theverge--2020-08-06--Cadillac’s electric Lyriq SUV has a massive touchscreen and a range ‘beyond 300 miles’

It ’ s been three years since General Motors first announced its plan to release 20 new electric vehicles by 2023 as part of its commitment to “ an all-electric future.
” The first vehicle would be an SUV from Cadillac , a brand that has been trying — and failing — for years to elevate its image despite being positioned by GM to lead the automaker ’ s march into this high-tech future .
Flash forward to today , and we ’ re finally getting our first look at what Cadillac ’ s been cooking up : the 2023 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mile ” range EV with an absolutely massive 33-inch infotainment screen .
It ’ s taken three years to get here , and it ’ s going to take nearly another three before it hits the showroom floor .
( More on that later . )
It ’ s taken three years to get here , and it ’ s going to take nearly another three before it goes on sale The vehicle was supposed to be unveiled April 2nd , but got delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic .
And with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the automaker decided to unveil the car during a virtual event Thursday evening .
It ’ d be an understatement to say that the Lyriq is crucial to GM ’ s future .
The SUV is being built on the automaker ’ s recently announced scalable battery architecture , Ultium , which is said to be able to power a wide range of vehicle types and sizes .
Along with the electric Hummer pickup truck , the Lyriq will serve as a launchpad for Ultium .
As such , the Lyriq will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as its ability to draw new customers to the Cadillac brand .
It will also need to convince those on Wall Street who have been jittery about GM ’ s ability to catch up to Tesla .
And when it eventually goes on sale , it will go head to head with the Audi E-Tron , Jaguar I-Pace , and Tesla Model X , as well as a host of upcoming electric SUVs from the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz .
“ The Lyriq is a challenging launch for Cadillac , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive director of insights .
She noted that no other automaker besides Tesla has “ tasted the joy of success ” in terms of sales and demand .
But there ’ s often more to a vehicle ’ s success than just sales , Caldwell added .
GM certainly sees the potential .
In a briefing with reporters this week , GM ’ s president for North America Steve Carlisle emphasized the importance of the Lyriq to the automaker ’ s overall portfolio .
“ It does mark a pivot point at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a tremendous opportunity for the brand , ” Carlisle said , “ the extent to which we ’ ve lost some momentum here in the last several months , to regain that and position ourselves for the next chapter of Cadillac.
” The vehicle unveiled Thursday is a showroom version of the Lyriq , so it only features 80-85 percent of what will eventually go into production , GM said .
Some of the specifications are still in flux ; for example , Cadillac said the Lyriq will have a range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full charge when it ’ s eventually certified by the Environmental Protection Agency .
But GM executives have said they expect mid-300 miles to be the low end of the spectrum , and that a range in the low 400-miles is a realistic goal .
The Lyriq ’ s Ultium battery pack will offer “ approximately 100 kilowatt-hours of energy , ” Cadillac says .
GM has said it anticipates being able to eventually offer up to 200kWh of energy for its Ultium vehicles , which would be a first of its kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s biggest battery is 100kWh , available in the Model S and Model X , which is one of the largest batteries currently available .
( The upcoming second-generation Tesla Roadster is expected to have a 200 kWh battery pack when it ’ s released in 2021 . )
That confers a range of 402 miles on the latest version of the Tesla Model S. GM is upping its capability for at-home ( level 2 ) charging with the Lyriq to 19kW ( the Chevy Bolt could only accept 7.7kW while charging at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with DC fast charging , the Lyriq can charge at rates over 150kW .
Cadillac wouldn ’ t say how long the Lyriq would take to charge at the various stations , but level 2 charging usually gives you between 15 and 40 miles per hour , while DC fast charging can get you to 80 percent charged in under 30 minutes .
GM altered the chemistry of its battery cells in a move that ’ s distinct from most EV batteries in production today .
The majority of batteries are made with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magnesium .
The Ultium batteries will add aluminum — so NCMA — and reduce the cobalt content by 70 percent .
Additionally , the Lyriq ’ s battery electronics will be incorporated directly into the modules , eliminating nearly 90 percent of the battery pack wiring as compared to GM ’ s other EVs .
The Lyriq will come in two configurations : single motor , rear-wheel drive ; and dual motor , performance all-wheel drive .
Cadillac is not revealing the sticker price right now , but as a luxury marque , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall between $ 75,000 and $ 90,000 .
One incentive that won ’ t be available to prospective customers is the federal government ’ s $ 7,500 tax break for new electric vehicle purchases .
GM was the second automaker after Tesla to hit the 200,000 vehicle milestone that triggered the slow phase-out of the credit .
Cadillac says the rear-wheel-drive configuration enables the system to “ channel more torque to the pavement without wheelspin for exhilarating acceleration and greater cornering capability ” — though the automaker wouldn ’ t reveal how quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Acceleration is sure to be brisk , at least at lower speeds , thanks to the immediate nature of an electric motor ’ s power delivery .
The Lyriq appears to be about the same size as the Cadillac XT5 .
It has a long wheelbase and rides on 22-inch wheels .
The absence of a transmission tunnel means there ’ s more space for a cantilevered center console , which extends forward between the front seats , with open air below .
One of the most eye-catching features of the Lyriq is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s nearly three feet of screen , almost stretching the entire length of the dashboard pillar to pillar .
We first got a taste of this style of curved screen with the 2021 Cadillac Escalade , but the Lyriq is taking it to a whole other level .
All-encompassing infotainment screens is clearly a direction GM is headed .
Chinese startup Byton has a 48-inch screen in its first prototype vehicle , but that ’ s not a real car — nor does it seem like it will be any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at it and experience it , it ’ s just like , ‘ wow ’ ” The picture quality is described as next level .
Cadillac says the display has the “ highest pixel density available in the automotive industry today and can display over one billion colors , 64 times more than any other vehicle in the automotive industry.
” Prepare your eyes to be overwhelmed by pixels .
“ When you look at it and experience it , it ’ s just like , ‘ wow , ’ ” said Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lyriq , “ this is just so cool.
” But unlike Tesla , not everything will be routed through the vehicle ’ s screen .
There are still plenty of tactile controls like volume knobs and HVAC buttons .
Below the surfboard-sized screen in the center are two opening drawers for storage .
And the steering wheel features a light-up Cadillac logo in the center .
Those familiar with GM ’ s Super Cruise system will also notice light bars embedded in the steering wheel .
The Lyriq will have the latest version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assist system , which displays green lights in the steering wheel when activated .
Recently announced functions , like automated lane-changing , which enables the hands-free system to change lanes when conditions are appropriate , will also be included .
But there will also be brand-new tech — at least , for GM — making its debut in the Lyriq .
Cadillac says there will be a “ dual plane ” augmented reality heads-up display , with a “ near plane ” displaying speed and directions , and a “ far plane ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the Lyriq will have a remote parking capability that uses ultrasonic sensors to enable the vehicle to park itself either in a parallel or perpendicular space , whether the driver is inside the vehicle or not .
It ’ s too soon to say how well this will work .
Tesla rolled out a beta version of its Smart Summon remote parking feature and was instantly lambasted for causing chaos in grocery store parking lots .
Of course , Tesla was aiming for something more ambitious , such as the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than what Cadillac appears to be attempting .
Where Cadillac is sure to disappoint some of its customers , though , is the timing for the release of the Lyriq .
The automaker says it won ’ t go into production until “ late 2022 , ” with production starting first in China and then in the US .
GM won ’ t say where the Lyriq will be made , although many observers assume it will be at its Detroit-Hamtramck plant , which GM is spending $ 2.2 billion to retrofit into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assembly plant .
By the time the Lyriq arrives , the luxury EV market will be a much more crowded space than it is now .
BMW is expected to release its iNext SUV next year .
Audi and Mercedes-Benz will have new electric models .
Startups like Rivian and Lucid Motors are expected to have their first models shipping to customers .
Even the Ford Mustang Mach-E — not necessarily a direct competitor with Cadillac — will have been on the market for two years by the time the Lyriq hits the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , it really seems like it should be coming sooner like , you know , preferably next year , ” said Sam Abuelsamid , principal analyst at Guidehouse Insights .
“ it really seems like it should be coming sooner ” Abuelsamid said Cadillac ’ s caginess about naming the production location could indicate that the Lyriq will be exclusive to China — at least in the short term .
And that would make sense , given the brand ’ s popularity in that country as compared to North America .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electric pickup truck going into production in 2021 for its US customers .
Outside of Tesla and Nissan , really no other automaker has put as much energy — and as much money — into electrification over the past decade .
GM has said it will spend $ 20 billion in capital and engineering costs by 2025 to help usher in its “ all-electric future.
” That ’ s really a staggering sum of money for one automaker to spend .
But given Tesla ’ s recent success in the stock market — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting above $ 1,000 a share for several months and is now the most valuable automaker in the world by that metric — and the rush to go public by a host of smaller EV firms , GM ’ s ambitious and costly plans could look prescient , especially if they translate into real profits for the automakers .
The luxury EV SUV space is still really small — a fraction of an already minute overall market for electric vehicles .
Edmunds estimates the existing players ( Tesla Model X , Jaguar I-Pace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of less than 12,000 units in the first half of 2020 .
That tiny volume of sales is one of the reasons GM believes it can compete .
But to do that , it will need to rival , if not outperform , everyone else on the market — and that includes Tesla .

