×
Will China Beat the US Back to the Moon?

Will China Beat the US Back to the Moon?

Ever since NASA astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong became the first humans to step foot on the Moon, the U.S. has reigned as the world’s leading space power. Now, a new space race is underway.

To maintain U.S. dominance in space, the government insists that NASA must return astronauts to the Moon before China achieves its first crewed landing. This is central to NASA’s Artemis program, which ultimately aims to establish a sustained American presence on the Moon. Over the past year, however, the program has faced unprecedented challenges.

Under the Trump administration, NASA has been in turmoil—forced to navigate proposed budget cuts, sweeping staff reductions, and leadership shakeups. At the same time, the Artemis program has continued to struggle with delays and cost overruns tied to NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft. Artemis 2, the first crewed test flight of these vehicles, was supposed to launch months ago. On top of that, the landers that will eventually carry Artemis astronauts to the lunar surface are still in development and way behind schedule.

In an attempt to course-correct, NASA recently overhauled the Artemis program, setting a goal to land astronauts on the Moon by 2028. It’s unclear whether the revamp will actually help the agency hit that target. Meanwhile, China appears on track for a 2030 landing—or perhaps even earlier.

For this Giz Asks, we asked spaceflight experts whether they believe the U.S. is at risk of losing the Moon to China, and the answer is: it’s complicated. They shared different perspectives on where NASA stands in the new space race and the challenges that stand in the way of returning American astronauts to the lunar surface.

Clayton Swope

Deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and a senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Swope is an expert on national security issues related to space and emerging technologies.

Getting to the Moon again is way less important than staying there for the long run. We have to keep our eye on the prize—and that is the long-term strategic vision. The Moon is the gateway to the rest of the solar system and a natural waystation for future human travelers going to Mars and beyond. It also has natural resources that we will want access to.

One of the biggest schedule risks for an Artemis crewed lunar landing is making sure either the SpaceX or Blue Origin Human Landing System is ready. The HLS program is trying to do some really hard things and do those things differently than before, working with companies in novel ways. Some of the best minds in the space industry are working on these hard problems. SpaceX has a history of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat—let’s watch it do that this time too. Blue Origin is on a roll with the success of New Glenn. Let’s expect it to come through on HLS also. The key question, however, is when.

The revamped Artemis plan does not get us more time—the clock is still ticking. Time is what these companies and NASA need to get these systems ready. What the new plan does is create another opportunity to test and operate hardware in space before we send everything with a crew to the Moon. This makes sense and is how NASA approached the Apollo program.

We don’t know if China would move up its crewed lunar plans. We do know that China moved up its plans for a Mars sample return mission. We also know that China is making steady progress on its lunar plans. We could speculate that if things keep moving forward, China may be tempted to move up its timeline, like it did with its Mars mission (Tiawen-3).

China is going to the Moon even if there were no Artemis program—its simply very important to Beijing. Certainly, China would be happy to do that and do it before we return U.S. astronauts to the Moon. But I think NASA is going to get astronauts back to the Moon before China gets taikonauts there for the first time. NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and a whole lot of other U.S. and foreign partners are putting their heads down to make Artemis succeed. And I think we will.

Greg Autry

Associate provost for space commercialization and strategy at the University of Central Florida. Autry is an expert on the commercial space industry and global space policy.

I believe the Chinese are ahead of schedule in getting to the Moon. Everything I’ve seen indicates that, and analysts I trust believe that to be true. I think they could achieve a crewed landing by 2029, or potentially 2028, so I think the race is neck-and-neck.

Some argue that because the U.S. has already been to the Moon, we have nothing to prove to China. But if they beat us, they will still rub our capitalist noses in it. China will seize the opportunity to undermine American space leadership and court international partners, some of whom are already unhappy with our churn on programs. Why wouldn’t they go to the Chinese who are probably going to execute on time?

