The European Commission has proposed the EU KIDS Act.

It is yet another set of Internet/web regulation proposals to examine, for jurisdictional overreach, lack of common sense in terms of material scope, and so on.

It is only a proposal currently

It is only a legislative proposal at the moment, so it may not become law, and it may not become law in this form.

Based on a quick skim, this is indeed another fine mess, full of unrealistic expectations.

It has an incredibly broad scope

The proposal covers a lot of services:

• online social networking services;
• video-sharing platform services;
• software application stores
• online games;
• operating systems;
• AI companions;
• general conversational chatbots.

I have read this from the perspective of online social networking services, thinking predominantly about Mastodon and other fediverse services.

At least code forges are out of scope (“open-source software-developing and-sharing platforms”).

And Wikipedia seems to have its own bespoke exemption (“not-for-profit online encyclopaedias”).

Small, low risk services are in scope. The covering material specifically notes:

small and micro enterprises are not exempted from this Regulation, since they may equally provide harms to minors. It would undermine the objective of this proposal to exclude them from scope

Wow. I wonder if the drafters will realise just how harmful this is.

In terms of territorial scope, it is broader than the EU GDPR, and indeed the UK’s Online Safety Act, purporting to apply

to providers of services irrespective of where they have their place of establishment where they offer those services to recipients of the service that have their place of establishment or are located in the Union

I wonder if anyone working on this stopped to think about the boundaries of their laws, and whether they really think that they can impose obligations on people in other countries, merely because that person is running a service which happens to be available to people in the EU?

Do I, as someone who runs my own fedi server, where people in the EU can read my toots and respond to them from their own instance, fall into scope? I do not know.

The proposal would appear to demand age verification for the fediverse

Providers of online social networking services … shall not allow a natural person below the age of 15 years to create an account with that service or to access that service by means of an account, created for, or attributed to, that person, where the service poses a risk to the privacy, safety or security of a minor below that age. (Article 6(1))

The tests for “poses a risk” set an incredibly low threshold, and include:

enables recipients who access the service through an account to transmit content in real-time to an indeterminate number of other recipients of the service, including through live streaming of audio-visual content

and

enables recipients who access the service through an account to contact, communicate and otherwise interact with other recipients of the service not part of the recipient’s pre-existing connections or subscriptions

So a “papers, please” web would become the norm, according to this.

Some of the obligations are just unrealistic

For example:

When creating an account for a minor pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, the provider of online social networking services … shall take measures to establish whether the person creating the account is the holder of parental responsibility over that minor in accordance with Article 26 and verify that the recipient of the service has reached the age of 13 years in accordance with Article 28(1). (Article 6(3))

Article 26 sets out how the European Commission envisages this working, but, wow, I just don’t see it.

A watershed for the web?

Harking back to (what should be the exceptionalism of) broadcast regulation, there’s another banger:

Providers of online social networking services… shall put in place effective measures to ensure:

1. time-limited access for minors on their service;

2. interruption of usage by minors on their service.

Such measures shall be designed in a way that protects school time and core sleep hours of minors.

(Article 9)

Sorry, I have to turn off my fedi server now, because a child in a different timezone might be heading off to bed and my toots might be distracting…

Unrealistic requirements

Some of the proposals seem to relate to core browser functionality:

Providers of online social networking services … shall put in place measures to ensure that settings are set by default to a high level of privacy, security and safety of minors. To ensure compliance with this paragraph, such providers shall, by default, turn off at least the following settings:

…

2. access to microphone and camera

and

other recipients of the service shall not be able to download or take screenshots of contact, location or account information of minors or of any content uploaded or shared by minors on the service;

I have no idea how the drafters of this expect the provider of a social media service available via a web browser to restrict screenshots of everything posted by a user. It is not within their gift.

The only way to make this work would be either to force all access to be via an app (which would be daft), or preclude child access (which has age verification challenges).

Child use restrictions

Some of the use restrictions would seem very challenging:

Providers of online social networking services … shall put measures in place that ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security of minors as regards contacts between minors and other recipients of the service. Those measures shall at least ensure that:

other recipients of the service are not able to initiate direct contact with the minor, if the minor has not pre-approved such contact

So a 17 year old here posts something interest. No-one is able to interact with their post, unless the 17 year hold has “pre-approved” it.

