The Federal Trade Commission is looking into Reddit’s AI licensing deals, the company disclosed in paperwork filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company, which is in the midst of its Initial Public Offering, said that the regulator notified Reddit officials that it “intended to request information and documents” about the company’s AI deals.

It’s not clear why the FTC is probing Reddit’s relatively new licensing business, but it seems to be in the early stages of its inquiry. “On March 14, 2024, we received a letter from the FTC advising us that the FTC’s staff is conducting a non-public inquiry focused on our sale, licensing, or sharing of user-generated content with third parties to train AI models,” Reddit wrote in a filing. “Given the novel nature of these technologies and commercial arrangements, we are not surprised that the FTC has expressed interest in this area. We do not believe that we have engaged in any unfair or deceptive trade practice.”

Reddit’s deals to license its catalog of user-generated content are a key part of the company’s strategy to grow its revenue as it gets ready to go public. On the day the company filed for IPO, the company announced it had reached a deal with Google, which will use Reddit data to train its AI models. That arrangement was reportedly worth around $60 million. The company said it was in the early stages of “exploring” these types of deals.

According to Axios, other companies have received similar letters from the FTC. The regulator has previously shown an interest in the current wave of generative AI upstarts and their relationships with large tech companies, The FTC is currently investigating Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon over their investments into prominent AI startups.

One day after a bill that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States passed the House of Representatives, the company is doubling down on its strategy of urging users to call lawmakers. The app began pushing new in-app messages to users asking them to "tell your Senator how important TikTok is to you” and to “ask them to vote not on the TikTok ban.”

The new alerts are the second such message TikTok has pushed to users about the bill. Prior to the House vote, the company prompted users to call their representatives in the House. The step may have backfired as lawmakers accused the company of trying to “interfere” with the legislative process as Congressional offices were reportedly overwhelmed with calls, many of which came from somewhat confused teenagers.

The latest notifications are even more direct. “The House of Representatives just voted to ban TikTok, which impacts 170 million Americans just like you,” it says. “Now, if the Senate votes, the future of creativity and communities you love on TikTok could be shut down.” Like the previous alerts, users can choose to “call now,” and the app will find phone numbers if a zip code is provided.

Screenshot via TikTok

TikTok didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. But the message underscores just how big a threat the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” is to the company. If passed, TikTok would have about six months to sell itself or face a ban in the US. Though there have been several previous attempts to ban the app or force a sale, no measure has received as much bipartisan support so quickly. If passed by the Senate, President Joe Biden has said he would sign it into law.

TikTok CEO Shou Chew has also appealed directly to users, telling them to “protect your constitutional rights” and promising that the company would “do all we can including exercising our legal rights to protect this amazing platform.”

The SEC officials investigating Elon Musk over his handling of the Twitter takeover seem to be growing more and more impatient with his legal antics. The two sides have been locked in a dispute over Musk’s refusal to testify in the investigation.Now, in a new filing, the SEC accuses Musk of trying to “misrepresent” the regulator’s investigation. “Musk continues to distort the true scope of this investigation – his only hope for establishing that the SEC is not seeking relevant evidence,” the SEC writes in a court document.

The SEC has been investigating Musk since 2022 over his delayed disclosure of his stake in Twitter, which was then a publicly-traded company. The regulator sued Musk last year in an effort to force him to testify in the investigation. The SEC said at the time it was investigating “among other things, potential violations of various provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with” his purchase of Twitter stock and “SEC filings relating to Twitter.” A federal judge ordered Musk to comply with the subpoena and schedule an interview last month.

That testimony has apparently still not taken place, with the SEC accusing Musk of using “gamesmanship” to stall the investigation. The regulator goes on to note that while Musk’s legal team has claimed the probe is an “unbounded investigation into an allegedly days-late SEC filing,” that “the SEC staff has repeatedly informed Musk that it is false.” 

Musk, according to the SEC, is also being investigated for securities fraud. “This investigation also examines potential securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act … related to, among other things, Musk’s public statements about his acquisition of Twitter,” the SEC says.

Notably, the filing also references the recently-released biography of Musk written by Walter Isaacson, which contains “newly released evidence,” according to the SEC. “Three days before he was to appear for the testimony he failed to attend, his September 2023 biography was published,” the SEC writes. “This book provides important new information relevant to the SEC’s investigation.”

It’s also not the first time Isaacson’s account of the Twitter takeover has landed Musk in hot water. A group of former execs suing Musk over unpaid severance also referenced a passage from the book in their lawsuit.

X didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

A bill that could force a sale or outright ban on TikTok passed the House just days after it was first introduced. The House of Representatives approved the measure Wednesday, in a vote of 352 - 65, in a rare showing of bipartisan support. It now goes to the Senate.

