Policy

billions-of-public-discord-messages-may-be-sold-through-a-scraping-service

Billions of public Discord messages may be sold through a scraping service

chat, Cryptocurrency, data scraping, discord, discord servers, Policy, privacy, scraping, Security, spy pet, Tech, Web Scraping / /

Discord chat-scraping service —

Cross-server tracking suggests a new understanding of “public” chat servers.

–

Discord logo, warped by vertical perspective over a phone displaying the app

Getty Images

It’s easy to get the impression that Discord chat messages are ephemeral, especially across different public servers, where lines fly upward at a near-unreadable pace. But someone claims to be catching and compiling that data and is offering packages that can track more than 600 million users across more than 14,000 servers.

Joseph Cox at 404 Media confirmed that Spy Pet, a service that sells access to a database of purportedly 3 billion Discord messages, offers data “credits” to customers who pay in bitcoin, ethereum, or other cryptocurrency. Searching individual users will reveal the servers that Spy Pet can track them across, a raw and exportable table of their messages, and connected accounts, such as GitHub. Ominously, Spy Pet lists more than 86,000 other servers in which it has “no bots,” but “we know it exists.”

  • An example of Spy Pet’s service from its website. Shown are a user’s nicknames, connected accounts, banner image, server memberships, and messages across those servers tracked by Spy Pet.

    Spy Pet

  • Statistics on servers, users, and messages purportedly logged by Spy Pet.

    Spy Pet

  • An example image of the publicly available data gathered by Spy Pet, in this example for a public server for the game Deep Rock Galactic: Survivor.

    Spy Pet

As Cox notes, Discord doesn’t make messages inside server channels, like blog posts or unlocked social media feeds, easy to publicly access and search. But many Discord users many not expect their messages, server memberships, bans, or other data to be grabbed by a bot, compiled, and sold to anybody wishing to pin them all on a particular user. 404 Media confirmed the service’s function with multiple user examples. Private messages are not mentioned by Spy Pet and are presumably still secure.

Spy Pet openly asks those training AI models, or “federal agents looking for a new source of intel,” to contact them for deals. As noted by 404 Media and confirmed by Ars, clicking on the “Request Removal” link plays a clip of J. Jonah Jameson from Spider-Man (the Tobey Maguire/Sam Raimi version) laughing at the idea of advance payment before an abrupt “You’re serious?” Users of Spy Pet, however, are assured of “secure and confidential” searches, with random usernames.

This author found nearly every public Discord he had ever dropped into for research or reporting in Spy Pet’s server list. Those who haven’t paid for message access can only see fairly benign public-facing elements, like stickers, emojis, and charted member totals over time. But as an indication of the reach of Spy Pet’s scraping, it’s an effective warning, or enticement, depending on your goals.

Ars has reached out to Spy Pet for comment and will update this post if we receive a response. A Discord spokesperson told Ars that the company is investigating whether Spy Pet violated its terms of service and community guidelines. It will take “appropriate steps to enforce our policies,” the company said, and could not provide further comment.

Billions of public Discord messages may be sold through a scraping service Read More »

tesla-asks-shareholders-to-approve-texas-move-and-restore-elon-musk’s-$56b-pay

Tesla asks shareholders to approve Texas move and restore Elon Musk’s $56B pay

Policy, tesla elon musk / /
Elon Musk wearing a suit during an event at a Tesla factory.

Enlarge / Tesla CEO Elon Musk at an opening event for Tesla’s Gigafactory on March 22, 2022, in Gruenheide, southeast of Berlin.

Getty Images | Patrick Pleul

Tesla is asking shareholders to approve a move to Texas and to re-approve a $55.8 billion pay package for CEO Elon Musk that was recently voided by a Delaware judge.

Musk’s 2018 pay package was voided in a ruling by Delaware Court of Chancery Judge Kathaleen McCormick, who found that the deal was unfair to shareholders. After the ruling, Musk said he would seek a shareholder vote on transferring Tesla’s state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas.

The proposed move to Texas and Musk’s pay package will be up for votes at Tesla’s 2024 annual meeting on June 13, Tesla Board Chairperson Robyn Denholm wrote in a letter to shareholders that was included in a regulatory filing today.

“Because the Delaware Court second-guessed your decision, Elon has not been paid for any of his work for Tesla for the past six years that has helped to generate significant growth and stockholder value,” the letter said. “That strikes us—and the many stockholders from whom we already have heard—as fundamentally unfair, and inconsistent with the will of the stockholders who voted for it.”

On the proposed move to Texas, the letter to shareholders said that “Texas is already our business home, and we are committed to it.” Moving the state of incorporation is really about operating under a state’s laws and court system, though. Incorporating in Texas “will restore Tesla’s stockholder democracy,” Denholm wrote.

Judge: Board members “were beholden to Musk”

Musk is a member of Tesla’s board. Although Musk and his brother Kimbal recused themselves from the 2018 pay-plan vote, McCormick’s ruling said that “five of the six directors who voted on the Grant were beholden to Musk or had compromising conflicts.” McCormick determined that the proxy statement given to investors for the 2018 vote “inaccurately described key directors as independent and misleadingly omitted details about the process.”

McCormick also wrote that Denholm had a “lackadaisical approach to her oversight obligations” and that she “derived the vast majority of her wealth from her compensation as a Tesla director.”

The ruling in favor of lead plaintiff and Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta rescinded Musk’s pay package in order to “restore the parties to the position they occupied before the challenged transaction.”

Tornetta’s lawyer, Greg Varallo, declined to provide any detailed comment on Tesla’s plan for a new shareholder vote. “We are studying the Tesla proxy and will decide on any response in due course,” Varallo told Ars today.

