Mark Zuckerberg going viral on social media is never a good thing. He’s been on a press tour promoting Meta’s brand AI app. In a world with Grok, DeepSeek, and Chat GPT — Zuckerberg knows he must pretend to offer something different. His pitch? He wants to give the “average American” 12 AI friends.

This proposition came up on The Dwarkesh Podcast. Zuckerberg told the host that his AGI’s endgame is a “personalization loop” kicking in. That’s when he believes Meta AI will become indispensable. He used an NPR report as a jumping-off point. The report cited a Pew Research Center poll showing only 38% of Americans have 5 or more friends. According to Zuckerberg, the “demand” is 15 friends. The average American has only 3 — so Meta’s solution is to plug the gap with bots.

As always, when Mark Zuckerberg says anything online, mockery follows like clockwork. Some s on X suggested humanity must forever pay for Zuckerberg’s inability to make friends.

Something that humanity will always regret is Mark Zuckerberg's inability to make friends at Harvard https://t.co/xsyrIJqXsF

— Hamish Morrison (@HMorrison97) May 1, 2025

Others compared it to needing 12 eggs and getting 12 pictures of an egg instead.

The average American has 3 eggs, but has demand for 15. So here are 12 photographs of eggs. I am a business man. https://t.co/uR2VXr1CqH

— Paul Fairie (@paulisci) May 1, 2025

Zuckerberg, somehow, is more self-aware these days. He anticipated the confusion and claimed that one day, we’d all appreciate “people doing these things.” Perhaps that’s why, mid-tour, he even found time to half-rationalize that one time he gave his wife a statue. He itted it was “a bit weird,” which is as close to a soul as we’ve seen from him.

There’s no doubt Zuckerberg is a bizarre person — but this isn’t random. It’s a strategy. In the same interview, he nodded to AGI chatbots already rolling out virtual girlfriends and therapists. He considers that a good thing.

The data analysis site World Visualized already confirmed it: the number one use of Generative AI is concerningly Therapy and Companionship. Which is probably why Zuckerberg has his eyes set there.

Axios reported that Zuckerberg plans to turn these AI bots into interactive reels you can talk to. Because nothing says “healthy emotional life” like whispering your secrets to a reel. It’s a textbook uncanny valley. But Meta’s real goal isn’t comfort. It’s attention — and beating the competition.

There’s no grander social good here. These tech barons have made it clear: their loyalty lies with shareholders and maybe President Trump. On the podcast, even Zuckerberg doesn’t quite sound convinced by his own pitch. It’s all bells, whistles, and clunky optimism designed to keep investors calm as he injects AGI into a company built to help people keep in touch. Or maybe help them make new friends. Or maybe — just maybe — mine their loneliness for ad revenue.

Perhaps instead of inventing synthetic friends, Zuckerberg could use AI to fix the algorithm and let people actually see their real friends. You know, the one billion actual active s already on the app.

Tech commentators and social media rang alarm bells this week. People were already complaining that ChatGPT is too agreeable. Now we’re being handed a buffet of emotionally validating bots — not to help us, but to sell more ads.

Zuckerberg sees profits, nothing else. If some people feel better in the process? Sure, why not. 

This would all be hilarious if it weren’t already terrifying.

The current global political and trade tensions are causing a lot of uncertainty in the tech industry, especially for Apple. Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives has issued a serious warning about what could happen if iPhone production is moved back to the United States. His analysis suggests that costs could rise dramatically, and the global tech industry could be reshaped in major ways.

Ives focuses on how deeply connected Apple’s supply chain is to Asia, where most iPhones are currently made. He points out that moving even a small part of this complex system would require a huge amount of money. According to his estimates, relocating just 10% of Apple’s supply chain to the U.S. would cost an enormous $30 billion. This massive expense would almost certainly lead to much higher prices for consumers.

Per CNN, Ives predicts that an iPhone made in the U.S. could end up costing an astonishing $3,000. This is far more than the price increases other analysts have predicted due to tariffs alone. Reuters estimates that tariffs could raise prices to over $2,200 with a 40% tariff, and CNET estimates that tariffs would rise by $3,200 if tariffs rose by 104%. A basic iPhone 16e, which starts at $599, could jump to $1,222 in the worst-case tariff scenario. Other models would likely see similar price hikes.

