Policy

why-trolls,-extremists,-and-others-spread-conspiracy-theories-they-don’t-believe

Why trolls, extremists, and others spread conspiracy theories they don’t believe


Some just want to promote conflict, cause chaos, or even just get attention.

Picture of a person using an old Mac with a paper bag over his head. The bag has the face of a troll drawn on it.

There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.

Coaxing conspiracists—the extremists

In our chapter of a new book on extremism and conspiracies, my colleagues and I discuss evidence that certain extremist groups intentionally use conspiracy theories to entice adherents. They are looking for a so-called “gateway conspiracy” that will lure someone into talking to them, and then be vulnerable to radicalization. They try out multiple conspiracies to see what sticks.

Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58 percent were intent on incitement and radicalization.

You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”

Combative conspiracists—the disinformants

Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.

Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.

As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”

Likewise, while Chinese officials were spreading conspiracies about American roots of the coronavirus in 2020, China’s National Health Commission was circulating internal reports tracing the source to a pangolin.

Chaos conspiracists—the trolls

In general, research has found that individuals with what scholars call a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of belief. These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent. Dark personalities and dark motives are prevalent.

For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.

Commercial conspiracists—the profiteers

Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”

When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.

Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.

Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.

Common conspiracists—the attention-getters

You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity or know it is false.

These posts are common: Friends, family, and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7 percent to 20 percent of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?

Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.

Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation. They want the likes and shares. They want to “stir the pot.” Or they just like the message and want to signal to others that they share a common belief system.

For frequent sharers, it just becomes a habit.

The dangers of spreading lies

Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.

It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write—and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”

H. Colleen Sinclair is Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology at Louisiana State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Photo of The Conversation

The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community. Our team of editors work with these experts to share their knowledge with the wider public. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues, and hopefully improve the quality of public discourse on them.

Why trolls, extremists, and others spread conspiracy theories they don’t believe Read More »

youtube-fixes-glitch-that-wrongly-removed-accounts,-deleted-videos

YouTube fixes glitch that wrongly removed accounts, deleted videos

As a message highlighted above the thread warned YouTube users that there were “longer than normal wait times” for support requests, YouTube continually asked for “patience” and turned off the comments.

“We are very sorry for this error on our part,” YouTube said.

Unable to leave comments, thousands of users mashed a button on the support thread, confirming that they had “the same question.” On Friday morning, 8,000 users had signaled despair, and as of this writing, the number had notched up to nearly 11,000.

YouTube has not confirmed how many users were removed, so that’s likely the best estimate we have for how many users were affected.

On Friday afternoon, YouTube did update the thread, confirming that “all channels incorrectly removed for Spam & Deceptive Practices have been fully reinstated!”

While YouTube claims that all channels are back online, not all the videos mistakenly removed were reinstated, YouTube said. Although most of the users impacted were reportedly non-creators, and therefore their livelihoods were likely not disrupted by the bug, at least one commenter complained, “my two most-viewed videos got deleted,” suggesting some account holders may highly value the videos still missing on their accounts.

“We’re working on reinstating the last few videos, thanks for bearing with us!” YouTube’s update said. “We know this was a frustrating experience, really appreciate your patience while we sort this out.”

It’s unclear if paid subscribers will be reimbursed for lost access to content.

YouTube did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

YouTube fixes glitch that wrongly removed accounts, deleted videos Read More »

apple-couldn’t-tell-fake-iphones-from-real-ones,-lost-$2.5m-to-scammers

Apple couldn’t tell fake iPhones from real ones, lost $2.5M to scammers

Two men involved in an elaborate scheme duping Apple into replacing about 6,000 counterfeit iPhones with genuine iPhones were sentenced to prison this week, the US Department of Justice announced Thursday.

Together with their co-conspirators, the 34-year-old scammers, Haotian Sun and Pengfei Xue, squeezed Apple for about $2.5 million, as employees for years failed to detect what the DOJ described as a rather “sophisticated” scheme between 2017 and 2019.

Now Sun has been sentenced to 57 months in prison and must pay more than $1 million to Apple in restitution. For his part, Xue was sentenced to 54 months and ordered to pay $397,800 in restitution, the DOJ said. Additionally, both men must also serve three years of supervised release and forfeit thousands more following the judgment.

The scheme depended on tricking Apple into accepting bogus phones during returns by spoofing serial numbers or International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers linked to real customers’ iPhones that were still under warranty. (Apple provides a one-year warranty for new iPhones discovered to have defects and sells insurance plans to extend the warranties.)

