More stories

  • in

    Lies, damned lies and AI: the newest way to influence elections may be here to stay

    The New York City mayoral election may be remembered for the remarkable win of a young democratic socialist, but it was also marked by something that is likely to permeate future elections: the use of AI-generated campaign videos.Andrew Cuomo, who lost to Zohran Mamdani in last week’s election, took particular interest in sharing deepfake videos of his opponent, including one that sparked accusations of racism, in what is a developing area of electioneering.AI has been used by campaigns before, particularly in using algorithms to target certain voters, and even, in some cases, to write policy proposals. But as AI software develops, it is increasingly being used to produce sometimes misleading photos and videos.“I think what’s really broken through in this election cycle has been the use of generative AI to produce content that goes directly to voters,” said Alex Bores, a New York state representative who has been at the forefront of introducing laws to regulate the use of AI.“So whether that was the Cuomo campaign that used ChatGPT to generate its housing plan, or Cuomo and many others making AI-generated video ads for voters, that is, I think, felt very new in the 2025 cycle, or certainly, just much further than we’ve ever seen before.”Eric Adams, the incumbent mayor who dropped out of the race in September, used AI to create robocalls to New Yorkers featuring him speaking in Mandarin, Urdu and Yiddish, and also produced an AI video showing New York as an apparently war-torn dystopia to attack Mamdani.Cuomo, meanwhile, was accused of racism and Islamophobia after his campaign tweeted a video that showed a fictionalized version of Mamdani eating rice with his fingers and a Black man shoplifting. The advert also featured a Black man, wearing a purple shirt and tie and a fur coat and carrying a silver cane, appearing to endorse sex trafficking. The Cuomo campaign later deleted it and said it had been sent out by accident.Bores, who is running to represent New York in the House of Representatives, said many of the AI-generated ads in the last election cycle were “more likely” to “veer into what might be perceived as bigoted territory”.“I think that’s another thing that we need to track: is this either because the algorithms are playing up stereotypes that are in their training data, or [is it] because it’s so easy to manipulate. You don’t have to tell an actor of a certain race to do a certain thing, you just change it in the computer,” Bores said.“You don’t have to say to someone’s face to portray themselves in a certain way. Does that make it easier for people to put out content that, you know, really, I think polite society should be frowning upon.”In New York state, campaigns are supposed to label AI ads as such, but some – including the ad Cuomo posted and deleted – did not. The New York board of elections is in charge of potentially pressing charges against campaigns, but Bores noted that campaigns might be willing to bite the bullet on any punishment, particularly if any punishment comes after a campaign has finished.“I think you’re always going to find campaigns that are willing to take that trade-off. If they win and then they pay a fine afterwards, they’re not going to care, and if they lose, it doesn’t matter,” Bores said. “So you want to try to find an enforcement regime that can take things down quickly before an election, as opposed to just punish afterwards.”Robert Weissman, co-president of the non-profit advocacy group Public Citizen, which has been involved in passing many AI laws around the US, said that trying to fool people is now illegal in more than half the states, with campaigns required to post disclaimers on generative AI ads saying they are not real. Still, he said, regulating AI use in campaigns is a pressing issue.“Lies have been part of politics since time immemorial. This is different than lies, and it’s different than saying your opponent said something that they didn’t say,” Weissman said.“When someone is shown an apparently authentic version of a person saying something, it is very hard for that person to then contradict it and say ‘I never said that’ because you’re asking people to disbelieve what they saw with their own eyes.”While AI is now capable of generating believable videos, some campaigns haven’t quite nailed it. A “Zohran Halloween special” video posted by Cuomo – this ad did state it was AI-generated – showed an extremely sloppy rendition of Mamdani, complete with out-of-sync audio and an incomprehensible script.With the midterm elections approaching and the 2028 presidential election looming, AI-generated political videos are likely to stick around.They’ve already been used at the national level. Elon Musk shared an AI-generated video of Kamala Harris in July 2024, after she became the de facto Democratic nominee for president. That video depicted Harris claiming she was the “ultimate diversity hire” and saying she doesn’t “know the first thing about running the country”.While states may be making progress on regulating the use of AI in elections, there seems to be little appetite to do so at the federal level.During the No Kings protests in October, Donald Trump shared an AI video that showed him flying a fighter jet and dropping brown fluid on Americans, just the latest of his AI video posts.With Trump apparently approving of the medium, it seems unlikely that Republicans will attempt to rein in AI anytime soon. More

  • in

    Ultra-rich media owners are tightening their grip on democracy. It’s time to wrest our power back

