When Elon Musk first proposed taking over Twitter, one the first changes he claimed he'd make would be “open-sourcing” Twitter’s algorithm. Last week, Twitter finally followed through on that promise, publishing the underlying code for the site’s "For You" recommendations on GitHub.

Quickly, Twitter sleuths began sifting through the code to see what they could dig up. It didn’t take long for one eyebrow-raising finding: that Musk’s tweets have their own category (along with Democrats, Republicans and “power users”). Twitter engineers hastily explained that this was for “stat tracking purposes,” which has since been confirmed by other analyses. And though Twitter removed that section of code from GitHub within hours of its publishing, it’s still fueled speculation that Twitter’s engineers pay special attention to their boss’ engagement and have taken steps to artificially boost his tweets.

But there have been few other major revelations about the contents of the code or how Twitter’s algorithm works since. And anyone hoping this public code would produce new insights into the inner workings of Twitter will likely be disappointed. That’s because the code Twitter released omitted important details about how “the algorithm” actually works, according to engineers who have studied it.

The code Twitter shared was a “highly redacted” version of Twitter’s algorithm, according to Sol Messing, associate professor at NYU’s Center for Social Media and Politics and former Twitter employee. For one, it didn't include every system that plays a role in Twitter’s recommendations.

Twitter said it was withholding code dealing with ads, as well as trust and safety systems in an effort to prevent bad actors from gaming it. The company also opted to withhold the underlying models used to train its algorithm, explaining in a blog post last week that this was to “to ensure that user safety and privacy would be protected.” That decision is even more consequential, according to Messing. “The model that drives the most important part of the algorithm has not been open-sourced,” he tells me. “So the most important part of the algorithm is still inscrutable.”

Musk’s original motivation to make the algorithm open source seemed to stem from his belief that Twitter had used the algorithm to suppress free speech. “One of the things that I believe Twitter should do is open source the algorithm and make any changes to people's tweets — if they're emphasized or de-emphasized —that action should be made apparent,” Musk said last April in an appearance at TED shortly after he confirmed his takeover bid. “So anyone can see that action has been taken, so there's no sort of behind-the-scenes manipulation, either algorithmically or manually.”

But none of the code Twitter released tells us much about potential bias or the kind of “behind-the-scenes manipulation” Musk said he wanted to reveal. “It has the flavor of transparency,” Messing says. “But it doesn’t really give insight into what the algorithm is doing. It doesn't really give insight into why someone's tweets may be down-ranked and why others might be up-ranked.”

Messing also points out that Twitter’s recent API changes have essentially cut off the vast majority of researchers from accessing a meaningful amount of Twitter data. Without proper API access, researchers are unable to conduct their own audits, which would be able to provide new details about how the algorithm works. “So at the same time Twitter is releasing this code, it’s made it incredibly difficult for research to audit this code,” he wrote in his own analysis.

Alex Hanna, director of research at the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR) also raised the importance of audits when we talked last year, shortly after Musk first discussed plans to “open source” Twitter’s algorithm. Like Messing, she was skeptical that simply releasing code on GitHub would meaningfully increase transparency into how Twitter works.

"If you're actually interested in public oversight on something like a Twitter algorithm, then you would actually need multiple methods for oversight to happen” Hanna said.

There is one aspect of Twitter’s algorithm that the GitHub code does shed some new light on, though. Messing points to a file unearthed by data scientist Jeff Allen, which reveals a kind of “formula” for how different types of engagement are given priority by the algorithm. “If we take that at face value, a fav (twitter like) is worth half a retweet,” Messing writes. “A reply is worth 27 retweets, and a reply with a response from a tweet’s author is worth a whopping 75 retweets.”

While that’s somewhat revealing, it’s, once again, an incomplete picture of what’s actually happening. “It doesn't mean that much without the actual data,” Messing says. “And Musk just made data so insanely expensive for academics to get. If they want to actually study this now, you basically have to get a giant, massive grants — half a million dollars a year — to get a meaningful amount of data to study what's happening.”

It’s difficult to pinpoint the best music streaming service for everyone. Most of the popular options available today hit on the essentials: a giant and diverse library of music that you can access à la carte, sort into playlists, download for offline listening and play across multiple devices. Most are available for around the same price, too. That said, there are subtle yet significant differences in features and philosophy among them that can determine which will fit into your life best. To assist those thinking about trying a new music app, we’ve spent the past few months using most popular music streaming services simultaneously, testing their limits and seeing how they adapt to our input.

Most well-rounded: Apple Music

No music streaming service is perfect, but for many, Apple Music should get the closest to covering all of the necessary bases. It has a library of more than 100 million songs, all of which are available in lossless streaming quality for no extra cost. Its user interface doesn’t make it too hard to get to your music library and strikes a balance between useful algorithmic recommendations and smartly curated content from actual people. It’s one of the few music streaming services that lets you upload your own music files and naturally it’s tightly integrated with Apple devices.

Apple Music’s ALAC files have a minimum resolution of 16-bit/44.1kHz, which is the same quality you’d hear from a CD. A smaller but still significant selection can stream at higher resolutions up to 24-bit/192kHz. A significant number of albums are also available in Dolby Atmos surround sound mixes, or “spatial audio.”

Lossless streaming isn’t a game-changer for most casual listeners. You need a decent set of wired headphones and an external DAC (or a good speaker system) to take full advantage, and the upgrade isn’t so stark that non-enthusiasts will care. That said, even if the difference is subtle, a lossless file does sound better than a more compressed one, particularly in the way it draws out higher-frequency sounds from cymbals, strings and the like.

Photo by Jeff Dunn / Engadget

Spatial audio, on the other hand, is more of a fun gimmick: technologically impressive, yes, and sometimes genuinely immersive, but just as likely to make a record sound less natural.

Relative to other music streaming services, Apple Music’s UI is perfectly serviceable. In general, it emphasizes human curation more than peers like Spotify or YouTube Music. It’s not as great an emphasis as it used to be, and the home “Listen Now” tab can be a smorgasbord of hit-and-miss suggestions based on your recent listening history. Still, the service is littered with clever, editor-picked playlists. The default search page holds several different genre tabs, each of which holds relevant playlists, music videos and a typically spot-on list of “essential albums.” Artist pages often spotlight a group’s most essential works alongside playlists of “deep cuts,” artists that likely inspired them, artists that were influenced by them and so on.