The scammers were caught and convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud after an Apple investigator tipped law enforcement off, a 2019 affidavit from postal inspector Stephen Cohen said.

Law enforcement intercepted packages and confirmed that thousands of counterfeit phones were being shipped from China, then submitted to Apple for repairs either by mail or in person. These counterfeit phones, Cohen said, were either out of warranty or contained counterfeit parts, but Apple “wrongly” believed that they were real phones under real warranties, often replacing dozens of fake phones fraudulently returned in a single shipment, Cohen said.

Apple couldn’t tell fake iPhones from real ones, lost $2.5M to scammers Read More »

automattic-demanded-web-host-pay-$32m-annually-for-using-wordpress-trademark

Automattic demanded web host pay $32M annually for using WordPress trademark


Automattic founder Matt Mullenweg called WP Engine “a cancer to WordPress.”

Matt Mullenweg of WordPress company Automattic sits in front of a laptop adorned with a WordPress logo.

Automattic founder and WordPress co-author Matt Mullenweg in San Francisco on July 24, 2013.

Automattic Inc. and its founder have been sued by a WordPress hosting company that alleges an extortion scheme to extract payments for use of the trademark for the open source WordPress software. Hosting firm WP Engine sued Automattic and founder Matt Mullenweg in a complaint filed yesterday in US District Court for the Northern District of California.

“This is a case about abuse of power, extortion, and greed,” the lawsuit said. “The misconduct at issue here is all the more shocking because it occurred in an unexpected place—the WordPress open source software community built on promises of the freedom to build, run, change, and redistribute without barriers or constraints, for all.”

The lawsuit alleged that “over the last two weeks, Defendants have been carrying out a scheme to ban WPE from the WordPress community unless it agreed to pay tens of millions of dollars to Automattic for a purported trademark license that WPE does not even need.”

The complaint says that Mullenweg blocked WP Engine “from updating the WordPress plugins that it publishes through wordpress.org,” and “withdrew login credentials for individual employees at WPE, preventing them from logging into their personal accounts to access other wordpress.org resources, including the community Slack channels which are used to coordinate contributions to WordPress Core, the Trac system which allows contributors to propose work to do on WordPress, and the SubVersion system that manages code contributions.”

The lawsuit makes accusations, including libel, slander, and attempted extortion, and demands a jury trial. The lawsuit was filed along with an exhibit that shows Automattic’s demand for payment. A September 23 letter to WP Engine from Automattic’s legal team suggests “a mere 8% royalty” on WP Engine’s roughly $400 million in annual revenue, or about $32 million.

“WP Engine’s unauthorized use of our Client’s trademarks… has enabled WP Engine to unfairly compete with our Client, leading to WP Engine’s unjust enrichment,” Automattic alleged in the letter.

Mullenweg: WP Engine “a cancer to WordPress”

Mullenweg co-authored the WordPress software first released in 2003 and founded Automattic in 2005. Automattic operates the WordPress-based publishing platform WordPress.com. Meanwhile, the nonprofit WordPress Foundation, also founded by Mullenweg, says it works “to ensure free access, in perpetuity, to the software projects we support.”

Last month, Mullenweg wrote a blog post alleging that WP Engine is “a cancer to WordPress” and that it provides “something that they’ve chopped up, hacked, butchered to look like WordPress, but actually they’re giving you a cheap knock-off and charging you more for it.”

Mullenweg criticized WP Engine’s decision to disable the WordPress revision management system. WP Engine’s “branding, marketing, advertising, and entire promise to customers is that they’re giving you WordPress, but they’re not,” Mullenweg wrote. “And they’re profiting off of the confusion. WP Engine needs a trademark license to continue their business.”

In another blog post and a speech at a WordPress conference, Mullenweg alleged that WP Engine doesn’t contribute much to the open source project. He also pointed to WP Engine’s funding from private equity firm Silver Lake, writing that “Silver Lake doesn’t give a dang about your Open Source ideals. It just wants a return on capital.”

WP Engine alleges broken promises

WP Engine’s lawsuit points to promises made by Mullenweg and Automattic nearly 15 years ago. “In 2010, in response to mounting public concern, the WordPress source code and trademarks were placed into the nonprofit WordPress Foundation (which Mullenweg created), with Mullenweg and Automattic making sweeping promises of open access for all,” the lawsuit said.

Mullenweg wrote at the time that “Automattic has transferred the WordPress trademark to the WordPress Foundation, the nonprofit dedicated to promoting and ensuring access to WordPress and related open source projects in perpetuity. This means that the most central piece of WordPress’s identity, its name, is now fully independent from any company.”

