Beth Washington – Page 34

Beware pirates and booby traps in new Skeleton Crew trailer

culture, Disney Plus, Entertainment, LucasFilms, star wars, Star Wars: Skeleton Crew, streaming television, Trailers / Beth Washington / November 1, 2024

Jude Law stars as Force-user Jod Na Nawood in Star Wars: Skeleton Crew.

It’s no secret that the new spinoff series, Star Wars: Skeleton Crew, was inspired by the 1985 film The Goonies. Executive Producer Kathleen Kennedy (who co-produced The Goonies) has publicly confirmed as much. The latest trailer really leans into that influence: The series feels like something not created specifically for kids, but rather telling a story that just happens to be about kids going on an adventure.

As previously reported, the eight-episode standalone series is set in the same timeframe as The Mandalorian and Ahsoka. Per the official premise:

Skeleton Crew follows the journey of four kids who make a mysterious discovery on their seemingly safe home planet, then get lost in a strange and dangerous galaxy, crossing paths with the likes of Jod Na Nawood, the mysterious character played by [Jude] Law. Finding their way home—and meeting unlikely allies and enemies—will be a greater adventure than they ever imagined.

Jude Law leads the cast as the quick-witted and charming (per Law) “Force-user” Jod Na Nawood. Ravi Cabot-Conyers plays Wim, Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays Fern, Kyriana Kratter plays KB, and Robert Timothy Smith plays Neil. Nick Frost will voice a droid named SM 33, the first mate of a spaceship called the Onyx Cylinder. The cast also includes Fred Tatasciore as Brutus, Jaleel White as Gunther, Mike Estes as Pax, Marti Matulis as Vane, and Dale Soules as Chaelt. Tunde Adebimpe and Kerry Condon will appear in as-yet-undisclosed roles.

Beware pirates and booby traps in new Skeleton Crew trailer Read More »

A new dental scam is to pull healthy teeth to sell you expensive fake ones

dentistry, health, healthcare, implants, syndication / Beth Washington / November 1, 2024

It turns out you may not have needed those implants after all.

Becky Carroll was missing a few teeth, others were stained or crooked. Ashamed, she smiled with lips pressed closed. Her dentist offered to fix most of her teeth with root canals and crowns, Carroll said, but she was wary of traveling a long road of dental work.

Then Carroll saw a TV commercial for another path: ClearChoice Dental Implant Centers. The company advertises that it can give patients “a new smile in as little as one day” by surgically replacing teeth instead of fixing them.

So Carroll saved and borrowed for the surgery, she said. In an interview and a lawsuit, Carroll said that at a ClearChoice clinic in New Jersey in 2021, she agreed to pay $31,000 to replace all her natural upper teeth with pearly white prosthetic ones. What came next, Carroll said, was “like a horror movie.”

Carroll alleged that her anesthesia wore off during implant surgery, so she became conscious as her teeth were removed and titanium screws were twisted into her jawbone. Afterward, Carroll’s prosthetic teeth were so misaligned that she was largely unable to chew for more than two years until she could afford corrective surgery at another clinic, according to a sworn deposition from her lawsuit.

ClearChoice has denied Carroll’s claims of malpractice and negligence in court filings and did not respond to requests for comment on the ongoing case.

“I thought implants would be easier, and all at once, so you didn’t have to keep going back to the dentist,” Carroll, 52, said in an interview. “But I should have asked more questions … like, Can they save these teeth?”

Dental implants have been used for more than half a century to surgically replace missing or damaged teeth with artificial duplicates, often with picture-perfect results. While implant dentistry was once the domain of a small group of highly trained dentists and specialists, tens of thousands of dental providers now offer the surgery and place millions of implants each year in the US.

Amid this booming industry, some implant experts worry that many dentists are losing sight of dentistry’s fundamental goal of preserving natural teeth and have become too willing to remove teeth to make room for expensive implants, according to a months-long investigation by KFF Health News and CBS News. In interviews, 10 experts said they had each given second opinions to multiple patients who had been recommended for mouths full of implants that the experts ultimately determined were not necessary. Separately, lawsuits filed across the country have alleged that implant patients like Carroll have experienced painful complications that have required corrective surgery, while other lawsuits alleged dentists at some implant clinics have persuaded, pressured, or forced patients to remove teeth unnecessarily.

The experts warn that implants, for a single tooth or an entire mouth, expose patients to costs and surgery complications, plus a new risk of future dental problems with fewer treatment options because their natural teeth are forever gone.

“There are many cases where teeth, they’re perfectly fine, and they’re being removed unnecessarily,” said William Giannobile, dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. “I really hate to say it, but many of them are doing it because these procedures, from a monetary standpoint, they’re much more beneficial to the practitioner.”

Giannobile and nine other experts say they are combating a false public perception that implants are more durable and longer-lasting than natural teeth, which some believe stems in part from advertising on TV and social media. Implants require upkeep, and although they can’t get cavities, studies have shown that patients can be susceptible to infections in the gums and bone around their implants.

“Just because somebody can afford implants doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re a good candidate,” said George Mandelaris, a Chicago-area periodontist and member of the American Academy of Periodontology Board of Trustees. “When an implant has infection, or when an implant has bone loss, an implant dies a much quicker death than do teeth.”

In its simplest form, implant surgery involves extracting a single tooth and replacing it with a metal post that is screwed into the jaw and then affixed with a prosthetic tooth commonly made of porcelain, also known as a crown. Patients can also use “full-arch” or “All-on-4” implants to replace all their upper or lower teeth—or all their teeth.

For this story, KFF Health News and CBS News sought interviews with large dental chains whose clinics offer implant surgery—ClearChoice, Aspen Dental, Affordable Care, and Dental Care Alliance—each of which declined to be interviewed or did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Association of Dental Support Organizations, which represents these companies and others like them, also declined an interview request.

ClearChoice, which specializes in full-arch implants, did not answer more than two dozen questions submitted in writing. In an emailed statement, the company said full-arch implants “have become a well-accepted standard of care for patients with severe tooth loss and teeth with poor prognosis.”

“The use of full-arch restorations reflects the evolution of modern dentistry, offering patients a solution that restores their ability to eat, speak, and live comfortably—far beyond what traditional dentures can provide,” the company said.

Carroll said she regrets not letting her dentist try to fix her teeth and rushing to ClearChoice for implants.

“Because it was a nightmare,” she said.

