from the the-first-amendment-has-a-statute-of-limitations-now? dept
Here we go again: another case where it’s easy to cheer a court ruling against Elon Musk, and unfortunately easy to miss the much more important underlying point — which the judge clearly did. In July, we wrote about how even as awful as Elon Musk is, and as awful as it was that (with Elon’s encouragement), people were using his Grok AI to undress people (including children), there were real problems with Minnesota’s anti-nudify law. Legal expert Kathryn Tewson (who is no fan of either AI tools or of Elon Musk) wrote a compelling thread breaking down all the reasons that the law was pretty clearly unconstitutional, including just how broadly the law is written. The statute borrows its definition of “intimate parts” straight from Minnesota’s criminal sexual conduct code, meaning it covers the genital area, groin, buttocks, breast… and the inner thigh. While obviously that can include problematic parts, it also is way too broad in covering images that may not be that problematic, especially when combined with the fact that the law does not require the image to be non-consensual.
Yes, there is a reasonable argument that the government has a legitimate interest in trying to stop the non-consensual nudification of people. In getting the law passed, the state legislature detailed how these tools are being used to abuse mostly women in ways that are clearly harassing and harmful. But that’s a reason to make sure any law that tries to deal with the problem is written in a manner that will survive First Amendment scrutiny.
In my own write-up of Elon’s lawsuit, I noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court had already given a very clear roadmap to the state legislature on how to write a law that would pass strict scrutiny. That’s because a decade ago, Minnesota tried to pass a similar law regarding the sharing of non-consensual intimate imagery. That law was challenged, and eventually was found to be constitutional, but only after the Minnesota Supreme Court did a detailed breakdown of why it passed strict scrutiny, highlighting that it was carefully bounded, required intentionality by the sharer, required that the sharing be non-consensual, included many clear exemptions for obviously protected speech like journalism, and only focused on “private speech.”
The Minnesota legislature appeared to ignore basically every one of those conditions with this new law. It doesn’t even require the image to be non-consensual, leading Tewson to point out that she could make Elon violate the law by creating an image of herself in a bathing suit.
Advertisement
And I know, based on the last few times I wrote about this, that some people will say “so what, these apps are bad, Elon’s bad, this law punishes him, so it must be good.” But that is incredibly short-sighted. This case is going to wind its way through higher courts, and eventually someone will remember how the First Amendment works, and find the law unconstitutional, handing Elon a massive win, and leading a bunch of people to (incorrectly and dangerously) think that these apps are fine and approved by the courts.
That would be really bad.
As xAI itself explained in a filing in support of its motion, the law has so many problems which should be addressed, pointing to the Minnesota Supreme Court case I mentioned above:
The statute also omits every element that would narrowly tailor the regulation to the asserted harm: consent, scienter, dissemination, a safe harbor for providers that police misuse, and any exemption for images of artistic, political, medical, scientific, religious, or educational value. Mot. 15-19. The State cannot disown those omissions: indeed, it successfully defended its revenge-porn statute as narrowly tailored precisely because it contained many of those safeguards. See State v. Casillas, 952 N.W.2d 629, 643 (Minn. 2020) (adopting the State’s argument). Because it lacks such safeguards, HF 1606 reaches shirtless men, images made with consent (including images of the user himself), medical and religious illustrations, political parody, and images never disseminated.
For now, though, the district court hasn’t even reached the merits of Elon’s case. It’s fixated on one thing instead: that xAI didn’t challenge the law until shortly before it was scheduled to take effect. I mentioned that when the court denied the temporary restraining order (TRO), saying that the company shouldn’t have waited so long to file. I figured that during the more thorough preliminary injunction process, the judge would actually engage with the problems in the law.
Advertisement
Instead, the judge, Donovan Frank, again rejected the preliminary injunction… but again seemed to be really ticked off that xAI waited so long to file the lawsuit. The “discussion” part of the ruling is only a few pages long and leads with the judge complaining about the fact that Elon waited:
As a threshold matter, the State argues that xAI’s motion for preliminary injunction should be denied for lack of diligence and irreparable harm. “[A] party requesting a preliminary injunction must generally show reasonable diligence.” Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. 155, 159 (2018) (per curiam). The issue of delay is related to the issue of irreparable harm as “it has long been recognized that delay in seeking relief vitiates much of the force of allegations of irreparable harm.”
But… that’s misapplying what Benisek actually was about. That was a case regarding gerrymandering, involving a new voting map that was approved in 2011, but which the plaintiffs in the case didn’t challenge until 2017, at a time when changing the map would have thrown the 2018 election into chaos.
