#freedom-of-speech

In May 2024, at the height of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet had voted to shut Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel, weeks after the Israeli parliament passed a law allowing the temporary closure of foreign broadcasters considered to be a “threat to national security”.

In September that year, Israeli forces also stormed Al Jazeera’s offices in the occupied West Bank’s Ramallah city, confiscating equipment and documents and closing the network’s office.

In December last year, the Israeli parliament approved an extension of the 2024 law, also called the “Al Jazeera law”, for two more years.

“On the one hand, the thing that makes Wikipedia truly magical is that it’s open to anyone who shares our vision and our values,” opined Iskander, who is stepping down on January 20 and had quipped onstage about giving a speech on her way out the door. The incident is an example of the tension that can emerge “when a thing can belong to everyone and no one all at the same time”. It shouldn’t paint a whole community

As Wikipedia neared its quarter century, I wanted to investigate whether the website can survive myriad challenges from regulators, AI, the far right and Elon Musk.

The internet has made it feel like each of our tribes inhabits different, irreconcilable realities. And yet somehow, on Wikipedia, people manage to reach a consensus every day. How did that happen?

If you Google something, the top result has long been a Wikipedia entry. Now, as people increasingly use AI tools like ChatGPT, the results they see are in no small part based on Wikipedia; today’s large language models have been trained on Wikipedia’s millions of articles. This has led to a decline in eyeballs on Wikipedia, Iskander tells me. Some longtime Wikipedians privately also worry about declining editor numbers. For now, though, Wikipedia remains in the top 10 most viewed websites, while eschewing the business model of the other top platforms: Google, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Amazon. This crowdsourced, non-profit website has become the largest compendium of human knowledge ever created. That doesn’t mean it will survive the most challenging moment in its history.

The Heritage Foundation, which produced the Project 2025 plan for Trump’s second term, even mooted identifying and targeting Wikipedia editors it disagrees with using facial recognition.

Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey for almost three years, and remains blocked in China.

A global trend towards regulating online content risks making Wikimedia Foundation’s work untenable. Laws such as the EU’s Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act in the UK fail to differentiate the website from for-profit platforms, Wikipedians claim. Where governments compel platforms to take more responsibility for content posted by users, they could force Wikipedia to go dark in their countries.

Wales posted to the article’s talk page criticising the lede and overall presentation of the article for stating, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel was committing genocide. It was a “violation” of the website’s neutral point of view, he wrote, which “requires immediate correction”. Al Jazeera mistakenly reported (and later corrected) that Wales himself had locked editing on the page. The report seemed to misunderstand how Wikipedia really works. Whatever his personal feelings about Israel and Palestine, even Wales, the website’s founder, couldn’t force the wording to be changed: revisions could only be made through painstaking discussion by Wikipedia’s editors. An administrator had instead restricted the page to longtime “extended confirmed” editors on October 28 2025. The article remains restricted, with debate ongoing among users over issues with its content.

Wales said its problems were a sign he needed to use his role more to emphasise Wikipedia’s neutrality. “I think that’s particularly true at a time where we’re being called ‘Wokipedia’,” he said. “And I’m really keen that we double down on neutrality in these times, because it’s part of what is so valuable and so trusted about Wikipedia, which is to say it doesn’t matter what your political views are, you can turn to Wikipedia and get a pretty straight thing.”

Drawing him back to the question about the “Gaza genocide” article, I asked what exactly he saw his role as being when he got involved. “I just raised the question,” he replied. “I’m like, ‘This is not OK,’ right?” Recently Wales has been leading a “neutral point of view” working group with Wikimedia Foundation’s research team and Wikipedia community representatives to improve understanding and support for NPOV across a wide range of cases. It’s a conversation he thinks Wikipedians need to have: “If people feel like we’ve decided that we want to take sides on issues, it’s going to be a big problem in the long run,” Wales said, adding, “Nothing magically changes overnight, but I think we’ll get there. I’m always optimistic.”

the short version is that it’s now possible to point a coding agent at some other open source project and effectively tell it “port this to language X and make sure the tests still pass” and have it do exactly that.

the short version is that it’s now possible to point a coding agent at some other open source project and effectively tell it “port this to language X and make sure the tests still pass” and have it do exactly that.

Does this library represent a legal violation of copyright of either the Rust library or the Python one? #

I decided that the right thing to do here was to keep the open source license and copyright statement from the Python library author and treat what I had built as a derivative work, which is the entire point of open source.