WP Engine alleges that Automattic and Mullenweg did not disclose “that while they were publicly touting their purported good deed of moving this intellectual property away from a private company, and into the safe hands of a nonprofit, Defendants in fact had quietly transferred irrevocable, exclusive, royalty-free rights in the WordPress trademarks right back to Automattic that very same day in 2010. This meant that far from being ‘independent of any company’ as Defendants had promised, control over the WordPress trademarks effectively never left Automattic’s hands.”

WP Engine accuses the defendants of “misusing these trademarks for their own financial gain and to the detriment of the community members.” WP Engine said it was founded in 2010 and relied on the promises made by Automattic and Mullenweg. “WPE is a true champion of WordPress, devoting its entire business to WordPress over other similar open source platforms,” the lawsuit said.

Firm defends “fair use” of WordPress trademark

The defendants’ demand that WP Engine pay tens of millions of dollars for a trademark license “came without warning” and “gave WPE less than 48 hours to either agree to pay them off or face the consequences of being banned and publicly smeared,” according to the lawsuit. WP Engine pointed to Mullenweg’s “cancer” remark and other actions, writing:

When WPE did not capitulate, Defendants carried out their threats, unleashing a self-described “nuclear” war against WPE. That war involved defaming WPE in public presentations, directly sending disparaging and inflammatory messages into WPE customers’ software and through the Internet, threatening WPE’s CEO and one of its board members, publicly encouraging WPE’s customers to take their business to Automattic’s competing service providers (for a discounted fee, no less), and ultimately blocking WPE and its customers from accessing the wordpress.org portal and wordpress.org servers. By blocking access to wordpress.org, Defendants have prevented WPE from accessing a host of functionality typically available to the WordPress community on wordpress.org.

During calls on September 17 and 19, “Automattic CFO Mark Davies told a WPE board member that Automattic would ‘go to war’ if WPE did not agree to pay its competitor Automattic a significant percentage of WPE’s gross revenues—tens of millions of dollars—on an ongoing basis,” the lawsuit said. WP Engine says it doesn’t need a license to use the WordPress trademark “and had no reasonable expectation that Automattic had a right to demand money for use of a trademark owned by the separate nonprofit WordPress Foundation.”

“WPE’s nominative uses of those marks to refer to the open-source software platform and plugin used for its clients’ websites are fair uses under settled trademark law, and they are consistent with WordPress’ own guidelines and the practices of nearly all businesses in this space,” the lawsuit said.

Automattic alleged “widespread unlicensed use”

Exhibit A in the lawsuit includes a letter to WP Engine CEO Heather Brunner from a trademark lawyer representing Automattic and a subsidiary, WooCommerce, which makes a plugin for WordPress.

“As you know, our Client owns all intellectual property rights globally in and to the world-famous WOOCOMMERCE and WOO trademarks; and the exclusive commercial rights from the WordPress Foundation to use, enforce, and sublicense the world-famous WORDPRESS trademark, among others, and all other associated intellectual property rights,” the letter said.

The letter alleged that “your blatant and widespread unlicensed use of our Client’s trademarks has infringed our Client’s rights and confused consumers into believing, falsely, that WP Engine is authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by, or otherwise affiliated or associated with, our Client.” It also alleged that “WP Engine’s entire business model is predicated on using our Client’s trademarks… to mislead consumers into believing there is an association between WP Engine and Automattic.”

The letter threatened a lawsuit, saying that Automattic “is entitled to file civil litigation to obtain an injunction and an award of actual damages, a disgorgement of your profits, and our Client’s costs and fees.” The letter demands an accounting of WP Engine’s profits, saying that “even a mere 8% royalty on WP Engine’s $400+ million in annual revenue equates to more than $32 million in annual lost licensing revenue for our Client.”

WP Engine’s lawsuit asks the court for a “judgment declaring that Plaintiff does not infringe or dilute any enforceable, valid trademark rights owned by the Defendants.” It also seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

We contacted Automattic about the lawsuit today and will update this article if it provides a response.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

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.

Automattic demanded web host pay $32M annually for using WordPress trademark Read More »

elon-musk-claims-victory-after-judge-blocks-calif.-deepfake-law

Elon Musk claims victory after judge blocks Calif. deepfake law

“Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the Internet, could be considered harmful,” Mendez said, even something seemingly benign like AI-generated estimates of voter turnouts shared online.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that “even deliberate lies (said with ‘actual malice’) about the government are constitutionally protected” because the right to criticize the government is at the heart of the First Amendment.