That’s… not this case here. In this case, the law was signed by the Governor on May 7th, and was scheduled to go into effect on August 1st, less than three months later. Yes, xAI didn’t sue until the end of July, but that’s under three months after the law was signed — and still before the law took effect. Three months is a perfectly ordinary amount of time to draft a constitutional challenge to a brand new statute — especially in a post-Moody world where challenging statutes is much more complicated. The judge cites another case (Kohl’s) where someone waited sixteen months to sue, but again here it was less than three months.
By my reading, the judge here is saying that in order to challenge a law, you need to file your complaint almost immediately after a bill was signed into law. There’s basically no limiting principle to the ruling here. If a judge thinks you waited an undefined amount of time that is “too long,” you no longer can get relief.
Advertisement
Also, there’s a huge difference between the kind of chaos that pulling maps that everyone had been living with for six years right before an election would cause, as compared to just holding off enabling this law to go into effect while the law was reviewed for First Amendment infirmities.
The judge shrugs off the claims of irreparable harm as well, noting that the fines and technical work that xAI had to do in response to this law are all recoverable. Indeed, the judge treats xAI’s decision to disable the feature in Minnesota — i.e., its compliance with the law — as proof that there’s no ongoing harm. But the main part is the First Amendment bit. Violating First Amendment rights is supposed to be irreparable harm. The judge suggests that anyone losing their First Amendment rights can be somehow balanced against the delay (again under three months) in bringing the suit:
Importantly, even in the First Amendment context, a court may independently deny a motion for a preliminary injunction when a moving party acts with unreasonable delay.
But, uh, the Supreme Court held exactly the opposite, in a line lawyers cite in basically every First Amendment injunction motion ever filed. Back in 1976 it said:
The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury
But here, the court says here’s some sort of balancing test… and it’s based on how quickly those challenging the law rushed to the courthouse. That’s wrong.
Advertisement
And it gets worse, because the delay isn’t the only worrisome point that the court makes here. The judge also suggests that the state faces an “irreparable harm” in not getting its duly passed laws enacted (even if they’re unconstitutional, which the judge doesn’t even want to look at here). It points out that the law was “democratically and nearly unanimously” enacted, as if legislatures don’t democratically and nearly unanimously enact unconstitutional laws all the time.
If the way that any legislature can get to enact a law is doing so “nearly unanimously” why do we even need the courts to review whether or not they’re constitutional in the first place? Lots of nearly unanimously approved laws are eventually tossed out as unconstitutional. Yet, here, the court suggests doing so somehow creates an “irreparable harm” to the state of Minnesota itself.
I want to repeat here, because it’s important, none of this suggests that Elon Musk is doing the right thing at all. It’s just pointing out that Minnesota’s law is way too broad and that will have vastly negative consequences for the First Amendment. But rather than recognizing that and saying “let’s review the First Amendment issues on the merits, while halting the enforcement of this law,” the court basically makes up — out of thin air — that waiting two and a half months to challenge the law means that stifling First Amendment rights is no longer an “irreparable harm.”
xAI plans to ask the Eighth Circuit to stay section 325E.91 pending appeal. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C)—which requires that a request for an injunction pending appeal be made first in the district court—xAI now respectfully seeks an injunction pending that appeal.
As always, it’s easy to want to see Elon Musk lose. But there are plenty of actual things he’s doing wrong. We don’t need to cheer for him to lose on a poorly drafted law that will do real damage to everyone else’s First Amendment rights. Let Minnesota go back and rewrite the law following the roadmap laid out regarding the NCII law, and get Musk on the many other potential legal violations he’s engaged in elsewhere.
Home puts chats, delegated work, and Office documents inside one interface
Code lets non-programmers describe software and have Copilot build it
Autopilot can continue recurring work without waiting for another instruction
Microsoft has introduced a redesigned version of its Copilot AI platform which claims to combine chat, delegated work, and coding tools into a unified application experience for users.
The company says the update is meant to let individuals and organizations scale artificial intelligence across everyday tasks and long-term projects.
Three new capabilities anchor this release, including Home, Code and Autopilot, each aimed at a different kind of work.
Latest Videos FromTechRadar
Advertisement
Home brings Chat and Cowork together
The Home tool brings together two existing modes, Chat for quick questions and Cowork for tasks users delegate entirely, under one shared starting point.
Word, Excel, and PowerPoint now operate inside this same interface, letting users draft documents, budgets, and presentations without switching applications.
In these documents, Copilot is now grounded in Fabric IQ, pulling context from more than 20 million semantic models built in Power BI.
Edits made by colleagues or by the assistant itself appear in real time, so progress stays synchronized across a shared file.
Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed!
A new plugin registry will let organizations manage Microsoft, partner and custom-built plugins from one central catalog starting this month.
Advertisement
Independent developers and partners can also publish plugins once for use across multiple Copilot surfaces under the new registry arrangement.
The Code tool allows non-programmers to describe an app, tracker or dashboard in plain language and have it built automatically.
