“Is that concrete all around, or is it in my head?” asked Ian Hunter in “All the Young Dudes,” the song David Bowie wrote for Mott the Hoople in 1972. Concrete is all around us, and we haven’t quite wrapped our heads around it. It’s one of the indispensable materials of modernity; as we try to decarbonize the built environment, it’s part of the problem, and innovations in its composition may become part of the solution. Understanding its history more clearly, the Skyscraper Museum’s new exhibition in Manhattan implies, just might help us employ it better. Concrete is “the second most used substance in the world, after water,” the museum’s founder/director/curator Carol Willis told AN during a recent visit. For plasticity, versatility, and compressive strength, reinforced concrete is hard to beat, though its performance is more problematic when assessed by the metric of embodied and operational carbon, a consideration the exhibition acknowledges up front. In tall construction, concrete has become nearly hegemonic, yet its central role, contend Willis and co-curator Thomas Leslie, formerly of Foster + Partners and now a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, is underrecognized by the public and by mainstream architectural history. The current exhibition aims to change that perception. The Skyscraper Museum in Lower Manhattan features an exhibition, The Modern Concrete Skyscraper, which examines the history of material choices in building tall towers. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) The Modern Concrete Skyscraper examines the history of tall towers’ structural material choices, describing a transition from the early dominance of steel frames to the contemporary condition, in which most large buildings rely on concrete. This change did not happen instantly or for any single reason but through a combination of technical and economic factors, including innovations by various specialists, well-recognized and otherwise; the availability of high-quality limestone deposits near Chicago; and the differential development of materials industries in nations whose architecture grew prominent in recent decades. As supertalls reach ever higher—in the global race for official height rankings by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) and national, corporate, or professional bragging rights—concrete’s dominance may not be permanent in that sector, given the challenge of pumping the material beyond a certain height. (The 2,717-foot Burj Khalifa, formerly Burj Dubai, uses concrete up to 1,987 and steel above that point; Willis quotes SOM’s William Baker describing it as “the tallest steel building with a concrete foundation of 156 stories.”) For the moment, however, concrete is ahead of its chief competitors, steel and (on a smaller scale) timber. Regardless of possible promotional inferences, Willis said, “we did not work with the industry in any way for this exhibition.” “The invention of steel and the grid of steel and the skeleton frame is only the first chapter of the history of the skyscraper,” Willis explained. “The second chapter, and the one that we’re in now, is concrete. Surprisingly, no one had ever told that story of the skyscraper today with a continuous narrative.” The exhibition traces the use of concrete back to the ancient Roman combination of aggregate and pozzolana—the chemical formula for which was “largely lost with the fall of the Roman Empire,” though some Byzantine and medieval structures approximated it. From there, the show explores comparable materials’ revival in 18th-century England, the patenting of Portland cement by Leeds builder Joseph Aspdin in 1824, the proof-of-concept concrete house by François Coignet in 1856, and the pivotal development of rebar in the mid-19th century, with overdue attention to Ernest Ransome’s 1903 Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, then the world’s tallest concrete building at 15 stories and arguably the first concrete skyscraper. The exhibition includes a timeline that depicts concrete’s origins in Rome to its contemporary use in skyscraper construction. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) Baker’s lectures, Willis reported, sometimes pose a deceptively simple question: “‘What is a skyscraper?’ In 1974, when the World Trade Center and Sears Tower are just finished, you would say it’s a very tall building that is built of steel, an office building in North America. But if you ask that same question today, the answer is: It’s a building that is mixed-use, constructed of concrete, and [located] in Asia or the Middle East.” The exhibition organizes the history of concrete towers by eras of engineering innovation, devoting special attention to the 19th- and early-20th-century “patent era” of Claude Allen Porter Turner (pioneer in flat-slab flooring and mushroom columns) and Henry Chandlee Turner (founder of Turner Construction), Ransome (who patented twisted-iron rebar), and François Hennebique (known for the re-inforced concrete system exemplified by Liverpool’s Royal Liver Building, the world’s tallest concrete office building when completed in 1911). In the postwar era, “concrete comes out onto the surface [as] both a structural material and aesthetic.” Brutalism, perhaps to some observers’ surprise, “does not figure very large in high-rise design,” Willis said, except for Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. The exhibition, however, devotes considerable attention to the work of Pier Luigi Nervi, Bertrand Goldberg (particularly Marina City), and SOM’s Fazlur Khan, pioneer of the structural tube system in the 1960s and 1970s—followed by the postmodernist 1980s, when concrete could express either engineering values or ornamentation. The exhibition highlights a number of concrete towers, including Paul Rudolph’s Tracey Towers in the Bronx. (Courtesy the Skyscraper Museum) “In the ’90s, there were material advances in engineering analysis and computerization that helped to predict performance, and so buildings can get taller and taller,” Willis said. The current era, if one looks to CTBUH rankings, is dominated by the supertalls seen in Dubai, Shanghai, and Kuala Lumpur, after the Petronas Towers (1998) “took the title of world’s tallest building from North America for the first time and traumatized everybody about that.” The previous record holder, Chicago’s Sears (now Willis) Tower, comprised steel structural tubes on concrete caissons; with Petronas, headquarters of Malaysia’s national petroleum company of that name, a strong concrete industry was represented but a strong national steel industry was lacking, and as Willis frequently says, form follows finances. In any event, by the ’90s concrete was already becoming the standard material for supertalls, particularly on soft-soiled sites like Shanghai, where its water resistance and compressive strength are well suited to foundation