Taking a break from attacking the First Amendment, FCC boss Brendan Carr this week engaged in a strange bit of performance art: his FCC announced that they’d be effectively adding all foreign-made routers to the agency’s “covered list,” in a bid to ban their sale in the United States.
That is unless manufacturers obtain “conditional approval” (including all appropriate application fees and favors, of course) from the Trump administration via the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security. In other words, the Trump administration is attempting to shake down manufacturers of all routers manufactured outside the United States (which again, is nearly all of them) under the pretense of cybersecurity.
You can probably see how this might result in some looming legal action. And who knows what other “favors” to the Trump administration might be required to get conditional approval, like the inclusion of backdoors accessible by our current authoritarian government.
A fact sheet insists this was all necessary because many foreign routers have been exploited by foreign actors:
“Recently, malicious state and non-state sponsored cyber attackers have increasingly leveraged the vulnerabilities in small and home office routers produced abroad to carry out direct attacks against American civilians in their homes.”
We’ve discussed at length that while Brendan Carr loves to pretend he’s doing important things on cybersecurity, most of his policies have made the U.S. less secure. Like his mindless deregulation of the privacy and security standards of domestic telecoms and hardware makers. Or his destruction of smart home testing programs just because they had some operations in China.
Most of the Trump administration “cybersecurity” solutions have been indistinguishable from a foreign attack. They’ve gutted numerous government cybersecurity programs (including a board investigating Salt Typhoon), and dismantled the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) (responsible for investigating significant cybersecurity incidents). The administration claims to be worried about cybersecurity, but then goes out of its way to ensure domestic telecoms see no meaningful oversight whatsoever.
I’d argue Trump administration destruction of corporate oversight of domestic telecom privacy/security standards is a much bigger threat to national security and consumer safety than 90% of foreign routers, but good luck finding any news outlet that brings that up in their coverage of the FCC’s latest move.
In reality, the biggest current threat to U.S. national security is the Trump administration’s rampant, historic corruption. Absolutely any time you see the Trump administration taking steps to “improve national security,” or “address cybersecurity” you can just easily assume there’s some ulterior motive of personal benefit to the president, as we saw when the great hyperventilation over TikTok was “fixed” by offloading the app to Trump’s dodgy billionaire friends.
The polarization over any and all uses of artificial intelligence and machine learning continues. And, to be clear, I very much understand why this is all so controversial. Any new technology that has the chance to be transformative will also necessarily be disruptive and that causes fear. Fear that is not entirely unfounded, no matter your other opinions on the matter. If that’s you, cool, I get it.
I’ll start this off by pointing to the latest edition of the Techdirt podcast in which both Mike and Karl engaged in a fantastic discussion about the use of AI. I’ve listened to it twice now; it’s that good. And, while I found myself arguing out loud with the both of them at certain points during the podcast, despite the fact that neither of them could hear my retorts, it presents a grounded, often nuanced conversation, which we need much more of in this space.
And now, in what might be a subconscious attempt by this writer to commit suicide by comments section, let’s talk about that controversial demo of NVIDIA’s forthcoming DLSS 5 technology. What DLSS 5 does compared with previous versions of the technology is indeed new, but what is not new is the introduction of AI and machine learning into the equation. DLSS 2 and 3 had that already, in the form of pixel reconstruction and frame generation. DLSS 5, however, introduced what is being labeled as “neural rendering”, which uses machine learning to alter the lighting and detailed appearances in environments and, most importantly, character rendering over the engine on top of the 2D image output. Here’s the video demo that got everyone talking.
The backlash to the video was wide, immediate, and furious. There was a great deal of talk about the alteration of artistic intent, about whether this changed what the original developers were attempting to portray when they created the games, and, of course, industry jobs. I want to talk about the major complaint pillars seen across many outlets below, but this backlash also supposedly came with death threats foisted upon NVIDIA employees. I would very much hope we could all at least agree that any threats of that nature are completely inappropriate and absurd.
With that, here is what I’ve seen in the backlash and what I’d want to say about it.
Get your damned AI out of my games!
Perhaps not the most common pushback I saw in all of this, but a very common one. And a silly one, too. As I mentioned above, DLSS versions already used some version of AI and machine learning. That isn’t new. How it’s applied is certainly new, but that isn’t the same as the demand to keep AI entirely out of the video game industry.
And if that’s where you are, go ahead and shake your fist at the clouds in the sky. AI is a tool and, as I’ve now said repeatedly, the conversation we should be having is how it’s used in gaming, not if it’s used. That’s because its use is largely a foregone conclusion and it is an open question as to whether its use will be a net benefit or negative overall to the industry. Dogmatic purists on AI have a stance that is understandable, but also untenable. We’re too far down this road to turn around and go home. And if the tech were able to lower the barriers of entry to the gaming industry, acting as the fertilizer that allows a thousand indie studios to sprout roots, would that really be so bad for the gaming ecosystem?
