Pesquisar

Ars Technica compartilhou um link

2025-05-16 16:35:35 ·

Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial

Seeking closure

Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial

How many ads is too many? Meta denies ad load harms users in bid to end trial early.

Ashley Belanger

–

May 16, 2025 12:01 pm

|

13

Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., departs federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.

Credit:

Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg

Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., departs federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.

Credit:

Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg

Story text

Size

Small
Standard
Large

Width
*

Standard
Wide

Links

Standard
Orange

* Subscribers only
  Learn more

Meta thinks there's no reason to carry on with its defense after the Federal Trade Commission closed its monopoly case, and the company has moved to end the trial early by claiming that the FTC utterly failed to prove its case.
"The FTC has no proof that Meta has monopoly power," Meta's motion for judgment filed Thursday said, "and therefore the court should rule in favor of Meta."
According to Meta, the FTC failed to show evidence that "the overall quality of Meta’s apps has declined" or that the company shows too many ads to users. Meta says that's "fatal" to the FTC's case that the company wielded monopoly power to pursue more ad revenue while degrading user experience over time. And on top of allegedly showing no evidence of "ad load, privacy, integrity, and features" degradation on Meta apps, Meta argued there's no precedent for an antitrust claim rooted in this alleged harm.
"Meta knows of no case finding monopoly power based solely on a claimed degradation in product quality, and the FTC has cited none," Meta argued.
Meta has maintained throughout the trial that its users actually like seeing ads. In the company's recent motion, Meta argued that the FTC provided no insights into what "the right number of ads" should be, "let alone" provide proof that "Meta showed more ads" than it would in a competitive market where users could easily switch services if ad load became overwhelming.

Further, Meta argued that the FTC did not show evidence that users sharing friends-and-family content were shown more ads. Meta noted that it "does not profit by showing more ads to users who do not click on them," so it only shows more ads to users who click ads.
Meta also insisted that there's "nothing but speculation" showing that Instagram or WhatsApp would have been better off or grown into rivals had Meta not acquired them.
The company claimed that without Meta's resources, Instagram may have died off. Meta noted that Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom testified that his app was “pretty broken and duct-taped” together, making it "vulnerable to spam" before Meta bought it.
Rather than enshittification, what Meta did to Instagram could be considered "a consumer-welfare bonanza," Meta argued, while dismissing "smoking gun" emails from Mark Zuckerberg discussing buying Instagram to bury it as "legally irrelevant."
Dismissing these as "a few dated emails," Meta argued that "efforts to litigate Mr. Zuckerberg’s state of mind before the acquisition in 2012 are pointless."
"What matters is what Meta did," Meta argued, which was pump Instagram with resources that allowed it "to 'thrive'—adding many new features, attracting hundreds of millions and then billions of users, and monetizing with great success."
In the case of WhatsApp, Meta argued that nobody thinks WhatsApp had any intention to pivot to social media when the founders testified that their goal was to never add social features, preferring to offer a simple, clean messaging app. And Meta disputed any claim that it feared Google might buy WhatsApp as the basis for creating a Facebook rival, arguing that "the sole Meta witness tolearn of Google’s acquisition efforts testified that he did not have that worry."

Meta hopes to avoid breakup
The monopoly trial is supposed to run through June, but Meta is hoping that US District Judge James Boasberg will agree that the FTC has failed to make its case and end the trial early.
Granting Meta's motion would remove any threat of a breakup of its family of apps while also letting Meta off the hook of raising its defense. This could spare Meta any potential further embarrassment of having its founder's unvarnished internal emails picked apart in public.
For Boasberg, it will likely come down to the FTC's market definition alleging that Meta dominates and forecloses rivals in a personal social networking services market that Meta says is a "fiction." If Boasberg buys Meta's argument that TikTok is actually Meta's biggest rival—and not Snap or MeWe—Meta could have an easier time shutting down the case.
The FTC has not yet commented on the motion, but the agency was determined to go through with the trial, rejecting a reportedly billion settlement offer from Meta. Holding out for billion, the FTC appeared confident in presenting its case, arguing that TikTok—which attracts users broadcasting to strangers—is not a substitute for Meta's apps, which are designed to connect friends and family. The FTC likely expects to see the trial through to the end, when the agency, in a win, will likely try to force Meta to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp.
That's not necessarily an inevitability in a Meta loss, though. If Boasberg denies Meta's motion, Meta will have to present more evidence and deliver closing arguments before a second phase of the trial would litigate potential remedies.

Ashley Belanger
Senior Policy Reporter

Ashley Belanger
Senior Policy Reporter

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.

13 Comments
#meta #argues #enshittification #isnt #real

Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial
Seeking closure Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial How many ads is too many? Meta denies ad load harms users in bid to end trial early. Ashley Belanger – May 16, 2025 12:01 pm | 13 Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., departs federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 16, 2025. Credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., departs federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 16, 2025. Credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Meta thinks there's no reason to carry on with its defense after the Federal Trade Commission closed its monopoly case, and the company has moved to end the trial early by claiming that the FTC utterly failed to prove its case. "The FTC has no proof that Meta has monopoly power," Meta's motion for judgment filed Thursday said, "and therefore the court should rule in favor of Meta." According to Meta, the FTC failed to show evidence that "the overall quality of Meta’s apps has declined" or that the company shows too many ads to users. Meta says that's "fatal" to the FTC's case that the company wielded monopoly power to pursue more ad revenue while degrading user experience over time. And on top of allegedly showing no evidence of "ad load, privacy, integrity, and features" degradation on Meta apps, Meta argued there's no precedent for an antitrust claim rooted in this alleged harm. "Meta knows of no case finding monopoly power based solely on a claimed degradation in product quality, and the FTC has cited none," Meta argued. Meta has maintained throughout the trial that its users actually like seeing ads. In the company's recent motion, Meta argued that the FTC provided no insights into what "the right number of ads" should be, "let alone" provide proof that "Meta showed more ads" than it would in a competitive market where users could easily switch services if ad load became overwhelming. Further, Meta argued that the FTC did not show evidence that users sharing friends-and-family content were shown more ads. Meta noted that it "does not profit by showing more ads to users who do not click on them," so it only shows more ads to users who click ads. Meta also insisted that there's "nothing but speculation" showing that Instagram or WhatsApp would have been better off or grown into rivals had Meta not acquired them. The company claimed that without Meta's resources, Instagram may have died off. Meta noted that Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom testified that his app was “pretty broken and duct-taped” together, making it "vulnerable to spam" before Meta bought it. Rather than enshittification, what Meta did to Instagram could be considered "a consumer-welfare bonanza," Meta argued, while dismissing "smoking gun" emails from Mark Zuckerberg discussing buying Instagram to bury it as "legally irrelevant." Dismissing these as "a few dated emails," Meta argued that "efforts to litigate Mr. Zuckerberg’s state of mind before the acquisition in 2012 are pointless." "What matters is what Meta did," Meta argued, which was pump Instagram with resources that allowed it "to 'thrive'—adding many new features, attracting hundreds of millions and then billions of users, and monetizing with great success." In the case of WhatsApp, Meta argued that nobody thinks WhatsApp had any intention to pivot to social media when the founders testified that their goal was to never add social features, preferring to offer a simple, clean messaging app. And Meta disputed any claim that it feared Google might buy WhatsApp as the basis for creating a Facebook rival, arguing that "the sole Meta witness tolearn of Google’s acquisition efforts testified that he did not have that worry." Meta hopes to avoid breakup The monopoly trial is supposed to run through June, but Meta is hoping that US District Judge James Boasberg will agree that the FTC has failed to make its case and end the trial early. Granting Meta's motion would remove any threat of a breakup of its family of apps while also letting Meta off the hook of raising its defense. This could spare Meta any potential further embarrassment of having its founder's unvarnished internal emails picked apart in public. For Boasberg, it will likely come down to the FTC's market definition alleging that Meta dominates and forecloses rivals in a personal social networking services market that Meta says is a "fiction." If Boasberg buys Meta's argument that TikTok is actually Meta's biggest rival—and not Snap or MeWe—Meta could have an easier time shutting down the case. The FTC has not yet commented on the motion, but the agency was determined to go through with the trial, rejecting a reportedly billion settlement offer from Meta. Holding out for billion, the FTC appeared confident in presenting its case, arguing that TikTok—which attracts users broadcasting to strangers—is not a substitute for Meta's apps, which are designed to connect friends and family. The FTC likely expects to see the trial through to the end, when the agency, in a win, will likely try to force Meta to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp. That's not necessarily an inevitability in a Meta loss, though. If Boasberg denies Meta's motion, Meta will have to present more evidence and deliver closing arguments before a second phase of the trial would litigate potential remedies. Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter 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. 13 Comments #meta #argues #enshittification #isnt #real

ARSTECHNICA.COM

Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial

Seeking closure Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial How many ads is too many? Meta denies ad load harms users in bid to end trial early. Ashley Belanger – May 16, 2025 12:01 pm | 13 Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., departs federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 16, 2025. Credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., departs federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 16, 2025. Credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Meta thinks there's no reason to carry on with its defense after the Federal Trade Commission closed its monopoly case, and the company has moved to end the trial early by claiming that the FTC utterly failed to prove its case. "The FTC has no proof that Meta has monopoly power," Meta's motion for judgment filed Thursday said, "and therefore the court should rule in favor of Meta." According to Meta, the FTC failed to show evidence that "the overall quality of Meta’s apps has declined" or that the company shows too many ads to users. Meta says that's "fatal" to the FTC's case that the company wielded monopoly power to pursue more ad revenue while degrading user experience over time (an Internet trend known as "enshittification"). And on top of allegedly showing no evidence of "ad load, privacy, integrity, and features" degradation on Meta apps, Meta argued there's no precedent for an antitrust claim rooted in this alleged harm. "Meta knows of no case finding monopoly power based solely on a claimed degradation in product quality, and the FTC has cited none," Meta argued. Meta has maintained throughout the trial that its users actually like seeing ads. In the company's recent motion, Meta argued that the FTC provided no insights into what "the right number of ads" should be, "let alone" provide proof that "Meta showed more ads" than it would in a competitive market where users could easily switch services if ad load became overwhelming. Further, Meta argued that the FTC did not show evidence that users sharing friends-and-family content were shown more ads. Meta noted that it "does not profit by showing more ads to users who do not click on them," so it only shows more ads to users who click ads. Meta also insisted that there's "nothing but speculation" showing that Instagram or WhatsApp would have been better off or grown into rivals had Meta not acquired them. The company claimed that without Meta's resources, Instagram may have died off. Meta noted that Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom testified that his app was “pretty broken and duct-taped” together, making it "vulnerable to spam" before Meta bought it. Rather than enshittification, what Meta did to Instagram could be considered "a consumer-welfare bonanza," Meta argued, while dismissing "smoking gun" emails from Mark Zuckerberg discussing buying Instagram to bury it as "legally irrelevant." Dismissing these as "a few dated emails," Meta argued that "efforts to litigate Mr. Zuckerberg’s state of mind before the acquisition in 2012 are pointless." "What matters is what Meta did," Meta argued, which was pump Instagram with resources that allowed it "to 'thrive'—adding many new features, attracting hundreds of millions and then billions of users, and monetizing with great success." In the case of WhatsApp, Meta argued that nobody thinks WhatsApp had any intention to pivot to social media when the founders testified that their goal was to never add social features, preferring to offer a simple, clean messaging app. And Meta disputed any claim that it feared Google might buy WhatsApp as the basis for creating a Facebook rival, arguing that "the sole Meta witness to (supposedly) learn of Google’s acquisition efforts testified that he did not have that worry." Meta hopes to avoid breakup The monopoly trial is supposed to run through June, but Meta is hoping that US District Judge James Boasberg will agree that the FTC has failed to make its case and end the trial early. Granting Meta's motion would remove any threat of a breakup of its family of apps while also letting Meta off the hook of raising its defense. This could spare Meta any potential further embarrassment of having its founder's unvarnished internal emails picked apart in public. For Boasberg, it will likely come down to the FTC's market definition alleging that Meta dominates and forecloses rivals in a personal social networking services market that Meta says is a "fiction." If Boasberg buys Meta's argument that TikTok is actually Meta's biggest rival—and not Snap or MeWe—Meta could have an easier time shutting down the case. The FTC has not yet commented on the motion, but the agency was determined to go through with the trial, rejecting a reportedly $1 billion settlement offer from Meta. Holding out for $30 billion, the FTC appeared confident in presenting its case, arguing that TikTok—which attracts users broadcasting to strangers—is not a substitute for Meta's apps, which are designed to connect friends and family. The FTC likely expects to see the trial through to the end, when the agency, in a win, will likely try to force Meta to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp. That's not necessarily an inevitability in a Meta loss, though. If Boasberg denies Meta's motion, Meta will have to present more evidence and deliver closing arguments before a second phase of the trial would litigate potential remedies. Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter 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. 13 Comments

·165 Visualizações

Faça o login para curtir, compartilhar e comentar!
Lifehacker compartilhou um link

2025-05-15 18:48:55 ·

How to Stock a 'Tariff Pantry'

Americans are living through interesting times, economically. The tariffs imposed, delayed, and frequently adjusted by the government have thrown household budgets into confusion. One thing that’s pretty certain is that the baseline tariffs applied to just about every country are likely to raise prices at the grocery store no matter what happens from here.For families that are already struggling to make their grocery budgets work, this is unwelcome news, but there is one thing you can do right now—while prices are still largely unaffected by tariff chaos—to help mitigate the impact and protect you from future grocery inflation: start putting together a “tariff pantry.” This involves laying in a supply of nonperishable groceries to lock in today’s prices, and focusing on recipes and meals that will keep your grocery costs down in the coming months. Here's what to consider.How to plan out your tariff pantrySetting up a “tariff pantry” requires a little planning. “Take inventory first,” advises food blogger and bestselling cookbook author Kyndra Holley. “Know what you already have and make a list of essentials—stick to long-lasting pantry staples you actually use. Stock up gradually. Monitor prices and buy when it makes sense, not out of fear. Then set a budget and stick to it: Decide how much you can spend and avoid impulse buys or panic stockpiling. Buy what you already use when it’s discounted—don’t get lured by deals on items you wouldn’t otherwise use or need.”Holley also warns against relying too much on bulk-buying. “Bulk can save money—but only if you’ll use it,” she says. “Always check unit prices and shelf life, and don’t buy more than you can store safely. Use airtight containers and freeze what you can’t use quickly.”Changing your whole diet and meal-planning approach can help deal with tariff cost increases. “Go more plant-based,” Holley suggests. “Reduce meat and opt for beans, lentils, eggs, and grains. They’re cheaper, filling, and shelf-stable. One-pot, sheet-pan, and slow cooker meals use fewer ingredients and repurpose leftovers easily. And simplify recipes—use fewer, local ingredients. Stick to basic seasonings like garlic, onions, vinegar, and herbs.”Careful meal prepping can also reduce waste and make the most of items bought in bulk. “When you cook in bulk, you maximize every ingredient, stretching your dollars further,” says Laurie Hise, founder of the budgeting blog Passionate Penny Pincher. “Think buying meat in family packs, prepping meals in batches, and locking in today’s prices before more inflation sneaks in!”Hise also suggests broadening your grocery store choices. “Don’t put loyalty above savings! Make sure Aldi is in your store rotation, and scan weekly ads to get your must-haves for the cheapest. Eggs are almost always the cheapest there, they have a great Keto and Gluten Free selection, and you can buy meat for cheap on Wednesdays.”What to stock in a tariff pantryAlthough the blanket tariffs imposed will likely raise prices in general, the grocery items most likely to be affected by tariffs include fresh fruits and vegetables, coffee, cheese, olive oil, seafood, nuts, and candy. Aside from dodging future price hikes, you want to focus on items in those categories that have lengthy shelf lives and flexible uses. “Stock up on items that are both cost-effective, long-lasting, and versatile,” Holley advises, including:Grains and legumes, like rice, pasta, lentils, dried beans, and oats.Canned and frozen goods. “A variety of canned tomatoesare perfect for sauces, soups, and stews,” Holley notes. “Canned vegetables and fruits can be stored for long periods, and frozen vegetables are often cheaper than fresh, and retain nutrients. And canned tuna or salmon are protein-rich and shelf-stable.”Baking ingredients like flour, sugar, yeast, baking soda, baking powder, and cornstarch. “Basic ingredients for a wide range of uses,” notes Holley.Shelf-stable dairy and dairy alternatives like powdered or evaporated milk can be rehydrated and used for baking, cooking, or even drinking, protecting you from price spikes on the fresh stuff.Oils and vinegars are likely to go up in price and are useful in cooking, dressing, and preserving food.Seasonings and spices—the U.S. imports a lot of spices from countries like India, China, and Peru, so they’re vulnerable to tariff price spikes. Laying in a supply of herbs and spices like salt and pepper, garlic and onion powder, paprika, chili powder, ginger, basil, parsley oregano, thyme, as well as soy sauce, hot sauce, mustard, and bouillon cubes will help ride out any disruptions or price hikes in the seasonings aisle.Nuts and seeds—Holley recommends adding a supply of peanut butter or almond butter. “They’re high in protein, and last a long time.”Coffee and tea. “Tea is a low-cost way to diversify your drink options,” notes Holley.Canned meats and proteins. “Canned chicken or Spam can be used in a variety of meals, especially in emergencies,” Holley notes. “And canned ham or sausage can add protein and are good for quick meals.”Building up a tariff pantry will pay off even if the impact of those tariffs is overestimated—as we all know too well, prices never go down.
#how #stock #039tariff #pantry039

