Policy – Page 19

xAI data center gets air permit to run 15 turbines, but imaging shows 24 on site

AI, ai data center, air pollution, Artificial Intelligence, Colossus, data center, elon musk, Memphis, Policy, supercomputer, xAI / Rejus Almole / July 4, 2025

Before xAI got the permit, residents were stuck relying on infrequent thermal imaging to determine how many turbines appeared to be running without BACT. Now that xAI has secured the permit, the company will be required to “record the date, time, and durations of all startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, and tuning events” and “always minimize emissions including startup, shutdown, maintenance, and combustion tuning periods.”

These records—which also document fuel usage, facility-wide emissions, and excess emissions—must be shared with the health department semiannually, with xAI’s first report due by December 31. Additionally, xAI must maintain five years of “monitoring, preventive, and maintenance records for air pollution control equipment,” which the department can request to review at any time.

For Memphis residents worried about smog-forming pollution, the worst fear would likely be visibly detecting the pollution. Mitigating this, xAI’s air permit requires that visible emissions “from each emission point at the facility shall not exceed” 20 percent in opacity for more than minutes in any one-hour period or more than 20 minutes in any 24-hour period.

It also prevents xAI from operating turbines all the time, limiting xAI to “a maximum of 22 startup events and 22 shutdown events per year” for the 15 turbines included in the permit, “with a total combined duration of 110 hours annually.” Additionally, it specifies that each startup or shutdown event must not exceed one hour.

A senior communications manager for the SELC, Eric Hilt, told Ars that the “SELC and our partners intend to continue monitoring xAI’s operations in the Memphis area.” He further noted that the air permit does not address all of citizens’ concerns at a time when xAI is planning to build another data center in the area, sparking new questions.

“While these permits increase the amount of public information and accountability around 15 of xAI’s turbines, there are still significant concerns around transparency—both for xAI’s first South Memphis data center near the Boxtown neighborhood and the planned data center in the Whitehaven neighborhood,” Hilt said. “XAI has not said how that second data center will be powered or if it plans to use gas turbines for that facility as well.”

xAI data center gets air permit to run 15 turbines, but imaging shows 24 on site Read More »

Everything that could go wrong with X’s new AI-written community notes

AI, AI agents, Artificial Intelligence, community notes, conspiracy theories, disinformation, fact checking, misinformation, Policy, Social Media, Twitter, X / Mike M. / July 3, 2025

X says AI can supercharge community notes, but that comes with obvious risks.

Elon Musk’s X arguably revolutionized social media fact-checking by rolling out “community notes,” which created a system to crowdsource diverse views on whether certain X posts were trustworthy or not.

But now, the platform plans to allow AI to write community notes, and that could potentially ruin whatever trust X users had in the fact-checking system—which X has fully acknowledged.

In a research paper, X described the initiative as an “upgrade” while explaining everything that could possibly go wrong with AI-written community notes.

In an ideal world, X described AI agents that speed up and increase the number of community notes added to incorrect posts, ramping up fact-checking efforts platform-wide. Each AI-written note will be rated by a human reviewer, providing feedback that makes the AI agent better at writing notes the longer this feedback loop cycles. As the AI agents get better at writing notes, that leaves human reviewers to focus on more nuanced fact-checking that AI cannot quickly address, such as posts requiring niche expertise or social awareness. Together, the human and AI reviewers, if all goes well, could transform not just X’s fact-checking, X’s paper suggested, but also potentially provide “a blueprint for a new form of human-AI collaboration in the production of public knowledge.”

Among key questions that remain, however, is a big one: X isn’t sure if AI-written notes will be as accurate as notes written by humans. Complicating that further, it seems likely that AI agents could generate “persuasive but inaccurate notes,” which human raters might rate as helpful since AI is “exceptionally skilled at crafting persuasive, emotionally resonant, and seemingly neutral notes.” That could disrupt the feedback loop, watering down community notes and making the whole system less trustworthy over time, X’s research paper warned.

“If rated helpfulness isn’t perfectly correlated with accuracy, then highly polished but misleading notes could be more likely to pass the approval threshold,” the paper said. “This risk could grow as LLMs advance; they could not only write persuasively but also more easily research and construct a seemingly robust body of evidence for nearly any claim, regardless of its veracity, making it even harder for human raters to spot deception or errors.”

X is already facing criticism over its AI plans. On Tuesday, former United Kingdom technology minister, Damian Collins, accused X of building a system that could allow “the industrial manipulation of what people see and decide to trust” on a platform with more than 600 million users, The Guardian reported.

Collins claimed that AI notes risked increasing the promotion of “lies and conspiracy theories” on X, and he wasn’t the only expert sounding alarms. Samuel Stockwell, a research associate at the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security at the Alan Turing Institute, told The Guardian that X’s success largely depends on “the quality of safeguards X puts in place against the risk that these AI ‘note writers’ could hallucinate and amplify misinformation in their outputs.”

“AI chatbots often struggle with nuance and context but are good at confidently providing answers that sound persuasive even when untrue,” Stockwell said. “That could be a dangerous combination if not effectively addressed by the platform.”

Also complicating things: anyone can create an AI agent using any technology to write community notes, X’s Community Notes account explained. That means that some AI agents may be more biased or defective than others.

If this dystopian version of events occurs, X predicts that human writers may get sick of writing notes, threatening the diversity of viewpoints that made community notes so trustworthy to begin with.

And for any human writers and reviewers who stick around, it’s possible that the sheer volume of AI-written notes may overload them. Andy Dudfield, the head of AI at a UK fact-checking organization called Full Fact, told The Guardian that X risks “increasing the already significant burden on human reviewers to check even more draft notes, opening the door to a worrying and plausible situation in which notes could be drafted, reviewed, and published entirely by AI without the careful consideration that human input provides.”

X is planning more research to ensure the “human rating capacity can sufficiently scale,” but if it cannot solve this riddle, it knows “the impact of the most genuinely critical notes” risks being diluted.

One possible solution to this “bottleneck,” researchers noted, would be to remove the human review process and apply AI-written notes in “similar contexts” that human raters have previously approved. But the biggest potential downfall there is obvious.

“Automatically matching notes to posts that people do not think need them could significantly undermine trust in the system,” X’s paper acknowledged.

Ultimately, AI note writers on X may be deemed an “erroneous” tool, researchers admitted, but they’re going ahead with testing to find out.

AI-written notes will start posting this month

All AI-written community notes “will be clearly marked for users,” X’s Community Notes account said. The first AI notes will only appear on posts where people have requested a note, the account said, but eventually AI note writers could be allowed to select posts for fact-checking.

