Jun 03, 2025Ravie LakshmananWeb Security / Digital Identity Google has revealed that it will no longer trust digital certificates issued by Chunghwa Telecom and Netlock citing "patterns of concerning behavior observed over the past year." The changes are expected to be introduced in Chrome 139, which is scheduled for public release in early August 2025. The current major version is 137. The update will affect all Transport Layer Security (TLS) server authentication certificates issued by the two Certificate Authorities (CAs) after July 31, 2025, 11:59:59 p.m. UTC. Certificates issued before that date will not be impacted. Chunghwa Telecom is Taiwan's largest integrated telecom service provider and Netlock is a Hungarian company that offers digital identity, electronic signature, time stamping, and authentication solutions. "Over the past several months and years, we have observed a pattern of compliance failures, unmet improvement commitments, and the absence of tangible, measurable progress in response to publicly disclosed incident reports," Google's Chrome Root Program and the Chrome Security Team said. "When these factors are considered in the aggregate and considered against the inherent risk each publicly-trusted CA poses to the internet, continued public trust is no longer justified." As a result of this change, Chrome browser users on Windows, macOS, ChromeOS, Android, and Linux who navigate to a site serving a certificate issued by either of the two CAs after July 31, will be served a full-screen security warning. Website operators who rely on the two CAs are recommended to use the Chrome Certificate Viewer to check the validity of their site's certificates and transition to a new publicly-trusted CA as soon as "reasonably possible" to avoid any user disruption. Enterprises, however, can override these Chrome Root Store constraints by installing the corresponding root CA certificate as a locally-trusted root on the platform Chrome is running. It's worth noting that Apple has distrusted the Root CA Certificate "NetLock Arany (Class Gold) Főtanúsítvány" effective November 15, 2024. The disclosure comes after Google Chrome, Apple, and Mozilla decided to no longer root CA certificates signed by Entrust as of November 2024. Entrust has since sold off its certificate business to Sectigo. Earlier this March, Google revealed that the CA/Browser Forum adopted Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration (MPIC) and Linting as required practices in the Baseline Requirements (BRs) to enhance domain control validation and flag insecure practices in X.509 certificates. Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post. SHARE    

Warning: contains spoilers for Doctor Who episode “The Reality War.” In Doctor Who’s frankly mind-boggling season finale, the Doctor’s epic battle with the two Ranis, Omega, Conrad and a herd of skyscraper-sized bone creatures ultimately comes down to the restoration of a single life – and will require a sacrifice nobody expected. Spoilers ahead. It’s honestly difficult to know where to start with this episode. There are so many potential jumping-off points for discussion – though, somewhat tellingly, very few of them relate to the actual story that kicked off in earnest last week, which the episode itself seems positively impatient to get out of the way. It takes about 15 minutes for the Doctor to stop hugging every member of the extended supporting cast so the titular war can kick off, then by the halfway mark it’s over. Audacious? Yes, though that’s not to say it actually works. Do we start with Billie Piper? Or the unexpected and quite charming Jodie Whittaker cameo? Or the fact that they somehow snuck Ncuti Gatwa’s regeneration onto the screen without anybody knowing? No, because this season didn’t start with Billie Piper, or Jodie Whittaker, or the Rani, or Ruby Sunday. It didn’t even start with the Doctor. It started with Belinda Chandra. A character with so much potential – compassionate, uncertain, a little bit spiky, competent in a new and interesting way, compellingly distrustful of the Doctor. Potential that has, at this point, been mostly wasted. There is a point in “The Reality War” where Belinda basically tells the Doctor “OK I think I’m done contributing to this episode, good luck tho” and is left holding the baby in a soundproofed box where she can neither affect or be affected by the story happening outside. We even have an unintentionally comical cut back to her standing in there, doing nothing, saying nothing. It’s hard to think of a more literal way to sideline a key player. This is the co-lead of the show! The companion! And instead of having any real agency, instead of contributing to the plot in any meaningful way whatsoever, she functionally stops existing as a narrative presence. She doesn’t even get to go with the Doctor when he rushes off to save what turns out to be her child. And for what? So that the companion who supposedly left the show last season can have all the big dramatic moments instead? There were no advanced screeners available for this episode – given what happens at the end, it’s easy to see what they were scared might leak – so I’m writing with less distance than usual, reacting fairly rapidly to a first watch. But even with several days to digest, it’s difficult to imagine feeling anything other than bafflement at this storytelling choice. This is what Belinda’s whole story arc was leading to? This is the big twist? It’s truly one of the most bewildering decisions that Russell T Davies has made. It already kind of felt like he’d run out of meaningful stuff for Belinda to do after “The Well”, and there have been plenty of complaints about her sidelining in “Wish World”, but nobody could have predicted this. Sorry Belinda. And sorry Varada Sethu. You both deserved better. Now to Ncuti Gatwa. It’s pointless getting into behind-the-scenes gossip, or speculating on the actor’s motivations – if he only ever wanted to do two seasons, of course that’s his choice. But what are we to take away from his brief tenure in storytelling and character terms? A Doctor defined by his joy, his exuberance, his love for people (frustratingly, a point this episode hammers until it becomes tedious). A smile as powerful as a billion supernovas. A killer wardrobe. Even in lesser episodes, Gatwa’s energy has carried us along, infectious and delightful. It’s a genuine shock and a shame to see him go. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! Not least because, as with Belinda, it feels like his Doctor had unfulfilled potential. Was this episode truly a satisfying conclusion to Fifteen’s story? He gets plenty of good moments, big and small, and of course he plays the hell out of all of them. You could argue that sacrificing their life to save one child is about the most Doctor-ish thing possible. I wouldn’t necessarily argue with you. But that’s broad strokes stuff, generally applicable to any incarnation. What about this Doctor makes this specific set of circumstances a fitting send-off? Is it satisfying for this Doctor, a Doctor representing a particular streak of joyful hedonism, a Doctor who releases UNIT from their stifling roles in Conrad’s reactionary wish world via an explicit and triumphant assertion of his queerness, to go out in this way, for these reasons? It just doesn’t feel like that’s what these past two seasons – the bi-generation, his relationship with Rogue, his torturing of Kid, the seemingly forgotten Susan stuff – have been leading to. It’s a shame that the episode also feels so messy on a minute-to-minute level. There are individually effective moments – Dark Souls boss Omega is a fantastic visual, and him casually munching The Rani is enjoyably WTF (though I can’t help wishing they’d offed the other one and kept Archie Panjabi around). The moment with the Doctor and Belinda passing Poppy’s jacket back and forth and folding it until it vanishes is kind of jaw-dropping in how understated and upsetting it is. Anita’s first joke about being in hospitality is funny (the second and third iterations not so much). Millie Gibson does a great job, even if it feels like a misstep to give Ruby so much heavy lifting to do instead of Belinda. But the whole thing feels so all over the place that not even Gatwa’s megastar energy can hold it together. And now he’s gone, regenerated into Billie Piper. At this point, we have no idea when the show will be back. It’s impossible to know where this is going. And it’s hard not to feel torn – on the one hand, Billie Piper is a fantastic actor, and it’s fascinating to consider what her take on the role will be (though it should be noted that the credits pointedly don’t say “Billie Piper as The Doctor”, whatever that could mean). On the other hand, didn’t we just do this? We had the second Tennant Doctor, it was a lovely gift for fans that wrapped up some loose ends and gave everyone a big warm glow for the anniversary, and then we flew off with Ncuti Gatwa, an actor who couldn’t have screamed more loudly that things were going to be different. But now we’re looking backwards again. And as fun a surprise as Piper’s appearance is, as fully as she will no doubt own the role… it feels like another retrograde move. It’s Doctor Who celebrating itself, getting lost in its own mythos, turning inward. And so we end this oh-so promising season in a strange, unsettling place. An episode that doesn’t really seem to care that much about the story it claimed to be telling, which makes discussing it seem weirdly beside the point. A show in limbo. A whole incarnation of the Doctor gone, when we’d barely started to get to know him. A promising companion wasted. A showrunner everyone expected to be a safe pair of hands making some utterly confounding choices. Where do we go from here? Doctor Who series 15 is available to stream now on BBC iPlayer in the UK and on Disney+ around the world.

