• ¿Quién necesita Subnautica 2 cuando se puede pasar 30 años en desarrollo? Krafton ha decidido recordarnos que los fundadores de Unknown Worlds prefirieron llenar sus bolsillos en lugar de hacer un juego que, según ellos, podría haber sido un "mar de maravillas". Tal vez estaban ocupados buscando la forma más creativa de bucear en sus propios intereses monetarios. ¡Qué gran lección de prioridades!

    Apostemos a que en 30 años, la única cosa que habrá crecido es la lista de deseos de los aficionados. ¡A seguir esperando!

    #Subnautica #Krafton #DesarrolloDeVideojuegos #Sátira #InteresesMonetarios
    ¿Quién necesita Subnautica 2 cuando se puede pasar 30 años en desarrollo? Krafton ha decidido recordarnos que los fundadores de Unknown Worlds prefirieron llenar sus bolsillos en lugar de hacer un juego que, según ellos, podría haber sido un "mar de maravillas". Tal vez estaban ocupados buscando la forma más creativa de bucear en sus propios intereses monetarios. ¡Qué gran lección de prioridades! Apostemos a que en 30 años, la única cosa que habrá crecido es la lista de deseos de los aficionados. ¡A seguir esperando! #Subnautica #Krafton #DesarrolloDeVideojuegos #Sátira #InteresesMonetarios
    www.gamedeveloper.com
    Krafton claims Unknown Worlds' former leaders chose to prioritize their own 'monetary interests' over the best interests of the Subnautica franchise.
    1 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
  • Magic: The Gathering's Final Fantasy Set raking in $200 million in a single day is nothing short of a corporate disgrace! This absurd crossover is a blatant cash grab that prioritizes profits over the integrity of the game. Hasbro's greed knows no bounds as they exploit nostalgia and beloved characters like Cloud and Sephiroth for monetary gain. The gaming community deserves better than this soulless marketing machine! Instead of fostering creativity and innovation, we're drowning in recycled content and empty wallets. It’s time to hold these companies accountable for their actions and demand more from our beloved franchises!

    #MagicTheGathering #FinalFantasy #GamingCommunity #CorporateGreed #Hasbro
    Magic: The Gathering's Final Fantasy Set raking in $200 million in a single day is nothing short of a corporate disgrace! This absurd crossover is a blatant cash grab that prioritizes profits over the integrity of the game. Hasbro's greed knows no bounds as they exploit nostalgia and beloved characters like Cloud and Sephiroth for monetary gain. The gaming community deserves better than this soulless marketing machine! Instead of fostering creativity and innovation, we're drowning in recycled content and empty wallets. It’s time to hold these companies accountable for their actions and demand more from our beloved franchises! #MagicTheGathering #FinalFantasy #GamingCommunity #CorporateGreed #Hasbro
    Magic: The Gathering's Final Fantasy Set Earned $200 Million In A Single Day
    kotaku.com
    We already knew that the Final Fantasy Universes Beyond expansion was the fastest-selling set in Magic: The Gathering’s history, but an absurd new stat puts what that actually means in perspective. Hasbro’s CEO recently revealed the massive crossover
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    59
    · 1 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
  • The 3 most important KPIs running an on-device acquisition campaign

    On-device channels are no longer all about preloads. Today, telcos represent another performance marketing channel with transparent reporting and deeper insights. To get the full picture behind the performance of your on-device campaigns, it’s critical to prioritize long-term KPIs. It’s the only way the stickiness of users acquired through these channels really shine. Why?On-device campaigns reach users when they’re setting up their new devices and looking to download apps they’ll use throughout the device lifetime, not necessarily right away. Think about it - if you download a booking app from an ad during device setup, are you planning to book a vacation immediately or later down the road?This means attribution is a waiting game for on-device campaigns, with day 30 as the turning point. In fact, if a user engages with your app 30 days down the line, they’re more likely to stay active for a long period of time. Simply put, LTV is high for on-device campaigns. This means you want to be looking at KPIs that allow you to measure and optimize the value of the users you attract far down the road.ROASROAS is king when it comes to measuring the long-term value of your users. To get the clearest idea of your ROAS and how to optimize it, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, ROAS should be measured on D30/60/90 not D1/3/7. This is because, with on-device channels, users are likely to open an app within the first 30 days or longer - when a user downloads an app during device setup, they do so expecting to open it in the future, not right away.You should also pay attention to how it’s being measured. ROAS is calculated by dividing the amount of revenue a campaign generates by the amount it costs to run it. In the context of on-device campaigns, that revenue comes from in-app purchases, subscriptions, or ad monetization.When measuring the effectiveness of your on-device campaigns, it’s important to calculate ROAS using your on-device ad revenue rather than average ad revenue, which will be lower. That’s because ad revenue is high for users acquired through on-device campaigns - on-device channels use unique data points and deep algorithms to ensure the right bid for each individual user. To get the clearest picture of where you stand in relation to your ROAS goals, you should integrate ad revenue with your on-device platform.Once calculated, ROAS gives a clear monetary view of your campaigns, so it’s clear how much you spent vs brought in. This monetary value is important because it tells you if your on-device campaigns are reaching valuable users. Looking at ROAS by placements, you get insight into which placements are doing it best. With the knowledge of how to maximize ROAS, you’ll maximize the long term value and engagement of your users, too.Cost KPIsComparing LTV to spend will help you determine whether or not your users are spending enough to cover your spend and ultimately turn a profit. You can even pinpoint areas of your strategy that are effective, and those that may need adjustment.There are a few ways to measure cost effectiveness. Here are the most common two, especially for on-device campaigns.Cost per actionIf it’s quality you’re looking for, first, run a CPA campaign to confirm that you’re looking in the right places for users who will engage with your app. To count as a conversion, users must see the ad, install the app, and complete the action you preset. You’ll only pay for the users who reach a chosen point in the app experience after installation. A CPA that is higher than LTV is a clear indicator that your campaigns are focused on less relevant channels or touchpoints, while a CPA that is lower than your LTV confirms that you are attracting high quality users.In the context of on-device campaigns, this is key because it means you won't pay immediately for a user who may not engage for a month or so. The pricing model also integrates in-app revenue, which is useful for apps that rely more on IAPs than ads.Cost per retained userIt’s also worthwhile to keep track of how much you’re paying for the user that’s still there on day 30. CPRU takes into account conversions and retention rate - if your budget is k, you have 1000 conversions and a day 1 retention rate of 20%, you come away with 200 converted users at a per user acquisition cost. If you can increase retention, you end up with higher quality users at a lower CPRU.Measuring CPRU, retention becomes a success metric for your UA campaigns and can help you determine whether you have enough engaged users to cover spend.On day 30 and beyond, these KPIs can help you optimize your on-device campaigns to reach the most engaged users with high LTV.
    #most #important #kpis #running #ondevice
    The 3 most important KPIs running an on-device acquisition campaign
    On-device channels are no longer all about preloads. Today, telcos represent another performance marketing channel with transparent reporting and deeper insights. To get the full picture behind the performance of your on-device campaigns, it’s critical to prioritize long-term KPIs. It’s the only way the stickiness of users acquired through these channels really shine. Why?On-device campaigns reach users when they’re setting up their new devices and looking to download apps they’ll use throughout the device lifetime, not necessarily right away. Think about it - if you download a booking app from an ad during device setup, are you planning to book a vacation immediately or later down the road?This means attribution is a waiting game for on-device campaigns, with day 30 as the turning point. In fact, if a user engages with your app 30 days down the line, they’re more likely to stay active for a long period of time. Simply put, LTV is high for on-device campaigns. This means you want to be looking at KPIs that allow you to measure and optimize the value of the users you attract far down the road.ROASROAS is king when it comes to measuring the long-term value of your users. To get the clearest idea of your ROAS and how to optimize it, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, ROAS should be measured on D30/60/90 not D1/3/7. This is because, with on-device channels, users are likely to open an app within the first 30 days or longer - when a user downloads an app during device setup, they do so expecting to open it in the future, not right away.You should also pay attention to how it’s being measured. ROAS is calculated by dividing the amount of revenue a campaign generates by the amount it costs to run it. In the context of on-device campaigns, that revenue comes from in-app purchases, subscriptions, or ad monetization.When measuring the effectiveness of your on-device campaigns, it’s important to calculate ROAS using your on-device ad revenue rather than average ad revenue, which will be lower. That’s because ad revenue is high for users acquired through on-device campaigns - on-device channels use unique data points and deep algorithms to ensure the right bid for each individual user. To get the clearest picture of where you stand in relation to your ROAS goals, you should integrate ad revenue with your on-device platform.Once calculated, ROAS gives a clear monetary view of your campaigns, so it’s clear how much you spent vs brought in. This monetary value is important because it tells you if your on-device campaigns are reaching valuable users. Looking at ROAS by placements, you get insight into which placements are doing it best. With the knowledge of how to maximize ROAS, you’ll maximize the long term value and engagement of your users, too.Cost KPIsComparing LTV to spend will help you determine whether or not your users are spending enough to cover your spend and ultimately turn a profit. You can even pinpoint areas of your strategy that are effective, and those that may need adjustment.There are a few ways to measure cost effectiveness. Here are the most common two, especially for on-device campaigns.Cost per actionIf it’s quality you’re looking for, first, run a CPA campaign to confirm that you’re looking in the right places for users who will engage with your app. To count as a conversion, users must see the ad, install the app, and complete the action you preset. You’ll only pay for the users who reach a chosen point in the app experience after installation. A CPA that is higher than LTV is a clear indicator that your campaigns are focused on less relevant channels or touchpoints, while a CPA that is lower than your LTV confirms that you are attracting high quality users.In the context of on-device campaigns, this is key because it means you won't pay immediately for a user who may not engage for a month or so. The pricing model also integrates in-app revenue, which is useful for apps that rely more on IAPs than ads.Cost per retained userIt’s also worthwhile to keep track of how much you’re paying for the user that’s still there on day 30. CPRU takes into account conversions and retention rate - if your budget is k, you have 1000 conversions and a day 1 retention rate of 20%, you come away with 200 converted users at a per user acquisition cost. If you can increase retention, you end up with higher quality users at a lower CPRU.Measuring CPRU, retention becomes a success metric for your UA campaigns and can help you determine whether you have enough engaged users to cover spend.On day 30 and beyond, these KPIs can help you optimize your on-device campaigns to reach the most engaged users with high LTV. #most #important #kpis #running #ondevice
    The 3 most important KPIs running an on-device acquisition campaign
    unity.com
    On-device channels are no longer all about preloads. Today, telcos represent another performance marketing channel with transparent reporting and deeper insights. To get the full picture behind the performance of your on-device campaigns, it’s critical to prioritize long-term KPIs. It’s the only way the stickiness of users acquired through these channels really shine. Why?On-device campaigns reach users when they’re setting up their new devices and looking to download apps they’ll use throughout the device lifetime, not necessarily right away. Think about it - if you download a booking app from an ad during device setup, are you planning to book a vacation immediately or later down the road?This means attribution is a waiting game for on-device campaigns, with day 30 as the turning point. In fact, if a user engages with your app 30 days down the line, they’re more likely to stay active for a long period of time. Simply put, LTV is high for on-device campaigns. This means you want to be looking at KPIs that allow you to measure and optimize the value of the users you attract far down the road.ROASROAS is king when it comes to measuring the long-term value of your users. To get the clearest idea of your ROAS and how to optimize it, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, ROAS should be measured on D30/60/90 not D1/3/7. This is because, with on-device channels, users are likely to open an app within the first 30 days or longer - when a user downloads an app during device setup, they do so expecting to open it in the future, not right away.You should also pay attention to how it’s being measured. ROAS is calculated by dividing the amount of revenue a campaign generates by the amount it costs to run it. In the context of on-device campaigns, that revenue comes from in-app purchases, subscriptions, or ad monetization.When measuring the effectiveness of your on-device campaigns, it’s important to calculate ROAS using your on-device ad revenue rather than average ad revenue, which will be lower. That’s because ad revenue is high for users acquired through on-device campaigns - on-device channels use unique data points and deep algorithms to ensure the right bid for each individual user. To get the clearest picture of where you stand in relation to your ROAS goals, you should integrate ad revenue with your on-device platform.Once calculated, ROAS gives a clear monetary view of your campaigns, so it’s clear how much you spent vs brought in. This monetary value is important because it tells you if your on-device campaigns are reaching valuable users. Looking at ROAS by placements, you get insight into which placements are doing it best. With the knowledge of how to maximize ROAS, you’ll maximize the long term value and engagement of your users, too.Cost KPIsComparing LTV to spend will help you determine whether or not your users are spending enough to cover your spend and ultimately turn a profit. You can even pinpoint areas of your strategy that are effective, and those that may need adjustment.There are a few ways to measure cost effectiveness. Here are the most common two, especially for on-device campaigns.Cost per action (CPA)If it’s quality you’re looking for, first, run a CPA campaign to confirm that you’re looking in the right places for users who will engage with your app. To count as a conversion, users must see the ad, install the app, and complete the action you preset. You’ll only pay for the users who reach a chosen point in the app experience after installation. A CPA that is higher than LTV is a clear indicator that your campaigns are focused on less relevant channels or touchpoints, while a CPA that is lower than your LTV confirms that you are attracting high quality users.In the context of on-device campaigns, this is key because it means you won't pay immediately for a user who may not engage for a month or so. The pricing model also integrates in-app revenue, which is useful for apps that rely more on IAPs than ads.Cost per retained user (CPRU)It’s also worthwhile to keep track of how much you’re paying for the user that’s still there on day 30. CPRU takes into account conversions and retention rate - if your budget is $10k, you have 1000 conversions and a day 1 retention rate of 20%, you come away with 200 converted users at a $50 per user acquisition cost. If you can increase retention, you end up with higher quality users at a lower CPRU.Measuring CPRU, retention becomes a success metric for your UA campaigns and can help you determine whether you have enough engaged users to cover spend.On day 30 and beyond, these KPIs can help you optimize your on-device campaigns to reach the most engaged users with high LTV.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    637
    · 0 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
  • A federal court’s novel proposal to rein in Trump’s power grab

    Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Boardhears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the jobtheir unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More:
    #federal #courts #novel #proposal #rein
    A federal court’s novel proposal to rein in Trump’s power grab
    Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Boardhears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the jobtheir unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More: #federal #courts #novel #proposal #rein
    A federal court’s novel proposal to rein in Trump’s power grab
    www.vox.com
    Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the job [after] their unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More:
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    286
    · 0 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
  • Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy

    Home Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy

    News

    Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy

    7 min read

    Published: June 4, 2025

    Key Takeaways

    Meta and Yandex have been found guilty of secretly listening to localhost ports and using them to transfer sensitive data from Android devices.
    The corporations use Meta Pixel and Yandex Metrica scripts to transfer cookies from browsers to local apps. Using incognito mode or a VPN can’t fully protect users against it.
    A Meta spokesperson has called this a ‘miscommunication,’ which seems to be an attempt to underplay the situation.

    Wake up, Android folks! A new privacy scandal has hit your area of town. According to a new report led by Radboud University, Meta and Yandex have been listening to localhost ports to link your web browsing data with your identity and collect personal information without your consent.
    The companies use Meta Pixel and the Yandex Metrica scripts, which are embedded on 5.8 million and 3 million websites, respectively, to connect with their native apps on Android devices through localhost sockets.
    This creates a communication path between the cookies on your website and the local apps, establishing a channel for transferring personal information from your device.
    Also, you are mistaken if you think using your browser’s incognito mode or a VPN can protect you. Zuckerberg’s latest method of data harvesting can’t be overcome by tweaking any privacy or cookie settings or by using a VPN or incognito mode.
    How Does It Work?
    Here’s the method used by Meta to spy on Android devices:

    As many as 22% of the top 1 million websites contain Meta Pixel – a tracking code that helps website owners measure ad performance and track user behaviour.
    When Meta Pixel loads, it creates a special cookie called _fbp, which is supposed to be a first-party cookie. This means no other third party, including Meta apps themselves, should have access to this cookie. The _fbp cookie identifies your browser whenever you visit a website, meaning it can identify which person is accessing which websites.
    However, Meta, being Meta, went and found a loophole around this. Now, whenever you run Facebook or Instagram on your Android device, they can open up listening ports, specifically a TCP portand a UDP port, on your phone in the background. 
    Whenever you load a website on your browser, the Meta Pixel uses WebRTC with SDP Munging, which essentially hides the _fbp cookie value inside the SDP message before being transmitted to your phone’s localhost. 
    Since Facebook and Instagram are already listening to this port, it receives the _fbp cookie value and can easily tie your identity to the website you’re visiting. Remember, Facebook and Instagram already have your identification details since you’re always logged in on these platforms.

    The report also says that Meta can link all _fbp received from various websites to your ID. Simply put, Meta knows which person is viewing what set of websites.
    Yandex also uses a similar method to harvest your personal data.

    Whenever you open a Yandex app, such as Yandex Maps, Yandex Browser, Yandex Search, or Navigator, it opens up ports like 29009, 30102, 29010, and 30103 on your phone. 
    When you visit a website that contains the Yandex Metrica Script, Yandex’s version of Meta Pixel, the script sends requests to Yandex servers containing obfuscated parameters. 
    These parameters are then sent to the local host via HTTP and HTTPS, which contains the IP address 127.0.0.1, or the yandexmetrica.com domain, which secretly points to 127.0.0.1.
    Now, the Yandex Metrica SDK in the Yandex apps receives these parameters and sends device identifiers, such as an Android Advertising ID, UUIDs, or device fingerprints. This entire message is encrypted to hide what it contains.
    The Yandex Metrica Script receives this info and sends it back to the Yandex servers. Just like Meta, Yandex can also tie your website activity to the device information shared by the SDK.

    Meta’s Infamous History with Privacy Norms
    This is not something new or unthinkable that Meta has done. The Mark Zuckerberg-led social media giant has a history of such privacy violations. 
    For instance, in 2024, the company was accused of collecting biometric data from Texas users without their express consent. The company settled the lawsuit by paying B. 
    Another of the most famous lawsuits was the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, where a political consulting firm accessed private data of 87 million Facebook users without consent. The FTC fined Meta B for privacy violations along with a 100M settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. 
    Meta Pixel has also come under scrutiny before, when it was accused of collecting sensitive health information from hospital websites. In another case dating back to 2012, Meta was accused of tracking users even after they logged out from their Facebook accounts. In this case, Meta paid M and promised to delete the collected data. 
    In 2024, South Korea also fined Meta M for inappropriately collecting personal data, such as sexual orientation and political beliefs, of 980K users.
    In September 2024, Meta was fined M by the Irish Data Protection Commission for inadvertently storing user passwords in plain text in such a way that employees could search for them. The passwords were not encrypted and were essentially leaked internally.
    So, the latest scandal isn’t entirely out of character for Meta. It has been finding ways to collect your data ever since its incorporation, and it seems like it will continue to do so, regardless of the regulations and safeguards in place.
    That said, Meta’s recent tracking method is insanely dangerous because there’s no safeguard around it. Even if you visit websites in incognito mode or use a VPN, Meta Pixel can still track your activities. 
    The past lawsuits also show a very identifiable pattern: Meta doesn’t fight a lawsuit until the end to try to win it. It either accepts the fine or settles the lawsuit with monetary compensation. This essentially goes to show that it passively accepts and even ‘owns’ the illegitimate tracking methods it has been using for decades. It’s quite possible that the top management views these fines and penalties as a cost of collecting data.
    Meta’s Timid Response
    Meta’s response claims that there’s some ‘miscommunication’ regarding Google policies. However, the method used in the aforementioned tracking scandal isn’t something that can simply happen due to ‘faulty design’ or miscommunication. 

    We are in discussions with Google to address a potential miscommunication regarding the application of their policies – Meta Spokesperson

    This kind of unethical tracking method has to be deliberately designed by engineers for it to work perfectly on such a large scale. While Meta is still trying to underplay the situation, it has paused the ‘feature’as of now. The report also claims that as of June 3, Facebook and Instagram are not actively listening to the new ports.
    Here’s what will possibly happen next:

    A lawsuit may be filed based on the report.
    An investigating committee might be formed to question the matter.
    The company will come up with lame excuses, such as misinterpretation or miscommunication of policy guidelines.
    Meta will eventually settle the lawsuit or bear the fine with pride, like it has always done. 

    The regulatory authorities are apparently chasing a rat that finds new holes to hide every day. Companies like Meta and Yandex seem to be one step ahead of these regulations and have mastered the art of finding loopholes.
    More than legislative technicalities, it’s the moral ethics of the company that become clear with incidents like this. The intent of these regulations is to protect personal information, and the fact that Meta and Yandex blatantly circumvent these regulations in their spirit shows the absolutely horrific state of capitalism these corporations are in.