I don’t think there’s an immediate national security risk associated with China beating the U.S. to the Moon, but in the long run, I believe the Moon is a very important strategic high ground. Whoever gains a first-mover advantage over the Moon and its resources could weaponize it in a variety of ways. If you look at what happened to the Soviet Union, you can see a direct link between its collapse and its failure to get to the Moon.

I’m concerned about every component of the Artemis program on some level. The Human Landing System seems to be the long pole in the tent, as they say, but consider the spacesuits. We only have one vendor working on them when we really should have two. I’m also concerned about the SLS’s cost and cadence. The rocket worked perfectly for Artemis 1, but it’s persnickety.

So, we’ve got a situation where all the components are difficult, but I think NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman is doing everything right. Beyond specific components, NASA also has systemic administrative challenges—Artemis isn’t the only program that’s behind schedule and over budget—but Isaacman is aware of these and is again doing what should be done. More importantly private industry, with NASA’s support, are building an incredible armada of commercial space vehicles and capabilities, which is our real advantage. I am hopeful of America success, even if we turn out to be a “fast follower” in Space Race 2.0.

Joan Johnson-Freese

Senior fellow with Women in International Security and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College. Johnson-Freese is an expert on national security strategy and space policy who has written seven books on space security.

I think it’s likely that the next voice transmission from the Moon will be in Mandarin. That’s not because NASA lacks the capabilities to beat China, but because each president wants to restructure the space program so that it’s his success. Every four to eight years, there’s major changes. We currently have a president who governs by spectacle and at the same time tries to cut NASA’s budget by 24%. The agency is doing the best it can under horrible circumstances.

The U.S.-China Moon race is like the tortoise and the hare. NASA has the capabilities, but China has the persistence. How many times has our Moon program been revamped? Revamping rarely, if ever, results in a faster program. In the 1990s, the NASA motto was “faster, better, cheaper,” and what the agency consistently found was that you can achieve any two of those at the same time, but not all three.

The push to rely on commercial partners also overlooks the advantages of allowing NASA to do its own systems engineering—nobody in the world is better at it. The Artemis program is sprawling, and commercial providers aren’t talking to each other as much as they should. So it’s no surprise that technical issues—from heat shield malfunctions to lander delays and refueling problems—are coming up.

Apollo achieved its goals in less than a decade, but that was because NASA had the necessary funding, talent, and political will. It was a moment in history that is unlikely to be repeated. Since then, the U.S. Moon program has been in flux, and meanwhile China has been steadily developing its program since 1992.

Source link
#China #Beat #Moon

#Tovala #Oven #Meal #Kit #Robot #Chef #Futurekitchen,food and drink,cooking,review,meal kits,shopping">The Tovala Oven and Meal Kit Is Like a Robot Chef of Future PastA garlic-herb salmon with risotto was probably the best among the family meals I tried. The chopped asparagus was less than visually appealing when drizzled in garlic butter, but still tasty and a bit crisp. The salmon was tender and flaky. And the sweet pea risotto had no choice but to be delicious. There was so much cheese, butter, and lemon it was pretty much a concert of fats and acid.That chicken parm was likewise a mountain of cheese and salt. It reminded me, pleasantly, of countless family meals I had as a child in the 1980s: cheese-topped chicken, garlic bread, shells stuffed with ricotta and topped with even more cheese. The big difference is that there is simply no way my mother would have cooked this meal without a vegetable.Toval app via Matthew KorfhageAnd nutrition is where Toval runs aground a little. The nutritional notes on that chicken parm meal betray 2,300 milligrams of sodium per serving, pretty much the entire daily allowance for an adult human. This is also on par with comparable servings of Stouffer’s meat lasagna. The Tovala meal also carried about 10 times the cholesterol as Stouffer’s.Many other meals followed a similar pattern, loading up on fats and salt in order to make meals tasty. The net effect is that it’s a lot more like rich restaurant food than what most people prepare at home. Whether this is a good or a bad quality is up to you.Only one meal of the seven I tried failed utterly: I flagged a teriyaki chicken dinner to my editor as a possible cultural crime against Japan. The meal was sweet soy drenching pale and steaming chicken, with an implausible side of thick egg rolls and some loose, unseasoned broccoli. It felt like the “Japanese” food you’d get at a mall food court in the ’90s. But again, this was a rare major misstep.A more pernicious issue, in meals designed for the whole family, is the near-universal high-fat, cholesterol, and sodium content. Many with the income and inclination to eat hearty, low-effort meals like the ones from Tovala are either parents with children, or people in the retirement bracket. Each has their own reason to desire a little more nutrition, and less fat and salt.By the end of a couple of weeks of testing recipes, I’ll admit I felt a little relieved. I was grateful to feel my arteries slowly reopen. Tovala’s culinary model makes a lot of sense to me, as a smart way of splitting the difference between prepared meals and fresh food. And the company has proven it can cook well. It might be nice if they’d also cook a diet that felt more sustainable.Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting that’s too important to ignore. Includes unlimited digital access and exclusive subscriber-only content. Subscribe Today.#Tovala #Oven #Meal #Kit #Robot #Chef #Futurekitchen,food and drink,cooking,review,meal kits,shopping


Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting that’s too important to ignore. Includes unlimited digital access and exclusive subscriber-only content. Subscribe Today.

#Tovala #Oven #Meal #Kit #Robot #Chef #Futurekitchen,food and drink,cooking,review,meal kits,shopping">The Tovala Oven and Meal Kit Is Like a Robot Chef of Future Past

A garlic-herb salmon with risotto was probably the best among the family meals I tried. The chopped asparagus was less than visually appealing when drizzled in garlic butter, but still tasty and a bit crisp. The salmon was tender and flaky. And the sweet pea risotto had no choice but to be delicious. There was so much cheese, butter, and lemon it was pretty much a concert of fats and acid.

That chicken parm was likewise a mountain of cheese and salt. It reminded me, pleasantly, of countless family meals I had as a child in the 1980s: cheese-topped chicken, garlic bread, shells stuffed with ricotta and topped with even more cheese. The big difference is that there is simply no way my mother would have cooked this meal without a vegetable.

Image may contain Page Text Electronics Mobile Phone and Phone

Toval app via Matthew Korfhage

And nutrition is where Toval runs aground a little. The nutritional notes on that chicken parm meal betray 2,300 milligrams of sodium per serving, pretty much the entire daily allowance for an adult human. This is also on par with comparable servings of Stouffer’s meat lasagna. The Tovala meal also carried about 10 times the cholesterol as Stouffer’s.

Many other meals followed a similar pattern, loading up on fats and salt in order to make meals tasty. The net effect is that it’s a lot more like rich restaurant food than what most people prepare at home. Whether this is a good or a bad quality is up to you.

Only one meal of the seven I tried failed utterly: I flagged a teriyaki chicken dinner to my editor as a possible cultural crime against Japan. The meal was sweet soy drenching pale and steaming chicken, with an implausible side of thick egg rolls and some loose, unseasoned broccoli. It felt like the “Japanese” food you’d get at a mall food court in the ’90s. But again, this was a rare major misstep.

A more pernicious issue, in meals designed for the whole family, is the near-universal high-fat, cholesterol, and sodium content. Many with the income and inclination to eat hearty, low-effort meals like the ones from Tovala are either parents with children, or people in the retirement bracket. Each has their own reason to desire a little more nutrition, and less fat and salt.

By the end of a couple of weeks of testing recipes, I’ll admit I felt a little relieved. I was grateful to feel my arteries slowly reopen. Tovala’s culinary model makes a lot of sense to me, as a smart way of splitting the difference between prepared meals and fresh food. And the company has proven it can cook well. It might be nice if they’d also cook a diet that felt more sustainable.


Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting that’s too important to ignore. Includes unlimited digital access and exclusive subscriber-only content. Subscribe Today.

#Tovala #Oven #Meal #Kit #Robot #Chef #Futurekitchen,food and drink,cooking,review,meal kits,shopping

Ask.com, originally founded as the Y2K stalwart Ask Jeeves, is officially dead.

