net.wars

Remediating monopoly

This week Judge Amit P. Mehta handed down his ruling on remedies in the antitrust case on search. Decided in 2024, this was the first to find that Google acted illegally as a monopolist . Any decision Mehta made was going to displease a lot of people, and so it has. What the US Department of Justice wanted: Google to divest the Chrome browser and perhaps Android, end the agreements by which Apple, Samsung, and others pay Google to make its search engine the default, and share its search index with competitors. What Mehta says: Google can keep Chrome and Android and go on paying people to make its search engine the default, but it cannot make those agreements exclusive for six years. And it it must share search data with competitors.

So Apple gets to keep the $20 or so billion (in 2022) that comes from Google. Mozilla wins, too: the money it gets from Google is 85% of its income. So do small players such as Opera, as Mike Masnick details at TechDirt. Masnick is a rarity in liking Mehta’s ruling, which he calls “elegant”.

It’s good the judge recognizes the importance of not crippling Google’s browser competitors. But it also shows how distorted and filled with dependencies the market has become.

Most commentators think Google got off very lightly considering it was convicted as a monopolist and it will be allowed to continue doing most of the things the court said it did to exploit its position. Even the Wall Street Journal called the ruling “a notable victory” for both Apple and Google. At Big, where you expect to find anger at monopoly power, Matt Stoller is scathing, arguing that Mehta’s remedies will “obviously” fail, most especially at humbling Google’s leadership so that the company changes its behavior. He compares it – correctly, from memory – to the 1995 Microsoft case. Even though that company avoided being broken up, the case left the leadership averse to risking further regulatory actions.

Google’s appeals are still to come. Also pending are remedies in the *other* case that convicted Google of monopoly behavior, this one in adtech. By the time all is settled, as Mehta writes in his ruling, AI could have profoundly changed the market. This belief defies what former FCC chair Lina Khan wrote to kick antitrust enforcement into a new era. In her career-making 2017 paper on Amazon, she argued that the era in which powerful companies were routinely unseated by the two guys in a garage Bill Gates feared in the late 1990s was over. The big technology companies have become so wealthy they can buy up any startup that seems like it might become a threat.

Mehta is comparing the arrival of generative AI chatbots to those earlier disruptions. Recent studies don’t necessarily agree. Tim Bajarin reports at Forbes that a two-year study by One Little Web finds that as of March chatbots accounted just for 2.96% of searches – and among those chatbots, Google’s Gemini is number three, only a little behind DeepSeek – though a *long* way behind leader ChatGPT (1.7 billion queries versus 47.7 billion).

Expecting “pre-monopolized” generative AI to change the market is a gamble, and possibly a bigger one than Mehta thinks. By the time Google exhausts its appeals, it could indeed have overwhelmed the business of general search and shoved Google up its YouTube. But equally, it could have fizzled entirely.

At his blog, Ed Zitron has compiled a list of all the reasons why AI is a bubble getting ready to go volcanic all over everyone. Among his references is the recent MIT study that found that 95% of US companies investing in generative AI derive no benefit. To be fair, the study blames lack of integration and organizational support rather than the quality of large language models or the technology itself. At Forbes, Arafat Kabir suggests that MIT has measured the wrong thing, failing to recognize how many employees and others are using generative AI to automate small, routine tasks. A friend tells me he uses it to start research on new topics by having it compile a list of sources and references to read further, the sort of assignment he might give a junior researcher could he afford one.

But Zitron is not alone. At the LA Times, Michael Hiltzick argues that the AI bubble began losing air on August 7, when OpenAI launched the latest version of ChatGPT to a worldwide response of “meh”. As predicted here two years ago, generative AI may be hitting a wall in terms of improvement. Hiltzick compares what he thinks is coming to the “dot-com mirage”.

Thing is, while there were many mirages connected with the dot-com boom, and there was a bubble that burst, the infrastructure that was built out to support it was no mirage; it went on to support the massive Internet growth that’s happened since.

But perhaps disruption will come from an entirely different direction. This week Mariella Moon reported at The Verge that Switzerland has released Aspertus, an open source AI language model that its public-institution creators, the Swiss Federal Technology Institute of Lausanne (EPFL), ETH Zurich and the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS), say was trained solely on publicly available data that conforms to copyright and data protection laws. Maybe the new “two guys in a garage” is a national government.

Illustrations: “The kind of anti-trust legislation that is needed”, by J.S. Pughe (via Library of Congress).

Wendy M. Grossman is an aware-winning journalist. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Passing the Uncanny Valley

A couple of weeks ago, the Greenwich Skeptics in the Pub played host to Sophie Nightingale, who studies the psychology of AI deepfakes. The particular project she spoke about was an experiment in whether people can be trained to be better at distinguishing them from real images.

In Nightingale’s experiments, she carefully matched groups of real images to synthetic ones, first created by generative adversarial networks (GANs), later by diffusion models (GeeksforGeeks raters’ demographics.

Then the humans were given some training in what to look for to detect fakes and the experiment was rerun with new sets of faces. The bad news: the training made a little difference, but not much. She went on to do similar experiments with diffusion images.

