X says it's ending business operations in Brazil effective immediately, but the service will remain available to users in the country. The company says Alexandre de Moraes, the president of the Superior Electoral Court and a justice of the Supreme Federal Court, threatened one of X's legal representatives with arrest if it did not "comply with his censorship orders." 

According to Reuters, de Moreas demanded that X remove certain content from its platform. Rather than comply, X has opted to end its local operations "to protect the safety of our staff." 

According to X, de Moraes made the threat in a "secret order," which it shared publicly. X owner Elon Musk claimed that the demand "would require us to break (in secret) Brazilian, Argentinian, American and international law." He added that, "The decision to close the 𝕏 office in Brazil was difficult, but, if we had agreed to @alexandre’s (illegal) secret censorship and private information handover demands, there was no way we could explain our actions without being ashamed."

"Despite our numerous appeals to the Supreme Court not being heard, the Brazilian public not being informed about these orders and our Brazilian staff having no responsibility or control over whether content is blocked on our platform, Moraes has chosen to threaten our staff in Brazil rather than respect the law or due process," X said in a statement on its Global Government Affairs account. "[de Moraes'] actions are incompatible with democratic government. The people of Brazil have a choice to make — democracy, or Alexandre de Moraes."

Musk has been railing against de Moraes for months. In April, he said he would defy orders from the legislator to block certain accounts in Brazil, claiming that they were unconstitutional. In response, de Moraes opened an obstruction of justice inquiry against Musk. X said later in April it would comply with every order issued by Brazil's top courts.

That same month, the House Judiciary Committee released an interim staff report claiming that the Brazilian government was trying to force X (and other social media platforms) to censor more than 300 accounts. It said that the accounts included those belonging to former Brazil president Jair Bolsonaro, a member of the country's federal senate and a journalist.

X does not have a public relations team that can be reached for comment.

OpenAI said on Friday that it thwarted an Iranian influence campaign that used ChatGPT to generate fake news stories and social posts aimed at Americans. The company said it identified and banned accounts generating content for five websites (in English and Spanish) pretending to be news outlets, spreading “polarizing messages” on issues like the US presidential campaign, LGBTQ+ rights and the war in Gaza.

The operation was identified as “Storm-2035,” part of a series of influence campaigns Microsoft identified last week as “connected with the Iranian government.” In addition to the news posts, it included “a dozen accounts on X and one on Instagram” connected to the operation. OpenAI said the op didn’t appear to have gained any meaningful traction. “The majority of social media posts that we identified received few or no likes, shares, or comments,” the company wrote.

In addition, OpenAI said that on the Brookings Institution’s Breakout Scale, which rates threats, the operation only charted a Category 2 rating (on a scale of one to six). That means it showed “activity on multiple platforms, but no evidence that real people picked up or widely shared their content.”

OpenAI described the operation as creating content for faux conservative and progressive news outlets, targeting opposing viewpoints. Bloomberg said the content suggested Donald Trump was “being censored on social media and was prepared to declare himself king of the US.” Another framed Kamala Harris’ choice of Tim Walz as her running mate as a “calculated choice for unity.”

OpenAI added that the operation also created content about Israel’s presence at the Olympics and (to a lesser degree) Venezuelan politics, the rights of Latin American communities and Scottish Independence. In addition, the campaign peppered the heavy stuff with comments about fashion and beauty, “possibly to appear more authentic or in an attempt to build a following.”

“The operation tried to play both sides but it didn’t look like it got engagement from either,” OpenAI Intelligence and Investigations investigator Ben Nimmo told Bloomberg.

The busted dud of an influence op follows the disclosure earlier this week that Iranian hackers have targeted both Harris’ and Trump’s campaigns. The FBI said informal Trump adviser Roger Stone fell victim to phishing emails. The Iranian hackers then took control of his account and sent messages with phishing links to others. The FBI found no evidence that anyone in the Harris campaign fell for the scheme.

The Federal Communications Commission's voted to restore net neutrality protections back in April, but the process isn't as smooth-sailing as its proponents would like. According to Reuters and Fast Company, the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals has temporarily blocked the rules from taking effect because the broadband providers' legal case challenging their reinstatement will likely succeed. A group of cable, telecom and mobile internet providers sued the FCC shortly after its three Democrat commissioners voted to restore net neutrality protections

Under net neutrality rules, broadband services are classified as essential communications resources. That gives the FCC the power to regulate broadband internet and to prohibit providers from offering paid prioritization, which some ISPs have been using to charge bandwidth-heavy companies like Netflix additional fees. It will also prevent ISPs from blocking or slowing down traffic to specific websites. 

Net neutrality's opponents have long argued that the rules will put off investors. The group of providers that filed this recent case against the FCC said the rules' reinstatement would force them to "forego valuable new services, incur prohibitive compliance costs and pay more to obtain capital." In its decision, the court wrote that the "commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations and that "net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization."

The commission originally approved net neutrality rules back in 2015, though they have been in the works for years before that. Under the Trump administration, however, the FCC had voted to roll back the rules and to reclassify broadband internet services back to Title I, which means the agency would have less oversight on the industry. The rules were supposed to take effect on July 22 after the FCC voted to reinstate them, but a court blocked them from taking effect until August 5. Now, net neutrality's proponents will have to wait even longer. The appeals court has scheduled oral arguments discussing the issue for late October or early November, before or during the 2024 US presidential election. 

The Federal Communications Commission's voted to restore net neutrality protections back in April, but the process isn't as smooth-sailing as its proponents would like. According to Reuters and Fast Company, the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals has temporarily blocked the rules from taking effect because the broadband providers' legal case challenging their reinstatement will likely succeed. A group of cable, telecom and mobile internet providers sued the FCC shortly after its three Democrat commissioners voted to restore net neutrality protections

Under net neutrality rules, broadband services are classified as essential communications resources. That gives the FCC the power to regulate broadband internet and to prohibit providers from offering paid prioritization, which some ISPs have been using to charge bandwidth-heavy companies like Netflix additional fees. It will also prevent ISPs from blocking or slowing down traffic to specific websites. 

Net neutrality's opponents have long argued that the rules will put off investors. The group of providers that filed this recent case against the FCC said the rules' reinstatement would force them to "forego valuable new services, incur prohibitive compliance costs and pay more to obtain capital." In its decision, the court wrote that the "commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations and that "net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization."