This feature runs on the same underlying technology used in GitHub Copilot and can be hosted within a company’s own systems.
Advertisement
Autopilot operates without constant prompting
Autopilot, the third addition, is a persistent agent capable of completing recurring work without needing a new instruction each time.
It can run supplier reviews or similar multi-step processes, build schedules, contact stakeholders, and follow up on outstanding items independently.
Because it operates continuously in the cloud, work can continue late at night or whenever a person’s attention shifts elsewhere.
Advertisement
A related feature called Today, entering private preview in October, will summarize missed messages and pending tasks across mail and chat.
Microsoft is also tying spending controls to these tools through a system it calls FinOps for AI, letting administrators track usage.
Administrators can set spending limits, approve credit requests and restrict which AI models different teams are permitted to use each month.
Everyday tasks like quick answers or first drafts run on a fixed-price subscription, while agentic features use usage-based billing.
Advertisement
Code, Cowork and Autopilot all fall under this usage-based pricing model, alongside frontier models Microsoft refers to as Astra and Fable.
Home and Code are set to roll out through Microsoft’s Frontier program within weeks, and Autopilot enters private preview by month’s end.
Microsoft has not released independent data showing how widely the three features are being adopted, how accurate they are, or how much time they actually save.
Automate your Mac with ease using Shortcuts and Apple Intelligence.
Filipe Espósito for Engadget
Shortcuts has been available on Mac since macOS Monterey, but it’s one of those utilities many Mac users have never explored. At first, it can seem too complicated. You have to know which actions to choose and how to connect them, then hope it all works.
But macOS 27 Golden Gate changes that with Describe a Shortcut, which lets you type exactly what you need and have Shortcuts do the heavy work for you with AI. It doesn’t always work, but it makes the app much easier to use — especially if you’re not an expert.
If you’re not familiar with Shortcuts, it’s an automation tool where you create scripts to handle tasks on your devices. Apple’s own example is a shortcut that texts your spouse with an estimated arrival time based on traffic when you’re leaving work. But you can get much more complex, like a shortcut that checks your calendar and the weather to give you a summary of what to expect today.
Advertisement
There are many possibilities, and now with macOS 27, it’s much easier to master the app.
Creating shortcuts on your Mac is easy
Filipe Espósito for Engadget
Creating a new shortcut takes a few seconds. Open the Shortcuts app on your Mac and click the Plus button to enter a prompt. The more details you provide, the more likely the app is to get your shortcut right. A command like “Clean up my Downloads” might be too vague for the app to understand what you really want. Instead, try something like “Every Friday, move anything in my Downloads folder older than 30 days into a folder called Archive.” You’re more likely to end up with a working shortcut when you provide clear details.
This is a good example of how Shortcuts are helpful for tasks you often forget to do; no one really cleans out their Downloads folder unless they’re trying to free up space. Plus, you can check the result right away by opening the folder and looking at what moved. If the shortcut moved too much, re-enter the prompt with even more specific details.
Advertisement
A shortcut can also be great for summarizing long text with Apple Intelligence. Try something like “Take the text on my clipboard, summarize it in three sentences and save it to a new note.” Then copy a long article or an email, run the shortcut and you’ll have the short version in Notes.
Make your shortcuts easier to reach
Filipe Espósito for Engadget
If a shortcut isn’t part of your normal routine, chances are you’ll forget about it after a while. Thankfully, you can assign a keyboard combo to a shortcut, or pin it to the menu bar, so you’ll never forget it.
Choose the shortcut you want to adjust and click Edit. Go to the Shortcut Details menu (the one with the information icon) and select Add Keyboard Shortcut. To add it to the Control Center or menu bar, open Control Center on your Mac (at the top-right) and select Edit Controls. There, all you have to do is add the action from the Shortcuts app, and you’re all set. Exploring the Automation tab is also a good idea for creating a seamless workflow of shortcuts that run on their own when you need them.
Advertisement
Shortcuts isn’t the only element in macOS 27 that acts on your behalf. Visual Intelligence has its own key combo: Shift + Command + Space. After pressing this, select a window on-screen and have Siri answer questions about it or take action, like adding an event to your calendar. Try it on an email with a date buried in it, for example. Siri can also run your shortcuts via voice, speaking of which.
Shortcuts and Siri AI require Apple Intelligence, which means you need a Mac with an M1 chip or later — Intel Mac users are out of luck. Also, some limits may apply when using Apple’s AI models in Shortcuts. More complex prompts could reach a limit faster.
Peak XV Partners, one of the largest venture capital firms investing in markets including India and Southeast Asia with more than $10 billion in assets under management, has increased how much it invests per startup through Surge, its seed-stage investing platform, as it unveils a new cohort of 18 companies.
At least three of the companies in this cohort had already raised outside funding, in some cases from Peak XV itself, before joining Surge.
