verge-rss

Synergy king! | Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge; Getty Images

JD Vance’s appearance at the All-In Summit was easily the most comfortable I’ve seen him, but then he was with the people he understands best: other VCs.
The All-In podcast appearance was what business leaders refer to as a display of synergy. Cohost David Sacks’ and Vance’s political fortunes are tied together — if Trump wins, Sacks looks like a kingmaker and has a vice president who owes him favors and will take his calls. If Vance loses, remaining close to his real community — venture capitalists — gives him a valuable network to tap into for future campaigns.
“Donald Trump cares more about the details of public policy than almost anyone I’ve met in public life.”
Vance has called Sacks “one of my closest confidants.” (His other friends include Curtis Yarvin, an anti-democracy software developer, and VC Peter Thiel, about whom, more later.) Sacks has been shoring up influence in the Republican party, first with his flop attempt at coronating Ron DeSantis as the Republican nominee and now with Vance. Besides his fundraising activities, Sacks’ All-In podcast has also hosted Donald Trump and is a place Sacks routinely rants about his take on politics.
As far as I can tell, the purpose of Vance’s appearance on All-In, which is also cohosted by fellow Trump supporter and Silicon Valley SPAC king Chamath Palihapitiya, was to explain away the anti-immigrant sentiment coming from the Republican party.

Vance’s appearance was almost entirely disingenuous. According to Vance, anything bad you have heard about former President Donald Trump is because the lousy people in the American media have been busily lying about him. “The media doesn’t often tell you the truth about Donald Trump,” Vance says. “Donald Trump cares more about the details of public policy than almost anyone I’ve met in public life.” If you don’t believe him, Vance says, “I just encourage you to listen to what he actually says.”
Yes, let’s. The same day the video of the All-In interview was uploaded to YouTube, Trump debated Vice President Kamala Harris. Asked why he had killed an immigration bill, Trump said the following, “First, let me respond to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don’t go to her rallies, there’s no reason to go.” He went on to discuss how he had “the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.” Okay, but maybe I’m cherry-picking! Let’s try another one. Asked if he had a plan for repealing Obamacare, Trump replied, “I have concepts of a plan.”
Thiel characterized himself as “pro-Trump, pro-JD”
So much for Trump’s grasp on public policy. As much fun as I am having quoting Trump, I am less interested in fisking Vance’s appearance and more interested in what he’s doing on All-In in the first place.
Vance has played at being a man of the people, but he owes his place on Trump’s ticket to Silicon Valley’s billionaires. After all, he is a pet of Thiel, who put forward $15 million for Vance’s Ohio Senate campaign. (There were other wealthy donors, too, including Oculus founder Palmer Luckey.) Thiel said he would sit out this race, but Vance has publicly said he is attempting to get Thiel “off the sidelines” and donating into Trump’s campaign. (In his own All-In appearance, Thiel characterized himself as “pro-Trump, pro-JD” and said that though he is not donating money, he is “supporting them in every other way possible.”)
In Thiel’s absence, his fellow PayPal mafioso Sacks has aggressively moved into politics. Sacks hosted a $300,000-a-person dinner at his mansion to raise tech money for Donald Trump in July. That room wanted Vance for vice president, and it got him.
If you are wondering why Sacks, who is already rich, might be seeking more wealth and power, it’s worth remembering that VCs are middlemen. They have to periodically raise money for their funds, and that’s easier if they look knowledgeable, impressive, connected. Sacks has now hosted both the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates on his show, and he’s quite cozy with Vance. These kinds of political ties might make fundraising easier or put him in the room with better founders. Even if Trump and Vance lose, he’s still made a powerful statement.
Halting immigration is key to the Trump campaign
That’s the “connections” side of this equation — but Vance’s real job was the “knowledgeable” part. All-In is playing to people who consider themselves tech intelligentsia. They want one of their own to reassure them that despite Trump’s tendency to blurt out nonsense about immigrants eating housepets, he’s a reasonable man like them. Claiming the media is unfairly biased against Trump is the kind of thing that plays in these rooms, where people already believe in an unfair media bias against tech CEOs.
More specifically, the real reason for Vance’s appearance can be found near the middle of the podcast, when he began discussing immigration.
Silicon Valley is full of immigrants, from top (the current CEOs of Google, Microsoft, Adobe, and IBM) to bottom. Immigration is a crucial issue for this group of people. In 2016, when VC Marc Andreessen endorsed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, he said, “The Valley wouldn’t be here, we wouldn’t be doing any of this if we didn’t have the amazing flow of immigrants that we’ve had in the last 80 years. And the idea of choking that off just makes me sick to my stomach.”
Halting immigration is key to the Trump campaign, as evinced by signs reading “Mass Deportation Now” that were held up during the Republican convention. In his previous term, Trump targeted the H-1B program, the visas that many tech workers use to come to the US. Andreessen appears to have settled his stomach about this, as he now endorses Trump and had nothing to say about immigration on his own podcast when he explained his decision. Vance’s job was to reassure anyone who might still be feeling queasy.
Any immigrant should be paying attention to Trump’s mass deportation plans
Vance started by making the Republicans’ anti-immigrant stance palatable to anyone who fears it might be bad for business. “Generally I agree, okay, we’re going to let some immigrants in,” he says. “We want them to be high-talent, high quality people. You don’t want to let a large number of illegal aliens in.”
Per Vance, his ticket is about letting the right kind of immigrants in and keeping the wrong kind out. He reminded the crowd that he is married to “the daughter of legal immigrants to this country.” It’s just all the undocumented people that are screwing up America, he says. And all those bad immigrants are going to vote for Democrats. No, seriously, here’s what Vance said:
When somebody like Chuck Schumer says, “Well, you know, we’re going to have an emerging Democratic majority because we’re going to have all these new immigrants and all the old Americans, well, they’re going to vote for Republicans, but we’re going to replace them with a bunch of new people who vote for Democrats,” it’s like, that’s pretty sick.
Vance awkwardly tried to downplay the calls for deportation. “You try to take it one step at a time,” he says. “But the most important thing — and I think the deportations focus, again, it is important because we’re eventually, we are going to deport people — but the most important thing is to stop the bleeding.”
Any immigrant should be paying attention to Trump’s mass deportation plans. Trump has said he wants to deport 15 to 20 million people; the logistics of this will likely be horrifying. People who are here legally may be picked up by accident and detained or deported. It’s awfully convenient for Vance to show up and address an industry full of foreign workers, minimizing the threat. There are shades of his mentor Thiel’s famous comment from 2016: take Trump seriously, but not literally.
We’ve actually had a Trump presidency since those comments, of course. And it suggests Trump should be taken both seriously and literally when he talks about choking off immigration. It’s something he’s already done!
And when Vance says on All-In that he would not have certified the 2020 election — “I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors” are his words, echoing past remarks — that’s something I am inclined to take both seriously and literally, too. Vance is buddies with a monarchist; his mentor Thiel has written, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” His running mate has said, “Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore!” Vance clearly believes in proximity to power. I’m not sure he believes in much else, democracy included. And that seems to suit his Silicon Valley buddies just fine.

Synergy king! | Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge; Getty Images

JD Vance’s appearance at the All-In Summit was easily the most comfortable I’ve seen him, but then he was with the people he understands best: other VCs.

