Why Ian M. Banks Reigns Supreme in ‘Player of the Game’ – Our In-Depth Verdict

The Book Club explores The Player of Games by Iain M. Banks.

Colin McPherson/Corbis via Getty Images

The New Scientist Book Club has transitioned from Grace Chan’s dystopian near-future in Every Version of You to the utopian distant future depicted by Iain M. Banks in The Player of Games. This December’s book garnered positive feedback from our members.

Set within a vast galactic civilization, The Player of Games follows Gurgeh, a master gamer thrust into a conflict against the barbaric Azad Empire. This intricate game is so pivotal in Azad culture that the victor ascends to emperor. Though Gurgeh is a novice, can he rise to the challenge? What secrets lie between the Culture and Azad? This overview encapsulates member insights on the book, complete with spoilers. Proceed only if you’ve finished!

Remarkably, this wasn’t the first reading for many of us. Thirty-six percent of the group, including myself, acknowledged previous familiarity with this Banks classic. Many expressed nostalgia for Banks, lamenting the absence of new works from this literary giant. “I miss Ian. I haven’t yet delved into his final book, The Quarry. After this, there will be nothing new to experience!” lamented Paul Oldroyd in our Facebook group. “Similarly, I’m yet to complete The Hydrogen Sonata!” chimed in Emma Weisblatt.

While I consider myself knowledgeable about Banks’ works, The Player of Games felt refreshed in my memory. I found it immensely engaging; Banks’ subtle brilliance is captivating. For instance, I was intrigued by the Stigrian counting creature, which counts everything it encounters—starting with people, then transitioning to furniture.

There’s much to contemplate, from the essence of existence in a utopia devoid of challenges to the meaning of humanity in a realm governed by a vast intellect. The plot itself is thrilling! When Gurgeh faced temptation to cheat in a game against Mawhirin-Skel, I could hardly contain myself. The Azad games entirely captivated me. As a post-Christmas indulgence, I plan to reread more of Iain M. Banks’ works.

An exceptional aspect of the book was Banks’ portrayal of the game Gurgeh plays. Crafting a futuristic game and rendering it believable is no small feat. Banks excels here, providing enough detail about Azad to enhance realism without overwhelming the reader. Members also found this intriguing; Elaine Lee remarked, “The game of Azad is an expression of empire and serves as a critique of Cold War politics.”

Judith Lazell was less convinced, stating, “I viewed it simply at face value.” Nile Leighton aptly noted the deeper implications within the gameplay. “Critically, it’s a game where Gurgeh acts as a pawn under the narrator’s influence, lacking clear rules and enduring for decades, with unknowable outcomes.” Indeed!

As a footnote, during a chat with Banks’ friend and fellow sci-fi author Ken MacLeod, I learned he suggested the final title of the book. Banks initially titled it Game Player, which I believe is a more fitting title!

Now, let’s discuss the character of Gurgeh. “Gurgeh might not be likable without his cultural background. He is somewhat unsettling and self-absorbed. I hope he learns from his journey,” stated Matthew Campbell via email. I’m unsure if we’re meant to root for him—he’s an arrogant con artist—but my support grew as the story unfolded.

In contrast, Steve Swann found himself disengaged with the narrative. He “set the book aside” stating, “Intelligent individuals, particularly those who assume they are, can make serious blunders.” Steve felt Gurgeh’s arrogance and desires influenced his decision-making. What’s that saying? He had to make his bed and lie in it—no sympathy there!

Niall has a different view on Gurgeh’s choices. He perceives Gurgeh as manipulated by external forces, with Maurin-Skel tampering with his mind. “I interpret Gurgeh’s decisions as not entirely his own but a result of manipulation,” Niall explained. “To me, Gurgeh is not the master player; he is the one being played.” While I agree, I saw Gurgeh’s choice to cheat as a distinctly human reaction to seduction, sparking fascinating discussion.

Paul Jonas remarked that Gurgeh, as a character, lacked the compelling nature of the mercenaries in Consider Phlebas or Use of Weapons. “It’s part of the protagonist’s reluctance to embrace adventure,” he noted—after all, why would Gurgeh forsake comfort without motivation?

Our science fiction columnist, Emily H. Wilson, pointed out that The Player of Games serves as an excellent introduction to Iain M. Banks’ universe. The narrative reveals the Culture through subtle details about drones, spacecraft, and their orbits.

We gradually discover the workings of a post-scarcity society, where almost anything is achievable. I especially appreciated the exchange between Gurgeh and Azad elder Hamin about crime and societal norms. Hamin struggles to comprehend the lack of crime in the Culture, even as slap drones are designed for enforcement. “We will ensure you don’t repeat it,” Gurgeh assures. “Is that all? What more can you ask?” Hamin inquires. “Simply social death—no invitations to parties,” Gurgeh replies.