“These same principles safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered: civil penalties for criticisms on the government like those sanctioned by AB 2839 have no place in our system of governance,” Mendez said.

According to Mendez, X posts like Kohls’ parody videos are the “political cartoons of today” and California’s attempt to “bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment” is not justified by even “a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape.” If officials find deepfakes are harmful to election prospects, there is already recourse through privacy torts, copyright infringement, or defamation laws, Mendez suggested.

Kosseff told Ars that there could be more narrow ways that government officials looking to protect election integrity could regulate deepfakes online. The Supreme Court has suggested that deepfakes spreading disinformation on the mechanics of voting could possibly be regulated, Kosseff said.

Mendez got it “exactly right” by concluding that the best remedy for election-related deepfakes is more speech, Kosseff said. As Mendez described it, a vague law like AB 2839 seemed to only “uphold the State’s attempt to suffocate” speech.

Parody is vital to democratic debate, judge says

The only part of AB 2839 that survives strict scrutiny, Mendez noted, is a section describing audio disclosures in a “clearly spoken manner and in a pitch that can be easily heard by the average listener, at the beginning of the audio, at the end of the audio, and, if the audio is greater than two minutes in length, interspersed within the audio at intervals of not greater than two minutes each.”

Elon Musk claims victory after judge blocks Calif. deepfake law Read More »

meta-smart-glasses-can-be-used-to-dox-anyone-in-seconds,-study-finds

Meta smart glasses can be used to dox anyone in seconds, study finds

To prevent anyone from being doxxed, the co-creators are not releasing the code, Nguyen said on social media site X. They did, however, outline how their disturbing tech works and how shocked random strangers used as test subjects were to discover how easily identifiable they are just from accessing with the smart glasses information posted publicly online.

Nguyen and Ardayfio tested out their technology at a subway station “on unsuspecting people in the real world,” 404 Media noted. To demonstrate how the tech could be abused to trick people, the students even claimed to know some of the test subjects, seemingly using information gleaned from the glasses to make resonant references and fake an acquaintance.

Dozens of test subjects were identified, the students claimed, although some results have been contested, 404 Media reported. To keep their face-scanning under the radar, the students covered up a light that automatically comes on when the Meta Ray Bans 2 are recording, Ardayfio said on X.

Opt out of PimEyes now, students warn

For Nguyen and Ardayfio, the point of the project was to persuade people to opt out of invasive search engines to protect their privacy online. An attempt to use I-XRAY to identify 404 Media reporter Joseph Cox, for example, didn’t work because he’d opted out of PimEyes.

But while privacy is clearly important to the students and their demo video strove to remove identifying information, at least one test subject was “easily” identified anyway, 404 Media reported. That test subject couldn’t be reached for comment, 404 Media reported.

So far, neither Facebook nor Google has chosen to release similar technologies that they developed linking smart glasses to face search engines, The New York Times reported.

Meta smart glasses can be used to dox anyone in seconds, study finds Read More »

amazon-illegally-refused-to-bargain-with-drivers’-union,-nlrb-alleges

Amazon illegally refused to bargain with drivers’ union, NLRB alleges

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed charges against Amazon, alleging that the e-commerce giant has illegally refused to bargain with a union representing drivers who are frustrated by what they claim are low wages and dangerous working conditions.

Back in August, drivers celebrated what they considered a major win when the NLRB found that Amazon was a joint employer of sub-contracted drivers, cheering “We are Amazon workers!” At that time, Amazon seemed to be downplaying the designation, telling Ars that the union was trying to “misrepresent” a merit determination that the NLRB confirmed was only “the first step in the NLRB’s General Counsel litigating the allegations after investigating an unfair labor practice charge.”

But this week, the NLRB took the next step, signing charges soon after Amazon began facing intensifying worker backlash, not just from drivers but also from disgruntled office and fulfillment workers. According to Reuters, the NLRB accused Amazon of “a series of illegal tactics to discourage union activities” organized by drivers in a Palmdale, California, facility.

Amazon has found itself in increasingly hot water ever since the Palmdale drivers joined the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union in 2021. The NLRB’s complaint called out Amazon for terminating its contract with the unionized drivers without ever engaging in bargaining.

The tech company could have potentially avoided the NLRB charges if Amazon had settled with drivers, who claimed that rather than negotiate, Amazon had intimidated employees with security guards and illegally retaliated against workers unionizing.

Although Amazon recently invested $2.1 billion—its “biggest investment yet”—to improve driver safety and increase drivers’ wages, Amazon apparently did not do enough to settle drivers’ complaints.