The All-In podcast appearance was what business leaders refer to as a display of synergy. Cohost David Sacks’ and Vance’s political fortunes are tied together — if Trump wins, Sacks looks like a kingmaker and has a vice president who owes him favors and will take his calls. If Vance loses, remaining close to his real community — venture capitalists — gives him a valuable network to tap into for future campaigns.

Vance has called Sacks “one of my closest confidants.” (His other friends include Curtis Yarvin, an anti-democracy software developer, and VC Peter Thiel, about whom, more later.) Sacks has been shoring up influence in the Republican party, first with his flop attempt at coronating Ron DeSantis as the Republican nominee and now with Vance. Besides his fundraising activities, Sacks’ All-In podcast has also hosted Donald Trump and is a place Sacks routinely rants about his take on politics.

As far as I can tell, the purpose of Vance’s appearance on All-In, which is also cohosted by fellow Trump supporter and Silicon Valley SPAC king Chamath Palihapitiya, was to explain away the anti-immigrant sentiment coming from the Republican party.

Vance’s appearance was almost entirely disingenuous. According to Vance, anything bad you have heard about former President Donald Trump is because the lousy people in the American media have been busily lying about him. “The media doesn’t often tell you the truth about Donald Trump,” Vance says. “Donald Trump cares more about the details of public policy than almost anyone I’ve met in public life.” If you don’t believe him, Vance says, “I just encourage you to listen to what he actually says.”

Yes, let’s. The same day the video of the All-In interview was uploaded to YouTube, Trump debated Vice President Kamala Harris. Asked why he had killed an immigration bill, Trump said the following, “First, let me respond to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don’t go to her rallies, there’s no reason to go.” He went on to discuss how he had “the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.” Okay, but maybe I’m cherry-picking! Let’s try another one. Asked if he had a plan for repealing Obamacare, Trump replied, “I have concepts of a plan.”

So much for Trump’s grasp on public policy. As much fun as I am having quoting Trump, I am less interested in fisking Vance’s appearance and more interested in what he’s doing on All-In in the first place.

Vance has played at being a man of the people, but he owes his place on Trump’s ticket to Silicon Valley’s billionaires. After all, he is a pet of Thiel, who put forward $15 million for Vance’s Ohio Senate campaign. (There were other wealthy donors, too, including Oculus founder Palmer Luckey.) Thiel said he would sit out this race, but Vance has publicly said he is attempting to get Thiel “off the sidelines” and donating into Trump’s campaign. (In his own All-In appearance, Thiel characterized himself as “pro-Trump, pro-JD” and said that though he is not donating money, he is “supporting them in every other way possible.”)

In Thiel’s absence, his fellow PayPal mafioso Sacks has aggressively moved into politics. Sacks hosted a $300,000-a-person dinner at his mansion to raise tech money for Donald Trump in July. That room wanted Vance for vice president, and it got him.

If you are wondering why Sacks, who is already rich, might be seeking more wealth and power, it’s worth remembering that VCs are middlemen. They have to periodically raise money for their funds, and that’s easier if they look knowledgeable, impressive, connected. Sacks has now hosted both the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates on his show, and he’s quite cozy with Vance. These kinds of political ties might make fundraising easier or put him in the room with better founders. Even if Trump and Vance lose, he’s still made a powerful statement.

That’s the “connections” side of this equation — but Vance’s real job was the “knowledgeable” part. All-In is playing to people who consider themselves tech intelligentsia. They want one of their own to reassure them that despite Trump’s tendency to blurt out nonsense about immigrants eating housepets, he’s a reasonable man like them. Claiming the media is unfairly biased against Trump is the kind of thing that plays in these rooms, where people already believe in an unfair media bias against tech CEOs.

More specifically, the real reason for Vance’s appearance can be found near the middle of the podcast, when he began discussing immigration.

Silicon Valley is full of immigrants, from top (the current CEOs of Google, Microsoft, Adobe, and IBM) to bottom. Immigration is a crucial issue for this group of people. In 2016, when VC Marc Andreessen endorsed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, he said, “The Valley wouldn’t be here, we wouldn’t be doing any of this if we didn’t have the amazing flow of immigrants that we’ve had in the last 80 years. And the idea of choking that off just makes me sick to my stomach.”

Halting immigration is key to the Trump campaign, as evinced by signs reading “Mass Deportation Now” that were held up during the Republican convention. In his previous term, Trump targeted the H-1B program, the visas that many tech workers use to come to the US. Andreessen appears to have settled his stomach about this, as he now endorses Trump and had nothing to say about immigration on his own podcast when he explained his decision. Vance’s job was to reassure anyone who might still be feeling queasy.

Vance started by making the Republicans’ anti-immigrant stance palatable to anyone who fears it might be bad for business. “Generally I agree, okay, we’re going to let some immigrants in,” he says. “We want them to be high-talent, high quality people. You don’t want to let a large number of illegal aliens in.”

Per Vance, his ticket is about letting the right kind of immigrants in and keeping the wrong kind out. He reminded the crowd that he is married to “the daughter of legal immigrants to this country.” It’s just all the undocumented people that are screwing up America, he says. And all those bad immigrants are going to vote for Democrats. No, seriously, here’s what Vance said:

When somebody like Chuck Schumer says, “Well, you know, we’re going to have an emerging Democratic majority because we’re going to have all these new immigrants and all the old Americans, well, they’re going to vote for Republicans, but we’re going to replace them with a bunch of new people who vote for Democrats,” it’s like, that’s pretty sick.

Vance awkwardly tried to downplay the calls for deportation. “You try to take it one step at a time,” he says. “But the most important thing — and I think the deportations focus, again, it is important because we’re eventually, we are going to deport people — but the most important thing is to stop the bleeding.”

Any immigrant should be paying attention to Trump’s mass deportation plans. Trump has said he wants to deport 15 to 20 million people; the logistics of this will likely be horrifying. People who are here legally may be picked up by accident and detained or deported. It’s awfully convenient for Vance to show up and address an industry full of foreign workers, minimizing the threat. There are shades of his mentor Thiel’s famous comment from 2016: take Trump seriously, but not literally.

We’ve actually had a Trump presidency since those comments, of course. And it suggests Trump should be taken both seriously and literally when he talks about choking off immigration. It’s something he’s already done!

And when Vance says on All-In that he would not have certified the 2020 election — “I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors” are his words, echoing past remarks — that’s something I am inclined to take both seriously and literally, too. Vance is buddies with a monarchist; his mentor Thiel has written, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” His running mate has said, “Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore!” Vance clearly believes in proximity to power. I’m not sure he believes in much else, democracy included. And that seems to suit his Silicon Valley buddies just fine.