In the new letter to shareholders, Denholm wrote that Tesla’s performance since 2018 proves that the pay package was deserved. Although Tesla’s stock price has fallen about 37 percent this year, it is up more than 630 percent since the March 2018 shareholder vote.

“We do not agree with what the Delaware Court decided, and we do not think that what the Delaware Court said is how corporate law should or does work,” Denholm wrote. “So we are coming to you now so you can help fix this issue—which is a matter of fundamental fairness and respect to our CEO. You have the chance to reinstate your vote and make it count. We are asking you to make your voice heard—once again—by voting to approve ratification of Elon’s 2018 compensation plan.”

Tesla asks shareholders to approve Texas move and restore Elon Musk’s $56B pay Read More »

isps-can-charge-extra-for-fast-gaming-under-fcc’s-internet-rules,-critics-say

ISPs can charge extra for fast gaming under FCC’s Internet rules, critics say

fcc net neutrality, Policy / /

Fast lanes —

FCC plan rejected request to ban what agency calls “positive” discrimination.

–

Illustration of network data represented by curving lines flowing on a dark background.

Getty Images | Yuichiro Chino

Some net neutrality proponents are worried that soon-to-be-approved Federal Communications Commission rules will allow harmful fast lanes because the plan doesn’t explicitly ban “positive” discrimination.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s proposed rules for Internet service providers would prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The rules mirror the ones imposed by the FCC during the Obama era and repealed during Trump’s presidency. But some advocates are criticizing a decision to let Internet service providers speed up certain types of applications as long as application providers don’t have to pay for special treatment.

Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Schewick, who has consistently argued for stricter net neutrality rules, wrote in a blog post on Thursday that “harmful 5G fast lanes are coming.”

“T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon are all testing ways to create these 5G fast lanes for apps such as video conferencing, games, and video where the ISP chooses and controls what gets boosted,” van Schewick wrote. “They use a technical feature in 5G called network slicing, where part of their radio spectrum gets used as a special lane for the chosen app or apps, separated from the usual Internet traffic. The FCC’s draft order opens the door to these fast lanes, so long as the app provider isn’t charged for them.”

In an FCC filing yesterday, AT&T said that carriers will use network slicing “to better meet the needs of particular business applications and consumer preferences than they could over a best-efforts network that generally treats all traffic the same.”

Carriers could charge more for faster gaming

Van Schewick warns that carriers could charge consumers more for plans that speed up specific types of content. For example, a mobile operator could offer a basic plan alongside more expensive tiers that boost certain online games or a tier that boosts services like YouTube and TikTok.

Ericsson, a telecommunications vendor that sells equipment to carriers including AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, has pushed for exactly this type of service. In a report on how network slicing can be used commercially, Ericsson said that “many gamers are willing to pay for enhanced gaming experiences” and would “pay up to $10.99 more for a guaranteed gaming experience on top of their 5G monthly subscription.”

Before the draft net neutrality order was released, van Schewick urged the FCC to “clarify that its proposed no-throttling rule prohibits ISPs from speeding up and slowing down applications and classes of applications.”

In a different filing last month, several advocacy groups similarly argued that the “no-throttling rule needs to ban selective speeding up, in addition to slowing down.” That filing was submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Technology Institute at New America, Public Knowledge, Fight for the Future, and United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry.

The request for a ban on selective speeding was denied in paragraph 492 of Rosenworcel’s draft rules, which are scheduled for an April 25 vote. The draft order argues that the FCC’s definition of “throttling” is expansive enough that an explicit ban on what the agency called positive discrimination isn’t needed:

With the no-throttling rule, we ban conduct that is not outright blocking, but inhibits the delivery of particular content, applications, or services, or particular classes of content, applications, or services. Likewise, we prohibit conduct that impairs or degrades lawful traffic to a non-harmful device or class of devices. We interpret this prohibition to include, for example, any conduct by a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider that impairs, degrades, slows down, or renders effectively unusable particular content, services, applications, or devices, that is not reasonable network management. Our interpretation of “throttling” encompasses a wide variety of conduct that could impair or degrade an end user’s ability to access content of their choosing; thus, we decline commenters’ request to modify the rule to explicitly include positive and negative discrimination of content.

ISPs can charge extra for fast gaming under FCC’s Internet rules, critics say Read More »

so-much-for-free-speech-on-x;-musk-confirms-new-users-must-soon-pay-to-post

So much for free speech on X; Musk confirms new users must soon pay to post

ai bots, elon musk, Policy, spam accounts, spam bots, Twitter, X / /

100 pennies for your thoughts? —

The fee, likely $1, is aimed at stopping “relentless” bots, Musk said.

–

So much for free speech on X; Musk confirms new users must soon pay to post

Elon Musk confirmed Monday that X (formerly Twitter) plans to start charging new users to post on the platform, TechCrunch reported.

“Unfortunately, a small fee for new user write access is the only way to curb the relentless onslaught of bots,” Musk wrote on X.

In October, X confirmed that it was testing whether users would pay a small annual fee to access the platform by suddenly charging new users in New Zealand and the Philippines $1. Paying the fee enabled new users in those countries to post, reply, like, and bookmark X posts.

That test was deemed the “Not-A-Bot” program, and it’s unclear how successful it was at stopping bots. But X deciding to expand the program seems to suggest that the test must have had some success.

Musk has not yet clarified when X’s “small fee” might be required for new users, only confirming in a later post that any new users who avoid paying the fee will be able to post after three months. Ars created new accounts on the web and in the app, and neither signup required any fees yet.

Although Musk’s posts only mention paying for “write access,” it seems likely that the other features limited by the “Not-A-Bot” program will also be limited during those three months for any users who do not pay the fee, too. An X account called @x_alerts_ noticed on Sunday that X was updating its web app text that was seemingly enabling the “Not-A-Bot” program.