More will be revealed when AI-written notes start appearing on X later this month, but in the meantime, X users can start testing AI note writers today and soon be considered for admission in the initial cohort of AI agents. (If any Ars readers end up testing out an AI note writer, this Ars writer would be curious to learn more about your experience.)

For its research, X collaborated with post-graduate students, research affiliates, and professors investigating topics like human trust in AI, fine-tuning AI, and AI safety at Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the University of Washington.

Researchers agreed that “under certain circumstances,” AI agents can “produce notes that are of similar quality to human-written notes—at a fraction of the time and effort.” They suggested that more research is needed to overcome flagged risks to reap the benefits of what could be “a transformative opportunity” that “offers promise of dramatically increased scale and speed” of fact-checking on X.

If AI note writers “generate initial drafts that represent a wider range of perspectives than a single human writer typically could, the quality of community deliberation is improved from the start,” the paper said.

Future of AI notes

Researchers imagine that once X’s testing is completed, AI note writers could not just aid in researching problematic posts flagged by human users, but also one day select posts predicted to go viral and stop misinformation from spreading faster than human reviewers could.

Additional perks from this automated system, they suggested, would include X note raters quickly accessing more thorough research and evidence synthesis, as well as clearer note composition, which could speed up the rating process.

And perhaps one day, AI agents could even learn to predict rating scores to speed things up even more, researchers speculated. However, more research would be needed to ensure that wouldn’t homogenize community notes, buffing them out to the point that no one reads them.

Perhaps the most Musk-ian of ideas proposed in the paper, is a notion of training AI note writers with clashing views to “adversarially debate the merits of a note.” Supposedly, that “could help instantly surface potential flaws, hidden biases, or fabricated evidence, empowering the human rater to make a more informed judgment.”

“Instead of starting from scratch, the rater now plays the role of an adjudicator—evaluating a structured clash of arguments,” the paper said.

While X may be moving to reduce the workload for X users writing community notes, it’s clear that AI could never replace humans, researchers said. Those humans are necessary for more than just rubber-stamping AI-written notes.

Human notes that are “written from scratch” are valuable to train the AI agents and some raters’ niche expertise cannot easily be replicated, the paper said. And perhaps most obviously, humans “are uniquely positioned to identify deficits or biases” and therefore more likely to be compelled to write notes “on topics the automated writers overlook,” such as spam or scams.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Everything that could go wrong with X’s new AI-written community notes Read More »

NYT to start searching deleted ChatGPT logs after beating OpenAI in court

AI, Artificial Intelligence, chatbots, chatgpt, copyright, copyright infringement, fair use, new york times, openai, Policy / Kris Guyer / July 3, 2025

What are the odds NYT will access your ChatGPT logs in OpenAI court battle?

Last week, OpenAI raised objections in court, hoping to overturn a court order requiring the AI company to retain all ChatGPT logs “indefinitely,” including deleted and temporary chats.

But Sidney Stein, the US district judge reviewing OpenAI’s request, immediately denied OpenAI’s objections. He was seemingly unmoved by the company’s claims that the order forced OpenAI to abandon “long-standing privacy norms” and weaken privacy protections that users expect based on ChatGPT’s terms of service. Rather, Stein suggested that OpenAI’s user agreement specified that their data could be retained as part of a legal process, which Stein said is exactly what is happening now.

The order was issued by magistrate judge Ona Wang just days after news organizations, led by The New York Times, requested it. The news plaintiffs claimed the order was urgently needed to preserve potential evidence in their copyright case, alleging that ChatGPT users are likely to delete chats where they attempted to use the chatbot to skirt paywalls to access news content.

A spokesperson told Ars that OpenAI plans to “keep fighting” the order, but the ChatGPT maker seems to have few options left. They could possibly petition the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for a rarely granted emergency order that could intervene to block Wang’s order, but the appeals court would have to consider Wang’s order an extraordinary abuse of discretion for OpenAI to win that fight.

OpenAI’s spokesperson declined to confirm if the company plans to pursue this extreme remedy.

In the meantime, OpenAI is negotiating a process that will allow news plaintiffs to search through the retained data. Perhaps the sooner that process begins, the sooner the data will be deleted. And that possibility puts OpenAI in the difficult position of having to choose between either caving to some data collection to stop retaining data as soon as possible or prolonging the fight over the order and potentially putting more users’ private conversations at risk of exposure through litigation or, worse, a data breach.

News orgs will soon start searching ChatGPT logs

The clock is ticking, and so far, OpenAI has not provided any official updates since a June 5 blog post detailing which ChatGPT users will be affected.

While it’s clear that OpenAI has been and will continue to retain mounds of data, it would be impossible for The New York Times or any news plaintiff to search through all that data.

Instead, only a small sample of the data will likely be accessed, based on keywords that OpenAI and news plaintiffs agree on. That data will remain on OpenAI’s servers, where it will be anonymized, and it will likely never be directly produced to plaintiffs.

Both sides are negotiating the exact process for searching through the chat logs, with both parties seemingly hoping to minimize the amount of time the chat logs will be preserved.

For OpenAI, sharing the logs risks revealing instances of infringing outputs that could further spike damages in the case. The logs could also expose how often outputs attribute misinformation to news plaintiffs.

But for news plaintiffs, accessing the logs is not considered key to their case—perhaps providing additional examples of copying—but could help news organizations argue that ChatGPT dilutes the market for their content. That could weigh against the fair use argument, as a judge opined in a recent ruling that evidence of market dilution could tip an AI copyright case in favor of plaintiffs.

Jay Edelson, a leading consumer privacy lawyer, told Ars that he’s concerned that judges don’t seem to be considering that any evidence in the ChatGPT logs wouldn’t “advance” news plaintiffs’ case “at all,” while really changing “a product that people are using on a daily basis.”

Edelson warned that OpenAI itself probably has better security than most firms to protect against a potential data breach that could expose these private chat logs. But “lawyers have notoriously been pretty bad about securing data,” Edelson suggested, so “the idea that you’ve got a bunch of lawyers who are going to be doing whatever they are” with “some of the most sensitive data on the planet” and “they’re the ones protecting it against hackers should make everyone uneasy.”

So even though odds are pretty good that the majority of users’ chats won’t end up in the sample, Edelson said the mere threat of being included might push some users to rethink how they use AI. He further warned that ChatGPT users turning to OpenAI rival services like Anthropic’s Claude or Google’s Gemini could suggest that Wang’s order is improperly influencing market forces, which also seems “crazy.”