It’s been three years since General Motors first announced its plan to release 20 new electric vehicles by 2023 as part of its commitment to “an all-electric future.” The first vehicle would be an SUV from Cadillac, a brand that has been trying — and failing — for years to elevate its image despite being positioned by GM to lead the automaker’s march into this high-tech future.
Flash forward to today, and we’re finally getting our first look at what Cadillac’s been cooking up: the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq, a “beyond 300 mile” range EV with an absolutely massive 33-inch infotainment screen. It’s taken three years to get here, and it’s going to take nearly another three before it hits the showroom floor. (More on that later.)
It’s taken three years to get here, and it’s going to take nearly another three before it goes on sale
The vehicle was supposed to be unveiled April 2nd, but got delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. And with the pandemic showing no signs of subsiding, the automaker decided to unveil the car during a virtual event Thursday evening.
It’d be an understatement to say that the Lyriq is crucial to GM’s future. The SUV is being built on the automaker’s recently announced scalable battery architecture, Ultium, which is said to be able to power a wide range of vehicle types and sizes. Along with the electric Hummer pickup truck, the Lyriq will serve as a launchpad for Ultium.
Courtesy of Cadillac
As such, the Lyriq will be evaluated for its range and performance, as well as its ability to draw new customers to the Cadillac brand. It will also need to convince those on Wall Street who have been jittery about GM’s ability to catch up to Tesla. And when it eventually goes on sale, it will go head to head with the Audi E-Tron, Jaguar I-Pace, and Tesla Model X, as well as a host of upcoming electric SUVs from the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
“The Lyriq is a challenging launch for Cadillac,” said Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds’ executive director of insights. She noted that no other automaker besides Tesla has “tasted the joy of success” in terms of sales and demand. But there’s often more to a vehicle’s success than just sales, Caldwell added.
“It does mark a pivot point”
GM certainly sees the potential. In a briefing with reporters this week, GM’s president for North America Steve Carlisle emphasized the importance of the Lyriq to the automaker’s overall portfolio. “It does mark a pivot point at a very important time for all of us, a tremendous opportunity for the brand,” Carlisle said, “the extent to which we’ve lost some momentum here in the last several months, to regain that and position ourselves for the next chapter of Cadillac.”
Battery and range
The vehicle unveiled Thursday is a showroom version of the Lyriq, so it only features 80-85 percent of what will eventually go into production, GM said. Some of the specifications are still in flux; for example, Cadillac said the Lyriq will have a range of “beyond 300 miles” on a full charge when it’s eventually certified by the Environmental Protection Agency. But GM executives have said they expect mid-300 miles to be the low end of the spectrum, and that a range in the low 400-miles is a realistic goal.
The Lyriq’s Ultium battery pack will offer “approximately 100 kilowatt-hours of energy,” Cadillac says. GM has said it anticipates being able to eventually offer up to 200kWh of energy for its Ultium vehicles, which would be a first of its kind in the auto industry. Tesla’s biggest battery is 100kWh, available in the Model S and Model X, which is one of the largest batteries currently available. (The upcoming second-generation Tesla Roadster is expected to have a 200 kWh battery pack when it’s released in 2021.) That confers a range of 402 miles on the latest version of the Tesla Model S.
GM is upping its capability for at-home (level 2) charging with the Lyriq to 19kW (the Chevy Bolt could only accept 7.7kW while charging at a level 2 charger). And with DC fast charging, the Lyriq can charge at rates over 150kW. Cadillac wouldn’t say how long the Lyriq would take to charge at the various stations, but level 2 charging usually gives you between 15 and 40 miles per hour, while DC fast charging can get you to 80 percent charged in under 30 minutes.
GM altered the chemistry of its battery cells in a move that’s distinct from most EV batteries in production today. The majority of batteries are made with NCM — nickel, cobalt, and magnesium. The Ultium batteries will add aluminum — so NCMA — and reduce the cobalt content by 70 percent. Additionally, the Lyriq’s battery electronics will be incorporated directly into the modules, eliminating nearly 90 percent of the battery pack wiring as compared to GM’s other EVs.
Performance and price
The Lyriq will come in two configurations: single motor, rear-wheel drive; and dual motor, performance all-wheel drive. Cadillac is not revealing the sticker price right now, but as a luxury marque, you can expect the various trims to fall between $75,000 and $90,000.
One incentive that won’t be available to prospective customers is the federal government’s $7,500 tax break for new electric vehicle purchases. GM was the second automaker after Tesla to hit the 200,000 vehicle milestone that triggered the slow phase-out of the credit.
Cadillac says the rear-wheel-drive configuration enables the system to “channel more torque to the pavement without wheelspin for exhilarating acceleration and greater cornering capability” — though the automaker wouldn’t reveal how quickly the Lyriq can leap to 60mph. Acceleration is sure to be brisk, at least at lower speeds, thanks to the immediate nature of an electric motor’s power delivery.
The Lyriq appears to be about the same size as the Cadillac XT5. It has a long wheelbase and rides on 22-inch wheels. The absence of a transmission tunnel means there’s more space for a cantilevered center console, which extends forward between the front seats, with open air below.
Courtesy of Cadillac
That screen, though
One of the most eye-catching features of the Lyriq is the curved, 33-inch LED infotainment display. That’s nearly three feet of screen, almost stretching the entire length of the dashboard pillar to pillar. We first got a taste of this style of curved screen with the 2021 Cadillac Escalade, but the Lyriq is taking it to a whole other level. All-encompassing infotainment screens is clearly a direction GM is headed.
“When you look at it and experience it, it’s just like, ‘wow’”
The picture quality is described as next level. Cadillac says the display has the “highest pixel density available in the automotive industry today and can display over one billion colors, 64 times more than any other vehicle in the automotive industry.” Prepare your eyes to be overwhelmed by pixels.
“When you look at it and experience it, it’s just like, ‘wow,’” said Mark Hogan, executive chief engineer on the Lyriq, “this is just so cool.”
But unlike Tesla, not everything will be routed through the vehicle’s screen. There are still plenty of tactile controls like volume knobs and HVAC buttons. Below the surfboard-sized screen in the center are two opening drawers for storage. And the steering wheel features a light-up Cadillac logo in the center.
Futuristic tech
Those familiar with GM’s Super Cruise system will also notice light bars embedded in the steering wheel. The Lyriq will have the latest version of the “hands-free” advanced driver assist system, which displays green lights in the steering wheel when activated. Recently announced functions, like automated lane-changing, which enables the hands-free system to change lanes when conditions are appropriate, will also be included.
But there will also be brand-new tech — at least, for GM — making its debut in the Lyriq. Cadillac says there will be a “dual plane” augmented reality heads-up display, with a “near plane” displaying speed and directions, and a “far plane” displaying transparent navigation signals and other alerts.
And the Lyriq will have a remote parking capability that uses ultrasonic sensors to enable the vehicle to park itself either in a parallel or perpendicular space, whether the driver is inside the vehicle or not. It’s too soon to say how well this will work. Tesla rolled out a beta version of its Smart Summon remote parking feature and was instantly lambasted for causing chaos in grocery store parking lots. Of course, Tesla was aiming for something more ambitious, such as the ability to traverse an entire parking lot, than what Cadillac appears to be attempting.
Production timing
Where Cadillac is sure to disappoint some of its customers, though, is the timing for the release of the Lyriq. The automaker says it won’t go into production until “late 2022,” with production starting first in China and then in the US. GM won’t say where the Lyriq will be made, although many observers assume it will be at its Detroit-Hamtramck plant, which GM is spending $2.2 billion to retrofit into its first “fully-dedicated” electric vehicle assembly plant.
By the time the Lyriq arrives, the luxury EV market will be a much more crowded space than it is now. BMW is expected to release its iNext SUV next year. Audi and Mercedes-Benz will have new electric models. Startups like Rivian and Lucid Motors are expected to have their first models shipping to customers. Even the Ford Mustang Mach-E — not necessarily a direct competitor with Cadillac — will have been on the market for two years by the time the Lyriq hits the showroom.
“As good as it is, it really seems like it should be coming sooner like, you know, preferably next year,” said Sam Abuelsamid, principal analyst at Guidehouse Insights.
“it really seems like it should be coming sooner”
Abuelsamid said Cadillac’s caginess about naming the production location could indicate that the Lyriq will be exclusive to China — at least in the short term. And that would make sense, given the brand’s popularity in that country as compared to North America. Meanwhile, GM will have the GMC Hummer electric pickup truck going into production in 2021 for its US customers.
Outside of Tesla and Nissan, really no other automaker has put as much energy — and as much money — into electrification over the past decade. GM has said it will spend $20 billion in capital and engineering costs by 2025 to help usher in its “all-electric future.” That’s really a staggering sum of money for one automaker to spend.
But given Tesla’s recent success in the stock market — the company’s stock has been sitting above $1,000 a share for several months and is now the most valuable automaker in the world by that metric — and the rush to go public by a host of smaller EV firms, GM’s ambitious and costly plans could look prescient, especially if they translate into real profits for the automakers.
The luxury EV SUV space is still really small — a fraction of an already minute overall market for electric vehicles. Edmunds estimates the existing players (Tesla Model X, Jaguar I-Pace, Audi E-tron) had combined sales of less than 12,000 units in the first half of 2020.