The new batch, called Surge 12, is the first to operate under Peak XV’s higher investment ceiling of up to $5 million per company, up from $3 million previously. The venture firm invested more than $50 million across the cohort, which has collectively raised over $90 million in seed funding, according to Peak XV. Its median investment per company has also increased, though the firm declined to disclose the figure.
“The bar to raise a Series A has gone up pretty significantly,” Rajan Anandan (pictured above), managing director at Peak XV, said in an interview. He added that the firm is also seeing more capital-intensive companies, particularly in deeptech, that are raising larger rounds at the seed stage.
Advertisement
Surge has become more global with each cohort, Anandan told TechCrunch, with its latest group spanning founders and companies from San Francisco to Sydney. Just five of the 18 startups in Surge 12 are focused on the Indian market, while more than half of the companies are based in India. The remaining 13 target global markets, highlighting the difference between where the companies are built and where they expect to find customers.
Since its launch in 2019, when Peak XV operated as Sequoia Capital India and Southeast Asia, Surge has backed more than 180 startups founded by entrepreneurs representing more than 18 nationalities. Peak XV says the 10 largest companies to emerge from those cohorts now generate more than $1 billion in combined annual revenue.
Surge founders at the Peak XV U.S. Immersion 2026Image Credits:Peak XV Partners
Anandan described Surge as one way Peak XV invests at the seed stage, alongside its standard seed investing, while the firm still remains an investor as companies progress through later funding rounds. The founders it backs typically include repeat entrepreneurs, experienced operators, and highly specialized technical founders, he said, with about 50% to 60% of a typical cohort made up of people coming from operating roles at established technology companies.
This cohort’s startups span AI, robotics, space, consumer products, healthcare, music, and fintech, ranging from AI safety and personal computing to autonomous robots built for underground pipes and satellites designed to detect radio-frequency signals from orbit.
The Surge 12 cohort
Alma — founded by Nischith Shadagopan M N and Vinod Ganesan — is building a personal computing platform focused on making computer use faster and more affordable. Its founders previously worked at Microsoft Research and were founding engineers at Sarvam AI, a Bengaluru-based startup building AI models for Indian languages.
Advertisement
August AI — founded by Anuruddh Mishra, an IIT-BHU alumnus who started the company in 2022 after a personal medical misdiagnosis — provides a healthcare platform that combines AI with physician-led care, reaching over 9 million users across 160 countries.
Ditto — founded by UC Berkeley dropouts Allen Wang and Eric Liu — works as an AI dating matchmaker inside iMessage, aimed at helping college students turn digital introductions into in-person connections. (TechCrunch wrote more about this one last month.) The company had already raised $9.2 million in a Peak XV-led seed round announced earlier this year.
GameStock — founded by Antoine Mistico, Easton Dana, and Vivek Indlebele Narasimha Prasad — brings competition mechanics to financial markets, turning investing and trading into a more competitive experience. Mistico is a two-time founder and former professional baseball player.
HiLoop — founded by Jad Ghalayini, Karan Brar, and Thomas Boser — helps AI companies adapt general-purpose open-weight models for specific applications using its post-training platform. Its founding team includes former Reducto engineers and a Cambridge computer science PhD who completed his doctorate at 24.
Advertisement
Hoola Health — founded by Deeksha Senguttuva — focuses on care for children and their families, providing consultations, vaccinations, medicines, diagnostics, developmental therapy, and dental services on a single platform. Senguttuvan grew up around healthcare, as her family built and operated a hospital group.
Kello — founded by Mona Gandhi and Subramanya Jingade — is building an AI-powered talent-discovery platform focused on identifying a candidate’s potential and trajectory rather than relying primarily on conventional credentials. Gandhi says she was Airbnb’s first female engineer and she previously founded Upraised, while Jingade previously co-founded AmbitionBox.
Kindling — founded by Adam Miller and Sachin Shah — is building what it calls a “storytelling operating system” for technology startups, using AI to help companies develop and produce their communications and content.
Puralink — founded by Harrison Crowe-Maxwell, Shyeon Delnawaz, and Thien “Long” Tran — is developing autonomous robots that can navigate underground pipe networks. Crowe-Maxwell has been building robots since childhood and turned university research into the patented drive technology behind the startup.
Advertisement
Reinforce Labs — founded by Anish Das Sarma — is developing tools to evaluate, red-team, and remediate enterprise AI systems. Sarma previously founded a company acquired by Airbnb and later served as a director at Google, where he led AI and machine-learning teams.
Riffle — founded by Anurag Choudhary and deo — is building a browser-based platform where musicians can create, collaborate on, and share music, reducing the need to move between separate tools during the creative process.