How to Stock a 'Tariff Pantry'
Americans are living through interesting times, economically. The tariffs imposed, delayed, and frequently adjusted by the government have thrown household budgets into confusion. One thing that’s pretty certain is that the baseline tariffs applied to just about every country are likely to raise prices at the grocery store no matter what happens from here.For families that are already struggling to make their grocery budgets work, this is unwelcome news, but there is one thing you can do right now—while prices are still largely unaffected by tariff chaos—to help mitigate the impact and protect you from future grocery inflation: start putting together a “tariff pantry.” This involves laying in a supply of nonperishable groceries to lock in today’s prices, and focusing on recipes and meals that will keep your grocery costs down in the coming months. Here's what to consider.How to plan out your tariff pantrySetting up a “tariff pantry” requires a little planning. “Take inventory first,” advises food blogger and bestselling cookbook author Kyndra Holley. “Know what you already have and make a list of essentials—stick to long-lasting pantry staples you actually use. Stock up gradually. Monitor prices and buy when it makes sense, not out of fear. Then set a budget and stick to it: Decide how much you can spend and avoid impulse buys or panic stockpiling. Buy what you already use when it’s discounted—don’t get lured by deals on items you wouldn’t otherwise use or need.”Holley also warns against relying too much on bulk-buying. “Bulk can save money—but only if you’ll use it,” she says. “Always check unit prices and shelf life, and don’t buy more than you can store safely. Use airtight containers and freeze what you can’t use quickly.”Changing your whole diet and meal-planning approach can help deal with tariff cost increases. “Go more plant-based,” Holley suggests. “Reduce meat and opt for beans, lentils, eggs, and grains. They’re cheaper, filling, and shelf-stable. One-pot, sheet-pan, and slow cooker meals use fewer ingredients and repurpose leftovers easily. And simplify recipes—use fewer, local ingredients. Stick to basic seasonings like garlic, onions, vinegar, and herbs.”Careful meal prepping can also reduce waste and make the most of items bought in bulk. “When you cook in bulk, you maximize every ingredient, stretching your dollars further,” says Laurie Hise, founder of the budgeting blog Passionate Penny Pincher. “Think buying meat in family packs, prepping meals in batches, and locking in today’s prices before more inflation sneaks in!”Hise also suggests broadening your grocery store choices. “Don’t put loyalty above savings! Make sure Aldi is in your store rotation, and scan weekly ads to get your must-haves for the cheapest. Eggs are almost always the cheapest there, they have a great Keto and Gluten Free selection, and you can buy meat for cheap on Wednesdays.”What to stock in a tariff pantryAlthough the blanket tariffs imposed will likely raise prices in general, the grocery items most likely to be affected by tariffs include fresh fruits and vegetables, coffee, cheese, olive oil, seafood, nuts, and candy. Aside from dodging future price hikes, you want to focus on items in those categories that have lengthy shelf lives and flexible uses. “Stock up on items that are both cost-effective, long-lasting, and versatile,” Holley advises, including:Grains and legumes, like rice, pasta, lentils, dried beans, and oats.Canned and frozen goods. “A variety of canned tomatoesare perfect for sauces, soups, and stews,” Holley notes. “Canned vegetables and fruits can be stored for long periods, and frozen vegetables are often cheaper than fresh, and retain nutrients. And canned tuna or salmon are protein-rich and shelf-stable.”Baking ingredients like flour, sugar, yeast, baking soda, baking powder, and cornstarch. “Basic ingredients for a wide range of uses,” notes Holley.Shelf-stable dairy and dairy alternatives like powdered or evaporated milk can be rehydrated and used for baking, cooking, or even drinking, protecting you from price spikes on the fresh stuff.Oils and vinegars are likely to go up in price and are useful in cooking, dressing, and preserving food.Seasonings and spices—the U.S. imports a lot of spices from countries like India, China, and Peru, so they’re vulnerable to tariff price spikes. Laying in a supply of herbs and spices like salt and pepper, garlic and onion powder, paprika, chili powder, ginger, basil, parsley oregano, thyme, as well as soy sauce, hot sauce, mustard, and bouillon cubes will help ride out any disruptions or price hikes in the seasonings aisle.Nuts and seeds—Holley recommends adding a supply of peanut butter or almond butter. “They’re high in protein, and last a long time.”Coffee and tea. “Tea is a low-cost way to diversify your drink options,” notes Holley.Canned meats and proteins. “Canned chicken or Spam can be used in a variety of meals, especially in emergencies,” Holley notes. “And canned ham or sausage can add protein and are good for quick meals.”Building up a tariff pantry will pay off even if the impact of those tariffs is overestimated—as we all know too well, prices never go down. #how #stock #039tariff #pantry039

LIFEHACKER.COM

How to Stock a 'Tariff Pantry'

Americans are living through interesting times, economically. The tariffs imposed, delayed, and frequently adjusted by the government have thrown household budgets into confusion. One thing that’s pretty certain is that the baseline tariffs applied to just about every country are likely to raise prices at the grocery store no matter what happens from here (prices could go up by about 3% overall).For families that are already struggling to make their grocery budgets work, this is unwelcome news, but there is one thing you can do right now—while prices are still largely unaffected by tariff chaos—to help mitigate the impact and protect you from future grocery inflation: start putting together a “tariff pantry.” This involves laying in a supply of nonperishable groceries to lock in today’s prices, and focusing on recipes and meals that will keep your grocery costs down in the coming months. Here's what to consider.How to plan out your tariff pantrySetting up a “tariff pantry” requires a little planning. “Take inventory first,” advises food blogger and bestselling cookbook author Kyndra Holley. “Know what you already have and make a list of essentials—stick to long-lasting pantry staples you actually use. Stock up gradually. Monitor prices and buy when it makes sense, not out of fear. Then set a budget and stick to it: Decide how much you can spend and avoid impulse buys or panic stockpiling. Buy what you already use when it’s discounted—don’t get lured by deals on items you wouldn’t otherwise use or need.”Holley also warns against relying too much on bulk-buying. “Bulk can save money—but only if you’ll use it,” she says. “Always check unit prices and shelf life, and don’t buy more than you can store safely. Use airtight containers and freeze what you can’t use quickly.”Changing your whole diet and meal-planning approach can help deal with tariff cost increases. “Go more plant-based,” Holley suggests. “Reduce meat and opt for beans, lentils, eggs, and grains. They’re cheaper, filling, and shelf-stable. One-pot, sheet-pan, and slow cooker meals use fewer ingredients and repurpose leftovers easily. And simplify recipes—use fewer, local ingredients. Stick to basic seasonings like garlic, onions, vinegar, and herbs.”Careful meal prepping can also reduce waste and make the most of items bought in bulk. “When you cook in bulk, you maximize every ingredient, stretching your dollars further,” says Laurie Hise, founder of the budgeting blog Passionate Penny Pincher. “Think buying meat in family packs, prepping meals in batches, and locking in today’s prices before more inflation sneaks in!”Hise also suggests broadening your grocery store choices. “Don’t put loyalty above savings! Make sure Aldi is in your store rotation, and scan weekly ads to get your must-haves for the cheapest. Eggs are almost always the cheapest there, they have a great Keto and Gluten Free selection, and you can buy meat for cheap on Wednesdays.”What to stock in a tariff pantryAlthough the blanket tariffs imposed will likely raise prices in general, the grocery items most likely to be affected by tariffs include fresh fruits and vegetables (the bulk of which are imported), coffee, cheese, olive oil, seafood, nuts, and candy. Aside from dodging future price hikes, you want to focus on items in those categories that have lengthy shelf lives and flexible uses. “Stock up on items that are both cost-effective, long-lasting, and versatile,” Holley advises, including:Grains and legumes, like rice, pasta, lentils, dried beans, and oats.Canned and frozen goods. “A variety of canned tomatoes (whole, diced, crushed) are perfect for sauces, soups, and stews,” Holley notes. “Canned vegetables and fruits can be stored for long periods, and frozen vegetables are often cheaper than fresh, and retain nutrients. And canned tuna or salmon are protein-rich and shelf-stable.”Baking ingredients like flour, sugar, yeast, baking soda, baking powder, and cornstarch. “Basic ingredients for a wide range of uses,” notes Holley.Shelf-stable dairy and dairy alternatives like powdered or evaporated milk can be rehydrated and used for baking, cooking, or even drinking, protecting you from price spikes on the fresh stuff.Oils and vinegars are likely to go up in price and are useful in cooking, dressing, and preserving food.Seasonings and spices—the U.S. imports a lot of spices from countries like India, China, and Peru, so they’re vulnerable to tariff price spikes. Laying in a supply of herbs and spices like salt and pepper, garlic and onion powder, paprika, chili powder, ginger, basil, parsley oregano, thyme, as well as soy sauce, hot sauce, mustard, and bouillon cubes will help ride out any disruptions or price hikes in the seasonings aisle.Nuts and seeds—Holley recommends adding a supply of peanut butter or almond butter. “They’re high in protein, and last a long time.”Coffee and tea. “Tea is a low-cost way to diversify your drink options,” notes Holley.Canned meats and proteins. “Canned chicken or Spam can be used in a variety of meals, especially in emergencies,” Holley notes. “And canned ham or sausage can add protein and are good for quick meals.”Building up a tariff pantry will pay off even if the impact of those tariffs is overestimated—as we all know too well, prices never go down.

·227 Visualizações

Faça o login para curtir, compartilhar e comentar!
Fox News compartilhou um link

2025-05-15 16:32:59 ·

What hackers can learn about you from a data broker file

Join Fox News for access to this content You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading. By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News' Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.
Please enter a valid email address. Hackers are pretty scary. Amoral, hooded figures with magical computer skills that can break into anything within minutes. At least that is what most of us think of when we hear the term "hacker." It is not exactly a realistic or particularly representative image, but, at the same time, it is not too far off the mark either. What many people do not realize is just how much hackers can learn about you from a data broker file, detailed profiles compiled from your personal information collected and sold by data brokers. This hidden industry fuels much of what hackers use to target individuals today. Illustration of a person’s personal data.What is a data broker, and why should you care?When most people hear the term "data broker," on the other hand, they draw a blank. Is it a person or company that buys and sells data? Basically, yes. Data brokers collect, sort, analyze, package and sell access to personal information. Whose personal information? Anyone's and everyone's, including yours.THINK YOU CAN DELETE YOUR DATA YOURSELF? HERE’S WHY YOU’RE PROBABLY WRONG Illustration of a person’s personal data.What kinds of personal information do they deal in?Here is a list of possible data points you, random companies, your worst enemy, your neighbors and, yes, hackers can find in a data broker file:Full namePast legal namesKnown aliasesSocial media handlesGenderSexual preferencesDate of birth or ageSocial Security numberCurrent and past home addressesCurrent and past phone numbersCurrent, past and secret email addressesPolitical preferences and affiliationsOccupationCurrent employerEmployment historyBusiness associatesEducationMarital statusMarriage and divorce recordsFamily statusRelativesProperty informationVehicle registrationAssetsFinancial informationBankruptcies, judgments and liensLicensesCourt recordsCriminal recordsMugshotsSex-offender statusHealth historyLocation dataIP informationDevice informationWeb browser informationShopping habitsInterests and hobbies.Quite the list, is it not? It is not exhaustive; there is more that data brokers collect and more yet that they and their customers can infer from data points like these. What exactly a given data broker has will depend on which category it falls into.HACKERS CLAIM MASSIVE BREACH OF COMPANY THAT TRACKS AND SELLS AMERICANS' LOCATION DATA Illustration of a person’s personal data.Types of data brokers: Who's collecting and selling your information?The most visible data brokers are commonly known as people search sites or people finder sites. These are the sites that show up when you Google yourself, or a hacker Googles you. They are just the tip of the iceberg, though. There are other data brokers that do not bother indexing individual profiles with search engines, preferring instead to deal with other companies and even governments directly. These are the other major types of data brokers, in addition to people search sites:Marketing data brokers focus more on your browsing habits, past purchases and interests. They are responsible for "personalized marketing" as well as helping other companies target you with those surprisingly relevant ads you see online.Recruitment data brokers collect and process personal information to offer background screening services to organizations evaluating job candidates or performing background checks before making an offer. Unfortunately, although illegal, there is nothing actually stopping unscrupulous employers from using the much less regulated and reliable people search sites for the same purposes.Risk mitigation brokers aggregate a variety of background, criminal, property and other information to provide assessment reports to various investment and business companies. The information they collect is aimed at helping such companies manage risk in taking on new business.Financial information brokers collect various personal finance and background information for credit companies and banks to calculate your credit score and may influence your eligibility to get loans and lines of credit.Health information data brokers collect information about your general health and sell it to companies in healthcare and related fields. This information can be used to target you with health product ads and even set your insurance premiums.Hackers are most likely to use people search sites, though; they are easily accessible, eminently searchable, relatively cheapand do not ask any questions. Other data brokers may also sell personal information to hackers, but they tend to sell profiles in bulk.Want your data taken off this market?It is perfectly normal to want no part in any of this. Unfortunately, there is no federal law on the books in the U.S. that would either prevent this kind of data trade or give you an easy, legally enforced way to opt out.The good news is that, thanks to an incomplete patchwork of state laws, personal information removal services can approach hundreds of individual data brokers on your behalf with legally binding data-removal requests.While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice. They aren’t cheap — and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites. It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you. Check out my top picks for data removal services here. Kurt's key takeawaysIt is easy to feel overwhelmed when you realize just how much of your personal information is out there, and how many different players are collecting, selling and using it. But knowing how data brokers operate is the first step to taking back control. Whether it is people search sites or the less visible brokers working behind the scenes, your data is valuable, and you deserve to know who has it and what they are doing with it. The good news is, there are tools and services out there that can help you clean up your digital footprint and protect your privacy. So, do not just sit back and hope for the best — take action and make your data work for you, not against you.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPIn your opinion, what should be done to give people more control over their data? Let us know by writing us at Cyberguy.com/ContactFor more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/NewsletterAsk Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
#what #hackers #can #learn #about

