Elon Musk Says Only Those Who Pay Him Deserve Free Speech

Failures

from the price-check-on-freedom-on-aisle-7-please dept

Okay, okay, I think this is the last of my posts about Elon Musk’s unhinged appearance at the DealBook Summit with ill-prepared interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin. We already covered his cursing out advertisers, while predicting that “earth will judge” them, as well as his statement that AI copyright lawsuits don’t matter because “Digital God” will be here before it’s over, but I also wanted to cover one more exchange, in which Musk effectively says that only those who give him money deserve “free speech” (his definition of free speech).

Again, Sorkin does a terrible job of setting up the question, so I’ll do what he should have done and explain the context. Sorkin is asking about a few times recently where ExTwitter has fiddled with the knobs to punish sites Elon appears not to like. In September, it was reported that one of those sites was the NY Times, and the process began in July, whereby something changed at ExTwitter so that NY Times’ tweets were suppressed in some manner (what some might call “shadow banned,” even though that term’s meaning has changed over time).

Since late July, engagement on X posts linking to the New York Times has dropped dramatically. The drop in shares and other engagement on tweets with Times links is abrupt, and is not reflected in links to similar news organizations including CNN, the Washington Post, and the BBC….

Now, remember, nonsense conspiracy theories about “shadow banning” were one of the reasons why Elon insisted he had to take over the company “to protect free speech.” But as soon as he was at the controls, he immediately started using the same tools to “shadow ban” some of those he disliked.

Anyway, Sorkin asks Musk about this, and Musk’s response is somewhat incredible to see. He more or less says that if you don’t give him money, you don’t deserve his version of “free speech” (which is the ability to post on ExTwitter).

The discussion starts out weird enough:

ARS: The New York Times newspaper it appeared over the summer, to be throttled.

Elon: What? What did?

ARS: The NY Times.

Elon: Well, we do require that that everyone has to buy a subscription and we don’t make exceptions for anyone and and I think if I want the New York Times I have to pay for a subscription and they don’t give me a free subscription, so I’m not going to give them a free subscription

First of all, what? What do you mean “we do require that everyone has to buy a subscription” because that’s literally not true. Over 99% of users on ExTwitter use the platform for free. Only a tiny, tiny percentage pay for a subscription.

Sorkin tries to bring it back around to throttling, but Musk continues to talk nonsensically about subscriptions, which have fuck all to do with what Sorkin is asking him about.

ARS: But were you throttling the New York Times relative to other news organizations? Relative to everybody else? Was it specific to the to the Times?

Musk: They didn’t buy a subscription. By the way, it only costs like a thousand dollars a month, so if they just do that then they’re back in the saddle.

ARS: But you are saying it was throttled.

Musk: No, I’m saying…

ARS: I’m saying I mean was there a conversation that you had with somebody you said, ‘look, you know, I’m unhappy with the Times, they should either be buying the subscription or I don’t like their content or whatever.’ Whatever.

Musk: Any organization that refuses to buy a subscription is is not going to be recommended.

So, Sorkin and Musk are obviously talking at cross purposes here. Sorkin’s asking about deliberate throttling. Musk is trying to say that news orgs that don’t pay $1,000/month (which is not, as Musk implies, cheap, nor is it worth it, given how little traffic Twitter actually sends to news sites) aren’t recommended.

The correct question for Sorkin to ask here is what’s the difference between “not recommended” and “throttled,” if any, because the evidence suggests that the Times was deliberately punished beyond just not being “recommended.” And, yes, this exact kind of thing was part of what Musk said he had to buy Twitter to stop. So Sorkin jumps ahead (awkwardly) to try to sorta make that point:

ARS: But then what does that say about free speech? And what does it say about amplifying certain voices…

Musk: Well, it says free speech is not exactly free, it costs a little bit.

Which, um, is kinda a big claim. Especially given what he’s said about free speech in the past. Sorkin seems stumped for a moment and so Elon starts laughing and then comes up with some non sequitur from South Park.

Musk: You know, it’s like… uh… South Park like they say: you know freedom isn’t free, it costs of buck o’ five or whatever. So but it’s pretty cheap. Okay? It’s low cost low cost freedom.

So, again, he doesn’t actually answer the question or address the underlying issue, which is that for all the claims that he purchased Twitter to stop those kinds of knob fiddling that he (incorrectly) believes were being done for ideological reasons, he’s now much more actively fiddling with the knobs, including suppressing speech of those who won’t give him money.

The sense of entitlement, again, is astounding. It’s basically, “you don’t get free speech unless you pay me.”