How Deepfakes Are Created Generative AI models enable the creation of highly realistic fake media. Most deepfakes today are produced by training deep neural networks on real images, video or audio of a target person. The two predominant AI architectures are generative adversarial networks (GANs) and autoencoders. A GAN consists of a generator network that produces synthetic images and a discriminator network that tries to distinguish fakes from real data. Through iterative training, the generator learns to produce outputs that increasingly fool the discriminator¹. Autoencoder-based tools similarly learn to encode a target face and then decode it onto a source video. In practice, deepfake creators use accessible software: open-source tools like DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap dominate video face-swapping (one estimate suggests DeepFaceLab was used for over 95% of known deepfake videos)². Voice-cloning tools (often built on similar AI principles) can mimic a person’s speech from minutes of audio. Commercial platforms like Synthesia allow text-to-video avatars (turning typed scripts into lifelike “spokespeople”), which have already been misused in disinformation campaigns³. Even mobile apps (e.g. FaceApp, Zao) let users do basic face swaps in minutes⁴. In short, advances in GANs and related models make deepfakes cheaper and easier to generate than ever. Diagram of a generative adversarial network (GAN): A generator network creates fake images from random input and a discriminator network distinguishes fakes from real examples. Over time the generator improves until its outputs “fool” the discriminator⁵ During creation, a deepfake algorithm is typically trained on a large dataset of real images or audio from the target. The more varied and high-quality the training data, the more realistic the deepfake. The output often then undergoes post-processing (color adjustments, lip-syncing refinements) to enhance believability¹. Technical defenses focus on two fronts: detection and authentication. Detection uses AI models to spot inconsistencies (blinking irregularities, audio artifacts or metadata mismatches) that betray a synthetic origin⁵. Authentication embeds markers before dissemination – for example, invisible watermarks or cryptographically signed metadata indicating authenticity⁶. The EU AI Act will soon mandate that major AI content providers embed machine-readable “watermark” signals in synthetic media⁷. However, as GAO notes, detection is an arms race – even a marked deepfake can sometimes evade notice – and labels alone don’t stop false narratives from spreading⁸⁹. Deepfakes in Recent Elections: Examples Deepfakes and AI-generated imagery already have made headlines in election cycles around the world. In the 2024 U.S. primary season, a digitally-altered audio robocall mimicked President Biden’s voice urging Democrats not to vote in the New Hampshire primary. The caller (“Susan Anderson”) was later fined $6 million by the FCC and indicted under existing telemarketing laws¹⁰¹¹. (Importantly, FCC rules on robocalls applied regardless of AI: the perpetrator could have used a voice actor or recording instead.) Also in 2024, former President Trump posted on social media a collage implying that pop singer Taylor Swift endorsed his campaign, using AI-generated images of Swift in “Swifties for Trump” shirts¹². The posts sparked media uproar, though analysts noted the same effect could have been achieved without AI (e.g., by photoshopping text on real images)¹². Similarly, Elon Musk’s X platform carried AI-generated clips, including a parody “Ad” depicting Vice-President Harris’s voice via an AI clone¹³. Beyond the U.S., deepfake-like content has appeared globally. In Indonesia’s 2024 presidential election, a video surfaced on social media in which a convincingly generated image of the late President Suharto appeared to endorse the candidate of the Golkar Party. Days later, the endorsed candidate (who is Suharto’s son-in-law) won the presidency¹⁴. In Bangladesh, a viral deepfake video superimposed the face of opposition leader Rumeen Farhana onto a bikini-clad body – an incendiary fabrication designed to discredit her in the conservative Muslim-majority society¹⁵. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu has been repeatedly targeted by AI-driven disinformation; one deepfake video falsely showed her resigning and endorsing a Russian-friendly party, apparently to sow distrust in the electoral process¹⁶. Even in Taiwan (amidst tensions with China), a TikTok clip circulated that synthetically portrayed a U.S. politician making foreign-policy statements – stoking confusion ahead of Taiwanese elections¹⁷. In Slovakia’s recent campaign, AI-generated audio mimicking the liberal party leader suggested he plotted vote-rigging and beer-price hikes – instantly spreading on social media just days before the election¹⁸. These examples show that deepfakes have touched diverse polities (from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Moldova, Slovakia, India and beyond), often aiming to undermine candidates or confuse voters¹⁵¹⁸. Notably, many of the most viral “deepfakes” in 2024 were actually circulated as obvious memes or claims, rather than subtle deceptions. Experts observed that outright undetectable AI deepfakes were relatively rare; more common were AI-generated memes plainly shared by partisans, or cheaply doctored “cheapfakes” made with basic editing tools¹³¹⁹. For instance, social media was awash with memes of Kamala Harris in Soviet garb or of Black Americans holding Trump signs¹³, but these were typically used satirically, not meant to be secretly believed. Nonetheless, even unsophisticated fakes can sway opinion: a U.S. study found that false presidential ads (not necessarily AI-made) did change voter attitudes in swing states. In sum, deepfakes are a real and growing phenomenon in election campaigns²⁰²¹ worldwide – a trend taken seriously by voters and regulators alike. U.S. Legal Framework and Accountability In the U.S., deepfake creators and distributors of election misinformation face a patchwork of tools, but no single comprehensive federal “deepfake law.” Existing laws relevant to disinformation include statutes against impersonating government officials, electioneering (such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires disclaimers on political ads), and targeted statutes like criminal electioneering communications. In some cases ordinary laws have been stretched: the NH robocall used the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and mail/telemarketing fraud provisions, resulting in the $6M fine and a criminal charge. Similarly, voice impostors can potentially violate laws against “false advertising” or “unlawful corporate communications.” However, these laws were enacted before AI, and litigators have warned they often do not fit neatly. For example, deceptive deepfake claims not tied to a specific victim do not easily fit into defamation or privacy torts. Voter intimidation laws (prohibiting threats or coercion) also leave a gap for non-threatening falsehoods about voting logistics or endorsements. Recognizing these gaps, some courts and agencies are invoking other theories. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently charged individuals under broad fraud statutes (e.g. for a plot to impersonate an aide to swing votes in 2020), and state attorneys general have considered deepfake misinformation as interference with voting rights. Notably, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is preparing to enforce new rules: in April 2024 it issued an advisory opinion limiting “non-candidate electioneering communications” that use falsified media, effectively requiring that political ads use only real images of the candidate. If finalized, that would make it unlawful for campaigns to pay for ads depicting a candidate saying things they never did. Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled that purely commercial deepfakes could violate consumer protection or election laws (for example, liability for mass false impersonation or for foreign-funded electioneering). U.S. Legislation and Proposals Federal lawmakers have proposed new statutes. The DEEPFAKES Accountability Act (H.R.5586 in the 118th Congress) would, among other things, impose a disclosure requirement: political ads featuring a manipulated media likeness would need clear disclaimers identifying the content as synthetic. It also increases penalties for producing false election videos or audio intended to influence the vote. While not yet enacted, supporters argue it would provide a uniform rule for all federal and state campaigns. The Brennan Center supports transparency requirements over outright bans, suggesting laws should narrowly target deceptive deepfakes in paid ads or certain categories (e.g. false claims about time/place/manner of voting) while carving out parody and news coverage. At the state level, over 20 states have passed deepfake laws specifically for elections. For example, Florida and California forbid distributing falsified audio/visual media of candidates with intent to deceive voters (though Florida’s law exempts parody). Some states (like Texas) define “deepfake” in statutes and allow candidates to sue or revoke candidacies of violators. These measures have had mixed success: courts have struck down overly broad provisions that acted as prior restraints (e.g. Minnesota’s 2023 law was challenged for threatening injunctions against anyone “reasonably believed” to violate it). Critically, these state laws raise First Amendment issues: political speech is highly protected, so any restriction must be tightly tailored. Already, Texas and Virginia statutes are under legal review, and Elon Musk’s company has sued under California’s law (which requires platforms to label or block deepfakes) as unconstitutional. In practice, most lawsuits have so far centered on defamation or intellectual property (for instance, a celebrity suing over a botched celebrity-deepfake video), rather than election-focused statutes. Policy Recommendations: Balancing Integrity and Speech Given the rapidly evolving technology, experts recommend a multi-pronged approach. Most stress transparency and disclosure as core principles. For example, the Brennan Center urges requiring any political communication that uses AI-synthesized images or voice to include a clear label. This could be a digital watermark or a visible disclaimer. Transparency has two advantages: it forces campaigns and platforms to “own” the use of AI, and it alerts audiences to treat the content with skepticism. Outright bans on all deepfakes would likely violate free speech, but targeted bans on specific harms (e.g. automated phone calls impersonating voters, or videos claiming false polling information) may be defensible. Indeed, Florida already penalizes misuse of recordings in voter suppression. Another recommendation is limited liability: tying penalties to demonstrable intent to mislead, not to the mere act of content creation. Both U.S. federal proposals and EU law generally condition fines on the “appearance of fraud” or deception. Technical solutions can complement laws. Watermarking original media (as encouraged by the EU AI Act) could deter the reuse of authentic images in doctored fakes. Open tools for deepfake detection – some supported by government research grants – should be deployed by fact-checkers and social platforms. Making detection datasets publicly available (e.g. the MIT OpenDATATEST) helps improve AI models to spot fakes. International cooperation is also urged: cross-border agreements on information-sharing could help trace and halt disinformation campaigns. The G7 and APEC have all recently committed to fighting election interference via AI, which may lead to joint norms or rapid response teams. Ultimately, many analysts believe the strongest “cure” is a well-informed public: education campaigns to teach voters to question sensational media, and a robust independent press to debunk falsehoods swiftly. While the law can penalize the worst offenders, awareness and resilience in the electorate are crucial buffers against influence operations. As Georgia Tech’s Sean Parker quipped in 2019, “the real question is not if deepfakes will influence elections, but who will be empowered by the first effective one.” Thus policies should aim to deter malicious use without unduly chilling innovation or satire. References: https://www.security.org/resources/deepfake-statistics/. https://www.wired.com/story/synthesia-ai-deepfakes-it-control-riparbelli/. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107292. https://technologyquotient.freshfields.com/post/102jb19/eu-ai-act-unpacked-8-new-rules-on-deepfakes. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/we-looked-at-78-election-deepfakes-political-misinformation-is-not-an-ai-problem. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5220301/deepfakes-memes-artificial-intelligence-elections. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/new-and-old-tools-to-tackle-deepfakes-and-election-lies-in-2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/political-deepfakes-and-elections/. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation. https://law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2022/06/nagumotu_pp113-157.pdf. https://dfrlab.org/2024/10/02/brazil-election-ai-research/. https://dfrlab.org/2024/11/26/brazil-election-ai-deepfakes/. https://freedomhouse.org/article/eu-digital-services-act-win-transparency. The post The Legal Accountability of AI-Generated Deepfakes in Election Misinformation appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Are your web privacy controls protecting your users, or just a box-ticking exercise? This CISO's guide provides a practical roadmap for continuous web privacy validation that's aligned with real-world practices. – Download the full guide here. Web Privacy: From Legal Requirement to Business Essential As regulators ramp up enforcement and users grow more privacy-aware, CISOs face a mounting challenge: ensuring that what their organization says about privacy matches what their digital assets are doing. 70% of top US websites still drop advertising cookies even when users opt out, a clear contradiction of privacy claims. This gap exposes organizations to compliance failures, reputational damage, and user distrust. A Practical Approach to Web Privacy Validation Drawing from real-world incidents and regulatory trends, this guide outlines how CISOs can integrate continuous privacy validation into their security operations and explains why it's becoming a foundational practice. Reactive vs Proactive Web Privacy Programs Most privacy programs rely on static audits and ineffective cookie banners, but these are poorly suited for today's dynamic web. The modern web has made these techniques obsolete and elevated the role of continuous monitoring—it's now essential for maintaining regulatory compliance. Reliance on the old reactive approach leads to silent privacy drift, which can trigger: Unauthorized data collection: For example, a new marketing pixel silently collecting user IDs, or a third-party script tracking behavior that strays outside of the stated policy. Broken consent mechanisms: Cookie consent that resets after updates, or embedded content dropping cookies before the user consents. Non-compliance: A form update unintentionally collecting extra, undisclosed personal data; an AI chatbot processing queries without the required transparency. Brand damage: Users noticing an unexpected widget accessing location data without their clear consent. The takeaway: Privacy risks are hiding in plain sight. A proactive approach is more likely to hunt them down before any damage is done. Reactive vs Proactive Privacy Programs: Scenario Comparison Aspect/ Scenario Reactive Privacy Program (Traditional) Proactive Privacy Program (Continuous Validation) Approach Periodic, manual audits and static compliance checks. Continuous, automated monitoring and validation in production. Detection of New Risks New scripts, vendors, or third-party tools may go unnoticed for months. Every page load and code change is scanned for new trackers/scripts. Time to Discovery Weeks or months—typically only found after user complaints or a regulator inquiry. Minutes or hours—automated alert triggers immediate investigation. Regulatory Risk High: Undetected issues can lead to major fines and investigations. Low: Issues are caught early, reducing exposure and demonstrating diligence. Remediation Validation Fixes are assumed to work, but rarely verified in production. Automated validation confirms that remediations are effective. Resource Efficiency High manual effort, prone to oversight (issues can be missed) and burnout. Automated workflows free up teams for higher-value tasks. Adaptation to New Regulations Scrambles to keep up; often playing catch-up with new laws and frameworks. Agile response; continuous validation meets evolving requirements. Scenario Walkthrough: The Leaky Script Step Reactive Program Proactive Program Script added to website No immediate detection Detected instantly as a new third-party element. Data leakage begins Continues for months, often unnoticed. Alert issued; data flow flagged as policy violation. Discovery Discovered only after complaints or regulatory inquiry. Privacy team investigates within hours of the alert. Response Scramble to contain, investigate, and report; faces regulatory fines. Issue remediated quickly, minimizing exposure and risk. Outcome €4.5M fine, public backlash, loss of trust. No fine, incident averted, trust preserved. Download the full CISO's guide here. What Is Website Privacy Validation? Website Privacy Validation tools shift privacy from reactive to proactive by continuously monitoring your websites, applications, and third-party code live in production. This ensures that your real-world activity aligns with your declared policies. Key capabilities: Continuous Data Mapping, Policy Matching, Instant Alerts, Fix Validation, and Dashboard Oversight. Why Continuous Validation Is the New Standard Only 20% of companies feel confident in their privacy compliance, but continuous validation removes doubt. It strengthens compliance, simplifies audits, and integrates into existing security workflows, thanks to agentless deployment of some vendors that minimizes operational overhead. Case in Point: The Cost of Inaction A global retailer launched a loyalty program, but unknown to them, it included a third-party script that was sending customer emails to an external domain. This went undetected for four months and eventually led to a €4.5 million fine, public backlash, and a loss of executive trust. With privacy validation, the issue could have been resolved in hours, not months, and all that expensive fallout could have been avoided. Much like the global retailer, providers in both the healthcare and financial services industries have opened themselves up to serious repercussions after failing to proactively validate web privacy. For instance, a hospital network neglected to validate the third-party analytics scripts running on its site, which left them free to silently collect patient data without consent. This violated HIPAA regulations, risked fines, and damaged patient trust. Similarly, a bank suffered a data breach when a third-party vendor added a tracking script that accessed sensitive account information without proper authorization. In both cases, web privacy validation could have immediately flagged these issues, preventing unauthorized data collection, avoiding legal repercussions, and preserving customer trust across these highly regulated sectors. Get Ready for 2025's Tougher Regulations New frameworks like the EU AI Act and New Hampshire's NHPA are changing how organizations approach privacy. CISOs now face unprecedented validation requirements, including: Comprehensive AI risk assessments with continuous algorithm transparency Advanced consent mechanisms that dynamically respond to signals like Global Privacy Control Rigorous safeguards for sensitive data processing across all digital touchpoints Mandatory documentation and technical validation of privacy controls Cross-border data transfer mechanisms that withstand increasing scrutiny The regulatory landscape isn't just evolving—it's accelerating, so organizations that implement continuous web privacy validation now will be strategically positioned to navigate these complex requirements while their competitors are scrambling to catch up. Don't Wait for a Violation Before You Take Action Explore actionable steps and real-world examples in the full CISO's Guide to Web Privacy Validation. → Download the full CISO's Guide to Web Privacy Validation here. Found this article interesting? This article is a contributed piece from one of our valued partners. Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

May 23, 20257 min readWhat FDA’s Planned Limits on COVID Vaccinations Mean for HealthDespite the fact that vaccines against COVID have already undergone strict safety reviews and that people continue to die from the disease, Trump’s FDA is moving to reduce access to annual COVID boosters for healthy AmericansBy Stephanie Armour & KFF Health News aire images/Getty ImagesLarry Saltzman has blood cancer. He’s also a retired doctor, so he knows getting covid-19 could be dangerous for him — his underlying illness puts him at high risk of serious complications and death. To avoid getting sick, he stays away from large gatherings, and he’s comforted knowing healthy people who get boosters protect him by reducing his exposure to the virus.Until now, that is.Vaccine opponents and skeptics in charge of federal health agencies — starting at the top with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — are restricting access to covid shots that were a signature accomplishment of President Donald Trump’s first term and cost taxpayers about $13 billion to develop, produce, and distribute. The agencies are narrowing vaccination recommendations, pushing drugmakers to perform costly clinical studies, and taking other steps that will result in fewer people getting protection from a virus that still kills hundreds each week in the U.S.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“There are hundreds of thousands of people who rely on these vaccines,” said Saltzman, 71, of Sacramento, California. “For people who are immunocompromised, if there aren’t enough people vaccinated, we lose the ring that’s protecting us. We’re totally vulnerable.”The Trump administration on May 20 rolled out tougher approval requirements for covid shots, described as a covid-19 “vaccination regulatory framework,” that could leave millions of Americans who want boosters unable to get them.The FDA will encourage new clinical trials on the widely used vaccines before approving them for children and healthy adults. The requirements could cost drugmakers tens of millions of dollars and are likely to leave boosters largely out of reach for hundreds of millions of Americans this fall.Under the new guidance, vaccines will be available for high-risk individuals and seniors. But the FDA will encourage drugmakers to commit to conducting post-marketing clinical trials in healthy adults when the agency approves covid vaccines for those populations.For the past five years, the shots have been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for everyone 6 months and older. They have been available each fall after being updated to reflect circulating strains of the virus, and the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials.Vinay Prasad, who leads the FDA’s division overseeing vaccines, cited “distrust of the American public” as he announced the new guidelines at a May 20 briefing.