The NLRB said in a press release sent to Ars that the complaint specifically alleged that “Amazon failed and refused to bargain” with Teamsters “and that it did not afford the union the opportunity to bargain over the effects of terminating” the Palmdale drivers’ contract, “increasing inspections, reducing and termination routes, and terminating employees in the bargaining unit.” Additionally, “the complaint further alleged that Amazon made unlawful threats and promises, held captive audience meetings, delayed employee start times and increased vehicle inspections to discourage union activities, and failed and refused to furnish information to the union.”

Amazon illegally refused to bargain with drivers’ union, NLRB alleges Read More »

directv/dish-merger-has-a-problem-as-debt-holders-object-to-$1.6-billion-loss

DirecTV/Dish merger has a problem as debt holders object to $1.6 billion loss

DirecTV’s agreement to buy the Dish satellite and streaming TV business from EchoStar is facing opposition from Dish creditors who would be forced to take a loss on the value of their debt.

Dish creditors “plan to block a distressed exchange that’s a key part of its tie-up with rival DirecTV, according to people familiar with the matter,” Bloomberg reported today. “A group of steering committee investors has gained a blocking position in order to negotiate with the company, the people said. They may even explore a better outcome through litigation, said some of the people.” The Bloomberg article was titled, “Dish-DirecTV Deal Sparks Creditor Revolt Over $1.6 Billion Loss.”

As Bloomberg notes, “Dish needs consent from its bondholders to exchange old debts for notes issued out of the new combined entity” in order to complete the deal. A previous Bloomberg article said that “just over two-thirds of [Dish] bondholders in each series of notes have to agree to the exchange, with the deadline set for October 29.” EchoStar executives argue that debt holders will benefit from the merger by “owning debt of a stronger company with lower leverage,” the article said.

Credit-rating firm S&P Global said in a research note that it views “these transactions as tantamount to a default because investors will receive less value than the promise of the original securities,” according to Variety. On the other hand, S&P Global “added that in exchange the new notes will carry a higher rate of 8.875 percent and be secured by assets of the combined businesses of DirecTV and Dish,” Variety wrote.

Debt exchange

DirecTV agreed to buy the Dish satellite TV and Sling TV business for a nominal fee of $1 in exchange for taking on $9.75 billion of Dish debt. But DirecTV’s deal announcement on Monday said the merger needs approval from Dish debt holders, who would see their investments devalued.

Dish notes would be exchanged with “a reduced principal amount of DirecTV debt which will have terms and collateral that mirror DirecTV’s existing secured debt,” DirecTV said. DirecTV’s announcement goes on to say that the principal amount will be reduced by at least $1.568 billion and that the deal can be scrapped if debt holders object:

DirecTV/Dish merger has a problem as debt holders object to $1.6 billion loss Read More »

t-mobile-pays-$16-million-fine-for-three-years’-worth-of-data-breaches

T-Mobile pays $16 million fine for three years’ worth of data breaches

T-Mobile logo displayed in front of a stock market chart.

Getty Images | SOPA Images

T-Mobile has agreed to pay a $15.75 million fine and improve its security in a settlement over a series of data breaches over three years that affected tens of millions of customers.

“T-Mobile suffered data breaches in 2021, 2022, and 2023,” the Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau said in an order approving a consent decree yesterday. “Combined, these breaches affected millions of current, former, or prospective T-Mobile customers and millions of end-user customers of T-Mobile wireless service resellers, which operate on T-Mobile’s network infrastructure and are known as mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs).”

Four breaches occurring over three years exposed personal information, including customer names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, the features customers subscribed to, and the number of lines on their accounts.

The FCC investigated T-Mobile for several potential violations: failure to meet its legal duty to protect confidentiality of private information; impermissibly using, disclosing, or permitting access to private information without customer approval; failure to take reasonable measures to discover and protect against attempts to gain unauthorized access to private information; unjust and unreasonable information security practices; and making misrepresentations to customers about its information security practices.

“To settle these investigations, T-Mobile will pay a civil penalty of $15,750,000 and commit to spending an additional $15,750,000 over the next two years to strengthen its cybersecurity program, and develop and implement a compliance plan to protect consumers against similar data breaches in the future,” the FCC said.

FCC touts “strong message” to carriers

The fine will be paid to the US Treasury. The FCC Enforcement Bureau said the security improvements that T-Mobile agreed to “will likely require expenditures an order of magnitude greater than the civil penalty here.” T-Mobile reported $19.8 billion in revenue and $2.9 billion in net income in Q2 2024.

