The signals that drive many of the brain and body’s most essential functions — consciousness, sleep, breathing, heart rate, and motion — course through bundles of “white matter” fibers in the brainstem, but imaging systems so far have been unable to finely resolve these crucial neural cables. That has left researchers and doctors with little capability to assess how they are affected by trauma or neurodegeneration. 

In a new study, a team of MIT, Harvard University, and Massachusetts General Hospital researchers unveil AI-powered software capable of automatically segmenting eight distinct bundles in any diffusion MRI sequence.

In the open-access study, published Feb. 6 in the Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences, the research team led by MIT graduate student Mark Olchanyi reports that their BrainStem Bundle Tool (BSBT), which they’ve made publicly available, revealed distinct patterns of structural changes in patients with Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and traumatic brain injury, and shed light on Alzheimer’s disease as well. Moreover, the study shows, BSBT retrospectively enabled tracking of bundle healing in a coma patient that reflected the patient’s seven-month road to recovery.

“The brainstem is a region of the brain that is essentially not explored because it is tough to image,” says Olchanyi, a doctoral candidate in MIT’s Medical Engineering and Medical Physics Program. “People don't really understand its makeup from an imaging perspective. We need to understand what the organization of the white matter is in humans and how this organization breaks down in certain disorders.”

Adds Professor Emery N. Brown, Olchanyi’s thesis supervisor and co-senior author of the study, “the brainstem is one of the body’s most important control centers. Mark’s algorithms are a significant contribution to imaging research and to our ability to the understand regulation of fundamental physiology. By enhancing our capacity to image the brainstem, he offers us new access to vital physiological functions such as control of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, temperature regulation, how we stay awake during the day and how sleep at night.”

Brown is the Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Computational Neuroscience and Medical Engineering in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, and the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. He is also an anesthesiologist at MGH and a professor at Harvard Medical School.

Building the algorithm

Diffusion MRI helps trace the long branches, or “axons,” that neurons extend to communicate with each other. Axons are typically clad in a sheath of fat called myelin, and water diffuses along the axons within the myelin, which is also called the brain’s “white matter.” Diffusion MRI can highlight this very directed displacement of water. But segmenting the distinct bundles of axons in the brainstem has proved challenging, because they are small and masked by flows of brain fluids and the motions produced by breathing and heart beats.

As part of his thesis work to better understand the neural mechanisms that underpin consciousness, Olchanyi wanted to develop an AI algorithm to overcome these obstacles. BSBT works by tracing fiber bundles that plunge into the brainstem from neighboring areas higher in the brain, such as the thalamus and the cerebellum, to produce a “probabilistic fiber map.” An artificial intelligence module called a “convolutional neural network” then combines the map with several channels of imaging information from within the brainstem to distinguish eight individual bundles.

To train the neural network to segment the bundles, Olchanyi “showed” it 30 live diffusion MRI scans from volunteers in the Human Connectome Project (HCP). The scans were manually annotated to teach the neural network how to identify the bundles. Then he validated BSBT by testing its output against “ground truth” dissections of post-mortem human brains where the bundles were well delineated via microscopic inspection or very slow but ultra-high-resolution imaging. After training, BSBT became proficient in automatically identifying the eight distinct fiber bundles in new scans.

In an experiment to test its consistency and reliability, Olchanyi tasked BSBT with finding the bundles in 40 volunteers who underwent separate scans two months apart. In each case, the tool was able to find the same bundles in the same patients in each of their two scans. Olchanyi also tested BSBT with multiple datasets (not just the HCP), and even inspected how each component of the neural network contributed to BSBT’s analysis by hobbling them one by one.

“We put the neural network through the wringer,” Olchanyi says. “We wanted to make sure that it’s actually doing these plausible segmentations and it is leveraging each of its individual components in a way that improves the accuracy.”

Potential novel biomarkers

Once the algorithm was properly trained and validated, the research team moved on to testing whether the ability to segment distinct fiber bundles in diffusion MRI scans could enable tracking of how each bundle’s volume and structure varied with disease or injury, creating a novel kind of biomarker. Although the brainstem has been difficult to examine in detail, many studies show that neurodegenerative diseases affect the brainstem, often early on in their progression.

