

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Jenn Ettinger, media coordinator, 850-766-1267
Internet
giant Google is trying to deflect criticism of an agreement the company
is reportedly striking with Verizon that could transform the way the
open Internet works. On Thursday, the New York Times reported
the deal would allow "Verizon to speed some online content to Internet
users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the
privilege."
In response, a Google spokeswoman has claimed that the story
was inaccurate and that "we have not had any conversations with Verizon
about paying for carriage of Google traffic." The Times stands by its reporting.
Google's "denial," however, leaves out many important
details about the policy agreement being negotiated with Verizon. While
Google claims to "as committed as we always have been to an open
Internet," the company is less forthcoming about their position on
fundamental issues like "managed services" and how the Internet will be
treated on wireless networks. Google has already entered into a
lucrative partnership with Verizon to push its Android operating system
for mobile phones.
Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner explains:
"Google's denial is just damage control, a sleight-of-hand
designed to deflect the growing public outcry against a company that
once pledged 'don't be evil.' Don't be misled: What's being reported
about Google's deal with Verizon is an abandonment of Net Neutrality and
the open Internet the company still claims to support.
"Notably, Google and Verizon are not denying press reports
that they have agreed to a regulatory framework that will preclude any
open Internet rules from being applied to wireless networks. This means
not only will pay-for-priority be allowed, but also means that companies
like Verizon will be permitted to outright block websites that compete
with it or its partners like Google. Such an arrangement would create
two Internets, just as millions and millions of people are using mobile
networks to get online, and allow these big players to stifle innovators
and future competitors.
"Furthermore, as the New York Times and others
reported, Google and Verizon apparently have come to an agreement on
what is known as 'managed services,' or 'specialized services.' This is a
scheme where ISPs like Verizon will devote a 'pipe' to special content
that gets priority treatment, and they will charge a fortune to a select
handful of companies for a spot in the fast lane.
"The two Internet giants may not have struck an agreement
specifically about 'carriage of Google traffic.' But they protest too
much, as they are in agreement on principles for a legislative framework
that would allow ISPs to construct this 'private' Internet where
companies like Google can pay for priority.
"This is a giant, troubling loophole. For the
managed-service business model to work, the difference in quality
between the open Internet and the closed, private 'managed services'
pipe would have to be so great that content companies like Google would
be willing to pay for this specialized treatment. This would stall
investment in the open Internet -- freezing the public Internet in 2010
while the new high-speed lanes take a few big players into the future.
"Google and Verizon should stop mincing words and release the details of their proposal."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490"Republican politicians who cut healthcare to pay for more billionaire tax cuts, or to increase profits for their corporate donors, are selling out working families," said Rep. Greg Casar.
The enhanced subsidies for people who buy their health insurance through exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act have officially expired, and Democratic lawmakers are ready to make sure voters know whom to blame going into the midterm elections.
Politico reported Friday that while Democrats in Congress are still pushing their Republican colleagues to allow a vote on renewing the enhanced subsidies, they have mostly settled on a political strategy of going scorched-earth on the GOP for letting them expire in the first place.
Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) told Politico that Americans who see their monthly premiums skyrocket in the wake of the subsidies' expiration will take out their anger on the GOP.
"I think the public’s angry," Bera said. "So I think they will blame the party in charge."
Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) emphasized that the huge spikes Americans will see in their monthly premiums will help Democrats make the case that President Donald Trump and Republicans have failed to tackle the affordability crisis in the US.
“It’s part of the top issue, which is cost of living—whether it’s groceries, gas, housing, energy costs,” said Deluzio. “Healthcare seems to be top of mind as something that Congress can actually do to bring down the costs."
In a Friday social media post, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) also piled on and hammered the GOP for inaction on healthcare.
"Healthcare is a human right, not a bargaining chip," he wrote. "Republican politicians who cut healthcare to pay for more billionaire tax cuts, or to increase profits for their corporate donors, are selling out working families."
And its not just Democrats raising alarms about the expired subsidies, as Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said in an interview with BBC that was "pissed for the American people" about his party not holding a vote on renewing them.
"Everybody has a responsibility to serve their district, to their constituents," said Lawler. "You know what is funny? Three-quarters of people on Obamacare are in states Donald Trump won."
One journalist called it "absolutely insane Nazi propaganda, posted by the US government."
The Trump administration provoked horror this week with the suggestion that the United States could be turned into a paradise if over a quarter of the people in the country were deported.
On Wednesday, the official social media account for the Department of Homeland Security posted a piece of artwork depicting a pink late-1960s Cadillac Eldorado parked on a bright, idyllic beach. Over the clear blue sky are the words "America after 100 million deportations."
The post was captioned by the agency: "The peace of a nation no longer besieged by the third world."
Social media users later discovered that DHS had, ironically, stolen the image from the Japanese pop artist Hiroshi Nagai without giving credit.
It is hardly the first time the administration has used edgy and inflammatory social media posts to promote its agenda. But DHS has come under particular scrutiny for its style of communication, which often overtly evokes white nationalist rhetoric and symbolism.
Posts by the agency have cheered "remigration," a term that far-right parties in Europe have often used to describe the forced repatriation of nonwhite populations, including citizens. Other posts have referred to President Donald Trump's "mass deportation" campaign as part of an effort to defend American "heritage" and "culture."
The agency frequently evokes images of the American frontier and references "Manifest Destiny," at times explicitly posting artwork glorifying the forced displacement of Native American populations.
An image by the agency, featuring a chiseled Uncle Sam calling on Americans to "REPORT ALL FOREIGN INVADERS," was even directly sourced from an overt neo-Nazi account.
The agency has only continued to double down in the face of criticism this week. On Friday, it posted that "2026 will be the year of American Supremacy" over an image of then-Gen. George Washington crossing the Delaware River, which was emblazoned with the words "Return this Land," a possible reference to a recently-founded "whites-only" town in rural Arkansas known as "Return to the Land."
But Wednesday's post calling for "100 million deportations" specifically was perhaps the most overt nod yet to those who believe the United States must be reconstituted as a white nation. As social media users were quick to point out, only about 47 million people living in America are foreign-born, according to the US Census Bureau.
Even if the administration kicked out every single immigrant—including legal residents and naturalized citizens—meeting such a goal would mean deporting 53 million people who were born in the US and are legally entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
If the use of the phrase "third world" did not make it obvious enough, the specific number—100 million—seems to betray the racial motivation behind the message.
Citing 2020 census data on the Wikipedia page for "Demographics of the United States," one social media user pointed out that approximately 100 million people in the US identified as nonwhite.
The DHS post drew comparisons to one made earlier this year by the close Trump ally and unofficial White House operative Laura Loomer, who suggested that thanks to "Alligator Alcatraz," the massive internment camp in Florida for those arrested by immigration agents, "the alligators are guaranteed at least 65 million meals," which referenced the total number of Hispanic people in the United States.
While it's almost certainly not possible for the administration to conduct a deportation campaign of such a staggering scale within Trump's term of office, the administration's latest post was frightening to many observers, even as they acknowledged that it was a "troll post" meant to rile people up.
It is still reflective of the Trump administration's ideology with respect to immigration. Leaders of Trump's deportation effort have acknowledged that they target people based on their appearance, and many nonwhite US citizens have been caught in the dragnet. Meanwhile, its refugee policy has welcomed only white South Africans, as Trump has enacted what he says is a "permanent pause on migration from all Third World Countries."
During 2026, the administration has said it plans to target hundreds of US citizens each month for "denaturalization," and Trump has called for it to be used against his most prominent critics, including the Somali-American Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and New York's first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
"This is absolutely insane Nazi propaganda, posted by the US government," said Ben Norton, editor of the Geopolitical Economy Report of DHS's call for "100 million deportations."
"It makes it clear that the Trump administration's mass deportation drive is not actually about 'illegal immigration.' There are estimated to be 14 million undocumented immigrants in the US. But the fascist DHS wants to deport 100 million people," Norton continued. "This is a call by the US regime for ethnic cleansing of racial minorities, to create a white-supremacist regime without anyone with 'third world' heritage."
"Musk is not cloaked in some federal immunity just because he's off-again/on-again buddies with Trump."
Elon Musk is facing calls for legal ramifications after Grok, the AI chatbot used on his X social media platform, produced sexually suggestive images of children.
Politico reported on Friday that the Paris prosecutor's office in France is opening an investigation into X after Grok, following prompts from users, created deepfake photographs of both adult women and underage girls that removed their clothes and replaced them with bikinis.
Politico added that the investigation into X over the images will "bolster" an ongoing investigation launched by French prosecutors last year into Grok's dissemination of Holocaust denial propaganda.
France is not the only government putting pressure on Musk, as TechCrunch reported on Friday that India's information technology ministry has given X 72 hours to restrict users' ability to generate content deemed "obscene, pornographic, vulgar, indecent, sexually explicit, pedophilic, or otherwise prohibited under law."
Failure to comply with this order, the ministry warned, could lead to the government ending X's legal immunity from being sued over user-generated content.
In an interview with Indian cable news network CNBC TV18, cybersecurity expert Ritesh Bhatia argued that legal liability for the images generated by Grok should not just lie with the users whose prompts generated them, but with the creators of the chatbot itself.
"When a platform like Grok even allows such prompts to be executed, the responsibility squarely lies with the intermediary," said Bhatia. "Technology is not neutral when it follows harmful commands. If a system can be instructed to violate dignity, the failure is not human behavior alone—it is design, governance, and ethical neglect. Creators of Grok need to take immediate action."
Corey Rayburn Yung, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, argued on Bluesky that it was "unprecedented" for a digital platform to give "users a tool to actively create" child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
"There are no other instances of a major company affirmatively facilitating the production of child pornography," Yung emphasized. "Treating this as the inevitable result of generative AI and social media is a harrowing mistake."
Andy Craig, a fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies, said that US states should use their powers to investigate X over Grok's generation of CSAM, given that it is unlikely the federal government under President Donald Trump will do so.
"Every state has its equivalent laws about this stuff," Craig explained. "Musk is not cloaked in some federal immunity just because he's off-again/on-again buddies with Trump."
Grok first gained the ability to generate sexual content this past summer when Musk introduced a new "spicy mode" for the chatbot that was immediately used to generate deepfake nude photos of celebrities.
Weeks before this, Grok began calling itself "MechaHitler" after Musk ordered his team to make tweaks to the chatbot to make it more "politically incorrect."