I can appreciate the purists’ point of view. I really can. I just don’t see where they have a place in the conversation when it comes to gaming.
It overrides artistic intent!
Does it? If it did, then hell yes that’s bad. But if it doesn’t, then this concern goes away entirely.
DLSS 5 is built with options and customizable sliders for game developers. That’s really, really important here. At the macro level, a developer that has decided to use DLSS 5, or decided and customized how it’s used in their games, is exercising consent over their products. That should be obvious.
But then we get into really interesting questions of art, the actual artist, and the ownership of that art, because those last two are very different things. As Digital Foundry outlines:
It may even raise consent and other questions surrounding artistic integrity. On site and witnessing the demos in motion, concerns about this seemed less of a problem when the games we saw had been signed off by the studios that made them – the contentious assets we’ve seen, likewise. Nothing from the DLSS 5 reveal released by Nvidia has not been approved by the studios that own those games. But perhaps the issue isn’t just about specific approvals by specific developers on agreed DLSS 5 integrations, but rather the whole concept of a GPU reinterpreting game visuals according to a neural model that has its own ideas about what photo-realism should look like.
While we’ve seen endorsements from Bethesda’s Todd Howard and Capcom’s Jun Takeuchi, to what extent does that consent apply to the entire development team and other artists associated with the production? And by extension, there is also the question of whether now is the right time to launch DLSS 5 at a time when the games industry is under enormous pressure, jobs are on the line and cost-cutting is a major focus in the triple-A space. The technology itself cannot function without the work of game creators – it needs final game imagery to work at all – but the extent to which it could be viewed as a worrying sign of “things to come” cannot be overstated bearing in mind the reactions elsewhere to generative AI.
That strikes me as a valid and interesting ethical question when it comes to the use of this technology, but one that is probably overwrought. Individual artists who work on video games already have their artistic output live at the pleasure of the game developers they contract with. Those developers already can use this game art in all kinds of ways that the individual artist may not have had in mind when creating it, or indeed have even considered such possibilities. DLSS 5 is just one more version of that, with the main difference being that it involves AI making changes to game images. That’s an important thing to consider, sure, but there are cousins to this ethical question that we’ve all come to accept already. This strikes me more as part of the “all AI is bad all the time” crowd finding a foothold in something other than dogma to grab onto.
Developers and publishers own their games. If they want to use DLSS 5 in those games, there is little other than specific work for hire or other contractual stipulations with individual artists that would keep them from implementing it. If artists don’t like that, I completely understand that point of view, but that’s what contract negotiations and language are for.
Bottom line: I have been as vocal as anyone arguing that video games are a form of art for well over a decade now and I struggle to agree that an optional technology that has approved buy in from game developers and publishers equates to “overriding artistic intent”, writ large.
The faces in these examples look like shit, are “yassified”, or suffer from the uncanny valley effect!
Look, here we’re going to get into matters of opinion. I have to say that when I viewed the demo video myself, I had the opposite reaction. And, yes, this opens me up to claims that I am somehow a massive fan of AI-created pornography (this is where the yassified comments come in), or that I just want all the characters to look “hot” (I’m too old for that shit), or that my older age of 44 means I’ve lost touch with what video games should look like. Despite my genuine respect for the dissenting opinions here, allow me to say this: bullshit.
The caveat to all of this is that the demo revealed very little in the way of this technology working within these games in motion. It’s also certainly true that NVIDIA chose the best potential images to show off its new technology. If the DLSS 5 rendering sucks out loud in a larger in-motion game, or if the images it creates end up being inconsistent throughout gameplay, or if it does just end up looking shitty, then I’ll be right there with you with a torch and pitchfork in hand.
And here’s the other thing to consider with this particular complaint, combined with the previous one about artistic intent: do any of you use visual mods in your games? I do. A ton of them. For a variety of reasons. I have used them to alter the faces and models for games like Starfield and Skyrim, among many others. Do I need to feel bad for altering the artist’s intent? Do I need to apologize for incorporating mods to make characters and environments appear in a way that helps me better connect with the game I’m playing?
Because I’m not going to do either. And I don’t expect you to. Nor do I expect game developers that choose to use this optional technology to beg for forgiveness for their own output.
The hardware demands to run all of this are insane!
Fine, then you’ll get what you want and nobody will be able to use this technology anyway. But I don’t think that will be the case. NVIDIA knows what it will take to run this tech once it leaves the demo stage and goes into production. The idea that they would hype up technology that nobody can use strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.
Conclusion: everyone take a breath
This still strikes me as more of a “all AI is bad” crowd grasping at lots of other things to buttress their pushback than anything else. AI has plenty, plenty of potential pitfalls. Worried about jobs in the gaming industry and elsewhere? Me too! But if you’re not also looking at the potential upsides for the industry, then you’re engaging in dogma, not conversation.
