In life, some things are always true. One such truth is that wherever there is instability, pain and suffering in the world, former Navy SEAL and mercenary kingpin Erik Prince will be there trying to make a profit out of it. Like a fly on an open wound…

The Trump loyalist is now operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And he's got a drone armada and a bunch of Israeli contractors with him. Prince signed a deal with Congo in 2025 to support the government in a conflict with Rwanda-backed rebels.

Haaretz reported on 11 February:

Blackwater founder Erik Prince deployed a private security force to operate drones and help the Democratic Republic of Congo's army secure the strategic city of Uvira against Rwanda-backed rebels

His entourage includes:

a private security force trained by Israelis to operate drones and help the Democratic Republic of Congo's army secure the strategic city of Uvira

But Prince, descendant of a line of US industrialists, is a busy man if nothing else…

Erik Prince — real-life Bond villain

Prince made a name in Iraq, where his now-defunct firm Blackwater is famous for the massacring of civilians. The early stages of that unpopular US occupation saw a boom in private military firms being used by the US and others, as well as by foreign oil firms. Trump eventually pardoned those convicted for the killings. Prince raked in millions anyway.

Blackwater was re-branded as Xe in 2009, then Academi in 2011. What hasn't changed is that Prince has been making money out of war and chaos for decades.

Prince has interests in Ukrainian drones, Israeli occupation and the US dirty war with Venezuela. Prince sought to securitise Europe's frontier against desperate refugees. He has been described as a real-life Bond villain and a hardcore Trump man from the start:

Erik Prince has always been politically connected to Maga, the Maga movement, and that's going back to 2015.

He is also reported to be:

 a central figure among a web of other contractors trying to sell Trump advisers on a $25bn deal to privatize the mass deportations of 12 million migrants.

Prince also ran private military contractors to Haiti and is implicated in illegal arms deals in Libya. There doesn't seem to be an authoritarian regime or shadowy outfit he won't roll with: the UAE, Ecuador, China, Russia, the CIA… and the list goes on.

Now we know what sort of man this is, back to Congo.

Diamonds in Africa

Kinshasa hired the mercenaries

to help secure and improve tax revenue collection from Congo's vast mineral reserves.

Sources in the country told the press:

Prince's contractors operated in coordination with Israeli advisers who were involved in training two Congolese special forces battalions on day and night operations, according to a fifth source briefed on the operation.

They added the Israeli mandate is "training only":

The AFC/M23 rebels briefly seized the city on the border with Burundi in December in a major blow to ongoing US- and Qatar-backed peace negotiations. They withdrew after Washington threatened to retaliate

And Hareetz said:

The US has offered Congo support brokering an end to the conflict in return for access to the nation's critical mineral resources.

Trump's art of the deal at work again…

Now Prince's mercenaries are on the ground. Neither his nor the Congolese government's spokespeople offered any comment. Prince is again confirming his role as colonialist grim reaper figure. In truth, he probably relishes that persona. It follows that he and Trump are natural bedfellows. Like the US president, Prince embodies the spirit of American capitalism and its role across the world. The trail of bodies his operations have left behind seems to confirm this.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

The UK government has admitted that a study into the suitability of Scottish sites for new nuclear power projects could have been "a waste" of money. The government commissioned Great British Energy-Nuclear (GBE-N), a public body, to carry out the study.

The revelation came after Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) secretary of state Ed Miliband told Scottish journalists in October 2025 that:

given the growing interest in nuclear in Scotland, I'm asking GBE-N to assess Scotland's capability for new nuclear power stations, including at Torness and Hunterston.

This is going to be a very, very big issue in the Scottish election campaign. We are saying yes to new nuclear in Scotland.

Labour hoping to end SNP ban on new nuclear in Scotland

Scotland is due to go to the polls to elect a new Scottish parliament and Scottish government in May 2026. Labour is hoping to wrest back control from the Scottish National Party (SNP).

In an article about the same interview published in October 2025, the Scotsman newspaper reported that a "senior UK government source" had said they were considering submitting planning applications for new nuclear developments at Torness and Hunterston because they expected a Scottish Labour victory at the Holyrood election.

The UK Labour Party and Scottish Labour support nuclear power and nuclear weapons. This position is coming under pressure as the Green Party of England and Wales, which vehemently opposes all nuclear, increasingly challenges Labour in public opinion polls.

Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, the government released documents to the Canary about Miliband's request to GBE-N. These included a Q&A document prepared by DESNZ officials. It revealed that officials knew there would be concerns about new nuclear proposals in Scotland.

No new nuclear can be built in Scotland because planning policy is a devolved matter, and the ruling SNP opposes nuclear power. The rebuttal in the DESNZ Q&A was that there is "cross-party interest in new nuclear" in Scotland.

Energy department officials contradict each other on responsibility for study

The documents released under FOI also revealed that a DESNZ official, whose name was redacted, had sought to reassure GBE-N colleagues that DESNZ was not "behind the briefing" in an email sent on 22 October 2025 at 4:02pm.

That position was contradicted by an email in a separate earlier conversation where, on 21 October 2025 at 6:46pm, John Staples, DESNZ director for new nuclear strategy and fusion energy, said:

our SpAds [special advisors] want SoS [secretary of state] to be able to say the below to Scottish journalists.

'Below' in the email were lines drafted for Miliband which included:

I will ask Great British Energy - Nuclear to begin assessing Scotland's capability for new nuclear power stations.

The internally prepared Q&A included a question which asked:

Isn't this study a waste of money?

The DESNZ answer said:

New nuclear projects can deliver millions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-quality jobs to a region - UK ministers want to understand the potential for new projects right across Great Britain.

The Canary approached the Labour Party for comment, which deferred to DESNZ. DESNZ did not respond to a request for comment.

'Obvious' that study would be 'waste of money' - Scottish CND

A Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) spokesperson told the Canary:

It is obvious that an assessment of the viability of new nuclear sites in Scotland would be a waste of money, since the foremost issue is not the viability of sites but Scottish government policy.

Energy policy is devolved to Holyrood and the Scottish government very sensibly opposes new nuclear plants in Scotland.

There are a whole host of reasons why new nuclear plants in Scotland would be a terrible idea, including the absolutely exorbitant cost of nuclear plant construction, the reliance on destructive and unjust international uranium supply chains, and the enormous and cross-generational burden of decommissioning nuclear plants, which in the case of Dounreay is expected to take hundreds of years.

In particular, the notion that Scotland, which is a net energy exporter and has the potential to become an international renewables powerhouse, should pivot to costly nuclear projects at this stage is somewhat absurd.

Investing the same sums invested in nuclear power plants - scores of billions and climbing for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C - into the grid, home insulation and the renewables sector across Scotland would be an immeasurably better investment.

For Scottish CND, another concerning element of the renewed push for nuclear power is the deep imbrication [overlapping] of the 'civil' and military nuclear industries, as openly promoted in the 2025 Industrial Strategy.

From this perspective, investment in new nuclear power plants can be seen as defence spending by stealth and a means of shoring up the UK nuclear weapons industry - something which is of no benefit to Scotland and indeed causes major risks and harms in Scottish communities.

New nuclear would be incredibly expensive - Scottish government minister

Cross-party Scottish politicians elected to the Holyrood and Westminster parliaments criticised the commissioning of the study.

Scottish government energy secretary Gillian Martin MSP told the Canary:

The Scottish government does not support the creation of new nuclear reactors in Scotland.

New nuclear would be incredibly expensive and the levy placed on energy bills to pay for nuclear reactors will cost Scottish electricity bill payers £300m over the next decade.

Nuclear reactors also produce a legacy of dangerous radioactive waste. Instead, we are focused on supporting the development of Scotland's immense renewable energy potential - which provides more jobs, is faster to deliver, is safer, and more cost effective than the creation of new nuclear reactors.

Significant growth in renewables is providing key opportunities for our future energy workforce in Scotland, with independent scenarios from Ernst and Young showing that with the right support, Scotland's low carbon and renewable energy sector could support nearly 80,000 jobs by 2050.

SNP criticises 'Westminster obsession with nuclear'

The SNP's Westminster energy spokesperson Graham Leadbitter MP told the Canary:

People in Scotland are already paying a tax for new nuclear power stations in England they neither want nor need, driving up energy bills at a time households are already under serious financial pressures.

Scotland is blessed with an abundance of clean, renewable energy already, enough to power our nation many times over.

So this Westminster obsession with nuclear isn't based on need, or even any desire from people living here who would rather not pay hand over fist for expensive and unnecessary nuclear power.

Instead what they should be focusing on is delivering on their promise to cut energy bills by £300 which have instead, under Labour's rule, risen significantly higher.

People in Scotland are tired of these out-of-touch diktats from Westminster politicians about what should be built here, all while ignoring the genuine concerns of the people who live and work here.

It's no wonder more and more people are concluding that decisions about Scotland should be made in Scotland with the full powers of independence.

'New nuclear would waste time, money and political attention' - Scottish Greens

Scottish Greens net zero spokesperson Patrick Harvie MSP told the Canary:

There is a clear majority against new nuclear power programmes in Scotland.

New nuclear would waste time, money and political attention which should be spent on the real challenges we face on climate and energy policy.

Scotland has made impressive progress in building an energy system based on renewables, which are cheaper, faster to deliver and far safer for people and the environment. There's still plenty of potential for renewables to keep growing.

The UK government shouldn't be wasting money trying to push nuclear projects on Scotland, against the wishes of Scotland's parliament.

If they care about cutting emissions and cutting fuel poverty, they'd be changing electricity price regulation to pass on the low cost of renewable generation to billpayers, which would cut the cost of living and create a powerful incentive to switch away from fossil fuels for heat and transport.

If the UK government won't do that, it should give Scotland the power to do so for ourselves.

Scotland should not have to deal with the distraction of UK Labour's nuclear fantasy, when we need both governments to scale up and speed up in eradicating fuel poverty and in the race to net zero.

Featured image via the Canary

By Tom Pashby

Findings from a new national survey from Internet Matters and Full Fact highlight a significant challenge to the government's intention to lower the voting age. Extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds risks becoming a missed opportunity to strengthen democratic participation and trust in politics, unless young people get more support to navigate political information online.

The survey quizzed more than 550 young people aged 13-17, and over 800 parents and carers across the UK. It found that young people do not feel well-equipped to assess the political information they are encountering online from a young age.

Key findings - young people want to know more

Children are navigating political content well before voting age. 74% of those aged 13-14 have seen content about news, politics or current affairs online.

Children lack foundational skills for evaluating political information. Only 53% of young people aged 13-17 who have seen political information online are confident in telling whether it's true or false. And just 59% feel confident distinguishing fact from opinion online.

Misinformation and AI are undermining trust in elections. 63% of young people say they're concerned about voters being misled by false or misleading claims during elections. 60% are concerned that AI-generated content may affect the results of a general election. And the same number ignore what politicians and political parties say because they don't know if they can trust them.

Parents think children aren't ready to make informed electoral decisions. 52% of parents think young people are unprepared to vote. Only 49% express confidence in their child's ability to recognise satire.

Young people believe there's a shared responsibility for helping them to identify false or misleading information online. This spans across schools, parents and carers, government, and social media companies.

Recommendations - institutions need to do better

Internet Matters and Full Fact are calling on parliament and government to take four immediate steps to ensure support for newly enfranchised voters to participate confidently in democratic life.

1. Schools need support to strengthen media and digital literacy across the curriculum through access to high-quality resources and comprehensive teacher training. A recent independent review of the curriculum in England highlighted the need to equip young people with the ability to make informed decisions and to help them to understand how opinions, AI-generated content and satire can all influence democratic participation.

2. The government needs to establish a clear, coordinated national approach to media literacy. This should involve supporting young people and adults, including parents and carers. The government should urgently publish its 'vision statement' on media literacy, setting out objectives, priorities and measures of success.

3. The government must commit to sustained funding to deliver media literacy education outside schools. This should include the Electoral Commission delivering evidence-based public information campaigns on issues such as misinformation.

4. Parliament must require social media companies to support users' media literacy on platforms, including labelling AI-generated content, design features that support critical evaluation (e.g. read-before-you-share prompts and source information labels), and user controls for recommender systems.

Rachel Huggins, CEO of Internet Matters, said:

Young people are growing up in a digital world where much of their political information comes from online platforms, where it can be difficult to judge what is a fact and, with the rise of AI-generated content, even what is real.#

Lowering the voting age will only succeed if young people - and the parents and carers supporting them - are given the tools to navigate and engage successfully within that world, rather than attempting to shut them out of it.

Mark Frankel, Head of Public Affairs at Full Fact, said:

By the age of 13, many young people are engaging with political information. Rather than banning them from social media, we need to teach children the skills to navigate and assess these sources of political information.

MPs debating the Elections Bill need to send a clear message that future elections will be protected from disinformation and AI, to keep young people engaged with politics.

Emily Darlington MP, Member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee said:

We have seen from the Committee's inquiry into the 2024 summer riots just how damaging misinformation can be for our democracy. This research shows that a majority of kids agree, and that they're worried about how safe our democracy is in this new age of AI and mis/disinformation.

If the next generation of voters doesn't have confidence in our democracy, we have a responsibility to act before it's too late. Online platforms must be participants in the fight to protect trust in our democratic processes, rather than undermine it.

Kirsty Blackman MP, Co-Chair of the APPG on Political and Media Literacy, said:

These findings underline what members of the APPG have long argued: extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds must come with a whole-of-society commitment to equipping young people to navigate the digital information environment they already inhabit.