What hackers can learn about you from a data broker file
Join Fox News for access to this content You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading. By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News' Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. Please enter a valid email address. Hackers are pretty scary. Amoral, hooded figures with magical computer skills that can break into anything within minutes. At least that is what most of us think of when we hear the term "hacker." It is not exactly a realistic or particularly representative image, but, at the same time, it is not too far off the mark either. What many people do not realize is just how much hackers can learn about you from a data broker file, detailed profiles compiled from your personal information collected and sold by data brokers. This hidden industry fuels much of what hackers use to target individuals today. Illustration of a person’s personal data.What is a data broker, and why should you care?When most people hear the term "data broker," on the other hand, they draw a blank. Is it a person or company that buys and sells data? Basically, yes. Data brokers collect, sort, analyze, package and sell access to personal information. Whose personal information? Anyone's and everyone's, including yours.THINK YOU CAN DELETE YOUR DATA YOURSELF? HERE’S WHY YOU’RE PROBABLY WRONG Illustration of a person’s personal data.What kinds of personal information do they deal in?Here is a list of possible data points you, random companies, your worst enemy, your neighbors and, yes, hackers can find in a data broker file:Full namePast legal namesKnown aliasesSocial media handlesGenderSexual preferencesDate of birth or ageSocial Security numberCurrent and past home addressesCurrent and past phone numbersCurrent, past and secret email addressesPolitical preferences and affiliationsOccupationCurrent employerEmployment historyBusiness associatesEducationMarital statusMarriage and divorce recordsFamily statusRelativesProperty informationVehicle registrationAssetsFinancial informationBankruptcies, judgments and liensLicensesCourt recordsCriminal recordsMugshotsSex-offender statusHealth historyLocation dataIP informationDevice informationWeb browser informationShopping habitsInterests and hobbies.Quite the list, is it not? It is not exhaustive; there is more that data brokers collect and more yet that they and their customers can infer from data points like these. What exactly a given data broker has will depend on which category it falls into.HACKERS CLAIM MASSIVE BREACH OF COMPANY THAT TRACKS AND SELLS AMERICANS' LOCATION DATA Illustration of a person’s personal data.Types of data brokers: Who's collecting and selling your information?The most visible data brokers are commonly known as people search sites or people finder sites. These are the sites that show up when you Google yourself, or a hacker Googles you. They are just the tip of the iceberg, though. There are other data brokers that do not bother indexing individual profiles with search engines, preferring instead to deal with other companies and even governments directly. These are the other major types of data brokers, in addition to people search sites:Marketing data brokers focus more on your browsing habits, past purchases and interests. They are responsible for "personalized marketing" as well as helping other companies target you with those surprisingly relevant ads you see online.Recruitment data brokers collect and process personal information to offer background screening services to organizations evaluating job candidates or performing background checks before making an offer. Unfortunately, although illegal, there is nothing actually stopping unscrupulous employers from using the much less regulated and reliable people search sites for the same purposes.Risk mitigation brokers aggregate a variety of background, criminal, property and other information to provide assessment reports to various investment and business companies. The information they collect is aimed at helping such companies manage risk in taking on new business.Financial information brokers collect various personal finance and background information for credit companies and banks to calculate your credit score and may influence your eligibility to get loans and lines of credit.Health information data brokers collect information about your general health and sell it to companies in healthcare and related fields. This information can be used to target you with health product ads and even set your insurance premiums.Hackers are most likely to use people search sites, though; they are easily accessible, eminently searchable, relatively cheapand do not ask any questions. Other data brokers may also sell personal information to hackers, but they tend to sell profiles in bulk.Want your data taken off this market?It is perfectly normal to want no part in any of this. Unfortunately, there is no federal law on the books in the U.S. that would either prevent this kind of data trade or give you an easy, legally enforced way to opt out.The good news is that, thanks to an incomplete patchwork of state laws, personal information removal services can approach hundreds of individual data brokers on your behalf with legally binding data-removal requests.While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice. They aren’t cheap — and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites. It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you. Check out my top picks for data removal services here. Kurt's key takeawaysIt is easy to feel overwhelmed when you realize just how much of your personal information is out there, and how many different players are collecting, selling and using it. But knowing how data brokers operate is the first step to taking back control. Whether it is people search sites or the less visible brokers working behind the scenes, your data is valuable, and you deserve to know who has it and what they are doing with it. The good news is, there are tools and services out there that can help you clean up your digital footprint and protect your privacy. So, do not just sit back and hope for the best — take action and make your data work for you, not against you.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPIn your opinion, what should be done to give people more control over their data? Let us know by writing us at Cyberguy.com/ContactFor more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/NewsletterAsk Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.   #what #hackers #can #learn #about

WWW.FOXNEWS.COM

What hackers can learn about you from a data broker file

Join Fox News for access to this content You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading. By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News' Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. Please enter a valid email address. Hackers are pretty scary. Amoral, hooded figures with magical computer skills that can break into anything within minutes. At least that is what most of us think of when we hear the term "hacker." It is not exactly a realistic or particularly representative image, but, at the same time, it is not too far off the mark either. What many people do not realize is just how much hackers can learn about you from a data broker file, detailed profiles compiled from your personal information collected and sold by data brokers. This hidden industry fuels much of what hackers use to target individuals today. Illustration of a person’s personal data. (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)What is a data broker, and why should you care?When most people hear the term "data broker," on the other hand, they draw a blank. Is it a person or company that buys and sells data? Basically, yes. Data brokers collect, sort, analyze, package and sell access to personal information. Whose personal information? Anyone's and everyone's, including yours.THINK YOU CAN DELETE YOUR DATA YOURSELF? HERE’S WHY YOU’RE PROBABLY WRONG Illustration of a person’s personal data. (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)What kinds of personal information do they deal in?Here is a list of possible data points you, random companies, your worst enemy, your neighbors and, yes, hackers can find in a data broker file:Full namePast legal namesKnown aliasesSocial media handlesGenderSexual preferencesDate of birth or ageSocial Security number (SSN)Current and past home addressesCurrent and past phone numbersCurrent, past and secret email addressesPolitical preferences and affiliationsOccupationCurrent employerEmployment historyBusiness associatesEducationMarital statusMarriage and divorce recordsFamily status (number and ages of children)RelativesProperty informationVehicle registrationAssetsFinancial informationBankruptcies, judgments and liensLicenses (drivers license, firearms permits, etc.)Court recordsCriminal recordsMugshotsSex-offender statusHealth historyLocation dataIP informationDevice information (phone, tablet and computer models)Web browser informationShopping habitsInterests and hobbies.Quite the list, is it not? It is not exhaustive; there is more that data brokers collect and more yet that they and their customers can infer from data points like these. What exactly a given data broker has will depend on which category it falls into.HACKERS CLAIM MASSIVE BREACH OF COMPANY THAT TRACKS AND SELLS AMERICANS' LOCATION DATA Illustration of a person’s personal data. (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)Types of data brokers: Who's collecting and selling your information?The most visible data brokers are commonly known as people search sites or people finder sites. These are the sites that show up when you Google yourself, or a hacker Googles you. They are just the tip of the iceberg, though. There are other data brokers that do not bother indexing individual profiles with search engines, preferring instead to deal with other companies and even governments directly. These are the other major types of data brokers, in addition to people search sites:Marketing data brokers focus more on your browsing habits, past purchases and interests. They are responsible for "personalized marketing" as well as helping other companies target you with those surprisingly relevant ads you see online.Recruitment data brokers collect and process personal information to offer background screening services to organizations evaluating job candidates or performing background checks before making an offer. Unfortunately, although illegal, there is nothing actually stopping unscrupulous employers from using the much less regulated and reliable people search sites for the same purposes.Risk mitigation brokers aggregate a variety of background, criminal, property and other information to provide assessment reports to various investment and business companies. The information they collect is aimed at helping such companies manage risk in taking on new business.Financial information brokers collect various personal finance and background information for credit companies and banks to calculate your credit score and may influence your eligibility to get loans and lines of credit.Health information data brokers collect information about your general health and sell it to companies in healthcare and related fields. This information can be used to target you with health product ads and even set your insurance premiums.Hackers are most likely to use people search sites, though; they are easily accessible, eminently searchable, relatively cheap (with trial offers for as little as a dollar) and do not ask any questions. Other data brokers may also sell personal information to hackers, but they tend to sell profiles in bulk.Want your data taken off this market?It is perfectly normal to want no part in any of this. Unfortunately, there is no federal law on the books in the U.S. that would either prevent this kind of data trade or give you an easy, legally enforced way to opt out.The good news is that, thanks to an incomplete patchwork of state laws, personal information removal services can approach hundreds of individual data brokers on your behalf with legally binding data-removal requests.While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice. They aren’t cheap — and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites. It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you. Check out my top picks for data removal services here. Kurt's key takeawaysIt is easy to feel overwhelmed when you realize just how much of your personal information is out there, and how many different players are collecting, selling and using it. But knowing how data brokers operate is the first step to taking back control. Whether it is people search sites or the less visible brokers working behind the scenes, your data is valuable, and you deserve to know who has it and what they are doing with it. The good news is, there are tools and services out there that can help you clean up your digital footprint and protect your privacy. So, do not just sit back and hope for the best — take action and make your data work for you, not against you.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPIn your opinion, what should be done to give people more control over their data? Let us know by writing us at Cyberguy.com/ContactFor more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/NewsletterAsk Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

·260 Visualizações

Faça o login para curtir, compartilhar e comentar!
Metro compartilhou um link

2025-05-15 04:33:48 ·

Games Inbox: Is there going to be a PS5 State of Play this summer?

At least Ghost Of Yōtei is out this yearThe Thursday letters page worries what will happen if the new Marvel games are flops, as one reader laments the slow death of physical games.
To join in with the discussions yourself email gamecentral@metro.co.uk
Summer schedule
I really hope that Sony is planning to make more first party games but I have a feeling there’s no going back to how things were. It’s been too long and too much has changed, including Sony still selling tons of PlayStation 5s even without any proper exclusives and Xbox going multiformat.I think it’s reasonable to hope they will do more though. We can’t stop them making any more live service games but they do seem to at least be slowing down a bit. The problem is that slowing up doesn’t mean they’ll speed up with single-player games instead. They could just end up making less overall, like they have over the last few years.
We’ve got Ghost Of Yōtei this year, which I’m not super excited aboutbut I am very interested in seeing Returnal follow-up Saros next year, so hopefully things are slowly turning around.
I want to be optimistic, but the problem is there’s no sign of Sony having a not-E3 State of Play showcase this summer. The past two years they’ve had it at the end of May and I think we’ve probably gone past the point they were going to announce it if it was happening. I hope I’m wrong, or maybe it’s later in June for some reason, but it doesn’t look good.RaeBonn
Your story is another castle
I see the Super Mario Bros. Movie sequel has had its name leaked as Super Mario World. I’m not sure your average Joe is going to get that reference, but would they actually bother doing an adaptation of the game’s story? Does the game even have a story? I’ve beaten it twice and I honestly can’t remember.Looking at Wikipedia, apparently it was all in the manual and basically Bowser kidnapped Peach and some dinosaur eggs. There’s so little to work with I really have no idea what direction any of these films could do to justify themselves as anything other than a cash-in. The Paper Mario games are the only ones with an actual plot, but even then that’s not what’s good about them.Austin
Risky business
I’ve got a bad feeling about these upcoming Marvel games. I imagine Wolverine will be fine, but that Iron Man game will be almost two decades too late by the time it comes out. And I can’t believe many people are interested in a Captain America and Black Panther team-up set in World War 2.Normally I’d just shrug my shoulders and write it off as an incoming flop but nowadays that means the whole studio could go down and how many hundreds of people are working on these two games?
I’m not exaggerating either. Consider what happened to Firaxis after theMidnight Suns flopped. All the lead developers left, the studio was fractured, and now we’ll never get an XCOM 3.
I don’t know these developers behind Iron Man and the other one as well, but I do know that lots of jobs are now in danger, just because EA was late jumping on a bandwagon.Cerates
Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk
Reliable reputation
Glad to hear GC got Power Stone back and I like the sound of all the effort Capcom put into the collection and the reasonable price. I’ve never really been into fighting games, so it’s not really of interest to me. But it Does make me think better of Capcom, for when something else I am interested in comes up.I wish this was something other publishers thought of, especially as Capcom is doing so well, financially speaking, at the moment. But unfortunately EA and Activision, and even Ubisoft to a degree, just rely on their big franchises and don’t really put out much else anyway.
Sony is another example of doing this well, because their reputation for first party games really wasn’t that great until the PlayStation 4. They just built it up and became someone to rely on. Them throwing that all away now is so strange.Griefer
Money issue
I’ve been thinking for a while now about this, but Sony could take Xbox out the console market with just one sentence. You can put Game Pass on PlayStation. There wouldn’t be any need for an Xbox and we know Phil wants it on there.Why Sony won’t do that I’ll never know. It’s a win/win for Sony. You never know, Sony might allow them sooner or later and Xbox can go the way of Sega, just with a hell of a lot more money and just to make games.David
GC: They won’t do it because they make more money selling games on their store. Although they may change their mind in time, because they’ve begun to make more selling microtransactions than actual games.
And another thing
You know, I have been witnessing quite a bit of clamour over the last few days. More or less a lot of complaining and quite a stir of negativity. I’ve seen GTA 6 fall surprisingly prey to this. Either people have issues with the inevitably violent content, the sex or the aged fable of controversy. My take is my bond and I say that I gladly welcome the gratuitous violence, the sex, and the glory glitz of Leonida.Because I’ve waited over 12 years for an evolution and no echoes of bemusement will deter me from my course of securing the collector’s edition as soon as possible. If that includes a statue or early access I will be immensely satisfied.
My second point is the Nintendo Switch 2. I’ve already mentioned that I secured the Mario Kart World bundle from Amazon and I acknowledge the bricking controversy. But modding isn’t my cup of tea, so Nintendo has nothing to worry about. I’d rather emulate PlayStation 2 games anyway.
Thirdly, the PlayStation 6. It matters not the price, storage, exclusives or specs. I’m buying this system, as I did the PlayStation 5. Day one. If it arrives in 2027, the merrier it is for me. I will very much take great stride in playing Horizon Zero Dawn 3 and many other titles.Shahzaib Sadiq
Mum’s the word
I was wondering when we might get some concrete thoughts about the Switch 2 launch games?Is there an embargo about when Switch 2 games are able to be reviewed? Or perhaps there is an embargo on when you can talk about an embargo, nothing from Nintendo would surprise me.Mark
GC: There’s always an embargo on when we can talk about an embargo, but especially when it involves Nintendo.
Facing defeat
I know the war was lost long agobut it is so tragic to see how small a part of gaming physical copies are now. I don’t know anyone, amongst my friends or family, that buys physical copies anymore and what would be the point anyway, when they’re not even stored on the disc?.Perhaps it was inevitable, since even if the initial game is on the disc it gets distorted and expanded by updates the second you put it in a console but it’s the fact that there’s literally no benefit to digital. People talk about convenience but what convenience? Not having to change discs is just silly and lazy.
And it takes time to buy a physical copy? I could drive to the shops and back quicker that it takes me to download a modern game. Not that I’m in the habit of paying out £60 on a whim, that I suddenly decide I have to have a new game right then and there.
Gaming got infinitely more expensive as soon as it became more difficult to sell on your games, especially with eBay’s new payment rules. But apparently nobody cares. Maybe everyone else is a millionaire all of a sudden, and I didn’t get the memo, but the death of physical is just handing more control to publishers and taking more cash out of the wallets of ordinary people.Rufus
Inbox also-rans
Just watched the Borderlands movie on Amazon. It’s no Fallout or The Last Of Us but it’s not that bad. I particularly liked Jack Black as the annoying android Claptrap. They should make a Brütal Legend movie – it would have a great soundtrack. Think I will check out the Like A Dragon movie next.Johnny Alpha SDCurrently playing: Doom Eternal and Call Of Duty: Black Ops 6Thanks for the heads-up on Very, I managed to get my bundle with a camera so I’m very excited now. I went back and checked and it’s still live though, which seems weird given no one else has any stock at all.Boysie

More Trending

Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk
The small printNew Inbox updates appear every weekday morning, with special Hot Topic Inboxes at the weekend. Readers’ letters are used on merit and may be edited for length and content.
You can also submit your own 500 to 600-word Reader’s Feature at any time via email or our Submit Stuff page, which if used will be shown in the next available weekend slot.
You can also leave your comments below and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter.
Arrow
MORE: Games Inbox: Is it weird to not like GTA games?