Rosella — founded by Chris Dwyer and Sean Stuart — is building an AI-native commercial insurance brokerage for U.S. businesses, using AI to automate parts of the traditionally manual process of finding and placing business insurance. Rosella raised a roughly $2.5 million pre-seed round led by Peak XV and Intact Private Capital earlier this year.
Tribe Money — founded by Himanshu Arora and Nikhil Shanker — gives an AI-powered personal finance platform that helps users track their money, research investments and make investing decisions.
Advertisement
ULOOK — founded by Adheesh Boratkar and Siddhesh Ravindra Naik — is building autonomous satellite systems for radio-frequency sensing and spectrum intelligence, targeting customers globally. Its founders have worked on more than 12 satellite missions. The company had already raised roughly $2.3 million in seed funding from growX Ventures and InfoEdge Ventures before joining Surge.
Wingit — founded by Nikunj Kothari and Saksham Khandelwal — is building a beauty platform aimed at India’s growing premium-consumer market. It is focused on how consumers discover and shop for higher-end beauty products.
Three other startups in the cohort have yet to publicly reveal their names or products. Peak XV said they are working in education, applied AI, and medical products.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
The Metric Is Not the Mission is a ten-part examination of how Big Tech moved from building and expanding the open internet to increasingly shaping it around its own metrics, incentives and assumptions. Across the series, the argument follows the evolution of the platform economy—from the optimism of the early internet to the growing tensions around power, prediction, geopolitics, accountability and the future of digital life.
The series will be published in two parts each week over five weeks, with each installment building on the one before it. At the end of the series, the complete essay will be brought together in a single PDF edition, providing the full argument in one place.
Part III: When the Maps Became the Territory
In Part II, the story turned on a crucial distinction: measuring behavior is not the same as understanding people. Part III takes that idea further, examining what happens when the platforms’ representations of the world begin to substitute for the world itself.
There is a curious tendency among successful technologies to disappear. Not physically, of course, but cognitively. Once they become sufficiently embedded in everyday life, they cease to be experienced as technologies at all. Electricity is no longer a marvel of engineering but an expectation. We do not admire the plumbing each time we turn on a tap, nor do we reflect on the extraordinary complexity of global logistics every time fresh fruit appears on supermarket shelves in the middle of winter. The greatest infrastructures become invisible because they succeed so completely that we mistake them for part of the natural order.
Advertisement
The internet reached that point sometime during the second decade of the twenty-first century. Yet something else happened along the way that proved far more consequential. As the network itself faded into the background, the platforms through which most people experienced it moved decisively into the foreground. Increasingly, users no longer spoke about “going online.” They spoke about opening an app.
That linguistic shift deserves more attention than it usually receives. Language often reveals structural change before statistics do. To “browse the web” implied movement across an open landscape whose boundaries were undefined. One followed links, discovered obscure websites, stumbled upon ideas that had not been recommended by anyone, and occasionally became gloriously lost. The experience resembled wandering through an unfamiliar city with no particular destination in mind. Serendipity was not a flaw in the architecture; it was one of its defining virtues.
Applications altered that relationship almost without anyone noticing. They replaced geography with destination. Instead of entering a network whose possibilities remained unknown, we entered environments that had already been organized on our behalf. The internet did not disappear, but it became increasingly hidden beneath layers of interface, recommendation and curation. Like passengers traveling through an airport without ever seeing the city beyond the terminal, we continued moving through digital space while encountering only the carefully managed environments that had been prepared for us.
This transformation is often described as an inevitable consequence of convenience. While accurate in its own right, this explanation offers an incomplete narrative. Convenience was certainly the language through which the platforms justified many of their design choices. Friction was treated as the great enemy of the digital age. Every additional click became an obstacle to be eliminated. Every decision that users might otherwise make for themselves could instead be anticipated by software. Recommendation replaced search. Autoplay replaced choice. Infinite scrolling replaced endings. The future, we were told, belonged to experiences so seamless that they would feel almost effortless. And they did.
Advertisement
It is difficult to criticize convenience because convenience is genuinely valuable. Few people wish to return to an internet in which finding information required memorizing obscure web addresses or navigating labyrinthine directories. The platforms did not succeed by forcing people into inferior experiences. They succeeded because, for many years, they built better ones.
Yet convenience has always carried an intellectual cost. Every technology that removes friction also removes moments of deliberation. The elevator spares us the staircase but also the awareness of distance. Satellite navigation ensures that we rarely become lost, while quietly diminishing our ability to construct mental maps of the places through which we travel. Streaming services relieve us of searching for entertainment, but in doing so they also shape the boundaries of what we are likely to discover. Every act of technological simplification transfers a small measure of agency from the individual to the system.