Paul Jonas was already familiar with the Culture’s utopian elements when he started The Player of Games. “[The book] subtly builds this world through Gurgeh’s ennui and lack of challenges. Anyone can secure a home atop a rainy mountain; the drones possess distinct personalities.” He adds, “The narrative also reintroduces Contact, an institutional service managing interspecies engagements, military affairs, and intelligence—an inherently humanistic approach to utopia.” Adam Roberts highlights that writing utopias becomes increasingly complex when the characters experience ennui, as Gurgeh does.

Some members reflected on the implications of living in such a utopia. “Gurgeh is an individual navigating an individualistic utopia dominated by minds, drones, and sentient ships,” Paul theorizes. “He seems disconnected from collaboration with fellow humans.”

Niall noted that while Gurgeh may come off as “unpleasant,” he embodies the consequences of the anarchist society he inhabits and that Banks delves into the nuances of individualistic and collectivist perspectives. “Gurgeh exemplifies individualism. I critique it, as it often excuses behavior akin to Gurgeh’s,” Niall states. It’s worth noting that while this book predates Octavia Butler’s emphasis on change within utopias, the conversation has existed since H.G. Wells.

Matthew Campbell identified Azad’s cultural ambassador, Shokhobohaum Za, as the only character “truly alive and reveling in life.” “In contrast, Gurgeh and the Azadians remain trapped within their isolated worlds,” he reflects. The rivalry between Emperor Nicosar and Gurgeh encapsulates contemporary political dilemmas—one figure exuding passion for his empire but constrained by a narrow worldview, while the other lacks belief and conviction, failing to defend his utopia.

The insights on culture and the ethos of The Player of Games are boundless. To further engage in this discussion, feel free to join us on Facebook.

Meanwhile, we look forward to our first reading of 2026. Our January selection, Anniebot by Sierra Greer, has already won the 2025 Arthur C. Clarke Science Fiction Award. Narrated from the perspective of a sex robot, Annie, who is kept by a not-so-nice man, this novel ventures into darker territories. Andrew Butler, chair of the Clarke Prize jury, described it as a “tightly focused first-person account of a robot designed to be the perfect companion struggling for independence.” You can check out an excerpt here. Additionally, Sierra Greer’s article detailing the experience of writing from a sex robot’s viewpoint is available here. Not to mention, Emily H. Wilson praised it in her review—she found it captivating!

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Fascinating Tale of the Supreme Cosmic Principle

Where did the speed of light come from and why is it so stubborn?

NASA, ESA, CXC, SSC

This excerpt is from the Lost in Space-Time newsletter, where we share intriguing ideas every month. You can Click here to register for Lost in Time and Space.

If you’ve taken a physics class, you likely have “memorable” instances of measuring light speed, spending hours setting mirrors, lenses, and light sources just right to achieve the result: just under 300 million meters per second. This figure is a fundamental constant in physics and vital for comprehending the universe.

When observing space, light is our primary resource. While we have other means, like gravitational waves, they currently offer limited insights, so I might be exaggerating a tad. Almost all advancements in astronomy and cosmology derive from collecting light that has traversed from the edge of reality over millions, or even billions, of years. Light from our nearest star takes over four years to reach us. The duration it takes for light to travel may be one of the most practical yet least intuitive aspects of physics.

Humans have debated light’s speed long before we truly understood light itself. For centuries, many intellectuals believed that the glowing in certain animals’ eyes at particular angles indicated they emitted light, resembling a lantern. Nonetheless, they debated whether light traveled instantaneously or required time to propagate, a question not thoroughly tested until the 17th century.

An early endeavor to quantify it involved placing a lantern at a distance and measuring the time difference between it lighting up and the observer seeing the light. This method proved ineffective (Galileo and his peers failed to attain conclusive measurements because the lantern was too close), leading scientists to explore more complex and accurate approaches. The first effective instrument was developed in 1675 by Ole Römer while measuring Jupiter’s moon Io’s orbital period. He observed that the period seemed to vary as the distance from Earth to Jupiter fluctuated, which seemed perplexing. Why would Io’s orbit correlate with Earth’s positioning? The only variation was the time it took for light to travel from Io to Earth, diminishing as the two grew closer. A colleague, Christian Huygens, calculated that light’s speed was around 220,000,000 meters per second. Although this estimate lacked precision due to unknown earthly movements, it established a foundation for later refinements. By the early 18th century, measurements were within a few percent of the current consensus of light’s speed in vacuum: 299,792,458 meters per second.

This prompts two inquiries: Why is the speed of light seemingly arbitrary, and why is there a speed limit at all? The first question is straightforward, linked to our units. Meters and seconds (or miles and hours) originated from human experiences. For instance, a mile equals 1,000 steps and has no relation to fundamental constants. The second question is more complex, entwined with special relativity.