GameCentral
Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy
#games #inbox #there #going #ps5

Games Inbox: Is there going to be a PS5 State of Play this summer?
At least Ghost Of Yōtei is out this yearThe Thursday letters page worries what will happen if the new Marvel games are flops, as one reader laments the slow death of physical games. To join in with the discussions yourself email gamecentral@metro.co.uk Summer schedule I really hope that Sony is planning to make more first party games but I have a feeling there’s no going back to how things were. It’s been too long and too much has changed, including Sony still selling tons of PlayStation 5s even without any proper exclusives and Xbox going multiformat.I think it’s reasonable to hope they will do more though. We can’t stop them making any more live service games but they do seem to at least be slowing down a bit. The problem is that slowing up doesn’t mean they’ll speed up with single-player games instead. They could just end up making less overall, like they have over the last few years. We’ve got Ghost Of Yōtei this year, which I’m not super excited aboutbut I am very interested in seeing Returnal follow-up Saros next year, so hopefully things are slowly turning around. I want to be optimistic, but the problem is there’s no sign of Sony having a not-E3 State of Play showcase this summer. The past two years they’ve had it at the end of May and I think we’ve probably gone past the point they were going to announce it if it was happening. I hope I’m wrong, or maybe it’s later in June for some reason, but it doesn’t look good.RaeBonn Your story is another castle I see the Super Mario Bros. Movie sequel has had its name leaked as Super Mario World. I’m not sure your average Joe is going to get that reference, but would they actually bother doing an adaptation of the game’s story? Does the game even have a story? I’ve beaten it twice and I honestly can’t remember.Looking at Wikipedia, apparently it was all in the manual and basically Bowser kidnapped Peach and some dinosaur eggs. There’s so little to work with I really have no idea what direction any of these films could do to justify themselves as anything other than a cash-in. The Paper Mario games are the only ones with an actual plot, but even then that’s not what’s good about them.Austin Risky business I’ve got a bad feeling about these upcoming Marvel games. I imagine Wolverine will be fine, but that Iron Man game will be almost two decades too late by the time it comes out. And I can’t believe many people are interested in a Captain America and Black Panther team-up set in World War 2.Normally I’d just shrug my shoulders and write it off as an incoming flop but nowadays that means the whole studio could go down and how many hundreds of people are working on these two games? I’m not exaggerating either. Consider what happened to Firaxis after theMidnight Suns flopped. All the lead developers left, the studio was fractured, and now we’ll never get an XCOM 3. I don’t know these developers behind Iron Man and the other one as well, but I do know that lots of jobs are now in danger, just because EA was late jumping on a bandwagon.Cerates Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk Reliable reputation Glad to hear GC got Power Stone back and I like the sound of all the effort Capcom put into the collection and the reasonable price. I’ve never really been into fighting games, so it’s not really of interest to me. But it Does make me think better of Capcom, for when something else I am interested in comes up.I wish this was something other publishers thought of, especially as Capcom is doing so well, financially speaking, at the moment. But unfortunately EA and Activision, and even Ubisoft to a degree, just rely on their big franchises and don’t really put out much else anyway. Sony is another example of doing this well, because their reputation for first party games really wasn’t that great until the PlayStation 4. They just built it up and became someone to rely on. Them throwing that all away now is so strange.Griefer Money issue I’ve been thinking for a while now about this, but Sony could take Xbox out the console market with just one sentence. You can put Game Pass on PlayStation. There wouldn’t be any need for an Xbox and we know Phil wants it on there.Why Sony won’t do that I’ll never know. It’s a win/win for Sony. You never know, Sony might allow them sooner or later and Xbox can go the way of Sega, just with a hell of a lot more money and just to make games.David GC: They won’t do it because they make more money selling games on their store. Although they may change their mind in time, because they’ve begun to make more selling microtransactions than actual games. And another thing You know, I have been witnessing quite a bit of clamour over the last few days. More or less a lot of complaining and quite a stir of negativity. I’ve seen GTA 6 fall surprisingly prey to this. Either people have issues with the inevitably violent content, the sex or the aged fable of controversy. My take is my bond and I say that I gladly welcome the gratuitous violence, the sex, and the glory glitz of Leonida.Because I’ve waited over 12 years for an evolution and no echoes of bemusement will deter me from my course of securing the collector’s edition as soon as possible. If that includes a statue or early access I will be immensely satisfied. My second point is the Nintendo Switch 2. I’ve already mentioned that I secured the Mario Kart World bundle from Amazon and I acknowledge the bricking controversy. But modding isn’t my cup of tea, so Nintendo has nothing to worry about. I’d rather emulate PlayStation 2 games anyway. Thirdly, the PlayStation 6. It matters not the price, storage, exclusives or specs. I’m buying this system, as I did the PlayStation 5. Day one. If it arrives in 2027, the merrier it is for me. I will very much take great stride in playing Horizon Zero Dawn 3 and many other titles.Shahzaib Sadiq Mum’s the word I was wondering when we might get some concrete thoughts about the Switch 2 launch games?Is there an embargo about when Switch 2 games are able to be reviewed? Or perhaps there is an embargo on when you can talk about an embargo, nothing from Nintendo would surprise me.Mark GC: There’s always an embargo on when we can talk about an embargo, but especially when it involves Nintendo. Facing defeat I know the war was lost long agobut it is so tragic to see how small a part of gaming physical copies are now. I don’t know anyone, amongst my friends or family, that buys physical copies anymore and what would be the point anyway, when they’re not even stored on the disc?.Perhaps it was inevitable, since even if the initial game is on the disc it gets distorted and expanded by updates the second you put it in a console but it’s the fact that there’s literally no benefit to digital. People talk about convenience but what convenience? Not having to change discs is just silly and lazy. And it takes time to buy a physical copy? I could drive to the shops and back quicker that it takes me to download a modern game. Not that I’m in the habit of paying out £60 on a whim, that I suddenly decide I have to have a new game right then and there. Gaming got infinitely more expensive as soon as it became more difficult to sell on your games, especially with eBay’s new payment rules. But apparently nobody cares. Maybe everyone else is a millionaire all of a sudden, and I didn’t get the memo, but the death of physical is just handing more control to publishers and taking more cash out of the wallets of ordinary people.Rufus Inbox also-rans Just watched the Borderlands movie on Amazon. It’s no Fallout or The Last Of Us but it’s not that bad. I particularly liked Jack Black as the annoying android Claptrap. They should make a Brütal Legend movie – it would have a great soundtrack. Think I will check out the Like A Dragon movie next.Johnny Alpha SDCurrently playing: Doom Eternal and Call Of Duty: Black Ops 6Thanks for the heads-up on Very, I managed to get my bundle with a camera so I’m very excited now. I went back and checked and it’s still live though, which seems weird given no one else has any stock at all.Boysie More Trending Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk The small printNew Inbox updates appear every weekday morning, with special Hot Topic Inboxes at the weekend. Readers’ letters are used on merit and may be edited for length and content. You can also submit your own 500 to 600-word Reader’s Feature at any time via email or our Submit Stuff page, which if used will be shown in the next available weekend slot. You can also leave your comments below and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter. Arrow MORE: Games Inbox: Is it weird to not like GTA games? GameCentral Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy #games #inbox #there #going #ps5

METRO.CO.UK

Games Inbox: Is there going to be a PS5 State of Play this summer?

At least Ghost Of Yōtei is out this year (Sony Interactive Entertainment) The Thursday letters page worries what will happen if the new Marvel games are flops, as one reader laments the slow death of physical games. To join in with the discussions yourself email gamecentral@metro.co.uk Summer schedule I really hope that Sony is planning to make more first party games but I have a feeling there’s no going back to how things were. It’s been too long and too much has changed, including Sony still selling tons of PlayStation 5s even without any proper exclusives and Xbox going multiformat.I think it’s reasonable to hope they will do more though. We can’t stop them making any more live service games but they do seem to at least be slowing down a bit. The problem is that slowing up doesn’t mean they’ll speed up with single-player games instead. They could just end up making less overall, like they have over the last few years. We’ve got Ghost Of Yōtei this year, which I’m not super excited about (I’d had enough of the last one by halfway through) but I am very interested in seeing Returnal follow-up Saros next year, so hopefully things are slowly turning around. I want to be optimistic, but the problem is there’s no sign of Sony having a not-E3 State of Play showcase this summer. The past two years they’ve had it at the end of May and I think we’ve probably gone past the point they were going to announce it if it was happening. I hope I’m wrong, or maybe it’s later in June for some reason, but it doesn’t look good.RaeBonn Your story is another castle I see the Super Mario Bros. Movie sequel has had its name leaked as Super Mario World. I’m not sure your average Joe is going to get that reference, but would they actually bother doing an adaptation of the game’s story? Does the game even have a story? I’ve beaten it twice and I honestly can’t remember.Looking at Wikipedia, apparently it was all in the manual and basically Bowser kidnapped Peach and some dinosaur eggs. There’s so little to work with I really have no idea what direction any of these films could do to justify themselves as anything other than a cash-in. The Paper Mario games are the only ones with an actual plot, but even then that’s not what’s good about them.Austin Risky business I’ve got a bad feeling about these upcoming Marvel games. I imagine Wolverine will be fine, but that Iron Man game will be almost two decades too late by the time it comes out. And I can’t believe many people are interested in a Captain America and Black Panther team-up set in World War 2.Normally I’d just shrug my shoulders and write it off as an incoming flop but nowadays that means the whole studio could go down and how many hundreds of people are working on these two games? I’m not exaggerating either. Consider what happened to Firaxis after the (excellent) Midnight Suns flopped. All the lead developers left, the studio was fractured (I don’t think it was a coincidence that Civilization 7 was a rare dud), and now we’ll never get an XCOM 3. I don’t know these developers behind Iron Man and the other one as well, but I do know that lots of jobs are now in danger, just because EA was late jumping on a bandwagon.Cerates Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk Reliable reputation Glad to hear GC got Power Stone back and I like the sound of all the effort Capcom put into the collection and the reasonable price. I’ve never really been into fighting games, so it’s not really of interest to me. But it Does make me think better of Capcom, for when something else I am interested in comes up.I wish this was something other publishers thought of, especially as Capcom is doing so well, financially speaking, at the moment. But unfortunately EA and Activision, and even Ubisoft to a degree, just rely on their big franchises and don’t really put out much else anyway. Sony is another example of doing this well, because their reputation for first party games really wasn’t that great until the PlayStation 4. They just built it up and became someone to rely on. Them throwing that all away now is so strange.Griefer Money issue I’ve been thinking for a while now about this, but Sony could take Xbox out the console market with just one sentence. You can put Game Pass on PlayStation. There wouldn’t be any need for an Xbox and we know Phil wants it on there.Why Sony won’t do that I’ll never know. It’s a win/win for Sony. You never know, Sony might allow them sooner or later and Xbox can go the way of Sega, just with a hell of a lot more money and just to make games.David GC: They won’t do it because they make more money selling games on their store. Although they may change their mind in time, because they’ve begun to make more selling microtransactions than actual games. And another thing You know, I have been witnessing quite a bit of clamour over the last few days. More or less a lot of complaining and quite a stir of negativity. I’ve seen GTA 6 fall surprisingly prey to this. Either people have issues with the inevitably violent content, the sex or the aged fable of controversy. My take is my bond and I say that I gladly welcome the gratuitous violence, the sex, and the glory glitz of Leonida.Because I’ve waited over 12 years for an evolution and no echoes of bemusement will deter me from my course of securing the collector’s edition as soon as possible. If that includes a statue or early access I will be immensely satisfied. My second point is the Nintendo Switch 2. I’ve already mentioned that I secured the Mario Kart World bundle from Amazon and I acknowledge the bricking controversy. But modding isn’t my cup of tea, so Nintendo has nothing to worry about. I’d rather emulate PlayStation 2 games anyway. Thirdly, the PlayStation 6. It matters not the price, storage, exclusives or specs. I’m buying this system, as I did the PlayStation 5. Day one. If it arrives in 2027, the merrier it is for me. I will very much take great stride in playing Horizon Zero Dawn 3 and many other titles.Shahzaib Sadiq Mum’s the word I was wondering when we might get some concrete thoughts about the Switch 2 launch games?Is there an embargo about when Switch 2 games are able to be reviewed? Or perhaps there is an embargo on when you can talk about an embargo, nothing from Nintendo would surprise me.Mark GC: There’s always an embargo on when we can talk about an embargo, but especially when it involves Nintendo. Facing defeat I know the war was lost long ago (shops stopping second-hand games was the end, as far as I see it) but it is so tragic to see how small a part of gaming physical copies are now. I don’t know anyone, amongst my friends or family, that buys physical copies anymore and what would be the point anyway, when they’re not even stored on the disc?.Perhaps it was inevitable, since even if the initial game is on the disc it gets distorted and expanded by updates the second you put it in a console but it’s the fact that there’s literally no benefit to digital. People talk about convenience but what convenience? Not having to change discs is just silly and lazy. And it takes time to buy a physical copy? I could drive to the shops and back quicker that it takes me to download a modern game. Not that I’m in the habit of paying out £60 on a whim, that I suddenly decide I have to have a new game right then and there. Gaming got infinitely more expensive as soon as it became more difficult to sell on your games, especially with eBay’s new payment rules. But apparently nobody cares. Maybe everyone else is a millionaire all of a sudden, and I didn’t get the memo, but the death of physical is just handing more control to publishers and taking more cash out of the wallets of ordinary people.Rufus Inbox also-rans Just watched the Borderlands movie on Amazon. It’s no Fallout or The Last Of Us but it’s not that bad. I particularly liked Jack Black as the annoying android Claptrap. They should make a Brütal Legend movie – it would have a great soundtrack. Think I will check out the Like A Dragon movie next.Johnny Alpha SDCurrently playing: Doom Eternal and Call Of Duty: Black Ops 6Thanks for the heads-up on Very, I managed to get my bundle with a camera so I’m very excited now. I went back and checked and it’s still live though, which seems weird given no one else has any stock at all.Boysie More Trending Email your comments to: gamecentral@metro.co.uk The small printNew Inbox updates appear every weekday morning, with special Hot Topic Inboxes at the weekend. Readers’ letters are used on merit and may be edited for length and content. You can also submit your own 500 to 600-word Reader’s Feature at any time via email or our Submit Stuff page, which if used will be shown in the next available weekend slot. You can also leave your comments below and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter. Arrow MORE: Games Inbox: Is it weird to not like GTA games? GameCentral Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

·368 Visualizações

Faça o login para curtir, compartilhar e comentar!
Ars Technica compartilhou um link

2025-05-14 10:51:51 ·

If Congress actually cancels the SLS rocket, what happens next?

COTS is back on the menu

If Congress actually cancels the SLS rocket, what happens next?

Here's what NASA's exploration plans would actually look like if the White House got its way.

Eric Berger

–

May 13, 2025 3:49 pm

|
9

A technician works on the Orion spacecraft, atop the SLS rocket, in January 2022.

Credit:

NASA

A technician works on the Orion spacecraft, atop the SLS rocket, in January 2022.

Credit:

NASA

Story text
Size
Small
Standard
Large
Width
*
Standard
Wide
Links
Standard
Orange
* Subscribers only
  Learn more
The White House Office of Management and Budget dropped its "skinny" budget proposal for the federal government earlier this month, and the headline news for the US space program was the cancellation of three major programs: the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and Lunar Gateway.
Opinions across the space community vary widely about the utility of these programs—one friend in the industry predicted a future without them to be so dire that Artemis III would be the last US human spaceflight of our lifetimes.
But there can be no question that if such changes are made they would mark the most radical remaking of NASA in two decades.
This report, based on interviews with multiple sources inside and out of the Trump administration, seeks to explain what the White House is trying to do with Moon and Mars exploration, what this means for NASA and US spaceflight, and whether it could succeed.
Will it actually happen?
The first question is whether these changes proposed by the White House will be accepted by the US Congress.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have backed Orion for two decades, the SLS rocket for 15 years, and the Gateway for 10 years.
Will they finally give up programs that have been such a reliable source of good-paying jobs for so long?
In general, the answer appears to be yes.
We saw the outlines of a deal during the confirmation hearing for private astronaut Jared Isaacman to become the next NASA administrator in April.
He was asked repeatedly whether he intended to use the SLS rocket and Orion for Artemis II (a lunar fly around) and Artemis III (lunar landing).
Isaacman said he did.
However nothing was said about using this (very costly) space hardware for Artemis IV and beyond.
Congress did not ask, presumably because it knows the answer.
And that answer, as we saw in the president's skinny budget, is that the rocket and spacecraft will be killed after Artemis III.
This is a pragmatic time to do it, as canceling the programs after Artemis III saves NASA billions of dollars in upgrading the rocket for a singular purpose: assembling a Lunar Gateway of questionable use.
But this will not be a normal budget process.
The full budget request from the White House is unlikely to come out before June, and it will probably be bogged down in Congress.
One of the few levers that Democrats in Congress presently have is the requirement of 60 Senators to pass appropriations bills.
So compromise is necessary, and a final budget may very well not pass by the October 1 start of the next fiscal year.
Then, should Congress not acquiesce to the budget request, there is the added threat of the White House Office of Management and Budget to use "impoundment" to withhold funding and implement its budget priorities.
This process would very quickly get bogged down in the courts, and no one really knows how the Supreme Court would rule.
Leadership alignment
To date, the budget process for NASA has not been led by space policy officials.
Rather, the White House Office of Management and Budget, and its leader, Russell Vought, have set priorities and funding.
This has led to "budget driven" policy that has resulted in steep cuts to science that often don't make much sense (i.e.
ending funding for the completed Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope).
However there soon will be some important voices to implement a more sound space policy and speak for NASA's priorities, rather than those of budget cutters.
One of these is President Trump's nominee to lead NASA, Jared Isaacman.
He is awaiting floor time in the US Senate for a final vote.
That could happen during the next week or two, allowing Isaacman to become the space agency's administrator and begin to play an important role in decision-making.
But Isaacman will need allies in the White House itself to carry out sweeping space policy changes.
To that end, the report in Politico last week—which Ars has confirmed—that there will be a National Space Council established in the coming months is important.
Led by Vice President JD Vance, the space council will provide a counterweight to Vought's budget-driven process.
Thus, by this summer, there should be key leadership in place to set space policy that advances the country's exploration goals.
But what are those goals?
What happens to Artemis
After the Artemis III mission the natural question is, what would come next if the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft are canceled?
The most likely answer is that NASA turns to an old but successful playbook: COTS.
This stands for Commercial Orbital Transportation System and was created by NASA two decades ago to develop cargo transport systems (eventually this became SpaceX's Dragon and Northrop's Cygnus spacecraft) for the International Space Station.
Since then NASA has adopted this same model for crew services as well as other commercial programs.
Under the COTS model, NASA provides funding and guidance to private companies to develop their own spacecraft, rockets, and services, and then buys those at a "market" rate.
The idea of a Lunar COTS program is not new.
NASA employees explored the concept in a research paper a decade ago, finding that "a future (Lunar) COTS program has the great potential of enabling development of cost-effective, commercial capabilities and establishing a thriving cislunar economy which will lead the way to an economical and sustainable approach for future human missions to Mars."
Sources indicate NASA would go to industry and seek an "end-to-end" solution for lunar missions.
That is, an integrated plan to launch astronauts from Earth, land them on the Moon, and return them to Earth.
One of the bidders would certainly be SpaceX, with its Starship vehicle already having been validated during the Artemis III mission.
Crews could launch from Earth either in Dragon or Starship.
Blue Origin is the other obvious bidder.
The company might partner with Lockheed Martin to commercialize the Orion spacecraft or use the crew vehicle it is developing internally.
Other companies could also participate.
The point is that NASA would seek to buy astronaut transportation to the Moon, just as it already is doing with cargo and science experiments through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program.
The extent of an Artemis lunar surface presence would be determined by several factors, including the cost and safety of this transportation program and whether there are meaningful things for astronauts to do on the Moon.
What about Mars?
The skinny budget contained some intriguing language about Mars exploration: "By allocating over $7 billion for lunar exploration and introducing $1 billion in new investments for Mars-focused programs, the Budget ensures that America’s human space exploration efforts remain unparalleled, innovative, and efficient."
This was, in fact, the only budget increase proposed by the Trump White House.
So what does it mean?
No one is saying for sure, but this funding would probably offer a starting point for a robust Mars COTS program.
This would begin with cargo missions to Mars.
But eventually it would expand to include crewed missions, thus fulfilling Trump's promise to land humans on the red planet.
Is this a gift to Elon Musk? Critics will certainly cast it as such, and that is understandable.
But the plan would be open to any interested companies, and there are several.
Rocket Lab, for example, has already expressed its interest in sending cargo missions to Mars.
Impulse Space, too, has said it is building a spacecraft to ferry cargo to Mars and land there.
The Trump budget proposal also kills a key element of NASA's Mars exploration plans, the robotic Mars Sample Return mission to bring rocks and soil from the red planet to Earth in the 2030s.
However, this program was already frozen by the Biden administration because of delays and cost overruns.
Sources said the goal of this budget cut, rather than having a single $8 billion Mars Sample Return mission, is to create an ecosystem in which such missions are frequent.
The benefit of opening a pathway to Mars with commercial companies is that it would allow for not just a single Mars Sample Return mission, but multiple efforts at a lower cost.
"The fact is we want to land large things, including crew cabins, on the Moon and Mars and bring them back to Earth," one Republican space policy consultant said.
"Instead of building a series of expensive bespoke robotic landers to do science, let's develop cost-effective reusable landers that can, with minimal changes, support both cargo and crew missions to the Moon and Mars."
Eric Berger
Senior Space Editor
Eric Berger
Senior Space Editor
Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon.
A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.