The internet had originally been built on a different assumption. Its underlying protocols did remarkably little. They did not decide which website deserved prominence, which ideas should travel furthest, or which communities ought to flourish. Their genius lay precisely in their restraint. They created conditions under which others could innovate without first requesting permission. The web itself functioned less like a product than like a constitutional order: a simple framework within which extraordinary diversity could emerge.
Platforms gradually adopted the opposite philosophy. They did not merely provide the rules of the game; increasingly, they became active participants in every interaction taking place within it. They selected what deserved attention, inferred what users might prefer before users themselves knew it, prioritized certain relationships over others and determined, through millions of microscopic computational decisions, the contours of everyday experience. The architecture became less constitutional than managerial.
Advertisement
There is an illuminating parallel here with the history of cities. The most enduring cities are rarely the ones that have been planned in every detail. They are those that accumulated layer upon layer of human activity over centuries, adapting continuously to changing needs without ever fully surrendering their unpredictability. One finds unexpected bookshops beside cafés, workshops hidden behind apartment blocks, public squares appropriated for demonstrations one week and festivals the next. Their vitality emerges not from perfect organization but from the freedom they grant people to appropriate space in ways that planners never anticipated.
Shopping malls operate according to an altogether different logic. They are meticulously designed environments in which every entrance, corridor, sightline, and seating area has been carefully considered. Music, lighting, and architecture work together to produce an experience that feels spontaneous while being anything but. There is comfort in their orderliness. They are clean, efficient, and reassuringly predictable. Yet no one mistakes a shopping mall for a city. Its purpose is not to cultivate civic life but to optimize a particular set of behaviors within a privately governed space.
The analogy is imperfect, as all analogies are, but it captures something essential about the transformation of the internet. The early web invited participation because it remained fundamentally unfinished. It assumed that users would contribute to shaping it. Today’s dominant platforms present themselves as complete worlds. Participation still exists, but it takes place within boundaries established elsewhere. Users generate the content while the architecture remains firmly in corporate hands.
Perhaps this is why the language of “community” has begun to feel strangely hollow. Communities, in the classical sense, are rarely designed. They emerge through shared experience, mutual obligation, and a degree of unpredictability that no algorithm can fully reproduce. Platforms, by contrast, increasingly treat community as an engineering problem to be optimized. They recommend friendships, suggest conversations, rank relevance, suppress friction, and amplify interaction according to models whose objectives are necessarily commercial because the organizations that develop them are commercial enterprises.
Advertisement
None of this should be understood as an accusation of bad faith. Many of the engineers responsible for these systems genuinely believed they were improving people’s lives. The difficulty lies elsewhere. Every large institution eventually begins to confuse the optimization of its own internal metrics with the fulfillment of its original purpose. Universities sometimes mistake publication counts for scholarship. Hospitals occasionally confuse efficiency with care. Governments become preoccupied with administrative process rather than public service. Technology companies are no different. The indicators that make sense within an organization slowly become proxies for the world outside it. The metric is not the mission. This is the point at which the maps begin to replace the territory.
The extraordinary quantities of behavioral data collected by digital platforms produce an understandable confidence. When one can observe billions of interactions each day, it becomes tempting to believe that society itself has become legible. Human behavior appears measurable, predictable and, increasingly, governable. The platform begins to resemble reality because so much of reality passes through the platform.
Yet the map is never the territory. It captures what can be measured, not everything that matters. A map records roads but not the reasons people travel. It identifies cities without conveying the lives unfolding within them. Likewise, recommendation systems observe behavior with astonishing precision while remaining largely indifferent to experience itself. They recognize patterns without necessarily understanding meaning.
That distinction mattered little while the platforms continued solving the problems that had made them indispensable. It becomes far more consequential once they begin confronting a world that no longer resembles the one for which they were originally designed. Because societies have changed; politics has changed; and, the internet has changed. The question is whether the companies that grew powerful by interpreting one era have noticed that another has already begun.
Advertisement
Konstantinos Komaitis, PhD, is a veteran of developing and analysing Internet policy to ensure an open and global Internet.
While smartphones won’tstop getting bigger, e-readers seem to be getting smaller. Boox has been at the forefront with one of the most popular small e-readers, the Boox Palma, and now it is adding an even smaller model.
Boox announced the Picco, with preorders opening today. Its screen is just under 4 inches (3.97 to be exact), making it about the size of a playing card. It’s even smaller than the Xteink X4 Pro I tested earlier this year, which has a 4.3-inch screen (but just slightly larger than the 3.7-inch Xteink X3), and considerably smaller than the upcoming Boox Palma 3’s 6.19-inch screen. I liked the size of the Xteink in my hand, but navigating the interface and getting books were challenging, so I’m excited to see another option in that smaller size from a maker with more accessible ebooks (though still not as convenient as a Kindle or Kobo with their built-in stores).
The Picco will cost $100 and is expected to ship in November. I’ll be testing it soon, but in the meantime, here are the details if you’ve been eyeing a tiny e-reader.