Streaming radio stations are one of Apple Music’s biggest differentiators. There’s a regular rotation of shows that feature artist interviews and have a sort of pre-internet feel. The main tabs often make room to highlight new buzzy releases, and you can find top charts for different countries and cities. All of this gives Apple Music an air of taste, something that can help you find music but prioritizes a personal touch.

Photo by Jeff Dunn / Engadget

Beyond that, getting a simple view of your saved artists, albums, songs and playlists is uncomplicated. You can reliably search for tracks by lyrics, and there’s a great lyrics view for impromptu karaoke sessions. Creating playlists and downloading albums for offline listening is straightforward, and you can start a radio station from any song. While your imported music won’t be available in lossless quality, being able to upload music at all is a great boon for those with big iTunes libraries. Just note that you’re capped at 100,000 tracks that aren’t already available in the app.

If you enjoy classical music, Apple recently launched an Apple Music Classical app that’s dedicated to the genre and comes included with most Apple Music plans. Booting those works into a separate app is somewhat cumbersome, though.

There are still some drawbacks. While Apple Music has apps for Android, Windows and web browsers, the Windows app is only available in a buggy “preview” form as of this writing and there’s no lossless streaming in a browser. It’s best used with Apple devices. There’s (bafflingly) no way to see a list of your “loved” songs in the mobile app. There’s no free tier or annual family plan, either, and the individual plan is $1 more a month than some competitors.

Free tier: No
Individual plan: $11/month or $109/year
Family plan: $17/month (up to 6 members)
Voice plan: $5/month (only usable with Siri)
Student plan: $6/month

Best for music discovery: Spotify

Spotify leans much harder on algorithmic suggestions than Apple Music, but having a giant treasure trove of user listening data for so many years has allowed the service to fine-tune its music recommendation engine. This is the main reason to consider it: No service is more accurate at reading the music you like and serving up worthwhile suggestions for other songs you might enjoy (even if its UI is arguably getting worse with every update). As the most popular music streaming app, it’s also available on a wide array of devices.

Spotify is particularly impressive at creating playlists. “Discover Weekly” is famously adept at digging up unheard tracks and artists that align with your tastes. “Release Radar” is similarly impressive at spotlighting new tracks from artists you follow and those with complementary sounds. A selection of “Daily Mix” playlists blend past likes with deeper cuts from artists in your library and similar songs from ones who aren’t, then sorts them by mood as much as genre. Based on what you’ve been playing, you may wake up to one mix that’s mostly upbeat electro, another marked by soaring indie rock, and another with spacey hip-hop. While its selections can be more hit-or-miss, a new “Niche Mixes” feature lets you search for a mood or genre and have the app generate a relevant playlist. Simply following the algorithm down its rabbit holes makes it easy to find something you can enjoy in just a few taps.

Photo by Jeff Dunn / Engadget

That said, there are still a ton of human-curated playlists to peruse as well. Regularly updated lists like “Rap Caviar,” “New Music Friday” and “Viva Latino” may not be tailored specifically for you, but they’re clearly programmed by knowledgeable people in-tune with current trends. A huge range of less frequently updated playlists based on genres, eras and vibes give the same impression. There’s a human touch here; it’s just not emphasized as much as it is in Apple Music, so which you’ll prefer depends on how willing you are to let an algorithm lead the way.

Spotify’s interface isn’t bad, but some recent changes have made it harder to use. The home tab has rows of suggestions based on your recent listening history. I went through a big yacht rock phase while researching this guide, for example, so my homepage became peppered with playlists like “Soft Rock Classics,” “All Out 70s,” and “Totally Stress Free.” It wasn’t all stuff like that, but the point is that the service will sensibly morph and adapt as your listening habits change.

Sorting and searching through your own library is relatively clean, and a playlist with all your liked songs is featured prominently in the “Playlists” section. There’s a useful lyrics view for sing-alongs. Search usually works as it should, letting you look up music by title, lyric, artist or even context like “workout” or “studying.”

Photo by Jeff Dunn / Engadget

Making and sharing a playlist is a breeze. Artist pages aren’t as comprehensive as Apple Music’s, but they do include a list of upcoming tour dates, with links to tickets from sites like Songkick, AXS and Ticketmaster. The search tab has dedicated pages for various genres and vibes, from “Jazz” and “R&B” to “In the car” and “League of Legends.” You can start a radio station from any track, too, though this might repeat songs over time.

Spotify has made a huge push into podcasts and audiobooks in recent years, snapping up exclusive deals with several popular shows along the way (for better or worse). Some may find this convenient, but it makes the UI feel cluttered. A row with “Your shows” is displayed right at the top of the home tab, which includes not only the shows you’ve subscribed to, but annoyingly, ones you’ve recently put on just once. Apple Music and many others completely omit podcasts, so they’ll be less aggravating if you’d prefer your music app to focus solely on music.

On the mobile app, you can filter the home screen by music, podcasts and audiobooks, but Spotify recently revamped these to look more like TikTok-style feeds with huge, autoplaying suggestion cards. This may look fresh, but scrolling through an endless feed, one or two suggestions at a time, is not an efficient way to find content. Similarly, the prominently featured AI-powered DJ tool is technically impressive but also has a tendency to make jarring jumps from genre to genre. It speaks to an app that may be putting a little too much emphasis on its algorithmic prowess.

Photo by Jeff Dunn / Engadget

Spotify doesn’t offer lossless streaming, instead topping out at a relatively low 320Kbps bitrate using the Ogg Vorbis format. Web browser playback uses AAC and maxes out at 256Kbps. The company announced a CD-quality “HiFi” tier more than two years ago and says that’s still on the way, but how it’ll work and what it’ll cost remains unclear.

Spotify offers a more robust free tier than most of its peers. You’ll have to deal with ads, an even lower 160 Kbps bitrate, and limits on track skips and on-demand playback, but you can still listen to several personalized playlists and enjoy much of the library. For casual background listening, it may be enough.

While it doesn’t have a practical effect on your listening experience, Spotify is particularly terrible when it comes to artist payouts. Some music workers have even launched advocacy campaigns seeking fairer compensation and greater transparency. Music streaming isn’t an ideal setup for artists, particularly independent acts, but Spotify is the poster child for everything wrong with the current system.

