verge-rss

Image: Hugo Herrera / The Verge

One of the big selling points you hear for electric vehicles is that they require less maintenance than traditional gas-powered vehicles. No oil changes, less gunk, fewer moving parts — that sort of thing.
But EVs are essentially giant computers on wheels. And since when have you known any computer to be problem-free?
JD Power’s latest quality study is out, and it’s not looking good for EVs. And in some ways, it’s not a surprise. Like in past versions of the survey, battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles performed worse than their gas equivalents in just about every repair category measured by JD Power.
JD Power measures quality based on reported problems per 100 vehicles of a particular brand. According to the survey, people who own internal combustion vehicles reported having 180 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100), while EV buyers have 266 PP100.
The problems had little to do with the mechanics of EVs — motors, batteries, etc. — and almost entirely to do with the tech.
The problems had little to do with the mechanics of EVs — motors, batteries, etc. — and almost entirely to do with the tech
“Owners of cutting edge, tech-filled BEVs and PHEVs are experiencing problems that are of a severity level high enough for them to take their new vehicle into the dealership at a rate three times higher than that of gas-powered vehicle owners,” Frank Hanley, senior director of auto benchmarking at JD Power, said in a statement.
As with all things in EVs, you need to separate Tesla from the rest of the pack thanks to the electric automaker’s outsize representation among people who own EVs. Tesla typically performed better than legacy automaker’s EVs in past JD Power surveys. But now that gap has closed, with Elon Musk’s company rating as poorly as the rest. JD Power attributes this to major design changes in Teslas, such as the removal of traditional feature controls like turn signal and wiper stalks.

Image: JD Power

But most of the grousing seems to be about tech, a major concern given that the auto industry is haphazardly racing to cram as much software into their models as possible. JD Power has logged this problem before, and it seems to be exacerbating.
People are irritated about false rear-seat warnings and inaccurate and annoying alerts from advanced driver-assist systems, especially around new features like rear cross-traffic warnings and reverse automatic emergency braking. Infotainment touchscreens are giving people headaches. EVs had 30 percent more problems with “Features, Controls and Displays” than ICE vehicles.
And when car owners try to find relief from terrible native software experiences by mirroring their smartphones, they run into even more obstacles. “Customers most frequently experience difficulties connecting [their phones] to their vehicle or losing connection,” JD Power reports. “More than 50% of Apple users and 42% of Samsung users access their respective feature every time they drive, illustrating that customers want their smartphone experience brought into the vehicle and also desire the feature to be integrated wirelessly.”
The brands that log the fewest problems are the ones that tend to attract the most repeat buyers. Truck owners are extremely loyal, so Ram is rated number one in the survey. Someone who buys a Ram truck every few years is going to report way fewer problems with their experience than someone who is taking a risk on a new brand — or even a new powertrain.
None of this should come as much of a shock. These types of surveys are typically a good measure of familiarity versus unfamiliarity. Old versus new. We’re in the midst of a huge shift from traditional gas-powered vehicles to high-powered computers that run on enormous batteries. That transition is proving to be messy as hell, and customers are finding themselves caught in the middle.

Image: Hugo Herrera / The Verge

One of the big selling points you hear for electric vehicles is that they require less maintenance than traditional gas-powered vehicles. No oil changes, less gunk, fewer moving parts — that sort of thing.

But EVs are essentially giant computers on wheels. And since when have you known any computer to be problem-free?

JD Power’s latest quality study is out, and it’s not looking good for EVs. And in some ways, it’s not a surprise. Like in past versions of the survey, battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles performed worse than their gas equivalents in just about every repair category measured by JD Power.

JD Power measures quality based on reported problems per 100 vehicles of a particular brand. According to the survey, people who own internal combustion vehicles reported having 180 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100), while EV buyers have 266 PP100.

The problems had little to do with the mechanics of EVs — motors, batteries, etc. — and almost entirely to do with the tech.

“Owners of cutting edge, tech-filled BEVs and PHEVs are experiencing problems that are of a severity level high enough for them to take their new vehicle into the dealership at a rate three times higher than that of gas-powered vehicle owners,” Frank Hanley, senior director of auto benchmarking at JD Power, said in a statement.

As with all things in EVs, you need to separate Tesla from the rest of the pack thanks to the electric automaker’s outsize representation among people who own EVs. Tesla typically performed better than legacy automaker’s EVs in past JD Power surveys. But now that gap has closed, with Elon Musk’s company rating as poorly as the rest. JD Power attributes this to major design changes in Teslas, such as the removal of traditional feature controls like turn signal and wiper stalks.

Image: JD Power

But most of the grousing seems to be about tech, a major concern given that the auto industry is haphazardly racing to cram as much software into their models as possible. JD Power has logged this problem before, and it seems to be exacerbating.

People are irritated about false rear-seat warnings and inaccurate and annoying alerts from advanced driver-assist systems, especially around new features like rear cross-traffic warnings and reverse automatic emergency braking. Infotainment touchscreens are giving people headaches. EVs had 30 percent more problems with “Features, Controls and Displays” than ICE vehicles.

And when car owners try to find relief from terrible native software experiences by mirroring their smartphones, they run into even more obstacles. “Customers most frequently experience difficulties connecting [their phones] to their vehicle or losing connection,” JD Power reports. “More than 50% of Apple users and 42% of Samsung users access their respective feature every time they drive, illustrating that customers want their smartphone experience brought into the vehicle and also desire the feature to be integrated wirelessly.”

The brands that log the fewest problems are the ones that tend to attract the most repeat buyers. Truck owners are extremely loyal, so Ram is rated number one in the survey. Someone who buys a Ram truck every few years is going to report way fewer problems with their experience than someone who is taking a risk on a new brand — or even a new powertrain.

None of this should come as much of a shock. These types of surveys are typically a good measure of familiarity versus unfamiliarity. Old versus new. We’re in the midst of a huge shift from traditional gas-powered vehicles to high-powered computers that run on enormous batteries. That transition is proving to be messy as hell, and customers are finding themselves caught in the middle.

