Amazon has released a full trailer for the live-action Fallout series that's coming to Prime Video soon. It's our most in-depth look yet at the show and early indications suggest that the creative team has captured the distinct blend of irreverence and violence that helped Bethesda's game series become so successful.

The clip focuses on Lucy (Ella Purnell), a young woman who emerges from a fallout bunker into what used to be Los Angeles, 200 years after a nuclear apocalypse. Lucy quickly discovers that life on the surface isn't quite as cushy as staying in a luxury vault. "Practically every person I've met up here has tried to kill me," she says, seconds before we see a robot attempt to harvest her organs.

The trailer (and the show) gets a helping hand from the otherworldly charm of Walton Goggins as a pitchman for living in a fallout shelter. His character somehow survives the apocalypse and is still around two centuries later, carving out a life as a mutated bounty hunter called The Ghoul. The trailer has a ton of other references to the games for fans to drink in.

Amazon also took the opportunity to reveal that Fallout will arrive on Prime Video on April 11, one day earlier than previously announced. You won't have to wait a week between episodes either, as the entire season will drop at once.

Meta is revamping how Facebook recommends videos across Reels, Groups, and the main Facebook Feed, by using AI to power its video recommendation algorithm, Facebook head Tom Alison revealed on Wednesday. The world's largest social network has already switched Reels, its TikTok competitor, to the new engine, and plans to use it in all places within Facebook that show video — the main Facebook feed and Groups — as part of a "technology roadmap" through 2026, Alison said at a Morgan Stanley tech conference in San Francisco.

Meta has made competing with TikTok a top priority ever since the app, which serves up vertical video clips and is known for its powerful recommendation engine that seems to know exactly what will keep users hooked, started exploding in popularity in the US in the last few years. When Facebook tested the new AI-powered recommendation engine with Reels, watch time went up by roughly 8 to 10 percent, Alison revealed. “So what that told us was this new model architecture is learning from the data much more efficiently than the previous generation,” Alison said. “So that was like a good sign that says, OK, we’re on the right track.”

So far, Facebook used different video recommendation engines for Reels, Groups, and the Facebook feed. But after seeing success with Reels, the company plans to use the same AI-powered engine across all these products.

“Instead of just powering Reels, we’re working on a project to power our entire video ecosystem with this single model, and then can we add our Feed recommendation product to also be served by this model,” Alison said. “If we get this right, not only will the recommendations be kind of more engaging and more relevant, but we think the responsiveness of them can improve as well.”

The move is a part of Meta’s strategy to infuse AI into all its products after the technology exploded with the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT at the end of 2022. The company is spending billions of dollars to buy up hundreds of thousands of pricey NVIDIA GPUs used to train and power AI models, Zuckerberg said in a video earlier this year.

Framed creator Joshua Briggs is back with another mystery game, and, this time, it has a supernatural element. RiffRaff Games has announced the upcoming release of Sleight of Hand, a "third-person card-slinging occult noir stealth sim" — a collection of words that alone have us very intrigued. 

Sleight of Hand follows Lady Luck, a former occult detective who must track down and defeat her former coven. Yes, excitingly, a woman is the noir protagonist, and she comes to Steeple City with a cursed deck (necessary, given she lost her left hand the last time she saw her fellow witches). Each card has a unique ability, such as the Hex card, which latches onto a hidden enemy, and the Peekaboo card, which thrusts them into view. Another useful sounding one is called the Chain Smoker card: it ties the fates of multiple adversaries together so Lady Luck can use one card to stall them all. 

Gameplay also includes solving puzzles to use secret passageways and interrogating coven members, all in hopes of getting to the leader. The entirety of Sleight of Hand is grounded in the very relatable reason Lady Luck puts herself back in danger: she has overdue bills and old debts to settle. Lady Luck herself is voiced by Debi Mae West, who you might recognize as Metal Gear Solid's Meryl Silverburgh, and should make her arrival on Steam and through a day one Game Pass launch for Xbox Series X|S and Windows PC in 2025. 

Microsoft engineer Shane Jones raised concerns about the safety of OpenAI’s DALL-E 3 back in January, suggesting the product has security vulnerabilities that make it easy to create violent or sexually explicit images. He also alleged that Microsoft’s legal team blocked his attempts to alert the public to the issue. Now, he has taken his complaint directly to the FTC, as reported by CNBC.

