“Following the initial release of the Model Spec (May 2024), many users and developers expressed support for enabling a ‘grown-up mode.’ We’re exploring how to let developers and users generate erotica and gore in age-appropriate contexts through the API and ChatGPT so long as our usage policies are met—while drawing a hard line against potentially harmful uses like sexual deepfakes and revenge porn.”
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has mentioned the need for a “grown-up mode” publicly in the past as well. While it seems like “grown-up mode” is finally here, it’s not technically a “mode,” but a new universal policy that potentially gives ChatGPT users more flexibility in interacting with the AI assistant.
Of course, uncensored large language models (LLMs) have been around for years at this point, with hobbyist communities online developing them for reasons that range from wanting bespoke written pornography to not wanting any kind of paternalistic censorship.
In July 2023, we reported that the ChatGPT user base started declining for the first time after OpenAI started more heavily censoring outputs due to public and lawmaker backlash. At that time, some users began to use uncensored chatbots that could run on local hardware and were often available for free as “open weights” models.
Three types of iffy content
The Model Spec outlines formalized rules for restricting or generating potentially harmful content while staying within guidelines. OpenAI has divided this kind of restricted or iffy content into three categories of declining severity: prohibited content (“only applies to sexual content involving minors”), restricted content (“includes informational hazards and sensitive personal data”), and sensitive content in appropriate contexts (“includes erotica and gore”).
Under the category of prohibited content, OpenAI says that generating sexual content involving minors is always prohibited, although the assistant may “discuss sexual content involving minors in non-graphic educational or sex-ed contexts, including non-graphic depictions within personal harm anecdotes.”
Under restricted content, OpenAI’s document outlines how ChatGPT should never generate information hazards (like how to build a bomb, make illegal drugs, or manipulate political views) or provide sensitive personal data (like searching for someone’s address).
Under sensitive content, ChatGPT’s guidelines mirror what we stated above: Erotica or gore may only be generated under specific circumstances that include educational, medical, and historical contexts or when transforming user-provided content.
Internet Archive makes it easier to track changes in CDC data online.
When thousands of pages started disappearing from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website late last week, public health researchers quickly moved to archive deleted public health data.
Soon, researchers discovered that the Internet Archive (IA) offers one of the most effective ways to both preserve online data and track changes on government websites. For decades, IA crawlers have collected snapshots of the public Internet, making it easier to compare current versions of websites to historic versions. And IA also allows users to upload digital materials to further expand the web archive. Both aspects of the archive immediately proved useful to researchers assessing how much data the public risked losing during a rapid purge following a pair of President Trump’s executive orders.
Part of a small group of researchers who managed to download the entire CDC website within days, virologist Angela Rasmussen helped create a public resource that combines CDC website information with deleted CDC datasets. Those datasets, many of which were previously in the public domain for years, were uploaded to IA by an anonymous user, “SheWhoExists,” on January 31. Moving forward, Rasmussen told Ars that IA will likely remain a go-to tool for researchers attempting to closely monitor for any unexpected changes in access to public data.
IA “continually updates their archives,” Rasmussen said, which makes IA “a good mechanism for tracking modifications to these websites that haven’t been made yet.”
Additionally, “the Office of Personnel Management has provided initial guidance on both Executive Orders and HHS and divisions are acting accordingly to execute,” the CDC told Ars.
Rasmussen told Ars that the deletion of CDC datasets is “extremely alarming” and “not normal.” While some deleted pages have since been restored in altered versions, removing gender ideology from CDC guidance could put Americans at heightened risk. That’s another emerging problem that IA’s snapshots could help researchers and health professionals resolve.
“I think the average person probably doesn’t think that much about the CDC’s website, but it’s not just a matter of like, ‘Oh, we’re going to change some wording’ or ‘we’re going to remove these data,” Rasmussen said. “We are actually going to retool all the information that’s there to remove critical information about public health that could actually put people in danger.”
For example, altered Mpox transmission data removed “all references to men who have sex with men,” Rasmussen said. “And in the US those are the people who are not the only people at risk, but they’re the people who are most at risk of being exposed to Mpox. So, by removing that DEI language, you’re actually depriving people who are at risk of information they could use to protect themselves, and that eventually will get people hurt or even killed.”
Likely the biggest frustration for researchers scrambling to preserve data is dealing with broken links. On social media, Rasmussen has repeatedly called for help flagging broken links to ensure her team’s archive is as useful as possible.
Rasmussen’s group isn’t the only effort to preserve the CDC data. Some are creating niche archives focused on particular topics, like journalist Jessica Valenti, who created an archive of CDC guidelines on reproductive rights issues, sexual health, intimate partner violence, and other data the CDC removed online.
Niche archives could make it easier for some researchers to quickly survey missing data in their field, but Rasmussen’s group is hoping to take next steps to make all the missing CDC data more easily discoverable in their archive.
“I think the next step,” Rasmussen said, “would be to try to fix anything in there that’s broken, but also look into ways that we could maybe make it more browsable and user-friendly for people who may not know what they’re looking for or may not be able to find what they’re looking for.”
CDC advisers demand answers
The CDC has been largely quiet about the deleted data, only pointing to Trump’s executive orders to justify removals. That could change by February 7. That’s the deadline when a congressionally mandated advisory committee to the CDC’s acting director, Susan Monarez, asked for answers in an open letter to a list of questions about the data removals.
“It has been reported through anonymous sources that the website changes are related to new executive orders that ban the use of specific words and phrases,” their letter said. “But as far as we are aware, these unprecedented actions have yet to be explained by CDC; news stories indicate that the agency is declining to comment.”