construction. Its plasticity is also well suited to complex forms like the triangular Burj, Kuala Lumpur’s Merdeka 118, and (if eventually completed) the even taller Jeddah Tower, designed to “confuse the wind,” shed vortices, and manage wind forces. Posing the same question Louis Kahn asked about the intentions of a brick, Willis said, with concrete “the answer is: anything you want.” The exhibition is front-loaded with scholarly material, presenting eight succinct yet informative wall texts on the timeline of concrete construction. The explanatory material is accompanied by ample photographs as well as structural models on loan from SOM, Pelli Clarke & Partners, and other firms. Some materials are repurposed from the museum’s previous shows, particularly Supertall! (2011–12) and Sky High and the Logic of Luxury (2013–14). The models allow close examination of the Burj Khalifa, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Tower, Merdeka 118, and others, including two unbuilt Chicago projects that would have exceeded 2,000 feet: the Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle (Cesar Pelli/Thornton Tomasetti) and 7 South Dearborn (SOM). The Burj, Willis noted, was all structure and no facade for a time: When its curtain-wall manufacturer, Schmidlin, went bankrupt in 2006, it “ended up going to 100 stories without having a stitch of glass on it,” temporarily becoming a “1:1 scale model of the structural system up to 100 stories.” Its prominence justifies its appearance here in two models, including one from RWDI’s wind-tunnel studies. Eero Saarinen’s only skyscraper, built for CBS in 1965 and also known as “Black Rock,” under construction in New York City. (Courtesy Eero Saarinen Collection, Manuscripts, and Archives, Yale University Library) The exhibition opened in March, with plans to stay up at least through October (Willis prefers to keep the date flexible), with accompanying lectures and panels to be announced on the museum’s website (skyscraper.org). Though the exhibition’s full textual and graphic content is available online, the physical models alone are worth a trip to the Battery Park City headquarters. Intriguing questions arise from the exhibition without easy answers, setting the table for lively discussion and debate. One is whether the patenting of innovations like Ransome bar and the Système Hennebique incentivized technological progress or hindered useful technology transfer. Willis speculated, “Did the fact that there were inventions and patents mean that competition was discouraged, that the competition was only in the realm of business, rather than advancing the material?” A critical question is whether research into the chemistry of concrete, including MIT’s 2023 report on the self-healing properties of Roman pozzolana and proliferating claims about “green concrete” using alternatives to Portland cement, can lead to new types of the material with improved durability and lower emissions footprints. This exhibition provides a firm foundation in concrete’s fascinating history, opening space for informed speculation about its future. Bill Millard is a regular contributor to AN.

Larry Fabbroni is an architect, strategic advisor, and Chief Innovation Officer for Practice of Architecture. Throughout his career, he has led efforts to reform studio culture and innovate practice. He earned his MBA from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. In 2017, as leaders in the AIA’s Young Architects Forum (YAF), we led the launch of the Practice Innovation Lab (PIL) and hosted a symposium that imagined new architectural practice models. At that time, we already felt that practice innovation was overdue in a profession that has not seen scaled disruption to its business model in over a century. Today, we are confident that there has never been a more critical time for the profession to embrace innovation. Redefining Innovation Henley Hall: Institute for Energy Efficiency by KieranTimberlake, Santa Barbara, California | KieranTimberlake’s research expertise creates value beyond a baseline labor model.  Currently, artificial intelligence dominates strategy conversations, but just as we saw back in 2017, larger patterns prompt calls for innovation. Talent attraction is increasingly challenging, disruptive technology continues to emerge, and actors from outside our industry show growing interest in the space. While incremental innovation has long been a part of the profession, relatively few firms have adopted new practices that create value beyond a baseline labor model. Firms such as KieranTimberlake have shown that research expertise can do this. MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach. BIG has taken on the role of architect-as-developer. Snøhetta houses a product design division. We could continue to list great firms that have pushed the boundaries of practice, but they represent exceptions that have yet to be recognized as new standards. Indeed, the confluence of those factors that led to the original PIL continues to make the case that the time for scaled innovation is now. A Melting Iceberg: Incremental Changes Depleting the Profession Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway | Photo by Ivar Kvaal | Snøhetta houses a product design division, innovatively presenting a alternative business model for firms.  One of the dangers of operating in a slow-moving industry is that change is difficult to detect and even more challenging to comprehend. If an iceberg loses 1% of mass per year, it’s tough to take notice, but the end result is catastrophic. This is what is happening to our profession. For newcomers, if it feels like there are increasingly more attractive opportunities elsewhere, that’s because there are. For seasoned professionals, if it feels like it’s become more challenging to maintain the same levels of prosperity, that’s because it has. Less(er) Talent In some ways, the shift towards companies recognizing “talent” as their most excellent resource has bewildered architects: we have always relied on talent. However, the patterns of talent leaving our profession are concerning. We say “feel” because there is no significant data. We spoke to Kendall A. Nicholson, Senior Director of Research at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), who confirmed that aggregated data on graduate placement does not exist. So we inquired about what placement looks like at several programs around the country. Omar Khan, Head of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture, informed us that approximately 90% of students pursue a minor to expand their horizons, and that in 2022, nearly one in three graduates entered the tech sector. Khan stated that these opportunities aren’t just student-driven — large innovative companies increasingly seek the value that graduates of architecture schools will provide. This increasing difficulty in capturing the talent that