Olchanyi, Brown and their co-authors applied BSBT to scores of datasets of diffusion MRI scans from patients with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, MS, and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Patients were compared to controls and sometimes to themselves over time. In the scans, the tool measured bundle volume and “fractional anisotropy,” (FA) which tracks how much water is flowing along the myelinated axons versus how much is diffusing in other directions, a proxy for white matter structural integrity.

In each condition, the tool found consistent patterns of changes in the bundles. While only one bundle showed significant decline in Alzheimer’s, in Parkinson’s the tool revealed a reduction in FA in three of the eight bundles. It also revealed volume loss in another bundle in patients between a baseline scan and a two-year follow-up. Patients with MS showed their greatest FA reductions in four bundles and volume loss in three. Meanwhile, TBI patients didn’t show significant volume loss in any bundles, but FA reductions were apparent in the majority of bundles.

Testing in the study showed that BSBT proved more accurate than other classifier methods in discriminating between patients with health conditions versus controls.

BSBT, therefore, can be “a key adjunct that aids current diagnostic imaging methods by providing a fine-grained assessment of brainstem white matter structure and, in some cases, longitudinal information,” the authors wrote.

Finally, in the case of a 29-year-old man who suffered a severe TBI, Olchanyi applied BSBT to a scans taken during the man’s seven-month coma. The tool showed that the man’s brainstem bundles had been displaced, but not cut, and showed that over his coma, the lesions on the nerve bundles decreased by a factor of three in volume. As they healed, the bundles moved back into place as well.

The authors wrote that BSBT “has substantial prognostic potential by identifying preserved brainstem bundles that can facilitate coma recovery.”

The study’s other senior authors are Juan Eugenio Iglesias and Brian Edlow. Other co-authors are David Schreier, Jian Li, Chiara Maffei, Annabel Sorby-Adams, Hannah Kinney, Brian Healy, Holly Freeman, Jared Shless, Christophe Destrieux, and Hendry Tregidgo.

Funding for the study came from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Defense, James S. McDonnell Foundation, Rappaport Foundation, American SidS Institute, American Brain Foundation, American Academy of Neurology, Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology, Blueprint for Neuroscience Research, and Massachusetts Life Sciences Center.

3D bioprinting, in which living tissues are printed with cells mixed into soft hydrogels, or “bio-inks,” is widely used in the field of bioengineering for modeling or replacing the tissues in our bodies. The print quality and reproducibility of tissues, however, can face challenges. One of the most significant challenges is created simply by gravity — cells naturally sink to the bottom of the bioink-extruding printer syringe because the cells are heavier than the hydrogel around them.

“This cell settling, which becomes worse during the long print sessions required to print large tissues, leads to clogged nozzles, uneven cell distribution, and inconsistencies between printed tissues,” explains Ritu Raman, the Eugene Bell Career Development Professor of Tissue Engineering and assistant professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. “Existing solutions, such as manually stirring bioinks before loading them into the printer, or using passive mixers, cannot maintain uniformity once printing begins.”

In a study published Feb. 2 in the journal Device, Raman’s team introduces a new approach that aims to solve this core limitation by actively preventing cell sedimentation within bioinks during printing, allowing for more reliable and biologically consistent 3D printed tissues.

“Precise control over the bioink’s physical and biological properties is essential for recreating the structure and function of native tissues,” says Ferdows Afghah, a postdoc in mechanical engineering at MIT and lead author of the study.

“If we can print tissues that more closely mimic those in our bodies, we can use them as models to understand more about human diseases, or to test the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic drugs,” adds Raman. Such models could help researchers move away from techniques like animal testing, which supports recent interest from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in developing faster, less expensive, and more informative new approaches to establish the safety and efficacy of new treatment paths.

“Eventually, we are working towards regenerative medicine applications such as replacing diseased or injured tissues in our bodies with 3D printed tissues that can help restore healthy function,” says Raman.

