A judge has dismissed a lawsuit from X against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit that researches hate speech on the Elon Musk-owned platform. In the decision, the judge said that the lawsuit was an attempt to “punish” the organization for criticizing the company.

X sued the CCDH last summer, accusing the group of “scraping” its platform as part of a “scare campaign” to hurt its advertising business. The group had published research claiming X was failing to act on reports of hate speech, and was in some cases boosting such content.

In a ruling, federal judge Charles Breyer said that “this case is about punishing” CCDH for publishing unflattering research. “It is clear to the Court that if X Corp. was indeed motived to spend money in response to CCDH’s scraping in 2023, it was not because of the harm such scraping posed to the X platform, but because of the harm it posed to X Corp.’s image,” Breyer wrote. “X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident. X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp.—and perhaps in order to dissuade others.”

X said it planned to appeal the decision.

In a statement, CCDH CEO Imram Ahmed said that the ruling “affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors.” He added that “it is now abundantly clear that we need federal transparency laws” that would require online platforms to make data available to independent researchers.

Last summer, TikTok said it planned to form a “youth council” of teens to advise the company as part of a broader push to beef up safety features for the app’s youngest users. That group is now official, and they have already started meeting with the company, including CEO Shou Chew, the company announced.

The announcement comes as TikTok is fighting a bill that would force parent company ByteDance to sell the app or face a ban in the United States. As part of that effort, the company has tried to mobilize its users, many of them teens, to oppose the measure. TikTok’s critics often cite youth safety as one of the most significant risks posed by the app.

It’s not clear if the newly-formed youth council will do much to counter that perception. But the company says the group has already influenced an upcoming media literacy campaign in the US that will “focus on misinformation, AI-generated content, and more.” The council, made up of 15 teens from the US, UK, Brazil, Indonesia, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, and Morocco, has also weighed in on the app’s “youth portal” feature, which provides in-app privacy and security resources.

According to TikTok, the council is meant to advise on the safety policies and issues that often impact teens. The group also collaborates with UK online safety organization Praesidio Safeguarding, which helped select the council’s teenage members, all of whom are paid, according to TikTok. The company notes that CEO Shou Chew attended the most recent meeting in February, when the youth council asked TikTok to share more details about how reporting and blocking work in the app.

While it’s not yet clear how much, if any, influence TikTok’s youth council will ultimately wield over the company’s policies, it underscores just how important teens are to the platform. TikTok is one of the most dominant apps among teens in the US, currently the company’s largest market. The company has also leaned on them to oppose the bill that could lead to a ban of the app, though those efforts may have backfired.

As the Senate considers the bill that would force a sale or ban of TikTok, lawmakers have heard directly from intelligence officials about the alleged national security threat posed by the app. Now, two prominent senators are asking the office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify and make public what they have shared.

“We are deeply troubled by the information and concerns raised by the intelligence community in recent classified briefings to Congress,” Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal and Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn write. “It is critically important that the American people, especially TikTok users, understand the national security issues at stake.”

The exact nature of the intelligence community's concerns about the app has long been a source of debate. Lawmakers in the House received a similar briefing just ahead of their vote on the bill. But while the briefing seemed to bolster support for the measure, some members said they left unconvinced, with one lawmaker saying that “not a single thing that we heard … was unique to TikTok.”

According to Axios, some senators described their briefing as “shocking,” though the group isn’t exactly known for their particularly nuanced understanding of the tech industry. (Blumenthal, for example, once pressed Facebook executives on whether they would “commit to ending finsta.”) In its report, Axios says that one lawmaker “said they were told TikTok is able to spy on the microphone on users' devices, track keystrokes and determine what the users are doing on other apps.” That may sound alarming, but it’s also a description of the kinds of app permissions social media services have been requesting for more than a decade.

TikTok has long denied that its relationship with parent company ByteDance would enable Chinese government officials to interfere with its service or spy on Americans. And so far, there is no public evidence that TikTok has ever been used in this way. If US intelligence officials do have evidence that is more than hypothetical, it would be a major bombshell in the long-running debate surrounding the app.

The Mozilla Foundation and dozens of other research and advocacy groups are pushing back on Meta’s decisions to shut down its research tool, CrowdTangle, later this year. In an open letter, the group calls on Meta to keep CrowdTangle online until after 2024 elections, saying that it will harm their ability to track election misinformation in a year where “approximately half the world’s population” are slated to vote.