“They are not teeth”

Dental implant surgery can be a godsend for patients with unsalvageable teeth. Several experts said implants can be so transformative that their invention should have contended for a Nobel Prize. And yet, these experts still worry that implants are overused, because it is generally better for patients to have their natural teeth.

Paul Rosen, a Pennsylvania periodontist who said he has worked with implants for more than three decades, said many patients believe a “fallacy” that implants are “bulletproof.”

“You can’t just have an implant placed and go off riding into the sunset,” Rosen said. “In many instances, they need more care than teeth because they are not teeth.”

Generally, a single implant costs a few thousand dollars while full-arch implants cost tens of thousands. Neither procedure is well covered by dental insurance, so many clinics partner with credit companies that offer loans for implant surgeries. At ClearChoice, for example, loans can be as large as $65,000 paid off over 10 years, according to the company’s website.

Despite the price, implants are more popular than ever. Sales increased by more than 6 percent on average each year since 2010, culminating in more than 3.7 million implants sold in the US in 2022, according to a 2023 report produced by iData Research, a health care market research firm.

Some worry implant dentistry has gone too far. In 10 interviews, dentists and dental specialists with expertise in implants said they had witnessed the overuse of implants firsthand. Each expert said they’d examined multiple patients in recent years who were recommended for full-arch implants by other dentists despite their teeth being treatable with conventional dentistry.

Giannobile, the Harvard dean, said he had given second opinions to “dozens” of patients who were recommended for implants they did not need.

“I see many of these patients now that are coming in and saying, ‘I’ve been seen, and they are telling me to get my entire dentition—all of my teeth—extracted.’ And then I’ll take a look at them and say that we can preserve most of your teeth,” Giannobile said.

Tim Kosinski, who is a representative of the Academy of General Dentistry and said he has placed more than 19,000 implants, said he examines as many as five patients a month who have been recommended for full-arch implants that he deems unnecessary.

“There is a push in the profession to remove teeth that could be saved,” Kosinski said. “But the public isn’t aware.”

Luiz Gonzaga, a periodontist and prosthodontist at the University of Florida, said he, too, had turned away patients who wanted most or all their teeth extracted. Gonzaga said some had received implant recommendations that he considered “an atrocity.”

“You don’t go to the hospital and tell them ‘I broke my finger a couple of times. This is bothering me. Can you please cut my finger off?’ No one will do that,” Gonzaga said. “Why would I extract your tooth because you need a root canal?”

Jaime Lozada, director of an elite dental implant residency program at Loma Linda University, said he’d not only witnessed an increase in dentists extracting “perfectly healthy teeth” but also treated a rash of patients with mouths full of ill-fitting implants that had to be surgically replaced.

Lozada said in August that he’d treated seven such patients in just three months.

“When individuals just make a decision of extracting teeth to make it simple and make money quick, so to speak, that’s where I have a problem,” Lozada said. “And it happens quite often.”

When full-arch implants fail, patients sometimes don’t have enough jawbone left to anchor another set. These patients have little choice but to get implants that reach into cheekbones, said Sohail Saghezchi, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at the University of California-San Francisco.

“It’s kind of like a last resort,” Saghezchi said. “If those fail, you don’t have anywhere else to go.”

“It was horrendous dentistry”

Most of the experts interviewed for this article said their rising alarm corresponded with big changes in the availability of dental implants. Implants are now offered by more than 70,000 dental providers nationwide, two-thirds of whom are general dentists, according to the iData Research report.

Dentists are not required to learn how to place implants in dental school, nor are they required to complete implant training before performing the surgery in nearly all states. This year, Oregon started requiring dentists to complete 56 hours of hands-on training before placing any implants. Stephen Prisby, executive director of the Oregon Board of Dentistry, said the requirement—the first and only of its kind in the US—was a response to dozens of investigations in the state into botched surgeries and other implant failures, split evenly between general dentists and specialists.

“I was frankly stunned at how bad some of these dentists were practicing,” Prisby said. “It was horrendous dentistry.”

Many dental clinics that offer implants have consolidated into chains owned by private equity firms that have bought out much of implant dentistry. In health care, private equity investment is sometimes criticized for overtreatment and prioritizing short-term profit over patients.

Private equity firms have spent about $5 billion in recent years to buy large dental chains that offer implants at hundreds of clinics owned by individual dentists and dental specialists. ClearChoice was bought for an estimated $1.1 billion in 2020 by Aspen Dental, which is owned by three private equity firms, according to PitchBook, a research firm focused on the private equity industry. Private equity firms also bought Affordable Care, whose largest clinic brand is Affordable Dentures & Implants, for an estimated $2.7 billion in 2021, according to PitchBook. And the private equity wing of the Abu Dhabi government bought Dental Care Alliance, which offers implants at many of its affiliated clinics, for an estimated $1 billion in 2022, according to PitchBook.

ClearChoice and Aspen Dental each said in email statements that the companies’ private equity owners “do not have influence or control over treatment recommendations.” Both companies said dentists or dental specialists make all clinical decisions.

Private equity deals involving dental practices increased ninefold from 2011 to 2021, according to an American Dental Association study published in August. The study also said investors showed an interest in oral surgery, possibly because of the “high prices” of implants.

“Some argue this is a negative thing,” said Marko Vujicic, vice president of the association’s Health Policy Institute, who co-authored the study. “On the other hand, some would argue that involvement of private equity and outside capital brings economies of scale, it brings efficiency.”

Edwin Zinman, a San Francisco dental malpractice attorney and former periodontist who has filed hundreds of dental lawsuits over four decades, said he believed many of the worst fears about private equity owners had already come true in implant dentistry.

“They’ve sold a lot of [implants], and some of it unnecessarily, and too often done negligently, without having the dentists who are doing it have the necessary training and experience,” Zinman said. “It’s for five simple letters: M-O-N-E-Y.”

Hundreds of implant clinics with no specialists

For this article, journalists from KFF Health News and CBS News analyzed the webpages for more than 1,000 clinics in the nation’s largest private equity-owned dental chains, all of which offer some implants. The analysis found that more than 70 percent of those clinics listed only general dentists on their websites and did not appear to employ the specialists—oral surgeons, periodontists, or prosthodontists—who traditionally have more training with implants.

Affordable Dentures & Implants listed specialists at fewer than 5 percent of its more than 400 clinics, according to the analysis. The rest were staffed by general dentists, most of whom did not list credentialing from implant training organizations, according to the analysis.