Read More 

New leaks may have spoiled the colors that will be available for Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Flip 6 devices. | Image: Evan Blass

While Samsung is gearing up to officially introduce the latest Galaxy Z foldable smartphones at its Unpacked event on July 10th, a new batch of leaked images have spoiled more of the surprise. The renders of the upcoming Galaxy Z Flip 6 and Z Fold 6 handsets come courtesy of established leaker Evan Blass and WinFuture, which show what colors may be available alongside sharing many similarities with previous leaks from SmartPrix, OnLeaks, and Ice Universe.
The images show a more squared-off design for the Galaxy Z Fold 6, which was also seen in images of a prototype earlier this month. The hinge and bezels surrounding the outer display appear smaller, and black rings can be seen around the rear triple-camera lenses. Leaked specifications shared by Smartprix suggest that might be the only noticeable update to the Z Fold 6’s camera system, however, as it seems to be rocking the exact same setup as its predecessor.

Image: Evan Blass
Leaked renders of the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 suggest it’ll be available in Navy Blue (pictured), Silver, and Pink.

The renders supplied by Blass show two color variants for the Galaxy Z Fold 6: Gray and Navy Blue. The hues are slightly different to the Z Fold 5’s Gray and more vivid blue online exclusives, and the separate batch of leaked images shared by WinFuture (which match those provided by Blass) suggests the Fold 6 will also be available in light Pink.
The latest images of the clamshell-like Galaxy Z Flip 6, meanwhile, are nearly identical to the former Z Flip 5 model. The color options we’ve seen — Blue, Silver, Yellow, and Green — seem to have a more mattified “brushed metal” look, and it appears the rings around the two rear-facing cameras are color-coordinated to match the device. It’s a cute change, and the larger cover screen has thankfully been retained, but the lack of major design adjustments may disappoint Samsung users who are expecting a little more from a generational update.

Image: Evan Blass
The Z Flip 6 should get more colorful pastel options, including Blue, Silver (both pictured), Yellow, and Green, with matching rings around the rear camera sensors.

Both the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Flip 6 are expected to run new Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 processors. Rumors also suggest the Z Flip 6’s main camera will be bumped to a 50-megapixel resolution from the current 12-megapixel variant, and come with an upgraded 4,000mAh battery instead of the 3,700mAh battery found on the Z Flip 5.

New leaks may have spoiled the colors that will be available for Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Flip 6 devices. | Image: Evan Blass

While Samsung is gearing up to officially introduce the latest Galaxy Z foldable smartphones at its Unpacked event on July 10th, a new batch of leaked images have spoiled more of the surprise. The renders of the upcoming Galaxy Z Flip 6 and Z Fold 6 handsets come courtesy of established leaker Evan Blass and WinFuture, which show what colors may be available alongside sharing many similarities with previous leaks from SmartPrix, OnLeaks, and Ice Universe.

The images show a more squared-off design for the Galaxy Z Fold 6, which was also seen in images of a prototype earlier this month. The hinge and bezels surrounding the outer display appear smaller, and black rings can be seen around the rear triple-camera lenses. Leaked specifications shared by Smartprix suggest that might be the only noticeable update to the Z Fold 6’s camera system, however, as it seems to be rocking the exact same setup as its predecessor.

Image: Evan Blass
Leaked renders of the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 suggest it’ll be available in Navy Blue (pictured), Silver, and Pink.

The renders supplied by Blass show two color variants for the Galaxy Z Fold 6: Gray and Navy Blue. The hues are slightly different to the Z Fold 5’s Gray and more vivid blue online exclusives, and the separate batch of leaked images shared by WinFuture (which match those provided by Blass) suggests the Fold 6 will also be available in light Pink.

The latest images of the clamshell-like Galaxy Z Flip 6, meanwhile, are nearly identical to the former Z Flip 5 model. The color options we’ve seen — Blue, Silver, Yellow, and Green — seem to have a more mattified “brushed metal” look, and it appears the rings around the two rear-facing cameras are color-coordinated to match the device. It’s a cute change, and the larger cover screen has thankfully been retained, but the lack of major design adjustments may disappoint Samsung users who are expecting a little more from a generational update.

Image: Evan Blass
The Z Flip 6 should get more colorful pastel options, including Blue, Silver (both pictured), Yellow, and Green, with matching rings around the rear camera sensors.

Both the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Flip 6 are expected to run new Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 processors. Rumors also suggest the Z Flip 6’s main camera will be bumped to a 50-megapixel resolution from the current 12-megapixel variant, and come with an upgraded 4,000mAh battery instead of the 3,700mAh battery found on the Z Flip 5.

Read More 

The Verge

The startup’s web scraping has raised more than a few eyebrows. Perplexity, which offers an AI search product that it calls an “answer engine,” is a buzzy AI startup embroiled in scandal following accusations that it rips off content, doesn’t respect robots.txt files, and even plagiarizes articles.
The company, which has already received funding from the likes of Jeff Bezos and is in talks to raise hundreds of millions of dollars more, advertises on its website that “every answer” is “backed by citations from trusted news outlets, academic papers, and established blogs.
However, plagiarism and paywall problems have made Perplexity a lightning rod for media industry frustrations as it attempts to overtake Google for the future of search on the internet.
Here’s our coverage of the ongoing developments.

The Verge

The startup’s web scraping has raised more than a few eyebrows.

Perplexity, which offers an AI search product that it calls an “answer engine,” is a buzzy AI startup embroiled in scandal following accusations that it rips off content, doesn’t respect robots.txt files, and even plagiarizes articles.

The company, which has already received funding from the likes of Jeff Bezos and is in talks to raise hundreds of millions of dollars more, advertises on its website that “every answer” is “backed by citations from trusted news outlets, academic papers, and established blogs.

However, plagiarism and paywall problems have made Perplexity a lightning rod for media industry frustrations as it attempts to overtake Google for the future of search on the internet.

Here’s our coverage of the ongoing developments.