The letter, published by the Mozilla Foundation and signed by 90 groups as well as the former CEO of CrowdTangle, comes one week after Meta confirmed it would shut down the tool in August 2024. “Meta’s decision will effectively prohibit the outside world, including election integrity experts, from seeing what’s happening on Facebook and Instagram — during the biggest election year on record,” the letter writers say.

“This means almost all outside efforts to identify and prevent political disinformation, incitements to violence, and online harassment of women and minorities will be silenced. It’s a direct threat to our ability to safeguard the integrity of elections.” The group asks Meta to keep CrowdTangle online until January 2025, and to “rapidly onboard” election researchers onto its latest tools.

CrowdTangle has long been a source of frustration for Meta. It allows researchers, journalists and other groups to track how content is spreading across Facebook and Instagram. It’s also often cited by journalists in unflattering stories about Facebook and Instagram. For example, Engadget relied on CrowdTangle in an investigation into why Facebook Gaming was overrun with spam and pirated content in 2022. CrowdTangle was also the source for “Facebook’s Top 10,” a (now defunct) Twitter bot that posted daily updates on the most-interacted withFacebook posts containing links. The project, created by a New York Times reporter, regularly showed far-right and conservative pages over-performing, leading Facebook executives to argue the data wasn't an accurate representation of what was actually popular on the platform.

With CrowdTangle set to shut down, Meta is instead highlighting a new program called the Meta Content Library, which provides researchers with new tools to access publicly-accessible data in a streamlined way. The company has said it’s more powerful than what CrowdTangle enabled, but it’s also much more strictly controlled. Researchers from nonprofits and academic institutions must apply, and be approved, in order to access it. And since the vast majority of newsrooms are for-profit entities, most journalists will be automatically ineligible for access (it’s not clear if Meta would allow reporters at nonprofit newsrooms to use the Content Library.)

The other issue, according to Brandon Silverman, CrowdTangle’s former CEO who left Meta in 2021 is that the Meta Content Library isn’t currently powerful enough to be a full CrowdTangle replacement. “There are some areas where the MCL has way more data than CrowdTangle ever had, including reach and comments in particular,” Brandon Silverman, CrowdTangle’s former CEO who left Meta in 2021 wrote in a post on Substack last week. “But there are also some huge gaps in the tool, both for academics and civil society, and simply arguing that it has more data isn’t a claim that regulators or the press should take seriously.”

In a statement on X, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said that “academic and nonprofit institutions pursuing scientific or public interest research can apply for access” to the Meta Content Library, including nonprofit election experts. “The Meta Content Library is designed to contain more comprehensive data than CrowdTangle.”

A year ago, I visited TikTok’s US headquarters to preview its new “transparency center,” a central piece of its multibillion-dollar effort to convince the US its meme factory isn’t a national security threat. That effort has failed. The company’s negotiations with the government stalled out and the company is now facing its most serious threat to a future in the United States yet.

Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill that, if passed into law, would force ByteDance to sell TikTok or face an outright ban in the US. That lawmakers view TikTok with suspicion is nothing new. Because TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is based in China, they believe the Chinese government could manipulate TikTok’s algorithms or access its users’ data via ByteDance employees. But what has been surprising about the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is that it managed to gather so much support from both sides of the aisle seemingly out of nowhere.

After a surprise introduction, the bipartisan bill cleared committee in two days with a unanimous 50 - 0 vote, and was approved by the full House in a 352 - 65 vote less than a week later. Of the dozens of bills attempting to regulate the tech industry in recent years, including at least two to ban TikTok, none have gained nearly as much momentum.

But the renewed support for banning or forcing a sale of TikTok doesn’t seem to be tied to any newly uncovered information about TikTok, ByteDance or the Chinese Communist Party. Instead, lawmakers have largely been rehashing the same concerns that have been raised about the app for years.

One issue often raised is data access. TikTok, like many of its social media peers, scoops up large amounts of data from its users. The practice has gotten the company into hot water in the past when many of those users were discovered to be minors. Many lawmakers cite its large cache of user data, which they claim could be obtained by Chinese government officials, as one of the most significant risks posed by TikTok.