When 6 in 10 young people are concerned about the potential for misinformation and AI-generated content affecting elections, protecting our democracy means embedding political and media literacy education in the National Curriculum, supporting teachers to deliver it, and holding tech platforms to account through media literacy by design.

Stella, a student aged 14, told Internet Matters:

I think it's important for children and young people to be taught how to navigate the information they see online from a young age, so they can feel confident forming their own views about politics and voting. The earlier this support starts, the better prepared young people will be to take part.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Infamous outsourcing company Maximus is telling employers their staff living with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) need to exercise more to "boost energy" and "get more done".

Amid a shocking and, likely, wilful misrepresentation of the devastating chronic systemic neuroimmune disease, the notorious privatisation giant is promoting dangerous treatment "strategies", namely, Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), that a leading UK health body roundly discredited in 2021.

Maximus peddling ME advice to employers

Maximus, with its decades of hoovering up government contracts to profit from making chronically ill and disabled people's lives hell, appears to have appointed itself the oracle of:

Creating inclusive workplaces for people with disabilities.

Setting aside the first red flag that it's clearly not operating from the Social Model of Disability and using community-preferred 'disabled people', its history of benefit deaths and harm hardly screams authority on inclusivity. Nevertheless, the 'Kill Yourself' scandal benefit assessor has a whole host of advice for employers with disabled staff — because of course it does.

Specifically, it's providing this in the form of free 'toolkits' on particular health conditions and disabilities.

One of these offers information to employers on ME. The first issue to note here is that, instead of ME, it heads its webpage:

Chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis toolkit

So to start with, Maximus is ignoring the community-preferred term. Not only that, but it's also conflating 'chronic fatigue'; the symptom, with 'chronic fatigue syndrome'; the condition.

And naturally, with that strong start, it's all only further downhill from there.

Exercise yourself better

A sparsely-informative three-page spread tells employers that ME is a:

long-term chronic fluctuating illness affects many parts of the body, including the nervous and immune systems.

It then states that:

The most common symptoms are severe fatigue or exhaustion, problems with memory, concentration and muscle pain.

Predictably, the toolkit fails to even mention the hallmark of ME — post-exertional malaise (ME). This involves a disproportionate worsening of other symptoms after even minimal physical, social, mental, or emotional exertion. And it's the key reason that Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) is dangerous for people living with ME.

So with this omission, it opens the door to the guide promoting GET and GET-type rebrands ('activity management'). This is despite the fact that in 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) removed GET as a treatment recommendation in the treatment of ME.

There's a brief mention of pacing. However, any good work it does highlighting this, it quickly undoes with talk of increasing activity.

A separate page on its website gives further alarming advice to employers around staff with ME. In an A-Z of Disabilities, Maximus tells employers to give "onsite exercise classes" and "discounts on gym memberships".

This is because, according to the self-appointed ME expert (emphasis ours):

Symptoms may be worsened by over-exercising or too much inactivity

Think yourself better

Of course, no gaslighting guide to cover for employers unprepared to make genuine accommodations for people with ME would be complete without an undercurrent of psychologisation.

Maximus was only too happy to hawk this psychosomatic intimation. In the toolkit, it lists CBT amid its "treatment strategies". NICE downgraded this 'think yourself better' garbage for people living with ME in 2021 as well. For years, psychologising clinicians have used it as a stick to beat ME patients with. The unsubtle implication is always that it's all in their heads.

The A-Z is no less minimising. It tells employers to "reduce stress by promoting mindfulness" and signposts to Maximus's own Access to Work Mental Health Support Service.

Parts of the guidance point to "large or unhealthy meals" and "lack of relaxation" as exacerbating symptoms. People with ME will likely have specific dietary requirements due to symptoms and co-occurring conditions. However, the suggestion that it's their unhealthy lifestyle that's making their ME worse is insulting. The aim — and effect — is to shift responsibility away from employers and the medical profession who are failing ME patients everywhere.

A brand new toolkit — entirely out-of-date

If all this weren't bad enough, another toolkit gives practically the same advice to employers over long Covid.

Maximus might be forgiven (though still wrong) for hosting an error-riddled toolkit like this in 2021. But over four years after NICE published its updated guidelines, it's indefensible that the outsourcing giant is STILL peddling these harmful stereotypes and treatments for people living with ME.

According to source page information, the A-Z webpage is from 29 September 2022. In other words, it published this nearly a year after the NICE guideline changes. And Maximus even updated this again in January 2025.

To make matters worse, in the toolkit's case, source information dates the toolkit to 2 December 2025. Maximus seems to have even modified the page in early January 2026. So, this is essentially brand new guidance it's promoting to employers.

Not the first time Maximus has done this

This isn't the first time Maximus has produced flawed information around ME either. The Canary previously exposed how alongside other outsourcing giants like Serco and Capita, it compiled problematic ME training materials for staff administering Work Capability Assessments (WCA).

It's another glaring example of why profit-driven private companies should be nowhere near services supporting chronically ill and disabled people inside or outside of work. In this instance, the information is out-of-date and actively dangerous.

What's patently clear is that it should not be posing as any sort of expert in ME or long Covid. But Maximus's fallacious advice is very convenient for corporate capitalists and a government hell-bent on coercing chronically ill and disabled people into low-waged, inaccessible, and inappropriate work.

And at the end of the day, misinformation and manipulations like this are nothing you wouldn't expect from a money-grubbing megacorporation like Maximus.

Featured image provided via the author

By Hannah Sharland

800 arms firms have sent an open letter to chancellor Rachel Reeves demanding she open a special 'war' bank just for them. These massive scroungers want guaranteed flows of state cash so they can line their pockets from global instability. Reeves doesn't appear to have answered them yet. But Keir Starmer has pledged to build the UK economy around war — despite evidence suggesting defence spending does little for growth.

Politico reported:

More than 800 British defense companies have urged Chancellor Rachel Reeves to launch a global rearmament bank to guarantee lending to the sector as the U.K. government attempts to ramp up military spending

The letter was coordinated by Make UK Defence, a trade body for arms firms. They want the UK signed up to a Defence, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB). A former senior NATO official is leading the charge:

The DSRB was conceived by former head of NATO innovation, Rob Murray, with the aim of creating a multilateral AAA-rated bank providing loans to allied governments, potentially allowing the U.K. to borrow directly from the institution at a lower cost.

The British government ruled out such a measure in September 2025. But now they are under pressure from the arms firms looking to guarantee a few more third homes and yachts for shareholders.

Accelerate defence spending

Make UK Defence chief Andrew Kinniburgh wrote in the letter seen by Politico:

It is therefore essential that defence spending is accelerated in a way that translates into real industrial capacity and military capability. The DSRB could be a significant pillar in achieving this, alongside our NATO and non-NATO allies.

Politico explained that arms firms are sad they don't have all of the money:

A multinational rearmament bank would also provide credit guarantees to commercial banks, allowing them to lend at a greater scale to defense businesses, which report struggles in accessing finance, particularly among small and medium-sized firms.

Please, won't somebody think of the arms firms?

On a side-note, if you look at Make UK Defence's website you'll find its backers include everything from establishment think-tanks like the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI) to arms firms like Lockheed, Boeing and Anduril. You'll also see various military charities like the RAF Benevolent Fund and SSAFA.

Perverse. But at least they're committed to Net Zero. Great work, team. All is forgiven…

A spokesperson for the UK treasury said:

We are committed to deepening cooperation with our allies to deter and disrupt threats — including strengthening the UK's unshakeable commitment to NATO.

But Labour's economic plans have holes in them so big you could drive an aircraft carrier through them.

Military Keynesianism

The Labour government has decided to build an economy around Military Keynesianism. Their logic is off. Economist Michael Burke has said:

There is an entire body of thought devoted to the idea of promoting military spending as an economic benefit dubbed by its supporters as 'military Keynesianism'.

John Maynard Keynes was a socialist-ish economist whose work on government spending informed many positive state programs in the 20th century.  But what Starmer has proposed is a "vulgarisation of Keynes' work":

supporters suggest any type of government spending is beneficial to the economy, and given that military spending enhances the power and prestige of the country, then military spending should be prioritised.

It's easy to get bogged down in complex economics here. But here is Burke's key point:

military spending has one of the lowest 'employment multipliers' of all economic categories.

He added:

It ranks 70th in terms of the employment it generates, out of 100.

So what sort of economic activity actually is good? Well:

Health is rated number 1.  Everything from agriculture to energy to food manufacture, chemicals, iron and steel, to computers, construction, and a host of others in between all have greater 'employment multipliers' than military spending.

Labour obsession with handing out free money to arms firms seems more ideological than useful. That said, they have stated they aren't going to start up a war bank. But Starmer's government is weak and getting weaker. They're still inured to NATO, the US and the demands of global capital. Time will tell if they hold out in the face of pressure from Big Death.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Lakenheath Alliance for Peace has updated us with details of more flights from supposed RAF bases in the UK.

On 9 February six F-35As, from 134th Fighter Wing based in Vermont in the USA, landed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk. They were escorted by three KC-135R air-departed to-air refuelling planes that landed at 'RAF' Mildenhall.

This is on top of 12 F-15Es, from the 494 Fighter Squadron based at Lakenheath, which departed for the Middle East / West Asia in January. Earlier in that month 12 F-15Es from Seymour Johnson air base in the US passed through Lakenheath on their way from the US to West Asia.

As well as fighter jets at least 14 C-17 transport planes left RAF Lakenheath for West Asia.

RAF also on the move

The UK has also been bolstering its presence in the region. On 6 February six F-35Bs from RAF Marham in Norfolk left for RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. They'll join the Typhoons already in Cyprus carrying out missions over Iraq and Syria. Typhoons from 12 Squadron also deployed to Qatar in January.

Several states including Saudi Arabia, UAE and even Israel have expressed concerns about the possible attack on Iran. And they've denied over-flight for forces taking part in any potential attack on Iran.

Anti-war campaigners have raised concerns that the UK is falling into another military conflict and increasing military tensions. They are holding a demonstration at RAF Marham on 28 February. And there's an International Peace Camp at RAF Lakenheath from 1-6 April.

Peter Lux from Lakenheath Alliance for Peace said:

Although we are obviously against military conflict this is an issue that should concern everyone. No matter how noble you think your cause is, no matter how right you feel you are, once you drop the first bomb and unleash the horrors of war you do not know what the consequences will be.

Yet again, after the debacle of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria which cost hundreds of UK lives and hundreds of thousands of others we are blindly walking into another conflict with little discussion or even awareness of what is being prepared.

If it all goes wrong - for example Israel suffers huge losses - it must be remembered that they have nuclear weapons which would unleash untold horrors.

Featured image via YouTube / Military Aviation Channel

By The Canary

Only for three days, though, then it's back to the misery feed

Meta has decided to let Threads users make custom tweaks to its all-important algorithm, but don't expect your preferences to stick and do expect to bring your best manners.…

Allies that don't align on chip controls could face US component curbs, they argue

Banning sales to Chinese-government-affiliated companies, apparently, is not enough. A bipartisan group of American lawmakers this week called on the Trump administration to enact a blanket ban on the sale of equipment used in the production of advanced semiconductors to all of China.…

This is going to be one of the shortest articles in my series on how to cancel your subscriptions to the best VPNs. Unlike most providers, Mullvad VPN does not automatically renew an expired subscription unless you tell it to. Thanks to its unique pricing approach, cancelling Mullvad is the default option.

When you sign up for Mullvad, you pay for as many months upfront as you want at the constant rate of 5 Euro per month (varying with exchange rates). Each month, Mullvad takes 5 Euro out of your account until there's nothing left. If you're no longer satisfied with Mullvad, all you have to do is stop putting money in.

The Mullvad account dashboard.Sam Chapman for Engadget

If you happen to have originally signed up for Mullvad earlier than the middle of 2022, you may have an auto-renewal account grandfathered in. Mid-2022 is when Mullvad stopped auto-renewing subscriptions and got rid of PayPal integration altogether, but people who had signed up before then had the option to leave auto-renewal on.

If you're in this group, cancelling is simple. Just sign into your account page, click on the word Subscriptions, then click Unsubscribe.

How to cancel Mullvad if you subscribed through an app store

There's one more exception to the usual method of cancelling Mullvad. If you got your subscription through an app store instead of Mullvad's website or app, the app store is the one processing your money. You'll need to cancel through them instead.

On an iPhone or iPad, open the Settings app, whose icon shows gray gears. Tap your name at the top of the screen to reach your Apple ID page, then tab Subscriptions. Scroll down until you find your Mullvad subscription, tap it, then hit Cancel Subscription.

On an Android phone, open the Google Play Store, whose icon is a triangle in the Google colors. At the top-right, tap the circle with the first letter of your username in it. Hit Payments & Subscriptions, scroll down to find Mullvad, then tap it and hit Cancel Subscription.

How to delete your Mullvad account

You can go the extra mile and delete your account if you're sure you'll never want to use Mullvad again. Send an email to support@mullvadvpn.net, provide your account number and request that the account be terminated. You'll get a reply confirming deletion.

How to get a refund from Mullvad

Mullvad offers refunds on any purchase within 14 days. To start a refund request, send an email to support@mullvadvpn.net, including your Mullvad account number and your payment token. If you aren't sure what your payment token is, find the charge for Mullvad on your bank statement and look for something in the format VPN*(10-digit number).

Payments made in cash can't be refunded, apparently because that's considered a form of money laundering in Sweden. If you got Mullvad through a voucher, request your refund through the store the voucher came from.