The answer lies in perhaps the most recognizable equation: e=mc2. This equation implies that energy and mass can be interchanged. When objects move at extremely high or relativistic speeds, I like to think of them possessing momentum, blending mass and velocity. To increase an object’s speed, we must continually supply more energy. A massive object achieving light speed would require infinite momentum, equating to infinite energy or mass. This situation is unattainable. As an object nears light speed, its mass escalates, making further acceleration unfeasible. Light, having no mass, circumvents this dilemma.

Moreover, special relativity illustrates that an outside, stationary observer would perceive something quite unusual. When an object travels at relativistic speeds, time appears to slow down from an external viewpoint. If I were moving away from you at 99% of light speed, I’d observe my aging decelerating. This phenomenon is termed time dilation. Concurrently, another effect, length contraction, would have you notice that I’m shrinking increasingly as I accelerate. From my frame of reference, I wouldn’t perceive time slowing down or my stature diminishing, but from your outlook, the closer I get to light speed, the shorter and more ageless I appear.

Herein lies a paradox: if I somehow reached light speed, time would seemingly stop for an outside observer as my height approaches zero. I would cease to exist, along with time and space. Luckily, the laws of physics preclude that scenario. Only massless entities can attain that speed limit: photons, gluons, and gravitational effects. Nothing surpasses light speed through space and time.

Rather than feeling disheartened by the universe’s speed limitations, we should celebrate them. The speed of light carries a crucial consequence: it underpins the whole notion of causality. All physics, and our comprehensive understanding of everything, hinges on the principle that effects always follow causes, never the other way around.

Consider this: as I approach light speed, you observe my time slowing down. It will cease entirely when I attain light speed. Should I exceed light speed, from your perspective, I’d be reversing time. If I transmitted a signal faster than light, a hypothetical message defying physics, you’d receive it before I sent it. Absent a universal speed limit, discerning which events caused which effects would be impossible, rendering the universe largely incomprehensible.

Finally, here’s a thought-provoking notion: if all signals require time to travel, and time progresses variably in frames of reference moving at different speeds, what does simultaneous meaning? If I wink at my reflection, the reflected wink arrives slightly later than my physical action, due to light needing to bounce off my face, towards the mirror, and back into my eyes. If two events simultaneously occurred across the universe, I must ask, “By whose standard?” Depending on the distance separating two locations, event 1 might have occurred first for one observer, while event 2 happened prior to event 1 for another. There is no objective simultaneity, no definitive “same time.” This reality stems solely from light’s finite speed. Fascinating, right?

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Supreme Court Approves Reductions to NIH Grants Challenging Trump’s DEI Policy

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, the Supreme Court extended the Trump administration’s substantial reductions to the National Health Grants, part of the federal government’s initiative on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

However, in this intricate ruling, the court upheld another aspect of a lower court’s decision that discarded the administration’s guidance documents related to the policy, raising doubts about its viability going forward.

An emergency request by an administrator aiming to pause the Massachusetts federal judge’s ruling was partially granted, resulting in a 5-4 vote.

While the court did not extensively elaborate on its reasoning, the majority suggested that groups contesting the funding cuts would need to initiate a new lawsuit in a different federal court, specifically the Federal Court of Claims.

The decisive vote came from conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett. All four conservative justices supported the Trump administration’s application, indicating that the other four justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and three liberal justices, would have completely denied it.

Barrett stated in a concurring opinion, “As today’s order indicates, district courts likely lack jurisdiction to address the funding challenges that pertain to the federal claims court.” She added, “The government is not entitled to a stay of judgment as long as it possesses valid guidance documents.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a collection of agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, receiving billions of dollars from Congress for medical research funding at universities, hospitals, and various institutions.

When President Donald Trump assumed office in January, he asserted that what is termed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) constituted discrimination mainly against white individuals, rather than fostering equality as intended. He also championed policies recognizing transgender rights, including access to gender transition care.

Subsequently, the NIH conducted a review of grants and concluded that over 1,700 were inconsistent with Trump’s directives, resulting in their termination, which included programs related to teenage HIV prevention and gender identity studies.

Massachusetts, along with 16 states represented by the American Public Health Association, has contested this action.

After the trial, District Judge William Young of Massachusetts ruled that the government had not adhered to the proper legal protocols while enacting the policy, violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

In haste to execute Trump’s agenda, the NIH “failed to comply with legal requirements,” Young noted.

He characterized DEI as an “undefined enemy,” stating that government attorneys could not adequately clarify its meaning.

Young found evidence of “prevailing racism” and “widespread discrimination” against gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals in how grants were awarded. Furthermore, he identified “a distinct pattern of discrimination against women’s health issues.”

He declined to stay his ruling, a decision mirrored by the Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney General John Sauer requested the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration, likening the situation to another incident in Massachusetts where the Trump administration obstructed plans to eliminate teacher training grants based on anti-DEI grounds.

The Supreme Court had blocked this earlier ruling in April with a 5-4 vote.

Sauer asserted, “This application presents a particularly clear case where this court must intervene to prevent the district court from disregarding this court’s previous decision.”