Read More 

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

The NFL has been hit with a $4.7 billion verdict in a class action antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of residential and commercial customers who paid for its Sunday Ticket package on DirecTV from 2011 through 2022.
Originally filed in 2015 by the Mucky Duck sports bar, the lawsuit claimed that the league and its teams had conspired to give DirecTV an illegal monopoly on out-of-market games until YouTube took it over, starting with the 2023 season. The plaintiffs noted that other leagues distributed live, out-of-market games through multiple providers instead of just one exclusive partner like the NFL and argued during the case that the setup not only inflated the price of Sunday Ticket but also forced viewers to pay for games during weeks when their preferred team wasn’t playing.

Courthouse News reports that during the trial, evidence showed that the NFL turned down bids for the package that would’ve made the offer cheaper, more flexible, and available to millions of additional customers. Before YouTube snagged the exclusive package that it now sells for $349 per year, the report says that an email from the NFL’s chief media and business officer showed ESPN proposed offering Sunday Ticket for $70 per year and allowing fans to buy a package for just one team.
After a three-week trial, ESPN reports the jury deliberated for almost five hours before reaching the decision. They awarded $96 million in damages to the bars and restaurants and $4.7 billion to customers, according to USA Today, which, if it stands, could be tripled under federal law.
A statement from the NFL given to multiple media outlets said the league would appeal the decision. Front Office Sports reports that US District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, who dismissed the case in 2019 but later ruled it could proceed as a class action, could still throw out the verdict, and post-trial motions are set for a hearing on July 31st.

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

The NFL has been hit with a $4.7 billion verdict in a class action antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of residential and commercial customers who paid for its Sunday Ticket package on DirecTV from 2011 through 2022.

Originally filed in 2015 by the Mucky Duck sports bar, the lawsuit claimed that the league and its teams had conspired to give DirecTV an illegal monopoly on out-of-market games until YouTube took it over, starting with the 2023 season. The plaintiffs noted that other leagues distributed live, out-of-market games through multiple providers instead of just one exclusive partner like the NFL and argued during the case that the setup not only inflated the price of Sunday Ticket but also forced viewers to pay for games during weeks when their preferred team wasn’t playing.

Courthouse News reports that during the trial, evidence showed that the NFL turned down bids for the package that would’ve made the offer cheaper, more flexible, and available to millions of additional customers. Before YouTube snagged the exclusive package that it now sells for $349 per year, the report says that an email from the NFL’s chief media and business officer showed ESPN proposed offering Sunday Ticket for $70 per year and allowing fans to buy a package for just one team.

After a three-week trial, ESPN reports the jury deliberated for almost five hours before reaching the decision. They awarded $96 million in damages to the bars and restaurants and $4.7 billion to customers, according to USA Today, which, if it stands, could be tripled under federal law.

A statement from the NFL given to multiple media outlets said the league would appeal the decision. Front Office Sports reports that US District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, who dismissed the case in 2019 but later ruled it could proceed as a class action, could still throw out the verdict, and post-trial motions are set for a hearing on July 31st.

Read More 

Image: The New York Times

Strands, The New York Times’ very good word search game, has been officially added to the NYT’s Games app on iOS and Android.
For me personally, this is huge. Strands has become my favorite of the NYT’s games since it launched in beta in March, but I was annoyed that I had to bounce between the app and a browser to complete my daily Wordle, Connections, and Strands. Now, I can do all of the puzzles right in the app over my morning coffee. It’s the little things!
Each Strands puzzle has a theme. That theme hints at the words you’ll need to find — including the “spanagram” word that spans across opposite sides of the puzzle. Every letter in the puzzle is used for a themed word or the spanagram. If you need some help, you can get hints by finding three non-themed words on the board.

Strands is currently the NYT’s “third most searched game, behind Wordle and Connections,” and is “nearly as popular” as Spelling Bee, The New York Times says in a blog post. Most people are actually finishing their Strands puzzles, too: “We consistently see 83% of Strands players finding the Spangram each day, and completion rate is around 81%, similar to the Mini Crossword and Tiles.” Strands will be added to the Game tab in the main NYT app “later this year.”
The New York Times’ games aren’t always hits on the level of Wordle, Connections, or Strands. Digits, a math-based puzzle game, was only available in beta for a few months. At least it had a clever title.

Image: The New York Times

Strands, The New York Times’ very good word search game, has been officially added to the NYT’s Games app on iOS and Android.

For me personally, this is huge. Strands has become my favorite of the NYT’s games since it launched in beta in March, but I was annoyed that I had to bounce between the app and a browser to complete my daily Wordle, Connections, and Strands. Now, I can do all of the puzzles right in the app over my morning coffee. It’s the little things!

Each Strands puzzle has a theme. That theme hints at the words you’ll need to find — including the “spanagram” word that spans across opposite sides of the puzzle. Every letter in the puzzle is used for a themed word or the spanagram. If you need some help, you can get hints by finding three non-themed words on the board.

Strands is currently the NYT’s “third most searched game, behind Wordle and Connections,” and is “nearly as popular” as Spelling Bee, The New York Times says in a blog post. Most people are actually finishing their Strands puzzles, too: “We consistently see 83% of Strands players finding the Spangram each day, and completion rate is around 81%, similar to the Mini Crossword and Tiles.” Strands will be added to the Game tab in the main NYT app “later this year.”

The New York Times’ games aren’t always hits on the level of Wordle, Connections, or Strands. Digits, a math-based puzzle game, was only available in beta for a few months. At least it had a clever title.

Read More 

House Energy Subcommittee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers. | Photo: Getty Images

The House Energy and Commerce Committee suddenly canceled a markup to discuss and vote on 11 bills, including the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).
The committee did not provide a reason for the cancellation in its online notice, and committee members appeared surprised by the change, according to reporters in the room. But disagreements on the bill with Republican House leadership seemed to play a role, according to recent reporting and the top Democrats on the committee. Some Republican House members have recently expressed concerns with the bill, Politico reported last week, adding that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s (R-LA) top aide said an earlier version of APRA wouldn’t get a floor vote in its current form, even if it passed out of the committee.
If the markup had happened as planned, the bill’s future already looked more uncertain than it did a few months ago. The most recent version of APRA released last week was met with resounding pushback from groups ranging from civil rights organizations to industry players.
In a statement after the scheduling change was announced, E&C Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) posted a statement on X that did not directly address the cancellation. “For every parent, for individual liberty, and for the future of this country, we will continue our pursuit to give Americans privacy rights online,” Rodgers said. Speaking with reporters on Capitol Hill, she said, “This is not how the House is supposed to operate. It’s not how this place is supposed to work.” She added that the committee had the votes for the bill at the beginning of the week, but “there was a lot of input by leadership, specifically a couple of offices, that we just need to give it some time.”