In a press release, the FCC touted the settlement as “a model for the mobile telecommunications industry.” T-Mobile will “address foundational security flaws, work to improve cyber hygiene, and adopt robust modern architectures, like zero trust and phishing-resistant multifactor authentication,” the agency said.

“Today’s mobile networks are top targets for cybercriminals… We will continue to send a strong message to providers entrusted with this delicate information that they need to beef up their systems or there will be consequences,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said.

T-Mobile entered into the settlement despite not agreeing with the FCC’s accusations. “The Bureau and T-Mobile disagree about whether T-Mobile’s network and data security program and policies in place at the relevant times violated any standard of care or regulation then applicable to T-Mobile, but in the interest of resolving these investigations, and in the interest of putting consumer security first, the parties enter into this negotiated consent decree,” the agreement said.

T-Mobile pays $16 million fine for three years’ worth of data breaches Read More »

ebay-listings-for-banned-chemicals-shielded-by-section-230,-judge-rules

eBay listings for banned chemicals shielded by Section 230, judge rules

No sale —

DOJ can’t force eBay to remove environmentally harmful product listings.

eBay listings for banned chemicals shielded by Section 230, judge rules

eBay has defeated a lawsuit that the US Department of Justice raised last fall, which alleged that eBay violated environmental protection and public safety laws by allowing users to sell hundreds of thousands of banned products.

Among products targeted by the DOJ suit were at least 343,011 “aftermarket products for motor vehicles” used to “tamper with or disable vehicle emissions control systems” and at least 23,000 “unregistered, misbranded, or restricted use pesticides.” The DOJ also took issue with sales of products containing methylene chloride, which is used as a “thinning agent in paint and coating removal products.” Most uses of that chemical were banned by the Environmental Protection Agency this April to prevent causing cancer, liver harm, and death.

In her order, US District Judge Orelia Merchant agreed with eBay that the DOJ failed to prove that eBay was liable for selling some of these targeted products. Ultimately, Merchant ruled that whether the products violated environmental laws or not, Section 230 barred all of the DOJ’s claims, as eBay is shielded from liability for third-party postings (in this case, listings) on its platform.

“eBay contends that it does not actually ‘sell’ any item listed on its platform,” Merchant wrote, pointing to a precedent set in a 2004 lawsuit where the jewelry company Tiffany attempted to sue eBay over counterfeit items. Merchant agreed with the Second Circuit, which affirmed that “eBay did not itself sell counterfeit Tiffany goods; only the fraudulent vendors did,” mainly due to the fact that eBay “never physically possesses” the goods that are sold on its platform. For the same reason, Merchant found that eBay never sold any of the restricted items the DOJ flagged last year.

While the entire motion to dismiss was granted, the DOJ did succeed in arguing that eBay had violated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Methylene Chloride Rule by not removing some listings for products containing methylene chloride.

Under those laws, the DOJ persuasively alleged that eBay was a “retailer” who introduced and “distributed in commerce” products containing methylene chloride, Merchant’s order noted.

eBay’s attempt to defend against that claim by narrowly arguing that the TSCA should only be applied to the literal first seller to introduce a product to market not only failed, Merchant said, but also threatened to “undermine the TSCA’s regulatory scope” as a law designed to protect the public from any introduction of harmful substances.

However, none of that matters, eBay argued, because Section 230 bars that claim, too. Merchant agreed that without “allegations… eBay fails to remove third-party listings (conduct that is plainly immune under Section 230),” and the government’s complaint “would not state a claim.”

eBay vows to help prevent toxic sales

Perhaps the government had hoped that eBay might settle the lawsuit, as the company did last February in a DOJ case over the sales of pill presses. Similar to the DOJ’s bid to hold eBay liable for enabling product sales causing environmental harms, the DOJ had accused eBay of selling pill presses tied to fentanyl drug rings amid an opioid epidemic killing 100,000 people annually at its peak. Both suits were designed to stop eBay from distributing products causing harms, but only one succeeded.

In the pill press case, eBay did not invoke the Section 230 shield. Instead, eBay admitted no wrongdoing while agreeing to “pay $59 million” and voluntarily removing products targeted by the DOJ. In a statement, eBay said this was “in the best interest of the company and its shareholders as it avoids the costs, uncertainty, and distraction associated with protracted litigation.”

eBay did not appear concerned that the environmental lawsuit might have similarly long legs in court. An eBay spokesperson told Ars that the company appreciated the court’s “thoughtful review,” which “found that the government’s lawsuit should not be permitted to move forward.”