Read More 

Illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photo from Getty Images

Next week, a court will hear arguments about whether the US government can ban TikTok, based on evidence it doesn’t want anyone — including the social media company — to see.
On September 16th, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments for TikTok v. Garland, TikTok’s First Amendment challenge to legislation that it claims amounts to a ban. It’s a fight not just about free speech but whether the Department of Justice can make a case using classified material that its opponent can’t review or argue against. The government argues TikTok is a clear national security threat but says that revealing why would be a threat, too.
“I think the courts are going to tread very carefully here,” Matt Schettenhelm, a senior litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence covering tech and telecom, told The Verge. “Especially in a First Amendment case like this, where it’s effectively banning one of our leading platforms for free speech in the country, the idea that you’re going to do it for secret reasons that you don’t even tell the company itself, that is going to be cause for concern for the judges.”
The DOJ’s case against TikTok
TikTok’s suit stems from a law signed by President Joe Biden back in April. The law requires TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest it within nine months to a non-Chinese company; if it fails, the app would be effectively banned in the US — unless the president grants it a few months to get a deal done. TikTok has argued the law would unconstitutionally “force a shutdown,” accusing the government of taking “the unprecedented step of expressly singling out and banning TikTok.”
In filings first submitted on July 28th, the government laid out its defense, making a series of declarations about TikTok’s risks. The claims relied on dozens of pages of redacted classified material. The DOJ insisted it wasn’t “trying to litigate in secret,” but, citing national security concerns, it asked to file the classified material ex parte, meaning only one side (and the panel of judges) would be able to see it.
We obviously don’t know exactly what’s in these documents, but the partially redacted filings give us some hints. They focus largely on the potential that the Chinese government could compel ByteDance to hand over the data of US users — or that it could coerce the company into using TikTok’s algorithm to push specific content onto US users.
The government argues that the national security risks posed by TikTok are so significant that they override First Amendment claims. The DOJ said Congress decided to ban TikTok based on “extensive information — including substantial classified information — on the national-security risk” of allowing TikTok to remain operational in the US.
One of the documents is a declaration from Casey Blackburn, an assistant director of national intelligence. Blackburn writes that there is “no information” that the Chinese government has used TikTok for “malign foreign influence targeting US persons” or the “collection of sensitive data of US persons.” But he says there is “a risk” of it happening in the future.
Another declaration comes from Kevin Vorndran, an assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division. Vorndran details the possibility that TikTok may be a “hybrid commercial threat”: a business whose legitimate activity serves as a backdoor through which foreign governments can access US data, infrastructure, and technologies. He states that the Chinese government uses “prepositioning tactics” as part of a “broader geopolitical and long-term strategy to undermine US national security.” These efforts, the government claims, “span several years of planning and implementation.”
In other words, the government is arguing that even if China hasn’t yet surveilled TikTok’s US users, it could. It takes particular issue with TikTok’s ability to access users’ contacts, location, and other data that it says could potentially let the Chinese government track Americans. The DOJ notes that researchers can easily identify individuals using anonymized data bundles, making “anonymized” data anything but.
The filings argue that TikTok’s recommendation algorithm could also be used to influence US users. TikTok’s “heating” feature lets employees “manually boost certain content,” potentially at the direction of the Chinese government. Lawmakers from both parties have accused TikTok of promoting content critical of Israel. In a private meeting with the group No Labels, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) suggested that college campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war were proof that students are being “manipulated by certain groups or entities or countries.” And Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), the ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, told The New York Times in April that the Israel-Hamas war was a factor in the eagerness of legislators to regulate TikTok.
The hardest evidence for any of this isn’t public, though. Blackburn’s declaration includes an eight-page section titled “ByteDance and TikTok’s History of Censorship and Content Manipulation at PRC Direction,” for instance, but it’s almost entirely redacted.

The DOJ filings also reveal — and simultaneously obscure — the lengthy, extensive negotiations that preceded the ban. ByteDance and TikTok executives met with representatives from several agencies starting in August 2022, discussing ways to address security concerns without divestment. By March 2023, the government believed divestment was the only option. And in February 2024, Congress began holding briefings about its potential threats.

During these hearings, lawmakers discussed the threats China poses to US national security, formal and informal methods of control the Chinese government exerts over companies that do business there, and the specifics of China’s control over ByteDance.
But the briefing transcripts are largely redacted — including one section discussing an additional unknown issue. “We never see what the lawmakers actually decided, or what actually drove their decision,” Schettenhelm said. “There’s sort of a missing piece here: how much did the lawmakers consider this a true threat, and why did they need to take this extreme step as opposed to less drastic measures?”
TikTok fights back
TikTok contends that the government’s defense is full of errors, including what it calls “false assertions” about what data it stores and where. It says it does not store users’ precise locations and claims information from users’ contact lists “is automatically anonymized” and “cannot be used to recover the original contact information” of people who aren’t on TikTok. TikTok says that contrary to claims its anonymized data isn’t anonymous, the proposed agreement required anonymization tools “often used by the US government to protect sensitive data.”
The company also denies that the Chinese government can access the data of American users or influence its algorithm. It says US user data and TikTok’s “US recommendation engine” are stored in the United States with Oracle, thanks to a $1.5 billion siloing effort dubbed Project Texas. But reports have suggested TikTok employees in the US continued to report to ByteDance executives in Beijing after the plan’s implementation, and one former employee described the effort as “largely cosmetic.”
Still, TikTok argues the government’s claims about its operations are largely false. TikTok says that the government ignored its extensive, detailed plan to address national security concerns — and that the information the DOJ has provided fails to prove why a ban was necessary.
Schettenhelm, the Bloomberg Intelligence legal expert, said Congress’ decision to single out a single company is unique. TikTok argues it’s also unlawful. The Constitution prohibits what are known as “bill of attainder laws,” which single out an individual or company without due process. The bill bans social media websites and apps controlled by “foreign adversaries” that meet certain criteria — including having more than 1 million monthly active users and letting users generate content — but TikTok is the only company it mentions by name. The court will have to decide who’s right.
The government “never really explains why TikTok is subject to that different process, and I think when you do something so unique like that, especially when the First Amendment is implicated, I think the courts are going to want to see more of a justification,” Schettenhelm said.
TikTok’s uncertain future
A decision will likely come in December, where the court could either uphold the law’s constitutionality or block it from going into effect. But it won’t necessarily put an end to the legal saga. If the court rules in favor of the government and upholds the law, TikTok has multiple avenues through which it could appeal, Schettenhelm told The Verge. It could ask for an en banc decision in which all the judges in the DC Circuit Court examine the decision. TikTok could also appeal the case and ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.
But Schettenhelm predicts that the court could block the law from taking effect because it’s unable to determine whether it’s constitutional. “I think that potentially could have the effect of throwing it back to Congress, and Congress could go ahead at taking another shot,” Schettenhelm said. “Congress would have to pass a second law, and the president would have to sign it.”
Given that the initial bill passed with an overwhelming bipartisan consensus, a subsequent bill could pass easily. But the outcome of the election could determine whether the law goes into effect. Former President Donald Trump — who previously attempted to ban TikTok — said in March that he now opposes efforts to ban the app.
If the court rules against TikTok, the clock will keep ticking toward its divestment date — when one of the biggest social media platforms in the country could disappear.

Illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photo from Getty Images

Next week, a court will hear arguments about whether the US government can ban TikTok, based on evidence it doesn’t want anyone — including the social media company — to see.

On September 16th, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments for TikTok v. Garland, TikTok’s First Amendment challenge to legislation that it claims amounts to a ban. It’s a fight not just about free speech but whether the Department of Justice can make a case using classified material that its opponent can’t review or argue against. The government argues TikTok is a clear national security threat but says that revealing why would be a threat, too.