“As IAC continues to sharpen its focus, we have made the decision to discontinue our search business, which includes Ask.com. After 25 years of answering the world’s questions, Ask.com officially closed on May 1, 2026,” the homepage now reads.

Ask Jeeves was launched in 1997 by the Berkeley-based duo Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, a year before Google’s now-dominant search engine debuted to the masses. At the time, Ask Jeeves’ natural language processing, combined with its personality-filled voice and branding, made it the go-to web search and answer engine for early internet adopters. The website’s butler mascot, Jeeves, modeled after the P.G. Wodehouse character, made appearances at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, holding its own against other iconic corporate logos of the early 2000s.

“Can one man have all the answers?” If he has access to the entire internet, absolutely.

But while many still refer to the site by its 1990s name, Ask.com hasn’t been “Ask Jeeves” for nearly 20 years, with the brand dropping the latter word and its valet logo in 2006. The shift came after a change in ownership, when the brand was transferred to American holding company IAC. In 2009, Ask.com was dubbed the official search engine of NASCAR.

“We are deeply grateful to the brilliant engineers, designers, and teams who built and supported Ask over the decades. And to you — the millions of users who turned to us for answers in a rapidly changing world — thank you for your endless curiosity, your loyalty, and your trust,” Ask.com reads. “Jeeves’ spirit endures.”

Amid an overwhelming shift toward generative AI-powered search engines and a repositioning of AI agents as the future of web browsing, the loss of Ask.com feels like a true end of the early dot-com era. So long Jeeves, hello AI.

#Jeeves #Ask.com #officially #shuttered">No more Jeeves: Ask.com officially shuttered
                                                            Ask.com, originally founded as the Y2K stalwart Ask Jeeves, is officially dead.  “As IAC continues to sharpen its focus, we have made the decision to discontinue our search business, which includes Ask.com. After 25 years of answering the world’s questions, Ask.com officially closed on May 1, 2026,” the homepage now reads. 
        SEE ALSO:
        
            Friendster has returned! But you can only connect with offline friends.
            
        
    
Ask Jeeves was launched in 1997 by the Berkeley-based duo Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, a year before Google’s now-dominant search engine debuted to the masses. At the time, Ask Jeeves’ natural language processing, combined with its personality-filled voice and branding, made it the go-to web search and answer engine for early internet adopters. The website’s butler mascot, Jeeves, modeled after the P.G. Wodehouse character, made appearances at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, holding its own against other iconic corporate logos of the early 2000s. 
        
            Mashable Trend Report
        
        
    

“Can one man have all the answers?” If he has access to the entire internet, absolutely. But while many still refer to the site by its 1990s name, Ask.com hasn’t been “Ask Jeeves” for nearly 20 years, with the brand dropping the latter word and its valet logo in 2006. The shift came after a change in ownership, when the brand was transferred to American holding company IAC. In 2009, Ask.com was dubbed the official search engine of NASCAR.  
“We are deeply grateful to the brilliant engineers, designers, and teams who built and supported Ask over the decades. And to you — the millions of users who turned to us for answers in a rapidly changing world — thank you for your endless curiosity, your loyalty, and your trust,” Ask.com reads. “Jeeves’ spirit endures.”Amid an overwhelming shift toward generative AI-powered search engines and a repositioning of AI agents as the future of web browsing, the loss of Ask.com feels like a true end of the early dot-com era. So long Jeeves, hello AI. 

                    
                                    #Jeeves #Ask.com #officially #shuttered

Ask.com, originally founded as the Y2K stalwart Ask Jeeves, is officially dead.

“As IAC continues to sharpen its focus, we have made the decision to discontinue our search business, which includes Ask.com. After 25 years of answering the world’s questions, Ask.com officially closed on May 1, 2026,” the homepage now reads.

