tiktok

Toymaker suddenly drops lawsuit against “Sylvanian Drama” TikToker

content creator, intellectual property, ip infringement, Policy, tiktok, trademark infringement / 9u50fv / August 10, 2025

A toy company has voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against a popular TikTok and Instagram account called “Sylvanian Drama.”

Epoch Company Ltd., is the US maker of adorable fuzzy dolls called Calico Critters. Those dolls are known as “Sylvanian Families” in other markets, and more recently, they became a viral sensation after an Ireland-based content creator, Thea Von Engelbrechten, started making funny videos in which the dolls acted out dark, cringey adult storylines.

Claiming that the “Sylvanian Drama” videos infringed on Epoch’s intellectual property rights, including using an Epoch marketing image as her account’s profile picture while profiting off partnerships with major brands featured in her videos, the toymaker sued Von Engelbrechten, prompting her to immediately stop posting videos last year. Although some fans predicted the account might never come back, experts told Ars that Epoch may come to regret the lawsuit, perhaps alienating a potential market for their toys by going after a widely beloved content creator.

To some, Epoch appeared to be lashing out after Von Engelbrechten secured brand partnerships that seemed to be more lucrative than the toy company’s own brand deals. In that way, they also perhaps overlooked an opportunity to partner with Von Engelbrechten themselves, experts told Ars.

On Friday, Von Engelbrechten’s response was due in the lawsuit, but a story posted to her Instagram earlier this week signaled that a resolution may have been in the works. Ars could not reach Von Engelbrechten for comment, but she asked her fans to recommend a new account name in her story and confirmed that she would also be changing her account’s profile picture.

Toymaker suddenly drops lawsuit against “Sylvanian Drama” TikToker Read More »

Toy company may regret coming for “Sylvanian Drama” TikToker, experts say

calico critters, copyright infringement, Instagram, online advertising, parody, Policy, satire, Social Media, sponsored content, tiktok, trademark infringement / Mike M. / July 23, 2025

Possible legal paths to revive a shuttered video series on TikTok and Instagram.

A popular account on TikTok and Instagram stopped posting suddenly at the end of last year, hit by a lawsuit after garnering millions of views on funny videos it made using adorable children’s Calico Critter dolls to act out dark, cringe-y adult storylines.

While millions of followers mourn the so-called “Sylvanian Drama” account’s demise, experts told Ars that the creator may have a decent chance at beating the lawsuit.

The “Sylvanian Drama” account derived its name from “Sylvanian Families,” a brand name used by Epoch Company Ltd., the maker of Calico Critters, for its iconic fuzzy animal dolls in some markets outside the US. Despite these videos referencing murder, drugs, and hookups, the toy company apparently had no problem, until the account, managed by Ireland-based Thea Von Engelbrechten, started accepting big brand partnerships and making sponsored content featuring the dolls.

Since Epoch, too, strikes partnerships with brands and influencers to promote its own videos marketing the dolls, the company claimed “Sylvanian Drama” risked creating too much confusion online. They also worried viewers would think Epoch had signed off on the videos, since the sponsored content was marked “paid partnership” without specifying precisely which featured brands had paid for the spots. They further accused Von Engelbrechten of building her advertising business around their brand without any attempt to properly license the dolls, while allegedly usurping licensing opportunities from Epoch.

So far, Von Engelbrechten has delayed responding in the lawsuit. As the account remained inactive over the past few months, fans speculated whether it could survive the lawsuit, which raised copyright and trademark infringement claims to get all the videos removed. In their complaint, the toy company requested not only an injunction preventing Von Engelbrechten from creating more “Sylvanian Drama” videos, but also sought all of her profits from her online accounts, in addition to further damages.

Von Engelbrechten declined Ars’ request to provide an update on her defense in the case, but her response is due in early August. That filing will make clear what arguments she may make to overcome Epoch’s suit, but legal experts told Ars that the case isn’t necessarily a slam dunk for the toy company. So all that “Sylvanian Drama” isn’t over just yet.

Epoch’s lawyers did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

“Sylvanian Drama” needs the court to get the joke

Epoch raised copyright infringement charges that could hit Von Engelbrechten with fines totaling $150,000 per violation.

For Von Engelbrechten to defeat the copyright infringement claim, she’ll need to convince the court that her videos are parodies. A law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, Eric Goldman, told Ars that her videos may qualify since “even if they don’t expressly reference Epoch’s offerings by name, the videos intentionally communicate a jarring juxtaposition of adorable critters who are important parts of pop culture living through the darker sides of humanity.”

Basically, Von Engelbrechten will need the court to understand the humor in her videos to win on that claim, Rebecca Tushnet, a First Amendment law professor at Harvard Law School, told Ars.

“Courts have varied in their treatment of parodies; the complaint’s definition of parody is not controlling but humor is one of the hardest things to predict—if the court gets the joke, it will be more likely to say that the juxtaposition between the storylines and the innocent appearance of the dolls is parodic,” Tushnet said.

But if the court does get the joke, Goldman suggested that even the sponsored content—which hilariously incorporates product placements from various big brands like Marc Jacobs, Taco Bell, Hilton, and Sephora into storylines—could possibly be characterized as parody.

However, “the fact that the social media posts were labeled #ad will make it extremely difficult for the artist to contest the videos’ status as ads,” Goldman said.

Ultimately, Goldman said that Epoch’s lawsuit “raises a host of complex legal issues” and is “not an easy case on either side.”

And one of the most significant issues that Epoch may face in the courtroom could end up gutting all of its trademark infringement claims that supposedly entitle the toy company to all of Von Engelbrechten’s profits, Alexandra Jane Roberts, a Northeastern University professor of law and media with special expertise in trademark law, told Ars.

Calico Critters may stumble on trademark hurdle

The toy company has raised several trademark infringement claims, all of which depend on Epoch proving that Von Engelbrechten “knowingly and willfully” used its trademarks without permission.

However, Roberts pointed out to Ars that Epoch has no trademarks for its iconic dolls, relying only on common law to assert sole rights to the “look and design of the critters.”

