not just the Department of War) would immediately ban Anthropic from ever having another government contract. That would include, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts using Claude to design its website. Second, Secretary Hegseth announced that anyone who wants to do business with the U.S. military must sever any commercial relationship with Anthropic. That would mean a company that used Claude to power its customer service chatbot could not serve as a defense contractor. Third, the Department of War designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” a label that applies to adversaries of the U.S. government who may sabotage its technology systems. That designation has never been applied to a domestic company and is directed principally at foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and other hostile actors. [p.1-2]

And the court counts several ways that the government’s actions were likely illegal. At minimum, Anthropic suffered a due process violation for not having notice and an opportunity to respond to the government’s sudden supply chain risk designation, which threatened a cognizable liberty interest the Fifth Amendment protects. (“The record shows that the Challenged Actions threaten to cripple Anthropic by not only stripping it of billions of dollars in federal contracts and subcontracts but also by labeling it as an adversary to the United States and ending its ability to have any commercial relationship with any company that might want to do business with DoW.”) [fuller analysis p.24-29]

The “supply chain risk” designation was also likely “both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.” On the first point, there are two statutory paths for designating a vendor a supply chain risk, and this case addressed just one of them—the other will be addressed by the DC Circuit. But it found the government’s claim it was using the statutory authority properly to be wanting: First, Anthropic’s conduct did not meet the statutory definition of a supply chain risk.

On the record before the Court, Anthropic’s conduct does not appear to be within the definition of “supply chain risk” in Section 3252. Section 3252 defines a supply chain risk as limited to “the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert . . . a covered system.” 10 U.S.C. § 3252(d)(4). Assuming without deciding that a domestic company can be an “adversary,” the plain text of the statute is directed at covert acts or hacks, not overt positions taken during contract negotiations. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how one could sabotage, maliciously introduce an unwanted function, or subvert an information technology system by publicly announcing usage restrictions or insisting on such restrictions in conversations with DoW. Defendants appear to be taking the position that any vendor who “push[es] back” on or “question[s]” DoW becomes its “adversary.” (Dkt. No. 128 at 41.) That position is deeply troubling and inconsistent with the statutory text. [p.30-32]

And second, those procedural rules the government blew off to invoke the statute, such as the need to notify Congress first, actually mattered. Despite what the government argued at oral argument, that the Congressional notification requirements were only for the benefit of Congress, the court found that they were important safeguards Congress had built into the statute to prevent its abuse and therefore non-optional. (“Section 3252 and its enabling regulations create institutional safeguards—which the Secretary must complete before making a designation—to ensure that its designation is applied properly. The Supply Chain Designation failed to comply with these mandated procedural safeguards.”) [see analysis p.32-34].

In addition, the designation itself was likely arbitrary and capricious. As the court noted early in its decision (emphasis added):

The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur. At oral argument, government counsel suggested that Anthropic showed its subversive tendencies by “questioning” the use of its technology, “raising concerns” about it, and criticizing the government’s position in the press. Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government.[p. 2; further analysis p.35-37 (“In sum, the contradictory positions, the procedural defects, and the rushed process following a public declaration of the foreordained conclusion all indicate that the actions were arbitrary and capricious.”)]

And then there is the problem at the heart of the matter: that it appears the government is trying to punish Anthropic for daring to criticize it, and that sort of retaliation for speech violates the First Amendment.

The record supports an inference that Anthropic is being punished for criticizing the government’s contracting position in the press. In their announcements, the President and Secretary Hegseth called Anthropic “out of control” and “arrogant,” describing its “sanctimonious rhetoric” as an attempt to “strong-arm” the government. The Department of War’s records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its “hostile manner through the press.” Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation. [p.2]

And it violates the First Amendment not only by impinging on Anthropic’s right to speak, but everyone else, who is now deterred from speaking out as well, even on matters of public concern like ethical use of AI, given that the government is now inflicting consequences on those who speak in ways it doesn’t like. To the court, the government’s action looks clearly retaliatory. (“The record shows that Defendants’ conduct appears to be driven not by a desire to maintain operational control when using AI in the military but by a desire to make an example of Anthropic for its public stance on the weighty issues at stake in the contracting dispute.”) [p.19]. A retaliation claim can succeed when (1) the plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity, (2) the defendant’s actions would “chill a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in the protected activity, and (3) the protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the defendant’s conduct—in other words, that what the defendant did was intended to chill speech, and here the court found all these prongs met. [p.20].

On the first, Anthropic was publicly staking out a position on what deployments of Claude are currently unsafe and what rights Anthropic has to allow Claude’s use by the government only with certain safety restrictions, which the court found to be a matter of public concern and thus protected by the First Amendment. (“[T]he record shows that Anthropic and its CEO, Dario Amodei, are a loud and influential voice regarding the capabilities, risks, and safe uses of AI technology.”) [p.20]. As to the second, there was plenty of evidence of speech being chilled:

Anthropic has submitted evidence that the Challenged Actions threaten to cripple the company and chill public debate. See supra Section II.G. Several amicus briefs support this conclusion. A group of 37 individuals working on AI technology assert that the Challenged Actions “chill[] professional debate on the benefits and risks of frontier AI systems and various ways that risks can be addressed to optimize the technology’s deployment.” (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 8.) An industry group of “values-led investors” warns that the Challenged Actions chill speech necessary to allow them to direct their investments to support the “principles and values” they care about. (Dkt. No. 77-1 at 12.) In short, the Challenged Actions easily qualify as ones which would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in further protected speech amici in the case showed how everyone’s speech was being chilled by what the government had done.[p.21]

And as for the third, the government’s behavior clearly resulted from displeasure with Anthropic’s views and the desire to relinquish them.