MagMix, a magnetically actuated mixer, is composed of two parts: a small magnetic propeller that fits inside the syringes used by bioprinters to deposit bioinks, layer by layer, into 3D tissues, and a permanent magnet attached to a motor that moves up and down near the syringe, controlling the movement of the propeller inside. Together, this compact system can be mounted onto any standard 3D bioprinter, keeping bioinks uniformly mixed during printing without changing the bioink formulation or interfering with the printer’s normal operation. To test the approach, the team used computer simulations to design the optimal mixing propeller geometry and speed and then validated its performance experimentally.

“Across multiple bioink types, MagMix prevented cell settling for more than 45 minutes of continuous printing, reducing clogging and preserving high cell viability,” says Raman. “Importantly, we showed that mixing speeds could be adjusted to balance effective homogenization for different bioinks while inducing minimal stress on the cells. As a proof-of-concept, we demonstrated that MagMix could be used to 3D print cells that could mature into muscle tissues over the course of several days.”

By maintaining uniform cell distribution throughout long or complex print jobs, MagMix enables the fabrication of high-quality tissues with more consistent biological function. Because the device is compact, low-cost, customizable, and easily integrated into existing 3D printers, it offers a broadly accessible solution for laboratories and industries working toward reproducible engineered tissues for applications in human health including disease modeling, drug screening, and regenerative medicine.

This work was supported, in part, by the Safety, Health, and Environmental Discovery Lab (SHED) at MIT, which provides infrastructure and interdisciplinary expertise to help translate biofabrication innovations from lab-scale demonstrations to scalable, reproducible applications.

“At the SHED, we focus on accelerating the translation of innovative methods into practical tools that researchers can reliably adopt,” says Tolga Durak, the SHED’s founding director. “MagMix is a strong example of how the right combination of technical infrastructure and interdisciplinary support can move biofabrication technologies toward scalable, real-world impact.”

The SHED’s involvement reflects a broader vision of strengthening technology pathways that enhance reproducibility and accessibility across engineering and the life sciences by providing equitable access to advanced equipment and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration.

“As the field advances toward larger-scale and more standardized systems, integrated labs like SHED are essential for building sustainable capacity,” Durak adds. “Our goal is not only to enable discovery, but to ensure that new technologies can be reliably adopted and sustained over time.”

The team is also interested in non-medical applications of engineered tissues, such as using printed muscles to power safer and more efficient “biohybrid” robots.

The researchers believe this work can improve the reliability and scalability of 3D bioprinting, making the potential impacts on the field of 3D bioprinting and on human health significant. Their paper, “Advancing Bioink Homogeneity in Extrusion 3D Bioprinting with Active In Situ Magnetic Mixing,” is available now from the journal Device. 

Amazon Ring’s Super Bowl ad offered a vision of our streets that should leave every person unsettled about the company’s goals for disintegrating our privacy in public.

In the ad, disguised as a heartfelt effort to reunite the lost dogs of the country with their innocent owners, the company previewed future surveillance of our streets: a world where biometric identification could be unleashed from consumer devices to identify, track, and locate anything — human, pet, and otherwise.

The ad for Ring’s “Search Party” feature highlighted the doorbell camera’s ability to scan footage across Ring devices in a neighborhood, using AI analysis to identify potential canine matches among the many personal devices within the network. 

Amazon Ring already integrates biometric identification, like face recognition, into its products via features like "Familiar Faces,” which depends on scanning the faces of those in sight of the camera and matching it against a list of pre-saved, pre-approved faces. It doesn’t take much to imagine Ring eventually combining these two features: face recognition and neighborhood searches. 

Ring’s “Familiar Faces” feature could already run afoul of biometric privacy laws in some states, which require explicit, informed consent from individuals before a company can just run face recognition on someone. Unfortunately, not all states have similar privacy protections for their residents. 

Ring has a history of privacy violations, enabling surveillance of innocents and protestors, and close collaboration with law enforcement, and EFF has spent years reporting on its many privacy problems.

The cameras, which many people buy and install to identify potential porch pirates or get a look at anyone that might be on their doorstep, feature microphones that have been found to capture audio from the street. In 2023, Ring settled with the Federal Trade Commission over the extensive access it gave employees to personal customer footage. At that time, just three years ago, the FTC wrote: “As a result of this dangerously overbroad access and lax attitude toward privacy and security, employees and third-party contractors were able to view, download, and transfer customers’ sensitive video data for their own purposes.”