Will DLSS 5 be good? I have no idea and neither do you. Will DLSS 5 alter previously released games in a way that fundamentally alters how we play these games? I have no idea and neither do you. Will it negatively impact the gaming industry when it comes to the number of jobs within it? I have no idea and neither do you.
This was a tech demo. Details on how it works are still trickling out. Most recently, there has been some clarification as to the 2D rendering nature of the technology and what that means for the output on the screen. As an early demo of the technology, feedback is going to be important, so long as it’s informed and reasonable feedback.
The technology may end up being trash and hated for reasons other than “all AI is bad all the time.” If that ends up being the case, I trust the gaming market to work that out for itself. But a lot of the hand-wringing here looks to me to be speculative at best.
As many of the AI stories on Walled Culture attest, one of the most contentious areas in the latest stage of AI development concerns the sourcing of training data. To create high-quality large language models (LLMs) massive quantities of training data are required. In the current genAI stampede, many companies are simply scraping everything they can off the Internet. Quite how that will work out in legal terms is not yet clear. Although a few court cases involving the use of copyright material for training have been decided, many have not, and the detailed contours of the legal landscape remain uncertain.
However, there is an alternative to this “grab it all” approach. It involves using materials that are either in the public domain or released under a “permissive” license that allows LLMs to be trained on them without any problems. There’s plenty of such material online, but its scattered nature puts it at a serious disadvantage compared to downloading everything without worrying about licensing issues. To address that, the Common Corpus was created and released just over a year ago by the French startup Pleias. A press release from the AI Alliance explains the key characteristics of the Common Corpus:
Truly Open: contains only data that is permissively licensed and provenance is documented
Multilingual: mostly representing English and French data, but contains at least 1[billion] tokens for over 30 languages
Diverse: consisting of scientific articles, government and legal documents, code, and cultural heritage data, including books and newspapers
Extensively Curated: spelling and formatting has been corrected from digitized texts, harmful and toxic content has been removed, and content with low educational content has also been removed.
There are five main categories of material: OpenGovernment, OpenCulture, OpenScience, OpenWeb, and OpenSource:
OpenGovernment contains Finance Commons, a dataset of financial documents from a range of governmental and regulatory bodies. Finance Commons is a multimodal dataset, including both text and PDF corpora. OpenGovernment also contains Legal Commons, a dataset of legal and administrative texts. OpenCulture contains cultural heritage data like books and newspapers. Many of these texts come from the 18th and 19th centuries, or even earlier.
OpenScience data primarily comes from publicly available academic and scientific publications, which are most often released as PDFs. OpenWeb contains datasets from YouTube Commons, a dataset of transcripts from public domain YouTube videos, and websites like Stack Exchange. Finally, OpenSource comprises code collected from GitHub repositories which were permissibly licensed.
The initial release contained over 2 trillion tokens – the usual way of measuring the volume of training material, where tokens can be whole words and parts of words. A significant recent update of the corpus has taken that to over 2.267 trillion tokens. Just as important as the greater size, is the wider reach: there are major additions of material from China, Japan, Korea, Brazil, India, Africa and South-East Asia. Specifically, the latest release contains data for eight languages with more than 10 billion tokens (English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Greek, Latin) and 33 languages with more than 1 billion tokens. Because of the way the dataset has been selected and curated, it is possible to train LLMs on fully open data, which leads to auditable models. Moreover, as the original press release explains:
By providing clear provenance and using permissibly licensed data, Common Corpus exceeds the requirements of even the strictest regulations on AI training data, such as the EU AI Act. Pleias has also taken extensive steps to ensure GDPR compliance, by developing custom procedures to enable personally identifiable information (PII) removal for multilingual data. This makes Common Corpus an ideal foundation for secure, enterprise-grade models. Models trained on Common Corpus will be resilient to an increasingly regulated industry.
Another advantage for many users is that material with high “toxicity scores” has already been removed, thus ensuring that any LLMs trained on the Common Corpus will have fewer problems in this regard.
The Common Corpus is a great demonstration of the power of openness and permissive copyright licensing, and how they bring benefits that other approaches can’t match. For example: “Common Corpus makes it possible to train models compatible with the Open Source Initiative’s definition of open-source AI, which includes openness of use, meaning use is permitted for ‘any purpose and without having to ask for permission’. ” That fact, along with the multilingual nature of the Common Corpus, would make the latest version a great fit for any EU move to create “public AI” systems, something advocated on this blog a few months back. The French government is already backing the project, as are other organizations supporting openness:
The Corpus was built up with the support and concerted efforts of the AI Alliance, the French Ministry of Culture as part of the prefiguration of the service offering of the Alliance for Language technologies EDIC (ALT-EDIC).
This dataset was also made in partnership with Wikimedia Enterprise and Wikidata/Wikimedia Germany. We’re also thankful to our partner Libraries Without Borders for continuous assistance on extending low resource language support.
The corpus was stored and processed with the generous support of the AI Alliance, Jean Zay (Eviden, Idris), Tracto AI, Mozilla.