Best Mullvad alternatives

Mullvad is one of the best VPNs, especially in terms of privacy. However, I've found it to be a bit slow at times, with a somewhat limited server network. Luckily, Proton VPN is almost as private as Mullvad — the only thing it's missing is the ability to sign up without an email. It's also got a larger server network and better overall download speeds.

Windscribe is another privacy-optimized VPN with a better record than Mullvad in my unblocking tests. Surfshark is the fastest VPN of them all, while ExpressVPN is ideal for beginners. If you liked Mullvad's cheap pricing, CyberGhost is a highly affordable alternative.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/vpn/how-to-cancel-mullvad-vpn-200000516.html?src=rss

Anthropic is upgrading Claude's free tier, apparently to capitalize on OpenAI's planned integration of ads into ChatGPT. On Wednesday, Anthropic said free Claude users can now create files, connect to external services, use skills and more.

Anthropic added the ability for paid users to create files in September. Starting today, free users of the chatbot can also create and edit Excel spreadsheets, PowerPoint presentations, Word docs and PDFs. Claude's file creation abilities are powered by Sonnet 4.5.

Free users can now create and edit Excel spreadsheets, PowerPoint presentations, Word docs, and PDFs.Anthropic

Meanwhile, Connectors allow free users to link Claude to third-party services. There's a long list of available ones, including Canva, Slack, Notion, Zapier and PayPal.

Skills, on the other hand, let you teach Claude to "complete specific tasks in repeatable ways." In short, the chatbot loads folders of instructions, scripts and other resources when performing relevant tasks. Other upgrades to the free tier include longer conversations, interactive responses and improved voice and image search.

Claude's free-tier upgrades appear to be a direct response to ChatGPT's planned introduction of ads for its free users. Anthropic's announcement today ended with the tag line, "No ads in sight." This follows the company's promise last week that Claude will remain ad-free. Anthropic even poked fun at OpenAI's cash-seeking move in a Super Bowl ad (below), which also took a swipe at GPT-4o's penchant for kissing ass.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/anthropic-beefs-up-claudes-free-tier-as-openai-prepares-to-stuff-ads-into-chatgpts-194100939.html?src=rss

Apple has released the software update 26.3 for its various platforms. This includes the iPhone, iPad, Mac and Apple Watch. In other words, don't be surprised when your iPhone notifies you of a pending update.

Unfortunately, there isn't all that much to talk about here. Consider this a minor update that focuses primarily on bug fixes, which is important but not exactly fun. It is worth noting that the new iOS and iPadOS has an especially long list of fixes. There are 37 security issues addressed by the update, according to a report by 9to5Mac. 

iOS 26.3 and iPadOS 26.3 do include a new tool for transitioning from an Apple device to an Android device, which is handy. It transfers photos, notes, messages, apps and other data to an Android phone but doesn't do anything with health data, protected notes or photos. There's also a new option to forward notifications from an iPhone or iPad to another device, but only for users in the EU. 

The update to macOS Tahoe 26.3 is just bug fixes and security enhancements. The same goes for watchOS 26.3.

Why the small fries update? Rumors have been swirling that Apple is saving the big guns for the next release. Insiders have suggested that software update 26.4 will include the long-awaited Siri refresh and new emoji functionality.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/mobile/smartphones/apple-just-released-ios-263-alongside-updates-for-the-mac-ipad-and-apple-watch-193532483.html?src=rss

Amazon has announced that it will bring its same-day prescription delivery service to 4,500 new cities and towns by the end of 2026. The company originally launched Amazon Pharmacy in 2020 with a two-day delivery option, and has continued to increase the availability and delivery speed of the service in the years that followed, including expanding access to nearly half of all US residents in 2024.

The company's announcement doesn't break down all the new cities same-day deliveries will be available in, but does note that the delivery option is coming to Idaho and Massachusetts for the first time. In the past, access to same-day deliveries has been determined by where Amazon has fulfillment centers that it can open pharmacies in. Amazon Pharmacy also offers next-day delivery and in some cities, the ability to pick up prescriptions from Amazon's OneMedical offices.

Amazon reportedly applied for Amazon Pharmacy trademarks in the UK, Canada and Australia in 2020, but has yet to expand its prescription delivery service to those regions. In 2023, Amazon launched RxPass, a separate $5 per month subscription that lets Amazon Prime customers order from a collection over 50 common medications for a flat fee. Amazon began letting Medicare recipients access the subscription in 2024.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/amazons-same-day-prescription-deliveries-are-coming-to-even-more-cities-192221224.html?src=rss

Like a puppy, a fun new toy soon turns into an unrelenting taskmaster

A Harvard Business Review study is answering the question 'what will employees do if AI saves them time at work?' The answer: more work.…

Two U.S. government officials and a member of Congress pushed back on Wednesday on Trump administration claims about the reasons for the sudden closure of airspace over El Paso, Texas.

After the Federal Aviation Administration quickly rescinded an order to ground flights for 10 days, Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, and other Trump administration officials claimed that a Mexican drug cartel drone incursion prompted the shutdown. "The threat has been neutralized," Duffy said. "Mexican cartel drones breached U.S. airspace. The Department of War took action to disable the drones," another Trump administration official told The Intercept.

But two government officials with knowledge of the reasons for the shutdown say the closure was connected to the Department of War's new counter-drone laser technology and a misunderstanding by — or miscommunication with — FAA headquarters of the risks it might pose to air traffic in and around El Paso.   

The government officials told The Intercept that the counter-drone laser system near Fort Bliss was tested this week. One official said a cartel drone may have been damaged or disabled by the new system. Another said that a Mylar party balloon was destroyed. The incidents appeared to be different events.

Cartel drone activity isn't unusual along the border, the sources said. The situation, as they described it, never constituted a threat.

"There was not a threat, which is why the FAA lifted this restriction so quickly."

Asked if the closure stemmed from testing of counter-drone technology near Fort Bliss, a Department of War spokesperson said: "We have nothing further to provide."

During a call with reporters on Wednesday morning, Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar, who represents Texas' 16th Congressional District in El Paso, also said that drone activity is frequent in the area and in this case did not pose a danger.

"There was not a threat, which is why the FAA lifted this restriction so quickly," Escobar said. "There was nothing extraordinary about any drone incursion into the U.S. that I'm aware of."

Escobar emphasized that she had been in communication with Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. — the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee — who she said had received the same information. Escobar added: "If there were any incursion that would have posed a threat, the Armed Services Committee would have been made aware, and that would have been shared with me in my conversation with the ranking member this morning."

Smith's office did not return a request for comment prior to publication.

Late Tuesday night, the FAA announced it would halt all flights for 10 days due to "special security reasons," surprising Escobar and other state and local officials. The shutdown went into effect at 11:30 p.m. local time on Tuesday and was lifted a little before 7 a.m. on Wednesday. "The temporary closure of airspace over El Paso has been lifted. There is no threat to commercial aviation," the FAA announced on X on Wednesday morning. "All flights will resume as normal." 

Escobar made the point that the closure order came from Washington, not local authorities or reigonal air traffic control. "I want to emphasize that this was an FAA decision," she said. "It was their decision. There was no information provided to me or my office, no information or advance notice provided to the airport or to the city of El Paso, which is the municipality that operates the airport."

The post Officials Dispute Trump Explanation of El Paso Airspace Closure. "There Was Not a Threat." appeared first on The Intercept.

This AI is so network native, the telco tells us, that it all works on existing hardware - no datacenters involved

T-Mobile is claiming it's now the first wireless carrier to integrate generative AI "directly into a wireless network," and it's rolling out real-time call translation as the first feature delivered on top of its new AI-filled cellular network. …

The more you share online, the more you open yourself to social engineering

If you've seen the viral AI work pic trend where people are asking ChatGPT to "create a caricature of me and my job based on everything you know about me" and sharing it to social, you might think it's harmless. You'd be wrong.…

Technically — TECHNICALLY! — we still have a system that relies on three co-equal branches to ensure that any single branch can't steamroll the rest of the system (along with the nation it's supposed to serve) to seize an unequal amount of power.

Technically.

What we're seeing now is something else entirely. The judicial branch is headed by people who are willing to give the executive branch what it wants, so long as the executive branch is headed by the Republican party. The legislative branch — fully compromised by MAGA bootlickers — has decided to simply not do its job, allowing the executive branch to seize even more power. The executive branch is now just a throne for a king — a man who feels he shouldn't have to answer to anyone — not even his voting bloc — so long as he remains in power.

The courts can act as a check against executive overreach. But as we've seen time and time again, this position means nothing if you're powerless to enforce it. And that has led to multiple executive officials telling the courts to go fuck themselves when they hand down rulings the administration doesn't like. A current sitting appellate judge no less made a name for himself in the Trump administration by demonstrating his contempt for the judicial system he's now an integral part of.

Only good things can come from this! MAGA indeed!

And while this is only one person's retelling their experience of being caught in the gears of Trump's anti-brown people activities, it's illustrative of what little it matters that there are three co-equal branches when one branch makes it clear on a daily basis that it considers itself to be more equal than the rest of them. (via Kathleen Clark on Bluesky)

This is from a sworn statement [PDF] in ongoing litigation against the federal government, as told by "O.," a Guatemalan resident of Minnesota who has both a pending asylum application as well as a Juvenile Status proceeding still undergoing in the US. None of that mattered to ICE officers, who arrested him in January 2026 and — within 24 hours — shipped him off to a detention center more than a thousand miles from his home.

O. was denied meals, access to phones, access to legal representation, stuffed into overcrowded cells, and generally mistreated by the government that once might have honestly considered the merits of his asylum application.

But the real dirt is this part of the sworn statement, which again exposes this administration's complete disinterest in adhering to orders from US courts, much less even paying the merest of lip service to rights long considered to be derived from none other than the "Creator" himself.

ICE did not tell me that my attorney had been trying to call me and contact me while I was in Texas. They didn't tell me my attorney Kim, had retained another attorney, Kira Kelley, to file a habeas petition on my behalf, or that a court had granted it and ordered my release. They just kept holding me there and occasionally trying to get me to self-deport.

[…]

I was put in a cold cell where I had to sleep on the bare cement floor. Around 10 in the morning my cellmate asked to speak to an ICE officer. Three officers came into the cell so I had a chance to speak to them too. One officer told me that I "had no chance of returning to Minnesota" and that "the best thing for [me] is self-deportation." She told me that if I fought my case, I would spend two to three more months here in El Paso. She offered me $2600 to self-deport. I refused. I wanted to talk to my attorney. They didn't tell me the judge had already ordered my release and return to Minnesota. If I hadn't managed to talk to my attorney who told me a while back that I was ordered released, I might have given up at this point and signed the self deportation forms because the conditions were so unbearable.

So… you see the problem. A court can order a release. But the court relies on the government to carry out this instruction. If it doesn't, the court likely won't know for days or weeks or months. At that point, a new set of rights abuses will have been inflicted on people who should have been freed. When the government is finally asked to answer for this, it will again engage in a bunch of bluster and obfuscation, forcing the court system to treat the administration like a member of the system of checks and balances even when it's immediately clear the executive branch has no desire to be checked and/or balanced.

While more judges are now treating the executive branch as a hostile force unwilling to behave honestly or recognize restraints on its power, the imbalance continues to shift in the administration's favor, largely because it can engage in abusive acts at scale, while the court is restrained to the cases presented to it.

But if you're outside of the system, you can clearly see what's happening and see what the future holds if one-third of the government refuses to do its job (the GOP-led Congress) and the other third can't handle the tidal wave of abuses being presented to it daily. The executive branch will become a kingdom that fears nothing and answers to no one. But the bigger problem is this: most Americans will see this and understand that this will ultimately destroy democracy. Unfortunately, there's a significant number of voters who actually welcome these developments, figuring it's better to lick the boots of someone who prefers to rule in hell, rather than serve the United States.

Microsoft Office 2021 Professional is the perfect choice for any professional who needs to handle data and documents. It comes with many new features that will make you more productive in every stage of development, whether it's processing paperwork or creating presentations from scratch - whatever your needs are. Office Pro comes with MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Teams, OneNote, Publisher, and Access. Microsoft Windows 11 Pro is exactly that. This operating system is designed with the modern professional in mind. Whether you are a developer who needs a secure platform, an artist seeking a seamless experience, or an entrepreneur needing to stay connected effortlessly, Windows 11 Pro is your solution. The Ultimate Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows + Windows 11 Pro Bundle is on sale for $44.97 for a limited time.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Over the years, we've written approximately one million words explaining why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is essential to how the internet functions. We've corrected politicians who lie about it. We've debunked myths spread by mainstream media outlets that should know better. We've explained, re-explained, and then explained again why gutting this law would be catastrophic for online speech.

And now I find myself in the somewhat surreal position of saying: you know who nailed this explanation better than most policy experts, pundits, and certainly better than any sitting member of Congress? A YouTuber named Cr1TiKaL.

If you're not familiar with Charles "Cr1TiKaL" White Jr., he runs the penguinz0 YouTube channel with nearly 18 million subscribers and over 12 billion total views. He's known for deadpan commentary on internet culture and video games. He's not a policy wonk. He's not a lawyer. He's just a guy who apparently bothered to actually understand what Section 230 says and does—something that puts him leagues ahead of the United States Congress.

In this 13-minute video responding to actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt's call to "sunset" Section 230, Cr1TiKaL laid out the case for why 230 matters with a clarity that most mainstream coverage hasn't managed in a decade:

Dismantling section 230 would fundamentally change the internet as you know it. And that's not an exaggeration to say it. Put it even more simply, section 230 allows goobers like me to post whatever they want, saying whatever they want, and the platform itself is not liable for whatever I've made or said. 