“Maintaining a safe and trusted marketplace for our global community of sellers and buyers is a fundamental principle of our business at eBay,” eBay’s spokesperson said. “As we have throughout our history, eBay will continue to invest significant resources to support its well-recognized and proactive efforts to help prevent prohibited items from being listed on our marketplace.”

Because Merchant granted eBay’s motion to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit over alleged environmental harms with prejudice, the DOJ will not have a chance to re-file the case in the same court but could possibly appeal to a higher court.

The DOJ declined Ars’ request for comment.

eBay listings for banned chemicals shielded by Section 230, judge rules Read More »

uber-beats-crash-victims’-attempt-to-try-case-in-court-instead-of-arbitration

Uber beats crash victims’ attempt to try case in court instead of arbitration

Uber app icon displayed on a phone screen

Getty Images | NurPhoto

A married couple can’t sue Uber over severe injuries they suffered in a 2022 car accident because of a mandatory arbitration provision in the ride-sharing company’s terms of use, according to a ruling issued by the New Jersey Superior Court appellate division.

In November 2023, a lower court denied Uber’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiffs Georgia and John McGinty. But the lower-court ruling was reversed on September 20 in a unanimous decision by three appellate court judges.

Georgia McGinty had agreed to Uber’s arbitration clause long before the accident. But the couple challenged the terms in part because they say their minor daughter, then 12, was the one who clicked the most recent terms agreement when the girl ordered food through Uber Eats. Those newer terms were also allegedly less specific about users waiving the right to a jury trial.

The September 20 ruling says:

Uber’s digital records show that on January 8, 2022, Georgia logged into her Uber account using her password, checked the box next to the statement “I have reviewed and agree to the Terms of Use,” and pressed “Confirm.” In their motion opposition, plaintiffs asserted that it was not Georgia but rather their minor daughter who checked that box and clicked the “Confirm” button—even though it required attesting to Uber that she was at least eighteen years old. Plaintiffs claim that their daughter, while using Georgia’s phone and with Georgia’s permission, confirmed her agreement to the December [2021] Terms before ordering food for plaintiffs to be delivered to them through Uber Eats.

The December Terms to which Georgia agreed—either by herself or through her daughter using her Uber account—contain an arbitration provision. That agreement provides disputes that may arise between Georgia and Uber, including disputes concerning auto accidents or personal injuries, will be resolved through binding arbitration “and not in a court of law.” The agreement also provides that any disputes over arbitrability would be delegated to the arbitrator.

“We hold that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement under review, which Georgia or her minor daughter, while using her cell phone agreed to, is valid and enforceable,” judges wrote.

Lower court said Uber terms were too vague

The case came to the appellate court on appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County. The lower court found that Uber’s updated terms “fail[ed] to clearly and unambiguously inform plaintiff of her waiver of the right to pursue her claims in a judicial forum,” making it unclear that “arbitration is a substitute for the right to seek relief in our court system.”

While an earlier version of Uber’s terms contained an express jury waiver provision, the newer version did not. The lower court held that the newer agreement “lacks any specificity on what the resolution would look like or what the alternative to such resolution might be.”

Uber argued that even if the newer terms are invalid, the earlier terms would still require arbitration of the dispute, and that Georgia McGinty can’t escape her agreement with Uber by claiming that her daughter agreed to the newer terms on her behalf.

Despite the newer agreement not using the word “jury,” the appellate court said that legal precedent “does not require specific jury trial language to accomplish a waiver of rights.” Judges said the Uber provision requiring disputes to be handled in arbitration “and not in a court of law… clearly and unambiguously evidences a waiver of plaintiffs’ right to pursue any claims against Uber in a court of law and obligates plaintiffs to resolve their claims through binding arbitration.”

“While ‘jury’ is no longer explicitly used in the updated December Terms, magic words are not required for enforceability and the clause clearly intimates that disputes are resolved through arbitration,” the court said.

The question of whether the couple’s daughter was capable of agreeing to the terms must be decided by an arbitrator, according to the ruling:

Georgia certified that her daughter was “capable,” would frequently order food, and she and John were preoccupied with packing, which supports the inference that the daughter acted knowingly on Georgia’s behalf. In summary, the Arbitration Agreement is valid and delegates the threshold question of the scope of the arbitration to the arbitrator. Therefore, Georgia’s reliance on her daughter’s minority to raise an infancy defense shall be determined by the arbitrator.

Uber beats crash victims’ attempt to try case in court instead of arbitration Read More »

in-fear-of-more-user-protests,-reddit-announces-controversial-policy-change

In fear of more user protests, Reddit announces controversial policy change

Protest blowback —

Moderators now need Reddit’s permission to turn subreddits private, NSFW.

