A Texas grand jury has handed up a capital murder charge against a man accused of fatally shooting five neighbors, including a 9-year-old boy, in May outside Houston.
Thea Guanzon’s debut novel, The Hurricane Wars, takes inspiration from the myths and culture of her native Philippines—but it also draws on elements universal across fantasy fiction, including secret magic and forbidden romance. io9 has an exclusive excerpt to share today from this new author.
The technology industry isn’t thrilled with Arkansas’ law requiring social media age checks. NetChoice, a tech trade group that includes Google, Meta and TikTok, has sued the state of Arkansas over claimed US Constitution violations in the Social Media Safety Act. The measure allegedly treads on First Amendment free speech rights by making users hand over private data in order to access social networks. It also “seizes decision making” from families, NetChoice argues.
The alliance also believes the Act hurts privacy and safety by making internet companies rely on a third-party service to store and track kids’ data. State residents often don’t know or associate with the service, NetChoice claims, and an external firm is supposedly a “prime target” for hacks. The law tries to regulate the internet outside state laws while ignoring federal law, according to the lawsuit. As Arkansas can’t verify residency without requiring data, it’s effectively asking everyone to submit documents.
State Attorney General Tim Griffin tells Engadget in a statement that he looks forward to “vigorously defending” the Social Media Safety Act. The law requires age verification for all users by submitting driver’s licenses and other “commercially reasonable” methods. Anyone under 18 also needs to get a parent’s consent. There are exceptions that appear to cover major social networks and their associated categories, such as those for “professional networking” (think LinkedIn) or short entertaining video clips (like TikTok).
Arkansas’ requirement is part of a greater trend among politicians to demand age verification for social media. States like Utah, Connecticut and Ohio have either passed or are considering similar laws, while Senator Josh Hawley proposed a federal bill barring all social media access for kids under 16. They’re concerned younger users might be exposed to creeps and inappropriate content, and that use can harm mental health by presenting a skewed view of the world and encouraging addiction.
There’s no guarantee the lawsuit will succeed. If it does, though, it could affect similar attempts to verify ages through personal data. If Arkansas’ approach is deemed unconstitutional, other states might have to drop their own efforts.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/tech-firms-sue-arkansas-over-social-media-age-verification-law-180002953.html?src=rss
Katie Sorensen was sentenced to 30 days in jail and 60 days of work release for making a false report of a crime.
The official Game Boy Camera is a treat for fans of lo-fi photography, but it’s also on the larger side, protruding from the retro console like a giant, creepy eyeball. That’s why modder and mega-fan Christopher Graves made his own version, the Game Boy Mini Camera, as originally reported via Gizmodo. This thing is tiny, as Graves managed to shrink everything down to the size of a Game Boy cartridge, with no protrusion necessary.
Graves used a custom board, the original camera’s sensor, a memory map controller and some capacitors to complete the project. He also used a lens from an iPhone XR, screwed into a custom sleeve, to keep protrusions to a minimum. Though this lens changes position to allow for new types of shots, it doesn’t impact the quality at all. In other words, you still get the grainy black-and-white look that makes the original Game Boy Camera so popular, even 25 years later.
The camera slides into the cartridge slot and can even run ROMS, if that’s your bag. It’s also been upgraded with flash memory, so your stored photos last forever (or until the drive dies.) Graves has plans to refine the design, as he’s considering swapping out the iPhone XR lens with an iPhone 14 lens, among other options.
Videoooo – just ignore any embarrassing bits pls k thx pic.twitter.com/ux5mKmcII9
— @gameboycamera@glitch.lgbt (@thegameboycam) June 30, 2023
The real treat here is miniaturization. When attached to a Game Boy Pocket, for instance, the whole thing actually fits in a pocket, saving you the embarrassment of having to sit through dumb “or are you just happy to see me” jokes.