theverge--2020-08-06--Dr Disrespect officially returns to streaming

Guy “ Dr Disrespect ” Beahm has returned to streaming , this time on YouTube .
His first stream goes live tomorrow at 3pm EDT .
The controversial streamer was permanently banned from Twitch in late June , for reasons that are still unknown .
Though he ’ d signed an exclusive deal with Twitch back in March , Beahm does not have a similar arrangement with YouTube .
Sources close to Beahm say that he plans to experiment with other platforms like Facebook Gaming and his own personal website , the Champions Club .
It ’ s not hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beahm is itching to get back to streaming and to return to his public .
What ’ s less clear is the event that necessitated this return in the first place .
Twitch doesn ’ t comment on bans as a matter of policy , but whatever happened was bad enough to invalidate an incredibly lucrative contract between one of the most famous streamers in the world and his platform of choice .
Beahm ’ s found himself in a scene of Damoclesian peril .
Cicero ’ s telling of the legend has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a day with Dionysius , his king .
He was surrounded by riches and every luxury afforded to a king .
Dionysius , however , had arranged for a sword to hang above the throne by a single strand of horsehair , as a way to evoke what it really meant to be king — the ever present danger that a sword , literal or metaphorical , might fall and end your life .
Or , as it happens , your streaming career .

Guy “Dr Disrespect” Beahm has returned to streaming, this time on YouTube. His first stream goes live tomorrow at 3pm EDT. The controversial streamer was permanently banned from Twitch in late June, for reasons that are still unknown.
Though he’d signed an exclusive deal with Twitch back in March, Beahm does not have a similar arrangement with YouTube. Sources close to Beahm say that he plans to experiment with other platforms like Facebook Gaming and his own personal website, the Champions Club.
It’s not hard to say what all this means. Beahm is itching to get back to streaming and to return to his public. What’s less clear is the event that necessitated this return in the first place. Twitch doesn’t comment on bans as a matter of policy, but whatever happened was bad enough to invalidate an incredibly lucrative contract between one of the most famous streamers in the world and his platform of choice. Beahm’s found himself in a scene of Damoclesian peril.


theverge--2020-08-06--Apple confirms cloud gaming services like xCloud and Stadia violate App Store guidelines

Cloud gaming is shaping up to have a big moment on mobile starting next month with the launch of Microsoft ’ s xCloud service , but iOS users are getting left out .
And now we know exactly why : Apple won ’ t allow those products , because of strict App Store guidelines that make cloud services like xCloud and its competitor , Google Stadia , effectively impossible to operate on the iPhone .
We already knew that there was some issue , likely App Store-related , as to why Stadia wasn ’ t available for Apple devices and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face a similar fate .
It seemed even more likely that xCloud ’ s fate on iOS was sealed yesterday when Microsoft cut off iOS testing for its xCloud app well ahead of its September 15th launch date on Android .
Nvidia ’ s GeForce Now service is also similarly Android-only when it comes to phones , even though that platform technically lets you access titles you already own .
But Apple has finally come out and said , in a statement to Business Insider , that these kinds of cloud services are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not , in their current forms , ever exist on iOS .
The primary reason : they offer access to apps Apple can ’ t individually review .
The App Store was created to be a safe and trusted place for customers to discover and download apps , and a great business opportunity for all developers .
Before they go on our store , all apps are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of developers , and gaming services can absolutely launch on the App Store as long as they follow the same set of guidelines applicable to all developers , including submitting games individually for review , and appearing in charts and search .
In addition to the App Store , developers can choose to reach all iPhone and iPad users over the web through Safari and other browsers on the App Store .
Back in March , Bloomberg reported Apple offering a very similar justification when questioned about potential antitrust issues related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which the company operates despite the headaches its competitors have doing the same .
Microsoft , in a new statement given to The Verge on Thursday , says it could not find a solution to bringing xCloud to iOS via the App Store , and it now pins the blame solely on Apple , which it says “ stands alone ” in denying consumers the benefits of cloud gaming by “ consistently treats gaming apps differently ” and “ applying more lenient rules to non-gaming apps.
” The company adds it plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring cloud gaming and Xbox Game Pass Ultimate to iOS devices .
Here ’ s the statement from a Microsoft spokesperson in full : Our testing period for the Project xCloud preview app for iOS has expired .
Unfortunately , we do not have a path to bring our vision of cloud gaming with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate to gamers on iOS via the Apple App Store .
Apple stands alone as the only general purpose platform to deny consumers from cloud gaming and game subscription services like Xbox Game Pass .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applying more lenient rules to non-gaming apps even when they include interactive content .
All games available in the Xbox Game Pass catalog are rated for content by independent industry ratings bodies such as the ESRB and regional equivalents .
We are committed to finding a path to bring cloud gaming with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate to the iOS platform .
We believe that the customer should be at the heart of the gaming experience and gamers tell us they want to play , connect and share anywhere , no matter where they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the key bit in that statement is “ including submitting games individually for review , and appearing in charts and search.
” The way Stadia works today , and the way xCloud will work next month , is that you pay for access to the service itself , and that service then allows you to pay for or access free games from the cloud .
Those games are not stored on a local device in your home , unlike the Apple-approved Valve Steam Link app ( although Valve had its own set of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
So Apple doesn ’ t know what you ’ re buying or playing on its devices because it can ’ t review them beforehand .
It also doesn ’ t see any revenue from these services if they ’ re simply allowing you to access a subscription service you already pay for , which was the crux of a big showdown between Apple and Basecamp , the creator of new email service Hey , last month , which resolved only when Basecamp compromised with the iPhone maker by adding a free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apple is pretty explicit about all of this in the App Store guidelines , specifically section 4.2.7 : 4.2.7 Remote Desktop Clients : If your remote desktop app acts as a mirror of specific software or services rather than a generic mirror of the host device , it must comply with the following : ( a ) The app must only connect to a user-owned host device that is a personal computer or dedicated game console owned by the user , and both the host device and client must be connected on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Any software or services appearing in the client are fully executed on the host device , rendered on the screen of the host device , and may not use APIs or platform features beyond what is required to stream the Remote Desktop .
( c ) All account creation and management must be initiated from the host device .
( d ) The UI appearing on the client does not resemble an iOS or App Store view , does not provide a store-like interface , or include the ability to browse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned or licensed by the user .
For the sake of clarity , transactions taking place within mirrored software do not need to use in-app purchase , provided the transactions are processed on the host device .
( e ) Thin clients for cloud-based apps are not appropriate for the App Store .
In other words , unless it ’ s a full remote desktop app , a cloud gaming service is not allowed as these guidelines are written today — even though very narrowly tailored LAN services like Steam Link and Sony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some services , like Shadow , have found workarounds to existing in the App Store Google and Microsoft probably don ’ t want to offer signup options within the apps themselves because that would mean giving Apple a 30 percent cut of subscription revenue , but apps without “ account creation ” options violate section ( c ) .
Abiding by section ( a ) is also impossible considering these cloud servers on which the games are running are not owned by and located in the homes of consumers , but placed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( e ) just flat out says this type of thing — a “ thin client for cloud-based app ” — can ’ t exist in the App Store at all ; it ’ s not “ appropriate , ” Apple says .
There are some workarounds here .
For instance , the Shadow cloud gaming service gives you access to a remote computer “ host device ” that is not technically owned by the user , but rented from the company itself .
It ’ s also not on the same network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Yet Shadow works , and it ’ s available on iOS today .
A Shadow spokesperson tells The Verge that , when it found its iOS app was in dispute with Apple earlier this year , it removed the quick launch feature that let users boot right into games .
It was then approved , because the app functioned more like a remote desktop service — the “ generic mirror of the host device ” that Apple mentions as an exception in its App Store guidelines .
With Shadow , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , login , and access your existing titles just as you would on any other remote desktop app .
But the device users remote into is a gaming PC that Shadow rents to you on a monthly basis , which is a clever way around these restrictions .
iOS users will miss out n the mobile-centric cloud gaming wave that ’ s set to arrive with xCloud Valve did something similar with Steam Link by removing the option to purchase games from the iOS version of the app , as Apple took issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acted as an app store within the App Store that circumvented Apple ’ s review processes .
What does all this mean ?
Well , for now , iOS users are going to be missing out on the mobile-centric cloud gaming wave that ’ s set to arrive with xCloud ’ s launch .
There is conceivably a way Google , Microsoft , and Nvidia could find ways around this by changing the core functionality of their respective apps .
But it seems unlikely in the short term .
The App Store is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years jumped through hoop after hoop to access its nearly 1.5 billion users .
In this case , however , there is a fundamental disconnect between how these services operate and the way Apple wants software to function on the iPhone and iPad .
That doesn ’ t seem like it ’ s going to change any time soon .

