More stories

  • in

    The Elites Had It Coming

    Everyone has a moment when they first realized that Donald Trump might well return, and here is mine. It was back in March, during a visit to the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, when I happened to read the explanatory text beside an old painting. This note described the westward advance of the United States in the 19th century as “settler colonialism.” I read it and I knew instantly where this nation was going.My problem with this bit of academic jargon was not that it was wrong, per se, or that President Biden was somehow responsible for putting it there, but rather that it offered a glimpse of our poisoned class relations. Some curator at one of our most exalted institutions of public instruction had decided to use a currently fashionable, morally loaded academic keyword to address a visitor to the museum — say, a family from the Midwest, doing the round of national shrines — and teach them a lesson about American wickedness.Twenty years ago I published a book about politics in my home state of Kansas where white, working-class voters seemed to be drifting into the arms of right-wing movements. I attributed this, in large part, to the culture wars, which the right framed in terms of working-class agony. Look at how these powerful people insult our values!, went the plaint, whether they were talking about the theory of evolution or the war on Christmas.This was worth pointing out because working people were once the heart and soul of left-wing parties all over the world. It may seem like a distant memory, but not long ago, the left was not a movement of college professors, bankers or high-ranking officers at Uber or Amazon. Working people: That’s what parties of the left were very largely about. The same folks who just expressed such remarkable support for Donald Trump.My Kansas story was mainly about Republicans, but I also wrote about the way the Democrats were gradually turning away from working people and their concerns. Just think of all those ebullient Democratic proclamations in the ’90s about trade and tech and globalization and financial innovation. What a vision they had: All those manifestoes about futurific “wired workers” or the “learning class” … all those speeches about how Democrats had to leave the worker-centric populism of the 1930s behind them … all those brilliant triangulations and reaching out to the right. When I was young, it felt like every rising leader in the Democratic Party was making those points. That was the way to win voters in what they called “the center,” the well-educated suburbanites and computer-literate professionals whom everybody admired.Well, those tech-minded Democrats got exactly what they set out to get, and now here we are. At the Republican convention in July, JD Vance described the ruination visited on his working-class town in Ohio by NAFTA and trade with China, both of which he blamed at least in part on Mr. Biden, and also the human toll taken by the Iraq War, which he also contrived to blame on Mr. Biden. Today Mr. Vance is the vice president-elect, and what I hope you will understand, what I want you to mull over and take to heart and remember for the rest of your life, is that he got there by mimicking the language that Americans used to associate with labor, with liberals, with Democrats.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Lawsuit Against Meta Over Section 230, Tech Shield Law, Is Dismissed

    A professor sued pre-emptively to release software that would let users automatically unfollow everyone in their Facebook feed.An attempt to sue Meta using a law that shields tech giants from liability is dead for now.A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a suit brought by a professor who wants to build a tool that allows Facebook users to unfollow everyone in their feed. Ethan Zuckerman, who teaches public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, had asked a federal court to rule that Meta, Facebook’s owner, couldn’t sue him if he went through with his plan.Mr. Zuckerman and his lawyers, who work at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, were relying on a little-used portion of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that shields Meta and other tech giants from lawsuits over content posted by their users.Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Meta’s request to dismiss the lawsuit on Thursday, according to court records. The judge said Mr. Zuckerman could refile the lawsuit at a later date.“We’re disappointed the court believes Professor Zuckerman needs to code the tool before the court resolves the case,” said Ramya Krishnan, one of Mr. Zuckerman’s lawyers. “We continue to believe that Section 230 protects user-empowering tools, and look forward to the court considering that argument at a later time.”A spokesman for Meta pointed to an earlier statement by the company that called the lawsuit “baseless.”Mr. Zuckerman’s lawsuit was a novel salvo in a fight over who gets to control the experience on social media platforms. He wants to create a tool that will wipe a Facebook user’s feed clean. But Meta has previously sent a threatening legal letter to a software developer who released a similar tool.Mr. Zuckerman’s case hinged on a portion of Section 230 that protects the ability to restrict obscene or troublesome content, saying it should apply to any content that users don’t want to see. More