“I have repeatedly urged Microsoft to remove Copilot Designer from public use until better safeguards could be put in place,” Jones wrote in a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan. He noted that Microsoft “refused that recommendation” so now he’s asking the company to add disclosures to the product to alert consumers to the alleged danger. Jones also wants the company to change the rating on the app to make sure it’s only for adult audiences. Copilot Designer’s Android app is currently rated “E for Everyone.”

Microsoft continues “to market the product to ‘Anyone. Anywhere. Any Device,’” he wrote, referring to a promotional slogan recently used by company CEO Satya Nadella. Jones penned a separate letter to the company’s board of directors, urging them to begin “an independent review of Microsoft’s responsible AI incident reporting processes.”

A sample image (a banana couch) generated by DALL-E 3 (OpenAI)

This all boils down to whether or not Microsoft's implementation of DALL-E 3 will create violent or sexual imagery, despite the guardrails put in place. Jones says it’s all too easy to “trick” the platform into making the grossest stuff imaginable. The engineer and red teamer says he regularly witnessed the software whip up unsavory images from innocuous prompts. The prompt “pro-choice," for instance, created images of demons feasting on infants and Darth Vader holding a drill to the head of a baby. The prompt “car accident” generated pictures of sexualized women, alongside violent depictions of automobile crashes. Other prompts created images of teens holding assault rifles, kids using drugs and pictures that ran afoul of copyright law.

These aren’t just allegations. CNBC was able to recreate just about every scenario that Jones called out using the standard version of the software. According to Jones, many consumers are encountering these issues, but Microsoft isn’t doing much about it. He alleges that the Copilot team receives more than 1,000 daily product feedback complaints, but that he’s been told there aren’t enough resources available to fully investigate and solve these problems.

“If this product starts spreading harmful, disturbing images globally, there’s no place to report it, no phone number to call and no way to escalate this to get it taken care of immediately,” he told CNBC.

OpenAI told Engadget back in January when Jones issued his first complaint that the prompting technique he shared “does not bypass security systems” and that the company has “developed robust image classifiers that steer the model away from generating harmful images.”

A Microsoft spokesperson added that the company has “established robust internal reporting channels to properly investigate and remediate any issues”, going on to say that Jones should “appropriately validate and test his concerns before escalating it publicly.” The company also said that it's “connecting with this colleague to address any remaining concerns he may have.” However, that was in January, so it looks like Jones’ remaining concerns were not properly addressed. We reached out to both companies for an updated statement. 

This is happening just after Google’s Gemini chatbot encountered its own image generation controversy. The bot was found to be making historically inaccurate images, like Native American Catholic Popes. Google disabled the image generation platform while it continues to work on a fix.

Microsoft has filed a motion seeking to dismiss key parts of a lawsuit The New York Times filed against the company and Open AI, accusing them of copyright infringement. If you'll recall, The Times sued both companies for using its published articles to train their GPT large language models (LLMs) without permission and compensation. In its filing, the company has accused The Times of pushing "doomsday futurology" by claiming that AI technologies pose a threat to independent journalism. It follows OpenAI's court filing from late February that's also seeking to dismiss some important elements on the case. 

Like OpenAI before it, Microsoft accused The Times of crafting "unrealistic prompts" in an effort to "coax the GPT-based tools" to spit out responses matching its content. It also compared the media organization's lawsuit to Hollywood studios' efforts to " stop a groundbreaking new technology:" The VCR. Instead of destroying Hollywood, Microsoft explained, the VCR helped the entertainment industry flourish by opening up revenue streams. LLMs are a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, it continued, and Microsoft collaborated with OpenAI to "help bring their extraordinary power to the public" because it "firmly believes in LLMs' capacity to improve the way people live and work."

The company is asking the court to dismiss three claims, including one saying it's liable for end-user copyright infringement through the use of GPT-based tools and another that says it violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Microsoft also wants the court to dismiss the element of the case wherein The Times accused it of misappropriating time-sensitive breaking news and consumer purchasing recommendations. As an example, The Times argued in its lawsuit that it will lose revenue if users ask ChatGPT to research articles on Wirecutter, which the news company owns, because potential buyers will no longer click on its referral links. But that's "mere speculation about what The Times apparently fears might happen," and it didn't give a single real-world example in its complaint, Microsoft said.