“Our bipartisan legislation would protect American social media users by driving the divestment of foreign adversary-controlled apps to ensure that Americans are protected from the digital surveillance and influence operations of regimes that could weaponize their personal data against them,” Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, on the bill’s co-sponsors, said in a statement.

TikTok has repeatedly denied sharing any data with the Chinese government and says it would not comply if they were requested to do so. However, ByteDance has been caught mishandling TikTok user data in the past. In 2022, ByteDance fired four employees, including two based in China, for accessing the data of reporters who had written stories critical of the company. There’s no evidence those actions were directed by the Chinese government.

In fact the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act would do little to address the data access issue, experts say. Even if the app was banned or controlled by a different company, Americans’ personal information would remain readily available from the largely unregulated data broker industry.

Data brokers gain access to vast troves of Americans’ personal data via scores of apps, websites, credit card companies and other businesses. Currently, there are few restrictions on what data can be collected or who can buy it. Biden Administration officials have warned that China is already buying up this data, much of it more revealing than anything TikTok collects.

“The data that's been collected about you will almost certainly live longer than you will, and there's really nothing you can do to delete it or get rid of it,” Justin Cappos, an NYU computer science professor and member of the NYU Center for Cybersecurity, told Engadget. “If the US really wants to solve this, the way to do it isn't to blame a social media company in China and make them the face of the problem. It's really to pass the meaningful data privacy regulations and go after [data] collection and go after these data brokers.”

The House recently passed a bill that would bar data brokers from selling Americans’ personal information to “adversary” countries like China. But, if passed, the law wouldn’t address the sale of that data to other entities or the wholesale collection of it to begin with.

Digital rights and free speech advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have also raised the possibility that the US forcing a ban or sale of TikTok could give other countries cover to enact similar bans or restrictions on US-based social media platforms. In a letter to lawmakers opposing the measure, the EFF, American Civil Liberties Union and other groups argued that it would “set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms.”

David Greene, a senior staff attorney at the EFF notes that the United States has forcefully criticized nations that have banned social media apps. “The State Department has been highly critical of countries that have shut down services,” Greene told Engadget, noting that the US condemned the Nigerian government for blocking Twitter in 2021. “Shutting down a whole service is essentially an anti-democratic thing.”

Intelligence officials held a classified briefing with members of Congress about TikTok shortly before the vote on the House floor. That’s led some pundits to believe that there must be new information about TikTok, but some lawmakers have suggested otherwise.“Not a single thing that we heard in today’s classified briefing was unique to TikTok,” Representative Sara Jacobs told the Associated Press. “It was things that happen on every single social media platform.” Likewise, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Jim Hines, said that TikTok is “largely a potential threat … if Congress were serious about dealing with this threat, we would start with a federal privacy bill.”

The House of Representatives approved a measure targeting data brokers’ ability to sell Americans’ personal data to “adversary” countries, like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. The Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act passed with a unanimous 414 - 0 vote.

The bill, which was introduced alongside a measure that could force a ban or sale of TikTok, would prohibit data brokers from selling Americans’ “sensitive” data to people or entities in “adversary” countries. Much like a recent executive order from President Joe Biden targeting data brokers, the bill specifically covers geolocation, financial, health, and biometric data, as well as other private information like text logs and phone call history.

If passed — the bill will need Senate approval before landing on Biden's desk — it would represent a significant check on the relatively unregulated data broker industry. US officials have previously warned that China and other geopolitical rivals of the United States have already acquired vast troves of Americans’ information from brokers and privacy advocates have long urged lawmakers to regulate the multibillion-dollar industry.

The bill is the second major piece of bipartisan legislation to come out of the House Energy and Commerce this month. The committee previously introduced the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” which would require TikTok to divest itself from parent company ByteDance or face a ban in the US. In a statement, Representatives Frank Pallone and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, said that the latest bill “builds” on their work to pass the measure targeting TikTok. “Today’s overwhelming vote sends a clear message that we will not allow our adversaries to undermine American national security and individual privacy by purchasing people’s personally identifiable sensitive information from data brokers,” they said.

Earlier this year, Elon Musk announced that the first human patient had received a Neuralink brain implant as part of the company’s first clinical trial. Now, the company has shared a brief public demo of the brain-computer interface (BCI) in action.