Secretary Hegseth expressly tied Anthropic’s punishment to its attitude and rhetoric in the press. He stated that “Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance.” (Dkt. No. 6-21 at 2.) Referring to Anthropic and Amodei, he further stated: “Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of ‘effective altruism,’ they have attempted to strong-arm the United States military” through their “corporate virtue-signaling” and “Silicon Valley ideology.” (Id.) “Anthropic’s stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles.” (Id.) The President described Anthropic as “radical left, woke company” and its employees as “leftwing nut jobs,” who “made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War.” (Dkt. No. 6-20 at 2.) Read in context of these repeated references to rhetoric and ideology, the term “strong-arm” in the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive appears to be characterizing Anthropic as applying public pressure. […] These specific references to Anthropic’s viewpoint and public stance are direct evidence of what motivated Defendants’ decision-making.[p.21-22]

And the government’s defense—that Anthropic’s “contracting position” is conduct, not speech entitled to First Amendment protection, and that Anthropic’s refusal to accept DOD’s terms was what prompted the government’s actions—was unavailing.

First, without reaching the question of whether private contract negotiations alone could constitute protected activity under the First Amendment, the record shows that Anthropic engaged in protected speech when it took public the parties’ contracting impasse and the reasons behind its refusal to agree to DoW’s terms. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 6-7, 6-18.) As already explained, Anthropic’s views on this matter fall within the heart of what the First Amendment protects: “subject[s] of general interest and of value and concern to the public” and “of legitimate news interests.” See Snyder, 562 U.S. at 452–53 (citation omitted). Therefore, to the extent Anthropic publicly discussed its “contracting position,” that speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Next, Defendants argue that even if Anthropic’s public statements constitute protected speech, the contract dispute—not Anthropic’s speech—was the motive and “but for” cause of the Challenged Actions. (Dkt. No. 96 at 22–24.) They point out that although Anthropic and Amodei have long advocated for AI safety, Defendants took the Challenged Actions only after Anthropic refused to remove its usage restrictions. But Defendants’ own actions belie the notion that Anthropic’s contracting position is what drove the Challenged Actions. Anthropic had imposed its usage restrictions from the beginning of DoW’s use of Claude Gov, and no one had ever suggested that this indicated that Anthropic was untrustworthy or a potential saboteur. To the contrary, Anthropic passed extensive vetting at that time and was praised by the government, which had made arrangements to expand the company’s role. It was only when Anthropic publicly discussed its dispute with DoW that Defendants criticized its rhetoric and ideology and adopted the punitive measures at issue.[p.22-23]

Throughout the decision the court observes that if the dispute here were just over the contract, then surely the government would have just stopped using Claude. But it didn’t just do that; it did more. And that more is now enjoined. The February 27 Presidential Directive from Trump “ordering all federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic’s technology” is to have no effect, nor is any agency action (by any agency,** not just the DOD), taken in response to it. No one in the Trump Administration (Anthropic had named pretty much every agency as defendants, so that’s basically how it boils down) may “issu[e] or maintain[] any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Presidential Directive” or “tak[e] any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Presidential Directive.”

Meanwhile, Hegseth and the DOD are also enjoined from “implementing, applying, or enforcing in any manner” what the court referred to as the Hegseth Directive, issued later on February 27, designating Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security” and “directing that no contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the United States military may conduct commercial activity with Anthropic.” Nor can it implement, apply, or enforce anything in the March 3 letter DOD sent notifying Anthropic of the supply chain designation and the associated determination formalizing that designation under 10 U.S.C. § 3252. Hegseth and the DOD are also enjoined from “[f]rom issuing or maintaining any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Hegseth Directive or the Supply Chain Designation [and from] taking any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Hegseth Directive or the Supply Chain Designation.”

* No, it’s not the “Department of War” as unfortunately both parties and even the court called it, for reasons that elude. Perhaps Anthropic feared it would pull a Trump-friendly judge and need to speak the Administration’s language in order to be treated fairly, but such was not the case, at least in this piece of the case in the Northern District of California—maybe it will be different in the second piece of the case in the DC Circuit. But it’s not clear why the court had to humor them; it applies law, and the law, as passed by Congress to create, name, and fund the agency, calls it the Department of Defense, with Hegseth having been appointed to a specific job called the “Secretary of Defense.” If Congress wanted it to be called the “Department of War” it could have named it thus, but it found there were tangible policy reasons not to when it in fact changed its name to the DOD instead. It typifies the Trump Administration’s typical indifference to any law that might happen to govern any of its behavior to ignore it and Congress’s authority to pass it by unilaterally trumping Congress’s wishes and rename it, but no one else needs to indulge yet another of their abuses of power by humoring their choice.