An E-Reader for Productivity
Courtesy of Boox
The Boox Picco has a monochrome screen with a resolution of 235 pixels per inch and an adjustable front light that switches between warm- and cool-toned lighting. The microSD card slot supports up to 2 TB of flash memory storage (a 16 GB card is included). There are both a touchscreen and physical page-turning controls, thanks to the buttons on the side of the device. The case has a magnetic ring so you can attach it to the back of a smartphone, though I’ll have to see how well it fits when I test it, as I had mixed results attaching an Xteink to my phone due to both fit and magnet strength.
Advertisement
Courtesy of Boox
Boox says the Picco will have a streamlined operating system focused on reading and digital utility tools. It’s also the first in what Boox calls its Tiles lineup, which is how you’ll access ebooks on this device. You can also use web and USB-C file transfers (the Picco has Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity) to get ebooks onto the Picco. The Picco also has the Pomodoro, Todo, and Countdown apps, so you can use it as both an e-reader and a productivity gadget—handy, and a bigger motivation to keep it attached to the back of your phone even when you aren’t reading.
I’m intrigued to see it in action. Boox’s most popular e-reader could become the Picco over the Palma 3, but we’ll have to wait for both devices to become available to see which is the better buy. Stay tuned for my reviews of both when they come out.
But a Chromium-based design means it can only be so efficient.
Discord
Discord is working on a new mode for its social platform that it says might be less resource-intensive. Screenshots of an option called Game Mode began circulating on social media over the weekend. The description shown for the Game Mode toggle states that it will “Reduce Discord’s CPU and GPU usage while a game is running.” By making the chat platform less resource-intensive, concurrently running software should be able to run more smoothly.
Today, the company confirmed on X that this experimental mode will begin rolling out to its users next week. The brief official announcement about Game Mode added that Discord is “aiming to add more resource-saving features over time.”
Discord is based on the Electron web app framework, which uses Javascript and Chromium for creating software. The open-source Chromium, which is the basis for Google’s Chrome and several other browsers, is not known as the most efficient tool for web development. A feature like Game Mode could offer some performance improvements, especially while also running a beefy AAA game on the same machine, but there may only be so far that Discord will be able to streamline on its current architecture.
Six of the nine independent experts on the advisory board of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism—a consortium run by several of the biggest US tech companies—resigned on Monday, according to a letter seen by WIRED and interviews with three of the people.
The tensions between the independent advisory committee and the GIFCT date back to an email the counterterrorism and free speech experts received in July from Meta’s Nell McCarthy, a vice president overseeing content policy. For years, the group had advised the GIFCT on how to prevent platforms from becoming havens for the radical organizations and individuals blamed for some of the world’s worst mass violence.
But McCarthy wrote that while the consortium welcomed the experts’ insights on violent trends, it no longer desired their scrutiny on the effectiveness of Big Tech’s efforts to curtail violence. Meta and other leaders wanted to “refresh” the 6-year-old independent advisory committee the experts sat on, she wrote. Meta currently serves as chair of GIFCT’s operating board, giving it outsized influence over policy changes, though other companies on the panel must ultimately approve.
New additions to the rotating advisory committee had previously been elected by current members; under the plan laid out in July, they would instead be picked by tech companies. The committee would be barred from weighing in on key topics such as the consortium’s performance and making recommendations together as a group. Its role as a watchdog would be neutered, advisers believed.
Advertisement
In their resignation letter, the departing members of the committee wrote that their appeals against the plan had been “ignored” and that, in turn, they had “lost confidence in the GIFCT’s ability to deliver effectively on its founding mission” to prevent terrorists from exploiting online services. “We all know that a body that cannot scrutinise, take a position, or evaluate is not an advisory body at all,” the letter stated. “It is decoration and accountability theatre.”
Meta deferred comment on the resignations to the GIFCT. An unsigned statement sent to WIRED by a GIFCT spokesperson on behalf of the consortium’s leadership and the Meta-chaired operating board says the proposed changes have been “informed by several rounds of feedback” and are not yet final. They came out of discussions on “how to more effectively engage civil society and governments for substantive input” as “multi-stakeholderism is a core principle” for the GIFCT.
The consortium has about 35 members; other long-time board members include Microsoft and YouTube. A small staff alerts members to violent content, helps them exchange threat intelligence, and commissions research on countering extremism. While the coordination has helped some platforms combat problematic content, critics believe the group isn’t living up to its potential.
A WIRED investigation in 2024 uncovered several issues with GIFCT, including Meta delaying TikTok’s membership bid and poor relations between the companies at the helm and the unpaid independent advisory body. It also revealed failures in the tip-sharing database the consortium oversees to coordinate takedowns of problematic content.