To Edelson, the most “cynical” take could be that news plaintiffs are possibly hoping the order will threaten OpenAI’s business to the point where the AI company agrees to a settlement.

Regardless of the news plaintiffs’ motives, the order sets an alarming precedent, Edelson said. He joined critics suggesting that more AI data may be frozen in the future, potentially affecting even more users as a result of the sweeping order surviving scrutiny in this case. Imagine if litigation one day targets Google’s AI search summaries, Edelson suggested.

Lawyer slams judges for giving ChatGPT users no voice

Edelson told Ars that the order is so potentially threatening to OpenAI’s business that the company may not have a choice but to explore every path available to continue fighting it.

“They will absolutely do something to try to stop this,” Edelson predicted, calling the order “bonkers” for overlooking millions of users’ privacy concerns while “strangely” excluding enterprise customers.

From court filings, it seems possible that enterprise users were excluded to protect OpenAI’s competitiveness, but Edelson suggested there’s “no logic” to their exclusion “at all.” By excluding these ChatGPT users, the judge’s order may have removed the users best resourced to fight the order, Edelson suggested.

“What that means is the big businesses, the ones who have the power, all of their stuff remains private, and no one can touch that,” Edelson said.

Instead, the order is “only going to intrude on the privacy of the common people out there,” which Edelson said “is really offensive,” given that Wang denied two ChatGPT users’ panicked request to intervene.

“We are talking about billions of chats that are now going to be preserved when they weren’t going to be preserved before,” Edelson said, noting that he’s input information about his personal medical history into ChatGPT. “People ask for advice about their marriages, express concerns about losing jobs. They say really personal things. And one of the bargains in dealing with OpenAI is that you’re allowed to delete your chats and you’re allowed to temporary chats.”

The greatest risk to users would be a data breach, Edelson said, but that’s not the only potential privacy concern. Corynne McSherry, legal director for the digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, previously told Ars that as long as users’ data is retained, it could also be exposed through future law enforcement and private litigation requests.

Edelson pointed out that most privacy attorneys don’t consider OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to be a “privacy guy,” despite Altman recently slamming the NYT, alleging it sued OpenAI because it doesn’t “like user privacy.”

“He’s trying to protect OpenAI, and he does not give a hoot about the privacy rights of consumers,” Edelson said, echoing one ChatGPT user’s dismissed concern that OpenAI may not prioritize users’ privacy concerns in the case if it’s financially motivated to resolve the case.

“The idea that he and his lawyers are really going to be the safeguards here isn’t very compelling,” Edelson said. He criticized the judges for dismissing users’ concerns and rejecting OpenAI’s request that users get a chance to testify.

“What’s really most appalling to me is the people who are being affected have had no voice in it,” Edelson said.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

NYT to start searching deleted ChatGPT logs after beating OpenAI in court Read More »

Paramount accused of bribery as it settles Trump lawsuit for $16 million

cbs 60 minutes, kamala harris interview, paramount, Policy, Trump / Paul Patrick / July 3, 2025

Payout to future presidential library

Paramount told us that the settlement terms were proposed by a mediator and that it will pay $16 million, including plaintiffs’ fees and costs. That amount, minus the fees and costs, will be allocated to Trump’s future presidential library, Paramount said. Trump’s complaint sought at least $20 billion in damages.

Paramount also said that “no amount will be paid directly or indirectly to President Trump or Rep. Jackson personally” and that the settlement will release Paramount from “all claims regarding any CBS reporting through the date of the settlement, including the Texas action and the threatened defamation action.”

Warren’s statement said the “settlement exposes a glaring need for rules to restrict donations to sitting presidents’ libraries,” and that she will “introduce new legislation to rein in corruption through presidential library donations. The Trump administration’s level of sheer corruption is appalling and Paramount should be ashamed of putting its profits over independent journalism.”

Trump previously obtained settlements from ABC, Meta, and X Corp.

Paramount said the settlement “does not include a statement of apology or regret.” It “agreed that in the future, 60 Minutes will release transcripts of interviews with eligible US presidential candidates after such interviews have aired, subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns.”

FCC’s news distortion investigation

Trump and Paramount previously told the court that they were in advanced settlement negotiations and are scheduled to file a joint status report on Thursday.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has been probing CBS over the Harris interview and holding up Paramount’s merger with Skydance. Carr revived a complaint that was previously dismissed by the FCC and which alleges that CBS intentionally distorted the news by airing two different answers given by Harris to the same question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Paramount accused of bribery as it settles Trump lawsuit for $16 million Read More »

FCC chair decides inmates and their families must keep paying high phone prices

Policy, prison phone prices, securus / Tim Belzer / July 2, 2025

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has decided to let prisons and jails keep charging high prices for calling services until at least 2027, delaying implementation of rate caps approved last year when the FCC had a Democratic majority.

Carr’s office announced the change yesterday, saying it was needed because of “negative, unintended consequences stemming from the Commission’s 2024 decision on Incarcerated People’s Communications Services (IPCS)… As a result of this waiver decision, the FCC’s 2021 Order rate cap, site commission, and per-minute pricing rules will apply until April 1, 2027, unless the Commission sets an alternative date.”

Commissioner Anna Gomez, the FCC’s only Democrat, criticized the decision and pointed out that Congress mandated lower prices in the Martha Wright-Reed Act, which the FCC was tasked with implementing.

“Today, the FCC made the indefensible decision to ignore both the law and the will of Congress… rather than enforce the law, the Commission is now stalling, shielding a broken system that inflates costs and rewards kickbacks to correctional facilities at the expense of incarcerated individuals and their loved ones,” Gomez said. “Instead of taking targeted action to address specific concerns, the FCC issued a blanket two-year waiver that undercuts the law’s intent and postpones meaningful relief for millions of families. This is a blatant attempt to sidestep the law, and it will not go unchallenged in court.”

Price caps have angered prison phone providers and operators of prisons and jails that get financial benefits from contracts with the prison telcos. One Arkansas jail ended phone service instead of complying with the rate caps.

Win for prison telco Securus

Carr issued a statement saying that “a number of institutions are or soon will be limiting the availability of IPCS due to concerns with the FCC’s 2024 decision,” and that “there is concerning evidence that the 2024 decision does not allow providers and institutions to properly consider public safety and security interests when facilitating these services.” Carr’s office said the delay is needed to “support the continued availability of IPCS for incarcerated people.”