The unique advantages of the Common Corpus mean that more governments should be supporting it as an alternative to proprietary systems, which generally remain black boxes in terms of where their training data comes from. Publishers too would also be wise to fund it, since it offers a powerful resource explicitly designed to avoid some of the thorniest copyright issues plaguing the generative AI field today.
All the people who have always brushed off concerns about surveillance tech, please come get your kids. And then let someone else raise them.
Lots of people are fine with mass surveillance because they believe the horseshit spewed by the immediate beneficiaries of this tech: law enforcement agencies that claim every encroachment on your rights might (MIGHT!) lead to the arrest of a dangerous criminal.
Running neck and neck with government surveillance state enthusiasts are extremely wealthy Americans. When they’re not adding new levels of surveillance to the businesses they own, they’re scattering cameras all around their gated communities and giving cops unfettered access to any images these cameras record.
Here’s how it plays out at the ground level: parents can’t get their kids enrolled in the nearest school because of surveillance tech. In one recent case, license plate reader data was used to deny enrollment because the data collected claimed the parent didn’t actually reside in the school district.
Just over a year ago, Thalía Sánchez became the proud owner of a home in Alsip. She decided to leave the bustle of the city for a quiet neighborhood setting and the best possible education for her daughter.
However, to this day, despite providing all required paperwork including her driver’s license, utility bills, vehicle registration, and mortgage statement, the Alsip Hazelgreen Oak Lawn School District 126 has repeatedly denied her daughter’s enrollment.
Why would the district do this? Well, it’s apparently because it has decided to trust the determinations made by its surveillance tech partner, rather than documents actually seen in person by the people making these determinations.
According to the school district, her daughter’s new student enrollment form was denied due to “license plate recognition software showing only Chicago addresses overnight” in July and August. In an email sent to Sánchez in August, the school district told her, “Although you are the owner on record of a house in our district boundaries, your license plate recognition shows that is not the place where you reside.”
But that’s obviously not true. Sanchez says the only reason plate reader data would have shown her car as “staying” in Chicago was because she lent it to a relative during that time period. The school insists this data is enough to overturn the documents she’s provided because… well, it doesn’t really say. It just claims it “relies” on this information gathering to determine residency for students.
All of this can be traced back to Thompson Reuters, which apparently has branched out into the AI-assisted, ALPR-enabled business of denying enrollment to students based on assumptions made by its software.
Here’s what little there is of additional information, as obtained by The Register while reporting on this case:
Thomson Reuters Clear, which more broadly is an AI-assisted records investigation tool, has a page dedicated to its application for school districts. It sells Clear as a tool for residency verification, claiming that it can “automate” such tasks with “enhanced reliability,” and can take care of them “in minutes, not months.”
One of the particular things the Clear page notes is its ability to access license plate data “and develop pattern of life information” that helps identify whether those who are claiming they’re residents for the sake of getting a kid enrolled in school are lying or not.
Thomson Reuters does not specify where it gets its license plate reader data and did not respond to questions.
We’ll get to the highlighted sentence in a moment, but let’s just take a beat and consider how creepy and weird this Thomson Reuters promotional pitch is:
The text reads:
Gain deeper insights into mismatched data to support meaningful conversations with families and ensure students are where they need to be. Identify where cars have been seen to establish pattern of life information.
No one expects a law enforcement agency to do this (at least without a warrant or reasonable suspicion), much less a school district. Government agencies shouldn’t have unfettered access to “pattern of life” information just because. It’s not like the people being surveilled here are engaged in criminal activity. They’re just trying to make sure their kids receive an education. And while there will always be people who game the system to get their kids into better schools, that’s hardly justification for subjecting every enrolling student’s family to expansive surveillance-enabled background checks.
And while Thomson Reuters (and the district itself) has refused to comment on the source of its plate reader data, it can safely be assumed that it’s Flock Safety. Flock Safety has never shown any concern about who accesses the data it compiles, much less why they choose to do it. Flock is swiftly becoming the leading provider of ALPR cameras and given its complete lack of internal or external oversight, it’s more than likely the case that its feeding this data to third parties like Thomson Reuters that are willing to pay a premium for data that simply can’t be had elsewhere.
We’re not catching criminals with this tech. Sure, it may happen now and then. But the real value is repeated resale of “pattern of life” data to whoever is willing to purchase it. That’s a massive problem that’s only going to get worse… full stop.
The Washington Post just published a deeply reported story about the Trump administration’s campaign to “expand free speech” in Europe. That headline alone should tell you something about how the story is framed — it takes the administration’s self-description at face value, as though we’re watching some noble effort to export the First Amendment across the Atlantic.
But if you get past the incredibly misleading headline, the actual reporting reveals quite an admission from within the administration, and it fundamentally undercuts everything they’ve been doing supposedly regarding “EU internet censorship.” The story reveals that the Trump administration ran its own investigation into EU censorship, found nothing, and then barreled ahead with the entire crusade anyway.