** The Executive Office of the President is not bound by the injunction directly, despite being a named defendant. Nevertheless, “[l]ike all other persons, EOP is barred from acting for, with, by, through, or under authority from any enjoined Defendant, or in concert or participation with any enjoined Defendant, in any manner inconsistent with the preliminary injunction order.” [p.42]

Remember when Elon Musk told advertisers to “go fuck” themselves and then sued them for the crime of taking his advice? A federal judge has now dismissed that lawsuit — with prejudice — confirming what anyone with a passing familiarity with antitrust law already knew: companies deciding they don’t want their brands plastered next to extremist content aren’t engaged in an illegal conspiracy. They’re just making basic (probably pretty smart) business decisions.

When X Corp filed this case back in August of 2024, we walked through in great detail why the legal theory was fundamentally broken. Not broken in a “they pleaded it badly” kind of way, but broken in a “this theory does not describe an antitrust violation no matter how many drugs you’re taking or how convinced you are that the world owes you advertising dollars” kind of way. Judge Jane Boyle of the Northern District of Texas has now agreed, and the key section of her ruling is worth reading in full, because it says what we said at the outset: X has not suffered antitrust injury.

The court laid out the standard, quoting the Fifth Circuit, channeling the Supreme Court, on what counts as an antitrust injury:

The Supreme Court has distilled antitrust injury as being “injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants’ acts unlawful.” … “The antitrust laws … were enacted for ‘the protection of competition not competitors.'” … “Typical” antitrust injury thus “include[s] increased prices and decreased output.” … “This circuit has narrowly interpreted the meaning of antitrust injury, excluding from it the threat of decreased competition.” … “Loss from competition itself—that is, loss in the form of customers[] choosing the competitor’s goods and services over the plaintiff’s—does not constitute an antitrust injury.” … In short, the question underlying antitrust injury is whether consumers—not competitors—have been harmed.

Antitrust law protects competition, not competitors. X’s entire argument boiled down to: “advertisers chose to spend their money somewhere other than our platform, and that hurt us.” But that’s just… the market. That’s how markets work. Customers choosing not to buy from you because they don’t like what you’re selling has never been an antitrust violation, and the court made short work of explaining why.

Amusingly, the GOP — whose campaigns Musk has bankrolled extensively — spent decades pushing for exactly this narrow definition of antitrust injury, precisely to make cases like this harder to bring. Perhaps one of those politicians could have mentioned that before Elon filed.

But this case was never actually about winning an antitrust case. It was a warning shot at advertisers: give Elon your money or we’ll drag you through an expensive court process. A shakedown dressed up in legal filings. Indeed, after the lawsuit was filed, it was reported that part of X’s “sales” process was to threaten companies that they’d be added to the lawsuit if they didn’t advertise on the platform.

The court examined X’s theory from two different angles, and it failed both times. First, if the conspiracy was supposed to benefit competing social media platforms (like Pinterest, one of the defendants), X hadn’t alleged that any competitor was actually behind the boycott or pressuring advertisers to exclude X so the competitor could corner the market:

X has not alleged that the advertisers chose to do business with Pinterest—or any other social media company—as part of an agreement not to do business with X. Unlike the large hospital in Doctor’s Hospital, Pinterest is not alleged to be X’s competitor that wanted to exclude X from the market so that it could charge higher prices. In turn, unlike the network in Doctor’s Hospital, the advertisers did not decide to boycott X at Pinterest’s—or any other X competitor’s—behest to secure the competitor’s business. Instead, X alleges a conspiracy driven by advertisers not to further X-competitor social media companies’ interests but to pursue their own collective interests as to where they place their advertisements.

Second, if the conspiracy was supposed to eliminate competition at the advertiser level, the court found that GARM wasn’t acting as some kind of gatekeeper blocking X from accessing customers. It was just… advertisers deciding for themselves:

GARM is not an economic intermediary like the retailers in Eastern States. GARM did not buy advertising space from X to sell to advertisers nor did it, in such an arrangement, tell X not to sell directly to GARM’s customers. Rather, GARM was organized by advertisers and reflected their “avowed commitment to furthering [their] economic interests . . . as a group.” … Thus, if GARM is the obstacle to X reaching its advertiser-customers directly, then it is the equivalent of the advertiser-customers themselves deciding not to deal.

That’s the ballgame. Advertisers collectively deciding they don’t want to spend money on your platform — especially after you’ve told them to go fuck themselves and your platform has become a haven for content that damages their brands — just doesn’t state an antitrust claim. Imagine being so entitled that when the marketplace rejects your offering, you insist that it must be an antitrust attack on your rights to their money?

The court was so confident in this conclusion that it dismissed the case with prejudice and denied X the opportunity to replead, noting that the 165-paragraph complaint was already plenty detailed:

The 165-paragraph Second Amended Complaint contains no dearth of detail: if facts existed that GARM operated at an X competitor’s behest to put X out of business or that GARM advertisers sought to unfairly exclude competing advertisers from doing business, X would have pleaded those facts. The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the Court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice.

When a court tells you the nature of your theory doesn’t work, that’s about as definitive a loss as you can get.