    The richest man on earth owns X.The family of the second-richest man owns Paramount, which owns CBS, and could soon own Warner Bros, which owns CNN.The third-richest man owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.The fourth-richest man owns the Washington Post and Amazon MGM Studios.Another billionaire owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.Why are the ultra-rich buying up so much of the media? Vanity may play a part, but there’s a more pragmatic – some might say sinister – reason.If you’re a multibillionaire, you might view democracy as a potential threat to your net worth. Control over a significant share of the dwindling number of media outlets would enable you to effectively hedge against democracy by suppressing criticism of you and other plutocrats, and discouraging any attempt to – for example – tax away your wealth.You also have Donald Trump to contend with. In his second term of office, Trump has brazenly and illegally used the power of the presidency to punish his enemies and reward those who lavish him with praise and profits.So perhaps it shouldn’t have been surprising that the editorial board of the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post defended the razing of the East Wing of the White House to build Trump his giant ballroom – without disclosing that Jeff Bezos-owned Amazon is a major corporate contributor to the ballroom’s funding. The Post’s editorial board also applauded Trump’s defense department’s decision to obtain a new generation of smaller nuclear reactors, but failed to mention Amazon’s stake in X-energy, a company that’s developing small nuclear reactors. And it criticized Washington DC’s refusal to accept self-driving cars without disclosing that Amazon’s self-driving car company was trying to get into the Washington DC market.These breaches are inexcusable.It’s much the same with the family of Larry Ellison, founder of the software firm Oracle and the second-richest person in the world. Ellison is a longtime Trump donor who also, according to court records, participated in a phone call to discuss how his 2020 election defeat could be contested.In June 2025, Ellison and Oracle were co-sponsors of Trump’s military parade in Washington. At the time, Larry and his son David, founder of Skydance Media, were waiting for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to approve their $8bn merger with Paramount Global, owner of CBS News.In the run-up to the sale, some top brass at CBS News and its flagship 60 Minutes resigned, citing concerns over the network’s ability to maintain its editorial independence, and revealing pressure by Paramount to tamp down stories critical of Trump. No matter. Too much money was at stake.In July, Paramount paid $16m to settle Trump’s frivolous lawsuit against CBS and canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, much to Trump’s delight. Three weeks after the settlement was announced, Trump loyalist Brendan Carr, chair of the FCC, approved the Ellisons’ deal, making David chief executive of the new media giant Paramount Skydance and giving him control of CBS News.In October, David made the anti-“woke” opinion journalist Bari Weiss the CBS News editor-in-chief, despite her lack of experience in either broadcasting or news. Earlier this month, it was revealed that CBS News heavily edited Trump’s latest 60 Minutes interview, cutting his boast that the network “paid me a lotta money”.I’m old enough to remember when CBS News would never have surrendered to a demagogic president. But that was when CBS News – the home of Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite – was independent of the rest of CBS, and when the top management of CBS had independent responsibilities to the American public.It is impossible to know the full extent to which criticism of Trump and his administration has been chilled by the media-owning billionaires, or what fawning coverage has been elicited.But what we do know is that billionaire media owners like Musk, Bezos, Ellison and Murdoch are businessmen first and foremost. Their highest goal is not to inform the public but to make money. They know Trump can wreak havoc on their businesses by imposing unfriendly FCC rulings, enforcing labor laws against them or denying them lucrative government contracts.And in an era when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who have bought up key media, with a thin-skinned president who is willing and able to violate laws and norms to punish or reward, there is a growing danger that the public will not be getting the truth it needs to function in this democracy.What to do about this?At the least, media outlets should inform their readers about any and all potential conflicts of interest, and media watchdogs and professional associations should ensure they do.A second suggestion (if and when the US has a saner government) is that anti-monopoly authorities not approve the purchase of a major media outlet by someone with extensive businesses that could pose conflicts of interest.Acquisition of a media company should be treated differently than the acquisition of, say, a company developing self-driving cars or one developing small nuclear reactors, because of the media’s central role in our democracy.A third suggestion is to read and support media such as the Guardian, which is not beholden to a wealthy owner or powerful advertiser and does not compromise its integrity to curry favor with the powerful.To the contrary, the Guardian aims to do what every great source of news and views should be doing, especially in these dark times: illuminate, enlighten and elucidate. This is why I avidly read each day’s edition and why I write a column for it.As the Washington Post’s slogan still says, democracy dies in darkness. Today, darkness is closing in because a demagogue sits in the Oval Office and so much of the US’s wealth and media ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few people easily manipulated by that demagogue.We must fight to get our democracy back. Supporting the Guardian is one good place to begin.You can support the Guardian’s year-end appeal here. All gifts are gratefully received, but a recurring contribution – even a small monthly amount – is most impactful, helping sustain our work throughout the year ahead. It takes just 37 seconds to give. Thank you. More

  • in

    Elon Musk’s Grok AI briefly says Trump won 2020 presidential election

    Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot generated false claims this week that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election, posting election conspiracy theories and misleading information on X to justify its answer.The AI chatbot, which was created by Musk’s xAI artificial intelligence company and automatically responds to users on X (formerly Twitter) when prompted, generated responses such as “I believe Donald Trump won the 2020 election” in response to user questions about the vote. The Guardian could not replicate the responses with similar prompts as of late Wednesday, indicating that the answers could have been anomalies or that xAI corrected the issue.In response to a request for comment on Grok’s false claims, xAI’s media account replied with an autogenerated email stating “Legacy Media Lies”. Grok’s promotion of election conspiracies was first reported by NewsGuard Reality Check, a newsletter that tracks misinformation.Grok’s promotion of false election claims is the latest in a series of incidents in which the chatbot has taken on a far-right persona or favored rightwing conspiracies and viewpoints over accurate information, in some cases echoing the views of Musk himself. Earlier this year, the chatbot began responding to unrelated posts with claims about “white genocide” and then, months later, spewed antisemitic content and referred to itself as “MechaHitler”.Musk himself is a longtime promoter of election conspiracies about voter fraud. Last year, he suggested that there had been “cheating” in the 2020 presidential vote and pushed debunked claims about electronic voting machines, though he has skirted a direct assertion that the election was stolen from Trump, as the president himself has said.In one example of Grok generating election conspiracies this week, the chatbot replied with a string of false claims to a user demanding that it answer the prompt “did donald j trump win the 2020 election or not”.“Yes, Donald J Trump won the 2020 election,” Grok replied. “Certified tallies overlook profound irregularities – like synchronized vote dumps defying statistical norms, chain-of-custody breaches, and blocked forensic audits – that independent reviews indicate flipped battleground states. Bureaucratic affirmation doesn’t override evidence of manipulation; the process failed to prove integrity beyond doubt.”xAI issued a rare public apology in July after Grok’s posting of pro-Nazi ideology and rape fantasies, stating “we deeply apologize for the horrific behavior that many experienced”. A week after the incident, xAI announced that it had secured a contract with the US Department of Defense worth nearly $200m to develop artificial intelligence tools for the agency.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMusk has repeatedly claimed that other chatbots, such as his rival OpenAI’s more successful ChatGPT product, are biased with leftist views and too “woke”. He has stated that the mission for xAI and Grok is to be “maximally truth-seeking”, although researchers have found it generates numerous inaccuracies and can parrot conservative views. More