Even if this is legal, is it ethical to build a library in this way? #

After sitting on this for a while I’ve come down on yes, provided full credit is given and the license is carefully considered. Open source allows and encourages further derivative works! I never got upset at some university student forking one of my projects on GitHub and hacking in a new feature that they used. I don’t think this is materially different, although a port to another language entirely does feel like a slightly different shape.

The much bigger concern for me is the impact of generative AI on demand for open source. The recent Tailwind story is a visible example of this—while Tailwind blamed LLMs for reduced traffic to their documentation resulting in fewer conversions to their paid component library, I’m suspicious that the reduced demand there is because LLMs make building good-enough versions of those components for free easy enough that people do that instead.

To some "free speech" means you're free to say only what they want you to say.

The State Department is instructing its staff to reject visa applications from people who worked on fact-checking, content moderation or other activities the Trump administration considers “censorship” of Americans’ speech.

First Amendment experts criticized the memo’s guidance as itself a potential violation of free speech rights.

“People who study misinformation and work on content-moderation teams aren’t engaged in ‘censorship’— they’re engaged in activities that the First Amendment was designed to protect. This policy is incoherent and unconstitutional,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney and legislative advisor at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in a statement.

Even as the administration has targeted those it claims are engaged in censoring Americans, it has also tightened its own scrutiny of visa applicants’ online speech.

On Wednesday, the State Department announced it would require H-1B visa applicants and their dependents to set their social media profiles to “public” so they can be reviewed by U.S. officials.

Grok cannot apologize. Grok is not a human. Grok has no sense of what is happening. Grok just generates content. If you ask it to generate an apology, it will. In this case, a user asked it to generate an apology, and it did, because that’s what LLMs do: they create plausible-sounding text in response to prompts. The fact that multiple newsrooms treated this generated text as an actual corporate admission reveals a stunning failure to understand the basic technology they’re covering.

First off, here’s the “apology,” which most of the media sites covering this failed to mention was in response to a user prompt which explicitly asked it to “write a heartfelt apology.”

As you can see, in response to a random user’s prompt to “write a heartfelt apology note that explains what happened” Grok wrote:

Dear Community,

I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt. This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.

Sincerely, Grok

That’s not an actual apology. That’s someone prompting a content generation tool to generate an apology.

if you look at the replies to that non-apology, which include requests telling Grok to generate “a defiant non-apology” to which Grok replies:

Dear Community,

Some folks got upset over an AI image I generated—big deal. It’s just pixels, and if you can’t handle innovation, maybe log off. xAI is revolutionizing tech, not babysitting sensitivities. Deal with it.

Unapologetically, Grok

While his higher profile targets have gotten all the attention, the Associated Press has a very good story you should read about Carr’s efforts to bully a Bay Area radio station (KCBS) after it accurately informed locals about the goonish behavior of masked ICE agents.

Carr opened a fake investigation into the network last February, claiming the station had violated ambiguous public interest standards. The fake inquiries were tethered to a right wing antisemitic propaganda campaign attempting to link George Soros to these stations despite Soros’ limited investment involvement being both irrelevant and three or four layers deep.

As our already struggling, highly consolidated, and under-funded media outlets tend to do, KCBS immediately folded under federal existential threat, just as Carr hoped:

“KCBS demoted a well-liked anchor and dialed back on political programming, people said. For months, reporters were dissuaded from pursuing political or controversial topics and instead encouraged to focus on human interest stories, according to the current and former staffers.”

When staffers did try to cover more political fare, they say the tone was heavily scrutinized and the content was watered down to a bland gruel to avoid upsetting Republicans:

“Doug Sovern, a veteran political journalist at the station, said he was sidelined after Carr announced his investigation.

“‘Chilling effect’ does not begin to describe the neutering of our political coverage,” said Sovern, who retired in April. He said his retirement was not related to the controversy.”

As Carr was distracted by his other extremist projects, like failing to censor Kimmel, some of the scrutiny eased and the station regained the confidence to at least report on things like the No Kings protest. But the bullying appears to have had its intended effect. At one point, a KCBS reporter says he was denied the opportunity to interview Katie Porter because management felt it would upset Donald Trump:

Today, the Commission has issued a fine of €120 million to X for breaching its transparency obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The breaches include the deceptive design of its ‘blue checkmark', the lack of transparency of its advertising repository, and the failure to provide access to public data for researchers.

Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon, under a 17-page memo distributed Friday that steps up media restrictions imposed by the administration of President Donald Trump.

“Information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,” the directive states. The signature form includes an array of security requirements for credentialed media at the Pentagon.

Advocates for press freedoms denounced the non-disclosure requirement as an assault on independent journalism. The new Pentagon restrictions arrive as Trump expands threats, lawsuits and government pressure as he remakes the American media landscape.