That is on me personally. 

The platform isn't going to be, you know, fucking dragged through the streets with legs spread like a goddamn Thanksgiving turkey for it and getting blasted by lawsuits or whatever. Now, of course, there are limitations in place when it comes to illegal content, things that actually break the law. That is, of course, a very different set of circumstances. That's a different can of worms, and that's handled differently. But it should be obvious why section 230 is so important because if these platforms were held liable for every single thing people post on their platforms, they would get into a lot of hot water and they would just not allow people to post things. Full stop. because it would be too dangerous to do so. They would need to micromanage and control every single thing that hits the platform in order to protect themselves. No matter how you spin it, this would ruin the internet. It's a pile of dogshit. No matter how much perfume gets sprayed on it or how they want to repackage it, it still stinks. 

Yes, the metaphors are colorful. But the underlying point is exactly correct. Section 230 places liability where it belongs: on the person who actually created the content. Not on the platform that hosts it. This is how the entire internet works. Every comment section, every social media post, every forum—all of it depends on this basic principle.

Also, he actually reads the 26 words in the video! This is something that so many other critics of 230 skip over, because then they can pretend it says things it doesn't say.

And unlike the politicians who keep pretending this is some kind of special gift to "Big Tech," Cr1TiKaL correctly notes that 230 protects everyone:

This would affect literally every platform that has anything user submitted in any capacity at all. 

Every. Single. One. Your local newspaper's comment section. The neighborhood Facebook group. The subreddit for your favorite hobby. The Discord server where you talk about video games. The email you forward. All of it.

He's also refreshingly clear-eyed about why politicians from both parties keep attacking 230:

Since the advent of the internet, section 230 has been a target for people that want to control your speech and infringe on your First Amendment rights.

This observation tracks with what we've pointed out repeatedly: the bipartisan hatred of Section 230 is one of the most remarkable examples of political unity in modern American governance—and it's driven largely by politicians who want platforms to moderate content in ways that favor their particular political preferences.

Democrats have attacked 230 claiming it enables "misinformation" and hate speech. Republicans have attacked it claiming it enables "censorship" of conservative voices. Both cannot simultaneously be true, and yet both parties have introduced legislation to gut the law. Cr1TiKaL captures this perfectly:

When Democrats were in charge, it caught a lot of scrutiny, claiming that it was enabling the spread of racism and harming children. With Republicans in power, they're claiming that it's spreading misinformation and anti-semitism. This is a bipartisan punching bag that they desperately want to just beat down.

The critics always trot out the same tired arguments about algorithms and echo chambers and extremism. As if removing 230 would somehow make speech better rather than making it disappear entirely or become heavily controlled by whoever has the most money and lawyers. Cr1TiKaL cuts right through this:

There are people that are paying a lot of money to try and plant this idea in your brain that section 230 is a bad thing. It only leads to things like extremism and conspiracy theories and demonization and that kind of thing. That's not true. 

Anyone who stops and thinks about this for even just a moment, firing on a few neurons, should be able to recognize how outrageous this proposal is. How would shutting down conversation and shutting down the ability to express thoughts and opinions somehow help combat the rise of extremism and conspiracies? that would only exacerbate the problem. Censorship doesn't solve these issues. It makes them worse. 

He even anticipates the point we've made countless times about what the internet would look like without 230:

Platforms would not allow just completely unfiltered usage of normal people expressing their thoughts because those thoughts might go against the official narrative from the curated source and then the curated source might go after the platform saying this is defamatory. These people have just said something hosted on your platform and we're coming after you with lawsuits. So they just wouldn't allow it. 

This is a point we keep repeating and you never hear in the actual policy debates, because supporters of a 230 repeal have no answer for it beyond "nuh-uh."

The people who most want to control online speech are exactly the people you'd expect: governments and powerful interests who don't like being criticized. Section 230 is one of the things standing in their way.

And when critics inevitably dust off the "think of the children" argument, Cr1TiKaL delivers the response that shouldn't be controversial but apparently is:

Be a parent. It is not the internet's job to cater to your lack of parenting by just letting your kid online. Fucking lazy trash ass parents just sit a kid in front of a computer or an iPad and then are stunned when apparently they find bad shit. Be a parent. Be involved in your kids' life. Raise your children. Don't make it the internet's job to do that for you. 

Is this delivered with the diplomatic nuance of a congressional hearing? No. Is it correct? Absolutely. The "protect the children" argument for dismantling 230 has always been a dodge—a way to make critics of the bill seem heartless while ignoring that Section 230 doesn't protect illegal content and maybe, just maybe, the primary responsibility for what media children consume should rest with the adults responsible for those children.

We've been writing about Section 230 for years, trying to explain to policymakers and the general public why it matters. And most of the time, it feels like shouting into the void. Politicians keep lying about it. Journalists keep getting it wrong. The mythology around 230 persists no matter how many times it gets corrected.

And we've heard from plenty of younger people who now believe that 230 is bad. I recently guest taught a college class where students were split into two groups—one to argue in favor of 230 and one against—and I was genuinely dismayed when the group told to argue in favor of 230 argue that 230 "once made sense" but doesn't any more.

So there's something genuinely hopeful about seeing a young creator with an audience of nearly 18 million people—an audience that skews young and is probably not spending a lot of time reading policy papers—get it right. Not just right in a general sense, but right in the specifics. He read the law. He understood what it does. He correctly identified why it matters and who benefits from dismantling it.

Maybe the generation that grew up on the internet actually understands what's at stake when politicians threaten to fundamentally reshape how it works. Maybe they're not buying the moral panic narratives that have been trotted out to justify every bad piece of tech legislation for the past decade.

Or maybe I'm being optimistic. Either way, Cr1TiKaL's video is worth watching. It's profane, it's casual, and it's more correct about Section 230 than anything you'll hear from the halls of Congress.

Jason Momoa will be playing the lead in the forthcoming film adaptation of the Helldivers gaming franchise, according to a report by Variety. The games don't have a story-driven protagonist, so Momoa is likely to play a currently unnamed soldier.

We also have a release date for the Helldivers film. It comes out on November 10, 2027. That's a while from now, but at least it gives fans something to look forward to. The movie is being directed by Justin Lin, who is best known for helming several entries in the Fast & Furious franchise. However, he also directed Star Trek Beyond, proving he can do sci-fi.

Gary Dauberman is penning the script. He wrote both It and It Chapter Two, in addition to the horror film Annabelle and its follow-ups. Dauberman is mostly a horror guy, so we'll have to see how he handles high-octane science fiction.

For the uninitiated, Helldivers is a co-op shooter franchise that's heavily inspired by the movie Starship Troopers. The games are set in a hyper-patriotic dystopia called Super Earth. Helldivers 2 dropped back in 2024, though was recently released for Xbox.

Sony hasn't announced any other actors who will be joining Momoa. We'll keep you updated when more casting news drops.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/the-helldivers-movie-will-star-jason-momoa-and-hits-theaters-on-november-10-2027-183445038.html?src=rss

Threads users have been complaining about its recommendation algorithm pretty much since the beginning of the platform. At some point, this turned into a meme, with users writing posts jokingly addressed to the algorithm in which they requested to see more posts about the topics they're actually interested in.

Now, Meta is turning those "Dear algorithm" posts into an official feature that it says will allow Threads users to tune their recommendations in real time. With the change, users can write a post that begins with "dear algo" to adjust their preferences. For example, you could write "dear algo, show me more posts about cute cats." You can also ask to see fewer posts about topics you don't want to see, like "dear algo, stop showing me posts about sick pets."

You can track your requests to the algorithm in the app's settings in order to revisit them or remove them. You can also retweet other users' "dear algo" posts to have those topics reflected in your feed. Importantly, "dear algo" requests are temporary and only last for three days at a time, which Meta says is meant to keep the algorithm feel fresher and more flexible.  

The rollout of the feature follows a limited test late last year. Now, "dear algo" posts will work for Threads users in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand with more countries coming "soon."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-turned-threads-algorithm-complaints-into-an-official-feature-180000236.html?src=rss

Learn about how tech leaders are scaling AI in practice

Promo AI projects fail at scale not because models don't work or GPUs lack performance. They fail because data can't keep pace.…

TikTok US just launched a local feed for users to "get the inside scoop on must-try restaurants, shops, museums and events." This is done by leveraging the exact location of people that are using the app and comes after a change in the platform's terms of service that says the app can do just that. The platform's terms of service used to note that it could collect approximate locations, but the sale to US investors looks to have changed that to precise locations.

This is an opt-in feature, despite the app potentially collecting this data whether the feed is activated or not. The feed is set to "off" by default, but can be changed via a trip to settings.

The local feed doesn't show your neighbors or people you might vibe with to help solve that pesky loneliness epidemic. Instead, it prioritizes local businesses and will highlight nearby events, shopping suggestions and restaurants to try.

TikTok

This looks to be part of a broader push to attract small businesses to the app, both as content producers and as advertisers. As TechCrunch notes, this could also help insulate the company from future regulation and increased scrutiny, as it could point to the many small businesses that rely on its services. 

TikTok states that over 7.5 million businesses use the platform in the US to reach customers. However, this data is sourced from an Oxford Economics report from before a group of investors finalized a deal for the US version of the app.

Supporting local businesses is a noble goal, but users will have to consider whether or not the value of a dedicated feed is worth the privacy risk. Oracle is a prominent investor in the new American TikTok, and company founder Larry Ellison once said "citizens will be on their best behavior" when they are being constantly surveilled.

This local feed isn't exactly a new idea. TikTok has been trying something similar in Europe since the tail-end of last year. It has shown up in the UK, France, Italy and Germany.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/tiktok-us-launches-a-local-feed-that-leverages-a-users-exact-location-170651916.html?src=rss

In a move many public figures would do well to learn from, musician Chappell Roan has cut ties with her talent agency after flirty emails unearthed between its founder Casey Wasserman and Jeffrey Epstein's partner-in-crime Ghislaine Maxwell.

UK PM Keir Starmer backed Peter Mandelson despite his ties to a paedophile. Roan, instead, ended her working relationship and demands better from those working with her. Starmer and others would do well to take heed of how it should be done.

Chappell Roan announces she's leaving Wasserman agency amid founder-CEO's ties to the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein:

"This decision reflects my belief that meaningful change in our industry requires accountability and leadership that earns trust." pic.twitter.com/nmYujTA3by

— Buzzing Pop (@BuzzingPop) February 10, 2026

Chappell Roan: 'accountability and leadership that earns trust.'

According to the Guardian, flirtatious emails were revealed between Wasserman and Ghislaine Maxwell which preceded Roan's public announcement. In as a shining example of how a principled person responds to apparent ties with a network linked to child abuse, Roan's full statement reads:

As of today, I am no longer represented by Wasserman, the talent agency led by Casey Wasserman.

I hold my teams to the highest standards and have a duty to protect them as well. No artist, agent or employee should ever be expected to defend or overlook actions that conflict so deeply with our own moral values.

I have deep respect and appreciation for the agents and staff who work tirelessly for their artists and I refuse to passively stand by. Artists deserve representation that aligns with their values and supports their safety and dignity. This decision reflects my belief that meaningful change in our industry requires accountability and leadership that earns trust.

Roan's refusal to "overlook actions that conflict so deeply" with her team's values highlights the real problem with Starmer - and men like him. He appointed "Petie" Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US despite knowing about his friendly ties to a convicted paedophile.

Our own Skwawkbox wrote last week:

Keir Starmer has admitted knowing all about his disgraced senior adviser Peter Mandelson's continuing close ties to serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

Before he appointed him to be ambassador to the US.

It was already a matter of record that Starmer knew when he told MPs last September that he had full confidence in Mandelson. Mandelson was removed as ambassador shortly afterward — but kept on the government payroll. That month's Epstein file release underscored Mandelson's infatuation with Epstein, but their ties had been on record long before.

The contrast couldn't be clearer: some powerful people follow principle, while many powerful men and their cronies just ignore it.

Bro's stick together

The Canary's Alice Charles also wrote about how corporate media is ignoring the blatant "broligarchy" revealed in the Epstein files. Charles wrote:

While being mentioned in the Epstein Files is not an indication of wrongdoing, it certainly begs the question of why anyone would go to an Epstein function more than once. What were they getting in return? Was a relationship with Epstein really worth risking everything? For example, if Google co-founder Sergey Brin has used his own search engine, he would have found Epstein's widely reported conviction for child sex offences.

The files story is one of systemic failure and draws attention to the inability of law enforcement agencies around the world to deal with criminals when they are wealthy and influential. But Epstein was no "kingpin", merely a cog in a global wheel of male patriarchal supremacy - one that must be dismantled finally and completely.

Roan has never been one to shy away from speaking truth to power. Speaking up for Palestine, she has been known to call out the "engine of celebrity endorsement" that US political leaders rely on:

Chappell Roan is donating proceeds to Palestine and told the Whitehouse to fuck off when they tried to pink-wash her

She's extremely political and this quote is cherry picked out of context

She's criticizing the engine of celebrity endorsement and asking us to engage directly https://t.co/vCDtLnE9fo pic.twitter.com/RZOMUfYm3A

— Ben Silver

Ben Habib, founder of Advance UK (an even more openly racist party than Reform UK) has announced that he aspires to 're-colonise' the curriculum:

BREAKING RIGHT NOW: Ben Habib has just announced Advance UK will "re-colonise the curriculum" in the party's first major policy event.
He vows to make schools hold Christian assemblies with the national anthem and teach how Christian thought moulded the UK.
Do you agree? pic.twitter.com/LL9B5e3bV1

— Dan Wootton (@danwootton) February 7, 2026

The party only officially launched in June 2025 and has already made some audacious statements regarding policy. Habib, claims to be driven by Christ, and wants Christian thought to be "moulded" into the UK and 'western civilisation'.