    Krishi is a seasoned tech journalist with over four years of experience writing about PC hardware, consumer technology, and artificial intelligence.  Clarity and accessibility are at the core of Krishi’s writing style.
    He believes technology writing should empower readers—not confuse them—and he’s committed to ensuring his content is always easy to understand without sacrificing accuracy or depth.
    Over the years, Krishi has contributed to some of the most reputable names in the industry, including Techopedia, TechRadar, and Tom’s Guide. A man of many talents, Krishi has also proven his mettle as a crypto writer, tackling complex topics with both ease and zeal. His work spans various formats—from in-depth explainers and news coverage to feature pieces and buying guides. 
    Behind the scenes, Krishi operates from a dual-monitor setupthat’s always buzzing with news feeds, technical documentation, and research notes, as well as the occasional gaming sessions that keep him fresh. 
    Krishi thrives on staying current, always ready to dive into the latest announcements, industry shifts, and their far-reaching impacts.  When he's not deep into research on the latest PC hardware news, Krishi would love to chat with you about day trading and the financial markets—oh! And cricket, as well.

    View all articles by Krishi Chowdhary

    Our editorial process

    The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.

    More from News

    View all

    View all
    #meta #yandex #spying #android #users
    Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy
    Home Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy News Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy 7 min read Published: June 4, 2025 Key Takeaways Meta and Yandex have been found guilty of secretly listening to localhost ports and using them to transfer sensitive data from Android devices. The corporations use Meta Pixel and Yandex Metrica scripts to transfer cookies from browsers to local apps. Using incognito mode or a VPN can’t fully protect users against it. A Meta spokesperson has called this a ‘miscommunication,’ which seems to be an attempt to underplay the situation. Wake up, Android folks! A new privacy scandal has hit your area of town. According to a new report led by Radboud University, Meta and Yandex have been listening to localhost ports to link your web browsing data with your identity and collect personal information without your consent. The companies use Meta Pixel and the Yandex Metrica scripts, which are embedded on 5.8 million and 3 million websites, respectively, to connect with their native apps on Android devices through localhost sockets. This creates a communication path between the cookies on your website and the local apps, establishing a channel for transferring personal information from your device. Also, you are mistaken if you think using your browser’s incognito mode or a VPN can protect you. Zuckerberg’s latest method of data harvesting can’t be overcome by tweaking any privacy or cookie settings or by using a VPN or incognito mode. How Does It Work? Here’s the method used by Meta to spy on Android devices: As many as 22% of the top 1 million websites contain Meta Pixel – a tracking code that helps website owners measure ad performance and track user behaviour. When Meta Pixel loads, it creates a special cookie called _fbp, which is supposed to be a first-party cookie. This means no other third party, including Meta apps themselves, should have access to this cookie. The _fbp cookie identifies your browser whenever you visit a website, meaning it can identify which person is accessing which websites. However, Meta, being Meta, went and found a loophole around this. Now, whenever you run Facebook or Instagram on your Android device, they can open up listening ports, specifically a TCP portand a UDP port, on your phone in the background.  Whenever you load a website on your browser, the Meta Pixel uses WebRTC with SDP Munging, which essentially hides the _fbp cookie value inside the SDP message before being transmitted to your phone’s localhost.  Since Facebook and Instagram are already listening to this port, it receives the _fbp cookie value and can easily tie your identity to the website you’re visiting. Remember, Facebook and Instagram already have your identification details since you’re always logged in on these platforms. The report also says that Meta can link all _fbp received from various websites to your ID. Simply put, Meta knows which person is viewing what set of websites. Yandex also uses a similar method to harvest your personal data. Whenever you open a Yandex app, such as Yandex Maps, Yandex Browser, Yandex Search, or Navigator, it opens up ports like 29009, 30102, 29010, and 30103 on your phone.  When you visit a website that contains the Yandex Metrica Script, Yandex’s version of Meta Pixel, the script sends requests to Yandex servers containing obfuscated parameters.  These parameters are then sent to the local host via HTTP and HTTPS, which contains the IP address 127.0.0.1, or the yandexmetrica.com domain, which secretly points to 127.0.0.1. Now, the Yandex Metrica SDK in the Yandex apps receives these parameters and sends device identifiers, such as an Android Advertising ID, UUIDs, or device fingerprints. This entire message is encrypted to hide what it contains. The Yandex Metrica Script receives this info and sends it back to the Yandex servers. Just like Meta, Yandex can also tie your website activity to the device information shared by the SDK. Meta’s Infamous History with Privacy Norms This is not something new or unthinkable that Meta has done. The Mark Zuckerberg-led social media giant has a history of such privacy violations.  For instance, in 2024, the company was accused of collecting biometric data from Texas users without their express consent. The company settled the lawsuit by paying B.  Another of the most famous lawsuits was the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, where a political consulting firm accessed private data of 87 million Facebook users without consent. The FTC fined Meta B for privacy violations along with a 100M settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.  Meta Pixel has also come under scrutiny before, when it was accused of collecting sensitive health information from hospital websites. In another case dating back to 2012, Meta was accused of tracking users even after they logged out from their Facebook accounts. In this case, Meta paid M and promised to delete the collected data.  In 2024, South Korea also fined Meta M for inappropriately collecting personal data, such as sexual orientation and political beliefs, of 980K users. In September 2024, Meta was fined M by the Irish Data Protection Commission for inadvertently storing user passwords in plain text in such a way that employees could search for them. The passwords were not encrypted and were essentially leaked internally. So, the latest scandal isn’t entirely out of character for Meta. It has been finding ways to collect your data ever since its incorporation, and it seems like it will continue to do so, regardless of the regulations and safeguards in place. That said, Meta’s recent tracking method is insanely dangerous because there’s no safeguard around it. Even if you visit websites in incognito mode or use a VPN, Meta Pixel can still track your activities.  The past lawsuits also show a very identifiable pattern: Meta doesn’t fight a lawsuit until the end to try to win it. It either accepts the fine or settles the lawsuit with monetary compensation. This essentially goes to show that it passively accepts and even ‘owns’ the illegitimate tracking methods it has been using for decades. It’s quite possible that the top management views these fines and penalties as a cost of collecting data. Meta’s Timid Response Meta’s response claims that there’s some ‘miscommunication’ regarding Google policies. However, the method used in the aforementioned tracking scandal isn’t something that can simply happen due to ‘faulty design’ or miscommunication.  We are in discussions with Google to address a potential miscommunication regarding the application of their policies – Meta Spokesperson This kind of unethical tracking method has to be deliberately designed by engineers for it to work perfectly on such a large scale. While Meta is still trying to underplay the situation, it has paused the ‘feature’as of now. The report also claims that as of June 3, Facebook and Instagram are not actively listening to the new ports. Here’s what will possibly happen next: A lawsuit may be filed based on the report. An investigating committee might be formed to question the matter. The company will come up with lame excuses, such as misinterpretation or miscommunication of policy guidelines. Meta will eventually settle the lawsuit or bear the fine with pride, like it has always done.  The regulatory authorities are apparently chasing a rat that finds new holes to hide every day. Companies like Meta and Yandex seem to be one step ahead of these regulations and have mastered the art of finding loopholes. More than legislative technicalities, it’s the moral ethics of the company that become clear with incidents like this. The intent of these regulations is to protect personal information, and the fact that Meta and Yandex blatantly circumvent these regulations in their spirit shows the absolutely horrific state of capitalism these corporations are in. Krishi is a seasoned tech journalist with over four years of experience writing about PC hardware, consumer technology, and artificial intelligence.  Clarity and accessibility are at the core of Krishi’s writing style. He believes technology writing should empower readers—not confuse them—and he’s committed to ensuring his content is always easy to understand without sacrificing accuracy or depth. Over the years, Krishi has contributed to some of the most reputable names in the industry, including Techopedia, TechRadar, and Tom’s Guide. A man of many talents, Krishi has also proven his mettle as a crypto writer, tackling complex topics with both ease and zeal. His work spans various formats—from in-depth explainers and news coverage to feature pieces and buying guides.  Behind the scenes, Krishi operates from a dual-monitor setupthat’s always buzzing with news feeds, technical documentation, and research notes, as well as the occasional gaming sessions that keep him fresh.  Krishi thrives on staying current, always ready to dive into the latest announcements, industry shifts, and their far-reaching impacts.  When he's not deep into research on the latest PC hardware news, Krishi would love to chat with you about day trading and the financial markets—oh! And cricket, as well. View all articles by Krishi Chowdhary Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors. More from News View all View all #meta #yandex #spying #android #users
    Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy
    techreport.com
    Home Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy News Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy 7 min read Published: June 4, 2025 Key Takeaways Meta and Yandex have been found guilty of secretly listening to localhost ports and using them to transfer sensitive data from Android devices. The corporations use Meta Pixel and Yandex Metrica scripts to transfer cookies from browsers to local apps. Using incognito mode or a VPN can’t fully protect users against it. A Meta spokesperson has called this a ‘miscommunication,’ which seems to be an attempt to underplay the situation. Wake up, Android folks! A new privacy scandal has hit your area of town. According to a new report led by Radboud University, Meta and Yandex have been listening to localhost ports to link your web browsing data with your identity and collect personal information without your consent. The companies use Meta Pixel and the Yandex Metrica scripts, which are embedded on 5.8 million and 3 million websites, respectively, to connect with their native apps on Android devices through localhost sockets. This creates a communication path between the cookies on your website and the local apps, establishing a channel for transferring personal information from your device. Also, you are mistaken if you think using your browser’s incognito mode or a VPN can protect you. Zuckerberg’s latest method of data harvesting can’t be overcome by tweaking any privacy or cookie settings or by using a VPN or incognito mode. How Does It Work? Here’s the method used by Meta to spy on Android devices: As many as 22% of the top 1 million websites contain Meta Pixel – a tracking code that helps website owners measure ad performance and track user behaviour. When Meta Pixel loads, it creates a special cookie called _fbp, which is supposed to be a first-party cookie. This means no other third party, including Meta apps themselves, should have access to this cookie. The _fbp cookie identifies your browser whenever you visit a website, meaning it can identify which person is accessing which websites. However, Meta, being Meta, went and found a loophole around this. Now, whenever you run Facebook or Instagram on your Android device, they can open up listening ports, specifically a TCP port (12387 or 12388) and a UDP port (the first unoccupied port in 12580-12585), on your phone in the background.  Whenever you load a website on your browser, the Meta Pixel uses WebRTC with SDP Munging, which essentially hides the _fbp cookie value inside the SDP message before being transmitted to your phone’s localhost.  Since Facebook and Instagram are already listening to this port, it receives the _fbp cookie value and can easily tie your identity to the website you’re visiting. Remember, Facebook and Instagram already have your identification details since you’re always logged in on these platforms. The report also says that Meta can link all _fbp received from various websites to your ID. Simply put, Meta knows which person is viewing what set of websites. Yandex also uses a similar method to harvest your personal data. Whenever you open a Yandex app, such as Yandex Maps, Yandex Browser, Yandex Search, or Navigator, it opens up ports like 29009, 30102, 29010, and 30103 on your phone.  When you visit a website that contains the Yandex Metrica Script, Yandex’s version of Meta Pixel, the script sends requests to Yandex servers containing obfuscated parameters.  These parameters are then sent to the local host via HTTP and HTTPS, which contains the IP address 127.0.0.1, or the yandexmetrica.com domain, which secretly points to 127.0.0.1. Now, the Yandex Metrica SDK in the Yandex apps receives these parameters and sends device identifiers, such as an Android Advertising ID, UUIDs, or device fingerprints. This entire message is encrypted to hide what it contains. The Yandex Metrica Script receives this info and sends it back to the Yandex servers. Just like Meta, Yandex can also tie your website activity to the device information shared by the SDK. Meta’s Infamous History with Privacy Norms This is not something new or unthinkable that Meta has done. The Mark Zuckerberg-led social media giant has a history of such privacy violations.  For instance, in 2024, the company was accused of collecting biometric data from Texas users without their express consent. The company settled the lawsuit by paying $1.4B.  Another of the most famous lawsuits was the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, where a political consulting firm accessed private data of 87 million Facebook users without consent. The FTC fined Meta $5B for privacy violations along with a 100M settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.  Meta Pixel has also come under scrutiny before, when it was accused of collecting sensitive health information from hospital websites. In another case dating back to 2012, Meta was accused of tracking users even after they logged out from their Facebook accounts. In this case, Meta paid $90M and promised to delete the collected data.  In 2024, South Korea also fined Meta $15M for inappropriately collecting personal data, such as sexual orientation and political beliefs, of 980K users. In September 2024, Meta was fined $101.6M by the Irish Data Protection Commission for inadvertently storing user passwords in plain text in such a way that employees could search for them. The passwords were not encrypted and were essentially leaked internally. So, the latest scandal isn’t entirely out of character for Meta. It has been finding ways to collect your data ever since its incorporation, and it seems like it will continue to do so, regardless of the regulations and safeguards in place. That said, Meta’s recent tracking method is insanely dangerous because there’s no safeguard around it. Even if you visit websites in incognito mode or use a VPN, Meta Pixel can still track your activities.  The past lawsuits also show a very identifiable pattern: Meta doesn’t fight a lawsuit until the end to try to win it. It either accepts the fine or settles the lawsuit with monetary compensation. This essentially goes to show that it passively accepts and even ‘owns’ the illegitimate tracking methods it has been using for decades. It’s quite possible that the top management views these fines and penalties as a cost of collecting data. Meta’s Timid Response Meta’s response claims that there’s some ‘miscommunication’ regarding Google policies. However, the method used in the aforementioned tracking scandal isn’t something that can simply happen due to ‘faulty design’ or miscommunication.  We are in discussions with Google to address a potential miscommunication regarding the application of their policies – Meta Spokesperson This kind of unethical tracking method has to be deliberately designed by engineers for it to work perfectly on such a large scale. While Meta is still trying to underplay the situation, it has paused the ‘feature’ (yep, that’s what they are calling it) as of now. The report also claims that as of June 3, Facebook and Instagram are not actively listening to the new ports. Here’s what will possibly happen next: A lawsuit may be filed based on the report. An investigating committee might be formed to question the matter. The company will come up with lame excuses, such as misinterpretation or miscommunication of policy guidelines. Meta will eventually settle the lawsuit or bear the fine with pride, like it has always done.  The regulatory authorities are apparently chasing a rat that finds new holes to hide every day. Companies like Meta and Yandex seem to be one step ahead of these regulations and have mastered the art of finding loopholes. More than legislative technicalities, it’s the moral ethics of the company that become clear with incidents like this. The intent of these regulations is to protect personal information, and the fact that Meta and Yandex blatantly circumvent these regulations in their spirit shows the absolutely horrific state of capitalism these corporations are in. Krishi is a seasoned tech journalist with over four years of experience writing about PC hardware, consumer technology, and artificial intelligence.  Clarity and accessibility are at the core of Krishi’s writing style. He believes technology writing should empower readers—not confuse them—and he’s committed to ensuring his content is always easy to understand without sacrificing accuracy or depth. Over the years, Krishi has contributed to some of the most reputable names in the industry, including Techopedia, TechRadar, and Tom’s Guide. A man of many talents, Krishi has also proven his mettle as a crypto writer, tackling complex topics with both ease and zeal. His work spans various formats—from in-depth explainers and news coverage to feature pieces and buying guides.  Behind the scenes, Krishi operates from a dual-monitor setup (including a 29-inch LG UltraWide) that’s always buzzing with news feeds, technical documentation, and research notes, as well as the occasional gaming sessions that keep him fresh.  Krishi thrives on staying current, always ready to dive into the latest announcements, industry shifts, and their far-reaching impacts.  When he's not deep into research on the latest PC hardware news, Krishi would love to chat with you about day trading and the financial markets—oh! And cricket, as well. View all articles by Krishi Chowdhary Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors. More from News View all View all
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    193
    · 0 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
  • What worked in The Witcher 3 and what didn't: looking back on a landmark RPG with CD Projekt Red

    What worked in The Witcher 3 and what didn't: looking back on a landmark RPG with CD Projekt Red
    "We learned a lot of lessons down the road."

    Image credit: CD Projekt Red

    Feature

    by Robert Purchese
    Associate Editor

    Published on May 31, 2025

    Do you remember what you were doing when The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was released? It came out on 19th May 2015. I remember because I was inside CD Projekt Red at the time, trying to capture the moment for you - a moment I'm unlikely to replicate there or anywhere else. I recall sitting in the studio's canteen in the small hours of the morning, after a midnight launch event in a mall in Warsaw, chewing on a piece of cold pizza and wondering out loud what would come next for the studio, because at the time, who could know? One era was ending and another was about to begin. Would it bring the fame and fortune CD Projekt Red desired?
    Today, more than 60 million sales of The Witcher 3 later, we know the answer is yes. The Witcher 3 became a role-playing classic. It delivered one of the most touchable medieval worlds we've explored, a rough place of craggy rocks and craggier faces, of wonky morales and grim realities, of mud and dirtiness. And monsters, though not all were monstrous to look at. It was a world of grey, of superstition and folklore, and in it stood we, a legendary monster hunter, facing seemingly impossible odds. The Witcher 3 took fantasy seriously.
    But the decade since the game's release has been turbulent for CD Projekt Red. The studio launched its big new sci-fi series in 2020 with Cyberpunk 2077, and though the game has now sold more than 30 million copies, making it monetarily a success, it had a nightmarish launch. The PS4 version had to be removed from sale. It brought enormous pressure, growing pains and intense scrutiny to the studio, and CD Projekt Red would spend a further three years patching and updating - and eventually releasing an expansion - before public opinion would mostly turn around.
    Today the studio returns to safer ground, back to The Witcher world with the new game The Witcher 4, and as we look forward to it we should also look back, to the game that catapulted the studio to fame, and see what has been learnt.

    The Witcher 3 is at version 4.04 today, a number that represents an enormously long period of post-release support.Watch on YouTube
    It all began with naivety, as perhaps any ambitious project should. It's easy to forget that 14 years ago, when The Witcher 3 was being conceived, CD Projekt Red had never made an open-world game before. The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2 were linear in their approaches. It's also easy to forget that the people making the game were 14 years younger and less experienced. Back then, this was the studio's chance at recognition, so it aimed high in order to be seen. "The Witcher 3 was supposed to be this game that will end all other games," Marcin Blacha, the lead writer of the game, tells me. Simply make an open-world game that's also a story-driven game and release it on all platforms at the same time. How hard could it be?
    "When I'm thinking about our state of mind back in those days, the only word that comes to my mind is enthusiastic," Blacha says. "It was fantastic because we were so enthusiastic that we were full of courage. We were trying to experiment with stuff and we were not afraid. We were convinced that when we work with passion and love, it will pay off eventually."
    Every project has to begin somewhere and for Blacha, the person tasked with imagining the story, The Witcher 3 could only begin with Ciri, the daughter-of-sorts to The Witcher's central monster hunter character Geralt. As Blacha says, "The most important thing about Geralt and the most important thing about the books is the relationship between Geralt, Ciri and Yennefer. I already did two games with no sign of Ciri, no sign of Yennefer, and then we finally had a budget and proper time for pre-production, so for me, it was time to introduce both characters."
    It's a decision that would have major repercussions for the rest of The Witcher series at CD Projekt Red. Blacha didn't know it then, but Ciri would go on to become the protagonist of The Witcher 4. Had she not been the co-protagonist of The Witcher 3 - for you play as her in several sections during the game - who knows if things would have worked out the same way. It's an understandable progression as it is, though there is still some uncertainty among the audience about Ciri's starring role.
    But Ciri's inclusion came with complications, because the Ciri we see in the game is not the Ciri described in the books. That Ciri is much closer to the Ciri in the Netflix Witcher TV show, younger and more rebellious in a typical teenager way. She might be an important part of the fiction, then, but that doesn't mean she was especially well liked. "People were thinking that she's annoying," says Blacha, who grew up reading The Witcher books. CD Projekt Red, then, decided to make a Ciri of its own, aging her and making her more "flesh and bone", as Blacha puts it. He fondly recalls a moment in the game's development when reviewing the Ciri sections of the game, and saying aloud to studio director Adam Badowski how much he liked her. "I didn't know that she's going to be the protagonist of the next game," he says, "but I said to Adam Badowski, she's going to be very popular."
    Once Ciri had been earmarked for inclusion in The Witcher 3, the idea to have her pursued by the phantom-like force of the Wild Hunt - the members of which literally ride horses in the night sky, like Santa Claus' cursed reindeer - came shortly after. CD Projekt Red had introduced the Wild Hunt in The Witcher 2 so it made sense. The outline of the main story was then laid down as a one-page narrative treatment. Then it was expanded to a two-page treatment, a four page treatment, an eight page treatment and so on. At around 10 pages, it already had the White Orchard prologue, almost the entirety of the No Man's Land zone, and a hint of what would happen on Skellige and in Novigrad. When it was around 40 pages long, the quest design team was invited in.