Filed Under: andrew ross sorkin, elon musk, free speech, recommendations, shadowbanning, shadowbans, subscriptions, throttling
Companies: ny times, twitter, x

FCC To Vote On New Rules Cracking Down On Shitty Cable TV Fees

Policy

For decades, cable TV giants have nickel-and-dimed customers with a rotating assortment of bullshit cable TV fees, whether it’s “regulatory recovery” fee (a misleadingly named fee designed to have you blaming government for industry greed), regional sports fees (charged whether or not you watch sports), or the completely meaningless “broadcast TV fee” (which has ballooned at several times the rate of inflation).

All of the fees are designed to let the company falsely advertise one price, then sock you with a higher rate when the bill comes due. And now that it has a functional voting majority for the first time in several years, the FCC says it’s looking to vote on new rules in December that could put a damper on the industry’s abuse of at least one type of fee. Maybe.

The agency’s breakdown of its proposed plan suggests the proposal will primarily focus on “early termination fees,” charged when users prematurely cancel service while under contract, and “billing cycles fees” requiring customers pay for a complete billing cycle even if they cancel service before the end of the cycle.

“No one wants to pay junk fees for something they don’t want or can’t use. When companies
charge customers early termination fees, it limits their freedom to choose the service they want,” FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel said in a statement. “In an increasingly competitive media market, we should make it easier for Americans to use their purchasing power to promote innovation and expand competition within the industry.”

Details will matter. As will consistent enforcement (not really the FCC’s strong suit).

Early cancellation fees are also only one small part of a much larger ecosystem of bullshit fees. Including the mandatory rental of a cable box. A 2019 Consumer Reports study found that about 24% of consumer bills are comprised of bullshit fees, generating cable giants $28 billion in additional revenue annually. Efforts to protect consumers from these fees has been inconsistent and selective at best.

So while it’s nice to hear the FCC say all the right things about obnoxious fees, and tackle a genuine issue of annoyance (early cancellation fees), the actual scope of the rules — and whether they’re consistently enforced — will matter.

Filed Under: cable tv, competition, early termination fees, fcc, video

Ubisoft Tries To DMCA Leak Of BG&E Remaster Footage Before Finally Getting It Right

Copyright

from the got-there-eventually dept

One of the more famous, and my favorite, quotations attributed to Winston Churchill is: “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.” My second favorite Churchill quote, by the way, is: “Dammit, I can’t decide between these three fingers of whiskey and this tankard of champagne!”

Anyway, the point of the message is that sometimes it takes an organization failing by doing the wrong thing before they eventually get to doing things the right way. Which brings me to Ubisoft. The gaming company unfortunately did an oopsie and leaked its own remastered version of Beyond Good & Evil to subscribers.

In an email to Kotaku, an Ubisoft spokesperson confirmed that the leak was all its fault.

“Due to a technical error, an early development version of Beyond Good & Evil – 20th Anniversary Edition was recently released to some Ubisoft+ subscribers,” the Ubisoft spokesperson said. “As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of Beyond Good & Evil, we’re excited to share that the official launch is set for early 2024, and we look forward to sharing more with you in the new year.”

That response to the leak is obviously fine. In fact, while we have seen gaming companies absolutely mess themselves over and over again over leaks of game or game footage, we’ve actually promoted this sort of response in the past. You acknowledge the leak, thank your fans for being so interested in the game that they are gobbling up leaked information and footage, and then you remind everyone its not a finished product and to stay tuned for the actual eventual awesome release of the game. Simple!

And, that’s eventually where Ubisoft got publicly on ExTwitter as well.

I say eventually because that wasn’t Ubisoft’s first reaction. As the quotation goes, Ubisoft had to try everything else first, and that in this case meant attempting to put the leak genie back in the bottle via DMCA notices. DMCA notices that are not designed to bury material the company itself leaked.

Ubisoft making the game available was a total accident; however, that didn’t stop folks from sharing clips and screens of the BG&E remaster on YouTube. While the company tried erasing any evidence of this ever happening, copyright striking anyone who published footage of the leaked game, Ubisoft eventually gave up and announced this morning on X/Twitter that the remaster is real.

Now, while this is Ubisoft we’re talking about, perhaps such a clear-cut lesson will be finally learned. Trying to copyright strike leaked information about the game to hell was never going to work. And, in fact, probably would have had the opposite effect. Senorita Streisand, after all, is a resilient mistress.

And before someone eventually shows up in the comments suggesting that this was all a planned thing designed to get the game more attention… nah. Just nah. That’s not how Ubisoft operates and there is zero evidence that this was all some guerilla marketing approach.

Instead, this was almost certainly what it appeared to be: Ubisoft handling this the right way, only after it tried everything else.