Free tier: Yes
Individual plan: $10/month (12-month subscription gift cards for $99)
Duo plan: $12/month (2 members)
Family plan: $16/month (up to 6 members)
Student plan: $5/month

Best for more obscure music: YouTube Music

From a UI or streaming quality perspective, there’s little reason to choose YouTube Music instead of Apple Music or Spotify. Still, Google’s music service has a few unique selling points that could make it worthwhile. Arguably the most compelling is that it comes included with a YouTube Premium subscription. For $12 a month or $120 a year, this also removes ads from YouTube, lets you download videos for offline viewing and enables background playback. Those features alone are massive benefits if you’re a frequent YouTube user, and you get a full music service on top.

Even without the perk of ad-free YouTube, YouTube Music benefits from a close integration with the video platform. YouTube is home to a mountain of content not available on other top music streaming services and integrates it with your music library. If you’re into rare live performances, deep underground hip-hop, obscure soundtracks, nightmarish Neil Cicierega mashups or Aphex Twin remixes made entirely from the sounds of Super Mario 64, this is the service for you.

Photo by Jeff Dunn / Engadget

If you sign up for YouTube Music with the same account you use for YouTube, music you’ve liked on the latter will already be there and help inform the service’s recommendations. Naturally, this integration also makes YouTube Music the best choice for music videos, which you can swap to with a single tap.

Because it’s wrangling so much material, however, YouTube Music’s UI can feel scattershot and overwhelming. Scrolling down the home page reveals a hodgepodge of recent listens, liked music, curated and community-generated playlists, “similar to” suggestions, radio stations, music videos, algorithmically personalized mixes, new releases and top charts. Searching for an artist may display community playlists and covers underneath more traditional results; it also tends to blend singles with full albums, and it doesn’t display albums in chronological order. Content originally hosted on YouTube won’t integrate with your library as neatly as standard material, either.

Photo by Jeff Dunn / Engadget

That said, the sheer mass of suggestions make YouTube Music good at surfacing new music you might like, and its “Discover Mix” works nearly as well as Spotify’s Discover Weekly. A few buttons at the top of the app can filter the home page’s suggestions to suit different moods: Relax, Workout, Energize, Commute or Focus. You can start a radio station from any song, though we also found this to regurgitate previously liked tracks more than we’d prefer. You can upload up to 100,000 of your own music files, too, which’ll be available even if you aren’t a paid subscriber (these won’t affect the service’s recommendations, however).

YouTube Music lacks lossless streaming and tops out at a relatively low 256 Kbps bitrate, so it’s not for audio enthusiasts. There’s no dedicated desktop app, and while there is an ad-supported tier, it stops playback whenever you exit the app on a phone and maxes at a rough 128 Kbps bitrate. All of your playlists are limited to a maximum of 5,000 songs. Podcast support is on the way, though as of this writing it’s unclear how that’ll look. Google also has a long history of killing its own products, including this service’s predecessor; we’d understand if that makes you skittish long-term, though the company seems committed to improving YouTube Music today.

Free tier: Yes
Individual plan: $10/month or $100/year; also available as part of YouTube Premium subscription for $12/month or $120/year
Family plan: $15/month (up to 6 members)
Student plan: $5/month

Another good option: Amazon Music Unlimited

Amazon Music Unlimited is a strong alternative to Apple Music and Spotify if you want podcasts and lossless streaming within the same app. Like Apple Music, it offers 100+ million songs in CD quality at no extra cost, with a smaller but ever-growing selection of FLAC files available in “Ultra HD” (24-bit/192kHz). Various tracks are mixed in Dolby Atmos or Sony’s 360 Reality Audio as well. Like Spotify, its catalog encompasses a wide selection of non-music content. Most of the major podcast networks are represented, and several shows are presented ad-free.

If you already subscribe to Amazon Prime, you can get Music Unlimited for less than its rivals, with an individual plan available for $9 a month or $89 a year. It’s not a massive discount, but $10 or $20 less each year isn’t nothing when the broad differences between music streaming services are so marginal. Naturally, Music Unlimited works the smoothest on Amazon’s fleet of Alexa devices as well.

Photo by Jeff Dunn / Engadget

Music Unlimited’s UI is similar to its peers but has some annoyances. Amazon is more aggressive than Spotify when it comes to pushing podcasts that don’t align with your listening history. Radio stations and algorithmic playlists don’t display what songs are in the queue. Search isn’t as precise as the options above, and you can’t directly search through the saved albums on your library page. Amazon is also less proactive about surfacing new music you might like than Apple or Spotify. Even still, Music Unlimited delivers an impressive catalog for a potentially cut-rate price.

Free tier: Yes
Individual plan: $11/month; $9/month or $89/year with Amazon Prime
Family plan: $16/month or $159/year (up to 6 members)
Single device plan: $5/month (for one Echo or Fire TV only)
Student plan: $6/month

Honorable mentions

Photo by Jeff Dunn / Engadget

Tidal

Tidal offers the highest royalty rates for artists, CD-quality streaming at no extra cost, a free tier, a library of more than 100 million songs and an experience rich with human curation and feature-style content. If you’re a music nerd and determined to not give another monthly fee to a tech industry behemoth, it’s a good choice. Its apps aren’t quite as smooth as those from Apple Music, though, and its highest-resolution tier costs $20 a month. Those high-res tracks are also encoded in MQA, a partly lossy format that still sounds sharp but isn’t open-source like FLAC.

Qobuz

Qobuz is a favorite in audiophile circles, particularly when it’s paired with the Roon music player. Like Tidal, it downplays algorithmic discovery for a more considered, editorial-heavy approach. It offers up to 24-bit/192kHz FLAC streams and includes a digital music store for purchasing high-res downloads of various albums. It’s particularly attentive to classical music. But unless you want to avoid Apple or Amazon, you can get similarly high-quality streaming for a lower price. Some may also find the UI leans too hard on personal curation and requires too much effort to discover new music.

Deezer

Deezer has an attractive interface, a competitive library, CD-quality streaming and the ability to upload your own MP3 files to the service from a desktop. It’s at least worth a look if you want an independent service and don’t fancy yourself an audiophile. Though, its suggestions and playlists generally aren’t as robust as its competitors. It also lacks a high-res tier to match Apple, Amazon, Tidal or Qobuz.