Of course, this is a DIY project made by one person, so don’t go breaking out the checkbook just yet. It’s still neat to see how far miniaturization technology has advanced since the late 1990s when the original Game Boy Camera launched. If the creator’s name sounds familiar, he also converted a standard Game Boy Camera into a modern mirrorless version. The retro enthusiast certainly knows his stuff.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/this-nifty-fan-made-game-boy-camera-is-the-size-of-a-cartridge-185209536.html?src=rss
Unionized actors have voted overwhelmingly to authorize their leaders to call a strike if no deal is reached.
Google is trying out a new show of force to keep users from watching YouTube videos without ads. Some users are reporting that the company will allow access to just three videos before prompting to either disable ad blockers or otherwise pay Google for the privilege of ad-less viewing.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed a formal ban on fake reviews and testimonials. Companies would also be prohibited from using phony followers and views to inflate their social media metrics if the rule takes effect as it stands.
This isn’t the first time the agency has trained its sights on fake reviews. In its first such case in 2019, it fined a third-party Amazon seller for paying for fake reviews (Amazon itself has sued phony review providers). Earlier this year, the FTC levied a $600,000 penalty against the owner of a vitamin brand for “review hijacking” on Amazon.
The new rule, which the agency said it was working on in October, is close to being finalized and it includes steep penalties for those caught peddling fake reviews and testimonials. As The Washington Post points out, the FTC plans to slap businesses that “buy, sell and manipulate online reviews” up to $50,000. Not only is that fine for each phony review, it’s also for every time a consumer sees it. So, if the FTC finds out that one fake review has been viewed just 20 times, the business that bought it could be on the hook for $1 million.
“Our proposed rule on fake reviews shows that we’re using all available means to attack deceptive advertising in the digital age,” Samuel Levine, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “The rule would trigger civil penalties for violators and should help level the playing field for honest companies.”
Explicitly, the FTC aims to ban “businesses from writing or selling consumer reviews or testimonials by someone who does not exist, who did not have experience with the product or service, or who misrepresented their experiences.” Similarly, companies won’t be allowed to obtain or disseminate reviews and testimonials that they “knew or should have known that they were fake or false.”
Repurposing an existing review to make it appear that it was written for a different product (i.e. review hijacking) will be outlawed, as will offering payments or other kinds of compensation for positive or negative reviews. The FTC says companies can still ask users to leave a review, as that’s an important way for small businesses to enhance their reputations.
Managers and officers won’t be allowed to post reviews of their company’s products without clear disclosures and nor can they ask family members or employees to do so in certain circumstances. Under the proposed rule, companies won’t be allowed to run websites that claim to offer independent reviews of categories of products and services that include their own offerings.
Review suppression will be banned as well. Companies won’t be allowed to use intimidation tactics, such as legal threats and false accusations, to push customers to remove or avoid leaving a negative review.
In addition, the FTC seeks to ban companies from using fake followers and views to fluff up their social media numbers. “The proposed rule also would bar anyone from buying such indicators to misrepresent their importance for a commercial purpose,” the agency said. This is a provision that could have far-reaching consequences beyond commerce — influencers may have to ensure they don’t factor in bots when they try to secure brand deals.
Meanwhile, the proposed notice for the rule takes note of the popularity of generative AI. “It has been reported that an AI chatbot is being used to create fake reviews,” it reads. “As the reporting notes, the widespread emergence of AI chatbots is likely to make it easier for bad actors to write fake reviews.”
The rule won’t take effect immediately. It will be open to public comments for a 60-day period, after which the agency will consider changes before finalizing the directive.
A lot of these provisions make sense. In essence, the FTC is trying to ensure that businesses and brands are transparent and honest with consumers. Actually enforcing these measures, however, is a different matter. The agency told the Post that it won’t be getting extra resources to tackle purveyors of fake reviews, but a codified rule can strengthen its hand in court. Taking on companies based overseas that sell and post phony reviews might be a difficult task too. Still, a formal ban on these practices and the threat of eye-popping fines may be enough to deter some companies from using fake reviews.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-ftc-plans-to-slap-companies-with-hefty-fines-for-using-fake-reviews-192833691.html?src=rss
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
