This “editor’s note” fundamentally misrepresents what happened. The article didn’t fail to “note” that videos were AI-generated. The article existed because Fox News believed the videos were real.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Fox News doesn't care whether or not the videos are real. It's not that they believed or did not believe, or that they were fooled or not fooled. Their entire communication stream doesn't even ask the true/not-true question at a fundamental level.
The rest of the article makes this clear. It's just this sentence that jumps out at me.
Sabzi is a Persian word that translates roughly to “herbs” or “vegetables” depending on whom you ask.
You're close, but you're missing some nuance.
The word "sabzi" literally means "greenness" or "the state of being green." The root of the word, "sabz" (سبز), is the adjective for green. Adding the -i suffix (-ی) makes the word into a noun (سبزی).
This noun, "sabzi," roughly occupies the same conceptual ground as the English word "greens" — to wit, if you refer to "a plate of greens," it's understood you're talking about something like a salad. However, there's an additional connotation in Persian which maps only partially to English; you might hear "sabzi" in certain contexts as describing the "freshness" of a thing (as a conceptual extension of how fresh vegetal foodstuffs are typically green). By comparison, in English, you can refer to a beginner in a field as being "green" to describe his inexperience, but it would be strange to refer to a person's "green-ness."
Traditionally, the use of "sabzi" in Farsi was limited specifically to leafy green foods – herbs, lettuces, and the like. The larger term for the category of what we consider vegetables in the West, including things like pumpkins and carrots, is "sabzijat" (سبزیجات). You obviously see "sabzi" in there, but the pluralizing suffix "-at" (-ات) is appended (pronounced "yot" due to the terminal vowel in "sabzi"). The word therefore literally means "greenness-es" to encompass all vegetables more broadly. In other words, you wouldn't say "sabzi" when talking about, say, potatoes; those are "sabzijat."
Regarding the applicability of a trademark to a foreign word in a market which was previously unfamiliar with it: This situation would be like going to, say, Cambodia, and starting a business under the name "Bratwurst." This would be laughed out of any court in Europe, but elsewhere? There might well be a legitimate argument.
Such an argument would be made under a firmly established principle called the "Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents."
For comparison, let's consider a close equivalent in a different retail sector. The word "ugg," in Australia, is completely generic. It refers to any sheepskin boot with the fleece interior. Shepherds, and companies that make sheep-derived products, have been making uggs in Australia for generations. It's like saying "flip-flops" or "galoshes."
This term, however, was entirely unknown outside Australia. Which is how an enterprising Australian was able to relocate himself to California and establish the "Ugg" trademark for his business, producing this style of footwear. The American system had never heard of it, obviously, so the trademark was granted. He then used this foundation to quickly and aggressively spread the trademark to many, many other countries.
Australian footwear manufacturers are now unable to sell "uggs," generically, anywhere but Australia. They've struggled to make the argument, internationally, that the "Ugg" trademark was improperly granted, because "ugg" had no prior presence or cultural currency. The "Ugg" brand continues to be upheld.
That's far from the only example, either. There's substantial legal precedent for similarly imported foreign words being granted trademark protection, and for that protection to be upheld under challenge. All of you will be well acquainted with the "Seiko" brand of watches, yes? This is a generic adjective in Japanese meaning "exquisite" in the sense of fine workmanship. In the early 1980s, a sporting-goods company wanted to use the "Seiko" name for itself, arguing the generic nature of the word in the original language. This was rejected; under the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents, the word "seiko" was considered arbitrary and unique in the American marketplace, and therefore defensible by trademark. (You can read the opinion here: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/seiko-sporting-goods-usa-890623876)
Americans will also be familiar with "Budweiser," as a unique brand which tells the consumer they're about to drink a cheap, watery beer. However, Americans are probably not aware that this name is stolen from a Czech city, Budějovice, and that the German version of that name has long been used to generically describe beer brewed in that area. If you travel to, say, Austria, and ask for a "Budweiser," you will probably be asked which one. If you want the American beer, you must ask specifically for a "Bud," because that's how it's marketed in the regions where Budějovický Budvar has successfully fought off the encroachment of the Anheuser-Busch brand.
Yes, the "sabzi" trademark seems odd to me, due to my long familiarity with Farsi. However, I readily concede that my familiarity puts me in the deep minority. Moreover, as a matter of broad principle, it is flatly incorrect, from a legal standpoint, to state that just because a word has a generic meaning in a foreign language, it cannot be trademarked in a market where that language is not commonly understood. The "Sabzi" lady does, in fact, have a legal case in the UK.