architecture schools are producing results in a shrinking and diluted talent pool. For a profession so reliant on human resources, this presents extreme risk. Pay Gaps In an increasingly expensive world, we are not able to compete for the best talent with emerging industries. It’s easy to understand why a popular career pivot for architects has become UX design. Designing user experience for websites pays significantly better than designing the same for the built environment. According to Glassdoor, 2023 entry-level UX designers earned an average of $78K, while the AIA salary calculator suggests architecture grads can expect to earn an average of $59 K. The talent we do attract into the profession often loses interest when they experience low pay and long hours, all while most firms lack clear paths and criteria for advancement or compensation increases. A Smaller Piece of the Pie Examining data in isolation, one might conclude that the profession continues to grow; the number of architects has increased substantially over the last century, and this trend has persisted in recent years. The problem with this growth is that the estimated share of the US GDP for Architectural Services has shrunk over time. This is not a manageable number to measure before 1999, when NCARB first aggregated local jurisdictional data. Due to limitations in industry economic data, we’re only showing data since 2011 for the purposes of this article. In that time, the number of architects has grown, the market size for services has grown, but the share those services represent as a portion of the US GDP has declined — by 15% if we use US Census data to almost 30% if we use industry research data (we used IbisWorld.com, however we found data that suggested a worse and others that offered a slightly better picture). To put it another way, architecture is a stagnant industry with a shrinking share of the economy. It’s challenging to examine this data and emerge feeling confident about the profession, but there is a silver lining. The biggest impediment to innovation for architects is not a lack of talent, but rather the business model. Design thinking has been widely adopted throughout the world as a key component of innovation processes; however, the problem is that we operate in the realm of professional services, which inherently is not well-suited to promoting innovation. Reliance on that formula is causing our iceberg to melt. The Tsunami: The AI Tidal Wave is Here The Rwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture by MASS Design Group, Rwanda | MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach that creates value beyond a baseline labor model.  As we confront the exodus of talent, it is easy for both firm owners and clients to imagine AI bringing efficiencies and replacing “CAD-monkeys” with machines. However, any firm that wants to operate — and win — as anything more than a low-cost provider will need a strategy to increase value, not just cut costs. AI is merely part of the toolbox required to confront a perfect storm of forces. Jobs will Disappear Goldman Sachs predicts that as much as 37% of our industry tasks will be replaced by AI. Many see this as a pathway to lower costs and increased profits. However, that is short-sighted. Markets will adjust quickly and demand lower costs for services; additional new value will need to be articulated and proven, and this will only happen through innovation. New Jobs will Emerge (but fewer of them) AI prophets often emphasize that technological innovation has historically led to net employment gains. Previous World Economic Forum estimates predicted losses of up to 85 million existing jobs worldwide, with parallel gains of as many as 97 million new jobs. However, these estimates were revised in the WEF 2023 Economic Outlook, which now anticipates a net loss of 14 million jobs. This stark outlook signals an even greater need for architects to become more innovative. The 2024 RIBA AI Report indicates that 41% of architecture firms were already utilizing AI, though current tools are indeed just the beginning. Marketing, business development and content creation will be standard areas of AI deployment moving forward. Still, revolutionary changes will come in how we learn, not only to use new tools, but also to collaborate with digital agents. How will this happen? We can theorize, but it is not possible to know for sure until it arrives, so we need to have a plan before we can see the tidal wave from land. The Alien Invasion: Outsiders Are Entering Our Orbit VIA 57 West by BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group, New York City, New York | BIG has pioneered a new model for practice by taking on the role of architect-as-developer. For years, we’ve heard cries that “architects gave away the role of master builder.” But how much did architects actually give, and how much was taken by innovative competition? This distinction is critical because the wagons are circling, and the AEC space has become ever more attractive to investors. Venture Capital and Private Equity Investment The numbers are often difficult to parse because architecture can impact so many verticals and does not operate as its own sector in the investment realm; however, the trends suggest a groundswell is underway. A 2023 McKinsey report shows that construction tech deals nearly doubled from 2019 to 2022, growing by 85%. At the same period, the number of deals increased by 30%, indicating that interest continues to grow. An increasing size of deals also suggests a maturity of the market. As interest in infrastructure investments has declined from its high in 2020, and along with real estate, has been blunted by high interest rates, institutional investors continue to see opportunities in the AEC space. Firm Acquisitions AEC firms that deliver predictable returns have proven to be attractive targets for PE firms. In the second quarter of 2024, private equity firms accounted for over one-third of AEC firm mergers and acquisitions. For M&A deals, the industry has seen an increase in attractiveness with expanded infrastructure spending as a catalyst. However, this interest can also be tied to the lack of innovation that has resulted in an industry ripe for consolidation. M&A orchestrators generate large amounts of profit by streamlining operations, eliminating redundancies, and then stamping out competition. An entire community has been built around this, with AEC Advisors hosting an annual “Private Equity Summit” that brings together CEOs of AEC firms with PE investors. Startups As an extension of the growing interest from venture capital in the space, there is an upward trend in the AEC space being targeted for disruption by entrepreneurs who see an industry that represents a significant portion of the global GDP. AEC Works, a project of e-verse that catalogs AEC startups and investors, lists nearly 800 