As we noted when the case was filed, the evidence X submitted in its own complaint actually undermined the case. One of X’s own exhibits showed GARM’s lead, Rob Rakowitz, explicitly telling an advertiser that GARM doesn’t make recommendations and that advertising decisions are “completely within the sphere of each member and subject to their own discretion.” Another email showed Rakowitz telling an advertiser asking about Twitter that “you may want to connect with Twitter directly to understand their progress on brand safety and make your own decisions.” This is the supposedly nefarious conspiracy that X spent years and untold legal fees litigating.

Separately, I have to mention the blatant forum shopping: X filed this case in the Wichita Falls Division of the Northern District of Texas, which was widely understood as a transparent attempt to land in front of Judge Reed O’Connor, known for partisan rulings and already presiding over Elon’s SLAPP suit against Media Matters. That didn’t work out — O’Connor recused himself, not because of his ownership of Tesla stock, but rather his ownership of some advertising firms who were defendants. The case got reassigned to Judge Boyle, and X still lost. In an ironic twist, X then tried to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York, only to have the court deny that motion because X couldn’t even prove they did business in that specific district. So X handpicked a forum, lost its judge, and then couldn’t escape to a different one. Great lawyering.

But the legal dismissal, satisfying as it is, doesn’t capture the most important part of what actually happened here. Because while the court correctly found that X suffered no antitrust injury, GARM itself suffered a very real injury: it was killed.

GARM shut down within days of the lawsuit being filed, following Rep. Jim Jordan’s misleading congressional investigation that painted the organization as some kind of anti-conservative censorship machine. Jordan’s pressure campaign, combined with the threat of expensive litigation from the world’s richest man, made it untenable for GARM to continue operating. The organization that existed to help advertisers make informed decisions about brand safety — a fundamentally expressive activity, protected by the First Amendment — was destroyed through government jawboning and litigation threats.

There was only one attack on free speech involved here and it came from Jim Jordan and Elon Musk, not GARM or its advertiser members.

X filed this lawsuit wrapped in the language of free speech. Former X CEO Linda Yaccarino literally wore a necklace that said “free speech” while announcing the case, claiming that advertisers not giving X money was somehow an attack on users’ ability to express themselves. The actual speech suppression ran the other direction entirely. A private organization exercising its speech rights to help its members make informed business decisions was bullied out of existence through a combination of congressional intimidation and frivolous litigation.

Jordan celebrated GARM’s dissolution as a victory for free speech — par for the course for the censorial MAGA GOP. A congressman used the weight of his office to pressure a private organization into shutting down, and called that free speech. Meanwhile, the lawsuit that was part of that same ecosystem of intimidation has now been found to have no legal merit whatsoever.

This is what actual jawboning looks like in practice. The lawsuit didn’t need to succeed to accomplish its goal. GARM is gone. The organization that facilitated conversations among advertisers about how to protect their brands has been silenced. The chilling effect on any future organization that might want to do something similar is obvious and intentional. Any industry group that tries to coordinate around brand safety now knows that it might face a billionaire-funded lawsuit and a congressional investigation for its trouble.

The court’s ruling is a vindication of basic antitrust law. But the more important point is about what the actual free speech dynamics were in this whole saga.

X can appeal, of course, and given that this falls within the Fifth Circuit, stranger things have happened. But the fundamental problem remains what it’s always been: the theory that advertisers owe you their business because you exist, and that organizing around brand safety is a criminal conspiracy, has never been a viable legal argument. The court said so plainly. Dismissed with prejudice. Nothing to fix, because the whole premise was broken from the start.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that warrants were needed to obtain cell site location info (CSLI). That decision dealt with law enforcement’s warrantless acquisition of 127 days of location data from a cell service provider. As the court saw it, the government was leveraging access to this data to turn cell phones (which has been given heightened protections with the 2014 Riley decision) into government tracking devices, all without having to bother with warrants or deploying government-crafted tracking tech.

The rationale for this 4th Amendment bypass was this: location data slurped up by websites and downloaded apps wasn’t exactly the same thing as cell tower location data. Therefore, it could be had without a warrant. In fact, it could be had without bothering the courts at all with a subpoena or any other lighter-weight legal paperwork. The government could just buy this data and sort through it to find what it was looking for. Some third parties were even willing to do the sorting for the right price, freeing the government up to pursue other rights violations.

This option obviously experienced a jump in popularity following the Supreme Court’s Carpenter ruling. While the spokespeople constantly stated the agencies they represented (which was pretty much all of them when it came to buying data from data brokers) were super-interested in respecting constitutional rights, they never took the time to explain their “respect” meant constantly testing (or breaking!) the boundaries until court precedent forced them to do otherwise.

In 2023, anti-encryption zealot Christopher Wray was heading the FBI. During the last years of his tenure, he admitted to Congress (or, more specifically, privacy hawk Senator Ron Wyden) that the FBI was — like CBP, ICE, US Secret Service, IRS, and federal prisons — buying up as much location data as it could purchase. Wray insisted this process was “court-authorized,” but somehow couldn’t find any court documents laying around that would support his claims of authorization.

The government is still buying this data. And it’s even more problematic than it was a few years ago, when federal agencies weren’t being run by MAGA loyalists and outright racists. Now there’s a new wrinkle: the government is delving into ad markets to siphon off RTB (real-time bidding) data that’s capable of tying location data to specific devices, even if those hawking the data pretend it’s been anonymized.