P.S. Ghormeh sabzi (قورمه سبزی) is indeed delicious. But I can confirm firsthand, it's also a pain in the ass to make properly. I'd rather make fesenjan (خورش فسنجون).
It makes perfect sense that RFK Jr would be interested in semen and sperm. Whenever I hear him talking about scientific subjects, I immediately think (jerk off gesture).
My family certainly did. We're in Europe, and Disneyland Paris recently launched a new Avengers campus and is about to open a new Frozen area. My kids have been excited, and we were planning to visit in Spring 2026.
Those plans have now been terminated.
And I wrote letters — old-fashioned physical letters, on paper, with envelopes and stamps — telling them so.
No replies yet, but I'll share if anything comes back.
The GOP could call for the “euthanization” of (and I don’t know of any other way to phrase this) severely autistic adults and most of its voting base probably wouldn’t blink.
There's no "could" about it. One of Fox's thugs openly advocated the execution of the mentally ill.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/brian-kilmeade-fox-news-host-kill-homeless-b2826035.html
He was forced to apologize afterward, so there was a bit of a blink, but still. These monsters have already crossed the line and revealed themselves for who they really are.
The US is one of 2 countries that tax based on citizenship
My wife and I have two kids who were very young when we first relocated. One of them was young enough that she speaks the local language more comfortably than she speaks English.
I am warning both of them that they'll have a choice to make when they turn 18. By accident of their birth, the American state will believe it has its hooks in them forever.
Bonkers indeed.
I am an American who relocated to a country in the EU almost a decade ago. It was shocking to me to understand just how incredibly backward the US is in dozens of ways.
The scenario reflected in this article is just one example. It takes me literally five minutes to sign off on my national tax statement annually, using a process very close to the one described. If there's a problem and I need to dispute something, then I'd get into a slow, laborious European bureaucratic loop. But that's never happened to me; I know of it only second-hand, from one of my acquaintances here. In my personal experience, it's been accurate and perfectly smooth.
But as an American citizen living abroad, I also have to file my U.S. return every year. That takes hours, usually over a few days. It's insane. And what's more, there are frequently problems. Right now we're struggling with a situation where one part of the IRS is yelling at us to pay our tax bill, even though another part of the IRS calmly reports our payment was processed (and our bank shows the payment cleared), and we cannot get the two parts of the agency to talk to each other.
And this is just one example. Don't get me started on healthcare, or banking, or elections.
You folks still in the U.S. genuinely have no idea how far ahead the rest of the world is on multiple fronts.
This proposed "inline commenting" framework is absolute madness and will be destructive if not fatal to proper journalism. Even if it's managed in a thoughtful, sensible manner as suggested in the article, it's still, fundamentally, poison to journalistic practice.
Per the other comment above, it's normal for a journalist, as they're working on a story, to contact key people involved, describe the story in progress, and invite them to provide comment. Generally, those people have an incentive to participate, making sure their perspective (whether honest or not) is included in the story. This is a responsible, ethical practice, and helps the journalist present a balanced account. But that's only part of the motivation. Those advance comments are generally made on the record, by a named person, and they are incorporated into the story and can be fact-checked by the reporter.
In this new framework, those people have zero incentive to participate in advance, offering comment in response to the reporter's solicitation. Now, they can just stonewall the journalist, knowing they'll have the opportunity later to annotate the story with their own assertions. Yes, per the description, the reporter will be able to respond to that, but it'll become a who-said-what back-and-forth off to the side of the main story, instead of being part of the central narrative. And the initial story will be understood by readers to be inherently incomplete, lacking the participation we expect from modern journalism.
This system is totally insane and will torpedo the journalistic standard. Nobody with any real knowledge or experience in newsroom practices could possibly support it. So, of course Bezos and his online cronies see it as a Brave New World. Just bonkers.
Indeed. It should also be noted that Cassidy is a MEDICAL DOCTOR who expressed reservations about Kennedy's nomination but ultimately voting to confirm while saying he had received "reassurances" about Kennedy's intentions.
I hope he spends long hours looking in the mirror, ruminating on what a stupid asshole he is.
