 |
|
|
|||||
Hello again, welcome to Fast Companys Plugged In, and a quick note: A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned a game I was vibe-coding using Claude Code, and said I would share it once I finished it. Here it is, along with more thoughts on the uncanny experience of collaborating with AI on a programming project. Late Show host Stephen Colbert and his network, CBS, are still at odds over why his planned interview with James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for a Texas U.S. Senate seat, didnt air last Monday. In Colberts account, CBS lawyers forbid the broadcast after Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr said talk show interviews might trigger the FCCs equal time rule, which requires broadcasters to give equivalent airtime to competing candidates if requested. For its part, CBS maintained that its lawyers didnt quash the interview but rather informed Colbert of the equal-time issue. Either way, Colbert had a problem on his handsbut an easily solvable one. The Late Show simply put the interview on YouTube, whichlike all streaming servicesis not subject to the equal time rule. Its since racked up more than eight million views, well over three times the typical live/DVR viewership of Colberts program in its classic form. For CBS, the incident was particularly touchy. Its parent company, Paramount Skydance, is currently trying to engineer a takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, a deal that would require approval by the Trump administrations Department of Justice. Given that the FCC was already investigating ABCs The View over a Talarico interview, Carrthe guy who managed to get Jimmy Kimmel knocked off the air for four nights last Septembercould have seized on a Late Show interview as a provocation. Bumping the segment to YouTube eliminated it as grist for his mill. (For the record, Carr claimed to be entertained by the whole affair.) Along with the Trumpy intrigue, the Colbert-Talarico-Carr drama provides more evidence that YouTube has eaten TVa topic I explored last October in an oral history titled, well, How YouTube Ate TV. Once Colbert concluded he couldnt run the Talarico interview on his broadcast show, its tough to believe he spent much time figuring out where to put it. What about Paramount+, Paramount Skydances own streaming contender? Well, maybe, if Colbert had wanted to reach its 77.5 million subscribers. But releasing it on YouTube, which has two billion logged-in watchers a month, was the surest way to make the interview available to the largest possible audience. The fact that YouTube is now the U.S.s largest video service, period, only makes the equal time ruleand its focus on media brought into homes by antennaslook more antiquated. Its certainly possible to see noble intentions in the FCC mandate, which predates the agencys 1934 establishment and happens to be almost exactly the same age as CBS. (Both will mark their respective centenaries next year.) Radio, the medium that inspired it, used public airwaves, was greatly constrained by available spectrum, and exerted tremendous power over political candidates ability to reach voters. So did TV, once it arrived in force in the late 1940s. But just a decade after that, the equal time rule was already regarded as counterproductive if not faintly ridiculous. A Chicago kook/perennial candidate named Lar Dalywho campaigned in an Uncle Sam suitseized it to secure TV airtime in his 1959 campaign for mayor of Chicago. The following year, when he ran for president, he even forced his way onto The Tonight Show. His antics helped prompt Congress to carve out exemptions protecting many broadcasts from having to comply with the rule, including the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates. By the 1980s, so many types of programming were exemptincluding newscasts and news interview shows such as Meet the Pressthat when the equal time rule came into play, it was often in edge cases such as stations choosing not to run old Ronald Reagan movies during his presidential campaigns. (Sorry, Bedtime for Bonzo fans.) As recently as 2006, the FCC told a California gubernatorial candidate that incumbent governor Arnold Schwarzeneggers appearance on The Tonight Show did not entitle him to equivalent time. (Carrs recent stance that talk shows may be subject to the rule is at odds with that ruling.) Maybe there was an argument for the rule when streaming video did not yet exist, and even cable TV reached a minority of U.S. households. But according to the Pew Research Center, 78% of American households have broadband. Another study, from Nielsen, found that only 18% of homes had an antenna rigged up for over-the-air broadcasts, and that most of those also had access to streaming services such as Hulu and Netflix. Thats not accounting for people who watch internet video on a phone via a cellular connection. Bottom line: Very few people are watching broadcast TV solely because they dont have other options. Indeed, its old-school TV thats become a niche. Which helps explain why Paramount Skydance is so eager to scarf up Warner Bros. Discoverys colossal back catalog but so disinterested in Colbert that it canceled his show. (The company maintains the cancellation was a prudent financial decision, not a token of goodwill to Trump as his DoJ was preparing to sign off on Paramounts merger with Skydance; regardless of the motivation, its a sign of traditional TVs diminished relevance.) YouTube is hardly immune to government interference in its political content. On Wednesday, attorneys general from 16 states sent a letter to Alphabet Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker claiming it had censored videos from conservative political commentators such as Glenn Beck and Ben Shapiro. Still, as far as I know, nobody argues that anything resembling the equal time rule should apply on YouTube. Given that there are millions of YouTubers, it would hard to know where to start. But with millions of YouTubers of wildly different predilections posting videos to the platform, a powerful form of equal time is built in. Meanwhile, broadcast medias control by a shrinking number of giant companies is a bigger problem than ever, and Carr doesnt seem to care, at least as long as it might tilt in a Trump-friendly direction. On Wednesday, he said he supports lifting an ownership cap on TV stations to allow the right-leaning media company Nexstar to acquire its rival Tegna. Carr will presumably continue to wield the equal time rule as a cudgel against Trump critics, particularly if it leads media companies to obey in advance, as CBS seems to have done. I dont discount the possibility of some future Democratic FCC chair abusing it in a similar fashion. But its nice to think that the mandatewhich, in our lifetimes, always seemed both impotent and misguidedmight continue to fade away along with the 20th-century forms of media that inspired it. Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on fastcompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard. More top tech stories from Fast Company AI’s biggest problem isn’t intelligence. It’s implementationCulture, workflows, and human habits may set the real pace of the AI economy. Read More Viral sleuths are turning the Nancy Guthrie case into contentTrue-crime enthusiasts are spreading theories, chasing clout, and complicating an active missing-person investigation. Read More What it’s really like to use the ‘Tesla of induction stoves’We tried testing Charlie, a sleek induction range that can outperform its gas counterparts. Read More Palantir is caught in the middle of a brewing fight between Anthropic and the PentagonThe Defense Department is threatening to blacklist Anthropic over limits on military use, potentially putting one of its top contractors in a bind. Read More New AI models are losing their edge almost immediatelyCompetitors can now match state-of-the-art systems in weeks, raising fears about distillation and shrinking advantages. Read More Meta patents AI that lets dead people post from the great beyondMeta’s latest patent outlines AI that could mimic dead users’ activity across Facebook and Instagram, but the company says there are no plans to use the technology. Read More
Category:
E-Commerce
Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand Wednesday to defend his companys practices in a landmark trial that could determine whether social media companies can be held liable for alleged harms to children. But if the defendants lose, the implications could extend far beyond social media. The case centers on Meta and Google, with plaintiffs alleging that services like Instagram and YouTube are intentionally designed to keep users, especially kids, engageda dynamic they say can lead to harmful mental health effects, including addiction. The trial is widely viewed as a test case for roughly 1,500 similar lawsuits waiting in the wings. Meta and Google deny the charges, with Zuckerberg testifying on Wednesday that “I care about the well-being of teens and kids who are using our services.” If Meta and Google lose this case, it could change how people interact with their platforms. But the consequences may not stop there: The outcome could also have implications for other tech giants, as well as companies far outside the technology sector. More insurance claims for social media addiction? Insurance companies, for example, could see a rise in claims for digital or social media addiction treatment. For now, social media addiction is not recognized as an official disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), the authoritative guide used to diagnose mental health issues. That makes specialized coverage rare, though insurers do pay for underlying mental health conditions caused or worsened by social media, such as anxiety, depression, or behavioral disorders. Still, the DSM-5-TR is published by the American Psychiatric Association, which has warned that “excessive, compulsive or out-of-control use of various types of technologies is an increasing area of concern.” Business experts say a legal victory by the plaintiffs could accelerate that shift, making digital addiction a more bigger factor for insurers and employers alike. “I think, depending on the outcome of this court case, that may give more credibility to the notion of digital addiction,” says David Schweidel, a marketing professor and the chair of Business Technology at Emory Universitys Goizueta Business School. “In an extreme scenario, social media could get labeled as the next Big Tobacco.” Insurance companies declined to comment on the trial and its implications, but some have already taken steps to shield their liability when it comes to social media clients. In 2024, Hartford Casualty and several other insurers filed suit in Delaware seeking declaratory relief that they were not legally required to cover Metas legal defense or any resulting settlements or damages in a consolidated California case alleging that social media platforms contribute to harmful behaviors in children. (That case is still pending.) And insurance companies may not be the only businesses to feel the ripple effects. If the jury finds that programmed algorithms are not protected by Section 230, the federal law that shields social media companies from liability over content posted by their users, it could expose many tech companies outside the social media industry to new legal risks. Streamers could feel the effects, too Streaming services that rely on autoplay to encourage binge-watching, or mobile games that lure players back with dopamine-triggering lock-screen alerts, could also find themselves on shakier legal ground. (The European Union, meanwhile, has opened a formal investigation into online retailer Shein that includes scrutiny of its addictive design, specifically gamified programs that reward shoppers with points and other incentives.) Even smartphone makers could be forced to make changes, such as giving users more control over notifications. Other companies across the business spectrum could feel the effects if a growing number of people begin seeking treatment for digital addiction. “Employers could potentially affected by severity of addition as well,” says Schweidel. “As the idea of treatment for digital addiction or social media addiction becomes more socially acceptable, people will be taking more time off work to get that treatment.”