The commission originally approved net neutrality rules back in 2015, though they have been in the works for years before that. Under the Trump administration, however, the FCC had voted to roll back the rules and to reclassify broadband internet services back to Title I, which means the agency would have less oversight on the industry. The rules were supposed to take effect on July 22 after the FCC voted to reinstate them, but a court blocked them from taking effect until August 5. Now, net neutrality's proponents will have to wait even longer. The appeals court has scheduled oral arguments discussing the issue for late October or early November, before or during the 2024 US presidential election. 

The Biden administration has taken a sweeping action to ban Kaspersky Labs from selling its antivirus products to US customers. The Russian software company will not be able to sell to new customers starting in July and cannot provide service to current customers after September.

Ahead of the official news, a source told Reuters that the company's connections to the Russian government made it a security risk with the potential to install malware, collect privileged information, or withhold software updates on American computers. US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo announced the ban at a briefing today.

"You have done nothing wrong, and you are not subject to any criminal or civil penalties," she said to current Kaspersky customers. "However, I would encourage you, in as strong as possible terms, to immediately stop using that software and switch to an alternative in order to protect yourself and your data and your family."

The Russian company has been the topic of cybersecurity questions many times over the years. The Federal Communications Commission put Kaspersky on its list of companies posing unacceptable security risks in 2022. In 2017, Kaspersky products were banned from use in US federal agencies, and the business also drew scrutiny from the UK's cybersecurity leadership.

This level of presidential order to block or limit access to tech and software from countries deemed foreign adversaries dates from the Trump administration. In 2020, he made an effort to ban TikTok and WeChat on the grounds that the Chinese-owned apps could be a security risk. That action was overturned in 2021, but it sparked a review of the apps that has culminated in legislation Biden signed in April that could force TikTok to find a new owner to continue operating in the States.

European Union officials have delayed talks over proposed legislation that could lead to messaging services having to scan photos and links to detect possible child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Were the proposal to become law, it may require the likes of WhatsApp, Messenger and Signal to scan all images that users upload — which would essentially force them to break encryption.

For the measure to pass, it would need to have the backing of at least 15 of the member states representing at least 65 percent of the bloc's entire population. However, countries including Germany, Austria, Poland, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic were expected to abstain from the vote or oppose the plan due to cybersecurity and privacy concerns, Politico reports. If EU members come to an agreement on a joint position, they'll have to hash out a final version of the law with the European Commission and European Parliament.

The legislation was first proposed in 2022 and it could result in messaging services having to scan all images and links with the aim of detecting CSAM and communications between minors and potential offenders. Under the proposal, users would be informed about the link and image scans in services' terms and conditions. If they refused, they would be blocked from sharing links and images on those platforms. However, as Politico notes, the draft proposal includes an exemption for “accounts used by the State for national security purposes."

EU Council leaders are said to have been trying for six months to break the impasse and move forward negotiations to finalize the law. Belgium's presidency of the Council is set to end on June 30, and it's unclear if the incoming leadership will continue to prioritize the proposal.

Patrick Breyer, a digital rights activist who was a member of the previous European Parliament before this month's elections, has argued that proponents of the so-called "chat control" plan aimed to take advantage of a power vacuum before the next parliament is constituted. Breyer says that the delay of the vote, prompted in part by campaigners, "should be celebrated," but warned that "surveillance extremists among the EU governments" could again attempt to advance chat control in the coming days.

Other critics and privacy advocates have slammed the proposal. Signal president Meredith Whittaker said in a statement that "mass scanning of private communications fundamentally undermines encryption," while Edward Snowden described it as a "terrifying mass surveillance measure."

Advocates, on the other hand, have suggested that breaking encryption would be acceptable in order to tackle CSAM. "The Commission proposed the method or the rule that even encrypted messaging can be broken for the sake of better protecting children," Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová said on Thursday, per EuroNews.

The EU is not the only entity to attempt such a move. In 2021, Apple revealed a plan to scan iCloud Photos for known CSAM. However, it scrapped that controversial effort following criticism from the likes of customers, advocacy groups and researchers.

Spain has blocked Meta from rolling out election-focused features on Facebook and Instagram in the country. Data protection agency AEPD used emergency powers stipulated in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to ban the Election Day Information and Voter Information Unit tools for up to three months as a precautionary measure.

Meta planned to deploy these tools ahead of the European Parliament election. The company said it designed them to “respect users' privacy and comply with the GDPR” and while it disagrees with the AEPD’s stance, Meta told TechCrunch it will comply with the order.

The agency took aim at how Meta planned to process data via the tools. It said there was no justification for the collection of age data (due to an inability to verify the ages users have on their profiles) and it criticized Meta’s intent to retain the data after the June election. It claimed this plan "reveals an additional purpose for the processing operation.”

Other data that Meta planned to process via the election tools included user interactions with those features as well as gender information. “The agency considers that the collection and conservation of data planned by the company would seriously put at risk the rights and freedoms of Instagram and Facebook users, who would see an increase in the volume of information that it collects about them, allowing the creation of more complex, detailed and exhaustive profiles, generating more intrusive treatments,” the AEPD said in a statement translated from Spanish. It also cited concerns about such data being made available to third parties for “non-explicit purposes.”

The AEPD asserts that Meta plans to use the tools to remind eligible Facebook and Instagram users in the EU to vote. The watchdog claims that Meta will identify users as eligible voters based on IP addresses and profile data about where they live. However, to vote in the election, the only requirement is to be an adult national of any EU member state.

According to the AEPD, Meta’s approach targets non-EU citizens who live in member countries while leaving out EU citizens who don’t reside in the bloc. It called the company’s treatment of user data "unnecessary, disproportionate and excessive,” according to Reuters. 

The European Commission has raised concerns about Meta’s approach to elections as well. In April, the bloc opened an investigation into the company over its election policies.

The United States notoriously makes tax filing stressful and expensive thanks to greed, the tax lobby and the idea that basically nothing should be free (fun stuff!). However, there's a little glimmer of hope, as the IRS is making Direct File, its free digital tool announced in late 2023, permanent. According to the US Department of the Treasury, a Direct File pilot program saved 140,000 individuals an estimated $5.6 million in filing costs for the 2024 tax session. 

Not only is the program here to stay (with the current government, at least), but its access is expanding. Taxpayers in 12 states could use Direct File this year, but the tool will be available in all 50 states and Washington DC starting with the 2025 filing season. The Treasury reports that Direct File users approved of the tool, with 90 percent of the 11,000 taxpayers surveyed rating the system "excellent" or "above average."  

Right now, the free TurboTax alternative only works for taxpayers with simple filings like a W-2 or standard deduction. However, the Treasury plans to "expand the reach and tax scope" it offers in the coming years. Despite this expansion, it will be up to states whether they want to participate in the program. 