“I think the courts are going to tread very carefully here,” Matt Schettenhelm, a senior litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence covering tech and telecom, told The Verge. “Especially in a First Amendment case like this, where it’s effectively banning one of our leading platforms for free speech in the country, the idea that you’re going to do it for secret reasons that you don’t even tell the company itself, that is going to be cause for concern for the judges.”

The DOJ’s case against TikTok

TikTok’s suit stems from a law signed by President Joe Biden back in April. The law requires TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest it within nine months to a non-Chinese company; if it fails, the app would be effectively banned in the US — unless the president grants it a few months to get a deal done. TikTok has argued the law would unconstitutionally “force a shutdown,” accusing the government of taking “the unprecedented step of expressly singling out and banning TikTok.”

In filings first submitted on July 28th, the government laid out its defense, making a series of declarations about TikTok’s risks. The claims relied on dozens of pages of redacted classified material. The DOJ insisted it wasn’t “trying to litigate in secret,” but, citing national security concerns, it asked to file the classified material ex parte, meaning only one side (and the panel of judges) would be able to see it.

We obviously don’t know exactly what’s in these documents, but the partially redacted filings give us some hints. They focus largely on the potential that the Chinese government could compel ByteDance to hand over the data of US users — or that it could coerce the company into using TikTok’s algorithm to push specific content onto US users.

The government argues that the national security risks posed by TikTok are so significant that they override First Amendment claims. The DOJ said Congress decided to ban TikTok based on “extensive information — including substantial classified information — on the national-security risk” of allowing TikTok to remain operational in the US.

One of the documents is a declaration from Casey Blackburn, an assistant director of national intelligence. Blackburn writes that there is “no information” that the Chinese government has used TikTok for “malign foreign influence targeting US persons” or the “collection of sensitive data of US persons.” But he says there is “a risk” of it happening in the future.

Another declaration comes from Kevin Vorndran, an assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division. Vorndran details the possibility that TikTok may be a “hybrid commercial threat”: a business whose legitimate activity serves as a backdoor through which foreign governments can access US data, infrastructure, and technologies. He states that the Chinese government uses “prepositioning tactics” as part of a “broader geopolitical and long-term strategy to undermine US national security.” These efforts, the government claims, “span several years of planning and implementation.”

In other words, the government is arguing that even if China hasn’t yet surveilled TikTok’s US users, it could. It takes particular issue with TikTok’s ability to access users’ contacts, location, and other data that it says could potentially let the Chinese government track Americans. The DOJ notes that researchers can easily identify individuals using anonymized data bundles, making “anonymized” data anything but.

The filings argue that TikTok’s recommendation algorithm could also be used to influence US users. TikTok’s “heating” feature lets employees “manually boost certain content,” potentially at the direction of the Chinese government. Lawmakers from both parties have accused TikTok of promoting content critical of Israel. In a private meeting with the group No Labels, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) suggested that college campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war were proof that students are being “manipulated by certain groups or entities or countries.” And Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), the ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, told The New York Times in April that the Israel-Hamas war was a factor in the eagerness of legislators to regulate TikTok.

The hardest evidence for any of this isn’t public, though. Blackburn’s declaration includes an eight-page section titled “ByteDance and TikTok’s History of Censorship and Content Manipulation at PRC Direction,” for instance, but it’s almost entirely redacted.

The DOJ filings also reveal — and simultaneously obscure — the lengthy, extensive negotiations that preceded the ban. ByteDance and TikTok executives met with representatives from several agencies starting in August 2022, discussing ways to address security concerns without divestment. By March 2023, the government believed divestment was the only option. And in February 2024, Congress began holding briefings about its potential threats.

During these hearings, lawmakers discussed the threats China poses to US national security, formal and informal methods of control the Chinese government exerts over companies that do business there, and the specifics of China’s control over ByteDance.

But the briefing transcripts are largely redacted — including one section discussing an additional unknown issue. “We never see what the lawmakers actually decided, or what actually drove their decision,” Schettenhelm said. “There’s sort of a missing piece here: how much did the lawmakers consider this a true threat, and why did they need to take this extreme step as opposed to less drastic measures?”

TikTok fights back

TikTok contends that the government’s defense is full of errors, including what it calls “false assertions” about what data it stores and where. It says it does not store users’ precise locations and claims information from users’ contact lists “is automatically anonymized” and “cannot be used to recover the original contact information” of people who aren’t on TikTok. TikTok says that contrary to claims its anonymized data isn’t anonymous, the proposed agreement required anonymization tools “often used by the US government to protect sensitive data.”

The company also denies that the Chinese government can access the data of American users or influence its algorithm. It says US user data and TikTok’s “US recommendation engine” are stored in the United States with Oracle, thanks to a $1.5 billion siloing effort dubbed Project Texas. But reports have suggested TikTok employees in the US continued to report to ByteDance executives in Beijing after the plan’s implementation, and one former employee described the effort as “largely cosmetic.”

Still, TikTok argues the government’s claims about its operations are largely false. TikTok says that the government ignored its extensive, detailed plan to address national security concerns — and that the information the DOJ has provided fails to prove why a ban was necessary.

Schettenhelm, the Bloomberg Intelligence legal expert, said Congress’ decision to single out a single company is unique. TikTok argues it’s also unlawful. The Constitution prohibits what are known as “bill of attainder laws,” which single out an individual or company without due process. The bill bans social media websites and apps controlled by “foreign adversaries” that meet certain criteria — including having more than 1 million monthly active users and letting users generate content — but TikTok is the only company it mentions by name. The court will have to decide who’s right.

The government “never really explains why TikTok is subject to that different process, and I think when you do something so unique like that, especially when the First Amendment is implicated, I think the courts are going to want to see more of a justification,” Schettenhelm said.

TikTok’s uncertain future

A decision will likely come in December, where the court could either uphold the law’s constitutionality or block it from going into effect. But it won’t necessarily put an end to the legal saga. If the court rules in favor of the government and upholds the law, TikTok has multiple avenues through which it could appeal, Schettenhelm told The Verge. It could ask for an en banc decision in which all the judges in the DC Circuit Court examine the decision. TikTok could also appeal the case and ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

But Schettenhelm predicts that the court could block the law from taking effect because it’s unable to determine whether it’s constitutional. “I think that potentially could have the effect of throwing it back to Congress, and Congress could go ahead at taking another shot,” Schettenhelm said. “Congress would have to pass a second law, and the president would have to sign it.”

Given that the initial bill passed with an overwhelming bipartisan consensus, a subsequent bill could pass easily. But the outcome of the election could determine whether the law goes into effect. Former President Donald Trump — who previously attempted to ban TikTok — said in March that he now opposes efforts to ban the app.

If the court rules against TikTok, the clock will keep ticking toward its divestment date — when one of the biggest social media platforms in the country could disappear.