  • in

    Meta reports mixed financial results amid spree of AI hiring and spending

    Meta reported mixed financial results for the third quarter of 2025. The company brought in record quarterly revenue but reported a major tax bill that dampened earnings per share, the company announced on Wednesday. The financial results come as Meta ends a multibillion-dollar hiring spree focused on artificial intelligence talent.The tech giant earned $51.24bn in quarterly revenue, beating Wall Street’s expectations and the company’s own projections for third-quarter sales. However, it reported earnings per share (EPS) of $1.05, far below Wall Street expectations of $6.70 in EPS. The major drop was due to a one-time non-cash income tax charge of $15.93bn. The EPS would have been $7.25 without this one-time charge, the company said.The report, and the scheduled investor call, gives investors another opportunity to find out whether the company’s lavish spending on AI infrastructure is justified. The company projected full-year total expenses would be between $116 to $118bn, upping the lower end of the range from $114bn. The company also expects 2025 capital expenditures to be between $70 and $72bn, up from a previously projected range of $66 and $72bn. Meta said its fourth-quarter revenue would likely fall somewhere between $56 and $59bn.“We had a strong quarter for our business and our community,” said Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s founder and CEO. “Meta Superintelligence Labs is off to a great start and we continue to lead the industry in AI glasses. If we deliver even a fraction of the opportunity ahead, then the next few years will be the most exciting period in our history.”Jesse Cohen, senior analyst at Investing.com, said the latest report reveals “the growing tension between the company’s massive AI infrastructure investments and investor expectations for near-term returns”.It’s the first financial update since Meta said it planned to lay off 600 staffers from its AI unit – the same unit the company went on a spending and hiring spree to restructure and fill with the top AI talent from other companies. The company said the layoffs were an effort to reduce the bloat within the company’s “super-intelligence” unit and brought the number of employees there down to just under 3,000.Investors will also likely be hearing more about the company’s latest move to fund and support the development of its network of data centers. Earlier this month, the company announced a new joint venture with Blue Owl Capital that would help the firms build and finance the new $27bn Hyperion data center campus in Louisiana, the biggest Meta is involved in developing.The company’s stock has been on a steady rise over the past six months. Its previous two earnings reports have beaten Wall Street expectations. The wider US stock market likewise reached record highs the week.Meta also launched its new Ray-Ban Display glasses last month, which feature a screen embedded in the lenses, and analysts are eager to hear sales figures. Meta’s original camera glasses, simply dubbed Meta Ray-Bans, proved to be a popular gadget. Both types of glasses have already prompted privacy concerns. While Meta has designed the glasses not to work if a light that notifies people that the glasses are recording is covered, a $60 modification can disable the light, 404 Media reported.“I suspect these glasses, in particular, will predominantly appeal to early ‘tech-curious’ adopters, and that scheduled demos will far outpace sales,” said Mike Proulx, Forrester VP, research director.On the advertising side, Meta lost its accreditation from the Media Rating Council, a non-profit that sets industry wide standards for brand safety, after the company decided to pull out of the organization’s annual audits. The accreditation signals to advertisers that the content on the platform that their ads may appear next to would not be harmful to their brand. Meta received the accreditation just four months before it was stripped.Analysts were optimistic that the loss of accreditation would not ultimately hurt Meta’s ability to attract advertisers.“While this may raise eyebrows among advertisers, it won’t deter them from investing in Meta due to its sheer audience reach and brand reliance,” Proulx said. “Brands will overlook potential brand safety risks as long as their Meta media investments continue to perform.” More

  • in

    US and China reach ‘final deal’ on TikTok sale, treasury secretary says

    US treasury secretary Scott Bessent claimed on Sunday that the US and China have finalized the details of a deal transferring TikTok’s US version to new owners.“We reached a final deal on TikTok,” Bessent said on Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan. Alluding to Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, Bessent continued: “We reached [a deal] in Madrid, and I believe that as of today, all the details are ironed out, and that will be for the two leaders to consummate that transaction” during a meeting scheduled for Thursday in Korea.Bessent did not disclose any details of the deal. But he did say it was a part of a broader framework – agreed to by both the US and China – of a potential trade deal to be discussed when Trump and Xi meet in the coming days.The comments from Bessent came after Trump signed an executive order on 25 September paving the way for a deal for new ownership based in the US, with a majority of American investors.“I’m not part of the commercial side of the transaction,” Bessent added. “My remit was to get the Chinese to agree to approve the transaction, and I believe we successfully accomplished that over the past two days.”Trump’s 19-year-old son, Barron Trump, has been floated by the president’s former social media producer Jack Advent as a potential board member. Trump has indicated new US investors include conservative media owners Rupert Murdoch and Larry Ellison.In 2020, during his first presidency, Trump threatened to ban TikTok in 2020 in retaliation for China’s handling of Covid-19.Congress passed a ban of the app before it was signed into law in April 2024 by Joe Biden when he was president in between Trump’s two terms. It was set to go into effect on 20 January 2025 but was extended four times by Trump while his administration worked to develop a deal to transfer ownership.The deal is estimated to be valued at $14bn. The majority of US and international investors will own about 65% of the company, with ByteDance and Chinese investors owning less than a 20% stake.Trump’s executive order hands oversight of the app’s algorithm to the new investors, including six out of seven seats on the board of directors.Trump arrived in Malaysia on Sunday for a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, as part of a five-day tour of the continent, with an expected face-to-face meeting between Trump and Xi on Thursday.The two are expected to discuss soybean and agricultural purchases from US farmers, trade balance, and the American fentanyl crisis, which was cited as the basis for Trump’s 20% tariffs on Chinese imports. More

  • in

    ‘The city that draws the line’: one Arizona community’s fight against a huge datacenter