Filed Under: beyond good and evil, copyright, dmca, leaks, takedown notice, videogames
Companies: ubisoft

Groq Sends Elon’s ‘Grok’ A Cease & Desist, Though A Funny One

Trademark

from the the-likelihood-of-confusion dept

One of things we enjoy here at Techdirt is when even those with legitimate gripes about trademark law take a bemused view about the whole thing, rather than immediately jumping to angry and overly aggressive threats. No one likes a trademark bully, even when the trademark holder might have a legitimate claim.

A few weeks ago, we mentioned that Elon Musk probably should have checked with trademark lawyers (or just done a basic internet search) before naming his xAI large language model “Grok” because there was already a well-known AI chip company in the space named Groq. Groq seems mildly annoyed at the confusion this is causing (and literally yesterday when I mentioned testing something on Groq’s AI system someone asked me why I was using Elon’s AI…), but is mostly taking it in good strides.

Initially, Groq’s CEO, Jonathan Ross (who was the guest on this week’s Techdirt podcast, which was entertaining) used his own AI tools to suggest a new name for Elon’s LLM. The solution they came up with was Slartibartfast, which (unlike “Grok”) is actually from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which Elon keeps insisting is what his AI is trained to be like.

Then Ross used the situation to highlight just how much faster AI running on Groq’s chips are, compared to using the old, tired, slow way that Elon’s appears to be using:

Now, Ross has taken it up a notch with a clearer cease and desist, though still keeping it amusing.

Did you know that when you announced the new xAI chatbot, you used our name? Your chatbot is called Grok and our company is called Groq, so you can see how this might create confusion among people. Groq (us) sounds a lot like (identical) to Grok (you), and the difference of one consonant (q, k) only matters to scrabblers and spell checkers. Plus, we own the trademark.  

We can see why you might want to adopt our name. You like fast things (rockets, hyperloops, one-letter company names) and our product, the Groq LPU™ Inference Engine, is the fastest way to run large language models (LLMs) and other generative AI applications. However, we must ask you to please choose another name, and fast. 

I stand by my recommendation to name it Slartibartfast. It’s both on message with your idea of a sarcastic bot inspired by Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and sounds sufficiently distinct from any other AI company or product (which is why I wouldn’t recommend calling it Giggle or OpenXi). Win-win! But, your call.  

In making this request, we’re thinking about you as much as us. It must be annoying having all those people hitting you up on X, asking how the Groq LPU Inference Engine is able to deliver 10X better performance and precision at scale? Or how it is 10X more energy efficient and 10X more cost-effective? That’s plenty of Xs, even for you, especially when it’s not your Groq.  

I get it. It was annoying when my great Aunt asked me about my new snarky chatbot over Thanksgiving dinner, but I passed her the mashed potatoes anyway.  

 #GroqOn

Of course, Elon has (so far) ignored all of this, and there’s a decent chance he’ll continue to do so. But I’d like to no longer need to explain every time I talk about Groq (which is doing some pretty cool stuff) that I’m not using Elon’s glitchy tech, so hopefully Elon gets around to actually changing the name.

As we’ve explained for years, of the three customary fields often linked together under the terrible and misleading term “intellectual property,” trademark is the most defensible, though only for its original intended purpose: to avoid consumer confusion. As a consumer protection tool that accurately designates the origin of a product, trademark serves a useful process (it’s only when it’s being used for bullying/censorship that gets us upset). But here, Groq appears to have a very clear legitimate claim. The likelihood of confusion is extremely clear (I keep experiencing it personally!).

But, I guess it’s up to Elon if he’s actually going to change the name. He could ask Grok, but I’m guessing the responses might come a little too slowly.

Filed Under: ai, cease and desist, elon musk, grok, jonathan ross, likelihood of confusion, trademark
Companies: groq, twitter, x

An Appeals Court Broke Media Advertising, So The Copia Institute Asked The California Supreme Court To Fix It

Legal Issues

from the huge-implications dept

A few months ago a California court of appeals issued a really terrible decision in Liapes v. Facebook. Liapes, a Facebook user, was unhappy that the ads delivered to her correlated with some of her characteristics, like her age. As a result there were certain ads, like one provided by an insurer offering a particular policy for men of a different age, that didn’t get delivered to her.

Of course, it didn’t get delivered to her because the advertiser likely had little interest in spending money to place an ad to reach a customer who would not and could not turn into a sale, since she would not have been eligible for the promotion. And historically advertisers in all forms of media – newspapers, television, radio, etc. – have preferred to spend their marketing budgets on media likely to reach the same sorts of people as would purchase their products and services. Which is why, as we explained to the California Supreme Court, one tends to see different ads in Seventeen Magazine than, say, AARP’s.

Because we also tend to see different expression in each one, as the publishing company chooses what content to deliver to which people. There’s no law that says media companies have to deliver content that would appeal to all people in all media channels, nor could there be constitutionally, because those choices of what expression to deliver to whom are protected by the First Amendment.