It’s likely impossible for Epoch to trademark the dolls, since trademarks are not intended to block competition, and there are only so many ways to design cute dolls that resemble cats or bunnies, Roberts suggested. A court may decide “there’s only so many ways to make a small fuzzy bunny that doesn’t look like this,” potentially narrowing the rights Epoch has under trade dress, a term that Epoch doesn’t use once in its complaint.

Roberts told Ars that Epoch’s trademark claims are “not so far off the mark,” and Von Engelbrechten’s defense was certainly not strengthened by her decision to monetize the content. Prior cases, like the indie band OK Go sending a cease-and-desist to Post cereal over a breakfast product called “OK Go” due to fears of false endorsement, make it clear that courts have agreed in the past that online collaborations have muddied the waters regarding who is the actual source of content for viewers.

“The question becomes whether people are going to see these videos, even though they’re snarky, and even though they’re silly and think, ‘Oh, Calico Critters must have signed off on this,'” Roberts said. “So the argument about consumer confusion, I think, is a plausible argument.”

However, if Epoch fails to convince the court that its trademarks have been infringed, then its other claims alleging false endorsement and unfair competition would likely also collapse.

“You can still get sometimes to unfair competition or to kind of like a false endorsement, but it’s harder to win on those claims and certainly harder to get damages on those claims,” Roberts said. “You don’t get trademark infringement if you don’t have a trademark.”

Possible defenses to keep “Sylvanian Drama” alive

Winning on the trademark claims may not be easy for Von Engelbrechten, who possibly weakened her First Amendment defense by creating the sponsored content. Regardless, she will likely try to convince the court to view the videos as parody, which is a slightly different analysis under trademark law than copyright’s more well-known fair use parody exceptions.

That could be a struggle, since trademark law requires that Von Engelbrechten’s parody videos directly satirize the “Sylvanian Families” brand, and “Sylvanian Drama” videos, even the ads, instead seem to be “making fun of elements of society and culture,” rather than the dolls themselves, Roberts said.

She pointed to winning cases involving the Barbie trademark as an instructive example. In a case disputing Mattel trademarks used in the lyrics for the one-hit wonder “Barbie Girl,” the song was cleared for trademark infringement as a “purely expressive work” that directly parodies Barbie in the lyrics. And in another case, where an artist, Tom Forsythe, captured photos of Barbie dolls in kitchen vessels like a blender or a margarita glass, more robust First Amendment protection was offered since his photos “had a lot to say about sexism and the dolls and what the dolls represent,” Roberts said.

The potential “Sylvanian Drama” defense seems to lack strong go-to arguments that typically win trademark cases, but Roberts said there is still one other defense the content creator may be weighing.

Under “nominative fair use,” it’s OK to use another company’s trademark if it’s necessary in an ad. Roberts provided examples, like a company renting Lexus cars needing to use that trademark or comparative advertising using Tiffany’s diamonds as a reference point to hype their lower prices.

If Von Engelbrechten goes that route, she will need to prove she used “no more of the mark than is necessary” and did not mislead fans on whether Epoch signed off on the use.

“Here it’s hard to say that ‘Sylvanian Drama’ really needed to use so much of those characters and that they didn’t use more than they needed and that they weren’t misleading,” Roberts said.

However, Von Engelbrechten’s best bet might be arguing that there was no confusion, since “Sylvanian Families” isn’t even a brand that’s used in the US, which is where Epoch chose to file its lawsuit because the brands that partnered with the popular account are based in New York. And the case may not even get that far, Roberts suggested, since “before you can get to those questions about the likelihood of confusion, you have to show that you actually have trademark or trade dress rights to enforce.”

Calico Critters creator may face millennial backlash

Epoch may come to regret filing the lawsuit, Roberts said, noting that as a millennial who grew up a big “Hello Kitty” fan, she still buys merch that appeals to her, and Epoch likely knows about that market, as it has done collaborations with the “Hello Kitty” brand. The toymaker could risk alienating other millennials nostalgic for Calico Critters who may be among the “Sylvanian Drama” audience and feel turned off by the lawsuit.

“When you draw attention to something like this and appear litigious, and that you’re coming after a creator who a lot of people really like and really enjoy and probably feel defensive about, like, ‘Oh, she’s just making these funny videos that everyone loves. Why would you want to sue her?'” Roberts said, “that can be really bad press.”

Goldman suggested that Epoch might be better off striking a deal with the creator, which “could establish some boundaries for the artist to keep going without stepping on the IP owner’s rights.” But he noted that “often IP owners in these situations are not open to negotiation,” and “that requires courts to draw difficult and unpredictable lines about the permissible scope of fair use.”

For Von Engelbrechten, the lawsuit may mean that her days of creating “Sylvanian Drama”-sponsored content are over, which could risk crushing a bigger dream she had to succeed in advertising. However, if the lawsuit can be amicably settled, the beloved content creator could also end up making money for Epoch, considering her brand deals appeared to be bigger.

While she seems to take her advertising business seriously, Von Engelbrechten’s videos often joke about legal consequences, such as one where a cat doll says she cannot go to a party because she’s in jail but says “I’ll figure it out” when told her ex will be attending. Perhaps Von Engelbrechten is currently devising a scheme, like her characters, to escape consequences and keep the “Sylvanian Drama” going.

“Maybe if this company were really smart, they would want to hire this person instead of suing them,” Roberts 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.

Toy company may regret coming for “Sylvanian Drama” TikToker, experts say Read More »

US may get its own glitchy version of TikTok if Trump’s deal works out

bytedance, Donald Trump, Policy, tariffs, tiktok, TikTok ban, us-china trade war / 9u50fv / July 7, 2025

“Even if Beijing would choose to overlook the recent tariff hikes and ratcheting up of US export controls on chip technologies, they still wouldn’t grant export licenses for the algorithms,” Capri said.

US version of TikTok may be buggy

Trump claims that he has found US buyers for TikTok, which Bloomberg reported is believed to be the same group behind the prior stalled deal, including Oracle, Blackstone Inc., and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

If a sale is approved, a new US version of TikTok would roll out on September 5, The Information reported. All US-based TikTok users would be prompted to switch over to the new app by March 2026, at which point the original app would stop working, sources told The Information.

It’s unclear how different the US app will be from the global app, but The Information noted that transferring up to 170 million US users’ profiles to address US fears of China using the app to spy on or manipulate Americans may not be easy. Once source suggested the transfers “could pose technical issues in practice,” possibly negatively affecting the US experience of the app from the start.