Oh, don’t worry, you won’t be able to see their post anyway:

by default, other recipients of the service not previously accepted by the minor shall not be able to access account information of the minor or content uploaded or shared by the minor on the service

Edit, Microsoft’s open-source command-line text editor, added syntax highlighting, improved regex handling in Find & Replace and new editing shortcuts in its v2.0.0 update. Microsoft open-sourced Edit last year. It’s a small, cross-platform text editor with VS Code-style keybindings, mouse support, handles LF and CRLF line endings and lets you open multiple file. The clean terminal user interface (TUI) is super easy to use. The Edit v2.0.0 release came out earlier this year, but the unofficial Linux snap package (msedit, maintained by Canonical’s Aaron Prisk) only updated on 14 September – that update is how I heard a new version […]

You're reading Microsoft’s CLI text editor now does syntax highlighting, a blog post from OMG! Ubuntu. Do not reproduce elsewhere without permission.

In the mood for testing? The fourth monthly snapshot of Ubuntu 26.10 is now available for download. It’s unusual for Ubuntu to produce a snapshot the same month a beta release is due, and this is also the second snapshot published this month: Ubuntu 26.10 Snapshot 3 arrived in early September. Strange times with the Stonking Stingray! “These should be very close to what the Beta candidates will look like next week, so don’t shy away from testing them”, said Canonical’s Utkarsh Gupta in the mailing list announcement. Since Snapshot 3, more package updates have been updated: the GNOME 51 […]

You're reading Ubuntu 26.10 snapshot 4 released ahead of next week’s beta, a blog post from OMG! Ubuntu. Do not reproduce elsewhere without permission.

Miracle-wm v0.11.0 gains a fancy new overview mode inspired by GNOME Shell. For those unfamiliar with miracle-wm, it’s a tiling window manager built around the Wayland compositor Mir, created to be a “hackable and flashy” alternative to other tiling WMs, like hyprland and sway. The overview mode gives users an easy way to select windows and workspaces. One tap of the action key (configured in the config file) enters a window selector, while a double tap of the action key will enter a workspace selector. Once open, windows and workspaces can be navigated using keyboard shortcuts, mouse scroll wheel or […]

You're reading Miracle-wm v0.11 gains a fancy new overview mode, a blog post from OMG! Ubuntu. Do not reproduce elsewhere without permission.

The Mayor of London mocked Green Party leader Zack Polanski during a session of the London Assembly by answering a question from him in Urdu.

It came after Polanski, who is a member of the London Assembly, was criticised for posting a campaign video in the national language of Pakistan. In the video, he introduced himself and encouraged voters to vote Green in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election on October 8.

Some Urdu speakers had described his video as ‘cringe’ while Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said it made him feel “uncomfortable”.

At Mayor’s question time in the London Assembly on Thursday, Polanski asked Khan a question about data centres.

Khan proceeded to answer Polanski in fluent Urdu, mocking his video.

According to a translation provided by the mayor’s office, Khan said: “Peace be upon you. I was worried that you would ask the question in Urdu, but you asked your question in English.

“I’ll be spending time in Holborn and St Pancras this week and I’m going to be there. Maybe we will meet there.”

Reacting to Khan’s clip, journalist Dan Hodges said: “OK, I don’t care what people’s general views are about Sadiq Khan. This is pure class.”

Others called Khan’s video a ‘treat to watch’.

The post Sadiq Khan brutally mocks Zack Polanski by answering him in Urdu appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Reform continues to make the headlines for all the wrong reasons after its party leader in Wales announced he was stepping down following his arrest on suspicion of assault.

Dan Thomas, who became Reform UK Wales leader in February this year, was arrested on suspicion of assault and controlling or coercive behaviour. He was released without charge.

Thomas said in a statement: ““It has been the honour of my life to have been the leader of Reform Wales and see this party go from zero to 34 elected members and become the largest opposition group in Welsh history.

“With deep regret, I am now standing down from this position due to personal reasons.

“Over the weekend, I was reported to the police and was released without charge.

“I stress that I have done nothing wrong, but I do not want the coming headlines to be a distraction from the fantastic work our Senedd team is doing in holding this government to account.”

Gwent Police said: “On Sunday 13 September a 45-year-old man, from the Aberbargoed area, was arrested on suspicion of assault and engaging in controlling/coercive behaviour.

“He has been bailed pending further enquiries.”

The post Reform in crisis: Party leader in Wales stands down after arrest appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Oliver Ryan, Labour MP for Burnley

Some time ago I had the opportunity to spend a morning on a busy building site on Rossendale Road on the edge of my constituency of Burnley. Here 87 homes for families were under construction. I met Barratt Homes, the developer, and the National House Building Council (NHBC), which insures new homes, and redistributes any profits it makes back into the industry. Building more homes is incredibly important for the next generation, but what matters just as much to many of my constituents is building homes to the highest possible standard, that will stand the test of time.

I was interested to hear that each year NHBC carries out around one million inspections for quality assurance, attention to detail, technical expertise, health and safety, and consistency when compared to the original drawings. Developers cannot simply throw up shoddy buildings; they must subject themselves to stringent inspections before they can receive a warranty.