The six-part TV drama based on the story of The Pirate Bay, which was first reported in 2021, is going into production this fall, according to Variety. It's being produced by B-Reel Films, the same production company behind Midsommar, and LA-based indie distribution firm Dynamic Television has just acquired the worldwide rights for it. Presumably, that means it will be released to audiences around the world — legally, that is, so people don't have to use websites like The Pirate Bay to get a copy of the series. 

Before streaming services became widely available, a lot of people took to the high seas to download shows that din't air in their home countries or movies they missed in the theaters. The Pirate Bay, a BitTorrent index that allowed users to contribute magnet links others can access, was perhaps the most common first stop for internet users looking for content back then. 

Head writer Piotr Marciniak described the series as "a classic rise and fall story, a tragedy about flying too close to the sun, but also a timeless story of a generational conflict." It will apparently tell a character-driven tale focused on co-founders Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, and Gottfrid Swartholm who established the website as anti-copyright activists. Eventually, they found themselves Hollywood's enemy number 1, chased by anti-piracy agents, lawyers and the Interpol until they were found guilty of assisting in copyright infringement and sentenced to prison. 

As for what viewers can expect, director Jens Sjögren said:

"We are thrown between the driving perspectives – quick cuts between the basement full of computers to the conference rooms of Hollywood, from the offices in Washington via the concern felt at government offices in Stockholm, to meetings with financiers at Lake Geneva and then finally we’re back in the safety of the basement. A full throttle journey infused with paranoia, humor and deadly serious technical, emotional and political challenges."

The show doesn't have a release date yet, but Dynamic will share more details about it at the MIPTV Media Market event in Cannes on April 17th to 19th.

AI normally needs to be trained on existing material to detect objects, but Meta has a way for the technology to spot items without help. The social media giant has published a "Segment Anything" AI model that can detect objects in pictures and videos even if they weren't part of the training set. You can select items by clicking them or using free-form text prompts. As Reutersexplains, you can type the word "cat" and watch the AI highlight all the felines in a given photo.

The model can also work in tandem with other models. It can help reconstruct an object in 3D using a single image, or draw from views from a mixed reality headset. Effectively, Segment Anything can limit the need for additional AI training.

Both the AI model and a dataset will be downloadable with a non-commercial license. That is, creators can't use it for products. This is primarily for research and expanding access to the technology. Right now, Meta uses somewhat similar tech to moderate banned content, recommend posts and tag photos.

The developers acknowledge that the existing model is flawed. It might miss finer details, and isn't as accurate at detecting the boundaries as some models. And while Segment Anything can handle prompts in real-time, it bogs down when demanding image processing is involved. Some more specialized AI tools are likely to outperform this model in their respective fields, Meta says.

You aren't about to see this AI in robots or other devices where fast, accurate object detection is (usually) vital. However, models like this may still help in situations where it's impractical to rely exclusively on training data. A social network could use the tech to keep up with a rapidly growing volume of content. If nothing else, this shows that Meta wants to generalize computer vision.

Meta is no stranger to sharing AI breakthroughs, such a translator for unwritten languages. With that said, there's pressure on the company to show that it's as much of a powerhouse in the category as tech heavyweights like Google and Microsoft. It's already planning generative AI "personas" for its social apps, and inventions like Segment Anything show that it has a few advantages of its own.

Utah recently passed two laws that would drastically change how teens in the state are able to use social media. The new laws will impose strict rules for how companies handle teenagers’ accounts, including provisions requiring parental consent, and mandates for in-app parental controls and curfew features.

But among the most controversial aspects of the law is age verification. It requires companies like Snap, Meta and TikTok to confirm the ages of their youngest users in order to enforce the other age-based restrictions. Under the rules, which are set to take effect next March, large platforms will no longer be able to simply allow teens to enter their own birthday at sign-up. Instead, they would need to go through some other process, like providing a copy of an I.D, before they could access their accounts.

While Utah is the first state to enact such a law, it’s unlikely to be the last. Arkansas, Ohio, Connecticut and Minnesota are all considering social media laws with either explicit age verification requirements or other age-based restrictions. At the federal level, Senator Josh Hawley has proposed a bill that would prohibit teenagers under 16 from using social media entirely, and require social media companies to independently verify the ages of their users. Even the US Surgeon General has suggested that 13 may be “too young” for teens to use social media.

The proposed laws are part of broader reckoning around how social media is impacting its youngest users. For years, lawmakers, armed with teenage finstas and incriminating research, have made youth safety a central part of their effort to regulate Big Tech. Along the way, they’ve also proposed laws that would rein in algorithms, make it more difficult to post and limit apps’ more “addictive” features.

But the latest crop of laws have instead zeroed in on parental consent and age-based restrictions, rather than addressing structural issues like data privacy. Irene Ly, policy counsel for Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that advocates for child safety online, says the shift is happening in part because lawmakers have been unable to pass comprehensive privacy bills.

“Privacy legislation seems to have a lot more sticking points,” she tells Engadget. “It's hard to find a compromise on all the facets of regulating tech.” But lawmakers have been able to find more broad support — at least at the state level — for age-based restrictions and parental consent requirements, particularly in states that have passed other laws emphasizing “giving rights to the parents.”

But experts warn that focusing on age-based restrictions won’t address the core safety issues lawmakers say they want to solve. And age verification measures, like those in Utah, pose a significant threat to the privacy of all social media users, not just teens.

Privacy advocates, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), say that there’s no way to enforce age verification requirements without requiring that all users submit to the checks. “It's not just the privacy of young people that's at stake, it's everyone,” Jason Kelley, associate director of digital strategy for the EFF, tells Engadget, noting that a previous attempt to require age verification was struck down by the Supreme Court more than a decade ago. ”Confirming that everyone is the age they say they are is not possible without confirming every single person's age.”

For example, Utah’s law states “the social media company shall deny access to the account” for any “Utah account holder fails to meet the verification requirements.” That means even adult social media users could face being locked out of their accounts if they fail to provide a copy of an ID or submit to another kind of age check.

Figuring out how to apply these laws only in specific states would also be problematic, according to industry groups. “Although the proposed legislation purports to apply only to Utah residents, platforms cannot know which users are Utah residents without first verifying their identity,” Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for TechFreedom, a think tank that’s received funding from Meta and Google, said in a statement. “This legislation would be a nationwide mandate that Utah is not permitted to impose.”