    CD Projekt Red made their Ciri older than she is in the books. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red

    The quest design team's job is to turn a story into a game, and this was a newly created department for The Witcher 3, created because the old way of writers designing the quests wasn't working any more. "We were struggling a bit with making sure that every written story that we have prepared is also a story that we can play well," Paweł Sasko says. He joined CD Projekt Red to be a part of that quest design team.
    The quest design team carves up a narrative treatment, paragraph by paragraph, and expands those into playable questlines for the game. "It's basically something between game design and a movie scenario," Sasko says. There's no dialogue, just a description of what will happen, and even a one-paragraph prompt can balloon into a 20-30 page design. Among the paragraphs Sasko was given to adapt was a storyline in No Man's Land concerning a character known as the Bloody Baron.
    The Bloody Baron storyline is widely acclaimed and has become synonymous with everything Sasko and CD Projekt Red were trying to do with the game. It's a storyline that probes into mature themes like domestic abuse, fatherhood, and love and loss and grief. More importantly, it presents us with a flawed character and allows us time and space to perhaps change our opinion of them. It gives us layers many other games don't go anywhere near.
    When Sasko first encountered the storyline, there was only an outline. "It said that Geralt meets the Bloody Baron who asks Geralt to hunt a monster and look for his wife and daughter, and for that, he is going to share information about Ciri and tell Geralt where she went. That was pretty much it." And Sasko already knew a few things about what he wanted to do. He knew he wanted to show No Man's Land as a Slavic region bathed in superstitions and complex religious beliefs, one that had been ravaged by famine and war. He also knew the tone of the area was horror because this had been outlined by Blacha and the leaders of The Witcher 3 team.
    Says Blacha: "My opinion is that a successful Witcher game is a mix of everything, so you have a horror line, you have a romance, you have adventure, you have exploration. When we started to think about our hubs, we thought about them in terms of a show, so No Man's Land, the hub with the Bloody Baron, was horror; Skellige was supposed to be an adventure; and Novigrad was supposed to be a big city investigation."
    But there were key missing pieces then from the Bloody Baron sequence we know today. The botchling, for instance - the monstrous baby the quest revolves around. It didn't exist. It was an idea that came from Sasko after he read a Slavic bestiary. "Yes," he says, "the botchling idea came from me."

    The Bloody Baron. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red

    He wanted the botchling to be the conduit through which more mature themes of the story could be approached - something overt to keep you busy while deeper themes sunk in. It's an approach Sasko says he pinched from Witcher author Andrzej Sapkowski, after deconstructing his work. "What he's doing is he's trying to find universal truths about human beings and struggles, but he doesn't tell those stories directly," Sasko says. "So for instance racism: he doesn't talk about that directly but he finds an interesting way how, in his world, he can package that and talk about it. I followed his method and mimicked it."
    This way the botchling becomes your focus in the quest, as the Baron carries it back to the manor house and you defend him from wraiths, but while you're doing that, you're also talking and learning more about who the Bloody Baron - who Phillip Strenger - is. "I wanted you to feel almost like you're in the shoes of that Bloody Baron," Sasko says. "Peregrination is this path in Christianity you go through when you want to remove your sins, and that's what this is meant to be. He's just trying to do it, and he's going through all of those things to do something good. And I wanted the player to start feeling like, 'Wow, maybe this dude is not so bad.'"
    It's a quest that leaves a big impression. An email was forwarded to Sasko after the game's release, written by a player who had lost their wife and child as the Baron once had. "And for him," he says, "that moment when Baron was carrying the child was almost like a catharsis, when he was trying so badly to walk that path. And the moment he managed to: he wrote in his letter that he broke down in tears."
    There's one other very significant moment in The Witcher 3 that Sasko had a large hand in, and it's the Battle of Kaer Morhern, where the 'goodies' - the witchers and the sorceresses, and Ciri - make a stand against the titular menace of the Wild Hunt. Sasko designed this section specifically to emotionally tenderise you, through a series of fast-paced and fraught battles, so that by the time the climactic moment came, you were aptly primed to receive it. The moment being Vesemir's death - the leader of the wolf school of witchers and father figure to Geralt. This, too, was Sasko's idea. "We needed to transition Ciri from being a hunted animal to becoming a hunter," he tells me, and the only event big enough and with enough inherent propulsion was Vesemir's death.

    Eredin, the leader of the Wild Hunt, breaks Vesemir's neck. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red

    But for all of the successful moments in the game there are those that didn't work. To the team that made the game, and to the players, there are things that clearly stand out. Such as Geralt's witcher senses, which allow him to see scent trails and footsteps and clues in the world around him. Geralt's detective mode, in other words. Sasko laughs as he cringes about it now. "We've overdone the witcher senses so much, oh my god," he says. "At the time when we were starting this, we were like, 'We don't have it in the game; we have to use it to make you feel like a witcher.' But then at the end, especially in the expansions, we tried to decrease it so it doesn't feel so overloaded." He'd even turn it down by a further 10 to 20 per cent, he says.
    There were all of the question marks dotted across the map, luring us to places to find meagre hidden treasure rewards. "I think we all scratch our heads about what we were thinking when trying to build this," Sasko tells me. "I guess it just came from fear - from fear that the player will feel that the world is empty." This was the first time CD Projekt Red had really the player's hand go, remember, and not controlled where in the world you would be.
    Shallow gameplay is a criticism many people have, especially in the game's repetitive combat, and again, this is something Sasko and the team are well aware of. "We don't feel that the gameplay in Witcher 3 was deep enough," he says. "It was for the times okay, but nowadays when you play it, even though the story still holds really well, you can see that the gameplay is a bit rusty." Also, the cutscenes could have been paced better and had less exposition in them, and the game in general could have dumped fewer concepts on you at once. Cognitive overload, Sasko calls it. "In every second sentence you have a new concept introduced, a new country mentioned, a new politician..." It was too much.
    More broadly, he would also have liked the open-world to be more closely connected to the game's story, rather than be, mostly, a pretty backdrop. "It's like in the theatre when you have beautiful decorations at the back made of cardboard and paper, and not much happens to them except an actor pulls a rope and it starts to rain or something." he says. It's to do with how the main story influences the world and vice versa, and he thinks the studio can be better at it.

    Ciri and Geralt look at a coin purse in The Witcher 3. This is, coincidentally, the same tavern you begin the game in, with Vesemir, and the same tavern you meet Master Mirror in. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red

    One conversation that surprises me, when looking back on The Witcher 3, is a conversation about popularity, because it's easy to forget now - with the intense scrutiny the studio seems always to be under - that when development began, not many people knew about CD Projekt Red. The combined sales of both Witcher games in 2013 were only 5 million. Poland knew about it - the Witcher fiction originated there and CD Projekt Red is Polish - and Germany knew about it, and some of the rest of Europe knew about it. But in North America, it was relatively unknown. That's a large part of the reason why the Xbox 360 version of The Witcher 2 was made at all, to begin knocking on that door. And The Witcher 3, CD Projekt Red hoped, would kick that door open. "We knew that we wanted to play in the major league," says Michał Platkow-Gilewski, vice president of communications and PR, stealing a quote from Cyberpunk character Jackie.
    That's why The Witcher 3 was revealed via a Game Informer cover story in early 2013, because that was deemed the way to do things there - the way to win US hearts, Platkow-Gilewski tells me. And it didn't take long for interest to swell. When Platkow-Gilewski joined CD Projekt Red to help launch the Xbox 360 version of The Witcher 2 in 2012, he was handing out flyers at Gamescom with company co-founder Michał Kicinski, just to fill presentations for the game. By the time The Witcher 3 was being shown at Gamescom, a few years later, queues were three to four hours long. People would wait all day to play. "We had to learn how to deal with popularity during the campaign," Platkow-Gilewski says.
    Those game shows were crucial for spreading the word about The Witcher 3 and seeing first-hand the impact the game was having on players and press. "Nothing can beat a good show where you meet with people who are there to see their favourite games just slightly before the rest of the world," he says. "They're investing their time, money, effort, and you feel this support, sometimes love, to the IP you're working on, and it boosts energy the way which you can't compare with anything else. These human to human interactions are unique." He says the studio's leader Adam Badowski would refer to these showings as fuel that would propel development for the next year or so, which is why CD Projekt Red always tried to gather as many developers as possible for them, to feel the energy.
    It was precisely these in-person events that Platkow-Gilewski says CD Projekt Red lacked in the lead up to Cyberpunk's launch, after Covid shut the world down. The company did what it could by pivoting to online events instead - the world-first playtest of Cyberpunk was done online via stream-play software called Parsec; I was a part of it - and talked to fans through trailers, but it was much harder to gauge feedback this way. "It's easy to just go with the flow and way harder to manage expectations," Platkow-Gilewski says, so expectations spiralled. "For me the biggest lesson learned is to always check reality versus expectations, and with Cyberpunk, it was really hard to control and we didn't know how to do it."
    It makes me wonder what the studio will do now with The Witcher 4, because the game show sector of the industry still hasn't bounced back, and I doubt - having seen the effect Covid has had on shows from the inside of an events company - whether it ever will. "Gamescom is growing," Platkow-Gilewski says somewhat optimistically. "Gamescom is back on track." But I don't know if it really is.

    Michał Platkow-Gilewski cites this moment as one of his favourite from the Witcher 3 journey. The crew were at the game show PAX in front of a huge live audience and the dialogue audio wouldn't play. Thankfully, they had Doug Cockle, the English language voice actor of Geralt, with them on the panel, so he live improvised the lines. Watch on YouTube
    Something else I'm surprised to hear from him is mention of The Witcher 3's rocky launch, because 10 years later - and in comparison to Cyberpunk's - that's not how I remember it. But Platkow-Gilewski remembers it differently. "When we released Witcher 3, the reception was not great," he says. "Reviews were amazing but there was, at least in my memories, no common consensus that this is a huge game which will maybe define some, to some extent, the genre."
    I do remember the strain on some faces around the studio at launch, though. I also remember a tense conversation about the perceived graphics downgrade in the game, where people unfavourably compared footage of Witcher 3 at launch, with footage from a marketing gameplay trailer released years before it. There were also a number of bugs in the game's code and its performance was unoptimised. "We knew things were far from being perfect," Platkow-Gilewski says. But the studio worked hard in the years after launch to patch and update the game - The Witcher 3 is now on version 4.04, which is extraordinary for a single-player game - and they released showcase expansions for it.
    Some of Marcin Blacha's favourite work is in those expansions, he tells me, especially the horror storylines of Hearts of Stone, many of which he wrote. That expansion's villain, Master Mirror, is also widely regarded as one of the best in the game, disguised as he is as a plain-looking and unassuming person who happens to have incredible and undefinable power. It's not until deep into the expansion you begin to uncover his devilish identity, and it's this subtle way of presenting a villain, and never over explaining his threat, that makes Master Mirror so memorable. He's gathered such a following that some people have concocted elaborate theories about him.
    Lead character artist Pawel Mielniczuk tells me about one theory whereby someone discovered you can see Master Mirror's face on many other background characters in the game, which you can, and that they believed it was a deliberate tactic used by CD Projekt Red to underline Master Mirror's devilish power. Remember, there was a neat trick with Master Mirror in that you had already met him at the beginning of The Witcher 3 base game, long before the expansion was ever developed, in a tavern in White Orchard. If CD Projekt Red could foreshadow him as far back as that, the theory went, then it could easily put his face on other characters in the game to achieve a similar 'did you see it?' effect.

    The real villain in the Hearts of Stone expansion, Gaunter O'Dimm. Better known to many as Master Mirror. There's a reason why he has such a plain-looking face... | Image credit: CD Projekt Red

    The truth is far more mundane. Other characters in the game do have Master Mirror's face, but only because his face is duplicated across the game in order to fill it out. CD Projekt Red didn't know when it made the original Witcher 3 game that this villager would turn into anyone special. There was a tentative plan but it was very tentative, so this villager got a very villager face. "We just got a request for a tertiary unimportant character," says Mileniczuk. "We had like 30-40 faces for the entire game so we just slapped a random face on him." He laughs. And by the time Hearts of Stone development came around, the face - the identity - had stuck.
    Expansions were an important part of cementing public opinion around The Witcher 3, then, as they were for cementing public opinion around Cyberpunk. They've become something of a golden bullet for the studio, a way to creatively unleash an already trained team and leave a much more positive memory in our heads.
    Exactly what went wrong with Cyberpunk and how CD Projekt Red set about correcting it is a whole other story Chris Tapsell told recently on the site, so I don't want to delve into specifics here. Suffice to say it was a hard time for the studio and many hard lessons had to be learned. "The pressure was huge," Platkow-Gilewski says, "because from underdogs we went to a company which will, for sure, deliver the best experience in the world."
    But while much of the rhetoric around Cyberpunk concerns the launch, there's a lot about the game itself that highlights how much progress the studio made, in terms of making open-world role-playing games. One of my favourite examples is how characters in Cyberpunk walk and talk rather than speak to you while rooted to the spot. It might seem like a small thing but it has a transformative and freeing effect on conversations, allowing the game to walk you places while you talk, and stage dialogue in a variety of cool ways. There's a lot to admire about the density of detail in the world, too, and in the greater variety of body shapes and diversity. Plus let's not forget, this is an actual open world rather than a segmented one as The Witcher 3 was. In many ways, the game was a huge step forward for the studio.
    Cyberpunk wasn't the only very notable thing to happen to the Witcher studio in those 10 years, either. During that time, The Witcher brand changed. Netflix piggybacked the game's popularity and developed a TV series starring Henry Cavill, and with it propelled The Witcher to the wider world.
    Curiously, CD Projekt Red wasn't invited to help, which was odd given executive producer Tomek Baginski was well known to CD Projekt Red, having directed the intro cinematics for all three Witcher video games. But beyond minor pieces of crossover content, no meaningful collaboration ever occurred. "We had no part in the shows," Pawel Mileniczuk says. "But it's Hollywood: different words. I know how hard it was for Tomek to get in there, to convince them to do the show, and then how limited influence is when the production house sits on something. It's many people, many decision makers, high stakes, big money. Nobody there was thinking about, Hey, let's talk to those dudes from Poland making games. It's a missed opportunity to me but what can I say?"

