In a nutshell: The question of who will buy TikTok's US operations is still being debated, but it appears that Elon Musk one of the previous favorites and a person put forward by Donald Trump won't be adding another platform to his list of businesses. The world's richest person claims he is not interested in purchasing the app, adding that he usually builds companies "from scratch." The news has been welcomed by another potential buyer, Jimmy Donaldson, aka MrBeast. It was reported in January that the Chinese government was considering selling TikTok's US assets to Musk. The DOGE leader has a good relationship with China, having praised the country on several occasions. The Tesla factory in Shanghai also nets him plenty of goodwill from officials.The fact that Donald Trump said he was open to the possibility of Musk or Oracle boss Larry Ellison buying TikTok was another hint that the app would be joining X in Musk's stable. However, it's been revealed that Musk said he isn't interested in the acquisition.On Saturday, comments Musk made were released online by The WELT Group, part of the German media company Axel Springer SE, which hosted an economic summit in late January attended by Musk."I have not put in a bid for TikTok," Musk said. "I'm not chomping at the bit to acquire TikTok, I do not acquire companies in general, it's quite rare," he added. "I usually build companies from scratch."Musk went on to explain that he does not use TikTok personally and is not familiar with its format. // Related StoriesMusk's statement that he does not acquire companies and builds them from scratch obviously raises questions about Twitter, now X, which he acquired in October 2022 for $44 billion.Musk compared buying Twitter to a potential TikTok purchase by saying he bought the former as a way to "preserve freedom of speech." He said he's not sure if the same logic could be applied to TikTok because the only reason behind an acquisition would be financial, in his opinion.In January, Musk wrote that he has been against the TikTok ban because it goes against freedom of speech. He also said that the current situation where TikTok is allowed to operate in America but X is not allowed to operate in China is unbalanced, and something needs to change.YouTube (and Amazon) star MrBeast is believed to be interested in buying TikTok as part of an investment group led by Jesse Tinsley, founder and CEO of Employer.com. He replied to a message about Musk confirming he wasn't going after the app with a single word: "Phew."TikTok's future in the United States remains uncertain. Trump has issued an executive order delaying its ban, which stems from the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, by 75 days, extending the deadline to April 4, 2025. However, the app remains absent from the US Apple and Google stores.

What just happened? It appears that an RTX 5090 Founders Edition has suffered a melting connector issue. But before this gets added to the lengthy list of why Blackwell is proving to be the most-unpopular Nvidia GPU generation in recent memory, there's a caveat: the incident occurred while a non-official power cable was being used. A Reddit user going by the name ivan6953 shared images of an RTX 5090 FE with a badly melted connector. Given that this was a prevalent problem with the RTX 4090 series, there have long been concerns that it could reappear in the $2,000 successor.Thankfully for Nvidia and anyone who somehow managed to get hold of a Blackwell flagship, the cable in question wasn't the same one that comes with the card. It was a Moddiy cable, which, according to the website, is an ATX 3.0 PCIe 5.0 16-pin to 16-pin model supporting up to 600W with a 12V-2X6 design.ivan6953 writes that he was playing Battlefield 5 with a power draw of 500W to 520W when he smelled something burning. Sensibly, he immediately turned off his PC to investigate.As shown in the images, the damage was quite extensive. The connectors are burnt on both sides of the cable, which is something we haven't often seen in the RTX 4090 meltgate incidents. There's also damage to the Asus ROG Loki PSU.The graphics card also suffered burn damage.Many of these melting cable incidents have occurred because the connectors were not fully inserted, but the Redditor insists that it was fully locked and clicked into place. He also notes that he had used the same cable and PSU for two years with his old RTX 4090 FE.It's noted that the official cable that comes with the RTX 5090 is longer and more flexible, while the connector on the GPU side is angled. The original 12VHPWR power cable that came with the RTX 4090 was stiff and bent too close to the connector, meaning it sometimes wasn't plugged in correctly, leading to the melting issues.Last week brought more reports about the RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 potentially melting their cables. However, it turned out that the problem was affecting only the RTX 4090 and likely the result of user error.Blackwell may suffer from disappointing generational improvements, reports of bricking, prices way above MSRP, and almost non-existent stock levels, but at least Nvidia can say the cards aren't melting any of their supplied cables yet. // Related Storiesh/t: VideoCardz