Nightingale has gone on to do some cross-modal experiments, including audio as well as images, following the 2024 election incident in which New Hampshire voters received robocalls from a faked Joe Biden intended to discourage voters in the January 2024 primary. In the audio experiment, she played the test subjects very short snippets. Played for us in the pub, it was very hard to tell real from fake, and her experimental subjects did no better. I would expect longer clips to be more identifiable as fake. The Biden call succeeded in part because that type of fake had never been tried before. Now, voters, at least in New Hampshire, will know it’s possible that the call they’re getting is part of a newer type of disinformation campaign aimed at

In another experiment, she asked participants to rate the trustworthiness of the facial images they were shown, and was dismayed when they rated the synthetic faces slightly (7.7%) higher than the real ones. In the resulting paper for Journal of Vision, she hypothesizes that this may be because synthetic faces tend to look more like “average” faces, which tend to be rated higher in trustworthiness, even if they’re not the most attractive.

Overall, she concludes that both still images and voice have “passed the Uncanny Valley“, and video will soon follow. In the past, I’ve chosen optimism about this sort of thing, on the basis that earlier generations have been fooled by technological artifacts that couldn’t fool us now for a second. The Cottingley Fairies looks ridiculous after generations of knowledge of photography. On the other hand, Johannes Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring looks more real than modern deepfakes, even though the subject is generally described as imaginary. So it’s possible to think of it as a “deepfake”, painted in oils in the 17th century.

Fakes have always been with us. What generative AI has done to change this landscape is to democratize and scale their creation, just as it’s amping up the scale and speed of cyber attacks. It’s no longer necessary to be even barely competent; the tools keep getting easier.

Listening to Nightingale it seems most likely that work like that in progress by an audience member on identifying technological artifacts that identify fakes will prove to be the right way forward. If those differences can be reliably identified, they could be built into technological tools that can spot indicators we can’t perceive directly. If something like that can be embedded into devices – phones, eyeglasses, wristwatches, laptops – and spot and filter out fakes in real time, and we should be able to regain some ability to trust what we see.

There are some obvious problems with this hoped-for future. Some people will continue to seek to exploit fakes; some may prefer them. The most likely outcome will be an arms race like that surrounding email spam and other battles between malware producers and security people. Still, it’s the first approach that seems to offer a practical solution to coping with a vastly diminished ability to know what’s real and what isn’t.

***

On the Internet your home always leaves you, part 4,563. Twenty-two-year-old blogging site Typepad will disappear in a few weeks. To those of us who have read blogs ever since they began, this news is shocking, like someone’s decided to tear down an old community church. Yes, the congregation has shrunk and aged, and it’s drafty and built on creaking old technology (in Typepad’s case, Moveable Type), but it’s part of shared local history. Except it isn’t, because, as Wikipedia documents, corporate musical chairs means it’s now owned by private equity. Apparently it’s been closed to new signups since 2020, and its bloggers are now being told to move their sites before everything is deleted in September. It feels like the stars of the open web are winking out, one by one.

On the Internet everything is forever, but everything is also ephemeral. Ironically, the site’s marketing slug still reads: “Typepad is the reliable, flexible blogging platform that puts the publisher in control.”

Illustrations: “Girl with a Pearl Earring”, painted by Johannes Vermeer circa 1665.

Wendy M. Grossman is an award-winning journalist. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Email to Ofgem

So, the US has claimed victory against the UK.

Regular readers may recall that in February the UK’s Home Office secretly asked Apple to put a backdoor in the Advanced Data Protection encryption it offers as a feature for iCloud users. In March, Apple challenged the order. The US objected to the requirement that the backdoor should apply to all users worldwide. How dare the Home Office demand the ability to spy on Americans?

On Tuesday, US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced the UK is dropping its demand for the backdoor in Apple’s encryption “that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens”. The key here is “American citizens”. The announcement – which the Home Office is refusing to comment on – ignores everyone else and also the requirement for secrecy. It’s safe to say that few other countries would succeed in pressuring the UK in this way.

As Bll Goodwin reports at Computer Weekly, the US deal does nothing to change the situation for people in Britain or elsewhere. The Investigatory Powers Act (2016) is unchanged. As Parmy Olson writes at Bloomberg, the Home Office can go on issuing Technical Capability Notices to Apple and other companies demanding information on their users that the criminalization of disclosure will keep the companies silent. The Home Office can still order technology companies operating in the UK to weaken their security. And we will not know they’ve done it. Surprisingly, support for this point of view comes from the Federal Trade Commission, which has posted a letter to companies deploring foreign anti-encryption policy (ignoring how often undermining encryption has been US policy, too) and foreign censorship of Americans’ speech. This is far from over, even in the US.

Within the UK, the situation remains as dangerously uncertain as ever. With all countries interconnected, the UK’s policy risks the security of everyone everywhere. And, although US media may have forgotten, the US has long spied on its citizens by getting another country to do it.

Apple has remained silent, but so far has not withdrawn its legal challenge. Also continuing is the case filed by Privacy International, Liberty, and two individuals. In a recent update, PI says both legal cases will be heard over seven days in 2026 as much as possible in the open.

***

For non-UK folk: The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) is the regulator for Britain’s energy market. Its job is to protect consumers.

To Ofgem:

Today’s Guardian (and many others) carries the news that Tesla EMEA has filed an application to supply British homes and businesses with energy.

Please do not approve this application.

I am a journalist who has covered the Internet and computer industries for 35 years. As we all know, Tesla is owned by Elon Musk. Quite apart from his controversial politics and actions within the US government, Elon Musk has shown himself to be an unstable personality who runs his companies recklessly. Many who have Tesla cars love them – but the cars have higher rates of quality control problems than those from other manufacturers, and Musk’s insistence on marketing the “Full Self Drive” feature has cost lives according to the US National Highway and Transportation Safety Agency, which launched yet another investigation into the company just yesterday. In many cases, when individuals have sought data from Tesla to understand why their relatives died in car fires or crashes the company has refused to help them. During the covid emergency, thousands of Tesla workers got covid because Musk insisted on reopening the Tesla factory. This is not a company people should trust with their homes.