The state’s attorney countered Sauer’s assertion, stating it “bears little resemblance to reality.”

The judge deliberated Thursday on whether the April ruling impacted the latest case’s outcome.

In a brief opinion, Roberts, who had contested the previous case, asserted that Young’s findings fell within the permissible scope of district court jurisdiction.

However, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized Young in a separate opinion for failing to comply with the April ruling.

“While lower court judges may oppose this court’s ruling, they are never free to disregard it,” he wrote.

The Trump administration frequently relied on the Supreme Court when facing judicial challenges to its enforcement actions, generally securing favorable outcomes. Trump and his supporters have also aggressively criticized judges who opposed him.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Uber Challenges UK Supreme Court Decision on Taxes Affecting Private Employment Competitors

Taxi operators competing with Uber are now exempt from paying 20% VAT on their earnings outside London, following a ruling from the UK Supreme Court in a long-running case.

The court determined that the private employer would not establish a contract with passengers, thereby rejecting Uber’s appeal. This decision was celebrated by the private employer as a “sector victory” after three years of legal challenges.

Uber initiated legal action after a 2021 Supreme Court ruling declared that the driver was classified as a worker.

The company sought a declaration asserting that a privately employed taxi operator had entered into a contract with passengers, a claim supported by the London High Court in 2023.

Initially, that decision required operators to pay a 20% VAT, but the Court of Appeals overturned this after Delta Taxi and Veezu challenged it last July.

Uber brought the issue to the Supreme Court, which unanimously dismissed the case involving the US company on Tuesday.

Nia Cooper, Chief Legal Officer at Veezu, remarked: “This ruling is a triumph for the UK’s private employment sector. The unanimous decision concludes a three-year legal struggle and affirms that operators can select the business models they wish to adopt.”

She added that the outcome would shield passengers from potential fare hikes and lessen the pressure on licensing authorities. “Uber aimed for a declaration that a 20% VAT would be imposed on all PHV fares,” she stated.

“This ruling also illustrates that UK-based companies can stand firm against global conglomerates that attempt to sway the sector through litigation to suit their business frameworks.”

An Uber representative replied, “The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms that different contractual protections apply to individuals booking rides in London compared to the rest of England and Wales. This ruling does not affect Uber’s VAT, which has been upheld in two previous court decisions.”

In a related matter this year, Estonian mobility and delivery startup Volt successfully contested a claim by the UK tax authorities, HMRC, regarding a 20% VAT obligation.

HMRC has since been granted permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal a ruling stating that Bolt is only accountable for VAT on the margin, not on the full fare of the trip.

Source: www.theguardian.com

The “Juliana” climate case denied appeal by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday concluded its 10-year journey through the court, refusing to hear appeals in a groundbreaking climate case brought to the federal government by 21 young people.

However, the case provided a blueprint for many other climate-related lawsuits that have achieved greater success.

Juliana v. the United States alleged that the government violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights with policies that encourage the use of fossil fuels. However, it was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit, and the judge ruled that the court was not the right place to deal with climate change.

“In fact, the impressive case of plaintiff relief must be presented to the political sector of the government,” wrote Judge Andrew D. Harwitz. Opinions for 2020.

The nonprofit law firm in Eugene, Oregon, which represents the plaintiffs, filed the final legal gambit in a lawsuit last year. Last year, she threw the Supreme Court’s decision back on the Court of Appeals and asked Juliana to go to trial in a lower court. The petition was rejected Monday.

Some observers also thought it was risky to ask the Supreme Court to consider appeals, given concerns that conservative courts might use the case to abandon long-standing environmental protections.

The plaintiff in the case is Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, a now 29-year-old Oregon teacher, the environmentalist and longtime climate activist daughter. The story of how she became involved in the lawsuit was documented in the documentary “Youthv. Gov.”

Juliana’s legal framework has since been replicated in numerous lawsuits and legal actions across the country. And last year, our child’s trust, which submitted many cases, recorded two notable victories.

The group has reached a settlement between Navahine v. Hawaii Department. There, the state agreed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas that warms the planet from its transport system within 20 years. And that’s a hold v. We won in Montana. There, the judge ruled that the state must consider climate change when approving a fossil fuel project. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision in December.

The plaintiff named in that case led to the decision to take part in the case as 23-year-old Ricky grew up on a cattle ranch in Montana and saw the effects of climate change firsthand. She is currently a science educator through the Peace Corps of Kenya.

On Monday, she said the Juliana incident paved the way for her. “Juliana left an indelible mark on the climate lawsuit landscape through the unwavering dedication of the plaintiffs and legal team,” she said.

Julia Olson, founder of Our Children’s Trust, had asked the Biden administration to discuss the settlement in the Juliana case. She said on Monday that Juliana “littles a legal movement.”

However, Justice Department lawyers argued that the court was not set up correctly to address climate change as judges were unable to order or enforce “viable relief” on the matter.