ClearChoice, on the other hand, employs at least one oral surgeon or prosthodontist at each of its more than 100 centers, according to the analysis. But its new parent company, Aspen Dental, which offers implants in many of its more than 1,100 clinics, does not list any specialists at many of those locations.

Not everyone is worried about private equity in implant dentistry. In interviews arranged by the American Academy of Implant Dentistry, which trains dentists to use implants, two other implant experts did not express concerns about private equity firms.

Brian Jackson, a former academy president and implant specialist in New York, said he believed dentists are too ethical and patients are too smart to be pressured by private equity owners “who will never see a patient.”

Jumoke Adedoyin, a chief clinical officer for Affordable Care, who has placed implants at an Affordable Dentures & Implants clinic in the Atlanta suburbs for 15 years, said she had never felt pressure from above to sell implants.

“I’ve actually felt more pressure sometimes from patients who have gone around and been told they need to take their teeth out,” she said. “They come in and, honestly, taking a look at them, maybe they don’t need to take all their teeth out.”

Still, lawsuits filed across the country have alleged that dentists at implant clinics have extracted patients’ teeth unnecessarily.

For example, in Texas, a patient alleged in a 2020 lawsuit that an Affordable Care dentist removed “every single tooth from her mouth when such was not necessary,” then stuffed her mouth with gauze and left her waiting in the lobby as he and his staff left for lunch. In Maryland, a patient alleged in a 2021 lawsuit that ClearChoice “convinced” her to extract “eight healthy upper teeth,” by “greatly downplay[ing] the risks.” In Florida, a patient alleged in a 2023 lawsuit that ClearChoice provided her with no other treatment options before extracting all her teeth, “which was totally unnecessary.”

ClearChoice and Affordable Care denied wrongdoing in their respective lawsuits, then privately settled out of court with each patient. ClearChoice and Affordable Care did not respond to requests for comment submitted to the companies or attorneys. Lawyers for all three plaintiffs declined to comment on these lawsuits or did not respond to requests for comment.

Fred Goldberg, a Maryland dental malpractice attorney who said he has represented at least six clients who sued ClearChoice, said each of his clients agreed to get implants after meeting with a salesperson—not a dentist.

“Every client I’ve had who has gone to ClearChoice has started off meeting a salesperson and actually signing up to get their financing through ClearChoice before they ever meet with a dentist,” Goldberg said. “You meet with a salesperson who sells you on what they like to present as the best choice, which is almost always that they’re going to take out all your natural teeth.”

Becky Carroll, the ClearChoice patient from New Jersey, told a similar story.

Carroll said in her lawsuit that she met first with a ClearChoice salesperson referred to as a “patient education consultant.” In an interview, Carroll said the salesperson encouraged her to borrow money from family members for the surgery and it was not until after she agreed to a loan and passed a credit check that a ClearChoice dentist peered into her mouth.

“It seems way backwards,” Carroll said. “They just want to know you’re approved before you get to talk to a dentist.”

CBS News producer Nicole Keller contributed to this report.

This story originally appeared on KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

A new dental scam is to pull healthy teeth to sell you expensive fake ones Read More »

Russia fines Google an impossible amount in attempt to end YouTube bans

Google, Policy, russia, youtube / Beth Washington / October 31, 2024

Russia has fined Google an amount that no entity on the planet could pay in hopes of getting YouTube to lift bans on Russian channels, including pro-Kremlin and state-run news outlets.

The BBC wrote that a Russian court fined Google two undecillion rubles, which in dollar terms is $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The amount “is far greater than the world’s total GDP, which is estimated by the International Monetary Fund to be $110 trillion.”

The fine is apparently that large because it was issued several years ago and has been repeatedly doubling. An RBC news report this week provided details on the court case from an anonymous source.

The Moscow Times writes, “According to RBC’s sources, Google began accumulating daily penalties of 100,000 rubles in 2020 after the pro-government media outlets Tsargrad and RIA FAN won lawsuits against the company for blocking their YouTube channels. Those daily penalties have doubled each week, leading to the current overall fine of around 2 undecillion rubles.”

The Moscow Times is an independent news organization that moved its operations to Amsterdam in 2022 in response to a Russian news censorship law. The news outlet said that 17 Russian TV channels filed legal claims against Google, including the state-run Channel One, the military-affiliated Zvezda broadcaster, and a company representing RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan.

Kremlin rep: “I cannot even say this number”

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Google has “blocked more than 1,000 YouTube channels, including state-sponsored news, and over 5.5 million videos,” Reuters wrote.

Russia fines Google an impossible amount in attempt to end YouTube bans Read More »

AT&T praises itself after getting caught taking too much money from FCC program

AT&T, Policy / Beth Washington / October 30, 2024

AT&T improperly obtained money from a government-run broadband discount program by submitting duplicate requests and by claiming subsidies for thousands of subscribers who weren’t using AT&T’s service. AT&T obtained funding based on false certifications it made under penalty of perjury.

AT&T on Friday agreed to pay $2.3 million in a consent decree with the Federal Communications Commission’s Enforcement Bureau. That includes a civil penalty of $1,921,068 and a repayment of $378,922 to the US Treasury.

The settlement fully resolves the FCC investigation into AT&T’s apparent violations, the consent decree said. “AT&T admits for the purpose of this Consent Decree and for Commission civil enforcement purposes” that the findings described by the FCC “contain a true and accurate description of the facts underlying the Investigation,” the document said.

In addition to the civil penalty and repayment, AT&T agreed to a compliance plan designed to prevent further violations. AT&T last week reported quarterly revenue of $30.2 billion.

AT&T made the excessive reimbursement claims to the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBB), which the US formed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to the EBB’s successor program, the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The FCC said its rules “are vital to protecting these Programs and their resources from waste, fraud, and abuse.”

AT&T praises itself for using federal program

We contacted AT&T today and asked for an explanation of what caused the violations. Instead, AT&T provided Ars with a statement that praised itself for participating in the federal discount programs.

“When the federal government acted during the COVID-19 pandemic to stand up the Emergency Broadband Benefit program, and then the Affordable Connectivity Program, we quickly implemented both programs to provide more low-cost Internet options for our customers. We take compliance with federal programs like these seriously and appreciate the collaboration with the FCC to reach a solution on this matter,” AT&T said.

The EBB provided monthly subsidies of $50 for eligible households, while the ACP offered $30 a month. Telecoms provided the discounts to subscribers directly and sought reimbursement from the programs. The ACP ended a few months ago after Congress did not provide additional funding.