With Starlink, Musk has exercised his considerable global power by turning off communications in Ukraine while it was fighting back Russian attacks. SpaceX launches continue to crash. According to the children’s commissioner’s latest report, far more children encounter pornography online on Musk’s X than on pornography sites, a problem that has gotten far worse since Musk took it over.

More generally, he is an enemy of workers’ rights. Misinformation on X helped fuel the Southport riots, and Musk himself has considered trying to oust Keir Starmer as prime minister.

Many are understandably awed by his technological ideas. But he uses these to garner government subsidies and undermine public infrastructure, which he then is able to wield as a weapon to suit his latest whims.

Musk is already far too powerful in the world. His actions in the White House have shown he is either unable to understand or entirely uninterested in the concerns and challenges that face people living on sums that to him seem negligible. He is even less interested in – and often actively opposes – social justice, fairness, and equity. No amount of separation between him and Tesla EMEA will be sufficient to counter his control of and influence over his company. Tesla’s board, just weeks ago, voted to award him $30 billion in shares to “energise and focus” him.

Please do not grant him a foothold in Britain’s public infrastructure. Whatever his company is planning, it does not have British interests at heart.

Ofgem is accepting public comments on Tesla’s application until close of business on Friday, August 22, 2025.

Illustration: Artist Dominic Wilcox’s Stained Glass Driverless Sleeper Car..

Drought conditions

At 404 Media, Matthew Gault was first to spot a press release from the UK’s National Drought Group offering a list of things we can do to save water. The meeting makes sense: people think of the UK as a rainy country, but an increasing number of parts of the UK are experiencing extraordinarily dry weather. This “green and pleasant England” is brown.

Last on the Group’s list of things we can do to save water at home: “Delete old emails and pictures as data centres require vast amounts of water to cool their systems.”

I had to look up the National Drought Group. Says Water Magazine: “The National Drought Group includes the Met[eorology] Office, government, regulators, water companies, farmers, the [Canal and River Trust], angling groups and conservation experts. With further warm, dry weather expected, the NDG will continue to meet regularly to coordinate the national response and safeguard water supplies for people, agriculture, and the environment.”

For those outside the UK: its ten water companies are particular unpopular just now. Created by privatization during Margaret Thatcher’s decade as prime minister, six are being sued for £500 million for “underreporting sewage spills”. Others are being sued for overcharging 35 million household water customers. As just one example, Thames Water will raise prices by 35% over the next three years (on top of other recent rises), and expects customers to pay £7.5 billion for a new reservoir in Oxfordshire. It already has £17 billion in debt, and this week we learned environment secretary Steve Reed has made contingency plans in case the company goes bust. As George Monbiot writes at the Guardian, money that should have been invested in infrastructure went instead to shareholders. Climate change is a factor, sure, but so is poor water management.

All this being the case, the impact consumers can have by doing even the most effective things is dwarfed by the water companies’ failures. Deleting emails is not one of the most effective things.

At his The Weird Turn Pro Substack, Andy Masley provides some useful comparisons. Basic conclusion: you’d have to delete billions of emails to equal the savings of fixing your leaking toilet (if you have one). The whole thing reminds me of a while back when everyone was being told to save electricity by unplugging everything to extinguish all those standby lights. Last year, Which pointed out that the savings are really, really small.

The bizarre idea of deleting emails is coming, at least in part, from a government that is proposing a raft of technology-related legislation and wants, in the next five to ten years, to mastermind all sorts of IT projects, from making AI pervasive throughout government to bringing in a digital ID card. Are they thinking about the data centers they’ll need and the impact they’ll have on water management? Maybe instead tell people not to use generative AI or mine cryptocurrencies?

This much is true: data centers are a problem across the world because they require extreme amounts of water for cooling. In recent examples: at the New York Times, Eli Tan visits the US state of Georgia. At Rest of World, last year Ushar Daniele and Khadija Alam predicted upcoming water shortages in Malaysia, and Claudia Urquieta and Daniela Dib found protests in Chile, where 28 new data centers are planned.

Telling people to delete emails and pictures is just embarrassing – and sad, if people actually do it and sacrifice personal history they care about. As Masley writes, “Major governments should really know better than this.”

***

Two weeks ago we noted the arrival of age verification in the UK. Related, on May 8 the Wikimedia Foundation announced it had filed a legal challenge to the categorization provisions of the Online Safety Act (not the Act itself). The basic problem: there is little in the Act to distinguish between Wikipedia, a crowd-edited provider of highly curated information, and Facebook…or X.

The Foundation says nearly 260,000 volunteers worldwide in 300 languages contribute to Wikipedia. I do myself, but verified or not, I’m in no danger. Many are contributing factual information in countries where the facts offend an authoritarian government intent on shutting them up. The Foundation argues that 1) Wikipedia is “one of the world’s most trusted and widely used digital public goods; 2) it is at risk of being placed in the highest-risk category because of its size and interactive structure; 2) being so categorized would force it to verify the identity of contributors, placing many at risk; 4) could endanger the existence of tools the site uses to combat harmful content; 5) “criminal anonymous abuse”, which is what the Category 1 duty is supposed to help solve, isn’t a problem Wikipedia has. Instead, identifying volunteers is more likely to expose them to it.