“Changes have been detected in the texts of the X web app!” @x_alerts_ wrote, noting that the altered text seemed to limit not just posting and replying, but also liking and bookmarking X posts.

“It looks like this text has been in the app, but they recently changed it, so not sure whether it’s an indication of launch or not!” the user wrote.

Back when X launched the “Not-A-Bot” program, Musk claimed that charging a $1 annual fee would make it “1000X harder to manipulate the platform.” In a help center post, X said that the “test was developed to bolster our already significant efforts to reduce spam, manipulation of our platform, and bot activity.”

Earlier this month, X warned users it was widely purging spam accounts, TechCrunch noted. X Support confirmed that follower counts would likely be impacted during that purge, because “we’re casting a wide net to ensure X remains secure and free of bots.”

But that attempt to purge bots apparently did not work as well as X hoped. This week, Musk confirmed that X is still struggling with “AI (and troll farms)” that he said are easily able to pass X’s “are you a bot” tests.

It’s hard to keep up with X’s inconsistent messaging on its bot problem since Musk took over. Last summer, Musk told attendees of The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council that the platform had “eliminated at least 90 percent of scams,” claiming there had been a “dramatic improvement” in the platform’s ability to “detect and remove troll armies.”

At that time, experts told The Journal that solving X’s bot problem was nearly impossible because spammers’ tactics were always evolving and bots had begun using generative AI to avoid detection.

Musk’s plan to charge a fee to overcome bots won’t work, experts told WSJ, because anyone determined to spam X can just find credit cards and buy disposable phones on the dark web. And any bad actor who can’t find what they need on the dark web could theoretically just wait three months to launch scams or spread harmful content like disinformation or propaganda. This leads some critics to wonder what the point of charging the small fee really is.

When the “Not-A-Bot” program launched, X Support directly disputed critics’ claims that the program was simply testing whether charging small fees might expand X’s revenue to help Musk get the platform out of debt.

“This new test was developed to bolster our already successful efforts to reduce spam, manipulation of our platform, and bot activity, while balancing platform accessibility with the small fee amount,” X Support wrote on X. “It is not a profit driver.”

It seems likely that Musk is simply trying everything he can think of to reduce bots on the platform, even though it’s widely known that charging a subscription fee has failed to stop bots from overrunning other online platforms (just ask frustrated fans of World of Warcraft). Musk, who famously overpaid for Twitter and has been climbing out of debt since, has claimed since before the Twitter deal closed that his goal was to eliminate bots on the platform.

“We will defeat the spam bots or die trying!” Musk tweeted back in 2022, when a tweet was still a tweet and everyone could depend on accessing Twitter for free.

So much for free speech on X; Musk confirms new users must soon pay to post Read More »

us-woman-arrested,-accused-of-targeting-young-boys-in-$1.7m-sextortion-scheme

US woman arrested, accused of targeting young boys in $1.7M sextortion scheme

Apple Pay, cash app, child safety, department of justice, fbi, Instagram, Policy, sextortion, Snapchat, teen sextortion / /

Preventing leaks —

FBI has warned of significant spike in teen sextortion in 2024.

–

US woman arrested, accused of targeting young boys in $1.7M sextortion scheme

A 28-year-old Delaware woman, Hadja Kone, was arrested after cops linked her to an international sextortion scheme targeting thousands of victims—mostly young men and including some minors, the US Department of Justice announced Friday.

Citing a recently unsealed indictment, the DOJ alleged that Kone and co-conspirators “operated an international, financially motivated sextortion and money laundering scheme in which the conspirators engaged in cyberstalking, interstate threats, money laundering, and wire fraud.”

Through the scheme, conspirators allegedly sought to extort about $6 million from “thousands of potential victims,” the DOJ said, and ultimately successfully extorted approximately $1.7 million.

Young men from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom fell for the scheme, the DOJ said. They were allegedly targeted by scammers posing as “young, attractive females online,” who initiated conversations by offering to send sexual photographs or video recordings, then invited victims to “web cam” or “live video chat” sessions.

“Unbeknownst to the victims, during the web cam/live video chats,” the DOJ said, the scammers would “surreptitiously” record the victims “as they exposed their genitals and/or engaged in sexual activity.” The scammers then threatened to publish the footage online or else share the footage with “the victims’ friends, family members, significant others, employers, and co-workers,” unless payments were sent, usually via Cash App or Apple Pay.

Much of these funds were allegedly transferred overseas to Kone’s accused co-conspirators, including 22-year-old Siaka Ouattara of the West African country the Ivory Coast. Ouattara was arrested by Ivorian authorities in February, the DOJ said.

“If convicted, Kone and Ouattara each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each conspiracy count and money laundering count, and a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each wire fraud count,” the DOJ said.

The FBI has said that it has been cracking down on sextortion after “a huge increase in the number of cases involving children and teens being threatened and coerced into sending explicit images online.” In 2024, the FBI announced a string of arrests, but none of the schemes so far have been as vast or far-reaching as the scheme that Kone allegedly helped operate.

In January, the FBI issued a warning about the “growing threat” to minors, warning parents that victims are “typically males between the ages of 14 to 17, but any child can become a victim.” Young victims are at risk of self-harm or suicide, the FBI said.

“From October 2021 to March 2023, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations received over 13,000 reports of online financial sextortion of minors,” the FBI’s announcement said. “The sextortion involved at least 12,600 victims—primarily boys—and led to at least 20 suicides.”

For years, reports have shown that payment apps have been used in sextortion schemes with seemingly little intervention. When it comes to protecting minors, sextortion protections seem sparse, as neither Apple Pay nor Cash App appear to have any specific policies to combat the issue. However, both apps only allow minors over 13 to create accounts with authorized adult supervisors.