That, in turn, could drive users to alternative apps if too much content is lost or the algorithm is viewed as less effective at recommending content.

For ByteDance—which The Information reported has been “finalizing the legal and financial details” of the deal with Trump’s chosen buyers—losing US users could risk disrupting the growth of TikTok Shop, which is the company’s major focus globally as the fastest-growing part of its business, the SCMP reported. Prioritizing TikTok Shop’s growth could motivate ByteDance to back down from refusing to sell the app, but ultimately, China would still need to sign off, Trump has said.

Although critics and Trump himself continue to doubt that China will agree to Trump’s deal, the preparation of a US app sets up one potential timeline for when big changes may be coming to TikTok.

For TikTok users—many of whom depend on TikTok for income—this fall could make or break their online businesses, depending on how the deal ultimately affects TikTok’s algorithm.

US may get its own glitchy version of TikTok if Trump’s deal works out Read More »

TikTok is being flooded with racist AI videos generated by Google’s Veo 3

AI, Ai video, Google, Tech, tiktok, Veo 3 / DJ Henderson / July 3, 2025

The release of Google’s Veo 3 video generator in May represented a disconcerting leap in AI video quality. While many of the viral AI videos we’ve seen are harmless fun, the model’s pixel-perfect output can also be used for nefarious purposes. On TikTok, which may or may not be banned in the coming months, users have noticed a surplus of racist AI videos, courtesy of Google’s Veo 3.

According to a report from MediaMatters, numerous TikTok accounts have started posting AI-generated videos that use racist and antisemitic tropes in recent weeks. Most of the AI vitriol is aimed at Black people, depicting them as “the usual suspects” in crimes, absent parents, and monkeys with an affinity for watermelon. The content also targets immigrants and Jewish people. The videos top out at eight seconds and bear the “Veo” watermark, confirming they came from Google’s leading AI model.

The compilation video below has examples pulled from TikTok since the release of Veo 3, but be warned, it contains racist and antisemitic content. Some of the videos are shocking, which is likely the point—nothing drives engagement on social media like anger and drama. MediaMatters reports that the original posts have numerous comments echoing the stereotypes used in the video.

Hateful AI videos generated by Veo 3 spreading on TikTok.

Google has stressed security when announcing new AI models—we’ve all seen an AI refuse to complete a task that runs afoul of its guardrails. And it’s never fun when you have genuinely harmless intentions, but the system throws a false positive and blocks your output. Google has mostly struck the right balance previously, but it appears that Veo 3 is more compliant. We’ve tested a few simple prompts with Veo 3 and found it easy to reproduce elements of these videos.

Clear but unenforced policies

TikTok’s terms of service ban this kind of content. “We do not allow any hate speech, hateful behavior, or promotion of hateful ideologies. This includes explicit or implicit content that attacks a protected group,” the community guidelines read. Despite this blanket ban on racist caricatures, the hateful Veo 3 videos appear to be spreading unchecked.

TikTok is being flooded with racist AI videos generated by Google’s Veo 3 Read More »

Meta, TikTok can’t toss wrongful death suit from mom of “subway surfing” teen

algorithm, bytedance, Meta, Policy, recommended content, Section 230, tiktok, wrongful death / DJ Henderson / June 30, 2025

Section 230 has so far failed to shield Meta and TikTok owner ByteDance from a lawsuit raised by a mother who alleged that her son’s wrongful death followed a flood of “subway surfing” videos platforms intentionally targeted to teens in New York.

In a decision Monday, New York State Supreme Court Judge Paul Goetz largely denied social media companies’ motions to dismiss claims they argued should be barred under Section 230 and the First Amendment. Goetz said that the mother, Norma Nazario, had adequately alleged that subway surfing content “was purposefully fed” to her son Zackery “because of his age” and “not because of any user inputs that indicated he was interested in seeing such content.”

Unlike other Section 230 cases in which platforms’ algorithms were determined to be content-neutral, Goetz wrote that in this case, “it is plausible that the social media defendants’ role exceeded that of neutral assistance in promoting content and constituted active identification of users who would be most impacted by the content.”

Platforms may be forced to demystify algorithms

Moving forward, Nazario will have a chance to seek discovery that could show exactly how Zackery came to interact with the subway surfing content. In her complaint, she did not ask for the removal of all subway surfing content but rather wants to see platforms held accountable for allegedly dangerous design choices that supposedly target unwitting teens.

“Social media defendants should not be permitted to actively target young users of its applications with dangerous ‘challenges’ before the user gives any indication that they are specifically interested in such content and without warning,” Nazario has argued.

And if she’s proven right, that means platforms won’t be forced to censor any content but must instead update algorithms to stop sending “dangerous” challenges to keep teens engaged at a time when they’re more likely to make reckless decisions, Goetz suggested.

Meta, TikTok can’t toss wrongful death suit from mom of “subway surfing” teen Read More »

Trump suggests he needs China to sign off on TikTok sale, delays deal again

bytedance, Donald Trump, national security, Policy, rare earths, semiconductors, tariffs, tiktok, TikTok ban, us-china trade war / 9u50fv / June 18, 2025

For many Americans, losing TikTok would be disruptive. TikTok has warned that US businesses could lose $1 billion in one month if TikTok shuts down. As these businesses wait in limbo for a resolution to the situation, it’s getting harder to take the alleged national security threat seriously, as clinching the deal appears to lack urgency.

On Wednesday, the White House continued to warn that Americans are not safe using TikTok, though, despite leaving Americans vulnerable for an extended period that could now stretch to eight months.

In a statement, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt only explained that “President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark” and would sign an executive order “to keep TikTok up and running” through mid-September. Leavitt confirmed that the Trump administration would focus on finishing the deal in this three-month period, “making sure the sale closes so that Americans can keep using TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure,” Reuters reported.

US-China tensions continue, despite truce

Trump’s negotiations with China have been shaky, but a truce was reestablished last week that could potentially pave the way for a TikTok deal.