AT&T praises itself after getting caught taking too much money from FCC program Read More »

GitHub Copilot moves beyond OpenAI models to support Claude 3.5, Gemini

AI, Anthropic, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, coding, developer, Gemini 1.5 Pro, GitHub, GitHub Copilot, Google, GPT o1-mini, GPT o1-preview, GPT-4o, microsoft, openai, Programming, Tech, VS Code / Beth Washington / October 29, 2024

The large language model-based coding assistant GitHub Copilot will switch from using exclusively OpenAI’s GPT models to a multi-model approach over the coming weeks, GitHub CEO Thomas Dohmke announced in a post on GitHub’s blog.

First, Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet will roll out to Copilot Chat’s web and VS Code interfaces over the next few weeks. Google’s Gemini 1.5 Pro will come a bit later.

Additionally, GitHub will soon add support for a wider range of OpenAI models, including GPT o1-preview and o1-mini, which are intended to be stronger at advanced reasoning than GPT-4, which Copilot has used until now. Developers will be able to switch between the models (even mid-conversation) to tailor the model to fit their needs—and organizations will be able to choose which models will be usable by team members.

The new approach makes sense for users, as certain models are better at certain languages or types of tasks.

“There is no one model to rule every scenario,” wrote Dohmke. “It is clear the next phase of AI code generation will not only be defined by multi-model functionality, but by multi-model choice.”

It starts with the web-based and VS Code Copilot Chat interfaces, but it won’t stop there. “From Copilot Workspace to multi-file editing to code review, security autofix, and the CLI, we will bring multi-model choice across many of GitHub Copilot’s surface areas and functions soon,” Dohmke wrote.

There are a handful of additional changes coming to GitHub Copilot, too, including extensions, the ability to manipulate multiple files at once from a chat with VS Code, and a preview of Xcode support.

GitHub Spark promises natural language app development

In addition to the Copilot changes, GitHub announced Spark, a natural language tool for developing apps. Non-coders will be able to use a series of natural language prompts to create simple apps, while coders will be able to tweak more precisely as they go. In either use case, you’ll be able to take a conversational approach, requesting changes and iterating as you go, and comparing different iterations.

GitHub Copilot moves beyond OpenAI models to support Claude 3.5, Gemini Read More »

Ban on Chinese tech so broad, US-made cars would be blocked, Polestar says

Cars, Chinese EVs, connected cars, Polestar / Beth Washington / October 29, 2024

Polestar has more than a few issues with the proposed rule, according to its public comment. For one, the definition is too broad and “creates crippling uncertainty for businesses.” A better-defined list would be helpful here, it says.

Polestar also says that “if a large portion of manufacturing or software development is occurring outside of the country of a foreign adversary, mere ownership should not be the determinative factor for applying the various prohibitions within the Proposed Rule.” Polestar is a US-organized company and a subsidiary of a UK publicly limited company that is listed on the NASDAQ exchange in New York. Its HQ is in Sweden, and seven out of 10 board members are from Europe or the USA. It builds Polestar 3 SUVs in South Carolina and will build the Polestar 4 in South Korea from next year. In fact, out of 2,800 employees, only 280 are based in China, Polestar says.

With the company’s “key decision-makers” being in Sweden, there is little reason to believe the national security concerns apply here, the company says, saying that the US Commerce Department should consider whether it has gone too far.

Polestar may be the most affected automaker by the new rule, but it is not the only one. Last month, the Commerce Department told Ford and General Motors that imports of the Lincoln Nautilus and Buick Envision—both of which are made in China—would also have to cease under the new rule.

Ban on Chinese tech so broad, US-made cars would be blocked, Polestar says Read More »

How can you write data to DNA without changing the base sequence?

biochemistry, Biology, DNA storage, epigenetics, Science, Storage / Beth Washington / October 29, 2024

The developers of the system call each of these potentially modifiable spots on the template an epi-bit, with the modified version corresponding to a 1 in a conventional computer bit and the unmodified version corresponding to a 0. Because no synthesis is required, multiple bits can be written simultaneously. To read the information, the scientists rigged the system so that 1s fluoresce and 0s don’t. The fluorescence, along with the sequences of bases, was read as the DNA was passed through a tiny pore.

Pictures in a meta-genome

Using this system, Zhang et al. created five DNA templates and 175 bricks to record 350 bits at a time. Using a collection of tagged template molecules, the researchers could store and read roughly 275,000 bits, including a color picture of a panda’s face and a rubbing of a tiger from the Han dynasty, which ruled China from 202 BCE to 220 CE.

They then had 60 student volunteers “with diverse academic backgrounds” store texts of their choice in epi-bits using a simple kit in a classroom. Twelve of the 15 stored texts were read successfully.

We’re not quite ready for your cat videos yet, though. There are still errors in the printing and reading steps, and since these modifications don’t survive when DNA is copied, making additional versions of the stored information may get complicated. Plus, the stability of these modifications under different storage conditions remains unknown, although the authors note that their epi-bits stayed stable at temperatures of up to 95o° C.

But once these and a few other problems are solved—and the technology is scaled up, further optimized and automated, and/or tweaked to accommodate other types of epigenetic modifications—it will be a clever and novel way to harness natural data storage methods for our needs.

Nature, 2024. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-08040-5

How can you write data to DNA without changing the base sequence? Read More »

Lidar mapping reveals mountainous medieval cities along the Silk Road

ancient cities, Archeology, LiDAR, Science, Silk Road / Beth Washington / October 28, 2024

The city of Tugunbulak, which stretched beyond the forest inspector’s house, had powerful walls enclosing the area of 120 hectares, nearly five times larger than the Tashbulak site. With those walls, there was a dense architecture with hundreds of buildings, streets, palaces, plazas—even industrial facilities the Frachetti’s team suspects were used to produce iron or steel.

To put that in perspective, the medieval walls of Siena, one of the foremost cities in Italy during that time, surrounded an area of 105 hectares at the peak of its power. Genoa, another crown jewel among Italian medieval cities, between the 6th and 11th centuries, had walls protecting just 20 hectares, an area bumped up to around 50 hectares by the time of Frederic Barbarossa’s invasion between 1155 and 1158 CE.

Tugunbulak was a monster of a city. But what did it look like?

A city of iron?

“If you looked at Tugunbulak from the outside you would have seen these kind of rocky walls. They appear to have been made in a technology called rammed earth. The builders would take mud and press it into something almost like cement—a very high labor, very dense, very defensive and fortified material,” Frachetti says. Rammed earth was a dominant building technique used in the early stages of Tugunbulak’s development. “The later phase in the site, we see some stone architecture foundations with mud brick on the top. They used local resources and building techniques that were popular in the region,” Frachetti explains.