So, it comes as absolutely no surprise that aspiring frat bro Kash Patel’s FBI is doing the same thing that plenty of immigration-focused agencies are already doing. Yet again, it’s Senator Wyden demanding answers. And it’s Kash Patel answering the questions without honestly engaging with the questions. Here’s Zack Whittaker with the details for TechCrunch:

When asked by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, if the FBI would commit to not buying Americans’ location data, Patel said that the agency “uses all tools … to do our mission.”

“We do purchase commercially available information that is consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act — and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us,” Patel testified Wednesday.

First, there’s the obviously false insistence that this is all very constitutional. Buying location data from data brokers doesn’t just violate the spirit of the Supreme Court’s Carpenter decision, it’s only a letter or three off from violating the letter of the law. When the only difference is where you’re obtaining long-term location tracking data, you’re just exploiting loopholes rather than actually trying to be “consistent with the Constitution.”

The second part is even stupider. When you claim that legally-questionable efforts have “led to some valuable intelligence,” you’re just saying that the ends justify the means. And if that’s the low bar you’ve set for yourself, you’re going to be violating rights regularly because you prefer harvesting data to respecting rights.

This sums up the government’s stance concisely:

The FBI claims it does not need a warrant to use this information for federal investigations; though this legal theory has not yet been tested in court.

The government — especially this one — will never err on the side of restraint. It would rather explore the outer edges of legal theory, sacrificing our rights in exchange for more government power. At some point, this legal theory will be tested. But until it is, the government is going to continue to pretend the implications of Carpenter don’t apply to anything that hasn’t been specifically ruled unconstitutional.

The 2026 Microsoft Office Pro Bundle has 8 courses to help you master essential Office skills. Courses cover Access, PowerPoint, Word, Excel, and more. It’s on sale for $21.25 using the code MARCH15 at checkout.

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

Last week, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri got into a heated exchange during a Senate hearing with Stanford’s Daphne Keller. Schmitt, who, as Missouri’s Attorney General, originally filed the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, was berating Keller over Stanford’s supposed role in helping the Biden administration censor social media during the 2020 election (see if you can spot the time-space continuum problem with that sentence). When Keller pushed back on his characterization of events, Schmitt got increasingly agitated and told her she could “read all about it in Missouri v. Biden.” Keller’s response was instant and devastating: “The one you lost?“

He did not take it well, immediately throwing an embarrassing Senatorial temper tantrum.

And so maybe it’s not surprising that just a week later, Schmitt was doing a victory lap over a “settlement” that his friends in the Trump administration very conveniently worked out with the remaining plaintiffs in the case. The framing, of course, was triumphant. From his post on social media:

Shorter version:

We just won Missouri v. Biden.

As Missouri’s Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent “misinformation” while they pushed their narrative on the American people.

Missouri struck first—and Missouri won big.

And the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented many of the plaintiffs, was even more grandiose in its description of the settlement:

The federal government’s social media censorship was the most massive suppression of speech in the nation’s history, it was profoundly important to resist it.

Even the Washington Post editorial board got taken in, writing about the settlement as a “forceful affirmation of First Amendment principles.” Reclaim the Net went even further, claiming the decree represented a “formal, court-enforceable admission: the federal government pressured social media platforms to silence protected speech.”

There’s just one fairly big problem. None of this is true. The case was a dud. While it is true that the district court hyped it up as (what the NCLA repeated) “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” literally no one else found the same. The Fifth Circuit saw that most of the claims were flimsy and cut back nearly the entire injunction, and the Supreme Court threw it out completely (“the one that you lost”) not only pointing out five separate times that there was “no evidence” to support the claims of censorship, but also calling out the district court’s findings, noting that they “appear to be clearly erroneous.”

It’s quite a misleading victory lap to quote the judge who both higher courts called out for misreading the evidence to say things that the evidence clearly did not say (it was actually worse: the judge fabricated quotes to make it sound like there was evidence when there was not).

As for this “settlement,” anyone who actually reads it would realize that it doesn’t support any of the claims making the rounds.

Now the reason Schmitt claims he didn’t “lose” the case is because, technically, the Supreme Court rejected the case on “standing” grounds — meaning the plaintiffs hadn’t shown they had a legal right to bring the case. But the reason they didn’t have standing was devastating to the plaintiffs’ entire theory. The opinion methodically dismantled the conspiracy theory at the heart of the case:

We reject this overly broad assertion. As already discussed, the platforms moderated similar content long before any of the Government defendants engaged in the challenged conduct. In fact, the platforms, acting independently, had strengthened their pre-existing content-moderation policies before the Government defendants got involved. For instance, Facebook announced an expansion of its COVID–19 misinformation policies in early February 2021, before White House officials began communicating with the platform. And the platforms continued to exercise their independent judgment even after communications with the defendants began. For example, on several occasions, various platforms explained that White House officials had flagged content that did not violate company policy.

The Court further called out how the lower courts had built their case on lies and misrepresentations:

The District Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient report-and-censor relationship.”… But much of its evidence is inapposite. For instance, the court says that Twitter set up a “streamlined process for censorship requests” after the White House “bombarded” it with such requests. The record it cites says nothing about “censorship requests.” Rather, in response to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an impersonation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the official about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues. This has nothing to do with COVID–19 misinformation.