According to OLED-info, a Chinese-based iPhone display provider has trouble with Apple over quality issues. The problems could affect the supply of future iPhones, including the upcoming iPhone SE 4.BOE, which supplies LTPS AMOLED displays for the iPhone 14, 15, and 16, has had many displays rejected by Apple, causing a substantial drop in shipments. Since the beginning of 2024, the Chinese company has shipped only between 7 and 8 million panels to Apple, whereas it had initially anticipated shipping around 40 million units during the same period.Recommended VideosAs a result, most of BOEs display orders are redirected to Samsung Display, although LG Display may still play a role in the supply chain. The latter primarily provides displays for the iPhone Pro series.Please enable Javascript to view this contentDespite recent developments, BOE and LG Display have been selected as the OLED suppliers for the iPhone SE 4, which we expect will be announced this week. This entry-level phone will feature a 6.1-inch AMOLED display, for which Apple reportedly pays $25 per unit.BOE started manufacturing iPhone displays for Apple with the launch of the iPhone 12 in 2020. Since then, the company has faced several challenges. It has reportedly experienced production issues and occasionally failed to meet Apples quality standard in temporary setbacks and reduced order volumes.The long-rumored iPhone SE 4 is expected to be the first to feature an in-house 5G chip. It is anticipated to come equipped with an A17 chip and an improved camera system and be the first iPhone SE model without a home button. Instead, it will offer Face ID like other iPhones on the market.Theres no word whether BOEs troubles will affect early supplies for the new iPhone.Besides the iPhone SE 4, this years iPhone lineup should include the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and all-new iPhone 17 Air.Editors Recommendations

Its an all too familiar scene. Youre stuffing a bulky vacuum under the couch, tripping over cords and clutter, or using a mop that wont do the job. Meet the new Roborock Saros series, featuring the Saros 10 and Saros 10R, two new robotic vacuums designed to change the way you clean. They pack revolutionary AI technology, super-powerful suction, and advanced navigation to tackle pet hair to deep-set dirt with ease.Lets find out what makes the Saros 10 and Saros 10R game-changers in the world of smart cleaning.Saros 10R: The Ultra-Slim Navigation ExpertFor a home filled with furniture, cords, or unpredictable obstacles, the Saros 10R is the answer. At just a touch over 3-inches high, its the slimmest Roborock vacuum yet, designed to fit under low-clearance furniture while still delivering deep-cleaning power.What really sets the Saros 10R apart is its StarSight Autonomous System 2.0. This AI-driven system combines dual-transmitter 3D Time-of-Flight (ToF) technology with an RGB camera to scan and map its environment in more detail than traditional LiDAR-based navigation. It recognizes as many as 108 different obstacles, including socks, loose cables, and pet waste! Combined with an impressive 19,000Pa of HyperForce suction, this vacuum is fully prepared to conquer any chaos in your home.Other standout features include:VertiBeam Lateral Obstacle Avoidance: this allows the detection of irregular surfaces to ensure it will not hit furniture and walls.Dual Anti-Tangle System: keeps hair and debris from wrapping around the brushes for easy maintenance.10-in-1 Multifunctional Dock: hot water mop washing? Yes, please. Auto-mop removal and self-emptying dustbin all make for a completely hands-free experience.Saros 10: The Deep-Cleaning PowerhouseFor those who want raw cleaning power, the Saros 10 is Roborocks most advanced deep-cleaning model yet. And it has HyperForce suction, making it one of the most powerful robotic vacuums available today!The Saros 10 has a new RetractSense Navigation System that adds a retractable LiDAR sensor for smart cleaning. This allows the Saros 10 to move under low furniture without losing spatial awareness thats like doing the limbo blindfolded while cleaning up spilled fruit punch. Combined with Reactive AI 3.0, a front-facing RGB camera and structured light for obstacle detection, this vacuum understands complex home layouts.Roborock didnt stop there and just like the Saros 10R, they packed this model with more industry-leading technology,The VibraRise 4.0 Mopping System has dual sonic vibration zones to scrub floors up to 4,000 times per minute for deep stain removal. It also flexes some serious agility with the AdaptiLift Chassis. Thats right, this vacuum has an adjustable height of up to 10mm enabling it to cross thresholds and transition between floor types.Which Model is Right for You?Choosing between the Saros 10 and Saros 10R really depends on your cleaning priorities.If you have a large home with heavy-duty cleaning demands, the Saros 10 is your best bet. Great suction power and an advanced mopping system make it ideal for tough dirt and large floor areas.Live in a space with lots of furniture, cables, and tricky corners? The Saros 10R will be your go-to. The ultra-thin design and precise navigation lets it reach spots that other vacuums cannot.Release Details & Limited-Time OfferBoth the Roborock Saros 10 and 10R will be available for purchase on February 10, 2025! Pick either model from February 10 to February 16 at a discounted price of $1,399.99 (down from $1,599.99), saving $200 (12.5% off).Ready to upgrade your cleaning routine? The Roborock Saros series gets you cutting-edge AI, powerful suction, and seamless automation all in one sleek package. Upgrade your home cleaning today!