The company has made law enforcement access a regular part of its business. As early as 2016, the company was courting police departments through free giveaways. The company provided law enforcement warrantless access to people’s footage, a practice they claimed to cut off in 2024. Not long after, though, the company established partnerships with major police companies Axon and Flock Safety to facilitate the integration of Ring cameras into police intelligence networks. The partnership allows law enforcement to again request Ring footage directly from users without a warrant. This supplements the already wide-ranging apparatus of data and surveillance feeds now available to law enforcement. 

This feature is turned on by default, meaning that Ring owners need to go into the controls to change it. According to Amazon Ring’s instructions, this is how to disable the “search party” feature: 

1. Open the Ring app to the main dashboard.
2. Tap the menu (☰).
3. Tap Control Center.
4. Select Search Party.
5. Tap Disable Search for Lost Pets. Tap the blue Pet icon next to "Search for Lost Pets" to turn the feature off for each camera. (You also have the option to "Disable Natural Hazards (Fire Watch)" and the option to tap the blue Flame icon next to Natural Hazards (Fire Watch) to turn the feature on or off for each camera.)

The addition of AI-driven biometric identification is the latest entry in the company’s history of profiting off of public safety worries and disregard for individual privacy, one that turbocharges the extreme dangers of allowing this to carry on. People need to reject this kind of disingenuous framing and recognize the potential end result: a scary overreach of the surveillance state designed to catch us all in its net.

Group led by EFF and Imperial Valley Equity & Justice Asks Gov. Newsom and Caltrans Director to Act Immediately

SAN FRANCISCO – California must revoke permits allowing federal agencies such as Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to put automated license plate readers along border highways, a coalition led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Imperial Valley Equity & Justice (IVEJ) demanded today. 

In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Director Dina El-Tawansy, the coalition notes that this invasive mass surveillance – automated license plate readers (ALPRs) often disguised as traffic barrels – puts both residents and migrants at risk of harassment, abuse, detention, and deportation.  

“With USBP (U.S. Border Patrol) Chief Greg Bovino reported to be returning to El Centro sector, after leading a brutal campaign against immigrants and U.S. citizens alike in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis, it is urgent that your administration take action,” the letter says. “Caltrans must revoke any permits issued to USBP. CBP, and DEA for these surveillance devices and effectuate their removal.” 

Coalition members signing the letter include the California Nurses Association; American Federation of Teachers Guild, Local 1931; ACLU California Action; Fight for the Future; Electronic Privacy Information Center; Just Futures Law; Jobs to Move America; Project on Government Oversight; American Friends Service Committee U.S./Mexico Border Program; Survivors of Torture, International; Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans; Border Angels; Southern California Immigration Project; Trust SD Coalition; Alliance San Diego; San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium; Showing Up for Racial Justice San Diego; San Diego Privacy; Oakland Privacy; Japanese American Citizens League and its Florin-Sacramento Valley, San Francisco, South Bay, Berkeley, Torrance, and Greater Pasadena chapters; Democratic Socialists of America- San Diego; Center for Human Rights and Privacy; The Becoming Project Inc.; Imperial Valley for Palestine; Imperial Liberation Collaborative; Comité de Acción del Valle Inc.; CBFD Indivisible; South Bay People Power; and queercasa. 

California law prevents state and local agencies from sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies, including federal agencies involved in immigration enforcement. However, USBP, CBP, and DEA are bypassing these regulations by installing their own ALPRs. 

EFF researchers have released a map of more than 40 of these covert ALPRs along highways in San Diego and Imperial counties that are believed to belong to federal agencies engaged in immigration enforcement.  In response to a June 2025 public records request, Caltrans has released several documents showing CBP and DEA have applied for permits for ALPRs, with more expected as Caltrans continues to locate records responsive to the request. 

“California must not allow Border Patrol and other federal agencies to use surveillance on our roadways to unleash violence and intimidation on San Diego and Imperial Valley residents,” the letter says. “We ask that your administration investigate and release the relevant permits, revoke them, and initiate the removal of these devices. No further permits for ALPRs or tactical checkpoints should be approved for USBP, CBP, or DEA.” 