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that could provide at least some accountability for Ticketmaster and other live event vendors. NBC News reports the TICKET Act (not to be confused with the Senate’s separate bill with the same try-hard acronym) would mandate that ticket sellers list upfront the total cost of admission — including all fees — to buyers.

In addition to the full pricing breakdown, the bill would require sellers to indicate whether the tickets are currently in their possession. It would also ban deceptive websites from secondary vendors and force sellers to refund tickets to canceled events. The bill doesn’t appear to address price gouging or extravagant fees.

It now moves to the Senate, which is floating two separate event-reform bills: the other TICKET Act and a bipartisan Fans First Act. The latter was introduced in December to strengthen the 2016 BOTS Act that bars the use of bots to buy tickets, a practice that Taylor Swift fans (among others) can attest is still all too common.

Reforming the ticketing industry became a political point-scoring item in late 2022 after Ticketmaster’s Taylor Swift fiasco. The Live Nation-owned service, which has a stronghold on the industry, melted down as millions of fans battled “a staggering number” of bots. Ticketmaster said presale codes reached 1.5 million fans, but 14 million (including those pesky bots) tried to buy tickets.

Live Nation President and CFO Joe Berchtold testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2023, where he largely passed the buck to Congress to fix the mess. He suggested the government strengthen the BOTS Act, which one of the Senate’s bills would try to do. During the hearing, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) needled the executive for dodging blame, accusing the company of pointing the finger at everyone but itself.

Representatives Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) issued a joint statement on Wednesday about the House’s TICKET Act. “This consensus legislation will end deceptive ticketing practices that frustrate consumers who simply want to enjoy a concert, show, or sporting event by restoring fairness and transparency to the ticket marketplace,” the group wrote. “After years of bipartisan work, we will now be able to enhance the customer experience of buying event tickets online. We look forward to continuing to work together to urge quick Senate passage so that we can send it to the President’s desk to be signed into law.”

Artists publicly supporting legislation to combat the ticketing industry’s failures include (among others) Billie Eilish, Lorde, Green Day, Cyndi Lauper, Jason Mraz and Dave Matthews. “We are joining together to say that the current system is broken: predatory resellers and secondary platforms engage in deceptive ticketing practices to inflate ticket prices and deprive fans of the chance to see their favorite artists at a fair price,” a joint letter from over 250 musicians reads.

Climate protestors in Germany broke through police barricades on Friday, amid clashes between activists and law enforcement. The protestors either made it onto (according to protestors) or near (according to local police) the grounds of a Tesla gigafactory in Grünheide, Germany, near Berlin. It’s part of a planned five-day demonstration ahead of a local government vote next week to determine whether Tesla’s plant can expand.

Wired flagged social media videos showing activists, many of whom have been camping out in treehouses in nearby forest encampments, running toward a Tesla building on the site. In addition, the German newspaper Welt said at least one person participating was injured. Police reportedly police used pepper spray and batons to try to thwart the crowd, and there were at least some arrests.

A spokesperson for one of the groups participating in the protests told Wired that they broke the police barriers and stormed the Tesla grounds. “Eight hundred people have entered the premises of the gigafactory,” Lucia Mende of Disrupt Tesla said. However, local police posted on X (Musk’s social media platform) that the activists only reached a field facing the site. “We have been able to prevent them from entering so far,” they posted.

Axel Schmidt via Getty Images

At least at first glance, it’s easy to wonder why activists are pouring so much energy into fighting Tesla. After all, despite Musk’s increasingly unhinged right-wing conspiracy-mongering and Nazi-catering on X, other automakers pushing gas-guzzling cars seem like more appropriate targets (not to mention the fossil fuel companies spending big bucks on anti-climate-reform disinformation). However, several factors make the issues at the heart of the protests less simplistic.

A (nonbinding) vote in February showed Grünheide residents opposed the expansion by almost a two-to-one ratio. If for no other reason, the local government having a chance to brush aside the overwhelming will of the voters in the name of capitalism is enough to raise the eyebrows of anyone who balks at minority rule.

Wired notes the area is also one of the most water-scarce in Germany, and residents worry the gigafactory will drain the resource, leaving much less for the humans who live there. The plant could also pollute local water supplies.

Those fears appear to have merit: The plant is licensed to use 1.4 million cubic meters of water annually, and a separate Wired report from Tuesday noted that’s enough to supply for a large town. As for the contamination fears, Tesla was fined in 2019 by the EPA for several hazardous waste violations at a California factory. The company paid a grand total of $31,000 to settle. (Tesla had a market cap of almost $76 billion in 2019.)

But some of the groups protesting have concerns that go much farther than those more immediate issues affecting the locals, instead taking issue with the entire electric vehicle movement. “Companies like Tesla are there to save the car industry, they’re not there to save the climate,” Esther Kamm, spokesperson for Turn Off the Tap on Tesla told Wired.

Another activist, who only gave Wired the name Mara, described the factory as the result of “green capitalism.” She views the EV movement as little more than a theatrical performance in the name of profit. “This has been completely thought up by such companies to have more growth, even in times of an environmental crisis,” she said.

I wouldn’t exactly say flipping the bird to the EV movement is a “workable” solution to the very real and pressing climate crisis. Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, the world needs to move quickly to fend off climate change’s most ravaging effects, and the scientific consensus is that the planned shift to EVs will need to play a central role.

Tesla reportedly told its employees at the factory to work from home on Friday, shutting down the plants for the planned protests. As for Friday’s protests, Welt reports that the situation had calmed by afternoon — at least for now.

Climate protestors in Germany broke through police barricades on Friday, amid clashes between activists and law enforcement. The protestors either made it onto (according to protestors) or near (according to local police) the grounds of a Tesla gigafactory in Grünheide, Germany, near Berlin. It’s part of a planned five-day demonstration ahead of a local government vote next week to determine whether Tesla’s plant can expand.

Wired flagged social media videos showing activists, many of whom have been camping out in treehouses in nearby forest encampments, running toward a Tesla building on the site. In addition, the German newspaper Welt said at least one person participating was injured. Police reportedly police used pepper spray and batons to try to thwart the crowd, and there were at least some arrests.

A spokesperson for one of the groups participating in the protests told Wired that they broke the police barriers and stormed the Tesla grounds. “Eight hundred people have entered the premises of the gigafactory,” Lucia Mende of Disrupt Tesla said. However, local police posted on X (Musk’s social media platform) that the activists only reached a field facing the site. “We have been able to prevent them from entering so far,” they posted.