Initially, Trump had planned to use the TikTok deal as a bargaining chip, but the tit-for-tat retaliations between the US and China all spring reportedly left China hesitant to agree to any deal. Perhaps sensing the power shift in negotiations, Trump offered to reduce China’s highest tariffs to complete the deal in March. But by April, analysts opined that Trump was still “desperate” to close, while China saw no advantage in letting go of TikTok any time soon.

Despite the current truce, tensions between the US and China continue, as China has begun setting its own deadlines to maintain leverage in the trade war. According to The Wall Street Journal, China put a six-month limit “on the sales of rare earths to US carmakers and manufacturers, giving Beijing leverage if the trade conflict flares up again.”

Trump suggests he needs China to sign off on TikTok sale, delays deal again Read More »

Real TikTokers are pretending to be Veo 3 AI creations for fun, attention

AI, tiktok, Veo 3 / Mike M. / May 31, 2025

The turing test in reverse

From music videos to “Are you a prompt?” stunts, “real” videos are presenting as AI

Of course I’m an AI creation! Why would you even doubt it? Credit: Getty Images

Since Google released its Veo 3 AI model last week, social media users have been having fun with its ability to quickly generate highly realistic eight-second clips complete with sound and lip-synced dialogue. TikTok’s algorithm has been serving me plenty of Veo-generated videos featuring impossible challenges, fake news reports, and even surreal short narrative films, to name just a few popular archetypes.

However, among all the AI-generated video experiments spreading around, I’ve also noticed a surprising counter-trend on my TikTok feed. Amid all the videos of Veo-generated avatars pretending to be real people, there are now also a bunch of videos of real people pretending to be Veo-generated avatars.

“This has to be real. There’s no way it’s AI.”

I stumbled on this trend when the TikTok algorithm fed me this video topped with the extra-large caption “Google VEO 3 THIS IS 100% AI.” As I watched and listened to the purported AI-generated band that appeared to be playing in the crowded corner of someone’s living room, I read the caption containing the supposed prompt that had generated the clip: “a band of brothers with beards playing rock music in 6/8 with an accordion.”

@kongosmusicWe are so cooked. This took 3 mins to generate. Simple prompt: “a band of brothers playing rock music in 6/8 with an accordion”♬ original sound – KONGOS

After a few seconds of taking those captions at face value, something started to feel a little off. After a few more seconds, I finally noticed the video was posted by Kongos, an indie band that you might recognize from their minor 2012 hit “Come With Me Now.” And after a little digging, I discovered the band in the video was actually just Kongos, and the tune was a 9-year-old song that the band had dressed up as an AI creation to get attention.

Here’s the sad thing: It worked! Without the “Look what Veo 3 did!” hook, I might have quickly scrolled by this video before I took the time to listen to the (pretty good!) song. The novel AI angle made me stop just long enough to pay attention to a Kongos song for the first time in over a decade.

Kongos isn’t the only musical act trying to grab attention by claiming their real performances are AI creations. Darden Bela posted that Veo 3 had “created a realistic AI music video” over a clip from what is actually a 2-year-old music video with some unremarkable special effects. Rapper GameBoi Pat dressed up an 11-month-old song with a new TikTok clip captioned “Google’s Veo 3 created a realistic sounding rapper… This has to be real. There’s no way it’s AI” (that last part is true, at least). I could go on, but you get the idea.

@gameboi_pat This has got to be real. There’s no way it’s AI 😩 #google #veo3 #googleveo3 #AI #prompts #areweprompts? ♬ original sound – GameBoi_pat

I know it’s tough to get noticed on TikTok, and that creators will go to great lengths to gain attention from the fickle algorithm. Still, there’s something more than a little off-putting about flesh-and-blood musicians pretending to be AI creations just to make social media users pause their scrolling for a few extra seconds before they catch on to the joke (or don’t, based on some of the comments).

The whole thing evokes last year’s stunt where a couple of podcast hosts released a posthumous “AI-generated” George Carlin routine before admitting that it had been written by a human after legal threats started flying. As an attention-grabbing stunt, the conceit still works. You want AI-generated content? I can pretend to be that!

Are we just prompts?

Some of the most existentially troubling Veo-generated videos floating around TikTok these days center around a gag known as “the prompt theory.” These clips focus on various AI-generated people reacting to the idea that they are “just prompts” with various levels of skepticism, fear, or even conspiratorial paranoia.

On the other side of that gag, some humans are making joke videos playing off the idea that they’re merely prompts. RedondoKid used the conceit in a basketball trick shot video, saying “of course I’m going to make this. This is AI, you put that I’m going to make this in the prompt.” User thisisamurica thanked his faux prompters for putting him in “a world with such delicious food” before theatrically choking on a forkful of meat. And comedian Drake Cummings developed TikTok skits pretending that it was actually AI video prompts forcing him to indulge in vices like shots of alcohol or online gambling (“Goolgle’s [sic] New A.I. Veo 3 is at it again!! When will the prompts end?!” Cummings jokes in the caption).

@justdrakenaround Goolgle’s New A.I. Veo 3 is at it again!! When will the prompts end?! #veo3 #google #ai #aivideo #skit ♬ original sound – Drake Cummings

Beyond the obvious jokes, though, I’ve also seen a growing trend of TikTok creators approaching friends or strangers and asking them to react to the idea that “we’re all just prompts.” The reactions run the gamut from “get the fuck away from me” to “I blame that [prompter], I now have to pay taxes” to solipsistic philosophical musings from convenience store employees.

I’m loath to call this a full-blown TikTok trend based on a few stray examples. Still, these attempts to exploit the confusion between real and AI-generated video are interesting to see. As one commenter on an “Are you a prompt?” ambush video put it: “New trend: Do normal videos and write ‘Google Veo 3’ on top of the video.”

Which one is real?

The best Veo-related TikTok engagement hack I’ve stumbled on so far, though, might be the videos that show multiple short clips and ask the viewer to decide which are real and which are fake. One video I stumbled on shows an increasing number of “Veo 3 Goth Girls” across four clips, challenging in the caption that “one of these videos is real… can you guess which one?” In another example, two similar sets of kids are shown hanging out in cars while the caption asks, “Are you able to identify which scene is real and which one is from veo3?”

