After a decade of rumors and speculation, the Apple Car is dead. Last week, Bloomberg reported that the multibillion-dollar project had finally been scrapped. Reports about the electric vehicle never quite seemed real, but now we have many new details about the car that never was thanks to an excellent post-mortem from Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman.

The story includes many astonishing details about various Apple executives’ plans for the car, and why the project ultimately failed. But some of the best details are the descriptions of what the vehicle was supposed to look like.

At one point, Apple’s leaders were adamant that the autonomous “microbus” should not include a steering wheel or pedals. It would have “club seating like a private plane” and curved sides and a glass roof. Famed Apple designer Jony Ive thought the interior should be “covered in stainless steel, wood and white fabric,” and that it should only come in one color: white.

Since any actual mock-ups of the car, which Gurman says was sometimes referred to as the “Bread Loaf,” are presumably locked deep inside a well-guarded Apple office, I did the next best thing and asked AI. The results are, actually, kind of cute?

A group of 41 state attorneys general are demanding that Meta step up its support services for users who have been victims of hacks and account takeovers. “We refuse to operate as the customer service representatives of your company,” the group writes in a letter addressed to Meta’s chief legal officer. “We request Meta take immediate action and substantially increase its investment in account takeover mitigation tactics, as well as responding to users whose accounts were taken over.”

The letter, which was first reported by Wired, pushes Meta to deal with an issue that has long been a source of frustration to Facebook and Instagram users: the difficulty in accessing support after you lose access to your account. Though the company has taken steps over the years to make it easier for people to recover lost accounts, Meta largely relies on automated systems and there are still many people who fall through cracks.

As the letter highlights, this can be especially devastating for people who lose access to business accounts and pages. Even high-profile creators can find themselves unable to get support from a human employee of the company unless they have a personal connection to someone who works at Meta. Other users sometimes resort to legal services or hiring their own hackers to get their accounts back.

While it may seem surprising that state law enforcement officials would get involved in this issue, Reddit and other online forums for hacking victims often advise people to lodge complaints with their local AG’s office as a last resort. Some users have reported regaining access to their accounts after a state attorney general’s office intervened on their behalf.

Now, AGs are apparently flooded with such requests. “Our offices have experienced a dramatic and persistent spike in complaints in recent years concerning account takeovers that is not only alarming for our constituents but also a substantial drain on our office resources,” the letter states.

In addition to putting more resources into customer service, the letter asks Meta to provide more details on “the number of account takeovers over the past five years; suspected causes of the increase in account takeovers; safeguards currently in place to prevent account takeovers; current policies and procedures related to Meta’s response to account takeovers; and staffing related to safeguarding the platforms against account takeovers as well as responding to complaints.”

In a statement, a Meta spokesperson said that “scammers use every platform available to them and constantly adapt to evade enforcement” from the company. “We invest heavily in our trained enforcement and review teams and have specialized detection tools to identify compromised accounts and other fraudulent activity. We regularly share tips and tools people can use to protect themselves, provide a means to report potential violations, work with law enforcement and take legal action."

In 2022, Bloomberg reported that Meta was in the “early stages” creating a customer service division that would be able to help users with account issues. It's unclear what became of the plan. Later that year, the company laid off thousands of employees. In their letter, the state AGs notes that they saw an uptick in complaints “around the same time Meta announced a massive layoff of around 11,000 employees in November 2022, which reportedly focused on the ‘security and privacy and integrity sector.’”

A group of lawmakers have introduced a new bill that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok in order for the app to remain available in the United States. The “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” would prohibit US app stores and web hosting services from distributing TikTok unless it divested from parent company ByteDance.

The bill is the latest in a long line of attempts by lawmakers and other officials to ban or force a sale of the app. Former President Donald Trump attempted to force a sale of TikTok in 2020, but was ultimately unsuccessful. The Biden Administration has also pressured the company to divest. And a US District Court Judge recently blocked an attempt to ban the app in Montana.

The new bill, which comes from a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House, takes a different approach. It would give ByteDance a six-month window to sell TikTok before app store-level bans would come into effect. It would also require TikTok and other apps to “provide users with a copy of their data in a format that can be imported” into competing apps. And though TikTok is referenced several times in the text of the bill, the legislation would open the door for bans on other “foreign adversary-controlled” apps if the president deemed them to be a national security threat.

“This bill is an outright ban of TikTok, no matter how much the authors try to disguise it,” TikTok said in a statement. “This legislation will trample the First Amendment rights of 170 million Americans and deprive 5 million small businesses of a platform they rely on to grow and create jobs.”

TikTok CEO Shou Chew has maintained that a divestment would not fully address officials’ concerns about US user data. The company has spent years trying to address national security concerns about its service with an initiative called Project Texas. Under the plan, created as a result of years of negotiations with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), US users’ data would be separated into US-based servers and government officials would be able to oversee audits of TikTok’s source code and other aspects of its operations.