Tech expert predicts soaring prices for iPhone

But Ives’s concerns go beyond just higher prices. He warns of a potential “Armageddon” scenario for U.S. tech. He argues that America’s reliance on Asian manufacturing is key to staying ahead of China in technology. If the supply chain is disrupted by trying to move production too quickly, it could hurt U.S. tech progress and even help China take the lead.

Building new factories would take time—about four to five years—making the challenge even harder. Ives suggests that rushing to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. could have serious long-term consequences.

Other analysts also see big challenges ahead. UBS predicted the iPhone 16 Pro Max could go up by $350, while JPMorgan Chase estimated a 6% global price increase to cover U.S. tariffs. Still, all these estimates show that tariffs and possible factory relocations will put a lot of pressure on Apple and the rest of the tech industry.

These changes could have wide-reaching effects. For consumers, it could mean much more expensive iPhones and other tech products. For Apple, the choices are tough: take on huge costs, raise prices for customers, risk losing sales, or spend years and billions moving production. For the U.S. tech industry as a whole, the decisions made now could shape its ability to compete globally for years.

There’s a saying that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. And right now, America’s media landscape is hitting some familiar notes.

Jeff Bezos has announced that The Washington Post’s opinion section will take a new editorial direction, focusing exclusively on “personal liberties and free markets.” (What better time to rebrand The Post as a staunch defender of free markets? If your newspaper becomes the loudest cheerleader for free markets, it might just make it harder for regulators to paint Amazon as a monopolist.)

More importantly, the billionaire also made it crystal clear that dissenting opinions are someone else’s problem. In his own words: opposing viewpoints “will be left to be published by others.” David Shipley, the now-former opinion editor, declined to stick around for this new vision. Bezos told Shipley that if his answer wasn’t a “hell yes,” it had to be a “no.” Shipley chose the latter, stepping away after only a year on the job. Bezos has promised to find someone new to “own” this editorial direction.

The whole idea of staying “neutral” in journalism or opinions is a load of crap. It’s a feel-good concept presented as a virtue, but in practice, it’s often just a convenient excuse to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths. It’s the same logic that keeps news outlets endlessly giving airtime to “both sides” of an issue, even when one side is clearly wrong. Climate change? Let’s put a scientist debating a guy like Andrew Tate with a YouTube channel on the same . Racism? Surely there’s a “neutral” position somewhere in the middle!

If this were ancient Greece, the Washington Post’s opinion section would be Socrates, sipping its last cup of editorial hemlock. The philosopher paid the ultimate price for asking uncomfortable questions. His method of relentlessly questioning the status quo made him a thorn in the side of Athens’ elites, who convicted him of “corrupting the youth.” 

If it were the Catholic Church of the Renaissance, Jeff Bezos would be penning his very own Index Librorum Prohibitorum — a list of ideas deemed too dangerous (or inconvenient) to publish. And if we were in Hans Christian Andersen’s Denmark, Bezos might just be the emperor strutting around in an invisible suit of “personal liberties and free markets.” In Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, a vain emperor is conned into believing he’s wearing magical garments that only the wise can see. Everyone around him, too afraid to call him out, pretends they see the clothes. It takes a child to point out the obvious: the emperor is naked.

In the end, it’s hard to ignore how convenient this newfound ion for less government intervention is, given that Bezos’ other little project, Amazon, is facing a massive antitrust lawsuit — the trial for which is scheduled for Oct. 2026. On the other hand, The Washington Post was an outspoken critic of the government, with Trump frequently targeting Bezos personally. But in recent years, Bezos has taken a noticeably softer stance. Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, and The Post even refrained — or was prevented — from making an endorsement in the 2024 presidential race.

Bezos isn’t the only tech titan using his platform to reshape public discourse. Mark Zuckerberg is busy relocating Meta’s trust and safety teams to Texas — you know, MAGA country — while pledging to work with Donald Trump to “push back” against global censorship. Meanwhile, Elon Musk has turned Twitter into a free-for-all, where misinformation thrives. Together, these three billionaires are like the Avengers of corporate libertarianism, except they’re saving the free market — from you.

After observing his questionable ethics for the past few years, not to mention his obstructive actions in the 2024 election, we can safely say that there is practically nothing Elon Musk won’t do to increase his wealth and influence, even if it means pushing the boundaries of the law or going against the constitution to make sure his voice remains the only one heard in the room where it happens.

While Musk would have us believe his involvement with the current presidential istration is for the right reason, his actions speak otherwise.