Worth repeating, because it’s the whole story (even if WaPo buried it with their headline): the Trump admin investigated “EU censorship.” The Trump admin came up empty. And then the administration just kept going as if it were undeniable that what their own investigators couldn’t find must have happened anyway.
The Post’s opening gets to it relatively quickly, but treats it as mere scene-setting rather than the incredible revelation it actually is:
In early 2025, aides to Vice President JD Vance ordered a small office at the State Department to document how European regulators were censoring online speech.
Staffers launched an investigation focusing on the European Union’s Digital Services Act, a sweeping 2022 social media law requiring large tech companies to limit the spread of harmful or illegal speech on the continent.
The weeks-long investigation, details of which have not previously been reported, uncovered no records indicating censorship, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
“There is no evidence that Member States of the European Union are overreaching the DSA to censor and criminalize online content,” they wrote in conclusion.
“There is no evidence.” That’s the conclusion of the Trump administration’s own investigators, put in writing. And then, an even more remarkable quote from someone involved:
“We did not find anything,” said one of the people. “It was not politically convenient that we could not find anything.”
“It was not politically convenient that we could not find anything.”
That is quite an admission. A government official is telling you directly that the conclusions were inconvenient, and therefore irrelevant. The investigation was entirely about manufacturing justification for a policy that was already decided. When the justification didn’t materialize, they just ignored it and moved forward anyway.
This is the hallucination presidency in action: when the facts don’t match the narrative, just assert the narrative anyway and hope no one checks.
The Washington Post, to its credit, did the hard reporting here and obtained those quotes. But the headline (“Inside the Trump administration’s campaign to expand ‘free speech’ in Europe”) and subhed (“The United States has banned some European researchers from entering the country and dismantled federal programs intended to fight foreign disinformation campaigns”) describe the administration’s actions without conveying the most explosive finding of the piece: that the evidentiary foundation for all of these actions does not exist. The actual story here is far bigger than the Post’s framing lets on.
Because here’s what the administration did after its own investigators told them there was no evidence of EU censorship: pretty much everything you could imagine a government would do if it had found evidence.
Despite the finding, the Trump administration has pressed ahead with a wide-ranging State Department effort to crack down on what it alleges is widespread censorship in the E.U., according to documents reviewed by The Post and nine people involved or aware of the campaign, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their livelihoods.
It has banned some European researchers from entering the United States and dismantled federal programs intended to fight foreign disinformation campaigns. Behind the scenes, the administration has crafted a plan to allow American tech companies to skirt European rules, using the federal government’s powers to control exports, according to two of the people and documents.
The department is preparing to launch a website to host banned content. A teaser for the site, freedom.gov, includes a mounted Paul Revere-type figure galloping over the words “Freedom is coming.”
Yes, there is literally going to be a government website with a Paul Revere figure galloping over the words “Freedom is coming.” Your tax dollars at work. There is a certain kind of person in government who genuinely confuses propaganda aesthetics with policy substance, and this is a pristine example.
The State Department’s official response to the Post is also worth noting for its brazenness:
The State Department said in a statement that it has been consistent in raising concerns about the Digital Services Act and a similar British law and had “never ‘concluded’ anything to the contrary.”
They’re claiming they “never concluded” that the DSA wasn’t censorship — even though their own staffers put it in writing that they found no evidence of censorship. The scare quotes around “concluded” are doing a lot of heavy lifting there. They’re trying to gaslight their own investigation.
Now, I want to be clear about something. I have been critical of aspects of the DSA for years. There are real concerns about how expansive content regulation can be abused — by governments on either side of the Atlantic. When former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton tried to use the DSA to pressure Elon Musk into not platforming Donald Trump, I called it out as a clear overreach and a genuine threat to free speech principles.
But the Trump administration’s campaign has almost nothing to do with those legitimate concerns. Instead, it’s built on vibes and political convenience, disconnected from anything their own investigators could actually find.
And we know this because we’ve already watched this play out in real time. The single biggest piece of “evidence” the administration and its allies keep pointing to is the EU’s $140 million fine against X (formerly Twitter) from December 2025. The House Judiciary Committee’s Jim Jordan called it “the Commission’s most aggressive censorship step to date,” describing it as “obvious retaliation for its protection of free speech around the globe” in a recently released report.
Sounds terrifying. Except that fine had literally nothing to do with censorship. The violations were about three specific transparency failures: misleading users when Elon changed verification from actual verification to “pay $8 for a checkmark,” maintaining a broken ad repository, and refusing to share required data with researchers. As Stanford’s expert on platform regulation, Daphne Keller, explained at the time:
Don’t let anyone — not even the United States Secretary of State — tell you that the European Commission’s €120 million enforcement against Elon Musk’s X under the Digital Service Act (DSA) is about censorship or about what speech users can post on the platform. That would, indeed, be interesting. But this fine is just the EU enforcing some normal, boring requirements of its law. Many of these requirements resemble existing US laws or proposals that have garnered bipartisan support.