According to the team, the main contribution of the city to the Silk Road trade was iron, as the surrounding mountains are particularly rich in iron ore. One of the still unanswered questions was about the way Tugunbulak’s people lived and worked. Were they skillful blacksmiths forging iron and perhaps even steel in their mountainous city? Did at least some of its inhabitants live the lives of nomads, visiting the city only periodically to trade on market days or did they live there permanently? “We’d like to know how extensive was the industry there—what level of production were they actually doing?” Franchetti says. He suggested that a shifting, seasonal population that most likely lived in yurts spread outside of the walls was more likely in the smaller Tashbulak, considering it lacked residential suburbs. “Tugunbulak must have been a far more organized political entity. Their power and their influence must have been significant in the broader economy of the Silk Road,” Frachetti claims.

Lidar mapping reveals mountainous medieval cities along the Silk Road Read More »

Are Boeing’s problems beyond fixable?

aviation, Boeing, Boeing 737 MAX, Policy, syndication / Beth Washington / October 26, 2024

A new CEO promises a culture change as the aerospace titan is struggling hard.

Credit: Getty Images | Olivier Douliery

As Boeing’s latest chief executive, Kelly Ortberg’s job was never going to be easy. On Wednesday, it got harder still.

That morning, Ortberg had faced investors for the first time, telling them that ending a debilitating strike by Boeing’s largest union was the first step to stabilizing the plane maker’s business.

But as the day wore on, it became clear that nearly two-thirds of the union members who voted on the company’s latest contract offer had rejected it. The six-week strike goes on, costing Boeing an estimated $50 million a day, pushing back the day it can resume production of most aircraft and further stressing its supply chain.

The company that virtually created modern commercial aviation has spent the better part of five years in chaos, stemming from fatal crashes, a worldwide grounding, a guilty plea to a criminal charge, a pandemic that halted global air travel, a piece breaking off a plane in mid-flight and now a strike. Boeing’s finances look increasingly fragile and its reputation has been battered.

Bank of America analyst Ron Epstein says Boeing is a titan in a crisis largely of its own making, comparing it to the Hydra of Greek mythology: “For every problem that’s come to a head, then [been] severed, more problems sprout up.”

Resolving Boeing’s crisis is critical to the future of commercial air travel, as most commercial passenger aircraft are made by it or its European rival Airbus, which has little capacity for new customers until the 2030s.

Ortberg, a 64-year-old Midwesterner who took the top job three months ago, says his mission is “pretty straightforward—turn this big ship in the right direction and restore Boeing to the leadership position that we all know and want.”

Resolving the machinists’ strike is just the start of the challenges he faces. He needs to motivate the workforce, even as 33,000 are on strike and 17,000 face redundancy under a cost-cutting initiative.

He must persuade investors to support an equity raise in an industry where the returns could take years to materialize. He needs to fix Boeing’s quality control and manufacturing issues, and placate its increasingly frustrated customers, who have had to rejig their schedules and cut flights owing to delays in plane deliveries.

“I’ve never seen anything like it in our industry, to be honest. I’ve been around 30 years,” Carsten Spohr, chief executive of German flag carrier Lufthansa, said this month.

Eventually, Boeing needs to launch a new aircraft model to better compete with Airbus.

“If Kelly fixes this, he is a hero,” says Melius Research analyst Rob Spingarn. “But it’s very complex. There’s a lot of different things to fix.”

Ortberg started his career as a mechanical engineer and went on to run Rockwell Collins, an avionics supplier to Boeing, until it was sold to engineering conglomerate United Technologies in 2018.

His engineering background has been welcomed by many who regard previous executives’ emphasis on shareholder returns as the root cause of many of Boeing’s engineering and manufacturing problems.

Longtime employees often peg the shift in Boeing’s culture to its 1997 merger with rival McDonnell Douglas. Phil Condit and Harry Stonecipher, who ran Boeing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, were admirers of Jack Welch, the General Electric chief executive known for financial engineering and ruthless cost cuts.

Condit even moved Boeing’s headquarters from its manufacturing base in Seattle to Chicago in 2001, so the “corporate center” would no longer be “drawn into day-to-day business operations.”

Jim McNerney, another Welch acolyte, instituted a program to boost Boeing’s profits by squeezing its suppliers during his decade in charge. He remarked on a 2014 earnings call about employees “cowering” before him, a dark quip still cited a decade later to explain Boeing’s tense relationship with its workers.

Ken Ogren, a member of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 751, says managers at Boeing often felt pressured to move planes quickly through the factory.

“We’ve had a lot of bean counters come through, and I’m going to be in the majority with a lot of people who believe they’ve been tripping over dollars to save pennies,” he says.

Dennis Muilenburg headed the company in October 2018, when a new 737 Max crashed off the coast of Indonesia. Five months later, another Max crashed shortly after take-off in Ethiopia. In total, 346 people lost their lives.

Regulators worldwide grounded the plane—a cash cow and a vital product in Boeing’s competition with Airbus—for nearly two years. Investigations eventually showed a faulty sensor triggered an anti-stall system, repeatedly forcing the aircraft’s nose downward.

Boeing agreed in July to plead guilty to a criminal charge of fraud for misleading regulators about the plane’s design. Families of the crash victims are opposing the plea deal, which is before a federal judge for approval.

The manufacturer’s problems were compounded by COVID-19, which grounded aircraft worldwide and led many airlines to hold off placing new orders and pause deliveries of existing ones. Boeing’s debt ballooned as it issued $25 billion in bonds to see it through the crisis.

Regulators cleared the 737 Max to fly again, starting in November 2020. But hopes that Boeing was finally on top of its problems were shattered last January, when a door panel that was missing bolts blew off an Alaska Airlines jet at 16,000 feet.

While no one was injured, the incident triggered multiple investigations and an audit by the US Federal Aviation Administration, which found lapses in Boeing’s manufacturing and quality assurance processes and led to an uncomfortable appearance by then chief executive Dave Calhoun at a Senate subcommittee hearing.

The company also has struggled with its defense and space businesses. Fixed-price contracts on several military programs have resulted in losses and billions of dollars of one-off charges. Meanwhile, problems with its CST-100 Starliner spacecraft resulted in two astronauts being left on the International Space Station. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon vehicle will be used to return them to Earth early next year.