Or at least they were up until the court of appeals got its hands on the lawsuit Liapes brought against Facebook, arguing that letting advertisers choose which users would get which ads based on characteristics like age violated the state’s Unruh Act. The Unruh Act basically prevents a company from unlawfully discriminating against people for protected characteristics – if it offers a product or service to one customer it can’t refuse to offer it to another because of things like their age.

But Facebook isn’t a business that sells tangible products or non-expressive services; it is a media business, just like TV stations are, newspapers are, magazine publishers are, etc. Like these other businesses, it is in the business of delivering expression to audiences. True, it is primarily in the business of delivering others users’ expression rather than its own, and it is more likely to have the ability to deliver editorially-tailored expression on an individual level, but then again, increasingly so can traditional media. In any case, there is nothing about the First Amendment that keys it only to the characteristics of traditional media businesses producing media for the masses. After all, they themselves often choose which demographic to target with their own media. Conde Nast, for instance, publishes both GQ and Vogue, as well as TeenVogue, and it is surely using demographics of the targeted audience to decide what expression to provide them in each publication.

But the upshot of the appeals court decision, finding Unruh Act liability when a media business uses demographic information to target an audience with certain content (including advertising content), is that either no media business will be able to make any sort of editorial decision based on the demographic characteristics of their intended audience – and as a result, there goes the American advertising model that has sustained American media businesses for generations – or, even if those businesses somehow are left beyond the Unruh Act, it will introduce an artificial exception to the First Amendment to carve out a business like Facebook because… well, just because. There really is no sound rationale for treating a company like Meta differently than any other media business, but if they could be uniquely targeted by the Unruh Act, unlike their more traditional media brethren, it would still gravely impact every Internet business, especially those that monetize the expression they provide with ads.

Which would be particularly troubling because not only are businesses like Facebook supposed to be protected by the First Amendment but they are supposed to be EVEN MORE PROTECTED by Section 230, which insulates them from liability arising from the expression others provide, as well as the moderation decisions the platforms like Facebook make to choose what expression to serve audiences. The court of appeals decision impinges upon both these forms of protection, and in contravention of Section 230’s pre-emption provision, which prevents states from messing with this basic statutory scheme with its own laws, of which the Unruh Act is one. After all, if there was anything actually wrong with the ad, it was the advertiser who produced it who imbued it with its wrongful quality, not Facebook. And the decision to serve it or not is an editorially-protected moderation decision, which Facebook also should have been entitled to make without liability, per Section 230.

In sum, this California appeals court decision stands to make an enormous mess of at least online businesses, if not every media business, and not even just those who take advertising, because simply weakening Section 230 and the First Amendment itself will lead to its own dire consequences. And so the Copia Institute filed this amicus letter supporting Facebook’s petition for further review by the California Supreme Court in order to clean up this looming mess.

Filed Under: ad targeting, advertising, discrimination, liability, samantha liapes, section 230, unruh act
Companies: facebook

California Court: Passwords Are Communications, Protected By The Stored Communications Act

Legal Issues

from the only-so-far-you-can-take-a-subpoena dept

The Stored Communications Act — enacted in 1986 — is not only outdated, it’s also pretty weird. An amendment to the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act), the SCA added and subtracted privacy from communications.

It’s the subtractions that are bothersome. Law enforcement wasn’t too happy a lot of electronic communications were now subject to warrant requirements. They much preferred the abundant use/misuse of subpoenas to force third-parties into handing over stuff they didn’t have the probable cause to demand directly from criminal suspects.

Private parties — especially those engaged in civil litigation — also preferred to see fewer communications protected by the ECPA. So, this law — which declared every unopened email more than 180 days old free game — was welcomed by plenty of people who didn’t have the general public’s best interests in mind.

The government tends to make the most use of the ECPA and SCA’s privacy protection limitations, using the law and legal interpretations to access communications most people logically assumed the government would need warrants to obtain.

But the SCA also factors into civil litigation. In some cases, the arguments revolve around who exactly is protected by the law when it comes to unexpected intrusion by private parties. In this case — one highlighted by FourthAmendment.com (even as the site owner notes it’s not really a Fourth Amendment case) — it involves international litigation involving US service providers. The case directly deals with the Stored Communications Act and what it does or does not protect.

This lawsuit was brought by Path, an Arizona corporation, and its subsidiary, Tempest. Central to the litigation is Canadian citizen Curtis Gervais, who apparently was hired as an independent contractor by Tempest, which promoted him to the position of CEO in February 2022. A few months later, Gervais allegedly hacked into a competitor’s (Game Server Kings [“GSK”]) computers, leading to Tempest demoting (lol) Gervais to COO (Chief Operating Officer).