Axel Schmidt via Getty Images

At least at first glance, it’s easy to wonder why activists are pouring so much energy into fighting Tesla. After all, despite Musk’s increasingly unhinged right-wing conspiracy-mongering and Nazi-catering on X, other automakers pushing gas-guzzling cars seem like more appropriate targets (not to mention the fossil fuel companies spending big bucks on anti-climate-reform disinformation). However, several factors make the issues at the heart of the protests less simplistic.

A (nonbinding) vote in February showed Grünheide residents opposed the expansion by almost a two-to-one ratio. If for no other reason, the local government having a chance to brush aside the overwhelming will of the voters in the name of capitalism is enough to raise the eyebrows of anyone who balks at minority rule.

Wired notes the area is also one of the most water-scarce in Germany, and residents worry the gigafactory will drain the resource, leaving much less for the humans who live there. The plant could also pollute local water supplies.

Those fears appear to have merit: The plant is licensed to use 1.4 million cubic meters of water annually, and a separate Wired report from Tuesday noted that’s enough to supply for a large town. As for the contamination fears, Tesla was fined in 2019 by the EPA for several hazardous waste violations at a California factory. The company paid a grand total of $31,000 to settle. (Tesla had a market cap of almost $76 billion in 2019.)

But some of the groups protesting have concerns that go much farther than those more immediate issues affecting the locals, instead taking issue with the entire electric vehicle movement. “Companies like Tesla are there to save the car industry, they’re not there to save the climate,” Esther Kamm, spokesperson for Turn Off the Tap on Tesla told Wired.

Another activist, who only gave Wired the name Mara, described the factory as the result of “green capitalism.” She views the EV movement as little more than a theatrical performance in the name of profit. “This has been completely thought up by such companies to have more growth, even in times of an environmental crisis,” she said.

I wouldn’t exactly say flipping the bird to the EV movement is a “workable” solution to the very real and pressing climate crisis. Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, the world needs to move quickly to fend off climate change’s most ravaging effects, and the scientific consensus is that the planned shift to EVs will need to play a central role.

Tesla reportedly told its employees at the factory to work from home on Friday, shutting down the plants for the planned protests. As for Friday’s protests, Welt reports that the situation had calmed by afternoon — at least for now.

Climate protestors in Germany broke through police barricades on Friday, amid clashes between activists and law enforcement. The protestors either made it onto (according to protestors) or near (according to local police) the grounds of a Tesla gigafactory in Grünheide, Germany, near Berlin. It’s part of a planned five-day demonstration ahead of a local government vote next week to determine whether Tesla’s plant can expand.

Wired flagged social media videos showing activists, many of whom have been camping out in treehouses in nearby forest encampments, running toward a Tesla building on the site. In addition, the German newspaper Welt said at least one person participating was injured. Police reportedly police used pepper spray and batons to try to thwart the crowd, and there were at least some arrests.

A spokesperson for one of the groups participating in the protests told Wired that they broke the police barriers and stormed the Tesla grounds. “Eight hundred people have entered the premises of the gigafactory,” Lucia Mende of Disrupt Tesla said. However, local police posted on X (Musk’s social media platform) that the activists only reached a field facing the site. “We have been able to prevent them from entering so far,” they posted.

Axel Schmidt via Getty Images

At least at first glance, it’s easy to wonder why activists are pouring so much energy into fighting Tesla. After all, despite Musk’s increasingly unhinged right-wing conspiracy-mongering and Nazi-catering on X, other automakers pushing gas-guzzling cars seem like more appropriate targets (not to mention the fossil fuel companies spending big bucks on anti-climate-reform disinformation). However, several factors make the issues at the heart of the protests less simplistic.

A (nonbinding) vote in February showed Grünheide residents opposed the expansion by almost a two-to-one ratio. If for no other reason, the local government having a chance to brush aside the overwhelming will of the voters in the name of capitalism is enough to raise the eyebrows of anyone who balks at minority rule.

Wired notes the area is also one of the most water-scarce in Germany, and residents worry the gigafactory will drain the resource, leaving much less for the humans who live there. The plant could also pollute local water supplies.

Those fears appear to have merit: The plant is licensed to use 1.4 million cubic meters of water annually, and a separate Wired report from Tuesday noted that’s enough to supply for a large town. As for the contamination fears, Tesla was fined in 2019 by the EPA for several hazardous waste violations at a California factory. The company paid a grand total of $31,000 to settle. (Tesla had a market cap of almost $76 billion in 2019.)

But some of the groups protesting have concerns that go much farther than those more immediate issues affecting the locals, instead taking issue with the entire electric vehicle movement. “Companies like Tesla are there to save the car industry, they’re not there to save the climate,” Esther Kamm, spokesperson for Turn Off the Tap on Tesla told Wired.

Another activist, who only gave Wired the name Mara, described the factory as the result of “green capitalism.” She views the EV movement as little more than a theatrical performance in the name of profit. “This has been completely thought up by such companies to have more growth, even in times of an environmental crisis,” she said.

I wouldn’t exactly say flipping the bird to the EV movement is a “workable” solution to the very real and pressing climate crisis. Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, the world needs to move quickly to fend off climate change’s most ravaging effects, and the scientific consensus is that the planned shift to EVs will need to play a central role.

Tesla reportedly told its employees at the factory to work from home on Friday, shutting down the plants for the planned protests. As for Friday’s protests, Welt reports that the situation had calmed by afternoon — at least for now.

Facebook is a hotbed for conspiracy theories and dangerous organizing at critical moments, like the 650,000-plus posts arguing against President Biden's victory between the 2020 general election and the January 6 insurrection. Some users scattered following the latter and subsequent prosecutions, but a new report first published by Wired shows a resurgence, identifying about 200 groups and profiles across the platform organizing militia activity nationwide.

The research, conducted by the Tech Transparency Project, found these groups have ties to organizations such as the Three Percenters militia network, dubbed by Meta as an "armed militia group" in its 2021 Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List. Yet, groups such as the Free American Army have urged users to join their local militia or the Three Percenters without consequence (Meta took down the Free American Army group only after Wired enquired about it, calling Facebook an "adversarial space" that requires regular investment to stay safe).

Katie Paul, director of the Tech Transparency Project, has watched hundreds of these groups and people since 2021 and has seen an increased seriousness and focus on organizing over the previous year. "Many of these groups are no longer fractured sets of localized militia but coalitions formed between multiple militia groups, many with Three Percenters at the helm," Paul told Wired. "Facebook remains the largest gathering place for extremists and militia movements to cast a wide net and funnel users to more private chats, including on the platform, where they can plan and coordinate with impunity."