Some experts also raised concerns about the organization’s strategy in the Supreme Court, focusing on the risk that a conservative vast majority of courts could adopt Juliana’s case as a way to rethink legal precedents that will take root in environmental protection.

In an interview last year, Vermont law and graduate environmental law expert Patrick Derprue said: “If you need an answer to this question, you probably don’t like the answer you’re trying to get.”

However, he added that he still praises the efforts of the youth and their lawyers.

Olson said environmentalists should not move away from the courts. “If we don’t show up, don’t advance our claims, don’t shed light on injustice, then other forces will always win,” she said.

Source: www.nytimes.com

TikTok ban upheld by US Supreme Court, but the battle continues

A demonstrator holds a pro-TikTok sign in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on January 10, 2025.

Alison Robert/Washington Post/Getty Images

The United States Supreme Court supported A ban on the popular video streaming app TikTok is set to come into effect on January 19th.

of Prohibited Unless ByteDance, the app's Chinese parent company, sells TikTok to a U.S. company by a January 19 deadline, the U.S. company will have to restrict users from accessing and updating TikTok through app stores and internet browsers. You will be required to block it.

TikTok's challenge to the law, which the Supreme Court began hearing on January 10, argues that TikTok violates the U.S. Constitution's free speech protections. On the same day, the court heard arguments in a related case, with lawyers representing TikTok content creators arguing that the ban also violates the constitutional rights of these individuals.

However, U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger argued that the ban on TikTok was not meant to crack down on free speech, but to prevent foreign espionage. The US government's case is that the Chinese government used TikTok to collect sensitive personal data on hundreds of millions of people in the US, which could later be used against them.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the government's arguments and ruled against TikTok and individual creators in both cases. “There is no question that TikTok provides a unique and far-reaching source of expression, participation, and community for more than 170 million Americans. “We determined that division was necessary to address widely held national security concerns regarding relations with foreign adversaries,” the opinion states.

TikTok plans to shut down its app for U.S. users on January 19, the same day the ban goes into effect. According to Reuters. But this may not be the last twist in the courtroom drama.

US President Joe Biden is scheduled to leave office on January 20, the day after the ban goes into effect. Administration officials said Mr. Biden would not enforce the law. According to the Associated Press. Rather, the strength of the ban will depend on the actions of President-elect Donald Trump's incoming administration.

President Trump initially supported banning TikTok during his first term, but later changed his stance and expressed support for allowing the platform to continue operating in the United States. After taking office on January 20, he could ask MPs to repeal or amend the law, or instruct the government not to enforce it.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider TikTok Ban or Sale Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Friday regarding the future of TikTok. This marks the latest development in an ongoing debate over whether to ban the immensely popular social media platform in the U.S. The judges will consider the balance between national security concerns and the preservation of free speech.

TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance have appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower court upheld a law banning the app in the U.S. The ban is scheduled to take effect on January 19th, unless ByteDance sells TikTok’s assets to a non-Chinese entity. ByteDance has argued that a sale is not feasible from commercial, technical, and legal standpoints.

The oral arguments are expected to last for two hours, with each side given the opportunity to present their case. The court has outlined that the discussion will focus on whether the ban infringes on the First Amendment.

TikTok boasts 170 million users, approximately half of the U.S. population, making the potential ban a contentious issue. While some believe the app could be exploited by the Chinese government, there is a coalition of influencers, civil rights groups, and even President Donald Trump advocating against the ban, citing concerns about free speech violations.

ByteDance has faced legal challenges from federal and state authorities, with legislation to ban TikTok passing in Congress last year. The company maintains that it operates independently from Chinese influence and handles U.S. user data through Oracle.

Federal law at the center of the case

The law in question, known as the Protecting Americans from Regulatory Applications by Foreign Adversaries Act, was enacted by President Joe Biden. It follows a previous ban on TikTok in federal devices and underscores concerns about national security risks associated with the app.

U.S. lawmakers have expressed apprehensions about China’s potential control over TikTok’s content and user data, citing security threats and propaganda dissemination. However, no concrete evidence has been presented to show that China or ByteDance have manipulated the app for espionage purposes.

Shortly after Biden signed the law, TikTok filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, arguing that the ban violates the Constitution and impinges on free speech rights. The company emphasized the importance of preserving communication and expression for its vast user base.

Supreme Court review and President Trump’s opinion

Following a recent ruling by a federal appeals court, TikTok sought an emergency motion from the Supreme Court to halt the ban. The court agreed to expedite oral arguments and has received numerous briefs from both sides of the debate.

Notably, former President Trump submitted an amicus brief requesting the court to suspend the ban to allow for negotiation. This stance contrasts with his previous efforts to ban TikTok over national security concerns.

President Trump’s involvement in the case underscores the complexity of the issue, with diverging viewpoints within the political landscape. The upcoming Supreme Court decision will have far-reaching implications for the future of TikTok in the U.S.