Boeing’s stumbles have resulted in loss of life, loss of prestige, and a net financial loss every year since 2019. On Wednesday, it reported a $6 billion loss between July and September, the second-worst quarterly result in its history.

One of Ortberg’s first big moves as chief executive was to move himself—from his Florida home to a house in Seattle. He told analysts that Boeing’s executives “need to be on the factory floors, in the back shops, and in our engineering labs” to be more in tune with the company’s products and workforce. Change in Boeing’s corporate culture must “be more than the poster on the wall,” he added.

His approach represents a shift from his predecessor Calhoun, who was criticized for spending more time in New Hampshire and South Carolina than in Boeing’s factories in Washington state.

Bill George, former chief executive at Medtronic and an executive fellow at Harvard Business School, says Ortberg is doing a “terrific job” so far, particularly for moving to the Pacific Northwest and pressuring other itinerant executives to follow.

“If you’re based in Florida, and you come occasionally, what do you really know about what’s going on in the business?” he says, adding that Boeing has “no business being in Arlington, Virginia,” where the company moved its headquarters in 2022.

Scott Kirby, chief executive at one of Boeing’s biggest customers, United Airlines, told his own investors this month that he was “encouraged” by Ortberg’s early moves, adding that the company suffered for decades from “a cultural challenge, where they focused on short-term profitability and the short-term stock price at the expense of what made Boeing great, which is building great products.”

“Kelly Ortberg is pivoting the company back to their roots,” he said. “All the employees of Boeing will rally around that.”

But Ogren of the machinists’ union cautions that previous commitments to culture change have been hollow. “You’ve got people at the top saying, ‘We’ve got to be safe, oh, and by the way, we need these planes out the door…’ They said the right thing. They didn’t emphasize it, and that’s not what they put pressure on the managers to achieve.”

When workers eventually return to work—Peter Arment, an analyst at Baird, expects the dispute to be resolved in November—Ortberg wants better execution, even if it means lower output. “It is so much more important we do this right than fast,” he said.

The company had planned to raise Max output from about 25 per month before the strike to 38 per month by the end of the year, a cap set by the FAA. It will not reach that goal and Spingarn, the Melius analyst, says the strike will probably delay any production increase by nine months to a year. Some workers would need retraining, Ortberg said, and the supply chain’s restart was likely to be “bumpy.” The manufacturer also has established a quality plan with the FAA that it must follow.

Boeing also needed to launch a new airplane “at the right time in the future,” Ortberg said. Epstein of BofA called this “one of the most important messages” from the new chief executive, likely “to reinvigorate the workforce and culture at Boeing.”

In the meantime, Boeing will continue to consume cash in 2025, having burnt through $10 billion so far this year, according to chief financial officer Brian West. Spingarn says that investors may be disappointed in the cash flow at first, but adds that “fixing airplanes isn’t one year, it’s three years.”

For all the challenges, Ortberg has the right personality to turn Boeing around, says Ken Herbert, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets.

“If he can’t do it, I don’t think anyone can.”

Are Boeing’s problems beyond fixable? Read More »

If you thought Astra was going to go away quietly, you were wrong

astra, rocket 4, Science, Space / Beth Washington / October 26, 2024

On Wednesday morning, a surprising email popped into my inbox with the following subject line: “Astra announces Department of Defense contract valued up to $44 Million.”

I had to read it a second time to make sure I got it right. Astra, the launch company? Astra, whose valuation went from $2.6 billion to $25 million after a series of launch failures? Astra, the company that was taken private in July at 50 cents a share?

Yes, it was that Astra.

This was curious, indeed. To get some answers, I spoke with the cofounder of Astra, Chris Kemp, who remains the company’s chief executive.

“If I have learned anything, it’s that you just don’t give up,” Kemp said. “You know, if you give up easily, this is not the place to be. Fortunately, I am surrounded by a team that has chosen not to give up.”

Rocket 4 becomes more real

I’ll be frank: When Kemp and his co-founder, Adam London, took Astra private this summer, I never expected to hear from the company again. Astra certainly was not the first launch company to fail, and it won’t be the last. But it is the first to seemingly resurrect itself in such a dramatic way.

To be clear, Astra is not back yet. The company remains in the phase of building and testing rocket stages and engines and does not have a launch vehicle ready to go. Its new booster, Rocket 4, will launch no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2025, Kemp said. (That date should probably be viewed with some skepticism).

The company has previously discussed Rocket 4, which is intended to carry 600 kg to low-Earth orbit, as far back as August 2022. But at the time, most of the launch industry, including this reporter, shrugged and moved along. After all, the company’s smaller vehicle, Rocket 3, failed on five of its seven orbital launch attempts. The general sentiment was that the new rocket would never fly.

However, even as Astra’s finances worsened and the company had to stave off bankruptcy by being taken private, not everyone dismissed the vision. In April 2023, the US Space Force awarded a task order for Rocket 4 to launch the STP-S29B mission. That was interesting, but it was just a single data point. Then came this week’s announcement that the US Department of Defense’s “Defense Innovation Unit” had awarded a grant worth up to $44 million to Astra for a “tactically responsive launch system.”

If you thought Astra was going to go away quietly, you were wrong Read More »

X Payments delayed after Musk’s X weirdly withdrew application for NY license

consumer financial protection bureau, elon musk, fintech, Policy, Twitter, X, x corp, x payments / Beth Washington / October 25, 2024

Will X Payments launch this year? Outlook not so good.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images/Bloomberg

This October, many Elon Musk believers are wondering, where is X Payments?

Last year, Musk claimed in a Spaces conversation that he “would be surprised” if it took longer than mid-2024 to roll out the payments feature that he believes is crucial to transforming the social media app formerly known as Twitter into an everything app.

“It would blow my mind if we don’t have that rolled out by the end of next year,” Musk said around this time last year, clarifying that “when I say payments, I actually mean someone’s entire financial life. If it involves money, it’ll be on our platform. Money or securities or whatever. So, it’s not just like ‘send $20 to my friend.’ I’m talking about, like, you won’t need a bank account.”

Echoing Musk as recently as June, X CEO Linda Yaccarino was hyping the US release of X Payments as imminent. But it has been months without another peep from X leadership, and Ars recently confirmed that X took a curious step in April that suggests the payments feature may be delayed indefinitely.

During the Spaces conversation last December with Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood, Musk discussed X’s bid to secure money transmitter licenses in all 50 states, noting that it would be “irrelevant” to launch X Payments without California and New York licenses.