"The State of California must not allow Border Patrol to exploit our public roads and bypass state law," said Sergio Ojeda, IVEJ’s Lead Community Organizer for Racial and Economic Justice Programs.  "It's time to stop federal agencies from installing hidden cameras that they use to track, target and harass our communities for travelling between Imperial Valley, San Diego and Yuma." 

For the letter: https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-re-covert-alprs

For the map of the covert ALPRs: https://www.eff.org/covertALPRmap

For high-res images of two of the covert ALPRs: https://www.eff.org/node/111725

For more about ALPRs: https://sls.eff.org/technologies/automated-license-plate-readers-alprs 

 

Contact:  DaveMaassDirector of Investigationsdm@eff.org

Interviewer: Jillian York

Yazan Badran is an assistant professor in international media and communication studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and a researcher at the Echo research group. His research focuses on the intersection between media, journalism and politics particularly in the MENA region and within its exilic and diasporic communities.

*This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Jillian York: What does free speech or free expression mean to you?

Yazan Badran: So I think there are a couple of layers to that question. There's a narrow conception of free speech that is related to, of course, your ability to think about the world.

And that also depends on having the resources to be able to think about the world, to having resources of understanding about the world, having resources to translate that understanding into thoughts and analysis yourself, and then being able to express that in narratives about yourself with others in the world. And again, that also requires resources of expression, right?

So there's that layer, which means that it's not simply the absence of constraints around your expression and around your thinking, but actually having frameworks that activate you expressing yourself in the world. So that's one element of free expression or free speech, or however you want to call it. 

But I feel that remains too narrow if we don't account also for the counterpart, which is having frameworks that listen to you as you express yourself into the world, right? Having people, institutions, frameworks that are actively also listening, engaging, recognizing you as a legitimate voice in the world. And I think these two have to come together in any kind of broad conception of free speech, which entangles you then in a kind of ethical relationship that you have to listen to others as well, right? It becomes a mutual responsibility from you towards the other, towards the world, and for the world towards you, which also requires access to resources and access to platforms and people listening to you.

So I think these two are what I, if I want to think of free speech and free expression, I would have to think about these two together. And most of the time there is a much narrower focus on the first, and somewhat neglecting the second, I think.

JY: Yeah, absolutely. Okay, now I have to ask, what is an experience that shaped these views for you?

YB: I think two broad experiences. One is the…let's say, the 2000s, the late 2000s, so early 2010 and 2011, where we were all part of this community that was very much focused on expression and on limiting the kind of constraints around expression and thinking of tools and how resources can be brought towards that. And there were limits to where that allowed us to go at a certain point.

And I think the kind of experiences of the Arab uprisings and what happened afterwards and the kind of degeneration across the worlds in which we lived kind of became a generative ground to think of how that experience went wrong or how that experience fell short.

And then building on that, I think when I started doing research on journalism and particularly on exiled journalists and thinking about their practice and their place in the world and the fact that in many ways there were very little constraints on what they could do and what they could voice and what they could express, et cetera.

Not that there are no constraints, there are always constraints, but that the nature of constraints were different - they were of the order of listening; who is listening to this? Who is on the other side? Who are you engaged in a conversation with? And that was, from speaking to them, a real kind of anxiety that came through to me.

JY: I think you're sort of alluding to theory of change…

YB: Yes, to some extent, but also to…when we think about our contribution into the world, to what kind of the normative framework we imagine. As people who think about all of these structures that circulate information and opinion and expressions, et cetera, there is often a normative focus, where there should be, about opening up constraints around expression and bringing resources to bear for expression, and we don't think enough of how these structures need also to foster listening and to foster recognition of these expressions.

And that is the same with, when we think about platforms on the internet and when we think about journalism, when we think about teaching… For example, in my field, when we think about academic research, I think you can bring that framework in different places where expression is needed and where expression is part of who we are. Does that make sense?

JY:  Absolutely. It absolutely makes sense. I think about this all the time. I'm teaching now too, and so it's very, very valuable. Okay, so let's shift a little bit. You're from Syria. You've been in Brussels for a long time. You were in Japan in between. You have a broad worldview, a broad perspective. Let’s talk about press freedom.