My statement on the American Privacy Rights Act: pic.twitter.com/l6TS1atBC6— CathyMcMorrisRodgers (@cathymcmorris) June 27, 2024

But Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) placed the blame squarely on Republican leadership for getting in the way of the markup. “It’s outrageous that Republican Leadership would interfere with the Committee’s bipartisan regular order process,” Pallone said in a statement. “I commend Chair Rodgers for her dedication to giving Americans back control of their data.” He said he remains committed to working with Rodgers on privacy and added that “we’re not giving up. The Energy and Commerce Committee is the only Committee that has had the willingness to take on Big Tech on behalf of the American people.”
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who co-sponsored APRA alongside Pallone, Rodgers, and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), said in a statement that she was “furious that Republican Leadership did the bidding of Big Tech and special interests” by derailing the markup. “The American Privacy Rights Act provides foundational data privacy rights for consumers. It is unacceptable to make American families wait any longer.
Scalise told The Hill on Wednesday that there had been “a lot of concerns expressed about different parts of the bill,” including around private rights of actions that would let individuals pursue lawsuits over alleged privacy violations. In a statement on X Thursday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) wrote, “It is time for Americans to have greater control over their privacy online, especially for the safety of our children. I am committed to working to build consensus in the House on a data privacy bill.” According to CNBC, Johnson recently told Rodgers and other Republican members he wants a privacy bill but that APRA came with too many concerns.
The cancellation puts a damper on hopes for national privacy rights, which just a few months ago received a surprising revival when Rodgers and Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) unveiled the APRA draft. The pair had quietly worked on the legislation after an earlier compromise bill, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) stalled without Cantwell’s support.
While APRA received a mostly welcome reception from its initial debut, a recently revised version of the bill unleashed a wave of blowback from groups with a range of political interests. Earlier this week, more than 50 civil society groups sent a letter to committee leaders, urging them to postpone the markup to restore civil rights and algorithm auditing provisions to the latest version. “If the civil rights provisions are not restored, the bill should not advance,” wrote the groups, which included the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Tech industry groups also opposed the latest version of the bill. Carl Holshouser, executive vice president of TechNet, which represents companies including Apple, Google, Meta, and OpenAI, told committee leaders that APRA could “undermine America’s global competitiveness or leadership in emerging technologies.” Holshouser added that it could penalize companies “for merely attempting to personalize the online experience for consumers or striving to improve and develop new products and services.” TechNet said the bill did not do enough to preempt state laws or prevent excessive lawsuits from individual consumers.
Chris Mohr, president of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), which represents the specialized information industry, praised the removal of “Provisions on civil rights and covered algorithms,” in the latest version but noted remaining “significant issues.” Those include overly broad definitions of sensitive data covered by the protections and limits on contextual advertising, according to Mohr. “The need to get federal privacy legislation right — not just passed quickly — is critical,” he said in a statement. “Legislators should keep working to ensure a safe online experience that is regulated responsibly.”
It appears those groups will now get their wish.

House Energy Subcommittee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers. | Photo: Getty Images

The House Energy and Commerce Committee suddenly canceled a markup to discuss and vote on 11 bills, including the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).

The committee did not provide a reason for the cancellation in its online notice, and committee members appeared surprised by the change, according to reporters in the room. But disagreements on the bill with Republican House leadership seemed to play a role, according to recent reporting and the top Democrats on the committee. Some Republican House members have recently expressed concerns with the bill, Politico reported last week, adding that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s (R-LA) top aide said an earlier version of APRA wouldn’t get a floor vote in its current form, even if it passed out of the committee.

If the markup had happened as planned, the bill’s future already looked more uncertain than it did a few months ago. The most recent version of APRA released last week was met with resounding pushback from groups ranging from civil rights organizations to industry players.

In a statement after the scheduling change was announced, E&C Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) posted a statement on X that did not directly address the cancellation. “For every parent, for individual liberty, and for the future of this country, we will continue our pursuit to give Americans privacy rights online,” Rodgers said. Speaking with reporters on Capitol Hill, she said, “This is not how the House is supposed to operate. It’s not how this place is supposed to work.” She added that the committee had the votes for the bill at the beginning of the week, but “there was a lot of input by leadership, specifically a couple of offices, that we just need to give it some time.”

But Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) placed the blame squarely on Republican leadership for getting in the way of the markup. “It’s outrageous that Republican Leadership would interfere with the Committee’s bipartisan regular order process,” Pallone said in a statement. “I commend Chair Rodgers for her dedication to giving Americans back control of their data.” He said he remains committed to working with Rodgers on privacy and added that “we’re not giving up. The Energy and Commerce Committee is the only Committee that has had the willingness to take on Big Tech on behalf of the American people.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who co-sponsored APRA alongside Pallone, Rodgers, and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), said in a statement that she was “furious that Republican Leadership did the bidding of Big Tech and special interests” by derailing the markup. “The American Privacy Rights Act provides foundational data privacy rights for consumers. It is unacceptable to make American families wait any longer.

Scalise told The Hill on Wednesday that there had been “a lot of concerns expressed about different parts of the bill,” including around private rights of actions that would let individuals pursue lawsuits over alleged privacy violations. In a statement on X Thursday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) wrote, “It is time for Americans to have greater control over their privacy online, especially for the safety of our children. I am committed to working to build consensus in the House on a data privacy bill.” According to CNBC, Johnson recently told Rodgers and other Republican members he wants a privacy bill but that APRA came with too many concerns.