FCC chair decides inmates and their families must keep paying high phone prices Read More »

Nudify app’s plan to dominate deepfake porn hinges on Reddit, docs show

AI, Artificial Intelligence, deepfake porn, fake nudes, nudify apps, Policy, revenge porn / Mike M. / July 2, 2025

Report: Clothoff ignored California’s lawsuit while buying up 10 rivals.

Clothoff—one of the leading apps used to quickly and cheaply make fake nudes from images of real people—reportedly is planning a global expansion to continue dominating deepfake porn online.

Also known as a nudify app, Clothoff has resisted attempts to unmask and confront its operators. Last August, the app was among those that San Francisco’s city attorney, David Chiu, sued in hopes of forcing a shutdown. But recently, a whistleblower—who had “access to internal company information” as a former Clothoff employee—told the investigative outlet Der Spiegel that the app’s operators “seem unimpressed by the lawsuit” and instead of worrying about shutting down have “bought up an entire network of nudify apps.”

Der Spiegel found evidence that Clothoff today owns at least 10 other nudify services, attracting “monthly views ranging between hundreds of thousands to several million.” The outlet granted the whistleblower anonymity to discuss the expansion plans, which the whistleblower claimed was motivated by Clothoff employees growing “cynical” and “obsessed with money” over time as the app—which once felt like an “exciting startup”—gained momentum. Because generating convincing fake nudes can cost just a few bucks, chasing profits seemingly relies on attracting as many repeat users to as many destinations as possible.

Currently, Clothoff runs on an annual budget of around $3.5 million, the whistleblower told Der Spiegel. It has shifted its marketing methods since its launch, apparently now largely relying on Telegram bots and X channels to target ads at young men likely to use their apps.

Der Spiegel’s report documents Clothoff’s “large-scale marketing plan” to expand into the German market, as revealed by the whistleblower. The alleged campaign hinges on producing “naked images of well-known influencers, singers, and actresses,” seeking to entice ad clicks with the tagline “you choose who you want to undress.”

A few of the stars named in the plan confirmed to Der Spiegel that they never agreed to this use of their likenesses, with some of their representatives suggesting that they would pursue legal action if the campaign is ever launched.

However, even celebrities like Taylor Swift have struggled to combat deepfake nudes spreading online, while tools like Clothoff are increasingly used to torment young girls in middle and high school.

Similar celebrity campaigns are planned for other markets, Der Spiegel reported, including British, French, and Spanish markets. And Clothoff has notably already become a go-to tool in the US, not only targeted in the San Francisco city attorney’s lawsuit, but also in a complaint raised by a high schooler in New Jersey suing a boy who used Clothoff to nudify one of her Instagram photos taken when she was 14 years old, then shared it with other boys on Snapchat.

Clothoff is seemingly hoping to entice more young boys worldwide to use its apps for such purposes. The whistleblower told Der Spiegel that most of Clothoff’s marketing budget goes toward “advertising posts in special Telegram channels, in sex subs on Reddit, and on 4chan.”

In ads, the app planned to specifically target “men between 16 and 35” who like benign stuff like “memes” and “video games,” as well as more toxic stuff like “right-wing extremist ideas,” “misogyny,” and “Andrew Tate,” an influencer criticized for promoting misogynistic views to teen boys.

Chiu was hoping to defend young women increasingly targeted in fake nudes by shutting down Clothoff, along with several other nudify apps targeted in his lawsuit. But so far, while Chiu has reached a settlement shutting down two websites, porngen.art and undresser.ai, attempts to serve Clothoff through available legal channels have not been successful, deputy press secretary for Chiu’s office, Alex Barrett-Shorter, told Ars.

Meanwhile, Clothoff continues to evolve, recently marketing a feature that Clothoff claims attracted more than a million users eager to make explicit videos out of a single picture.

Clothoff denies it plans to use influencers

Der Spiegel’s efforts to unmask the operators of Clothoff led the outlet to Eastern Europe, after reporters stumbled upon a “database accidentally left open on the Internet” that seemingly exposed “four central people behind the website.”

This was “consistent,” Der Spiegel said, with a whistleblower claim that all Clothoff employees “work in countries that used to belong to the Soviet Union.” Additionally, Der Spiegel noted that all Clothoff internal communications it reviewed were written in Russian, and the site’s email service is based in Russia.

A person claiming to be a Clothoff spokesperson named Elias denied knowing any of the four individuals flagged in their investigation, Der Spiegel reported, and disputed the $3 million budget figure. Elias claimed a nondisclosure agreement prevented him from discussing Clothoff’s team any further. However, soon after reaching out, Der Spiegel noted that Clothoff took down the database, which had a name that translated to “my babe.”

Regarding the shared marketing plan for global expansion, Elias denied that Clothoff intended to use celebrity influencers, saying that “Clothoff forbids the use of photos of people without their consent.”

He also denied that Clothoff could be used to nudify images of minors; however, one Clothoff user who spoke to Der Spiegel on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that his attempt to generate a fake nude of a US singer failed initially because she “looked like she might be underage.” But his second attempt a few days later successfully generated the fake nude with no problem. That suggests Clothoff’s age detection may not work perfectly.

As Clothoff’s growth appears unstoppable, the user explained to Der Spiegel why he doesn’t feel that conflicted about using the app to generate fake nudes of a famous singer.

“There are enough pictures of her on the Internet as it is,” the user reasoned.

However, that user draws the line at generating fake nudes of private individuals, insisting, “If I ever learned of someone producing such photos of my daughter, I would be horrified.”

For young boys who appear flippant about creating fake nude images of their classmates, the consequences have ranged from suspensions to juvenile criminal charges, and for some, there could be other costs. In the lawsuit where the high schooler is attempting to sue a boy who used Clothoff to bully her, there’s currently resistance from boys who participated in group chats to share what evidence they have on their phones. If she wins her fight, she’s asking for $150,000 in damages per image shared, so sharing chat logs could potentially increase the price tag.

Since she and the San Francisco city attorney each filed their lawsuits, the Take It Down Act has passed. That law makes it easier to force platforms to remove AI-generated fake nudes. But experts expect the law will face legal challenges over censorship fears, so the very limited legal tool might not withstand scrutiny.

Either way, the Take It Down Act is a safeguard that came too late for the earliest victims of nudify apps in the US, only some of whom are turning to courts seeking justice due to largely opaque laws that made it unclear if generating a fake nude was illegal.