Cloud gaming is shaping up to have a big moment on mobile starting next month with the launch of Microsoft’s xCloud service, but iOS users are getting left out. And now we know exactly why: Apple won’t allow those products, because of strict App Store guidelines that make cloud services like xCloud and its competitor, Google Stadia, effectively impossible to operate on the iPhone.
We already knew that there was some issue, likely App Store-related, as to why Stadia wasn’t available for Apple devices and why Microsoft’s service would likely face a similar fate. It seemed even more likely that xCloud’s fate on iOS was sealed yesterday when Microsoft cut off iOS testing for its xCloud app well ahead of its September 15th launch date on Android. Nvidia’s GeForce Now service is also similarly Android-only when it comes to phones, even though that platform technically lets you access titles you already own.
But Apple has finally come out and said, in a statement to Business Insider, that these kinds of cloud services are in violation of App Store guidelines and cannot, in their current forms, ever exist on iOS. The primary reason: they offer access to apps Apple can’t individually review.
Here’s the official Apple statement:
The App Store was created to be a safe and trusted place for customers to discover and download apps, and a great business opportunity for all developers. Before they go on our store, all apps are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers. Our customers enjoy great apps and games from millions of developers, and gaming services can absolutely launch on the App Store as long as they follow the same set of guidelines applicable to all developers, including submitting games individually for review, and appearing in charts and search. In addition to the App Store, developers can choose to reach all iPhone and iPad users over the web through Safari and other browsers on the App Store.
Back in March, Bloomberg reported Apple offering a very similar justification when questioned about potential antitrust issues related to Apple’s Arcade game subscription service, which the company operates despite the headaches its competitors face trying to do the same.
Microsoft, in a new statement given to The Verge on Thursday, says it could not find a solution to bringing xCloud to iOS via the App Store, and it now pins the blame solely on Apple. It says Apple “stands alone” in denying consumers the benefits of cloud gaming, and that it “consistently treats gaming apps differently” by “applying more lenient rules to non-gaming apps.” Microsoft plans to continue looking for a way to bring cloud gaming and Xbox Game Pass Ultimate to iOS devices, but it’s unclear how it will now do so.
Here’s the statement from a Microsoft spokesperson in full:
Our testing period for the Project xCloud preview app for iOS has expired. Unfortunately, we do not have a path to bring our vision of cloud gaming with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate to gamers on iOS via the Apple App Store. Apple stands alone as the only general purpose platform to deny consumers from cloud gaming and game subscription services like Xbox Game Pass. And it consistently treats gaming apps differently, applying more lenient rules to non-gaming apps even when they include interactive content. All games available in the Xbox Game Pass catalog are rated for content by independent industry ratings bodies such as the ESRB and regional equivalents. We are committed to finding a path to bring cloud gaming with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate to the iOS platform. We believe that the customer should be at the heart of the gaming experience and gamers tell us they want to play, connect and share anywhere, no matter where they are. We agree.
Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge
The key bit in Apple’s statement is “including submitting games individually for review, and appearing in charts and search.” The way Stadia works today, and the way xCloud will work next month, is that you pay for access to the service itself, and that service then allows you to pay for or access free games from the cloud. Those games are not stored on a local device in your home, unlike the Apple-approved Valve Steam Link app (although Valve had its own set of troubles getting Steam Link approved on iOS).
So Apple doesn’t know what you’re buying or playing on its devices because it can’t review them beforehand. It also doesn’t see any revenue from these services if they’re simply allowing you to access a subscription service you already pay for, which was the crux of a big showdown between Apple and Basecamp, the creator of new email service Hey, last month, which resolved only when Basecamp compromised with the iPhone maker by adding a free signup option to its iOS app.
Apple is pretty explicit about all of this in the App Store guidelines, specifically section 4.2.7:
4.2.7 Remote Desktop Clients: If your remote desktop app acts as a mirror of specific software or services rather than a generic mirror of the host device, it must comply with the following: (a) The app must only connect to a user-owned host device that is a personal computer or dedicated game console owned by the user, and both the host device and client must be connected on a local and LAN-based network. (b) Any software or services appearing in the client are fully executed on the host device, rendered on the screen of the host device, and may not use APIs or platform features beyond what is required to stream the Remote Desktop. (c) All account creation and management must be initiated from the host device. (d) The UI appearing on the client does not resemble an iOS or App Store view, does not provide a store-like interface, or include the ability to browse, select, or purchase software not already owned or licensed by the user. For the sake of clarity, transactions taking place within mirrored software do not need to use in-app purchase, provided the transactions are processed on the host device. (e) Thin clients for cloud-based apps are not appropriate for the App Store.
In other words, unless it’s a full remote desktop app, a cloud gaming service is not allowed as these guidelines are written today — even though very narrowly tailored LAN services like Steam Link and Sony’s PS4 Remote Play are.
Some services, like Shadow, have found workarounds to existing in the App Store
Google and Microsoft probably don’t want to offer signup options within the apps themselves because that would mean giving Apple a 30 percent cut of subscription revenue, but apps without “account creation” options violate section (c). Abiding by section (a) is also impossible considering these cloud servers on which the games are running are not owned by and located in the homes of consumers, but placed in data centers far away. And section (e) just flat out says this type of thing — a “thin client for cloud-based app” — can’t exist in the App Store at all; it’s not “appropriate,” Apple says.
There are some workarounds here. For instance, the Shadow cloud gaming service gives you access to a remote computer “host device” that is not technically owned by the user, but rented from the company itself. It’s also not on the same network as the device that’s accessing it. Yet Shadow works, and it’s available on iOS today.
A Shadow spokesperson tells The Verge that, when it found its iOS app was in dispute with Apple earlier this year, it removed the quick launch feature that let users boot right into games. It was then approved, because the app functioned more like a remote desktop service — the “generic mirror of the host device” that Apple mentions as an exception in its App Store guidelines. With Shadow, you still have to go and install Steam, login, and access your existing titles just as you would on any other remote desktop app. But the device users remote into is a gaming PC that Shadow rents to you on a monthly basis, which is a clever way around these restrictions.
iOS users will miss out n the mobile-centric cloud gaming wave that’s set to arrive with xCloud
Valve did something similar with Steam Link by removing the option to purchase games from the iOS version of the app, as Apple took issue with the fact that Steam Link effectively acted as an app store within the App Store that circumvented Apple’s review processes.
What does all this mean? Well, for now, iOS users are going to be missing out on the mobile-centric cloud gaming wave that’s set to arrive with xCloud’s launch. There is conceivably a way Google, Microsoft, and Nvidia could find ways around this by changing the core functionality of their respective apps.
But it seems unlikely in the short term. The App Store is a massive market so lucrative developers have for years jumped through hoop after hoop to access its nearly 1.5 billion users. In this case, however, there is a fundamental disconnect between how these services operate and the way Apple wants software to function on the iPhone and iPad. That doesn’t seem like it’s going to change any time soon.


theverge--2020-08-06--Facebook reportedly removed strikes from conservative pages after executive intervened

Facebook reportedly cleared misinformation “ strikes ” against several posts by conservatives in an apparent attempt to prevent them from being banned , BuzzFeed News reported .
A Facebook employee reported that Joel Kaplan , the company ’ s vice president of global public policy , flagged for review an Instagram post from conservative commentator Charlie Kirk that had earned a “ partly false ” rating from a third-party fact-checker , according to BuzzFeed News .
The same employee also noticed misinformation strikes against conservative website Breitbart had been “ cleared without explanation , ” although it was not clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that decision .
“ It appears that policy people have been intervening in fact-checks on behalf of *exclusively* right-wing publishers to avoid them getting repeat-offender status , ” another Facebook employee wrote in an internal policy discussion group , per BuzzFeed News .
Such interventions by Facebook executives in its fact-checking process would violate the company ’ s official policy , which stipulates that a publisher that wants to appeal a fact-check rating has to contact the fact-checker responsible , not Facebook directly .
Kaplan was believed to be partly responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in which the company has opted not to fact-check the content in political advertisements .
He also was reportedly involved in removing a “ partly false ” fact-check label from an article on the conservative site Daily Wire .
He ’ s also known for supporting longtime friend Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during the justice ’ s contentious confirmation process , to the dismay of many at Facebook .
A Facebook spokesperson said in an email to The Verge on Thursday that the platform defers to third-party fact-checkers on content ratings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds a rating , Facebook applies a label and demotion .
“ But we are responsible for how we manage our internal systems for repeat offenders , ” the spokesperson continued .
“ We apply additional system wide penalties for multiple false ratings , including demonetization and the inability to advertise , unless we determine that one or more of those ratings does not warrant additional consequences.
” The spokesperson added that Facebook partners with more than 70 fact-checking organizations “ to apply fact-checks to millions of pieces of content.
” Facebook introduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 elections , enlisting independent fact-checking groups to help stem the spread of misinformation on the platform .
It rolled out the fact-checking program on Instagram last year .
Since 2016 , the program has expanded and Facebook has broadened its scope to include groups , where misinformation is frequently shared .
Breitbart was among one of Facebook ’ s “ trusted news ” partners when the social media platform introduced its News tab last year .
The fact-checking program had mixed results , however , with early partners Snopes and ABC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 that barely two years in , the fact-checking program already was in “ disarray ” amid complaints Facebook wasn ’ t taking the process seriously enough .
But the fact-checking program can limit an article ’ s visibility on the platform , and a site that repeatedly posts false information should — at least in theory — see its rating within Facebook ’ s algorithm negatively affected .
Facebook workers told BuzzFeed they feared for their jobs if they spoke out against the company , citing the case of one engineer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees — which included some on the policy team — intervening on behalf of conservative figures .
The engineer was apparently terminated for violating a “ respectful communication policy.
” His co-workers described the fired engineer as “ a conscience of this company , and a tireless voice for us doing the right thing .
”