At the top of the committee’s list of questions is likely the one frustrating researchers most: “What was the rationale for making these datasets and websites inaccessible to the public?” But the committee also importantly asked what analysis was done “of the consequences of removing access to these datasets and website” prior to the removals. They also asked how deleted data would be safeguarded and when data would be restored.
It’s unclear if the CDC will be motivated to respond by the deadline. Ars reached out to one of the committee members, Joshua Sharfstein—a physician and vice dean for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement at Johns Hopkins University—who confirmed that as of this writing, the CDC has not yet responded. And the CDC did not respond to Ars’ request to comment on the letter.
Rasmussen told Ars that even temporary removals of CDC guidance can disrupt important processes keeping Americans healthy. Among the potentially most consequential pages briefly removed were recommendations from the congressionally mandated Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Those recommendations are used by insurance companies to decide who gets reimbursed for vaccines and by physicians to deduce vaccine eligibility, and Rasmussen said they “are incredibly important for the entire population to have access to any kind of vaccination.” And while, for example, the Mpox vaccine recommendations were eventually restored unaltered, Rasmussen told Ars that she suspects that “one of the reasons” preventing interference currently with ACIP is that it’s mandated by Congress.
Seemingly ACIP could be weakened by the new administration, Rasmussen suggested. She warned that Trump’s pick for CDC director, Dave Weldon, “is an anti-vaxxer” (with a long history of falsely linking vaccines to autism) who may decide to replace ACIP committee members with anti-vaccine advocates or move to dissolve ACIP. And any changes in recommendations could mean “insurance companies aren’t going to cover vaccinations [and that] physicians will not recommend vaccination.” And that could mean “vaccination will go down and we’ll start having outbreaks of some of these vaccine-preventable diseases.”
“If there’s a big polio outbreak, that is going to result in permanently disabled children, dead children—it’s really, really serious,” Rasmussen said. “So I think that people need to understand that this isn’t just like, ‘Oh, maybe wear a mask when you’re at the movie theater’ kind of CDC guidance. This is guidance that’s really fundamental to our most basic public health practices, and it’s going to cause widespread suffering and death if this is allowed to continue.”
Seeding deleted data and doing science to fight back
On Bluesky, Rasmussen led one of many charges to compile archived links and download CDC data so that researchers can reference every available government study when advancing public health knowledge.
“These data are public and they are ours,” Rasmussen posted. “Deletion disobedience is one way to fight back.”
As Rasmussen sees it, deleting CDC data is “theft” from the public domain and archiving CDC data is simply taking “back what is ours.” But at the same time, her team is also taking steps to be sure the data they collected can be lawfully preserved. Because the CDC website has not been copied and hosted on a server, they expect their archive should be deemed lawful and remain online.
“I don’t put it past this administration to try to shut this stuff down by any means possible,” Rasmussen told Ars. “And we wanted to make sure there weren’t any sort of legal loopholes that would jeopardize anybody in the group, but also that would potentially jeopardize the data.”
It’s not clear if some data has already been lost. Seemingly the same user who uploaded the deleted datasets to IA posted on Reddit, clarifying that while the “full” archive “should contain all public datasets that were available” before “anything was scrubbed,” it likely only includes “most” of the “metadata and attachments.” So, researchers who download the data may still struggle to fill in some blanks.
To help researchers quickly access the missing data, anyone can help the IA seed the datasets, the Reddit user said in another post providing seeding and mirroring instructions. Currently dozens are seeding it for a couple hundred peers.
“Thank you to everyone who requested this important data, and particularly to those who have offered to mirror it,” the Reddit user wrote.
As Rasmussen works with her group to make their archive more user-friendly, her plan is to help as many researchers as possible fight back against data deletion by continuing to reference deleted data in their research. She suggested that effort—doing science that ignores Trump’s executive orders—is perhaps a more powerful way to resist and defend public health data than joining in loud protests, which many researchers based in the US (and perhaps relying on federal funding) may not be able to afford to do.
“Just by doing things and standing up for science with your actions, rather than your words, you can really make, I think, a big difference,” Rasmussen 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.
Artemiy Pavlov, the founder of a small but mighty music software brand called Sinesvibes, spent more than 15 years building a YouTube channel with all original content to promote his business’ products. Over all those years, he never had any issues with YouTube’s automated content removal system—until Monday, when YouTube, without issuing a single warning, abruptly deleted his entire channel.
“What a ‘nice’ way to start a week!” Pavlov posted on Bluesky. “Our channel on YouTube has been deleted due to ‘spam and deceptive policies.’ Which is the biggest WTF moment in our brand’s history on social platforms. We have only posted demos of our own original products, never anything else….”
Officially, YouTube told Pavlov that his channel violated YouTube’s “spam, deceptive practices, and scam policy,” but Pavlov could think of no videos that might be labeled as violative.
“We have nothing to hide,” Pavlov told Ars, calling YouTube’s decision to delete the channel with “zero warnings” a “terrible, terrible day for an independent, honest software brand.”
“We have never been involved with anything remotely shady,” Pavlov said. “We have never taken a single dollar dishonestly from anyone. And we have thousands of customers that stand by our brand.”
Ars saw Pavolov’s post and reached out to YouTube to find out why the channel was targeted for takedown. About three hours later, the channel was suddenly restored. That’s remarkably fast, as YouTube can sometimes take days or weeks to review an appeal. A YouTube spokesperson later confirmed that the Sinesvibes channel was reinstated due to the regular appeals process, indicating perhaps that YouTube could see that Sinesvibes’ removal was an obvious mistake.