Apple and Cash App did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Instagram, Snapchat add sextortion protections

Some social media platforms are responding to the spike in sextortion targeting minors.

Last year, Snapchat released a report finding that nearly two-thirds of more than 6,000 teens and young adults in six countries said that “they or their friends have been targeted in online ‘sextortion’ schemes” across many popular social media platforms. As a result of that report and prior research, Snapchat began allowing users to report sextortion specifically.

“Under the reporting menu for ‘Nudity or sexual content,’ a Snapchatter’s first option is to click, ‘They leaked/are threatening to leak my nudes,'” the report said.

Additionally, the DOJ’s announcement of Kone’s arrest came one day after Instagram confirmed that it was “testing new features to help protect young people from sextortion and intimate image abuse, and to make it more difficult for potential scammers and criminals to find and interact with teens.”

One feature will by default blur out sexual images shared over direct message, which Instagram said would protect minors from “scammers who may send nude images to trick people into sending their own images in return.” Instagram will also provide safety tips to anyone receiving a sexual image over DM, “encouraging them to report any threats to share their private images and reminding them that they can say no to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.”

Perhaps more impactful, Instagram claimed that it was “developing technology to help identify where accounts may potentially be engaging in sextortion scams, based on a range of signals that could indicate sextortion behavior.” Having better signals helps Instagram to make it “harder for potential sextortion accounts to message or interact with people,” the platform said, by hiding those requests. Instagram also by default blocks adults from messaging users under 16 in some countries and under 18 in others.

Instagram said that other tech companies have also started “sharing more signals about sextortion accounts” through Lantern, a program that Meta helped to found with the Tech Coalition to prevent child sexual exploitation. Snapchat also participates in the cross-platform research.

According to the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Norfolk field office, Brian Dugan, “one of the best lines of defense to stopping a crime like this is to educate our most vulnerable on common warning signs, as well as empowering them to come forward if they are ever victimized.”

Both Instagram and Snapchat said they were also increasing sextortion resources available to educate young users.

“We know that sextortion is a risk teens and adults face across a range of platforms, and have developed tools and resources to help combat it,” Snap’s spokesperson told Ars. “We have extra safeguards for teens to protect against unwanted contact, and don’t offer public friend lists, which we know can be used to extort people. We also want to help young people learn the signs of this type of crime, and recently launched in-app resources to raise awareness of how to spot and report it.”

US woman arrested, accused of targeting young boys in $1.7M sextortion scheme Read More »

judge-halts-texas-probe-into-media-matters’-reporting-on-x

Judge halts Texas probe into Media Matters’ reporting on X

elon musk, First Amendment, free speech, ken paxton, media matters for America, Policy, texas, Twitter, x twitter / /
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) meeting on February 23, 2024.

Enlarge / Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) meeting on February 23, 2024.

A judge has preliminarily blocked what Media Matters for America (MMFA) described as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to “rifle through” confidential documents to prove that MMFA fraudulently manipulated X (formerly Twitter) data to ruin X’s advertising business, as Elon Musk has alleged.

After Musk accused MMFA of publishing reports that Musk claimed were designed to scare advertisers off X, Paxton promptly launched his own investigation into MMFA last November.

Suing MMFA over alleged violations of Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act—which prohibits “disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of facts”—Paxton sought a wide range of MMFA documents through a civil investigative demand (CID). Filing a motion to block the CID, MMFA told the court that the CID had violated the media organization’s First Amendment rights, providing evidence that Paxton’s investigation and CID had chilled MMFA speech.

Paxton had requested Media Matters’ financial records—including “direct and indirect sources of funding for all Media Matters operations involving X research or publications”—as well as “internal and external communications” on “Musk’s purchase of X” and X’s current CEO Linda Yaccarino. He also asked for all of Media Matters’ communications with X representatives and X advertisers.

But perhaps most invasive, Paxton wanted to see all the communications about Media Matters’ X reporting that triggered the lawsuits, which, as US District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in an opinion published Friday, was a compelled disclosure that “poses a serious threat to the vitality of the newsgathering process.”

Mehta was concerned that MMFA showed that “Media Matters’ editorial leaders have pared back reporting and publishing, particularly on any topics that could be perceived as relating to the Paxton investigation”—including two follow-ups on its X reporting. Because of Paxton’s alleged First Amendment retaliation, MMFA said it did not publish “two pieces concerning X’s placement of advertising alongside antisemitic, pro-Nazi accounts”—”not out of legitimate concerns about fairness or accuracy,” but “out of fear of harassment, threats, and retaliation.”

According to Mehta’s order, Paxton did not contest that Texas’ lawsuit had chilled MMFA’s speech. Further, Paxton had given at least one podcast interview where he called upon other state attorneys general to join him in investigating MMFA.

Because Paxton “projected himself across state lines and asserted a pseudo-national executive authority,” Mehta wrote and repeatedly described MMFA as a “radical anti-free speech” or “radical left-wing organization,” the court had seen sufficient “evidence of retaliatory intent.”

“Notably,” Mehta wrote, Paxton remained “silent” and never “submitted a sworn declaration that explains his reasons for opening the investigation.”

In his press release, Paxton justified the investigation by saying, “We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square.”

Ultimately, Mehta granted MMFA’s request for a preliminary injunction to block Paxton’s CID because the judge found that the investigation and the CID have caused MMFA “to self-censor when making research and publication decisions, adversely affected the relationships between editors and reporters, and restricted communications with sources and journalists.”

“Only injunctive relief will ‘prevent the [ongoing] deprivation of free speech rights,'” Mehta’s opinion said, deeming MMFA’s reporting as “core First Amendment activities.”

Mehta’s order also banned Paxton from taking any steps to further his investigation until the lawsuit is decided.