9 Comments

Source: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/if-congress-actually-cancels-the-sls-rocket-what-happens-next/" style="color: #0066cc;">https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/if-congress-actually-cancels-the-sls-rocket-what-happens-next/
#congress #actually #cancels #the #sls #rocket #what #happens #next

If Congress actually cancels the SLS rocket, what happens next?
COTS is back on the menu If Congress actually cancels the SLS rocket, what happens next? Here's what NASA's exploration plans would actually look like if the White House got its way. Eric Berger – May 13, 2025 3:49 pm | 9 A technician works on the Orion spacecraft, atop the SLS rocket, in January 2022. Credit: NASA A technician works on the Orion spacecraft, atop the SLS rocket, in January 2022. Credit: NASA Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The White House Office of Management and Budget dropped its "skinny" budget proposal for the federal government earlier this month, and the headline news for the US space program was the cancellation of three major programs: the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and Lunar Gateway. Opinions across the space community vary widely about the utility of these programs—one friend in the industry predicted a future without them to be so dire that Artemis III would be the last US human spaceflight of our lifetimes. But there can be no question that if such changes are made they would mark the most radical remaking of NASA in two decades. This report, based on interviews with multiple sources inside and out of the Trump administration, seeks to explain what the White House is trying to do with Moon and Mars exploration, what this means for NASA and US spaceflight, and whether it could succeed. Will it actually happen? The first question is whether these changes proposed by the White House will be accepted by the US Congress. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have backed Orion for two decades, the SLS rocket for 15 years, and the Gateway for 10 years. Will they finally give up programs that have been such a reliable source of good-paying jobs for so long? In general, the answer appears to be yes. We saw the outlines of a deal during the confirmation hearing for private astronaut Jared Isaacman to become the next NASA administrator in April. He was asked repeatedly whether he intended to use the SLS rocket and Orion for Artemis II (a lunar fly around) and Artemis III (lunar landing). Isaacman said he did. However nothing was said about using this (very costly) space hardware for Artemis IV and beyond. Congress did not ask, presumably because it knows the answer. And that answer, as we saw in the president's skinny budget, is that the rocket and spacecraft will be killed after Artemis III. This is a pragmatic time to do it, as canceling the programs after Artemis III saves NASA billions of dollars in upgrading the rocket for a singular purpose: assembling a Lunar Gateway of questionable use. But this will not be a normal budget process. The full budget request from the White House is unlikely to come out before June, and it will probably be bogged down in Congress. One of the few levers that Democrats in Congress presently have is the requirement of 60 Senators to pass appropriations bills. So compromise is necessary, and a final budget may very well not pass by the October 1 start of the next fiscal year. Then, should Congress not acquiesce to the budget request, there is the added threat of the White House Office of Management and Budget to use "impoundment" to withhold funding and implement its budget priorities. This process would very quickly get bogged down in the courts, and no one really knows how the Supreme Court would rule. Leadership alignment To date, the budget process for NASA has not been led by space policy officials. Rather, the White House Office of Management and Budget, and its leader, Russell Vought, have set priorities and funding. This has led to "budget driven" policy that has resulted in steep cuts to science that often don't make much sense (i.e. ending funding for the completed Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope). However there soon will be some important voices to implement a more sound space policy and speak for NASA's priorities, rather than those of budget cutters. One of these is President Trump's nominee to lead NASA, Jared Isaacman. He is awaiting floor time in the US Senate for a final vote. That could happen during the next week or two, allowing Isaacman to become the space agency's administrator and begin to play an important role in decision-making. But Isaacman will need allies in the White House itself to carry out sweeping space policy changes. To that end, the report in Politico last week—which Ars has confirmed—that there will be a National Space Council established in the coming months is important. Led by Vice President JD Vance, the space council will provide a counterweight to Vought's budget-driven process. Thus, by this summer, there should be key leadership in place to set space policy that advances the country's exploration goals. But what are those goals? What happens to Artemis After the Artemis III mission the natural question is, what would come next if the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft are canceled? The most likely answer is that NASA turns to an old but successful playbook: COTS. This stands for Commercial Orbital Transportation System and was created by NASA two decades ago to develop cargo transport systems (eventually this became SpaceX's Dragon and Northrop's Cygnus spacecraft) for the International Space Station. Since then NASA has adopted this same model for crew services as well as other commercial programs. Under the COTS model, NASA provides funding and guidance to private companies to develop their own spacecraft, rockets, and services, and then buys those at a "market" rate. The idea of a Lunar COTS program is not new. NASA employees explored the concept in a research paper a decade ago, finding that "a future (Lunar) COTS program has the great potential of enabling development of cost-effective, commercial capabilities and establishing a thriving cislunar economy which will lead the way to an economical and sustainable approach for future human missions to Mars." Sources indicate NASA would go to industry and seek an "end-to-end" solution for lunar missions. That is, an integrated plan to launch astronauts from Earth, land them on the Moon, and return them to Earth. One of the bidders would certainly be SpaceX, with its Starship vehicle already having been validated during the Artemis III mission. Crews could launch from Earth either in Dragon or Starship. Blue Origin is the other obvious bidder. The company might partner with Lockheed Martin to commercialize the Orion spacecraft or use the crew vehicle it is developing internally. Other companies could also participate. The point is that NASA would seek to buy astronaut transportation to the Moon, just as it already is doing with cargo and science experiments through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. The extent of an Artemis lunar surface presence would be determined by several factors, including the cost and safety of this transportation program and whether there are meaningful things for astronauts to do on the Moon. What about Mars? The skinny budget contained some intriguing language about Mars exploration: "By allocating over $7 billion for lunar exploration and introducing $1 billion in new investments for Mars-focused programs, the Budget ensures that America’s human space exploration efforts remain unparalleled, innovative, and efficient." This was, in fact, the only budget increase proposed by the Trump White House. So what does it mean? No one is saying for sure, but this funding would probably offer a starting point for a robust Mars COTS program. This would begin with cargo missions to Mars. But eventually it would expand to include crewed missions, thus fulfilling Trump's promise to land humans on the red planet. Is this a gift to Elon Musk? Critics will certainly cast it as such, and that is understandable. But the plan would be open to any interested companies, and there are several. Rocket Lab, for example, has already expressed its interest in sending cargo missions to Mars. Impulse Space, too, has said it is building a spacecraft to ferry cargo to Mars and land there. The Trump budget proposal also kills a key element of NASA's Mars exploration plans, the robotic Mars Sample Return mission to bring rocks and soil from the red planet to Earth in the 2030s. However, this program was already frozen by the Biden administration because of delays and cost overruns. Sources said the goal of this budget cut, rather than having a single $8 billion Mars Sample Return mission, is to create an ecosystem in which such missions are frequent. The benefit of opening a pathway to Mars with commercial companies is that it would allow for not just a single Mars Sample Return mission, but multiple efforts at a lower cost. "The fact is we want to land large things, including crew cabins, on the Moon and Mars and bring them back to Earth," one Republican space policy consultant said. "Instead of building a series of expensive bespoke robotic landers to do science, let's develop cost-effective reusable landers that can, with minimal changes, support both cargo and crew missions to the Moon and Mars." Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 9 Comments Source: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/if-congress-actually-cancels-the-sls-rocket-what-happens-next/ #congress #actually #cancels #the #sls #rocket #what #happens #next

ARSTECHNICA.COM

If Congress actually cancels the SLS rocket, what happens next?

COTS is back on the menu If Congress actually cancels the SLS rocket, what happens next? Here's what NASA's exploration plans would actually look like if the White House got its way. Eric Berger – May 13, 2025 3:49 pm | 9 A technician works on the Orion spacecraft, atop the SLS rocket, in January 2022. Credit: NASA A technician works on the Orion spacecraft, atop the SLS rocket, in January 2022. Credit: NASA Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The White House Office of Management and Budget dropped its "skinny" budget proposal for the federal government earlier this month, and the headline news for the US space program was the cancellation of three major programs: the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and Lunar Gateway. Opinions across the space community vary widely about the utility of these programs—one friend in the industry predicted a future without them to be so dire that Artemis III would be the last US human spaceflight of our lifetimes. But there can be no question that if such changes are made they would mark the most radical remaking of NASA in two decades. This report, based on interviews with multiple sources inside and out of the Trump administration, seeks to explain what the White House is trying to do with Moon and Mars exploration, what this means for NASA and US spaceflight, and whether it could succeed. Will it actually happen? The first question is whether these changes proposed by the White House will be accepted by the US Congress. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have backed Orion for two decades, the SLS rocket for 15 years, and the Gateway for 10 years. Will they finally give up programs that have been such a reliable source of good-paying jobs for so long? In general, the answer appears to be yes. We saw the outlines of a deal during the confirmation hearing for private astronaut Jared Isaacman to become the next NASA administrator in April. He was asked repeatedly whether he intended to use the SLS rocket and Orion for Artemis II (a lunar fly around) and Artemis III (lunar landing). Isaacman said he did. However nothing was said about using this (very costly) space hardware for Artemis IV and beyond. Congress did not ask, presumably because it knows the answer. And that answer, as we saw in the president's skinny budget, is that the rocket and spacecraft will be killed after Artemis III. This is a pragmatic time to do it, as canceling the programs after Artemis III saves NASA billions of dollars in upgrading the rocket for a singular purpose: assembling a Lunar Gateway of questionable use. But this will not be a normal budget process. The full budget request from the White House is unlikely to come out before June, and it will probably be bogged down in Congress. One of the few levers that Democrats in Congress presently have is the requirement of 60 Senators to pass appropriations bills. So compromise is necessary, and a final budget may very well not pass by the October 1 start of the next fiscal year. Then, should Congress not acquiesce to the budget request, there is the added threat of the White House Office of Management and Budget to use "impoundment" to withhold funding and implement its budget priorities. This process would very quickly get bogged down in the courts, and no one really knows how the Supreme Court would rule. Leadership alignment To date, the budget process for NASA has not been led by space policy officials. Rather, the White House Office of Management and Budget, and its leader, Russell Vought, have set priorities and funding. This has led to "budget driven" policy that has resulted in steep cuts to science that often don't make much sense (i.e. ending funding for the completed Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope). However there soon will be some important voices to implement a more sound space policy and speak for NASA's priorities, rather than those of budget cutters. One of these is President Trump's nominee to lead NASA, Jared Isaacman. He is awaiting floor time in the US Senate for a final vote. That could happen during the next week or two, allowing Isaacman to become the space agency's administrator and begin to play an important role in decision-making. But Isaacman will need allies in the White House itself to carry out sweeping space policy changes. To that end, the report in Politico last week—which Ars has confirmed—that there will be a National Space Council established in the coming months is important. Led by Vice President JD Vance, the space council will provide a counterweight to Vought's budget-driven process. Thus, by this summer, there should be key leadership in place to set space policy that advances the country's exploration goals. But what are those goals? What happens to Artemis After the Artemis III mission the natural question is, what would come next if the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft are canceled? The most likely answer is that NASA turns to an old but successful playbook: COTS. This stands for Commercial Orbital Transportation System and was created by NASA two decades ago to develop cargo transport systems (eventually this became SpaceX's Dragon and Northrop's Cygnus spacecraft) for the International Space Station. Since then NASA has adopted this same model for crew services as well as other commercial programs. Under the COTS model, NASA provides funding and guidance to private companies to develop their own spacecraft, rockets, and services, and then buys those at a "market" rate. The idea of a Lunar COTS program is not new. NASA employees explored the concept in a research paper a decade ago, finding that "a future (Lunar) COTS program has the great potential of enabling development of cost-effective, commercial capabilities and establishing a thriving cislunar economy which will lead the way to an economical and sustainable approach for future human missions to Mars." Sources indicate NASA would go to industry and seek an "end-to-end" solution for lunar missions. That is, an integrated plan to launch astronauts from Earth, land them on the Moon, and return them to Earth. One of the bidders would certainly be SpaceX, with its Starship vehicle already having been validated during the Artemis III mission. Crews could launch from Earth either in Dragon or Starship. Blue Origin is the other obvious bidder. The company might partner with Lockheed Martin to commercialize the Orion spacecraft or use the crew vehicle it is developing internally. Other companies could also participate. The point is that NASA would seek to buy astronaut transportation to the Moon, just as it already is doing with cargo and science experiments through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. The extent of an Artemis lunar surface presence would be determined by several factors, including the cost and safety of this transportation program and whether there are meaningful things for astronauts to do on the Moon. What about Mars? The skinny budget contained some intriguing language about Mars exploration: "By allocating over $7 billion for lunar exploration and introducing $1 billion in new investments for Mars-focused programs, the Budget ensures that America’s human space exploration efforts remain unparalleled, innovative, and efficient." This was, in fact, the only budget increase proposed by the Trump White House. So what does it mean? No one is saying for sure, but this funding would probably offer a starting point for a robust Mars COTS program. This would begin with cargo missions to Mars. But eventually it would expand to include crewed missions, thus fulfilling Trump's promise to land humans on the red planet. Is this a gift to Elon Musk? Critics will certainly cast it as such, and that is understandable. But the plan would be open to any interested companies, and there are several. Rocket Lab, for example, has already expressed its interest in sending cargo missions to Mars. Impulse Space, too, has said it is building a spacecraft to ferry cargo to Mars and land there. The Trump budget proposal also kills a key element of NASA's Mars exploration plans, the robotic Mars Sample Return mission to bring rocks and soil from the red planet to Earth in the 2030s. However, this program was already frozen by the Biden administration because of delays and cost overruns. Sources said the goal of this budget cut, rather than having a single $8 billion Mars Sample Return mission, is to create an ecosystem in which such missions are frequent. The benefit of opening a pathway to Mars with commercial companies is that it would allow for not just a single Mars Sample Return mission, but multiple efforts at a lower cost. "The fact is we want to land large things, including crew cabins, on the Moon and Mars and bring them back to Earth," one Republican space policy consultant said. "Instead of building a series of expensive bespoke robotic landers to do science, let's develop cost-effective reusable landers that can, with minimal changes, support both cargo and crew missions to the Moon and Mars." Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 9 Comments