Advance UK align with Christianity

Advance UK's alignment with Christianity is no accident. In times of where there is a huge crisis of meaning, religion provides stability. It is much easier to justify power through the lens of divinity, than it is to take accountability over our humanity. Habib and his cohort know this well.

Their patriotic bravado is a purposeful choice. In order to have their warped sense of 'home' and 'nation' there must be an 'outsider' and 'other.'

We don't need to recolonise anything — least of all the curriculum. The British empire fucked so much shit up and its legacy still lives on today. The classroom is not a place where democracy is permitted. As Akala reminds us, "The curriculum is a political choice". No matter how we try to pretend, the UK will never escape its shadow. Colonialism was and continues to be a travesty to humankind. Britain robbed countries of their wealth, health, and culture. It systematically ranked humans and portrayed neoliberal capitalism as some kind of 'god.'

Colonial nostalgia

Advance UK's attempt at colonial nostalgia is entwined with the same settler colonial ideology which not only drove the British empire but also powers the anti-immigrant rhetoric spewing forth from major political parties. We do not need to continue branding Britain as the pinnacle of civility and everyone else its subject. We need a curriculum that honestly confronts power and encourages diversity.

Decolonising the curriculum does not mean erasing Britain or replacing one orthodoxy with another. It means examining how knowledge was shaped by empire. It means recognising whose voices were centred and whose were marginalised. It means teaching Britain's history in full — including the violence, resistance and global consequences — rather than presenting a sanitised national myth.

A decolonised curriculum will not weaken Britain. It would increase its maturity and thus forth credibility. As Priyamvada Gopal, a professor of Postcolonial studies at the University of Cambridge, argues:

Decolonising the curriculum is about expanding the scope of knowledge not narrowing it.

Expansion is not an attack on Britain. It is an investment in intellectual maturity.

Featured image via X

By Vannessa Viljoen

UK-based autism charity Ambitious About Autism has released results of a survey which show that one in six autistic pupils have not been to school since the beginning of this academic year. They polled nearly one thousand young people and their families, finding a variety of reasons for their absence.

One thing is crystal clear: the consistent factor amongst the reasons for absence is the hostility caused by the school system and the government failing disabled students. 62% cited mental health issues, and a fifth said their school was not suitable.

For autistic people who have made it through to the other side of education, these statistics are entirely unsurprising. Schools are hostile environments in more ways than one, based in both the sensory and the social. Fluorescent lighting, loud echoing hallways, and intense dining room smells are just a few of the offensive sensory inputs that all combine with the heavy load of masking needed in order to try to fit in, navigate harsh rules, and attempt to focus on your work.

Autistic children are not your scapegoat

In the survey, 45% of the respondents said they felt blamed by the government for the absences. This should be validated, seen through the endless attacks on autistic people and their families to make the public see them as the enemy of the working class for needing more funding and support.

Neoliberalism sees these children as inconvenient. Not only do they cost more money, they cannot fit into the cookie-cutter system meant to spit out adults who are ready to assimilate straight into a workplace. This is where ableism is shown to be deeply intertwined with capitalism, where anyone who does not fit the mould is seen as a problem.

You may have heard autistic people referred to as 'canaries in the coal mine' before. This is the idea that we are the first to see threats or distress, which should be seen as a warning of something more systemic that will come to affect everyone. In the neoliberal education system, autistic children fit this: these environments are not truly built for anyone, and the higher levels of distress faced are only indicative of the fact that all children are being treated in a way that is problematic and misaligned with their needs.

This is a crucial moment for SEND support

This survey comes at a point in time where the government is planning to reform the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system. This proposes that it will improve outcomes for disabled children, but those more cynical can argue it is a money mission.

The reforms are apparently aiming to address delays and poor outcomes - and, of course, 'unsustainable costs'. At this stage, Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are apparently not being scrapped, but it appears that schools will have their own responsibilities around assessment. This is significantly concerning due to lack of expertise and the possible lack of accountability.

It should not matter that more children than ever fall into the SEND category or need EHCPs. Every single individual deserves access to the support they need, whether that is in a specialist setting or in mainstream, where 70% of (diagnosed) autistic children are educated. We need more specialist settings where autistic children can thrive in environments that are built for them, with the right transport, properly trained staff, and supported transitions. 20% of those surveyed were out of school due to unsuitable school placement.

If schools were changed at a fundamental level, given an entirely different culture, accommodating many autistic young people would still be necessary but could become an easier task. Softer sensory environments, more regulated nervous systems and social support help every child regardless of their need. We will always need individual accommodations, and many autistic children will still need specialist support, but the current system sets everyone up for failure.

This is a critical moment in how we see, hear and support autistic children and their families. They deserve holistic care, in the right environment, and an inclusive system. The focus remaining on money is not the answer.

We have to take autistic children and families seriously

While Ambitious About Autism is using these statistics to raise awareness of why non-attendance occurs for autistic young people, mass media has latched onto them to fuel their debates on the lives of disabled people. Many of the discussions are intentionally inflammatory and lead to further stigma for autistic children and their families, who are simply trying to survive a system that is built to work against them.

Terms like 'school refusal' and 'non-compliance' are thrown around constantly. The implication is heavily that this is a choice, that young people are simply acting up or their parents should just be parenting better. That is not the reality faced by thousands of families. They have been abandoned by the system and are having to fight every day, often losing their jobs or income as collateral.

Mental health crisis, autistic burnout, and exclusions are almost normalised when it comes to autistic children and young people. It should not be seen as acceptable that huge swathes of children are being failed.

There is a deep irony at how many people on the right use 'we need to look after our own' to justify their bigotry, until it is disabled children and parents who are drowning in a system that refuses to care.

This survey should prove the gaps we know exist, not justify the perpetuation of horrific narratives which target such a vulnerable group. Autistic children and their families are not asking for too much: simply advocating for something that is their right.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charli Clement

The UK government stands accused of "sitting on the sidelines" of international nuclear weapons risk reduction diplomacy. This follows the expiration of New START (New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty). It limited the number of nuclear weapons the US and Russia could hold.

US president Barack Obama and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev signed the agreement in 2010 and it came into force in 2011.

According to the Chatham House think tank, which focuses on international affairs:

The treaty caps the US and Russia each at 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers, and up to 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers.

It also established detailed transparency and verification mechanisms, including data exchanges, notifications and on-site inspections.

Russia had expressed interest in a voluntary one year extension of the treaty after its scheduled expiration on 5 February 2026, which US president Donald Trump said on 5 October 2025 sounded "like a good idea". But in the end, no legally binding nor voluntary extension was agreed.

UK government 'regularly raises' nuclear risk reduction with US and Russia

Later in October 2025, Liberal Democrat MP David Chadwick and Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty separately asked the UK government what it was doing to encourage extending the term of the treaty.

In response, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office minister of state Stephen Doughty said:

The New START Treaty is a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russian Federation; any replacement treaty is a matter for the US and Russia.

The UK regularly raises issues related to strategic risk reduction, including arms control with the USA and Russia through the expert-level P5 process.

According to the European Leadership Network, the P5 process:

brings together the five nuclear weapon states (NWS)—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—recognised by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in a dedicated forum to discuss their unique responsibilities under the Treaty.

Doughty continued:

Genuine and verifiable strategic arms control among the largest Nuclear Weapons States can be a positive step for global security.

However, following Russia's decision to suspend participation in New START verification measures in 2023, future approaches need to be based on concrete, and verifiable actions.

On 2 February 2026, Labour MP John Grady asked prime minister Keir Starmer if he had discussed nuclear weapons risks with his Chinese counterpart, during a House of Commons debate about Starmer's recent visit to China:

China is a significant and growing nuclear power, with more than 600 warheads, and this week the US-Russia New START treaty comes to an end.

Can the Prime Minister tell me if the UK is engaging with China at the highest levels to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons and combat nuclear proliferation?

Starmer responded:

I assure my hon. Friend that our discussions with China did include how we derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons.

Government accused of 'sitting on the sidelines' of nuclear weapons diplomacy

Reacting to the treaty's expiration, CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) general secretary Sophie Bolt said:

The collapse of New START without a replacement represents a serious and dangerous step backwards for global arms control.

To get this back on track, we need global public pressure to push for interim measures that could be agreed between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin today!

This could involve a one-year moratorium on exceeding New START caps, the resumption of inspections, and a moratorium on deploying new anti-ballistic missile systems like Trump's Golden Dome.

A new treaty is possible if pressure is put on these governments to come to an agreement, which will build momentum to further nuclear arms control agreements involving more nuclear powers.

As a nuclear-armed state, Britain has clear obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue disarmament in good faith.

Rather than sitting on the sidelines, the government could show leadership and use its diplomatic influence to push for the US and Russia to extend New START.

CND has written to David Riley UK Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament and our members are lobbying Yvette Cooper, Foreign Secretary, urging them to use their influence to secure the extension of the Treaty.

Treaty expiration raises risk of 'accidental catastrophic launches'

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) describes itself as:

the international campaign to stigmatise, prohibit & eliminate nuclear weapons.

Speaking just ahead of the expiration, ICAN director of programmes Susi Snyder told the Canary:

When New START expires, there will no longer be any controls on the number and types of weapons that Russia and the US can deploy which could increase tensions between them and increase the risk of a major nuclear conflict that would devastate the world.

The existence of the New START treaty helped to reduce the risk of conflict by engendering trust and improving understanding between the two countries' personnel on nuclear weapons-related issues.

Once the treaty is defunct, this distrust can only deepen, increasing risks of accidental catastrophic launches.

Russia had already suspended some of these confidence building measures in response to US support for Ukraine, and distrust has already been growing between the two countries about their nuclear weapons intentions and policies, increasing the risk of misunderstandings and accidental conflict.

In response to the discussions about a possible voluntary extension of the treaty, Snyder said:

In the short term, the US and Russia should publicly commit to respect New START's limits while a new framework is negotiated.

They should restart serious disarmament talks and bring their warhead numbers down significantly, which would build confidence with the other nuclear-armed states that it is worthwhile engaging in broader disarmament discussions.

All nuclear armed countries have to recognise that arms control alone is no longer enough.

These weapons need to be eliminated before they are used again and the way to do that is through the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which a majority of countries have already signed or ratified only five years after it came into force.

On 5 February 2026, Trump posted on social media, saying:

Rather than extend 'NEW START' (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.

Looking to the future of international cooperation on nuclear weapons risks, Snyder said:

Despite the collapse of this last arms control agreement, there is a bright spot on the disarmament horizon - the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which came into force five years ago and a majority of countries have already signed and ratified.

More countries are set to sign and ratify it soon. The more countries that join, the more the diplomatic pressure on the nuclear-armed countries and their allies that endorse the use of nuclear weapons to take action to get rid of these weapons grows.

She said this could work:

in the same way it did for other weapons that cause disproportionate, lingering harm to civilians, such as landmines and cluster munitions.

The TPNW countries will be meeting later in the year for the treaty's first review conference where they will agree on steps to strengthen the treaty, including in its important work to support the people and communities around the world harmed by the more than 2000 nuclear test explosions since 1945.

According to Snyder, the expiration of New START has created:

a real danger the new arms race will accelerate between the US and Russia - more warheads, more delivery systems, more exercises - and other nuclear-armed states will feel pressure to keep up.

That makes every crisis more dangerous and increases the risk of mistakes and miscalculation. It also sends the worst possible signal to the rest of the world: that the nuclear powers are going backwards on disarmament, just when they should be leading.

New START failure shows world 'tipping back towards conflict' - peer

The Green Party peer Jenny Jones told the Canary:

The failure to renew the New START nuclear treaty shows how the world is tipping back towards conflict.

The threat of nuclear weapons being used hasn't been this high for years, but instead of stepping back and negotiating, we have the possibility of Washington and Moscow unleashing a new nuclear arms race.

I'm worried that this sends all the wrong messages ahead of the review of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty later this year.

Featured image via the Canary

By Tom Pashby

Welp, looks like Donald Trump has been caught in yet another scandal. This time, he stands accused of laundering money with Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev, as political analyst Brian Allen explained:

MP Debbie Abrahams is ripping into the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) again, this time by calling out the vile culture in the department and their slowness in supporting victims of the carers scandal.

Debbie Abrahams calls out DWP culture

The letter follows DWP permanent secretary Peter Schofield's disastrous turn in front of the Work and Pensions Committee last month. During the discussion, Lib Dem Steve Darling accused Schofield of talking "blancmange" and Abrahams asked "how on earth" he could possibly explain the DWP's behaviour.

In a letter to the DWP's Peter Schofield, Abrahams said that the lack of change in culture meant claimants did not trust them. She said that although Schofield said there were changes (though failed to say what), these were "too incremental and too slow".

By all accounts, she absolutely handed him his arse in the letter:

Fundamentally, we believe that the Department is failing to put the needs of vulnerable people first, that it is unwilling to learn from its mistakes and that it shows a lack of urgency to bring about change. Until the Department changes its culture, it will always struggle to build trust with the people it is meant to serve.