The Tech Transparency Project found users seek out "active patriots" to discuss anti-government ideology, attend meetings and take combat training. The latter lends itself to a common theme: being prepared for standing up against or even going to war against enemies such as drag queens, pro-Palestine college students and the government itself.

Take a recent post by the administrator of a group called the Pennsylvania Light Foot, which has over 1,000 members: "In light of the violence and uncertainty in the world, Covid 19 shortages, civil unrest, and potential for terrorist attacks and natural calamity, we exist to equip our members. Our aim is to equip them with the ability to defend themselves, whether it be a mugger on the street or foreign soldier on our lawn." These sentiments are echoed by other extremist organizers across Facebook. 

Meta has attempted to at least create a facade of action and transparency. In 2019, it launched the Oversight Board as an independent reviewer of its content moderation. While the entity has pointed to Facebook's role in dangerous election rhetoric, including incidents outside the United States, critics argue it hasn't been impactful enough. Now, The Washington Post reports that layoffs at the Oversight Board could be imminent.

On August 14, Meta will shutter CrowdTangle, a tool it bought in 2016 that allowed journalists and academics to see how conspiracy theories and false information moved on Facebook and its sister site Instagram — often showcasing the platforms' shortcomings. The company is replacing it with the Meta Content Library, which not only appears to be less detailed but isn't available to for-profit news organizations.

President Biden this weekend signed into law a bill that reauthorizes a controversial spying program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Section 702 of FISA, which has now been extended for two more years, allows for warrantless intelligence gathering on foreign targets. While its focus is on the communications of targets located outside the US, that includes any exchanges with people stateside, meaning Americans’ records can get swept up in these collections too.

The Senate vote on reauthorizing Section 702 came down to the wire. It was set to expire on Friday at midnight, but was recently given an extension until April 2025, according to The New York Times, lest it lapse while disagreements over proposed amendments dragged on. Section 702’s extension period was also shortened, cutting it down to two years instead of the previous five. Congress did ultimately miss the deadline on Friday, but it passed with a 60-34 vote, CBS News reported. The White House issued a statement not long after saying the president “will swiftly sign the bill into law.”

Section 702 was first signed into law in 2008 and has been renewed twice already, allowing US intelligence agencies to use data from internet and cell phone providers without a warrant to keep tabs on foreign targets’ communications. It’s faced strong opposition from both sides over its implications for Americans’ privacy. Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), called the passage of the bill “profoundly disappointing” in a statement released over the weekend, going on to say that it “gives the government more ways to secretly surveil us — with little power to hold spy agencies accountable.”

“Senators were aware of the threat this surveillance bill posed to our civil liberties and pushed it through anyway, promising they would attempt to address some of the most heinous expansions in the near future,” Hamadanchy said. “We plan to make sure these promises are kept.”

Update, April 21 2024, 1:21PM ET: This story has been updated to include a statement from the ACLU.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill on Saturday that could either see TikTok banned in the country or force its sale. A revised version of the bill, which previously passed the House in March but later stalled in Senate, was roped in with a foreign aid package this time around, likely meaning it will now be treated as a higher priority item. The bill originally gave TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, six months to sell the app if it’s passed into law or TikTok would be banned from US app stores. Under the revised version, ByteDance would have up to a year to divest.

The bill passed with a vote of 360-58 in the House, according to AP. It’ll now move on to the Senate, which could vote on it in just a matter of days. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said today that the Senate is working to reach an agreement on when the next vote will be for the foreign aid package that the TikTok bill is attached to, but it is expected to happen this coming Tuesday. President Joe Biden has previously said he would support the bill if Congress passes it. 

The bill paints TikTok as a national security threat due to its ties to China. There are roughly 170 million US users on the app, at least according to TikTok, and ByteDance isn't expected to let them go without a fight. In a statement posted on X earlier this week, the TikTok Policy account said such a law would “trample the free speech rights” of these users, “devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion to the U.S. economy, annually.” Critics of the bill have also argued that banning TikTok would do little in the way of actually protecting Americans’ data.

Apple users in China won't be able to find and download WhatsApp and Threads from the App Store anymore, according to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. The company said it pulled the apps from the store to comply with orders it received from Cyberspace Administration, China's internet regulator, "based on [its] national security concerns." It explained to the publications that it's "obligated to follow the laws in the countries where [it operates], even when [it disagrees]."

The Great Firewall of China blocks a lot of non-domestic apps and technologies in the country, prompting locals to use VPN if they want to access any of them. Meta's Facebook and Instagram are two of those applications, but WhatsApp and Threads have been available for download until now. The Chinese regulator's order comes shortly before the Senate is set to vote on a bill that could lead to a TikTok ban in the US. Cyberspace Administration's reasoning — that the apps are a national security concern — even echoes American lawmakers' argument for blocking TikTok in the country. 

In the current version of the bill, ByteDance will have a year to divest TikTok, or else the short form video-sharing platform will be banned from app stores. The House is expected to pass the bill, which is part of a package that also includes aid to Ukraine and Israel. President Joe Biden previously said that he supports the package and will immediately sign the bills into law. 

The bill that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States appears to be much closer to becoming law. The legislation sailed through the House of Representatives last month, but faced an uncertain future in the Senate due to opposition from a few prominent lawmakers.

But momentum for the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” seems to once again be growing. The House is set to vote on a package of bills this weekend, which includes a slightly revised version of the TikTok bill. In the latest version of the bill, ByteDance would have up to 12 months to divest TikTok, instead of the six-month period stipulated in the original measure.

That change, as NBC News notes, was apparently key to winning over support from some skeptical members of the Senate, including Sen. Maria Cantwell, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. So with the House expected to pass the revised bill Saturday — it’s part of a package that also includes aid to Ukraine and Israel — its path forward is starting to look much more certain, with a Senate vote coming “as early as next week,” according to NBC. President Joe Biden has said he would sign the bill if it’s passed by Congress.

If passed into law, TikTok (and potentially other apps "controlled by a foreign adversary" and deemed to be a national security threat) would face a ban in US app stores if it declined to sell to a new owner. TikTok CEO Shou Chew has suggested the company would likely mount a legal challenge to the law.