The whole business around buying Twitter reads as an attempt to gain control over one of the biggest social media platforms on the planet, one that was used to heavily influence voters in the 2024 election. He claims to use that platform to be a champion of free speech, but then censors anyone who doesn’t agree with him and his view of how this latent technofeudalistic serfdom should push onwards into a glorious age under the leadership of a man who constantly finds himself in the same ideological corner as neo-fascists. He wants to cut government spending, but doesn’t mind that Trump is a spendthrift. And let’s face it — the idea behind a Department of Government Efficiency (aka DOGE) sounds like an elaborate laundering scheme to disrupt the natural order of things in the federal government and further consolidate Trump’s power and reach.

And as if all of this wasn’t problematic enough, Elon Musk is now going after AI. Mind you, this is a man who once said AI could be humanity’s greatest enemy, and it was paramount that we find a way to curb its unrestrained development. But now that he’s behind in the competition, Elon is throwing his weight around, trying to remedy the fact that, while he was busy building electric cars and rockets, or occasionally, launching satellites to monopolize the Earth’s internet, someone else got ahead in the race to make the dystopian possibilities of the ’70s sci-fi novels a reality.

His new brilliant idea was to propose to buy the OpenAI assets (the company that controls ChatGPT) for a whopping $97.3 billion, an offer that was rejected by its CEO, Sam Altman. Altman and Musk have been engaged in a sort of behind-the-scenes battle over the control of OpenAI ever since both of them founded the non-profit company in 2015. Elon left OpenAI after a while, but now that the company and its general purpose AI has dominated the market, the billionaire is pressuring Altman to give him stakes over the emerging for-profit company — much in the same way he managed to buy Twitter.

Altman, for his part, has approached this subject with an air of control, usually mocking or shrugging off Elon when he becomes too insistent. But now, after this ridiculous offer, Altman might have just taken the gloves off to tell us exactly what he thinks of the billionaire CEO of X.

“I wish he would compete by building a better product,” Altman said in a recent interview. “I think there’s been a lot of tactics. All sorts of lawsuits and crazy stuff, and now this. We’ll just try to put our head down and keep working.”

When asked if Musk’s approach is “from a position of insecurity” about his own AI project, known as xAI, Altman decided to say it as he sees it.

“Probably his whole life is from a position of insecurity. I feel for the guy. I don’t think he’s a happy person. I do feel for him.”

Well, I guess we’ll just leave it at that. You can watch the interview segment here.

For many of us, weekends are all about plopping onto the couch, controller in hand, ready to escape into fantastical worlds where we’re not just regular humans drowning in bills but heroic warriors, space explorers, or, at the very least, someone who can double-jump without pulling a hamstring. 

But this weekend? It has been a cruel joke because the unthinkable has happened: PlayStation Network (PSN) is down, and for countless gamers, the world feels bleak, empty, and unfairly cruel. It could have been survivable — if only you could blame yourself. But no, this is out of your hands, which makes it even worse. Sony, why have you forsaken us?

At around 6 pm ET on Feb. 7,  reports of outages started flooding in. Affected s couldn’t sign in, stream games, or even browse the PlayStation Store. Players from the U.S., U.K., and Australia all reported being locked out of their games. Even those with physical discs weren’t completely spared, as some titles require online authentication before they’ll let you play. According to Down Detector, a website that tracks outages, over 640,000 reports had been logged by early Saturday. Sony’s official status page didn’t exactly inspire confidence either. Most services were marked in red.

When is the PlayStation Network coming back online?

Sony released a statement through its social media on X, saying they were aware of the issue and working to resolve it. “Some s might be currently experiencing issues,” they said.

Naturally, angry gamers took to X and Reddit to vent their frustrations.

Xbox mfs taking the chance to say “should’ve gotten an Xbox” while PlayStation network down. Bitch fuck you & your shit box pic.twitter.com/b0sBeUVIHi

— Laii (@gravehore) February 8, 2025

Online gaming for many is a way to socialize, de-stress, and unwind. This outage has reignited a long-standing debate about the gaming industry’s reliance on online connectivity. Back in the day, you could pop a cartridge into your console, blow on it for good luck (even though that probably didn’t help), and play to your heart’s content. Today, even single-player games often require an internet connection, thanks to updates, DRM, and cloud integration. Your ability to enjoy what you’ve paid for is now at the mercy of servers you have no control over.