Category:
E-Commerce
Can a headline-making squabble with a client actually be good for a brand? This weeks dispute between the Department of Defense and Anthropic, a high-profile player in the super-competitive field of artificial intelligence, may be just that. The dispute involves whether the Pentagon, which has an agreement to use Anthropic technology, can apply it in a wider range of scenarios: all lawful use cases. Anthropic has resisted signing off on some potential scenarios, and the Pentagon has essentially accused it of being overly cautious. As it happens, that assessment basically aligns with Anthropics efforts (most recently via Super Bowl ads aimed squarely at prominent rival OpenAI) to burnish a reputation as a thoughtful and considered AI innovator. At a moment when the pros-vs.-cons implications and potential consequences of AI are more hotly debated than ever, Anthropics public image tries to straddle the divide. Presumably Anthropic (best known to consumers for its AI chat tool Claude) would prefer to push that reputation without alienating a lucrative client. But the underlying feud concerns how the military can use Anthropics technology, with the company reportedly seeking limits on applications involving mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. A Pentagon spokesman told Fast Company that the militarys relationship with Anthropic is being reviewed, adding: Our nation requires that our partners be willing to help our warfighters win in any fight. The department has reportedly threatened to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, lumping it in with supposedly woke tech companies, causing potential problems not just for Anthropic but for partners like Palintir. So far Anthropics basic stance amounts to: This is a uniquely potent technology whose eventualities we dont fully comprehend, so there are limits to uses well currently permit. Put more bluntly: We are not reckless. Not moving so fast that you break important thingslike user trust, or civilizationis a message thats of a piece with the official image Anthropic has sought to cultivate. The company was founded by OpenAI refugees who argued back in 2021 that the company was prioritizing monetization over safety. Its recent Super Bowl ads are the highest-profile example of this branding so far: directly mocking OpenAI for experimenting with advertising on its consumer-facing product ChatGPT, and presenting the results as a slop-dystopian mess. The spots were, as Fast Companys Jeff Beer explained, a rare example of straight-up ire slung at a category competitor. They could arguably be the first salvo in a branding battle akin to Apple vs. Microsoft, with Anthropic seizing the role of righteous challenger. (OpenAIs initial response included belittling Anthropics business, which just lends to the latters underdog pose.) As a brand image to shoot for, being the responsible AI player is an understandable goal. The technology has been divisive for years at this point, and lately thats reached a crescendo. Seen by many as a threat to privacy, a job-killer, an environmental menace, and a source of endless misinformation and slop, its simultaneously touted by Silicon Valley elites and their intellectual brethren as an unprecedented boon to humanity. The only point of agreement is that the changes will be big and fast and pretty much unstoppable. And no matter how much you already believe that, there is some guy on X arguing that you still dont really get it. No wonder there seems to be room for an AI company with a cautious message. Of course this is branding were talking about, and ultimately Anthropic is under the same marketplace pressures as its rivals. And its actual behavior hasnt always been pristine. Notably it agreed last year to pay a record $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging its models trained on some 500,000 copyrighted books. Despite its Pentagon dispute, its technology is already intertwined with the American military, and was reportedly used in the recent U.S. capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. And of course it may yet acquiesce to Pentagon demands. (According to Axios, Anthropics annual revenue is around $14 billion, and its Department of Defense deal is pegged at $200 millionnot chump change, but not existential.) Still, the squabble is an occasion for Anthropic to demonstrate that its rhetoric and actions line up. At the very least, that could be good for its flagship chat tool Claude: Consumers tempted by AI hype but worried about its potential downsides may see Anthropic as the fledgling technologys least-reckless major player. And given how divisive the AI category has become, that might count as a brand win.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||