“It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans, devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion to the U.S. economy, annually,” TikTok said in a statement.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill on Saturday that could either see TikTok banned in the country or force its sale. A revised version of the bill, which previously passed the House in March but later stalled in Senate, was roped in with a foreign aid package this time around, likely meaning it will now be treated as a higher priority item. The bill originally gave TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, six months to sell the app if it’s passed into law or TikTok would be banned from US app stores. Under the revised version, ByteDance would have up to a year to divest.

The bill passed with a vote of 360-58 in the House, according to AP. It’ll now move on to the Senate, which could vote on it in just a matter of days. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said today that the Senate is working to reach an agreement on when the next vote will be for the foreign aid package that the TikTok bill is attached to, but it is expected to happen this coming Tuesday. President Joe Biden has previously said he would support the bill if Congress passes it. 

The bill paints TikTok as a national security threat due to its ties to China. There are roughly 170 million US users on the app, at least according to TikTok, and ByteDance isn't expected to let them go without a fight. In a statement posted on X earlier this week, the TikTok Policy account said such a law would “trample the free speech rights” of these users, “devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion to the U.S. economy, annually.” Critics of the bill have also argued that banning TikTok would do little in the way of actually protecting Americans’ data.

Apple users in China won't be able to find and download WhatsApp and Threads from the App Store anymore, according to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. The company said it pulled the apps from the store to comply with orders it received from Cyberspace Administration, China's internet regulator, "based on [its] national security concerns." It explained to the publications that it's "obligated to follow the laws in the countries where [it operates], even when [it disagrees]."

The Great Firewall of China blocks a lot of non-domestic apps and technologies in the country, prompting locals to use VPN if they want to access any of them. Meta's Facebook and Instagram are two of those applications, but WhatsApp and Threads have been available for download until now. The Chinese regulator's order comes shortly before the Senate is set to vote on a bill that could lead to a TikTok ban in the US. Cyberspace Administration's reasoning — that the apps are a national security concern — even echoes American lawmakers' argument for blocking TikTok in the country. 

In the current version of the bill, ByteDance will have a year to divest TikTok, or else the short form video-sharing platform will be banned from app stores. The House is expected to pass the bill, which is part of a package that also includes aid to Ukraine and Israel. President Joe Biden previously said that he supports the package and will immediately sign the bills into law. 

The bill that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States appears to be much closer to becoming law. The legislation sailed through the House of Representatives last month, but faced an uncertain future in the Senate due to opposition from a few prominent lawmakers.

But momentum for the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” seems to once again be growing. The House is set to vote on a package of bills this weekend, which includes a slightly revised version of the TikTok bill. In the latest version of the bill, ByteDance would have up to 12 months to divest TikTok, instead of the six-month period stipulated in the original measure.

That change, as NBC News notes, was apparently key to winning over support from some skeptical members of the Senate, including Sen. Maria Cantwell, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. So with the House expected to pass the revised bill Saturday — it’s part of a package that also includes aid to Ukraine and Israel — its path forward is starting to look much more certain, with a Senate vote coming “as early as next week,” according to NBC. President Joe Biden has said he would sign the bill if it’s passed by Congress.

If passed into law, TikTok (and potentially other apps "controlled by a foreign adversary" and deemed to be a national security threat) would face a ban in US app stores if it declined to sell to a new owner. TikTok CEO Shou Chew has suggested the company would likely mount a legal challenge to the law.

“It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans, devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion to the U.S. economy, annually,” TikTok said in a statement.

TikTok’s future is looking increasingly uncertain as support grows for a new bill that would force the company to sell itself or face a ban in the United States. Now, President Joe Biden has come out in support of the measure, one day after it cleared its first legislative hurdle in the House.

"If they pass it, I'll sign it,” he said, in remarks reported by CBS News. The bill, called the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” which was introduced earlier this week, would give TikTok a six-month window to divest itself from parent company ByteDance or face an app store-level ban in the US. Meanwhile, Republicans in the House of Representatives could bring the bill to a floor vote as early as Wednesday, Semafor reported.

TikTok has said the bill is a thinly-veiled effort to force a “total ban” of its app. "This legislation has a predetermined outcome: a total ban of TikTok in the United States," the company said in a statement earlier this week. "The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression. This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.”

The company has also encouraged its millions of users to oppose the measure. On Thursday, ahead of the committee vote on the bill, the app sent push notifications prompting users to call their representatives and ask them to oppose the legislation. The notifications reportedly led to a flood of calls in many Congressional offices as staffers fielded hundreds of calls from teens.

Notably, the bill has another prominent opponent: former President Donald Trump. Though Trump also sought to force a sale of TikTok to a US company during his time in office, the former president said he no longer believes the app should be banned. “If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social.

Though clearing the House would be significant milestone for the bill, it’s unclear where the Senate stands on it. As Semafor points out, some prominent senators have been a bit more cautious in their comments about whether they would support the legislation. At a recent Senate hearing about child safety, several senators pressed TikTok CEO Shou Chew on his own citizenship (he's Singaporean) as well as the app’s ties to China and the practices of its parent company ByteDance.

TikTok is stepping up its efforts to fight a new bill that could force a ban of the app in the United States. The app has been alerting its millions of US users about the measure, which would force ByteDance to sell TikTok in order for the app to remain available in US app stores.

“TikTok is at risk of being shut down in the US,” the push notification says. “Call your representative now.” An in-app message then instructs users to “speak up now — before your government strips 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression.” It also provides users a shortcut to dial their representative’s office if they enter their zip code.

The push alerts are reportedly already having a dramatic effect. Politico reporter Olivia Beavers said that House staffers report their offices are being inundated with calls. One staffer said on X that “we're getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is.”

Unfortunately for TikTok, their plan to stir up resistance to the bill may not be having the intended effect. The flood of calls may in fact be “backfiring,” according to Beavers, who says the response may be increasing support for the bill among members of Congress. In a post on X, Representative Mike Gallagher, who chairs the select committee that introduced the bill, said the push notifications were “interfering with the legislative process.” 

The alerts come amid growing support for the measure, which was introduced earlier this week by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On Thursday, the bill cleared its first legislative hurdle with a unanimous vote, 50 - 0, by members of the Energy and Commerce Committee to advance the measure. President Joe Biden, whose administration has also sought to force a divestiture of TikTok, is reportedly supportive of the bill. As Punchbowl News notes, previous bills to ban TikTok have not had the backing of the White House.

If passed, the bill would give TikTok about six months to separate itself from ByteDance or else an app store ban would take effect. "This legislation has a predetermined outcome: a total ban of TikTok in the United States," TikTok said in a statement published after the vote in the House. "The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression. This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.”