Advertisement
The dismantling of the advisory group threatens to deteriorate the organization’s work further at a time when balancing free expression and online safety has become more challenging. Generative AI tools have simplified content creation but imposed limited guardrails.
The experts who resigned include university researchers and representatives of civil society organizations. They had agreed with McCarthy on the need for changes to improve the results of the decade-old anti-terrorism consortium. But they believe the proposal, which could be finalized soon, amounts to a step backward.
“There won’t be critical voices raising concerns about what GIFCT is doing or is not doing,” one of the departing experts says. “It may seem politically convenient for them to abolish the independent advisory committee, but they are going to regret it in the longer term.”
The successful mission also deployed 26 of SpaceX’s latest Starlink satellites.
SpaceX
For its 14th flight, SpaceX’s Starship powered by its Super Heavy megarocket has entered low-Earth orbit for the first time. SpaceX kicked off this major undertaking early Monday morning but had to deal with some hiccups on the way, including losing one of its six Raptor engines. Ultimately, SpaceX decided to push on with the mission and successfully reached orbit albeit with some compromise.
SpaceX originally planned to have Starship orbit Earth six times over a span of nearly 10 hours for the Flight 14 mission. With one of the engines offline, the plan changed to only spend approximately three hours in orbit before reentering the Earth’s atmosphere and landing in the Pacific Ocean. As part of the same mission, SpaceX managed to deploy 26 of its Starlink V3 satellites into orbit. SpaceX said that its Starlink team has made contact with all newly-deployed 26 satellites in orbit, which will eventually be used to improve Internet speeds for customers. While previous Starship missions also carried several V3 satellites, they only remained in suborbital space and served as test flights to see if the new satellites would connect to the existing Starlink constellation.
While Starship’s flight 14 marked a major milestone of reaching orbit, the mission also served as a test of the reusability of its Super Heavy rocket. After providing the necessary boost to Starship, Super Heavy landed in the Gulf of Mexico, where it will eventually be retrieved, but not by a launch tower‘s “chopsticks” as previously demonstrated.
Mipmapping is a good way to add a lot more detail to a 3D scene without overburdening the rendering hardware with detail that won’t be seen by the user. This level-of-detail rendering technique was demonstrated on the N64 console hardware a few years ago by [James Lambert] with [Michael Biggins], also known as [PhonicUK], now demonstrating it on the ESP32-S3 using his own Jet rendering engine.
Although level-of-detail rendering really speeds things up, it does also require far larger texture sizes, with [James]’s N64 demo taking up 40 MB of a 64 MB cartridge. To fit it on an ESP32-S3 with 16 MB of PSRAM and no SD card expansion or such the textures were further compressed to use 8-bit indexing, resulting in a mere 5.01 MB of textures.
There’s a demonstration video over on the associated Reddit thread, which shows the camera moving through the scene. Even if not as exciting as the Wipeout port by [Michael] that we previously covered, it does make clear that even without a proper 3D GPU the ESP32-S3 is already a pretty capable gaming machine that can go toe-to-toe with some 1990s consoles.
There are five weeks left until the midterm elections, and extremism is on the ballot in much of the US. A WIRED review of candidates running for statewide and federal positions in November, along with exclusive data on candidates running for state-level positions, reveals hundreds of Republican candidates who openly express virulently hateful ideologies, share racist content online, have close ties to white supremacist and antisemitic figures, and are members of far-right groups online. President Donald Trump and his administration have openly embraced, endorsed and defended many of these candidates.
At a local level, over 500 candidates running for state legislator positions in November are members of far-right groups on Facebook that promote militias, gun rights, and Christian nationalism, according to data collected by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights and shared with WIRED.
“The candidates are taking a page out of the Trump administration’s playbook,” Luke Baumgartner, a former research fellow at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, tells WIRED. Baumgartner claims that many of the candidates running in November have been inspired by those in the White House. “In essence, the executive branch has handed them a permission slip to say and do what would have been unthinkable during the George W. Bush, McCain, or [Mitt] Romney eras of the GOP,” he says.
Advertisement
Extremist rhetoric has led to real world political threats. In 2025, terrorism and targeted violence incidents rose 19 percent compared to 2024, according to researchers at the University of Maryland; the US Capitol Police reported an increase in “threat assessment cases” against members of Congress for the third year in a row, with a 58 percent increase from 2024; and the US Marshals Service documented threats against almost 400 judges, a roughly 5 percent increase from the previous year.
Here are five races involving candidates who have shared extremist ideologies or have close ties to extremist figures, that WIRED is watching ahead of the November midterms.
The Texas Railroad Commissioner Race
Photo-Illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images
Bo French, the GOP candidate for Texas Railroad Commissioner, is so extreme that Republican strategist Karl Rove has said he would vote for a Democrat rather than supporting a “bigot.”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login