Even figuring out how to verify users’ ages could prove tricky. Many minors don’t have a driver’s license or government-issued ID. Instagram has tested an AI face-scanning tool that claims to be able to accurately estimate users’ ages based on their facial features (experts have raised doubts about the accuracy and ethical implications of using these tools at scale). But Kelley, of the EFF, says that any form of age verification exposes users to additional data privacy risks.

“It's so easy to find examples of these companies taking advantage of data that they explained was going to be collected for one purpose and using it for another,” Kelley says. For example, it wasn't that long ago that Meta and Twitter both admitted to using phone numbers originally collected for two-factor authentication for targeted advertising. Kelley says there could be an even greater risk of something similar happening with any age verification system. “We have no way of knowing whether they're doing that with identity verification information. Whether that's a selfie, a shared driver's license, a call through an API to a credit company — we just don't know.”

Common Sense Media has raised similar concerns. Ly says that laws addressing more fundamental aspects of social media platforms would be more effective than attempting to lock out teens of a certain age.

“If you can implement some key changes to these companies, like limiting how much data they're collecting and what they're using it for, and then making changes to how their platform is designed, that will create a healthier experience,” she said. “It wouldn't necessitate prohibiting teens from being on the platform altogether.”

Twitter has added a label to the main account of NPR to designate the public broadcaster as "US state-affiliated media." Until now, such labels have typically been reserved for state-run organizations such as RT and Sputnik in Russia and China's Xinhua News Agency. The labels appear on every tweet from accounts they're applied to.

“We were disturbed to see last night that Twitter has labeled NPR as ‘state-affiliated media,’ a description that, per Twitter’s own guidelines, does not apply to NPR," the broadcaster's CEO John Lansing said in a statement. "NPR and our member stations are supported by millions of listeners who depend on us for the independent, fact-based journalism we provide. NPR stands for freedom of speech and holding the powerful accountable. It is unacceptable for Twitter to label us this way. A vigorous, vibrant free press is essential to the health of our democracy.”

As Mediaite points out, Twitter has edited its guidelines regarding the "state-affiliated media" label since applying it to NPR's account. "State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media," the guidelines page read on Tuesday, according to a Wayback Machine snapshot. By Wednesday morning, Twitter had removed the text "or NPR in the US." Twitter no longer has a communications department that can be reached for comment. 

Elon Musk, who took over Twitter in October, noted the change to NPR's account. In response to a user who gave him acknowledgment for the move, Musk tweeted a portion of the state-affiliated media policy that reads "State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution." Musk wrote that the definition "seems accurate" with regards to NPR.

On Tuesday, Musk responded to a tweet that criticized NPR over a report suggesting that “European right-wing politicians [are] lobbing a conspiracy theory that elites want people to eat bugs.” He replied with an exclamation point. The user who posted the thread went on to claim that "NPR is worse than the propaganda of Maoist schoolchildren during the cultural revolution.”

NPR, which is an independent non-profit, says that on average, less than one percent of its annual operating budget comes from government grants. Over the last five fiscal years, around 70 percent of its revenues have come from corporate sponsors and core and programming fees paid by member organizations. Meanwhile, Voice of America, a broadcaster that is owned by the US government, does not have a state-affiliated media label on its Twitter account.

Facebook just announced it is implementing multiplayer games into the video call feature within Messenger. This functionality allows you to converse with friends and family as you kick their booty in 14 currently-available titles. Trash talk is back, baby!

The video call gaming feature is available on Messenger for iOS, Android and the web, with no specialized installations required. The 14 games being showcased at launch include old favorites like Words With Friends and Mini Golf FRVR to newer titles like Card Wars and Exploding Kittens. Each game is designed to be played by as few as two people, though each title boasts differing maximum player numbers.

Each game is optimized for the service, with clearly-demarcated leader boards, and a user interface that leverages the Messenger experience. All you have to do is start a video call on Messenger, tap the group mode button, tap the “Play” icon, and then browse through the library of available games. The company has been experimenting with Messenger-enabled games for the past few years, but nothing has really stuck, so one hopes this new mode has some staying power.

The launch lineup here is relatively slim, at 14 titles, but Facebook Gaming says more free games are on the horizon later this year. To that end, the company is urging interested developers to contact their Partner Manager for details on how to add games to the platform. This news comes mere months after Meta shuttered the standalone Facebook Gaming app.

Our reverence towards stars and celebrities was not borne of the 19th century’s cinematic revolution, but rather has been a resilient aspect of our culture for millennia. Ancient tales of immortal gods rising again and again after fatal injury, the veneration and deification of social and political leaders, Madame Tussauds’ wax museums and the Academy Awards’ annual In Memoriam segment, they’re are all facets of the human compulsion to put well-known thought leaders, tastemakers and trendsetters up on pedestals. And with a new, startlingly lifelike generation of generative artificial intelligence (gen-AI) at our disposal, today’s celebrities could potentially remain with us long after their natural deaths. Like ghosts, but still on TV, touting Bitcoin and Metaverse apps. Probably.

Fame is the name of the game

American Historian Daniel Boorstin once quipped, “to be famous is to be well known for being well-known.” With the rise of social media, achieving celebrity is now easier than ever, for better or worse.

“Whereas stars are often associated with a kind of meritocracy,” Dr. Claire Sisco King, Associate Professor of Communication Studies and Chair of the Cinema and Media Arts program at Vanderbilt. “Celebrity can be acquired through all kinds of means, and of course, the advent of digital media has, in many ways, changed the contours of celebrity because so-called ordinary people can achieve fame in ways that were not accessible to them prior to social media.”

What’s more, social media provides an unprecedented degree of access and intimacy between a celebrity and their fans, even at the peak of the paparazzi era. “We develop these imagined intimacies with celebrities and think about them as friends and loved ones,” King continued. “I think that those kinds of relationships illustrate the longing that people have for senses of connectedness and interrelatedness.”

For as vapid as the modern celebrity existence is portrayed in popular media, famous people have long served important roles in society as trend-setters and cultural guides. During the Victorian era, for example, British folks would wear miniature portraits of Queen Victoria to signal their fealty and her choice to wear a white wedding gown in 1840 is what started the modern tradition. In the US, that manifests with celebrities as personifications of the American Dream — each and every single one having pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and sworn off avocado toast to achieve greatness, despite their humble beginnings presumably in a suburban garage of some sort.