In a statement Friday, MMFA President and CEO Angelo Carusone celebrated the win as not just against Paxton but also against Musk.

“Elon Musk encouraged Republican state attorneys general to use their power to harass their critics and stifle reporting about X,” Carusone said. “Ken Paxton was one of those AGs that took up the call and he was defeated. Today’s decision is a victory for free speech.”

Paxton has not yet responded to the preliminary injunction and his office did not respond to Ars’ request to comment..

Media Matters’ lawyer, Aria C. Branch, a partner at Elias Law Group, told Ars that “while Attorney General Paxton’s office has not yet responded to Friday’s ruling, the preliminary injunction should certainly put an end to these kind of lawless, politically motivated attempts to muzzle the press.”

Judge halts Texas probe into Media Matters’ reporting on X Read More »

elon-musk’s-x-to-stop-allowing-users-to-hide-their-blue-checks

Elon Musk’s X to stop allowing users to hide their blue checks

blue checkmark, blue tick, elon musk, Policy, Social Media, Twitter, twitter verified, X, x premium / /

Nothing to hide —

X previously promised to “evolve” the “hide your checkmark” feature.

–

Elon Musk’s X to stop allowing users to hide their blue checks

X will soon stop allowing users to hide their blue checkmarks, and some users are not happy.

Previously, a blue tick on Twitter was a mark of a notable account, providing some assurance to followers of the account’s authenticity. But then Elon Musk decided to start charging for the blue tick instead, and mayhem ensued as a wave of imposter accounts began jokingly posing as brands.

After that, paying for a blue checkmark began to attract derision, as non-paying users passed around a meme under blue-checked posts, saying, “This MF paid for Twitter.” To help spare paid subscribers this embarrassment, X began allowing users to hide their blue check last August, turning “hide your checkmark” into a feature of paid subscriptions.

However, earlier this month, X decided that hiding a checkmark would no longer be allowed, deleting the feature from its webpage detailing what comes with X Premium. An archive of X’s page shows that the language about how to hide your checkmark was removed after April 6, with X no longer promising to “continue to evolve this feature to make it better for you” but instead abruptly ending the perk.

X’s decision to stop hiding checkmarks came after the platform began gifting blue checkmarks to popular accounts. Back in April 2023, then-Twitter had awarded blue checks to celebrity accounts with more than a million followers. Last week, now-X doled out even more blue checks to accounts with over 2,500 paid verified followers. Now, accounts with more than 2,500 paid verified followers get Premium features for free, and accounts with more than 5,000 paid verified followers get Premium+.

You might think that X giving out freebies would be well-received, but Business Insider tech reporter Katie Notopoulos, one of many accounts suddenly gifted the blue check, summed up how many X users were feeling about the gifted tick by asking, “does it seem uncool?”

X doesn’t seem to care anymore if blue checks are seen as uncool, though. Anyone who doesn’t want the complimentary check can refuse it, and any paid subscriber upset about losing the ability to hide their checkmark can always just stop paying for Premium features.

According to X, anyone deciding to cancel their subscription over the loss of the “hide your checkmark” feature can expect the check to remain on their account “until the end of the subscription term you paid for, unless your account is suspended or the blue checkmark is otherwise removed by X for any reason.”

X could also suddenly remove a checkmark without refunding users in extreme circumstances.

“X reserves the right without notice to remove your blue checkmark at any time in its sole discretion without offering you a refund, including if you violate our Terms of Service or if your account is suspended,” X’s subscription page warns.

X Daily, an X news account, announced that the change was coming this week, gathering “meltdown reactions” from users who are upset that their blue checks will soon no longer be hidden.

“Let me hide my checkmark, I’m not a fucking bot,” a user called @4gntt posted, the complaint seemingly alluding to Musk’s claim that paid subscriptions are the only way to stop bots from overrunning X.

“Oh no,” another user, @jeremyphoward, posted. “I signed up to X Premium since it’s required for them to pay me… but now they [are] making the cringemark non-optional 🙁 Not sure if it’s worth it.”

It’s currently unclear when the “hide your checkmark” feature will stop working. Neither of those users criticizing X currently display a blue tick on their profile, suggesting that their checks are still hidden, but it’s also possible that some users immediately stopped paying in response to the policy change.

Elon Musk’s X to stop allowing users to hide their blue checks Read More »

google-mocks-epic’s-proposed-reforms-to-end-android-app-market-monopoly

Google mocks Epic’s proposed reforms to end Android app market monopoly

android, android app marketplace, Android Apps, anticompetitive behavior, Antitrust law, App Store, epic games, epic games store, gaming, Google, Google Play Store, monopoly, Policy / /
Google mocks Epic’s proposed reforms to end Android app market monopoly

Epic Games has filed a proposed injunction that would stop Google from restricting third-party app distribution outside Google Play Store on Android devices after proving that Google had an illegal monopoly in markets for Android app distribution.

Epic is suggesting that competition on the Android mobile platform would be opened up if the court orders Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed for six years in the Google Play Store and blocks Google from entering any agreements with device makers that would stop them from pre-loading third-party app stores. This would benefit both mobile developers and users, Epic argued in a wide-sweeping proposal that would greatly limit Google’s control over the Android app ecosystem.

US District Court Judge James Donato will ultimately decide the terms of the injunction. Google has until May 3 to respond to Epic’s filing.

A Google spokesperson confirmed to Ars that Google still plans to appeal the verdict—even though Google already agreed to a $700 million settlement with consumers and states following Epic’s win.

“Epic’s filing to the US Federal Court shows again that it simply wants the benefits of Google Play without having to pay for it,” Google’s spokesperson said. “We’ll continue to challenge the verdict, as Android is an open mobile platform that faces fierce competition from the Apple App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices, PCs, and gaming consoles.”