This demotion apparently didn’t sit well with Gervais, who allegedly began sharing confidential Tempest information with GSK, utilizing communications platform Discord to hand over this information to GSK employees.

So, it’s three American companies and one Canadian individual wrapped up in a dispute over ex parte demands to disclose information to the plaintiffs (Path/Tempest). Discord challenged the subpoenas, which asked for — among other things — any passwords used by Gervais to log into its services.

That’s where it gets interesting. Very few courts have considered what’s explicitly covered by the SCA and/or what can be obtained with subpoenas issued under this authority.

As is implied by both laws in play here (Electronic Communications Protection Act, Stored Communications Act), the protections (or lack thereof) apply to communications. Path argued that its subpoenas did not exceed the grasp of these laws, despite demanding Discord hand over Gervais’ passwords. According to the plaintiffs, passwords aren’t communications.

But that’s a very reductive view of passwords, something Discord pointed out in its challenge of the subpoenas:

Applicants argue passwords are not afforded protection under the SCA because passwords should not be considered “content.” Discord argues passwords are implicitly included within the SCA’s prohibitions because passwords implicate communications. In other words, Discord argues that passwords are “content “ under the SCA because they are “information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning” of a communication.

The court [PDF] says Discord is correct. But only after a lot of discussion because, as the court notes, this is an issue of “first impression.” It has never been asked to make this determination prior to this unique set of circumstances. But, despite the lack of precedent, the court still delivers a ruling that sets a baseline for future cases involving SCA subpoenas.

It begins by saying that even if the language of the SCA doesn’t specifically include passwords in its definition of “content,” it’s clear Congress meant to add protections to electronic communications with this amendment, rather than lower barriers for access.

The legislative history agrees with a broad interpretation of “content.” Congress explained that the purpose of enacting the SCA was to protect individuals on the shortcomings of the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, Congress enacted the SCA due to the “tremendous advances in telecommunications and computer technologies” with the “comparable technological advances in surveillance devices and techniques.” The SCA was further meant to help “Americans [who] have lost the ability to lock away a great deal of personal and business information.”

With this analysis of the scope of the term “content” under the SCA in mind, the Court now turns to determine if passwords are afforded protection under the SCA under that understanding of the definition of the term “content.” Passwords are undoubtedly a form of “information.” And passwords broadly “relate to” (or are “concerning”) the “substance, purport, or meaning of [a]
communication” even if passwords are not themselves the content of a communication. Passwords further relate to a person’s intended message to another; while a password is not the content of the intended message, a password controls a user’s access to the content or services that require the user to prove their identity. As a matter of technological access to an electronic message, a password thus “relates to” the intended message because without a password, the author cannot access their account to draft and send the message (and the user cannot access their account to receive and read the message).

When a person uses a password to access their account to draft and send a message, that author inherently communicates to the recipient at least one piece of information that is essential to complete the communication process: namely, that the author has completed the process of authentication. The password is information or knowledge which is intended to convey a person’s claim of identity not just to the messaging system but also implicitly to the recipient. As such, within the context of electronic communication systems, passwords are a critical element because they convey an “essential part” of the communication with respect to access and security protocols.

The dispute at issue here demonstrates the inherency of communicating about passwords when using a messaging platform such as Discord: when the user of the “Archetype” sent messages demanding ransom for the stolen source code, those messages conveyed to the recipients that the author is or was an authentic or authorized user of the “Archetype” account who used and had access to the password for that account. That password for that account thus is information concerning that communication, even if the password is not itself written out in the content directly.

In addition to all of that, there’s the undeniable fact that if you’re able to obtain login info (including passwords) with a subpoena, it doesn’t matter if courts limit the reach of demands for communications. If you have the keys to the accounts, you have full access to any stored communications, whether or not this access has been explicitly approved by a court.

With this password in hand, a litigant (or their ediscovery consultants) would have unfettered access to all communications within the account holder’s electronic storage, without regard to relevance, privilege, or other appropriate bounds of permissible discovery. In other words, litigants could circumvent the very purpose of the SCA by simply requesting that a service provider disclose the password for a user account, ultimately vitiating the protections of the SCA.

No court would allow the government to claim this is acceptable under the SCA and/or the Constitution. And no court should allow it just because it’s litigation involving only private parties. This particular demand cannot be honored without violating the law. And the companies behind the subpoenas know this because they obviously have zero interest in obtaining nothing more than Gervais’ login info.

The only conceivable use for the passwords here is for Applicants to access the requested accounts (such as “Archetype”) and view the contents of all electronically stored communications in those requested accounts.