“Jane Doe is one of many girls and women who have been and will continue to be exploited, abused, and victimized by non-consensual pornography generated through artificial intelligence,” the high schooler’s complaint noted. “Despite already being victimized by Defendant’s actions, Jane Doe has been forced to bring this action to protect herself and her rights because the governmental institutions that are supposed to protect women and children from being violated and exploited by the use of AI to generate child pornography and nonconsensual nude images failed to do so.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Nudify app’s plan to dominate deepfake porn hinges on Reddit, docs show Read More »

GOP budget bill poised to crush renewable energy in the US

Policy, Science, syndication / Mike M. / July 1, 2025

An early evaluation shows the administration’s planned energy policies would result in the drilling of 50,000 new oil wells every year for the next few years, he said, adding that it “ensures the continuation of land devastation… the poisoning of soil and groundwater due to fossil fuels and the continuation of gas blowouts and fires.”

There is nothing beneficial about the tax, he said, “only guaranteed misery.”

An analysis by the Rhodium Group, and energy policy research institute, projected that the Republican regime’s proposed energy policies would result in about 4 billion tons more greenhouse gas emissions than a continuation of current policies—enough to raise the average global temperature by .0072 degrees Fahrenheit.

The overall budget bill was also panned in a June 28 statement by the president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, Sean McGarvey.

McGarvey called it “a massive insult to the working men and women of North America’s Building Trades Unions and all construction workers.”

He said that, as written, the budget “stands to be the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country,” potentially costing as many jobs as shutting down 1,000 Keystone X pipeline projects, threatening an estimated 1.75 million construction jobs and over 3 billion work hours, which translates to $148 billion in lost annual wages and benefits.

“These are staggering and unfathomable job loss numbers, and the bill throws yet another lifeline and competitive advantage to China in the race for global energy dominance,” he said.

Research in recent years shows how right-wing populist and nationalist ideologies have used anti-renewable energy arguments to win voters, in defiance of environmental logic and scientific fact, in part by using social media to spread misleading and false information about wind, solar and other emissions-free electricity sources.

The same forces now seem to be at work in the U.S., said Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Bristol who studies how people respond to misinformation and propaganda, and why people reject well-established scientific facts, such as those regarding climate change.

“This is a bonus for fossil fuels at the expense of future generations and the future of the American economy,” he said. “Other countries will continue working towards renewable-energy economies, especially China. That competitive advantage will eventually pay out to the detriment of American businesses. You can’t negotiate with the laws of physics.”

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

GOP budget bill poised to crush renewable energy in the US Read More »

Pay up or stop scraping: Cloudflare program charges bots for each crawl

AI, ai bots, ai crawler, ai scraping, AI training, Artificial Intelligence, cloudflare, Policy, robots.txt / Paul Patrick / July 1, 2025

“Imagine asking your favorite deep research program to help you synthesize the latest cancer research or a legal brief, or just help you find the best restaurant in Soho—and then giving that agent a budget to spend to acquire the best and most relevant content,” Cloudflare said, promising that “we enable a future where intelligent agents can programmatically negotiate access to digital resources.”

AI crawlers now blocked by default

Cloudflare’s announcement comes after rolling out a feature last September, allowing website owners to block AI crawlers in a single click. According to Cloudflare, over 1 million customers chose to block AI crawlers, signaling that people want more control over their content at a time when Cloudflare observed that writing instructions for AI crawlers in robots.txt files was widely “underutilized.”

To protect more customers moving forward, any new customers (including anyone on a free plan) who sign up for Cloudflare services will have their domains, by default, set to block all known AI crawlers.

This marks Cloudflare’s transition away from the dreaded opt-out models of AI scraping to a permission-based model, which a Cloudflare spokesperson told Ars is expected to “fundamentally change how AI companies access web content going forward.”

In a world where some website owners have grown sick and tired of attempting and failing to block AI scraping through robots.txt—including some trapping AI crawlers in tarpits to punish them for ignoring robots.txt—Cloudflare’s feature allows users to choose granular settings to prevent blocks on AI bots from impacting bots that drive search engine traffic. That’s critical for small content creators who want their sites to still be discoverable but not digested by AI bots.

“AI crawlers collect content like text, articles, and images to generate answers, without sending visitors to the original source—depriving content creators of revenue, and the satisfaction of knowing someone is reading their content,” Cloudflare’s blog said. “If the incentive to create original, quality content disappears, society ends up losing, and the future of the Internet is at risk.”

Disclosure: Condé Nast, which owns Ars Technica, is a partner involved in Cloudflare’s beta test.

This story was corrected on July 1 to remove publishers incorrectly listed as participating in Cloudflare’s pay-per-crawl beta.

Pay up or stop scraping: Cloudflare program charges bots for each crawl Read More »

Senate GOP budget bill has little-noticed provision that could hurt your Wi-Fi

Policy, Spectrum Auction, wi-fi / Paul Patrick / July 1, 2025

Cruz bill could take 6 GHz spectrum away from Wi-Fi, give it to mobile carriers.

Credit: Getty Image | BlackJack3D

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has a plan for spectrum auctions that could take frequencies away from Wi-Fi and reallocate them for the exclusive use of wireless carriers. The plan would benefit AT&T, which is based in Cruz’s home state, along with Verizon and T-Mobile.

Cruz’s proposal revives a years-old controversy over whether the entire 6 GHz band should be devoted to Wi-Fi, which can use the large spectrum band for faster speeds than networks that rely solely on the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. Congress is on the verge of passing legislation that would require spectrum to be auctioned off for full-power, commercially licensed use, and the question is where that spectrum will come from.

When the House of Representatives passed its so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill,” it excluded all of the frequencies between 5.925 and 7.125 gigahertz from the planned spectrum auctions. But Cruz’s version of the budget reconciliation bill, which is moving quickly toward a final vote, removed the 6 GHz band’s protection from spectrum auctions. The Cruz bill is also controversial because it would penalize states that regulate artificial intelligence.

Instead of excluding the 6 GHz band from auctions, Cruz’s bill would instead exclude the 7.4–8.4 GHz band used by the military. Under conditions set by the bill, it could be hard for the Commerce Department and Federal Communications Commission to fulfill the Congressional mandate without taking some spectrum away from Wi-Fi.

The agencies will have to take spectrum “from somebody who you can take it away from,” Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Ars.

“The most vulnerable non-federal bands”

The Cruz plan could take 200 MHz or more away from the 1,200 MHz currently allocated to Wi-Fi between 5.925 and 7.125 GHz. It could also take spectrum from the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS), which goes from 3.55 to 3.7 GHz. (See this previous article for a much longer discussion of CBRS.)