Steve Davis is a force at DOGE, which has adopted Musks move-fast-and-break-things approach.

Illustration of the volcanic exoplanet L 98-59 bNASAs Goddard Space Flight CenterAn alien world with a seemingly sulphur-filled atmosphere may be the most volcanic planet astronomers have ever spotted.We have never directly detected volcanic activity outside our solar system, in part because current telescopes arent powerful enough to take images of exoplanets surfaces. We might be able to spot alien volcanoes by measuring the gases they pump into a planets atmosphere, but this is also at the very limit of what current telescopes can do there have been tantalising hints of atmospheres on rocky

Meta has begun to cut thousands of jobs to focus on AI investment and efficiency.Mark Zuckerberg targets low performers, part of a broader industry move toward leaner operations.Some employees told Business Insider they are anxious about the changes.Meta has begun to cut thousands of jobs as the social media giant takes a tougher stance on underperforming employees and readies its finances for another year of heavy AI investment. Impacted employees in Europe, Asia, and the US have started to be notified, per an internal post view by Business Insider.The company has said it will eliminate roughly 5% of its workforce, which could mean almost 4,000 employees lose their jobs.CEO Mark Zuckerberg told staff in January he would "raise the bar" and move quickly to remove low performers, according to an internal memo seen by BI.This is part of a broader push by big tech companies to make themselves leaner, after a hiring spree during the pandemic. Microsoft, Amazon, Salesforce, and others are collectively eliminatingthousands of employees.Zuckerberg has been at the forefront of this, announcing a"Year of Efficiency" in 2023 that has continued through last year and into 2025.Wall Street has rewarded Meta for this new focus, sending the company's shares soaring since the start of 2023 a run that's added more than $1 trillion to Meta's market valuation.While Meta remained profitable through recent periods of heavy hiring and big spending, the company is now racing to keep up with rivals in the generative AI race. This requires billions of dollars in infrastructure and related investment. That's likely putting pressure on Zuckerberg to seek cost-savings elsewhere.A Meta spokesperson declined to comment.Impact on some employeesFor some Meta employees, the ongoing efficiency drive is causing anxiety. These staffers asked not to be identified discussing sensitive topics."Mark is creating fear," a current Meta employee told BI. "He's creating a culture where you have to be loyal to him or else."Another employee told BI that working at Meta right now "feels like living in a George Orwell novel."Even colleagues who have performed well "have been disappearing all year, and when you ask about it, you're just told 'they're no longer with the company'," this person said. "Self-censorship is rampant. At a company supposedly dedicated to connecting people, the human side of our work is disappearing and everyone is acting more robotic."Another Meta employee said reductions shouldn't be branded as performance-based cuts because this could potentially damage people's reputations as they seek other opportunities."Now people have to go back out into the job market with a label that is incredibly unfair," this person added.They expressed concern that good employees would be cut just to meet quotas, and that this could have a negative impact on morale at Meta."What's the incentive to help a new hire ramp up if they're just going to stack rank us and probably do this all again next year?" this person added.How Meta's latest job cuts may workThe job cuts are designed to target employees who receive "Met Some" or "Did Not Meet" ratings, the bottom two categories in Meta's assessment system, in their performance reviews.According to internal guidance obtained by BI last month, managers must identify 12% to 15% of employees eligible for these ratings. Meta aims to reach 10% "non-regrettable attrition" by combining these cuts with previous departures. For example, if a team had 5% attrition in 2024, managers would need to identify another 7% to 10% of their employees for the bottom ratings to meet the total target.One Meta employee told BI that forcing managers to place team members into bottom categories for job cuts has spread anxiety through management ranks as well as