The need for high quality has been on my mind since last month’s announcement of the first £10 billion of the £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme: more than 70,000 homes, the majority at genuine social rents, with almost £1 billion in the North West. After fourteen years of selling off more than we built, that is a serious answer to a serious problem. But we must build these homes to a high standard. My constituents in need of housing deserve nothing less than a safe, warm place to live and grow.

We have the money in place. Besides the funding, the challenge comes in two parts. The homes must be demonstrably good, and building them must visibly pay something back locally. Local consent is the next challenge. When new plans for housing emerge, my constituents in Burnley, Padiham, and Brierfield will ask me: what’s in it for us?

It is tempting to dismiss that as NIMBYism. That is a mistake. Opposition to housebuilding is usually not generalised opposition to new homes, but a sense that local people will not see returns, and that new homes will be of poor quality, which has sometimes been a persistent issue nationally.

The first can be ensured by independent standards and verification from organisations like NHBC. Developers cannot just assure local authorities their properties will be well built; they must be backed up by published standards, which are verified by independent inspectors. This gives people confidence. And it works: this year’s National New Homes Customer Satisfaction Survey, verified by Ipsos, found 93% of buyers would recommend their builder and 90% were happy with their home’s quality. This is the sixth year the score has been running above 90%, showing growing confidence, which will translate into greater consent for new building.

For the second half of the challenge, the honest answer to “what’s in it for us?” is jobs, apprenticeships, and training; and here the industry is ahead of government. I heard on my visit that NHBC is investing up to £100 million in twelve multi-skill training hubs which will benefit 3,000 site-ready tradespeople every year. At these hubs, apprentices train on replica sites in 14 to 18 months, instead of up to 30, so a young person being trained up at a site can do so in the knowledge that they will be working in the same conditions in which they trained. For every 10,000 homes, we need around 2,500 bricklayers, 2,500 groundworkers, and 1,000 carpenters. Needless to say, we do not have them. The sector needs 239,000 more workers by 2029.

So as we push for an increase in housebuilding, across both social housing and private development, here is my ask as we in the Labour Party gather for our annual conference in Liverpool: put skills hubs in the new town plans from day one.

When we stand up a development corporation in Leeds, Tempsford, or Manchester, a construction training hub should sit on the masterplan alongside a school and a GP surgery. At Northstowe, Homes England provided land for an NHBC training hub that trains 200 apprentices a year. This should leave a skills legacy for years to come.

The Prime Minister has rightly put social value at the heart of public procurement. It now needs to be delivered in every community with local recruitment, apprenticeships that reach care leavers and work for those who have long been without it. Money that stays in our local communities. And training that outlives the project.

Opposition parties offer nothing more than grievances about a housing crisis they have no plan to fix. We can offer better: social homes at rents people can actually pay, built to a standard someone independent will stand behind, by young people from the same town on wages that stay in it. Where you are from should never determine where you end up, and it should never determine whether the home you are offered is any good.

Next week in Liverpool we will rightly celebrate our plans for the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. Let us also commit to what will deliver it: a package of measures that ensures homes of the highest quality and skills that will serve a new generation of British construction workers. That is how you win consent, and how you keep it.

The post Oliver Ryan MP: Securing buy-in for new homes by raising standards and training the next generation appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Reform continues to be exposed for having links with far-right thugs and groups, after an investigation revealed that a Facebook group involved in the recent far right anti migration protests which saw balaclava clad men block roads and cause disruption, was set up by a Reform activist.

Earlier this month, hundreds of men wearing all black and balaclavas took part in two anti-migrant protests in Dover and Portsmouth. In Dover they blocked the town’s two main roads for several hours and in Portsmouth they blocked migrant coaches.

Ministers condemned the “thuggish and intimidating behaviour” of far-right activists who blocked roads, and who were coordinated by Danny Thomas, a close associate of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim activist Tommy Robinson.

While Reform leader Nigel Farage issued condemnation of the far-right protesters, saying it was ‘disgusting’ and that nobody, ‘whether they’re on the left or right, should be wearing balaclavas’, it seems not everyone in Reform shares his sentiments with some keen to support Thomas’ far-right thugs.

HOPE not hate has discovered that the North East Patriot Platform and Tyneside Patriots Facebook pages, part of the Patriot Platform network that launched the intimidating masked vigilante actions in Dover and Portsmouth last week, have been set up by Mark Thorn, a Reform activist from Gateshead.

The anti-extremist group added: “Thorn describes himself as the “Reform UK Representative/Campaigner” for Gateshead Central & Whickham Constituency on his social media accounts, which contain a mix of pro-Reform and pro-Patriot Platform content, and appears to believe that the party’s criticisms of the movement are not sincere.