The cancellation puts a damper on hopes for national privacy rights, which just a few months ago received a surprising revival when Rodgers and Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) unveiled the APRA draft. The pair had quietly worked on the legislation after an earlier compromise bill, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) stalled without Cantwell’s support.

While APRA received a mostly welcome reception from its initial debut, a recently revised version of the bill unleashed a wave of blowback from groups with a range of political interests. Earlier this week, more than 50 civil society groups sent a letter to committee leaders, urging them to postpone the markup to restore civil rights and algorithm auditing provisions to the latest version. “If the civil rights provisions are not restored, the bill should not advance,” wrote the groups, which included the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Tech industry groups also opposed the latest version of the bill. Carl Holshouser, executive vice president of TechNet, which represents companies including Apple, Google, Meta, and OpenAI, told committee leaders that APRA could “undermine America’s global competitiveness or leadership in emerging technologies.” Holshouser added that it could penalize companies “for merely attempting to personalize the online experience for consumers or striving to improve and develop new products and services.” TechNet said the bill did not do enough to preempt state laws or prevent excessive lawsuits from individual consumers.

Chris Mohr, president of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), which represents the specialized information industry, praised the removal of “Provisions on civil rights and covered algorithms,” in the latest version but noted remaining “significant issues.” Those include overly broad definitions of sensitive data covered by the protections and limits on contextual advertising, according to Mohr. “The need to get federal privacy legislation right — not just passed quickly — is critical,” he said in a statement. “Legislators should keep working to ensure a safe online experience that is regulated responsibly.”

It appears those groups will now get their wish.

Read More 

Image: Samar Haddad / The Verge

The chair of the Federal Communications Commission proposed a new rule that could make it easier for consumers to unlock their cellphones. The proposed regulation, which the agency announced on Thursday, would require mobile providers to unlock consumers’ phones within 60 days of activation.
Under current regulations, consumers who want to unlock their phone — as in, freeing up a phone so it can move from one network to another — are at the mercy of their service provider. Per the FCC, consumers who want to unlock their device should contact their service provider to find out when and how their phone can be unlocked. To then unlock a device, a consumer must be in “good standing” with their provider, meaning their phone must be paid off or they’ll have to pay an early termination fee. (This works a bit differently for people with prepaid phone plans, which “participating providers” will usually unlock within a year of activation, depending on their individual requirements.)
In a press release, the FCC said updated rules around unlocking phones would give consumers more flexibility. “Real competition benefits from transparency and consistency,” FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement. “That is why we are proposing clear, nationwide mobile phone unlocking rules. When you buy a phone, you should have the freedom to decide when to change service to the carrier you want and not have the device you own stuck by practices that prevent you from making that choice.”
There are few details about the proposed rule at the moment. The FCC’s press release notes that it will have an open meeting on July 18th, during which it will vote on the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the expansion of the unlocking requirements. After the 18th, the FCC will seek comment on the proposed rule, whether the new requirement should be applied to current or future contracts, and whether it could benefit smaller service providers and phone resellers.

Image: Samar Haddad / The Verge

The chair of the Federal Communications Commission proposed a new rule that could make it easier for consumers to unlock their cellphones. The proposed regulation, which the agency announced on Thursday, would require mobile providers to unlock consumers’ phones within 60 days of activation.

Under current regulations, consumers who want to unlock their phone — as in, freeing up a phone so it can move from one network to another — are at the mercy of their service provider. Per the FCC, consumers who want to unlock their device should contact their service provider to find out when and how their phone can be unlocked. To then unlock a device, a consumer must be in “good standing” with their provider, meaning their phone must be paid off or they’ll have to pay an early termination fee. (This works a bit differently for people with prepaid phone plans, which “participating providers” will usually unlock within a year of activation, depending on their individual requirements.)

In a press release, the FCC said updated rules around unlocking phones would give consumers more flexibility. “Real competition benefits from transparency and consistency,” FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement. “That is why we are proposing clear, nationwide mobile phone unlocking rules. When you buy a phone, you should have the freedom to decide when to change service to the carrier you want and not have the device you own stuck by practices that prevent you from making that choice.”

There are few details about the proposed rule at the moment. The FCC’s press release notes that it will have an open meeting on July 18th, during which it will vote on the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the expansion of the unlocking requirements. After the 18th, the FCC will seek comment on the proposed rule, whether the new requirement should be applied to current or future contracts, and whether it could benefit smaller service providers and phone resellers.