“The narratives that we return to, “ King said, “can become comforts for making sense of that inevitable part of the human experience: our finiteness.” But what if our cultural heroes didn’t die? At least not entirely? What if, even after Tom Hanks shuffles off this mortal coil, his likeness and personality were digitally preserved in perpetuity? We’re already sending long-dead recording artists like Roy Orbison, Tupac Shakur and Whitney Houston back out on tour as holographic performers. The Large Language Models (LLMs) that power popular chatbots like ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Bard, are already capable of mimicking the writing styles of whichever authors they’ve been trained on. What’s to stop us from smashing these technologies together into an interactive Tucker-Dolcetto amalgamation of synthesized content? Turns out, not much beyond the threat of a bad news cycle.

How to build a 21st century puppet

Cheating death has been an aspirational goal of humanity since prehistory. The themes of resurrection, youthful preservation and outright immortality are common tropes throughout our collective imagination — notions that have founded religions, instigated wars, and launched billion dollar beauty and skin care empires. If a society’s elites weren’t mummifying themselves ahead of a glorious afterlife, bits and pieces of their bodies and possessions were collected and revered as holy relics, cultural artifacts to be cherished and treasured as a physical connection to the great figures and deeds of yore.

Technological advances since the Middle Ages have, thankfully, by and large eliminated the need to carry desiccated bits of your heroes in a coat pocket. Today, fans can connect with their favorite celebrities — whether still alive or long-since passed — through the star’s available catalog of work. For example, you can watch Robin Williams’ movies, stand up specials, Mork and Mindy, and read his books arguably more easily now than when he was alive. Nobody’s toting scraps of hallowed rainbow suspender when they can rent Jumanji from YouTube on their phone for $2.99. It’s equally true for William Shakespeare, whose collected works you can read on a Kindle as you wait in line at the DMV.

At this point, it doesn’t really matter how long a beloved celebrity has been gone — so long as sufficiently large archives of their work remain, digital avatars can be constructed in their stead using today’s projection technologies, generative AI systems, and deepfake audio/video. Take the recent fad of deceased singers and entertainers “going back out on tour” as holographic projections of themselves for example.

The projection systems developed by BASE Hologram and the now-defunct HologramUSA, which made headlines in the middle of the last decade for their spectral representations of famously deceased celebrities, used a well-known projection effect known as Pepper’s Ghost. Developed in the early 19th century by British inventor John Henry Pepper, the image of an off-stage performer is reflected onto a transparent sheet of glass interposed between the stage and audience to produce a translucent, ethereal effect ideal for depicting the untethered spirits that routinely haunted theatrical protagonists at the time.

Public Domain - Wikipedia

Turns out, the technique works just as well with high-definition video feeds and LED light sources as it did with people wiggling in bedsheets by candlelight. The modern equivalent is called the "Musion Eyeliner" and rather than a transparent sheet of glass, it uses a thin metalized film set at a 45 degree angle towards the audience. It’s how the Gorillaz played “live” at the 2006 Grammy Awards and how Tupac posthumously performed at Coachella in 2012, but the technology is limited by the size of the transparent sheet. If we’re ever going to get the Jaws 19 signage Back to the Future II promised us, we’re likely going to use arrays of fan projectors like those developed by London-based holographic startup, Hypervsn, to do so.

“Holographic fans are types of displays that produce a 3-dimensional image seemingly floating in the air using the principle of POV (Persistence of Vision), using strips of RGB LEDs attached to the blades of the fan and a control-unit lighting up the pixels,” Dr Priya C, Associate Professor at Sri Sairam Engineering College, and team wrote in a 2020 study on the technology. “As the fan rotates, the display produces a full picture.”

Dr Priya C goes on to say “Generally complex data can be interpreted more effectively when displayed in three dimensions. In the information display industry, three dimensional (3D) imaging, display, and visualization are therefore considered to be one of the key technology developments that will enter our daily life in the near future.”

“From a technical standpoint, the size [of a display] is just a matter of how many devices you are using and how you actually combine them,” Hypervsn Lead Product Manager, Anastasia Sheluto, told Engadget. “The biggest wall we have ever considered was around 400 devices, that was actually a facade of one building. A wall of 12 or 15 [projectors] will get you up to 4k resolution.” While the fan arrays need to be enclosed to protect them from the elements and the rest of us from getting whacked by a piece of plastic revolving at a few thousand RPMs, these displays are already finding use in museums and malls, trade shows and industry showcases.

What’s more, these projector systems are rapidly gaining streaming capabilities, allowing them to project live interactions rather than merely pre-recorded messages. Finally, Steven Van Zandt’s avatar in the ARHT Media Holographic Cube at Newark International will do more than stare like he’s not mad, just disappointed, and the digital TSA assistants of tomorrow may do more than repeat rote instructions for passing travelers as the human ones do today.

Getting Avatar Van Zandt to sound like the man it’s based on is no longer much of a difficult feat either. Advances in the field of deepfake audio, more formally known as speech synthesis, and text-to-speech AI, such as Amazon Polly or Speech Services by Google, have led to a commercialization of synthesized celebrity voice overs.

Where once a choice between Morgan Freeman and Darth Vader reading our TomTom directions was considered bleeding-edge cool, today, companies like Speechify offer voice models from Snoop Dogg, Gwyneth Paltrow, and other celebs who (or whose estates) have licensed their voice models for use. Even recording artists who haven’t given express permission for their voices to be used are finding deep fakes of their work popping up across the internet.

In Speechify’s case at least, “our celebrity voices are strictly limited to personal consumption and exclusively part of our non-commercial text-to-speech (TTS) reader,” Tyler Weitzman, Speechify Co-Founder and Head of AI, told Engadget via email. “They're not part of our Voice Over Studio. If a customer wants to turn their own voice into a synthetic AI voice for their own use, we're open to conversations.”

“Text-to-speech is one of the most important technologies in the world to advance humanity,” Weitzman continued. “[It] has the potential to dramatically increase literacy rates, spread human knowledge, and break cultural barriers.”

ElevenLabs’ Prime Voice AI software similarly can recreate near perfect vocal clones from uploaded voice samples — the entry level Instant Voice Cloning service only requires around a minute of audio but doesn’t utilize actual AI model training (limiting its range of speech) and an enterprise version that can only be accessed after showing proof that the voice they’re cloning is licensed for that specific use. What’s more, “Cloning features are limited to paid accounts so if any content created using ElevenLabs is shared or used in a way that contravenes the law, we can help trace it back to the content creator,” ElevenLabs added.