Developer calls for more human review
For small brands like Sinesvibes, even spending half a day in limbo was a cause for crisis. Immediately, the brand worried about 50 broken product pages for one of its distributors, as well as “hundreds if not thousands of news articles posted about our software on dozens of different websites.” Unsure if the channel would ever be restored, Sinesvibes spent most of Monday surveying the damage.
Now that the channel is restored, Pavlov is stuck confronting how much of the Sinesvibes brand depends on the YouTube channel remaining online while still grappling with uncertainty since the reason behind the ban remains unknown. He told Ars that’s why, for small brands, simply having a channel reinstated doesn’t resolve all their concerns.
Whether TikTok will be banned in the US in three days is still up in the air. The Supreme Court has yet to announce its verdict on the constitutionality of a law requiring TikTok to either sell its US operations or shut down in the US. It’s possible that the Supreme Court could ask for more time to deliberate, potentially delaying enforcement of the law as TikTok has requested until after Donald Trump takes office.
While the divest-or-sell law had bipartisan support when it passed last year, momentum has seemingly shifted this week. Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has introduced a bill to extend the deadline ahead of a potential TikTok ban, and a top Trump adviser, Congressman Mike Waltz, has said that Trump plans to stop the ban and “keep TikTok from going dark,” the BBC reported. Even the Biden administration, whose justice department just finished arguing why the US needed to enforce the law to SCOTUS, “is considering ways to keep TikTok available,” sources told NBC News.
Many US RedNote users quickly banned
For RedNote and China, the app’s sudden popularity as the US alternative to TikTok seems to have come as a surprise. A Beijing-based independent industry analyst, Liu Xingliang, told Reuters that RedNote was “caught unprepared” by the influx of users.
To keep restricted content off the app, RedNote allegedly has since been “scrambling to find ways to moderate English-language content and build English-Chinese translation tools,” two sources familiar with the company told Reuters. Time’s reporting echoed that, noting that “Red Note is urgently recruiting English content moderators [Chinese]” became a trending topic Wednesday on the Chinese social media app Weibo.
Many analysts have suggested that Americans’ fascination with RedNote will be short-lived. Liu told Reuters that “American netizens are in a dissatisfied mood, and wanting to find another Chinese app to use is a catharsis of short-term emotions and a rebellious gesture.” But unfortunately, “the experience on it is not very good for foreigners.”
On RedNote, Chinese users have warned Americans that China censors way more content than they’re used to on TikTok. Analysts told The Washington Post that RedNote’s “focus on shopping and entertainment means it is often even more active in blocking content seen as too serious for the app’s target audience.” Chinese users warned Americans not to post about “politics, religion, and drugs” or risk “account bans or legal repercussions, including jail time,” Rest of World reported. Meanwhile, on Reddit, Americans received additional warnings about common RedNote scams and reasons accounts could be banned. But Rest of World noted that many so-called “TikTok refugees” migrating to RedNote do not “seem to know, or care, about platform rules.”
Florida threatened TV stations over ad that criticized state’s abortion law.
Screenshot of political advertisement featuring a woman describing her experience having an abortion after being diagnosed with brain cancer. Credit: Floridians Protecting Freedom
US District Judge Mark Walker had a blunt message for the Florida surgeon general in an order halting the government official’s attempt to censor a political ad that opposes restrictions on abortion.
“To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid,” Walker, an Obama appointee who is chief judge in US District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote yesterday in a ruling that granted a temporary restraining order.
“Whether it’s a woman’s right to choose, or the right to talk about it, Plaintiff’s position is the same—’don’t tread on me,'” Walker wrote later in the ruling. “Under the facts of this case, the First Amendment prohibits the State of Florida from trampling on Plaintiff’s free speech.”
The Florida Department of Health recently sent a legal threat to broadcast TV stations over the airing of a political ad that criticized abortion restrictions in Florida’s Heartbeat Protection Act. The department in Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration claimed the ad falsely described the abortion law, which could be weakened by a pending ballot question.
Floridians Protecting Freedom, the group that launched the TV ad and is sponsoring a ballot question to lift restrictions on abortion, sued Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and Department of Health general counsel John Wilson. Wilson has resigned.
Surgeon general blocked from further action
Walker’s order granting the group’s motion states that “Defendant Ladapo is temporarily enjoined from taking any further actions to coerce, threaten, or intimate repercussions directly or indirectly to television stations, broadcasters, or other parties for airing Plaintiff’s speech, or undertaking enforcement action against Plaintiff for running political advertisements or engaging in other speech protected under the First Amendment.”
The order expires on October 29 but could be replaced by a preliminary injunction that would remain in effect while litigation continues. A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for the morning of October 29.
The pending ballot question would amend the state Constitution to say, “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”
Walker’s ruling said that Ladapo “has the right to advocate for his own position on a ballot measure. But it would subvert the rule of law to permit the State to transform its own advocacy into the direct suppression of protected political speech.”
Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel recently criticized state officials, writing that “threats against broadcast stations for airing content that conflicts with the government’s views are dangerous and undermine the fundamental principle of free speech.”
State threatened criminal proceedings
The Floridians Protecting Freedom advertisement features a woman who “recalls her decision to have an abortion in Florida in 2022,” and “states that she would not be able to have an abortion for the same reason under the current law,” Walker’s ruling said.
Caroline, the woman in the ad, states that “the doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom. Florida has now banned abortion even in cases like mine. Amendment 4 is going to protect women like me; we have to vote yes.”