Read More 

What, exactly, is Perplexity’s innovation? | Image: The Verge

In every hype cycle, certain patterns of deceit emerge. In the last crypto boom, it was “ponzinomics” and “rug pulls.” In self-driving cars, it was “just five years away!” In AI, it’s seeing just how much unethical shit you can get away with.
Perplexity is basically a rent-seeking middleman on high-quality sources
Perplexity, which is in ongoing talks to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, is trying to create a Google Search competitor. Perplexity isn’t trying to create a “search engine,” though — it wants to create an “answer engine.” The idea is that instead of combing through a bunch of results to answer your own question with a primary source, you’ll simply get an answer Perplexity has found for you. “Factfulness and accuracy is what we care about,” Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas told The Verge.
That means that Perplexity is basically a rent-seeking middleman on high-quality sources. The value proposition on search, originally, was that by scraping the work done by journalists and others, Google’s results sent traffic to those sources. But by providing an answer, rather than pointing people to click through to a primary source, these so-called “answer engines” starve the primary source of ad revenue — keeping that revenue for themselves. Perplexity is among a group of vampires that include Arc Search and Google itself.
But Perplexity has taken it a step further with its Pages product, which creates a summary “report” based on those primary sources. It’s not just quoting a sentence or two to directly answer a user’s question — it’s creating an entire aggregated article, and it’s accurate in the sense that it is actively plagiarizing the sources it uses.
Forbes discovered Perplexity was dodging the publication’s paywall in order to provide a summary of an investigation the publication did of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s drone company. Though Forbes has a metered paywall on some of its work, the premium work — like that investigation — is behind a hard paywall. Not only did Perplexity somehow dodge the paywall but it barely cited the original investigation and ganked the original art to use for its report. (For those keeping track at home, the art thing is copyright infringement.)
“Someone else did it” is a fine argument for a five-year-old
Aggregation is not a particularly new phenomenon — but the scale at which Perplexity can aggregate, along with the copyright violation of using the original art, is pretty, hmm, remarkable. In an attempt to calm everyone down, the company’s chief business officer went to Axios to say Perplexity was developing revenue sharing plans with publications, and aw gee whiz, how come everyone was being so mean to a product still in development?
At this point, Wired jumped in, confirming a finding from Robb Knight: Perplexity’s scraping of Forbes’ work wasn’t an exception. In fact, Perplexity has been ignoring the robots.txt code that explicitly asks web crawlers not to scrape the page. Srinivas responded in Fast Company that actually, Perplexity wasn’t ignoring robots.txt; it was just using third-party scrapers that ignored it. Srinivas declined to name the third-party scraper and didn’t commit to asking that crawler to stop violating robots.txt.
“Someone else did it” is a fine argument for a five-year-old. And consider the response further. If Srinivas wanted to be ethical, he had some options here. Option one is to terminate the contract with the third-party scraper. Option two is to try to convince the scraper to honor robots.txt. Srinivas didn’t commit to either, and it seems to me, there’s a clear reason why. Even if Perplexity itself isn’t violating the code, it is reliant on someone else violating the code for its “answer engine” to work.
To add insult to injury, Perplexity plagiarized Wired’s article about it — even though Wired explicitly blocks Perplexity in its text file. The bulk of Wired’s article about the plagiarism is about legal remedies, but I’m interested in what’s going on here with robots.txt. It’s a good-faith agreement that has held up for decades now, and it’s falling apart thanks to unscrupulous AI companies — that’s right, Perplexity isn’t the only one — hoovering up just about anything that’s available in order to train their bullshit models. And remember how Srinivas said he was committed to “factfulness?” I’m not sure that’s true, either: Perplexity is now surfacing AI-generated results and actual misinformation, Forbes reports.
To my ear, Srinivas was bragging about how charming and clever his lie was
We’ve seen a lot of AI giants engage in questionably legal and arguably unethical practices in order to get the data they want. In order to prove the value of Perplexity to investors, Srinivas built a tool to scrape Twitter by pretending to be an academic researcher using API access for research. “I would call my [fake academic] projects just like Brin Rank and all these kinds of things,” Srinivas told Lex Fridman on the latter’s podcast. I assume “Brin Rank” is a reference to Google co-founder Sergey Brin; to my ear, Srinivas was bragging about how charming and clever his lie was.
I’m not the one who’s telling you the foundation of Perplexity is lying to dodge established principles that hold up the web. Its CEO is. That’s clarifying about the actual value proposition of “answer engines.” Perplexity cannot generate actual information on its own and relies instead on third parties whose policies it abuses. The “answer engine” was developed by people who feel free to lie whenever it is more convenient, and that preference is necessary for how Perplexity works.
So that’s Perplexity’s real innovation here: shattering the foundations of trust that built the internet. The question is if any of its users or investors care.

What, exactly, is Perplexity’s innovation? | Image: The Verge

In every hype cycle, certain patterns of deceit emerge. In the last crypto boom, it was “ponzinomics” and “rug pulls.” In self-driving cars, it was “just five years away!” In AI, it’s seeing just how much unethical shit you can get away with.

Perplexity, which is in ongoing talks to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, is trying to create a Google Search competitor. Perplexity isn’t trying to create a “search engine,” though — it wants to create an “answer engine.” The idea is that instead of combing through a bunch of results to answer your own question with a primary source, you’ll simply get an answer Perplexity has found for you. “Factfulness and accuracy is what we care about,” Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas told The Verge.

That means that Perplexity is basically a rent-seeking middleman on high-quality sources. The value proposition on search, originally, was that by scraping the work done by journalists and others, Google’s results sent traffic to those sources. But by providing an answer, rather than pointing people to click through to a primary source, these so-called “answer engines” starve the primary source of ad revenue — keeping that revenue for themselves. Perplexity is among a group of vampires that include Arc Search and Google itself.

But Perplexity has taken it a step further with its Pages product, which creates a summary “report” based on those primary sources. It’s not just quoting a sentence or two to directly answer a user’s question — it’s creating an entire aggregated article, and it’s accurate in the sense that it is actively plagiarizing the sources it uses.

Forbes discovered Perplexity was dodging the publication’s paywall in order to provide a summary of an investigation the publication did of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s drone company. Though Forbes has a metered paywall on some of its work, the premium work — like that investigation — is behind a hard paywall. Not only did Perplexity somehow dodge the paywall but it barely cited the original investigation and ganked the original art to use for its report. (For those keeping track at home, the art thing is copyright infringement.)

Aggregation is not a particularly new phenomenon — but the scale at which Perplexity can aggregate, along with the copyright violation of using the original art, is pretty, hmm, remarkable. In an attempt to calm everyone down, the company’s chief business officer went to Axios to say Perplexity was developing revenue sharing plans with publications, and aw gee whiz, how come everyone was being so mean to a product still in development?

At this point, Wired jumped in, confirming a finding from Robb Knight: Perplexity’s scraping of Forbes’ work wasn’t an exception. In fact, Perplexity has been ignoring the robots.txt code that explicitly asks web crawlers not to scrape the page. Srinivas responded in Fast Company that actually, Perplexity wasn’t ignoring robots.txt; it was just using third-party scrapers that ignored it. Srinivas declined to name the third-party scraper and didn’t commit to asking that crawler to stop violating robots.txt.

“Someone else did it” is a fine argument for a five-year-old. And consider the response further. If Srinivas wanted to be ethical, he had some options here. Option one is to terminate the contract with the third-party scraper. Option two is to try to convince the scraper to honor robots.txt. Srinivas didn’t commit to either, and it seems to me, there’s a clear reason why. Even if Perplexity itself isn’t violating the code, it is reliant on someone else violating the code for its “answer engine” to work.