“Responding to criticism of Farage’s response from another member, Thorn argued that Farage public stance was guided by political necessity and might not match his “secretly and privately personal opinions”:

In the same Facebook group, five Reform councillors indicated that they were keen to support Patriot Platform’s activities. They included Cllr Trevor Shonk of Kent County Council, Cllrs Sandra Pickering and James Wright of Gateshead Council and Cllrs Paul Goldingay and Jamie Campbell of Solihull Council.

Once again Reform’s masks slips…

The post How Reform activists are linked to far-right balaclava thugs involved in anti migrant protests appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Hegseth’s Theology and the Question: What Would Jesus Do?

There is a question Christians have been asking for generations: What would Jesus do?

It is a deceptively simple question that is printed on bracelets and bumper stickers, taught to children in Sunday schools, and invoked when Christians are discerning how faith should shape public life. The question becomes considerably more demanding when the decisions at stake concern war, immigration, poverty, political power, and the use of military force.

In addition to the recent attention about his military strategy, social and political beliefs, and leadership style, Pete Hegseth’s public theology deserves serious attention from those unfamiliar and disinterested in religion as well as adherents of Christianity.

As secretary of defense, Hegseth has increasingly spoken about American power in explicitly Christian language. He has hosted Christian worship at the Pentagon, invoked Scripture in connection with military service, emphasized the Christian foundations of the United States, and described some Trump administration policies — including border enforcement — as “biblical.” Indeed, speaking at a Christian media convention last February, Hegseth connected the health and founding of the United States with Christianity and characterized border and immigration policies as mandated in the Bible.

The question about Hegseth’s faith and religious practice, however, cannot simply be whether he is sincere. The question is more fundamental: What kind of Christianity is being proclaimed when the language of Jesus is attached to military power? Or perhaps a simpler but harder question: In the face of war, authoritarianism, economic, environmental, and political crises: What would Jesus do?

A Christianity of Power

The Christian faith has always contained competing visions of what it means to follow Jesus. There is a Christianity that blesses kings, armies, empires, and national ambitions. There is another Christianity that remembers a Palestinian Jewish leader who was unhoused and a migrant and was executed by an imperial power after heralding the arrival of a radically different kingdom. This distinction matters a great deal.

Hegseth routinely emphasizes strength, warriors, national identity, borders, enemies, and divine blessing. And joining forces with Israel to prosecute the war with Iran has only heightened the stakes of his rhetoric. Early in the conflict, Hegseth cited Psalm 144, including its language about God training hands for war and fingers for battle.

There is nothing inherently un-Christian about a person in the military having a sincere religious faith. People of faith serve in the armed forces for many reasons. Generations of religious scholars and adherents have considered war and conflict as it relates to the faith through theories and practices of religious pacifism, “just war,” defensive war, theologies of self-defense, conceptions of the last days, and the ethical limits of violence in humanitarian conflicts, among others. The theological problem arises, however, when the power of the state begins to present itself as an instrument of God’s purposes.

That is a very old temptation.

Empires have long claimed divine sanction. Kings have declared their wars holy. Nations have wrapped their ambitions in sacred language. And Christians have at times sought to confuse the interests of the nation with the kingdom of God. But Jesus does something profoundly disruptive to this arrangement: He refuses to identify God with Caesar.

The People at the Margins

Consider where Jesus directs our attention. Throughout the Bible, Jesus embraces people whom those with power, military might, and wealth have pushed aside: the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, immigrants, women, children, tax collectors, and those treated as religious outsiders.

In Matthew 25, one of the most famous Bible passages — sometimes called the “Last Judgment” — Jesus identifies with the hungry, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the imprisoned. “Whatever you did for one of the least of these,” he teaches, “you did for me.”

That is not an incidental teaching. It is a political and theological reorientation. And it is directed at nations, not simply individuals or religious congregations.

Jesus asks: How has your nation treated the most vulnerable among you?

The question Jesus asks his followers is not first, “How strong is your nation?” It is not, “How effectively have you defeated your enemies?” It is not even, “How faithfully have you defended your borders?” Instead, he asks: How has your nation treated the most vulnerable among you? This matters enormously when Christian language is used to justify violent and exclusionary immigration policy or when it is used to promote cutting off families from food or lifesaving healthcare.

If we claim that border enforcement is “biblical,” then Christians must practice the Bible’s extraordinary insistence on welcoming the other. After all, Scripture commands God’s people to remember that they, too, were once strangers in a foreign land, and the way to honor and worship God is by welcoming the immigrant neighbor. If Matthew 25 means what Christians have traditionally claimed, Christ is encountered precisely among the hungry, the unhoused, the incarcerated — and that as long as anyone is unfree and impoverished, it is the responsibility of the nation to do something about it.