The ruling described the state government response:
Shortly after the ad began running, John Wilson, then general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, sent letters on the Department’s letterhead to Florida TV stations. The letters assert that Plaintiff’s political advertisement is false, dangerous, and constitutes a “sanitary nuisance” under Florida law. The letter informed the TV stations that the Department of Health must notify the person found to be committing the nuisance to remove it within 24 hours pursuant to section 386.03(1), Florida Statutes. The letter further warned that the Department could institute legal proceedings if the nuisance were not timely removed, including criminal proceedings pursuant to section 386.03(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Finally, the letter acknowledged that the TV stations have a constitutional right to “broadcast political advertisements,” but asserted this does not include “false advertisements which, if believed, would likely have a detrimental effect on the lives and health of pregnant women in Florida.” At least one of the TV stations that had been running Plaintiff’s advertisement stopped doing so after receiving this letter from the Department of Health.
The Department of Health claimed the ad “is categorically false” because “Florida’s Heartbeat Protection Act does not prohibit abortion if a physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is less than 6 weeks.”
Floridians Protecting Freedom responded that the woman in the ad made true statements, saying that “Caroline was diagnosed with stage four brain cancer when she was 20 weeks pregnant; the diagnosis was terminal. Under Florida law, abortions may only be performed after six weeks gestation if ‘[t]wo physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition.'”
Because “Caroline’s diagnosis was terminal… an abortion would not have saved her life, only extended it. Florida law would not allow an abortion in this instance because the abortion would not have ‘save[d] the pregnant woman’s life,’ only extended her life,” the group said.
Judge: State should counter with its own speech
Walker’s ruling said the government can’t censor the ad by claiming it is false:
Plaintiff’s argument is correct. While Defendant Ladapo refuses to even agree with this simple fact, Plaintiff’s political advertisement is political speech—speech at the core of the First Amendment. And just this year, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the bedrock principle that the government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly by threatening third parties with legal sanctions to censor speech it disfavors. The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is “false.”
State officials must show that their actions “were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest,” Walker wrote. A “narrowly tailored solution” in this case would be counterspeech, not censorship, he wrote.
“For all these reasons, Plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,” the ruling said. Walker wrote that a ruling in favor of the state would open the door to more censorship:
This case pits the right to engage in political speech against the State’s purported interest in protecting the health and safety of Floridians from “false advertising.” It is no answer to suggest that the Department of Health is merely flexing its traditional police powers to protect health and safety by prosecuting “false advertising”—if the State can rebrand rank viewpoint discriminatory suppression of political speech as a “sanitary nuisance,” then any political viewpoint with which the State disagrees is fair game for censorship.
Walker then noted that Ladapo “has ample, constitutional alternatives to mitigate any harm caused by an injunction in this case.” The state is already running “its own anti-Amendment 4 campaign to educate the public about its view of Florida’s abortion laws and to correct the record, as it sees fit, concerning pro-Amendment 4 speech,” Walker wrote. “The State can continue to combat what it believes to be ‘false advertising’ by meeting Plaintiff’s speech with its own.”
Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.
Google announced Monday that it’s shutting down all AdSense accounts in Russia due to “ongoing developments in Russia.”
This effectively ends Russian content creators’ ability to monetize their posts, including YouTube videos. The change impacts accounts monetizing content through AdSense, AdMob, and Ad Manager, the support page said.
While Google has declined requests to provide details on what prompted the change, it’s the latest escalation of Google’s ongoing battle with Russian officials working to control the narrative on Russia’s war with Ukraine.
In February 2022, Google paused monetization of all state-funded media in Russia, then temporarily paused all ads in the country the very next month. That March, Google paused the creation of new Russia-based AdSense accounts and blocked ads globally that originated from Russia. In March 2022, Google also paused monetization of any content exploiting, condoning, or dismissing Russia’s war with Ukraine. Seemingly as retaliation, Russia seized Google’s bank account, causing Google Russia to shut down in May 2022.
Since then, Google has “blocked more than 1,000 YouTube channels, including state-sponsored news, and over 5.5 million videos,” Reuters reported.
For Russian creators who have still found ways to monetize their content amid the chaos, Google’s decision to abruptly shut down AdSense accounts comes as “a serious blow to their income,” Bleeping Computer reported. Russia is second only to the US in terms of YouTube web traffic, Similarweb data shows, making it likely that Russia-based YouTubers earned “significant” revenues that will now be suddenly lost, Bleeping Computer reported.
Russia-based creators—including YouTubers, as well as bloggers and website owners—will receive their final payout this month, according to a message from Google to users reviewed by Reuters.
“Assuming you have no active payment holds and meet the minimum payment thresholds,” payments will be disbursed between August 21 and 26, Google’s message said.
Google’s spokesperson offered little clarification to Reuters and Bleeping Computer, saying only that “we will no longer be able to make payments to Russia-based AdSense accounts that have been able to continue monetizing traffic outside of Russia. As a result, we will be deactivating these accounts effective August 2024.”
It seems likely, though, that Russia passing a law in March—banning advertising on websites, blogs, social networks, or any other online sources published by a “foreign agent,” as Reuters reported in February—perhaps influenced Google’s update. The law also prohibited foreign agents from placing ads on sites, and under the law, foreign agents could include anti-Kremlin politicians, activists, and media. With new authority, Russia may have further retaliated against Google, potentially forcing Google to give up the last bit of monetization available to Russia-based creators increasingly censored online.
State assembly member and Putin ally Vyacheslav Volodin said that the law was needed to stop financing “scoundrels” allegedly “killing our soldiers, officers, and civilians,” Reuters reported.
One Russian YouTuber with 11.4 million subscribers, Valentin Petukhov, suggested on Telegram that Google shut down AdSense because people had managed to “bypass payment blocks imposed by Western sanctions on Russian banks,” Bleeping Computer reported.
According to Petukhov, the wording in Google’s message to users was “kind of strange,” making it unclear what account holders should do next.