Read More 

Image: Getty

23andMe will pay $30 million to settle a class action lawsuit over a data breach affecting more than 6.9 million customers. As part of the proposed settlement, the genetic testing site will compensate affected customers and provide them with access to a security monitoring program for three years.
23andMe disclosed the data breach last October, but it didn’t confirm the overall impact until December. Customers using the DNA Relatives feature may have had information like names, birth years, and ancestry information exposed through the breach. At the time, 23andMe attributed the hack to credential stuffing, a tactic that involves logging into accounts using recycled logins exposed in previous security breaches.
In January 2024, customers filed a class action lawsuit against 23andMe in a San Francisco court, alleging the company failed to protect their privacy. They also claimed the company didn’t properly notify customers with Chinese or Ashkenazi Jewish heritage that hackers appeared to single them out when putting information up for sale on the dark web.
The breach dealt a big blow to the already struggling company. As 23andMe’s stock price continued to crater, 23andMe CEO Anna Wojcicki attempted to take the company private earlier this year, but the special committee rejected the offer last month. The settlement mentions concerns surrounding the company’s finances, saying, “any litigated judgment significantly more than the Settlement is likely to be uncollectable.” In a statement to The Verge, 23andMe spokesperson Katie Watson said the company expects cyber insurance to cover $25 million of the settlement:
We have executed a settlement agreement for an aggregate cash payment of $30 million to settle all U.S. claims regarding the 2023 credential stuffing security incident. Counsel for the plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary approval of this settlement agreement with the court. Roughly $25 million of the settlement and related legal expenses are expected to be covered by cyber insurance coverage. We continue to believe this settlement is in the best interest of 23andMe customers, and we look forward to finalizing the agreement.
The proposed settlement still needs approval from the judge.

Image: Getty

23andMe will pay $30 million to settle a class action lawsuit over a data breach affecting more than 6.9 million customers. As part of the proposed settlement, the genetic testing site will compensate affected customers and provide them with access to a security monitoring program for three years.

23andMe disclosed the data breach last October, but it didn’t confirm the overall impact until December. Customers using the DNA Relatives feature may have had information like names, birth years, and ancestry information exposed through the breach. At the time, 23andMe attributed the hack to credential stuffing, a tactic that involves logging into accounts using recycled logins exposed in previous security breaches.

In January 2024, customers filed a class action lawsuit against 23andMe in a San Francisco court, alleging the company failed to protect their privacy. They also claimed the company didn’t properly notify customers with Chinese or Ashkenazi Jewish heritage that hackers appeared to single them out when putting information up for sale on the dark web.

The breach dealt a big blow to the already struggling company. As 23andMe’s stock price continued to crater, 23andMe CEO Anna Wojcicki attempted to take the company private earlier this year, but the special committee rejected the offer last month. The settlement mentions concerns surrounding the company’s finances, saying, “any litigated judgment significantly more than the Settlement is likely to be uncollectable.” In a statement to The Verge, 23andMe spokesperson Katie Watson said the company expects cyber insurance to cover $25 million of the settlement:

We have executed a settlement agreement for an aggregate cash payment of $30 million to settle all U.S. claims regarding the 2023 credential stuffing security incident. Counsel for the plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary approval of this settlement agreement with the court. Roughly $25 million of the settlement and related legal expenses are expected to be covered by cyber insurance coverage. We continue to believe this settlement is in the best interest of 23andMe customers, and we look forward to finalizing the agreement.

The proposed settlement still needs approval from the judge.

Read More 

The Anker MagGo USB-C Adapter supports both SD and microSD cards. | Image: Anker

Anker’s next puck-shaped accessory is an SD and microSD card reader called the MagGo USB-C Adapter that can be used with laptops, tablets, and smartphones. When connected to an iPhone 15 or 16, it can also unlock ProRes 4K recording at 60fps if the memory card supports at least 220MB/s write speeds and 256GB capacity.
The MagGo USB-C Adapter — available in white, black, or teal finishes for $34.99 from Anker or Amazon — is MagSafe compatible, so it can be secured to the back of an iPhone and kept out of the way while recording video. Since it does end up blocking both of the ways an iPhone can be charged, Anker has included an additional USB-C port on the MagGo that will pass along up to 42.5W of power.

Image: Anker
A snap-on cover helps keep dust and dirt out of the MagGo USB-C Adapter’s card slots.

Anker promises transfer speeds of up to 312MB/s, which is the theoretical maximum of UHS-II-rated memory cards. The speeds you experience may be less than that, depending on the type of card you’re using or even how long it’s been in use. If you’ve got an SD or microSD card slower than 220MB/s, you can still record video externally from an iPhone 15 or 16 using the MagGo — it will just be limited to lower frame rates and potentially even lower resolutions.

The Anker MagGo USB-C Adapter supports both SD and microSD cards. | Image: Anker

Anker’s next puck-shaped accessory is an SD and microSD card reader called the MagGo USB-C Adapter that can be used with laptops, tablets, and smartphones. When connected to an iPhone 15 or 16, it can also unlock ProRes 4K recording at 60fps if the memory card supports at least 220MB/s write speeds and 256GB capacity.

The MagGo USB-C Adapter — available in white, black, or teal finishes for $34.99 from Anker or Amazon — is MagSafe compatible, so it can be secured to the back of an iPhone and kept out of the way while recording video. Since it does end up blocking both of the ways an iPhone can be charged, Anker has included an additional USB-C port on the MagGo that will pass along up to 42.5W of power.

Image: Anker
A snap-on cover helps keep dust and dirt out of the MagGo USB-C Adapter’s card slots.

Anker promises transfer speeds of up to 312MB/s, which is the theoretical maximum of UHS-II-rated memory cards. The speeds you experience may be less than that, depending on the type of card you’re using or even how long it’s been in use. If you’ve got an SD or microSD card slower than 220MB/s, you can still record video externally from an iPhone 15 or 16 using the MagGo — it will just be limited to lower frame rates and potentially even lower resolutions.

Read More 

Image: First We Feast

Netflix is looking to bolster its live offerings with some chicken wings. Bloomberg and Variety report that Netflix is in talks with BuzzFeed about streaming live versions of the popular YouTube show “Hot Ones,” which features famous people eating spicy wings while being interviewed by host Sean Evans. Netflix and BuzzFeed want to make a deal this month, according to Bloomberg.
Netflix and BuzzFeed declined to comment.
If Netflix lands the “Hot Ones” deal, it would be a potentially major addition to the company’s growing slate of live shows, including WWE’s Monday Night Raw (which will air on the service starting next year), a three-year deal to show NFL games on Christmas Day, and a live Joe Rogan special that debuted last month. Netflix has had some stumbles with its previous talk show efforts, but watching celebrities set their mouths on fire seems like compelling live TV to me.
Update, September 13th: Netflix and BuzzFeed declined to comment.

Image: First We Feast

Netflix is looking to bolster its live offerings with some chicken wings. Bloomberg and Variety report that Netflix is in talks with BuzzFeed about streaming live versions of the popular YouTube show “Hot Ones,” which features famous people eating spicy wings while being interviewed by host Sean Evans. Netflix and BuzzFeed want to make a deal this month, according to Bloomberg.

Netflix and BuzzFeed declined to comment.

If Netflix lands the “Hot Ones” deal, it would be a potentially major addition to the company’s growing slate of live shows, including WWE’s Monday Night Raw (which will air on the service starting next year), a three-year deal to show NFL games on Christmas Day, and a live Joe Rogan special that debuted last month. Netflix has had some stumbles with its previous talk show efforts, but watching celebrities set their mouths on fire seems like compelling live TV to me.