If Donato accepts Epic’s proposal, Google would be required to grant equal access to the Android operating system and platform features to all developers, not just developers distributing apps through Google Play. This would allow third-party app stores to become the app update owner, updating any apps downloaded from their stores as seamlessly as Google Play updates apps.

Under Epic’s terms, any app downloaded from anywhere would operate identically to apps downloaded from Google Play, without Google imposing any unnecessary distribution fees. Similarly, developers would be able to provide their own in-app purchasing options and inform users of out-of-app purchasing options, without having to use Google’s APIs or paying Google additional fees.

Notably, Epic filed its lawsuit after Google removed the Epic game Fortnite from the Google Play Store because Epic tried to offer an “Epic Direct Payment” option for in-game purchases.

“Google must also allow developers to communicate directly with their consumers, including linking from their app to a website to make purchases and get deals,” Epic said in a blog post. “Google would be blocked from using sham compliance programs like User Choice Billing to prevent competing payment options inside an app or on a developer’s website.”

Unsurprisingly, Epic’s proposed injunction includes an “anti-retaliation” section specifically aimed at protecting Epic from any further retaliation. If Donato accepts the terms, Google would be violating the injunction order if the tech giant fails to prove that it is not “treating Epic differently than other developers” by making it “disproportionately difficult or costly” for Epic to develop, update, and market its apps on Android.

That part of the injunction would seem important since, last month, Epic announced that an Epic Games Store was “coming to iOS and Android” later this year. According to Inc, Epic told Game Developers Conference attendees that its app-distribution platform will be the “first ever game-focused, multiplatform store,” working across “Android, iOS, PC and macOS.”

Google mocks Epic’s proposed reforms to end Android app market monopoly Read More »

us-lawmaker-proposes-a-public-database-of-all-ai-training-material

US lawmaker proposes a public database of all AI training material

AI, Artificial Intelligence, copyright law, generative ai, generative ai disclosure act, openai, Policy, Stability AI, US Copyright Office / /

Who’s got the receipts? —

Proposed law would require more transparency from AI companies.

–

US lawmaker proposes a public database of all AI training material

Amid a flurry of lawsuits over AI models’ training data, US Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill that would require AI companies to disclose exactly which copyrighted works are included in datasets training AI systems.

The Generative AI Disclosure Act “would require a notice to be submitted to the Register of Copyrights prior to the release of a new generative AI system with regard to all copyrighted works used in building or altering the training dataset for that system,” Schiff said in a press release.

The bill is retroactive and would apply to all AI systems available today, as well as to all AI systems to come. It would take effect 180 days after it’s enacted, requiring anyone who creates or alters a training set not only to list works referenced by the dataset, but also to provide a URL to the dataset within 30 days before the AI system is released to the public. That URL would presumably give creators a way to double-check if their materials have been used and seek any credit or compensation available before the AI tools are in use.

All notices would be kept in a publicly available online database.

Schiff described the act as championing “innovation while safeguarding the rights and contributions of creators, ensuring they are aware when their work contributes to AI training datasets.”

“This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness,” Schiff said.

Currently, creators who don’t have access to training datasets rely on AI models’ outputs to figure out if their copyrighted works may have been included in training various AI systems. The New York Times, for example, prompted ChatGPT to spit out excerpts of its articles, relying on a tactic to identify training data by asking ChatGPT to produce lines from specific articles, which OpenAI has curiously described as “hacking.”

Under Schiff’s law, The New York Times would need to consult the database to ID all articles used to train ChatGPT or any other AI system.

Any AI maker who violates the act would risk a “civil penalty in an amount not less than $5,000,” the proposed bill said.

At a hearing on artificial intelligence and intellectual property, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)—who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet—told Schiff that his subcommittee would consider the “thoughtful” bill.

Schiff told the subcommittee that the bill is “only a first step” toward “ensuring that at a minimum” creators are “aware of when their work contributes to AI training datasets,” saying that he would “welcome the opportunity to work with members of the subcommittee” on advancing the bill.

“The rapid development of generative AI technologies has outpaced existing copyright laws, which has led to widespread use of creative content to train generative AI models without consent or compensation,” Schiff warned at the hearing.

In Schiff’s press release, Meredith Stiehm, president of the Writers Guild of America West, joined leaders from other creative groups celebrating the bill as an “important first step” for rightsholders.

“Greater transparency and guardrails around AI are necessary to protect writers and other creators” and address “the unprecedented and unauthorized use of copyrighted materials to train generative AI systems,” Stiehm said.

Until the thorniest AI copyright questions are settled, Ken Doroshow, a chief legal officer for the Recording Industry Association of America, suggested that Schiff’s bill filled an important gap by introducing “comprehensive and transparent recordkeeping” that would provide “one of the most fundamental building blocks of effective enforcement of creators’ rights.”

A senior adviser for the Human Artistry Campaign, Moiya McTier, went further, celebrating the bill as stopping AI companies from “exploiting” artists and creators.

“AI companies should stop hiding the ball when they copy creative works into AI systems and embrace clear rules of the road for recordkeeping that create a level and transparent playing field for the development and licensing of genuinely innovative applications and tools,” McTier said.

AI copyright guidance coming soon

While courts weigh copyright questions raised by artists, book authors, and newspapers, the US Copyright Office announced in March that it would be issuing guidance later this year, but the office does not seem to be prioritizing questions on AI training.

Instead, the Copyright Office will focus first on issuing guidance on deepfakes and AI outputs. This spring, the office will release a report “analyzing the impact of AI on copyright” of “digital replicas, or the use of AI to digitally replicate individuals’ appearances, voices, or other aspects of their identities.” Over the summer, another report will focus on “the copyrightability of works incorporating AI-generated material.”