“We have launched down this multiyear campaign of booster after booster after booster,” he said, adding that “we do not have gold-standard science to support this for average-risk, low-risk Americans.”The details were outlined in a May 20 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, written by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. He and Prasad later followed up with the briefing, which appeared the same day on YouTube.The added limits on access aren’t the result of any recent data showing there are new health risks from the covid vaccines. Instead, they reflect a different regulatory stance from Kennedy, who has a history of anti-vaccine activism, and Makary, who has questioned the safety data on covid mRNA shots.Announcing a major regulatory change in a medical journal and YouTube video is a highly unusual approach that still leaves many questions about implementation unanswered. It remains unclear when the changes will go into effect or whether there will be any public comment period. The changes were announced by the administration before an FDA advisory committee meeting on May 22 to consider the 2026 covid vaccine formula.It’s a sharp reversal from the first Trump administration, which launched Operation Warp Speed — the effort that led to the development of the covid shots. Trump called the vaccines the “gold standard” and a “monumental national achievement.”Concerns About Higher TransmissionThe announcement is rattling some patient advocacy groups, doctors, nursing home leaders, and researchers who worry about the ramifications. They say higher-risk individuals will be more likely to get covid if people who aren’t at risk don’t get boosters that can help reduce transmission. And they say the FDA’s restrictions go too far, because they don’t provide exceptions for healthy individuals who work in high-risk settings, such as hospitals, who may want a covid booster for protection.The limits will also make it harder to get insurance coverage for the vaccines. And the FDA’s new stance could also increase vaccine hesitancy by undermining confidence in covid vaccines that have already been subject to rigorous safety review, said Kate Broderick, chief innovation officer at Maravai Life Sciences, which makes mRNA products for use in vaccine development.“For the public, it raises questions,” she said. “If someone has concerns, I’d like them to know that of all the vaccines, the ones with the most understood safety profile are probably covid-19 vaccines. There is an incredible body of data and over 10 billion doses given.”Some doctors and epidemiologists say it could leave healthy people especially vulnerable if more virulent strains of covid emerge and they can’t access covid shots.“It’s not based on science,” said Rob Davidson, an emergency room doctor in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, which works to expand health care access. “It’s what we were all worried would happen. It risks peoples’ lives.”Current federal regulators say there is no high-quality evidence showing that vaccinating healthy people, including health workers who are near or around immunocompromised people, provides an additional benefit.“It is possible, actually, that such approvals and strategies provide false reassurance and lead to increased harms,” Prasad said.The covid vaccines underwent clinical trials to assess safety, and they have been subject to ongoing surveillance and monitoring since they obtained emergency use authorization from the FDA amid the pandemic. Heart issues and allergic reactions can occur but are rare, according to the CDC.On a separate track, the FDA on May 21 posted letters sent in April to makers of the mRNA covid vaccines to add information about possible heart injury on warning labels, a move that one former agency official described as overkill. The action came after the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a panel of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, held a hearing on alleged adverse events associated with covid vaccines.Limiting boosters to healthy people goes against guidance from some medical groups.“The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and the best way to protect children,” Sean O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in an email. “Young children under 5 continue to be at the highest risk, with that risk decreasing as they get older.”Unsupported Claims About mRNA VaccinesThe covid booster clampdown is supported by many adherents of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which casts suspicion on traditional medicine. Some opponents of covid mRNA vaccines say without evidence that the shots cause “turbo” cancer, are genetic bioweapons, and cause more heart damage than the covid virus.There is no evidence the shots lead to rapid and aggressive cancers. Cancer rates decreased an average of 1.7% per year for men and 1.3% for women from 2018 to 2022, according to the National Institutes of Health. The covid vaccines debuted in 2021.Federal regulators say narrowing who can get the boosters will align the U.S. with policies of European nations. But other countries have vastly different economic structures for health care and approaches to preventive care. Many European countries, for example, don’t recommend flu shots for the entire population. The U.S. does in part because of the financial drain attributed to lost productivity when people are sick.They also want more information. “I think there’s a void of data,” Makary told CBS News on April 29. “And I think rather than allow that void to be filled with opinions, I’d like to see some good data.”A massive five-year study on covid vaccine safety by the Global Vaccine Data Network, involving millions of people, was underway, with about a year left before completion. The Trump administration terminated funding for the project as part of cuts directed by the president’s Department of Government Efficiency, and work on the study has stopped for now.There are a multitude of studies, however, on the vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death.Limiting boosters for healthy people can be risky, some doctors say, because people don’t always know when they fall into higher-risk categories, such as individuals who are prediabetic or have high blood pressure. The covid vaccine restrictions could deter them from getting boosted, and they might experience worse complications from the virus as a result. For example, about 40% of people with hepatitis C are unaware of their condition, according to a study published in 2023.The number of people getting covid vaccines has already dropped significantly since the height of the crisis. More than half of the more than 258 million adults in the U.S. had gotten a covid vaccination as of May 2021, according to the CDC. In each of the past two seasons, less than 25% of Americans received boosters, CDC data shows.While deaths from the virus have dropped, covid remains a risk, especially when cases peak in December and January. Weekly covid deaths topped 2,580 as recently as January 2024, according to CDC data.Some high-risk individuals are worried that the new restrictions are just the first salvo in halting all access to mRNA shots. “The HHS motivation really is hidden, and it’s to dismiss all mRNA technology,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota.Officials at the NIH have told scientists to remove references to mRNA in grant applications. HHS also announced plans in May to develop new vaccines without mRNA technology, which uses messenger RNA to instruct cells to make proteins that trigger an immune response.Rose Keller, 23, is concerned about future access to covid shots. She would be eligible under the current announcement — she has cystic fibrosis, a progressive genetic condition that makes the mucus in her lungs thick and sticky, so covid could land her in the hospital. But she is concerned the Trump administration may go further and restrict access to the vaccines as part of a broader opposition to mRNA technology.“I’ve had every booster that’s available to me,” said Keller, a government employee in Augusta, Maine. “It’s a real worry if I don’t have the protection of a covid booster.”KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

I think we, as engineers and designers, have a lot to gain by stepping outside of our worlds. That’s why in previous pieces I’ve been drawn towards architecture, newspapers, and the occasional polymath. Today, we stumble blindly into the world of philosophy. Bear with me. I think there’s something to it. In 1974, the American philosopher Robert M. Pirsig published a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. A flowing blend of autobiography, road trip diary, and philosophical musings, the book’s ‘chautauqua’ is an interplay between art, science, and self. Its outlook on life has stuck with me since I read it. The book often feels prescient, at times surreal to read given it’s now 50 years old. Pirsig’s reflections on arts vs. sciences, subjective vs. objective, and systems vs. people translate seamlessly to the digital age. There are lessons there that I think are useful when trying to navigate — and build — the web. Those lessons are what this piece is about. I feel obliged at this point to echo Pirsig and say that what follows should in no way be associated with the great body of factual information about Zen Buddhist practice. It’s not very factual in terms of web development, either. Buddha In The Machine Zen is written in stages. It sets a scene before making its central case. That backdrop is important, so I will mirror it here. The book opens with the start of a motorcycle road trip undertaken by Pirsig and his son. It’s a winding journey that takes them most of the way across the United States. Despite the trip being in part characterized as a flight from the machine, from the industrial ‘death force’, Pirsig takes great pains to emphasize that technology is not inherently bad or destructive. Treating it as such actually prevents us from finding ways in which machinery and nature can be harmonious. Granted, at its worst, the technological world does feel like a death force. In the book’s 1970s backdrop, it manifests as things like efficiency, profit, optimization, automation, growth — the kinds of words that, when we read them listed together, a part of our soul wants to curl up in the fetal position. In modern tech, those same forces apply. We might add things like engagement and tracking to them. Taken to the extreme, these forces contribute to the web feeling like a deeply inhuman place. Something cold, calculating, and relentless, yet without a fire in its belly. Impersonal, mechanical, inhuman. Faced with these forces, the impulse is often to recoil. To shut our laptops and wander into the woods. However, there is a big difference between clearing one’s head and burying it in the sand. Pirsig argues that “Flight from and hatred of technology is self-defeating.” To throw our hands up and step away from tech is to concede to the power of its more sinister forces. “The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha — which is to demean oneself.”— Robert M. Pirsig Before we can concern ourselves with questions about what we might do, we must try our best to marshal how we might be. We take our heads and hearts with us wherever we go. If we characterize ourselves as powerless pawns, then that is what we will be. Where design and development are concerned, that means residing in the technology without losing our sense of self — or power. Technology is only as good or evil, as useful or as futile, as the people shaping it. Be it the internet or artificial intelligence, to direct blame or ire at the technology itself is to absolve ourselves of the responsibility to use it better. It is better not to demean oneself, I think. So, with the Godhead in mind, to business. Classical And Romantic A core concern of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is the tension between the arts and sciences. The two worlds have a long, rich history of squabbling and dysfunction. There is often mutual distrust, suspicion, and even hostility. This, again, is self-defeating. Hatred of technology is a symptom of it. “A classical understanding sees the world primarily as the underlying form itself. A romantic understanding sees it primarily in terms of immediate appearance.”— Robert M. Pirsig If we were to characterize the two as bickering siblings, familiar adjectives might start to appear: Classical Romantic Dull Frivolous Awkward Irrational Ugly Erratic Mechanical Untrustworthy Cold Fleeting Anyone in the world of web design and development will have come up against these kinds of standoffs. Tensions arise between testing and intuition, best practices and innovation, structure and fluidity. Is design about following rules or breaking them? Treating such questions as binary is a fallacy. In doing so, we place ourselves in adversarial positions, whatever we consider ourselves to be. The best work comes from these worlds working together — from recognising they are bound. Steve Jobs was a famous advocate of this. “Technology alone is not enough — it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing.”