Facebook reportedly cleared misinformation “strikes” against several posts by conservatives in an apparent attempt to prevent them from being banned, BuzzFeed News reported. And in a separate report published Friday, NBC News cited anonymous Facebook employees who said members of company leadership “deleted strikes during the review process that were issued to some conservative partners for posting misinformation over the last six months.”
A Facebook employee reported that Joel Kaplan, the company’s vice president of global public policy, flagged for review an Instagram post from conservative commentator Charlie Kirk that had earned a “partly false” rating from a third-party fact-checker, according to BuzzFeed News. The same employee also noticed misinformation strikes against conservative website Breitbart had been “cleared without explanation,” although it was not clear whether Kaplan or another person was involved in that decision.
“It appears that policy people have been intervening in fact-checks on behalf of *exclusively* right-wing publishers to avoid them getting repeat-offender status,” another Facebook employee wrote in an internal policy discussion group, per BuzzFeed News. Such interventions by Facebook executives in its fact-checking process would violate the company’s official policy, which stipulates that a publisher that wants to appeal a fact-check rating has to contact the fact-checker responsible, not Facebook directly.
Kaplan was believed to be partly responsible for Facebook’s policy on political ads, in which the company has opted not to fact-check the content in political advertisements. He also was reportedly involved in removing a “partly false” fact-check label from an article on the conservative site Daily Wire.
He’s also known for supporting longtime friend Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during the justice’s contentious confirmation process, to the dismay of many at Facebook.
A Facebook spokesperson said in an email to The Verge on Thursday that the platform defers to third-party fact-checkers on content ratings, and when one of the fact-checkers adds a rating, Facebook applies a label and demotion.
“But we are responsible for how we manage our internal systems for repeat offenders,” the spokesperson continued. “We apply additional system wide penalties for multiple false ratings, including demonetization and the inability to advertise, unless we determine that one or more of those ratings does not warrant additional consequences.”
The spokesperson added that Facebook partners with more than 70 fact-checking organizations “to apply fact-checks to millions of pieces of content.”
Facebook introduced its fact-checking program in the aftermath of the 2016 elections, enlisting independent fact-checking groups to help stem the spread of misinformation on the platform. It rolled out the fact-checking program on Instagram last year. Since 2016, the program has expanded and Facebook has broadened its scope to include groups, where misinformation is frequently shared. Breitbart was among one of Facebook’s “trusted news” partners when the social media platform introduced its News tab last year.
The fact-checking program had mixed results, however, with early partners Snopes and ABC parting ways. And The Guardian reported in 2018 that barely two years in, the fact-checking program already was in “disarray” amid complaints Facebook wasn’t taking the process seriously enough.
But the fact-checking program can limit an article’s visibility on the platform, and a site that repeatedly posts false information should — at least in theory — see its rating within Facebook’s algorithm negatively affected.
Facebook workers told BuzzFeed they feared for their jobs if they spoke out against the company, citing the case of one engineer who gathered multiple examples of other Facebook employees — which included some on the policy team — intervening on behalf of conservative figures. The engineer was apparently terminated for violating a “respectful communication policy.” His co-workers described the fired engineer as “a conscience of this company, and a tireless voice for us doing the right thing.”


theverge--2020-08-06--Facebook extends remote work for employees through July 2021

Facebook will let its employees continue to work from home through July 2021 , the company announced today .
It joins other companies like Google , will also allow employees to work remotely until next summer due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic .
Facebook has had nearly all of its roughly 48,000 employees working remotely since the initial wave of stay-at-home orders back in March , and it previously announced that it would have employees work remotely through the end of 2020 .
In a statement , Facebook spokesperson Nneka Norville commented : “ Based on guidance from health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn from our internal discussions about these matters , we are allowing employees to continue voluntarily working from home until July 2021 .
In addition , we are giving employees an additional $ 1,000 for home office needs.
” Facebook has one of the most drastic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic , announcing back in March that the company would be permanently shifting thousands of jobs to fully remote positions .
“ I think that it ’ s possible that over the next five to 10 years — maybe closer to 10 than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — I think we could get to about half of the company working remotely permanently , ” said CEO Mark Zuckerberg in an interview with The Verge at the time .
Correction : Facebook will be letting employees work remotely through July 2021 , not June , a date Business Insider published and we cited .
We regret the error .

Facebook will let its employees continue to work from home through July 2021, the company announced today. It joins other companies like Google, will also allow employees to work remotely until next summer due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Facebook has had nearly all of its roughly 48,000 employees working remotely since the initial wave of stay-at-home orders back in March, and it previously announced that it would have employees work remotely through the end of 2020.
In a statement, Facebook spokesperson Nneka Norville commented: “Based on guidance from health and government experts, as well as decisions drawn from our internal discussions about these matters, we are allowing employees to continue voluntarily working from home until July 2021. In addition, we are giving employees an additional $1,000 for home office needs.”
Facebook has one of the most drastic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, announcing back in March that the company would be permanently shifting thousands of jobs to fully remote positions. “I think that it’s possible that over the next five to 10 years — maybe closer to 10 than five, but somewhere in that range — I think we could get to about half of the company working remotely permanently,” said CEO Mark Zuckerberg in an interview with The Verge at the time.


theverge--2020-08-07--The US declared war on TikTok because it can’t handle the truth

