Adi Robertson

Spitfire has a good check-in on the inevitable collision of hyper-documented influencers and hyper-realistic AI video:

A good story about digital navigators who received federal funds to help kids, seniors, and other people learn to use services like telehealth portals and classroom resources in rural Alabama — until their mission was deemed “woke.”

If you’re using one of 23 popular supplements, some cool and thorough investigative work at Consumer Reports can tell you the answer is probably yes — and explain why US health regulators aren’t doing anything about it.

The Verge has frequently quoted First Amendment experts from Columbia University’s Knight Institute, but Columbia hasn’t been doing great on the free speech front lately. This Guardian story is an interesting look at the tensions between the two organizations — and some reassurance the institute’s still worth trusting.

Superior, Wisconsin, that is. But it’s great in other places too!

They’ve sent a letter asking for any communications the FCC had with ABC and other parties involved with Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, and asked Carr to detail exactly how he defines the “public interest” that broadcasters must adhere to. “Under your leadership, the FCC appears to be discarding Congress’s clear directive in the Communications Act to ensure broadcasters act in the “public interest” — and is instead requiring them to act in ‘Trump’s interest,’” they write.