Source: www.theguardian.com

How can the US Supreme Court and President Trump prevent the TikTok ban?

TikTok is a video sharing social media platform

Anatoly Babii / Alamy

A US law banning popular video-sharing app TikTok is expected to take effect in early 2025, but the US Supreme Court has ruled agreed To hear TikTok’s legal challenge to this. Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump has signaled he may take action against the law, raising new questions about whether it will survive.

What does a TikTok ban actually do?

From January 19, 2025, “Act to protect Americans from regulatory applications by foreign adversaries' will prevent US companies such as Google and Apple from allowing users to access or update TikTok through their own app stores unless TikTok's Chinese owner ByteDance sells the app to US companies. It turns out. It would also require internet service providers to block the platform on US internet browsers. The bill was approved by the House and Senate with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Joe Biden in April 2024.

If the ban were implemented, it would be virtually impossible for new users in the US to download the TikTok app. Kate Ruan At the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. For the 170 million existing TikTok users in the United States, the app may remain on their phones. However, not having access to updates will reduce functionality over time.

People in the United States may still access TikTok using virtual private network (VPN) services that disguise the user's location. But the experience of using the app could still deteriorate, Ruan said. TikTok content will no longer be stored on nearby U.S. servers, so it will load more slowly.

These restrictions stem from privacy and security concerns. US lawmakers fear that the Chinese government could force ByteDance to hand over TikTok users' data, pressure the app to change its algorithm, and present content that could manipulate public opinion. , said TikTok is a “national security threat.” However, no solid evidence has been provided to support these claims. TikTok said We are investing heavily to keep U.S. data safe. From outside influences and manipulation.

“It is deeply concerning that a country like the United States, which has always led the world stage in championing a free, open, and interoperable internet, is taking steps to ban access to entire platforms within its borders. 'This is unusual and should be done,' says Luan.

Will the Supreme Court block TikTok's ban?

Previously, he was a judge on the D.C. Lower Circuit Court of Appeals. allowed With U.S. law in effect, the Supreme Court agreed to hear TikTok's appeal. TikTok position That is, the ban amounts to censorship that violates Americans' right to free speech under the First Amendment.

“We hope courts will seriously address how this law violates these rights and how governments should account for the rights of social media users when seeking to regulate these speech platforms. I think so,” Luan said. “Despite the fact that some users have filed lawsuits claiming that this law violates their First Amendment rights, which are different from TikTok, the court did so in the process of considering this particular law.” have not done so.”

The most likely short-term impact, Ruan said, is that the U.S. Supreme Court will temporarily halt enforcement of the law while the justices consider the case. This could delay implementation of the law for months, no matter how long it takes for the Supreme Court to rule in 2025. TikTok specifically seeks such a suspension in its court filing.

Ruane said the ban violates First Amendment rights and that the government would be justified in such an outright ban if the Supreme Court found that the U.S. government had less restrictive options at its disposal. It is possible that an injunction could be issued that would make it virtually impossible to do so. The Supreme Court could also ask the lower D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its analysis of the case. Such a decision could force governments to find more tightly tailored options for regulating TikTok.

How can Trump stop banning TikTok?

President-elect Trump supported plans to ban TikTok during his first term, but has since changed his mind. During the 2024 presidential campaign, he promised:Save TikTok'' he urged American voters to support him in a post on his social media platform “Truth Social.'' On December 16th, President Trump met TikTok's CEO later said in a press conference that the administration would “consider” the ban. Even if the Supreme Court ultimately agrees to keep the ban in place, President Trump could change the law's impact.

For example, the president could meet with U.S. lawmakers and ask for changes, such as repealing or amending domestic laws, Ruane said. She also described a possible scenario in which President Trump could instruct his administration's attorney general not to enforce the law, but warned that it would be outside the norm for how the U.S. government normally operates.

Even if President Trump's attorney general announces that the US government will not enforce the ban, US companies such as Google and Apple remain reluctant to allow people to access apps through their platforms. There is a possibility. “If I were in charge of legal risk at one of these companies, I don't know if I would be able to say, 'We believe in it.' [decision]It’s okay to allow access to this app, which is prohibited,” Ruane said.

What does the US ban on TikTok mean for the rest of the world?

If passed, the U.S. ban could have significant ramifications around the world. First, people in other countries will not be able to access new content from US-based TikTok creators and influencers. But more importantly, the U.S. government's actions could prompt other countries to consider similar restrictions.

The US is not the first country to take action against TikTok, with the Indian government blocking the app since 2020, but Luan said the US ban would lead to “authoritarian regimes” They expressed concern that this could prompt the banning of all apps, including those that are Similar national security justification.

“This will no doubt be used as a justification to ban TikTok elsewhere, and to ban access to other applications that have served as important speech platforms in countries where the internet is less open. will also be used,” Luan said.

Will banning TikTok protect privacy?