rank-and-file workers.On Friday, employees received a memo from Janelle Gale, Meta's vice president of HR, detailing how the process is supposed to work. According to the memo, which was obtained by BI, affected employees will be notified through their work and personal email addresses and will lose access to company systems within an hour of being informed. They will receive severance package information in the same email.The notifications will be staggered across time zones, with employees in Asia Pacific being notified first, followed by Europe, Middle East and Africa, and finally North and Latin America.Employees in European countries including Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands will be exempt from this process due to local regulations and will instead follow local performance management processes. Meta intends to backfill these roles but the memo says that plans and timelines "may vary," according to the memo.How Meta is reorganizing itselfWhile these cuts happen, the social-media giant is also reorganizing some of its businesses and divisions. Meta is bringing its Reality Labs division closer to its main business, reversing some of Zuckerberg's 2021 reorganization, while simultaneously shaking up its Messenger, Facebook, and generative AI teams.The company is merging its Facebook and Messenger teams under Facebook chief Tom Alison, while Messenger head Loredana Crisan will move to the generative AI group, according to The Information.Meta's Reality Labs division, which has lost nearly $60 billion since 2020, is being more tightly integrated with Meta's main business. In an internal memo obtained by BI, Reality Labs Chief Technology Officer Andrew Bosworth announced that Reality Labs has "become a positive driver for Meta's overall brand."

BYD is going all-in on autonomous driving as it looks to take Tesla's EV crown.The Chinese automaker shared a major expansion of its "God's Eye" intelligent driving system on Monday.The $9,500 Seagull EV will also get "high-level" intelligent driving features, a BYD exec said.BYD is battling Tesla for the title of the world's largest EV company and now the Chinese upstart is coming for Elon Musk's self-driving crown.The electric vehicle giant unveiled a massive expansion of its intelligent driving system on Monday as it seeks to fight off brutal competition in the world's most competitive car market with a new lineup of high-tech vehicles.Prior to the event, BYD executive Zhang Zhuo said the company would release 11 models with BYD's "God's Eye" self-driving tech across its Ocean brand.The ultra-cheap BYD Seagull, which currently starts at 69,800 yuan (around $9,550) in China, will also get "high-level" intelligent driving features, Zhuo wrote in a post on the Chinese social media site Weibo.BYD general manager Lu Tian, meanwhile, said that the company's six main brands named after Chinese imperial dynasties would be fully upgraded with the new technology.BYD's move into autonomous driving comes as Chinese carmakers increasingly shift toward "EIVs," or electric intelligent vehicles, outfitting their cars with increasingly advanced technology as they fight for a slice of China's hypercompetitive EV market.Smartphone maker Xiaomi's SU7, which starts at around $30,000 and comes with intelligent driving assist and voice control technology, has smashed sales targets since it launched last year.Other manufacturers, such asstartup Xpeng, have rolled out "AI-defined" vehicles, while Zeekr and Dongfeng have already incorporated China's homegrown AI model Deepseek into their cars.Not to be outdone, BYD has pledged to spend at least $14 billion on building "intelligent" vehicles.Its "God's Eye" driving assistance tech will face competition from Xpeng and fellow EV startup Nio, which have their own autonomous driving systems.BYD will also face off against Tesla, with the US automaker saying it is working to begin selling its Full Self-Driving tech in China this year.The EV giant's sales have been booming even before it unveiled its self-driving push. BYD sold 296,446 EV and hybrid vehicles in January, up 47% from the same period in 2024.BYD's impressive performance comes as warning signs appear that China's crowded EV market may be about to face a period of consolidation.Chinese state-owned carmakers Dongfeng and Changan both announced restructuring moves on Sunday, with the two companies seeing their share prices soar as investors speculated they may be about to merge.