startups from around the world, with almost 200 identified as “architecture-focused.” The signal is clear: startups are looking to figure out how to do what you do cheaper, better, or perhaps both. Combining this environment with depleted talent pools, a declining share of GDP, and revolutionary technology, it is a correct response to be alarmed. Significant change is inevitable. It is time for architects to see the same opportunities that investors and entrepreneurs see, and learn to navigate within these spaces. The Great Opportunity Throughout history, new actors have enjoyed a “leap-frog” effect and been able to surpass established incumbents to reshape industries, markets and economies. From climate change to pandemic ripple effects, to the housing crisis, to generational shifts in the workforce, there are many forces that directly impact the work of architects and call for innovation. The need for new ways of designing and delivering different components of the built environment is ever-present and will be solved by teams that either include — and might be led by — architects, or those that do not. Most end users will only care if the resulting product is superior. This time of tension is indeed a time of great opportunity. Architects who embrace innovation in pursuing new iterations of our dated business models may actually achieve what many of us have dreamed of from the start: to leave a positive mark on the world. We think the future of the profession depends on it. Top image: Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway The post Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency appeared first on Journal.

PlaySafe ID raises $1.12m in pre-seed funding round Digital identity platform to use funds in support of its "go-for-market" launch to safeguard gamers Image credit: PlaySafe ID News by Sophie McEvoy Staff Writer Published on May 30, 2025 PlaySafe ID has raised $1.12 million in a pre-seed funding round led by Early Game Ventures. With participation from Hartmann Capital and Overwolf, the funding will expand PlaySafe ID's digital identity platform as it prepares a "go-for-market" launch targeting 250,000 users. PlaySafe ID issues players with a "verified, anonymous, and game-agnostic digital ID" to prove that a user "is real and hasn't been caught cheating or being inappropriate to children". The firm is currently in talks "with several major gaming platforms" and is aiming to announce its first partnerships later this year. "This round gives us the firepower to move fast, expand our world-class team, and partner with games that want the most fair and safe environment for players to enjoy," said PlaySafe ID CEO Andrew Wailes. "With cheating in games as a mass epidemic that ruins fun for players daily, and the Online Safety Act ushering in long overdue requirements for child protection in gaming, PlaySafe ID's mission to safeguard gamers isn't just relevant – it's now essential for compliance and the future of global gaming." Early Game Ventures managing partner Cristian Munteanu added: "We believe PlaySafe ID is building the trust later for gaming – and beyond. "In a world where AI and anonymity are eroding safety and fairness, PlaySafe ID restores balance with identity, transparency, and accountability. Once a gamer is verified through PlaySafe ID, that identity becomes portable across games, platforms, and genres." Munteanu concluded: "The more developers adopt it, the more valuable it becomes to players – and vice versa. Eventually, the verified identity becomes a default layer of the gaming stack, just like your Steam account or your Xbox Live profile. It's a winner-takes-all kind of play."

annus mutationis Report: Apple will jump straight to “iOS 26” in shift to year-based version numbers Instead of iOS 19, macOS 16, and watchOS 12, we'll get "iOS/macOS/watchOS 26." Andrew Cunningham – May 29, 2025 10:37 am | 29 Credit: Apple Credit: Apple Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more There may never be an iOS 19 or a macOS 16, according to reporting from Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. At its Worldwide Developers Conference next month, Apple reportedly plans to shift toward version numbers based on years rather than the current numbering system. This is intended to unify the company's current maze of version numbers; instead of iOS 19, iPadOS 19, macOS 16, tvOS 19, watchOS 11, and visionOS 3, we'll get iOS, iPadOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS, and visionOS 26. The last time Apple changed its version numbering convention for any of its operating systems was back in 2020, when it shifted from "macOS X" to macOS 11. Note that the numbering will be based not on the year of the software's release but on the year after; this makes a certain amount of sense since iOS 26 would be Apple's most-current version of iOS for roughly nine months of 2026 and just three months of 2025. The update to the version numbering system will be accompanied by what Gurman describes as "fresh user interfaces across the operating systems," a visual overhaul that will bring Apple's iPhone, Mac, watch, and TV software more in line with some of the design conventions introduced in Apple's visionOS software in 2024. Among the changes and additions will be another crack at "Mac-like" multitasking for the iPad. Although major commercial operating systems have largely abandoned year-based branding since the days when Windows 98 and Windows 2000 were prevalent, many software products still use a year rather than a version number to make it easier to determine when they were released. Many Linux distributions use month and year-based version numbers, as do Microsoft's standalone Office releases. Windows Server shifted toward using years rather than version numbers 25 years ago and has stuck with them since. Apple also uses years rather than version numbers to identify most of its Macs. But these use the year of the hardware's actual release rather than the upcoming year, possibly because Apple doesn't update all of them at the same predictable annual cadence. Andrew Cunningham Senior Technology Reporter Andrew Cunningham Senior Technology Reporter Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue. 29 Comments