I can not emphasize enough how messed up this entire “ sell TikTok to an American company ” saga is .
The latest twist is a deeply confusing set of executive orders banning transactions with ByteDance ( TikTok ’ s Chinese parent company ) and WeChat ( a Chinese texting app ) .
The legal dubiousness of this move is the least strange thing about it .
But there is no use in dwelling on it .
As of writing , ByteDance is in talks to sell TikTok to Microsoft .
The only question worth thinking about is why this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , should we be afraid of Chinese apps like TikTok ?
In July , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News that Americans should only use TikTok “ if you want your private information in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.
” It ’ s not just the GOP administration lashing out , either ; the Democratic National Committee has also previously issued warnings to campaign staff not to use TikTok on their work phones , citing how much data is gathered .
The thorniest privacy dispute of 2020 isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — it ’ s about China TikTok does gather a lot of personal data , but it ’ s no more than what Facebook and other social networks also gather .
The difference between TikTok and Facebook is that we have a great deal of transparency into the process by which Facebook gives your information to various governments .
And specifically , Facebook does not release data to the Chinese government .
When it comes down to it , the thorniest privacy dispute of 2020 isn ’ t about privacy or technology at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The question “ Is Facebook better , worse , or the same as TikTok ?
” is more or less the same as “ Is the United States better , worse , or the same as China ?
” And in 2020 , this is becoming a genuinely difficult question to answer .
China is detaining over a million Uighurs in internment camps , citing national security issues .
The United States detains migrants in its own internment camps , even going as far as to place children in cages .
China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president has proposed to unconstitutionally delay this year ’ s election .
China brutally represses its political dissidents ; in America , law enforcement in military camouflage have grabbed protesters off the streets and shoved them into unmarked vans .
I am writing this column from Portland , Oregon , with my gas mask hanging next to my desk Earlier this summer , the American president decided to tweet “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts ” in response to mass protests — only a few days before the anniversary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing this column from Portland , Oregon , with my gas mask hanging next to my desk .
When I go to tie my shoes , my laces emit faint puffs of residual tear gas .
The protests in my city are the same protests happening elsewhere in the country — protests against police violence and racial discrimination .
As these protests were raging , Secretary Pompeo gave a speech at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia where he attacked The New York Times ’ 1619 Project , which originated as a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ containing articles examining slavery and its lasting legacy in everything from mass incarceration to pop music .
“ They want you to believe that Marxist ideology that America is only the oppressors and the oppressed , ” said Pompeo .
“ The Chinese Communist Party must be gleeful when they see the New York Times spout this ideology.
” In a tweet that excerpted the speech , he called the project “ a slander on our great people.
” One might ask , why on earth would the Chinese Communist Party give a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationship between race and the construction of the interstate highways ?
Pompeo ’ s invocation of the Chinese government only makes sense if you break apart the assumptions piece by piece .
The 1619 Project criticizes America ; to criticize America is to make it weak ; to make America weak is to make China strong .
I call this ideology information-nationalism .
Here ’ s how I would describe its assumptions : • When your country acknowledges human rights abuses , you are made weak • You can weaken rival nation-states by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long time , China ’ s crackdown on all references to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre has been held as the prime example of the dangers of internet censorship .
It is also the clearest example of information-nationalism : to allow Chinese citizens to speak of or remember Tiananmen Square is to cultivate weakness .
So China can ’ t acknowledge Tiananmen Square or its present-day treatment of the Uighurs .
For the inverse reason , Russian disinformation operations on Facebook have promoted real videos of police brutality in America and attempted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , Russian state media outlet RT excelled in its coverage of Occupy Wall Street and WikiLeaks .
For years , Russia has sought to emphasize and even exacerbate existing tensions in the United States , presumably because it believes this is in Russia ’ s own interest .
Now , the American government is spinning the 1619 Project as “ slander ” that aids the Chinese Communist Party .
When you play the game of information-nationalism , you don ’ t slander your enemies ; you tell the truth about them Information-nationalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarianism in the world , but it should still be distinguished from its other facets .
It is related to totalitarianism , which frequently relies on propaganda and surveillance , but it is not exactly the same .
It walks closely with fascism , which thrives on mythologizing shared national identities .
But information-nationalism is not about mythologies or misinformation .
When you play the game of information-nationalism , you don ’ t slander your enemies ; you tell the truth about them , while hiding the truth about yourself .
The major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its unrivaled surveillance-censorship apparatus and Great Firewall ) , Russia ( with its highly successful RT network and its shadowy Internet Research Agency ) , and the US ( which still lays claim to some of the biggest tech companies in the world ) .
At this point in time , the leaders of all three countries have bought into the same values and same assumptions about information-nationalism .
It is not so much a cold war as it is three identical Spider-Mans pointing fingers at each other .
Ten years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of information-nationalism to be an authoritarian delusion in the face of an unruly and powerful technology .
Come on , guys , it ’ s the internet !
But consider this 2018 New York Times article about social media use by the younger generation in mainland China .
The same article goes on to describe a survey of 10,000 Tencent users born in 2000 or later .
Nearly 8 in 10 believed that China had either never been better or was becoming better every day ; almost as many were optimistic about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll of Americans in the same year found that 44 percent were somewhat or very pessimistic about America ’ s future . )
This is not to say that this is because China is winning at information-nationalism .
( Consider the protests in Hong Kong . )
But because it has successfully built an ecosystem of China-specific apps and services all tied to a centralized censorship-surveillance apparatus , it is capable of engaging in information-nationalist warfare at a level the US presently can not .
( Consider how TikTok — which carried footage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Hong Kong . )
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared Chinese censorship to an “ information iron curtain.
” For many years , the United States ran its own version of the Chinese state-controlled internet apparatus , but we just called it “ the internet.
” It ’ s not only that its predecessor , the ARPAnet , was an American military project .
In very recent memory , the global internet was dominated by services like Google , YouTube , Facebook , Twitter , and so on .
These companies — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run primarily by Americans on American soil — implicitly transmitted American values and culture to other countries .
Google , for instance , pulled out of China in 2010 when the company discovered the country had been attempting to hack into activists ’ Gmail accounts .
The company felt it could no longer stay for “ moral reasons.
” And although China ’ s censorship of the Tiananmen Square massacre was not the official reason that Google pulled out , it became a pretty good post facto justification .
The company ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop censoring search results .
Shortly after , then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the Newseum in which she compared Chinese censorship to an “ information iron curtain.
” In the same speech , she was supportive of Google , saying , “ I hope that refusal to support politically motivated censorship will become a trademark characteristic of American technology companies .
… It should be part of our national brand.
” In 2000 , Yahoo !
fought against French laws banning the sale of Nazi memorabilia , citing American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2006 . )
In 2009 , as photos and videos of Iran ’ s Green Revolution exploded across Twitter , the Clinton State Department privately reached out to the company asking them to delay scheduled maintenance , lest they disrupt information-swapping by Tehrani dissidents .
American tech companies behaved as an informal arm of the US State Department In these instances and more , American tech companies behaved as an informal arm of the US State Department , operating on the assumption that the freedom of expression and the freedom to dissent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods , but values that , when spread abroad , will strengthen America ’ s diplomatic position .
Free speech , capitalism , and Coca-Cola for all .
This , as it turned out , was a neat piece of hypocrisy , as revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013 .
Just like China had tried to use Google to spy on its activists , the National Security Agency had been secretly collecting bulk data from almost every American company you could think of .
The mass collusion of American tech companies in programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decayed into a kind of moral ambivalence in Silicon Valley .
If America does it , why not let China ?
And conversely : if China does it , why not America ?
But still , hypocritical or not , the old American internet was in no way equivalent to the Great Firewall of China .
And neither is the old foreign policy equivalent to the new .
Regardless of how the American government behaved in secret , its public-facing policy was once to promote liberal democracy .
Now it is openly engaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , beyond the issues of racism and political dissent .
The federal government has made it harder to see numbers on coronavirus infections .
The president has even said on the record that increased testing will make him look bad .
The logic behind this is the same logic that drove the Chinese Communist Party to hide the pandemic in Wuhan in the very early days , much to everyone ’ s detriment .
The similarities in their behavior will not stop the president from blaming China for a cover-up — that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States has embarked on a new relationship with the world , and with truth , that will shape technologies in the years to come .
It will motivate economic regulation , censorship statutes , export laws , and even domestic bans of foreign apps and services .
This is not to say : “ Companies good ; government bad.
” Rest assured , everyone and everything is bad .
It ’ s bad all the way down .
What I ’ m saying is , this is the context in which various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meritorious and the inane — are being developed .
In May , Twitter attached a fact-checking note to two of the president ’ s tweets about mail-in ballots .
For this display of floppy-yet-still-extant spine from Twitter , Inc. , the White House issued an executive order of dubious legality threatening to take away Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections from tech companies based on rule-making by the Federal Communications Commission .
Although this executive order purports to limit Section 230 , that ’ s not the real goal .
Without Section 230 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host of people affected by President Trump ’ s own tweets — like Joe Scarborough , who the president has smeared with a murder accusation .
If Scarborough sues Twitter , the logical result is that Trump ’ s tweets are censored .
The executive order is instead better understood as an attempt to bully companies into regulating speech according to the government ’ s tastes .
What that would look like can be stitched together based on who or what they claim is being censored .
Keep in mind that the executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a claim about election fraud in mail-in voting .
Since then , the president has again tweeted the same claim , this time using it to suggest that the election should be delayed .
( The co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society , Steve Calabresi , has called the tweet “ fascistic.
” ) Social networks have a baked-in bias in favor of conservative speech , in that they will use a newsworthiness exception to avoid moderating the president ’ s increasingly unhinged posts But let ’ s set aside the part about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at other examples of unfairly censored speech — speech that , according to the government , should be protected from the caprices of social media moderation .
One study has been touted as “ proving ” that conservatives are censored more on social media , but a closer look is deeply damning .
The study chose , among others , the following accounts to represent the conservative side : the former KKK leader David Duke , the white nationalist Richard Spencer , and — I am not making this up — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be an outlier in its brazenness , but that ’ s what it takes in order to claim that there is a bias against conservative speech .
Social networks have a baked-in bias in favor of conservative speech , in that they will use a newsworthiness exception to avoid moderating the president ’ s increasingly unhinged posts , even if they break the rules .
Twitter broke with precedent when , the day after the executive order on social media was signed , the platform censored a presidential tweet saying “ when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” on the grounds that it “ glorified violence.
” The tweet was about the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis , but that ’ s not where the phrase originated : a Miami police chief used it in 1967 announcing “ a ‘ get tough ’ policy in the city ’ s Negro district.
” Like so much speech in the Trump era , the racism is closer to text than subtext .
In order to defend the tweet , one not only has to erase the origin of the quote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical connotations of “ thugs ” and “ looting ” and the present-day context of applying those words to a Black Lives Matter protest .
That ’ s , of course , the point .
Information-nationalism is not an inherently racist ideology .
But in order to confront racism , one must be clear-eyed about the country ’ s past and present .
It ’ s no coincidence that anti-Semitism is tied so closely to Holocaust denialism , or that racists today claim that the Confederacy rebelled for reasons other than slavery .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is strength and remembering is weakness .
Thus , anti-racism becomes dangerous , while racism is just another valid political viewpoint .
So what would a rejection of information-nationalism look like ?
The opposite of information-nationalism is not free speech as Americans know it .
It is rather found in Germany , a country with strict hate speech laws that are antithetical to the American civil libertarian tradition .
I think a lot about the New Yorker profile of German Chancellor Angela Merkel , especially this passage that describes the halls of power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the conquest of Berlin — including “ Moscow to Berlin 9/5/45 ” and “ I fuck Hitler in the ass ” — is kept on display .
Reminders of the horrors of the Holocaust and the Nazi regime litter Berlin ’ s landscape .
The New Yorker ’ s George Packer concludes , “ Like a dedicated analysand , Germany has brought its past to the surface , endlessly discussed it , and accepted it , and this work of many years has freed the patient to lead a successful new life.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its past In 2020 , one may very well question this stirring conclusion .
( A right-wing extremist shot a regional German politician in the head in 2019 ; this February , another extremist murdered nine people of “ foreign heritage ” in Hanau . )
Still , there ’ s something to be said about the German approach .
It stands as opposed to information-nationalism as any country can get , and yet Germany has not fallen .
American leaders are not eager for the United States to take its collective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hash out its hidden pathologies .
That ’ s nothing new — America has never really officially grappled with its past .
( To be fair , very few nations do ! )
Still , there is a big difference between not teaching Howard Zinn in high school and banning Howard Zinn .
For the secretary of state to attack an anti-racist examination of history as a national “ slander ” is a significant step toward the latter .
That doesn ’ t mean ordinary Americans want to participate in information-nationalism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the street to get free copies of the 1619 Project magazine issue on the day it published .
The majority of Americans believe that Black Americans are discriminated against , especially by the police .
For months , protests have been widespread in cities across the country .
In early June , a poll found that 54 percent of Americans believed that “ the actions of protestors , including the burning of a police precinct , sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police ” were either fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Portland , Oregon , the protests have been going on for over 60 days , with an uptick in conflict in just the past two weeks , after local news reported that federal law enforcement had seized at least one protester off the street and pulled him into an unmarked minivan .
We still live in a country where government funds can be used to criticize the government Lately , I have seen Portlanders using traffic cones and water bottles to trap and defuse tear gas canisters , or using leaf blowers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police .
These are strategies they learned from watching videos of the Hong Kong protests , videos disseminated on TikTok and Twitter .
In order for the project of information-nationalism to gather steam in the United States , it will have to overcome not only the will of the people , but traditions like the freedom of the press .
The news outlet that first reported the unmarked van arrest by federal agents was Oregon Public Broadcasting , which takes a small part of its funding from the federal government .
We still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be used to criticize the government .
But institutions — and popular dissent — erode under steady pressure .
Time and new technologies can carve out unthinkable landscapes .
China did not forget Tiananmen Square overnight ; Russia ’ s Internet Research Agency wasn ’ t built in a day .
The banning of apps , the passage of new digital surveillance laws , the regulation of speech on platforms , the government sponsorship ( implicit or explicit ) of new technologies — these are the battles that make up information-nationalist warfare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I do not think America will build its own Great Firewall .
But this has less to do with faith in the strength of American values and more to do with the sheer scope of such a project .
I ’ m pretty sure America can only make a very poor imitation of the Chinese surveillance-censorship apparatus , just like I ’ m pretty sure TikTok by Microsoft is going to suck balls .
In other words , the United States has embroiled itself in a war it can not win and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
I suppose that is one American tradition that won ’ t be easily undone .