Theology of the Enemy

There is another problem with a Christianity centered on military strength: its understanding of the enemy. Christianity does not teach that some people become less human because they are someone’s adversaries. It does not profess that God blesses battleships nor justifies genocide (even if Hegseth’s spiritual adviser claims it does).

Jesus does not say, “Love your friends and destroy your enemies.”

Jesus’s command to love one’s enemies may be among the most difficult teachings in the entire New Testament. It is also one of the clearest.

Jesus does not say, “Love your friends and destroy your enemies.” He says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Jesus does not say, “Blessed are the powerful because they shall dominate.” He says, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the descendants of God,” and “Blessed are the poor for they shall be first under God’s reign.”

That does not mean that people of faith must be naïve about violence. It does not mean governments face no genuine security threats. It does not erase the moral complexity of protecting human beings from violence. But it does mean that people who call themselves Christians should be extraordinarily cautious whenever military violence is described as holy, righteous, inevitable, or divinely ordained.

Christian tradition contains a long history of wrestling with war. It also contains an even deeper tradition of martyrs, peacemakers, conscientious objectors, abolitionists, human rights activists, and nonviolent movements that have insisted that human beings cannot be reduced to enemies.

On “Christ Is King”

One phrase that increasingly appears in Hegseth’s public religious rhetoric is “Christ is King.” On the surface, this is an ancient Christian confession. But Christians should be careful about what happens when it is fused with nationalism. If Christ is King, then Caesar is not. If Christ is King, then the nation cannot be God. If Christ is King, then military might cannot be the ultimate measure of righteousness. And if Christ is King, then Christians must remember what kind of king Jesus was.

Jesus did not arrive in Jerusalem on a tank. He did not establish his kingdom through an air campaign. He did not recruit an army to seize the Roman state. Jesus entered the city on a donkey. He washed his disciples’ feet. He touched people considered untouchable. He fed hungry crowds. He stood with the condemned. And when his disciples reached for weapons, Jesus told them to put them away. This is not weakness; it is a different conception of power and a different idea of violence, military and force. And it stands worlds away from the Hegseth’s professed belief in a conquering Christ.

Christian nationalism raises the question of who counts as part of the nation — and, implicitly, who counts as part of the Christian community. Hegseth’s religious politics have attracted scrutiny because of his association with a conservative Reformed Christian milieu and his willingness to amplify figures and institutions associated with Christian nationalist ideas. That should concern Christians not because Christianity should be banished from public life, but because Christianity is too important to be reduced to a tribal identity. There is no nationalism in the Sermon on the Mount; there is no exceptionalism in the Last Judgment.

Christianity offers an alternative to nationalism that does not require Christians to abandon love of country, but it begins by refusing to worship their nation.

Jesus did not teach his followers to build communities divided by race, citizenship status, wealth, or political loyalty. The early Christian proclamation was astonishing precisely because it created a community in which Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female could belong together.

Christianity becomes spiritually dangerous when it is transformed from a call to discipleship into a badge of national membership, and a cross becomes something very different when it is used to sanctify exclusion, violence, and war, especially against the poor and marginalized.

So, What Would Jesus Do?

Let’s stop treating “What would Jesus do?” as a sentimental slogan. Instead, ask the question concretely.

What would Jesus do when a family fleeing poverty and violence arrives at the border?

What would Jesus do when a child is separated from a parent?

What would Jesus do when a nation considers going to war?

What would Jesus do when military personnel are asked to kill (and the nation suggests canceling student debt to those who sign up to do that killing)?

What would Jesus do when poor communities are abandoned while enormous resources flow into weapons?

What would Jesus do when a government claims God has blessed its political program?

And what would Jesus do when Christians begin to believe that their nation has a special claim on God?

The Gospels give us clues. Jesus runs toward suffering rather than away from it. Jesus challenges religious authorities who use God to legitimize their own power. Jesus feeds people rather than lecturing them. Jesus welcomes the stranger. Jesus stands with those society declares expendable. And Jesus tells his followers that greatness consists not in domination but in liberation. That is a radically different theology of power.

Another Christian Patriotism

Christianity offers an alternative to nationalism that does not require Christians to abandon love of country, but it begins by refusing to worship their nation. It means loving one’s neighbors, including neighbors who have crossed a border. It means seeking peace rather than glorifying war. It means protecting human life rather than measuring success by military superiority. It means asking whether public resources are being used to ensure that every person has food, housing, healthcare, education, dignity, and a meaningful opportunity to flourish.