Since then, X has made a decent amount of progress, picking up money transmitter licenses in 38 states, including a critical license in California.

But approvals in New York were reportedly stalled for months after a New York City law firm, now called Walden Macht Haran & Williams (WMHW), sent an open letter to attorneys general and banking commissioners in all 50 states in September 2023, urging that X be deemed “unfit” for a money transmitter license.

WMHW had filed a lawsuit alleging that Twitter—before Musk acquired it—”acted at the direction of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in furtherance of KSA’s long-running campaign of transnational repression.”

That campaign led to the murder of Washington Post correspondent Jamal Khashoggi and the “imprisonment of Abdulrahman Al-Sadhan, a human rights worker and anonymous Twitter user, whose confidential user data—leaked by Twitter’s employees—precipitated and enabled this barbarity,” the letter alleged. And when Musk took over the platform, he only deepened the app’s KSA ties further when he “invited KSA to convert its shares in Twitter into a financial stake during his private take-over of the platform,” the letter said.

Rather than grant X money transmitter licenses, WMHW recommended that attorneys general and banking commissioners use X’s money transmitter licenses as an excuse to investigate the allegations and demystify the app’s allegedly dangerous KSA ties.

Apparently, X either did not like the heat or decided to rethink its X Payments strategy, because the New York Department of Financial Services provided new information to Ars this week confirming that X withdrew its money transmitter license in New York in April 2024.

The department also confirmed that X has not since resubmitted the application.

However, WMHW this month voluntarily dismissed its client’s lawsuit against X and declined to comment on whether the open letter seemingly worked to block X Payments’ launch. It seems possible that X may leverage that court win to eventually resubmit its application for a New York license, but Ars could not confirm if X has any plans to resubmit any time soon.

An X spokesperson answered Ars’ request to comment (which rarely happens) but declined to provide an update on any new timeline for X Payments’ launch.

X Payments unlikely to launch without New York

It seems possible that X has gone silent on X Payments because there is no timeline currently.

A global payments expert for tech consultancy Capco, Daniela Hawkins, told Ars that, as an outsider going just off a “gut check,” if X has withdrawn its application from New York—with “New York obviously being such a major metropolitan area… that would seem to be a barrier to entry into the payments market.”

X could launch X Payments without New York and other states, but Hawkins said users might be confused about where they can and cannot send money. Hawkins thinks it’s unlikely that Musk—who co-founded PayPal and has wanted to launch his own payments app since—would roll out X Payments “half-assed.”

Basically, if X pushed through with the launch, users could accept and send funds just like they can using any other payments app, but without licenses in all states, X users could only send money to people located in states where X has licenses. Hawkins said that inconsistency could deter popular use of the payments feature because “it’s too difficult for the consumer to understand.”

“If you roll it out with handcuffs on it, it’s gonna have a bumpy launch,” Hawkins said. “So why would you do that?”

Going that route, X seemingly risks users ditching X to complete payments on apps where every transaction reliably goes through, Hawkins suggested.

“They’re gonna be like, ‘Wait, I don’t know where this Etsy shop is located, I don’t care,” Hawkins said, noting, “that’s just a bad user experience.”

More regulations on payment apps coming

Last year, Hawkins told Ars that X faced an “uphill battle” launching X Payments, partly due to intensifying regulations on the financial services industry that are increasingly pulling payments apps into regulations typically focused on regulating traditional banking services.

Just days ago, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule requiring banks, credit unions, and online payments services to make it easy and safe for customers to port banking data to a new financial service provider.

The CFPB argues customers need to have control over their data, but Hawkins told Ars that banks considered the controversial rule potentially allowing customers to transfer sensitive data in one click to be a “freaking nightmare.”

Banks warned of fraud risks and privacy concerns about sharing sensitive data with third parties that could profit off that data, possibly heightening risks of data breaches. Compliance isn’t required until 2026, but already the rule is being challenged in court, Hawkins said.

In one way, the new rule could be good for X, Hawkins told Ars, as the app could quickly gain access to valuable financial data if X users did switch from, say, using a bank to managing money through X Payments. Then X wouldn’t have “to go build all this data from scratch” to make X Payments profitable, Hawkins suggested.

But in another way, the rule could put X in “an interesting spot” where the app is required to share its user data with third parties in a way that could potentially have Musk second-guessing whether X would even benefit from becoming a bank in the way that he initially planned. Banks have protested the CFPB rule as allowing third parties to profit off data that they can’t, and Musk’s whole X Payments plan appears to revolve around profiting off users’ financial data.

“If somebody wants to pay with X, now X has to transfer the data to the third party, and they may not want to do that, because obviously, data is power, right?” Hawkins said.

Not a bank

But if Musk is suddenly shy about turning X into a bank, it comes at a time when banks are less likely to partner with social media apps for potentially risky new payment ventures.

Hawkins noted that banks have struggled to roll out new payment capabilities as easily as fintechs can, and that struggle inspired longtime partnerships between banks and tech companies that have recently begun to collapse. On Wednesday, the CFPB ordered Apple and Goldman Sachs to pay more than $89 million over “illegally mishandled transaction disputes.” Now Goldman Sachs is banned from offering new credit cards until it can be trusted to comply with laws. And Wells Fargo recently bowed out of PayPal and Square partnerships, citing compliance costs, The Information reported this week.

For Musk, who has notoriously butted heads with his trust and safety compliance teams at X, working with regulators on launching X Payments might, at this moment, seem less attractive.

“It’s one thing to want to move money on a payments app,” Hawkins told Ars. “It’s another thing to be a bank. Like he’s gonna hate being a bank.”

Earlier this year, the CFPB risked being dismantled after the financial services associations alleged its funding scheme was improper. But shortly after X withdrew from New York, the Supreme Court ruled in May that nothing was amiss with CFPB’s funding, despite Justice Samuel Alito warning in his dissent that SCOTUS’s decision meant the CFPB could “bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight,” Reuters reported.

In this strained environment, X could potentially overcome all obstacles and become a bank and fill a gap left by banks beginning to be spooked by fintech deals, Hawkins said, insisting that she would never bet against Musk, whose successes are many. But granting money transmitter licenses helps states prevent financial crimes through compliance requirements, and X quietly pulling out of New York earlier this year suggests that X may not be prepared to take on regulatory scrutiny at this current moment.