That’s clearly the litigants’ intent. And it doesn’t mesh with the legislative intent, which was to create a few new protections for then-newfangled electronic communications. This particular demand is rejected. The subpoenas are still alive, but they’re no longer intact. If the suing entities want access to the defendant’s communications, they’ll have to do it the old-fashioned way: by making discovery requests that remain on the right side of the law.

Filed Under: california, communications, curtis gervais, ecpa, passwords, sca, stored communications act
Companies: discord, path, tempest

Elon Says Copyright/AI Lawsuits Don’t Matter Because ‘Digital God’ Will Arrive Before They’re Decided

Copyright

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

So, we already wrote about the biggest headline grabbing moment from Elon Musk’s Dealbook interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin yesterday, but there was another crazy, Techdirt-relevant one involving copyright and AI. As we’ve explained over and over again, copyright is the wrong tool to use to regulate AI, and using it will lead to bad outcomes.

But, absolutely nothing in this bit of the interview made any sense at all (from either side):

It starts out with a drop dead ignorantly wrong question from Aaron Ross Sorkin, who seems wholly unprepared for this:

ARS: So, one of the things about training on data, has been this idea that you’re not going to train on… or these things are not being trained on people’s copyrighted information. Historically. That’s been the concept.

Elon: Yeah that’s a huge lie.

ARS: Say that again.

Elon: These AIs are all trained on copyrighted data. Obviously.

ARS: So you think it’s a lie when OpenAI says that… none of these guy say that they’re training on copyrighted data.

Elon: Yeah, that’s a lie.

ARS: It’s a lie. Straight up?

Elon: Straight up lie.

So… there’s a lie in there, but it’s Andrew Ross Sorkin saying that any AI company claims that it doesn’t train on copyright-covered data. Everyone admits that. They say that doing so is fair use (because it is). So the entire premise of this discussion is wrong. Here’s OpenAI admitting in court that, of course, it trains on copyright covered material. It’s just that it believes fair use allows that (because it does).

So, in one sense here, Elon is right to push back on Sorkin’s claim. But Musk is misleading, because he appears to buy into the false premise of Sorkin’s question that AI companies say they’re not training on copyright-protected data. If Musk had any idea what he was doing he would have told Sorkin his premise was wrong, and that no companies deny training on such material.

From there, Sorkin goes on an even more confused discussion, claiming that while snippets of articles on ExTwitter are fair use, because, combined, people might post a full article, it might not be any more… but that’s… not how any of this works anyway. Someone give him a Copyright 101 lesson, because this is embarrassing.

Either way, Musk then made the whole thing… um… fucking weird. Because as Sorkin kept trying to press Musk on the copyright lawsuits, Musk did this:

Musk: I don’t know, except to say that by the time these lawsuits are decided we’ll have Digital God. So, you can ask Digital God at that point. Um. These lawsuits won’t be decided on a timeframe that’s relevant.

If someone you knew started saying stuff like that, you’d have them checked out.

Whether or not you believe that AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is on the way or not, or that it might create “Digital God,” the idea that this is coming before these lawsuits are decided is… um… not realistic. But, even if we do somehow reach AGI within the next few years as these lawsuits play out, the idea that such an AGI would obsolete the courts and/or copyright law is similarly wishful thinking.

Hell, we’ve argued for years that the internet itself has already obsoleted copyright laws, but they’re still sticking around and getting dumber all the time. I’d love for it to be true that technology further obsoletes copyright law and moves things to a better overall system… but it’s not going to happen because “Digital God.”

Of course, perhaps if Elon truly thinks Digital God is coming in the next few years, it explains why he doesn’t care about advertisers on ExTwitter any more.

Filed Under: andrew ross sorkin, copyright, digital god, elon musk, fair use
Companies: openai, twitter, x, xai

Daily Deal: The Complete Photoshop Master Class Bundle

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Complete Photoshop Master Class Bundle has 6 courses designed to help you become a Photoshop expert. You’ll start with and introductory course and move on to learning about light effects then on to building 7 different web sites. It’s on sale for $30.

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.

Filed Under: daily deal

Elon, After Personally Driving Away Advertisers, Tells Them To Go Fuck Themselves (Repeatedly), And Says ‘Earth’ Will ‘Judge’ Them For Killing ExTwitter

Say That Again

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

I’m not sure Elon quite understands the concept of “damage control.” Advertisers are bailing, and the rate increases every time he says something stupid or endorses this or that conspiracy theory. It’s costing the company tons of money, but he still can’t admit that he’s the problem. So, instead, he’s blaming everyone else. And sometimes suing organizations for daring to point out what a mess he’s made.

So I guess it should be no surprise that when Elon appeared at the Dealbook conference, he struck his usual defiant tone, which doesn’t seem likely to help Linda Yaccarino win back any advertisers.