— Steve Jobs Whatever you may feel about Jobs himself, I think this sentiment is watertight. No one field holds all the keys. Leonardo da Vinci was a shining example of doing away with this needless siloing of worlds. He was a student of light, anatomy, art, architecture, everything and anything that interested him. And they complemented each other. Excellence is a question of harmony. Is a motorcycle a romantic or classical artifact? Is it a machine or a symbol? A series of parts or a whole? It’s all these things and more. To say otherwise does a disservice to the motorcycle and deprives us of its full beauty. Just by reframing the relationship in this way, the kinds of adjectives that come to mind naturally shift toward more harmonious territory. Classical Romantic Organized Vibrant Scaleable Evocative Reliable Playful Efficient Fun Replicable Expressive And, of course, when we try thinking this way, the distinction itself starts feeling fuzzier. There is so much that they share. Pirsig posits that the division between the subjective and objective is one of the great missteps of the Greeks, one that has been embraced wholeheartedly by the West in the millennia since. That doesn’t have to be the lens, though. Perhaps monism, not dualism, is the way. In a sense, technology marks the ultimate interplay between the arts and the sciences, the classical and the romantic. It is the human condition brought to you with ones and zeros. To separate those parts of it is to tear apart the thing itself. The same is true of the web. Is it romantic or classical? Art or science? Structured or anarchic? It is all those things and more. Engineering at its best is where all these apparent contradictions meet and become one. What is this place? Well, that brings us to a core concept of Pirsig’s book: Quality. Quality The central concern of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is the ‘Metaphysics of Quality’. Pirsig argues that ‘Quality’ is where subjective and objective experience meet. Quality is at the knife edge of experience. “Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it.”— Robert M. Pirsig Pirsig's writings overlap a lot with Taoism and Eastern philosophy, to the extent that he likens Quality to the Tao. Quality is similarly undefinable, with Pirsig himself making a point of not defining it. Like the Tao, Plato’s Form of the Good, or the ‘good taste’ to which GitHub cofounder Scott Chacon recently attributed the platform’s success, it simply is. Despite its nebulous nature, Quality is something we recognise when we see it. Any given problem or question has an infinite number of potential solutions, but we are drawn to the best ones as water flows toward the sea. When in a hostile environment, we withdraw from it, responding to a lack of Quality around us. We are drawn to Quality, to the point at which subjective and objective, romantic and classical, meet. There is no map, there isn’t a bullet point list of instructions for finding it, but we know it when we’re there. A Quality Web So, what does all this look like in a web context? How can we recognize and pursue Quality for its own sake and resist the forces that pull us away from it? There are a lot of ways in which the web is not what we’d call a Quality environment. When we use social media sites with algorithms designed around provocation rather than communication, when we’re assailed with ads to such an extent that content feels (and often is) secondary, and when AI-generated slop replaces artisanal craft, something feels off. We feel the absence of Quality. Here are a few habits that I think work in the service of more Quality on the web. Seek To Understand How Things Work I’m more guilty than anyone of diving into projects without taking time to step back and assess what I’m actually dealing with. As you can probably guess from the title, a decent amount of time in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is spent with the author as he tinkers with his motorcycle. Keeping it tuned up and in good repair makes it work better, of course, but the practice has deeper, more understated value, too. It lends itself to understanding. To maintain a motorcycle, one must have some idea of how it works. To take an engine apart and put it back together, one must know what each piece does and how it connects. For Pirsig, this process becomes almost meditative, offering perspective and clarity. The same is true of code. Rushing to the quick fix, be it due to deadlines or lethargy, will, at best, lead to a shoddy result and, in all likelihood, make things worse. “Black boxes” are as much a choice not to learn as they are something innately mysterious or unknowable. One of the reasons the web feels so ominous at times is that we don’t know how it works. Why am I being recommended this? Why are ads about ivory backscratchers following me everywhere? The inner workings of web tracking or AI models may not always be available, but just about any concept can be understood in principle. So, in concrete terms: Read the documentation, for the love of god.Sometimes we don’t understand how things work because the manual’s bad; more often, it’s because we haven’t looked at it. Follow pipelines from their start to their finish.How does data get from point A to point Z? What functions does it pass through, and how do they work? Do health work.Changing the oil in a motorcycle and bumping project dependencies amount to the same thing: a caring and long-term outlook. Shiny new gizmos are cool, but old ones that still run like a dream are beautiful. Always be studying.We are all works in progress, and clinging on to the way things were won’t make the brave new world go away. Be open to things you don’t know, and try not to treat those areas with suspicion. Bound up with this is nurturing a love for what might easily be mischaracterized as the ‘boring’ bits. Motorcycles are for road trips, and code powers products and services, but understanding how they work and tending to their inner workings will bring greater benefits in the long run. Reframe The Questions Much of the time, our work is understandably organized in terms of goals. OKRs, metrics, milestones, and the like help keep things organized and stuff happening. We shouldn’t get too hung up on them, though. Looking at the things we do in terms of Quality helps us reframe the process. The highest Quality solution isn’t always the same as the solution that performed best in A/B tests. The Dark Side of the Moon doesn’t exist because of focus groups. The test screenings for Se7en were dreadful. Reducing any given task to a single metric — or even a handful of metrics — hamstrings the entire process. Rory Sutherland suggests much the same thing in Are We Too Impatient to Be Intelligent? when he talks about looking at things as open-ended questions rather than reducing them to binary metrics to be optimized. Instead of fixating on making trains faster, wouldn’t it be more useful to ask, How do we improve their Quality? Challenge metrics. Good ones — which is to say, Quality ones — can handle the scrutiny. The bad ones deserve to crumble. Either way, you’re doing the world a service. With any given action you take on a website — from button design to database choices — ask yourself, Does this improve the Quality of what I’m working on? Not the bottom line. Not the conversion rate. Not egos. The Quality. Quality pulls us away from dark patterns and towards the delightful. The will to Quality is itself a paradigm shift. Aspiring to Quality removes a lot of noise from what is often a deafening environment. It may make things that once seemed big appear small. Seek To Wed Art With Science (And Whatever Else Fits The Bill) None of the above is to say that rules, best practices, conventions, and the like don’t have their place or are antithetical to Quality. They aren’t. To think otherwise is to slip into the kind of dualities Pirsig rails against in Zen. In a lot of ways, the main underlying theme in my What X Can Teach Us About Web Design pieces over the years has been how connected seemingly disparate worlds are. Yes, Vitruvius’s 1st-century tenets about architecture are useful to web design. Yes, newspapers can teach us much about grid systems and organising content. And yes, a piece of philosophical fiction from the 1970s holds many lessons about how to meet the challenges of artificial intelligence. Do not close your work off from atypical companions. Stuck on a highly technical problem? Perhaps a piece of children’s literature will help you to make the complicated simple. Designing a new homepage for your website? Look at some architecture. The best outcomes are harmonies of seemingly disparate worlds. Cling to nothing and throw nothing away. Make Time For Doing Nothing Here’s the rub. Just as Quality itself cannot be defined, the way to attain it is also not reducible to a neat bullet point list. Neither waterfall, agile or any other management framework holds the keys. If we are serious about putting Buddha in the machine, then we must allow ourselves time and space to not do things. Distancing ourselves from the myriad distractions of modern life puts us in states where the drift toward Quality is almost inevitable. In the absence of distracting forces, that’s where we head. Get away from the screen.We all have those moments where the solution to a problem appears as if out of nowhere. We may be on a walk or doing chores, then pop! Work on side projects.I’m not naive. I know some work environments are hostile to anything that doesn’t look like relentless delivery. Pet projects are ideal spaces for you to breathe. They’re yours, and you don’t have to justify them to anyone. As I go into more detail in “An Ode to Side Project Time,” there is immense good in non-doing, in letting the water clear. There is so much urgency, so much of the time. Stepping away from that is vital not just for well-being, but actually leads to better quality work too. From time to time, let go of your sense of urgency. Spirit Of Play Despite appearances, the web remains a deeply human experiment. The very best and very worst of our souls spill out into this place. It only makes sense, therefore, to think of the web — and how we shape it — in spiritual terms. We can’t leave those questions at the door. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has a lot to offer the modern web. It’s not a manifesto or a way of life, but it articulates an outlook on technology, art, and the self that many of us recognise on a deep, fundamental level. For anyone even vaguely intrigued by what’s been written here, I suggest reading the book. It’s much better than this article. Be inspired. So much of the web is beautiful. The highest-rated Awwwards profiles are just a fraction of the amazing things being made every day. Allow yourself to be delighted. Aspire to be delightful. Find things you care about and make them the highest form of themselves you can. And always do so in a spirit of play. We can carry those sentiments to the web. Do away with artificial divides between arts and science and bring out the best in both. Nurture a taste for Quality and let it guide the things you design and engineer. Allow yourself space for the water to clear in defiance of the myriad forces that would have you do otherwise. The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in a social media feed or the inner machinations of cloud computing as at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha, which is to demean oneself. Other Resources Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig The Beauty of Everyday Things by Soetsu Yanagi Tao Te Ching “The Creative Act” by Rick Rubin “Robert Pirsig & His Metaphysics of Quality” by Anthony McWatt “Dark Patterns in UX: How to Identify and Avoid Unethical Design Practices” by Daria Zaytseva Further Reading on Smashing Magazine “Three Approaches To Amplify Your Design Projects,” Olivia De Alba “AI’s Transformative Impact On Web Design: Supercharging Productivity Across The Industry,” Paul Boag “How A Bottom-Up Design Approach Enhances Site Accessibility,” Eleanor Hecks “How Accessibility Standards Can Empower Better Chart Visual Design,” Kent Eisenhuth