The Enterprise-grade service also requires nearly 3 hours of input data to properly train the language model but company reps assure Engadget that, “the results are almost indistinguishable from the original person’s voice.” Surely Steve Van Zandt was onscreen for that long over the course of Lillyhammer’s four-season run.

Unfortunately, the current need for expansive, preferably high-quality, audio recordings on which to train an AI TTS model severely limits which celebrity personalities we’d be able to bring back. Stars and public figures from the second half of the 20th century would obviously have far more chance of having three hours of tape available for training than, say, Presidents Jefferson or Lincoln. Sure, a user could conceivably reverse engineer a voiceprint from historical records — ElevenLabs Voice Design allows users to generate unique voices with adjustable qualities like age, gender, or accent — and potentially recreate Theodore Roosevelt’s signature squeaky sound, but it’ll never be quite the same as hearing the 26th President himself.

Providing something for the synthesized voices to say is proving to be a significant challenge — at least providing something historically accurate, as the GPT-3-powered iOS app, Historical Figures Chat has shown. Riding the excitement around ChatGPT, the app was billed as able to impersonate any of 20,000 famous folks from the annals of history. Despite its viral popularity in January, the app has been criticized by historians for returning numerous factual and characteristic inaccuracies from its figure models. Genocidal Cambodian dictator, Pol Pot, at no point in his reign showed remorse for his nation’s Killing Fields, nor did Nazi general and Holocaust architect, Heinrich Himmler, but even gentle prodding was enough to have their digital recreations begin spouting mea culpas.

“It’s as if all of the ghosts of all of these people have hired the same PR consultants and are parroting the same PR nonsense,” Zane Cooper, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, remarked to the Washington Post.

We can, but should we?

Accuracy issues aren’t the only challenges generative AI “ghosts” currently face, as apparently, even death itself will not save us from copyright and trademark litigation. “There's already a lot of issues emerging,” Dan Schwartz, partner and IP trial lawyer at Nixon Peabody, told Engadget. “Especially for things like ChatGPT and generative AI tools, there will be questions regarding ownership of any intellectual property on the resulting output.

“Whether it's artwork, whether it's a journalistic piece, whether it's a literary piece, whether it is an academic piece, there will be issues over the ownership of what comes out of that,” he continued. “That issue has really yet to be defined and I think we're still a ways away from intellectual property laws fully having an opportunity to address it. I think these technologies have to percolate and develop a little bit and there will be some growing pains before we get to meaningful regulation on them.”

The US Copyright Office in March announced that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted by the user under US law, equating the act of prompting the computer to produce a desired output with asking a human artist the same. "When an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology — not the human user," the office stated.

This is the opposite of the stance taken by a Federal Appeals Court. “[Patent law regarding AI] for the most part, is pretty well settled here in the US,” Schwartz said, “that an AI system cannot be an inventor of a new, patentable invention. It's got to be a human, so that will impact how people apply for patents that come out of generative AI tools.”

Output-based infringement aside, the training methods used by firms like OpenAI and Stability AI, which rely on trawling the public web for data with which to teach their models, have proven problematic as well, having repeatedly caught lawsuits for getting handsy with other people’s licensed artwork. What’s more, generative AI has already shown tremendous capacity and capability in creating illegal content. Deepfake porn ads featuring the synthetic likenesses of Emma Watson and Scarlett Johansson ran on Facebook for more than two days in March before being flagged and removed, for example.

Until the wheels of government can turn enough to catch up to these emerging technologies, we’ll have to rely on market forces to keep companies from disrupting the rest of us back into the stone age. So far, such forces have proved quick and efficient. When Google’s new Bard system immediately (but confidently) fumbled basic facts about the James Webb Space Telescope, that little whoopsie-doodle immediately wiped $100 billion off the company’s stock value. The Historical Figures Chat app, similarly, is no longer available for download on the App Store, despite reportedly receiving multiple investment offers in January. It has since been replaced with numerous, similarly-named clone apps.

“I think what is better for society is to have a system of liability in place so that people understand what the risks are,” Schwartz argued. “So that if you put something out there that creates racist, homophobic, anti-any protected class, inappropriate content, whoever’s responsible for making that tool available, will likely end up facing the potential of liability. And I think that's going to be pretty well played out over the course of the next year or two.”

Celebrity as an American industry

While the term “celebrity” has been around since being coined in 17th century France, during the days of John Jacques Rousseau, it was the Americans in the 20th century who first built the concept into a commercial enterprise.

By the late 1920s, with the advent of Talkies, the auxiliary industry of fandom was already in full swing. “You [had] fan magazines like Motion Picture, Story Magazine or Photoplay that would have pictures of celebrities on the cover, have stories about celebrities behind the scenes, stories about what happened on the film set,” King explained. “So, as the film industry develops alongside this, you start to get Hollywood Studios.” And with Hollywood Studios came the star system.

“Celebrity has always been about manufacturing images, creating stories,” King said. The star system existed in the 1930s and ‘40s and did to young actors and actrices what Crypton Future Media did to Hatsune Miku: it assembled them into products, constructing synthetic personalities for them from the ground up.

Actors, along with screenwriters, directors and studio executives of the era, would coordinate to craft specific personas for their stars. “You have the ingénue or the bombshell,” King said. “The studios worked really closely with fan magazines, with their own publicity arms and with gossip columnist to tell very calculated stories about who the actors were.” This diverted focus from the film itself and placed it squarely on the constructed, steerable, personas crafted by the studio — another mask for actors to wear, publicly and even after the cameras were turned off.

“Celebrity has existed for centuries and the way it exists now is not fundamentally different from how it used to be,” King added. “But it has been really amplified, intensified and made more ubiquitous because of changing industry and technological norms that have developed in the 20th and 21st centuries.”

Even after Tom Hanks is dead, Tom Hanks Prime will live forever

Between the breakneck pace of technological advancement with generative AI (including deepfake audio and video), the promise of future “touchable” plasma displays offering hard light-style tactile feedback through femtosecond laser bursts, and Silicon Valley’s gleeful disregard towards the negative public costs borne from their “disruptive” ideas, the arrival of immortal digitized celebrities hawking eczema creams and comforting lies during commercial breaks is now far more likely a matter of when, rather than if.