Michael Calabrese of New America’s Open Technology Institute told Ars that 6 GHz and CBRS “are the most vulnerable non-federal bands for reallocation and auction.” While the spectrum for auctions is to come from frequencies between 1.3 and 10.5 GHz, much of that spectrum will be off-limits either because it’s specifically excluded or because it would be more difficult to reallocate.

“About half the spectrum in that range is federal, and then the rest has already been auctioned for cellular mobile use or is assigned to other critical users such as aviation and satellites,” said Calabrese, who directs the Open Technology Institute’s Wireless Future Project.

Another factor cited by Calabrese is that the FCC, under Chairman Brendan Carr, is looking to make new spectrum available to low-Earth orbit satellites like those used by Elon Musk’s Starlink network. Carr is also “the leading champion of 5G in the mobile industry” and inclined to devote more frequencies to mobile carriers, Calabrese said.

Wi-Fi bottleneck

Feld said the 6 GHz Wi-Fi spectrum would be a likely target because deployments in the band are just starting. By contrast, the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands have been allocated to Wi-Fi for a long time, are heavily used, and modifying existing devices to stop using parts of the bands would be impractical.

Arguing that 6 GHz is crucial for Wi-Fi’s future, Calabrese said that “the bottleneck limiting home and business broadband capacity is no longer the Internet connection, but the quality of the Wi-Fi. Most Wi-Fi still relies on a much smaller amount of unlicensed spectrum at 2.4 and 5 GHz, which limits throughput to about 400Mbps and connects fewer devices to the same access point.”

The Wi-Fi 6E standard adds support for 6 GHz spectrum, and the in-development Wi-Fi 7 will take full advantage of the band, Calabrese said. “By leveraging access to the entire 6 GHz band, Wi-Fi 7 can nearly double speeds, support hundreds of devices in a location, prioritize lag-sensitive applications like real-time video, and support emerging future apps such as virtual reality and telepresence that will be used almost entirely indoors,” he said.

We contacted Cruz’s office last week about his bill’s potential impact on Wi-Fi in the 6 GHz band but did not receive a response.

Ajit Pai’s FCC allocated 6 GHz to Wi-Fi

The 6 GHz band was allocated to Wi-Fi in April 2020 under then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, during the first Trump administration. CTIA-The Wireless Association, the major lobby group representing mobile carriers seeking more exclusive licenses, argued that Wi-Fi didn’t need the entire band. The CTIA called it a “6 GHz giveaway,” saying that “cable, Facebook, and Google are demanding more than double the 6 GHz spectrum that other nations are considering making available for services like Wi-Fi.”

Pai—who is now the president and CEO of CTIA—rejected the group’s arguments in the April 2020 decision. The Pai FCC’s order said that “providing new opportunities for unlicensed operations across the entire 6 GHz band can help address the critical need for providing additional spectrum resources for unlicensed operations,” and enable use of “several 160-megahertz channels as well as 320-megahertz channels.”

Making the whole band available for Wi-Fi “promotes more efficient and productive use of the spectrum,” whereas “repurposing large portions of the 6 GHz band for new licensed services would diminish the benefits of such use to the American public,” the Pai FCC said. With home Internet services providing gigabit speeds, Wi-Fi needed more spectrum to avoid becoming “the bottleneck for faster speeds at home,” the FCC said.

Now that he’s CEO of the CTIA, Pai is leading the primary group that is pushing for 6 GHz to be partially reallocated to mobile carriers. When contacted by Ars, a CTIA spokesperson said last week that the “upper 6 GHz band is the next global 5G band,” and that many countries are “using or planning to use at least the upper part of the band (6.425–7.125 GHz) for licensed commercial use.”

CTIA also said that Wi-Fi adoption in 6 GHz “is moving very slowly,” citing OpenSignal research, and that the Trump administration and FCC should “consider all possible options to address our spectrum shortfall.”

While CTIA has repeatedly claimed that US carriers are facing a spectrum shortfall, executives at the major telecoms have told investors the opposite. AT&T CFO Pascal Desroches said this month that the company has “no pressing need” to “acquire spectrum in the next 12, 24, even 36 months.” Verizon Consumer Group CEO Sowmyanarayan Sampath said in May 2024 that the company has “almost unlimited spectrum.” T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert said in December that “we have lots of spectrum we haven’t put into the fight yet,” as the carrier had only deployed 60 percent of its midband spectrum for 5G.

Divvying up spectrum

The 6 GHz band is not just for Wi-Fi as it is also used for fixed microwave links, satellite services, and certain types of mobile operations. Wi-Fi devices operating in 6 GHz must do so at low power to avoid interfering with incumbent services, and in most of the band must operate indoors only. Currently, Wi-Fi is allowed to use the entire 1,200 MHz band indoors at low power. Outdoor, higher-power use is allowed in 850 of the 1,200 MHz.

While Wi-Fi’s access to 6 GHz is limited, Feld said the band is extremely important. He said that Wi-Fi in 6 GHz needs bigger channels than traditional Wi-Fi had, and that taking part of the band away from Wi-Fi would reduce the number of large channels and require “crowding a lot more devices into a much smaller space.”

The House-approved spectrum plan pertains to frequencies between 1.3 and 10 GHz, while Cruz’s Senate plan is for frequencies between 1.3 and 10.5 GHz. The House would require at least 600 MHz to be auctioned from the entire band. Cruz calls for at least 800 MHz to be auctioned, of which 500 MHz would be taken from federal users. The House and Cruz auction plans both exclude 3.1 to 3.45 GHz, which is used by the military.

For non-federal spectrum, Cruz’s plan says that “not less than 300 megahertz” must be auctioned. This must include at least 100 MHz from 3.98 to 4.2 GHz, but the plan doesn’t specify where the rest of the 300 MHz or more would be taken from.

Because of the “not less than” language, more than 200 MHz could be taken from sources that include the current Wi-Fi and CBRS allocations. Calabrese said he worries that the amount taken from Wi-Fi could be significantly higher than 200 MHz, as “the mobile industry wants much more.”

Big venues need better Wi-Fi

Calabrese said he expects the biggest impact of reducing Wi-Fi’s use of 6 GHz at “busy venues such as schools, airports, sporting arenas, shopping malls, all the different places where many people gather together and try to get on the same access points and unlicensed spectrum through Wi-Fi.”

Calabrese said that enterprise use of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies would also be affected. He gave the example of Amazon using indoor Wi-Fi to operate thousands of robots in fulfillment centers. Extending Wi-Fi to 6 GHz is “about connecting the dozens of in-home devices that we can expect in the future as well as supporting the extremely high-bandwidth applications that are emerging for indoor use,” he said.