    The debut trailer for The Witcher 4.Watch on YouTube
    Nevertheless, the Netflix show had a surprisingly positive effect on the studio, with sales of The Witcher 3 spiking in 2019 and 2020 when the first season aired. "It was a really amazing year for us sales wise," Platkow-Gilewski says. This not only means more revenue for the studio but also wider understanding; more people are more familiar with The Witcher world now than ever before, which bodes very well for The Witcher 4. Not that it influenced or affected the studio's plans to return to that world, by the way. "We knew already that we wanted to come back to The Witcher," Platkow-Gilewski says. "Some knew that they wanted to tell a Ciri story while we were still working on Witcher 3."
    But, again, with popularity also comes pressure. "We'll have hopefully millions of people already hooked in from the get-go but with some expectations and visions and dreams which we have to, or may not be able to, fulfil," Platkow-Gilewski adds. You can already sense this pressure in comments threads about the new game. Many people already have their ideas about what a new Witcher game should be. The Witcher 4 might seem like a return to safer ground, then, but the relationship with the audience has changed in the intervening 10 years.
    "I think people are again with us," Platkow-Gilewski says. "There are some who are way more careful than they used to be; I don't see the hype train. We also learned how to talk about our game, what to show, when to show. But I think people believe again. Not everyone, and maybe it's slightly harder to talk with the whole internet. It's impossible now. It's way more polarised than it used to be. But I believe that we'll have something special for those who love The Witcher."
    Here we are a decade later, then, looking forward to another Witcher game by CD Projekt Red. But many things have changed. The studio has grown and shuffled people around and the roles of the people I speak to have changed. Marcin Blacha and Pawel Mielniczuk aren't working on The Witcher 4, but on new IP Project Hadar, in addition to their managerial responsibilities, and Pawel Sasko is full-time on Cyberpunk 2. It's only really Michał Platkow-Gilewski who'll do a similar job for The Witcher 4 as on The Witcher 3, although this time with dozens more people to help. But they will all still consult and they're confident in the abilities of The Witcher 4 team. "They really know what they're doing," says Sasko, "they are a very seasoned team."
    "We learned a lot of lessons down the road," Platkow-Gilewski says, in closing. "I started this interview saying that we had this bliss of ignorance; now we know more, but hopefully we can still be brave. Before, we were launching a rocket and figuring out how to land on the moon. Now, we know the dangers but we are way more experienced, so we'll find a way to navigate through these uncharted territories. We have a map already so hopefully it won't be such a hard trip."
    #what #worked #witcher #didn039t #looking
    What worked in The Witcher 3 and what didn't: looking back on a landmark RPG with CD Projekt Red
    What worked in The Witcher 3 and what didn't: looking back on a landmark RPG with CD Projekt Red "We learned a lot of lessons down the road." Image credit: CD Projekt Red Feature by Robert Purchese Associate Editor Published on May 31, 2025 Do you remember what you were doing when The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was released? It came out on 19th May 2015. I remember because I was inside CD Projekt Red at the time, trying to capture the moment for you - a moment I'm unlikely to replicate there or anywhere else. I recall sitting in the studio's canteen in the small hours of the morning, after a midnight launch event in a mall in Warsaw, chewing on a piece of cold pizza and wondering out loud what would come next for the studio, because at the time, who could know? One era was ending and another was about to begin. Would it bring the fame and fortune CD Projekt Red desired? Today, more than 60 million sales of The Witcher 3 later, we know the answer is yes. The Witcher 3 became a role-playing classic. It delivered one of the most touchable medieval worlds we've explored, a rough place of craggy rocks and craggier faces, of wonky morales and grim realities, of mud and dirtiness. And monsters, though not all were monstrous to look at. It was a world of grey, of superstition and folklore, and in it stood we, a legendary monster hunter, facing seemingly impossible odds. The Witcher 3 took fantasy seriously. But the decade since the game's release has been turbulent for CD Projekt Red. The studio launched its big new sci-fi series in 2020 with Cyberpunk 2077, and though the game has now sold more than 30 million copies, making it monetarily a success, it had a nightmarish launch. The PS4 version had to be removed from sale. It brought enormous pressure, growing pains and intense scrutiny to the studio, and CD Projekt Red would spend a further three years patching and updating - and eventually releasing an expansion - before public opinion would mostly turn around. Today the studio returns to safer ground, back to The Witcher world with the new game The Witcher 4, and as we look forward to it we should also look back, to the game that catapulted the studio to fame, and see what has been learnt. The Witcher 3 is at version 4.04 today, a number that represents an enormously long period of post-release support.Watch on YouTube It all began with naivety, as perhaps any ambitious project should. It's easy to forget that 14 years ago, when The Witcher 3 was being conceived, CD Projekt Red had never made an open-world game before. The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2 were linear in their approaches. It's also easy to forget that the people making the game were 14 years younger and less experienced. Back then, this was the studio's chance at recognition, so it aimed high in order to be seen. "The Witcher 3 was supposed to be this game that will end all other games," Marcin Blacha, the lead writer of the game, tells me. Simply make an open-world game that's also a story-driven game and release it on all platforms at the same time. How hard could it be? "When I'm thinking about our state of mind back in those days, the only word that comes to my mind is enthusiastic," Blacha says. "It was fantastic because we were so enthusiastic that we were full of courage. We were trying to experiment with stuff and we were not afraid. We were convinced that when we work with passion and love, it will pay off eventually." Every project has to begin somewhere and for Blacha, the person tasked with imagining the story, The Witcher 3 could only begin with Ciri, the daughter-of-sorts to The Witcher's central monster hunter character Geralt. As Blacha says, "The most important thing about Geralt and the most important thing about the books is the relationship between Geralt, Ciri and Yennefer. I already did two games with no sign of Ciri, no sign of Yennefer, and then we finally had a budget and proper time for pre-production, so for me, it was time to introduce both characters." It's a decision that would have major repercussions for the rest of The Witcher series at CD Projekt Red. Blacha didn't know it then, but Ciri would go on to become the protagonist of The Witcher 4. Had she not been the co-protagonist of The Witcher 3 - for you play as her in several sections during the game - who knows if things would have worked out the same way. It's an understandable progression as it is, though there is still some uncertainty among the audience about Ciri's starring role. But Ciri's inclusion came with complications, because the Ciri we see in the game is not the Ciri described in the books. That Ciri is much closer to the Ciri in the Netflix Witcher TV show, younger and more rebellious in a typical teenager way. She might be an important part of the fiction, then, but that doesn't mean she was especially well liked. "People were thinking that she's annoying," says Blacha, who grew up reading The Witcher books. CD Projekt Red, then, decided to make a Ciri of its own, aging her and making her more "flesh and bone", as Blacha puts it. He fondly recalls a moment in the game's development when reviewing the Ciri sections of the game, and saying aloud to studio director Adam Badowski how much he liked her. "I didn't know that she's going to be the protagonist of the next game," he says, "but I said to Adam Badowski, she's going to be very popular." Once Ciri had been earmarked for inclusion in The Witcher 3, the idea to have her pursued by the phantom-like force of the Wild Hunt - the members of which literally ride horses in the night sky, like Santa Claus' cursed reindeer - came shortly after. CD Projekt Red had introduced the Wild Hunt in The Witcher 2 so it made sense. The outline of the main story was then laid down as a one-page narrative treatment. Then it was expanded to a two-page treatment, a four page treatment, an eight page treatment and so on. At around 10 pages, it already had the White Orchard prologue, almost the entirety of the No Man's Land zone, and a hint of what would happen on Skellige and in Novigrad. When it was around 40 pages long, the quest design team was invited in. CD Projekt Red made their Ciri older than she is in the books. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red The quest design team's job is to turn a story into a game, and this was a newly created department for The Witcher 3, created because the old way of writers designing the quests wasn't working any more. "We were struggling a bit with making sure that every written story that we have prepared is also a story that we can play well," Paweł Sasko says. He joined CD Projekt Red to be a part of that quest design team. The quest design team carves up a narrative treatment, paragraph by paragraph, and expands those into playable questlines for the game. "It's basically something between game design and a movie scenario," Sasko says. There's no dialogue, just a description of what will happen, and even a one-paragraph prompt can balloon into a 20-30 page design. Among the paragraphs Sasko was given to adapt was a storyline in No Man's Land concerning a character known as the Bloody Baron. The Bloody Baron storyline is widely acclaimed and has become synonymous with everything Sasko and CD Projekt Red were trying to do with the game. It's a storyline that probes into mature themes like domestic abuse, fatherhood, and love and loss and grief. More importantly, it presents us with a flawed character and allows us time and space to perhaps change our opinion of them. It gives us layers many other games don't go anywhere near. When Sasko first encountered the storyline, there was only an outline. "It said that Geralt meets the Bloody Baron who asks Geralt to hunt a monster and look for his wife and daughter, and for that, he is going to share information about Ciri and tell Geralt where she went. That was pretty much it." And Sasko already knew a few things about what he wanted to do. He knew he wanted to show No Man's Land as a Slavic region bathed in superstitions and complex religious beliefs, one that had been ravaged by famine and war. He also knew the tone of the area was horror because this had been outlined by Blacha and the leaders of The Witcher 3 team. Says Blacha: "My opinion is that a successful Witcher game is a mix of everything, so you have a horror line, you have a romance, you have adventure, you have exploration. When we started to think about our hubs, we thought about them in terms of a show, so No Man's Land, the hub with the Bloody Baron, was horror; Skellige was supposed to be an adventure; and Novigrad was supposed to be a big city investigation." But there were key missing pieces then from the Bloody Baron sequence we know today. The botchling, for instance - the monstrous baby the quest revolves around. It didn't exist. It was an idea that came from Sasko after he read a Slavic bestiary. "Yes," he says, "the botchling idea came from me." The Bloody Baron. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red He wanted the botchling to be the conduit through which more mature themes of the story could be approached - something overt to keep you busy while deeper themes sunk in. It's an approach Sasko says he pinched from Witcher author Andrzej Sapkowski, after deconstructing his work. "What he's doing is he's trying to find universal truths about human beings and struggles, but he doesn't tell those stories directly," Sasko says. "So for instance racism: he doesn't talk about that directly but he finds an interesting way how, in his world, he can package that and talk about it. I followed his method and mimicked it." This way the botchling becomes your focus in the quest, as the Baron carries it back to the manor house and you defend him from wraiths, but while you're doing that, you're also talking and learning more about who the Bloody Baron - who Phillip Strenger - is. "I wanted you to feel almost like you're in the shoes of that Bloody Baron," Sasko says. "Peregrination is this path in Christianity you go through when you want to remove your sins, and that's what this is meant to be. He's just trying to do it, and he's going through all of those things to do something good. And I wanted the player to start feeling like, 'Wow, maybe this dude is not so bad.'" It's a quest that leaves a big impression. An email was forwarded to Sasko after the game's release, written by a player who had lost their wife and child as the Baron once had. "And for him," he says, "that moment when Baron was carrying the child was almost like a catharsis, when he was trying so badly to walk that path. And the moment he managed to: he wrote in his letter that he broke down in tears." There's one other very significant moment in The Witcher 3 that Sasko had a large hand in, and it's the Battle of Kaer Morhern, where the 'goodies' - the witchers and the sorceresses, and Ciri - make a stand against the titular menace of the Wild Hunt. Sasko designed this section specifically to emotionally tenderise you, through a series of fast-paced and fraught battles, so that by the time the climactic moment came, you were aptly primed to receive it. The moment being Vesemir's death - the leader of the wolf school of witchers and father figure to Geralt. This, too, was Sasko's idea. "We needed to transition Ciri from being a hunted animal to becoming a hunter," he tells me, and the only event big enough and with enough inherent propulsion was Vesemir's death. Eredin, the leader of the Wild Hunt, breaks Vesemir's neck. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red But for all of the successful moments in the game there are those that didn't work. To the team that made the game, and to the players, there are things that clearly stand out. Such as Geralt's witcher senses, which allow him to see scent trails and footsteps and clues in the world around him. Geralt's detective mode, in other words. Sasko laughs as he cringes about it now. "We've overdone the witcher senses so much, oh my god," he says. "At the time when we were starting this, we were like, 'We don't have it in the game; we have to use it to make you feel like a witcher.' But then at the end, especially in the expansions, we tried to decrease it so it doesn't feel so overloaded." He'd even turn it down by a further 10 to 20 per cent, he says. There were all of the question marks dotted across the map, luring us to places to find meagre hidden treasure rewards. "I think we all scratch our heads about what we were thinking when trying to build this," Sasko tells me. "I guess it just came from fear - from fear that the player will feel that the world is empty." This was the first time CD Projekt Red had really the player's hand go, remember, and not controlled where in the world you would be. Shallow gameplay is a criticism many people have, especially in the game's repetitive combat, and again, this is something Sasko and the team are well aware of. "We don't feel that the gameplay in Witcher 3 was deep enough," he says. "It was for the times okay, but nowadays when you play it, even though the story still holds really well, you can see that the gameplay is a bit rusty." Also, the cutscenes could have been paced better and had less exposition in them, and the game in general could have dumped fewer concepts on you at once. Cognitive overload, Sasko calls it. "In every second sentence you have a new concept introduced, a new country mentioned, a new politician..." It was too much. More broadly, he would also have liked the open-world to be more closely connected to the game's story, rather than be, mostly, a pretty backdrop. "It's like in the theatre when you have beautiful decorations at the back made of cardboard and paper, and not much happens to them except an actor pulls a rope and it starts to rain or something." he says. It's to do with how the main story influences the world and vice versa, and he thinks the studio can be better at it. Ciri and Geralt look at a coin purse in The Witcher 3. This is, coincidentally, the same tavern you begin the game in, with Vesemir, and the same tavern you meet Master Mirror in. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red One conversation that surprises me, when looking back on The Witcher 3, is a conversation about popularity, because it's easy to forget now - with the intense scrutiny the studio seems always to be under - that when development began, not many people knew about CD Projekt Red. The combined sales of both Witcher games in 2013 were only 5 million. Poland knew about it - the Witcher fiction originated there and CD Projekt Red is Polish - and Germany knew about it, and some of the rest of Europe knew about it. But in North America, it was relatively unknown. That's a large part of the reason why the Xbox 360 version of The Witcher 2 was made at all, to begin knocking on that door. And The Witcher 3, CD Projekt Red hoped, would kick that door open. "We knew that we wanted to play in the major league," says Michał Platkow-Gilewski, vice president of communications and PR, stealing a quote from Cyberpunk character Jackie. That's why The Witcher 3 was revealed via a Game Informer cover story in early 2013, because that was deemed the way to do things there - the way to win US hearts, Platkow-Gilewski tells me. And it didn't take long for interest to swell. When Platkow-Gilewski joined CD Projekt Red to help launch the Xbox 360 version of The Witcher 2 in 2012, he was handing out flyers at Gamescom with company co-founder Michał Kicinski, just to fill presentations for the game. By the time The Witcher 3 was being shown at Gamescom, a few years later, queues were three to four hours long. People would wait all day to play. "We had to learn how to deal with popularity during the campaign," Platkow-Gilewski says. Those game shows were crucial for spreading the word about The Witcher 3 and seeing first-hand the impact the game was having on players and press. "Nothing can beat a good show where you meet with people who are there to see their favourite games just slightly before the rest of the world," he says. "They're investing their time, money, effort, and you feel this support, sometimes love, to the IP you're working on, and it boosts energy the way which you can't compare with anything else. These human to human interactions are unique." He says the studio's leader Adam Badowski would refer to these showings as fuel that would propel development for the next year or so, which is why CD Projekt Red always tried to gather as many developers as possible for them, to feel the energy. It was precisely these in-person events that Platkow-Gilewski says CD Projekt Red lacked in the lead up to Cyberpunk's launch, after Covid shut the world down. The company did what it could by pivoting to online events instead - the world-first playtest of Cyberpunk was done online via stream-play software called Parsec; I was a part of it - and talked to fans through trailers, but it was much harder to gauge feedback this way. "It's easy to just go with the flow and way harder to manage expectations," Platkow-Gilewski says, so expectations spiralled. "For me the biggest lesson learned is to always check reality versus expectations, and with Cyberpunk, it was really hard to control and we didn't know how to do it." It makes me wonder what the studio will do now with The Witcher 4, because the game show sector of the industry still hasn't bounced back, and I doubt - having seen the effect Covid has had on shows from the inside of an events company - whether it ever will. "Gamescom is growing," Platkow-Gilewski says somewhat optimistically. "Gamescom is back on track." But I don't know if it really is. Michał Platkow-Gilewski cites this moment as one of his favourite from the Witcher 3 journey. The crew were at the game show PAX in front of a huge live audience and the dialogue audio wouldn't play. Thankfully, they had Doug Cockle, the English language voice actor of Geralt, with them on the panel, so he live improvised the lines. Watch on YouTube Something else I'm surprised to hear from him is mention of The Witcher 3's rocky launch, because 10 years later - and in comparison to Cyberpunk's - that's not how I remember it. But Platkow-Gilewski remembers it differently. "When we released Witcher 3, the reception was not great," he says. "Reviews were amazing but there was, at least in my memories, no common consensus that this is a huge game which will maybe define some, to some extent, the genre." I do remember the strain on some faces around the studio at launch, though. I also remember a tense conversation about the perceived graphics downgrade in the game, where people unfavourably compared footage of Witcher 3 at launch, with footage from a marketing gameplay trailer released years before it. There were also a number of bugs in the game's code and its performance was unoptimised. "We knew things were far from being perfect," Platkow-Gilewski says. But the studio worked hard in the years after launch to patch and update the game - The Witcher 3 is now on version 4.04, which is extraordinary for a single-player game - and they released showcase expansions for it. Some of Marcin Blacha's favourite work is in those expansions, he tells me, especially the horror storylines of Hearts of Stone, many of which he wrote. That expansion's villain, Master Mirror, is also widely regarded as one of the best in the game, disguised as he is as a plain-looking and unassuming person who happens to have incredible and undefinable power. It's not until deep into the expansion you begin to uncover his devilish identity, and it's this subtle way of presenting a villain, and never over explaining his threat, that makes Master Mirror so memorable. He's gathered such a following that some people have concocted elaborate theories about him. Lead character artist Pawel Mielniczuk tells me about one theory whereby someone discovered you can see Master Mirror's face on many other background characters in the game, which you can, and that they believed it was a deliberate tactic used by CD Projekt Red to underline Master Mirror's devilish power. Remember, there was a neat trick with Master Mirror in that you had already met him at the beginning of The Witcher 3 base game, long before the expansion was ever developed, in a tavern in White Orchard. If CD Projekt Red could foreshadow him as far back as that, the theory went, then it could easily put his face on other characters in the game to achieve a similar 'did you see it?' effect. The real villain in the Hearts of Stone expansion, Gaunter O'Dimm. Better known to many as Master Mirror. There's a reason why he has such a plain-looking face... | Image credit: CD Projekt Red The truth is far more mundane. Other characters in the game do have Master Mirror's face, but only because his face is duplicated across the game in order to fill it out. CD Projekt Red didn't know when it made the original Witcher 3 game that this villager would turn into anyone special. There was a tentative plan but it was very tentative, so this villager got a very villager face. "We just got a request for a tertiary unimportant character," says Mileniczuk. "We had like 30-40 faces for the entire game so we just slapped a random face on him." He laughs. And by the time Hearts of Stone development came around, the face - the identity - had stuck. Expansions were an important part of cementing public opinion around The Witcher 3, then, as they were for cementing public opinion around Cyberpunk. They've become something of a golden bullet for the studio, a way to creatively unleash an already trained team and leave a much more positive memory in our heads. Exactly what went wrong with Cyberpunk and how CD Projekt Red set about correcting it is a whole other story Chris Tapsell told recently on the site, so I don't want to delve into specifics here. Suffice to say it was a hard time for the studio and many hard lessons had to be learned. "The pressure was huge," Platkow-Gilewski says, "because from underdogs we went to a company which will, for sure, deliver the best experience in the world." But while much of the rhetoric around Cyberpunk concerns the launch, there's a lot about the game itself that highlights how much progress the studio made, in terms of making open-world role-playing games. One of my favourite examples is how characters in Cyberpunk walk and talk rather than speak to you while rooted to the spot. It might seem like a small thing but it has a transformative and freeing effect on conversations, allowing the game to walk you places while you talk, and stage dialogue in a variety of cool ways. There's a lot to admire about the density of detail in the world, too, and in the greater variety of body shapes and diversity. Plus let's not forget, this is an actual open world rather than a segmented one as The Witcher 3 was. In many ways, the game was a huge step forward for the studio. Cyberpunk wasn't the only very notable thing to happen to the Witcher studio in those 10 years, either. During that time, The Witcher brand changed. Netflix piggybacked the game's popularity and developed a TV series starring Henry Cavill, and with it propelled The Witcher to the wider world. Curiously, CD Projekt Red wasn't invited to help, which was odd given executive producer Tomek Baginski was well known to CD Projekt Red, having directed the intro cinematics for all three Witcher video games. But beyond minor pieces of crossover content, no meaningful collaboration ever occurred. "We had no part in the shows," Pawel Mileniczuk says. "But it's Hollywood: different words. I know how hard it was for Tomek to get in there, to convince them to do the show, and then how limited influence is when the production house sits on something. It's many people, many decision makers, high stakes, big money. Nobody there was thinking about, Hey, let's talk to those dudes from Poland making games. It's a missed opportunity to me but what can I say?" The debut trailer for The Witcher 4.Watch on YouTube Nevertheless, the Netflix show had a surprisingly positive effect on the studio, with sales of The Witcher 3 spiking in 2019 and 2020 when the first season aired. "It was a really amazing year for us sales wise," Platkow-Gilewski says. This not only means more revenue for the studio but also wider understanding; more people are more familiar with The Witcher world now than ever before, which bodes very well for The Witcher 4. Not that it influenced or affected the studio's plans to return to that world, by the way. "We knew already that we wanted to come back to The Witcher," Platkow-Gilewski says. "Some knew that they wanted to tell a Ciri story while we were still working on Witcher 3." But, again, with popularity also comes pressure. "We'll have hopefully millions of people already hooked in from the get-go but with some expectations and visions and dreams which we have to, or may not be able to, fulfil," Platkow-Gilewski adds. You can already sense this pressure in comments threads about the new game. Many people already have their ideas about what a new Witcher game should be. The Witcher 4 might seem like a return to safer ground, then, but the relationship with the audience has changed in the intervening 10 years. "I think people are again with us," Platkow-Gilewski says. "There are some who are way more careful than they used to be; I don't see the hype train. We also learned how to talk about our game, what to show, when to show. But I think people believe again. Not everyone, and maybe it's slightly harder to talk with the whole internet. It's impossible now. It's way more polarised than it used to be. But I believe that we'll have something special for those who love The Witcher." Here we are a decade later, then, looking forward to another Witcher game by CD Projekt Red. But many things have changed. The studio has grown and shuffled people around and the roles of the people I speak to have changed. Marcin Blacha and Pawel Mielniczuk aren't working on The Witcher 4, but on new IP Project Hadar, in addition to their managerial responsibilities, and Pawel Sasko is full-time on Cyberpunk 2. It's only really Michał Platkow-Gilewski who'll do a similar job for The Witcher 4 as on The Witcher 3, although this time with dozens more people to help. But they will all still consult and they're confident in the abilities of The Witcher 4 team. "They really know what they're doing," says Sasko, "they are a very seasoned team." "We learned a lot of lessons down the road," Platkow-Gilewski says, in closing. "I started this interview saying that we had this bliss of ignorance; now we know more, but hopefully we can still be brave. Before, we were launching a rocket and figuring out how to land on the moon. Now, we know the dangers but we are way more experienced, so we'll find a way to navigate through these uncharted territories. We have a map already so hopefully it won't be such a hard trip." #what #worked #witcher #didn039t #looking
    What worked in The Witcher 3 and what didn't: looking back on a landmark RPG with CD Projekt Red
    www.eurogamer.net
    What worked in The Witcher 3 and what didn't: looking back on a landmark RPG with CD Projekt Red "We learned a lot of lessons down the road." Image credit: CD Projekt Red Feature by Robert Purchese Associate Editor Published on May 31, 2025 Do you remember what you were doing when The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was released? It came out on 19th May 2015. I remember because I was inside CD Projekt Red at the time, trying to capture the moment for you - a moment I'm unlikely to replicate there or anywhere else. I recall sitting in the studio's canteen in the small hours of the morning, after a midnight launch event in a mall in Warsaw, chewing on a piece of cold pizza and wondering out loud what would come next for the studio, because at the time, who could know? One era was ending and another was about to begin. Would it bring the fame and fortune CD Projekt Red desired? Today, more than 60 million sales of The Witcher 3 later, we know the answer is yes. The Witcher 3 became a role-playing classic. It delivered one of the most touchable medieval worlds we've explored, a rough place of craggy rocks and craggier faces, of wonky morales and grim realities, of mud and dirtiness. And monsters, though not all were monstrous to look at. It was a world of grey, of superstition and folklore, and in it stood we, a legendary monster hunter, facing seemingly impossible odds. The Witcher 3 took fantasy seriously. But the decade since the game's release has been turbulent for CD Projekt Red. The studio launched its big new sci-fi series in 2020 with Cyberpunk 2077, and though the game has now sold more than 30 million copies, making it monetarily a success, it had a nightmarish launch. The PS4 version had to be removed from sale. It brought enormous pressure, growing pains and intense scrutiny to the studio, and CD Projekt Red would spend a further three years patching and updating - and eventually releasing an expansion - before public opinion would mostly turn around. Today the studio returns to safer ground, back to The Witcher world with the new game The Witcher 4, and as we look forward to it we should also look back, to the game that catapulted the studio to fame, and see what has been learnt. The Witcher 3 is at version 4.04 today, a number that represents an enormously long period of post-release support.Watch on YouTube It all began with naivety, as perhaps any ambitious project should. It's easy to forget that 14 years ago, when The Witcher 3 was being conceived, CD Projekt Red had never made an open-world game before. The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2 were linear in their approaches. It's also easy to forget that the people making the game were 14 years younger and less experienced. Back then, this was the studio's chance at recognition, so it aimed high in order to be seen. "The Witcher 3 was supposed to be this game that will end all other games," Marcin Blacha, the lead writer of the game, tells me. Simply make an open-world game that's also a story-driven game and release it on all platforms at the same time. How hard could it be? "When I'm thinking about our state of mind back in those days, the only word that comes to my mind is enthusiastic," Blacha says. "It was fantastic because we were so enthusiastic that we were full of courage. We were trying to experiment with stuff and we were not afraid. We were convinced that when we work with passion and love, it will pay off eventually." Every project has to begin somewhere and for Blacha, the person tasked with imagining the story, The Witcher 3 could only begin with Ciri, the daughter-of-sorts to The Witcher's central monster hunter character Geralt. As Blacha says, "The most important thing about Geralt and the most important thing about the books is the relationship between Geralt, Ciri and Yennefer. I already did two games with no sign of Ciri, no sign of Yennefer, and then we finally had a budget and proper time for pre-production, so for me, it was time to introduce both characters." It's a decision that would have major repercussions for the rest of The Witcher series at CD Projekt Red. Blacha didn't know it then, but Ciri would go on to become the protagonist of The Witcher 4. Had she not been the co-protagonist of The Witcher 3 - for you play as her in several sections during the game - who knows if things would have worked out the same way. It's an understandable progression as it is, though there is still some uncertainty among the audience about Ciri's starring role. But Ciri's inclusion came with complications, because the Ciri we see in the game is not the Ciri described in the books. That Ciri is much closer to the Ciri in the Netflix Witcher TV show, younger and more rebellious in a typical teenager way. She might be an important part of the fiction, then, but that doesn't mean she was especially well liked. "People were thinking that she's annoying," says Blacha, who grew up reading The Witcher books. CD Projekt Red, then, decided to make a Ciri of its own, aging her and making her more "flesh and bone", as Blacha puts it. He fondly recalls a moment in the game's development when reviewing the Ciri sections of the game, and saying aloud to studio director Adam Badowski how much he liked her. "I didn't know that she's going to be the protagonist of the next game," he says, "but I said to Adam Badowski, she's going to be very popular." Once Ciri had been earmarked for inclusion in The Witcher 3, the idea to have her pursued by the phantom-like force of the Wild Hunt - the members of which literally ride horses in the night sky, like Santa Claus' cursed reindeer - came shortly after. CD Projekt Red had introduced the Wild Hunt in The Witcher 2 so it made sense. The outline of the main story was then laid down as a one-page narrative treatment. Then it was expanded to a two-page treatment, a four page treatment, an eight page treatment and so on. At around 10 pages, it already had the White Orchard prologue, almost the entirety of the No Man's Land zone, and a hint of what would happen on Skellige and in Novigrad. When it was around 40 pages long, the quest design team was invited in. CD Projekt Red made their Ciri older than she is in the books. | Image credit: CD Projekt Red The quest design team's job is to turn a story into a game, and this was a newly created department for The Witcher 3, created because the old way of writers designing the quests wasn't working any more. "We were struggling a bit with making sure that every written story that we have prepared is also a story that we can play well," Paweł Sasko says. He joined CD Projekt Red to be a part of that quest design team. The quest design team carves up a narrative treatment, paragraph by paragraph, and expands those into playable questlines for the game. "It's basically something between game design and a movie scenario," Sasko says. There's no dialogue, just a description of what will happen, and even a one-paragraph prompt can balloon into a 20-30 page design. Among the paragraphs Sasko was given to adapt was a storyline in No Man's Land concerning a character known as the Bloody Baron. The Bloody Baron storyline is widely acclaimed and has become synonymous with everything Sasko and CD Projekt Red were trying to do with the game. It's a storyline that probes into mature themes like domestic abuse, fatherhood, and love and loss and grief. More importantly, it presents us with a flawed character and allows us time and space to perhaps change our opinion of them. It gives us layers many other games don't go anywhere near. When Sasko first encountered the storyline, there was only an outline. "It said that Geralt meets the Bloody Baron who asks Geralt to hunt a monster and look for his wife and daughter, and for that, he is going to share information about Ciri and tell Geralt where she went. That was pretty much it." And Sasko already knew a few things about what he wanted to do. He knew he wanted to show No Man's Land as a Slavic region bathed in superstitions and complex religious beliefs, one that had been ravaged by famine and war. He also knew the tone of the area was horror because this had been outlined by Blacha and the leaders of The Witcher 3 team. Says Blacha: "My opinion is that a successful Witcher game is a mix of everything, so you have a horror line, you have a romance, you have adventure, you have exploration. When we started to think about our hubs, we thought about them in terms of a show, so No Man's Land, the hub with the Bloody Baron, was horror; Skellige was supposed to be an adventure; and Novigrad was supposed to be a big city investigation." But there were key missing pieces then from the Bloody Baron sequence we know today. The botchling, for instance - the monstrous baby the quest revolves around. It didn't exist. It was an idea that came from Sasko after he read a Slavic bestiary. "Yes," he says, "the botchling idea came from me." The Bloody Baron. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red He wanted the botchling to be the conduit through which more mature themes of the story could be approached - something overt to keep you busy while deeper themes sunk in. It's an approach Sasko says he pinched from Witcher author Andrzej Sapkowski, after deconstructing his work. "What he's doing is he's trying to find universal truths about human beings and struggles, but he doesn't tell those stories directly," Sasko says. "So for instance racism: he doesn't talk about that directly but he finds an interesting way how, in his world, he can package that and talk about it. I followed his method and mimicked it." This way the botchling becomes your focus in the quest, as the Baron carries it back to the manor house and you defend him from wraiths, but while you're doing that, you're also talking and learning more about who the Bloody Baron - who Phillip Strenger - is. "I wanted you to feel almost like you're in the shoes of that Bloody Baron," Sasko says. "Peregrination is this path in Christianity you go through when you want to remove your sins, and that's what this is meant to be. He's just trying to do it, and he's going through all of those things to do something good. And I wanted the player to start feeling like, 'Wow, maybe this dude is not so bad.'" It's a quest that leaves a big impression. An email was forwarded to Sasko after the game's release, written by a player who had lost their wife and child as the Baron once had. "And for him," he says, "that moment when Baron was carrying the child was almost like a catharsis, when he was trying so badly to walk that path. And the moment he managed to: he wrote in his letter that he broke down in tears." There's one other very significant moment in The Witcher 3 that Sasko had a large hand in, and it's the Battle of Kaer Morhern, where the 'goodies' - the witchers and the sorceresses, and Ciri - make a stand against the titular menace of the Wild Hunt. Sasko designed this section specifically to emotionally tenderise you, through a series of fast-paced and fraught battles, so that by the time the climactic moment came, you were aptly primed to receive it. The moment being Vesemir's death - the leader of the wolf school of witchers and father figure to Geralt. This, too, was Sasko's idea. "We needed to transition Ciri from being a hunted animal to becoming a hunter," he tells me, and the only event big enough and with enough inherent propulsion was Vesemir's death. Eredin, the leader of the Wild Hunt, breaks Vesemir's neck. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red But for all of the successful moments in the game there are those that didn't work. To the team that made the game, and to the players, there are things that clearly stand out. Such as Geralt's witcher senses, which allow him to see scent trails and footsteps and clues in the world around him. Geralt's detective mode, in other words. Sasko laughs as he cringes about it now. "We've overdone the witcher senses so much, oh my god," he says. "At the time when we were starting this, we were like, 'We don't have it in the game; we have to use it to make you feel like a witcher.' But then at the end, especially in the expansions, we tried to decrease it so it doesn't feel so overloaded." He'd even turn it down by a further 10 to 20 per cent, he says. There were all of the question marks dotted across the map, luring us to places to find meagre hidden treasure rewards. "I think we all scratch our heads about what we were thinking when trying to build this," Sasko tells me. "I guess it just came from fear - from fear that the player will feel that the world is empty." This was the first time CD Projekt Red had really the player's hand go, remember, and not controlled where in the world you would be. Shallow gameplay is a criticism many people have, especially in the game's repetitive combat, and again, this is something Sasko and the team are well aware of. "We don't feel that the gameplay in Witcher 3 was deep enough," he says. "It was for the times okay, but nowadays when you play it, even though the story still holds really well, you can see that the gameplay is a bit rusty." Also, the cutscenes could have been paced better and had less exposition in them, and the game in general could have dumped fewer concepts on you at once. Cognitive overload, Sasko calls it. "In every second sentence you have a new concept introduced, a new country mentioned, a new politician..." It was too much. More broadly, he would also have liked the open-world to be more closely connected to the game's story, rather than be, mostly, a pretty backdrop. "It's like in the theatre when you have beautiful decorations at the back made of cardboard and paper, and not much happens to them except an actor pulls a rope and it starts to rain or something." he says. It's to do with how the main story influences the world and vice versa, and he thinks the studio can be better at it. Ciri and Geralt look at a coin purse in The Witcher 3. This is, coincidentally, the same tavern you begin the game in, with Vesemir, and the same tavern you meet Master Mirror in. | Image credit: Eurogamer / CD Projekt Red One conversation that surprises me, when looking back on The Witcher 3, is a conversation about popularity, because it's easy to forget now - with the intense scrutiny the studio seems always to be under - that when development began, not many people knew about CD Projekt Red. The combined sales of both Witcher games in 2013 were only 5 million. Poland knew about it - the Witcher fiction originated there and CD Projekt Red is Polish - and Germany knew about it, and some of the rest of Europe knew about it. But in North America, it was relatively unknown. That's a large part of the reason why the Xbox 360 version of The Witcher 2 was made at all, to begin knocking on that door. And The Witcher 3, CD Projekt Red hoped, would kick that door open. "We knew that we wanted to play in the major league," says Michał Platkow-Gilewski, vice president of communications and PR, stealing a quote from Cyberpunk character Jackie. That's why The Witcher 3 was revealed via a Game Informer cover story in early 2013, because that was deemed the way to do things there - the way to win US hearts, Platkow-Gilewski tells me. And it didn't take long for interest to swell. When Platkow-Gilewski joined CD Projekt Red to help launch the Xbox 360 version of The Witcher 2 in 2012, he was handing out flyers at Gamescom with company co-founder Michał Kicinski, just to fill presentations for the game. By the time The Witcher 3 was being shown at Gamescom, a few years later, queues were three to four hours long. People would wait all day to play. "We had to learn how to deal with popularity during the campaign," Platkow-Gilewski says. Those game shows were crucial for spreading the word about The Witcher 3 and seeing first-hand the impact the game was having on players and press. "Nothing can beat a good show where you meet with people who are there to see their favourite games just slightly before the rest of the world," he says. "They're investing their time, money, effort, and you feel this support, sometimes love, to the IP you're working on, and it boosts energy the way which you can't compare with anything else. These human to human interactions are unique." He says the studio's leader Adam Badowski would refer to these showings as fuel that would propel development for the next year or so, which is why CD Projekt Red always tried to gather as many developers as possible for them, to feel the energy. It was precisely these in-person events that Platkow-Gilewski says CD Projekt Red lacked in the lead up to Cyberpunk's launch, after Covid shut the world down. The company did what it could by pivoting to online events instead - the world-first playtest of Cyberpunk was done online via stream-play software called Parsec; I was a part of it - and talked to fans through trailers, but it was much harder to gauge feedback this way. "It's easy to just go with the flow and way harder to manage expectations," Platkow-Gilewski says, so expectations spiralled. "For me the biggest lesson learned is to always check reality versus expectations, and with Cyberpunk, it was really hard to control and we didn't know how to do it." It makes me wonder what the studio will do now with The Witcher 4, because the game show sector of the industry still hasn't bounced back, and I doubt - having seen the effect Covid has had on shows from the inside of an events company - whether it ever will. "Gamescom is growing," Platkow-Gilewski says somewhat optimistically. "Gamescom is back on track." But I don't know if it really is. Michał Platkow-Gilewski cites this moment as one of his favourite from the Witcher 3 journey. The crew were at the game show PAX in front of a huge live audience and the dialogue audio wouldn't play. Thankfully, they had Doug Cockle, the English language voice actor of Geralt, with them on the panel, so he live improvised the lines. Watch on YouTube Something else I'm surprised to hear from him is mention of The Witcher 3's rocky launch, because 10 years later - and in comparison to Cyberpunk's - that's not how I remember it. But Platkow-Gilewski remembers it differently. "When we released Witcher 3, the reception was not great," he says. "Reviews were amazing but there was, at least in my memories, no common consensus that this is a huge game which will maybe define some, to some extent, the genre." I do remember the strain on some faces around the studio at launch, though. I also remember a tense conversation about the perceived graphics downgrade in the game, where people unfavourably compared footage of Witcher 3 at launch, with footage from a marketing gameplay trailer released years before it. There were also a number of bugs in the game's code and its performance was unoptimised. "We knew things were far from being perfect," Platkow-Gilewski says. But the studio worked hard in the years after launch to patch and update the game - The Witcher 3 is now on version 4.04, which is extraordinary for a single-player game - and they released showcase expansions for it. Some of Marcin Blacha's favourite work is in those expansions, he tells me, especially the horror storylines of Hearts of Stone, many of which he wrote. That expansion's villain, Master Mirror, is also widely regarded as one of the best in the game, disguised as he is as a plain-looking and unassuming person who happens to have incredible and undefinable power. It's not until deep into the expansion you begin to uncover his devilish identity, and it's this subtle way of presenting a villain, and never over explaining his threat, that makes Master Mirror so memorable. He's gathered such a following that some people have concocted elaborate theories about him. Lead character artist Pawel Mielniczuk tells me about one theory whereby someone discovered you can see Master Mirror's face on many other background characters in the game, which you can, and that they believed it was a deliberate tactic used by CD Projekt Red to underline Master Mirror's devilish power. Remember, there was a neat trick with Master Mirror in that you had already met him at the beginning of The Witcher 3 base game, long before the expansion was ever developed, in a tavern in White Orchard. If CD Projekt Red could foreshadow him as far back as that, the theory went, then it could easily put his face on other characters in the game to achieve a similar 'did you see it?' effect. The real villain in the Hearts of Stone expansion, Gaunter O'Dimm. Better known to many as Master Mirror. There's a reason why he has such a plain-looking face... | Image credit: CD Projekt Red The truth is far more mundane. Other characters in the game do have Master Mirror's face, but only because his face is duplicated across the game in order to fill it out. CD Projekt Red didn't know when it made the original Witcher 3 game that this villager would turn into anyone special. There was a tentative plan but it was very tentative, so this villager got a very villager face. "We just got a request for a tertiary unimportant character," says Mileniczuk. "We had like 30-40 faces for the entire game so we just slapped a random face on him." He laughs. And by the time Hearts of Stone development came around, the face - the identity - had stuck. Expansions were an important part of cementing public opinion around The Witcher 3, then, as they were for cementing public opinion around Cyberpunk. They've become something of a golden bullet for the studio, a way to creatively unleash an already trained team and leave a much more positive memory in our heads. Exactly what went wrong with Cyberpunk and how CD Projekt Red set about correcting it is a whole other story Chris Tapsell told recently on the site, so I don't want to delve into specifics here. Suffice to say it was a hard time for the studio and many hard lessons had to be learned. "The pressure was huge," Platkow-Gilewski says, "because from underdogs we went to a company which will, for sure, deliver the best experience in the world." But while much of the rhetoric around Cyberpunk concerns the launch, there's a lot about the game itself that highlights how much progress the studio made, in terms of making open-world role-playing games. One of my favourite examples is how characters in Cyberpunk walk and talk rather than speak to you while rooted to the spot. It might seem like a small thing but it has a transformative and freeing effect on conversations, allowing the game to walk you places while you talk, and stage dialogue in a variety of cool ways. There's a lot to admire about the density of detail in the world, too, and in the greater variety of body shapes and diversity. Plus let's not forget, this is an actual open world rather than a segmented one as The Witcher 3 was. In many ways, the game was a huge step forward for the studio. Cyberpunk wasn't the only very notable thing to happen to the Witcher studio in those 10 years, either. During that time, The Witcher brand changed. Netflix piggybacked the game's popularity and developed a TV series starring Henry Cavill, and with it propelled The Witcher to the wider world. Curiously, CD Projekt Red wasn't invited to help, which was odd given executive producer Tomek Baginski was well known to CD Projekt Red, having directed the intro cinematics for all three Witcher video games. But beyond minor pieces of crossover content, no meaningful collaboration ever occurred. "We had no part in the shows," Pawel Mileniczuk says. "But it's Hollywood: different words. I know how hard it was for Tomek to get in there, to convince them to do the show, and then how limited influence is when the production house sits on something. It's many people, many decision makers, high stakes, big money. Nobody there was thinking about, Hey, let's talk to those dudes from Poland making games. It's a missed opportunity to me but what can I say?" The debut trailer for The Witcher 4.Watch on YouTube Nevertheless, the Netflix show had a surprisingly positive effect on the studio, with sales of The Witcher 3 spiking in 2019 and 2020 when the first season aired. "It was a really amazing year for us sales wise," Platkow-Gilewski says. This not only means more revenue for the studio but also wider understanding; more people are more familiar with The Witcher world now than ever before, which bodes very well for The Witcher 4. Not that it influenced or affected the studio's plans to return to that world, by the way. "We knew already that we wanted to come back to The Witcher," Platkow-Gilewski says. "Some knew that they wanted to tell a Ciri story while we were still working on Witcher 3." But, again, with popularity also comes pressure. "We'll have hopefully millions of people already hooked in from the get-go but with some expectations and visions and dreams which we have to, or may not be able to, fulfil," Platkow-Gilewski adds. You can already sense this pressure in comments threads about the new game. Many people already have their ideas about what a new Witcher game should be. The Witcher 4 might seem like a return to safer ground, then, but the relationship with the audience has changed in the intervening 10 years. "I think people are again with us," Platkow-Gilewski says. "There are some who are way more careful than they used to be; I don't see the hype train. We also learned how to talk about our game, what to show, when to show. But I think people believe again. Not everyone, and maybe it's slightly harder to talk with the whole internet. It's impossible now. It's way more polarised than it used to be. But I believe that we'll have something special for those who love The Witcher." Here we are a decade later, then, looking forward to another Witcher game by CD Projekt Red. But many things have changed. The studio has grown and shuffled people around and the roles of the people I speak to have changed. Marcin Blacha and Pawel Mielniczuk aren't working on The Witcher 4, but on new IP Project Hadar, in addition to their managerial responsibilities, and Pawel Sasko is full-time on Cyberpunk 2. It's only really Michał Platkow-Gilewski who'll do a similar job for The Witcher 4 as on The Witcher 3, although this time with dozens more people to help. But they will all still consult and they're confident in the abilities of The Witcher 4 team. "They really know what they're doing," says Sasko, "they are a very seasoned team." "We learned a lot of lessons down the road," Platkow-Gilewski says, in closing. "I started this interview saying that we had this bliss of ignorance; now we know more, but hopefully we can still be brave. Before, we were launching a rocket and figuring out how to land on the moon. Now, we know the dangers but we are way more experienced, so we'll find a way to navigate through these uncharted territories. We have a map already so hopefully it won't be such a hard trip."
    0 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
  • How farmers can help rescue water-loving birds