As a European resident, I think Germany provides the most useful practical example, in terms of its relationship with its Nazi past. In the (perhaps unlikely) event the United States manages to achieve course correction and resist the ongoing fascist takeover, I would suggest taking lessons from the German model.
Yes, it's probably strictly true that Germany's absolute ban on Nazi imagery and agitation (outside some strictly limited academic and artistic contexts) violates the by-the-letter terms of the EU's charter on free expression. But it's also true that there continue to be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Nazis and Nazi-adjacent sympathizers in the nooks and crannies of German culture, looking for every possible angle for re-legitimizing themselves and emerging from the shadows. Every halfway intelligent German knows this, and knows they must continue firmly holding the line against these political malefactors. Germany knows, better than anyone else in the Western world, the danger of allowing these monsters anywhere near the levers of power. And the EU therefore remains quiet on the free-speech principle, allowing German policy to continue.
So, I agree with you on the compromised position on maximized free expression. Popper's Tolerance Paradox is on full display. To defend free speech, it is necessary to curtail certain forms of it in certain circumstances. The Nazi takeover of Germany in the 1920s, the ongoing efforts of German Nazis to resurrect themselves, and the unfolding Nazi takeover of the U.S. should be all the evidence anyone needs.
And one more thing: it's not accidental that JD Vance took aim at this specifically on his recent visit, making the terrifyingly dangerous argument that Germany should abandon its policy of self-prevervation and allow the Nazis to rise again. To the free-speech maximalists, if you find yourself on the same side of a position with JD Vance, you should pause and re-examine your beliefs.
I am not hopeful for success, but I do wish Americans the best of luck in their fight against their internal invaders. And I commend anyone with interest in the subject to study the German example, for a potential model to replicate in the aftermath.
You're exactly correct to cite that article in this context. Given that Señor Wormbrain thinks germs are basically harmless unless and until "bad miasma" makes us susceptible to them, it's entirely predictable that he would buy into the chemtrail conspiracy. What's more illustrative of bad miasma than mysterious white streaks in the sky?
I take strong exception to the labeling of this type of governance as "toddler" behavior. Such a characterization suggests it's immature or infantile, driven primarily by an emotional fear of consequences without strategy or deliberate intent. That's not what this is. The Trump camp knows very well that they're operating according to Mafia rules: the man at the top gestures vaguely at a desirable outcome, and trusts his underlings to recognize the directive and take steps to carry it out. When questioned later, the Don (get it?) shrugs and says he doesn't know anything about the details. This is not toddler behavior at all; this is a well-established leadership model which is consciously organized to protect the kingpin. To call it immature is to misunderstand and minimize what's really happening.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by chateau.arusi.
Suggestion for minor correction
I agree that it's not a cultural identity. However, there is growing evidence that it might be an intellectual handicap.
On the meaning of "sabzi"
I'm not surprised at all
It makes perfect sense that RFK Jr would be interested in semen and sperm. Whenever I hear him talking about scientific subjects, I immediately think (jerk off gesture).
re: (canceling Disney trip)
My family certainly did. We're in Europe, and Disneyland Paris recently launched a new Avengers campus and is about to open a new Frozen area. My kids have been excited, and we were planning to visit in Spring 2026. Those plans have now been terminated. And I wrote letters — old-fashioned physical letters, on paper, with envelopes and stamps — telling them so. No replies yet, but I'll share if anything comes back.
re euthanization
Modernization. Uh huh.
I am an American who relocated to a country in the EU almost a decade ago. It was shocking to me to understand just how incredibly backward the US is in dozens of ways. The scenario reflected in this article is just one example. It takes me literally five minutes to sign off on my national tax statement annually, using a process very close to the one described. If there's a problem and I need to dispute something, then I'd get into a slow, laborious European bureaucratic loop. But that's never happened to me; I know of it only second-hand, from one of my acquaintances here. In my personal experience, it's been accurate and perfectly smooth. But as an American citizen living abroad, I also have to file my U.S. return every year. That takes hours, usually over a few days. It's insane. And what's more, there are frequently problems. Right now we're struggling with a situation where one part of the IRS is yelling at us to pay our tax bill, even though another part of the IRS calmly reports our payment was processed (and our bank shows the payment cleared), and we cannot get the two parts of the agency to talk to each other. And this is just one example. Don't get me started on healthcare, or banking, or elections. You folks still in the U.S. genuinely have no idea how far ahead the rest of the world is on multiple fronts.