If passed into law, the legislation would give parent company ByteDance a six-month window to sell TikTok or face a ban from US app stores and web hosting services. While the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” is far from the first effort to force a ban or sale of TikTok, it’s been able to draw more support far more quickly than previous bills.

The measure cleared its first procedural vote in the House last week, just two days after it was introduced. The bill will now move onto the Senate, where its future is less certain. Senator Rand Paul has said he would block the bill, while other lawmakers have also been hesitant to publicly back the bill.

TikTok has called the bill unconstitutional, saying it would “strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression” and hurt creators and businesses that rely on the service. Last week, the company sent a wave of push notifications to users, urging them to ask their representatives to oppose the bill. Congressional staffers reported that offices were overwhelmed with calls, many of which came from confused teenagers. Lawmakers later accused the company of trying to “interfere” with the legislative process.

Free speech and digital rights groups also oppose the bill, with many noting that comprehensive privacy laws would be more effective at protecting Americans’ user data rather than a measure that primarily targets one app. Former President Donald Trump, who once also tried to force ByteDance to sell TikTok, has also said he is against the bill, claiming it would strengthen Meta.

In a letter to lawmakers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Fight for the Future and the Center for Democracy and Technology argued that the bill would “set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms” and would likely “invite copycat measures by other countries … with significant consequences for free expression globally.”

If the bill were to muster enough votes to pass the Senate, President Joe Biden says he would sign the bill into law. His administration has previously pressured ByteDance to sell TikTok. Officials maintain the app poses a national security risk due to its ties to ByteDance, a Chinese company. TikTok has repeatedly refuted these claims.

If the law was passed, the company would likely mount a legal challenge like it did in Montana, which passed a statewide ban last year. A federal judge temporarily blocked the ban in November before it could go into effect.

Developing...

Bluesky, the open-source Twitter alternative, is about to start testing out one of its more ambitious ideas: allowing its users to run their own moderation services. The change will allow Bluesky users to and developers to work together to create custom labeling tools for the budding social media platform.

The new moderation tools arrive as Bluesky is seeing a surge in growth after it got rid of its waitlist and opened to all users in February. Since then, the service has added about 2 million new users, bringing its total community to just over 5 million.

The company has said its approach to moderation is based on the same philosophy that has led it to embrace custom feed algorithms. The goal, Bluesky wrote in a blog post, is to create “an ecosystem of moderation and open-source safety tools that gives communities power to create their own spaces, with their own norms and preferences.”

In practice, these moderation tools will take the form of labeling services. Just as Bluesky allows users to set their own moderation preferences — for example, you can choose whether you want the app to “show,” “warn,” or “hide” explicit content — developers will be able to create their own filtering systems others can opt into. “For example, someone could make a moderation service that blocks photos of spiders from Bluesky — let’s call it the Spider Shield,” the company explains. “If you get a jump scare from seeing spiders in your otherwise peaceful nature feed, you could install this moderation service and immediately any labeled spider pictures would disappear from your experience.”

To help make these kinds of experiences possible, Bluesky is open sourcing its collaborative labeling tool called Ozone, which will allow groups of moderators to respond to reports and add labels to content. But the company notes that developers can also create automated labeling systems using Bluesky’s API.

Bluesky CEO Jay Graber has referred to the concept as “composable” or “stackable” moderation. “We're always doing baseline moderation, meaning that we are providing you with a default moderated experience when you come in [to Bluesky],” Graber told Engadget last month. “And then on top of that, you can customize things.”

These new third-party labeling services will start to roll out later this week on the desktop version of Bluesky, with a mobile version coming “soon,” according to the company. And it’s likely users will see more options available in the coming weeks as more developers and groups get their hands on the underlying tools.

Sam Altman is back on the board of OpenAI, nearly four months after the CEO was ousted, and quickly reinstated, from the company he founded. Although Altman had returned as the AI company’s top executive in November, a temporary board oversaw his return and the subsequent investigation into his conduct.

That investigation is now complete, according to the company, which added three new members to its board of directors. The additions include: Instacart CEO and former Meta executive Fidji Simo, former Sony executive Nicole Seligman and Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann, former CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Salesforce co-CEO Bret Taylor, economist Larry Summers and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman, who served on the temporary three-seat board, will remain in their positions with Taylor continuing as chair.

The announcement caps off a tumultuous several months for the AI company, which was rocked by Altman’s abrupt ouster last fall.

On Friday, OpenAI also published a summary of the findings from WilmerHale, a law firm that the company’s board retained in December 2023 to conduct an independent investigation into the events that led to Altman’s firing. Despite that, however, we’re no closer to finding out exactly why Altman, who rejoined the company as CEO within five days, was fired to begin with.