And it means remembering that the Bible’s central story is not the triumph of one nation over all others. It is the liberation of an oppressed people. It is the insistence that Pharaoh does not have the final word. That is why the question “What would Jesus do?” cannot be separated from the question raised by Florence Reece’s popular song written in 1931 in Harlan County, Kentucky, during the union organizing drive of the United Mine Workers: “Which side are you on?”

Christian faith does not ask us to look down from the Pentagon, the White House, or any other seat of power and decide which people deserve compassion. Instead, Jesus teaches us to love God, love your neighbor, love even your enemy — and recognize Christ in the people that those in power tell you to hate and fear.

When Christian nationalism asks its followers to choose between faith and the stranger, between military might and peacemaking, between national supremacy and human solidarity, Christians — including the Christians in the highest reaches of power — should ask a different question. Not “How can we make America powerful enough to win?” But: What would Jesus do?

The answer begins where the Gospel always has: feeding the hungry, welcoming the immigrant, freeing the oppressed, and telling the people at the bottom that God has not forgotten them. That is not a weak Christianity. It is Christianity’s most dangerous claim about power: The last shall be first. The mighty shall be brought down. And the kingdom of God belongs not to those who dominate, but to those who serve.

The post Pete Hegseth’s Unholy War appeared first on The Intercept.

💾

The debate over Flock cameras in Knoxville, Tennessee, had reached a fever pitch this July when a stay-at-home mom received a text message from a nonprofit group she had never heard of.

The group, Neighbors for Strong Communities, asked Ashley Smith to speak out in support of Flock’s controversial license-plate readers. The nonprofit even offered to use artificial intelligence to help her draft an email to public officials.

There was only one catch: Smith, a mother of four, said she noticed that she would only be supplied with text if she indicated she supported the Flock cameras.

Instead of offering support, Smith dashed off her own email — an outraged missive to her elected officials and a local blog outlining what she saw as an insidious PR campaign.

“If the interests beyond this surveillance technology will work this hard to deceive you to win a vote, what will they do with the database of our every movement?” she said. “A company that manipulates and manufactures fake neighbors is not a company that will honor our data policies, audit logs, or the privacy of the people of Knox County.”

“A company that manipulates and manufactures fake neighbors is not a company that will honor our data policies.”

The text message to Smith revealed little about the Flock campaign’s origins.

As it turns out, the campaign was the product of a “partnership” between Flock and a newly created nonprofit that has used similar tactics in support of the controversial proposed merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery. Opponents of the merger derided the nonprofit’s work there as corporate “astroturf” — the practice of drumming up fake grassroots support.

The combination of texts and AI-generated messages fell short of swaying public officials in Knoxville. Last month, the county commission became the latest municipal body to vote to cancel the Flock contract.

In both the Paramount and Flock cases, however, Neighbors for Strong Communities’s work has raised questions about what counts as truly grassroots organizing.

“One of the concerns of the people with the Flock cameras is: Can we trust you?” Smith told The Intercept. “And this sort of manipulation of people’s desires already shows that they are secretive, and they are not willing to share the honest information.”

Flock and Neighbors for Strong Communities did not respond to requests for comment. On its website, the nonprofit said it had a lead role in the pro-Flock campaign. “Flock Safety brought experience with public safety technology. Neighbors independently designed and managed the resident-engagement campaign, helping Knox County residents share their experiences directly with local decision-makers,” the organization said.

“I mean, there are no neighbors and there are no communities.”

There are, however, no signs of a genuine upswell in grassroots support for Flock, said Craig Aaron, the co-CEO of Free Press, a nonprofit advocacy organization that is critical of both the Paramount merger and Flock.

“This is very much an astroturf project. I mean, there are no neighbors and there are no communities,” he said. “What makes it astroturf is the fake grassroots nature of it.”

“You’re talking about literally one of the most unpopular technologies,” Aaron added, “that has people taking chainsaws to light poles because they don’t like being spied on.”

“This Is So Shady”

Neighbors for Strong Communities’s text messages can look like they come from nearby.

The text Smith received about Flock cameras came from a Knoxville area code. In California, residents received text messages about the Paramount merger from a Los Angeles area code.

In both cases, residents were presented with a series of questions whose answers would, in at least some cases, be used by Neighbors for Strong Communities to draft AI-generated emails to public officials.

Despite the area codes it sent texts from, Neighbors for Strong Communities was incorporated in Washington, D.C., in June.

Although the group does not list a board or staff members on its website’s “About” page, its incorporation papers show that its directors include several political consultants, including at least one former registered lobbyist.

At least two directors at Neighbors for Strong Communities also helped found Influent, a company that uses AI to generate letters to elected officials. Text messages to Knoxville residents linked to a URL with the word “influent” in the address. Whether Influent has a business relationship with Flock is unknown. (Influent did not respond to a request for comment.)