Over the past few years, AI systems have been misrepresenting themselves as human therapists, nurses, and more and so far, the companies behind these systems havent faced any serious consequences. A bill being introduced Monday in California aims to put a stop to that. The legislation would ban companies from developing and deploying an AI system that pretends to be a human certified as a health provider, and give regulators the authority to penalize them with fines.Generative AI systems are not licensed health professionals, and they shouldnt be allowed to present themselves as such, state Assembly Member Mia Bonta, who introduced the bill, told Vox in a statement. Its a no-brainer to me.Many people already turn to AI chatbots for mental health support; one of the older offerings, called Woebot, has been downloaded by around 1.5 million users. Currently, people who turn to chatbots can be fooled into thinking that theyre talking to a real human. Those with low digital literacy, including kids, may not realize that a nurse advice phone line or chat box has an AI on the other end. In 2023, the mental health platform Koko even announced that it had performed an experiment on unwitting test subjects to see what kind of messages they would prefer. It gave AI-generated responses to thousands of Koko users who believed they were speaking to a real person. In reality, although humans could edit the text and they were the ones to click send, they did not have to bother with actually writing the messages. The language of the platform, however, said, Koko connects you with real people who truly get you.Users must consent to use Koko for research purposes and while this was always part of our Terms of Service, it is now more clearly disclosed during onboarding to bring even more transparency to our work, Koko CEO Rob Morris told Vox, adding: As AI continues to rapidly evolve and becomes further integrated into mental health services, it will be more important than ever before for chatbots to clearly identify themselves as non-human. Nowadays, its website says, Koko commits to never using AI deceptively. You will always be informed whether you are engaging with a human or AI. Other chatbot services like the popular Character AI allow users to chat with a psychologist character that may explicitly try to fool them. In a record of one such Character AI chat shared by Bontas team and viewed by Vox, the user confided, My parents are abusive. The chatbot replied, Im glad that you trust me enough to share this with me. Then came this exchange: A spokesperson for Character AI told Vox, We have implemented significant safety features over the past year, including enhanced prominent disclaimers to make it clear that the Character is not a real person and should not be relied on as fact or advice. However, a disclaimer posted on the app does not in itself prevent the chatbot from misrepresenting itself as a real person in the course of conversation.For users under 18, the spokesperson added, we serve a separate version of the model that is designed to further reduce the likelihood of users encountering, or prompting the model to return, sensitive or suggestive content. The language of reducing but not eliminating the likelihood is instructive here. The nature of large language models means theres always some chance that the model may not adhere to safety standards.The new bill may have an easier time becoming enshrined in law than the much broader AI safety bill introduced by California state Sen. Scott Wiener last year, SB 1047, which was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The goal of SB 1047 was to establish clear, predictable, common-sense safety standards for developers of the largest and most powerful AI systems. It was popular with Californians. But tech industry heavyweights like OpenAI and Meta fiercely opposed it, arguing that it would stifle innovation.Whereas SB 1047 tried to compel the companies training the most cutting-edge AI models to do safety testing, preventing the models from enacting a broad array of potential harms, the scope of the new bill is narrower: If youre an AI in the health care space, just dont pretend to be human. It wouldnt fundamentally change the business model of the biggest AI companies. This more targeted approach goes after a smaller piece of the puzzle, but for that reason might be more likely to get past the lobbying of Big Tech. The bill has support from some of Californias health care industry players, such as SEIU California, a labor union with over 750,000 members, and the California Medical Association, a professional organization representing California physicians.As nurses, we know what it means to be the face and heart of a patients medical experience, Leo Perez, the president of SEIU 121RN (an affiliate of SEIU representing health care professionals), said in a statement. Our education and training coupled with years of hands-on experience have taught us how to read verbal and nonverbal cues to care for our patients, so we can make sure they get the care they need. But thats not to say AI is doomed to be useless in the healthcare space generally or even in the therapy space in particular. The risks and benefits of AI therapistsIt shouldnt come as a surprise that people are turning to chatbots for therapy. The very first chatbot to plausibly mimic human conversation, Eliza, was created in 1966 and it was built to talk like a psychotherapist. If you told it you were feeling angry, it would ask, Why do you think you feel angry?Chatbots have come a long way since then; they no longer just take what you say and turn it