For veteran PlayStation s, this outage brings back the memories of the 2011 PSN hack. The attack forced Sony to take the network offline for nearly a month, disrupting services for around 77 million s worldwide. The personal information of 77 million s was exposed. Sony initially stated there was no evidence that credit card data was stolen but later itted it could not rule out the possibility. While there’s no evidence that this current outage is the result of a breach, the parallels are enough to make anyone nervous. The longer PSN stays offline, the more players are going to start wondering.

After announcing it would shut down after years of financial insecurity in Mar. 2024, the humble digital media company Rooster Teeth surprised us all when it revealed a saving grace had arrived in the form of an acquisition.

Responsible for cult classic animated series like RWBY and Red. vs Blue, Rooster Teeth had struggled to turn its devoted viewers into a sustainable profitable venture, with budgets being cut in the past few years and the distribution rights to RWBY being sold to Crunchyroll. Eventually, parent company Warner Bros. Discovery decided to strip it for parts, halting production on RWBY and shopping Rooster Teeth’s podcast network.

General manager Jordan Levin sent a memo to staff that read, “Since our founders created and ed their first video on the then-called World Wide Web in 2003, Rooster Teeth has been a source of creativity, laughter, and lasting innovation in the wildly volatile media industry.”

“We’ve read the headlines about industry-wide layoffs and closures, and you’ve heard me give my perspective and updates on the rapidly changing state of media and entertainment,” Levin added. Over 150 people lost employment or freelance contracts as a result of the closure.

The Box Canyons acquisition

News of RWBY‘s unlikely survival came when the RWBY cast lent themselves to an announcement video, telling fans that some good news was on the way despite them not being able to share details. Viz Media purchased the rights to the series, and another season is planned.

Then on Feb. 5, 2025, Burnie Burns (described on the Rooster Teeth website as “executive something”) gave us another update:

Almost one year ago, we were all saddened to learn that Rooster Teeth would be shutting its doors. Today, I am very happy to say that I have completed an acquisition of the Rooster Teeth brand and many of its remaining properties.

A video titled ‘Homecoming’ was also ed to Rooster Teeth’s YouTube channel. It was taken at the company’s Austin, Texax base of operations, and teased the comeback, which is being described as a rebrand — longtime fans will know this is far from the first one.

Are Burnie Burns, Matt Hullum, and Adam Kovic returning?

Burns is returning as an executive after leaving in 2020. He co-founded Rooster Teeth, created Red vs. Blue, and has a long history with the company. Burns oversaw the acquisition and retention of many employees. He clarified on the aforementioned Morning Somewhere podcast that he had acquired the brand, specifically.

Former CEO Matt Hullum hasn’t said anything yet, but is unlikely to return. The same can be guessed for Adam Kovic, who was let go in 202o after allegations of him behaving inappropriately with fans surfaced.

Rooster Teeth said in a statement, “We parted ways with two employees whose conduct did not reflect the values of our company and our community. Decisions like this are never easy, but it is important that we stay true to the values that we aspire to as a company, and that we hope to inspire in our community.”

He also asked people to not badger former employees for their opinion on the company or for comment, saying that many are doing their own thing away from Rooster Teeth. He added that didn’t mean some employees wouldn’t return, but that we should allow privacy and space for things to unfold. Some people have clarified they will return, including producer Rocco Botte, who said the next generation of the company aims to “let the freak flag fly” and it redefines itself for a new era.

What’s next for Rooster Teeth

While RWBY moves ahead at Viz Media, Box Canyon announced a slate of projects for 2025 and beyond, including production on some classic Rooster Teeth series, an original audio story titled Again, and a reimagining of Burns’ first movie, The Schedule.

It’s clear Box Canyons wants to recapture some of the early days magic of Rooster Teeth, which makes sense given its insular community has been a rollercoaster of ups and downs, in of reactions to content as well as workplace controversy. Whatever happens next, this is one bird that refuses to get stuffed.

As TikTok faces an uncertain future in the U.S., many s are exploring new platforms to fill the void that will be left by the social media giant. Among them is the Chinese app Xiaohongshu — known as RedNote in English — which is rapidly gaining traction as a potential alternative.