Congress could potentially pass the first major legislation related to children’s online safety since 1998, as the Kids Online Safety Act, sometimes referred to as KOSA, was reintroduced earlier this month after stalling last year.The bill has proven to be a major talking point, garnering bipartisan support and the attention of tech giants, but it has also sparked concern re: targeted censorship from First Amendment rights groups and others advocating for LGBTQ+ communities.Now, it will have another shot, and the bill’s Congressional supporters will have a chance to state why they believe the legislation is needed in this ever-evolving digital age.The revival of the Kids Online Safety Act comes amid U.S. and global discussions over how to best protect children online. In late 2024, Australia approved a social media ban for under-16s. It’s set to come into effect later this year. In March, Utah became the first state to pass legislation requiring app stores to verify a user's age. And Texas is currently moving forward with efforts regarding an expansive social media ban for minors. The Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA)—which would ban social media platforms from allowing children under 13 to create or maintain accounts—was also introduced earlier this year, but has seen little movement since.In an interview that aired on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, May 25, during a special mental health-focused episode, former Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, a Democrat who served Rhode Island, expressed a dire need for more protections surrounding children online.When asked about the Kids Online Safety Act, and if it’s the type of legislation America needs, Kennedy said: “Our country is falling down on its own responsibility as stewards to our children's future.” He went on to explain why he believes passing bills is just one factor of what needs to be addressed, citing online sports betting as another major concern.“We can't just pass these bills. We've got to stop all of these intrusive addiction-for-profit companies from taking our kids hostage. That's what they're doing. This is a fight,” he said. “And we are losing the fight because we're not out there fighting for our kids to protect them from these businesses [whose] whole profit motive is, ‘How am I going to capture that consumer and lock them in as a consumer?’”Calling out giant social media platforms, in particular, Kennedy went on to say: “We, as a country, have seen these companies and industries take advantage of the addiction-for-profit. Purdue, tobacco. Social media's the next big one. And unfortunately, it's going to have to be litigated. We have to go after the devastating impact that these companies are having on our kids.”Amid these ongoing discussions, here’s what you need to know about the Kids Online Safety Act in light of its reintroduction.What is the Kids Online Safety Act?The Kids Online Safety Act aims to provide further protections for children online related to privacy and mental health concerns exacerbated by social media and excessive Internet use.The bill would create “duty of care,” meaning that tech companies and platform giants would be required to take steps to prevent potentially harmful encounters, such as posts about eating disorders and instances of online bullying, from impacting minors.“A covered platform shall exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature to prevent and mitigate the following harms to minors: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors... patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors by minors…” the bill reads.Health organizations including The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, have pushed Congress to pass KOSA to better protect young people online—and see the bill as a potential way to intervene with the detrimental impact social media and Internet usage in general can have on one’s mental health. Newer versions of the bill have narrowed regulations to apply to limiting “design features” such as notifications, “infinite scrolling or autoplay,” and in-game purchases.It would also allow for more parental tools to manage the privacy settings of a minor, and ideally enable a parent to limit the ability for adults to communicate with their children via online platforms.What is the history of the bill? In 2024, KOSA seemingly had all the right ingredients to pass into law. It had bipartisan support, passed the Senate, and could have been put in front of President Joe Biden, who had indicated he would sign the bill.“There is undeniable evidence that social media and other online platforms contribute to our youth mental health crisis,” President Biden wrote in a statement on July 30, 2024, after KOSA passed the Senate. “Today our children are subjected to a wild west online and our current laws and regulations are insufficient to prevent this. It is past time to act.”Yet, the bill was stalled. House Speaker Mike Johnson cautioned Republicans against rushing to pass the bill.“We’ve got to get it right,” Johnson said in December. “Look, I’m a lifelong advocate of protection of children…and online safety is critically important…but we also have to make sure that we don't open the door for violations of free speech.”The bill received support across both aisles, and has now been endorsed by some of the “Big Tech giants” it aims to regulate, including Elon Musk and X, Microsoft, and Apple.“Apple is pleased to offer our support for the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). Everyone has a part to play in keeping kids safe online, and we believe [this] legislation will have a meaningful impact on children’s online safety,” Timothy Powderly, Apple’s senior director of government affairs, said in a statement earlier in May after the bill was reintroduced.But other tech giants, including Facebook and Instagram’s parent Meta, opposed the bill last year. Politico reported that 14 lobbyists employed directly by Meta, as well as outside firms, worked the issue.The bill was reintroduced on May 14 by Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who were joined by Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.“Senator Blackburn and I made a promise to parents and young people when we started fighting together for the Kids Online Safety Act—we will make this bill law. There’s undeniable awareness of the destructive harms caused by Big Tech’s exploitative, addictive algorithms, and inescapable momentum for reform,” said Blumenthal in a statement announcing the bill’s reintroduction. “I am grateful to Senators Thune and Schumer for their leadership and to our Senate colleagues for their overwhelming bipartisan support. KOSA is an idea whose time has come—in fact, it’s urgently overdue—and even tech companies like X and Apple are realizing that the status quo is unsustainable.What is the controversy around KOSA?Since KOSA’s first introduction, it’s been the site of controversy over free speech and censorship concerns. In 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) discouraged the passage of KOSA at the Senate level, arguing that the bill violated First Amendment-protected speech.“KOSA compounds nationwide attacks on young peoples’ right to learn and access information, on and offline,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “As state legislatures and school boards across the country impose book bans and classroom censorship laws, the last thing students and parents need is another act of government censorship deciding which educational resources are appropriate for their families. The House must block this dangerous bill before it’s too late.”Some LGBTQ+ rights groups also opposed KOSA in 2024—arguing that the broadly worded bill could empower state attorneys general to determine what kind of content harms kids. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Blackburn, has previously said that one of the top issues conservatives need to be aware of is “protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture and that influence.” Calling out social media, Blackburn said “this is where children are being indoctrinated.”Other organizations including Center for Democracy & Technology, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and Fight for the Future joined the ACLU in writing a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2024, arguing that the bill would not—as intended—protect children, but instead threaten young people’s privacy and lead to censorship.In response to these concerns, the newly-introduced version of the bill has been negotiated with “several changes to further make clear that KOSA would not censor, limit, or remove any content from the internet, and it does not give the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] or state Attorneys General the power to bring lawsuits over content or speech,” Blumenthal’s statement on the bill reads.Where do things currently stand?Now, KOSA is back where it started—sitting in Congress waiting for support.With its new changes, lawmakers argue that they have heard the concerns of opposing advocates. KOSA still needs support and passage from Congress—and signing from President Donald Trump—in order to pass into law.Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., has previously voiced strong support of the bill. “We can protect free speech and our kids at the same time from Big Tech. It's time for House Republicans to pass the Kids Online Safety Act ASAP,” Trump Jr. said on X on Dec. 8, 2024.

These days, our tech experiences are all about speed—and our expectations for instant action are actually kinda insane. Think about it: Not so long ago, phones, computers, and especially the internet were all painfully slow (at least, by today’s sonic-speed standards). Things have come a long way in a short time. And for most of us now, if something doesn’t load within a fraction of second, we grow impatient and maybe give up entirely—like when a webpage has the audacity to take a handful of seconds to show up and we click away in an indignant huff. Hey, we’ve all been there. What’s especially wild, though, is that while the standards for speed have skyrocketed forward, the way we measure this stuff has remained mostly the same. At least, until now. This week, I’ve got an incredibly cool and tantalizingly new tool to share with ya. It’s an overdue update to the way we think about speed and assessing the allegedly lightning-fast connections we all pay for. Get ready for a whole new way to think about the tech in front of you. Psst: If you love these types of tools as much as I do, check out my free Cool Tools newsletter from The Intelligence. You’ll be the first to find all sorts of simple tech treasures! The internet speed test—reinvented Traditionally, when we talk about tools for testing your tech connection speed, we think about things like Ookla’s Speedtest, the native Google speed testing system, or the newer Cloudflare Internet Speed Test service. We’ve covered those types of tools before​. They’re all useful, in different ways—but they’re also all variations on the same tried-and-true type of speed assessment that’s been around for ages now. Today’s tool is different. But it comes from a familiar source—someone who knows this area inside and out. It’s the brand-new brainchild of the guy who created Ookla’s Speedtest, arguably the first internet speed test that became broadly known and embraced by the masses. ➜ It’s called Orb​. And it’s decidedly different from your typical tech speed tester. 👁️ Orb works by looking not only at the basic power of your connection but also its responsiveness and reliability. The idea is that all of that adds up to create a more complete and ultimately meaningful view of your connection quality. 💡 And that number isn’t only about bragging rights, either: It’s meant to help you make sure you’re actually getting the speed you’re paying for—and then able to pinpoint precisely where and when any problems pop up. ⌚ You’ll need about two minutes to set Orb up and take it out for a spin. First, install the appropriate Orb app​ for whatever type of device you’re using. Orb is free to use, and it’s available for most major platforms—Android​, ​iOS​, ​Windows​, ​MacOS​, even ​Linux​. If you’re using a Chromebook, you can go with either the Android app or the Linux version. Open up the app and follow the quick steps to get it set up and ready. Orb will prompt you to sign in or create an account, but you can skip over that if you’d rather. The account just makes it possible to sync your testing data and view it from other devices. Once that swift onetime setup’s out of the way, you’ll see Orb’s dashboard—with a tremendous amount of detail that lets you peek under the hood and learn exactly how much your current connection leaves to be desired. Orb assesses your internet connection across numerous measures beyond just basic data transfers. Specifically: Responsiveness tells you how quickly your connection acts and how much lag you’ve got going. Reliability looks at the consistency of your connection and its responsiveness over time. And speed is the more standard measure of how quickly bits and bytes move across your connection (as measured by Cloudflare—the same basic speed testing tool we’ve recommended before​!). It all adds up to give you a never-before-visible complete picture of your internet speed quality—on your current device as well as any other devices on which you’ve installed the app and signed in. If you sign into Orb, you can see results from any connected devices in a single streamlined dashboard. Knowledge is power, as they say. And with Orb’s in-depth intelligence firmly in your mitts, you’ll be armed to the gills and ready to confirm that everything’s working the way it oughta—and ready to point your finger at the precise problem, if and when one appears. Orb is available on all major platforms​, via a variety of native apps. It’s completely free for personal use. (The company also sells large-scale enterprise software setups, which seems to be where it intends to make money.) The tool comes from known, reputable internet researchers and is ​explicit about the fact​ that it doesn’t do anything disconcerting with the limited amount of data it collects. Treat yourself to even more tech-enhancing goodness with my free Cool Tools newsletter. You’ll get an instant introduction to an incredible audio app and a new off-the-beaten-path gem every Wednesday!