Update, September 13th: Netflix and BuzzFeed declined to comment.

Read More 

The Snappy grip is designed to improve the ergonomics of smartphone photography. | Image: Buddiesman

The Snappy is another mobile grip accessory attempting to improve the ergonomics of smartphone photography, but it goes one step further by adding a motorized gimbal for stabilization.
The Camera Control on the new iPhone 16 lineup is Apple’s attempt to improve the ergonomics of smartphone photography, but it doesn’t solve the problem of securely holding on to those smooth rectangular slabs while framing a shot. Similar to accessories we’ve seen from companies like Xiaomi, the Snappy adds the grip and buttons of a dedicated camera, plus more device compatibility with its expanding clamp.
Buddiesman, a Chinese maker of tripods and heads, created the Snappy and is attempting to crowdfund the smartphone grip through Kickstarter. Full retail pricing is expected to be $149, but the earliest backers can preorder one for $89.
Although Buddiesman may have experience with designing and manufacturing camera gear, its current offerings don’t appear to offer any electronic features, so this could represent new ground for the company, which can complicate delivery for any crowdfunded effort.

Image: Buddiesman
Taking photos with one hand could be much easier using a smartphone attached to the Snappy accessory.

Its beefier grip includes a dedicated shutter button plus a scroll wheel that can control the zoom of a compatible camera app over Bluetooth, such as Blackmagic’s. The grip can even be detached and used farther away from the phone as a wireless remote.
The Snappy’s motorized clamp works alongside an accelerometer to cancel out unwanted movement, but it only offers a single degree of rotational stabilization, so it’s definitely not an alternative to larger gimbals like DJI’s Osmo line. It can also switch the smartphone between portrait and horizontal orientations at the push of a button.
With Bluetooth, a motorized gimbal, an adjustable ring of LED lights, and the relatively compact size of the Snappy, other than delivery, our other question is what its battery life might be like when these become available starting in November.

Image: Buddiesman
A ring of LEDs on the back of the Snappy’s clamp can be adjusted between warm and cool color temperatures.

The Snappy grip is designed to improve the ergonomics of smartphone photography. | Image: Buddiesman

The Snappy is another mobile grip accessory attempting to improve the ergonomics of smartphone photography, but it goes one step further by adding a motorized gimbal for stabilization.

The Camera Control on the new iPhone 16 lineup is Apple’s attempt to improve the ergonomics of smartphone photography, but it doesn’t solve the problem of securely holding on to those smooth rectangular slabs while framing a shot. Similar to accessories we’ve seen from companies like Xiaomi, the Snappy adds the grip and buttons of a dedicated camera, plus more device compatibility with its expanding clamp.

Buddiesman, a Chinese maker of tripods and heads, created the Snappy and is attempting to crowdfund the smartphone grip through Kickstarter. Full retail pricing is expected to be $149, but the earliest backers can preorder one for $89.

Although Buddiesman may have experience with designing and manufacturing camera gear, its current offerings don’t appear to offer any electronic features, so this could represent new ground for the company, which can complicate delivery for any crowdfunded effort.

Image: Buddiesman
Taking photos with one hand could be much easier using a smartphone attached to the Snappy accessory.

Its beefier grip includes a dedicated shutter button plus a scroll wheel that can control the zoom of a compatible camera app over Bluetooth, such as Blackmagic’s. The grip can even be detached and used farther away from the phone as a wireless remote.

The Snappy’s motorized clamp works alongside an accelerometer to cancel out unwanted movement, but it only offers a single degree of rotational stabilization, so it’s definitely not an alternative to larger gimbals like DJI’s Osmo line. It can also switch the smartphone between portrait and horizontal orientations at the push of a button.

With Bluetooth, a motorized gimbal, an adjustable ring of LED lights, and the relatively compact size of the Snappy, other than delivery, our other question is what its battery life might be like when these become available starting in November.

Image: Buddiesman
A ring of LEDs on the back of the Snappy’s clamp can be adjusted between warm and cool color temperatures.

Read More 

The Ultraloq Bolt Mission UWB Plus NFC is the first smart lock to launch that leverages ultra wideband auto-unlocking technology. | Image: U-tec

U-tec’s new smart lock will allow your door to unlock automatically as you approach it using ultra wideband (UWB) technology. While U-tec and other lock makers currently have auto-unlock methods that use a combination of BLE, Wi-Fi, and GPS, these can be unreliable and slow. The Ultraloq Bolt Mission UWB Plus NFC is the first smart lock to leverage UWB, which promises a simpler, faster, and more reliable experience.

In addition to UWB, the new lock works over Wi-Fi and Matter and can be unlocked with NFC. At launch, it will work with Android NFC-enabled phones, and U-tec says support for Apple’s Home Key tap-to-open feature will come once it’s available through Matter.
If you don’t want to use any of these newfangled methods of entry, the full deadbolt replacement smart lock also has a keypad for PIN access and uses a traditional key. It’s powered by eight AA batteries, which the company says will get one year of battery life. The Bolt Mission will arrive later this year, but no price has been announced.

Image: U-tec
The Ultraloq Bolt Mission will arrive later this year, and a version that supports Apple Home’s hands-free unlocking will be available in 2025.

The same tech used in digital car keys, UWB allows your compatible phone or watch to talk directly to the lock at short distances and establish an instant secure connection. The wireless protocol also allows for precise location tracking using a combination of radar and ranging to know when you’re approaching the door from the correct angle (i.e., from outside the house and not the inside).
U-tec says the Ultraloq Bolt Mission uses both UWB and NFC technology “to determine their exact position relative to the lock, ensuring that only authorized users within a close range can unlock it.” The feature will be accessible through the U-tec app.

Image: U-tec
U-tec has a lock that works with Apple’s Home Key but says the new Bolt Mission will support Apple’s NFC unlocking option in the future.

Apple recently announced it will support UWB unlocking in smart locks in Apple Home with hands-free Home Key. This is part of the new Aliro smart access standard, but the Bolt Mission is a bit early for this since Aliro hasn’t launched yet.
While the lock won’t work with Apple Home’s hands-free unlocking feature, it will support Apple Home, Amazon Alexa, Google Home, and SmartThings for remote access and smart home control of the lock through Matter.
The company says the next version of the Bolt Mission, slated for early 2025, will support Aliro and Apple Home’s UWB unlocking.

The Ultraloq Bolt Mission UWB Plus NFC is the first smart lock to launch that leverages ultra wideband auto-unlocking technology. | Image: U-tec

U-tec’s new smart lock will allow your door to unlock automatically as you approach it using ultra wideband (UWB) technology. While U-tec and other lock makers currently have auto-unlock methods that use a combination of BLE, Wi-Fi, and GPS, these can be unreliable and slow. The Ultraloq Bolt Mission UWB Plus NFC is the first smart lock to leverage UWB, which promises a simpler, faster, and more reliable experience.

In addition to UWB, the new lock works over Wi-Fi and Matter and can be unlocked with NFC. At launch, it will work with Android NFC-enabled phones, and U-tec says support for Apple’s Home Key tap-to-open feature will come once it’s available through Matter.