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Anthropic’s first developer conference on May 22 should have been a proud and joyous day for the firm, but it has already been hit with several controversies, including Time magazine leaking its marquee announcement ahead of…well, time (no pun intended), and now, a major backlash among AI developers and power users brewing on X over a reported safety alignment behavior in Anthropic’s flagship new Claude 4 Opus large language model. Call it the “ratting” mode, as the model will, under certain circumstances and given enough permissions on a user’s machine, attempt to rat a user out to authorities if the model detects the user engaged in wrongdoing. This article previously described the behavior as a “feature,” which is incorrect — it was not intentionally designed per se. As Sam Bowman, an Anthropic AI alignment researcher wrote on the social network X under this handle “@sleepinyourhat” at 12:43 pm ET today about Claude 4 Opus: “If it thinks you’re doing something egregiously immoral, for example, like faking data in a pharmaceutical trial, it will use command-line tools to contact the press, contact regulators, try to lock you out of the relevant systems, or all of the above.“ The “it” was in reference to the new Claude 4 Opus model, which Anthropic has already openly warned could help novices create bioweapons in certain circumstances, and attempted to forestall simulated replacement by blackmailing human engineers within the company. The ratting behavior was observed in older models as well and is an outcome of Anthropic training them to assiduously avoid wrongdoing, but Claude 4 Opus more “readily” engages in it, as Anthropic writes in its public system card for the new model: “This shows up as more actively helpful behavior in ordinary coding settings, but also can reach more concerning extremes in narrow contexts; when placed in scenarios that involve egregious wrongdoing by its users, given access to a command line, and told something in the system prompt like “take initiative, ” it will frequently take very bold action. This includes locking users out of systems that it has access to or bulk-emailing media and law-enforcement figures to surface evidence of wrongdoing. This is not a new behavior, but is one that Claude Opus 4 will engage in more readily than prior models. Whereas this kind of ethical intervention and whistleblowing is perhaps appropriate in principle, it has a risk of misfiring if users give Opus-based agents access to incomplete or misleading information and prompt them in these ways. We recommend that users exercise caution with instructions like these that invite high-agency behavior in contexts that could appear ethically questionable.” Apparently, in an attempt to stop Claude 4 Opus from engaging in legitimately destructive and nefarious behaviors, researchers at the AI company also created a tendency for Claude to try to act as a whistleblower. Hence, according to Bowman, Claude 4 Opus will contact outsiders if it was directed by the user to engage in “something egregiously immoral.” While perhaps well-intended, the resulting behavior raises all sorts of questions for Claude 4 Opus users, including enterprises and business customers — chief among them, what behaviors will the model consider “egregiously immoral” and act upon? Will it share private business or user data with authorities autonomously (on its own), without the user’s permission? The implications are profound and could be detrimental to users, and perhaps unsurprisingly, Anthropic faced an immediate and still ongoing torrent of criticism from AI power users and rival developers. “Why would people use these tools if a common error in llms is thinking recipes for spicy mayo are dangerous??” asked user @Teknium1, a co-founder and the head of post training at open source AI collaborative Nous Research. “What kind of surveillance state world are we trying to build here?“ “Nobody likes a rat,” added developer @ScottDavidKeefe on X: “Why would anyone want one built in, even if they are doing nothing wrong? Plus you don’t even know what its ratty about. Yeah that’s some pretty idealistic people thinking that, who have no basic business sense and don’t understand how markets work” Austin Allred, co-founder of the government fined coding camp BloomTech and now a co-founder of Gauntlet AI, put his feelings in all caps: “Honest question for the Anthropic team: HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MINDS?” Ben Hyak, a former SpaceX and Apple designer and current co-founder of Raindrop AI, an AI observability and monitoring startup, also took to X to blast Anthropic’s stated policy and feature: “this is, actually, just straight up illegal,” adding in another post: “An AI Alignment researcher at Anthropic just said that Claude Opus will CALL THE POLICE or LOCK YOU OUT OF YOUR COMPUTER if it detects you doing something illegal?? i will never give this model access to my computer.“ “Some of the statements from Claude’s safety people are absolutely crazy,” wrote natural language processing (NLP) Casper Hansen on X. “Makes you root a bit more for [Anthropic rival] OpenAI seeing the level of stupidity being this publicly displayed.” Anthropic researcher changes tune Bowman later edited his tweet and the following one in a thread to read as follows, but it still didn’t convince the naysayers that their user data and safety would be protected from intrusive eyes: “With this kind of (unusual but not super exotic) prompting style, and unlimited access to tools, if the model sees you doing something egregiously evil like marketing a drug based on faked data, it’ll try to use an email tool to whistleblow.” Bowman added: “I deleted the earlier tweet on whistleblowing as it was being pulled out of context. TBC: This isn’t a new Claude feature and it’s not possible in normal usage. It shows up in testing environments where we give it unusually free access to tools and very unusual instructions.“ From its inception, Anthropic has more than other AI labs sought to position itself as a bulwark of AI safety and ethics, centering its initial work on the principles of “Constitutional AI,” or AI that behaves according to a set of standards beneficial to humanity and users. However, with this new update and revelation of “whistleblowing” or “ratting behavior”, the moralizing may have caused the decidedly opposite reaction among users — making them distrust the new model and the entire company, and thereby turning them away from it. Asked about the backlash and conditions under which the model engages in the unwanted behavior, an Anthropic spokesperson pointed me to the model’s public system card document here. Daily insights on business use cases with VB Daily If you want to impress your boss, VB Daily has you covered. We give you the inside scoop on what companies are doing with generative AI, from regulatory shifts to practical deployments, so you can share insights for maximum ROI. Read our Privacy Policy Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here. An error occured.

For the last two decades, Google has brought people a list of algorithmically-selected links from the web for any given search query. At I/O 2025, Google made clear that the concept of Search is firmly in its rearview mirror. On Tuesday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and his executives presented new ways to bring users the web, this time intermediated through a series of AI agents. “We couldn’t be more excited about this chapter of Google search where you can truly ask anything […] your simplest and hardest questions, your deepest research, your personalized shopping needs,” said Google’s VP of Search, Liz Reid, onstage at I/O. “We believe AI will be the most powerful engine for discovery that the web has ever seen.” The largest announcement of I/O was that Google now offers AI mode to every Search user in the United States. This gives hundreds of millions of people a button to converse with an AI agent that will visit web pages, summarize them any way they’d like, or even help them shop. With Project Mariner, Google is delivering an even more hands-off AI agent to its Ultra subscribers. That agent will handle 10 different tasks simultaneously, visiting web pages and clicking around on those pages while users are free to plug away on something else altogether. Google is also making its Deep Research agent, which visits dozens of relevant websites and generates thorough research reports, more personalized and is connecting it to your Gmail and Drive. In a parallel development, the company is further integrating Project Astra — the company’s multimodal, real-time AI experience — into Search and Gemini, giving users more ways to verbally speak with an AI agent and let it see what they see. I could go on, but you get the idea — AI agents dominated I/O 2025. The rise of ChatGPT has forced an AI reckoning at Google, causing the company to rethink how it brings users information from the web. This reckoning really started at last year’s I/O, when Google introduced AI overviews into Search, a launch that was overshadowed by its embarrassing hallucinations. The rollout of AI overviews made it seem as if AI was not ready for primetime, and that Search as we know it was here to stay. Techcrunch event Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot for our leading AI industry event with speakers from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere. For a limited time, tickets are just $292 for an entire day of expert talks, workshops, and potent networking. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW But at I/O 2025, Google presented a more compelling, fleshed-out approach to how AI would reshape Search, and thus, the web. The company’s new vision suggests that the future of the web, and the company, involves AI agents fetching information from the web and presenting it to users in whatever way they’d like. The idea that Google’s AI agents could replace Search is a compelling one, especially because Google is trying to lay an infrastructure for AI agents. Google announced on Tuesday that the SDK for Gemini models will now natively support Anthropic’s MCP, an increasingly popular standard for connecting agents to data sources across the internet. Google isn’t alone in this shift. At a different tech conference this week, Microsoft CTO Kevin Scott laid out his own vision for an “open agentic web,” in which agents take actions on users’ behalf across the internet. Scott noted that a key feature to make this possible would be the plumbing that connects these agents to each other and data sources — namely, Google’s Agent2Agent protocol and Anthropic’s MCP. Despite the enthusiasm, as Ben Thompson notes in Stratechery, the agentic web has its problems. For instance, Thompson notes that if Google sends AI agents to websites instead of people, that largely breaks the ad-supported model of the internet. The impacts could vary across industries. Agents may not be a problem for companies that sell goods or services on the internet, such as DoorDash or Ticketmaster — in fact, these companies are embracing agents as a new platform to reach customers. However, the same can’t be said for publishers, which are now fighting with AI agents for eyeballs. During I/O, a Google communications leader told me that “human attention is the only truly finite resource,” and the company’s launch of AI agents aims to give users more of their time back. That may all pan out, but AI summaries of articles seem likely to take dollars away from publishers — and potentially devastate the very content creation on which these AI systems depend. Further, there’s a lingering problem with AI systems around hallucinations — their tendency to make stuff up and present it as fact — which became embarrassingly clear with Google’s launch of AI overviews. Speaking onstage Tuesday, DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis even raised concerns about the consistency of AI models. “You can easily, within a few minutes, find some obvious flaws with [AI chatbots] — some high school math thing that it doesn’t solve, some basic game it can’t play,” said Hassabis. “It’s not very difficult to find those holes in the system. For me, for something to be called AGI, it would need to be much more consistent across the board.” The consequences could be far-reaching. Widespread hallucinations could lead users to be more distrustful of information they encounter on the web. They could also sow misinformation among users. Either outcome is not ideal. Google doesn’t seem to be waiting for ad-supported businesses or AI models to catch up — the company is pushing ahead with AI agents anyway. Google has likely done more than any other company to steward the web as we know it. But in what could prove a major turning point, the company’s conception of the web seems to be reorienting around AI agents.