In other words, the Supreme Court looked at the actual record, found a pile of conspiratorial nonsense, and told the lower courts they got played. This was a loss. A clear, unambiguous loss.

But of course, with Trump back in office and the same crew of ideologues now running the government, it was time to manufacture a win. And so we get this “consent decree.”

On paper, it sounds dramatic. The NCLA breathlessly announced that the settlement “prohibits the U.S. Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from threatening social media companies into removing or suppressing constitutionally protected speech.” Schmitt claimed the decree means “no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions.”

But if you actually read the consent decree (and I encourage you to do so, because clearly many of the people celebrating it haven’t), you find something remarkable: the decree prohibits conduct that the Supreme Court found no evidence was happening, while explicitly carving out everything that actually was happening.

First (and most importantly), the decree only applies to three remaining individual plaintiffs (Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Jill Hines, and Jim Hoft) and two states, and only on five specific platforms. It doesn’t protect anyone else. If you’re a random American whose content gets moderated on social media, this decree does absolutely nothing for you. That certainly doesn’t match what Schmitt claimed.

Second, and more importantly, paragraph 24 of the decree is where the whole thing collapses:

This prohibition does not extend to providing Social-Media Companies with information that the companies are free to use as they wish. Nor does it extend to statements by government officials that posts on Social Media Companies’ platforms are inaccurate, wrong, or contrary to the Administration’s views, unless those statements are otherwise coupled with a threat of punishment within the meaning of the above provision.

That paragraph basically describes exactly what the Biden administration was actually doing — and declares it fine. The government can still share information with social media companies. It can still tell companies that content on their platforms is wrong or inaccurate. It can still express displeasure. It just can’t couple those statements with threats of punishment.

Which is… exactly what the First Amendment already requires. And exactly what the Supreme Court found was not happening in the first place. The consent decree literally codifies the Biden administration’s actual conduct as permissible while grandly prohibiting a phantom version of events that the Supreme Court found no evidence of.

Even better, paragraph 17 of the decree says the quiet part out loud:

The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is entered into solely for the purpose of settling and compromising any remaining claims in this action without further litigation, and, except as stated explicitly in the text of the Agreement, it shall not be construed as evidence or as an admission regarding any issues of law or fact, or regarding the truth or validity of any allegation or claim raised in this action or in any other action.

So the decree is explicitly not an admission of anything. It cannot be construed as evidence of any wrongdoing. The government didn’t admit to censorship. Reclaim the Net’s headline — “US Government Admits Pressuring Social Media Platforms to Censor Protected Speech” — is directly contradicted by the text of the document they’re supposedly celebrating. Did they not read it?

Yes, the preamble quotes Trump’s executive order making grand accusations about Biden-era censorship. But that’s a political document, not a finding of fact. The Trump administration saying the Biden administration did bad things is hardly the same as the Biden administration admitting it did bad things, or a court finding that it did bad things. In fact, the only court to substantively examine the evidence — the Supreme Court — found no evidence to support these claims.

So what we have here is a neat little trick: the Trump administration negotiates a settlement with friendly plaintiffs (some of whom had to drop out of the case because they joined the Trump administration), quotes Trump’s own executive order as if it were established fact, and everyone involved pretends this vindicates the original claims — despite the Supreme Court (and a clean reading of the evidence) having rejected them.

Speaking of those former plaintiffs, let’s talk about the delicious absurdity of how this case ate itself. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the original individual plaintiffs who claimed he was censored by the Biden administration, had to drop out of the case because he was confirmed as Director of the National Institutes of Health — the agency he claimed (without evidence) had “censored him” even though his lawyers somehow forgot to add NIH as a defendant. Dr. Martin Kulldorff similarly withdrew because of his new role within the Department of Health and Human Services. The supposed victims of government censorship are now running the very agencies they accused of censoring them. And, again, I have to reinforce, that the Supreme Court called out the lack of actual “censorship” for either of these guys.

Both Bhattacharya and Kulldorff were mad that Facebook restricted access to the Great Barrington Declaration, a document they co-authored. But they fail to mention that the person running the Great Barrington Declaration website has publicly revealed that the reason Facebook blocked it was anti-vaxxers mass reporting the site — because they misread the declaration as supporting “forced vaccinations.” (There are more details at the link above).

So naturally, despite all this, the fact that they became top officials in the Trump administration should raise questions about how suddenly the administration worked out a friendly settlement with their friends who were still plaintiffs. What a coincidence.

But the real tell is what’s happening right now, while MAGA is celebrating: the Trump admin is doing far worse than anything Biden was even accused of. Yes, while the Trump administration and its gullible friends are busy patting themselves on the back for supposedly defending free speech from the horrors of the Biden administration sharing information with social media companies, it is engaged in conduct that is far, far worse than anything alleged in Missouri v. Biden.

As you’ll certainly recall, the Trump administration’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr went on a podcast and explicitly threatened Disney with regulatory retaliation over Jimmy Kimmel’s monologues, telling them “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Hours later, the show was pulled. That’s textbook coercion — exactly the kind that the Supreme Court in both Murthy and Vullo said would violate the First Amendment if proven. Unlike the conduct in the case that just settled, where the Supreme Court found no such proof.