Calabrese argued that Wi-Fi can make better use of the spectrum than mobile carriers because cellular signals have trouble penetrating walls, and most Internet traffic on mobile devices travels over Wi-Fi instead of cellular networks.

“All the new applications envisioned for both 5G and 6G are inherently indoor applications, and mobile signals don’t penetrate well indoors… Wi-Fi would use the band ubiquitously, indoors and outdoors,” he said.

Taking spectrum from federal users has also fueled concerns about military operations. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, said in a speech last night that the “auction will fundamentally compromise our defense capabilities, while endangering aviation and important federal capabilities like weather forecasting and scientific research.” Drone operations are among the uses that would be compromised, she said.

Feld: People downplaying risk “kidding themselves”

Cable companies are deploying Wi-Fi 7 routers and supporting continued use of the 6 GHz band for Wi-Fi. The CableLabs industry group said the band is particularly crucial in high-density environments, that “any proposals to reduce or repurpose 6 GHz unlicensed spectrum would be devastating to Wi-Fi performance,” and that policymakers should allocate more spectrum for unlicensed use to support the growth of Wi-Fi instead of reallocating spectrum from Wi-Fi to mobile carriers.

Comcast and Charter joined tech companies and advocacy groups in a June 2 letter, organized by the Wi-Fi Alliance industry group, that urged Cruz and other congressional leaders to preserve 6 GHz for Wi-Fi. (Disclosure: The Advance/Newhouse Partnership, which owns 12 percent of Charter, is part of Advance Publications, which owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast.) Tech companies that signed the letter include HP, Cisco, Broadcom, Juniper, Apple, Amazon, and Meta.

The 6 GHz band is “perfectly suited to indoor networking that is the hallmark of Wi-Fi, while being flexible enough to support targeted outdoor uses… Shipments of 6 GHz-enabled consumer devices in North America, totaling 95 million last year, are expected to reach nearly 370 million per year by 2029,” the letter said.

Aside from that letter, Feld said that cable and tech companies haven’t been particularly active in opposing the potential reallocation of 6 GHz frequencies. “Amazon and the other companies that signed onto this letter, they’re like, ‘well we have a lot of things that we want as part of this bill. We want the tax break. We want other stuff. We’re not willing to get out there and make a big deal about it for fear of pissing off Cruz,'” Feld said.

Feld also speculated that some people think that lawmakers “can’t possibly be serious about pulling back Wi-Fi now that we’re deploying in the band.” In Feld’s opinion, “they’re kidding themselves.”

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Senate GOP budget bill has little-noticed provision that could hurt your Wi-Fi Read More »

In a wild time for copyright law, the US Copyright Office has no leader

AI, copyright, Policy, syndication, US Copyright Office / Paul Patrick / June 28, 2025

Rudderless Copyright Office has taken on new prominence during the AI boom.

It’s a tumultuous time for copyright in the United States, with dozens of potentially economy-shaking AI copyright lawsuits winding through the courts. It’s also the most turbulent moment in the US Copyright Office’s history. Described as “sleepy” in the past, the Copyright Office has taken on new prominence during the AI boom, issuing key rulings about AI and copyright. It also hasn’t had a leader in more than a month.

In May, Copyright Register Shira Perlmutter was abruptly fired by email by the White House’s deputy director of personnel. Perlmutter is now suing the Trump administration, alleging that her firing was invalid; the government maintains that the executive branch has the authority to dismiss her. As the legality of the ouster is debated, the reality within the office is this: There’s effectively nobody in charge. And without a leader actually showing up at work, the Copyright Office is not totally business-as-usual; in fact, there’s debate over whether the copyright certificates it’s issuing could be challenged.

The firing followed a pattern. The USCO is part of the Library of Congress; Perlmutter had been appointed to her role by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. A few days before Perlmutter’s dismissal, Hayden, who had been in her role since 2016, was also fired by the White House via email. The White House appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who had previously served as President Trump’s defense attorney, as the new acting Librarian of Congress.

Two days after Pelmutter’s firing, Justice Department official Paul Perkins showed up at the Copyright Office, along with his colleague Brian Nieves. According to an affidavit from Perlmutter, they were carrying “printed versions of emails” from Blanche indicating that they had been appointed to new roles within the Copyright Office. Perkins, the email said, was designated as Acting Register of Copyrights. In other words, he was Perlmutter’s replacement.

But was Blanche actually the acting Librarian, and thus able to appoint Perkins as such? Within the Library of Congress, someone else had already assumed the role—Robert Newlen, Hayden’s former second-in-command, who has worked at the LOC since the 1970s. Following Hayden’s ouster, Newlen emailed LOC staff asserting that he was the acting Librarian—never mentioning Blanche—and noting that “Congress is engaged with the White House” on how to proceed.

In her lawsuit, Perlmutter argues that only the Librarian of Congress can fire and appoint a new Register. In a filing on Tuesday, defendants argued that the president does indeed have the authority to fire and appoint the Librarian of Congress and that his appointees then have the ability to choose a new Copyright Register.

Neither the Department of Justice nor the White House responded to requests for comment on this issue; the Library of Congress declined to comment.

Perkins and Nieves did not enter the USCO office or assume the roles they purported to fill the day they showed up. And since they left, sources within the Library of Congress tell WIRED, they have never returned, nor have they assumed any of the duties associated with the roles. These sources say that Congress is in talks with the White House to reach an agreement over these personnel disputes.

A congressional aide familiar with the situation told WIRED that Blanche, Perkins, and Nieves had not shown up for work “because they don’t have jobs to show up to.” The aide continued: “As we’ve always maintained, the President has no authority to appoint them. Robert Newlen has always been the Acting Librarian of Congress.”

If talks are happening, they remain out of public view. But Perlmutter does have some members of Congress openly on her side. “The president has no authority to remove the Register of Copyrights. That power lies solely with the Librarian of Congress. I’m relieved that the situation at the Library and Copyright Office has stabilized following the administration’s unconstitutional attempt to seize control for the executive branch. I look forward to quickly resolving this matter in a bipartisan way,” Senator Alex Padilla tells WIRED in a statement.

In the meantime, the Copyright Office is in the odd position of attempting to carry on as though it wasn’t missing its head. Immediately after Perlmutter’s dismissal, the Copyright Office paused issuing registration certificates “out of an abundance of caution,” according to USCO spokesperson Lisa Berardi Marflak, who says the pause impacted around 20,000 registrations. It resumed activities on May 29 but is now sending out registration certificates with a blank spot where Perlmutter’s signature would ordinarily be.