The Washington Post reported last year that TikTok’s negotiations with CFIUS had been recently “revived amid doubts the [Biden] administration has the authority to ban TikTok on its own.” If Congress was able to pass the new bill, it would clear up such questions and create a new process for forcing ByteDance's hand. 

A group of former Twitter executives, including former CEO Parag Agrawal, are suing Elon Musk and X over millions of dollars in unpaid severance benefits. The claims date back to the chaotic circumstances surrounding Musk’s takeover of the company in October 2022.

When Musk took control of the company, his first move was to fire Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde and general counsel Sean Edgett. According to the lawsuit, Musk had “special ire” for the group because of the role they played in the months-long court battle that forced Musk to follow through with the acquisition after he attempted to back out of the deal. According to the lawsuit, Agrawal is entitled to $57.4 million in severance benefits, Segal is entitled to $44.5 million, Gadde $20 million and Edgett $6.8 million, for a total of about $128 million.

The lawsuit cites Musk biographer Walter Isaacson’s account of the events, which explains that Musk rushed to close the Twitter deal a day early so he could fire the executives “for cause” just before their final stock options were set to vest. According to Isaacson, Musk bragged that the legal maneuver saved him about $200 million. 

“Musk doesn’t pay his bills, believes the rules don’t apply to him, and uses his wealth and power to run roughshod over anyone who disagrees with him,” the lawsuit states,“Because Musk decided he didn’t want to pay Plaintiffs’ severance benefits, he simply fired them without reason, then made up fake cause and appointed employees of his various companies to uphold his decision.”

X didn’t respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Of note, it’s not the first time former Twitter employees have sued the company for failing to pay severance benefits. A separate lawsuit claimed Twitter owed former workers more than $500 million in unpaid severance. Agrawal, Segal and Gadde also previously sued the company over unpaid legal bills as a result of shareholder lawsuits and other investigations that resulted from Musk’s takeover,

X has, once again, quietly changed its rules around deadnaming and misgendering without an explanation. With the latest change, it seems that there will be no penalties for misgendering or deadnaming people on X after al, except in cases when it may be “required by local laws.”

The update, which was first spotted by Mashable, comes after X appeared to reinstate some aspects of Twitter’s former policy, which fell under its hateful conduct rules. Prior to Elon Musk’s takeover, Twitter had barred targeted deadnaming and misgendering. That section of the company’s rules then disappeared last April. Then, last week, ArsTechnica noted that the policy was quietly updated to indicate that X would “reduce the visibility of posts that purposefully use different pronouns to address someone other than what that person uses for themselves, or that use a previous name that someone no longer goes by as part of their transition.”

While it wasn’t a full reversal of the earlier policy — under the company’s previous leadership, intentional misgendering was grounds for a suspension — it seemed that there once again would be penalties for this type of harassment. Now, that section of Twitter’s rules is prefaced with “where required by local laws.”

As with so much of what happens at X, there is significant confusion about the policy as the company’s rules seem to change based on the whims of Musk rather than a considered process. This was on display over the last fewldays as Musk fielded several complaints from right-wing personalities about last week’s change. On Thursday, Musk told one such account that the update “is just about repeated, targeted harassment of a particular person.” But by Saturday, Musk was offering a new explanation. “Turns out this was due to a court judgment in Brazil, which is being appealed, but should not apply outside of Brazil,” he said.

X didn’t respond to a request for comment about the policy or why it was changed twice in a matter of days. But Musk is known to be sympathetic to people who regularly engage in anti-trans harassment. One of his first moves after taking over the company was to reinstate a number of accounts banned for violating the company's previous hateful conduct policy. He has also repeatedly mocked people who specify their pronouns and publicly criticized X staff for attempting to apply the company’s “freedom of speech, not reach” policy to a transphobic documentary.

Meta is starting to bring the Threads API online, though it will still be some time before it’s widely accessible to developers. The company has begun testing its new developer tools with a handful of companies, Meta engineer Jesse Chen shared in a post on Threads.

According to Chen, whose post was first spotted by TechCrunch, the API is currently in “beta” but a wider rollout could come “by the end of June.” The initial group of companies testing out the beta version of the API include social media management platforms Sprinklr, Hootsuite, Social News Desk and Sprout Social. Meta is also working with tech news aggregator Techmeme and live video platform Grabyo. For now, it sounds like the API will primarily enable the publishing of content to Threads from these services, but Chen said there are also plans to “enable reply moderation and insights capabilities.”

Having an API could help Threads attract more publishers and power users, who often rely on third-party software for posting and analytics. Instagram head Adam Mosseri has previously expressed some reluctance to woo publishers, saying that his “concern” was that a dedicated API would “mean a lot more publisher content and not much more creator content.” (Mosseri has also said he doesn’t want to “amplify news on the platform.”)

But with 130 million users, Threads is starting to look more and more like a viable alternative to X, and offering professional-level tools is a good way to get publishers and brands to post more to the platform. Having an API could also, potentially, aid the company’s plans to support interoperability with Mastodon and the rest of the fediverse, though Meta hasn’t publicly discussed its API in that context,.

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."