And then we have the even clearer violation: Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice demanded that Apple and Google remove the ICEBlock app from their stores… and bragged about it! That’s the federal government literally ordering private companies to suppress an application. Not sending mean emails. Not sharing information platforms are free to use as they wish. An explicit demand for removal.

“We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store—and Apple did so,” Bondi added according to the Fox report.

Where’s Schmitt’s outrage? Where’s the NCLA lawsuit? Where’s Philip Hamburger’s condemnation of “the most massive suppression of speech in the nation’s history”?

Nowhere. Because this was never really about free speech. This was about building a narrative that the Biden administration censored conservatives, manufacturing a legal document that appears to vindicate that claim (despite explicitly saying it doesn’t), and then using it as political cover while engaging in an even more extreme version of the conduct you claimed to oppose.

This perfectly matches the pattern Renee DiResta documented in her Lawfare review of Schmitt’s book — which he subtitled “how to beat the left in court” — where she noted his habit of presenting cases he lost as if he won them. The book apparently describes multiple lawsuits where Schmitt failed to achieve his stated legal objectives but then spun the results as massive victories for the narrative benefit. Missouri v. Biden is the crown jewel of this approach: lose at the Supreme Court, negotiate a meaningless consent decree with a friendly administration, declare total victory.

Even the Washington Post editorial board, which gave the decree far more credit than it deserved, couldn’t quite look away from the obvious:

The unfortunate catch is that the settlement only applies to the specific plaintiffs in this particular case. In other words, only the people who initially sued the Biden administration, and public officials from Louisiana and Missouri, will enjoy the court-ordered protections from government censorship. It’s unlikely the current administration would target right-leaning individuals or states, but the consent decree will apply for 10 years.

The settlement also applies only to government pressure on five companies: Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Linkedln and YouTube. That means, for example, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s efforts to bully broadcasters to toe the administration’s political line will be unaffected.

So even the Post recognizes that the decree does nothing about actual, current, obvious government coercion of media companies. But somehow this is still a “forceful affirmation of First Amendment principles”? How so? A consent decree that protects three specific people from conduct that wasn’t happening, while the government signing the decree is actively coercing media companies in ways that obviously violate the First Amendment?

The consent decree is a press release disguised as a legal document. It prohibits First Amendment violations the Supreme Court found no evidence of, permits everything the evidence shows the Biden administration was actually doing, and was signed by an administration currently engaged in the exact conduct the decree pretends to prohibit.

The one you lost, indeed.

When right wing billionaire Larry Ellison (and his nepobaby kid David) hired trolling blogger Bari Weiss to run CBS News, Weiss arrived with the promise of “balanced, fact-based news,” “independent, principled journalism,” and a unique “entrepreneurial drive and editorial vision” that would completely modernize the network and reach the “everyday Americans” traditionally ignored by mainstream media.

As we noted at the time, that was all bullshit code for turning CBS into yet another outlet that panders to global autocrats, normalizes far right wing extremism, coddles corporate power, and generally shits all over progressive societal reforms.

Weiss wasn’t a journalist, had no serious journalism experience, isn’t good at journalism, and wasn’t hired to do journalism. She was hired specifically to do ratings-grabbing, viral, right wing friendly agitprop which the Ellisons mistakenly seemed to think there was a massive market for. But unfortunately for Weiss, she’s not good at that either.

And it’s just observationally true that nobody actually wants what CBS’ new ownership is selling.

Broadcast TV was already in trouble (just 20% of all TV viewing is now broadcast). The conspiratorial right wing MAGA movement already has countless propaganda outlets to choose from. And the folks who used to find CBS News semi useful aren’t sticking around. “CBS Evening News” ratings keep dipping below 4 million viewers; the kind of ratings that caused CBS to revamp things in the first place.

In fact, CBS News just saw its worst quarter of ratings in 25 years, and it’s not slowing down:

“Demo figures are perhaps even more alarming. “CBS Evening News” lost about 15% of its viewership in the adults 25 to 54 bracket for the first quarter of 2026. ABC is also off by around 4%, while “Nightly” is up 8%.”

Oliver Darcy put it this way over at his newsletter:

“Viewers are smart. They understand that under Ellison’s ownership, and with Weiss at the helm, CBS News has charted a new course … one that is friendlier to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement he leads.”

It’s just not clear who Weiss thinks she’s appealing to. There’s no shortage of weird, timid, corporatist, center-right blandness across journalism. Countless outlets are making such a pivot the under Trump in an industry that’s being increasingly consolidated under the ownership of terrible rich assholes with increasingly extreme, anti-democratic ideals. And fewer and fewer people watch broadcast TV anyway.

It’s clear Larry Ellison and other right wingers envy and want to emulate the control of media Victor Orban enjoys in Hungary. Under most autocratic models, party-loyal oligarchs buy up all the major companies, pummel the country with propaganda, and the government sues, harasses, and strangles real journalism just out of frame. As it progresses and gets worse, journalists often wind up dead.