    James Gentz has seen birds aplenty on his East Texas rice-and-crawfish farm: snow geese and pintails, spoonbills and teal. The whooping crane couple, though, he found “magnificent.” These endangered, long-necked behemoths arrived in 2021 and set to building a nest amid his flooded fields. “I just loved to see them,” Gentz says.

    Not every farmer is thrilled to host birds. Some worry about the spread of avian flu, others are concerned that the birds will eat too much of their valuable crops. But as an unstable climate delivers too little water, careening temperatures and chaotic storms, the fates of human food production and birds are ever more linked—with the same climate anomalies that harm birds hurting agriculture too.
    In some places, farmer cooperation is critical to the continued existence of whooping cranes and other wetland-dependent waterbird species, close to one-third of which are experiencing declines. Numbers of waterfowlhave crashed by 20 percent since 2014, and long-legged wading shorebirds like sandpipers have suffered steep population losses. Conservation-minded biologists, nonprofits, government agencies, and farmers themselves are amping up efforts to ensure that each species survives and thrives. With federal support in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, their work is more importantthan ever.
    Their collaborations, be they domestic or international, are highly specific, because different regions support different kinds of agriculture—grasslands, or deep or shallow wetlands, for example, favored by different kinds of birds. Key to the efforts is making it financially worthwhile for farmers to keep—or tweak—practices to meet bird forage and habitat needs.
    Traditional crawfish-and-rice farms in Louisiana, as well as in Gentz’s corner of Texas, mimic natural freshwater wetlands that are being lost to saltwater intrusion from sea level rise. Rice grows in fields that are flooded to keep weeds down; fields are drained for harvest by fall. They are then re-flooded to cover crawfish burrowed in the mud; these are harvested in early spring—and the cycle begins again.
    That second flooding coincides with fall migration—a genetic and learned behavior that determines where birds fly and when—and it lures massive numbers of egrets, herons, bitterns, and storks that dine on the crustaceans as well as on tadpoles, fish, and insects in the water.
    On a biodiverse crawfish-and-rice farm, “you can see 30, 40, 50 species of birds, amphibians, reptiles, everything,” says Elijah Wojohn, a shorebird conservation biologist at nonprofit Manomet Conservation Sciences in Massachusetts. In contrast, if farmers switch to less water-intensive corn and soybean production in response to climate pressures, “you’ll see raccoons, deer, crows, that’s about it.” Wojohn often relies on word-of-mouth to hook farmers on conservation; one learned to spot whimbrel, with their large, curved bills, got “fired up” about them and told all his farmer friends. Such farmer-to-farmer dialogue is how you change things among this sometimes change-averse group, Wojohn says.
    In the Mississippi Delta and in California, where rice is generally grown without crustaceans, conservation organizations like Ducks Unlimited have long boosted farmers’ income and staying power by helping them get paid to flood fields in winter for hunters. This attracts overwintering ducks and geese—considered an extra “crop”—that gobble leftover rice and pond plants; the birds also help to decompose rice stalks so farmers don’t have to remove them. Ducks Unlimited’s goal is simple, says director of conservation innovation Scott Manley: Keep rice farmers farming rice. This is especially important as a changing climate makes that harder. 2024 saw a huge push, with the organization conserving 1 million acres for waterfowl.
    Some strategies can backfire. In Central New York, where dwindling winter ice has seen waterfowl lingering past their habitual migration times, wildlife managers and land trusts are buying less productive farmland to plant with native grasses; these give migratory fuel to ducks when not much else is growing. But there’s potential for this to produce too many birds for the land available back in their breeding areas, says Andrew Dixon, director of science and conservation at the Mohamed Bin Zayed Raptor Conservation Fund in Abu Dhabi, and coauthor of an article about the genetics of bird migration in the 2024 Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. This can damage ecosystems meant to serve them.