“WilmerHale [found] that the prior Board’s decision did not arise out of concerns regarding product safety or security, the pace of development, OpenAI’s finances, or its statements to investors, customers, or business partners,” the summary said. “Instead, it was a consequence of a breakdown in the relationship and loss of trust between the prior Board and Mr. Altman.” WilmerHale also concluded that OpenAI’s previous board fired Altman abruptly without giving notice to “key stakeholders”, and without giving Altman an opportunity to respond to its concerns.

To come to this conclusion, the firm reviewed more than 30,000 documents and conducted dozens of interviews with OpenAI staffers including previous board members over the last few months.

TikTok’s future is looking increasingly uncertain as support grows for a new bill that would force the company to sell itself or face a ban in the United States. Now, President Joe Biden has come out in support of the measure, one day after it cleared its first legislative hurdle in the House.

"If they pass it, I'll sign it,” he said, in remarks reported by CBS News. The bill, called the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” which was introduced earlier this week, would give TikTok a six-month window to divest itself from parent company ByteDance or face an app store-level ban in the US. Meanwhile, Republicans in the House of Representatives could bring the bill to a floor vote as early as Wednesday, Semafor reported.

TikTok has said the bill is a thinly-veiled effort to force a “total ban” of its app. "This legislation has a predetermined outcome: a total ban of TikTok in the United States," the company said in a statement earlier this week. "The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression. This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.”

The company has also encouraged its millions of users to oppose the measure. On Thursday, ahead of the committee vote on the bill, the app sent push notifications prompting users to call their representatives and ask them to oppose the legislation. The notifications reportedly led to a flood of calls in many Congressional offices as staffers fielded hundreds of calls from teens.

Notably, the bill has another prominent opponent: former President Donald Trump. Though Trump also sought to force a sale of TikTok to a US company during his time in office, the former president said he no longer believes the app should be banned. “If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social.

Though clearing the House would be significant milestone for the bill, it’s unclear where the Senate stands on it. As Semafor points out, some prominent senators have been a bit more cautious in their comments about whether they would support the legislation. At a recent Senate hearing about child safety, several senators pressed TikTok CEO Shou Chew on his own citizenship (he's Singaporean) as well as the app’s ties to China and the practices of its parent company ByteDance.

Journalists, creators and long-winded VCs on X now have a new way to be exhausting on main. X now allows verified organizations and Premium+ subscribers to publish long-form “Articles."

The feature adds a basic text-editing interface that includes embedded media and some text formatting options, like the ability to make bulleted lists. It also appears that articles can be longer than the 25,000-character limit currently in place for premium subscribers’ “longer posts” feature. According to my initial tests, I hit the character limit for articles at just over 100,000 characters or about 15,000 words.

Here’s what the editing interface looks like:

Screenshot via X

Notably, Twitter began working on longer form posts long before Elon Musk’s takeover of the company. The company showed off an early version, originally called “Notes” in 2022, as it looked to lure newsletter writers and other creators to the service. Musk confirmed last summer that the publishing tools were still in the works.

The rollout of publishing tools is notable as Musk has often been hostile to journalists on his platform. Last year, Musk directed a change to X’s recommendation algorithm so that links to newsletter platform Substack would not appear in users’ “For You” feeds, which has throttled many independent writers’ reach on the service. X also stripped headlines from news stories shared on the platform last fall (headlines eventually returned, in a much smaller font).

TikTok is stepping up its efforts to fight a new bill that could force a ban of the app in the United States. The app has been alerting its millions of US users about the measure, which would force ByteDance to sell TikTok in order for the app to remain available in US app stores.

“TikTok is at risk of being shut down in the US,” the push notification says. “Call your representative now.” An in-app message then instructs users to “speak up now — before your government strips 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression.” It also provides users a shortcut to dial their representative’s office if they enter their zip code.

The push alerts are reportedly already having a dramatic effect. Politico reporter Olivia Beavers said that House staffers report their offices are being inundated with calls. One staffer said on X that “we're getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is.”

Unfortunately for TikTok, their plan to stir up resistance to the bill may not be having the intended effect. The flood of calls may in fact be “backfiring,” according to Beavers, who says the response may be increasing support for the bill among members of Congress. In a post on X, Representative Mike Gallagher, who chairs the select committee that introduced the bill, said the push notifications were “interfering with the legislative process.” TikTok didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The alerts come amid growing support for the measure, which was introduced earlier this week by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Committee members are expected to vote Thursday on whether to advance the bill. President Joe Biden, whose administration has also sought to force a divestiture of TikTok, is reportedly supportive of the bill. As Punchbowl News notes, previous bills to ban TikTok have not had the backing of the White House.