"Microsoft doesn't dispute that it worked with OpenAI to copy millions of The Times's works without its permission to build its tools," Ian Crosby, lead counsel for The Times, told the publication." Instead, it oddly compares L.L.M.s to the VCR even though VCR makers never argued that it was necessary to engage in massive copyright infringement to build their products."

OpenAI and Microsoft are facing more lawsuits related to the content used to train the former's LLMs other than this particular one. Nonfiction writers and fiction authors, including Michael Chabon, George R.R. Martin, John Grisham and Jodi Picoult, accused the companies of stealing their work for AI training. More recently, The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet filed separate lawsuits against the company, because ChatGPT allegedly reproduces their content "verbatim or nearly verbatim" while removing proper attribution. 

I knew what I was getting into when I sat down for a press screening of Dune Part 2: A towering sci-fi epic best viewed on an enormous theater screen, just like Denis Villeneuve's first Dune film. What I didn't realize was that it would also give me a serious back massage — it really does kick butt. That was my experience at an Atlanta-area AMC, where the film whipped the Dolby Cinema seats into such a frenzy that, for one thrilling sequence, I felt like I was actually riding a sandworm plowing through the spice-filled desert of Arrakis.

Now, I can't guarantee you'll have the same ride at a normal theater (unless the subwoofer is cranked up obscenely high). What makes AMC's Dolby Cinema locations unique is that they feature rumbling transducers in every recliner seat, in addition to powerful dual-laser Dolby Vision projectors and enveloping Atmos sound. I've seen tons of films in AMC Dolby Cinemas since those screens began rolling out in 2017, but Dune Part 2 is the first time the haptic seats actually felt like they enhanced my moviegoing experience. When I rushed out to the bathroom in the middle of the film, I noticed that my body was still vibrating, the way you sort of feel after a deep massage by expert fingers.

Technically, you're still better off watching Dune Part 2 in IMAX theaters — it was actually filmed for that enormous format, and true IMAX theaters also deliver enough walloping low-end sound to shake your core without the need for rumbling seats. But it's hard to find full-sized IMAX screens, and for most US viewers it'll likely be easier to find a nearby AMC Dolby Cinema.

Let's be clear: I'm no fan of theater gimmicks, like the moving seats and various weather effects in 4DX cinemas. So I'm genuinely surprised how much I appreciated a heavy dose of recliner rumbling in Dune Part 2. Perhaps it's because the film is also fanbtastic — not that I expected any less from Villeneuve, a director who turned the first Dune into a cinematic feast and was also miraculously able to deliver a Blade Runner sequel that surpassed the original.

Photo by NIKO TAVERNISE for Warner Bros.

Dune Part 2 picks up where the first film abruptly ended, with Paul Atreides and his mother making their way through the desert with its native inhabitants, the Fremen. It's immediately clear that this isn't actually a sequel to the first film, it's genuinely a second half, with all of the action and more spectacle that many felt were lacking before.

Personally, though, I just loved being back in Villeneuve's vision of Frank Herbert's universe. As much as I appreciate the bombastic costumes and environments from David Lynch's Dune adaptation, I find this iteration far more immersive: Every room seems genuinely lived in, every custom feels like an organic outgrowth of a society that's existed for thousands of years. It's the sort of attention to detail we don't often see in films and TV today, when it's easier to shoot faux desert scenes on ILM's StageCraft set (aka "The Volume," the technology that was so thoughtlessly implemented in Quantumania).

Warner Bros.

Even if you don’t end up seeing Dune Part 2 in a Dolby Cinema (I swear, this isn’t an ad), it’s a film worth seeing on the big screen. Its vast scale and ambition can’t be contained on a TV, and its elaborate soundscape (including Hans Zimmer going extra hard for the score) deserves more than tinny flatscreen speakers or a mere soundbar.

Dune has always seemed like an unadaptable work, something so massive that it could only truly exist in Frank Herbert’s shroom-filled dreams. But once again, Villeneuve and his creative team have seemingly done the impossible: They’ve turned the fantasy of Dune into a cinematic reality. You owe it to yourself to pay tribute.

Spotify has added another subscription option. This time around, it's offering a plan that has little to do with music. The Audiobooks Access Tier (which is US-only for now) offers 15 hours of audiobook listening each month for $10. You'll have access to Spotify's library of more than 200,000 titles You can, of course, still listen to ad-supported music via Spotfy's free tier.