If you don’t want to use any of these newfangled methods of entry, the full deadbolt replacement smart lock also has a keypad for PIN access and uses a traditional key. It’s powered by eight AA batteries, which the company says will get one year of battery life. The Bolt Mission will arrive later this year, but no price has been announced.

Image: U-tec
The Ultraloq Bolt Mission will arrive later this year, and a version that supports Apple Home’s hands-free unlocking will be available in 2025.

The same tech used in digital car keys, UWB allows your compatible phone or watch to talk directly to the lock at short distances and establish an instant secure connection. The wireless protocol also allows for precise location tracking using a combination of radar and ranging to know when you’re approaching the door from the correct angle (i.e., from outside the house and not the inside).

U-tec says the Ultraloq Bolt Mission uses both UWB and NFC technology “to determine their exact position relative to the lock, ensuring that only authorized users within a close range can unlock it.” The feature will be accessible through the U-tec app.

Image: U-tec
U-tec has a lock that works with Apple’s Home Key but says the new Bolt Mission will support Apple’s NFC unlocking option in the future.

Apple recently announced it will support UWB unlocking in smart locks in Apple Home with hands-free Home Key. This is part of the new Aliro smart access standard, but the Bolt Mission is a bit early for this since Aliro hasn’t launched yet.

While the lock won’t work with Apple Home’s hands-free unlocking feature, it will support Apple Home, Amazon Alexa, Google Home, and SmartThings for remote access and smart home control of the lock through Matter.

The company says the next version of the Bolt Mission, slated for early 2025, will support Aliro and Apple Home’s UWB unlocking.

Read More 

The Destiny 2 Nerf Ace of Spades blaster. | Image: Hasbro

When Bungie and Hasbro decided to create a real-life, dart-blasting Nerf version of one of the most famous Destiny 2 guns, someone got lazy — stealing a fan artist’s nine-year-old work instead of creating the Ace of Spades from scratch.
To Bungie’s credit, the game company has just announced it will “make sure” to compensate and credit Tofu Rabbit “for their incredible artwork,” after a rapid investigation.
As you can see in Tofu’s examples below, this is an incredibly clear-cut case of copying, despite the changes that Bungie or Hasbro’s artists made to the blaster.

Hey @Bungie @BungieHelp @DestinyTheGame @A_dmg04 @Cozmo23 @DestinyComArt soo, the NERF ace of spades DIRECTLY lifts a commission i did in 2015. This is not “similar” or a coincidence, you can see my same brush strokes and scratches/smudges.Original: https://t.co/GobNslptoI pic.twitter.com/zQoYEbfdGV— Tofu ️‍⚧️ Bunny (@Tofu_Rabbit) September 11, 2024

While one would assume Bungie owns the original underlying blaster design, Tofu was able to show that details from her fanart, down to the brush strokes, were copied. Bungie didn’t offer an explanation to The Verge; Hasbro didn’t immediately reply.
But yesterday, Tofu told The Verge that Bungie had already been “polite and encouraging” in private messages, saying she was hopeful the situation could be resolved soon, since Bungie has dealt with similar issues in the past.
Indeed, this isn’t the first or even the second time that Bungie or a contractor has plagiarized Destiny fan art, but it has compensated and credited some previous fan artists after it was called out.

We’ve discovered that an external vendor that helped to create this cutscene mistakenly used this art as a reference, assuming it was official Bungie art.We have reached out to the artist to apologize for the mix-up and to credit and compensate them for their awesome work. https://t.co/Sqkg5tRHKj— Destiny 2 Team (@Destiny2Team) June 22, 2023

I’m not one to make a whole stinker and it’s most likely that this was a mere accident but did @Bungie used @relay314’s Xivu Arath fan art for their @DestinyTheGame #TheWitchQueen detective wall trailer? pic.twitter.com/9yFT3BuFBy— Zyron Kai 猟師 • #CubaLibre (@TheExoticGuard_) September 25, 2021

The plagiarism wasn’t the only controversy around the new Nerf blaster. To order the $50 replica of Cayde’s Ace of Spades handcannon, players first have to unlock the Legend status in the game, which reportedly takes an incredible amount of grinding, something that Bungie has pledged to somewhat fix.
“If you’re an existing player, you likely have a lot of the prerequisites to start earning the title but new players would require an almost comical time investment,” my colleague Nick Statt tells me.

That’s a shame, because I’d have loved to own this blaster. It looks like one of the best licensed blasters Hasbro has yet made, a six-shot revolver with two removable cylinders and battery-powered motors for blasting. Years ago when Nerf did a licensed Overwatch revolver, it didn’t actually revolve.

The Destiny 2 Nerf Ace of Spades blaster. | Image: Hasbro

When Bungie and Hasbro decided to create a real-life, dart-blasting Nerf version of one of the most famous Destiny 2 guns, someone got lazy — stealing a fan artist’s nine-year-old work instead of creating the Ace of Spades from scratch.

To Bungie’s credit, the game company has just announced it will “make sure” to compensate and credit Tofu Rabbit “for their incredible artwork,” after a rapid investigation.

As you can see in Tofu’s examples below, this is an incredibly clear-cut case of copying, despite the changes that Bungie or Hasbro’s artists made to the blaster.

While one would assume Bungie owns the original underlying blaster design, Tofu was able to show that details from her fanart, down to the brush strokes, were copied. Bungie didn’t offer an explanation to The Verge; Hasbro didn’t immediately reply.

But yesterday, Tofu told The Verge that Bungie had already been “polite and encouraging” in private messages, saying she was hopeful the situation could be resolved soon, since Bungie has dealt with similar issues in the past.

Indeed, this isn’t the first or even the second time that Bungie or a contractor has plagiarized Destiny fan art, but it has compensated and credited some previous fan artists after it was called out.

The plagiarism wasn’t the only controversy around the new Nerf blaster. To order the $50 replica of Cayde’s Ace of Spades handcannon, players first have to unlock the Legend status in the game, which reportedly takes an incredible amount of grinding, something that Bungie has pledged to somewhat fix.

“If you’re an existing player, you likely have a lot of the prerequisites to start earning the title but new players would require an almost comical time investment,” my colleague Nick Statt tells me.

That’s a shame, because I’d have loved to own this blaster. It looks like one of the best licensed blasters Hasbro has yet made, a six-shot revolver with two removable cylinders and battery-powered motors for blasting. Years ago when Nerf did a licensed Overwatch revolver, it didn’t actually revolve.