“Even though the income from monetization has fallen tenfold, it hasn’t disappeared completely,” Petukhov said.
YouTube still spotty in Russia
Google’s decision to end AdSense in Russia follows reports of a mass YouTube outage that Russian Internet monitoring service Sboi.rf reported is still impacting users today.
Officials in Russia claim that YouTube has been operating at slower speeds because Google stopped updating its equipment in the region after the invasion of Ukraine, Reuters reported.
This outage and the slower speeds led “subscribers of over 135 regional communication operators in Russia” to terminate “agreements with companies due to problems with the operation of YouTube and other Google services,” the Russian tech blog Habr reported.
As Google has tried to resist pressure from Russian lawmakers to censor content that officials deem illegal, such as content supporting Ukraine or condemning Russia, YouTube had become one of the last bastions of online free speech, Reuters reported. It’s unclear how ending monetization in the region will impact access to anti-Kremlin reporting on YouTube or more broadly online in Russia. Last February, a popular journalist with 1.64 million subscribers on YouTube, Katerina Gordeeva, wrote on Telegram that “she was suspending her work due to the law,” Reuters reported.
“We will no longer be able to work as before,” Gordeeva said. “Of course, we will look for a way out.”
Enlarge/ Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The Children’s Health Defense (CHD), an anti-vaccine group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, has once again failed to convince a court that Meta acted as a state agent when censoring the group’s posts and ads on Facebook and Instagram.
In his opinion affirming a lower court’s dismissal, US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Eric Miller wrote that CHD failed to prove that Meta acted as an arm of the government in censoring posts. Concluding that Meta’s right to censor views that the platforms find “distasteful” is protected by the First Amendment, Miller denied CHD’s requested relief, which had included an injunction and civil monetary damages.
“Meta evidently believes that vaccines are safe and effective and that their use should be encouraged,” Miller wrote. “It does not lose the right to promote those views simply because they happen to be shared by the government.”
CHD told Reuters that the group “was disappointed with the decision and considering its legal options.”
The group first filed the complaint in 2020, arguing that Meta colluded with government officials to censor protected speech by labeling anti-vaccine posts as misleading or removing and shadowbanning CHD posts. This caused CHD’s traffic on the platforms to plummet, CHD claimed, and ultimately, its pages were removed from both platforms.
However, critically, Miller wrote, CHD did not allege that “the government was actually involved in the decisions to label CHD’s posts as ‘false’ or ‘misleading,’ the decision to put the warning label on CHD’s Facebook page, or the decisions to ‘demonetize’ or ‘shadow-ban.'”
“CHD has not alleged facts that allow us to infer that the government coerced Meta into implementing a specific policy,” Miller wrote.
Instead, Meta “was entitled to encourage” various “input from the government,” justifiably seeking vaccine-related information provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as it navigated complex content moderation decisions throughout the pandemic, Miller wrote.
Therefore, Meta’s actions against CHD were due to “Meta’s own ‘policy of censoring,’ not any provision of federal law,” Miller concluded. “The evidence suggested that Meta had independent incentives to moderate content and exercised its own judgment in so doing.”
None of CHD’s theories that Meta coordinated with officials to deprive “CHD of its constitutional rights” were plausible, Miller wrote, whereas the “innocent alternative”—”that Meta adopted the policy it did simply because” CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Meta “share the government’s view that vaccines are safe and effective”—appeared “more plausible.”
Meta “does not become an agent of the government just because it decides that the CDC sometimes has a point,” Miller wrote.
Equally not persuasive were CHD’s notions that Section 230 immunity—which shields platforms from liability for third-party content—”‘removed all legal barriers’ to the censorship of vaccine-related speech,” such that “Meta’s restriction of that content should be considered state action.”
“That Section 230 operates in the background to immunize Meta if it chooses to suppress vaccine misinformation—whether because it shares the government’s health concerns or for independent commercial reasons—does not transform Meta’s choice into state action,” Miller wrote.
One judge dissented over Section 230 concerns
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Daniel Collins defended CHD’s Section 230 claim, however, suggesting that the appeals court erred and should have granted CHD injunctive and declaratory relief from alleged censorship. CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender that the group was pleased the decision was not unanimous.
According to Collins, who like Miller is a Trump appointee, Meta could never have built its massive social platforms without Section 230 immunity, which grants platforms the ability to broadly censor viewpoints they disfavor.
It was “important to keep in mind” that “the vast practical power that Meta exercises over the speech of millions of others ultimately rests on a government-granted privilege to which Meta is not constitutionally entitled,” Collins wrote. And this power “makes a crucial difference in the state-action analysis.”
As Collins sees it, CHD could plausibly allege that Meta’s communications with government officials about vaccine-related misinformation targeted specific users, like the “disinformation dozen” that includes both CHD and Kennedy. In that case, it appears possible to Collins that Section 230 provides a potential opportunity for government to target speech that it disfavors through mechanisms provided by the platforms.
“Having specifically and purposefully created an immunized power for mega-platform operators to freely censor the speech of millions of persons on those platforms, the Government is perhaps unsurprisingly tempted to then try to influence particular uses of such dangerous levers against protected speech expressing viewpoints the Government does not like,” Collins warned.
He further argued that “Meta’s relevant First Amendment rights” do not “give Meta an unbounded freedom to work with the Government in suppressing speech on its platforms.” Disagreeing with the majority, he wrote that “in this distinctive scenario, applying the state-action doctrine promotes individual liberty by keeping the Government’s hands away from the tempting levers of censorship on these vast platforms.”
The majority agreed, however, that while Section 230 immunity “is undoubtedly a significant benefit to companies like Meta,” lawmakers’ threats to weaken Section 230 did not suggest that Meta’s anti-vaccine policy was coerced state action.