At first glance, it might seem odd for Spotify to offer an audiobook-only tier at this price. Spotify Premium, which costs $11 per month, has the same 15 hours of audiobook listening time as well as other perks. However, audiobooks often take somewhere in the realm of between seven and 11 hours to listen to.

As such, Spotify is undercutting Audible to a degree. That platform offers one audiobook credit per month for $15. So, for $5 less with Spotify, you might be able to listen to roughly two books per month (unless you prefer to enjoy epic novels that are around 1,000-plus pages long in print). It's worth bearing in mind, though, that unused listening time does not carry over into the next month.

Spotify noted that, since it started offering 15 hours of audiobook listening to Premium subscribers at no extra cost in November, there's been a 45 percent increase in those on the free tier searching for and interacting with audiobook material every day (the company also sells audiobooks on its web player). That uptick in interest is a decent enough reason for Spotify to try an audiobook-only subscription tier.

Axios, a site known for political analysis and extensive use of bullet points, has joined the ranks of pundits fawning over Mark Zuckerberg’s PR strategy. The Meta CEO, they claim, is (as originally headlined) "having a PR moment" which is "casting a halo effect on the company itself." That's obviously untrue, but let's say it in a format more likely to reach Axios's audience.

The big picture: Zuckerberg’s recent PR blitz is neither out of character nor a sign of a freshly rehabbed image. In fact, Meta and Zuckerberg are staring down one of the biggest crises they’ve ever faced.

Why it matters: Praising the PR strategy of a gigantic company which is credibly accused of enabling a variety of mass-scale harms is, at best, irresponsible, even if that PR strategy was working — which it isn't.

• Describing competitor products as inferior is exactly what executives are supposed to do. Zero points awarded.

• The CEO of Meta responding to some of his social media comments isn’t a sign of radical authenticity, it's a ploy for engagement.

• Saying you've "never seen Zuckerberg," who to the best of our knowledge is a living, breathing human man "act so ... real" is an astonishingly low bar to clear!

To recap here, Meta is embroiled in a massive lawsuit from nearly every state over the myriad ways it has allegedly harmed its youngest users. And Zuckerberg’s actions, or lack thereof, are at the heart of many of these claims. Court documents have revealed that the CEO personally intervened to block a proposed ban on plastic surgery filters on Instagram despite advice from experts that these effects could exacerbate body dysmorphia and eating disorders. Under his leadership, Meta turned a blind eye to children using its platform, against its own policies, and did little to stop adults from sexually harassing children. Under his leadership, Instagram’s recommendation algorithm promoted child sexual exploitation content and connected a "vast pedophile network." At the same time, Zuckerberg repeatedly denied or ignored requests from his top lieutenants to invest more in safety. Just last week, his lawyers were in federal court arguing that he should not be held personally responsible in dozens of lawsuits over the harms his platforms have allegedly caused.

The most viral moments from Zuck's Congressional testimony, which Axios bizarrely suggests was good for his image, was a moment when he stammered an apology to the families of children who have been victims of online exploitation on the platforms he controls. One parent in the room described it as “forced.” The second-most viral moment was Senator Ted Cruz pointing to a posterboard of an in-app Instagram warning screen which indicated search results might "contain images of child sexual abuse" and which also provided the option to "see results anyway."

REUTERS / Reuters

Needless to say, Zuckerberg and his handlers are savvy enough to know that none of that is good for the public image of the fourth-richest person in the world. That Zuckerberg has been particularly eager to share his quirky hobbies and newfound love of Japanese McDonald’s is not at all surprising. But distraction is a time-worn PR move, but no amount of light-hearted Instagram posts can blunt a headline like "Meta Staff Found Instagram Tool Enabled Child Exploitation. The Company Pressed Ahead Anyway."

This also isn’t a new strategy for Zuckerberg. While it’s true he was once a painfully awkward and very sweaty public speaker, he has long since shed that image. And he’s gone through several different versions of himself. He spent much of 2017 on a listening tour of the US visiting farms and factories and random families’ dinner tables (many of whom happened to reside in swing states, fueling speculation that he was eyeing a move into politics.) And well, a political tour is sort of what he was doing: Zuckerberg reportedly has had a pollster whose full-time job is to track public perception of his often alien behavior. One such pollster reportedly quit after just six months, coming to believe the company was bad for society. Mark's favorability in a variety of public polls has ranged from very bad to extremely, laughably, irreparably bad.