Digital rights groups also oppose the measure. The ACLU has called it “unconstitutional,” while other groups say that comprehensive privacy legislation would be a more effective way to protect Americans’ data.

Update March 7, 2024, 3:52PM ET: This story has been updated to reflect the results of a vote by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a statement from TikTok.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has given Waymo permission to expand its robotaxi operations to Los Angeles and more locations in the San Francisco Peninsula despite opposition from local groups and government agencies. "Waymo may begin fared driverless passenger service operations in the specified areas of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Peninsula, effective today," the regulator wrote in its decision (PDF). As CNBC notes, Waymo has been testing its driverless vehicles in those locations for a while now, but this decision will allow it to charge passengers for their robotaxi rides. 

In the CPUC's decision, it admitted that it received letters of protests regarding Waymo's expansion from the City of South San Francisco, the County of San Mateo, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and the San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance. And, it received those letters before the agency suspended Waymo's expansion efforts in February for up to 120 days following the Alphabet-owned company's revelation that it had issued a recall for its vehicles. Waymo reported back then that two of its robotaxis collided with a backwards-facing pickup truck that was being towed in December 2023 because its software predicted the truck's movements incorrectly. The company had to develop and deploy a fix to its fleet. 

LA Mayor Karen Bass previously sent a letter to the CPUC (PDF), stating her concerns about the regulator's decision to allow autonomous vehicles to operate in her city. "To date, local jurisdictions like Los Angeles have had little to no input in AV deployment and are already seeing significant harm and disruption," she wrote. David Canepa, vice president for the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, also said in a statement regarding this recent development: "I'm confused and a bit suspicious that the CPUC took only 11 days to change its mind on the suspension. I find this to be egregious and disingenuous. We have had no talks to address our concerns and it says to me that neither Waymo nor the CPUC care about local concerns the public safety of our residents."

Waymo spokesperson Julia Ilina, however, assures the public in a statement to Wired that the company will take an "incremental approach" when it comes to deploying the service in LA. It also has "no immediate plans" to expand its service in San Francisco. In addition, she said Waymo will continue to "work closely with city officials, local communities, and [its] partners." Ilina has also noted that while the CPUC did get letters of protest, it also received letters of support for Waymo's expansion from 81 organizations and individuals. They include letters from various groups for the elderly and people with disabilities, local community councils, as well as transportation advocates.

The White House has announced an investigation into cars built in China and other unnamed "countries of concern." The Biden administration notes that cars are "constantly connecting" with drivers' phones, other vehicles, American infrastructure and their manufacturers, and that newer models use tech such as driver assist systems.

"Connected vehicles collect large amounts of sensitive data on their drivers and passengers; regularly use their cameras and sensors to record detailed information on US infrastructure; interact directly with critical infrastructure; and can be piloted or disabled remotely," the White House said in a statement. Officials are concerned that "new vulnerabilities and threats" could arise from connected vehicles if foreign governments are able to access data from them. They are especially wary that said countries of concern could use such information in ways that put national security at risk.

The Department of Commerce will lead the investigation. "We need to understand the extent of the technology in these cars that can capture wide swaths of data or remotely disable or manipulate connected vehicles, so we are soliciting information to determine whether to take action under our ICTS [information and communications technology and services] authorities," Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said.

Through its advance notice of proposed rulemaking [PDF], the agency is looking for feedback from the public to help determine "the technologies and market participants that may be most appropriate for regulation." The investigation will help the Commerce Department decide whether to take action. It's the first time that the agency's Bureau of Industry and Security is carrying out an investigation under Trump-era Executive Orders "focused on protecting domestic information and communications technology and services supply chains from national security threats," the White House said.

"China is determined to dominate the future of the auto market, including by using unfair practices. China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security. I’m not going to let that happen on my watch," President Joe Biden said. "Connected vehicles from China could collect sensitive data about our citizens and our infrastructure and send this data back to the People’s Republic of China. These vehicles could be remotely accessed or disabled."

As The Washington Post points out, cars built in China aren't especially common on US roads as yet, but they're becoming an increasingly familiar sight in other markets, such as Europe. While many of the vehicles that are causing concerns are EVs, its cars' cameras, sensors and software that are the focus of the probe.

It's not the first time that the US has investigated Chinese companies over concerns that they pose security risks to the country's infrastructure. A few years ago, it banned the import and sale of telecom networking equipment made by Huawei and ZTE (after stopping government employees from using the companies' phones). The government also required telecoms to remove and replace Huawei and ZTE gear in existing infrastructure at great expense.

The two primary fears around AI are that the information these systems produce is gibberish, and that it'll unjustly take jobs away from people who won't make such sloppy mistakes. But the UK's current government is actively promoting the use of AI to do the work normally done by civil servants, including drafting responses to parliamentary inquiries, the Financial Times reports.

UK Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden is set to unveil a "red box" tool that can allegedly absorb and summarize information from reputable sources, like the parliamentary record. A separate instrument is also being trialed that should work similarly but with individual responses to public consultations. While it's unclear how quickly the AI tool can perform this work, Dowden claims it takes three months with 25 civil servants. However, the drafts would allegedly always be double-checked by a human and include sourcing. 

The Telegraph quoted Dowden arguing that implementing AI technology is critical to cutting civil service jobs — something he wants to do. "It really is the only way, I think, if we want to get on a sustainable path to headcount reduction. Remember how much the size of the Civil Service has grown as a result of the pandemic and, and EU exit preparedness. We need to really embrace this stuff to drive the numbers down." Dowden's statement aligns with hopes from his boss, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, to use technology to increase government productivity — shockingly, neither person has offered to save money by giving AI their job. 

Dowden does show some restraint against having AI do everything. In a pre-speech briefing, he noted that the government wouldn't use AI for any "novel or contentious or highly politically sensitive areas." At the same time, the Cabinet Office's AI division is set to grow from 30 to 70 employees and to get a new budget of £110 million ($139.1 million), up from £5 million ($6.3 million).

X, formerly Twitter, is once again restricting content in India. The company's Global Government Affairs account announced that the Indian government had issued an executive order mandating that X withhold specific accounts and posts or face penalties such as "significant fines and imprisonment." X further stated that it doesn't agree with the order and is challenging it. 

The designated posts and accounts will only be blocked within India, however, there's no clear list of those affected. "Due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders, but we believe that making them public is essential for transparency," the Global Government Affairs post stated. "This lack of disclosure can lead to a lack of accountability and arbitrary decision-making." X claims to have notified all affected parties. 