Related: ‘NOW you’re learning Mandarin’: Duolingo owl pokes fun at TikTok refugees on The Mary Sue

TikTok, owned by China-based ByteDance, is currently at the center of a national security debate. Critics allege that the app could allow the Chinese government to access U.S. data, a claim TikTok has repeatedly denied. Despite implementing measures to safeguard information, the app remains under scrutiny.

The outgoing istration under President Joe Biden has signed a law requiring TikTok to either divest its U.S. operations or face a nationwide ban. If ByteDance fails to sell the app by Jan. 19, Apple and Google will be prohibited from offering TikTok in their app stores. Additionally, internet service providers will be required to block access to the app, potentially rendering it unusable over time.

TikTok has taken its case to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to delay the ban. While justices heard arguments last week, a decision is still pending, leaving TikTok’s fate hanging in the balance. Because of this, many creators are preparing for life after TikTok, with some bidding farewell to the platform and announcing their transition to alternatives like RedNote.

What is RedNote?

RedNote — called Xiaohongshu or “Little Red Book” in China — is actually not a new app. It has been around since 2013, but it was only recently that it became one of China’s fastest-growing social platforms. The Financial Times values it at over $17 billion, a minnow to TikTok’s $84 billion whale, per Statista’s 2024 estimates.

RedNote combines elements of Instagram and Pinterest with a focus on -generated content, so it’s not really that similar to TikTok. The app markets itself as a lifestyle platform for young people to explore diverse hobbies, trendy lifestyles, and authentic experiences, based on its Google Play description.

TikTok thrives on viral trends, challenges, and algorithm-driven content discovery. Its popularity lies in its ability to connect creators with massive audiences quickly. However, considering that TikTok is likely to be banned on Jan. 19, U.S. creators and s are left with no choice but to abandon the platform.

As previously mentioned, RedNote leans into lifestyle content and community-building. Its emphasis on authenticity and niche interests makes it feel more personal, but it lacks TikTok’s robust algorithm for viral content. However, the company behind it is adapting to cater to a broader audience, especially as it has seen a surge in s in the U.S. recently. It has even pivoted the app toward short-form video content similar to TikTok, so as to appeal to online content creators seeking a new platform for their “get ready with me” (GRWM) videos, vlogs, and more.

RedNote’s rise to No. 1

RedNote is currently ranked as the top social networking app on the Apple App Store in U.S., proving the growing interest among American s amid the imminent TikTok ban, according to Engadget.

However, the Chinese app’s sudden rise in popularity has sparked mixed reactions on social media. Critics question whether s will trust another Chinese-owned app given the controversies surrounding TikTok. Others see RedNote as a promising alternative, ensuring that TikTok’s unique content ecosystem continues to thrive.

Meanwhile, in a bid to welcome U.S. consumers, RedNote s are sharing videos encouraging newcomers to embrace their freedom of expression on the platform. This message resonates with creators who value open communication in the wake of TikTok’s potential ban.

What’s next for RedNote?

As the Jan. 19 deadline approaches, TikTok’s fate in the U.S. remains uncertain. The app’s potential ban could pave the way for platforms like RedNote to capture the attention of displaced s. Whether RedNote can sustain its momentum and replicate TikTok’s success remains to be seen, but its rise proves the growing demand for creative and interactive social media experiences amid the ban.

For now, everyone’s watching closely as the battle over TikTok unfolds. However, many are prepared to embrace new platforms and bid farewell to one of the most influential apps of the decade should the ban become final.

With mere days until Donald Trump’s inauguration for his second term, Mark Zuckerberg has decided to pull a complete 180 on Meta’s content moderation policies. Coincidence? I think not.

In a recent video, Zuckerberg talked about how the company’s attempts to curb misinformation post-2016 led to an overabundance of “censorship.” Zuckerberg argued that Meta’s current content moderation systems, which rely heavily on complex algorithms and third-party fact-checkers, are too prone to mistakes and have resulted in an unacceptable level of censorship. “Even if they accidentally censor just 1% of posts, that’s millions of people,” he said, “and we’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.” Well, he now points to Trump’s re-election as a “cultural tipping point” back towards prioritizing free speech above all else. 

“We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms. More specifically, here’s what we’re going to do. First, we’re going to get rid of fact checkers and replace them with community notes similar to X, starting in the U.S.”

Taking a leaf out of Elon Musk’s playbook on X, Zuckerberg is pushing forward with “community notes” to ditch third-party fact-checkers. People aren’t always the best arbiters of truth, but Zuckerberg seems to think that this is a risk worth taking.