The ostensible purpose of the ban is to protect the privacy of U.S. TikTok users and prevent their data from falling into the hands of other countries, as well as to prevent the Chinese government from potentially manipulating the content presented to U.S. app users. It is to address the concerns that there are. But Ruane says there are many alternative steps U.S. lawmakers could take before blocking TikTok completely.

For example, governments could require TikTok to be more transparent about how it collects and shares individual user data and what steps it takes to protect privacy. There is sex. Lawmakers could require platforms to share how their algorithms filter and control the content users see to alleviate concerns about tampering, Ruan said.

The U.S. government may also consider enacting consumer privacy laws that would provide better legal protections for how social media platforms share personal data with other companies and the government. “These consumer privacy and transparency choices are not as extreme as banning the entire platform,” Ruan said.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

TikTok’s Final Bid to Overcome Anti-Sale Laws: Supreme Court Appeal | TikTok

TikTok made a last-ditch effort to continue operating in the U.S. on Monday, as it passed a temporary law requiring its China-based parent company ByteDance to sell the popular app by January 19. The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to intervene and prevent a ban from taking effect.

Both TikTok and ByteDance have filed emergency requests with a judge to block the impending ban on the social media app, which is used by approximately 170 million Americans. They are appealing a lower court ruling that upheld the law. Additionally, a group of U.S. users of the app filed a similar request on Monday.

The law, passed by Congress in April, was based on concerns raised by the Justice Department regarding TikTok’s Chinese ownership. The department alleges that as a Chinese company, TikTok could access and manipulate vast amounts of data on U.S. users, endangering national security. The ban is aimed at addressing these security threats.

TikTok and ByteDance argued in their Supreme Court filing that Americans should have the freedom to choose whether or not to use the app, without government interference. They criticized the law’s potential impact on freedom of speech and expressed concerns about the future implications if the law is upheld.

If TikTok is shut down even for a month, the companies estimate that they would lose a significant portion of their U.S. user base, affecting their ability to attract advertisers and content creators. The companies stress TikTok’s importance as a speech platform in the U.S. and argue that delaying enforcement of the ban would allow for further legal review.

Despite previous attempts to ban TikTok, President Donald Trump has signaled a shift in his stance and expressed interest in saving the app. He met with TikTok’s CEO and has indicated that his administration will evaluate the law’s legality. The companies emphasize the abrupt impact the ban would have, particularly on the eve of the presidential inauguration.

The companies urged the Supreme Court for a ruling that would allow them to manage the shutdown of TikTok in the U.S. if necessary, and to coordinate with service providers within a set deadline under the law. The escalating tensions between China and the U.S. add further complexity to the dispute.

Skip past newsletter promotions

TikTok has vehemently denied any sharing of U.S. user data and accused U.S. lawmakers of creating unfounded concerns. The company emphasizes the importance of protecting free speech and the potential implications of restricting access to the platform.

In a statement following the lawsuit, TikTok’s spokesman Michael Hughes reiterated the need for the courts to closely scrutinize any restrictions on speech, particularly in cases involving foreign ownership. The ongoing legal battle underscores the complexities of balancing national security concerns with free speech rights.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Facebook requests U.S. Supreme Court to drop fraud lawsuit regarding Cambridge Analytica scandal

The U.S. Supreme Court discussed Meta’s Facebook’s attempt to dismiss a federal securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders. The lawsuit accuses the social media platform of deceiving users about its misuse of user data.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Facebook’s appeal against a lower court’s decision allowing a 2018 class action lawsuit by Amalgamated Bank to move forward. The lawsuit aims to recover lost value of investors’ Facebook stock. Another lawsuit filed this month involves Nvidia, where litigants accuse the company of securities fraud, potentially making accountability more challenging.

The key issue is whether Facebook broke the law by not disclosing previous data breaches in its risk disclosures, portraying the risks as hypothetical.

Facebook argued in its brief to the Supreme Court that reasonable investors would see risk disclosures as forward-looking statements, eliminating the need to disclose previous risks that materialized.

Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito raised questions during the hearing, asserting that risk assessment is always forward-looking.

The plaintiffs accused Facebook of violating the Securities Exchange Act by misleading investors about a 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica. The case was initially dismissed, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal led to various investigations and legal actions against Facebook. The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by June.

Despite the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, there are differing views on how investors interpret forward-looking risk disclosures.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Facebook’s stock price dropped after reports in 2018 regarding the misuse of user data by Cambridge Analytica in connection with President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Supreme Court to Decide on Government’s Authority on Online Misinformation | Tech

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday in a case that may have significant implications for the federal government’s relationship with social media companies and online misinformation. The plaintiffs in Marcy v. Missouri claim that the White House’s request to remove false information about the coronavirus on Twitter and Facebook constitutes unlawful censorship in violation of the First Amendment.

The discussion began with Brian Fletcher, the Justice Department’s acting chief attorney general, arguing that the government’s actions do not cross the line from persuasion to coercion. He also disputed the lower court’s portrayal of events in the ruling, calling it misleading or containing quotes taken out of context.