Privacy and digital rights advocates are raising alarms over a law that many would expect them to cheer: a federal crackdown on revenge porn and AI-generated deepfakes.  The newly signed Take It Down Act makes it illegal to publish nonconsensual explicit images — real or AI-generated — and gives platforms just 48 hours to comply with a victim’s takedown request or face liability. While widely praised as a long-overdue win for victims, experts have also warned its vague language, lax standards for verifying claims, and tight compliance window could pave the way for overreach, censorship of legitimate content, and even surveillance.  “Content moderation at scale is widely problematic and always ends up with important and necessary speech being censored,” India McKinney, director of federal affairs at Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, told TechCrunch. Online platforms have one year to establish a process for removing nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII). While the law requires takedown requests come from victims or their representatives, it only asks for a physical or electronic signature — no photo ID or other form of verification is needed. That likely aims to reduce barriers for victims, but it could create an opportunity for abuse. “I really want to be wrong about this, but I think there are going to be more requests to take down images depicting queer and trans people in relationships, and even more than that, I think it’s gonna be consensual porn,” McKinney said.  Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), a co-sponsor of the Take It Down Act, also sponsored the Kids Online Safety Act which puts the onus on platforms to protect children from harmful content online. Blackburn has said she believes content related to transgender people is harmful to kids. Similarly, the Heritage Foundation — the conservative think tank behind Project 2025 — has also said that “keeping trans content away from children is protecting kids.”  Because of the liability that platforms face if they don’t take down an image within 48 hours of receiving a request, “the default is going to be that they just take it down without doing any investigation to see if this actually is NCII or if it’s another type of protected speech, or if it’s even relevant to the person who’s making the request,” said McKinney. 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 Snapchat and Meta have both said they are supportive of the law, but neither responded to TechCrunch’s requests for more information about how they’ll verify whether the person requesting a takedown is a victim.  Mastodon, a decentralized platform that hosts its own flagship server that others can join, told TechCrunch it would lean towards removal if it was too difficult to verify the victim.  Mastodon and other decentralized platforms like Bluesky or Pixelfed may be especially vulnerable to the chilling effect of the 48-hour takedown rule. These networks rely on independently operated servers, often run by nonprofits or individuals. Under the law, the FTC can treat any platform that doesn’t “reasonably comply” with takedown demands as committing an “unfair or deceptive act or practice” – even if the host isn’t a commercial entity. “This is troubling on its face, but it is particularly so at a moment when the chair of the FTC has taken unprecedented steps to politicize the agency and has explicitly promised to use the power of the agency to punish platforms and services on an ideological, as opposed to principled, basis,” the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to ending revenge porn, said in a statement.  Proactive monitoring McKinney predicts that platforms will start moderating content before it’s disseminated so they have fewer problematic posts to take down in the future.  Platforms are already using AI to monitor for harmful content. Kevin Guo, CEO and co-founder of AI-generated content detection startup Hive, said his company works with online platforms to detect deepfakes and child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Some of Hive’s customers include Reddit, Giphy, Vevo, Bluesky, and BeReal.  “We were actually one of the tech companies that endorsed that bill,” Guo told TechCrunch. “It’ll help solve some pretty important problems and compel these platforms to adopt solutions more proactively.”  Hive’s model is a software-as-a-service, so the startup doesn’t control how platforms use its product to flag or remove content. But Guo said many clients insert Hive’s API at the point of upload to monitor before anything is sent out to the community.  A Reddit spokesperson told TechCrunch the platform uses “sophisticated internal tools, processes, and teams to address and remove” NCII. Reddit also partners with nonprofit SWGfl to deploy its StopNCII tool, which scans live traffic for matches against a database of known NCII and removes accurate matches. The company did not share how it would ensure the person requesting the takedown is the victim.  McKinney warns this kind of monitoring could extend into encrypted messages in the future. While the law focuses on public or semi-public dissemination, it also requires platforms to “remove and make reasonable efforts to prevent the reupload” of nonconsensual intimate images. She argues this could incentivize proactive scanning of all content, even in encrypted spaces. The law doesn’t include any carve outs for end-to-end encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp, Signal, or iMessage.  Meta, Signal, and Apple have not responded to TechCrunch’s request for more information on their plans for encrypted messaging. Broader free speech implications On March 4, Trump delivered a joint address to Congress in which he praised the Take It Down Act and said he looked forward to signing it into law.  “And I’m going to use that bill for myself, too, if you don’t mind,” he added. “There’s nobody who gets treated worse than I do online.”  While the audience laughed at the comment, not everyone took it as a joke. Trump hasn’t been shy about suppressing or retaliating against unfavorable speech, whether that’s labeling mainstream media outlets “enemies of the people,” barring The Associated Press from the Oval Office despite a court order, or pulling funding from NPR and PBS. On Thursday, the Trump administration barred Harvard University from accepting foreign student admissions, escalating a conflict that began after Harvard refused to adhere to Trump’s demands that it make changes to its curriculum and eliminate DEI-related content, among other things. In retaliation, Trump has frozen federal funding to Harvard and threatened to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status.   “At a time when we’re already seeing school boards try to ban books and we’re seeing certain politicians be very explicitly about the types of content they don’t want people to ever see, whether it’s critical race theory or abortion information or information about climate change…it is deeply uncomfortable for us with our past work on content moderation to see members of both parties openly advocating for content moderation at this scale,” McKinney said.