So, why the sudden change of heart?

Mark’s sudden change of heart has less to do with a genuine concern for free speech and more to do with the fact that he’s trying to stay in the good graces of Trump. From being a target of Trump’s ire, to making a hefty donation to Trump’s inaugural fund, Zuckerberg’s actions suggest a strategy of appeasement — or perhaps an insurance policy against future political and regulatory backlash.

But the implications of this decision go far beyond just one man trying to save his own skin. By abdicating their responsibility to combat the spread of false information, Meta is essentially giving bad actors a green light to manipulate public opinion and sow discord on their platforms. A 2018 study by researchers at MIT found that false news spreads six times faster than true news. And given the immense reach and influence that Facebook, Threads, and Instagram have, particularly among younger demographics who may be more susceptible to misinformation, the consequences could be dire.

If we want to protect the integrity of our democracy and ensure that social media platforms are not used to spread misinformation and sow division, we need strong, independent fact-checking partnerships and clear, consistent content moderation policies. We cannot allow the whims of billionaire tech moguls and the demands of authoritarian leaders to dictate the of our public discourse. Ultimately, the success or failure of the community notes program will depend on how it’s implemented and how well it’s received by s. If it turns out to be a useful tool for combating misinformation, then Zuckerberg’s gamble may pay off. Either way, Meta’s about to let the posts fly free.

Mark Zuckerberg is playing nice with the ultimate comeback kid, Donald Trump, who not so long ago wanted to downgrade Zuckerberg from CEO to Cell Block C inmate. Amazing what a little Mar-a-Lago Thanksgiving dinner and a heaping serving of political brownnosing can do to turn once-bitter enemies into the best of frenemies.

The Zuckbot 3000 has now been reprogrammed to “bury the hatchet” with Trump and completely upend Meta’s content moderation policies. Reportedly, the company’s third-party fact-checkers have been deemed too “politically biased” for the new world order of Trumptopia. Zuck’s new plan is to replace the company’s fact-checking program with a “Community Notes” system — where truth is left to the whims of the masses. Yep, it smells eerily like the setup over at Elon Musk’s X.

Arguably, this shift towards a more “liberated” approach to content moderation is poised to transform Meta’s platforms into a freewheeling digital frontier, with minimal oversight on the veracity of the information being shared. To top it all off, Meta is moving its trust and safety teams from California to the heart of MAGA country: Texas. Zuckerberg has also pledged to forces with President Trump to “push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more”

After being the villain in Trump’s book, where he was painted as a grand conspirator in the 2020 election, Zuckerberg’s strategy seems to be: if you can’t beat ‘em, ’em. He was quick to laud Trump as a “badass” following his July assassination scare. Finally, he had to pay a $1 million “apology” donation to Trump’s inaugural fund to smooth things over.

At least Zuckerberg is in good company now. He s the ranks of fellow tech billionaire Elon Musk in kissing the ring of the Trump empire. And with Meta’s new top policy officer being a card-carrying member of the GOP old boys’ club, and a Trump-loving UFC boss ing the board of directors, it’s clear that Zuckerberg is fully on board the MAGA train.

But what does this mean for the average doom-scroller? Well, buckle up. With Meta’s new “anything goes” policy, expect to see a flood of hate speech, conspiracy theories, and outright lies filling your feeds. Imagine scrolling through your newsfeed, only to be bombarded with posts claiming that the Earth is flat, vaccines are modern witchcraft, and Trump is the second coming of Christ. And if you dare to question any of this nonsense, prepare to be swarmed by an army of red-hatted trolls. All of this is happening now on X, and it’s about to spill over as the MAGA mob fully migrates to Facebook and Instagram. Oh, but don’t worry, at least those posts will come with Community Notes. That is, if enough sane people stick around to supply the energy required to volunteer their services.

But maybe everything will be fine? Zuckerberg has proven time and time again that he has the best interests of his s at heart. Just ask the victims of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, or the Rohingya people of Myanmar who faced genocide fueled by hate speech on Facebook…

In another case of billionaires behaving badly (as they so often do), Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly has plans to donate $1 million to the inaugural committee of Donald Trump. 

That’s right, rather than fixing whatever the heck the new iOS update is, Cook is donating the eye-watering sum (which for him is probably just pocket change) to the body in charge of the president-elect’s inauguration. The inaugural committee — now sitting pretty on a mountain of cash — will organize both the ceremony and its related activities, with the date of that fated day slated for later this month. 