The page on Neighbors for Strong Communities’s website dedicated to Knox County features an image of a man with six fingers — a rare condition that is also a hallmark of AI-generated imagery. The page says Flock’s supporters are “real people.”

Smith said she was confused to receive the text message from Neighbors for Strong Communities, which she had never heard of despite her long involvement in local politics. In its message to her, the group seemed to play up a local connection.

“Knox County Neighbors for Strong Communities is asking local residents to speak up in support of responsible license plate readers with strong privacy protections before the vote on Monday,” the text message said. “Answer 2 quick questions and we’ll help you generate a personalized message urging local leaders to support this practical public safety tool.”

She filled out the form from Neighbors for Strong Communities twice, at first indicating her opposition to license-plate reader cameras, she said. Only on the second attempt, when she pretended that she supported the cameras, was she given the draft of an email to her county commissioners. The draft did not indicate the use of AI or its connection to the nonprofit group.

“Answer 2 quick questions and we’ll help you generate a personalized message urging local leaders to support this practical public safety tool.”

The experience disturbed Smith, who felt certain that she would have heard of a grassroots group in Knoxville given her years of organizing in local conservative politics.

“This is so shady,” Smith remembered telling herself. “If you’re in opposition, they don’t let you send that to your commissioners. But if you’re in support, they’re sending that to all of the commissioners.”

Smith started digging — and she used artificial intelligence to help. Her searches turned up Neighbors for Strong Communities’s incorporation paperwork in Washington, D.C.

Knox shared her findings with her county commissioner Andy Fox and a popular Facebook page for local politics. She noted that the address the nonprofit provided was shared with an Italian restaurant in D.C. (The group has since updated its address, which it shares with a UPS store in Santa Monica, California.) When the Facebook page shared her findings, at least nine residents posted comments saying they had received text messages, too.

“Clearly a PR Campaign”

Neighbors for Strong Communities’s intervention came at a perilous moment for Flock.

The company had already reaped more than $2 million from the Knox County Sheriff’s Office, but county commissioners said they had never been asked to approve a contract.

Residents on the right and left were raising concerns about privacy protections and the camera network’s history of being used by rogue law enforcement officers to stalk former romantic partners.

The nonprofit’s outreach effort appears to have generated a flurry of emails to commissioners arguing that the cameras were needed to prevent crime. Former at-large Commissioner Larsen Jay shared eight emails that he received from constituents supporting the use of license-plate readers.

None of those emails were identical, but their language was similar enough to raise red flags for Jay, whose service on the commission wrapped up at the end of August.

The emails Jay shared with The Intercept appear to come from genuine residents of the Knoxville area. Two residents confirmed to The Intercept that they had sent emails in support of Flock, although one said she had since switched her position.

While several emails contained personalized details, Jay said he considered the pro-Flock emails to be “form letters” nonetheless. In face-to-face conversations, Jay said, opposition to Flock ran 99-to-1.

“It’s just clearly a PR campaign,” Jay said. “Don’t use my people. That’s how it felt when I started to realize what it was.”

“These Are Real People”

At some point after the pro-Flock campaign came to an end, Neighbors for Strong Communities posted a defense of its tactics on its website.

The group acknowledged that it used “technology” to help residents craft missives to county officials. It said, however, that all of those residents were asked to sign off on the AI-generated drafts.

“Technology played a role in this campaign, but it was never the point,” the group said on its website. “These are real people with real experiences. Whether someone ultimately agrees with every policy position or not, their voices deserve a place in the decisions shaping their community.”

It remains unclear how the group handled responses from residents who oppose the use of Flock’s cameras. The group said on its website that it “listened” to those responses but did not comment further when asked.

Flock’s partnership with Neighbors for Strong Communities largely flew under the radar until weeks later, when the nonprofit partnered with Paramount Skydance on its proposed merger. Critics of the merger noticed the group’s earlier work in Knoxville and began asking questions about why a nonprofit would work on such disparate campaigns.

Merger critics said the nonprofit’s work in California had all the hallmarks of a phony “astroturf” campaign, which is designed to generate the appearance of grassroots support.

The group drew more negative attention recently, when a merger critic discovered that its AI text generator flipped her criticism of the deal into support. The nonprofit’s spokesperson blamed “a recent system upgrade.”

In Knoxville, Neighbors for Strong Communities appears to have disclosed — at least after the fact — that it “partnered” with Flock on the pro-camera campaign. Still, the group has not disclosed the sources of its funding.

Thomas Lyon, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business who has studied corporate public relations, said that a campaign can still be classified as “astroturf” even if it generates letters or emails from ordinary citizens. In the pre-AI era, Lyon said, public relations firms running “astroturf” campaigns for corporations would sometimes call people and offer to draft them letters to public officials over the phone.