steam machines are back SteamOS 3.7 brings Valve’s gaming OS to other handhelds and generic AMD PCs Focus is currently on AMD-based PCs with hardware similar to the Steam Deck. Andrew Cunningham – May 23, 2025 11:28 am | 29 Credit: Valve Credit: Valve Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Valve is releasing version 3.7 of SteamOS to the general public, and among the routine updates and changes is a big one: This is the SteamOS release that finally adds official support for some kinds of PC hardware other than Valve's own Steam Deck. Valve mentions certain specific handhelds as having either "official" or "improved support," including the Asus ROG Ally, the Lenovo Legion Go, and the Lenovo Legion Go S. It also includes directions for configuring the original Legion Go and ROG Ally for SteamOS installation. But Valve says that only the Steam Deck and Legion Go S have fully baked SteamOS support. The release claims to run on "other AMD powered handhelds" more broadly, implying that most third-party handheld PCs with Ryzen Z1 or Z2-series processors ought to support at least some basic functionality. Other all-AMD desktops and laptops have a decent shot at being supported, too. It was previously possible to get a SteamOS-like experience on third-party hardware using a community-maintained distribution like Bazzite, but at least some hardware will now be able to get SteamOS right from the source. This update comes just a couple of weeks after Valve announced a new "SteamOS Compatible" label for games that would be displayed separately from Steam Deck compatibility information. AMD-only, for now If you want there to be a chance that your desktop or laptop will work with SteamOS, it will have to be all-AMD on the inside. Credit: Andrew Cunningham To try SteamOS on your hardware, Valve's two hard-and-fast requirements are "AMD hardware" and an NVMe SSD. The hardware requirement likely refers to, collectively, the CPU, GPU, and chipset, and possibly also the RZ-series Wi-Fi and Bluetooth modules that are often paired with AMD systems. You'll also need to disable Secure Boot on your PC. This is normally enabled by default since it's an installation requirement for Windows 11, so you'll want to refer to your manufacturer's documentation to figure out how to turn it off. Valve's instructions will walk you through downloading a SteamOS recovery image and copying it to a USB drive using either the Rufus tool (on Windows) or Balena Etcher (the preferred macOS and Linux utility). After turning Secure Boot off, you should be able to boot from the USB drive and install SteamOS as you would on a regular Steam Deck. Note that there's no simple, officially supported way to dual-boot SteamOS and Windows; if you decide to turn your handheld, laptop, or desktop into a new Steam Machine, the only way to make it back into a Windows PC is to re-enable Secure Boot and install a fresh copy from another USB drive. The SteamOS 3.7 update (officially, version 3.7.8) also includes a bunch of other updates to the underlying software: version 6.11 of the Linux kernel (up from version 6.5 in SteamOS 3.6), "a newer Arch Linux base," version 6.2.5 of the Plasma interface in desktop mode, new Mesa graphics drivers, and various other tweaks and bug fixes. A second act for SteamOS The original version of SteamOS was designed to be widely compatible with all kinds of PC hardware and was available both from major PC manufacturers and as a standalone OS that you could (and which we did) install on custom, self-built PCs. But these computers and that version of SteamOS mostly flopped, at least in part because they only ran a small subset of games that natively supported Linux. The current version of SteamOS launched with more modest aims as the first-party operating system for a single piece of hardware. But by focusing on the game compatibility problem first and leading the way with category-defining hardware, Valve has actually built a much stronger foundation for the current version of SteamOS than it did for the original. That doesn't make SteamOS a drop-in replacement for Windows—without strong support for Intel or Nvidia hardware, it's not a great candidate for the majority of gaming PCs, or even Intel-powered gaming handhelds like the MSI Claw A1M. And Windows is set up to be a multi-purpose general-use operating system in ways that SteamOS isn't; Valve still says that, despite the presence of desktop mode, "users should not consider SteamOS as a replacement for their desktop operating system." But for certain kinds of systems that are primarily used as gaming PCs, SteamOS is a real contender. Andrew Cunningham Senior Technology Reporter Andrew Cunningham Senior Technology Reporter Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue. 29 Comments