Barring any interruptions (you know, like a Trump-led insurrection), the president-elect will take the oath of office for his second term on Jan. 20, now with at least $1 million extra to spend on inviting musical guests who almost certainly won’t perform. In any case, Cook’s contribution is somewhat expected, since the billionaire last month dined with Trump at what is now basically the second White House; Mar-a-Lago. That dinner (in which Trump probably ordered McDonald’s) adds on to Cook’s previous meetings with Trump during his first term, with the pair reportedly having many phone calls and sharing meals on multiple occasions. 

Sadly, Cook isn’t the only high-flyer who’s Cook[ed] it (sorry) with his donations, with a host of fellow billionaires contributing to Trump’s second inaugural fund in the past few weeks. Ken Griffin, CEO of the hedge fund company Citadel, also reportedly intends to donate $1 million, and so too does Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, OpenAI’s Sam Altman and the Mark Zuckerberg-owned Meta. Since these of my nightmare blunt rotation are throwing money around like hotcakes, could you help a sister out? I just winced after buying a morning coffee, so I’ll take $999,994, if that’s easier. 

With all that cash, Trump’s second inaugural fund is projected to rake in more than $150 million, breaking the previous fund record of $107 million, which was set in 2017 by… you guessed it, friend of billionaires Donald Trump. I’m not too sure how well that paid off, since Trump’s first inauguration (jump scare) drew in record low crowd numbers and featured a performance by someone called… Jackie Evancho? Anyway, this kind of from the C-suite class is no surprise, since Trump has made a name for himself as perhaps the only billionaire who treats spelling and punctuation as more of a suggestion. 

The president-elect has surrounded himself with billionaires in recent months, spearheaded by X owner and jumpy McJumpjump Elon Musk. In a sentence that still boggles the mind, the world’s richest man even has a place in Trump’s advisorial orbit, as the co-head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. For extra measure, that department is also being led by billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, but they aren’t the only two deep-pocketed figures with their fingers in the Trump pie (yuck, sorry). 

Also in Trump’s second istration is investment banker Howard Lutnick, venture capitalist and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum and wrestling magnate Linda McMahon, all of whom are billionaires. For those keeping track, the combined wealth of those three names and Ramaswamy exceeds $340 billion, which is larger than the gross domestic product of 11 dozen countries, according to The Independent. You don’t need to be a fan of The White Lotus to know the kind of mayhem that occurs when that many rich people congregate. Hint, it ain’t good.

Apple has recently agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement that could affect tens of millions of Siri across the United States, and you might be one of them.

Siri, introduced by Apple in 2011, revolutionized how people interact with their devices. As a voice-activated virtual assistant, Siri is designed to help s perform tasks, answer questions, and control their devices through natural language commands. s typically activate Siri by saying “Hey Siri” or pressing a designated button, after which the assistant listens for commands and responds accordingly. This technology has become deeply integrated into Apple’s ecosystem, appearing in iPhones, iPads, Mac computers, Apple Watches, HomePod speakers, and Apple TVs.

However, the convenience of voice-activated assistance comes with privacy implications. The lawsuit, filed in Oakland, California federal court, centers on allegations that Apple’s Siri voice assistant recorded private conversations without s’ consent. According to court documents, the unauthorized recordings occurred when Siri was inadvertently activated, capturing personal discussions that s believed were private. More concerning, these recordings were allegedly shared with third parties, including rs, leading to targeted ments based on private conversations.

s reported receiving targeted ments for products they had only discussed verbally near their devices. For instance, two plaintiffs in the lawsuit reported seeing ads for Air Jordan sneakers and Olive Garden restaurants shortly after mentioning these brands in private conversations. Another plaintiff claimed to receive ments for a specific surgical treatment after discussing it privately with their doctor. Finally, a whistleblower revealed to The Guardian that accidental activations were common, with something as simple as a zipper sound potentially triggering Siri.

The proposed $95 million settlement comes after a five-year legal battle initiated by the 2019 report from The Guardian, which revealed that Apple’s third-party contractors regularly heard confidential information. While Apple has maintained its denial of any wrongdoing, the company has agreed to settle the case, potentially offering compensation to customers who owned Siri-enabled devices between September 2014 and December 2024.