I cannot emphasize enough how messed up this entire “sell TikTok to an American company” saga is. The latest twist is a deeply confusing set of executive orders banning transactions with ByteDance (TikTok’s Chinese parent company) and WeChat (a Chinese texting app). The legal dubiousness of this move is the least strange thing about it.
But there is no use in dwelling on it. As of writing, ByteDance is in talks to sell TikTok to Microsoft. The only question worth thinking about is why this matters to ordinary Americans — more specifically, should we be afraid of Chinese apps like TikTok?
In July, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News that Americans should only use TikTok “if you want your private information in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.” It’s not just the GOP administration lashing out, either; the Democratic National Committee has also previously issued warnings to campaign staff not to use TikTok on their work phones, citing how much data is gathered.
The thorniest privacy dispute of 2020 isn’t about privacy or technology at all — it’s about China
TikTok does gather a lot of personal data, but it’s no more than what Facebook and other social networks also gather. The difference between TikTok and Facebook is that we have a great deal of transparency into the process by which Facebook gives your information to various governments. And specifically, Facebook does not release data to the Chinese government.
When it comes down to it, the thorniest privacy dispute of 2020 isn’t about privacy or technology at all — it’s about China. The question “Is Facebook better, worse, or the same as TikTok?” is more or less the same as “Is the United States better, worse, or the same as China?”
And in 2020, this is becoming a genuinely difficult question to answer. China is detaining over a million Uighurs in internment camps, citing national security issues. The United States detains migrants in its own internment camps, even going as far as to place children in cages. China is not a democracy; the American president has proposed to unconstitutionally delay this year’s election. China brutally represses its political dissidents; in America, law enforcement in military camouflage have grabbed protesters off the streets and shoved them into unmarked vans.
I am writing this column from Portland, Oregon, with my gas mask hanging next to my desk
Earlier this summer, the American president decided to tweet “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” in response to mass protests — only a few days before the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. I am writing this column from Portland, Oregon, with my gas mask hanging next to my desk. When I go to tie my shoes, my laces emit faint puffs of residual tear gas.
The protests in my city are the same protests happening elsewhere in the country — protests against police violence and racial discrimination. As these protests were raging, Secretary Pompeo gave a speech at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia where he attacked The New York Times’ 1619 Project, which originated as a special issue of The New York Times Magazine containing articles examining slavery and its lasting legacy in everything from mass incarceration to pop music.
“They want you to believe that Marxist ideology that America is only the oppressors and the oppressed,” said Pompeo. “The Chinese Communist Party must be gleeful when they see the New York Times spout this ideology.”
In a tweet that excerpted the speech, he called the project “a slander on our great people.”
One might ask, why on earth would the Chinese Communist Party give a damn about a year-old article on the relationship between race and the construction of the interstate highways?
Pompeo’s invocation of the Chinese government only makes sense if you break apart the assumptions piece by piece. The 1619 Project criticizes America; to criticize America is to make it weak; to make America weak is to make China strong.
I call this ideology information-nationalism. Here’s how I would describe its assumptions:
1. When your country acknowledges human rights abuses, you are made weak
2. You can weaken rival nation-states by exposing their human rights abuses
For a long time, China’s crackdown on all references to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre has been held as the prime example of the dangers of internet censorship. It is also the clearest example of information-nationalism: to allow Chinese citizens to speak of or remember Tiananmen Square is to cultivate weakness.
So China can’t acknowledge Tiananmen Square or its present-day treatment of the Uighurs. For the inverse reason, Russian disinformation operations on Facebook have promoted real videos of police brutality in America and attempted to organize Black Lives Matter protests. Before that, Russian state media outlet RT excelled in its coverage of Occupy Wall Street and WikiLeaks. For years, Russia has sought to emphasize and even exacerbate existing tensions in the United States, presumably because it believes this is in Russia’s own interest.
Now, the American government is spinning the 1619 Project as “slander” that aids the Chinese Communist Party.
When you play the game of information-nationalism, you don’t slander your enemies; you tell the truth about them
Information-nationalism is part of a larger trend toward authoritarianism in the world, but it should still be distinguished from its other facets. It is related to totalitarianism, which frequently relies on propaganda and surveillance, but it is not exactly the same. It walks closely with fascism, which thrives on mythologizing shared national identities.
But information-nationalism is not about mythologies or misinformation. When you play the game of information-nationalism, you don’t slander your enemies; you tell the truth about them, while hiding the truth about yourself.
The major players in this game are China (with its unrivaled surveillance-censorship apparatus and Great Firewall), Russia (with its highly successful RT network and its shadowy Internet Research Agency), and the US (which still lays claim to some of the biggest tech companies in the world). At this point in time, the leaders of all three countries have bought into the same values and same assumptions about information-nationalism. It is not so much a cold war as it is three identical Spider-Mans pointing fingers at each other.
Ten years ago, I would have deemed the project of information-nationalism to be an authoritarian delusion in the face of an unruly and powerful technology. Come on, guys, it’s the internet! But consider this 2018 New York Times article about social media use by the younger generation in mainland China.
Chu Junqing, also 28, a human resources representative, said she spent two to three hours watching funny short videos after work on Tik Tok. She reads news sometimes on the news app Jinri Toutiao but found that many countries were embroiled in wars and riots. “China is so much better,” she said.
The same article goes on to describe a survey of 10,000 Tencent users born in 2000 or later. Nearly 8 in 10 believed that China had either never been better or was becoming better every day; almost as many were optimistic about the future. (A Pew Research Center poll of Americans in the same year found that 44 percent were somewhat or very pessimistic about America’s future.)
This is not to say that this is because China is winning at information-nationalism. (Consider the protests in Hong Kong.) But because it has successfully built an ecosystem of China-specific apps and services all tied to a centralized censorship-surveillance apparatus, it is capable of engaging in information-nationalist warfare at a level the US presently cannot. (Consider how TikTok — which carried footage of the protests — is now blocked in Hong Kong.)
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared Chinese censorship to an “information iron curtain.”
For many years, the United States ran its own version of the Chinese state-controlled internet apparatus, but we just called it “the internet.” It’s not only that its predecessor, the ARPAnet, was an American military project. In very recent memory, the global internet was dominated by services like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and so on. These companies — founded in the United States, and run primarily by Americans on American soil — implicitly transmitted American values and culture to other countries.
Google, for instance, pulled out of China in 2010 when the company discovered the country had been attempting to hack into activists’ Gmail accounts. The company felt it could no longer stay for “moral reasons.” And although China’s censorship of the Tiananmen Square massacre was not the official reason that Google pulled out, it became a pretty good post facto justification. The company’s immediate response to the hack was to stop censoring search results. Shortly after, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the Newseum in which she compared Chinese censorship to an “information iron curtain.” In the same speech, she was supportive of Google, saying, “I hope that refusal to support politically motivated censorship will become a trademark characteristic of American technology companies. … It should be part of our national brand.”
In 2000, Yahoo! fought against French laws banning the sale of Nazi memorabilia, citing American free speech rights. (They lost in 2006.) In 2009, as photos and videos of Iran’s Green Revolution exploded across Twitter, the Clinton State Department privately reached out to the company asking them to delay scheduled maintenance, lest they disrupt information-swapping by Tehrani dissidents.
American tech companies behaved as an informal arm of the US State Department
In these instances and more, American tech companies behaved as an informal arm of the US State Department, operating on the assumption that the freedom of expression and the freedom to dissent against any government are not just inherent goods, but values that, when spread abroad, will strengthen America’s diplomatic position. Free speech, capitalism, and Coca-Cola for all.