So bad news: on August 11, the High Court of Justice dismissed the case.

The better news is that Justice Jeremy Johnson warned that if Ofcom does place Wikipedia in Category 1, it would have to be justifiable as proportionate. The judge also acknowledged the testimony of a user identified as “BLN”, who provided evidence of the extensive threats editors can face.

No one claims Wikipedia is perfect. But it remains an extraordinary collaborative achievement and a public good. It would be a horrifying consequence if legislation intended to protect children deprived them of it.

Illustrations: Kew Green, August 2025.

Machine learning

For decades, technologists imagined teaching machines. Instead, although edtech is indeed permeating classrooms, human teachers have remained in demand. And then came generative AI…

At Rest of World, Laura Rodríguez Salamanca explores AI’s impact in rural Colombia classrooms since Meta added AI bots to WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook and made copying and pasting answers frictionless. Result: first, a big leap in the quality of homework, then kids failing exams.

From a tiny set of conversations, it seems little different in the UK. Underlying is one of those existential questions: what is education for? For many of today’s kids, it’s just a series of hoops to jump through rather than something to love for itself. The result, says a teacher friend, is enormous amounts of pressure on kids from all sides.

“Kids are breaking under the pressure,” she says, adding that they are burdened with far more work than in previous generations. “There’s much less time for discussion or being a human. It’s all about learning to write an essay for maximum marks.” Small wonder if they are attracted to shortcuts.

A university lecturer tells me that at his institution there’s a general argument that AI is part of the world and students should know how to use it productively, but little guidance on acceptable use. Recently, he tried letting students use AI as a critical thinking exercise, focusing on a historical event whose cause is not definitively known. The results were disappointing, as he found it hard to get the students past what the AI said. One student did read a paper the chatbot recommended, but lacked the basic textbook knowledge to recognize that the paper was wrong.

“It’s an ongoing problem, and not that different from Google Scholar or PubMed,” he says.

Thirty years ago, there was a plagiarism panic, as students discovered all the material they could copy from the Internet at large. Kids I spoke to then sounded just like an annoyed university student friend now: people who use these shortcuts are cheating themselves out of their education.

There is some research to support this view. At the MIT Media Lab, Nataliya Kos’myna finds that using generative AI for essay-writing correlates to lower engagement to the point that users “struggled to accurately quote their own work”.

Of course, even before that, student clubs kept copies of old exams, or cribbed from the translations readily found in library stacks. My teacher friend thinks the difference is significant: “They were still engaging with the material to a degree you don’t have to with ChatGPT”. I tell her the story that sparked my interest at the time: a US professor had received a paper about a student’s religious faith and their struggle when deciding to have an abortion – submitted by a male student.

As a counter, she points out that led to services like Turnitin, long widely used to check for copying. “The Internet has made plagiarism a lot easier to detect.” But, she says, chatbots’ output passes the plagiarism checkers. Those are now in an arms race to detect generative AI while it keeps improving.

My university student friend nonetheless finds fellow students using chatbots to generate text, which is against her university’s rules (they do allow students to use chatbots to find citations). In her observations, students are more likely to get away with it for short answers where longer ones are more likely to get flagged. Similarly, in small seminars it’s harder to use chatbot output without being caught; it’s easier to get away with it in larger classes. She also sees it more in subject areas like business, accounting, and economics, where the degree is meant to lead directly to a job.

She finds it surprising. “I don’t understand the point in an academic setting. Why waste the opportunity when you’re the one who will have to pay the student loans?” In her only attempt, she tried to get the chatbot to generate vocabulary flash cards: “There was missing information and some were wrong.” She found it quicker to make her own.

It’s harder for her to suggest what universities should do about it. “There’s a drought of [valuing learning for its own sake] in general. A lot go only because their parents expect them to.”

Like plagiarism detectors, teachers are trying to adapt. In the Rest of World article, Rodríguez Salamanca profiles a teacher who now builds classroom debates around hyperlocal topics unlikely to feature in large language models. In a UK university setting, however, assessing students based on oral debate poses problems: the potential for bias, the need to accommodate non-native speakers and those who have come out of different education systems, and differing cultural norms around classroom behavior. After covid began, many exams shifted to open book; the arrival of chatbots has led my university contact to try to set questions that force the use of multiple sources and that are intended to be things that LLMs don’t handle well.

“We will have to drive more person-to-person,” says the secondary school teacher, citing an example seen on social media of a teacher who gave students a practice exam and time for them to read it together and discuss it before setting them to work on it. “There are implications for workload. But if you can do a lot of routine homework as automated and checked, then you can focus on the meat in the classroom. It makes it a more important place.”

Illustrations: “The Schoolroom”, by Henry Raleigh (from the Smithsonian American Art Museum).

Big bang

In 2008, when the recording industry was successfully lobbying for an extension to the term of copyright to 95 years, I wrote about a spectacular unfairness that was affecting numerous folk and other musicians. Because of my own history and sometimes present with folk music, I am most familiar with this area of music, which aside from a few years in the 1960s has generally operated outside of the world of commercial music.

The unfairness was this: the remnants of a label that had recorded numerous long-serving and excellent musicians in the 1970s were squatting on those recordings and refusing to either rerelease them or return the rights. The result was both artistic frustration and deprivation of a sorely-needed source of revenue.