Abrahams also called out how much the DWP refuses to own it's mistakes and learn from them. She said there was a "culture of complacency" in the department. She pointed out that the committee raised several issues with Schofield, including the handling of the carers' scandal. Schofield's response to intense questioning was, for the most part, complete bullshit.

She told Schofield in the letter:

When things go wrong, we expect the Department to accept its faults, swiftly provide redress and to learn from its errors. The Department has shown repeated inadequacy in its response to mistakes and a lack of urgency when it comes to righting wrongs.

DWP's great track record? Where?

In the committee hearing, when asked about the carers' scandal, Schofield said

We've got a great track record of putting things right when things go wrong. This is a department that when it knows we have to get things right we put it right.

This is something the committee audibly disagreed with at the time, and something Abrahams all directly calls out in the letter

You told the Committee that DWP has "a great track record of putting right when we get things wrong" - I disagree.

The committee hearing followed the publication of the Sayce Review into carers' allowance overpayments. The report found that 86,900 carers still had outstanding overpayment debts. Crucially it ruled that overpayments on this scale were due to "systematic issues within the department". And not, as another DWP Civil Servant, Neil Couling, claimed, down to individual claimants.

In her letter, Abrahams addresses Couling's comments, saying it:

raises questions about the senior team as a whole under your leadership. It undermines the sincerity of your apology and efforts to rebuild trust. Moreover, I am concerned that these attitudes may be more widespread, and indicative of a culture within the Department that blames claimants for errors and fails to recognise the needs of vulnerable people

She also called out Schofield for refusing to respond directly to questions about Couling in the committee hearing and asked him to respond in writing to the following questions:

 How do you explain the failures of Departmental culture that contributed to carers allowance overpayments?

What action will you be taking in your senior team to address the evident attitudinal issues?

DWP have had enough time to fix this

It's not like the DWP hasn't had more than enough time and opportunity to right the carers crisis, but they've failed time and time again.

This is something Abraham's brought up too:

It is difficult to have confidence in your commitment to rectify DWP's mistakes given you have had ample opportunity to fix carers allowance overpayments since at least 2019.

She reminded Schofield that back in 2019 the DWP said they had a strategy to fix the carers allowance crisis and processes in place to prevent overpayments in the future. However, this clearly isn't the case.

Abrahams seethed:

Given the previous assertions by DWP that it would fix carers allowance overpayments, I'm sure you can understand my scepticism about your most recent commitments.

She has demanded Schofield sets out how the DWP will ensure the problems are "actually addressed this time".

Still not finished, Abraham's final blow is on how the DWP still hasn't admitted the blame for this horrific crisis.

I was also disappointed that your admission of fault and apology only covered carers affected by flawed guidance on averaging earnings, which was only one error identified by the Sayce Review. You failed to mention at the start of the session that DWP does not accept that its guidance on allowable expenses was also flawed and does not plan to cancel debts or reimburse repayments related to this guidance

She calls Schofield's failure to do this "disingenuous" and that it undermines the idea that he does actually want to fix things. She also points out that when she did raise the issue, Schofield made a pathetic excuse about "limiting decision makers' discretion". As a result, Abrahams also demanded to know the DWP's position on allowable expenses

why it disagrees with the findings of the Sayce review; whether it will investigate how many people were affected by this issue; and what, if any, redress it is considering.

Schofield stepping down, but pressure must be kept on

It's worth pointing out that since this letter was published, Schofield has announced he's stepping down. It's been insisted that this is for personal reasons, and he will remain in post until July.  In a statement, Abrahams said:

The Work and Pensions Select Committee will continue to hold the Government to account on social security and pensions policy including its culture and how policy is delivered.

What's clear from Abraham's letter, along with every other criticism of the DWP, is just how toxic an organisation it is. When the organisation which is supposed to support our most vulnerable instead spends all it's time demonising and blaming them, it is one that is not fit for purpose.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Channel 4's Dispatches programme has looked at the UK government's highly controversial ban of non-violent direct-action group Palestine Action. And through basic journalistic scrutiny that the rest of mainstream media have largely avoided, it laid out how central 'corporate capture' of our politicians was to the politically repressive decision.

Palestine Action and the corporate capture of UK government

Journalist Jonathan Cook summed up the Dispatches episode by saying:

What the programme made clear was that Starmer's government made the unprecedented decision to declare Palestine Action a terrorist organisation not because the group is a terrorist organisation but because large corporations - arms firms like Elbit - have captured the UK government.

One parliamentary stooge Dispatches interviewed was John Woodcock ('Lord Walney') - who's among the clearest examples of corporate capture in UK politics. He has long lobbied on behalf of dodgy industries and repressive foreign states. And he has a particularly close connection to the Israeli apartheid state.

As Cook explained, Woodcock clearly "struggled through his interview":

It was only too clear that his views on the subject had nothing to do with the public good but were shaped by his ties to the arms industries and his role as an Israel lobbyist.

Having long fought to repress freedom of speech and protest on behalf of Israeli settler-colonialism, Woodcock gave a particularly revealing response when interviewer Matt Shea questioned if public outrage over Israel's genocide in Gaza justified regular protests:

In C4's 'Palestine Action, The Truth behind the ban' Israel friend & arms lobbyists Lord Walney attacks regular pro Palestine marches

The reporter points out the organisers may say opposing the slaughter of civilians on this scale demands regular protests. Watch his reaction pic.twitter.com/WUqm2YbHvv

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 10, 2026

The UK's political establishment, with its deep links to the pro-Israel lobby, has long sought to repress dissent on Israel's war crimes. From the Conservatives to Labour and Reform, protection of Israeli interests is non-negotiable.

As Cook outlined, the ban on Palestine Action was:

done at the behest of Elbit Systems - the Israeli arms firm making killer drones used in Gaza targeted by Palestine Action.

Alongside regular government meetings with Elbit before the proscription, the government had also been considering how to:

Reassure Elbit Systems UK and the wider sector affected by Palestine Action that the government cares about the harm the group is causing the private sector [arms industries].

The Palestine Action ban was "wrong"

Apart from the corporate capture of government that led to the ban, Dispatches also noted the:

widespread belief among Home Office staff that the government was "wrong" to proscribe Palestine Action, and there was "disquiet"  that the government was using Palestine Action as a way to curtail rights to protest and speech more generally.

The Labour government of Keir Starmer has been consistently intensifying the efforts of his Conservative predecessors to crack down on dissent.

The government's own adviser, meanwhile, revealed how nonsensical the cynical attempt to link Palestine Action with Iran had been:

GOVERNMENT LIES

A clip from last night's C4 Despatches shows that the government's own advisor saw no evidence on claims used by Labour to proscribe Palestine Action.

Jonathan Hall KC slams the phoney accusations of an 'Iran link' as "nudge nudge, wink wink".

Lift The Ban NOW pic.twitter.com/rXv5j5SScB

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) February 10, 2026

Dispatches also looked at why the Palestine Action ban was so dangerous:

Lord Hain was there when the Terrorism Act was introduced, he has publicly condemned the use of this act against Palestine Action.

He fears it could be used on "all sorts of protestors" and the likes of the Suffragettes and Anti-Apartheid protesters.

"That cannot be justified". pic.twitter.com/ZSllZPQRKV

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) February 10, 2026

Even good mainstream journalism has holes, though

Perhaps Dispatches felt it had to tread very carefully around this issue, but it seemed at points to be way too deferential to government talking points, possibly to show 'impartiality'. It also overused ominous music when interviewing people from Palestine Action, and asked them questions it didn't ask of pro-Israel voices:

Nearly two and a half years into Israels genocide and people are still being asked, do you condemn Hamas?

The journalist asking the question is Matt Shea and the the clip is from Channel 4's Dispatches program 'Palestine Action, The Truth behind the ban' pic.twitter.com/yDDJ2ylcsE

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 10, 2026

'The reason I did this was because I oppose killing innocent lives.' @Matt_A_Shea speaks to Palestine Action activist Ellie Kamio immediately after she was granted bail and found not guilty of aggravated burglary. The jury failed to reach a verdict on her other charges. pic.twitter.com/ifBclgCcEZ

— Channel 4 Dispatches (@C4Dispatches) February 9, 2026

Asks a Palestinian "Is Hamas guilty of killing innocent civilians on oc7 & should we condemn that?"
*doesn't get the right answer*
"it should be simple to condemn the killing of innocent Israelis."

Never asks Falter, Hall or Walney to condemn Israel.

— Özen (@Iridescent1985) February 10, 2026

And if Dispatches was going to look at the claim of foreign links to Palestine Action, it would have seemed completely appropriate to look at the prominent role of the Israel lobby in parliament too.

Pretty good but surprisingly never mentioned the Israeli lobbying in UK which was the main reason for Palestine Action being proscribed in the first place

— Mike (@mwally_mike) February 10, 2026

Dispatches will surely have made some people think more carefully about the reasons behind the Palestine Action ban, though. And if it helped even slightly to mainstream the debate over the corporate capture of our political system, that's something we should all be thankful for.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Marina Purkiss has renewed scrutiny of Reform leader Nigel Farage, arguing that his conduct does not match his divisive public rhetoric.

Farage…

Rails against WFH while employing his wife to WFH

Rails against the EU while taking the EU pension

Rails against "elites" while being bankrolled by them and happily hobnobbing with them

Rails against people speaking other languages while his own kids speak German.… pic.twitter.com/npFfX6Q3uk

— Marina Purkiss (@MarinaPurkiss) February 10, 2026

Farage: 'rules for thee, but not for me'

The post in full reads:

Farage…

Rails against WFH while employing his wife to WFH

Rails against the EU while taking the EU pension

Rails against "elites" while being bankrolled by them and happily hobnobbing with them

Rails against people speaking other languages while his own kids speak German.

Do you spot the pattern?

Rules for thee, but not for me.

Purkiss' rebuttal to Farage comes following his calls for an end to working from home and the 'focus' on employees having a work-life balance. Farage instead stated that it was a 'nonsense' that people are more productive working from home, suggesting that being with 'fellow human beings' would be best.

Yesterday, our own HG hit back at the attack and argued it would have serious negative consequences in practice, saying:

A Reform government would push even more disabled and chronically ill people into work.

Importantly, working from home allows some disabled people to hold down a job. Farage's attempts to end work-from-home whilst also claiming to want more disabled people to have jobs are contradictory and bullshit. If he actually cared about disabled people, he would be encouraging work-from-home, or work from wherever the hell you want to, as long as the work gets done.

Farage is a hypocrite. And basically, you can't work from home unless it serves him and his pumped-up little agenda.

Given the above, we can't help but think Farage is thinking more of ensuring bosses can oversee their inferior staff members, putting them 'back in their place', than anything to do with the wellbeing of workers.

We even wrote at the end of 2025 a roundup of the hypocrisy running rife in Reform, with our own Willem Moore reporting on one of their lies used to gain votes:

As we reported in October, Kent County Council was also eyeing up a 5% Council Tax rise. You'll be glad to know that they did not proceed with this ridiculous 5% figure. They did, however, raise Council Tax by 4.989%.

So really, when you think about it, that's a saving of 0.11 percentage points for the people of Kent who were worried about the 5% rise.

Purkiss' timely reminder of Farage's well-documented hypocrisy has been well-received on X, with one account reminding us:

Reform is a scam https://t.co/Is6XApc1Cr

— Trevor McArdle (@McardleTrevor) February 11, 2026

This account points out yet again the double standard for people who work for Farage and co:

On the side of the bosses, not the workers

Once again, Reform and its privileged MP's prove that they will never be on the side of ordinary people. Instead, they will always be on the side of the already-rich and powerful, or those who work directly for them.

After all, working from home is good for Farage's wife, but not for ordinary people living ever more strenuous lives.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

Though the original series is very much done, Netflix is going to squeeze as much juice out of Stranger Things as it can. The company is said to be filming the Broadway production of Stranger Things: The First Shadow so it can offer up a recording on its streaming service.

Several public performances were canceled this week to accommodate filming, according to The Hollywood Reporter. They'll recommence on February 15. Filming is taking place before the original Broadway cast leaves the production next month. 

Stranger Things: The First Shadow opened in New York City last year after debuting in London in 2023. It's been a critical and commercial success, and it has won multiple Tony Awards. The play is a canonical prequel to Stranger Things and it fills in more of the backstory of Henry Creel, who becomes Vecna. The show's final season digs into his past too.

Netflix hasn't indicated when it will start streaming a recording of the play. This was inevitably going to happen at some point, though. Netflix has been busy expanding the Stranger Things universe with spin-off shows, such as the animated series Stranger Things: Tales From '85 (which will start streaming on April 23). A documentary that shows how Stranger Things: The First Shadow came together hit the streaming service last year.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/netflix-is-reportedly-filming-the-stranger-things-broadway-show-this-week-165243046.html?src=rss

Genetic study finds domestic pigs' year-round breeding sped gene flow into wild boar

Back in 2021, in the thick of pandemic mania, The Register gleefully reported that "radioactive hybrid terror pigs" were thriving in Japan's Fukushima exclusion zone.…

No known issues, no .NET Framework 3.5, but only for new Snapdragon X2 hardware right now

Microsoft has released Windows 11 26H1 but is warning the vast majority of users that it is not for them.…

Curious port filtering and traffic patterns suggest advisories weren't the earliest warning signals sent

Telcos likely received advance warning about January's critical Telnet vulnerability before its public disclosure, according to threat intelligence biz GreyNoise.…

The government has released its official response to the report, Time to Deliver, which the Autism Act Committee released at the end of 2025. It's perhaps unsurprising to see that the response avoids accountability and refuses to place any care or timelines on the recommendations given across the report.