This, as it turned out, was a neat piece of hypocrisy, as revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013. Just like China had tried to use Google to spy on its activists, the National Security Agency had been secretly collecting bulk data from almost every American company you could think of. The mass collusion of American tech companies in programs like PRISM created a disillusionment that gradually decayed into a kind of moral ambivalence in Silicon Valley. If America does it, why not let China? And conversely: if China does it, why not America?
But still, hypocritical or not, the old American internet was in no way equivalent to the Great Firewall of China. And neither is the old foreign policy equivalent to the new. Regardless of how the American government behaved in secret, its public-facing policy was once to promote liberal democracy. Now it is openly engaged in information-nationalism.
Information-nationalism pervades many arenas, beyond the issues of racism and political dissent. The federal government has made it harder to see numbers on coronavirus infections. The president has even said on the record that increased testing will make him look bad. The logic behind this is the same logic that drove the Chinese Communist Party to hide the pandemic in Wuhan in the very early days, much to everyone’s detriment. The similarities in their behavior will not stop the president from blaming China for a cover-up — that’s exactly how information-nationalism works.
The United States has embarked on a new relationship with the world, and with truth, that will shape technologies in the years to come. It will motivate economic regulation, censorship statutes, export laws, and even domestic bans of foreign apps and services. This is not to say: “Companies good; government bad.” Rest assured, everyone and everything is bad. It’s bad all the way down. What I’m saying is, this is the context in which various proposals to regulate tech — both the meritorious and the inane — are being developed.
In May, Twitter attached a fact-checking note to two of the president’s tweets about mail-in ballots. For this display of floppy-yet-still-extant spine from Twitter, Inc., the White House issued an executive order of dubious legality threatening to take away Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections from tech companies based on rule-making by the Federal Communications Commission.
Although this executive order purports to limit Section 230, that’s not the real goal. Without Section 230, Twitter would be liable to a host of people affected by President Trump’s own tweets — like Joe Scarborough, who the president has smeared with a murder accusation. If Scarborough sues Twitter, the logical result is that Trump’s tweets are censored.
The executive order is instead better understood as an attempt to bully companies into regulating speech according to the government’s tastes. What that would look like can be stitched together based on who or what they claim is being censored.
Keep in mind that the executive order was prompted by a fact-check of a claim about election fraud in mail-in voting. Since then, the president has again tweeted the same claim, this time using it to suggest that the election should be delayed. (The co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society, Steve Calabresi, has called the tweet “fascistic.”)
Social networks have a baked-in bias in favor of conservative speech, in that they will use a newsworthiness exception to avoid moderating the president’s increasingly unhinged posts
But let’s set aside the part about American democracy dangling by a thread and look at other examples of unfairly censored speech — speech that, according to the government, should be protected from the caprices of social media moderation. One study has been touted as “proving” that conservatives are censored more on social media, but a closer look is deeply damning. The study chose, among others, the following accounts to represent the conservative side: the former KKK leader David Duke, the white nationalist Richard Spencer, and — I am not making this up — the literal American Nazi Party.
The study may be an outlier in its brazenness, but that’s what it takes in order to claim that there is a bias against conservative speech. Social networks have a baked-in bias in favor of conservative speech, in that they will use a newsworthiness exception to avoid moderating the president’s increasingly unhinged posts, even if they break the rules.
Twitter broke with precedent when, the day after the executive order on social media was signed, the platform censored a presidential tweet saying “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” on the grounds that it “glorified violence.”
The tweet was about the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis, but that’s not where the phrase originated: a Miami police chief used it in 1967 announcing “a ‘get tough’ policy in the city’s Negro district.” Like so much speech in the Trump era, the racism is closer to text than subtext. In order to defend the tweet, one not only has to erase the origin of the quote, but twist oneself into knots over the historical connotations of “thugs” and “looting” and the present-day context of applying those words to a Black Lives Matter protest.
That’s, of course, the point. Information-nationalism is not an inherently racist ideology. But in order to confront racism, one must be clear-eyed about the country’s past and present. It’s no coincidence that anti-Semitism is tied so closely to Holocaust denialism, or that racists today claim that the Confederacy rebelled for reasons other than slavery. Under the logic of information-nationalism, forgetting is strength and remembering is weakness. Thus, anti-racism becomes dangerous, while racism is just another valid political viewpoint.
So what would a rejection of information-nationalism look like? The opposite of information-nationalism is not free speech as Americans know it. It is rather found in Germany, a country with strict hate speech laws that are antithetical to the American civil libertarian tradition.
I think a lot about the New Yorker profile of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, especially this passage that describes the halls of power that Merkel walks. Red Army graffiti from the conquest of Berlin — including “Moscow to Berlin 9/5/45” and “I fuck Hitler in the ass” — is kept on display. Reminders of the horrors of the Holocaust and the Nazi regime litter Berlin’s landscape. The New Yorker’s George Packer concludes, “Like a dedicated analysand, Germany has brought its past to the surface, endlessly discussed it, and accepted it, and this work of many years has freed the patient to lead a successful new life.”
America has never really officially grappled with its past
In 2020, one may very well question this stirring conclusion. (A right-wing extremist shot a regional German politician in the head in 2019; this February, another extremist murdered nine people of “foreign heritage” in Hanau.) Still, there’s something to be said about the German approach. It stands as opposed to information-nationalism as any country can get, and yet Germany has not fallen.
American leaders are not eager for the United States to take its collective self to the psychiatrist’s couch to hash out its hidden pathologies. That’s nothing new — America has never really officially grappled with its past. (To be fair, very few nations do!) Still, there is a big difference between not teaching Howard Zinn in high school and banning Howard Zinn. For the secretary of state to attack an anti-racist examination of history as a national “slander” is a significant step toward the latter.
That doesn’t mean ordinary Americans want to participate in information-nationalism. Indeed, people literally lined up on the street to get free copies of the 1619 Project magazine issue on the day it published. The majority of Americans believe that Black Americans are discriminated against, especially by the police.
For months, protests have been widespread in cities across the country. In early June, a poll found that 54 percent of Americans believed that “the actions of protestors, including the burning of a police precinct, sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police” were either fully or partly justified. In my home of Portland, Oregon, the protests have been going on for over 60 days, with an uptick in conflict in just the past three weeks, after local news reported that federal law enforcement had seized at least one protester off the street and pulled him into an unmarked minivan.
We still live in a country where government funds can be used to criticize the government
Lately, I have seen Portlanders using traffic cones and water bottles to trap and defuse tear gas canisters, or using leaf blowers to blow the gas back at the police. These are strategies they learned from watching videos of the Hong Kong protests, videos disseminated on TikTok and Twitter.
In order for the project of information-nationalism to gather steam in the United States, it will have to overcome not only the will of the people, but traditions like the freedom of the press. The news outlet that first reported the unmarked van arrest by federal agents was Oregon Public Broadcasting, which takes a small part of its funding from the federal government. We still live in a country where government funds can be used to criticize the government.
But institutions — and popular dissent — erode under steady pressure. Time and new technologies can carve out unthinkable landscapes. China did not forget Tiananmen Square overnight; Russia’s Internet Research Agency wasn’t built in a day. The banning of apps, the passage of new digital surveillance laws, the regulation of speech on platforms, the government sponsorship (implicit or explicit) of new technologies — these are the battles that make up information-nationalist warfare.
For what it’s worth, I do not think America will build its own Great Firewall. But this has less to do with faith in the strength of American values and more to do with the sheer scope of such a project. I’m pretty sure America can only make a very poor imitation of the Chinese surveillance-censorship apparatus, just like I’m pretty sure TikTok by Microsoft is going to suck balls.