The posts likely center around the ongoing farmers' protest, which, since February 13, has seen multiple farmers' unions on strike in a bid to get floor pricing, or a minimum support price, for crops sold. Violent clashes between protesters and police have already resulted in at least one death, AP News reports. Mohammed Zubair, an Indian journalist and co-founder of Alt News, shared purported screenshots of suspended accounts belonging to individuals critical of the current government, on-the-ground reporters, prominent farm unionists, and more. 

This forced blocking is far from the first incident between X and India. In 2022, X sued the Indian government for "arbitrarily and disproportionately" applying its IT laws passed the year prior. The law required the company to hire a point of contact for the local authorities and a domestic compliance officer. Prior to this concession, in early 2021, the Indian government had threatened to jail X's employees if posts about the then occurring farmers' protest stayed live on the site. Shortly after, the country mandated that X remove content criticizing its COVID-19 response.

India dismissed X's suit in June 2023, claiming the company didn't properly explain why it had ever delayed complying with the country's IT laws. The court also fined X 5 million rupees ($60,300), stating, "You are not a farmer but a billon dollar company." The order followed shortly after Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey claimed that India had threatened to raid employees' homes and shut down the site if the company hadn't taken down posts during the farmers' protest. 

A coalition of 20 tech companies signed an agreement Friday to help prevent AI deepfakes in the critical 2024 elections taking place in more than 40 countries. OpenAI, Google, Meta, Amazon, Adobe and X are among the businesses joining the pact to prevent and combat AI-generated content that could influence voters. However, the agreement’s vague language and lack of binding enforcement call into question whether it goes far enough.

The list of companies signing the “Tech Accord to Combat Deceptive Use of AI in 2024 Elections” includes those that create and distribute AI models, as well as social platforms where the deepfakes are most likely to pop up. The signees are Adobe, Amazon, Anthropic, Arm, ElevenLabs, Google, IBM, Inflection AI, LinkedIn, McAfee, Meta, Microsoft, Nota, OpenAI, Snap Inc., Stability AI, TikTok, Trend Micro, Truepic and X (formerly Twitter).

The group describes the agreement as “a set of commitments to deploy technology countering harmful AI-generated content meant to deceive voters.” The signees have agreed to the following eight commitments:

• Developing and implementing technology to mitigate risks related to Deceptive AI Election content, including open-source tools where appropriate

• Assessing models in scope of this accord to understand the risks they may present regarding Deceptive AI Election Content

• Seeking to detect the distribution of this content on their platforms

• Seeking to appropriately address this content detected on their platforms

• Fostering cross-industry resilience to deceptive AI election content

• Providing transparency to the public regarding how the company addresses it

• Continuing to engage with a diverse set of global civil society organizations, academics

• Supporting efforts to foster public awareness, media literacy, and all-of-society resilience

The accord will apply to AI-generated audio, video and images. It addresses content that “deceptively fake or alter the appearance, voice, or actions of political candidates, election officials, and other key stakeholders in a democratic election, or that provide false information to voters about when, where, and how they can vote.”

The signees say they will work together to create and share tools to detect and address the online distribution of deepfakes. In addition, they plan to drive educational campaigns and “provide transparency” to users.

FABRICE COFFRINI via Getty Images

OpenAI, one of the signees, already said last month it plans to suppress election-related misinformation worldwide. Images generated with the company’s DALL-E 3 tool will be encoded with a classifier providing a digital watermark to clarify their origin as AI-generated pictures. The ChatGPT maker said it would also work with journalists, researchers and platforms for feedback on its provenance classifier. It also plans to prevent chatbots from impersonating candidates.

“We’re committed to protecting the integrity of elections by enforcing policies that prevent abuse and improving transparency around AI-generated content,” Anna Makanju, Vice President of Global Affairs at OpenAI, wrote in the group’s joint press release. “We look forward to working with industry partners, civil society leaders and governments around the world to help safeguard elections from deceptive AI use.”

Notably absent from the list is Midjourney, the company with an AI image generator (of the same name) that currently produces some of the most convincing fake photos. However, the company said earlier this month it would consider banning political generations altogether during election season. Last year, Midjourney was used to create a viral fake image of Pope Benedict unexpectedly strutting down the street with a puffy white jacket. One of Midjourney’s closest competitors, Stability AI (makers of the open-source Stable Diffusion), did participate. Engadget contacted Midjourney for comment about its absence, and we’ll update this article if we hear back.

Only Apple is absent among Silicon Valley’s “Big Five.” However, that may be explained by the fact that the iPhone maker hasn’t yet launched any generative AI products, nor does it host a social media platform where deepfakes could be distributed. Regardless, we contacted Apple PR for clarification but hadn’t heard back at the time of publication.

Although the general principles the 20 companies agreed to sound like a promising start, it remains to be seen whether a loose set of agreements without binding enforcement will be enough to combat a nightmare scenario where the world’s bad actors use generative AI to sway public opinion and elect aggressively anti-democratic candidates — in the US and elsewhere.

“The language isn’t quite as strong as one might have expected,” Rachel Orey, senior associate director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told The Associated Press on Friday. “I think we should give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge that the companies do have a vested interest in their tools not being used to undermine free and fair elections. That said, it is voluntary, and we’ll be keeping an eye on whether they follow through.”

AI-generated deepfakes have already been used in the US Presidential Election. As early as April 2023, the Republican National Committee (RNC) ran an ad using AI-generated images of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The campaign for Ron DeSantis, who has since dropped out of the GOP primary, followed with AI-generated images of rival and likely nominee Donald Trump in June 2023. Both included easy-to-miss disclaimers that the images were AI-generated.

Anadolu via Getty Images

In January, an AI-generated deepfake of President Biden’s voice was used by two Texas-based companies to robocall New Hampshire voters, urging them not to vote in the state’s primary on January 23. The clip, generated using ElevenLabs’ voice cloning tool, reached up to 25,000 NH voters, according to the state’s attorney general. ElevenLabs is among the pact’s signees.

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) acted quickly to prevent further abuses of voice-cloning tech in fake campaign calls. Earlier this month, it voted unanimously to ban AI-generated robocalls. The (seemingly eternally deadlocked) US Congress hasn’t passed any AI legislation. In December, the European Union (EU) agreed on an expansive AI Act safety development bill that could influence other nations’ regulatory efforts.

“As society embraces the benefits of AI, we have a responsibility to help ensure these tools don’t become weaponized in elections,” Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith wrote in a press release. “AI didn’t create election deception, but we must ensure it doesn’t help deception flourish.”