What is the Time to Deliver report, and why does it matter?

The Autism Act 2009 specifically mandated that there must be a national strategy around autism, and produced statutory guidance. The strategy should have been updated in 2019, which was delayed until 2021. And whilst it made significant commitments, it only accounted for a single year. At this point in time, the government said it was prioritising updating the statutory guidance.

The House of Lords Autism Act Committee was appointed to consider the impact of the Act, and recommend necessary changes. To many, the report is imperfect: it doesn't acknowledge some of the true systemic natures of ableism and neuronormativity. And arguably it doesn't go far enough. But it does include the views of many autistic people and their advocates. And it does make extensive recommendations for the future.

Time to Deliver argues that the government must begin to develop a new all-age, cross-government strategy which can replace the current version went it expires in July 2026. The authors argue this should be based on the six themes they use in the report. These themes formed the basis of the questions the public could respond to:

• Improving acceptance.
• Identification and assessment.
• Reducing health inequalities.
• Education and transitions.
• Employment.
• Criminal justice.

They also call for the involvement of autistic people at every stage, a costed plan for implementation of the new strategy, an accountable minister, and the strategy to set out how the government will give services the support they need. These elements are particularly crucial in this austerity version of society where there's not enough funding reaching services. You can't make recommendations when no one can afford to make them happen.

The House of Lords Autism Act Committee said:

The Committee recommends that the government must develop the new autism strategy now, so it is ready to launch when the current one expires in July 2026. The government must identify priority outcomes, produce a costed, deliverable plan to achieve them, and make clear who is responsible and accountable for delivery.

Too often, decisions about autistic people's lives are made for them, not by them. This must change. Autistic people and those who support them must be meaningfully involved in every stage of the development and delivery of the new strategy.

The government response is feeble

Thousands of autistic people and those supporting them took part in this inquiry. It's apparently a record number of written submissions for any House of Lords committee. This shows how significantly issues of support and care for autistic people are having an impact across the UK. And it's extremely disappointing that the government has effectively dismissed this in its response.

In direct contrast to the careful recommendations of the committee, the government's response lacks any real substance at all. It commits to almost nothing, apart from the existing 10 Year Health Plan for England, which does not mention autistic people once in its entirety, and to the existing commitments of work.

This notably includes the independent review into 'prevalence and support' for autism, ADHD and mental health conditions. This is of course the highly problematic review into the fallacy of 'overdiagnosis'.

The response is flimsy, and says it welcomes the recommendations without any real intention to act upon them. There is seemingly no commitment to any timelines for a new national strategy. It would be a breach of statutory process if there is no follow-up action.

On the topic of meaningful engagement, the government response says:

We recognise that meaningful engagement will take time, so a balance will need to be struck as to what level of further engagement is required, and the current strategy will remain in force while we do this.

Co-production and engaging with the community cannot function as an excuse not to produce and act on a new strategy. Although engagement is important, action needs to happen effectively, efficiently and in a timely manner. Considering how much meaningful engagement the House of Lords Committee achieved in a relatively short time, it's not impossible.

Autism charities are not happy with the response

A collection of the UK's autism charities (National Autistic Society, Ambitious About Autism, Autistica, Autism Action and Autism Alliance UK) released a joint statement after the official release of the response, arguing that the response is unacceptable. They argue there is no evidence that the government intends to develop a new national strategy or:

do anything meaningful in compliance with the Autism Act.

Their statement says:

Vague commitments will do nothing to address the real barriers autistic people face… Once again, autism is lost in generic strategies, despite clear evidence of the distinct risks autistic people face and the need for specific, targeted, joined-up action. The House of Lords' report articulates these risks powerfully…

Every day the Government delays meaningful action, autistic children, young people and adults will continue to face shorter life expectancy, higher risk of suicide, mental health crisis, exclusion from education, family breakdown, long-term confinement in mental health hospitals, and one of the lowest employment rates of any group in society. These outcomes are shameful.

The charities note that harm is happening right now, in every sector of society. Advocates, charities and autistic people are disappointed by the response, but more importantly, it allows for autistic lives to continue to be placed into danger across various sectors.

Delaying a new national strategy is not just about paperwork. Although we know that things like statutory guidance and strategies do not liberate us, they are a part of how action happens. And issues of harm in systems like healthcare or psychiatric care are ongoing for thousands of autistic people.

The damage our community faces is not going anywhere. This committee report could have been a moment to commit to real change. It's unsurprising, but disappointing, that the response to a report full of genuine views and recommendations could fall so flat.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charli Clement

US plans to fund MAGA-aligned think tanks in Europe could reshape debates over Britain's Online Safety Act and global platform regulation.

A new transatlantic political debate is emerging around Britain's Online Safety Act. The issue is now being shaped not only in Westminster but also in Washington.

Reporting by the Financial Times says the US State Department plans to fund MAGA-aligned think tanks and charities across Europe. The programme links to the upcoming 250th anniversary of American independence. Officials say it will promote what they describe as "American values," including free speech.

A "freedom of speech tour" for MAGA

According to the report, US Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah B. Rogers travelled to London, Paris, Rome, and Milan last year. Officials described the trip as a "freedom of speech tour." During the visit, she met right-wing think tanks and political figures and discussed how grant funding could support their activities.

The MAGA-linked programme is expected to focus in part on opposing online-regulation laws such as the UK's Online Safety Act and the EU's Digital Services Act. US officials argue these rules threaten American technology companies and free expression online.

Across Europe, governments are tightening rules aimed at protecting children and reducing harmful online content. Countries such as Australia have also introduced tougher limits on children's access to social media. This shows how global regulation in this area is moving in a stricter direction.

At the same time, Washington has increased criticism of these measures, arguing that they unfairly target US-based platforms.

State Department response

In response to questions from the Canary, a State Department spokesperson said the MAGA think tank funding represents "a transparent, lawful use of resources to advance U.S. interests and values abroad." The spokesperson added that officials were "not shy" about supporting American aims overseas. They rejected claims the programme was a "slush fund," stating that every grant would be publicly disclosed and accountable.

Campaigners and digital-policy researchers take a different view. Dr. Elinor Carmi of City St George's, University of London, told the Canary:

Just like any democratic society, freedom must be regulated so people are not harmed." She added that the same principle should apply to digital platforms, where regulators have taken years to address harms affecting children and other vulnerable users.

The issue is especially sensitive in Britain, where the Online Safety Act has already generated intense political debate between those calling for stronger protections and those warning about the risks of expanding state oversight of online speech.

A growing influence debate

For the UK, the question is no longer only how the Online Safety Act will be enforced. It is also whether state-funded international MAGA-linked networks will begin to play a more visible role in shaping domestic regulatory debates. As these efforts expand, some observers ask a broader question: are we seeing routine diplomatic advocacy, or the gradual normalisation of what critics once described as dark-money politics, now operating more openly through state-backed influence campaigns?

Featured image via the Canary

By Ranjan Balakumaran

Jewish activists from Jewish Anti-Zionist Action, and other grassroots groups within the Jewish Bloc for Palestine have protested and interrupted the launch event of the "Reform Jewish Alliance".

As Reform UK leader Nigel Farage took the stage to address the launch event's attendees at London's Central Synagogue, a group of protesters in the audience disrupted his speech. They loudly accused him and members the Reform party of "inciting attacks" on refugees and minority groups. And they claimed that Farage's party "would have deported" the protesters' ancestors when they arrived in Britain as Jewish refugees in the first half of the 20th century.

Jewish protesters criticise synagogue for hosting Reform

Protesters also gathered outside the Central Synagogue to picket the launch event and protest against the use of Jewish religious spaces to host such events. They accused the venue of providing a platform for racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. And protesters held signs highlighting a series of high-profile controversial quotes by Reform UK-affiliated politicians. Several referenced antisemitic remarks which Nigel Farage allegedly made during his time at Dulwich College.

Max Hammer, a spokesperson for the Jewish Bloc for Palestine, said:

It's not surprising to see disgraced right-wing provocateurs and former spokespeople for Israel's genocidal government make overtures to Farage's Reform.

But we're dismayed and disgusted to see the Central Synagogue play along. How can a synagogue provide a platform to a man who allegedly spent his school days saying that Hitler was right?

We cannot stay silent when known antisemites use our sacred spaces to try and launder their reputation. Farage and his ilk are dangerous to Jews, dangerous to Muslims, and dangerous to all minority groups in the UK. No one in our community should let him forget that.

A coalition of progressive Jewish groups had previously decried the launch of Reform Jewish Alliance. Reporting suggests the group will aim to provide members with a programme of regular events featuring senior politicians from the far-right party and figures in the Jewish community.

The Jewish Bloc for Palestine previously released a statement denouncing the Synagogue's plans to host the Reform Jewish Alliance launch. They called it a "desecration of [the synagogue's] purpose" and encouraged Jewish community leaders to condemn the event.

The Reform Jewish Alliance was reportedly initiated by noted right-wing Jewish activist Gary Mond. And its leader will be Jason Pearlman, a former advisor to Israeli president Isaac Herzog.

Amid the high-profile accusations of antisemitism against Farage, the controversy surrounding its launch symbolises the growing political polarisation within the UK Jewish community. Recent polling by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research indicates that support for Reform UK has risen sharply among Jews in the past year. Although at 11%, it remains substantially below the levels of support in the overall British population.

Featured image via Talia Woodin / Jewish Anti-Zionist Action

By The Canary

Novara Media's Ash Sarkar has laid bare the blatant double standard in the Labour Party's vetting process:

Worth remembering that Faiza Shaheen was deselected as a Labour candidate for liking tweets from the Greens *before* she was ever a Labour member.

What could possibly explain such an intensive vetting process for the left, and such an apparently shoddy one for the right? https://t.co/hSxjZfYKfN

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) February 11, 2026

Labour have one rule for one lot, another for the rest

Sarkar's interjection followed a post from the Times assistant political editor Geri Scott. Scott referred to a comment from Education minister Georgia Gould, who insisted the government were 'unaware' of Matthew Doyle's links to Sean Morton when announcing his peerage.

Doyle reportedly campaigned for Morton, a former Moray Labour councillor. A court sentenced Morton in 2018 for possessing Child Sexual Abuse Materials (CSAM). Authorities brought charges against him in 2016, yet Labour waited a year before suspending him from the party. A recent investigation found that Doyle was jailed for further similar offences last year, shining a spotlight on Labour's selective vetting.

Despite Gould's deflection, Scott has pointed out the government were aware prior to the letters patent being sealed and passed to the King, adding:

A govt source says: "There is no established precedent for withdrawing a peerage nomination after the announcement stage."

An X account responded and challenged Gould's links to Mandelson herself:

Georgia Gould? daughter if Philip Gould? Appointed by Peter Mandelson ? See? dots dots dots all joining up

Sarkar points out this double standard by referring to the Labour party's treatment of Faiza Shaheen. The party suspended Shaheen prior to the general election. The scandalous suspension came after old posts showed Shaheen liking content from the Green Party. Sarkar astutely points out those likes were prior to being a member of the Labour Party, whilst shining a light on what is (or isn't) a 'sackable offence' in the eyes of Labour leader and PM Keir Starmer.

One X account commented:

You can't say they're not thorough when investigating things they are bothered about, it's such a shame they have really bad priorities.

They can hardly say they weren't warned, with the leader of the SNP tabling a motion 4 weeks ago in response to Doyle's peerage:

It's just 4 weeks since I tabled a motion opposing this very appointment to the House of Lords.

Why did Keir Starmer ignore the warnings, and the victims, and appoint him anyway?https://t.co/oBXOdUm9hF https://t.co/NJxMbFujGm pic.twitter.com/IiVFNQwt6O

— Stephen Flynn MP (@StephenFlynnSNP) February 10, 2026

Vetting process clearly works, but the boss shouldn't get to decide

This issue once again exposes a blatant double standard at the heart of government. It also reveals the autonomy afforded to those in charge when it comes to deciding what 'issues' matter to them.

Sexual offences against children should really be on that list of concerns. And Starmer must answer why it doesn't seem to actually bother him in the first place.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

The release of another tranche of documents from the Epstein Files by the US Department of Justice may have led the mainstream media in another direction, towards Jeffrey Epstein's espionage connections. Corporate media has also failed to frame the victims and survivors as being central to his and countless others' crimes.

However, another part of this story remains unexamined: Epstein was the linchpin in a full-on criminal enterprise that involved financial crimes as well as sexual abuse and exploitation.

This enterprise involved money laundering, art theft and fraud, currency and market manipulation, insider trading, banking and property fraud, racehorse switching and doping, on top of human trafficking and sexual slavery. And this list is by no means exhaustive.

Investigative journalist Carole Cadwalldr talks about the "broligarchy", and she's not wrong. Epstein counted an all-male coterie of billionaires among his circle. They were invited to lunches, dinners, and "conferences" at Epstein's various properties around the world.

Epstein's host of shell and "front" companies is the stuff of legend - certainly too many to list here. Thanks to his publicist Peggy Siegel, Epstein was hailed as a "financial wizard" in some quarters, but in reality, his wealth was down to two men - Victoria's Secret owner Les Wexner, who gave Epstein his $56m New York townhouse, and Leon Black, who gave him a reported $158m.

What's clear from the new release of files is the extent to which he sought social and financial legitimacy by courting high-net-worth individuals - and the richer, the better.

Here are the richest individuals who are central to this.