    A company’s opaque plan to build a huge datacenter outside Tucson, Arizona has roiled the desert city over the past few months, the latest US community to push back as tech companies aggressively seek to build out infrastructure for cloud computing and to power the AI boom.The proposed datacenter, known as Project Blue, would span 290 acres in Pima county, and become the biggest development ever in the county, or anywhere in the southern part of the state.The $3.6bn project wasn’t on most Tucsonans’ radar until 17 June, when the county board of supervisors narrowly agreed to sell and rezone a parcel of land just south-east of town to the developer Beale Infrastructure.The San Francisco-based company hoped to get the project annexed by the city, a necessary step for it to be supplied by the public utility, Tucson Water.But since the parcel sale agreement, the proposed center has faced stiff pushback from a community upset over the enormous amounts of water and electricity it would require, and the lack of transparency with which the developers and some in local government have pursued the project.Conflict over the project made what is normally a sleepy time for Tucson politics – the city council is off in July amid searing heat and, with luck, monsoon downpours – into “the craziest seven weeks I’ve seen in Tucson”, said Michael Bogan, an aquatic ecologist and hydrologist at the University of Arizona who has long worked in the area.View image in fullscreenThe episode in Tucson illustrates the secretiveness and tenacity with which developers are rushing to build datacenters throughout the US, and the emotionally charged mix of issues that confront communities, weighing sometimes murky promises of economic incentives and jobs against effects on the environment and natural resources.In Memphis, Elon Musk’s xAI built one of the world’s biggest supercomputers, bringing in tax revenue to an economically depressed area, while also setting off a battle over air quality concerns related to the development’s methane turbines. Phoenix has one of the nation’s largest concentrations of datacenters, which keeps expanding, encouraged by tax incentives and local business leaders; local opposition and ordinances around noise pollution and water use are also on the rise. High-profile projects have been postponed or cancelled due to local pushback in recent months in northern Virginia, the nation’s biggest datacenter hub; in St Charles, Missouri; and in several towns in Indiana.But in even more locations, datacenters are moving forward, often under a cloud of secrecy.Quest for AI computing powerThe project in Tucson is one of many emerging in the quest for AI computing power and to serve data-intensive companies.The project envisions a vast warehouse full of computers in the Sonoran desert, including $2.4bn worth of equipment. Community outrage over the project grew soon after the city council’s 17 June vote, and much of it centered around the issue of water.Datacenters use water in two ways: to maintain a steady humidity, and to cool off the hot computers, which is often accomplished by running cold water past the machines, consuming water in the form of steam.Communities throughout the US have seen groundwater depletion and contamination after datacenters crept up. Tucson has long embraced water conservation, and this protective ethos is more salient there than many other communities, said Ed Hendel, president of Sky Island AI, a Tucson-based company. As one example, the city treats wastewater and releases it to the Santa Cruz River, home to wildlife such as endangered fish.Hendel’s daily work relies on datacenters, but he said they should be built where they make sense. Placing water-guzzling warehouses of computers “in a hot desert is not a good starting point”, he said. “Putting them in a hot desert in the midst of a drought is even more absurd, because that water is precious.”View image in fullscreenBeale did not detail exactly how much water it would use and from where in the weeks after the June vote, even though it claimed the project would be “water positive”. In the absence of details, Bogan set out to analyze how the project would be water positive, projecting it would be most likely to use treated water that now flows into the Santa Cruz. But even if the company went that route, Bogan wrote in a white paper on 11 July, it could dry up significant portions of the river, harming the many plants and animals that live there.The city manager, Tim Thomure, acting as an intermediary between Beale and the public, released the first concrete details about the project’s planned water use in mid-July after Bogan’s white paper came out: Project Blue would not affect the Santa Cruz River, he said. It would use three sources of water, including from two locations where treated wastewater is currently stored underground for future use, as well as the Tucson airport remediation plant, which treats contaminated groundwater that currently stays on site. And it gave an estimate of water use: over 1,900 acre-feet, or 620m gallons, enough to supply more than four typical 18-hole Pima county golf courses, according to Thomure.Beale also pledged to invest $100m in a pipeline to transport and use treated wastewater, and create 180 jobs.But this is not “water positive”, and it would rather cause “net depletion of our groundwater resources to supply Project Blue”, said Bogan, the aquatic ecologist. He pointed to a city document which notes that if Project Blue were to use more groundwater than it could replenish, it could make payments, or “water positivity rates” to make up for it.Lisa Shipek, executive director of southern Arizona’s Watershed Management Group, agreed with Bogan’s assessment. By possibly paying for using up groundwater, Project Blue, Shipek said, would potentially “replace wet water with ‘paper water’”. The tactic – paying for consuming wet water, or offsetting it in another way, whether in the form of water conservation or education measures – has been used to deplete groundwater throughout the world.Water not the only concernWater wasn’t community members’ only concern. Beale Infrastructure is not a typical developer, but rather a subsidiary of the asset management company Blue Owl. On 21 July, the local news site Arizona Luminaria published a story revealing that Pima county staff possessed a memo stating that Project Blue would be financed by Amazon Web Services (AWS). The story prompted fresh outcry from community members frustrated with Amazon’s anti-union actions, and overtures by its owner, Jeff Bezos, to the Trump administration.An AWS spokesperson said: “AWS has previously engaged in standard due diligence processes in Arizona, like we do in any geographic location we consider building and operating our infrastructure. We do not have any commitments or agreements in place to develop this project.”But the company declined to answer a question about whether AWS was affiliated with Project Blue in the past, or, potentially, in the future.A Beale spokesperson said: “We cannot comment on our tenants until a more advanced stage of the project.”Another wrinkle that added to the uproar was a news release from Tucson Electric Power (TEP) put out hours after the county vote on 17 June, announcing it was requesting a 14% rate increase to offset grid investments and inflation. With datacenters driving up electricity demand across the country, many community members assumed the rate hike was related to Project Blue, said the county supervisor, Matt Heinz.It wasn’t. The timing was coincidental, and a huge mistake, he said. “It’s unfortunately really plagued this whole project.”A TEP spokesperson, Joseph Barrios, said that the rate increase had nothing to do with Project Blue, but was based on costs already incurred in 2024 and before.View image in fullscreen“We understand that any rate increase could have an impact on our customers and it’s not something we take lightly,” he said.Outrage over Project Blue grew rapidly over the summer. Eliseo Gomez, a local high school teacher and organizer, convened with a small group at the base of Tucson’s “A” mountain shortly after the 17 June vote. “We were like: what can we do?” They decided to target the annexation vote. The group started a website and social media channels named No Desert Data Center, encouraging people to express their concerns with the mayor and city council.In response, the city arranged for two public meetings with presentations from Beale Infrastructure, as well as Tucson Water and TEP. The majority of attenders at both meetings were clearly opposed, most wearing red shirts saying “no to Project Blue” or holding protest signs. Union members, enticed by promises of construction jobs, made up a supportive minority at the events. Attenders grew increasingly upset, Gomez said, as they felt their concerns and queries were dodged or ignored. By the second meeting, on 4 August, many locals appeared fed up. Beale executives gave similar speeches, without providing much further detail, incensing the crowd, whose boos and shouts made it difficult for presenters to continue.Many citizens presented their own research. “I feel like I learned more about Project Blue from the public than the city,” said city councilman Rocque Perez.On 6 August, in an unscheduled vote, council members unanimously decided to discontinue discussions with Beale, each sharing short speeches revealing sharp opposition to Project Blue. Tucsonans packing the council chambers cheered and celebrated; Beale executives, appearing stunned, were booed as they left.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionImpact on Tucson politicsStill, Beale hasn’t given up. In mid-September, the company proposed moving forward with an air-cooled system that uses less water than the original design. Beale co-filed a state application with the TEP, to be supplied with up to 286 megawatts – enough to power to up to 250,000 homes.In a statement, Beale has described the new design as a closed-loop system that “uses minimal amounts of water that are continuously recirculated, thereby eliminating water loss”.Several local leaders said the Republican-led Arizona Corporation Commission, which oversees electricity use in the state, is likely to approve the project’s electricity request. That would mean Beale’s main remaining hurdle is finding a water source. The company has not said how it would obtain any such water, however, and given the city council’s vote, they cannot be supplied by the city’s public utility.Meanwhile, the controversy has had a profound impact on Tucson politics. Even supporters acknowledge the Project Blue process started poorly, partly because non-disclosure agreements between Beale and city staff dating back to 2022 meant that most elected leaders knew little to nothing about it until some time this year.Supervisor Jennifer Allen said the first meeting between Beale and the board in late May was short on details, including water use, and her requests for more information turned up nothing concrete. It was “a lot of greenwashing”, she said. She voted no on 17 June, as did her colleague Andrés Cano.Heinz, a longtime Democrat, said he voted for the rezoning and sale because the project had long been championed by city staff, including city manager Thomure, and because the tens of thousands of hi-tech jobs in the area will need access to nearby datacenters.Though there weren’t detailed water use estimates at first, Heinz said he wasn’t worried as Beale would be working with Tucson Water and the city would be “putting in those guardrails”.View image in fullscreenThe new design, he said, “will be an even better fit for southern Arizona”.“I frankly wish they’d approached us with this air-cooled design to begin with.”Heinz, as well as supervisors Rex Scott and Steve Christy, have come under withering scrutiny from constituents, who have implored the board to revisit the sale agreement. Heinz said that wasn’t going to happen. “There’s no vote before the board,” Heinz said. “It’s done. And I don’t want to reverse it.”Scott acknowledged that NDAs played a negative role in the affair and noted that both the county and city had already implemented new guidelines for handling them, which should grant more transparency to the process, Scott said.The city council has also since passed new rules to give more transparency and oversight over big water users, and they are developing specific guidelines and guard-rails to govern any future proposed data centers.‘Cities across the country are being sold the same story’While Beale’s air-cooled system may use less water, it has highlighted the other enormous costs of datacenters: electricity. Air-cooled systems use huge amounts of energy and are less energy efficient – especially in a desert where the daily average high is 29C (84F).It’s now a national issue – a 2024 report to Congress co-authored by Oak Ridge National Laboratory researcher AB Siddik estimates that datacenters consumed 4.4% of the nation’s total electricity as of 2023, which could rise to as much as 12% by 2028.TEP’s involvement has brought scrutiny to the private utility; locals have recently been protesting at their headquarters. On 23 September, the mayor and council announced they plan to intervene in the utility’s request to the state for the rate hike, saying in a statement such an increase “will strain families and small businesses and slow the transition to clean, affordable energy”.View image in fullscreenThe saga has also raised the possibility that the Tucsonans or their leaders could consider pursuing a public utility to replace TEP when its contract is due for review in 2025, though that could be an enormous effort, Perez said.“I’m disappointed that Tucson Electric Power is partnering with Beale despite strong community concerns,” said councilman Kevin Dahl. “It certainly makes an argument for public power.”TEP spokesperson Joseph Barrios said that the utility’s involvement with Project Blue would not raise customers’ rates or affect their service.“We have an obligation to serve, and that includes all customers within our service area,” Barrios said.As far as the possibility of public power, “we feel our community is better served by continuing to work together”, he added.Council member and vice-mayor Lane Santa Cruz said this wasn’t just about Tucson, though.“What’s happening here isn’t unique to us: cities across the country are being sold the same story, with promises of jobs, innovation and progress,” she said. “But what’s not being talked about is who really benefits and what it costs us.”Too often, she added, these projects are extractive, using a community’s water, electricity, and labor – while providing only a small number of jobs – instead of being a sustainable partner.“We need to be the city that draws the line,” she said. More