The last major development regarding X Payments came in August. It didn’t come from X leadership but from an app researcher, Nima Owji, who posted on X that “X Payments is coming soon!” Digging in X’s code, Owji apparently found references to new payments features enabling “transactions, balance, and transfer,” as well as a “Payments” button seemingly ready to be added to X’s bookmarks tab, TechCrunch reported.

But for Musk fans awaiting an official update, X executives’ silence on X Payments has been deafening since June, when Yaccarino forecast the feature would be coming soon, despite knowing that X had withdrawn its application for a money transmitter license from New York.

X continuing to hype the payments service without publicly disclosing the apparent speed bump in New York “doesn’t feel very honest,” Hawkins told Ars.

X still losing users, advertisers

It has been two years since Musk took over Twitter, soon after revealing that he intended to use Twitter’s userbase as the launchpad for an everything app that would be so engaging and useful that it would be the only app that anyone would ever need online.

Market intelligence firm Sensor Tower shared data with Ars showing that, compared to October 2022, when Musk bought Twitter, global daily average users on X were down 28 percent in September 2024.

Sensor Tower attributed part of the recent decline to X’s ban in Brazil driving out users but noted that overall, users “were down significantly compared to the pre-acquisition period,” as now-X “contended with a rise of controversial content and technical issues.”

While the decline in users could hurt Musk’s ambitions to launch a hugely popular payments app nested in X, the spike in offensive content has notably alienated advertisers who traditionally are X’s dominant source of revenue. And in lockstep with X’s decline in users, major brands have continued to shed the social app in 2024, Sensor Tower told Ars.

Last November, ad agencies flagged then-Twitter brand safety concerns, including GroupM marking Twitter “high risk” and Interpublic Group recommending that advertisers pause spending. By the end of last year, Sensor Tower reported that “of the company’s top 100 US advertisers in the days before” Musk purchased the platform, “only 50 were still there as of October 2023.”

The picture is even bleaker as X approaches the end of 2024, Sensor Tower’s data shows, estimating that “72 out of the top 100 spending US advertisers on X from October 2022 have ceased spending on the platform as of September 2024.” Compared to the first half of 2022, prior to Musk’s acquisition, X’s ad revenue from top 100 advertisers during the first half of 2024 was down 68 percent, Sensor Tower estimated.

Since becoming X’s CEO, Yaccarino has appeared most vocal about driving growth in X’s video services, allowing advertisers to avoid toxic content on the app by only running their ads alongside pre-approved creators’ content. In particular, Yaccarino has hyped X’s partnership with the NFL, announcing today on X that the partnership will be expanded.

That NFL partnership has seemingly helped X grow its ad revenue, with Sensor Tower estimating that “four out of the top 10 spending US advertisers on X in September 2024 were tied to sports or sports betting, likely in an attempt to capitalize on heightened consumer interest around the beginning of the NFL season.”

But overall, X’s revenue has not recovered in 2024, with Fidelity recently estimating that X is worth 80 percent less than when Musk bought the app, CNN reported.

Instead of working with advertisers, Musk went on the attack, suing the World Federation of Advertisers in August over what he calls an “illegal boycott” of X. But X’s spokesperson, Michael Abboud, linked Ars to an X post suggesting that X has held discussions with big brands about a brand safety solution.

“X is pleased to have reached an agreement with Unilever and to continue our partnership with them on the platform,” X’s post said. “Today’s news is the first part of the ecosystem-wide solution and we look forward to more resolution across the industry.”

Unilever did not respond to Ars’ request to comment on X’s proposed solution.

Musk’s strategy for monetizing X has always been to reduce reliance on advertising, but his everything app pursuit does not seem to be coming together as quickly as planned to make up for lost ad revenue. He initially projected that it would take three to five years to roll out all the features turning X into an everything app. But two years in, launching the core product experts say is critical to the success of everything apps like WeChat—X Payments—seems to be the major obstacle that Musk faces to manage the app without relying nearly entirely on advertisers’ meddling ideas regarding brand safety.

Hawkins said that Musk perhaps did not make a “great bet” when buying Twitter as the foundation of his everything app.

X “has continued to trend down in terms of profitability and users, and I’m sure he’s considering X Payments to be maybe a Hail Mary to try to pull X back into the black,” Hawkins said.

But by trying to disrupt the financial industry, Musk perhaps rashly “picked a highly regulated capability to bet the farm on,” Hawkins suggested.

As it stands now, it’s currently unclear when or if X Payments will launch, as the feed on the X account for Payments remains pointedly blank and Musk has not indicated whether X Payments can possibly launch without New York.

“I think it’s very telling he pulled out his application from New York, when he had even said in the media, there’s no point in doing this if I don’t have New York,” Hawkins said.

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

X Payments delayed after Musk’s X weirdly withdrew application for NY license Read More »

Missouri AG claims Google censors Trump, demands info on search algorithm

andrew bailey, Google, Policy / Beth Washington / October 25, 2024

In 2022, the Republican National Committee sued Google with claims that it intentionally used Gmail’s spam filter to suppress Republicans’ fundraising emails. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in August 2023, ruling that Google correctly argued that the RNC claims were barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

In January 2023, the Federal Election Commission rejected a related RNC complaint that alleged Gmail’s spam filtering amounted to “illegal in-kind contributions made by Google to Biden For President and other Democrat candidates.” The federal commission found “no reason to believe” that Google made prohibited in-kind corporate contributions and said a study cited by Republicans “does not make any findings as to the reasons why Google’s spam filter appears to treat Republican and Democratic campaign emails differently.”

First Amendment doesn’t cover private forums

In 2020, a US appeals court wrote that the Google-owned YouTube is not subject to free-speech requirements under the First Amendment. “Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,” the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said.

The US Constitution’s free speech clause imposes requirements on the government, not private companies—except in limited circumstances in which a private entity qualifies as a state actor.

Many Republican government officials want more authority to regulate how social media firms moderate user-submitted content. Republican officials from 20 states, including 19 state attorneys general, argued in a January 2024 Supreme Court brief that they “have authority to prohibit mass communication platforms from censoring speech.”

The brief was filed in support of Texas and Florida laws that attempt to regulate social networks. In July, the Supreme Court avoided making a final decision on tech-industry challenges to the state laws but wrote that the Texas law “is unlikely to withstand First Amendment scrutiny.” The Computer & Communications Industry Association said it was pleased by the ruling because it “mak[es] clear that a State may not interfere with private actors’ speech.”

Missouri AG claims Google censors Trump, demands info on search algorithm Read More »

Author name: Beth Washington