Indiana sues TikTok over alleged security and child safety issues

TikTok is now facing its first state lawsuit over data security. Indiana’s Attorney General has sued TikTok for allegedly misleading users about China’s data access and violating child safety. The social media service supposedly broke state consumer la…

Congress axes media revenue sharing bill after pushback from Google and Meta

A US government attempt to compensate publishers for web links has fallen apart, as Congress has cut the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) from the annual national defense spending bill. The measure would have made temporary exceptions to antitrust law letting media outlets negotiate revenue sharing deals, such as receiving a cut of ad money from links to news articles in search results and social media posts.

The removal comes after extensive resistance from tech firms. Just this week, Facebook owner Meta warned it would “consider removing news” from its platform rather than submit to government-required negotiations for revenue sharing deals. As with the social media giant’s objections to similar legislative efforts in Australia and Canada, the company argued that the JCPA would force companies to pay for content whether or not they wanted to see it. This would supposedly create a “cartel-like entity” that made one company subsidize others.

Two industry groups, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, also said they would launch extensive ad campaigns to oppose the JCPA. Both groups include major tech companies like Amazon, Google and Meta. Google has been a vocal opponent of link revenue shares in the past, and only reluctantly agreed to them in countries like France.

Advocacy groups have taken more varied stances. Public Knowledge and its allies were concerned tech companies could be forced to carry extreme content, and that the JCPA favored larger media producers over small publishers. Political critics across the spectrum, meanwhile, have worried that the Act could alternately strip away moderation tools or fuel biased reporting.

It’s not certain what will happen to the efforts behind the JCPA. Lead proponent Sen. Amy Klobuchar said politicians “must” find a way to improve compensation for news. However, it’s safe to say the media companies that supported the bill won’t be happy. The Los Angeles Times, Fox News owner News Corp. and others had argued that the would-be law was necessary to counter years of declining ad revenue in the shift toward online news coverage. For now, at least, they won’t have that potential help.

San Francisco reverses approval of killer robot policy

In late November, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors had approved a proposal that would allow the city’s police force to use remote-controlled robots as a deadly force option when faced with violent or armed suspects. The supervisors voted 8-to-3 in favor of making it a new policy despite opposition by civil rights groups, but now they seem to have had a change of heart. During the second of two required votes before a policy can be sent to the mayor’s office for final approval, the board voted 8-to-3 to explicitly ban the use of lethal force by police robots. As San Francisco Chronicle notes, this about-face is pretty unusual, as the board’s second votes are typically just formalities that echo the first ones’ results.

The San Francisco Police Department made the proposal after a law came into effect requiring California officials to define the authorized uses of their military-grade equipment. It would have allowed cops to equip robots with explosives “to contact, incapacitate, or disorient violent, armed, or dangerous suspects.” Authorities could only use the robots for lethal force after they’ve exhausted all other possibilities, and a high-ranking official would have to approve their deployment. However, critics are concerned that the machines could be abused. 

Dean Preston, one of the supervisors who oppose the use of robots as a deadly force option, said the policy will “place Black and brown people in disproportionate danger of harm or death.” In a newer statement made after the board’s second vote, Preston said: “There have been more killings at the hands of police than any other year on record nationwide. We should be working on ways to decrease the use of force by local law enforcement, not giving them new tools to kill people.”

While the supervisors voted to ban the use of lethal force by police robots — for now, anyway — they also sent the original policy proposing the use of killer robots back for review. The board’s Rules Committee could now amend it further to have stricter rules for use of bomb-equipped robots, or it could scrap the old proposal altogether.