“When the government convinces a private organization not to distribute or promote someone else’s speech, it is not censorship but rather persuading the private organization to act within its legal rights,” stated Fletcher.

The justices, particularly conservatives Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, pressed Fletcher on where the distinction lies between coercing and persuading a company. Fletcher defended the government’s actions as part of a broader effort to mitigate harm to the public.

Louisiana Attorney General Benjamin Aguignaga argued that the government was covertly pressuring platforms to censor speech, violating the First Amendment. The lawsuit, led by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, accused the government of infringing on constitutional rights.

Several justices, including liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, also weighed in on the government’s efforts to address potential harm and the boundaries of the First Amendment. Sotomayor criticized the factual inaccuracies in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

Aguignaga apologized for any shortcomings in the brief and acknowledged that it may not have been as thorough as it should have been.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Supreme Court Rules AI Cannot be Named as Inventor in Patent Dispute, UK News Reports

The Supreme Court has ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be legally considered inventors to secure patent rights.

In a ruling on Wednesday, Britain’s highest court said that under current law, “the inventor must be an individual” to apply for a patent.

In a long-term patent dispute, an American engineer artificial intelligence A system he claims to be the inventor of.

The system, called DABUS, invented a food and drink container and a light beacon, according to Dr. Stephen Thaler.

The problem arose in 2019 when he received these patents and tried to list his company’s AI system as an inventor.

His case and subsequent appeal were rejected in the United States, and on Wednesday, after a three-year appeals process, he received a final dismissal of his appeal from Britain’s Supreme Court.

The bottom line of this case is whether you need to be a human being to obtain a patent.

Dr. Saylor’s team argued that the law does not require you to be the person in question to obtain a patent, and that because the artificial intelligence is the owner of the AI, it can apply for patents on its behalf. .

However, the Supreme Court justices unanimously dismissed the case, stating that to be considered an inventor under patent law a person must be a “natural person” and that Dr. Thaler had no idea why he could apply for a patent. He said that he did not state his claim. Instead of AI.

The judges considered the meaning of the term “inventor” in patent law and whether it included machines, but found that Mr. DABUS was not an inventor because only humans can devise inventions. He said he had come to a conclusion.

The judgment does not address whether AI created an invention, only whether AI can be considered an inventor under the Patents Act 1977.

Patents, which provide legal protection, are granted for inventions that are new, nonobvious, and meet a set of requirements.

read more:
AI experts sound the alarm as the world prepares for a big election year
Boots plans to release “personal shopper” using AI
We let AI plan Christmas – here are the results

Patent rights make it illegal for anyone other than the owner or someone authorized by the owner to make, use, import, or sell the invention in the country where the patent was granted.

Dr. Thaler was unsuccessful in his latest attempt to win legal protection for works produced by AI systems.

But as AI is increasingly used as a tool for creativity across society, such debates are likely to become even more common.

The question for policymakers is whether the 1977 Patents Act adequately describes the nature of invention and the role of technology today.

Source: news.sky.com

VF Corp., owner of Vans and Supreme, reports stolen personal information and affected orders in alleged ransomware attack

US-based VF Corporation, which owns apparel brands such as Vans, Supreme and The North Face, said a cyberattack affected its ability to fulfill orders ahead of Christmas, one of the year’s biggest retail events. admitted that he had caused it.

A company based in Denver, Colorado said in a filing with federal regulators. The cyberattack, which the company first detected on December 13, was a ransom attack in which hackers “disrupted the company’s operations by encrypting some IT systems and stole data, including personal data, from the company.” It was said that it was hinting at a software attack.

As a result, the company says its operations continue to be disrupted, including its “ability to fulfill orders.”

When TechCrunch tried to place an order on Vans’ website, he was greeted with the following message: You will be notified by email when your item is shipped and can track it with the sender. ”

VF Corporation said in a filing that the retail stores it operates around the world are open and consumers can purchase available products online. It is unclear when orders will be shipped, and a company spokesperson did not provide a timeline.

VF Corp. spokesperson Colin Wheeler provided TechCrunch via email with a statement reflecting the company’s regulatory filings. The company did not respond to TechCrunch’s questions about the incident. Reveal whether the company received a ransom demand from hackers.

The company has not yet disclosed how it was breached, what type of data was accessed, or how many individuals were affected by the breach, including employees, customers, or both. . It’s also unclear who is behind the attack, with the ransomware group being tracked yet to claim responsibility.

VF Corp. warned in a regulatory filing that the cyberattack would have a “significant impact” on its business until its systems are restored. “As the investigation into the incident is ongoing, the full scope, nature and impact of the incident is not yet known,” the filing states.

VF Corp disclosed the incident on the same day that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s new data breach disclosure rules went into effect. This regulation means that organizations must report cybersecurity incidents, including data breaches, to federal securities regulators. within 4 business days.

Source: techcrunch.com