Regarding “the topic of training AI models on copyrighted works as well as any licensing considerations and liability issues,” the Copyright Office did not provide a timeline for releasing guidance, only confirming that their “goal is to finalize the entire report by the end of the fiscal year.”

Once guidance is available, it could sway court opinions, although courts do not necessarily have to apply Copyright Office guidance when weighing cases.

The Copyright Office’s aspirational timeline does seem to be ahead of when at least some courts can be expected to decide on some of the biggest copyright questions for some creators. The class-action lawsuit raised by book authors against OpenAI, for example, is not expected to be resolved until February 2025, and the New York Times’ lawsuit is likely on a similar timeline. However, artists suing Stability AI face a hearing on that AI company’s motion to dismiss this May.

US lawmaker proposes a public database of all AI training material Read More »

starting-today,-isps-must-display-labels-with-price,-speeds,-and-data-caps

Starting today, ISPs must display labels with price, speeds, and data caps

broadband labels, Policy / /

Broadband consumer labels —

ISPs comply with FCC rule after protesting requirement to list all fees.

–

A Comcast service van seen from behind.

Getty Images | Smith Collection/Gado

A sample consumer label for home Internet service.

Enlarge / A sample consumer label for home Internet service.

FCC

Starting today, home Internet and mobile broadband providers in the US are required to display consumer labels with information on prices, speeds, and data allowances.

“Today’s nationwide launch of the Broadband Consumer Labels means internet service providers are now required to display consumer-friendly labels at the point of sale,” the Federal Communications Commission said. “Labels are required for all standalone home or fixed Internet service or mobile broadband plans. Providers must display the label—not simply an icon or link to the label—in close proximity to an associated plan’s advertisement.”

The labels are required now for providers with at least 100,000 subscribers, while ISPs with fewer customers have until October 10, 2024, to comply. “If a provider is not displaying their labels or has posted inaccurate information about its fees or service plans, consumers can file a complaint with the FCC Consumer Complaint Center,” an agency webpage says.

The October 10 date will also bring an additional requirement that providers “make the labels machine-readable to enable third parties to more easily collect and aggregate data for the purpose of creating comparison-shopping tools for consumers,” the FCC said.

What to look for

The FCC issued a consumer advisory telling broadband users what to look for in the labels. Labels should include the monthly price, state whether it is an introductory rate, the amount of time that an introductory rate applies, and the price after any introductory rate expires. The labels must include any additional monthly charges, one-time fees, early termination fees, and taxes.

Speed information should include typical download speed, upload speed, and latency. For data caps, the labels should state how much data is included with the monthly price and how much consumers have to pay for additional usage.

Labels should also include links to information on discounts and service bundles, network management practices, and privacy policies.

ISPs complained, but now comply

The FCC was required to implement broadband label rules in a 2021 law passed by Congress, and the agency approved the label rules in November 2022. The rules didn’t take effect until now in part because they were subject to a federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under requirements in the US Paperwork Reduction Act.

Comcast and other ISPs complained that listing every monthly fee would be too difficult, but the FCC rejected the industry’s petition to weaken the rules. Big ISPs appear to be complying with the rules so far.

Comcast set up a webpage where you can enter your address to find broadband labels for each speed tier. You can also see the Comcast labels by adding a broadband plan to your cart using the company’s standard checkout process.

We confirmed today that broadband labels are being displayed by AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Charter Spectrum on their checkout pages. Google Fiber got things rolling early by launching its labels in October 2023.

In addition to the broadband labels, the FCC is forcing TV providers to advertise “all-in” prices instead of using hidden fees to conceal the full cost of video service. The FCC voted to adopt the TV price rule last month, but it is subject to a Paperwork Reduction Act review before it can take effect.

Starting today, ISPs must display labels with price, speeds, and data caps Read More »

epa’s-pfas-rules:-we’d-prefer-zero,-but-we’ll-accept-4-parts-per-trillion

EPA’s PFAS rules: We’d prefer zero, but we’ll accept 4 parts per trillion

clean water act, EPA, Forever chemicals, PFAS, Policy, regulation, Science / /

Approaching zero —

For two chemicals, any presence in water supplies is too much.

–

A young person drinks from a public water fountain.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it has finalized rules for handling water supplies that are contaminated by a large family of chemicals collectively termed PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances). Commonly called “forever chemicals,” these contaminants have been linked to a huge range of health issues, including cancers, heart disease, immune dysfunction, and developmental disorders.

The final rules keep one striking aspect of the initial proposal intact: a goal of completely eliminating exposure to two members of the PFAS family. The new rules require all drinking water suppliers to monitor for the chemicals’ presence, and the EPA estimates that as many as 10 percent of them may need to take action to remove them. While that will be costly, the health benefits are expected to exceed those costs.

Going low

PFAS are a collection of hydrocarbons where some of the hydrogen atoms have been swapped out for fluorine. This swap retains the water-repellant behavior of hydrocarbons while making the molecules highly resistant to breaking down through natural processes—hence the forever chemicals moniker. They’re widely used in water-resistant clothing and non-stick cooking equipment and have found uses in firefighting foam. Their widespread use and disposal has allowed them to get into water supplies in many locations.

They’ve also been linked to an enormous range of health issues. The EPA expects that its new rules will have the following effects: fewer cancers, lower incidence of heart attacks and strokes, reduced birth complications, and a drop in other developmental, cardiovascular, liver, immune, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, musculoskeletal, and carcinogenic effects. These are not chemicals you want to be drinking.

The striking thing was how far the EPA was willing to go to get them out of drinking water. For two chemicals, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), the Agency’s ideal contamination level is zero. Meaning no exposure to these chemicals whatsoever. Since current testing equipment is limited to a sensitivity of four parts per trillion, the new rules settle for using that as the standard. Other family members see limits of 10 parts per trillion, and an additional limit sets a cap on how much total exposure is acceptable when a mixture of PFAS is present.