One of these musicians is the Scottish legend Dick Gaughan, who had a stroke in 2016 and was forced to give up performing. Gaughan, with help from friends, is taking action: a GoFundMe is raising the money to pay “serious lawyers” to get his rights back. Whether one loved his early music or not – and I regularly cite Gaughan as an important influence on what I play – barring him from benefiting from his own past work is just plain morally wrong. I hope he wins through; and I hope the case sets a precedent that frees other musicians’ trapped work. Copyright is supposed to help support creators, not imprison their work in a vault to no one’s benefit.

***

This has been the first week of requiring age verification for access to online content in the UK; the law came into effect on July 25. Reddit and Bluesky, as noted here two weeks ago, were first, but with Ofcom starting enforcement, many are following. Some examples: Spotify; X (exTwitter); Pornhub.

Two classes of problems are rapidly emerging: technical and political. On the technical side, so far it seems like every platform is choosing a different age verification provider. These AVPs are generally unfamiliar companies in a new market, and we are being asked to trust them with passports, driver’s licenses, credit cards, and selfies for age estimation. Anyone who uses multiple services will find themselves having to widely scatter this sensitive information. The security and privacy risks of this should be obvious. Still, Dan Malmo reports at the Guardian that AVPs are already processing five million age checks a day. It’s not clear yet if that’s a temporary burst of one-time token creation or a permanently growing artefact of repetitious added friction, like cookie banners.

X says it will examine users’ email addresses and contact books to help estimate ages. Some systems reportedly send referring page links, opening the way for the receiving AVP to store these and build profiles. Choosing a trustworthy VPN can be tricky, and these intermediaries are in a position to log what you do and exploit the results.

The BBC’s fact-checking service finds that a wide range of public interest content, including news about Ukraine and Gaza and Parliamentary debates, is being blocked on Reddit and X. Sex workers see adults being locked out of legal content.

Meanwhile, many are signing up for VPNs at pace, as predicted. The spike has led to rumors that the government is considering banning them. This seems unrealistic: many businesses rely on VPNs to secure connections for remote workers. But the idea is alarming; its logical extension is the war on general-purpose computation Cory Doctorow foresaw as a consequence of digital rights management in 2011. A terrible and destructive policy can serve multiple masters’ interests and is more likely to happen if it does.

On the political side, there are three camps. One wants the legislation repealed. Another wants to retain aspects many people agree on, such criminalizing cyberflashing and some other types of online abuse, and fix its flaws. The third thinks the OSA doesn’t go far enough, and they’re already saying they want it expanded to include all services, generative AI, and private messaging.

More than 466,000 people have signed a petition calling on the government to repeal the OSA. The government responded: thanks, but no. It will “work with Ofcom” to ensure enforcement will be “robust but proportionate”.

Concrete proposals for fixing the OSA’s worst flaws are rare, but a report from the Open Rights Group offers some; it advises an interoperable system that gives users choice and control over methods and providers. Age verification proponents often compare age-gating websites to ID checks in bars and shops, but those don’t require you to visit a separate shop the proprietor has chosen and hand over personal information. At Ctrl-Shift, Kirra Pendergast explains some of the risks.

Surrounding all that is noise. A US lawyer wants to sue Ofcom in a US federal court (huh?). Reform leader Nigel Farage has called for the Act’s repeal, which led technology secretary Peter Kyle to accuse him – and then anyone else who criticizes the act – of being on the side of sexual predators. Kyle told Mumsnet he apologizes to the generation of UK kids who were “let down” by being exposed to toxic online content because politicians failed to protect them all this time. “Never again…”

In other news, this government has lowered the voting age to 16.

Illustrations: The back cover of Dick Gaughan’s out-of-print 1972 first album, No More Forever.

Wendy M. Grossman is an award-winnning journalist. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Magic math balls

So many ironies, so little time. According to the Financial Times (and syndicated at Ars Technica), the US government, which itself has traditionally demanded law enforcement access to encrypted messages and data, is pushing the UK to drop its demand that Apple weaken its encryption. Normally, you want to say, Look here, countries are entitled to have their own laws whether the US likes it or not. But this is not a law we like!

This all began in February, when the Washington Post reported that the UK’s Home Office had issued Apple with a Technical Capability Notice. Issued under the Investigatory Powers Act (2016) and supposed to be kept secret, the TCN demanded that Apple undermine the end-to-end encryption used for iCloud’s Advanced Data Protection feature. Much protest ensued, followed by two legal cases in front of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, one brought by Apple, the other by Privacy International and Liberty. WhatsApp has joined Apple’s legal challenge.

Meanwhile, Apple withdrew ADP in the UK. Some people argued this didn’t really matter, as few used it, which I’d call a failure of user experience design rather than an indication that people didn’t care about it. More of us saw it as setting a dangerous precedent for both encryption and the use of secret notices undermining cybersecurity.

The secrecy of TCNs is clearly wrong and presents a moral hazard for governments that may prefer to keep vulnerabilities secret so they can take advantage for surveillance purposes. Hopefully, the Tribunal will eventually agree and force a change in the law. The Foundation for Information Policy Research (obDisclosure: I’m a FIPR board member) has published a statement explaining the issues.

According to the Financial Times, the US government is applying a sufficiently potent threat of tariffs to lead the UK government to mull how to back down. Even without that particular threat, it’s not clear how much the UK can resist. As Angus Hanton documented last year in the book Vassal State, the US has many well-established ways of exerting its influence here. And the vectors are growing; Keir Starmer’s Labour government seems intent on embedding US technology and companies into the heart of government infrastructure despite the obvious and increasing risks of doing so. When I read Hanton’s book earlier this year, I thought remaining in the EU might have provided some protection, but Caroline Donnelly warns at Computer Weekly that they, too, are becoming dangerously dependent on US technology, specifically Microsoft.