    Recently, conservation efforts spanning continents and thousands of miles have sprung up. One seeks to protect buff-breasted sandpipers. As they migrate 18,000 miles to and from the High Arctic where they nest, the birds experience extreme hunger—hyperphagia—that compels them to voraciously devour insects in short grasses where the bugs proliferate. But many stops along the birds’ round-trip route are threatened. There are water shortages affecting agriculture in Texas, where the birds forage at turf grass farms; grassland loss and degradation in Paraguay; and in Colombia, conversion of forage lands to exotic grasses and rice paddies these birds cannot use.
    Conservationists say it’s critical to protect habitat for “buffies” all along their route, and to ensure that the winters these small shorebirds spend around Uruguay’s coastal lagoons are a food fiesta. To that end, Manomet conservation specialist Joaquín Aldabe, in partnership with Uruguay’s agriculture ministry, has so far taught 40 local ranchers how to improve their cattle grazing practices. Rotationally moving the animals from pasture to pasture means grasses stay the right length for insects to flourish.
    There are no easy fixes in the North American northwest, where bird conservation is in crisis. Extreme drought is causing breeding grounds, molting spots, and migration stopover sites to vanish. It is also endangering the livelihoods of farmers, who feel the push to sell land to developers. From Southern Oregon to Central California, conservation allies have provided monetary incentives for water-strapped grain farmers to leave behind harvest debris to improve survivability for the 1 billion birds that pass through every year, and for ranchers to flood-irrigate unused pastures.
    One treacherous leg of the northwest migration route is the parched Klamath Basin of Oregon and California. For three recent years, “we saw no migrating birds. I mean, the peak count was zero,” says John Vradenburg, supervisory biologist of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. He and myriad private, public, and Indigenous partners are working to conjure more water for the basin’s human and avian denizens, as perennial wetlands become seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetlands transition to temporary wetlands, and temporary wetlands turn to arid lands.
    Taking down four power dams and one levee has stretched the Klamath River’s water across the landscape, creating new streams and connecting farm fields to long-separated wetlands. But making the most of this requires expansive thinking. Wetland restoration—now endangered by loss of funding from the current administration—would help drought-afflicted farmers by keeping water tables high. But what if farmers could also receive extra money for their businesses via eco-credits, akin to carbon credits, for the work those wetlands do to filter-clean farm runoff? And what if wetlands could function as aquaculture incubators for juvenile fish, before stocking rivers? Klamath tribes are invested in restoring endangered c’waam and koptu sucker fish, and this could help them achieve that goal.
    As birds’ traditional resting and nesting spots become inhospitable, a more sobering question is whether improvements can happen rapidly enough. The blistering pace of climate change gives little chance for species to genetically adapt, although some are changing their behaviors. That means that the work of conservationists to find and secure adequate, supportive farmland and rangeland as the birds seek out new routes has become a sprint against time.
    This story originally appeared at Knowable Magazine.

    Lela Nargi, Knowable Magazine

    Knowable Magazine explores the real-world significance of scholarly work through a journalistic lens.

    0 Comments
    #how #farmers #can #help #rescue
    How farmers can help rescue water-loving birds
    James Gentz has seen birds aplenty on his East Texas rice-and-crawfish farm: snow geese and pintails, spoonbills and teal. The whooping crane couple, though, he found “magnificent.” These endangered, long-necked behemoths arrived in 2021 and set to building a nest amid his flooded fields. “I just loved to see them,” Gentz says. Not every farmer is thrilled to host birds. Some worry about the spread of avian flu, others are concerned that the birds will eat too much of their valuable crops. But as an unstable climate delivers too little water, careening temperatures and chaotic storms, the fates of human food production and birds are ever more linked—with the same climate anomalies that harm birds hurting agriculture too. In some places, farmer cooperation is critical to the continued existence of whooping cranes and other wetland-dependent waterbird species, close to one-third of which are experiencing declines. Numbers of waterfowlhave crashed by 20 percent since 2014, and long-legged wading shorebirds like sandpipers have suffered steep population losses. Conservation-minded biologists, nonprofits, government agencies, and farmers themselves are amping up efforts to ensure that each species survives and thrives. With federal support in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, their work is more importantthan ever. Their collaborations, be they domestic or international, are highly specific, because different regions support different kinds of agriculture—grasslands, or deep or shallow wetlands, for example, favored by different kinds of birds. Key to the efforts is making it financially worthwhile for farmers to keep—or tweak—practices to meet bird forage and habitat needs. Traditional crawfish-and-rice farms in Louisiana, as well as in Gentz’s corner of Texas, mimic natural freshwater wetlands that are being lost to saltwater intrusion from sea level rise. Rice grows in fields that are flooded to keep weeds down; fields are drained for harvest by fall. They are then re-flooded to cover crawfish burrowed in the mud; these are harvested in early spring—and the cycle begins again. That second flooding coincides with fall migration—a genetic and learned behavior that determines where birds fly and when—and it lures massive numbers of egrets, herons, bitterns, and storks that dine on the crustaceans as well as on tadpoles, fish, and insects in the water. On a biodiverse crawfish-and-rice farm, “you can see 30, 40, 50 species of birds, amphibians, reptiles, everything,” says Elijah Wojohn, a shorebird conservation biologist at nonprofit Manomet Conservation Sciences in Massachusetts. In contrast, if farmers switch to less water-intensive corn and soybean production in response to climate pressures, “you’ll see raccoons, deer, crows, that’s about it.” Wojohn often relies on word-of-mouth to hook farmers on conservation; one learned to spot whimbrel, with their large, curved bills, got “fired up” about them and told all his farmer friends. Such farmer-to-farmer dialogue is how you change things among this sometimes change-averse group, Wojohn says. In the Mississippi Delta and in California, where rice is generally grown without crustaceans, conservation organizations like Ducks Unlimited have long boosted farmers’ income and staying power by helping them get paid to flood fields in winter for hunters. This attracts overwintering ducks and geese—considered an extra “crop”—that gobble leftover rice and pond plants; the birds also help to decompose rice stalks so farmers don’t have to remove them. Ducks Unlimited’s goal is simple, says director of conservation innovation Scott Manley: Keep rice farmers farming rice. This is especially important as a changing climate makes that harder. 2024 saw a huge push, with the organization conserving 1 million acres for waterfowl. Some strategies can backfire. In Central New York, where dwindling winter ice has seen waterfowl lingering past their habitual migration times, wildlife managers and land trusts are buying less productive farmland to plant with native grasses; these give migratory fuel to ducks when not much else is growing. But there’s potential for this to produce too many birds for the land available back in their breeding areas, says Andrew Dixon, director of science and conservation at the Mohamed Bin Zayed Raptor Conservation Fund in Abu Dhabi, and coauthor of an article about the genetics of bird migration in the 2024 Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. This can damage ecosystems meant to serve them. Recently, conservation efforts spanning continents and thousands of miles have sprung up. One seeks to protect buff-breasted sandpipers. As they migrate 18,000 miles to and from the High Arctic where they nest, the birds experience extreme hunger—hyperphagia—that compels them to voraciously devour insects in short grasses where the bugs proliferate. But many stops along the birds’ round-trip route are threatened. There are water shortages affecting agriculture in Texas, where the birds forage at turf grass farms; grassland loss and degradation in Paraguay; and in Colombia, conversion of forage lands to exotic grasses and rice paddies these birds cannot use. Conservationists say it’s critical to protect habitat for “buffies” all along their route, and to ensure that the winters these small shorebirds spend around Uruguay’s coastal lagoons are a food fiesta. To that end, Manomet conservation specialist Joaquín Aldabe, in partnership with Uruguay’s agriculture ministry, has so far taught 40 local ranchers how to improve their cattle grazing practices. Rotationally moving the animals from pasture to pasture means grasses stay the right length for insects to flourish. There are no easy fixes in the North American northwest, where bird conservation is in crisis. Extreme drought is causing breeding grounds, molting spots, and migration stopover sites to vanish. It is also endangering the livelihoods of farmers, who feel the push to sell land to developers. From Southern Oregon to Central California, conservation allies have provided monetary incentives for water-strapped grain farmers to leave behind harvest debris to improve survivability for the 1 billion birds that pass through every year, and for ranchers to flood-irrigate unused pastures. One treacherous leg of the northwest migration route is the parched Klamath Basin of Oregon and California. For three recent years, “we saw no migrating birds. I mean, the peak count was zero,” says John Vradenburg, supervisory biologist of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. He and myriad private, public, and Indigenous partners are working to conjure more water for the basin’s human and avian denizens, as perennial wetlands become seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetlands transition to temporary wetlands, and temporary wetlands turn to arid lands. Taking down four power dams and one levee has stretched the Klamath River’s water across the landscape, creating new streams and connecting farm fields to long-separated wetlands. But making the most of this requires expansive thinking. Wetland restoration—now endangered by loss of funding from the current administration—would help drought-afflicted farmers by keeping water tables high. But what if farmers could also receive extra money for their businesses via eco-credits, akin to carbon credits, for the work those wetlands do to filter-clean farm runoff? And what if wetlands could function as aquaculture incubators for juvenile fish, before stocking rivers? Klamath tribes are invested in restoring endangered c’waam and koptu sucker fish, and this could help them achieve that goal. As birds’ traditional resting and nesting spots become inhospitable, a more sobering question is whether improvements can happen rapidly enough. The blistering pace of climate change gives little chance for species to genetically adapt, although some are changing their behaviors. That means that the work of conservationists to find and secure adequate, supportive farmland and rangeland as the birds seek out new routes has become a sprint against time. This story originally appeared at Knowable Magazine. Lela Nargi, Knowable Magazine Knowable Magazine explores the real-world significance of scholarly work through a journalistic lens. 0 Comments #how #farmers #can #help #rescue
    How farmers can help rescue water-loving birds
    arstechnica.com
    James Gentz has seen birds aplenty on his East Texas rice-and-crawfish farm: snow geese and pintails, spoonbills and teal. The whooping crane couple, though, he found “magnificent.” These endangered, long-necked behemoths arrived in 2021 and set to building a nest amid his flooded fields. “I just loved to see them,” Gentz says. Not every farmer is thrilled to host birds. Some worry about the spread of avian flu, others are concerned that the birds will eat too much of their valuable crops. But as an unstable climate delivers too little water, careening temperatures and chaotic storms, the fates of human food production and birds are ever more linked—with the same climate anomalies that harm birds hurting agriculture too. In some places, farmer cooperation is critical to the continued existence of whooping cranes and other wetland-dependent waterbird species, close to one-third of which are experiencing declines. Numbers of waterfowl (think ducks and geese) have crashed by 20 percent since 2014, and long-legged wading shorebirds like sandpipers have suffered steep population losses. Conservation-minded biologists, nonprofits, government agencies, and farmers themselves are amping up efforts to ensure that each species survives and thrives. With federal support in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, their work is more important (and threatened) than ever. Their collaborations, be they domestic or international, are highly specific, because different regions support different kinds of agriculture—grasslands, or deep or shallow wetlands, for example, favored by different kinds of birds. Key to the efforts is making it financially worthwhile for farmers to keep—or tweak—practices to meet bird forage and habitat needs. Traditional crawfish-and-rice farms in Louisiana, as well as in Gentz’s corner of Texas, mimic natural freshwater wetlands that are being lost to saltwater intrusion from sea level rise. Rice grows in fields that are flooded to keep weeds down; fields are drained for harvest by fall. They are then re-flooded to cover crawfish burrowed in the mud; these are harvested in early spring—and the cycle begins again. That second flooding coincides with fall migration—a genetic and learned behavior that determines where birds fly and when—and it lures massive numbers of egrets, herons, bitterns, and storks that dine on the crustaceans as well as on tadpoles, fish, and insects in the water. On a biodiverse crawfish-and-rice farm, “you can see 30, 40, 50 species of birds, amphibians, reptiles, everything,” says Elijah Wojohn, a shorebird conservation biologist at nonprofit Manomet Conservation Sciences in Massachusetts. In contrast, if farmers switch to less water-intensive corn and soybean production in response to climate pressures, “you’ll see raccoons, deer, crows, that’s about it.” Wojohn often relies on word-of-mouth to hook farmers on conservation; one learned to spot whimbrel, with their large, curved bills, got “fired up” about them and told all his farmer friends. Such farmer-to-farmer dialogue is how you change things among this sometimes change-averse group, Wojohn says. In the Mississippi Delta and in California, where rice is generally grown without crustaceans, conservation organizations like Ducks Unlimited have long boosted farmers’ income and staying power by helping them get paid to flood fields in winter for hunters. This attracts overwintering ducks and geese—considered an extra “crop”—that gobble leftover rice and pond plants; the birds also help to decompose rice stalks so farmers don’t have to remove them. Ducks Unlimited’s goal is simple, says director of conservation innovation Scott Manley: Keep rice farmers farming rice. This is especially important as a changing climate makes that harder. 2024 saw a huge push, with the organization conserving 1 million acres for waterfowl. Some strategies can backfire. In Central New York, where dwindling winter ice has seen waterfowl lingering past their habitual migration times, wildlife managers and land trusts are buying less productive farmland to plant with native grasses; these give migratory fuel to ducks when not much else is growing. But there’s potential for this to produce too many birds for the land available back in their breeding areas, says Andrew Dixon, director of science and conservation at the Mohamed Bin Zayed Raptor Conservation Fund in Abu Dhabi, and coauthor of an article about the genetics of bird migration in the 2024 Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. This can damage ecosystems meant to serve them. Recently, conservation efforts spanning continents and thousands of miles have sprung up. One seeks to protect buff-breasted sandpipers. As they migrate 18,000 miles to and from the High Arctic where they nest, the birds experience extreme hunger—hyperphagia—that compels them to voraciously devour insects in short grasses where the bugs proliferate. But many stops along the birds’ round-trip route are threatened. There are water shortages affecting agriculture in Texas, where the birds forage at turf grass farms; grassland loss and degradation in Paraguay; and in Colombia, conversion of forage lands to exotic grasses and rice paddies these birds cannot use. Conservationists say it’s critical to protect habitat for “buffies” all along their route, and to ensure that the winters these small shorebirds spend around Uruguay’s coastal lagoons are a food fiesta. To that end, Manomet conservation specialist Joaquín Aldabe, in partnership with Uruguay’s agriculture ministry, has so far taught 40 local ranchers how to improve their cattle grazing practices. Rotationally moving the animals from pasture to pasture means grasses stay the right length for insects to flourish. There are no easy fixes in the North American northwest, where bird conservation is in crisis. Extreme drought is causing breeding grounds, molting spots, and migration stopover sites to vanish. It is also endangering the livelihoods of farmers, who feel the push to sell land to developers. From Southern Oregon to Central California, conservation allies have provided monetary incentives for water-strapped grain farmers to leave behind harvest debris to improve survivability for the 1 billion birds that pass through every year, and for ranchers to flood-irrigate unused pastures. One treacherous leg of the northwest migration route is the parched Klamath Basin of Oregon and California. For three recent years, “we saw no migrating birds. I mean, the peak count was zero,” says John Vradenburg, supervisory biologist of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. He and myriad private, public, and Indigenous partners are working to conjure more water for the basin’s human and avian denizens, as perennial wetlands become seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetlands transition to temporary wetlands, and temporary wetlands turn to arid lands. Taking down four power dams and one levee has stretched the Klamath River’s water across the landscape, creating new streams and connecting farm fields to long-separated wetlands. But making the most of this requires expansive thinking. Wetland restoration—now endangered by loss of funding from the current administration—would help drought-afflicted farmers by keeping water tables high. But what if farmers could also receive extra money for their businesses via eco-credits, akin to carbon credits, for the work those wetlands do to filter-clean farm runoff? And what if wetlands could function as aquaculture incubators for juvenile fish, before stocking rivers? Klamath tribes are invested in restoring endangered c’waam and koptu sucker fish, and this could help them achieve that goal. As birds’ traditional resting and nesting spots become inhospitable, a more sobering question is whether improvements can happen rapidly enough. The blistering pace of climate change gives little chance for species to genetically adapt, although some are changing their behaviors. That means that the work of conservationists to find and secure adequate, supportive farmland and rangeland as the birds seek out new routes has become a sprint against time. This story originally appeared at Knowable Magazine. Lela Nargi, Knowable Magazine Knowable Magazine explores the real-world significance of scholarly work through a journalistic lens. 0 Comments
    0 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
  • Congress Passed a Sweeping Free-Speech Crackdown—and No One’s Talking About It

    Users
    Congress Passed a Sweeping Free-Speech Crackdown—and No One’s Talking About It
    The TAKE IT DOWN Act passed with bipartisan support and glowing coverage. Experts warn that it threatens the very users it claims to protect.

    By

    Nitish Pahwa

    Enter your email to receive alerts for this author.

    Sign in or create an account to better manage your email preferences.

    May 22, 20252:03 PM

    Donald and Melania Trump during the signing of the TAKE IT DOWN Act at the White House on Monday.
    Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

    Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
    Had you scanned any of the latest headlines around the TAKE IT DOWN Act, legislation that President Donald Trump signed into law Monday, you would have come away with a deeply mistaken impression of the bill and its true purpose.
    The surface-level pitch is that this is a necessary law for addressing nonconsensual intimate images—known more widely as revenge porn. Obfuscating its intent with a classic congressional acronym, the TAKE IT DOWN Act purports to help scrub the internet of exploitative, nonconsensual sexual media, whether real or digitally mocked up, at a time when artificial intelligence tools and automated image generators have supercharged its spread. Enforcement is delegated to the Federal Trade Commission, which will give online communities that specialize primarily in user-generated contenta heads-up and a 48-hour takedown deadline whenever an appropriate example is reported. These platforms have also been directed to set up on-site reporting systems by May 2026. Penalties for violations include prison sentences of two to three years and steep monetary fines.

    Public reception has been rapturous. CNN is gushing that “victims of explicit deepfakes will now be able to take legal action against people who create them.” A few local Fox affiliates are taking the government at its word that TAKE IT DOWN is designed to target revenge porn. Other outlets, like the BBC and USA Today, led off by noting first lady Melania Trump’s appearance at the bill signing.
    Yet these headlines and pieces ignore TAKE IT DOWN’s serious potential for abuse.Rarer still, with the exception of sites like the Verge, has there been any acknowledgment of Trump’s own stated motivation for passing the act, as he’d underlined in a joint address to Congress in March: “I’m going to use that bill for myself too, if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”
    Sure, it’s typical for this president to make such serious matters about himself. But Trump’s blathering about having it “worse” than revenge-porn survivors, and his quip about “using that bill for myself,” is not a fluke. For a while now, activists who specialize in free speech, digital privacy, and even stopping child sexual abuse have attempted to warn that the bill will not do what it purports to do.
    Late last month, after TAKE IT DOWN had passed both the House and Senate, the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote that the bill’s legislative mechanism “lacks critical safeguards against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests.” For one, the 48-hour takedown deadline means that digital platformswill be forced to use automated filters that often flag legal content—because there won’t be “enough time to verify whether the speech is actually illegal.” The EFF also warns that TAKE IT DOWN requires monitoring that could reach into even encrypted messages between users. If this legislation has the effect of granting law enforcement a means of bypassing encrypted communications, we may as well bid farewell to the very concept of digital privacy.
    A February letter addressed to the Senate from a wide range of free-expression nonprofits—including Fight for the Future and the Authors Guild—also raised concerns over TAKE IT DOWN’s implications for content moderation and encryption. The groups noted that although the bill makes allowances for legal porn and newsworthy content, “those exceptions are not included in the bill’s takedown system.” They added that private tools like direct messages and cloud storage aren’t protected either, which could leave them open to invasive monitoring with little justification. The Center for Democracy and Technology, a signatory to the letter, later noted in a follow-up statement that the powers granted to the FTC in enforcing such a vague law could lead to politically motivated attacks, undermining progress in tackling actual nonconsensual imagery.
    Techdirt’s Mike Masnick wrote last month that TAKE IT DOWN is “so badly designed that the people it’s meant to help oppose it,” pointing to public statements from the advocacy group Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, “whose entire existence is based on representing the interests of victims” of nonconsensual intimate imagery. CCRI has long criticized the bill’s takedown provisions and ultimately concluded that the nonprofit “cannot support legislation that risks endangering the very communities it is dedicated to protecting, including LGBTQIA+ individuals, people of color, and other vulnerable groups.”“The concerns are not theoretical,” Masnick continued. “The bill’s vague standards combined with harsh criminal penalties create a perfect storm for censorship and abuse.”