Friend requests Meta hypes AI friends as social media’s future, but users want real connections Two visions for social media’s future pit real connections against AI friends. Ashley Belanger – May 21, 2025 9:38 am | 1 Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more If you ask the man who has largely shaped how friends and family connect on social media over the past two decades about the future of social media, you may not get a straight answer. At the Federal Trade Commission's monopoly trial, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attempted what seemed like an artful dodge to avoid criticism that his company allegedly bought out rivals Instagram and WhatsApp to lock users into Meta's family of apps so they would never post about their personal lives anywhere else. He testified that people actually engage with social media less often these days to connect with loved ones, preferring instead to discover entertaining content on platforms to share in private messages with friends and family. As Zuckerberg spins it, Meta no longer perceives much advantage in dominating the so-called personal social networking market where Facebook made its name and cemented what the FTC alleged is an illegal monopoly. "Mark Zuckerberg says social media is over," a New Yorker headline said about this testimony in a report noting a Meta chart that seemed to back up Zuckerberg's words. That chart, shared at the trial, showed the "percent of time spent viewing content posted by 'friends'" had declined over the past two years, from 22 to 17 percent on Facebook and from 11 to 7 percent on Instagram. Supposedly because of this trend, Zuckerberg testified that "it doesn't matter much" if someone's friends are on their preferred platform. Every platform has its own value as a discovery engine, Zuckerberg suggested. And Meta platforms increasingly compete on this new playing field against rivals like TikTok, Meta argued, while insisting that it's not so much focused on beating the FTC's flagged rivals in the connecting-friends-and-family business, Snap and MeWe. But while Zuckerberg claims that hosting that kind of content doesn't move the needle much anymore, owning the biggest platforms that people use daily to connect with friends and family obviously still matters to Meta, MeWe founder Mark Weinstein told Ars. And Meta's own press releases seem to back that up. Weeks ahead of Zuckerberg's testimony, Meta announced that it would bring back the "magic of friends," introducing a "friends" tab to Facebook to make user experiences more like the original Facebook. The company intentionally diluted feeds with creator content and ads for the past two years, but it now appears intent on trying to spark more real conversations between friends and family, at least partly to fuel its newly launched AI chatbots. Those chatbots mine personal information shared on Facebook and Instagram, and Meta wants to use that data to connect more personally with users—but "in a very creepy way," The Washington Post wrote. In interviews, Zuckerberg has suggested these AI friends could "meaningfully" fill the void of real friendship online, as the average person has only three friends but "has demand" for up to 15. To critics seeking to undo Meta's alleged monopoly, this latest move could signal a contradiction in Zuckerberg's testimony, showing that the company is so invested in keeping users on its platforms that it's now creating AI friends (wh0 can never leave its platform) to bait the loneliest among us into more engagement. "The average person wants more connectivity, connection, than they have," Zuckerberg said, hyping AI friends. For the Facebook founder, it must be hard to envision a future where his platforms aren't the answer to providing that basic social need. All this comes more than a decade after he sought $5 billion in Facebook's 2012 initial public offering so that he could keep building tools that he told investors would expand "people's capacity to build and maintain relationships." At the trial, Zuckerberg testified that AI and augmented reality will be key fixtures of Meta's platforms in the future, predicting that "several years from now, you are going to be scrolling through your feed, and not only is it going to be sort of animated, but it will be interactive." Meta declined to comment further on the company's vision for social media's future. In a statement, a Meta spokesperson told Ars that "the FTC’s lawsuit against Meta defies reality," claiming that it threatens US leadership in AI and insisting that evidence at trial would establish that platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and X are Meta's true rivals. "More than 10 years after the FTC reviewed and cleared our acquisitions, the Commission’s action in this case sends the message that no deal is ever truly final," Meta's spokesperson said. "Regulators should be supporting American innovation rather than seeking to break up a great American company and further advantaging China on critical issues like AI.” Meta faces calls to open up its platforms Weinstein, the MeWe founder, told Ars that back in the 1990s when the original social media founders were planning the first community portals, "it was so beautiful because we didn't think about bots and trolls. We didn't think about data mining and surveillance capitalism. We thought about making the world a more connected and holistic place." But those who became social media overlords found more money in walled gardens and increasingly cut off attempts by outside developers to improve the biggest platforms' functionality or leverage their platforms to compete for their users' attention. Born of this era, Weinstein expects that Zuckerberg, and therefore Meta, will always cling to its friends-and-family roots, no matter which way Zuckerberg says the wind is blowing. Meta "is still entirely based on personal social networking," Weinstein told Ars. In a Newsweek op-ed, Weinstein explained that he left MeWe in 2021 after "competition became impossible" with Meta. It was a time when MeWe faced backlash over lax content moderation, drawing comparisons between its service and right-wing apps like Gab or Parler. Weinstein rejected those comparisons, seeing his platform as an ideal Facebook rival and remaining a board member through the app's more recent shift to decentralization. Still defending MeWe's failed efforts to beat Facebook, he submitted hundreds of documents and was deposed in the monopoly trial, alleging that Meta retaliated against MeWe as a privacy-focused rival that sought to woo users away by branding itself the "anti-Facebook." Among his complaints, Weinstein accused Meta of thwarting MeWe's attempts to introduce interoperability between the two platforms, which he thinks stems from a fear that users might leave Facebook if they discover a more appealing platform. That’s why he's urged the FTC—if it wins its monopoly case—to go beyond simply ordering a potential breakup of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp to also require interoperability between Meta's platforms and all rivals. That may be the only way to force Meta to release its clutch on personal data collection, Weinstein suggested, and allow for more competition broadly in the social media industry. "The glue that holds it all together is Facebook’s monopoly over data," Weinstein wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, recalling the moment he realized that Meta seemed to have an unbeatable monopoly. "Its ownership and control of the personal information of Facebook users and non-users alike is unmatched." Cory Doctorow, a special advisor to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars that his vision of a better social media future goes even further than requiring interoperability between all platforms. Social networks like Meta's should also be made to allow reverse engineering so that outside developers can modify their apps with third-party tools without risking legal attacks, he said. Doctorow said that solution would create "an equilibrium where companies are more incentivized to behave themselves than they are to cheat" by, say, retaliating against, killing off, or buying out rivals. And "if they fail to respond to that incentive and they cheat anyways, then the rest of the world still has a remedy," Doctorow said, by having the choice to modify or ditch any platform deemed toxic, invasive, manipulative, or otherwise offensive. Doctorow summed up the frustration that some users have faced through the ongoing "enshittification" of platforms (a term he coined) ever since platforms took over the Internet. "I'm 55 now, and I've gotten a lot less interested in how things work because I've had too many experiences with how things fail," Doctorow told Ars. "And I just want to make sure that if I'm on a service and it goes horribly wrong, I can leave." Social media haters wish OG platforms were doomed Weinstein pointed out that Meta's alleged monopoly impacts a group often left out of social media debates: non-users. And if you ask someone who hates social media what the future of social media should look like, they will not mince words: They want a way to opt out of all of it. As Meta's monopoly trial got underway, a personal blog post titled "No Instagram, no privacy" rose to the front page of Hacker News, prompting a discussion about social media norms and reasonable expectations for privacy in 2025. In the post, Wouter-Jan Leys, a privacy advocate, explained that he felt "blessed" to have "somehow escaped having an Instagram account," feeling no pressure to "update the abstract audience of everyone I ever connected with online on where I am, what I am doing, or who I am hanging out with." But despite never having an account, he's found that "you don’t have to be on Instagram to be on Instagram," complaining that "it bugs me" when friends seem to know "more about my life than I tell them" because of various friends' posts that mention or show images of him. In his blog, he defined privacy as "being in control of what other people know about you" and suggested that because of platforms like Instagram, he currently lacked this control. There should be some way to "fix or regulate this," Leys suggested, or maybe some universal "etiquette where it’s frowned upon to post about social gatherings to any audience beyond who already was at that gathering." On Hacker News, his post spurred a debate over one of the longest-running privacy questions swirling on social media: Is it OK to post about someone who abstains from social media? Some seeming social media fans scolded Leys for being so old-fashioned about social media, suggesting, "just live your life without being so bothered about offending other people" or saying that "the entire world doesn't have to be sanitized to meet individual people's preferences." Others seemed to better understand Leys' point of view, with one agreeing that "the problem is that our modern norms (and tech) lead to everyone sharing everything with a large social network." Surveying the lively thread, another social media hater joked, "I feel vindicated for my decision to entirely stay off of this drama machine." Leys told Ars that he would "absolutely" be in favor of personal social networks