How and when can you submit your Siri settlement claim?

Currently, you cannot fill out the Apple class action lawsuit form online. The settlement is still pending preliminary approval from U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in the Oakland federal court, and no claim submission process has been established yet. Once the settlement receives court approval, which could take several weeks or months, eligible individuals will likely be able to submit their claims through an official settlement website. The settlement is expected to compensate qualifying s with up to $20 per Siri-enabled device, with claimants able to submit claims for up to five devices. Granted, it’s not much, but this value could increase should the settlement be refused to pressure Apple to adequately compensate its s.

To qualify for the settlement, s must confirm under oath that they experienced Siri listening to a “conversation intended to be private” without specific activation. Eligible devices include iPhones, iPads, HomePod speakers, Mac computers, Apple Watches, and Apple TVs purchased during the specified period. Beyond monetary compensation, the settlement require Apple to confirm the deletion of Siri audio recordings collected before October 2019 and create a webpage better explaining their opt-in “Improve Siri” program. However, potential claimants should note that accepting settlement money means forfeiting their right to sue Apple for related claims in the future.

For now, interested parties should stay informed about the settlement’s progress through official channels. Once the court grants preliminary approval, details about the claim submission process will be made public, allowing affected s to seek their portion of the settlement. The preliminary approval hearing is scheduled for Feb. 14, 2025, after which more specific information about the claims process should become available.

According to an Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) report, the Ashland Daily Tidings website in Ashland, OR, about 15 miles north of the California border on I-5, operated for months with a newsroom staff partially made up of AI zombie bots. Honestly, at WGTC, we’re pretty shook.

OPB’s report hits close to home, as We Got This Covered has similarly had multiple websites steal our work and it off as their own ⏤ from direct plagiarism, to copy-pasted text that is slightly altered but not properly attributed.

According to OPB, DailyTidings.com, owned by Difference Media, has produced a wealth of reporting in the year since the paper’s print edition shut down, with bylines, some of whom were actual reporters, but who seemed to write and publish stories from every corner of the state, produced at a rate that didn’t seem humanly possible — and according to OPB, that’s because it’s not.

“It seems quite terrifying”

The reporters OPB mentioned in the article have since been scrubbed from the Daily Tiding‘s site, but one of the reporters, Joe Minihane, who, if the Daily Tidings website was to be believed, published consistently for the outlet, is an author and journalist who lives in the U.K., and has only been in Oregon once, in Portland, about 330 miles north of Ashland.

Speaking with OPB, Minihane said, “It seems quite terrifying. I have friends who live in Portland, but I’ve never been to another part of the state, so I just don’t know quite how it came to .”

OPB says that after the Daily Tidings print edition shutdown, the website listed eight reporters, two from London, and many with no other social media presence or apparent career outside Daily Tidings. Only two purportedly lived in Southern Oregon.

Meanwhile, two of the reporters were tracked to South Africa. They didn’t respond to OPB’s request for comment, but one shared this LinkedIn post recently, OPB said: “Try to learn Artificial intelligence and don’t curse in AI. Do your hard work and Update your skills.”

AI in journalism: Pros and cons

As alarming as OPB’s allegations are, a website like Daily Tidings using AI to generate copy isn’t exactly illegal, according to a 2023 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. However, it could violate copyright law if found too similar to existing material, and drawing from already published writing found online is how generative AI copy works.

In October, The New York Times reported that they don’t use AI to write articles. However, the venerable outlet uses AI to gather data, generate rough drafts, and other types of automation, content recommendation, and reader services. Ultimately, The Times says flesh-and-blood journalists are responsible for everything the outlet publishes.

AI in the news could further erode public trust in reporting, and force an industry already under pressure to shed jobs, but it’s likely here to stay. Brookings says several major news outlets, including the Associated Press, have already reached agreements with OpenAi to circumvent copyright law, and more such agreements are in the works.

One day, hopefully, we’ll see some transparency about news articles written in part or whole with AI, and outlets like the Ashland Daily Tidings won’t steal real writers’ identities to produce their work.

But for now, as one U.K. journalist told the Columbia Journalism Review, “AI summarization can be wobbly. Depending on the length, it is really actually not very good, I find. I tried it a lot and, well, checking sometimes takes longer than writing a summary myself. Also, the story ideas it gives me are very homogenous. So, yes, it will get better, but I am not sure if this technology is the great flex people think it is.”