If passed, the bill would give TikTok about six months to separate itself from ByteDance or else an app store ban would take effect. Digital rights groups oppose the measure. The ACLU has called it “unconstitutional,” while other groups say that comprehensive privacy legislation would be a more effective way to protect Americans’ data.

Of the many bizarre moments that preceded Twitter's change in ownership, one that’s always stuck out to me was Jack Dorsey’s tweetstorm that “Elon is the singular solution I trust.” His insistence that Musk was uniquely positioned to “extend the light of consciousness” was a strange endorsement, even by Dorsey’s usual weird-guy standards. But Dorsey had long idolized Musk and the two men had a relationship that was far deeper than what many onlookers realized.

That’s according to a new book that explores Jack Dorsey’s role in Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Written by Bloomberg reporter Kurt Wagner, Battle for the Bird tells the story of how Dorsey saved Twitter in 2015 and how his actions – or often, lack thereof— led to Musk’s acquisition and, ultimately, Twitter’s death.

Wagner’s isn’t the first book to delve into the tumultuous events of the last two years — Musk biographer Walter Isaacson had a front-row seat to the drama — but Battle for the Bird sheds new light on Dorsey's side of the equation. “Jack had been bringing Elon to Twitter offsites, he'd visited him at his SpaceX launch facility, the two of them sort of had this relationship that I don't really think people paid much attention to,” Wagner tells Engadget. So once Musk began acquiring a large stake in the company, “Jack sort of stepped in and did what he could” to make the deal happen.

The book, which began as a Dorsey biography before Musk’s takeover forced Wagner to change his plans, focuses on the enigmatic Twitter co-founder whose unusual management style sometimes worked against the company’s own interests.

Inside of Twitter, Wagner writes, Dorsey was known to “rarely speak” in meetings and disliked making decisions. Internally, this was a source of confusion as executives often had to guess what Dorsey was thinking about a particular issue. “People would be surprised at how little he was directing [Twitter and Square], he was really advising them in a weird way,” Wagner says.

These dynamics played out in Twitter’s product. Wagner reports that Dorsey had initially encouraged the product team to create the feature that was eventually known as “Fleets,” Twitter’s experiment with disappearing posts. But Dorsey “grew to despise” the feature and publicly cheered when the company killed it less than a year after its rollout. “Even though he thought Fleets was a bad decision, he never stepped in to halt the product or move the team in another direction,” Wagner writes.

Battle for the Bird also details Dorsey’s many eccentricities: the days-long silent meditation retreats, his affinity for “salt juice” (a mixture of water, pink Himalayan sea salt and lemon juice) and his more recent obsession with bitcoin. “He goes through these stages of his life where he's different, he looks different, he acts different, his priorities are different and I think it's sort of a reflection of the things that he becomes obsessed with,” Wagner says.

Giving Musk a more influential role at Twitter was another idea Dorsey fixated on. He tried to get Musk a seat on the company’s board in 2020 amid a bruising fight with activist investor Elliott Management. Dorsey managed to keep his job but failed to get Musk a board seat because, according to what he told Musk, the rest of the board were “super risk averse.” (By 2020, Musk had already faced at least two major lawsuits over his tweets.)

Dorsey would also tell Musk that the board’s veto was “about the time I decided I needed to work to leave” the company. He had always seemed disinterested in the business of running Twitter, but the troubles with Elliott seemed to change him. “He thought that Twitter served this bigger purpose … its place in the world was not to make money for shareholders,” Wagner explains. “And as a result, he was just not really that interested in playing the Wall Street game, which is a problem when you're a publicly traded company.”

So in 2022, after he had stepped down as CEO, Dorsey encouraged Musk to use his new position as a major stakeholder in Twitter to address Twitter’s “original sin” of existing as a corporate entity beholden to advertisers and political interests. Dorsey believed that Musk loved Twitter for the same reasons he did. So when Musk decided to buy the company and take it private, he backed Musk.

Dorsey publicly endorsed the move and promised to roll over his Twitter shares into the new entity, effectively saving Musk about $1 billion. He, along with the rest of the company’s board, voted to approve the deal.

As Wagner points out in Battle for the Bird, Dorsey eventually soured on Musk after he tried to back out of the deal, saying “it all went south.” But by then, Jack Dorsey’s Twitter was already unrecognizable. “He so publicly endorsed this new idea, this takeover from Elon,” Wagner says. “And as a result, the company that he co-founded and led for almost 16 years in various ways, is no more. X is here, but Twitter is gone. His legacy has really been hurt by this whole debacle.”