Zero of the charges were about what content X allowed or didn’t allow on its platform.
Meanwhile, the real-world consequences of this evidence-free campaign are landing on actual people. We discussed how absolutely backwards it is for the US to be banning critics under the banner of free speech, and The Post reports on how that’s playing out with the German group, HateAid, that supports victims of online abuse, and whose CEO had her US entry banned:
Josephine Ballon, the group’s chief executive, learned just before Christmas that she had been banned from entering the United States. The State Department issued the ban on the grounds that Ballon and others “led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose,” which she denies.
She compared Trump’s tactics to those used by the online bullies that her organization teaches victims about.
“This is intended to intimidate us and silence us,” she said in an interview. “We are not silenced by the German far right and we will not be by the U.S.”
The US is banning people from entering the country due to their speech — to “protect free speech” — based on claims its own investigators couldn’t substantiate.
I think we found the censorship. And it’s coming from inside the US.
And the hypocrisy runs even deeper than the empty evidentiary cupboard, as we’ve documented before. While the Trump administration screams about EU censorship, FCC Chair Brendan Carr — the same person who traveled to Barcelona to give a speech declaring that “free speech” was “in retreat” because of the DSA — has been actively using his government position to threaten American media companies into silence. When he pressured Disney into temporarily pulling Jimmy Kimmel off the air, he faced zero consequences. He’s still in the job, still making threats.
Meanwhile, the EU actually pushed out Thierry Breton when he overstepped and tried to abuse the DSA to pressure platforms on content. The system the Trump administration claims is an engine of censorship responded to actual overreach by removing the overreacher. The system the Trump administration runs rewarded its overreacher with continued power and more threats.
I keep coming back to that quote: “It was not politically convenient that we could not find anything.” That may be the most honest sentence anyone in this administration has uttered about this entire campaign. The conclusion was written before the investigation started. The policy was set before the evidence was gathered. When reality failed to cooperate with the narrative, reality was simply discarded.
Policy by vibes. Governance by meme. With real consequences for real people and real institutions — imposed by the very people who cannot stop telling you how much they care about free expression. The same people whose own investigators found nothing — and whose response to finding nothing was to start banning foreigners from entering the country for their speech.
It’s time you get up to speed with Ruby on Rails! This full-stack web framework is all about letting you build applications quickly. Its elegance, flexibility, and speed make Ruby on Rails a popular choice for businesses, so taking the time to master it can pay huge dividends down the road. In this course, you’ll follow along with the instructor as he uses Ruby on Rails to create an ozone air quality monitoring weather app. You’ll understand Ruby on Rails in just two hours and know how to use it to build awesome web apps. It’s on sale for $17 when you use the code MARCH15 at checkout (through 3/29/26).
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.
“Exhaustion” is a legal term. It means plaintiffs need to explore the rest of their options before asking a court to handle their case or ask a higher court to handle a case the lower court has declared not quite exhausted enough.
“Exhaustion” is also a human term. And that’s where we are with this case, nearly nine years since a federal court first told the (then-anonymous) cop to GTFO with his weird-ass complaints against [checks original filing] Twitter, the entire Black Lives Matter social movement, and lifelong anti-police violence activist DeRay Mckesson.
The origin of this case is Mckesson’s appearance at a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Baton Rouge, Louisiana all the way back in July of 2016. So, we’re a decade in and yet, this cop (now known as John Ford) gets to keep trying to make things worse for DeRay and the First Amendment. And the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court seems hellbent on letting him do this.
The 2019 ruling made it abundantly clear Officer John Ford could not sue Twitter, a Twitter hashtag, or Mckesson for injuries he sustained when someone who was not DeRay Mckesson lobbed a projectile and hit him in the head.
This should have been obvious to everyone, even someone recently recovering from a head wound. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit simply feigned ignorance of the law. I am not even kidding. It said Mckesson had a duty of care during his peaceful protest that it would never apply to cops who hurl flashbangs into toddler’s cribs:
Given the intentional lawlessness of this aspect of the demonstration, Mckesson should have known that leading the demonstrators onto a busy highway was most nearly certain to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators, yet he ignored the foreseeable danger to officers, bystanders, and demonstrators, and notwithstanding, did so anyway. By ignoring the foreseeable risk of violence that his actions created, Mckesson failed to exercise reasonable care in conducting his demonstration.
Yep, just because the protest closed off a roadway, Mckesson MIGHT be responsible for any other lawless activities other than his own. Mckesson was never criminally charged for blocking off a highway. Nevertheless, the court thought it might be possible that he was somehow responsible for someone else deciding to lob a chunk of concrete at nearby police officers.