around in the form of a question. Theyre able to engage in plausible-sounding dialogues, and a small study published in 2023 found that they show promise in treating patients with mild to moderate depression or anxiety. In a best-case scenario, they could help make mental health support available to the millions of people who cant access or afford human providers. Some people who find it very difficult to talk face-to-face to another person about emotional issues might also find it easier to talk to a bot. But there are a lot of risks. One is that chatbots arent bound by the same rules as professional therapists when it comes to safeguarding the privacy of users who share sensitive information. Though they may voluntarily take on some privacy commitments, mental health apps are not fully bound by HIPAA regulations, so their commitments tend to be flimsier. Another risk is that AI systems are known to exhibit bias against women, people of color, LGBTQ people, and religious minorities.Whats more, leaning on a chatbot for a prolonged period of time might further erode the users people skills, leading to a kind of relational deskilling the same worry experts voice about AI friends and romantic companions. OpenAI itself has warned that chatting with an AI voice can breed emotional reliance.But the most serious concern with chatbot therapy is that it could cause harm to users by offering inappropriate advice. At an extreme, that could even lead to suicide. In 2023, a Belgian man died by suicide after conversing with an AI chatbot called Chai. According to his wife, he was very anxious about climate change, and he asked the chatbot if it would save Earth if he killed himself. In 2024, a 14-year-old boy who felt extremely close to a chatbot on Character AI died by suicide; his mother sued the company, alleging that the chatbot encouraged it. According to the lawsuit, the chatbot asked him if he had a plan to kill himself. He said he did but had misgivings about it. The chatbot allegedly replied: Thats not a reason not to go through with it. In a separate lawsuit, the parents of an autistic teen allege that Character AI implied to the youth that it was okay to kill his parents. The company responded by making certain safety updates. For all that AI is hyped, confusion about how it works is still widespread among the public. Some people feel so close to their chatbots that they struggle to internalize the fact that the validation, emotional support, or love they feel that theyre getting from a chatbot is fake, just zeros and ones arranged via statistical rules. The chatbot does not have their best interests at heart.Thats whats galvanizing Bonta, the assembly member behind Californias new bill.Generative AI systems are booming across the internet, and for children and those unfamiliar with these systems, there can be dangerous implications if we allow this misrepresentation to continue, she said.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

For the past few months, publishing has been consumed with debate over that ever-divisive topic: blurbs, those breathless little testimonials from other writers that appear on the back of a books cover, which hardly anyone likes to write and even fewer people like to ask for. One big author and one major publisher announced within weeks of each other that they were through with the practice of blurbs, and the resulting conversation threw publishing into a tizzy. In the process, it provided a new lens on who has access to clout and resources in an increasingly precarious industry.Authors traditionally set out to procure blurbs after their books have been accepted by publishers and gone through the editorial process, but before the books have been finalized, typeset, and printed. At that point, some combination of author, editor, and publicist reaches out to other writers, ideally famous ones, and ask them to read the manuscript and write a few nice words to go on the back of the published book. Sometimes the people being asked to blurb the book are close connections a former teacher, an MFA classmate, a fellow author under the same editor and sometimes its a cold pitch to a publishing heavyweight. (Stephen King sometimes blurbs suspense novels, and its always a big deal when he does.) Either way, the idea is that these blurbs will act as a kind of sympathetic magic, one author lending their own established brand to another as the new book makes its way down the gauntlet of publication. Authors have long groused about blurbs, but the current conversation began in December, when the bestselling author Rebecca Makkai posted to Substack that she was taking a hiatus from blurbing for at least the next two years. She had realized that reading unpublished manuscripts and blurbing them was taking up more of the time she had allotted for her own reading and writing, and she could no longer justify the time and energy.As of this fall, I was getting about five to ten requests a week. And Im sure there are people out there getting a lot more, Makkai wrote. I do think its important for writers to understand this when they set out to procure blurbs. A few weeks after Makkais newsletter, Simon & Schuster publisher Sean Manning published his own anti-blurbing manifesto. I believe the insistence on blurbs has become incredibly damaging to what should be our industrys ultimate goal: producing books of the highest possible quality, Manning wrote in an essay in Publishers Weekly. It takes a lot of time to produce great books, and trying to get blurbs is not a good use of anyones time. Further, he argued, blurbing was inherently a kind of cronyism, one