“If somebody’s gonna try to blackmail me with advertising? Blackmail me with money? Go f—yourself.” He added, “Don’t advertise.”

He also implied that fans of his, and of X, would boycott those advertisers in kind. He specifically took aim at Disney.

“The whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company and we will document it in great detail,” Musk threatened.

The full video of the moment is way more damning.

It starts off with host Andrew Ross Sorkin talking about how it looks like Elon is doing an apology tour, and mentioning that he spoke with Disney boss Bob Iger earlier in the day, and Elon, looking unwell, says:

Elon: I hope they stop.

ARS: [pauses… confused…] You… hope…?

Elon: Don’t advertise.

ARS: [more confused] You don’t want them to advertise?

Elon: No!

ARS: What do you mean?

Elon: If somebody’s gonna try to blackmail me with advertising? Blackmail me with money? Go fuck yourself.

ARS: [perplexed] But…

Elon: Go. Fuck. Yourself. Is that clear? [Smug asshole look that isn’t nearly as smug as he thinks it is]. I hope it is. [Waves] Hey Bob, if you’re in the audience.

ARS: Well, let me ask you then…

Elon: That’s how I feel.

ARS: [Mouth open]

Elon: Don’t advertise.

ARS: [trying to bring the conversation around]: How do you think then about the economics of X, if part of the underlying model is… and maybe it needs to shift, maybe it needs to shift away from advertising… if you believe that this is the one part of your business where you will be beholden… to… uh… have this view?

Elon: G. F. Y. [Nods the confident nod of someone deeply wrong about something]

ARS: I understand that, but there’s a reality too, right? I mean Linda Yaccarino’s right here and she’s gotta sell advertising.

Elon: Yes, no, no, right. Yes. No. Absolutely so. No, no, totally. So, no, no, so. Actually what this advertising boycott is going to do, it’s going to kill the company.

ARS: [realizing that Elon seems to be encouraging a boycott that will, as he just said, kill the company] And you think that the…

Elon: But, the whole world will know that the advertisers killed the company. And we will document it in great detail.

ARS: But those advertisers are going to say “we didn’t kill the company…”

Elon: Oh yeah? Tell that to Earth!

ARS: [momentarily stunned] But… they’re going to say, Elon, that YOU killed the company, because you said these things and they were inappropriate things, and they didn’t feel comfortable on the platform. That’s what they’re going to say.

Elon: And let’s see how Earth responds to that. [Smug asshole look again]

ARS: So, let me… okay… this goes back to…

Elon: We’ll both make our cases, and we’ll see what the outcome is.

ARS: What are the economics of that for you. I mean, you have enormous resources, so you can keep this company going for a very long time. Would you keep it going for a long time if there was no advertising?

Elon: I mean, if the company fails, because of an advertising boycott, it will fail because of an advertising boycott, and that’s what will have bankrupted the company, and that’s what everyone on earth will know.

ARS: But you recognize, that some of those people are going to say that they didn’t feel comfortable on the platform. And I just wonder and ask you to think about that for a second…

Elon: Tell it to the judge.

ARS: But the judge is gonna be…

Elon: The judge is the public.

So much nonsense in so little time.

First off, advertisers choosing not to advertise on your platforms is not “blackmail.” It’s actually their free speech right of association not to associate with you and your nonsense.

Second, the advertisers your CEO is desperately pleading with to come back (and maybe spend more than $10) aren’t going to find you telling them to “go fuck yourself,” an enticing deal.

Third, if you really are so cavalier about it, why are you suing Media Matters for its report that you claim convinced many advertisers to leave?

Fourth, are you actually admitting that ExTwitter is being “killed” by advertisers leaving the platform? Because for months now, you and Yaccarino have claimed you’re on the verge of profitability. But now you seem to be saying that the company has been “killed” because advertisers exercising their own free speech rights want nothing to do with you.

Fifth, what kind of entitled, out-of-touch brat thinks that advertisers choosing not to give you money is some sort of statement on their culpability? No advertiser owes you money, you entitled billionaire. This is how lots of businesses fail. They don’t make enough revenue. Actively driving away the source of nearly all of your revenue is a choice that you, Elon, made, not something we blame on the advertisers. When newspapers go under because they couldn’t get enough ad sales, do we blame the advertisers? This all seems like evidence of someone who has never faced an ounce of hardship in his life and the first time he does insists it must be everyone else’s fault rather than his own failings.

Sixth, I’m sure that threatening to send your mob of drooling, sheep-like fanboys after advertisers is going to convince them to come back. Masterful gambit.