YB: Yeah, I've been thinking about this because, I mean, I work on journalism and I'm trying to do some work on Syria and what is happening in Syria now. And I feel there are times where people ask me about the context for journalistic work in Syria. And the narrow answer and the clear answer is that we've never had more freedom to do journalism in the country, right? And there are many reasons. Part of it is that this is a new regime that perhaps doesn't still have complete control over the ground. There are differentiated contexts where in some places it's very easy to go out and to access information and to speak to people. In other places, it's less easy, it's more dangerous, etc. So it's differentiated and it's not the same everywhere.

But it's clear that journalists come out and in from Syria. They can do their job relatively unmolested, which is a massive kind of change, contrast to the last thirteen or fourteen years where Syria was an information black hole. You couldn't do anything.

But that remains somewhat narrow in thinking about journalism in Syria. What is journalism about Syria in this context? What kind of journalism do we need to be thinking about? In a place that is in, you know, ruins, if not material destruction, then economic and societal disintegration, et cetera. So there are, I think, two elements. Sure, you can do journalism, but what kind of journalism is being done in Syria? I feel that we have to be asking a broader question about what is the role of information now more broadly in Syria? 

And that is a more difficult question to answer, I feel. Or a more difficult question to answer positively. Because it highlights questions about who has access to the means of journalism now in Syria? What are they doing with it? Who has access to the sources, and can provide actual understanding about the political or economic developments that are happening in the country. Very few people who have genuine understanding of the processes are going into building a new regime, a new state. In general, we have very, very little access. There are few avenues to participate and gain access to what is happening there.

So sure, you can go on the ground, you can take photos, you can speak to people, but in terms of participating in that broader nation-building exercise that is happening; this is happening at a completely different level to the places that we have access to. And with few exceptions, journalism as practiced now is not bringing us closer to these spaces. 

In a narrow sense, it's a very exciting time to be looking at experiments in doing journalism in Syria, to also be seeing the interaction between international journalists and local journalists and also the kind of tensions and collaborations and discussion around structural inequalities between them; especially from a researcher’s perspective. But it remains very, very narrow. In terms of the massive story, which is a complete revolution in the identity of the country, in its geopolitical arrangement, in its positioning in the world, and that we have no access to whatsoever. This is happening well over our heads—we are almost bystanders. 

JY:  That makes sense. I mean, it doesn't make sense, but it makes sense. What role does the internet and maybe even specifically platforms or internet companies play in Syria? Because with sanctions lifted, we now have access to things that were not previously available. I know that the app stores are back, although I'm getting varied reports from people on the ground about how much they can actually access, although people can download Signal now, which is good. How would you say things have changed online in the past year?

YB:  In the beginning, platforms, particularly Facebook, and it's still really Facebook, were the main sphere of information in the country. And to a large extent, it remains the main sphere where some discussions happen within the country.

These are old networks that were reactivated in some ways, but also public spheres that were so completely removed from each other that opened up on each other after December. So you had really almost independent spheres of activity and discussion. Between areas that were controlled by the regime, areas that were controlled by the opposition, which kind of expanded to areas of Syrian refugees and diaspora outside.

And these just collapsed on each other after 8th of December with massive chaos, massive and costly chaos in some ways. The spread of disinformation, organic disinformation, in the first few months was mind-boggling. I think by now there's a bit of self-regulation, but also another movement of siloing, where you see different clusters hardening as well. So that kind of collapse over the first few months didn't last very long.

You start having conversations in isolation of each other now. And I'm talking mainly about Facebook, because that is the main network, that is the main platform where public discussions are happening. Telegram was the public infrastructure of the state for a very long time, for the first six months. Basically, state communication happened through Telegram, through Telegram channels, also causing a lot of chaos. But now you have a bit more stability in terms of having a news agency. You have the television, the state television. So the importance of Telegram has waned off, but it's still a kind of parastructure of state communication, it remains important.