It’s tempting to blame everything on the present administration, but the reality is that the US has long used trade policy and treaties to push other countries into adopting laws regardless of their citizens’ preferences.

***

As if things couldn’t get any more surreal, this week the Trump administration *also* issued an executive order banning “woke AI” in the federal government. AI models are in future supposed to be “politically neutral”. So, as Kevin Roose writes at the New York Times, the culture wars are coming for AI.

The US president is accusing chatbots of “Marxist lunacy”, where the rest of the world calls them inaccurate, biased toward repeating and expanding historical prejudices, and inconsistent. We hear plenty about chatbots adopting Nazi tropes; I haven’t heard of one promoting workers’ and migrants’ rights.

If we know one thing about AI models it’s that they’re full of crap all the way down. The big problem is that people are deploying them anyway. At the Canary, Steve Topple reports that the UK’s Department of Work and Pensions admits in a newly-published report that its algorithm for assessing whether benefit claimants might commit fraud is ageist and and racist. A helpful executive order would set must-meet standards for *accuracy*. But we do not live in those times.

The Guardian reports that two more Trump EOs expedite building new data centers, promote exports of American AI models, expand the use of AI in the federal government, and intend to solidify US dominance in the field. Oh, and Trump would really like if it people would stop calling it “artificial” and find a new name. Seven years ago, aspirational intelligence” seemed like a good idea. But that was back when we heard a lot about incorporating ethics. So…”magic math ball”?

These days, development seems to proceed ethics-free. DWP’s report, for example, advocates retraining its flawed algorithm but says continuing to operate it is “reasonable and proportionate”. In 2021, for European Digital Rights Initiative, Agathe Balayn and Seda Gürses found, “Debiasing locates the problems and solutions in algorithmic inputs and outputs, shifting political problems into the domain of design, dominated by commercial actors.” In other words, no matter what you think is “neutral”, training data, model, and algorithms are only as “neutral” as their wider context allows them to be.

Meanwhile, nothing to curb the escalating waste. At 404 Media, Emanuel Maiberg finds that Spotify is publishing AI-generated songs from dead artists without anyone’s’ permission. On Monday, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow told viewers that there’s so much “AI slop ” about her that they’ve posted Is That Really Rachel? to catalog and debunk them.

As Ed Zitron writes, the opportunity costs are enormous.

In the UK, the US, and many other places, data centers are threatening the water supply.

But sure, let’s make more of that.

Illustrations: Magic 8 ball toy (via frankieleon at Wikimedia).

Wendy M. Grossman is an award-winning journalist. Her website has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Cautionary tales

I’ve been online for nearly 34 years, and I’m thinking of becoming a child. Or at least, a child to big user-to-user social media services, which next week will start asking for proof of adulthood. On July 25, the new age verification requirements under the Online Safety Act come into effect in the UK. The regulator, Ofcom, has published a guide.

Plenty of companies aim to join this new market. Some are familiar: credit scorers Experian and Transunion. Others are new: Yoti, which we saw demonstrated back in 2016, and Sam Altman and Andreessen Horowitz-backed six-year-old startup World, which recently did a promotional tour for the UK launch of its Orb identification system. Summary: many happy privacy words, but still dubious.

Reddit picked Persona; Dearbail Jordan at the BBC says Redditors will need to upload either a selfie for age estimation or a government-issued ID. Reddit says it will not see this data, only storing each user’s verification status along with the birth date they’ve (optionally) provided.

Bluesky has chosen Kids’ Web Services from Epic Games. The announcement says KWS accepts multiple options: payment cards, ID scans, and face scans. Users who decline to supply this information will be denied access to adult content and direct messaging. How much do I care about either? Would I rather just be a child to two-year-old Bluesky?

On older sites my adulthood ought to be obvious: I joined Twitter/X in 2008 and Reddit in 2015. Do the math, guys! I suppose there is a chance I could have created the account, forgotten it, and then revived it for a child (the “older brother problem”), but I’m not sure these third-party verifiers solve that either.

Everyone wants to protect children. But it doesn’t make sense to do it by creating a system that exposes everyone, including children, to new privacy risks. In its report on how to fix the OSA, the Open Rights Group argues that interoperability and portability should be first principles, and that users should be able to choose providers and methods. Today, the social media companies don’t see age verification data; in five years will they be buying up those providers? These first steps matter, as they are setting the template for what is to come.

This is the opening of a floodgate. On June 27 the US Supreme Court ruled in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton to uphold a law requiring pornographic websites to verify users’ ages through government-issued ID. At TechDirt, Mike Masnick called the ruling taking a chainsaw to the First Amendment.

It’s easy to predict that here will be scandals surrounding the data age verifiers collect, and others where technological failures let children access the wrong sort of content. We’ll hear less about the frustrations of people who are blocked by age verification from essential information. Meanwhile, child safety folks will continue pushing for new levels of control.

The big question is this: how will we know if it’s working? What does “success” look like?

***

At Platformer, Casey Newton covers Substack’s announcement that it has closed series C funding round of $100 million, valuing the company at $1.1 billion. The eight-year-old company gets to say it’s a unicorn.