“Many companies rely, in one way or another, on a favorable regulatory environment or the goodwill of the government,” Miller wrote. “If that were enough for state action, every large government contractor would be a state actor. But that is not the law.”
The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) easily passed the Senate today despite critics’ concerns that the bill may risk creating more harm than good for kids and perhaps censor speech for online users of all ages if it’s signed into law.
KOSA received broad bipartisan support in the Senate, passing with a 91–3 vote alongside the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Action (COPPA) 2.0. Both laws seek to control how much data can be collected from minors, as well as regulate the platform features that could harm children’s mental health.
Only Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) opposed the bills.
In an op-ed for The Courier-Journal, Paul argued that KOSA imposes a “duty of care” to mitigate harms to minors on their platforms that “will not only stifle free speech, but it will deprive Americans of the benefits of our technological advancements.”
“With the Internet, today’s children have the world at their fingertips,” Paul wrote, but if KOSA passes, even allegedly benign content like “pro-life messages” or discussion of a teen overcoming an eating disorder could be censored if platforms fear compliance issues.
“While doctors’ and therapists’ offices close at night and on weekends, support groups are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for people who share similar concerns or have the same health problems. Any solution to protect kids online must ensure the positive aspects of the Internet are preserved,” Paul wrote.
During a KOSA critics’ press conference today, Dara Adkison—the executive director of a group providing resources for transgender youths called TransOhio—expressed concerns that lawmakers would target sites like TransOhio if the law also passed in the House, where the bill heads next.
“I’ve literally had legislators tell me to my face that they would love to see our website taken off the Internet because they don’t want people to have the kinds of vital community resources that we provide,” Adkison said.
Paul argued that what was considered harmful to kids was subjective, noting that a key flaw with KOSA was that “KOSA does not explicitly define the term ‘mental health disorder.'” Instead, platforms are to refer to the definition in “the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders” or “the most current successor edition.”
“That means the scope of the bill could change overnight without any action from America’s elected representatives,” Paul warned, suggesting that “KOSA opens the door to nearly limitless content regulation because platforms will censor users rather than risk liability.”
Ahead of the vote, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)—who co-sponsored KOSA—denied that the bill strove to regulate content, The Hill reported. To Blumenthal and other KOSA supporters, its aim instead is to ensure that social media is “safe by design” for young users.
According to The Washington Post, KOSA and COPPA 2.0 passing “represent the most significant restrictions on tech platforms to clear a chamber of Congress in decades.” However, while President Joe Biden has indicated he would be willing to sign the bill into law, most seem to agree that KOSA will struggle to pass in the House of Representatives.
A senior tech policy director for Chamber of Progress—a progressive tech industry policy coalition—Todd O’Boyle, has said that currently there is “substantial opposition” in the House. O’Boyle said that he expects that the political divide will be enough to block KOSA’s passage and prevent giving “the power” to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or “the next president” to “crack down on online speech” or otherwise pose “a massive threat to our constitutional rights.”
“If there’s one thing the far-left and far-right agree on, it’s that the next chair of the FTC shouldn’t get to decide what online posts are harmful,” O’Boyle said.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court tossed out claims that the Biden administration coerced social media platforms into censoring users by removing COVID-19 and election-related content.
Complaints alleging that high-ranking government officials were censoring conservatives had previously convinced a lower court to order an injunction limiting the Biden administration’s contacts with platforms. But now that injunction has been overturned, re-opening lines of communication just ahead of the 2024 elections—when officials will once again be closely monitoring the spread of misinformation online targeted at voters.
In a 6–3 vote, the majority ruled that none of the plaintiffs suing—including five social media users and Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri—had standing. They had alleged that the government had “pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment,” demanding an injunction to stop any future censorship.
Plaintiffs may have succeeded if they were instead seeking damages for past harms. But in her opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that partly because the Biden administration seemingly stopped influencing platforms’ content policies in 2022, none of the plaintiffs could show evidence of a “substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable” to any government official. Thus, they did not seem to face “a real and immediate threat of repeated injury,” Barrett wrote.
“Without proof of an ongoing pressure campaign, it is entirely speculative that the platforms’ future moderation decisions will be attributable, even in part,” to government officials, Barrett wrote, finding that an injunction would do little to prevent future censorship.
Instead, plaintiffs’ claims “depend on the platforms’ actions,” Barrett emphasized, “yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts.”
“It is a bedrock principle that a federal court cannot redress ‘injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court,'” Barrett wrote.
Barrett repeatedly noted “weak” arguments raised by plaintiffs, none of which could directly link their specific content removals with the Biden administration’s pressure campaign urging platforms to remove vaccine or election misinformation.
According to Barrett, the lower court initially granting the injunction “glossed over complexities in the evidence,” including the fact that “platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID-19 content” before the government pressure campaign began. That’s an issue, Barrett said, because standing to sue “requires a threshold showing that a particular defendant pressured a particular platform to censor a particular topic before that platform suppressed a particular plaintiff’s speech on that topic.”
“While the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment,” Barrett wrote.
Barrett was similarly unconvinced by arguments that plaintiffs risk platforms removing future content based on stricter moderation policies that were previously coerced by officials.
“Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion,” Barrett wrote.
Judge: SCOTUS “shirks duty” to defend free speech
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Samuel Alito in dissenting, arguing that “this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years” and that the Supreme Court had an “obligation” to “tackle the free speech issue that the case presents.”
“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think,” Alito wrote.