The company associated with two of Neighbors for Strong Communities’ directors, Influent, promises on its website that it has a different approach from other corporate influence campaigns.

“Generic astroturf form letters are destined for the trash bin,” the company says in promotion materials. “Every Influent letter, Tweet, phone call, and message is tailored to the individual — each one unique, reflecting the authentic voice of its sender.”

Neighbors for Strong Communities’s own website features similar language stressing the authenticity of supporters’ messages to public officials.

By that measure, at least, the nonprofit missed the mark, according to another county commissioner. Andy Fox — Ashley Smith’s representative on the commission — told The Intercept that he received dozens of “template” emails in support of Flock.

He said, “It doesn’t feel right to me.”

The post Facing Outraged Residents, Flock Got Help From Group That Uses AI to Rally Public Support appeared first on The Intercept.

💾

Heart Machine, the US-based makers of Hyper Light Drifter, its multiplayer spinoff Hyper Light Breaker, and last year’s Possessor(s), have laid off "nearly everyone" on staff after an unnamed publisher pulled funding for their next, unannounced game.

Read more

As many reservations as I had going into ZA/UM's Zero Parades: For Dead Spies earlier this year, what with all of the drama and upset that's surrounded the studio since Disco Elysium's release, it pleasantly surprised me. I don't think I rate it more highly than its brilliant predecessor, but it offered a throughly fun time that felt like it was riding the coattails of Disco, but not in a way that left it any way unable to create its own magic.

Now, it's getting a free Director's Cut update to coincide with its console release, with a bunch of new additions and tweaks coming to the PC version.

Read more

Despite Rockstar Games' silence on the matter, the cat rather seems to be out of the bag about GTA 6 getting its own online component that'll doubtless serve as GTA Online has for GTA 5. Court docs the studio themselves filed as part of the ongoing final hearing in a legal battle over the firings of 34 developers last year are partly to thank, but now so is the boss of streaming platform Twitch just blurting out when he expects GTA 6 to get a big multiplayer bump.

Read more

There is an issue in 4X games. In fact, it's so persistent, that Amplitude Studios' co-founder and CEO Romain de Waubert de Genlis describes it as an "inherent problem", one his team have been attempting to solve since the first Endless Legend released back in 2014.

"One of the X's, 'explore', disappears after a while," de Waubert de Genlis explains. You've discovered the map for one thing, so there is no more world to uncover. But 'explore' can also refer to something more abstract, your strategy becomes fixed. Because you can see the lands, and you can see the resources, and you can see the enemies you face, you must decide on a course of action and there will rarely be much reason to change it.

But spotting the problematic 'X' is far simpler than fixing it.

Read more

When it comes to RPGs, I am an irredeemable savescummer. I admit it. I'll slam F9 at the drop of a hat (perhaps the hat was dropped as a result of a failed dexterity roll. Unacceptable. Reload).

So when I recently found myself reloading a Divinity 2 save for the umpteenth time in a single session, I started to wonder - in a genre that's supposedly about storytelling first and foremost, why am I viewing botched persuasion checks as something to be studiously avoided? And why is it that I feel totally different about making a horrible mess of things in tabletop roleplaying games?

After all, some of my fondest memories of real-life roleplaying are moments of extravagant failure: sometimes of the bathetic stepping-on-a-rake-instead-of-slaying-the-necromancer variety, and sometimes of the much more grounded, human, and affecting type.

It all got me thinking: how do RPG developers think about player failure? Would they recognise the distinction between digital and tabletop that I'm describing? And can they convince a savescummer like me to renounce my ways?

Read more

If you've given The Blood of Dawnwalker a go, odds are you've got thoughts about the 30-day and 3-night timer it applies to Coen's quest to save his family from fate most vampy. Devs Rebel Wolves are very much aware of how divisive the feature's proven, and now the game's director's made clear that it's not guaranteed to return in future entries unless it can be made to mesh with the story being told.

Read more

Colin Johanson doesn't think the MMO is dying. He would say that: he's the studio head of Arenanet, the team behind the Guild Wars series. He's also talking to me directly after showing off combat and movement in the team's next MMO, Guild Wars 3. That said, what is more unexpected is that he says the genre is "as big as it's ever been."

You just need to expand your definition of an MMO.

Read more

Helldivers 2 and Horizon Forbidden West have disappeared from the Steam store in the UK, something that's happened rather out of nowhere and looks like it might've even taken publishers PlayStation by surprise. Said publishers have issued a statement noting that they've already reached out to Valve to get the games back up.

Read more

AI images are taking over stock libraries, but the human-made web isn't dead yet. We found 25 places where designers can still find incredible free, real photography, art, and imagery for commercial use.