Overall, the EPA estimates that there are roughly 66,000 drinking water suppliers that will be subject to these new rules. They’ll be given three years to get monitoring and testing programs set up and provided access to funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help offset the costs. All told, over $20 billion will be made available for the testing and improvements to equipment needed for compliance.

The Agency expects that somewhere between 4,000 and 6,500 of those systems will require some form of decontamination. While those represent a relatively small fraction of the total drinking water suppliers, it’s estimated that nearly a third of the US’ population will see its exposure to PFAS drop. Several technologies, including reverse osmosis and exposure to activated carbon, are capable of pulling PFAS from water, and the EPA is leaving it up to each supplier to choose a preferred method.

Cost/benefit

All of that monitoring and decontamination will not come cheap. The EPA estimates that the annual costs will be in the neighborhood of $150 billion, which will likely be passed on to consumers via their water suppliers. Those same consumers, however, are expected to see health benefits that outweigh these costs. EPA estimates place the impact of just three of the health improvements (cancer, cardiovascular, and birth complications) at $150 billion annually. Adding all the benefits of the rest of the health improvements should greatly exceed the costs.

The problem, of course, is that people will immediately recognize the increased cost of their water bills, while the savings of medical problems that don’t happen are much more abstract.

Overall, the final plan is largely unchanged from the EPA’s original proposal. The biggest differences are that the Agency is giving water suppliers more time to comply, somewhat more specific exposure allowances, and the ability of suppliers with minimal contamination to go longer in between submitting test results.

“People will live longer, healthier lives because of this action, and the benefits justify the costs,” the agency concluded in announcing the new rules.

EPA’s PFAS rules: We’d prefer zero, but we’ll accept 4 parts per trillion Read More »

elon-musk-denies-knowing-who’s-suing-him-to-dodge-defamation-suit

Elon Musk denies knowing who’s suing him to dodge defamation suit

Policy / /
Elon Musk denies knowing who’s suing him to dodge defamation suit

After Elon Musk was accused of defaming Ben Brody—a 22-year-old Jewish man falsely linked to a neo-Nazi brawl in tweets that Musk responded to last year—the owner of X (formerly Twitter) sat for a heated Zoom deposition where he repeatedly denied ever knowing who Brody was.

When Brody’s attorney, Mark Bankston, asked Musk if he thought he ever did anything “wrong” to Brody, Musk replied, “I don’t know Ben Brody.”

“You’re aware that Ben Brody is somebody who’s sued you, right?” Bankston asked.

“I think you’re the one suing,” Musk said, adding that he views “many cases and probably this one too that the real plaintiff is the lawyer seeking money like you.” Continually, Musk emphasized, “what I think” the defamation case is “really about is about you getting a lot of money.”

Musk filed a motion to dismiss Brody’s case in January, accusing Brody of targeting “Musk’s exercise of his freedom of speech for the improper purpose of obtaining a payment ‘exceed[ing] $1,000,000,’ to which Brody is not entitled from Musk.” In the deposition, Musk accused Bankston of attacking his free speech rights, and in the motion to dismiss, Musk argued that “the public’s discussion of the identity of perpetrators of crime would be unduly trampled by the fear of liability for merely negligent speech,” if Brody won his defamation suit.

In that petition, Musk accused Brody of targeting him because he’s a billionaire, repeatedly pointing out that Brody had not sued other X users who had specifically named Brody as an alleged brawler in blogs and on X.

Musk’s tweet, the motion to dismiss argued, only claimed that a picture of one brawler “looks like” a “college student (who wants to join the govt).” Because the photo was not actually of Brody, Musk argued, and because he never names Brody, then Brody cannot claim he was defamed.

“It is not defamatory to say someone looks like someone else—that is not an accusation of a crime,” Musk’s motion to dismiss said.

But Bankston asked Musk in the deposition if “the reason that you’re saying that it looks like one is a college student” was because of other posts that Musk had seen where right-wing influencers had named Brody as involved in the brawl, describing him as a liberal college student studying political science.

“That’s probably why I’m saying this,” Musk confirmed, while arguing that he was obviously “speculating” in the tweet, which is why he tagged Community Notes to “fact-check” his own tweet.

“I can see a picture of my brother and say that looks like my brother, but it might not be my brother,” Musk argued.

Bankston told Musk that his X post garnered more than a million views, asking Musk, “Do you think you owed it to Ben Brody to be accurate as you could?”

Musk told Bankston that he aspires “to be accurate no matter who the person is,” suggesting that while it’s possible to be harmed by people posting false information, he did not think Brody was harmed by his tweet.

“I don’t think he has been meaningfully harmed by this,” Musk said, insisting to Bankston that he could not have defamed Brody because “I have no ill will to Ben Brody. I don’t know Ben Brody.”

Brody’s complaint alleged that Musk boosting a post linking him to the neo-Nazi brawl has caused permanent reputational damage and severe emotional harm. Bankston declined Ars’ request to comment on whether Brody continues to be a target for harassment and death threats.

“People are attacked all the time in the media, online media, social media, but it is rare that that actually has a meaningful negative impact on their life,” Musk said.

Brody has asked Musk to delete his post, but Musk claims he cannot recall ever being asked. In one of the few times when Alex Spiro, Musk’s attorney, advised Musk not to respond, Musk gave no answer when Bankston asked, “If you knew right now—knowing right now Ben is really upset that this tweet is still up and that he wanted there to be a retraction, how do you feel about that?”

Bankston also confirmed that Musk’s post never got fact-checked by Community Notes and thus appears to still be boosting the misinformation.

Elon Musk denies knowing who’s suing him to dodge defamation suit Read More »