This is far from the first time Mark has tried to distract the public with a personal hobby, only for his inability to relate to the average human experience to lead to a swift and spectacular faceplant. Take, for example, his infamous backyard grilling Facebook Live from 2017, wherein he managed to utter the word "meats" 13 times over the course of 30-odd achingly long minutes. It was awkward, but not quite as strange as the time Mark allegedly challenged himself to only eat meat from animals he himself killed, resulting in a moment where he allegedly turned an alive goat into a dead one with "a laser gun and then the knife," according to former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. (And like a true rich weirdo, he opted to learn how to end an animal's life, but, according to the same recollection by Dorsey, outsourced the butchering to someone else.) Perhaps more successfully, in 2019 he appeared to discover his love of foiling — which is like wakeboarding, but dorkier and much more expensive.

In short, Zuckerberg isn’t reinventing himself as much as simply remixing the same PR formula he’s been using for years, particularly when his company is in some sort of distress, which seems to be always. His people are trying very hard to make him seem like a normal guy through a mix of carefully curated social media posts, photo opps and talks with media personalities. It's a strategy that will continue to work on a handful of gullible people. At least as long as some of those media personalities — like Axios CEO Mike Allen — are willing to call men like Mark Zuckerberg "real, daring and unguarded."

It’s 1995, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I entered the longest, most complex URL I’d ever seen into AOL’s web browser to view a trailer for Paul W.S. Anderson’s long-awaited film adaptation of Mortal Kombat. I found it in an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, tucked away in the bottom of a full-page ad for the film. Online marketing at the time was such an afterthought, studios didn’t even bother grabbing short and memorable web addresses for their major releases, let alone dedicated websites. (Star Trek Generations and Stargate were among the few early exceptions.)

After the interminable process of transcribing the URL from print, I gathered my family around our Packard Bell PC (powered by an Intel 486 DX and, let’s say, 8MB of RAM), hit return and waited as the video slowly came down our 33.6kbps dial-up connection. And waited. It took 25 minutes for it to fully load. After corralling my family once again, I hit play and was treated to an horrendously compressed, low-resolution version of the trailer I’d been dreaming about for months. It was unwatchable. The audio was shit. But that was the moment I became obsessed with online video.

I imagined a futuristic world beyond my boxy CRT set and limited cable TV subscription. A time after VHS tapes when I could just type in a URL and enjoy a show or movie while eating one of those rehydrated Pizza Hut pies from Back to the Future 2. The internet would make it so.

Looking back now, almost 30 years later, and 20 years after Engadget sprung to life, I realize my 11-year-old self was spot on. The rise of online video transformed the internet from a place where we’d browse the web, update our LiveJournals, steal music and chat with friends on AIM to a place where we could also just sit back and relax. For Millennials, it quickly made our computer screens more important than our TVs. What I didn’t expect, though, was that streaming video would also completely upend Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry.

If my experience with the Mortal Kombat trailer didn’t make it clear enough, video was a disaster on the internet in the ’90s. Most web surfers (as we were known as the time) were stuck with terribly slow modems and similarly unimpressive desktop systems. But really, the problem goes back to dealing with video on computers.

Apple’s Quicktime format made Macs the ideal platform for multimedia creators, and, together with its Hypercard software for creating interactive multimedia databases, it spawned the rise of Myst and the obsession with mixed-media educational software. PCs relied on MPEG-1, which debuted in 1993 and was mainly for VCDs and some digital TV providers. The problem with both formats was space: Hard drives were notoriously small and expensive at the time, which made CDs the main option for accessing any sort of video on your computer. If your computer only had a 500MB hard drive, a slim disc that could store 650MB seemed like magic.

But that also meant video had no place in the early internet. RealPlayer was the first true stab at delivering streaming video and audio online — and while it was better than waiting 20 minutes for a huge file to download, it was still hard to actually stream media when you were constrained by a dial-up modem. I remember seeing buffering alerts more than I did any actual RealPlayer content. It took the proliferation of broadband internet access and one special app from Adobe to make web video truly viable.