This is a terrible idea
This proposed "inline commenting" framework is absolute madness and will be destructive if not fatal to proper journalism. Even if it's managed in a thoughtful, sensible manner as suggested in the article, it's still, fundamentally, poison to journalistic practice. Per the other comment above, it's normal for a journalist, as they're working on a story, to contact key people involved, describe the story in progress, and invite them to provide comment. Generally, those people have an incentive to participate, making sure their perspective (whether honest or not) is included in the story. This is a responsible, ethical practice, and helps the journalist present a balanced account. But that's only part of the motivation. Those advance comments are generally made on the record, by a named person, and they are incorporated into the story and can be fact-checked by the reporter. In this new framework, those people have zero incentive to participate in advance, offering comment in response to the reporter's solicitation. Now, they can just stonewall the journalist, knowing they'll have the opportunity later to annotate the story with their own assertions. Yes, per the description, the reporter will be able to respond to that, but it'll become a who-said-what back-and-forth off to the side of the main story, instead of being part of the central narrative. And the initial story will be understood by readers to be inherently incomplete, lacking the participation we expect from modern journalism. This system is totally insane and will torpedo the journalistic standard. Nobody with any real knowledge or experience in newsroom practices could possibly support it. So, of course Bezos and his online cronies see it as a Brave New World. Just bonkers.
They told him to piss off, surely.
Indeed. It should also be noted that Cassidy is a MEDICAL DOCTOR who expressed reservations about Kennedy's nomination but ultimately voting to confirm while saying he had received "reassurances" about Kennedy's intentions. I hope he spends long hours looking in the mirror, ruminating on what a stupid asshole he is.
As a European resident, I think Germany provides the most useful practical example, in terms of its relationship with its Nazi past. In the (perhaps unlikely) event the United States manages to achieve course correction and resist the ongoing fascist takeover, I would suggest taking lessons from the German model. Yes, it's probably strictly true that Germany's absolute ban on Nazi imagery and agitation (outside some strictly limited academic and artistic contexts) violates the by-the-letter terms of the EU's charter on free expression. But it's also true that there continue to be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Nazis and Nazi-adjacent sympathizers in the nooks and crannies of German culture, looking for every possible angle for re-legitimizing themselves and emerging from the shadows. Every halfway intelligent German knows this, and knows they must continue firmly holding the line against these political malefactors. Germany knows, better than anyone else in the Western world, the danger of allowing these monsters anywhere near the levers of power. And the EU therefore remains quiet on the free-speech principle, allowing German policy to continue. So, I agree with you on the compromised position on maximized free expression. Popper's Tolerance Paradox is on full display. To defend free speech, it is necessary to curtail certain forms of it in certain circumstances. The Nazi takeover of Germany in the 1920s, the ongoing efforts of German Nazis to resurrect themselves, and the unfolding Nazi takeover of the U.S. should be all the evidence anyone needs. And one more thing: it's not accidental that JD Vance took aim at this specifically on his recent visit, making the terrifyingly dangerous argument that Germany should abandon its policy of self-prevervation and allow the Nazis to rise again. To the free-speech maximalists, if you find yourself on the same side of a position with JD Vance, you should pause and re-examine your beliefs. I am not hopeful for success, but I do wish Americans the best of luck in their fight against their internal invaders. And I commend anyone with interest in the subject to study the German example, for a potential model to replicate in the aftermath.
You're exactly correct to cite that article in this context. Given that Señor Wormbrain thinks germs are basically harmless unless and until "bad miasma" makes us susceptible to them, it's entirely predictable that he would buy into the chemtrail conspiracy. What's more illustrative of bad miasma than mysterious white streaks in the sky?
Perhaps. But I am not, as the saying goes, holding my breath.
I take strong exception to the labeling of this type of governance as "toddler" behavior. Such a characterization suggests it's immature or infantile, driven primarily by an emotional fear of consequences without strategy or deliberate intent. That's not what this is. The Trump camp knows very well that they're operating according to Mafia rules: the man at the top gestures vaguely at a desirable outcome, and trusts his underlings to recognize the directive and take steps to carry it out. When questioned later, the Don (get it?) shrugs and says he doesn't know anything about the details. This is not toddler behavior at all; this is a well-established leadership model which is consciously organized to protect the kingpin. To call it immature is to misunderstand and minimize what's really happening.