The Reddit application can be seen on the display of a smartphone.

Following site-wide user protests last year that featured moderators turning thousands of subreddits private or not-safe-for-work (NSFW), Reddit announced that mods now need its permission to make those changes.

Reddit’s VP of community, going by Go_JasonWaterfalls, made the announcement about what Reddit calls Community Types today. Reddit’s permission is also required to make subreddits restricted or to go from NSFW to safe-for-work (SFW). Reddit’s employee claimed that requests will be responded to “in under 24 hours.”

Reddit’s employee said that “temporarily going restricted is exempt” from this requirement, adding that “mods can continue to instantly restrict posts and/or comments for up to 7 days using Temporary Events.” Additionally, if a subreddit has fewer than 5,000 members or is less than 30 days old, the request “will be automatically approved,” per Go_JasonWaterfalls.

Reddit’s post includes a list of “valid” reasons that mods tend to change their subreddit’s Community Type and provides alternative solutions.

Last year’s protests “accelerated” this policy change

Last year, Reddit announced that it would be charging a massive amount for access to its previously free API. This caused many popular third-party Reddit apps to close down. Reddit users then protested by turning subreddits private (or read-only) or by only showing NSFW content or jokes and memes. Reddit then responded by removing some moderators; eventually, the protests subsided.

Reddit, which previously admitted that another similar protest could hurt it financially, has maintained that moderators’ actions during the protests broke its rules. Now, it has solidified a way to prevent something like last year’s site-wide protests from happening again.

Speaking to The Verge, Laura Nestler, who The Verge reported is Go_JasonWaterfalls, claimed that Reddit has been talking about making this change since at least 2021. The protests, she said, were a wake-up call that moderators’ ability to turn subreddits private “could be used to harm Reddit at scale. The protests “accelerated” the policy change, per Nestler.

The announcement on r/modnews reads:

… the ability to instantly change Community Type settings has been used to break the platform and violate our rules. We have a responsibility to protect Reddit and ensure its long-term health, and we cannot allow actions that deliberately cause harm.

After shutting down a tactic for responding to unfavorable Reddit policy changes, Go_JasonWaterfalls claimed that Reddit still wants to hear from users.

“Community Type settings have historically been used to protest Reddit’s decisions,” they wrote.

“While we are making this change to ensure users’ expectations regarding a community’s access do not suddenly change, protest is allowed on Reddit. We want to hear from you when you think Reddit is making decisions that are not in your communities’ best interests. But if a protest crosses the line into harming redditors and Reddit, we’ll step in.”

Last year’s user protests illustrated how dependent Reddit is on unpaid moderators and user-generated content. At times, things turned ugly, pitting Reddit executives against long-time users (Reddit CEO Steve Huffman infamously called Reddit mods “landed gentry,” something that some were quick to remind Go_JasonWaterfalls of) and reportedly worrying Reddit employees.

Although the protests failed to reverse Reddit’s prohibitive API fees or to save most third-party apps, it succeeded in getting users’ concerns heard and even crashed Reddit for three hours. Further, NFSW protests temporarily prevented Reddit from selling ads on some subreddits. Since going public this year and amid a push to reach profitability, Reddit has been more focused on ads than ever. (Most of Reddit’s money comes from ads.)

Reddit’s Nestler told The Verge that the new policy was reviewed by Reddit’s Mod Council. Reddit is confident that it won’t lose mods because of the change, she said.

“Demotes us all to janitors”

The news marks another broad policy change that is likely to upset users and make Reddit seem unwilling to give into user feedback, despite Go_JasonWaterfalls saying that “protest is allowed on Reddit.” For example, in response, Reddit user CouncilOfStrongs said:

Don’t lie to us, please.

Something that you can ignore because it has no impact cannot be a protest, and no matter what you say that is obviously the one and only point of you doing this – to block moderators from being able to hold Reddit accountable in even the smallest way for malicious, irresponsible, bad faith changes that they make.

Reddit user belisaurius, who is listed as a mod for several active subreddits, including a 336,000-member one for the Philadelphia Eagles NFL team, said that the policy change “removes moderators from any position of central responsibility and demotes us all to janitors.”

As Reddit continues seeking profits and seemingly more control over a platform built around free user-generated content and moderation, users will have to either accept that Reddit is changing or leave the platform.

Advance Publications, which owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast, is the largest shareholder in Reddit.

In fear of more user protests, Reddit announces controversial policy change Read More »