To add insult to injury, Perplexity plagiarized Wired’s article about it — even though Wired explicitly blocks Perplexity in its text file. The bulk of Wired’s article about the plagiarism is about legal remedies, but I’m interested in what’s going on here with robots.txt. It’s a good-faith agreement that has held up for decades now, and it’s falling apart thanks to unscrupulous AI companies — that’s right, Perplexity isn’t the only one — hoovering up just about anything that’s available in order to train their bullshit models. And remember how Srinivas said he was committed to “factfulness?” I’m not sure that’s true, either: Perplexity is now surfacing AI-generated results and actual misinformation, Forbes reports.

We’ve seen a lot of AI giants engage in questionably legal and arguably unethical practices in order to get the data they want. In order to prove the value of Perplexity to investors, Srinivas built a tool to scrape Twitter by pretending to be an academic researcher using API access for research. “I would call my [fake academic] projects just like Brin Rank and all these kinds of things,” Srinivas told Lex Fridman on the latter’s podcast. I assume “Brin Rank” is a reference to Google co-founder Sergey Brin; to my ear, Srinivas was bragging about how charming and clever his lie was.

I’m not the one who’s telling you the foundation of Perplexity is lying to dodge established principles that hold up the web. Its CEO is. That’s clarifying about the actual value proposition of “answer engines.” Perplexity cannot generate actual information on its own and relies instead on third parties whose policies it abuses. The “answer engine” was developed by people who feel free to lie whenever it is more convenient, and that preference is necessary for how Perplexity works.

So that’s Perplexity’s real innovation here: shattering the foundations of trust that built the internet. The question is if any of its users or investors care.

Read More 

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

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has joined the defense team for a neo-Nazi accused of plotting to sabotage Baltimore’s electrical grid, The Baltimore Banner reports.
Attorneys from the ACLU’s National Security Project will be working with Brandon Clint Russell’s defense “for the limited purpose of challenging the government’s secretive warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Ashley Gorski, a senior staff attorney with the National Security Project, said in a statement to The Verge.
“Based on the government’s own disclosures, we have good reason to believe that Mr. Russell was subjected to Section 702 surveillance and his case is a rare and important opportunity to challenge the government’s practice of conducting warrantless ‘backdoor searches’ of its Section 702 databases to locate the communications of Americans,” Gorski said.
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign “targets.” But if US persons — i.e., US citizens, permanent residents, and others residing in the country — communicate with foreign targets, their communications can get swept up in Section 702 surveillance as well. In April, Congress reauthorized the controversial surveillance authority, which was set to expire this year.

Russell — the founder of the Atomwaffen Division, a neo-Nazi group — was charged with conspiracy to destroy an energy facility in February 2023. Prosecutors allege that Russell and his accomplice, Sarah Beth Clendaniel, plotted to attack multiple electrical substations across the state of Maryland. In communications with a federal confidential informant, the pair allegedly planned to “coordinate to get multiple [substations] at the same time.” Clendaniel pleaded guilty to conspiring to damage or destroy electrical facilities in May of this year.
The FBI’s affidavit filed in the criminal case does not mention Russell’s alleged communications with foreign targets of FBI surveillance, though it does mention that the Atomwaffen Division — which it describes as a “US-based racially or ethnically motivated violence extremist” group — “reportedly has international ties.”
But in a court filing, the ACLU attorneys say Russell has “reason to believe” that the government “intercepted his communications” and subjected him to a warrantless “backdoor search” by querying the Section 702 databases. The attorneys cite comments a senior FBI official made to a Politico reporter and a speech by FBI Director Christopher Wray about the agency’s use of Section 702 to thwart a “potentially imminent terrorist attack” against US critical infrastructure in 2023.
In February, ahead of Congress’ vote to reauthorize Section 702, Politico reported on three recently declassified instances in which data collected under Section 702 was used to protect national security. One of the instances, which Russell’s attorneys believe to be his alleged plot to attack Maryland’s electrical infrastructure, involved a person in the US who was “in regular contact with an unspecified foreign terrorist group, had acquired the means to conduct an attack and had already identified specific targets in the US,” Politico reported at the time, adding that the FBI stopped the attack roughly 30 days after first uncovering it.
The FBI director appears to have mentioned the same terrorist plot in an April speech
Wray, the FBI director, appears to have mentioned the same terrorist plot in an April speech before the American Bar Association in April. “Just last year, we discovered that a foreign terrorist had communicated with a person we believed to be in the United States,” Wray said. “Only by querying that US person’s identifiers in our 702 collection did we find important intelligence on the seriousness and urgency of the threat. And less than a month after that initial query, we disrupted that US person who, it turned out, had researched and identified critical infrastructure sites in the US and acquired the means to conduct an attack.” The defense’s motion to compel the federal government to provide notice of use of Section 702 surveillance of Russell includes both the Politico report and Wray’s speech as exhibits.
In a response filed last week, prosecutors said the defense’s “extraordinary motion to compel is based on pure speculation.” The filing also notes that the obligation to provide notice of information obtained via FISA only applies if the government intends to enter that information into evidence or otherwise use it against an aggrieved person in a trial or other proceeding. The ACLU’s response, filed this Monday, notes that the government “does not dispute that Mr. Russell was subject to warrantless surveillance under Section 702” but instead claims it has no legal obligation to turn over FISA notice in this instance.
The FBI’s ability to spy on Americans without a warrant was the subject of contentious Congressional debate ahead of FISA’s expiration this April. After multiple stalled attempts and failed votes, Congress reauthorized FISA just minutes after the statute had expired. Legislators’ attempts to rein in the controversial surveillance authority failed, and multiple amendments requiring the FBI to obtain warrants to search or access Americans’ communications under Section 702 were voted down.
In its annual transparency report, published in May, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the FBI conducted 57,094 searches of “US person” data under Section 702 — a 52 percent decrease from 2022.
“We have long argued that Section 702 surveillance is unconstitutional and that it disproportionately impacts people of color and Muslims at home and abroad,” Gorski, the ACLU attorney, said. “Especially as recently expanded and reauthorized by Congress, this spying authority could be further abused by a future administration against political opponents, protest movements, and civil society organizations, as well as racial and religious minorities, abortion providers, and LGBTQ people.”