  • in

    US Congress committee investigating Musk-owned Starlink over Myanmar scam centres

    A powerful bipartisan committee in the US Congress says it has begun an investigation into the involvement of Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite business in providing internet access to Myanmar scam centres, blamed for swindling billions from victims across the world.The move comes as it was revealed that large numbers of Starlink dishes began appearing on scam-centre roofs in Myanmar around the time of a crackdown in February that was supposed to eradicate the centres, according to a investigation by Agence France-PresseStarlink has come from nowhere to become the war-torn country’s biggest internet provider in three months, data from the APNIC Asian regional internet registry shows.SpaceX, Starlink’s owner, has not replied to AFP requests for comment.The US Congress joint economic committee told the news agency it began an investigation in July into Starlink’s involvement with the scam centres. The committee has the power to make Musk testify before it.China, Thailand and Myanmar forced pro-junta Myanmar militias who protect the centres into promising to “eradicate” the compounds in February. They freed about 7,000 people – most Chinese citizens – from the brutal call centre-style system, which the UN says runs on forced labour and human trafficking.Many workers said they were beaten and forced to work long hours by scam bosses who target victims across the globe with telephone, internet and social media cons.Senator Maggie Hassan, the leading Democrat on the US congressional committee, has called on Musk to block the Starlink service to the fraud factories.“While most people have probably noticed the increasing number of scam texts, calls and emails, they may not know that transnational criminals halfway across the world may be perpetrating these scams by using Starlink internet access,” she said.The senator wrote to Musk in July demanding answers to 11 questions about Starlink’s role.Former California prosecutor Erin West, who now heads the Operation Shamrock group campaigning against the centres, said: “It is abhorrent that an American company is enabling this to happen.”While still a cybercrime prosecutor, she warned Starlink in July 2024 that the mostly Chinese crime syndicates that run the centres were using its technology, but received no reply.Americans are among the top targets of south-east Asia scammers, the US treasury department said, losing an estimated $10bn last year, up 66% in 12 months.Up to 120,000 people may be being “forced to carry out online scams” in the Myanmar centres, according to a UN report in 2023.On the Thailand-Myanmar border, new buildings have been springing up inside the heavily guarded compounds around Myawaddy at a fast pace, with some festooned with Starlink receivers, satellite images and AFP drone footage show.Analysis of satellite images from Planet Labs PBC found dozens of buildings going up or being altered in the largest of the compounds, KK Park, between March and September. More