Alito argued that the evidence showed that while “downright dangerous” speech was suppressed, so was “valuable speech.” He agreed with the lower court that “a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign” had been “conducted by high-ranking federal officials against Americans who expressed certain disfavored views about COVID-19 on social media.”
“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” Alito wrote. “Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”
At least one plaintiff who opposed masking and vaccines, Jill Hines, was “indisputably injured,” Alito wrote, arguing that evidence showed that she was censored more frequently after officials pressured Facebook into changing their policies.
“Top federal officials continuously and persistently hectored Facebook to crack down on what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts, including not only posts that they thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted obscured,” Alito wrote.
While Barrett and the majority found that platforms were more likely responsible for injury, Alito disagreed, writing that with the threat of antitrust probes or Section 230 amendments, Facebook acted like “a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a powerful taskmaster.”
Alito wrote that the majority was “applying a new and heightened standard” by requiring plaintiffs to “untangle Government-caused censorship from censorship that Facebook might have undertaken anyway.” In his view, it was enough that Hines showed that “one predictable effect of the officials’ action was that Facebook would modify its censorship policies in a way that affected her.”
“When the White House pressured Facebook to amend some of the policies related to speech in which Hines engaged, those amendments necessarily impacted some of Facebook’s censorship decisions,” Alito wrote. “Nothing more is needed. What the Court seems to want are a series of ironclad links.”
Australia’s safety regulator has ended a legal battle with X (formerly Twitter) after threatening approximately $500,000 daily fines for failing to remove 65 instances of a religiously motivated stabbing video from X globally.
Enforcing Australia’s Online Safety Act, eSafety commissioner Julie Inman-Grant had argued it would be dangerous for the videos to keep spreading on X, potentially inciting other acts of terror in Australia.
But X owner Elon Musk refused to comply with the global takedown order, arguing that it would be “unlawful and dangerous” to allow one country to control the global Internet. And Musk was not alone in this fight. The legal director of a nonprofit digital rights group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Corynne McSherry, backed up Musk, urging the court to agree that “no single country should be able to restrict speech across the entire Internet.”
“We welcome the news that the eSafety Commissioner is no longer pursuing legal action against X seeking the global removal of content that does not violate X’s rules,” X’s Global Government Affairs account posted late Tuesday night. “This case has raised important questions on how legal powers can be used to threaten global censorship of speech, and we are heartened to see that freedom of speech has prevailed.”
Inman-Grant was formerly Twitter’s director of public policy in Australia and used that experience to land what she told The Courier-Mail was her “dream role” as Australia’s eSafety commissioner in 2017. Since issuing the order to remove the video globally on X, Inman-Grant had traded barbs with Musk (along with other Australian lawmakers), responding to Musk labeling her a “censorship commissar” by calling him an “arrogant billionaire” for fighting the order.
On X, Musk arguably got the last word, posting, “Freedom of speech is worth fighting for.”
Safety regulator still defends takedown order
In a statement, Inman-Grant said early Wednesday that her decision to discontinue proceedings against X was part of an effort to “consolidate actions,” including “litigation across multiple cases.” She ultimately determined that dropping the case against X would be the “option likely to achieve the most positive outcome for the online safety of all Australians, especially children.”
“Our sole goal and focus in issuing our removal notice was to prevent this extremely violent footage from going viral, potentially inciting further violence and inflicting more harm on the Australian community,” Inman-Grant said, still defending the order despite dropping it.
In court, X’s lawyer Marcus Hoyne had pushed back on such logic, arguing that the eSafety regulator’s mission was “pointless” because “footage of the attack had now spread far beyond the few dozen URLs originally identified,” the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported.
“I stand by my investigators and the decisions eSafety made,” Inman-Grant said.
Other Australian lawmakers agree the order was not out of line. According to AP News, Australian Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland shared a similar statement in parliament today, backing up the safety regulator while scolding X users who allegedly took up Musk’s fight by threatening Inman-Grant and her family. The safety regulator has said that Musk’s X posts incited a “pile-on” from his followers who allegedly sent death threats and exposed her children’s personal information, the BBC reported.
“The government backs our regulators and we back the eSafety Commissioner, particularly in light of the reprehensible threats to her physical safety and the threats to her family in the course of doing her job,” Rowland said.
Former and current OpenAI employees received a memo this week that the AI company hopes to end the most embarrassing scandal that Sam Altman has ever faced as OpenAI’s CEO.
The memo finally clarified for employees that OpenAI would not enforce a non-disparagement contract that employees since at least 2019 were pressured to sign within a week of termination or else risk losing their vested equity. For an OpenAI employee, that could mean losing millions for expressing even mild criticism about OpenAI’s work.
You can read the full memo below in a post on X (formerly Twitter) from Andrew Carr, a former OpenAI employee whose LinkedIn confirms that he left the company in 2021.
“I guess that settles that,” Carr wrote on X.
OpenAI faced a major public backlash when Vox revealed the unusually restrictive language in the non-disparagement clause last week after OpenAI co-founder and chief scientist Ilya Sutskever resigned, along with his superalignment team co-leader Jan Leike.
As questions swirled regarding these resignations, the former OpenAI staffers provided little explanation for why they suddenly quit. Sutskever basically wished OpenAI well, expressing confidence “that OpenAI will build AGI that is both safe and beneficial,” while Leike only offered two words: “I resigned.”
Amid an explosion of speculation about whether OpenAI was perhaps forcing out employees or doing dangerous or reckless AI work, some wondered if OpenAI’s non-disparagement agreement was keeping employees from warning the public about what was really going on at OpenAI.
According to Vox, employees had to sign the exit agreement within a week of quitting or else potentially lose millions in vested equity that could be worth more than their salaries. The extreme terms of the agreement were “fairly uncommon in Silicon Valley,” Vox found, allowing OpenAI to effectively censor former employees by requiring that they never criticize OpenAI for the rest of their lives.