Newton tries to understand how Substack is worth that. He predicts – logically – that its only choice to justify its venture capitalists’ investment will be rampant enshittification. These guys don’t put in that kind of money without expecting a full-bore return, which is why Newton is dubious about the founders’ promise to invest most of that newly-raised capital in creators. Recall the stages Cory Doctorow laid out: first they amass as many users as possible; then they abuse those users to amass as many business customers (advertisers) as possible; then they squeeze everyone.

Substack, which announced four months ago that it – or, more correctly, its creators – has more than 5 million paid subscriptions, is different in that its multi-sided market structure is more like Uber or Amazon Marketplace than like a social media site or traditional publisher. It has users (readers and listeners), creators (like Uber’s drivers or Amazon’s sellers), and customers (advertisers). Viewed that way, it’s easy to see Substack’s most likely path: raise prices (users and advertisers), raise thresholds and commissions (creators), and, like Amazon, force sellers (creators) into using fee-based additional services in order to stay afloat. Plus, it must crush the competition. See similar math from Anil Dash.

Less ponderable is the headwind of Substack’s controversial hospitality to extremists, noted in 2023 by Jonathan Katz at The Atlantic. Some creators – like Newton – have opted to leave for competitor Ghost, which is both open source and cheaper. Many friends refuse to pay Substack even when they want to support creators whose work they admire. At the time, Stephen Bush responded at the Financial Times that Substack should admit that it’s not a publisher but a “handy bit of infrastructure for sending newsletters”. Is that worth $1.1 billion?

Like earlier Silicon Valley companies, Substack is planning to reverse its previous disdain for advertising, as Benjamin Mullin and Jessica Testa report at the New York Times. The company is apparently also looking forward to embracing social networking.

So, no really new ideas, then?

Illustrations: Unicorn (by Pearson Scott Foresman via Wikimedia.

Conundrum

It took me six hours of listening to people with differing points of view discuss AI and copyright at a workshop, organized by the Sussex Centre for Law and Technology at the Sussex Humanities Lab (SHL), to come up with a question that seemed to me significant: what is all this talk about who “wins the AI race”? The US won the “space race” in 1969, and then for 50 years nothing happened.

Fretting about the “AI race”, an argument at least one participant used to oppose restrictions on using copyrighted data for training AI models, is buying into several ideas that are convenient for Big Tech.

One: there is a verifiable endpoint everyone’s trying to reach. That isn’t anything like today’s “AI”, which is a pile of math and statistics predicting the most likely answers to prompts. Instead, they mean artificial general intelligence, which would be as much like generative AI as I am like a mushroom.

Two: it’s a worthy goal. But is it? Why don’t we talk about the renewables race, the zero carbon race, or the sustainability race? All of those could be achievable. Why just this well-lobbied fantasy scenario?

Three: we should formulate public policy to eliminate “barriers” that might stop us from winning it. *This* is where we run up against copyright, a subject only a tiny minority used to care about, but that now affects everyone. And, accordingly, everyone has had time to formulate an opinion since the Internet first challenged the historical operation of intellectual property.

The law as it stands is clear: making a copy is the exclusive right of the rightsholder. This is the basis of AI-related lawsuits. For training data to escape that law, it would have to be granted an exemption: ruled fair use (as in the Anthropic and Meta cases), create an exception for temporary copies, or shoehorned into existing exceptions such as parody. Even then, copyright law is administered territorially, so the US may call it fair use but the rest of the world doesn’t have to agree. This is why the esteemed legal scholar Pamela Samuelson has said copyright law poses an existential threat to generative AI.

But, as one participant pointed out, although the entertainment industry dominates these discussions, there are many other sectors with different needs. Science, for example, both uses and studies AI, and is built on massive amounts of public funding. Surely that data should be free to access?

I wanted to be at this meeting because what should happen with AI, training data, and copyright is a conundrum. You do not have to work for a technology company to believe that there is value in allowing researchers both within and outwith companies to work on machine learning and build AI tools. When people balk at the impossible scale of securing permission from every copyright holder of every text, image, or sound, they have a point. The only organizations that could afford that are the companies we’re already mad at for being too big, rich, and powerful.

At the same time, why should we allow those big, rich, powerful companies to plunder our cultural domain without compensating anyone and extract even larger fortunes while doing it? To a published author who sees years of work reflected in a chatbot’s split-second answer to a prompt, it’s lost income and readers.

So for months, as Parliament has wrangled over the Data bill, the argument narrowed to copyright. Should there be an exception for data mining? Should technology companies have to get permission from creators and rights holders? Or should use of their work be automatically allowed, unless they opt out? All answers seem equally impossible. Technology companies would have to find every copyright holder of every datum to get permission. Licensing by the billion.

If creators must opt out, does that mean one piece at a time? How will they know when they need to opt out and who they have to notify? At the meeting, that was when someone said that the US and China won’t do this. Britain will fall behind internationally. Does that matter?

And yet, we all seemed to converge on this: copyright is the wrong tool. As one person said, technologies that threaten the entertainment industry always bring demands to tighten or expand copyright. See the last 35 years, in which Internet-fueled copying spawned the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the EU Copyright Directive, and copyright terms expanded from 28 years, renewable once, to author’s life plus 70.

No one could suggest what the right tool would be. But there are good questions. Such as: how do we grant access to information? With business models breaking, is copyright still the right way to compensate creators? One of us believed strongly in the capabilities of collection societies – but these tend to disproportionately benefit the most popular creators, who will survive anyway.