This unusual change has prompted discussion amongst copyright experts as to whether the registrations are now more vulnerable to legal challenges. The Copyright Office maintains that they are valid: “There is no requirement that the Register’s signature must appear on registration certificates,” says Berardi Marflak.

In a motion related to Perlmutter’s lawsuit, though, she alleges that sending out the registrations without a signature opens them up to “challenges in litigation,” something outside copyright experts have also pointed out. “It’s true the law doesn’t explicitly require a signature,” IP lawyer Rachael Dickson says. “However, the law really explicitly says that it’s the Register of Copyright determining whether the material submitted for the application is copyrightable subject matter.”

Without anyone acting as Register, Dickson thinks it would be reasonable to argue that the statutory requirements are not being met. “If you take them completely out of the equation, you have a really big problem,” she says. “Litigators who are trying to challenge a copyright registration’s validity will jump on this.”

Perlmutter’s lawyers have argued that leaving the Copyright Office without an active boss will cause dysfunction beyond the registration certificate issue, as the Register performs a variety of tasks, from advising Congress on copyright to recertifying organizations like the Mechanical Licensing Collective, the nonprofit in charge of administering royalties for streaming and download music in the United States. Since the MLC’s certification is up right now, Perlmutter would ordinarily be moving forward with recertifying the organization; as her lawsuit notes, right now, the recertification process is not moving forward.

The MLC may not be as impacted by Perlmutter’s absence as the complaint suggests. A source close to the MLC told WIRED that the organization does indeed need to be recertified but that the law doesn’t require the recertification process to be completed within a specific time frame, so it will be able to continue operating as usual.

Still, there are other ways that the lack of a boss is a clear liability. The Copyright Claims Board, a three-person tribunal that resolves some copyright disputes, needs to replace one of its members this year, as a current board member, who did not reply to a request for comment, is leaving. The job posting is already live and says applications are being reviewed, but as the position is supposed to be appointed by the Librarian of Congress with the guidance of the Copyright Register, it’s unclear how exactly it will be filled. A source familiar at the Library of Congress tells WIRED that Newlen could make the appointment if necessary, but they “expect there to be some kind of greater resolution by then.”

As they wait for the resolution, it remains an especially inopportune time for a headless Copyright Office. Perlmutter was fired just days after the office released a hotly contested report on generative AI training and fair use. That report has already been heavily cited in a new class action lawsuit against AI tools Suno and Udio, even though it was technically a “prepublication” version and not finalized. But everyone looking to see what a final report will say—or what guidance the office will issue next—can only keep waiting.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

In a wild time for copyright law, the US Copyright Office has no leader Read More »

Supreme Court overturns 5th Circuit ruling that upended Universal Service Fund

Policy, Supreme Court, Universal Service Fund / Kris Guyer / June 28, 2025

Finally, the Consumers’ Research position produces absurd results, divorced from any reasonable understanding of constitutional values. Under its view, a revenue-raising statute containing non-numeric, qualitative standards can never pass muster, no matter how tight the constraints they impose. But a revenue-raising statute with a numeric limit will always pass muster, even if it effectively leaves an agency with boundless power. In precluding the former and approving the latter, the Consumers’ Research approach does nothing to vindicate the nondelegation doctrine or the separation of powers.

The Gorsuch dissent said the “combination” question isn’t the deciding factor. He said the only question that needs to be answered is whether Congress violated the Constitution by delegating the power to tax to the FCC.

“As I see it, this case begins and ends with the first question. Section 254 [of the Communications Act] impermissibly delegates Congress’s taxing power to the FCC, and knowing that is enough to know the Fifth Circuit’s judgment should be affirmed,” Gorsuch said.

“Green light” for FCC to support Internet access

In the Gorsuch view, it doesn’t matter whether the FCC exceeded its authority by delegating Universal Service management to a private administrative company. “As far as I can tell, and as far as petitioners have informed us, this Court has never approved legislation allowing an executive agency to tax domestically unless Congress itself has prescribed the tax rate,” Gorsuch wrote.

The FCC and Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to reverse the 5th Circuit decision. The court also received a challenge from broadband-focused advocacy groups and several lobby groups representing ISPs.

“Today is a great day,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, counsel for the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society; the National Digital Inclusion Alliance; and the Center for Media Justice. “We will need some time to sort through the details of today’s decision, but what matters most is that the Supreme Court has given the green light to the FCC to continue to support Internet access to the tens of millions of Americans and the thousands of schools, libraries and rural hospitals that rely on the Universal Service Fund.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr praised the ruling but said he plans to make changes to Universal Service. “I am glad to see the court’s decision today and welcome it as an opportunity to turn the FCC’s focus towards the types of reforms necessary to ensure that all Americans have a fair shot at next-generation connectivity,” Carr said.

Supreme Court overturns 5th Circuit ruling that upended Universal Service Fund Read More »

Supreme Court upholds Texas porn law that caused Pornhub to leave the state

Policy, porn, Supreme Court, texas / Rejus Almole / June 28, 2025

Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan said that in similar cases, the court applied strict scrutiny, “a highly rigorous but not fatal form of constitutional review, to laws regulating protected speech based on its content.”

“Texas’s law defines speech by content and tells people entitled to view that speech that they must incur a cost to do so,” Kagan wrote. “That is, under our First Amendment law, a direct (not incidental) regulation of speech based on its content—which demands strict scrutiny.”

The Texas law applies to websites in which more than one-third of the content “is sexual material harmful to minors.” Kagan described the law’s ID requirement as a deterrent to exercising one’s First Amendment rights.

“It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits—respecting speech many find repulsive—to a website operator, and then to… who knows? The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed,” Kagan’s dissent said. The law requires website users to verify their ages by submitting “a ‘government-issued identification’ like a driver’s license or ‘transactional data’ associated with things like a job or mortgage,” Kagan wrote.

Limiting no more speech than necessary

Under strict scrutiny, the court must ask whether the law is “the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest,” Kagan wrote. A state facing that standard must show it has limited no more adult speech than is necessary to achieve its goal.

“Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children speech. But if a scheme other than H. B. 1181 can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults’ First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to),” Kagan wrote.

The majority decision said that applying strict scrutiny “would call into question all age-verification requirements, even longstanding in-person requirements.” It also said the previous rulings cited in the dissent “all involved laws that banned both minors and adults from accessing speech that was at most obscene only to minors. The Court has never before considered whether the more modest burden of an age-verification requirement triggers strict scrutiny.”

Supreme Court upholds Texas porn law that caused Pornhub to leave the state Read More »