Read More 

Photo by Smith Collection / Gado / Getty Images

Keurig made “inaccurate statements” about the recyclability of its single-use coffee pods, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The company agreed to a cease and desist order and to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to settle the charges.
Corporate recycling claims can be misleading
It’s a helpful reminder that many corporate recycling claims can be misleading. Certain types of plastic are harder to recycle than others. Even if something is supposedly recyclable, it can end up in the trash if the type of plastic is not accepted by a municipal recycling program.
The charges against Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. stem from its 2019 and 2020 annual reports, which said that the company tested and “validate[d] that [K-Cup pods] can be effectively recycled.” But the company failed to disclose information about key challenges with recycling the pods, the SEC said in its announcement this week:
Keurig did not disclose that two of the largest recycling companies in the United States had expressed significant concerns to Keurig regarding the commercial feasibility of curbside recycling of K-Cup pods at that time and indicated that they did not presently intend to accept them for recycling. In fiscal year 2019, sales of K-Cup pods comprised a significant percentage of net sales of Keurig’s coffee systems business segment, and research earlier conducted by a Keurig subsidiary indicated that environmental concerns were a significant factor that certain consumers considered, among others, when deciding whether to purchase a Keurig brewing system.
The company neither confirms nor denies any wrongdoing by agreeing to pay the settlement, the SEC says. As of Friday morning, Keurig’s website still says its K-Cup pods have been recyclable since the end of 2020. Before 2020, many of the pods were made with No. 7 plastic, considered a “catch-all” designation for difficult-to-recycle materials, according to Consumer Reports.
Now Keurig says the pods are made with No. 5 plastic or polypropylene, which is also commonly used for yogurt containers and straws. It’s still considered more difficult to recycle than Plastic No. 1, or PET, used in water and other beverage bottles.

In 2022, Greenpeace surveyed all 375 residential material recycling facilities operating in the US and found that 52 percent of them accepted tubs and containers made of plastic No. 5. But only one of them accepted coffee pods, the survey found. Some brands have their own programs, however, that allow customers to ship them their used pods or drop them off at store locations for recycling.
“We are working with individual municipalities and recycling operators to help increase explicit acceptance of K-Cup pods where they already accept polypropylene,” Laren Marra, director of corporate communications at Keurig Dr Pepper, said in an emailed statement. With regard to the SEC charges, Marren writes, “We are pleased to have reached an agreement that fully resolves this matter.”
Update September 13th: This post has been updated with a response from Keurig Dr. Pepper.

Photo by Smith Collection / Gado / Getty Images

Keurig made “inaccurate statements” about the recyclability of its single-use coffee pods, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The company agreed to a cease and desist order and to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to settle the charges.

It’s a helpful reminder that many corporate recycling claims can be misleading. Certain types of plastic are harder to recycle than others. Even if something is supposedly recyclable, it can end up in the trash if the type of plastic is not accepted by a municipal recycling program.

The charges against Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. stem from its 2019 and 2020 annual reports, which said that the company tested and “validate[d] that [K-Cup pods] can be effectively recycled.” But the company failed to disclose information about key challenges with recycling the pods, the SEC said in its announcement this week:

Keurig did not disclose that two of the largest recycling companies in the United States had expressed significant concerns to Keurig regarding the commercial feasibility of curbside recycling of K-Cup pods at that time and indicated that they did not presently intend to accept them for recycling. In fiscal year 2019, sales of K-Cup pods comprised a significant percentage of net sales of Keurig’s coffee systems business segment, and research earlier conducted by a Keurig subsidiary indicated that environmental concerns were a significant factor that certain consumers considered, among others, when deciding whether to purchase a Keurig brewing system.

The company neither confirms nor denies any wrongdoing by agreeing to pay the settlement, the SEC says. As of Friday morning, Keurig’s website still says its K-Cup pods have been recyclable since the end of 2020. Before 2020, many of the pods were made with No. 7 plastic, considered a “catch-all” designation for difficult-to-recycle materials, according to Consumer Reports.

Now Keurig says the pods are made with No. 5 plastic or polypropylene, which is also commonly used for yogurt containers and straws. It’s still considered more difficult to recycle than Plastic No. 1, or PET, used in water and other beverage bottles.

In 2022, Greenpeace surveyed all 375 residential material recycling facilities operating in the US and found that 52 percent of them accepted tubs and containers made of plastic No. 5. But only one of them accepted coffee pods, the survey found. Some brands have their own programs, however, that allow customers to ship them their used pods or drop them off at store locations for recycling.

“We are working with individual municipalities and recycling operators to help increase explicit acceptance of K-Cup pods where they already accept polypropylene,” Laren Marra, director of corporate communications at Keurig Dr Pepper, said in an emailed statement. With regard to the SEC charges, Marren writes, “We are pleased to have reached an agreement that fully resolves this matter.”

Update September 13th: This post has been updated with a response from Keurig Dr. Pepper.

Read More 

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

A blurry photo of a heavily camouflaged vehicle tooling around on the Warner Bros. movie studio lot surfaced last night, spurring speculation that it’s the fabled Tesla robotaxi set to be revealed next month.
With its canary yellow wrap, and clearly manipulated shape, it’s difficult to glean much about the robotaxi from just this sighting. Everything about this photo should be taken with a grain of salt, including the tires, boxy rear end, weird roof bump (lidar?), and upsetting hood indentions. All is not what it seems.
According to Electrek, the photo was first posted to Reddit by u/boopitysmopp, who is said to be a lot employee at Warner Bros. (The post has since been removed, and the reddit user has deleted their profile, so the employment claim could not be immediately verified.) In the photo, another Tesla vehicle can be seen following along behind.
Last month, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was planning on staging its robotaxi reveal at the 110-acre lot, which contains over two dozen sound stages, including fake suburban towns.

Screenshot: u/boopitysmopp, via @MatthewDR

The yellow camouflage wrap is certainly a nice touch, especially if Tesla is going to keep using the “cybercab” nomenclature that Elon Musk first mentioned in a recent earnings call. After all, nothing says “taxicab” like an obnoxious shade of yellow.
The overall size of the vehicle looks small, but possibly in line with a Tesla Model 3. And the original Reddit post noted that the backend had a full-width taillight that appeared to be modeled on the Cybertruck.
Other important questions, like whether the vehicle will have traditional controls like a steering wheel and pedals, cannot immediately be answered by this one photo. Hopefully some more spy shots will surface soon so we can have a better sense of what Musk and company are planning.

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

A blurry photo of a heavily camouflaged vehicle tooling around on the Warner Bros. movie studio lot surfaced last night, spurring speculation that it’s the fabled Tesla robotaxi set to be revealed next month.

With its canary yellow wrap, and clearly manipulated shape, it’s difficult to glean much about the robotaxi from just this sighting. Everything about this photo should be taken with a grain of salt, including the tires, boxy rear end, weird roof bump (lidar?), and upsetting hood indentions. All is not what it seems.

According to Electrek, the photo was first posted to Reddit by u/boopitysmopp, who is said to be a lot employee at Warner Bros. (The post has since been removed, and the reddit user has deleted their profile, so the employment claim could not be immediately verified.) In the photo, another Tesla vehicle can be seen following along behind.

Last month, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was planning on staging its robotaxi reveal at the 110-acre lot, which contains over two dozen sound stages, including fake suburban towns.

Screenshot: u/boopitysmopp, via @MatthewDR

The yellow camouflage wrap is certainly a nice touch, especially if Tesla is going to keep using the “cybercab” nomenclature that Elon Musk first mentioned in a recent earnings call. After all, nothing says “taxicab” like an obnoxious shade of yellow.

The overall size of the vehicle looks small, but possibly in line with a Tesla Model 3. And the original Reddit post noted that the backend had a full-width taillight that appeared to be modeled on the Cybertruck.

Other important questions, like whether the vehicle will have traditional controls like a steering wheel and pedals, cannot immediately be answered by this one photo. Hopefully some more spy shots will surface soon so we can have a better sense of what Musk and company are planning.

Read More