  • in

    Why a Memphis Community Is Fighting Elon Musk’s Supercomputer

    Residents say Mr. Musk’s data center for artificial intelligence is compounding their pollution burden and adding stress on the local electrical grid.Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is building what he says will be the world’s largest supercomputer. Its electricity needs will rival those of 100,000 homes.The supercomputer’s neighbors in southwest Memphis have a problem with that.The project, part of Mr. Musk’s xAI artificial intelligence business, sits in an old manufacturing plant on more than 550 acres. Before beginning operations there in July, xAI rolled in flatbed trucks loaded with almost 20 mobile power plants, fueled by natural gas, to help meet its electricity demands.Residents of the heavily industrial community — already home to an oil refinery, a steel mill and chemical plants — see no upside. They contend that Mr. Musk’s project has made pollution worse in an area already enveloped in smog.“We’re getting more and more days a year where it is unhealthy for us to go outside,” said KeShaun Pearson, president of Memphis Community Against Pollution and a lifelong resident of the area near the xAI site.The xAI supercomputer center in Memphis is being built at the site of a former appliance factory.Whitten Sabbatini for The New York TimesThe center is to be used to train artificial intelligence models on thousands of powerful computer servers.Whitten Sabbatini for The New York TimesSo far, xAI is using the Memphis facility to develop its artificial intelligence models on a network of thousands of high-powered computer servers. Some of its models are trained on data from Mr. Musk’s social media platform, X.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Their Parents Are Giving Money to Scammers. They Can’t Stop Them.

    One son couldn’t prevent his father from giving about $1 million in savings to con artists, including one posing as a female wrestling star. The two became estranged.When Chris Mancinelli walked into his father’s home for the first time after the 79-year-old man died last summer, he stopped to look at family photos displayed on the refrigerator door. Near a crayon drawing spelling out “grandpa” in rainbow colors were photos of his father’s three granddaughters at a swimming pool.But one image jumped out: a photo of Alexa Bliss, a professional wrestling personality.Mr. Mancinelli’s father, Alfred, was completely smitten with the star — or at least with the con artist impersonating her. He was convinced he was in a romantic relationship with Ms. Bliss, leading him to give up about $1 million in retirement savings (and his granddaughter’s college fund) to the impostor and a varied cast of online fraudsters he interacted with over several years.When Mr. Mancinelli tried to intervene, moving his father’s last $100,000 to a safe account, Alfred sued him — his loyalty was to “Lexi.”“There was nothing we could do to convince him,” said Mr. Mancinelli, 47, a chemical engineer in Collegeville, Pa. An elder care specialist deemed Alfred “really sharp,” he said, but lacking purpose.Mr. Mancinelli and others who have tried to awaken their loved ones from this trance often feel powerless, even after they’ve done everything to shatter the fiction and protect their assets. They say it’s as if their parent had been brainwashed into a cult.In some ways, they were: These victims were slowly groomed by con artists posing as love interests, investment advisers or government officials, among others. Once ensconced inside this bubble, they are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that they have become victims. Even when their own children are warning them of the con.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Tesla Self-Driving System Will Be Investigated by Safety Agency

    The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration said it was looking into what Elon Musk’s electric car company called the full self-driving system.Tesla’s plan to build fleets of self-driving cars suffered a setback on Friday when the main federal auto safety regulator said it was investigating whether the technology was to blame for four collisions, including one that killed a pedestrian.The regulator, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, said it was examining whether the software, which Tesla calls supervised full self-driving, had safeguards in place to require drivers to retake control of their cars in situations the autonomous technology could not handle on its own.As sales of Tesla’s electric cars have slowed, Elon Musk, the company’s chief executive, has staked the company’s future on software that allows cars to navigate, steer and brake without human supervision. Last week, the company held an event at the Warner Bros. studios near Los Angeles to unveil what it called a cybercab, which Mr. Musk promised would be able to ferry passengers without a human driver.But such software has faced persistent criticism from regulators and safety experts who say it does not do enough to make sure drivers remain alert and ready to take over if the system makes a mistake. Tesla faces numerous lawsuits from people who blame the software for injuries or deaths of loved ones.Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.The crashes highlighted by the safety agency on Friday took place when road visibility may have been limited by glare from the sun, fog or dust, the federal safety agency said. Tesla’s self-driving software depends on cameras to operate, unlike other manufacturers who also use radar or laser technology that are often better at detecting objects and people when the view is obscured by poor weather or bright sunshine.The agency said it would “examine the system’s potential failure to detect and disengage in specific situations where it cannot adequately operate.”In one of the collisions, a pedestrian died. In another, a person was injured, the agency said.The investigation covers 2.4 million Tesla vehicles, including cars manufactured as far back as 2016. All of Tesla’s passenger models are involved, the agency said, including the Model 3 and Model S sedans, the Model X and Model Y sport utility vehicles, and the Cybertruck.Federal officials have also been investigating a less capable Tesla system known as Autopilot for several years. These investigations may not survive if former President Donald J. Trump is elected next month. Mr. Trump has said he will appoint Mr. Musk, one of his most prominent supporters in the business world, to lead a “government efficiency commission.” More