President Joe Biden has signed an executive order that aims to limit the mass-sale of Americans’ personal data to “countries of concern,” including Russia and China. The order specifically targets the bulk sale of geolocation, genomic, financial, biometric, health and other personally identifying information.

During a briefing with reporters, a senior administration official said that the sale of such data to these countries poses a national security risk. “Our current policies and laws leave open access to vast amounts of American sensitive personal data,” the official said. “Buying data through data brokers is currently legal in the United States, and that reflects a gap in our national security toolkit that we are working to fill with this program.”

Researchers and privacy advocates have long warned about the national security risks posed by the largely unregulated multibillion-dollar data broker industry. Last fall, researchers at Duke University reported that they were able to easily buy troves of personal and health data about US military personnel while posing as foreign agents.

Biden’s executive order attempts to address such scenarios. It bars data brokers and other companies from selling large troves of Americans’ personal information to countries or entities in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela either directly or indirectly. There are likely to be additional restrictions on companies’ ability to sell data as part of cloud service contracts, investment agreements and employment agreements.

Though the White House described the step as “the most significant executive action any President has ever taken to protect Americans’ data security,” it’s unclear how exactly enforcement of the new policies will be handled within the Justice Department. A DoJ official said the executive order would require due diligence from data brokers to vet who they are dealing with, similar to the way companies are expected to adhere to US sanctions.

As the White House points out, there are currently few regulations for the multibillion-dollar data broker industry. The order will do nothing to slow the bulk sale of Americans’ data to countries or companies not deemed to be a security risk. “President Biden continues to urge Congress to do its part and pass comprehensive bipartisan privacy legislation, especially to protect the safety of our children,” a White House statement says.

Google has been quietly striking deals with some publishers to use new generative AI tools to publish stories, according to a report in Adweek. The deals, reportedly worth tens of thousands of dollars a year, are apparently part of the Google News Initiative (GNI), a six-year-old program that funds media literacy projects, fact-checking tools, and other resources for newsrooms. But the move into generative AI publishing tools would be a new, and likely controversial, step for the company.

According to Adweek, the program is currently targeting a “handful” of smaller publishers. “The beta tools let under-resourced publishers create aggregated content more efficiently by indexing recently published reports generated by other organizations, like government agencies and neighboring news outlets, and then summarizing and publishing them as a new article,” Adweek reports.

It’s not clear exactly how much publishers are being paid under the arrangement, though Adweek says it’s a “five-figure sum” per year. In exchange, media organizations reportedly agree to publish at least three articles a day, one weekly newsletter and one monthly marketing campaign using the tools.

Of note, publishers in the program are apparently not required to disclose their use of AI, nor are the aggregated websites informed that their content is being used to create AI-written stories on other sites. The AI-generated copy reportedly uses a color-coded system to indicate the reliability of each section of text to help human editors review the content before publishing.

Google didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement to Adweek the company said it was “in the early stages of exploring ideas to potentially provide AI-enabled tools to help journalists with their work.” The spokesperson added that the AI tools “are not intended to, and cannot, replace the essential role journalists have in reporting, creating and fact-checking their articles.”

It’s not clear what Google is getting out of the arrangement, though it wouldn’t be the first tech company to pay newsrooms to use proprietary tools. The arrangement bears some similarities to the deals Facebook once struck with publishers to create live video content in 2016. The social media company made headlines as it paid publishers millions of dollars to juice its nascent video platform and dozens of media outlets opted to “pivot to video” as a result.

Those deals later evaporated after Facebook discovered it had wildly miscalculated the number of views such content was getting. The social network ended its live video deals soon after and has since tweaked its algorithm to recommend less news content. The media industry’s “pivot to video” cost hundreds of journalists their jobs, by some estimates.

While the GNI program appears to be much smaller than what Facebook attempted nearly a decade ago with live video, it will likely raise fresh scrutiny over the use of generative AI tools by publishers. Publications like CNET and Sports Illustrated have been widely criticized for attempting to pass off AI-authored articles as written by human staffers.

The Odysseus spacecraft made by Houston-based Intuitive Machines has successfully landed on the surface of the moon. It marks the first time a spacecraft from a private company has landed on the lunar surface, and it’s the first US-made craft to reach the moon since the Apollo missions.

Odysseus was carrying NASA instruments, which the space agency said would be used to help prepare for future crewed missions to the moon under the Artemis program. NASA confirmed the landing happened at 6:23 PM ET on February 22. The lander launched from Earth on February 15, with the help of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.

According to The New York Times, there were some “technical issues with the flight” that delayed the landing for a couple of hours. Intuitive Machines CTO Tim Crain told the paper that “Odysseus is definitely on the moon and operating but it remains to be seen whether the mission can achieve its objectives.” Odysseus has a limited window of about a week to send data back down to Earth before darkness sets in and makes the solar-powered craft inoperable.

Intuitive Machines wasn’t the first private company to attempt a landing. Astrobotic made an attempt last month with its Peregrine lander, but was unsuccessful. Intuitive Machines is planning to launch two other lunar landers this year.