·370 Visualizações

Faça o login para curtir, compartilhar e comentar!
Vox compartilhou um link

2025-05-13 22:37:35 ·

The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump
A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down.
The case is V.O.S.
Selections v.
Trump.It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful.
All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration’s claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all.
But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions.Many of the judges’ questions focused on United States v.
Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods.
That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision.
It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want.
Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court’s eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs.
At the heart of V.O.S.
Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs.
That statute permits the president to “regulate” transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” It is likely that the trade court’s decision will turn on what the words “unusual and extraordinary threat” means.
While Yoshida offered guidance on “regulate,” there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean.
In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat “large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits” — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them.
But it’s far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either “unusual” or “extraordinary.”Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which “threats” are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so.That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a “political question” — a legal term meaning that the courts aren’t allowed to decide that matter.
As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is “no limit” to the president’s power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency.The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case.
But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton’s arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs.Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments.
As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to “regulate” does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite.That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court.Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a “very different situation” that was both “new” and “extraordinary.” For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate.
Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the “Nixon shock.” When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates.Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself.
That’s a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump’s tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years.Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock.
This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs “must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.” Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws.Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as “dumping,” when an exporter sells goods below their normal value.
He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA.That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” Hamilton’s suggestion that courts can’t decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA’s “unusual and extraordinary” provision would be entirely “superfluous” if Congress hadn’t intended courts to enforce it.Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump’s tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there’s no need to come up with a broader legal rule.
“You know it when you see it doesn’t work,” she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart’s infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography.The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration’s argument for the tariffs.
But it’s not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case.Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it’s not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power.
Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to “impose duties or other import restrictions” after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings.
So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months.There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as “major questions” and “nondelegation” — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump’s authority.
Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration’s actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute.Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory.
Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it “shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.” This “intelligible principle” test is famously very deferential to Congress.Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down.
She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action.The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must “speak clearly” if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of “vast ‘economic and political significance.’” By some estimates, Trump’s tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that’s certainly a matter of vast economic importance.
Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA’s language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs.Hamilton’s primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president.
But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument.
Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion.Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power.
And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs.
That outcome is far from certain, however, and the trade court is highly unlikely to have the final word on this question.
But the legal case for the tariffs appeared weak before Tuesday’s hearing, and nothing that happened on Tuesday changes that.See More:
Source: https://www.vox.com/economy/412966/supreme-court-tariffs-donald-trump-trade-vos-selections" style="color: #0066cc;">https://www.vox.com/economy/412966/supreme-court-tariffs-donald-trump-trade-vos-selections
#the #first #federal #court #hearing #trumps #tariffs #did #not #well #for #trump

The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump
A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump.It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful. All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration’s claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all. But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions.Many of the judges’ questions focused on United States v. Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods. That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision. It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want. Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court’s eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs. At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs. That statute permits the president to “regulate” transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” It is likely that the trade court’s decision will turn on what the words “unusual and extraordinary threat” means. While Yoshida offered guidance on “regulate,” there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean. In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat “large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits” — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them. But it’s far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either “unusual” or “extraordinary.”Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which “threats” are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so.That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a “political question” — a legal term meaning that the courts aren’t allowed to decide that matter. As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is “no limit” to the president’s power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency.The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case. But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton’s arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs.Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments. As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to “regulate” does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite.That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court.Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a “very different situation” that was both “new” and “extraordinary.” For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate. Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the “Nixon shock.” When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates.Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself. That’s a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump’s tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years.Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock. This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs “must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.” Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws.Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as “dumping,” when an exporter sells goods below their normal value. He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA.That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” Hamilton’s suggestion that courts can’t decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA’s “unusual and extraordinary” provision would be entirely “superfluous” if Congress hadn’t intended courts to enforce it.Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump’s tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there’s no need to come up with a broader legal rule. “You know it when you see it doesn’t work,” she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart’s infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography.The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration’s argument for the tariffs. But it’s not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case.Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it’s not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power. Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to “impose duties or other import restrictions” after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings. So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months.There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as “major questions” and “nondelegation” — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump’s authority. Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration’s actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute.Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory. Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it “shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.” This “intelligible principle” test is famously very deferential to Congress.Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down. She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action.The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must “speak clearly” if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of “vast ‘economic and political significance.’” By some estimates, Trump’s tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that’s certainly a matter of vast economic importance. Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA’s language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs.Hamilton’s primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president. But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument. Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion.Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power. And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs. That outcome is far from certain, however, and the trade court is highly unlikely to have the final word on this question. But the legal case for the tariffs appeared weak before Tuesday’s hearing, and nothing that happened on Tuesday changes that.See More: Source: https://www.vox.com/economy/412966/supreme-court-tariffs-donald-trump-trade-vos-selections #the #first #federal #court #hearing #trumps #tariffs #did #not #well #for #trump

WWW.VOX.COM

The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump

A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump.It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful. All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration’s claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all. But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions.Many of the judges’ questions focused on United States v. Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods. That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision. It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want. Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court’s eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs. At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs. That statute permits the president to “regulate” transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” It is likely that the trade court’s decision will turn on what the words “unusual and extraordinary threat” means. While Yoshida offered guidance on “regulate,” there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean. In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat “large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits” — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them. But it’s far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either “unusual” or “extraordinary.”Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which “threats” are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so.That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a “political question” — a legal term meaning that the courts aren’t allowed to decide that matter. As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is “no limit” to the president’s power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency.The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case. But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton’s arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs.Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments. As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to “regulate” does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite.That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court.Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a “very different situation” that was both “new” and “extraordinary.” For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate. Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the “Nixon shock.” When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates.Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself. That’s a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump’s tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years.Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock. This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs “must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.” Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws.Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as “dumping,” when an exporter sells goods below their normal value. He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA.That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” Hamilton’s suggestion that courts can’t decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA’s “unusual and extraordinary” provision would be entirely “superfluous” if Congress hadn’t intended courts to enforce it.Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump’s tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there’s no need to come up with a broader legal rule. “You know it when you see it doesn’t work,” she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart’s infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography.The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration’s argument for the tariffs. But it’s not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case.Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it’s not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power. Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to “impose duties or other import restrictions” after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings. So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months.There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as “major questions” and “nondelegation” — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump’s authority. Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration’s actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute.Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory. Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it “shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.” This “intelligible principle” test is famously very deferential to Congress.Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down. She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action.The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must “speak clearly” if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of “vast ‘economic and political significance.’” By some estimates, Trump’s tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that’s certainly a matter of vast economic importance. Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA’s language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs.Hamilton’s primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president. But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument. Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion.Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power. And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs. That outcome is far from certain, however, and the trade court is highly unlikely to have the final word on this question. But the legal case for the tariffs appeared weak before Tuesday’s hearing, and nothing that happened on Tuesday changes that.See More:

·466 Visualizações

Faça o login para curtir, compartilhar e comentar!
The Verge compartilhou um link

2025-05-13 13:47:29 ·

#333;">Why one obscure app could help crumble Meta’s empire
If the question, “Who is Meta’s biggest rival?” were on a Family Feud survey, TikTok would likely be the winning answer.
In the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust case against the Facebook and Instagram owner, the government’s response probably wouldn’t even make the top 10: a small blockchain-based platform called MeWe.
MeWe looks a fair amount like Facebook at first glance, except that you make an account using the Frequency blockchain — which the company explains is a decentralized protocol that lets you move your social connections to other (mostly hypothetical at this point) apps that support Frequency.
The company says 20 million users have joined, but when I make a MeWe account and log in, I scroll through my autopopulated feed and think, “Who are these people?” I search for a few of my Verge colleagues, figuring if anyone has tried this obscure app, it might be one of them, but I come up short.
I try some public figures: Tim Cook? Jeff Bezos? Mark Zuckerberg? There are some accounts with these names, but it seems unlikely they’re the ones I have in mind.The claim that MeWe is a closer competitor to Facebook and Instagram than TikTok might be baffling if you’re not steeped in antitrust law or the specifics of the FTC’s complaint.
Meta CEO Zuckerberg testified he hadn’t even heard of the app before this case was filed.
But the FTC has spent the past three weeks laying out its logic.
Using Meta’s own internal discussions about how it views itself and its competition, it says that Meta has historically, and to this day, competed in a market for connecting with friends and family online — and when it saw its dominance in that space threatened by the rise of Instagram and WhatsApp, it bought them to squash the competition.Whether Judge James Boasberg buys this could determine who wins the case — if the FTC can also show that Meta acted illegally through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp to solidify its alleged monopoly power.Antitrust law is supposed to ensure fair competition, which usually means that people have options for a useful class of goods and services — what’s known as a relevant market.
The FTC says that here, that market is “personal social networking services,” or PSNs: spaces where a core purpose is helping people connect with friends and family.
While there are many online platforms that overlap with Meta’s services, the FTC argues that virtually none of them serve that market.
If internet users want to find and hang out with people they know — as opposed to, say, watching influencers or making work connections — then it’s Mark Zuckerberg’s way or… in the government’s telling, Snapchat, BeReal, and MeWe.
Beyond that core definition, PSNs have some other unique features and norms: The apps feature a social graph of users’ friends and family connections, as opposed to mapping users primarily based on their interests.
Users can look up and find people they know in real life.
And they come to the app to share personal updates with those people.Facebook and Instagram increasingly display videos and photos from influencers and celebrities, but the FTC argues personal social networking remains a core service.
It used Instagram chief Adam Mosseri’s testimony to most clearly make this point.
In that testimony as well as posts to his own Instagram account, Mosseri said that it’s still important for the app to connect users with their friends.
The FTC argues that even if that use case is a smaller portion of what Meta’s apps do these days, it’s still a significant need users have that can virtually only be fulfilled by Facebook and Instagram.
While someone might connect with people they know in real life on LinkedIn, they likely won’t primarily share personal updates there.
And while they also could follow and interact with people they know on TikTok or YouTube, they’re more likely to passively watch videos from people they don’t.Meta says this is an entirely wrong way to think about it.
Social media platforms compete for users’ time and attention, so whether a particular app is squarely aimed at so-called friends and family sharing is beside the point.
Facebook and Instagram have evolved to show more content from people like influencers, shifting further from the use case the FTC says Meta has illegally dominated.
The company has already landed some important points that could help its case, and it will get more time to push back on the agency’s framing when it calls its own witnesses in the coming weeks.But as the FTC’s case-in-chief continues into its fifth week, its argument for Meta’s dominance is becoming a lot clearer.Why do people use Facebook?When defining a market, each side is trying to answer a key question: why are people choosing one particular company’s product? A lot of goods and services compete with each other in some sense, but this doesn’t mean they serve the same niche.
In the case of sodas, for example, “you could buy lemon-lime, but many people would never see that as a close substitute for buying Coke or Pepsi,” says George Washington Law professor and former FTC Chair Bill Kovacic.
In the tech world, Netflix has claimed its biggest competitors are Fortnite and sleep — but those comparisons probably wouldn’t stand up in court.The FTC says that outside of Facebook and Instagram, only apps like Snapchat and MeWe can fulfill a users’ desire to broadcast personal updates with friends and family online.
To make its case, it brought in a string of executives from other social media companies to explain why their apps can’t quite scratch the same itch for users.
Strava’s former VP of connected partnerships Mateo Ortega testified that sure, users of the fitness-tracking social media app could share baby photos on the platform, but they probably wouldn’t unless it was in a running stroller.
“It’s all about fitness, and while you can post other stuff, it just doesn’t seem as relevant,” he said.
“You could buy lemon-lime, but many people would never see that as a close substitute for buying Coke or Pepsi”Pinterest’s former head of user growth Julia Roberts testified that users who come to Pinterest “expecting it to be like other social media apps … tend to be confused about how to use the product.” That’s because the app is so much not about connecting with other people that it works much differently from other social media platforms.
Pinterest is more about finding things users are interested in, she said, so “following is not a big part of the Pinterest experience.”TikTok has a tab where users can watch videos from their friends — identified as people who mutually follow each other.
But head of operations Adam Presser testified only about 1 percent of videos watched on the platform are there.
The company doesn’t think of itself as competing with Meta’s apps for personal social networking, he testified.
And even though side-by-side screenshots of TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts look identical, Presser said, “when you click out of this view for these other platforms, you would get to essentially what I think of as their core business,” which for Instagram, includes a feed and stories that often contain at least some content from family and friends.At times, Meta’s cross-examination of rival company executives showed the limits of apps’ similarities.
When questioning Apple director of product marketing Ronak Shah, Meta sought to show that group chats in Apple’s messaging feature could serve as a social media feed for friends and family sharing.
But Shah testified that feed would be limited to 32 people at most, and users can’t just look up each others’ profiles like they would on social platforms.
Still, Meta pointed out, Apple’s messages app is listed under social media on its own app store.However, Meta also made important arguments about why the judge should question the FTC’s framing.
It pointed out that some documents from TikTok and YouTube owner Google claiming their products are very different from Meta’s were submitted to foreign officials to try to avoid getting drafted into potentially frustrating regulations.
It also pointed out when TikTok briefly went dark in the US ahead of a (now-aborted) ban, users flocked to Meta apps, showing consumers see it as a substitute on at least some level.
That’s because, Meta argued, competition for users is really about winning their time and attention.Companies can “sometimes make mistakes.
They misjudge who their users are”But X VP of product Keith Coleman testified it’s not that useful to think about competition this way.
Instead, “it’s much more helpful to understand what people are trying to accomplish in their lives and to try to help them accomplish that.” Under former CEO Jack Dorsey, then-Twitter leaned into focusing on news and users’ interests, Coleman testified, because that’s why people were coming to the platform.
Coleman was later surprised at how his own website characterized the product in its help center as a “service for friends, family, and coworkers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent messages.” “I can’t believe that’s on the website,” he said.
“That’s pretty wacky.”This point was “a caution that not everything a company writes down or says is necessarily decisive in establishing what the boundary of a market is,” Kovacic said.
Companies can “sometimes make mistakes.
They misjudge who their users are.”There are real ramifications for internet users here.
Going back to Netflix’s comparisons, if the streaming video service went down, some people would probably be happy to play a video game or get a few hours of shut-eye instead.
But others would be frustrated that they couldn’t watch a movie, which is why it’s good that Hulu, HBO, and Amazon Prime Video also exist.
The FTC’s argument isn’t that Meta owns the only social apps on the internet, it’s that the company faces little competition for a service many people specifically want — so the fact that you probably don’t know anyone using MeWe is sort of the point.How will the judge decide?Ultimately, Boasberg’s market definition — whether it’s Meta’s, the FTC’s, or his own — will come down to a few things: how Meta views itself, how competitors see it, and his own intuition, says Kovacic.
”Notice how much the FTC has been questioning Meta witnesses on the basis of its own internal documents,” he says.
“Does the story in the courtroom match the story of your own internal documents?” So far, the documents have shown that Meta has clocked that at least some portion of users come to its products to connect with family and friends, but also that the rise of TikTok has had it looking over its shoulder.
In September 2020, Meta told its board that Instagram revenue would be “meaningfully lower” than planned in the second half of the fiscal year because TikTok was drawing users’ attention.
But other internal documents have shown Meta’s well aware that at different points in time, users have come to its apps to connect with family and friends, and worriedly took note of other apps entering that space.
In a 2018 presentation, Meta found that the highest percentage of surveyed users said they come to Facebook, Instagram, and Snap to “see daily casual moments” and “see special moments.” By contrast, users came to Twitter’s feed for news and YouTube’s for entertainment.
And even as Instagram expands into entertainment, the FTC notes that it still advertises its sign-up page as a place to “see photos and videos from your friends.”“Instagram will always need to focus on friends”In a 2018 email, Zuckerberg told Mosseri that “Instagram will always need to focus on friends.” And even though a lot has changed in the social media landscape since then, Mosseri testified that to this day on the app, “friends are an important part of the experience.” Even though users may share fewer of their own updates on Facebook and Instagram, Mosseri admitted that two friends talking in the comments of a public figure’s post counts as an interaction between friends — and one that Instagram actively tries to facilitate.Meta has argued that this special focus on friends and family sharing makes up a shrinking portion of its offerings as it works to compete with fierce rivals like TikTok.
But the FTC says it’s still significant enough to monopolize.
It’s a scenario that came up in another major tech monopolization case, Kovacic says: the late-1990s lawsuit US v.
Microsoft.
In that case, Microsoft argued the Justice Department was ignoring how computing would soon move beyond the personal computer to the Internet of Things, meaning it couldn’t truly lock up the computing ecosystem as much as the government alleged.“Judge Jackson in the Microsoft case said, yeah, those things are happening, but not happening fast enough to deny you real market power in this PC and laptop-based market that the Justice Department is emphasizing,” Kovacic says.Still, he adds, a market niche can at some point become so small that it’s no longer significant in the eyes of antitrust law.
“You can have a process of change that ultimately renders the market segment unimportant,” he says.
“And the hard task of analysis for the judge is to say, has it already happened?”See More:
#666;">المصدر: https://www.theverge.com/antitrust/665308/meta-ftc-antitrust-trial-market-definition-tiktok-mewe-snap" style="color: #0066cc; text-decoration: none;">www.theverge.com
#0066cc;">#why #one #obscure #app #could #help #crumble #metas #empire #the #question #who #biggest #rival #were #family #feud #survey #tiktok #would #likely #winning #answerin #federal #trade #commissions #antitrust #case #against #facebook #and #instagram #owner #governments #response #probably #wouldnt #even #make #top #small #blockchainbased #platform #called #mewemewe #looks #fair #amount #like #first #glance #except #that #you #account #using #frequency #blockchain #which #company #explains #decentralized #protocol #lets #move #your #social #connections #other #mostly #hypothetical #this #point #apps #support #frequencythe #says #million #users #have #joined #but #when #mewe #log #scroll #through #autopopulated #feed #think #are #these #people #search #for #few #verge #colleagues #figuring #anyone #has #tried #might #them #come #shorti #try #some #public #figures #tim #cook #jeff #bezos #mark #zuckerberg #there #accounts #with #names #seems #unlikely #theyre #ones #mindthe #claim #closer #competitor #than #baffling #youre #not #steeped #law #specifics #ftcs #complaintmeta #ceo #testified #hadnt #heard #before #was #filedbut #ftc #spent #past #three #weeks #laying #out #its #logicusing #own #internal #discussions #about #how #views #itself #competition #meta #historically #day #competed #market #connecting #friends #online #saw #dominance #space #threatened #rise #whatsapp #bought #squash #competitionwhether #judge #james #boasberg #buys #determine #wins #can #also #show #acted #illegally #acquisitions #solidify #alleged #monopoly #powerantitrust #supposed #ensure #usually #means #options #useful #class #goods #services #whats #known #relevant #marketthe #here #personal #networking #psns #spaces #where #core #purpose #helping #connect #familywhile #many #platforms #overlap #argues #virtually #none #serve #marketif #internet #want #find #hang #they #know #opposed #say #watching #influencers #making #work #then #zuckerbergs #way #telling #snapchat #bereal #mewebeyond #definition #unique #features #norms #feature #graph #mapping #primarily #based #their #interestsusers #look #real #lifeand #share #updates #those #peoplefacebook #increasingly #display #videos #photos #from #celebrities #remains #serviceit #used #chief #adam #mosseris #testimony #most #clearly #pointin #well #posts #his #mosseri #said #still #important #friendsthe #use #smaller #portion #what #days #significant #need #only #fulfilled #instagramwhile #someone #life #linkedin #wont #thereand #while #follow #interact #youtube #more #passively #watch #dontmeta #entirely #wrong #itsocial #media #compete #time #attention #whether #particular #squarely #aimed #socalled #sharing #beside #pointfacebook #evolved #content #shifting #further #dominatedthe #already #landed #points #will #get #push #back #agencys #framing #calls #witnesses #coming #weeksbut #caseinchief #continues #into #fifth #week #argument #becoming #lot #clearerwhy #facebookwhen #defining #each #side #trying #answer #key #choosing #companys #product #sense #doesnt #mean #same #nichein #sodas #example #buy #lemonlime #never #see #close #substitute #buying #coke #pepsi #george #washington #professor #former #chair #bill #kovacicin #tech #world #netflix #claimed #competitors #fortnite #sleep #comparisons #stand #courtthe #outside #fulfill #desire #broadcast #onlineto #brought #string #executives #companies #explain #cant #quite #scratch #itch #usersstravas #connected #partnerships #mateo #ortega #sure #fitnesstracking #baby #unless #running #strollerits #all #fitness #post #stuff #just #seem #saidyou #pepsipinterests #head #user #growth #julia #roberts #pinterest #expecting #tend #confused #thats #because #much #works #differently #platformspinterest #finding #things #interested #she #following #big #part #experiencetiktok #tab #identified #mutually #otherbut #operations #presser #percent #watched #therethe #competing #testifiedand #though #sidebyside #screenshots #reels #shorts #identical #click #view #essentially #business #includes #stories #often #contain #least #friendsat #times #crossexamination #showed #limits #similaritieswhen #questioning #apple #director #marketing #ronak #shah #sought #group #chats #apples #messaging #sharingbut #limited #others #profiles #platformsstill #pointed #messages #listed #under #storehowever #made #arguments #should #framingit #documents #google #claiming #products #very #different #submitted #foreign #officials #avoid #getting #drafted #potentially #frustrating #regulationsit #briefly #went #dark #ahead #nowaborted #ban #flocked #showing #consumers #levelthats #argued #really #attentioncompanies #sometimes #mistakesthey #misjudge #arebut #keith #coleman #wayinstead #helpful #understand #accomplish #lives #jack #dorsey #thentwitter #leaned #focusing #news #interests #platformcoleman #later #surprised #website #characterized #center #service #coworkers #communicate #stay #exchange #quick #frequent #believe #saidthats #pretty #wackythis #caution #everything #writes #down #necessarily #decisive #establishing #boundary #kovacic #saidcompanies #arethere #ramifications #heregoing #netflixs #streaming #video #happy #play #game #hours #shuteye #insteadbut #frustrated #couldnt #movie #good #hulu #hbo #amazon #prime #existthe #isnt #owns #faces #little #specifically #fact #dont #sort #pointhow #decideultimately #boasbergs #intuition #kovacicnotice #been #basis #saysdoes #story #courtroom #match #far #shown #clocked #had #looking #over #shoulderin #september #told #board #revenue #meaningfully #lower #planned #second #half #fiscal #year #drawing #attentionbut #aware #worriedly #took #note #entering #spacein #presentation #found #highest #percentage #surveyed #snap #daily #casual #moments #special #contrast #came #twitters #youtubes #entertainmentand #expands #entertainment #notes #advertises #signup #page #place #friendsinstagram #always #focus #friendsin #email #changed #landscape #since #experience #may #fewer #admitted #two #talking #comments #counts #interaction #between #actively #tries #facilitatemeta #makes #shrinking #offerings #fierce #rivals #tiktokbut #enough #monopolizeits #scenario #another #major #monopolization #late1990s #lawsuit #vmicrosoftin #microsoft #justice #department #ignoring #computing #soon #beyond #computer #meaning #truly #lock #ecosystem #government #allegedjudge #jackson #yeah #happening #fast #deny #power #laptopbased #emphasizing #saysstill #adds #niche #become #longer #eyes #lawyou #process #change #ultimately #renders #segment #unimportant #saysand #hard #task #analysis #happenedsee