Another proposed the highly uncontroversial idea of taxing the companies. Or levies on devices such as smartphones. I am dubious on this one: we have been there before.

And again, who gets the money? Very successful artists like Paul McCartney, who has been vocal about this? Or do we have a broader conversation about how to enable people to be artists? (And then, inevitably, who gets to be called an artist.)

I did not find clarity in all this. How to resolve generative AI and copyright remains complex and confusing. But I feel better about not having an answer.

Illustrations: Drunk parrot in a Putney garden (by Simon Bisson; used by permission).

Wendy M. Grossman is the 2013 winner of the Enigma Award. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Second sight

“The colors came back,” a friend said. He was talking about the change after he had cataract surgery. My clinician, a retired surgeon, said something similar, that patients come in and exclaim: “I can’t believe how blue the sky is!”

I didn’t have that.

Cataracts develop slowly, so many don’t perceive how bad their vision has become. I knew. Because: my cataracts made it progressively harder for opticians to fully correct my myopia, an effect I first noticed in early 2018. For the next five or six years, my prescription notched up, and I’d be able to see reasonably clearly for about six months after getting new glasses. The next six months I’d curse the lack of clarity. Repeat until late 2023, when they said I was “ready” for surgery. At that point, I was about 20/40 with glasses.

I delayed for a while, and then had my right eye done in March. The right eye is due in a couple of weeks. So I’ve had four months to explore the difference.

It has been fascinating. And very different from John Berger‘s account, or James Thurber’s fuzzy few days without glasses in The Admiral on the Wheel.

I told the clinician I thought that even if I hadn’t been *seeing* colors exactly right I was interpreting them correctly. That turns out to be mostly true. The sky looks blue, or blue enough, and greens, reds, and yellows render fairly accurately.

This makes sense. The clinician says they generally believe that cataracts block blue light. “Isn’t it just a yellow cast over everything?” a friend asked. Not really.

To review: the primary colors of light are red, blue, and green. Red and blue make magenta; blue and green make cyan; green and red make yellow. Color printers print all colors using those three mixed colors, plus black: CMYK. It’s the difference between additive and subtractive color mixing – that is, starting with black (no color) and adding light, versus starting with white (all colors) and subtracting it. This seems weird at first encounter because schools teach the primary colors of mixing paints, which, as an increasing number of people are pointing out, is all wrong for the digital era.

In real life, my biggest cataract-related color shift turns bright purple flowers a dead greyish pink. A friend’s bright lavender walls grey down. Given that the remaining cataract has continued to densify, my original assessment holds up: I wasn’t losing much color information. I knew my friend’s walls were lavender without being told.

The biggest difference for me is that opticians can fully correct my eyesight again. So the operation has made the world brighter, whiter, and brought back crisp focus. At a recent conference, I could sit in the back and read the slides for the first time in probably five years. Although: blue highlights on the metal chair frames from overhead spotlights disappeared when I closed my post-op eye. Fun!

But then I watched an episode of the TV show Hacks in which Jean Smart wears a bright gold and black dress (above). When I closed my right eye, it turned….salmon. My real-life sweater of nearly the identical color *does not do this*. It is clearly an artifact of cataract plus screen.

Using an RGB color generator, I can say my right eye sees the dress as close to 255-220-0. My left eye sees it as roughly 255-220-150. Bright orange (~255-153-51) on my laptop screen also notably shifts, to a medium hot pink (~255-153-150 ). This suggests my cataract shifts green. Why?

Most other things look close to the same. Among the few exceptions: on an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David’s dark olive shirt looks grey with the pre-op eye, and Cheryl Hines’s pale yellow shirt turns almost white. Does this mean that eye is seeing more blue?

Fluorescent lighting also produces interesting artifacts: a bright lime green poster seen through the cataract seemed aqua.

There’s obviously a logical explanation for this; I just can’t quite work it out. Someone who understands the composition of these lighting conditions could doubtless easily explain what’s going on there (and I hope someone will!).

One final story. A couple of years ago, I saw a particularly stunning sunset out my loft window. Went to get the phone, and snapped a shot. I got back a pale, washed-out nothingburger. Went and got the better, more controllable, digital camera and tried again. Still washed out. Well, damn modern cameras and their autocorrection to what they think you should have seen. I knew about this, because in 2020, when Californians tried to take pictures of their wildfire-caused orange sky, they got grey. Bah.

Cut to April 2025. Same window. My left eye sees a really intense pink and orange sunset. My right eye…sees a washed-out nothingburger. *It wasn’t the camera.*

So, by next month I will have a fully sharp, crisp, bright world on both sides instead of a slightly dim fuzzball on one side. I will feel better balanced, and be better able to play tennis and bike. And I won’t go blind. But there’s a price. Because my post-op eye can’t do close-up the same way, I will grieve the loss of the superpower of being able to read the tiniest print unaided for the rest of my life. And I’ll lose the good sunsets.

Illustrations: Deborah Vance (Jean Smart), in Hacks (S03e01, “Just for Laughs”).

Addendum: With the pre-operative (left) eye, the purple and pink-ish flowers in this photo look the same color. The orangey flowers are slightly pinker, so *nearly* but noticeably not, the same color.

Three groups of flowers: purple, purplish pink, and orange-pink (salmon). — My pre-operative eye sees all these flowers as about the same color. The orangey ones are most noticeably different, but still closer to pink than they really are.

Wendy M. Grossman is the 2013 winner of the Enigma Award. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.