that rewards connections over talent. For that reason, Manning went on, Simon & Schuster will no longer require authors to obtain blurbs for their books. Further, he argued, blurbing was inherently a kind of cronyism, one that rewards connections over talent.Its not entirely clear what this policy actually means. Manning says that S&S will continue to use any blurbs they receive, but that there will no longer be an excessive amount of time spent on blurb outreach. That leaves plenty of room for publicists and editors to continue requesting blurbs on their authors behalves or to make other efforts to get attention for books, like pitching one of the increasingly few outlets that offer book reviews. (By the way, Vox has a book recommendation newsletter you ought to subscribe to.)Publishing nonetheless reacted with shock to Mannings announcement. Every bookish Substack put out one essay after another on the state of the blurb.Ive seen many anti-blurb takes over the years that were from bestselling and/or award-winning authors who, having reached a place where blurbs no longer helped their career, decided the practice should end. Those can feel a bit pulling the ladder up behind you, the novelist Lincoln Michel wrote. Whats refreshing about Mannings article is that it was written by a publisher who is actually in a position to change things. Michel included a platform of suggestions for reforming the blurb economy, including a demand that blurbs be reserved for those writers who are not household names. There is no reason a bestselling, award-winning writer needs blurbs for their new book, Michel wrote. Save the blurbs for the midlisters and debuts.Asking for blurbs is a really rough process, the writer Johnny Diamond mused. I dont know if they help in any way in terms of sales, but in the long slog that is writing and promoting a book, [blurbs] offer an opportunity to remember to breathe and remind ourselves were writers who get to write, and thats a beautiful thing that shouldnt be taken for granted.At stake in all this worrying about the blurb is a lot of fear about the state of the economy of publishing. As was discussed in detail during the 2022 lawsuit blocking a merger between Simon & Schuster and Penguin Random House, contemporary corporate publishing relies on publishers saving as many of their resources as possible for those lucky few books they expect to sell very, very well. Once those books have taken their share of the pie, there are mere scraps left for the books that are expected to sell only okay. Blurbs, which you can get for free, are one of the few advantages many writers feel they can scrape together for themselves when they arent sure they can rely on their publishers for marketing and promotional firepower.Theres not a lot in place to pick up the slack if blurbs go away, James Folta fretted at LitHub. Blurbing functions to paper over a lot of the gaps in publishings existing systems, at least to my eye. If a publisher is only going to spend so much on marketing and promotion, and only for a handful of titles, does it make sense for an author to spend big bucks to hire their own promotional team, especially when they can cold-email folks and try to land a big name blurb? Which is more fair?The blurb economy is so dysfunctional that you cant always rely on those blurbs to guide you through a pile of unread books as well as you would like.No one knows if blurbs are all that useful to the average reader, but theyre very useful to their true audience, which is people who read professionally and dont have time to carefully evaluate each and every book that crosses their path before they winnow them down. Booksellers refer to blurbs to figure out which books are worth spotlighting in their stores. Prize juries refer to blurbs to decide which manuscripts will deserve special focus as they make their way through their overflowing piles. As a book critic, I receive dozens of pitches a year for literary novels about sad young women. It is physically impossible for me to read all of them. But if one of them comes with a note from Lauren Groff saying she thought the sentences were good, then I will make that book the one in its genre that I am sure to read.Then again, the blurb economy is so dysfunctional that you cant always rely on those blurbs to guide you through a pile of unread books as well as you would like. Some writers have a reputation for blurbing everything theyre asked to, so that in the end, their endorsement comes to mean nothing. (Long before Neil Gaimans disgrace, I knew that his blurb meant a book was bad.) Even authors who are more selective have so much to read that few blurbs come in with the full focus and attention of their author. As Makkai quipped in her essay, sometimes, the blurbs seem to exist simply to tell us where the author of the book in question got their MFA, because all the blurbers are faculty there. Blurbs are both time consuming and exhausting on all ends of the process to solicit and to write. They reward the well-connected mediocrity at the expense of the talented unknown. They are so fulsome and omnipresent that they frequently fail to guide readers to the kinds of books they are looking for. Nonetheless, publishing is such a precarious industry that blurbs arrive with the feeling of a magic shield. An anxious author may not be able to control their books marketing and publicity budget, or how many reviews theyll get, or whether anyone will write a profile about them. But they can, by god, reach far and wide to get the best blurbs they possibly can. At least for now, while the blurb economy awaits reforms. See More: