When the Supreme Court upheld a law that banned TikTok from the US, it seemed well aware that its ruling could resonate far beyond one app. The justices delivered an unsigned opinion with a quote from Justice Felix Frankfurter from 1944: “in considering the application of established legal rules to the ‘totally new problems’ raised by the airplane and radio, we should take care not to ‘embarrass the future.’”
Technology
The Supreme Court’s TikTok ruling is an ominous turn for online speech
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25826019/STK051_TIKTOKBAN_STK463_SCOTUS__CVirginia_C.jpg?ssl=1 "The Supreme Court’s TikTok ruling is an ominous turn for online speech")
Last Friday, the court tried to accomplish this with a narrow ruling: a decision that upheld the government’s ability to ban one service on a tight timeline, while stressing a limited scope concerning “new technologies with transformative capabilities.” Yet, amid a confounding political circus over TikTok, some legal experts believe the Supreme Court’s ruling could have a broad ripple effect on speech and tech law — they’re just not agreed on what it would be.
“Even though it’s narrowly written, it also seems clear that they want to make a mark on these kinds of questions,” says Sarah Kreps, director of the Tech Policy Institute at Cornell University’s public policy school. University of Chicago law professor Genevieve Lakier put it more bluntly on Bluesky: “The Court tried but failed to make no new law here.”
Lakier’s main concern, echoed by several amicus briefs in the case, is that the Supreme Court is enabling a form of backdoor speech regulation. In oral arguments, the US government insisted that the ban wasn’t a First Amendment issue because it only targeted corporate structure — in this case, TikTok’s foreign ownership. But TikTok argued that lawmakers disliked TikTok and its users’ speech and merely found a pretext for punishing it. At the very least, Lakier and others worry the Supreme Court ruling could let something like that happen to other communications platforms.
“The Court tried but failed to make no new law here.”
“The very worst part of the opinion (I think right now) is that it gives [governments] space to whitewash bad content-based motivations by tacking on plausible-sounding content-neutral ones,” Lakier wrote. The court determined that selling a business isn’t an expressive act, but she argues this conflicts with one of its most widely known rulings: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which found that an act that doesn’t explicitly involve speech (donating to political campaigns) could still count as a form of speech.
Then there’s the ruling’s decision that national security could justify potential speech suppression. The court “has weakened the First Amendment and markedly expanded the government’s power to restrict speech in the name of national security,” said Jameel Jaffer, Knight First Amendment Institute executive director. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) National Security Project deputy director Patrick Toomey echoed these concerns: “the Supreme Court is giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn’t like, increasing the danger that sweeping invocations of ‘national security’ will trump our constitutional rights.”
“American-owned platforms are still covered pretty aggressively under Section 230.”
Kreps thinks the ruling is unlikely to bring a wave of censorship for US-based companies, though. “I think that part of the opinion was indeed narrow, and was very careful that this foreign ownership puts it into a very different category,” she says. “American-owned platforms are still covered pretty aggressively under Section 230.”
But if nothing else, the decision will “make it more difficult for the United States to challenge the increasing number of censorial speech regulations targeting U.S.-based platforms in other countries,” writes Jacob Mchangama, executive director of The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank at Vanderbilt University.
While some fear a future of speech regulations wrapped in national security rhetoric, others make the opposite argument: that it will stop businesses from dodging regulation by hiding behind the First Amendment.
“Corporations may not hide behind flimsy First Amendment arguments in order to avoid regulation carte blanche”
The Open Markets Institute, which advocates for stronger antitrust enforcement, took a positive view of the ruling — despite being unconvinced of the law’s merits. “The Supreme Court reaffirms an important precedent that Congress maintains fundamental legislative authority to regulate corporations,” senior legal analyst Daniel Hanley says in a statement. “In other words, corporations may not hide behind flimsy First Amendment arguments in order to avoid regulation carte blanche.”
University of Colorado Law School professor Blake Reid says the ruling is unlikely to affect some baseline legal questions, like how the court decides whether future tech laws raise First Amendment concerns. He believes TikTok made a weak argument for its own speech interests, particularly because the law’s penalties apply to app stores and hosting services, not TikTok itself. “TikTok had a harder job than it seemed to think it did in establishing how its speech was getting implicated,” says Reid. “When your speech is contingent on the speech of platforms who are not going to show up and fight the government on your behalf, that’s a tough place to be in.”
Other platforms have made similar arguments convincingly, though — Reid pointed, for instance, to the 2024 NetChoice rulings that recognized content moderation as expressive speech.
The TikTok ruling could change how courts across the country address one crucial issue: the level of scrutiny applied to lawsuits that allege First Amendment violations, a decision that dramatically impacts their likelihood of success. The government put forward two separate rationales for its ban: concerns that China was collecting US data and that it could manipulate TikTok’s algorithm for propaganda purposes. The court seemed skeptical of the latter argument, and it decided data collection alone justified upholding the law. “The court was pretty open here to saying, we’re going to look past the justification we might have some more concerns about and look for the one that seems legitimate,” Reid says. Lower courts, he predicts, could decide “maybe we can be a little bit more solicitous” of the claims legislators make about why they’re passing internet regulation.
It’s a balancing act the Supreme Court will have to make again later this year. Last week, the court held arguments in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, which pits First Amendment rights against state legislatures’ concerns about children’s access to pornography. That decision will hinge on what level of scrutiny the court applies — and its ruling could overturn a two-decade-old precedent and age-gate parts of the internet.
Even so, Reid sees the TikTok ruling’s role as “a pretty small change on the margins” in the grand scheme of things. In the end, Reid says, “the biggest thing about this case is just the impact on TikTok itself.”
Continue Reading
When Jeff Bezos decided Amazon needed to get in the smartphone game, he went all in. And the resulting device, the Fire Phone, wound up more densely packed with big ideas than just about any gadget you’ll find anywhere. There was just one tiny problem: they were mostly bad ideas.
The Fire Phone shipped in 2014 with a feature list a mile long. The screen had a 3D effect! There were, like, 400 cameras! There was a whole home screen filled with something called “delighters!” But the Fire Phone was, above all, a way to buy things on Amazon. That was what Bezos wanted, after all. It’s just not what users wanted.
For this episode of Version History, we tell the story of the Fire Phone from beginning to end. (It doesn’t take that long.) David Pierce, Allison Johnson, and Sean O’Kane discuss how the success of the Kindle led to Amazon’s expanded hardware plans, the brewing fight with Apple over app store policies, the ways in which Bezos himself directed the product, and the astonishing speed with which the thing flopped. Only a few months after it launched, the Fire Phone could be had for less than a buck. People still didn’t want it.
Utlimately, the device that was supposed to be the beginning of something big for Amazon turned out to be very small indeed. But that doesn’t make its story any less interesting.
This is the fifth episode of Version History. (We’re more than halfway through season one!) If you want to find the show, there are three good places to go:
Thanks to everyone who has already watched or listened to the show, and has sent feedback! We’re already putting on the next bunch of episodes, and want to hear everything you think we should be doing or not doing or doing differently. What other huge product failures deserve their own episode? You tell us. In the meantime, if you want to know more about the Fire Phone story, here are some links to get you started:
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A new bipartisan push in Washington is shining a spotlight on AI’s impact on jobs. Senators Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Mark Warner, D-Va., introduced the AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act, which would require major companies and federal agencies to report AI-related job impacts to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
The legislation is designed to shed light on how artificial intelligence is affecting the U.S. workforce.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter
Key requirements of the AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act
The AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act sets out several core obligations:
- Covered entities must quarterly disclose job effects tied to AI. This includes layoffs, hires and positions left open because tasks were automated.
- The DOL must compile those disclosures and publish a public report, including to Congress.
- Non-publicly traded companies may be included under certain thresholds.
TRUMP’S AI PLAN IS A BULWARK AGAINST THE RISING THREAT FROM CHINA
The goal is to create a clear, consistent data source on how AI changes employment.
Why the AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act matters
AI is already reshaping the American workforce, and lawmakers from both parties say the country needs a clear view of what that means for jobs.
Sens. Josh Hawley and Mark Warner join forces on a new bipartisan bill to track how AI is changing American jobs. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Hawley warned that the trend is accelerating.
“Artificial intelligence is already replacing American workers, and experts project AI could drive unemployment up to 10 to 20% in the next five years,” Hawley said. “The American people need to have an accurate understanding of how AI is affecting our workforce, so we can ensure that AI works for the people, not the other way around.”
Warner agreed, saying good data is key to good policy
“This bipartisan legislation will finally give us a clear picture of AI’s impact on the workforce, what jobs are being eliminated, which workers are being retrained, and where new opportunities are emerging,” he said. “Armed with this information, we can make sure AI drives opportunity instead of leaving workers behind.”
PROTECTING KIDS FROM AI CHATBOTS: WHAT THE GUARD ACT MEANS
Their shared goal is simple. The AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act would make AI’s workforce impact visible and accountable. It gives you and policymakers the hard data needed to guide smarter decisions about automation and employment.
Challenges in tracking AI-related job impacts
While the bill sounds promising, several hurdles remain. The biggest challenge is consistency. Each company decides what counts as an AI-related job impact, which could lead to uneven or incomplete reporting.
Smaller businesses might also escape the rules altogether if they fall outside the reporting thresholds. That could leave big gaps in understanding how automation affects local or niche industries.
Data quality is another concern. Even with reporting requirements, the system relies on companies to share accurate information. The Department of Labor will need strong verification to make sure the reports reflect reality.
LIZ PEEK: AI LAYOFFS COULD SPARK A SOCIALIST SURGE IF AMERICA IGNORES THE WARNING SIGNS
And while transparency is valuable, it doesn’t automatically protect jobs. The law can expose the problem, but real progress will depend on what policymakers and employers do with that data.
The AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act would make companies report when automation replaces, adds or reshapes jobs. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)
What this means for you
If you work in an industry where AI tools are becoming common, this bill could directly affect you. It would make it easier to see how automation changes jobs across the country. You’ll be able to find out which roles are being replaced and which ones are being created.
This new level of visibility could also pressure employers to be more transparent about layoffs. Companies may start explaining whether job cuts are truly due to AI or part of broader business shifts. That accountability could help workers plan smarter for the future.
With clearer data, policymakers and training programs can step in faster. If large numbers of people in a certain field lose work because of automation, the government could push for retraining or job placement efforts. It may even help workers prepare earlier by learning new digital or technical skills before AI impacts their roles.
SEN SANDERS: AI MUST BENEFIT EVERYONE, NOT JUST A HANDFUL OF BILLIONAIRES
Overall, this bill puts information in the public’s hands so workers can understand what’s happening to their jobs instead of being left in the dark.
Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?
Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com
Kurt’s key takeaways
The AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act marks a major step toward tracking how automation changes the American workforce. It doesn’t stop AI from transforming industries, but it gives workers and policymakers the facts they need to respond. Transparency can’t stop every job loss, but it can help guide smarter policies, retraining programs and career planning.
The Department of Labor would publish regular reports showing where AI is creating challenges and new opportunities for workers. (Getty)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
If this new data shows your field is being reshaped by AI, would you start retraining now or wait to see how it plays out? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter
Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
Rumor has it, Apple is working on a low-cost MacBook. And not “low-cost for a Mac,” but a proper cheap laptop, possibly as low as $599. For a company that traditionally targets the more premium end of the market, this would be something of an about-face.
Of course, Apple takes great pride in its design and aesthetics. So the company isn’t going to simply take the innards of a MacBook Air, slap them in a cheap plastic case, and call it a day. Instead, Apple is supposedly building a smaller laptop, with a lower-resolution screen and an “entirely new design” around an iPhone processor.
That chip could be some version of the A19 found in the current iPhone lineup, but analyst Ming-Chi Kuo claimed earlier this year that the company was working on a laptop powered by last year’s A18.
If the idea of a small, low-cost laptop running on an ultralow-power chip feels familiar, well, it should — we used to call them netbooks. Netbooks erupted on the scene at a weird time in the late aughts, when we were transitioning to a web-first computing world.
What set netbooks apart from other laptops was their pursuit of portability, battery life, and rock-bottom prices at almost any cost. The original netbook, the ASUS Eee PC, came in two sizes (7-inch or 10-inch) and ran on Intel’s budget Celeron M processor. But even that slow, low-powered CPU was too demanding for the tiny Eee PC, and so ASUS underclocked it to just 630 MHz. (Yes, back in the halcyon days of 2007, we measured CPU speed in MHz, not GHz.)
Intel saw this emerging trend and built CPUs just for the netbooks called Atom. In many ways, Atom chips were Intel’s answer to the growing might of ARM, and even formed the basis for its tablet and smartphone efforts. It’s essentially the reverse of what Apple did, which took its mobile A-series processor and turned it into a powerful laptop chip. (And, now back again, it seems.)
As we all know now, netbooks were not long for this world. A number of things helped spell their demise. For one, most of them were just never particularly good. And the ones that weren’t awful tended to be a bit pricer. Sure, you could get a 7-inch Eee PC for around $200. But something more capable, like an HP Mini 210 HD, could set you back about $385 in 2010, depending on the configuration. When adjusted for inflation, that’s a hair over $577. As the prices of regular laptops came down, this didn’t seem like a particularly good deal anymore.
But two of the biggest culprits are undoubtedly the emergence of the Chromebook and the iPad. (We’ll save the discussion of the Chromebook for another day.) The iPad was introduced in 2010, and it immediately started eating into the netbook’s market share. By 2012, tablets had overtaken netbooks, and by 2013, netbooks were effectively dead. Sure, some still lingered around, and you had a spiritual successor in the Chromebook, but the iPad helped kill off the netbook in swift and spectacular fashion.
Many of the things that one might have used a netbook for — browsing the web, checking email, shouting into the void of what was then called Twitter — were now being handled better by the iPad. And, when paired with a Bluetooth keyboard, the iPad was actually a decent productivity machine, so long as your expectations were low.
And so, the netbook vanished.
But this new, cheaper MacBook, at least on paper, sounds like it might be borrowing a bit from the netbook blueprint. Some people will just never be able to adjust to the workflow of a tablet and keyboard combo. So Apple might be giving them a proper laptop form factor.
While we don’t know what the screen size will be, we do know it will be smaller than the current 13.6-inch MacBook Air. That could mean 13.3 inches, but perhaps Apple will bring back the 12-inch format or even revisit the 11-inch realm of its smallest Air model. That’s inching into netbook territory.
Pair all that with a mobile-first SoC that will handle everyday tasks and browsing with aplomb, but certainly won’t cut it for heavier tasks like video editing or gaming, and you have something that sounds like the original pitch for a netbook if you ask me. Apple will obviously never call its new affordable MacBook a netbook, but maybe by avoiding the name, it can make them cool again.
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
San Francisco, CA11 minutes ago
Dog, man shot by San Francisco police after unprovoked dog attack, officials say
Dallas, TX21 minutes ago
Tyler Seguin goal gives Stars second comeback win in two days with victory over Kraken
Miami, FL26 minutes ago
Surfrider Foundation leads effort to revive Miami’s dunes, fight erosion
Boston, MA36 minutes ago
2 MBTA operators taken to hospital after wire comes down on B Line train
Denver, CO46 minutes ago
48th Annual Denver Film Festival brings together Hollywood icons and hometown heroes
Florida1 year ago
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Oregon2 years ago
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
Connecticut2 years ago
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
Virginia1 year ago
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Education1 year ago
Video: ‘It Didn’t Have to Happen This Way:’ U.Va. Faculty Call for Review of Police Response to Protests
News11 hours ago
Small Earthquakes Strike San Francisco Bay Area
Politics13 hours ago
Final hurdles cleared to deport Abrego Garcia to Liberia, Trump admin says
World15 hours ago
US government shutdown enters 40th day: How is it affecting Americans?
News16 hours ago
Judge says Education Dept. partisan out-of-office emails violated First Amendment
Politics1 day ago
Newsom tells Texas crowd taking back House is ‘the whole thing’ for Democrats in 2026
-
Austin, TX4 days agoHalf-naked woman was allegedly tortured and chained in Texas backyard for months by five ‘friends’ who didn’t ‘like her anymore’
-
Seattle, WA1 week agoESPN scoop adds another intriguing name to Seahawks chatter before NFL trade deadline
-
Southwest2 days agoTexas launches effort to install TPUSA in every high school and college
-
Business1 week agoCommentary: Meme stocks are still with us, offering new temptations for novice and unwary investors
-
World4 days agoIsrael’s focus on political drama rather than Palestinian rape victim
-
Southwest5 days agoArmy veteran-turned-MAGA rising star jumps into fiery GOP Senate primary as polls tighten
-
Louisiana2 days agoLouisiana high school football final scores, results — November 7, 2025
-
Lifestyle1 week agoDuane Roberts, Inventor of the Frozen Burrito, Dead at 88