But what does that mean for celebrities who are still alive? How will knowing that even after the ravages of time take Tom Hanks from us, that at least a lightly interactable likeness might continue to exist digitally? Does the visceral knowledge that we’ll never truly be rid of Jimmy Fallon empower us to loathe him even more?

“This notion of the simulacra of the celebrity, again, is not entirely new,” King explained. “We can point to something like the Madame Tussaud's wax museum, which is an attempt to give us a version of the celebrity, there are impersonators who dress and perform as them, so I think that people take a certain kind of pleasure in having access to an approximation of the celebrity. But that experience never fully lives up.”

“If you go and visit the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, there's a kind of aura [to the space],” she continued. “There's something intangible, almost magical about experiencing that work of art in person versus seeing a print of it on a poster or on a museum tote bag or, you know, coffee mug that it loses some of its kind of ineffable quality.”

Klaus Teuber, who created the board game sensation Settlers of Catan, has passed away at the age of 70. According to the official Catan website, Teuber died on April 1st after a “brief and severe illness.” He is survived by his wife Claudia and their two sons, Guido and Benny, all of which are involved with publisher Catan Studios.

It is hard to do justice to how important Catan was (and is) to the board game space. Teuber invented the multiplayer resource-trading game in 1995 and is one of the first European board games to achieve massive success throughout the rest of the world. As of 2020, over 32 million copies of Catan in 40 different languages have been sold globally.

It’s not just board games. The popularity of Catan has allowed for multiple digital versions available for smartphones, video game consoles and PCs. The game has also left quite a pop culture footprint, inspiring countless references in media properties like The Big Bang Theory, Parks and Recreation, Supergirl and South Park. It even inspired a short film in 2014, The Lord of Catan, starring Amy Acker. There have also been rumors of a forthcoming Sony-produced feature film floating around since 2015.

Teuber may be best known for creating Catan, but the designer also had his hand in many popular board games like Barbarossa, Wacky Wacky Wacky and more. All told, he won the Game of the Year award a whopping four times. Not bad for a former dental technician who didn’t even begin developing games seriously until the 1990s, when he was in his 40s.

“I developed games to escape,” he told The New Yorker in 2014. “This was my own world I created.”

Teuber also founded publisher Catan Studios, which posted a memorial tweet today urging the title’s many fans to honor his impact on the world of gaming by “being kind to one another” and pursuing their dreams to the fullest.

Have you heard about the Scandoval? I asked a handful of friends this question over the past week, and a surprising number confirmed this strange new word had recently popped up in their news feeds, attached to stories from The New York Times, CNN and Vanity Fair. My friends didn’t quite know what it was, aside from the vague notion that it was related to the Real Housewives shows. More importantly, they didn’t know why it was being recommended to them, considering they didn’t follow Bravo shows or reality television.

That’s because this is the March Madness of reality TV. The Scandoval is an explosive cheating scandal involving the cast of Vanderpump Rules — and it’s unfolding in real time, with cameras on, allowing viewers to look for signs of deceit in every scene as it airs. There are clear villains and an obvious heroine, and it’s all leading up to the reunion, which was filmed at the end of March and has already provided a drip feed of drama and staged paparazzi encounters. The Scandoval is so monumental in the Bravo multiverse that it’s culturally important for people outside of this bubble to know what’s going on — just like folks who don’t follow sports are subjected to the NCAA’s media cycle every year.

Jeff Daly/Peacock

It’s not all about the Scandoval, either. This is a golden era for Bravo and its streaming home, Peacock. Nearly every Housewives franchise is popping off in its own special way, and many of them are making mainstream news headlines: Jen Shah of Salt Lake City was just sentenced to six and a half years in prison for running a telemarketing scam and her surprise arrest was caught on camera; Erika Jayne of Beverly Hills continues to display obscene greed as her estranged husband, disbarred lawyer Tom Girardi, is federally indicted on charges he stole millions of dollars from victims of corporate malfeasance. Miami, a streaming-only series exclusive to Peacock, just wrapped a beautiful fifth season and cemented itself as a blueprint for future Housewives shows; Ultimate Girls Trip, a crossover event that brings wives together like the third act of a Marvel film, is in its third season and already serving hype for its fourth. Married to Medicine continues to be a powerful, captivating and hilarious franchise centered on Black women and doctors in Georgia, and it’s bringing in a notorious wife from the Atlanta history books for its upcoming season.

That’s not even all of it, and the above list doesn’t address the biggest bit of Bravo drama happening right now: the Scandoval. Here’s a brief summary, for the culture: Vanderpump Rules is a spin-off of Beverly Hills starring the servers and bartenders of trendy Los Angeles restaurants. Its tenth season is currently airing, and as it kicked off, news broke that Tom Sandoval, a bar owner with Peter Pan syndrome, had been cheating on his partner of nine years, Ariana Madix, with a younger cast member named Raquel Leviss for the past six months. Details about the affair have been dripping out online — lightning bolt necklaces will never be the same — and viewers are scouring each new episode for signs of the pair’s lies. Meanwhile, Bravo picked cameras back up after the affair came to light, and the mid-season trailer promises intense, intimate reactions from everyone involved, plus plenty of vengeful edits for Ariana. The reunion is poised to be a spectacle like Bravo has never seen.

Nicole Weingart/Bravo

To put it back in sports terms: The Scandoval is like David Beckham cheating on Victoria with Emma Bunton. Or like Scottie Pippen’s ex-wife starting a relationship with Michael Jordan’s son — a storyline that literally happened on the latest season of Miami. See? As Quad said on season nine of Married to Medicine when asked whether she’d cheated on past boyfriends, our cup runneth over.

This all means Peacock is getting my money for the foreseeable future, no high-budget original series required. I mean, I loved Poker Face, but I haven’t thought about it much since watching the final episode of season one. Housewives and its related series live outside of the app, on message boards and social media and podcasts, filling the silence even between seasons. Meanwhile, the Scandoval is driving viewership for Peacock, where Vanderpump is available to stream next-day. Peacock is also the only place to watch Miami and Ultimate Girls Trip, two shows that already make it essential in my own app lineup. I never expected to get so much use out of an NBC streaming service, but here we are.

The next app to get my business will be whichever one picks up Married at First Sight Australia. If you’ve made it to this point in this article — a Real Housewives fever dream somehow published on a technology website — do yourself a favor and find a way to watch it (in between Vanderpump Rules episodes, of course).