The Fifth is a Circus, not a Circuit. Even the Supreme Court — as chock full of MAGA loyalists as it is — found this to be a bit too much, something it tends to find quite often when dealing with appeals bubbling up from the Fifth’s primordial ooze. It sent the case back down to the Fifth, which then decided it should make this a state law case, in obvious hopes of finding some way to keep this cop’s bullshit lawsuit alive.
The dissent in this ruling, which turfed it to the state’s top court, made it explicitly clear that the majority was twisting itself into legal pretzels just to give this aggrieved cop several more bites of this rotting apple:
Indeed, the lone “inciteful” speech quoted in Doe’s complaint is something Mckesson said not to a fired-up protestor but to a mic’ed-up reporter—the day following the protest: “The police want protestors to be too afraid to protest.” Tellingly, not a single word even obliquely references violence, much less advocates it. Temporally, words spoken after the protest cannot possibly have incited violence during the protest.And tacitly, the majority opinion seems to discard the suggestion that Mckesson uttered anything to incite violence against Officer Doe.
The case has now been returned to the Fifth Circuit. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that Mckesson’s actions could amount to the sort of negligence that might satisfy statutory requirements, but it never said one way or another whether or not it actually believed his presence at this protest approached these standards.
So, this case has been remanded (once) by the US Supreme Court due to the Fifth’s faulty logic. It has been sent back to the district level twice, with the court finding in both cases that Mckesson cannot be held liable for the actions of the person who hit the cop with a rock. A huge stack of adverse rulings have been generated by the Fifth’s refusal to respect the First Amendment and/or force the cop to sue the person who actually injured him.
And yet, the Fifth persists. Because it’s the Fifth. It draws heavily from the state Supreme Court ruling — one in which the court was only asked (1) whether such a charge might be plausible and (2) whether damages could be recovered if said accusation proved to be true. No certified question about the constitutional issues raised by suing a protester for being at a protest where someone else injured a cop. No question was asked as to whether or not it was constitutional to treat every person at a protest equally liable for any crime that might be committed during a protest.
Those questions weren’t asked because the Fifth Circuit didn’t want those answers. All it wanted was a reason to allow this cop to sue a Black protester because this was the only name the cop had managed to gather during his nine years of litigation.
And here’s a court that would move heaven and earth to prevent a lawsuit against a cop to be handled by a jury moving heaven and earth [PDF] to ensure it will happen when a cop sues a regular person. (h/t Gabriel Malor on Bluesky)
And what’s said by the court is disturbing — not just because it attempts to hold recognizable people who are easy targets for lawsuits responsible for other people’s actions, but also because it attempts to smear an entire movement (especially as personified by the defendant in this case) as inherently dangerous and unlawful. There’s a lot of loaded language here, which is especially suspect when the court is claiming the right thing to do is hand this off to an impartial jury:
[T]he district court erred because the evidence in the record corroborates Officer Ford’s testimony. As recounted above, the evidence demonstrates that Mckesson helped plan the protest, was a leader in many protests that have turned violent, amplified messages about the protest on social media, and gave orders to the crowd during the protest. Additionally, a video of Mckesson’s position near the police as they cut off the protestors from accessing the interstate substantiates the other evidence. This evidence all tends to support that Mckesson was a leader of the protest, if the jury so determines.
[…]
Mckesson supported these violent protests, and he refused to condemn the use of violence in a televised interview on CNN. Consequently, whether Mckesson breached his duty to Officer Ford and others raises a triable jury question.
The only supporting documents the court offers are those submitted by the officer. There are lots of things citing the officer’s complaint, but that’s not the stuff the court is supposed to be citing as supportive in this appeal. Remember, Doe/Ford was the losing party in the district court case. He’s the moving party, as the legal parlance goes. The appellate court is supposed to grant more deference to the non-moving party during appeals. But the Fifth has gone the other way… multiple times in the same case! The cop got his deference at the lower level as the plaintiff. He’s not supposed to get it again when he loses.
Having done the wrong thing at least twice, the court tosses it to what the majority must feel might be a sympathetic (to the cop) jury in Louisiana. While it’s always happy to terminate litigation when cops are the defendants, it’s seeming more than willing to extend litigation when it’s the cops who are suing citizens.
There’s a dissent that runs nearly as long as the majority ruling. It’s great that it’s there and that it recognizes the Fifth’s willingness to pretend the First Amendment doesn’t matter when it’s a cop that’s doing the complaining (in the legal sense of the word)[and also the regular sense of the word].
But the majority makes the rules. The Fifth has decided that — at least in this case — it will side with the moving party and pretend that holding protesters or protest organizers legally responsible for any criminal or civil violations committed by other protesters doesn’t have any affect on the First Amendment whatsoever. It’s a convenient abdication of its role of a check/balance — one delivered by court that has, for years, demonstrated it would rather see 100 innocent people punished than allow one guilty cop to suffer the consequences of their actions.
All modern major U.S. media mergers follow the same trajectory. Executives pump out a bunch of pre-merger lies about job creation and innovation that are parroted by a lazy access press, followed by the rubber stamping by corrupt regulators, followed by oodles of price hikes, layoffs, and quality erosion caused by panicked efforts to pay down preposterous merger debt.