Why one obscure app could help crumble Meta’s empire
If the question, “Who is Meta’s biggest rival?” were on a Family Feud survey, TikTok would likely be the winning answer. In the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust case against the Facebook and Instagram owner, the government’s response probably wouldn’t even make the top 10: a small blockchain-based platform called MeWe. MeWe looks a fair amount like Facebook at first glance, except that you make an account using the Frequency blockchain — which the company explains is a decentralized protocol that lets you move your social connections to other (mostly hypothetical at this point) apps that support Frequency. The company says 20 million users have joined, but when I make a MeWe account and log in, I scroll through my autopopulated feed and think, “Who are these people?” I search for a few of my Verge colleagues, figuring if anyone has tried this obscure app, it might be one of them, but I come up short. I try some public figures: Tim Cook? Jeff Bezos? Mark Zuckerberg? There are some accounts with these names, but it seems unlikely they’re the ones I have in mind.The claim that MeWe is a closer competitor to Facebook and Instagram than TikTok might be baffling if you’re not steeped in antitrust law or the specifics of the FTC’s complaint. Meta CEO Zuckerberg testified he hadn’t even heard of the app before this case was filed. But the FTC has spent the past three weeks laying out its logic. Using Meta’s own internal discussions about how it views itself and its competition, it says that Meta has historically, and to this day, competed in a market for connecting with friends and family online — and when it saw its dominance in that space threatened by the rise of Instagram and WhatsApp, it bought them to squash the competition.Whether Judge James Boasberg buys this could determine who wins the case — if the FTC can also show that Meta acted illegally through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp to solidify its alleged monopoly power.Antitrust law is supposed to ensure fair competition, which usually means that people have options for a useful class of goods and services — what’s known as a relevant market. The FTC says that here, that market is “personal social networking services,” or PSNs: spaces where a core purpose is helping people connect with friends and family. While there are many online platforms that overlap with Meta’s services, the FTC argues that virtually none of them serve that market. If internet users want to find and hang out with people they know — as opposed to, say, watching influencers or making work connections — then it’s Mark Zuckerberg’s way or… in the government’s telling, Snapchat, BeReal, and MeWe. Beyond that core definition, PSNs have some other unique features and norms: The apps feature a social graph of users’ friends and family connections, as opposed to mapping users primarily based on their interests. Users can look up and find people they know in real life. And they come to the app to share personal updates with those people.Facebook and Instagram increasingly display videos and photos from influencers and celebrities, but the FTC argues personal social networking remains a core service. It used Instagram chief Adam Mosseri’s testimony to most clearly make this point. In that testimony as well as posts to his own Instagram account, Mosseri said that it’s still important for the app to connect users with their friends. The FTC argues that even if that use case is a smaller portion of what Meta’s apps do these days, it’s still a significant need users have that can virtually only be fulfilled by Facebook and Instagram. While someone might connect with people they know in real life on LinkedIn, they likely won’t primarily share personal updates there. And while they also could follow and interact with people they know on TikTok or YouTube, they’re more likely to passively watch videos from people they don’t.Meta says this is an entirely wrong way to think about it. Social media platforms compete for users’ time and attention, so whether a particular app is squarely aimed at so-called friends and family sharing is beside the point. Facebook and Instagram have evolved to show more content from people like influencers, shifting further from the use case the FTC says Meta has illegally dominated. The company has already landed some important points that could help its case, and it will get more time to push back on the agency’s framing when it calls its own witnesses in the coming weeks.But as the FTC’s case-in-chief continues into its fifth week, its argument for Meta’s dominance is becoming a lot clearer.Why do people use Facebook?When defining a market, each side is trying to answer a key question: why are people choosing one particular company’s product? A lot of goods and services compete with each other in some sense, but this doesn’t mean they serve the same niche. In the case of sodas, for example, “you could buy lemon-lime, but many people would never see that as a close substitute for buying Coke or Pepsi,” says George Washington Law professor and former FTC Chair Bill Kovacic. In the tech world, Netflix has claimed its biggest competitors are Fortnite and sleep — but those comparisons probably wouldn’t stand up in court.The FTC says that outside of Facebook and Instagram, only apps like Snapchat and MeWe can fulfill a users’ desire to broadcast personal updates with friends and family online. To make its case, it brought in a string of executives from other social media companies to explain why their apps can’t quite scratch the same itch for users. Strava’s former VP of connected partnerships Mateo Ortega testified that sure, users of the fitness-tracking social media app could share baby photos on the platform, but they probably wouldn’t unless it was in a running stroller. “It’s all about fitness, and while you can post other stuff, it just doesn’t seem as relevant,” he said. “You could buy lemon-lime, but many people would never see that as a close substitute for buying Coke or Pepsi”Pinterest’s former head of user growth Julia Roberts testified that users who come to Pinterest “expecting it to be like other social media apps … tend to be confused about how to use the product.” That’s because the app is so much not about connecting with other people that it works much differently from other social media platforms. Pinterest is more about finding things users are interested in, she said, so “following is not a big part of the Pinterest experience.”TikTok has a tab where users can watch videos from their friends — identified as people who mutually follow each other. But head of operations Adam Presser testified only about 1 percent of videos watched on the platform are there. The company doesn’t think of itself as competing with Meta’s apps for personal social networking, he testified. And even though side-by-side screenshots of TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts look identical, Presser said, “when you click out of this view for these other platforms, you would get to essentially what I think of as their core business,” which for Instagram, includes a feed and stories that often contain at least some content from family and friends.At times, Meta’s cross-examination of rival company executives showed the limits of apps’ similarities. When questioning Apple director of product marketing Ronak Shah, Meta sought to show that group chats in Apple’s messaging feature could serve as a social media feed for friends and family sharing. But Shah testified that feed would be limited to 32 people at most, and users can’t just look up each others’ profiles like they would on social platforms. Still, Meta pointed out, Apple’s messages app is listed under social media on its own app store.However, Meta also made important arguments about why the judge should question the FTC’s framing. It pointed out that some documents from TikTok and YouTube owner Google claiming their products are very different from Meta’s were submitted to foreign officials to try to avoid getting drafted into potentially frustrating regulations. It also pointed out when TikTok briefly went dark in the US ahead of a (now-aborted) ban, users flocked to Meta apps, showing consumers see it as a substitute on at least some level. That’s because, Meta argued, competition for users is really about winning their time and attention.Companies can “sometimes make mistakes. They misjudge who their users are”But X VP of product Keith Coleman testified it’s not that useful to think about competition this way. Instead, “it’s much more helpful to understand what people are trying to accomplish in their lives and to try to help them accomplish that.” Under former CEO Jack Dorsey, then-Twitter leaned into focusing on news and users’ interests, Coleman testified, because that’s why people were coming to the platform. Coleman was later surprised at how his own website characterized the product in its help center as a “service for friends, family, and coworkers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent messages.” “I can’t believe that’s on the website,” he said. “That’s pretty wacky.”This point was “a caution that not everything a company writes down or says is necessarily decisive in establishing what the boundary of a market is,” Kovacic said. Companies can “sometimes make mistakes. They misjudge who their users are.”There are real ramifications for internet users here. Going back to Netflix’s comparisons, if the streaming video service went down, some people would probably be happy to play a video game or get a few hours of shut-eye instead. But others would be frustrated that they couldn’t watch a movie, which is why it’s good that Hulu, HBO, and Amazon Prime Video also exist. The FTC’s argument isn’t that Meta owns the only social apps on the internet, it’s that the company faces little competition for a service many people specifically want — so the fact that you probably don’t know anyone using MeWe is sort of the point.How will the judge decide?Ultimately, Boasberg’s market definition — whether it’s Meta’s, the FTC’s, or his own — will come down to a few things: how Meta views itself, how competitors see it, and his own intuition, says Kovacic. ”Notice how much the FTC has been questioning Meta witnesses on the basis of its own internal documents,” he says. “Does the story in the courtroom match the story of your own internal documents?” So far, the documents have shown that Meta has clocked that at least some portion of users come to its products to connect with family and friends, but also that the rise of TikTok has had it looking over its shoulder. In September 2020, Meta told its board that Instagram revenue would be “meaningfully lower” than planned in the second half of the fiscal year because TikTok was drawing users’ attention. But other internal documents have shown Meta’s well aware that at different points in time, users have come to its apps to connect with family and friends, and worriedly took note of other apps entering that space. In a 2018 presentation, Meta found that the highest percentage of surveyed users said they come to Facebook, Instagram, and Snap to “see daily casual moments” and “see special moments.” By contrast, users came to Twitter’s feed for news and YouTube’s for entertainment. And even as Instagram expands into entertainment, the FTC notes that it still advertises its sign-up page as a place to “see photos and videos from your friends.”“Instagram will always need to focus on friends”In a 2018 email, Zuckerberg told Mosseri that “Instagram will always need to focus on friends.” And even though a lot has changed in the social media landscape since then, Mosseri testified that to this day on the app, “friends are an important part of the experience.” Even though users may share fewer of their own updates on Facebook and Instagram, Mosseri admitted that two friends talking in the comments of a public figure’s post counts as an interaction between friends — and one that Instagram actively tries to facilitate.Meta has argued that this special focus on friends and family sharing makes up a shrinking portion of its offerings as it works to compete with fierce rivals like TikTok. But the FTC says it’s still significant enough to monopolize. It’s a scenario that came up in another major tech monopolization case, Kovacic says: the late-1990s lawsuit US v. Microsoft. In that case, Microsoft argued the Justice Department was ignoring how computing would soon move beyond the personal computer to the Internet of Things, meaning it couldn’t truly lock up the computing ecosystem as much as the government alleged.“Judge Jackson in the Microsoft case said, yeah, those things are happening, but not happening fast enough to deny you real market power in this PC and laptop-based market that the Justice Department is emphasizing,” Kovacic says.Still, he adds, a market niche can at some point become so small that it’s no longer significant in the eyes of antitrust law. “You can have a process of change that ultimately renders the market segment unimportant,” he says. “And the hard task of analysis for the judge is to say, has it already happened?”See More:
المصدر: www.theverge.com
#why #one #obscure #app #could #help #crumble #metas #empire #the #question #who #biggest #rival #were #family #feud #survey #tiktok #would #likely #winning #answerin #federal #trade #commissions #antitrust #case #against #facebook #and #instagram #owner #governments #response #probably #wouldnt #even #make #top #small #blockchainbased #platform #called #mewemewe #looks #fair #amount #like #first #glance #except #that #you #account #using #frequency #blockchain #which #company #explains #decentralized #protocol #lets #move #your #social #connections #other #mostly #hypothetical #this #point #apps #support #frequencythe #says #million #users #have #joined #but #when #mewe #log #scroll #through #autopopulated #feed #think #are #these #people #search #for #few #verge #colleagues #figuring #anyone #has #tried #might #them #come #shorti #try #some #public #figures #tim #cook #jeff #bezos #mark #zuckerberg #there #accounts #with #names #seems #unlikely #theyre #ones #mindthe #claim #closer #competitor #than #baffling #youre #not #steeped #law #specifics #ftcs #complaintmeta #ceo #testified #hadnt #heard #before #was #filedbut #ftc #spent #past #three #weeks #laying #out #its #logicusing #own #internal #discussions #about #how #views #itself #competition #meta #historically #day #competed #market #connecting #friends #online #saw #dominance #space #threatened #rise #whatsapp #bought #squash #competitionwhether #judge #james #boasberg #buys #determine #wins #can #also #show #acted #illegally #acquisitions #solidify #alleged #monopoly #powerantitrust #supposed #ensure #usually #means #options #useful #class #goods #services #whats #known #relevant #marketthe #here #personal #networking #psns #spaces #where #core #purpose #helping #connect #familywhile #many #platforms #overlap #argues #virtually #none #serve #marketif #internet #want #find #hang #they #know #opposed #say #watching #influencers #making #work #then #zuckerbergs #way #telling #snapchat #bereal #mewebeyond #definition #unique #features #norms #feature #graph #mapping #primarily #based #their #interestsusers #look #real #lifeand #share #updates #those #peoplefacebook #increasingly #display #videos #photos #from #celebrities #remains #serviceit #used #chief #adam #mosseris #testimony #most #clearly #pointin #well #posts #his #mosseri #said #still #important #friendsthe #use #smaller #portion #what #days #significant #need #only #fulfilled #instagramwhile #someone #life #linkedin #wont #thereand #while #follow #interact #youtube #more #passively #watch #dontmeta #entirely #wrong #itsocial #media #compete #time #attention #whether #particular #squarely #aimed #socalled #sharing #beside #pointfacebook #evolved #content #shifting #further #dominatedthe #already #landed #points #will #get #push #back #agencys #framing #calls #witnesses #coming #weeksbut #caseinchief #continues #into #fifth #week #argument #becoming #lot #clearerwhy #facebookwhen #defining #each #side #trying #answer #key #choosing #companys #product #sense #doesnt #mean #same #nichein #sodas #example #buy #lemonlime #never #see #close #substitute #buying #coke #pepsi #george #washington #professor #former #chair #bill #kovacicin #tech #world #netflix #claimed #competitors #fortnite #sleep #comparisons #stand #courtthe #outside #fulfill #desire #broadcast #onlineto #brought #string #executives #companies #explain #cant #quite #scratch #itch #usersstravas #connected #partnerships #mateo #ortega #sure #fitnesstracking #baby #unless #running #strollerits #all #fitness #post #stuff #just #seem #saidyou #pepsipinterests #head #user #growth #julia #roberts #pinterest #expecting #tend #confused #thats #because #much #works #differently #platformspinterest #finding #things #interested #she #following #big #part #experiencetiktok #tab #identified #mutually #otherbut #operations #presser #percent #watched #therethe #competing #testifiedand #though #sidebyside #screenshots #reels #shorts #identical #click #view #essentially #business #includes #stories #often #contain #least #friendsat #times #crossexamination #showed #limits #similaritieswhen #questioning #apple #director #marketing #ronak #shah #sought #group #chats #apples #messaging #sharingbut #limited #others #profiles #platformsstill #pointed #messages #listed #under #storehowever #made #arguments #should #framingit #documents #google #claiming #products #very #different #submitted #foreign #officials #avoid #getting #drafted #potentially #frustrating #regulationsit #briefly #went #dark #ahead #nowaborted #ban #flocked #showing #consumers #levelthats #argued #really #attentioncompanies #sometimes #mistakesthey #misjudge #arebut #keith #coleman #wayinstead #helpful #understand #accomplish #lives #jack #dorsey #thentwitter #leaned #focusing #news #interests #platformcoleman #later #surprised #website #characterized #center #service #coworkers #communicate #stay #exchange #quick #frequent #believe #saidthats #pretty #wackythis #caution #everything #writes #down #necessarily #decisive #establishing #boundary #kovacic #saidcompanies #arethere #ramifications #heregoing #netflixs #streaming #video #happy #play #game #hours #shuteye #insteadbut #frustrated #couldnt #movie #good #hulu #hbo #amazon #prime #existthe #isnt #owns #faces #little #specifically #fact #dont #sort #pointhow #decideultimately #boasbergs #intuition #kovacicnotice #been #basis #saysdoes #story #courtroom #match #far #shown #clocked #had #looking #over #shoulderin #september #told #board #revenue #meaningfully #lower #planned #second #half #fiscal #year #drawing #attentionbut #aware #worriedly #took #note #entering #spacein #presentation #found #highest #percentage #surveyed #snap #daily #casual #moments #special #contrast #came #twitters #youtubes #entertainmentand #expands #entertainment #notes #advertises #signup #page #place #friendsinstagram #always #focus #friendsin #email #changed #landscape #since #experience #may #fewer #admitted #two #talking #comments #counts #interaction #between #actively #tries #facilitatemeta #makes #shrinking #offerings #fierce #rivals #tiktokbut #enough #monopolizeits #scenario #another #major #monopolization #late1990s #lawsuit #vmicrosoftin #microsoft #justice #department #ignoring #computing #soon #beyond #computer #meaning #truly #lock #ecosystem #government #allegedjudge #jackson #yeah #happening #fast #deny #power #laptopbased #emphasizing #saysstill #adds #niche #become #longer #eyes #lawyou #process #change #ultimately #renders #segment #unimportant #saysand #hard #task #analysis #happenedsee