@spongibobbu2 One of these videos is real… can you guess which one? #veo3 ♬ original sound – Jett

After watching both of these videos on loop a few times, I’m relatively (but not entirely) convinced that every single clip in them is a Veo creation. The fact that I watched these videos multiple times shows how effective the “Real or Veo” challenge framing is at grabbing my attention. Additionally, I’m still not 100 percent confident in my assessments, which is a testament to just how good Google’s new model is at creating convincing videos.

There are still some telltale signs for distinguishing a real video from a Veo creation, though. For one, Veo clips are still limited to just eight seconds, so any video that runs longer (without an apparent change in camera angle) is almost certainly not generated by Google’s AI. Looking back at a creator’s other videos can also provide some clues—if the same person was appearing in “normal” videos two weeks ago, it’s unlikely they would be appearing in Veo creations suddenly.

There’s also a subtle but distinctive style to most Veo creations that can distinguish them from the kind of candid handheld smartphone videos that usually fill TikTok. The lighting in a Veo video tends to be too bright, the camera movements a bit too smooth, and the edges of people and objects a little too polished. After you watch enough “genuine” Veo creations, you can start to pick out the patterns.

Regardless, TikTokers trying to pass off real videos as fakes—even as a joke or engagement hack—is a recognition that video sites are now deep in the “deep doubt” era, where you have to be extra skeptical of even legitimate-looking video footage. And the mere existence of convincing AI fakes makes it easier than ever to claim real events captured on video didn’t really happen, a problem that political scientists call the liar’s dividend. We saw this when then-candidate Trump accused Democratic nominee Kamala Harris of “A.I.’d” crowds in real photos of her Detroit airport rally.

For now, TikTokers of all stripes are having fun playing with that idea to gain social media attention. In the long term, though, the implications for discerning truth from reality are more troubling.

Kyle Orland has been the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica since 2012, writing primarily about the business, tech, and culture behind video games. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He once wrote a whole book about Minesweeper.

Real TikTokers are pretending to be Veo 3 AI creations for fun, attention Read More »

Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for TikTok clout

chromebooks, Google, laptops, Social Media, Tech, tiktok, tiktok challenge / 9u50fv / May 9, 2025

Schools across the US are warning parents about an Internet trend that has students purposefully trying to damage their school-issued Chromebooks so that they start smoking or catch fire.

Various school districts, including some in Colorado, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Washington, have sent letters to parents warning about the trend that’s largely taken off on TikTok.

Per reports from school districts and videos that Ars Technica has reviewed online, the so-called Chromebook Challenge includes students sticking things into Chromebook ports to short-circuit the system. Students are using various easily accessible items to do this, including writing utensils, paper clips, gum wrappers, and pushpins.

The Chromebook challenge has caused chaos for US schools, leading to laptop fires that have forced school evacuations, early dismissals, and the summoning of first responders.

Schools are also warning that damage to school property can result in disciplinary action and, in some states, legal action.

In Plainville, Connecticut, a middle schooler allegedly “intentionally stuck scissors into a laptop, causing smoke to emit from it,” Superintendent Brian Reas told local news station WFSB. The incident reportedly led to one student going to the hospital due to smoke inhalation and is suspected to be connected to the viral trend.

“Although the investigation is ongoing, the student involved will be referred to juvenile court to face criminal charges,” Reas said.

Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for TikTok clout Read More »

Scoop: Origami measuring spoon incites fury after 9 years of Kickstarter delay hell

Crowdfunding, Features, fraud, Kickstarter, Policy, shopify, tiktok / Kelly Newman / March 16, 2025

The curious case of the missing Kickstarter spoons.

An attention-grabbing Kickstarter campaign attempting to reinvent the measuring spoon has turned into a mad, mad, mad, mad world for backers after years of broken promises and thousands of missing spoons.

The mind-boggling design for the measuring spoon first wowed the Internet in 2016 after a video promoting the Kickstarter campaign went viral and spawned widespread media coverage fawning over the unique design.

Known as Polygons, the three-in-one origami measuring spoons have a flat design that can be easily folded into common teaspoon and tablespoon measurements. “Regular spoons are so 3000 BC,” a tagline on the project’s website joked.

For gadget geeks, it’s a neat example of thinking outside of the box, and fans found it appealing to potentially replace a drawer full of spoons with a more futuristic-looking compact tool. Most backers signed up for a single set, paying $8–$12 each, while hundreds wanted up to 25 sets, a handful ordered 50, and just one backer signed up for 100. Delivery was initially promised by 2017, supposedly shipping to anywhere in the world.

But it’s been about nine years since more than 30,000 backers flocked to the Kickstarter campaign—raising more than $1 million and eclipsing Polygons’ $10,000 goal. And not only have more than a third of the backers not received their spoons, but now, after years of updates claiming that the spoons had been shipped, some backers began to wonder if the entire campaign might be a fraud. They could see that Polygons are currently being sold on social media and suspected that the maker might be abusing backers’ funds to chase profits, seemingly without ever seriously intending to fulfill their orders.

One Kickstarter backer, Caskey Hunsader, told Ars that he started doubting if the spoon’s designer—an inventor from India, Rahul Agarwal—was even a real person.

Ars reached out to verify Agarwal’s design background. We confirmed that, yes, Agarwal is a real designer, and, yes, he believes there is a method to the madness when it comes to his Kickstarter campaign, which he said was never intended to be a scam or fraud and is currently shipping spoons to backers. He forecasted that 2025 is likely the year that backers’ wait will finally end.

But as thousands of complaints on the Kickstarter attest, backers have heard that one before. It’s been two years since the last official update was posted, which only promised updates that never came and did not confirm that shipments were back on track. The prior update in 2022 promised that “the time has finally arrived when we begin bulk shipping to everyone!”

Hunsader told Ars that people seem mostly upset because of “bullshit,” which is widely referenced in the comments. And that anger is compounded “by the fact that they are producing, and they are selling this product, so they are operating their business using funds that all these people who were their first backers gave them, and we’re the ones who are not getting the product. I think that’s where the anger comes from.”

“It’s been years now, and [I’ve] watched as you promise good people their products and never deliver,” one commenter wrote. “Wherever you try… to sell [your] products, we will be there reminding them of the empty orders you left here.”

“Where is my item? I am beyond angry,” another fumed.

Those who did receive their spoons often comment on the substantial delays, but reviews are largely positive.

“Holy crap, folks,” a somewhat satisfied backer wrote. “Hell has frozen over. I finally got them (no BS).”

One backer was surprised to get twice as many spoons as expected, referencing an explanation blaming Chinese New Year for one delay and writing, “I can honestly say after 8 years… and an enormous amount of emails, I finally received my pledge. Except… I only ordered 3… and I received 6. I’d be inclined to ship some back to Polygons… bare with me… I’ll return them soon… I appreciate your patience… mebbe after Chinese New Years 2033…”

Agarwal agreed to meet with Ars, show us the spoon, and explain why backers still haven’t gotten their deliveries when the spoon appears widely available to purchase online.

Failing prototypes and unusable cheap knockoffs

As a designer, Agarwal is clearly a perfectionist. He was just a student when he had the idea for Polygons in 2014, winning design awards and garnering interest that encouraged him to find a way to manufacture the spoons. He felt eager to see people using them.

Agarwal told Ars that before he launched the Kickstarter, he had prototypes made in China that were about 85 percent of the quality that he and his collaborators at InventIndia required. Anticipating that the quality would be fully there soon, Agarwal launched the Kickstarter, along with marketing efforts that Agarwal said had to be squashed due to unexpectedly high interest in the spoons.

This is when things started spiraling, as Agarwal had to switch manufacturers five times, with each partner crashing into new walls trying to execute the novel product.

Once the Kickstarter hit a million dollars, though, Agarwal committed to following through on launching the product. Eventually, cheap knockoff versions began appearing online on major retail sites like Walmart and Amazon toward the end of 2024. Because Agarwal has patents and trademarks for his design, he can get the knockoffs taken down, but they proved an important point that Agarwal had learned the hard way: that his design, while appearing simplistic, was incredibly hard to pull off.

Ars handled both a legitimate Polygons spoon and a cheap knockoff. The knockoff was a flimsy, unusable slab of rubber dotted with magnets; the companies aping Agarwal’s idea are seemingly unable to replicate the manufacturing process that Agarwal has spent years perfecting to finally be able to widely ship Polygons today.

On the other hand, Agarwal’s spoon is sturdy, uses food-grade materials, and worked just as well measuring wet and dry ingredients during an Ars test. A silicon hinge connects 19 separate plastic pieces and ensures that magnets neatly snap along indented lines indicating if the measurement is a quarter, half, or whole teaspoon or tablespoon. It took Agarwal two and a half years to finalize the design while working with InventIndia, a leading product development firm in India. Prototyping required making special molds that took a month each to iterate rather than using a 3D-printing shortcut whereby multiple prototypes could be made in a day, which Agarwal said he’d initially anticipated could be possible.

Around the time that the prototyping process concluded, Agarwal noted, COVID hit, and supply chains were disrupted, causing production setbacks. Once production could resume, costs became a factor, as estimates used to set Kickstarter backer awards were based on the early failed Chinese prototype, and the costs of producing a functioning spoon were much higher. Over time, shipping costs also rose.

As Kickstarter funds dwindled, there was no going back, so Agarwal devised a plan to sell the spoons for double the price ($25–$30 a set) by marketing them on social media, explaining this in a note to backers posted on the Polygons site. Those sales would fund ongoing manufacturing, allowing profits to be recycled so that Kickstarter backers could gradually receive shipments dependent on social media sales volumes. Orders from anyone who paid extra for expedited shipping are prioritized.

It’s a math problem at this point, with more funding needed to scale. But Agarwal told Ars that sales on Shopify and TikTok Shop have increased each quarter, most recently selling 30,000 units on TikTok, which allowed Polygons to take out a bigger line of credit to fund more manufacturing. He also brought in a more experienced partner to focus on the business side while he optimizes production.

Agarwal told Ars that he understands trust has been broken with many Kickstarter backers, considering that totally fair. While about 38 percent of backers’ orders still need filling, he predicts that all backers could get their orders within the next six to eight months as Polygons becomes better resourced, but that still depends on social media sales.

Agarwal met Ars after attending a housewares show in Chicago, where he shopped the spoons with retailers who may also help scale the product in the coming years. He anticipates that as the business scales, the cost of the spoons will come back down. And he may even be able to move onto executing other product designs that have been on the backburner as he attempts to work his way out of the Kickstarter corner he backed himself into while obsessing over his first design.

Kickstarter problem goes beyond Polygons

Hunsader told Ars there’s a big difference “in a lie versus bad management,” suggesting that as a business owner who has managed Kickstarter campaigns, he thinks more transparency likely could’ve spared Polygons a lot of angry comments.

“I am not sitting here with a dart board with [Agarwal’s] face on it, being like, when am I going to get my damn spoons?” Hunsader joked. But the campaign’s Kickstarter messaging left many backers feeling like Polygons took backers’ money and ran, Hunsader said.

Unlike people who saw the spoons going viral on social media, Hunsader discovered Polygons just by scrolling on Kickstarter. As a fan of geeky gadgets, he used to regularly support campaigns, but his experience supporting Polygons and monitoring other cases of problematic Kickstarters have made him more hesitant to use the platform without more safeguards for backers.

“It’s not specifically a Polygons problem,” Hunsader told Ars. “The whole Kickstarter thing needs maybe just more protections in place.”

Kickstarter did not respond to Ars’ request to comment. But Kickstarter’s “accountability” policy makes clear that creators “put their reputation at risk” launching campaigns and are ultimately responsible for following through on backer promises. Kickstarter doesn’t issue refunds or guarantee projects, only providing limited support when backers report “suspicious activity.”

Redditors have flagged “shitty” Kickstarter campaigns since 2012, three years after the site’s founding, and the National Association of Attorneys General—which represents US state attorneys general—suggested in 2019 that disgruntled crowdfunding backers were increasingly turning to consumer protection laws to fight alleged fraud.

In 2015, an independent analysis by the University of Pennsylvania estimated that 9 percent of Kickstarter projects didn’t fulfill their rewards. More recently, it appeared that figure had doubled, as Fortune reported last year that an internal Kickstarter estimate put “the amount of revenue that comes from fraudulent projects as high as 18 percent.” A spokesperson disputed that estimate and told Fortune that the platform employs “extensive” measures to detect fraud.

Agarwal told Ars that he thinks it’s uncommon for a campaign to continue fulfilling backer rewards after eight years of setbacks. It would be easier to just shut down and walk away, and Kickstarter likely would not have penalized him for it. While the Kickstarter campaign allowed him to reach his dream of seeing people using his novel measuring spoon in the real world, it’s been bittersweet that the campaign has dragged out so long and kept the spoons out of the hands of his earliest supporters, he told Ars.

Hunsader told Ars that he hopes the Polygons story serves as a “cautionary tale” for both backers and creators who bite off more than they can chew when launching a Kickstarter campaign. He knows that designers like Agarwal can take a reputational hit.

“I don’t want to make somebody who has big dreams not want to dream, but you also, when you’re dealing with things like manufacturing technology, have to be realistic about what is and is not accomplishable,” Hunsader said.

Polygons collaborators at InventIndia told Ars that Agarwal is “dedicated and hard-working,” describing him as “someone deeply committed to delivering a product that meets the highest standards” and whose intentions have “always” been to “ship a perfect product.”

Agarwal’s team connected with Hunsader to schedule his Kickstarter reward shipment on Friday. Hunsader told Ars he doesn’t really care if it takes another nine years. It’s just a spoon, and “there are bigger fish to fry.”

“Listen, I can buy that narrative that he was somebody who got totally overwhelmed but handled it in the worst possible way ever,” Hunsader said.

He plans to continue patiently waiting for his spoons.

This story was updated on March 14 to update information on the Polygons Kickstarter campaign.

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.

Scoop: Origami measuring spoon incites fury after 9 years of Kickstarter delay hell Read More »

Developer creates endless Wikipedia feed to fight algorithm addiction

addiction, AI, Claude, Internet addiction, smartphone, Social Media, Tech, tiktok, Wikpedia / Shannon Garcia / February 8, 2025

On a recent WikiTok browsing run, I ran across entries on topics like SX-Window (a GUI for the Sharp X68000 series of computers), Xantocillin (“the first reported natural product found to contain the isocyanide functional group), Lorenzo Ghiberti (an Italian Renaissance sculptor from Florence), the William Wheeler House in Texas, and the city of Krautheim, Germany—none of which I knew existed before the session started.

How WikiTok took off

The original idea for WikiTok originated from developer Tyler Angert on Monday evening when he tweeted, “insane project idea: all of wikipedia on a single, scrollable page.” Bloomberg Beta VC James Cham replied, “Even better, an infinitely scrolling Wikipedia page based on whatever you are interested in next?” and Angert coined “WikiTok” in a follow-up post.

Early the next morning, at 12: 28 am, writer Grant Slatton quote-tweeted the WikiTok discussion, and that’s where Gemal came in. “I saw it from [Slatton’s] quote retweet,” he told Ars. “I immediately thought, ‘Wow I can build an MVP [minimum viable product] and this could take off.'”

Gemal started his project at 12: 30 am, and with help from AI coding tools like Anthropic’s Claude and Cursor, he finished a prototype by 2 am and posted the results on X. Someone later announced WikiTok on ycombinator’s Hacker News, where it topped the site’s list of daily news items.

A screenshot of the WikiTok web app running in a desktop web browser. Credit: Benj Edwards

“The entire thing is only several hundred lines of code, and Claude wrote the vast majority of it,” Gemal told Ars. “AI helped me ship really really fast and just capitalize on the initial viral tweet asking for Wikipedia with scrolling.”

Gemal posted the code for WikiTok on GitHub, so anyone can modify or contribute to the project. Right now, the web app supports 14 languages, article previews, and article sharing on both desktop and mobile browsers. New features may arrive as contributors add them. It’s based on a tech stack that includes React 18, TypeScript, Tailwind CSS, and Vite.

And so far, he is sticking to his vision of a free way to enjoy Wikipedia without being tracked and targeted. “I have no grand plans for some sort of insane monetized hyper-calculating TikTok algorithm,” Gemal told us. “It is anti-algorithmic, if anything.“

Developer creates endless Wikipedia feed to fight algorithm addiction Read More »

Trump’s reported plans to save TikTok may violate SCOTUS-backed law

Artificial Intelligence, bytedance, Donald Trump, national security, oracle, Perplexity.ai, Policy, tiktok, TikTok ban / Mike M. / January 27, 2025

Everything insiders are saying about Trump’s plan to save TikTok.

It was apparently a busy weekend for key players involved in Donald Trump’s efforts to make a deal to save TikTok.

Perhaps the most appealing option for ByteDance could be if Trump blessed a merger between TikTok and Perplexity AI—a San Francisco-based AI search company worth about $9 billion that appears to view a TikTok video content acquisition as a path to compete with major players like Google and OpenAI.

On Sunday, Perplexity AI submitted a revised merger proposal to TikTok-owner ByteDance, reviewed by CNBC, which sources told AP News included feedback from the Trump administration.

If the plan is approved, Perplexity AI and TikTok US would be merged into a new entity. And once TikTok reaches an initial public offering of at least $300 billion, the US government could own up to 50 percent of that new company, CNBC reported. In the proposal, Perplexity AI suggested that a “fair price” would be “well north of $50 billion,” but the final price will likely depend on how many of TikTok’s existing investors decide to cash out following the merger.

ByteDance has maintained a strong resistance to selling off TikTok, especially a sale including its recommendation algorithm. Not only would this option allow ByteDance to maintain a minority stake in TikTok, but it also would leave TikTok’s recommendation algorithm under ByteDance’s control, CNBC reported. The deal would also “allow for most of ByteDance’s existing investors to retain their equity stakes,” CNBC reported.

But ByteDance may not like one potential part of the deal. An insider source told AP News that ByteDance would be required to allow “full US board control.”

According to AP News, US government ownership of a large stake in TikTok would include checks to ensure the app doesn’t become state controlled. The government’s potential stake would apparently not grant the US voting power or a seat on the merged company’s board.

A source familiar with Perplexity AI’s proposal confirmed to Ars that the reporting from CNBC and AP News is accurate.

Trump denied Oracle’s involvement in talks

Over the weekend, there was also a lot of speculation about Oracle’s involvement in negotiations. NPR reported that two sources with direct knowledge claimed that Trump was considering “tapping software company Oracle and a group of outside investors to effectively take control of the app’s global operations.”

That would be a seemingly bigger grab for the US than forcing ByteDance to divest only TikTok’s US operations.

“The goal is for Oracle to effectively monitor and provide oversight with what is going on with TikTok,” one source told NPR. “ByteDance wouldn’t completely go away, but it would minimize Chinese ownership.”

Oracle apparently met with the Trump administration on Friday and has another meeting scheduled this week to discuss Oracle buying a TikTok stake “in the tens of billions,” NPR reported.

But Trump has disputed that, saying this past weekend that he “never” spoke to Oracle about buying TikTok, AP News reported.

“Numerous people are talking to me. Very substantial people,” Trump said, confirming that he would only make a deal to save TikTok “if the United States benefits.”

All sources seemed to suggest that no deal was close to being finalized yet. Other potential Big Tech buyers include Microsoft or even possibly Elon Musk (can you imagine TikTok merged with X?). On Saturday, Trump suggested that he would likely announce his decision on TikTok’s future in the next 30 days.

Meanwhile, TikTok access has become spotty in the US. Google and Apple dropped TikTok from their app stores when the divest-or-ban law kicked in, partly because of the legal limbo threatening hundreds of billions in fines if Trump changes his mind about enforcement. That means ByteDance currently can’t push updates to US users, and anyone who offloads TikTok or purchases a new device can’t download the app in popular distribution channels.

“If we can save TikTok, I think it would be a good thing,” Trump said.

Could Trump’s plan violate divest-or-ban law?

The divest-or-ban law is formally called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. For months, TikTok was told in court that the law required either a sale of TikTok US operations or a US ban, but now ByteDance seems to believe there’s another option to keep TikTok in the US without forcing a sale.

It remains unclear if lawmakers will approve Trump’s plan if it doesn’t force a sale of TikTok. US Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who co-sponsored the law, issued a statement last week insisting that “ByteDance divesting remains the only real solution to protect our national security and guarantee Americans access to TikTok.”

Krishnamoorthi declined Ars’ request to comment on whether leaked details of Trump’s potential deal to save TikTok could potentially violate the divest-or-ban law. But debate will likely turn on how the law defines “qualified divestiture.”

Under the law, qualified divestiture could be either a “divestiture or similar transaction” that meets two conditions. First, the transaction is one that Trump “determines, through an interagency process, would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.” Second, the deal blocks any foreign adversary-controlled entity or affiliate from interfering in TikTok US operations, “including any cooperation” with foreign adversaries “with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing.”

That last bit seems to suggest that lawmakers might clash with Trump over ByteDance controlling TikTok’s algorithm, even if a company like Oracle or Perplexity serves as a gatekeeper to Americans’ data safeguarding US national security interests.

Experts told NPR that ByteDance could feasibly maintain a minority stake in TikTok US under the law, with Trump seeming to have “wide latitude to interpret” what is or is not a qualified divestiture. One congressional staffer told NPR that lawmakers might be won over if the Trump administration secured binding legal agreements “ensuring ByteDance cannot covertly manipulate the app.”

The US has tried to strike just such a national security agreement with ByteDance before, though, and it ended in lawmakers passing the divest-or-ban law. During the government’s court battle with TikTok over the law, the government repeatedly argued that prior agreement—also known as “Project Texas,” which ensured TikTok’s US recommendation engine was stored in the Oracle cloud and deployed in the US by a TikTok US subsidiary—was not enough to block Chinese influence. Proposed in 2022, the agreement was abruptly ended in 2023 when the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) determined only divestiture would resolve US concerns.

CFIUS did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

The key problem at that point was ByteDance maintaining control of the algorithm, the government successfully argued in a case that ended in a Supreme Court victory.

“Even under TikTok’s proposed national security agreement, the source code for the recommendation engine would originate in China,” the government warned.

That seemingly leaves a vulnerability that any Trump deal allowing ByteDance to maintain control of the algorithm would likely have to reconcile.

“Under Chinese national-security laws, the Chinese government can require a China-based company to ‘surrender all its data,'” the US argued. That ultimately turned TikTok into “an espionage tool” for the Chinese Communist Party.

There’s no telling yet if Trump’s plan can set up a better version of Project Texas or convince China to sign off on a TikTok sale. Analysts have suggested that China may agree to a TikTok sale if Trump backs down on tariff threats.

ByteDance did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

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.

Trump’s reported plans to save TikTok may violate SCOTUS-backed law Read More »

Trump can save TikTok without forcing a sale, ByteDance board member claims

bytedance, china, china tariffs, Donald Trump, elon musk, Policy, tiktok, TikTok ban, us-china trade war, World Economic Forum / Mike M. / January 23, 2025

TikTok owner ByteDance is reportedly still searching for non-sale options to stay in the US after the Supreme Court upheld a national security law requiring that TikTok’s US operations either be shut down or sold to a non-foreign adversary.

Last weekend, TikTok briefly went dark in the US, only to come back online hours later after Donald Trump reassured ByteDance that the US law would not be enforced. Then, shortly after Trump took office, he signed an executive order delaying enforcement for 75 days while he consulted with advisers to “pursue a resolution that protects national security while saving a platform used by 170 million Americans.”

Trump’s executive order did not suggest that he intended to attempt to override the national security law’s ban-or-sale requirements. But that hasn’t stopped ByteDance, board member Bill Ford told World Economic Forum (WEF) attendees, from searching for a potential non-sale option that “could involve a change of control locally to ensure it complies with US legislation,” Bloomberg reported.

It’s currently unclear how ByteDance could negotiate a non-sale option without facing a ban. Joe Biden’s extended efforts through Project Texas to keep US TikTok data out of China-controlled ByteDance’s hands without forcing a sale dead-ended, prompting Congress to pass the national security law requiring a ban or sale.

At the WEF, Ford said that the ByteDance board is “optimistic we will find a solution” that avoids ByteDance giving up a significant chunk of TikTok’s operations.

“There are a number of alternatives we can talk to President Trump and his team about that are short of selling the company that allow the company to continue to operate, maybe with a change of control of some kind, but short of having to sell,” Ford said.

Trump can save TikTok without forcing a sale, ByteDance board member claims Read More »