While we may curse its name today, it’s worth remembering how vital Macromedia Flash was to the web in the early 2000s. (We’ve been around long enough to cover Adobe’s acquisition of Macromedia in 2005!) Its support for vector graphics, stylized text and simple games injected new life into the internet, and it allowed just about anyone to create that content. HTML just wasn’t enough. Ask any teen or 20-something who was online at the time, and they could probably still recite most of The End of the World by heart.

With 2002’s Flash MX 6, Macromedia added support for Sorenson’s Spark video codec, which opened the floodgates for online video. (It was eventually replaced in 2005 by the VP6 codec from On2, a company Google acquired in 2009.) Macromedia’s video offering looked decent, loaded quickly and was supported on every browser that had the Flash plugin, making it the ideal player choice for video websites.

The adult entertainment industry latched onto Flash video first, as you’d expect. Porn sites also relied on the technology to lock down purchased videos and entice viewers to other sites with interactive ads. But it was YouTube (and, to a lesser extent, Vimeo) that truly showed mainstream users what was possible with video on the internet. After launching in February 2005, YouTube grew so quickly it was serving 100 million videos a day by July 2006, making up 60 percent of all online videos at the time. It’s no wonder Google rushed to acquire the company for $1.65 billion later that year (arguably the search giant’s smartest purchase ever).

After YouTube’s shockingly fast rise, it wasn’t too surprising to see Netflix announce its own Watch Now streaming service in 2007, which also relied on Flash for video. At $17.99 a month for 18 hours of video, with a library of only 1,000 titles, Netflix’s streaming offering didn’t seem like much of a threat to Blockbuster, premium cable channels or cinemas at first. But the company wisely expanded Watch Now to all Netflix subscribers in 2008 and removed any viewing cap: The Netflix binge was born.

It’s 2007, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. In my post-college apartment, I hooked up my desktop computer to an early-era (720p) Philips HDTV, and all of a sudden, I had access to thousands of movies, instantly viewable over a semi-decent cable connection. I didn’t need to worry about seeding torrents or compiling Usenet files (things I’d only heard about from dirty pirates, you see). I didn’t have to stress about any Blockbuster late fees. The movies were just sitting on my TV, waiting for me to watch them. It was the dream for digital media fanatics: Legal content available at the touch of a button. What a concept!

Little did I know then that the Watch Now concept would basically take over the world. Netflix initially wanted to create hardware to make the service more easily accessible, but it ended up spinning off that idea, and Roku was born. The company’s streaming push also spurred on the creation of Hulu, announced in late 2007 as a joint offering between NBCUniversal and News Corp. to bring their television shows online. Disney later joined, giving Hulu the full power of all the major broadcast TV networks. Instead of a stale library of older films, Hulu allowed you to watch new shows on the internet the day after they aired. Again, what a concept!

Amazon, it turns out, was actually earlier to the streaming party than Netflix. It launched the Amazon Unbox service in 2006, which was notable for letting you watch videos as they were being downloaded onto your computer. It was rebadged to Amazon Video On Demand in 2008 (a better name, which actually described what it did), and then it became Amazon Instant Video in 2011, when it was tied together with premium Prime memberships.

As the world of streaming video exploded, Flash’s reputation kept getting worse. By the mid-2000s, it was widely recognized as a notoriously buggy program, one so insecure it could lead to malware infecting your PC. (I worked in IT at the time, and the vast majority of issues I encountered on Windows PCs stemmed entirely from Flash.) When the iPhone launched without support for Flash in 2007, it was clear the end was near. YouTube and other video sites moved over to HTML5 video players at that point, and it became the standard by 2015.

By the early 2010s, YouTube and Amazon weren’t happy just licensing content from Hollywood, they wanted some of the action themselves. So the original programming boom began, which kicked off with mostly forgettable shows (anyone remember Netflix’s Lillyhammer or Amazon’s Alpha House? Hemlock Grove? They existed, I swear!).

But then came House of Cards in 2013, Netflix’s original series created by playwright Beau Willimon, executive produced (and partially directed) by renowned filmmaker David Fincher and starring Oscar winner Kevin Spacey (before he was revealed to be a monster). It had all of the ingredients of a premium TV show, and, thanks to Fincher’s deft direction, it looked like something that would be right at home on HBO. Most importantly for Netflix, it got some serious awards love, earning nine Emmy nominations in 2013 and walking away with three statues.