CBS News boss Bari Weiss offered this statement in the wake of the layoffs:
“Today we are reducing the size of our workforce, and employees who are affected will be notified by the end of the day. We recognize that this is a difficult time for those who will be leaving CBS News. Because these aren’t just names on a list. They are talented, committed colleagues who have been critical to our success. We’ll treat them all with care and respect.
It’s no secret that the news business is changing radically, and that we need to change along with it. New audiences are burgeoning in new places, and we are pressing forward with ambitious plans to grow and invest so that we can be there for them. That means some parts of our newsroom must get smaller to make room for the things we must build to remain competitive.
But these are very hard choices and today is a difficult day. This is a tough message to receive at any time, and especially in the middle of an exceptionally intense news cycle. This organization is working its heart out to deliver for our audience. We’re so grateful to all of you, and we thank you for handling this difficult news with compassion.”
There’s likely to be even greater layoffs as the Ellisons’ pursue their even more problematic acquisition of Warner Brothers (and CBS and NBC), adding significantly even more debt to the company at a very precarious time for traditional television and Hollywood. It’s something the network’s unionized employees are well aware of:
Read the statement from @wgaeast.bsky.social and @wgawest.bsky.social on the layoff of Guild members at CBS News. We stand in solidarity with our colleagues and friends and will fight to protect journalists.
Again, the solution to this is to have a genuine antitrust renaissance in the U.S, and block all and every instance of pointless “growth for growth’s sake” consolidation.
These deals do nothing but generate short-term stock bumps (sometimes), tax breaks, and delusion among the brunchlord extraction class that they’re “savvy dealmakers” as they engage in financial acrobatics to create the illusion of perpetual growth.
These fictions are all aided by a lazy press damaged from the very same pointless consolidation. This particular merger is complicated by the fact that the Trump-loyal Ellisons very clearly see Victor Orban’s autocratic-friendly media in Hungary as a model worth emulating. The only bright spot is that nobody, just like Warner Bros last few suitors, appears to have any idea what they’re actually doing.
The problem is, even if the Ellisons and autocrats fail completely and CBS collapses, they’ve “succeeded” in destroying another journalistic outlet on their way to what they hope will be total U.S. ideological domination.
I’ve obviously talked a great deal about how RFK Jr. and his activity as the Secretary of HHS has been a massive health liability for the American public. The implementation of his batshit anti-vaxxer stances have, of course, grabbed most of the headlines here, especially given the recent pushback he received from the courts, but it’s also worth noting the other craziness he’s spouted at the same time. He co-signed Trump’s nonsense about Tylenol giving all the kids autism. He’s overseen the worst measles outbreak in America in several decades. It seems likely he lied to Congress about his “work” in Samoa. He has vindictively repealed grant funding to groups that disagree with him on public health matters. He’s very interested in teenager sperm counts. He once took his grandkids swimming in a river known to be filthy with human waste.
It’s bad for the health of America. The Trump administration hasn’t really seemed to care all that much about that fact, of course, but it certainly does care about retaining power through the midterms. To that end, it seems the White House has finally woken up to the idea that most Americans hate what Kennedy and HHS are doing and has decided to pare back his activity because it’s a political liability.
The White House has taken steps to assert tighter control over HHS amid leadership and messaging changes tied to concerns that department Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.’s focus on vaccine policy could pose political risks heading into the 2026 midterm elections, The Wall Street Journal reported March 13.
While Mr. Kennedy remains in good standing with President Donald Trump, administration aides have grown frustrated with what they described as disorganization and missteps inside HHS, according to the report. Among them: a delayed response to a measles outbreak in Texas, backlash over mental health grant cuts and internal tension surrounding the FDA’s approval of a generic abortion pill.
We somehow are not at a place yet where the Trump administration realizes that they put a loon in charge of public health and are looking at making a leadership change. But they can read the polling as well as I can and they damned well know that the majority of America is not happy with Kennedy’s performance generally, and especially unhappy with his anti-vaxxer bullshit. To that end, the White House is making several moves to try to steady the waters and keep Kennedy and HHS out of the headlines.
Basically, it looks like they’re trying to provide a bit of more adult supervision, moving Chris Klomp up from managing Medicare to managing Kennedy… er… being Kennedy’s deputy, while moving Peter Thiel’s former righthand man, Jim O’Neill, out of his HHS Deputy Secretary role and over to the FDA where there’s hope he “reduce internal friction.”
The problem is that Captain Brain Worm remains at the top of all of this. Trump and his advisers know the country doesn’t like what HHS has done. They see the chaos, the resignations, and the bullshit that gets spewed out in press conferences and courtrooms alike. It would be nice if the government did this for reasons having to do with the American people rather than for its own political ramifications, but I suppose I’ll take what I can get under the circumstances.