  • in

    Microsoft and OpenAI’s Close Partnership Shows Signs of Fraying

    The “best bromance in tech” has had a reality check as OpenAI has tried to change its deal with Microsoft and the software maker has tried to hedge its bet on the start-up.Last fall, Sam Altman, OpenAI’s chief executive, asked his counterpart at Microsoft, Satya Nadella, if the tech giant would invest billions of dollars in the start-up.Microsoft had already pumped $13 billion into OpenAI, and Mr. Nadella was initially willing to keep the cash spigot flowing. But after OpenAI’s board of directors briefly ousted Mr. Altman last November, Mr. Nadella and Microsoft reconsidered, according to four people familiar with the talks who spoke on the condition of anonymity.Over the next few months, Microsoft wouldn’t budge as OpenAI, which expects to lose $5 billion this year, continued to ask for more money and more computing power to build and run its A.I. systems.Mr. Altman once called OpenAI’s partnership with Microsoft “the best bromance in tech,” but ties between the companies have started to fray. Financial pressure on OpenAI, concern about its stability and disagreements between employees of the two companies have strained their five-year partnership, according to interviews with 19 people familiar with the relationship between the companies.That tension demonstrates a key challenge for A.I. start-ups: They are dependent on the world’s tech giants for money and computing power because those big companies control the massive cloud computing systems the small outfits need to develop A.I.No pairing displays this dynamic better than Microsoft and OpenAI, the maker of the ChatGPT chatbot. When OpenAI got its giant investment from Microsoft, it agreed to an exclusive deal to buy computing power from Microsoft and work closely with the tech giant on new A.I.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    U.S. Outlines Google Search Changes It’s Weighing in Antitrust Case

    They include making Google’s data available to rivals and forcing it to break off parts of the company, the Justice Department said in a court filing.The Justice Department said Tuesday night that it was considering asking a federal court to force Google to break off parts of the company or change its practices in order to eliminate its monopoly in search, moves that could redefine the $2 trillion company’s core business.In a filing, the government said it could ask the court to require Google to make the underlying data that powers its search engine available to competitors.It said it was considering asking for “structural” changes to Google to stop the company from leveraging the power of its Chrome browser, Android operating system or Play app store to benefit its search business. But it stopped short of identifying what those changes could be.“Google’s anticompetitive conduct resulted in interlocking and pernicious harms that present unprecedented complexities in a highly evolving set of markets,” the government said in its filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “These markets are indispensable to the lives of all Americans, whether as individuals or as business owners, and the importance of effectively unfettering these markets and restoring competition cannot be overstated.”Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a blog post in response to the filing that the company was concerned the Justice Department was “already signaling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.”In a landmark ruling in August, a judge on that court, Amit P. Mehta, said Google “is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” It crossed a line when it paid companies like Apple and Samsung billions of dollars to be the automatic search engine in web browsers and on smartphones, Judge Mehta ruled in the case, U.S. et al. v. Google.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Bitcoin Documentary ‘Money Electric’ Reopens Search for Satoshi Nakamoto

    The identity of the pseudonymous Bitcoin creator has eluded sleuths for years. But does finding the real Mr. Nakamoto really matter?There are two ambitious missions behind “Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery,” a new documentary by the filmmaker Cullen Hoback that was released Tuesday by HBO.The first is to solve one of the internet’s great mysteries by revealing, at long last, the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous programmer who created Bitcoin in 2008.The film’s second mission is to make the case that the identity of Bitcoin’s creator actually matters — that Bitcoin, for all its flaws, represents an important technological breakthrough with far-reaching implications, and that there are good reasons, aside from prurience, to care who created it.Let’s start with the first part. Among Bitcoin buffs and cryptocurrency journalists, the mystery of Mr. Nakamoto’s identity has been the subject of fierce debate and painstaking investigation for more than a decade. But nothing has been proved conclusively, and a handful of bungled attempts to crack the case — most notoriously a 2014 Newsweek cover story that put the blame on a physicist, Dorian Nakamoto, who turned out to have nothing to do with Bitcoin at all — have only muddied the waters.(My former colleague Nathaniel Popper suggested that Nick Szabo, who created a digital currency with similarities to Bitcoin, was most likely Satoshi Nakamoto back in 2015, but Mr. Szabo has denied it, and no conclusive evidence has emerged.)Mr. Hoback, who spent years diving down the rabbit hole of the QAnon conspiracy theory for his last film, “Q: Into the Storm,” took a similarly exhaustive approach this time. He and a camera crew spent three years flying around the world interviewing early Bitcoin contributors, following digital breadcrumbs buried in ancient message board posts and piecing together the evidence.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More