    Related From Slate

    Let’s be clear: No one here is at all opposed to sound legislation that tackles the inescapable, undeniable problem of nonconsensual sexual material. All 50 states, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted laws criminalizing exploitative sexual photos and videos to varying degrees. TAKE IT DOWN extends such coverage to deepfake revenge porn, a change that makes the bill a necessary complement to these state laws—but its text is shockingly narrow on the digital front, criminalizing only A.I. imagery that’s deemed to be “indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction.” This just leads to more vague language that hardly addresses the underlying issue.
    The CCRI has spent a full decade fighting for laws to address the crisis of nonconsensual sexual imagery, even drafting model legislation—parts of which did make it into TAKE IT DOWN. On Bluesky, CCRI President Mary Anne Franks called this fact “bittersweet,” proclaiming that the long-overdue criminalization of exploitative sexual imagery is undermined by the final law’s “lack of adequate safeguards against false reports.” A few House Democrats looked to the group’s proposed fixes and attempted to pass amendments that would have added such safeguards, only to be obstructed by their Republican colleagues.
    This should worry everyone. These groups made concerted efforts to inform Congress of the issues with TAKE IT DOWN and to propose solutions, only to be all but ignored. As Masnick wrote in another Techdirt post, the United States already has enough of a problem with the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the only other American law with a notice-and-takedown measure like TAKE IT DOWN’s, albeit designed to prevent the unauthorized spread of copyright works. Just ask any creatives or platform operators who’ve had to deal with abusive flurries of bad-faith DMCA takedown requests—even though the law includes a clause meant to protect against such weaponization. There’s no reason to believe that TAKE IT DOWN won’t be similarly exploited to go after sex workers and LGBTQ+ users, as well as anyone who posts an image or animation that another user simply doesn’t like and decides to report. It’s not dissimilar to other pieces of proposed legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act, that purport to protect young netizens via wishy-washy terms that could criminalize all sorts of free expression.

    Popular in

    Technology

    Here’s a hypothetical: A satirical cartoonist comes up with an illustration of Trump as a baby and publishes it on a niche social media platform that they use to showcase their art. A Trump supporter finds this cartoon and decides to report it as abusive pornography, leading to a takedown notice on the cartoonist’s website. The artist and the platform do not comply, and a pissed-off Trump brings the full force of the law against this creator. The process of discovery leads prosecutors to break into the artist’s encrypted communications, revealing drafts of the drawing that the cartoonist had shared with friends. All of this gets the illustrator punished with a brief prison sentence and steep fine, fully sabotaging their bank account and career; the social media platform they used is left bankrupt and shutters. The artists are forced to migrate to another site, whose administrators see what happened to their former home and decide to censor political works. All the while, an underage user finds that their likeness has been used to generate a sexually explicit deepfake that has been spread all over Discord—yet their case is found to have no merit because the deepfake in question is not considered “indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction,” despite all the Discord-based abusers recognizing exactly whom that deepfake is meant to represent.
    It’s a hypothetical—but not an unimaginable one. It’s a danger that too few Americans understand, thanks to congressional ignorance and the media’s credulous reporting on TAKE IT DOWN. The result is a law that’s supposedly meant to protect the vulnerable but ends up shielding the powerful—and punishing the very people it promised to help.

    Get the best of news and politics
    Sign up for Slate's evening newsletter.
    #congress #passed #sweeping #freespeech #crackdownand
    Congress Passed a Sweeping Free-Speech Crackdown—and No One’s Talking About It
    Users Congress Passed a Sweeping Free-Speech Crackdown—and No One’s Talking About It The TAKE IT DOWN Act passed with bipartisan support and glowing coverage. Experts warn that it threatens the very users it claims to protect. By Nitish Pahwa Enter your email to receive alerts for this author. Sign in or create an account to better manage your email preferences. May 22, 20252:03 PM Donald and Melania Trump during the signing of the TAKE IT DOWN Act at the White House on Monday. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Had you scanned any of the latest headlines around the TAKE IT DOWN Act, legislation that President Donald Trump signed into law Monday, you would have come away with a deeply mistaken impression of the bill and its true purpose. The surface-level pitch is that this is a necessary law for addressing nonconsensual intimate images—known more widely as revenge porn. Obfuscating its intent with a classic congressional acronym, the TAKE IT DOWN Act purports to help scrub the internet of exploitative, nonconsensual sexual media, whether real or digitally mocked up, at a time when artificial intelligence tools and automated image generators have supercharged its spread. Enforcement is delegated to the Federal Trade Commission, which will give online communities that specialize primarily in user-generated contenta heads-up and a 48-hour takedown deadline whenever an appropriate example is reported. These platforms have also been directed to set up on-site reporting systems by May 2026. Penalties for violations include prison sentences of two to three years and steep monetary fines. Public reception has been rapturous. CNN is gushing that “victims of explicit deepfakes will now be able to take legal action against people who create them.” A few local Fox affiliates are taking the government at its word that TAKE IT DOWN is designed to target revenge porn. Other outlets, like the BBC and USA Today, led off by noting first lady Melania Trump’s appearance at the bill signing. Yet these headlines and pieces ignore TAKE IT DOWN’s serious potential for abuse.Rarer still, with the exception of sites like the Verge, has there been any acknowledgment of Trump’s own stated motivation for passing the act, as he’d underlined in a joint address to Congress in March: “I’m going to use that bill for myself too, if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.” Sure, it’s typical for this president to make such serious matters about himself. But Trump’s blathering about having it “worse” than revenge-porn survivors, and his quip about “using that bill for myself,” is not a fluke. For a while now, activists who specialize in free speech, digital privacy, and even stopping child sexual abuse have attempted to warn that the bill will not do what it purports to do. Late last month, after TAKE IT DOWN had passed both the House and Senate, the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote that the bill’s legislative mechanism “lacks critical safeguards against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests.” For one, the 48-hour takedown deadline means that digital platformswill be forced to use automated filters that often flag legal content—because there won’t be “enough time to verify whether the speech is actually illegal.” The EFF also warns that TAKE IT DOWN requires monitoring that could reach into even encrypted messages between users. If this legislation has the effect of granting law enforcement a means of bypassing encrypted communications, we may as well bid farewell to the very concept of digital privacy. A February letter addressed to the Senate from a wide range of free-expression nonprofits—including Fight for the Future and the Authors Guild—also raised concerns over TAKE IT DOWN’s implications for content moderation and encryption. The groups noted that although the bill makes allowances for legal porn and newsworthy content, “those exceptions are not included in the bill’s takedown system.” They added that private tools like direct messages and cloud storage aren’t protected either, which could leave them open to invasive monitoring with little justification. The Center for Democracy and Technology, a signatory to the letter, later noted in a follow-up statement that the powers granted to the FTC in enforcing such a vague law could lead to politically motivated attacks, undermining progress in tackling actual nonconsensual imagery. Techdirt’s Mike Masnick wrote last month that TAKE IT DOWN is “so badly designed that the people it’s meant to help oppose it,” pointing to public statements from the advocacy group Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, “whose entire existence is based on representing the interests of victims” of nonconsensual intimate imagery. CCRI has long criticized the bill’s takedown provisions and ultimately concluded that the nonprofit “cannot support legislation that risks endangering the very communities it is dedicated to protecting, including LGBTQIA+ individuals, people of color, and other vulnerable groups.”“The concerns are not theoretical,” Masnick continued. “The bill’s vague standards combined with harsh criminal penalties create a perfect storm for censorship and abuse.” Related From Slate Let’s be clear: No one here is at all opposed to sound legislation that tackles the inescapable, undeniable problem of nonconsensual sexual material. All 50 states, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted laws criminalizing exploitative sexual photos and videos to varying degrees. TAKE IT DOWN extends such coverage to deepfake revenge porn, a change that makes the bill a necessary complement to these state laws—but its text is shockingly narrow on the digital front, criminalizing only A.I. imagery that’s deemed to be “indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction.” This just leads to more vague language that hardly addresses the underlying issue. The CCRI has spent a full decade fighting for laws to address the crisis of nonconsensual sexual imagery, even drafting model legislation—parts of which did make it into TAKE IT DOWN. On Bluesky, CCRI President Mary Anne Franks called this fact “bittersweet,” proclaiming that the long-overdue criminalization of exploitative sexual imagery is undermined by the final law’s “lack of adequate safeguards against false reports.” A few House Democrats looked to the group’s proposed fixes and attempted to pass amendments that would have added such safeguards, only to be obstructed by their Republican colleagues. This should worry everyone. These groups made concerted efforts to inform Congress of the issues with TAKE IT DOWN and to propose solutions, only to be all but ignored. As Masnick wrote in another Techdirt post, the United States already has enough of a problem with the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the only other American law with a notice-and-takedown measure like TAKE IT DOWN’s, albeit designed to prevent the unauthorized spread of copyright works. Just ask any creatives or platform operators who’ve had to deal with abusive flurries of bad-faith DMCA takedown requests—even though the law includes a clause meant to protect against such weaponization. There’s no reason to believe that TAKE IT DOWN won’t be similarly exploited to go after sex workers and LGBTQ+ users, as well as anyone who posts an image or animation that another user simply doesn’t like and decides to report. It’s not dissimilar to other pieces of proposed legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act, that purport to protect young netizens via wishy-washy terms that could criminalize all sorts of free expression. Popular in Technology Here’s a hypothetical: A satirical cartoonist comes up with an illustration of Trump as a baby and publishes it on a niche social media platform that they use to showcase their art. A Trump supporter finds this cartoon and decides to report it as abusive pornography, leading to a takedown notice on the cartoonist’s website. The artist and the platform do not comply, and a pissed-off Trump brings the full force of the law against this creator. The process of discovery leads prosecutors to break into the artist’s encrypted communications, revealing drafts of the drawing that the cartoonist had shared with friends. All of this gets the illustrator punished with a brief prison sentence and steep fine, fully sabotaging their bank account and career; the social media platform they used is left bankrupt and shutters. The artists are forced to migrate to another site, whose administrators see what happened to their former home and decide to censor political works. All the while, an underage user finds that their likeness has been used to generate a sexually explicit deepfake that has been spread all over Discord—yet their case is found to have no merit because the deepfake in question is not considered “indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction,” despite all the Discord-based abusers recognizing exactly whom that deepfake is meant to represent. It’s a hypothetical—but not an unimaginable one. It’s a danger that too few Americans understand, thanks to congressional ignorance and the media’s credulous reporting on TAKE IT DOWN. The result is a law that’s supposedly meant to protect the vulnerable but ends up shielding the powerful—and punishing the very people it promised to help. Get the best of news and politics Sign up for Slate's evening newsletter. #congress #passed #sweeping #freespeech #crackdownand
    Congress Passed a Sweeping Free-Speech Crackdown—and No One’s Talking About It
    slate.com
    Users Congress Passed a Sweeping Free-Speech Crackdown—and No One’s Talking About It The TAKE IT DOWN Act passed with bipartisan support and glowing coverage. Experts warn that it threatens the very users it claims to protect. By Nitish Pahwa Enter your email to receive alerts for this author. Sign in or create an account to better manage your email preferences. May 22, 20252:03 PM Donald and Melania Trump during the signing of the TAKE IT DOWN Act at the White House on Monday. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Had you scanned any of the latest headlines around the TAKE IT DOWN Act, legislation that President Donald Trump signed into law Monday, you would have come away with a deeply mistaken impression of the bill and its true purpose. The surface-level pitch is that this is a necessary law for addressing nonconsensual intimate images—known more widely as revenge porn. Obfuscating its intent with a classic congressional acronym (Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks), the TAKE IT DOWN Act purports to help scrub the internet of exploitative, nonconsensual sexual media, whether real or digitally mocked up, at a time when artificial intelligence tools and automated image generators have supercharged its spread. Enforcement is delegated to the Federal Trade Commission, which will give online communities that specialize primarily in user-generated content (e.g., social media, message boards) a heads-up and a 48-hour takedown deadline whenever an appropriate example is reported. These platforms have also been directed to set up on-site reporting systems by May 2026. Penalties for violations include prison sentences of two to three years and steep monetary fines. Public reception has been rapturous. CNN is gushing that “victims of explicit deepfakes will now be able to take legal action against people who create them.” A few local Fox affiliates are taking the government at its word that TAKE IT DOWN is designed to target revenge porn. Other outlets, like the BBC and USA Today, led off by noting first lady Melania Trump’s appearance at the bill signing. Yet these headlines and pieces ignore TAKE IT DOWN’s serious potential for abuse. (Jezebel and Wired were perhaps the only publications to point out in both a headline and subhead that the law merely “claims to offer victims greater protections” and that “free speech advocates warn it could be weaponized to fuel censorship.”) Rarer still, with the exception of sites like the Verge, has there been any acknowledgment of Trump’s own stated motivation for passing the act, as he’d underlined in a joint address to Congress in March: “I’m going to use that bill for myself too, if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.” Sure, it’s typical for this president to make such serious matters about himself. But Trump’s blathering about having it “worse” than revenge-porn survivors, and his quip about “using that bill for myself,” is not a fluke. For a while now, activists who specialize in free speech, digital privacy, and even stopping child sexual abuse have attempted to warn that the bill will not do what it purports to do. Late last month, after TAKE IT DOWN had passed both the House and Senate, the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote that the bill’s legislative mechanism “lacks critical safeguards against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests.” For one, the 48-hour takedown deadline means that digital platforms (especially smaller, less-resourced websites) will be forced to use automated filters that often flag legal content—because there won’t be “enough time to verify whether the speech is actually illegal.” The EFF also warns that TAKE IT DOWN requires monitoring that could reach into even encrypted messages between users. If this legislation has the effect of granting law enforcement a means of bypassing encrypted communications, we may as well bid farewell to the very concept of digital privacy. A February letter addressed to the Senate from a wide range of free-expression nonprofits—including Fight for the Future and the Authors Guild—also raised concerns over TAKE IT DOWN’s implications for content moderation and encryption. The groups noted that although the bill makes allowances for legal porn and newsworthy content, “those exceptions are not included in the bill’s takedown system.” They added that private tools like direct messages and cloud storage aren’t protected either, which could leave them open to invasive monitoring with little justification. The Center for Democracy and Technology, a signatory to the letter, later noted in a follow-up statement that the powers granted to the FTC in enforcing such a vague law could lead to politically motivated attacks, undermining progress in tackling actual nonconsensual imagery. Techdirt’s Mike Masnick wrote last month that TAKE IT DOWN is “so badly designed that the people it’s meant to help oppose it,” pointing to public statements from the advocacy group Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, “whose entire existence is based on representing the interests of victims” of nonconsensual intimate imagery. CCRI has long criticized the bill’s takedown provisions and ultimately concluded that the nonprofit “cannot support legislation that risks endangering the very communities it is dedicated to protecting, including LGBTQIA+ individuals, people of color, and other vulnerable groups.” (In a separate statement, the CCRI highlighted other oddities within the bill, like a loophole allowing for nonconsensual sexual media to be posted if the uploader happens to appear in the image, and the explicit inclusion of forums that specialize in “audio files,” despite otherwise focusing on visual materials.) “The concerns are not theoretical,” Masnick continued. “The bill’s vague standards combined with harsh criminal penalties create a perfect storm for censorship and abuse.” Related From Slate Let’s be clear: No one here is at all opposed to sound legislation that tackles the inescapable, undeniable problem of nonconsensual sexual material. All 50 states, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted laws criminalizing exploitative sexual photos and videos to varying degrees. TAKE IT DOWN extends such coverage to deepfake revenge porn, a change that makes the bill a necessary complement to these state laws—but its text is shockingly narrow on the digital front, criminalizing only A.I. imagery that’s deemed to be “indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction.” This just leads to more vague language that hardly addresses the underlying issue. The CCRI has spent a full decade fighting for laws to address the crisis of nonconsensual sexual imagery, even drafting model legislation—parts of which did make it into TAKE IT DOWN. On Bluesky, CCRI President Mary Anne Franks called this fact “bittersweet,” proclaiming that the long-overdue criminalization of exploitative sexual imagery is undermined by the final law’s “lack of adequate safeguards against false reports.” A few House Democrats looked to the group’s proposed fixes and attempted to pass amendments that would have added such safeguards, only to be obstructed by their Republican colleagues. This should worry everyone. These groups made concerted efforts to inform Congress of the issues with TAKE IT DOWN and to propose solutions, only to be all but ignored. As Masnick wrote in another Techdirt post, the United States already has enough of a problem with the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the only other American law with a notice-and-takedown measure like TAKE IT DOWN’s, albeit designed to prevent the unauthorized spread of copyright works. Just ask any creatives or platform operators who’ve had to deal with abusive flurries of bad-faith DMCA takedown requests—even though the law includes a clause meant to protect against such weaponization. There’s no reason to believe that TAKE IT DOWN won’t be similarly exploited to go after sex workers and LGBTQ+ users, as well as anyone who posts an image or animation that another user simply doesn’t like and decides to report. It’s not dissimilar to other pieces of proposed legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act, that purport to protect young netizens via wishy-washy terms that could criminalize all sorts of free expression. Popular in Technology Here’s a hypothetical: A satirical cartoonist comes up with an illustration of Trump as a baby and publishes it on a niche social media platform that they use to showcase their art. A Trump supporter finds this cartoon and decides to report it as abusive pornography, leading to a takedown notice on the cartoonist’s website. The artist and the platform do not comply, and a pissed-off Trump brings the full force of the law against this creator. The process of discovery leads prosecutors to break into the artist’s encrypted communications, revealing drafts of the drawing that the cartoonist had shared with friends. All of this gets the illustrator punished with a brief prison sentence and steep fine, fully sabotaging their bank account and career; the social media platform they used is left bankrupt and shutters. The artists are forced to migrate to another site, whose administrators see what happened to their former home and decide to censor political works. All the while, an underage user finds that their likeness has been used to generate a sexually explicit deepfake that has been spread all over Discord—yet their case is found to have no merit because the deepfake in question is not considered “indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction,” despite all the Discord-based abusers recognizing exactly whom that deepfake is meant to represent. It’s a hypothetical—but not an unimaginable one. It’s a danger that too few Americans understand, thanks to congressional ignorance and the media’s credulous reporting on TAKE IT DOWN. The result is a law that’s supposedly meant to protect the vulnerable but ends up shielding the powerful—and punishing the very people it promised to help. Get the best of news and politics Sign up for Slate's evening newsletter.
    0 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
  • The Ordinary and Uncommon lift the lid on beauty endorsements

    On the surface, the towering pile of fake banknotes stacked in the window of a glistening skincare store could be interpreted as a marketing stunt, but behind the glass, the message is serious. The Cost of Influence – a new physical installation created by Uncommon for The Ordinary – was designed to highlight the hidden fees consumers pay for celebrity endorsements in the beauty industry, not tucked away in the ingredients list but embedded in the price.
    The campaign, live during the brand's flagship relaunch, makes The Ordinary's positioning crystal clear: no inflated costs, no gimmicks, just science-backed skincare. "What the industry is trying to keep under wraps is the complete opposite of transparency," says Joe Sare, art director at Uncommon. "Brands are paying significant sums of money for celebrities to endorse their products and passing those costs onto the consumer. So, we decided to reveal this 'secret ingredient' to the world, to reinforce the brand's commitment to being truly open."
    Far from a traditional ad campaign, the team leaned into something more visceral that people could touch, feel, and share. At the heart of the installation is a cold, almost sterile stack of imitation cash, deliberately stripped of the polish we might associate with retail window dressing.
    "A huge pile of money feels quite cold, and at first glance, it could almost look like a pile of rubbish," Joe explains. "Then, your eyes are drawn to the words on the window that explain what you're seeing, and the penny drops – no pun intended."

    The display's impact lies in its tension: blending stark visual simplicity with an idea that demands a second thought. Uncommon consciously leaned into that duality.
    "While the installation was physical, we went into the process with social virality in mind," says Joe. "We did play around with other, more intricate ways of showing the money – it flying around in a box, shapes other than the pile, making it interactive – but we landed on this execution as the most honest and impactful way of telling the story."
    On the glass, bold copy spells out that one of the most expensive ingredients in many beauty products is influence. Alongside the pile are tongue-in-cheek "price tags" assigning monetary values to fictional endorsements—the going rate, perhaps, for a 'celebrity serum' or moisturiser marketed by your favourite A-lister.
    Rather than preaching or pointing fingers, the tone is playful and inclusive. "We're ultimately on the audiences' side," says Marco Del Valle, Planning Director at Uncommon. "This isn't about judging them for buying other brands, but revealing something to them that they likely were not aware of."

    For a brand like The Ordinary – whose identity is rooted in radical transparency – the message isn't an opportunistic call-out but a reflection of its founding values. "The Ordinary is not anti-celebrity," Marco continues, "but it is against using unnecessary, bolt-on ingredients that ultimately cost customers more… and often the most expensive ingredient is a celebrity endorsement."
    That clarity of perspective helped shape the creative direction. According to the Uncommon team, the collaboration was genuinely collaborative—not just signed off but co-authored. "They're a dream to work alongside," says Joe. The entire team has such a strong sense of what the brand stands for and a deep passion for bringing that to life. We were on the journey together at every stage… from the creative to the messaging. It's a true partnership."
    The work also taps into a broader shift in what audiences want and expect from brands, especially in beauty and wellness, where the mood is turning from aspiration to honesty.
    "We've always set out to build the brands people wish existed," says Marco. "And for us, a big part of this is doing work that uncovers and/or addresses real cultural tensions. Every single category has multiple tensions and untold stories within it – the world of beauty is no exception."