Ask Jeeves was launched in 1997 by the Berkeley-based duo Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, a year before Google’s now-dominant search engine debuted to the masses. At the time, Ask Jeeves’ natural language processing, combined with its personality-filled voice and branding, made it the go-to web search and answer engine for early internet adopters. The website’s butler mascot, Jeeves, modeled after the P.G. Wodehouse character, made appearances at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, holding its own against other iconic corporate logos of the early 2000s.

“Can one man have all the answers?” If he has access to the entire internet, absolutely.

But while many still refer to the site by its 1990s name, Ask.com hasn’t been “Ask Jeeves” for nearly 20 years, with the brand dropping the latter word and its valet logo in 2006. The shift came after a change in ownership, when the brand was transferred to American holding company IAC. In 2009, Ask.com was dubbed the official search engine of NASCAR.

“We are deeply grateful to the brilliant engineers, designers, and teams who built and supported Ask over the decades. And to you — the millions of users who turned to us for answers in a rapidly changing world — thank you for your endless curiosity, your loyalty, and your trust,” Ask.com reads. “Jeeves’ spirit endures.”

Amid an overwhelming shift toward generative AI-powered search engines and a repositioning of AI agents as the future of web browsing, the loss of Ask.com feels like a true end of the early dot-com era. So long Jeeves, hello AI.

#Jeeves #Ask.com #officially #shuttered">No more Jeeves: Ask.com officially shuttered

Ask.com, originally founded as the Y2K stalwart Ask Jeeves, is officially dead.

“As IAC continues to sharpen its focus, we have made the decision to discontinue our search business, which includes Ask.com. After 25 years of answering the world’s questions, Ask.com officially closed on May 1, 2026,” the homepage now reads.

Ask Jeeves was launched in 1997 by the Berkeley-based duo Garrett Gruener and David Warthen, a year before Google’s now-dominant search engine debuted to the masses. At the time, Ask Jeeves’ natural language processing, combined with its personality-filled voice and branding, made it the go-to web search and answer engine for early internet adopters. The website’s butler mascot, Jeeves, modeled after the P.G. Wodehouse character, made appearances at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, holding its own against other iconic corporate logos of the early 2000s.

“Can one man have all the answers?” If he has access to the entire internet, absolutely.

But while many still refer to the site by its 1990s name, Ask.com hasn’t been “Ask Jeeves” for nearly 20 years, with the brand dropping the latter word and its valet logo in 2006. The shift came after a change in ownership, when the brand was transferred to American holding company IAC. In 2009, Ask.com was dubbed the official search engine of NASCAR.

“We are deeply grateful to the brilliant engineers, designers, and teams who built and supported Ask over the decades. And to you — the millions of users who turned to us for answers in a rapidly changing world — thank you for your endless curiosity, your loyalty, and your trust,” Ask.com reads. “Jeeves’ spirit endures.”

Amid an overwhelming shift toward generative AI-powered search engines and a repositioning of AI agents as the future of web browsing, the loss of Ask.com feels like a true end of the early dot-com era. So long Jeeves, hello AI.

#Jeeves #Ask.com #officially #shuttered

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of $375 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.

Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”

“Even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”

While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.

During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.

A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.

Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”

The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.

Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.

No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.

Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.

“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”

Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”

“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”

But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”

But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech">Meta’s historic loss in court could cost a lot more than 5 millionNew Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of 5 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at 5 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”“Even at 5 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Lauren FeinerCloseLauren FeinerPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Lauren FeinerLawCloseLawPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All LawMetaCloseMetaPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All MetaPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPrivacyClosePrivacyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PrivacySpeechCloseSpeechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All SpeechTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Tech#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech

won a historic sum of $375 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.

Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”

“Even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”

While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.

During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.

A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.

Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”

The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.

Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.

No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.

Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.

“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”

Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”

“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”

But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”

But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech">Meta’s historic loss in court could cost a lot more than $375 million

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of $375 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.

Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”

“Even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”

While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.

During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.

A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.

Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”

The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.

Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.

No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.

Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.

“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”

Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”

“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”

But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”

But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech

Post Comment