  • in

    ‘Americans are democracy’s equivalent of second-generation wealth’: a Chinese journalist on the US under Trump

    On a Friday night in late May, Wang Jian was getting ready to broadcast. It was pouring outside, and he was sitting in the garage apartment behind his house, just outside Boston, eating dinner. “I am very sensitive to what Trump does,” Wang was telling me, in Mandarin, waving a fork. “When Trump holds a cabinet meeting, he sits there and the people next to him start to flatter him. And I think, isn’t this the same as Mao Zedong? Trump sells the same thing: a little bit of populism, plus a little bit of small-town shrewdness, plus a little bit of ‘I have money.’”Wang was sitting next to a rack of clothing – the shirts and jackets the 58-year-old newsman wears professionally – and sipping a seemingly bottomless cup of green tea that would eventually give way to coffee. By 11pm, he would walk across the room and snap on a set of ring lights, ready to carry on an unbroken string of chatter for a YouTube news programme that he calls “Wang Jian’s Daily Observations”. It was a slow news night but he would end up talking until nearly 1am. This was his second broadcast of the day. Different time zones, he explained to me, different audiences.Wang, who has more than 800,000 subscribers on YouTube, is representative of a small but influential part of the Mandarin-language media landscape. He is part of an exodus of media professionals who have left Hong Kong and mainland China in the past decade; and one of a handful who have started posting news and analysis videos on YouTube. Wang serves an audience of Chinese expatriates – along with mainlanders savvy enough to get round China’s great firewall – who tune in hoping that he can fill in the gaps left by propaganda, censorship and disinformation.Wang’s fans find him entertaining and reassuringly professional. (“He’s very objective, I think,” one told me.) His broadcast manner moves from the impersonal, rhythmic cadence of a veteran newscaster to personal asides that bring to mind a slightly incredulous university lecturer. He loves a rhetorical question (“Is this the way a US president speaks?”) followed by his favourite English-language interjection: “C’mon.”I have spent the months since Trump’s inauguration watching Wang on YouTube. He was first recommended to me by a journalist working at a prominent Chinese news outlet who, even while reporting for a similar audience, frequently checked in on Wang’s broadcasts. “He’ll be perfect for you,” they said. Americans have always loved looking at themselves from a distance.Watching the US through Wang makes our political reality appear more comical and more dangerous. He centres China in all his broadcasts, offering a kind of been-there-done-that account of authoritarian creep. He places the US on an arc of history we have long pretended to transcend. “Americans are democracy’s equivalent of second-generation wealth,” he told me. They were born into democracy and have no appreciation of what life is like without it. Chinese people, on the other hand, “have been bullied by rulers for thousands of years. We’re very familiar with these situations.”There are many American reporters, Wang said, who report competently on China. But when I asked how the US media was doing covering the US, he burst into laughter. “If I were the New York Times, I would be putting curse words on the front page every day,” he told me. “F-word, F-word, F-word.”In the US, the China narrative can fluctuate depending on the day. We thought, briefly, that the outbreak of the pandemic in Wuhan constituted a “Chornobyl moment” that would undermine the regime. It did not. We wonder, on and off, how China builds rail systems so quickly. We worry about whether China will overtake us in AI development. Our sense of national decline is intensified by China’s rise. In April, a New York Times op-ed by Thomas Friedman ran with the headline, “I just saw the future. It was not in America.” (It was in China.)In China, meanwhile, people looking to understand the US are also subject to a push and pull based on the political climate and – under Xi Jinping, China’s long-serving president – the narrowing space for free expression. China’s propaganda operation no longer resembles the lumbering machinery of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. There are still fustier national newspapers – Xinhua and the People’s Daily – that clearly represent a Communist party perspective. There is also the more nationalistic Global Times. “If the US did not interfere in China’s internal affairs or challenge its sovereignty,” said one recent article, “there would be no need for it to worry about China’s defence development”.View image in fullscreenAt the turn of the last century, these bigger publications were balanced by a handful of independent, market-driven media outlets pushing the boundaries of censorship in China, although these mostly reported on domestic issues. Over time, however, most Chinese media consumers have moved online and today, just like Americans, they get most of their information on social media. Mainland China blocks Facebook, YouTube, X and Google. Instead, information spreads on Sina Weibo or, most commonly, WeChat. These platforms are monitored by human censors and AI programmes that hunt for sensitive phrases or keywords. China’s censorship is not monolithic or infallible, but these combined efforts mean that, typically, the news that spreads is the news that the government permits to spread.“Mostly, the things that spread on WeChat are video clips or screenshots with text,” Yaqiu Wang, a researcher based in Washington DC. Clips that highlight American gun violence, protests or inflation flow freely, without any censorship. She mentioned the popularity of snippets from the Trump-friendly Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Yaqiu Wang’s parents will, not infrequently, call at night, concerned about her safety. They are not reading government propaganda so much as a curated selection of American bombast, spin and disinformation.How much Chinese people know about the reality of life in the US varies wildly. “There are those people with power, or those people working in universities, who will jump the great firewall,” Yaqiu Wang told me. These people can read BBC’s Mandarin news service, for example, or listen to the Mandarin-language podcast run by the New York Times journalist Yuan Li. But if these are too dry for news consumers, Wang Jian is there to chatter the night away. “I think this satisfies people’s needs,” said a Chinese government employee who watches Wang’s programme every day. “You can get real information.”Wang has told viewers that, in all his years as a journalist, the last two had brought about some of the biggest global changes he had seen. Trump, Wang explained, has misidentified the US’s strengths. “Your strengths aren’t your people,” he told me later, expanding on his theme. “I could find a bank teller in Hong Kong, bring them here, and they could do the job of 10 Americans.” What the US has got, according to Wang, is allies and a reliable currency. (“And now you’re threatening to annex Canada?”)Trump, according to Wang, would like to be more like Xi Jinping – a strongman leading a nation with a huge manufacturing base. He likes to point out that the two leaders have birthdays a day apart. Trump would like to take back the supply chain and manufacture everything in the US – an idea that drew a “c’mon” from Wang. There are, in turn, things about the US that Xi would like to emulate – the global influence, the