Seventh, how fucking high on your own supply must you be to think that “earth” will “judge” advertisers for “killing exTwitter” when the only reason they’re leaving is because of stupid, fucked up shit that you, yourself are doing?

Anyway, it would be nice if Elon could stop doing stupid shit for just like one day. It would let me move on to some of the many other stories I’m trying to write about.

Filed Under: advertisers, blackmail, dealbook, elon musk
Companies: disney, twitter, x

The Wall Street Journal Is Very Upset By Efforts To Stop Racism In Broadband Deployment

Broadband

from the well-coordinated,-artificial-outrage dept

The 2021 infrastructure bill set aside an historic $42.5 billion for broadband deployment. It also tasked the FCC with creating rules aimed at ending decades of race and class based-discrimination in broadband deployment, which have been well documented by The Markup, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA), and others. The goal was to try and keep history from repeating itself.

Before the Thanksgiving holiday the FCC finally released its rules. They’re a mixed bag. It’s historic that the FCC acknowledges decades of discrimination in broadband (regardless of overt, provable intent). But the rules do absolutely nothing about ISPs (like AT&T) with a documented history of discrimination, the complaint process isn’t public and transparent, and consistent enforcement remains an open question.

But of course as with any effort to hold telecom giants accountable for anything, it wasn’t long before the telecom lobby had loyal right wing news outlets chirping in coordinated unison about how the FCC’s plan was some kind of dystopian government cabal.

With the help of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, Fox News immediately published false stories claiming the plan was a dastardly, illegal plot by the Biden administration to take over the Internet (despite the fact the rules were mandated by a bipartisan majority of Congress).

This coordination between telecom giants and right wing “news” outlets to spread misinformation is any everyday affair (see the industry smear campaign against Gigi Sohn’s FCC nomination). If there’s some policy decision Comcast and AT&T are fighting in DC, it takes no time at all for their anti-consumer, anti-reform policy positions to be parroted in careful coordination across the entirety of right wing media, including Breitbart, Fox News, Sinclair broadcasting, Newsmax, OANN, The Daily Caller, etc.

For example The Wall Street Journal editorial department also published an op-ed claiming that the FCC’s acknowledgement of discrimination was extremist, and would force “broadband providers to prioritize identity politics.” The story contains no limit of theoretically terrible (and false) scenarios, including claims that the FCC will soon start punishing ISPs if their marketing pamphlets aren’t inclusive enough:

“The rule would give the FCC power to micromanage the industry. Marketing materials that feature too many white people could be ruled discriminatory. Companies could be forced to scrap credit checks that cause more minorities to be rejected for smartphone leasing plans.”

Again, these claims are… absolute bullshit. The rules are the government’s way of simply acknowledging what the data has clearly shown for a long time: that ISPs routinely fail to invest in poor and minority communities despite billions of subsidies, tax breaks and regulatory favors designed to fund exactly that.

The FCC’s new rules create a new complaint process and basically acknowledge that discrimination played a role in broadband deployment (much as it did for highway and electricity deployment). It’s not really a debate, no matter how much industry and its marionettes would like to pretend otherwise.

That said, I’ll be genuinely surprised if the FCC ever (and I genuinely mean ever) takes any meaningful action against big broadband companies that discriminate. The agency simply has absolutely no track record of the kind of “overreach” the GOP and telecoms routinely whine about. In fact, for the better part of several decades they’ve been somewhat useless on consumer protection of any substance.

This manufactured, coordinated right wing media hysteria is the status quo every single time anybody proposes any rules (however feckless) for the telecom industry to follow. It happened with very basic privacy rules. It happened with net neutrality. And it’s happening again here.

ANY effort to hold regional telecom monopolies accountable for anti-competitive or otherwise shitty (or racist) behavior is “government overreach.” And the underlying implication is ALWAYS that if government is removed from the equation, the heavily monopolized, uncompetitive broadband industry will somehow miraculously thrive, driving no limit of amazing new innovation and consumer savings to market.

We’ve lobotomized our telecom regulators for the better part of a generation, yet that miraculous outcome somehow never arrives. And it never arrives because U.S. telecom isn’t a “free market,” it’s a bunch of regional monopolies (tied to our domestic surveillance systems) that have lobbied the majority of Congress and the FCC into apathy on consumer protection, antitrust reform, and competition policy.

But when you’ve got a sizeable chunk of the U.S. press basically parroting whatever Comcast and AT&T policy guys tell them to, it has a corrosive impact not only on the discourse, but any effort to do even the bare minimum when it comes to corporate oversight. This corporate propaganda masquerading as news and independent thought is, as they say, one of the major reasons why we can’t have nice things.

Filed Under: broadband deployment, digital discrimination, digital divide, fcc, high speed internet, minority communities, racism, telecom
Companies: wsj