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

Why one obscure app could help crumble Meta’s empire

If the question, “Who is Meta’s biggest rival?” were on a Family Feud survey, TikTok would likely be the winning answer. In the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust case against the Facebook and Instagram owner, the government’s response probably wouldn’t even make the top 10: a small blockchain-based platform called MeWe. MeWe looks a fair amount like Facebook at first glance, except that you make an account using the Frequency blockchain — which the company explains is a decentralized protocol that lets you move your social connections to other (mostly hypothetical at this point) apps that support Frequency. The company says 20 million users have joined, but when I make a MeWe account and log in, I scroll through my autopopulated feed and think, “Who are these people?” I search for a few of my Verge colleagues, figuring if anyone has tried this obscure app, it might be one of them, but I come up short. I try some public figures: Tim Cook? Jeff Bezos? Mark Zuckerberg? There are some accounts with these names, but it seems unlikely they’re the ones I have in mind.The claim that MeWe is a closer competitor to Facebook and Instagram than TikTok might be baffling if you’re not steeped in antitrust law or the specifics of the FTC’s complaint. Meta CEO Zuckerberg testified he hadn’t even heard of the app before this case was filed. But the FTC has spent the past three weeks laying out its logic. Using Meta’s own internal discussions about how it views itself and its competition, it says that Meta has historically, and to this day, competed in a market for connecting with friends and family online — and when it saw its dominance in that space threatened by the rise of Instagram and WhatsApp, it bought them to squash the competition.Whether Judge James Boasberg buys this could determine who wins the case — if the FTC can also show that Meta acted illegally through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp to solidify its alleged monopoly power.Antitrust law is supposed to ensure fair competition, which usually means that people have options for a useful class of goods and services — what’s known as a relevant market. The FTC says that here, that market is “personal social networking services,” or PSNs: spaces where a core purpose is helping people connect with friends and family. While there are many online platforms that overlap with Meta’s services, the FTC argues that virtually none of them serve that market. If internet users want to find and hang out with people they know — as opposed to, say, watching influencers or making work connections — then it’s Mark Zuckerberg’s way or… in the government’s telling, Snapchat, BeReal, and MeWe. Beyond that core definition, PSNs have some other unique features and norms: The apps feature a social graph of users’ friends and family connections, as opposed to mapping users primarily based on their interests. Users can look up and find people they know in real life. And they come to the app to share personal updates with those people.Facebook and Instagram increasingly display videos and photos from influencers and celebrities, but the FTC argues personal social networking remains a core service. It used Instagram chief Adam Mosseri’s testimony to most clearly make this point. In that testimony as well as posts to his own Instagram account, Mosseri said that it’s still important for the app to connect users with their friends. The FTC argues that even if that use case is a smaller portion of what Meta’s apps do these days, it’s still a significant need users have that can virtually only be fulfilled by Facebook and Instagram. While someone might connect with people they know in real life on LinkedIn, they likely won’t primarily share personal updates there. And while they also could follow and interact with people they know on TikTok or YouTube, they’re more likely to passively watch videos from people they don’t.Meta says this is an entirely wrong way to think about it. Social media platforms compete for users’ time and attention, so whether a particular app is squarely aimed at so-called friends and family sharing is beside the point. Facebook and Instagram have evolved to show more content from people like influencers, shifting further from the use case the FTC says Meta has illegally dominated. The company has already landed some important points that could help its case, and it will get more time to push back on the agency’s framing when it calls its own witnesses in the coming weeks.But as the FTC’s case-in-chief continues into its fifth week, its argument for Meta’s dominance is becoming a lot clearer.Why do people use Facebook?When defining a market, each side is trying to answer a key question: why are people choosing one particular company’s product? A lot of goods and services compete with each other in some sense, but this doesn’t mean they serve the same niche. In the case of sodas, for example, “you could buy lemon-lime, but many people would never see that as a close substitute for buying Coke or Pepsi,” says George Washington Law professor and former FTC Chair Bill Kovacic. In the tech world, Netflix has claimed its biggest competitors are Fortnite and sleep — but those comparisons probably wouldn’t stand up in court.The FTC says that outside of Facebook and Instagram, only apps like Snapchat and MeWe can fulfill a users’ desire to broadcast personal updates with friends and family online. To make its case, it brought in a string of executives from other social media companies to explain why their apps can’t quite scratch the same itch for users. Strava’s former VP of connected partnerships Mateo Ortega testified that sure, users of the fitness-tracking social media app could share baby photos on the platform, but they probably wouldn’t unless it was in a running stroller. “It’s all about fitness, and while you can post other stuff, it just doesn’t seem as relevant,” he said. “You could buy lemon-lime, but many people would never see that as a close substitute for buying Coke or Pepsi”Pinterest’s former head of user growth Julia Roberts testified that users who come to Pinterest “expecting it to be like other social media apps … tend to be confused about how to use the product.” That’s because the app is so much not about connecting with other people that it works much differently from other social media platforms. Pinterest is more about finding things users are interested in, she said, so “following is not a big part of the Pinterest experience.”TikTok has a tab where users can watch videos from their friends — identified as people who mutually follow each other. But head of operations Adam Presser testified only about 1 percent of videos watched on the platform are there. The company doesn’t think of itself as competing with Meta’s apps for personal social networking, he testified. And even though side-by-side screenshots of TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts look identical, Presser said, “when you click out of this view for these other platforms, you would get to essentially what I think of as their core business,” which for Instagram, includes a feed and stories that often contain at least some content from family and friends.At times, Meta’s cross-examination of rival company executives showed the limits of apps’ similarities. When questioning Apple director of product marketing Ronak Shah, Meta sought to show that group chats in Apple’s messaging feature could serve as a social media feed for friends and family sharing. But Shah testified that feed would be limited to 32 people at most, and users can’t just look up each others’ profiles like they would on social platforms. Still, Meta pointed out, Apple’s messages app is listed under social media on its own app store.However, Meta also made important arguments about why the judge should question the FTC’s framing. It pointed out that some documents from TikTok and YouTube owner Google claiming their products are very different from Meta’s were submitted to foreign officials to try to avoid getting drafted into potentially frustrating regulations. It also pointed out when TikTok briefly went dark in the US ahead of a (now-aborted) ban, users flocked to Meta apps, showing consumers see it as a substitute on at least some level. That’s because, Meta argued, competition for users is really about winning their time and attention.Companies can “sometimes make mistakes. They misjudge who their users are”But X VP of product Keith Coleman testified it’s not that useful to think about competition this way. Instead, “it’s much more helpful to understand what people are trying to accomplish in their lives and to try to help them accomplish that.” Under former CEO Jack Dorsey, then-Twitter leaned into focusing on news and users’ interests, Coleman testified, because that’s why people were coming to the platform. Coleman was later surprised at how his own website characterized the product in its help center as a “service for friends, family, and coworkers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent messages.” “I can’t believe that’s on the website,” he said. “That’s pretty wacky.”This point was “a caution that not everything a company writes down or says is necessarily decisive in establishing what the boundary of a market is,” Kovacic said. Companies can “sometimes make mistakes. They misjudge who their users are.”There are real ramifications for internet users here. Going back to Netflix’s comparisons, if the streaming video service went down, some people would probably be happy to play a video game or get a few hours of shut-eye instead. But others would be frustrated that they couldn’t watch a movie, which is why it’s good that Hulu, HBO, and Amazon Prime Video also exist. The FTC’s argument isn’t that Meta owns the only social apps on the internet, it’s that the company faces little competition for a service many people specifically want — so the fact that you probably don’t know anyone using MeWe is sort of the point.How will the judge decide?Ultimately, Boasberg’s market definition — whether it’s Meta’s, the FTC’s, or his own — will come down to a few things: how Meta views itself, how competitors see it, and his own intuition, says Kovacic. ”Notice how much the FTC has been questioning Meta witnesses on the basis of its own internal documents,” he says. “Does the story in the courtroom match the story of your own internal documents?” So far, the documents have shown that Meta has clocked that at least some portion of users come to its products to connect with family and friends, but also that the rise of TikTok has had it looking over its shoulder. In September 2020, Meta told its board that Instagram revenue would be “meaningfully lower” than planned in the second half of the fiscal year because TikTok was drawing users’ attention. But other internal documents have shown Meta’s well aware that at different points in time, users have come to its apps to connect with family and friends, and worriedly took note of other apps entering that space. In a 2018 presentation, Meta found that the highest percentage of surveyed users said they come to Facebook, Instagram, and Snap to “see daily casual moments” and “see special moments.” By contrast, users came to Twitter’s feed for news and YouTube’s for entertainment. And even as Instagram expands into entertainment, the FTC notes that it still advertises its sign-up page as a place to “see photos and videos from your friends.”“Instagram will always need to focus on friends”In a 2018 email, Zuckerberg told Mosseri that “Instagram will always need to focus on friends.” And even though a lot has changed in the social media landscape since then, Mosseri testified that to this day on the app, “friends are an important part of the experience.” Even though users may share fewer of their own updates on Facebook and Instagram, Mosseri admitted that two friends talking in the comments of a public figure’s post counts as an interaction between friends — and one that Instagram actively tries to facilitate.Meta has argued that this special focus on friends and family sharing makes up a shrinking portion of its offerings as it works to compete with fierce rivals like TikTok. But the FTC says it’s still significant enough to monopolize. It’s a scenario that came up in another major tech monopolization case, Kovacic says: the late-1990s lawsuit US v. Microsoft. In that case, Microsoft argued the Justice Department was ignoring how computing would soon move beyond the personal computer to the Internet of Things, meaning it couldn’t truly lock up the computing ecosystem as much as the government alleged.“Judge Jackson in the Microsoft case said, yeah, those things are happening, but not happening fast enough to deny you real market power in this PC and laptop-based market that the Justice Department is emphasizing,” Kovacic says.Still, he adds, a market niche can at some point become so small that it’s no longer significant in the eyes of antitrust law. “You can have a process of change that ultimately renders the market segment unimportant,” he says. “And the hard task of analysis for the judge is to say, has it already happened?”See More:

·1KB Visualizações

Faça o login para curtir, compartilhar e comentar!

Acessar

Idiomas

Meta argues enshittification isn’t real in bid to toss FTC monopoly trial

How to Stock a 'Tariff Pantry'

What hackers can learn about you from a data broker file

Games Inbox: Is there going to be a PS5 State of Play this summer?

If Congress actually cancels the SLS rocket, what happens next?

The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump

Why one obscure app could help crumble Meta’s empire