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

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has joined the defense team for a neo-Nazi accused of plotting to sabotage Baltimore’s electrical grid, The Baltimore Banner reports.

Attorneys from the ACLU’s National Security Project will be working with Brandon Clint Russell’s defense “for the limited purpose of challenging the government’s secretive warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Ashley Gorski, a senior staff attorney with the National Security Project, said in a statement to The Verge.

“Based on the government’s own disclosures, we have good reason to believe that Mr. Russell was subjected to Section 702 surveillance and his case is a rare and important opportunity to challenge the government’s practice of conducting warrantless ‘backdoor searches’ of its Section 702 databases to locate the communications of Americans,” Gorski said.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign “targets.” But if US persons — i.e., US citizens, permanent residents, and others residing in the country — communicate with foreign targets, their communications can get swept up in Section 702 surveillance as well. In April, Congress reauthorized the controversial surveillance authority, which was set to expire this year.

Russell — the founder of the Atomwaffen Division, a neo-Nazi group — was charged with conspiracy to destroy an energy facility in February 2023. Prosecutors allege that Russell and his accomplice, Sarah Beth Clendaniel, plotted to attack multiple electrical substations across the state of Maryland. In communications with a federal confidential informant, the pair allegedly planned to “coordinate to get multiple [substations] at the same time.” Clendaniel pleaded guilty to conspiring to damage or destroy electrical facilities in May of this year.

The FBI’s affidavit filed in the criminal case does not mention Russell’s alleged communications with foreign targets of FBI surveillance, though it does mention that the Atomwaffen Division — which it describes as a “US-based racially or ethnically motivated violence extremist” group — “reportedly has international ties.”

But in a court filing, the ACLU attorneys say Russell has “reason to believe” that the government “intercepted his communications” and subjected him to a warrantless “backdoor search” by querying the Section 702 databases. The attorneys cite comments a senior FBI official made to a Politico reporter and a speech by FBI Director Christopher Wray about the agency’s use of Section 702 to thwart a “potentially imminent terrorist attack” against US critical infrastructure in 2023.

In February, ahead of Congress’ vote to reauthorize Section 702, Politico reported on three recently declassified instances in which data collected under Section 702 was used to protect national security. One of the instances, which Russell’s attorneys believe to be his alleged plot to attack Maryland’s electrical infrastructure, involved a person in the US who was “in regular contact with an unspecified foreign terrorist group, had acquired the means to conduct an attack and had already identified specific targets in the US,” Politico reported at the time, adding that the FBI stopped the attack roughly 30 days after first uncovering it.

Wray, the FBI director, appears to have mentioned the same terrorist plot in an April speech before the American Bar Association in April. “Just last year, we discovered that a foreign terrorist had communicated with a person we believed to be in the United States,” Wray said. “Only by querying that US person’s identifiers in our 702 collection did we find important intelligence on the seriousness and urgency of the threat. And less than a month after that initial query, we disrupted that US person who, it turned out, had researched and identified critical infrastructure sites in the US and acquired the means to conduct an attack.” The defense’s motion to compel the federal government to provide notice of use of Section 702 surveillance of Russell includes both the Politico report and Wray’s speech as exhibits.

In a response filed last week, prosecutors said the defense’s “extraordinary motion to compel is based on pure speculation.” The filing also notes that the obligation to provide notice of information obtained via FISA only applies if the government intends to enter that information into evidence or otherwise use it against an aggrieved person in a trial or other proceeding. The ACLU’s response, filed this Monday, notes that the government “does not dispute that Mr. Russell was subject to warrantless surveillance under Section 702” but instead claims it has no legal obligation to turn over FISA notice in this instance.

The FBI’s ability to spy on Americans without a warrant was the subject of contentious Congressional debate ahead of FISA’s expiration this April. After multiple stalled attempts and failed votes, Congress reauthorized FISA just minutes after the statute had expired. Legislators’ attempts to rein in the controversial surveillance authority failed, and multiple amendments requiring the FBI to obtain warrants to search or access Americans’ communications under Section 702 were voted down.

In its annual transparency report, published in May, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the FBI conducted 57,094 searches of “US person” data under Section 702 — a 52 percent decrease from 2022.

“We have long argued that Section 702 surveillance is unconstitutional and that it disproportionately impacts people of color and Muslims at home and abroad,” Gorski, the ACLU attorney, said. “Especially as recently expanded and reauthorized by Congress, this spying authority could be further abused by a future administration against political opponents, protest movements, and civil society organizations, as well as racial and religious minorities, abortion providers, and LGBTQ people.”

Read More 

Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Getty Images

Joe Biden and Donald Trump are expected to face off on Tuesday, November 5th. Technology was a mere footnote in previous election cycles, but the 2024 US elections are happening in the wake of the very contentious TikTok ban bill. At the same time, this electoral cycle may be the most divorced from substantive policy than any other cycle in living memory. Still, the federal government is in a regulatory mood, and the question of which political party controls the White House after January 2025 will determine tech policy issues ranging from net neutrality to the rapidly expanding scope of tech antitrust.
In the meantime, the specter of misinformation — particularly AI-generated misinformation — looms over an election that is particularly vulnerable to rhetorical attacks on the legitimacy of the democratic process.
Here’s all our 2024 election coverage in one place.

Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Getty Images

Joe Biden and Donald Trump are expected to face off on Tuesday, November 5th.

Technology was a mere footnote in previous election cycles, but the 2024 US elections are happening in the wake of the very contentious TikTok ban bill. At the same time, this electoral cycle may be the most divorced from substantive policy than any other cycle in living memory. Still, the federal government is in a regulatory mood, and the question of which political party controls the White House after January 2025 will determine tech policy issues ranging from net neutrality to the rapidly expanding scope of tech antitrust.

In the meantime, the specter of misinformation — particularly AI-generated misinformation — looms over an election that is particularly vulnerable to rhetorical attacks on the legitimacy of the democratic process.

Here’s all our 2024 election coverage in one place.

Read More