But America is much bigger and much more diverse than Hungary. People are also increasingly consuming media and news in short form snippets from a massive and expanding assortment of influencers (credible or not), independent outlets, and direct-to-consumer journalists. “Flooding the zone with shit,” (to use a Steve Bannon term) impacts everybody, and makes it hard for any one player to dominate modern media.

The folks who’ll rise above the noise in this fractured, new, badly automated, modern media landscape have to be either extremely clever, inherently gifted at pandering to the lowest common denominator, or undeniably authentic.

Bari Weiss is none of those.

Bari came into her job insisting she had the secret sauce to modernize CBS in the viral social media era, and by every indication there’s no evidence that’s actually true. Much of the stuff she’s introduced is just foundationally boring cack of interest to nobody.

As a result, I suspect Weiss’ tenure won’t last past the end of the summer.

I don’t want to give Larry Ellison any ideas, but you could see a future where he hires someone who actually is the modern hustlebro manfluencer version of Roger Ailes; somebody who can leverage CBS and Ellison’s new co-ownership of TikTok to create a truly modern, even uglier version of Fox News that seeds social media with inflammatory, pseudo-journalistic bullshit peppered with sports betting ads.

The thing is there’s just absolutely no evidence anybody at this new Paramount is remotely competent for good or ill, whether we’re talking about Weiss or Paramount President Jeff Shell (who was fired from Comcast for allegations of sexual harassment, and is now going through weird legal tangles at CBS).

Unfortunately, if all Larry Ellison accomplishes is the destruction of another cornerstone of U.S. journalism, he’s still broadly made the world a worse place in a way that benefits him personally. Though even then, you’d like to think there’s potential for people who actually have something ethical or authentic to say to build something useful from the ashes.

Even at the best of times, the hallmark of RFK Jr.’s Health & Human Services is chaos. Whether it’s misinformation on vaccines and other public health matters, his unique ability to exit very smart people from public health agencies, or his desire to upend established government health protocols, it’s a constant frenzy when Kennedy is in charge.

But these aren’t the best of times for Kennedy. In fact, it appears that both legal and political mechanisms are starting to mete out consequences for all the nonsense going on at HHS. It was only days ago that a federal court issued an injunction on the CDC’s changes to vaccination schedules since Kennedy remade ACIP in his image, and in fact the new ACIP appointments themselves may be illegal. Almost simultaneously, reports came out that the White House is attempting to yank Kennedy and HHS out of the spotlight due to their becoming a political liability heading into the midterms.

And now, in what will both be a reaction to and furtherance of all of that chaos, Robert Malone has announced that he is leaving ACIP altogether. Malone is a proud anti-vaxxer and claims to have “invented” mRNA technology, a claim that is heavily disputed, to put it mildly. In the wake of the court’s injunction on ACIP and its recommendations for vaccine schedules, there was reporting that Kennedy was planning to disband ACIP once again and remake it with all new members as a quicker fix than appealing the court’s decision. As a result, Malone jumped straight to social media to claim that’s exactly what happened, before later retracting his statement.

On Thursday, Malone claimed on social media that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had disbanded ACIP and planned to completely reconstitute it (again), without appealing the judge’s ruling or defending Kennedy’s ACIP picks from the judge’s claims that they were unqualified. But soon after, Malone retracted his claim, saying it was a miscommunication and that disbanding ACIP was merely one of the “options being considered.”

In other words, he took half-baked information and made definitive claims to the masses, claims that turned out to be incorrect. So, you know, basically on par with all of the nonsense he’s spewed about vaccines. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon then had to issue a statement to the press to clean all of this up, stating that anything that doesn’t come directly from him or HHS brass was “baseless speculation”.

And it was that, of all things, that caused Malone to quit.

Malone told Roll Call today that Nixon’s response was what led to his departure. “After Andrew trashing me with the press, I am done with the CDC and ACIP,” Malone said in a text message Tuesday morning. “That was the last straw.”

“Suffice to say I do not like drama, and have better things to do,” he added.

And then he went to the New York Times as well.

“Hundreds of hours of uncompensated labor, incredible hate from many quarters, hostile press, internal bickering, weaponized leaking, sabotage—I have better things to do,” he said.

On the one hand, I don’t think much of Malone’s qualifications for being a member of ACIP, so I’m not exactly sad to see him exit stage left. But it is interesting to see that the impression of chaos, infighting, bickering, and internal backstabbing that you get viewing HHS from the outside is mirrored by someone on the inside.

This would be funny if this weren’t a matter of public health. If there weren’t a measles outbreak that is still ongoing in this country (we’re already at 1,487 CDC confirmed cases this year). If some of the public and some doctors didn’t take what comes out of this very important government agency seriously.

But all those things are true. The chaos has to end. And for that to happen, RFK Jr. must go.

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

Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.

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

• How London become a T&S hub (Everything in Moderation) 
• Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For (Techdirt)
• Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over Pirated Music (New York Times)
• US settles social media censorship case, bars agencies from threatening penalties (Reuters)
• Meta’s latest AI improves its terrible content moderation (The Register)
• Transparency Report 2025 (User Rights)
• An automated moderation error left Tumblr users panicked (The Verge)

Don’t forget to listen along with Ctrl-Alt-Speech’s 2026 Bingo Card and drop us a line if you win or have ideas for new squares.