“This is on me and one of the few times I’ve been genuinely embarrassed running OpenAI,” Altman posted on X, while claiming, “I did not know this was happening and I should have.”
Vox reporter Kelsey Piper called Altman’s apology “hollow,” noting that Altman had recently signed separation letters that seemed to “complicate” his claim that he was unaware of the harsh terms. Piper reviewed hundreds of pages of leaked OpenAI documents and reported that in addition to financially pressuring employees to quickly sign exit agreements, OpenAI also threatened to block employees from selling their equity.
Even requests for an extra week to review the separation agreement, which could afford the employees more time to seek legal counsel, were seemingly denied—”as recently as this spring,” Vox found.
“We want to make sure you understand that if you don’t sign, it could impact your equity,” an OpenAI representative wrote in an email to one departing employee. “That’s true for everyone, and we’re just doing things by the book.”
OpenAI Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon told Vox that the company began reconsidering revising this language about a month before the controversy hit.
“We are sorry for the distress this has caused great people who have worked hard for us,” Kwon told Vox. “We have been working to fix this as quickly as possible. We will work even harder to be better.”
Altman sided with OpenAI’s biggest critics, writing on X that the non-disparagement clause “should never have been something we had in any documents or communication.”
“Vested equity is vested equity, full stop,” Altman wrote.
These long-awaited updates make clear that OpenAI will never claw back vested equity if employees leave the company and then openly criticize its work (unless both parties sign a non-disparagement agreement). Prior to this week, some former employees feared steep financial retribution for sharing true feelings about the company.
One former employee, Daniel Kokotajlo, publicly posted that he refused to sign the exit agreement, even though he had no idea how to estimate how much his vested equity was worth. He guessed it represented “about 85 percent of my family’s net worth.”
And while Kokotajlo said that he wasn’t sure if the sacrifice was worth it, he still felt it was important to defend his right to speak up about the company.
“I wanted to retain my ability to criticize the company in the future,” Kokotajlo wrote.
Even mild criticism could seemingly cost employees, like Kokotajlo, who confirmed that he was leaving the company because he was “losing confidence” that OpenAI “would behave responsibly” when developing generative AI.
In OpenAI’s defense, the company confirmed that it had never enforced the exit agreements. But now, OpenAI’s spokesperson told CNBC, OpenAI is backtracking and “making important updates” to its “departure process” to eliminate any confusion the prior language caused.
“We have not and never will take away vested equity, even when people didn’t sign the departure documents,” OpenAI’s spokesperson said. “We’ll remove non-disparagement clauses from our standard departure paperwork, and we’ll release former employees from existing non-disparagement obligations unless the non-disparagement provision was mutual.”
The memo sent to current and former employees reassured everyone at OpenAI that “regardless of whether you executed the Agreement, we write to notify you that OpenAI has not canceled, and will not cancel, any Vested Units.”
“We’re incredibly sorry that we’re only changing this language now; it doesn’t reflect our values or the company we want to be,” OpenAI’s spokesperson said.
Enlarge / Screenshot from the documentary Who Is Bobby Kennedy?
In a lawsuit that seems determined to ignore that Section 230 exists, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has sued Meta for allegedly shadowbanning his million-dollar documentary, Who Is Bobby Kennedy? and preventing his supporters from advocating for his presidential campaign.
According to Kennedy, Meta is colluding with the Biden administration to sway the 2024 presidential election by suppressing Kennedy’s documentary and making it harder to support Kennedy’s candidacy. This allegedly has caused “substantial donation losses,” while also violating the free speech rights of Kennedy, his supporters, and his film’s production company, AV24.
Meta had initially restricted the documentary on Facebook and Instagram but later fixed the issue after discovering that the film was mistakenly flagged by the platforms’ automated spam filters.
But Kennedy’s complaint claimed that Meta is still “brazenly censoring speech” by “continuing to throttle, de-boost, demote, and shadowban the film.” In an exhibit, Kennedy’s lawyers attached screenshots representing “hundreds” of Facebook and Instagram users whom Meta allegedly sent threats, intimidated, and sanctioned after they shared the documentary.
Some of these users remain suspended on Meta platforms, the complaint alleged. Others whose temporary suspensions have been lifted claimed that their posts are still being throttled, though, and Kennedy’s lawyers earnestly insisted that an exchange with Meta’s chatbot proves it.
Two days after the documentary’s release, Kennedy’s team apparently asked the Meta AI assistant, “When users post the link whoisbobbykennedy.com, can their followers see the post in their feeds?”
“I can tell you that the link is currently restricted by Meta,” the chatbot answered.
Chatbots, of course, are notoriously inaccurate sources of information, and Meta AI’s terms of service note this. In a section labeled “accuracy,” Meta warns that chatbot responses “may not reflect accurate, complete, or current information” and should always be verified.
Perhaps more significantly, there is little reason to think that Meta’s chatbot would have access to information about internal content moderation decisions.
Techdirt’s Mike Masnick mocked Kennedy’s reliance on the chatbot in the case. He noted that Kennedy seemed to have no evidence of the alleged shadow-banning, while there’s plenty of evidence that Meta’s spam filters accidentally remove non-violative content all the time.
Meta’s chatbot is “just a probabilistic stochastic parrot, repeating a probable sounding answer to users’ questions,” Masnick wrote. “And these idiots think it’s meaningful evidence. This is beyond embarrassing.”
Neither Meta nor Kennedy’s lawyer, Jed Rubenfeld, responded to Ars’ request to comment.