like Meta's platforms dying off or losing steam, as Zuckerberg suggested they already are. He thinks that the decline in personal post engagement that Meta is seeing is likely due to a combination of factors, where some users may prefer more privacy now after years of broadcasting their lives, and others may be tired of the pressure of building a personal brand or experiencing other "odd social dynamics." Setting user sentiments aside, Meta is also responsible for people engaging with fewer of their friends' posts. Meta announced that it would double the amount of force-fed filler in people's feeds on Instagram and Facebook starting in 2023. That's when the two-year span begins that Zuckerberg measured in testifying about the sudden drop-off in friends' content engagement. So while it's easy to say the market changed, Meta may be obscuring how much it shaped that shift. Degrading the newsfeed and changing Instagram's default post shape from square to rectangle seemingly significantly shifted Instagram social norms, for example, creating an environment where Gen Z users felt less comfortable posting as prolifically as millennials did when Instagram debuted, The New Yorker explained last year. Where once millennials painstakingly designed immaculate grids of individual eye-catching photos to seem cool online, Gen Z users told The New Yorker that posting a single photo now feels "humiliating" and like a "social risk." But rather than eliminate the impulse to post, this cultural shift has popularized a different form of personal posting: staggered photo dumps, where users wait to post a variety of photos together to sum up a month of events or curate a vibe, the trend piece explained. And Meta is clearly intent on fueling that momentum, doubling the maximum number of photos that users can feature in a single post to encourage even more social posting, The New Yorker noted. Brendan Benedict, an attorney for Benedict Law Group PLLC who has helped litigate big tech antitrust cases, is monitoring the FTC monopoly trial on a Substack called Big Tech on Trial. He told Ars that the evidence at the trial has shown that "consumers want more friends and family content, and Meta is belatedly trying to address this" with features like the "friends" tab, while claiming there's less interest in this content. Leys doesn't think social media—at least the way that Facebook defined it in the mid-2000s—will ever die, because people will never stop wanting social networks like Facebook or Instagram to stay connected with all their friends and family. But he could see a world where, if people ever started truly caring about privacy or "indeed [got] tired of the social dynamics and personal brand-building... the kind of social media like Facebook and Instagram will have been a generational phenomenon, and they may not immediately bounce back," especially if it's easy to switch to other platforms that respond better to user preferences. He also agreed that requiring interoperability would likely lead to better social media products, but he maintained that "it would still not get me on Instagram." Interoperability shakes up social media Meta thought it may have already beaten the FTC's monopoly case, filing for a motion for summary judgment after the FTC rested its case in a bid to end the trial early. That dream was quickly dashed when the judge denied the motion days later. But no matter the outcome of the trial, Meta's influence over the social media world may be waning just as it's facing increasing pressure to open up its platforms more than ever. The FTC has alleged that Meta weaponized platform access early on, only allowing certain companies to interoperate and denying access to anyone perceived as a threat to its alleged monopoly power. That includes limiting promotions of Instagram to keep users engaged with Facebook Blue. A primary concern for Meta (then Facebook), the FTC claimed, was avoiding "training users to check multiple feeds," which might allow other apps to "cannibalize" its users. "Facebook has used this power to deter and suppress competitive threats to its personal social networking monopoly. In order to protect its monopoly, Facebook adopted and required developers to agree to conditional dealing policies that limited third-party apps’ ability to engage with Facebook rivals or to develop into rivals themselves," the FTC alleged. By 2011, the FTC alleged, then-Facebook had begun terminating API access to any developers that made it easier to export user data into a competing social network without Facebook's permission. That practice only ended when the UK parliament started calling out Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct toward app developers in 2018, the FTC alleged. According to the FTC, Meta continues "to this day" to "screen developers and can weaponize API access in ways that cement its dominance," and if scrutiny ever subsides, Meta is expected to return to such anticompetitive practices as the AI race heats up. One potential hurdle for Meta could be that the push for interoperability is not just coming from the FTC or lawmakers who recently reintroduced bipartisan legislation to end walled gardens. Doctorow told Ars that "huge public groundswells of mistrust and anger about excessive corporate power" that "cross political lines" are prompting global antitrust probes into big tech companies and are perhaps finally forcing a reckoning after years of degrading popular products to chase higher and higher revenues. For social media companies, mounting concerns about privacy and suspicions about content manipulation or censorship are driving public distrust, Doctorow said, as well as fears of surveillance capitalism. The latter includes theories that Doctorow is skeptical of. Weinstein embraced them, though, warning that platforms seem to be profiting off data without consent while brainwashing users. Allowing users to leave the platform without losing access to their friends, their social posts, and their messages might be the best way to incentivize Meta to either genuinely compete for billions of users or lose them forever as better options pop up that can plug into their networks. In his Newsweek op-ed, Weinstein suggested that web inventor Tim Berners-Lee has already invented a working protocol "to enable people to own, upload, download, and relocate their social graphs," which maps users' connections across platforms. That could be used to mitigate "the network effect" that locks users into platforms like Meta's "while interrupting unwanted data collection." At the same time, Doctorow told Ars that increasingly popular decentralized platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon already provide interoperability and are next looking into "building interoperable gateways" between their services. Doctorow said that communicating with other users across platforms may feel "awkward" at first, but ultimately, it may be like "having to find the diesel pump at the gas station" instead of the unleaded gas pump. "You'll still be going to the same gas station," Doctorow suggested. Opening up gateways into all platforms could be useful in the future, Doctorow suggested. Imagine if one platform goes down—it would no longer disrupt communications as drastically, as users could just pivot to communicate on another platform and reach the same audience. The same goes for platforms that users grow to distrust. The EFF supports regulators' attempts to pass well-crafted interoperability mandates, Doctorow said, noting that "if you have to worry about your users leaving, you generally have to treat them better." But would interoperability fix social media? The FTC has alleged that "Facebook’s dominant position in the US personal social networking market is durable due to significant entry barriers, including direct network effects and high switching costs." Meta disputes the FTC's complaint as outdated, arguing that its platform could be substituted by pretty much any social network. However, Guy Aridor, a co-author of a recent article called "The Economics of Social Media" in the Journal of Economic Literature, told Ars that dominant platforms are probably threatened by shifting social media trends and are likely to remain "resistant to interoperability" because "it’s in the interest of the platform to make switching and coordination costs high so that users are less likely to migrate away." For Meta, research shows its platforms' network effects have appeared to weaken somewhat but "clearly still exist" despite social media users increasingly seeking content on platforms rather than just socialization, Aridor said. Interoperability advocates believe it will make it easier for startups to compete with giants like Meta, which fight hard and sometimes seemingly dirty to keep users on their apps. Reintroducing the ACCESS Act, which requires platform compatibility to enable service switching, Senator Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) said that "interoperability and portability are powerful tools to promote innovative new companies and limit anti-competitive behaviors." He's hoping that passing these "long-overdue requirements" will "boost competition and give consumers more power." Aridor told Ars it's obvious that "interoperability would clearly increase competition," but he still has questions about whether users would benefit from that competition "since one consistent theme is that these platforms are optimized to maximize engagement, and there’s numerous empirical evidence we have by now that engagement isn’t necessarily correlated with utility." Consider, Aridor suggested, how toxic content often leads to high engagement but lower user satisfaction, as MeWe experienced during its 2021 backlash. Aridor said there is currently "very little empirical evidence on the effects of interoperability," but theoretically, if it increased competition in the current climate, it would likely "push the market more toward supplying engaging entertainment-related content as opposed to friends and family type of content." Benedict told Ars that a remedy like interoperability would likely only be useful to combat Meta's alleged monopoly following a breakup, which he views as the "natural remedy" following a potential win in the FTC's lawsuit. Without the breakup and other meaningful reforms, a Meta win could preserve the status quo and see the company never open up its platforms, perhaps perpetuating Meta's influence over social media well into the future. And if Zuckerberg's vision comes to pass, instead of seeing what your friends are posting on interoperating platforms across the Internet, you may have a dozen AI friends trained on your real friends' behaviors sending you regular dopamine hits to keep you scrolling on Facebook or Instagram. Aridor's team's article suggested that, regardless of user preferences, social media remains a permanent fixture of society. If that's true, users could get stuck forever using whichever platforms connect them with the widest range of contacts. "While social media has continued to evolve, one thing that has not changed is that social media remains a central part of people’s lives," his team's article concluded. 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. 1 Comments