The company briefly live streamed a demo on X with a 29-year-old man named Nolan Arbaugh, who said he was paralyzed from the neck down after a diving accident eight years ago. In the video, Arbaugh explains that after receiving the implant — he said the surgery was “super easy” — he had to learn how to differentiate “imagined movement versus attempted movement” in order to learn to control a cursor on a screen.

“A lot of what we started out with was attempting to move,” Arbaugh said. “I would attempt to move, say, my right hand left, right forward, back. And from there, I think it just became intuitive for me to start imagining the cursor moving.”

In the clip, which also features a Neuralink engineer, Arbaugh demonstrates the BCI by moving a cursor around the screen of a laptop, and pausing an on-screen music player. He said the implant has allowed him to play chess and Civilization VI. He noted that he has previously used other assistive devices like mouthsticks, but that the Neuralink implant has enabled longer gaming sessions, as well as online play. He said that he can get about eight hours of use before the implant needs to recharge (it’s not clear how charging works).

Arbaugh became the first human patient to receive the implant in January after Neuralink began recruiting patients last year. The company previously tested the BCI in animals, including chimps, and some of its animal testing practices have been the subject of federal investigations.

In the video, Arbaugh indicated his experience with the brain implant has so far been positive, despite some initial issues. “It's not perfect, I would say that we have run into some issues,” he said. “I don't want people to think that this is the end of the journey. There's a lot of work to be done, but it has already changed my life.”

Nineteen years after Jawed Karim uploaded the very first YouTube video, the awkward, 19-second clip in front of San Diego Zoo’s elephant enclosure is memorable today only because of what it represents: the start of a multibillion-dollar juggernaut that defines so much of what it means to be an online creator.

Today, YouTube is the most dominant social media platform by a sizable margin, especially among teenagers. Its influence is so vast it feels almost impossible to define. The service has birthed thousands of memes and internet personalities. Its recommendation algorithm has been credited with supercharging bizarre trends and viral misinformation.

But one of the most powerful ways YouTube has wielded its influence is through its Partner Program. The revenue sharing arrangement has generated billions of dollars for its most popular users and helped define the multibillion-dollar industry we now call the creator economy. Today, there are dozens of platforms and business models for making money via content creation, but it’s difficult to imagine any of them existing without YouTube’s Partner Program.

While YouTube is hardly the only platform that has made becoming an online creator feel like a viable career path, it has played an outsized role in creating and fueling the industry. When Google first introduced the Partner Program in 2007, there weren’t many ways to make a living from online content. The blogging industry was well established, but online media dynamics were already shifting away from independently run operations in favor of established platforms and brands.

YouTube, on the other hand, was a rising upstart in online media. Google had acquired the video service in 2006, before it had ads or even a mobile app. And when it announced it would make some of its most popular creators “partners“ in its business, it promised some of Google’s ad money could flow directly to the people making content.

It would take several more years for the Partner Program to grow into the money-printing machine it is now. But the Partner Program arrived, in 2007, when there was a growing demand for online video. Between 2006 and 2009, the audience for online video doubled, according to Pew Research, and YouTube was the biggest beneficiary. By the fall of 2009, YouTube was seeing more than one billion views a day.

That same year, YouTube made another important change to its monetization policies. It decided to spread the wealth so any single viral video could be eligible for revenue sharing, even if the creator wasn’t a partner, affirming that YouTube was the place to make money from viral content. In 2012, the Partner Program officially opened to everyone, and by 2014 there were one million creators making money from YouTube, according to The New York Times.

The flood of creators looking for a payout (and the sometimes scammy tactics that drove them) eventually led YouTube to again tighten its requirement for partner status in 2017. But YouTube had already cemented itself as the platform for amateur creators to turn their videos into a steady income. Today, there are more than three million channels with partner status, and the company has paid creators more than $70 billion in the last three years alone.

Of course, creators starting out now have many options available besides YouTube. Nearly every social media app offers some kind of monetization opportunity, though few have generated anything close to the eye-popping eight-figure sums made by YouTube’s top talent.

Other companies' creator funds, in which all creators draw payouts from the same pool of money fronted by the platform, have been underwhelming. YouTube star Jimmy Donaldson, better known as Mr. Beast, regularly tops the lists of YouTube’s highest earners. In 2022, he shared that he was making less than $10,000 a year from TikTok’s creator fund. And other apps’ monetization features, like tipping, subscriptions and virtual gifts, are difficult to scale.