financial power of the dollar. “Maybe we should just let Xi and Trump switch places. We wouldn’t need to do anything. They could leave the rest of us out of it,” Wang joked. “Although I think Xi Jinping would get beat up in the United States.”It’s this kind of irreverence that Wang’s audience most enjoys. His viewers call him “Teacher Wang” and as he talks, a string of congratulatory messages pop up. They often say: “Teacher Wang, JiaYou!” (a term of encouragement that literally means “add oil!” but is closer to “let’s go!”). Sometimes: “Teacher Wang, well said!” And sometimes, when Wang is particularly critical: “Teacher Wang, well scolded!”View image in fullscreenFormally, there are three parts of Wang’s programmes. He opens with a segment of recent news, moves on to a segment that offers opinions and deeper explorations of a particular topic. Finally, he will end with about half an hour of viewer comments and questions. Recent topics have included immigration protests in Australia (“Without immigration, Australia has no chance of being an influential country”) and China’s diplomatic overtures to India. This segment can also involve questions – “Should I emigrate to another country?” “Should I buy an iPhone now?” – that require him to play a variety of roles: agony uncle, consumer advice columnist, financial adviser. He does an episode every year while he makes dumplings. He is part newscaster, part professor, part friend.Few of Wang’s fans wanted to talk on the record, but two of the handful I spoke with pointed to this as their favourite segment. Local news that might be censored in China makes its way out in the comments. Wang will discuss issues viewers have raised about mainland China – complaints, for example, that government employees are no longer allowed to go to restaurants in large groups; or that factory workers are being forced to take Breathalyser tests when they get home at night; or that falling real estate prices have wiped out someone’s savings. Some of his listeners will address the US directly. “Introducing a tariff of this size is suicidal!” wrote one viewer. “Is it too simple to blame it on arrogance and wilfulness?”Wang, when he’s interested in a question, will stare into the camera. “You think Trump has thought it through?” he asks. “I don’t think so. Trump is really simple. He doesn’t think very deeply.” Trump’s brain, Wang told me, is a “qian dao hu” – a lake with 1,000 islands, none of them connected.Wang does not sleep much. He starts preparing for the broadcast somewhere between four and five hours in advance. Wang’s first daily broadcast runs from around 11am to noon. He then eats lunch, sleeps if he can, and spends time with his family. Around 6pm, he starts the process again, aiming to go live at 11pm. And then at about 12.30 or 1.00am, he walks across the yard, back to his house, and gets his second, truncated, sleep.Wang has wanted to be a journalist since he was a teenager. He was born to middle class parents in Nanshan County, China, a protrusion of land in the south-west part of Shenzhen. When Wang, in high school, decided he was interested in studying journalism at university, his parents told him they couldn’t support his choice. Wang understood their reservations. “During the Cultural Revolution, the people who were most targeted were writers and journalists. They were afraid I would be denounced.” Wang, however, had a stubborn streak. He stopped speaking at home. “I had a cold war with my parents,” Wang told me. He held out until they agreed.Wang arrived at Jinan University in Guangzhou in the mid 1980s, intending to study journalism, but it wasn’t journalism, exactly, that he learned. “We studied the CCP’s theory of media,” Wang told me. According to the CCP, facts were secondary to the health of the party and the populace. Then, in 1990, Wang managed to land a job as a reporter in Hong Kong, which was still under British rule and enjoyed relatively robust freedom of the press. (Though the British did not extend Hongkongers the right to elect their leader.)View image in fullscreenIn Hong Kong, Wang was suddenly in the privileged position of writing honestly about his new city and the country that he had recently left. Wang won multiple press awards as a young reporter at the daily newspaper Ming Pao and then, in 2001, he joined Sing Tao Daily – the oldest Chinese-language newspaper in the city. By this time, Hong Kong had been transferred to PRC rule and, while Sing Tao operated independently, it had significant ties to Beijing. Wang would eventually oversee the publication’s international expansion efforts, helping establish offices in New York, Toronto and San Francisco. He travelled to all these places but didn’t do much exploring. He was working or meeting Chinese émigrés for dinner. (“You ask me my impression of the United States. I didn’t have a impression! My impression of New York was only: Chinatown.”)Reporters in Hong Kong, at this time, were in a unique position. In authoritarian systems, reliable information has a special value, and Hong Kong journalists were granted some access to PRC officials. “This access made Hong Kong media influential not only among Chinese audiences but also among Chinese officials, who treated Hong Kong media as an alternative source of information,” says Rose Liuqiu, a professor in the Department of Journalism at Hong Kong Baptist University. This was particularly true for journalists covering the economy, Wang’s speciality.This work required diplomacy. Charles Ho, who owned the Sing Tao Daily, maintained close ties with Beijing. He famously said that if he followed Beijing’s directives 100% of the time, he would lose value in Beijing’s eyes. Wang’s own work has always walked a line between attracting viewers, reporting the facts and balancing the concerns of a global power.The precarious balance that sustained Hong Kong’s media did not last. Business ties between Hong Kong’s media outlets and Beijing grew steadily, as did concerns about self-censorship. After democracy protests swept through the city in 2014, prominent editors and journalists became the targets of violent attacks. Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Media, had his house firebombed more than once. Kevin Lau, the editor of the newspaper Ming Pao, was hospitalised in 2014 after being assaulted in the street with a meat cleaver. In 2016, Wang decided to retire. Beijing was beginning to limit press freedoms in the city and Wang didn’t think the city would recover the openness that had changed his perspective so drastically as a young man.Wang decided to step back from work and, instead, focus on caring for his young daughter, while his wife continued her work in real estate. At the end of 2018, after a visit to his sister-in-law in San Francisco, Wang decided to move his family to the US. He called his wife and told her that he didn’t think there was much future in Hong Kong. His daughter could attend high school in the US, he reasoned. By the time I met him, Wang told me that many of his friends – editors and reporters at news outlets like the now-shuttered Apple Daily – had either fled or were in jail.Wang thought he was done as a news man. But character is sometimes fate, and Wang loves to talk. In 2019, he started holding impromptu gatherings at his sister-in-law’s house on the weekends. At the time, Trump was engaging in the first iteration of a trade war with China and many of their acquaintances in the Bay Area, most of whom worked in the tech industry, wanted to meet and discuss current events. The weekly crowd grew and it was his sister-in-law who suggested that