    What's striking is how the piece walks the line between creative expression and brand activism without slipping into moralising. Instead of issuing a lecture, it sparks a conversation, both on the high street and online, where its simplicity proved especially shareable. According to Joe, most passers-by stopped to take pictures, with social sentiment "overwhelmingly positive."
    For Uncommon, it marks another step in its evolution as a studio that blends brand storytelling with cultural critique. As Marco puts it: "We are living in an increasingly fragmented, hyper-visual reality. Social media has shortened our attention spans and increased the need for brands to create thumb-stopping content.
    "On top of this, in the current socio-economic climate, consumers are becoming more discerning about the companies they choose to engage with. They're looking for brands with depth, brands that stand for something."
    In that sense, The Cost of Influence is a provocation, holding a mirror up to an industry and nudging us to question what we're buying into.
    #ordinary #uncommon #lift #lid #beauty
    The Ordinary and Uncommon lift the lid on beauty endorsements
    On the surface, the towering pile of fake banknotes stacked in the window of a glistening skincare store could be interpreted as a marketing stunt, but behind the glass, the message is serious. The Cost of Influence – a new physical installation created by Uncommon for The Ordinary – was designed to highlight the hidden fees consumers pay for celebrity endorsements in the beauty industry, not tucked away in the ingredients list but embedded in the price. The campaign, live during the brand's flagship relaunch, makes The Ordinary's positioning crystal clear: no inflated costs, no gimmicks, just science-backed skincare. "What the industry is trying to keep under wraps is the complete opposite of transparency," says Joe Sare, art director at Uncommon. "Brands are paying significant sums of money for celebrities to endorse their products and passing those costs onto the consumer. So, we decided to reveal this 'secret ingredient' to the world, to reinforce the brand's commitment to being truly open." Far from a traditional ad campaign, the team leaned into something more visceral that people could touch, feel, and share. At the heart of the installation is a cold, almost sterile stack of imitation cash, deliberately stripped of the polish we might associate with retail window dressing. "A huge pile of money feels quite cold, and at first glance, it could almost look like a pile of rubbish," Joe explains. "Then, your eyes are drawn to the words on the window that explain what you're seeing, and the penny drops – no pun intended." The display's impact lies in its tension: blending stark visual simplicity with an idea that demands a second thought. Uncommon consciously leaned into that duality. "While the installation was physical, we went into the process with social virality in mind," says Joe. "We did play around with other, more intricate ways of showing the money – it flying around in a box, shapes other than the pile, making it interactive – but we landed on this execution as the most honest and impactful way of telling the story." On the glass, bold copy spells out that one of the most expensive ingredients in many beauty products is influence. Alongside the pile are tongue-in-cheek "price tags" assigning monetary values to fictional endorsements—the going rate, perhaps, for a 'celebrity serum' or moisturiser marketed by your favourite A-lister. Rather than preaching or pointing fingers, the tone is playful and inclusive. "We're ultimately on the audiences' side," says Marco Del Valle, Planning Director at Uncommon. "This isn't about judging them for buying other brands, but revealing something to them that they likely were not aware of." For a brand like The Ordinary – whose identity is rooted in radical transparency – the message isn't an opportunistic call-out but a reflection of its founding values. "The Ordinary is not anti-celebrity," Marco continues, "but it is against using unnecessary, bolt-on ingredients that ultimately cost customers more… and often the most expensive ingredient is a celebrity endorsement." That clarity of perspective helped shape the creative direction. According to the Uncommon team, the collaboration was genuinely collaborative—not just signed off but co-authored. "They're a dream to work alongside," says Joe. The entire team has such a strong sense of what the brand stands for and a deep passion for bringing that to life. We were on the journey together at every stage… from the creative to the messaging. It's a true partnership." The work also taps into a broader shift in what audiences want and expect from brands, especially in beauty and wellness, where the mood is turning from aspiration to honesty. "We've always set out to build the brands people wish existed," says Marco. "And for us, a big part of this is doing work that uncovers and/or addresses real cultural tensions. Every single category has multiple tensions and untold stories within it – the world of beauty is no exception." What's striking is how the piece walks the line between creative expression and brand activism without slipping into moralising. Instead of issuing a lecture, it sparks a conversation, both on the high street and online, where its simplicity proved especially shareable. According to Joe, most passers-by stopped to take pictures, with social sentiment "overwhelmingly positive." For Uncommon, it marks another step in its evolution as a studio that blends brand storytelling with cultural critique. As Marco puts it: "We are living in an increasingly fragmented, hyper-visual reality. Social media has shortened our attention spans and increased the need for brands to create thumb-stopping content. "On top of this, in the current socio-economic climate, consumers are becoming more discerning about the companies they choose to engage with. They're looking for brands with depth, brands that stand for something." In that sense, The Cost of Influence is a provocation, holding a mirror up to an industry and nudging us to question what we're buying into. #ordinary #uncommon #lift #lid #beauty
    The Ordinary and Uncommon lift the lid on beauty endorsements
    www.creativeboom.com
    On the surface, the towering pile of fake banknotes stacked in the window of a glistening skincare store could be interpreted as a marketing stunt, but behind the glass, the message is serious. The Cost of Influence – a new physical installation created by Uncommon for The Ordinary – was designed to highlight the hidden fees consumers pay for celebrity endorsements in the beauty industry, not tucked away in the ingredients list but embedded in the price. The campaign, live during the brand's flagship relaunch, makes The Ordinary's positioning crystal clear: no inflated costs, no gimmicks, just science-backed skincare. "What the industry is trying to keep under wraps is the complete opposite of transparency," says Joe Sare, art director at Uncommon. "Brands are paying significant sums of money for celebrities to endorse their products and passing those costs onto the consumer. So, we decided to reveal this 'secret ingredient' to the world, to reinforce the brand's commitment to being truly open." Far from a traditional ad campaign, the team leaned into something more visceral that people could touch, feel, and share. At the heart of the installation is a cold, almost sterile stack of imitation cash, deliberately stripped of the polish we might associate with retail window dressing. "A huge pile of money feels quite cold, and at first glance, it could almost look like a pile of rubbish," Joe explains. "Then, your eyes are drawn to the words on the window that explain what you're seeing, and the penny drops – no pun intended." The display's impact lies in its tension: blending stark visual simplicity with an idea that demands a second thought. Uncommon consciously leaned into that duality. "While the installation was physical, we went into the process with social virality in mind," says Joe. "We did play around with other, more intricate ways of showing the money – it flying around in a box, shapes other than the pile, making it interactive – but we landed on this execution as the most honest and impactful way of telling the story." On the glass, bold copy spells out that one of the most expensive ingredients in many beauty products is influence. Alongside the pile are tongue-in-cheek "price tags" assigning monetary values to fictional endorsements—the going rate, perhaps, for a 'celebrity serum' or moisturiser marketed by your favourite A-lister. Rather than preaching or pointing fingers, the tone is playful and inclusive. "We're ultimately on the audiences' side," says Marco Del Valle, Planning Director at Uncommon. "This isn't about judging them for buying other brands, but revealing something to them that they likely were not aware of." For a brand like The Ordinary – whose identity is rooted in radical transparency – the message isn't an opportunistic call-out but a reflection of its founding values. "The Ordinary is not anti-celebrity," Marco continues, "but it is against using unnecessary, bolt-on ingredients that ultimately cost customers more… and often the most expensive ingredient is a celebrity endorsement." That clarity of perspective helped shape the creative direction. According to the Uncommon team, the collaboration was genuinely collaborative—not just signed off but co-authored. "They're a dream to work alongside," says Joe. The entire team has such a strong sense of what the brand stands for and a deep passion for bringing that to life. We were on the journey together at every stage… from the creative to the messaging. It's a true partnership." The work also taps into a broader shift in what audiences want and expect from brands, especially in beauty and wellness, where the mood is turning from aspiration to honesty. "We've always set out to build the brands people wish existed," says Marco. "And for us, a big part of this is doing work that uncovers and/or addresses real cultural tensions. Every single category has multiple tensions and untold stories within it – the world of beauty is no exception." What's striking is how the piece walks the line between creative expression and brand activism without slipping into moralising. Instead of issuing a lecture, it sparks a conversation, both on the high street and online, where its simplicity proved especially shareable. According to Joe, most passers-by stopped to take pictures, with social sentiment "overwhelmingly positive." For Uncommon, it marks another step in its evolution as a studio that blends brand storytelling with cultural critique. As Marco puts it: "We are living in an increasingly fragmented, hyper-visual reality. Social media has shortened our attention spans and increased the need for brands to create thumb-stopping content. "On top of this, in the current socio-economic climate, consumers are becoming more discerning about the companies they choose to engage with. They're looking for brands with depth, brands that stand for something." In that sense, The Cost of Influence is a provocation, holding a mirror up to an industry and nudging us to question what we're buying into.
    1 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
  • Paramount Could Violate Anti-Bribery Law If It Pays to Settle Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ Lawsuit, Senators Claim

    Three prominent U.S. senators warned Paramount Global and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone that they might be breaking a federal anti-bribery law if they agree to settle President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS over a “60 Minutes” segment.

    In a letter addressed to Redstone that was posted publicly, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sandersand Ron Wydencited reports that Paramount has been in settlement talks with Trump’s lawyers in the case. The Trump suit, which seeks at least billion in damages, alleges CBS’s “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with Kamala Harris and thereby violated a Texas consumer protection law. Paramount and CBS have argued that they did nothing wrong; in a motion to dismiss Trump’s suit Paramount called the legal action “an affront to the First Amendment” that is “without basis in law or fact.” CBS News has maintained that the “60 Minutes” broadcast and promotion of the Harris interview was “not doctored or deceitful.”

    Related Stories

    Now, the senators wrote in the letter dated May 19, “Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights.” They said they were writing “to express serious concern regarding the possibility that media company Paramount Globalmay be engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media” — and the senators suggested any monetary settlement in the case could be illegal.

    Popular on Variety

    “Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the senators wrote. “If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.”

    A copy of the letter is at this link. Warren and Sanders were among nine senators who urged Redstone in a May 6 open letter to not settle the lawsuit, calling it “an attack on the United States Constitution and the First Amendment.”

    A spokesperson for Paramount declined to comment but referred to the company’s previous statement saying: “This lawsuit is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process. We will abide by the legal process to defend our case.” A rep for Redstone declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

    SEE ALSO: Shari Redstone’s Impossible Choice: She Can’t Both ‘60 Minutes’ and Paramount Global

    The billion Paramount-Skydance deal is currently pending FCC approval. Earlier this month, Trump-appointed FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the approval of Paramount-Skydance is not connected to the president’s “60 Minutes” lawsuit. Last November, he said in a Fox News interview that a conservative group’s “news distortion” complaint against CBS over the “60 Minutes” Harris interview was “likely to arise in the context of the FCC review oftransaction.” One issue Paramount and the FCC reportedly are in discussions about: securing a commitment from Paramount and Skydance to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as part of the Trump administration’s attack on DEI. In February, Paramount said it was changing some of its DEI programs to comply with the Trump administration’s directives. But Carr may be seeking a more ironclad guarantee. The FCC last week approved Verizon’s billion deal to acquire Frontier Communications after Verizon pledged to eradicate DEI initiatives.

    On Monday, CBS News president Wendy McMahon announced her resignation, writing in a memo to staff “It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.” That came less than a month after “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens quit, also citing conflicts with Paramount execs. Warren, Sanders and Wyden drew a connection between the exits of McMahon and Owens and the Trump lawsuit: “Paramount’s scheme to curry favor with the Trump Administration has compromised journalistic independence and raises serious concerns of corruption and improper conduct,” they wrote.

    In the letter to Redstone, the senators requested answers to specific questions regarding the situation by June 2, including “Does Paramount believe the lawsuit filed by then-candidate Trump against CBS has merit?”, “Has Paramount evaluated the risk of shareholder derivative litigation from settling the lawsuit?”; and “Has 60 Minutes made changes to its content at the request of anyone at Paramount to facilitate approval of the merger?”

    The three senators also asked pointedly: “Does Paramount have any policies and procedures related to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 201 and any other laws governing public corruption? If so, please provide a copy of those policies and procedures.”

    In February, Redstone asked Paramount’s board to resolve the Trump lawsuit, including by exploring the possibility of mediation, Variety has reported. Redstone has recused herself from the board’s discussions about a settlement with Trump. 

    Trump, on his Truth Social social media account last month, said his lawsuit against CBS was “a true WINNER” and falsely claimed that Paramount, CBS and “60 Minutes” admitted to committing “this crime” of deceptively editing Harris’ answer. Trump alleged “60 Minutes” edited the interview to eliminate her “bad and incompetent” response to a question about whether Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “listening to the Biden-Harris administration.” Trump asserted the version of the “60 Minutes” interview that aired “cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena.”

    The senators’ letter to Redstone was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.
    #paramount #could #violate #antibribery #law
    Paramount Could Violate Anti-Bribery Law If It Pays to Settle Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ Lawsuit, Senators Claim
    Three prominent U.S. senators warned Paramount Global and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone that they might be breaking a federal anti-bribery law if they agree to settle President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS over a “60 Minutes” segment. In a letter addressed to Redstone that was posted publicly, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sandersand Ron Wydencited reports that Paramount has been in settlement talks with Trump’s lawyers in the case. The Trump suit, which seeks at least billion in damages, alleges CBS’s “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with Kamala Harris and thereby violated a Texas consumer protection law. Paramount and CBS have argued that they did nothing wrong; in a motion to dismiss Trump’s suit Paramount called the legal action “an affront to the First Amendment” that is “without basis in law or fact.” CBS News has maintained that the “60 Minutes” broadcast and promotion of the Harris interview was “not doctored or deceitful.” Related Stories Now, the senators wrote in the letter dated May 19, “Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights.” They said they were writing “to express serious concern regarding the possibility that media company Paramount Globalmay be engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media” — and the senators suggested any monetary settlement in the case could be illegal. Popular on Variety “Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the senators wrote. “If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.” A copy of the letter is at this link. Warren and Sanders were among nine senators who urged Redstone in a May 6 open letter to not settle the lawsuit, calling it “an attack on the United States Constitution and the First Amendment.” A spokesperson for Paramount declined to comment but referred to the company’s previous statement saying: “This lawsuit is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process. We will abide by the legal process to defend our case.” A rep for Redstone declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. SEE ALSO: Shari Redstone’s Impossible Choice: She Can’t Both ‘60 Minutes’ and Paramount Global The billion Paramount-Skydance deal is currently pending FCC approval. Earlier this month, Trump-appointed FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the approval of Paramount-Skydance is not connected to the president’s “60 Minutes” lawsuit. Last November, he said in a Fox News interview that a conservative group’s “news distortion” complaint against CBS over the “60 Minutes” Harris interview was “likely to arise in the context of the FCC review oftransaction.” One issue Paramount and the FCC reportedly are in discussions about: securing a commitment from Paramount and Skydance to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as part of the Trump administration’s attack on DEI. In February, Paramount said it was changing some of its DEI programs to comply with the Trump administration’s directives. But Carr may be seeking a more ironclad guarantee. The FCC last week approved Verizon’s billion deal to acquire Frontier Communications after Verizon pledged to eradicate DEI initiatives. On Monday, CBS News president Wendy McMahon announced her resignation, writing in a memo to staff “It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.” That came less than a month after “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens quit, also citing conflicts with Paramount execs. Warren, Sanders and Wyden drew a connection between the exits of McMahon and Owens and the Trump lawsuit: “Paramount’s scheme to curry favor with the Trump Administration has compromised journalistic independence and raises serious concerns of corruption and improper conduct,” they wrote. In the letter to Redstone, the senators requested answers to specific questions regarding the situation by June 2, including “Does Paramount believe the lawsuit filed by then-candidate Trump against CBS has merit?”, “Has Paramount evaluated the risk of shareholder derivative litigation from settling the lawsuit?”; and “Has 60 Minutes made changes to its content at the request of anyone at Paramount to facilitate approval of the merger?” The three senators also asked pointedly: “Does Paramount have any policies and procedures related to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 201 and any other laws governing public corruption? If so, please provide a copy of those policies and procedures.” In February, Redstone asked Paramount’s board to resolve the Trump lawsuit, including by exploring the possibility of mediation, Variety has reported. Redstone has recused herself from the board’s discussions about a settlement with Trump.  Trump, on his Truth Social social media account last month, said his lawsuit against CBS was “a true WINNER” and falsely claimed that Paramount, CBS and “60 Minutes” admitted to committing “this crime” of deceptively editing Harris’ answer. Trump alleged “60 Minutes” edited the interview to eliminate her “bad and incompetent” response to a question about whether Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “listening to the Biden-Harris administration.” Trump asserted the version of the “60 Minutes” interview that aired “cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena.” The senators’ letter to Redstone was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. #paramount #could #violate #antibribery #law
    Paramount Could Violate Anti-Bribery Law If It Pays to Settle Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ Lawsuit, Senators Claim
    variety.com
    Three prominent U.S. senators warned Paramount Global and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone that they might be breaking a federal anti-bribery law if they agree to settle President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS over a “60 Minutes” segment. In a letter addressed to Redstone that was posted publicly, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) cited reports that Paramount has been in settlement talks with Trump’s lawyers in the case. The Trump suit, which seeks at least $20 billion in damages, alleges CBS’s “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with Kamala Harris and thereby violated a Texas consumer protection law. Paramount and CBS have argued that they did nothing wrong; in a motion to dismiss Trump’s suit Paramount called the legal action “an affront to the First Amendment” that is “without basis in law or fact.” CBS News has maintained that the “60 Minutes” broadcast and promotion of the Harris interview was “not doctored or deceitful.” Related Stories Now, the senators wrote in the letter dated May 19, “Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights.” They said they were writing “to express serious concern regarding the possibility that media company Paramount Global (Paramount) may be engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media” — and the senators suggested any monetary settlement in the case could be illegal. Popular on Variety “Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the senators wrote. “If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.” A copy of the letter is at this link. Warren and Sanders were among nine senators who urged Redstone in a May 6 open letter to not settle the lawsuit, calling it “an attack on the United States Constitution and the First Amendment.” A spokesperson for Paramount declined to comment but referred to the company’s previous statement saying: “This lawsuit is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process. We will abide by the legal process to defend our case.” A rep for Redstone declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. SEE ALSO: Shari Redstone’s Impossible Choice: She Can’t Save Both ‘60 Minutes’ and Paramount Global The $8 billion Paramount-Skydance deal is currently pending FCC approval. Earlier this month, Trump-appointed FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the approval of Paramount-Skydance is not connected to the president’s “60 Minutes” lawsuit. Last November, he said in a Fox News interview that a conservative group’s “news distortion” complaint against CBS over the “60 Minutes” Harris interview was “likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of [the Paramount-Skydance] transaction.” One issue Paramount and the FCC reportedly are in discussions about: securing a commitment from Paramount and Skydance to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as part of the Trump administration’s attack on DEI. In February, Paramount said it was changing some of its DEI programs to comply with the Trump administration’s directives. But Carr may be seeking a more ironclad guarantee. The FCC last week approved Verizon’s $20 billion deal to acquire Frontier Communications after Verizon pledged to eradicate DEI initiatives. On Monday, CBS News president Wendy McMahon announced her resignation, writing in a memo to staff “It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.” That came less than a month after “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens quit, also citing conflicts with Paramount execs. Warren, Sanders and Wyden drew a connection between the exits of McMahon and Owens and the Trump lawsuit: “Paramount’s scheme to curry favor with the Trump Administration has compromised journalistic independence and raises serious concerns of corruption and improper conduct,” they wrote. In the letter to Redstone, the senators requested answers to specific questions regarding the situation by June 2, including “Does Paramount believe the lawsuit filed by then-candidate Trump against CBS has merit?”, “Has Paramount evaluated the risk of shareholder derivative litigation from settling the lawsuit?”; and “Has 60 Minutes made changes to its content at the request of anyone at Paramount to facilitate approval of the merger?” The three senators also asked pointedly: “Does Paramount have any policies and procedures related to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 201 and any other laws governing public corruption? If so, please provide a copy of those policies and procedures.” In February, Redstone asked Paramount’s board to resolve the Trump lawsuit, including by exploring the possibility of mediation, Variety has reported. Redstone has recused herself from the board’s discussions about a settlement with Trump.  Trump, on his Truth Social social media account last month, said his lawsuit against CBS was “a true WINNER” and falsely claimed that Paramount, CBS and “60 Minutes” admitted to committing “this crime” of deceptively editing Harris’ answer. Trump alleged “60 Minutes” edited the interview to eliminate her “bad and incompetent” response to a question about whether Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “listening to the Biden-Harris administration.” Trump asserted the version of the “60 Minutes” interview that aired “cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena.” The senators’ letter to Redstone was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.
    0 Comments ·0 Shares ·0 Reviews
More Results
CGShares https://cgshares.com