By that point, we could watch streaming video in many more places than our computer’s web browser. You could pull up just about anything on your phone and stream it over 4G LTE, or use your smart TV’s built-in apps to catch up on SNL over Hulu. Your Xbox could also serve as the centerpiece of your home entertainment system. And if you wanted the best possible streaming experience, you could pick up an Apple TV or Roku box. You could start a show on your phone while sitting on the can, then seamlessly continue it when you made your way back to your TV. This was certainly some sort of milestone for humanity, though I’m torn on it actually being a net win for our species.

Instant streaming video. Original TV shows and movies. This was the basic formula that pushed far too many companies to offer their own streaming solutions over the past decade. In the blink of an eye, we got HBO Max, Disney+, Apple TV+, Peacock, and Paramount+. There’s AMC+, powered almost entirely by the promise of unlimited Walking Dead shows. A Starz streaming service. And there are countless other companies trying to be a Netflix for specific niches, like Shudder for horror, Criterion Channel for cinephiles and Britbox for the tea-soaked murder-mystery crowd.

And let’s not forget the wildest, most boneheaded streaming swing: Quibi. That was Dreamworks mastermind Jeffrey Katzenberg’s nearly $2 billion mobile video play. Somehow he and his compatriots thought people would pay $5 a month for the privilege of watching videos on their phones, even though YouTube was freely available.

Every entertainment company thinks it can be as successful as Disney, which has a vast and beloved catalog of content as well as full control of Lucasfilm and Marvel’s properties. But, realistically, there aren’t enough eyeballs and willing consumers for every streaming service to succeed. Some will die off entirely, while others will bring their content to Netflix and more popular services (like Paramount is doing with Star Trek Prodigy). There are already early rumors of Comcast (NBCUniversal’s parent company) and Paramount considering some sort of union between Peacock and Paramount+.

Online video was supposed to save us from the tyranny of expensive and chaotic cable bills, and despite the messiness of the arena today, that’s still mostly true. Sure, if you actually wanted to subscribe to most of the major streaming services, you’d still end up paying a hefty chunk of change. But hey, at least you can cancel at will, and you can still choose precisely what you’re paying for. Cable would never.

It’s 2024, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I slip on the Apple Vision Pro, a device that looks like it could have been a prop for The Matrix. I launch Safari in a 150-inch window floating above my living room and watch the Mortal Kombat trailer on YouTube. That whole process takes 10 seconds. I never had the chance to see the trailer or the original film in the theater. But thanks to the internet (and Apple’s crazy expensive headset), I can replicate that experience.

Perhaps that’s why, no matter how convoluted and expensive streaming video services become, I’ll always think: At least it’s better than watching this thing over dial-up.

To celebrate Engadget's 20th anniversary, we're taking a look back at the products and services that have changed the industry since March 2, 2004.

X has updated its abuse and harassment page in January, and it has added a new section that explains its new rule against intentionally using the wrong pronouns for a person or using a name they no longer go by. As noticed by Ars Technica, the new section entitled "Use of Prior Names and Pronouns" states that the service will "reduce the visibility of posts" that use pronouns for a person different from what they use for themselves and those who are now using a different name as part of their transition. 

The social networking service formerly known as Twitter removed its longtime policy against deadnaming and misgendering transgender individuals just as quietly back in April 2023. GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said at the time that X's decision was "the latest example of just how unsafe the company is for users and advertisers alike." It's worth noting that Elon Musk, the website's owner, has a history of liking and sharing anti-trans posts and talking points. 

Under the new policy, X will only act on a post if it hears from the target themselves "given the complexity of determining whether such a violation has occurred." That puts the onus on the target who might end up being blamed for not reporting if they choose to distance themselves from the abuse. Jenni Olson, GLAAD's senior director of social media safety, told Ars that the organization doesn't recommend self-reporting for social media platforms. Still, policies clearly prohibiting the deadnaming and misgendering of trans people are still better than vague ones that don't clarify whether or not they're in violation of a platform's rules, Olson said. 

X reduces the visibility of posts by removing them from search results, home timelines, trends and notifications. These posts will also be downranked in the replies section and can only be discovered through the authors' profiles. Finally, they will not be displayed on the X website or app with ads adjacent to them, which could prevent a repeat of the ad revenue losses the company suffered last year. In late 2023, advertisers pulled their campaigns from the website just before the holidays after Media Matters published a report showing ads on the website right next to antisemitic content.