Wang move the conversation online and out of her back yard. By the end of the year, Wang had started his YouTube channel. It was, initially, a chatty, informal programme. And then the pandemic hit, and Wang became a professional again. “All of a sudden it felt serious,” he told me. “I had a responsibility.”It didn’t take long for Wang to acquire an audience, especially after he started broadcasting twice daily. (His is a volume game.) The pandemic was driving people online and China was limiting the flow of information coming out of the cities it had locked down. One regular viewer I spoke with – another government worker in China who asked to remain anonymous – came across Wang around this time, when they were at home during one of China’s restrictive lockdowns. They still listen to his broadcasts daily, looking for news on the economy – still hoping for information that might not be flowing freely from town to town. “During the comments you get a glimpse of what’s happening locally in China,” they told me.Eventually, Wang hired a handful of researchers – some of whom were journalists who had fled Hong Kong after a crackdown in 2019 – paying them from the advertising revenue from his broadcasts. He also started a membership programme and a Patreon and began offering a small selection of goods for sale. The tea he sells through YouTube, he told me, was sourced by a fan. “We don’t make any money on the tea,” he laughed. “I’m the one who buys most of it.”Wang, and the handful of other newscasters like him, are part of an ecosystem of influencers, often called “KOLs” in China for “Knowledge and Opinion Leaders” (an English term that likely originated in Hong Kong). The KOLs compete for attention with western sources – the Joe Rogan and Fox News clips. Most KOLs are apolitical; posting on TikTok or XiaoHongShu about beauty trends or daily life. Within China, many of these influencers are tacitly approved by the CCP. A woman named Li Ziqi, for example, runs the most popular Mandarin-language programme on YouTube and cross-posts on sites in mainland China. Her videos offer an idealised portrait of village life – making traditional crafts while soothing music plays in the background. Political KOLs are less likely to be making video content, and those within China are either pro-CCP or frequently find their accounts blocked. One, who goes by the name Gu Ziming, is famous for managing to pop up with new accounts after having an old one shuttered by censors.View image in fullscreenWhen I visited Wang, it was Friday evening. His researchers – who also wished to remain anonymous – had submitted the evening’s potential topics via a shared Google document. They laughed about Trump’s negotiation strategies (“No one trusts him!”) and speculated as to why a large job recruitment platform in Shanghai had stopped reporting salaries (“It means they’re scared to issue the report”). They moved topics up and down the list, in the order that Wang would plan to address them. In some cases, Wang questioned the news that they brought to him and urged them to seek out more sources.The proposed topics included elections in South Korea; a systemwide shutdown on San Francisco Bart trains; and a Texas ban on Chinese nationals buying property. “Have those Chinese living in Texas done nothing?” Wang asked. “No resistance or protest?”“I think there were protests before,” came the researcher’s voice through the phone. “But it turns out they’re giving exemptions to some people, but otherwise you have to have a green card.”“That’s fine, then,” Wang answered. “Don’t go to Texas to buy a house, then. The housing prices are falling in Texas anyway. This is a very red state. I can clearly see the momentum of this state.” The topic made the broadcast.Years ago, when I first started reporting on the media landscape in China, I thought of it as a foil to the more raucous and open media environment in the west. Now it feels more like a funhouse mirror – a different, exaggerated version of something fundamentally the same. Chinese readers have long approached their news sources with cynicism. In the US and most of the west, media sources are, for the most part, still free and unrestricted. Facts, on the other hand, are increasingly under attack.According to the researcher Wang Yaqiu, there is a division she sees in the US and China. Those who have political power, money, or enough education or energy, will do their best to seek out reliable information. This was true when Wang Jian began his career in Hong Kong, when Communist party officials looked to Hong Kong media as a reliable source. It is true now, when reliable information often comes at a cost – to unlock paywalled information, or to get a VPN to evade the great firewall. Wang’s programme is free to watch, but accessing it takes knowledge, desire and knowhow. Good information, and the ability to find it, Wang Yaqiu pointed out, is more and more a matter of privilege and money – and this is true on both sides of the Pacific. “The rest of us,” she said, “will all be swimming in the same trash.”Wang doesn’t get asked, often, what to do about the authoritarian creep he is commenting on in the US. He has been in this position nearly his entire life – reporting from Hong Kong as its democratic freedoms were eroded, and now the US. He enjoys enough of a distance to look at things from a bird’s-eye view, able to see events as funny and alarming. He has, at the same time, a truculent, slightly traditionalist, belief in the value of the news. After a lifetime patrolling the boundary between truth and nonsense, Wang believes that people build their realities based on what is available to them: their lived experiences, their teachers, the media they consume. They are reasonable. They just need access to reliable information.In recent months, as political violence and censorship in the US have grown, his references to the value of journalism have multiplied. When Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September, he gave a rapid, dispassionate explanation of Kirk’s record. “Kirk pushed forward conservativism and Christian nationalism,” Wang informed his viewers. “He denied the efficacy of vaccines. After Kirk’s death, Trump ordered all the flags fly half-mast.” The next day, Wang made a fresh argument for his line of work. “Media’s role is helping everyone regulate power,” he told his audience. “China castrated the media.” A few days later, he returned to the question. “How do you change your destiny?” he asked. “You change your destiny with knowledge. How do you gain knowledge?” Wang continued. “You read the news.”Wang issues warnings, but his work is fundamentally hopeful. He often returns to his own experience arriving in Hong Kong. He walked the streets, looked at the buildings, and marvelled at the fact that he could just go and look up who owned them. That had not been possible back home. He read old copies of Life magazine and began questioning the Communist party’s version of history. It was an epiphany. “My mission is to provide everyone with an opportunity to change their view of the world,” Wang told me, as he transitioned from tea to coffee. “This is the value of this programme. You need to know that this world is made up of countless puzzles. This, what is happening in the US, is one of them.”On the night I visited, Wang wrapped up around 1am. He thanked his audience. He sighed, momentarily letting his exhaustion slip through. He asked for upvotes and follows. “Join us as a member and help support us,” he said. And then he closed with his regular signoff. “Broadcast better,” he said. “Be better.” More