Elon Musk and Epstein

Net worth: $850bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 1084

Reported as the world's richest man, Musk has previously said that Epstein had invited him to his island but he had declined.

While he has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case, the documents released include emails showing Musk had discussed travelling there on more than one occasion - there's a proposed 2012 trip in which he asked Epstein, "What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?"

The emails from November 2012 show Epstein asked how many people Musk would need transporting by helicopter to the island and Musk replies that it would only be himself and his then-wife, Talulah Riley.

Meanwhile, an email from Musk to Epstein on Christmas Day in 2012 shows Musk asking whether the financier had any parties planned because he needs to "let loose".

"I've been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose," he writes, adding that a "peaceful island experience" is the opposite of what he's looking for.

In another batch of emails from 2013, Musk and Epstein discuss a visit to the paedophile's island, working on logistics and dates.

There is no evidence that Musk did take a trip to his island.

On X, Musk posted that he was "well aware that some email correspondence with [Epstein] could be misinterpreted and used by detractors to smear my name".

He added: "I don't care about that, but what I do care about is that we at least attempt to prosecute those who committed serious crimes with Epstein, especially regarding heinous exploitation of underage girls."

Jeff Bezos

Net worth: $249bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 189

In 2004, literary agent John Brockman hosted a dinner at a restaurant in Monterey, California, where he hoped to introduce the scientist authors he represented to wealthy individuals. Among those invited included Google co-founder Larry Page, Jeff Bezos and Jeffrey Epstein. The annual event was known colloquially as the "billionaires' dinner".

Whatever passed between Bezos and Epstein at the dinner, Bezos extended an invitation to Ghislaine Maxwell to attend his exclusive Campfire Event in 2018. Maxwell would attend the event three times, on one occasion taking tech firm CEO Scott Borgerson. When Maxwell went on the run after Epstein's arrest on child trafficking charges, it would be Borgerson's property she would take refuge in.

Bill Gates

Net worth: $168bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 2512

Two emails from July 2013 drafted by Epstein suggest that Gates may have caught a sexually-transmitted disease and sought advice on how to secretly give his wife Melinda antibiotics. But it is unclear if these emails were sent. Both were sent from Epstein's email account and back to the same account, while no email account associated with Gates is visible.

Gates visited his properties a number of times, including his island, Little St James. Epstein tried to broker a venture between Gate's foundation and JP Morgan Chase Bank but it fizzled out. Meanwhile, Epstein inserted himself into the picture when Gates' chief advisor Boris Nikolic was negotiating his departure with a $14m payout.

A spokesperson for the Microsoft co-founder told the BBC:

These claims - from a proven, disgruntled liar - are absolutely absurd and completely false.

They added:

The only thing these documents demonstrate is Epstein's frustration that he did not have an ongoing relationship with Gates and the lengths he would go to entrap and defame.

Sergey Brin

Net worth: $255bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 258

Epstein was in contact with at least 20 prominent tech executives and investors. Musk, Bezos and Google co-founder Brin attended a dinner during the TED conference in California in March 2011. Brin visited Epstein's private island and emails show that the pair made plans to dine out.

He also corresponded frequently with Ghislaine Maxwell, and in the files there's an email about meeting up with Epstein and Maxwell during a trip to New York in 2003. "Let me know what works for you and Jeffrey," Brin writes.

Obsessed with transhumanism. Epstein was especially interested in Brin's fiancée at the time, Anne Wojcicki, biotech entrepreneur and 23andMe co-founder. The company filed for bankruptcy last year.

Richard Branson

Net worth: $2.8bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 635

There are numerous pictures of the British Virgin Group founder with Epstein, including on Branson's island, Necker (as a friend of Branson's daughter, Holly, Kate Middleton holidayed here with her family and reportedly asked Branson for business advice). Meanwhile, in an email exchange from 2013, he appears to tell him that it was "really nice" seeing him, before adding: "Any time you're in the area would love to see you. As long as you bring your harem!"

Virgin Group has claimed that "harem" referred to three adult members of Epstein's team, adding:

Any contact Richard and Joan Branson had with Epstein took place on only a few occasions more than twelve years ago, and was limited to group or business settings, such as a charity tennis event.

However, the pictures paint a different story and point to a more intimate relationship between the two men. Branson was also a fan of Prince William's charity, Wild Aid, currently under fire for accepting a $50,000 donation from him.

Epstein's links need to be dismantled

While being mentioned in the Epstein Files is not an indication of wrongdoing, it certainly begs the question of why anyone would go to an Epstein function more than once. What were they getting in return? Was a relationship with Epstein really worth risking everything? For example, if Google co-founder Sergey Brin has used his own search engine, he would have found Epstein's widely reported conviction for child sex offences.

The files story is one of systemic failure and draws attention to the inability of law enforcement agencies around the world to deal with criminals when they are wealthy and influential. But Epstein was no "kingpin", merely a cog in a global wheel of male patriarchal supremacy - one that must be dismantled finally and completely.

For more on the the Epstein Files, please read our article on how the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors here.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alice Charles

If there's any area of your life that you might be willing to introduce more AI into, it's likely something as mundane as grocery shopping. That's what Uber is betting on with its new AI-powered feature in the Uber Eats app.

Cart Assistant lets you "build grocery baskets faster and with less effort" by using AI to automatically fill your basket with items included on your shopping list. To use it, you search for a supported grocery store on the home screen of the app and tap the new Cart Assistant icon that appears at the top of the screen.

From there, you can either manually type out a shopping list or upload a photo of a handwritten one, and Cart Assistant will fetch your requested items and add them to your basket. A screenshot of ingredients needed for a recipe will also suffice.

Uber says its AI assistant will factor in availability before selecting an item and will also display prices and any available promotions. If you don't want something it recommends, you can delete or swap it for something else. Anything you forgot to add in the original list can be added later, and if you've purchased something in the past, these familiar items will be prioritized so you're less likely to need to make changes. Uber advises users that the new shopping feature is in beta right now, so might not perform perfectly. 

Cart Assistant is the latest development in the gradual AI-ification of Uber Eats. Last summer, Uber added a suite of new features to the app, including AI-enhanced food images, AI menu descriptions and AI summaries or restaurant reviews.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/uber-eats-new-cart-assistant-feature-is-an-ai-hack-for-your-grocery-shopping-145733478.html?src=rss

We told you this was coming months ago.

The Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) says it has initiated a broad investigation of Netflix's business practices and it's planned $82.7 billion merger with Warner Brothers. The Trump DOJ's pretense is that they're just suddenly really concerned about media consolidation and monopoly power (you're to ignore the U.S. right wing's generational and indisputable quest to coddle and protect monopoly power across telecom, energy, air travel, banking, and countless other industries):

"Questioning how Netflix competes with rivals suggests the department is looking at whether its planned Warner deal could entrench its market power, or lead to a monopoly in the future. U.S. law gives enforcers broad power to oppose mergers that could lead to a monopoly."

In reality, the Trump administration has made it extremely clear they're hoping to scuttle the Netflix deal to help Larry Ellison acquire Warner Brothers, CNN, and HBO. If they can't kill the deal, they aspire to at least leverage the merger approval process to force Netflix executives to further debase themselves before the Trump administration, which I suspect they'll all be happy to do.

It's part of a longstanding trend by Trumpism to pretend that they're engaged in populist antitrust reform, claims historically propped up by a long list of useful idiots across the partisan spectrum, and parroted by a growing coalition of right wing propaganda outlets. This bogus populism helps obfuscate what's really just some of the worst corruption America has ever seen (which is really saying something).

The original (paywalled) Wall Street Journal report (and this aggregated Reuters recap) dutifully help sell the claim that the DOJ is also "investigating" Ellison's Paramount/Skydance, whose Warner Brothers acquisition bid was repeatedly rejected by the Warner board over worries about dodgy financing and Saudi money involvement:

"The WSJ reported that the DOJ is also reviewing Paramount's proposed acquisition bid, which Warner Bros' board unanimously rejected by labeling it "inadequate" and "not in the best interests" of shareholders."

The outlets fail to remind you that there is generous reporting discussing how Larry Ellison and Trump have had extensive meetings discussing who Larry Ellison would fire on Trump's behalf should he take control of CNN. They also fail to remind you that the right wing "press," with Trump's help, has been engaged in a broad effort to undermine the Netflix merger chances using false claims.

After Warner Brothers balked at Larry's competing bid and a hostile takeover attempt, Larry tried to sue Warner Brothers. With that not going anywhere, Larry, MAGA, and the Heritage Foundation (of Project 2025 fame) have since joined forces to try and attack the Netflix merger across right wing media, falsely claiming that "woke" Netflix is attempting a "cultural takeover" that must be stopped for the good of humanity:

More recently that included scripted questions provided by the Heritage Foundation at a Congressional hearing, where lawmakers like Republican Senator Josh Hawley resorted to bogus trans panic attacks to try and paint Netflix as some sort of vile leftist cabal.

As we keep noting, ideally a functional regulator would block all additional media consolidation, since these megadeals are consistently terrible for labor, consumers, and product quality (see: Warner Brothers entire corporate history since 2000).

That's clearly not happening under a Trump administration that has lobotomized all key regulators. So ideally, while not great, Netflix acquiring Warner Brothers is the best of a bunch of bad options. It's arguably notably better than furthering Larry Ellison's obvious plan to gobble up CBS, TikTok, and CNN, and turn what's left of America's already dodgy corporate media into Hungary-esque state television that lavishes hollow praise on our mad idiot king.

Because we've already let media consolidation run amok (thanks to the Trump administration's attack on bipartisan media consolidation limits), our shitty corporate press is incapable of explaining to the public that the Trump DOJ inquiry into Netflix isn't being conducted in good faith. It's a perfect circle of corruption, greed, regulatory capture, and corruption that will ramp up in the weeks to come.

Action Plan calls for EU-wide drills, industry forums, and expanded identification requirements

The European Commission wants to see stronger EU-wide cooperation over malicious drones via a new action plan. Proposals include a central counter-drone test facility, changing the current rules governing civilian use, and a development boost to Europe's own drones and counter-drone systems.…

Pokémon Pokopia can be described as a pocket monster-themed take on Animal Crossing with a hint of Stardew Valley thrown in for good measure. And if you're like me, that alone is probably enough to sell you on the game. However, after getting a chance to play a preview of it for around half an hour, it became immediately clear that the game's coziness levels are off the charts, but it also offers some fun twists on the genre.

Co-developed by The Pokémon Company, GAME FREAK and KOEI TECMO, instead of playing as a generic trainer, you take control of a lonely Ditto who wakes up in a cave only to be greeted by Professor Tangrowth, the last surviving inhabitant of what used to be a bustling town. While the professor might look like an extra-large version of the original pokémon with glasses, its role is to guide you as you rebuild and hopefully repopulate the surrounding area.

One of the best things about Pokopia is actually being able to talk to the other 'mons.Nintendo

As a Ditto, you naturally have the ability to transform into other Pokémon, though the process is sort of incomplete, meaning you can only learn one skill from the monsters you befriend instead of their entire moveset like in the mainline games. This is where the first twist on the traditional life sim comes in. Instead of crafting them or earning money to buy tools, you can transform into other Pokémon (like Lapras or Dragonite) to use their abilities to traverse obstacles or shape the world around you. For example, turning into a Squirtle lets you shoot a water gun that will revitalize dry patches or thirsty plants, while transforming into a Scyther lets you slice through objects similar to the HM Cut. 

From there, you can use these skills to do things like create clusters of shrubs that will serve as homes for other Pokémon, allowing you to entice fellow creatures to return to the once desolate landscape. Another twist I really appreciate is that after appearing, new monsters will give you quests or just hang out. They will even talk and respond, and I don't mean like the 8-bit cries from other Pokémon games. They speak in full sentences, which is a wonderful departure from previous titles that really gives you the feeling that you're making friends and rebuilding a community instead of just being on a crusade to catch them all. 

The Stardew Valley part of the equation comes into play after you leave the first tutorial area and you come upon an abandoned Pokémon Center that's in dire need of a renovation. You can do things like collect materials and do more quests to clean up the area to eventually turn the building in the heart of the town. Unfortunately, that's where my preview ended, aside from quickly hopping into a multiplayer session where I was able to see a much more developed village, complete with multiple buildings, roads and benches. You know, all the sorts of things you used to furnish and decorate your island with in Animal Crossing. 

This gave me a nice glimpse at just how many things you can build in Pokopia and how easy it is to visit other people's towns. However, it didn't answer some of my bigger questions about the game, like what's the deal with Peakychu and Mosslax, whom we've seen before in previous trailers. Are they just one-off versions of existing 'mons with unusual typings (i.e. ghost and grass) only for this game, or are they going to be a bigger part of the Pokémon world going forward? Perhaps more importantly, it was hard to tell if there will be any sort of PVE content like The Mines or Skull Cavern in Stardew Valley. I'm really hoping there is because it seems like Ditto's abilities could translate quite seamlessly to spelunking or battling your way through dungeons in search of rare items or building materials. 

I love how derpy Ditto looks when it transforms into other Pokémon. Nintendo

That said, just being able to build a community of friendly monsters while injecting life back into a forgotten town has good vibes radiating from every corner. So if you need a super cozy game to keep you busy this winter/spring, Pokémon Pokopia is shaping up to be the digital version of a fluffy blanket and a cup of hot chocolate filled to the brim with all of your favorite 'mons. 

Pokémon Pokopia is available for pre-order now, with official sales slated for March 5.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/nintendo/pokemon-pokopia-is-so-damn-cozy-140000954.html?src=rss