Unsurprisingly, the number of YouTube-made multimillionaires has drastically changed teens’ ideas for career paths. In 2005, the year YouTube came online, teens said their top career aspirations were to become teachers or doctors, according to a poll conducted by Gallup. By 2021, YouGov found becoming a YouTuber or streamer was the top aspiration for Gen Z. In 2023, Morning Consult reported that 57% of Gen Z would like to pursue a career as an online creator “if given the opportunity.”

Polls like this often prompt a lot of eye rolls and snarky headlines. But it’s never been easier or more lucrative to be an online creator. At least one university offers a major in content creation and social media. Whether we like the idea of influencing as a career path, the industry of independent streamers, vloggers, newsletter writers, podcast producers, VTubers and others is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Meta is continuing its slow march toward compatibility with the fediverse. The company has been experimenting with making posts from a handful of accounts available on Mastodon since the end of last year. Now, it’s offered a brief preview of how the integration works and what it might look like once more people have the ability to share from Threads directly to the fediverse.

Instagram engineer Peter Cottle gave a short presentation on “Threads in the Fediverse” at FediForum, a virtual event for decentralized social media enthusiasts. In the demo, Cottle explains how Threads users will be able to opt-in to fediverse sharing and offered some insight into how Meta is thinking about its role in the fediverse.

In a short video demo, first spotted by The Verge, Cottle shows off a new account setting called “fediverse sharing.” As the name suggests, the menu will enable users to make their posts viewable from Mastodon and other platforms that use ActivityPub. Notably, it appears to also come with lengthy disclaimers explaining exactly what that will mean for their content.

“I think it's actually kind of tricky for Threads because we have like 130 million people using it monthly, but a lot of people haven't heard of the fediverse,” Cottle said. “But we want to give them the ability to enter that kind of experience. So we have to both explain the fediverse and explain all the disclaimers and then make sure they feel good about the outcome.”

Visually, the fediverse will be represented on Threads by an icon that looks a bit like a planet (the symbol has previously been spotted in code in the app). Cottle explained that users who have enabled fediverse sharing will have the symbol viewable on their profiles and that they’ll see an indication in the app’s composer if a post will be visible in the fediverse. Cottle also confirmed that only public-facing accounts will have the ability to share to the fediverse. He also noted that users will have a 5-minute window before posts go live in order to make any changes or edits as Threads can’t guarantee a deleted Threads post is also deleted from the fediverse.

The demo comes as Meta has started to add a few more accounts to its fediverse sharing experiment. Right now, Mastodon users can follow Instagram chief Adam Mosseri and a handful of other Threads users, but the company hasn’t provided an update on when the functionality will be more widely available. Cottle’s demo also didn’t delve into how sharing from Mastoodn and other ActivityPub-enabled services intoThreads might work. (Right now, if a Mastodon user replies to a Threads post, the reply is only visible on Mastodon, not on Threads.)

But Cottle’s demo is another sign that Meta is taking the growing momentum for decentralized social media seriously. “I know there's a ton of skepticism about threads entering the fediverse, it's completely understandable,” Cottle said. “But I do want to make a plea that I think everyone on the team has really good intentions. We really want to be a really good member of the community and give people the ability to experience what the fediverse is and the power of a protocol.”

Meta is finally providing a bit of visibility into what kinds of conversations are happening on its Twitter competitor, Threads. The service is rolling out its “trending now” feature to all US users, Mark Zuckerberg said in a post.

The feature, which the company began testing in February, uses AI to surface a handful of topics “based on what people are engaging with right now.” Trends will appear in Threads’ search page and will also appear in between posts in users’ For You feeds.

For now, the feature is still fairly limited. Threads only shows five trending topics at any one time, which is likely an attempt to keep the list relatively curated and avoid some of the issues that have plagued the feature on Twitter and now X. Meta has said it employs human “content specialists” to review topics and ensure that trends comply with the company’s safety rules.

Still, the official arrival of trends brings a much-requested feature to the app. Up until now, users had very few ways to get insight into what others are talking about outside of what they can see in their own feeds. Trends also gives users a way to keep up with some news and current events on the platform, despite Meta’s reluctance to “encourage” news content on Threads.