I think more structurally, these platforms are basically the infrastructure of information circulation because of the fact that people don't have access to electricity, for example, or for much of the time they have very low access to bandwidth. So having Facebook on their phone is the main way to keep in touch with things. They can't turn on the television, they can't really access internet websites very easily. So Facebook becomes materially their access to the world. Which comes with all of the baggage that these platforms bring with them, right? The kind of siloing, the competition over attention, the sensationalism, these clustering dynamics of these networks and their algorithms.

JY: Okay, so the infrastructural and resource challenges are real, but then you also have the opening up for the first time of the internet in many, many years, or ever, really. And as far as I understand from what friends who’ve been there have reported, is that nothing being blocked yet. So what impact do you see or foresee that having on society as people get more and more online? I know a lot of people were savvy, of course, and got around censorship, but not everyone, right?

YB: No, absolutely, absolutely not everyone. Not everyone has the kind of digital literacy to understand what going online means, right? Which accounts for one thing, the avalanche of fake information and disinformation that is now Syria, basically.

JY: It's only the second time this has happened. I mean, Tunisia is the only other example I can think of where the internet just opened right up.

YB: Without having gateways and infrastructure that can kind of circulate and manage and curate this avalanche of information. While at the same time, you have a real disintegration in the kind of social institutions that could ground a community. So you have really a perfect storm of a thin layer of digital connectivity, for a lot of people who didn't have access to even that thin layer, but it's still a very thin layer, right? You're connecting from your old smartphone to Facebook. You're getting texts, et cetera, and perhaps you're texting with the family over WhatsApp. And a real collapse of different societal institutions that also grounded you with others, right? The education system, of different clubs and different neighborhoods, small institutions that brought different communities together of the army, for example, universities, all of these have been disrupted over the past year in profound ways and along really communitarian ways as well. I don't know the kind of conditions that this creates, the combination of these two. But it doesn't seem like it's a positive situation or a positive dynamic.

JY:  Yeah, I mean, it makes me think of, for example, Albania or other countries that opened up after a long time and then all of a sudden just had this freedom.

YB: But still combined, I mean, that is one thing, the opening up and the avalanche, and that is a challenge. But it is a challenge that perhaps within a settled society with some institutions in which you can turn to, through which you can regulate this, through which you can have countervailing forces and countervailing forums for… that’s one thing. But with the collapse of material institutions that you might have had, it's really creating a bewildering world for people, where you turn back and you have your family that maybe lives two streets away, and this is the circle in which you move, or you feel safe to move.

Of course, for certain communities, right? That is not the condition everywhere. But that is part of what is happening. There's a real sense of bewilderment in the kind of world that you live in. Especially in areas that used to be controlled by the regime where everything that you've known in terms of state authority, from the smallest, the lowliest police officer in your neighborhood, to people, bureaucrats that you would talk to, have changed or your relationship to them has fundamentally changed. There's a real upheaval in your world at different levels. And, you know, and you're faced with a swirling world of information that you can't make sense out of.

JY: I do want to put you on the spot with a question that popped into my head, which is, I often ask people about regulation and depending on where they're working in the world, especially like when I'm talking to folks in Africa and elsewhere. In this case, though, it's a nation-building challenge, right? And so—you're looking at all of these issues and all of these problems—if you were in a position to create press or internet regulation from the ground up in Syria, what do you feel like that should look like? Are there models that you would look to? Are there existing structures or is there something new or?

YB:  I think maybe I don't have a model, but I think maybe a couple of entry points that you would kind of use to think of what model of regulation you want is to understand that there the first challenge is at the level of nation building. Of really recreating a national identity or reimagining a national identity, both in terms of a kind of shared imaginary of what these people are to each other and collectively represent, but also in terms of at the very hyper-local level of how these communities can go back to living together.

And I think that would have to shape how you would approach, say, regulation. I mean, around the Internet, that's a more difficult challenge. But at least in terms of your national media, for example, what is the contribution of the state through its media arm? What kind of national media do you want to put into place? What kind of structures allow for really organic participation in this project or not, right? But also at the level of how do you regulate the market for information in a new state with that level of infrastructural destruction, right? Of the economic circuit in which these networks are in place. How do you want to reconnect Syria to the world? In what ways? For what purposes?

And how do you connect all of these steps to open questions around identity and around that process of national rebuilding, and activating participation in that project, right? Rather than use them to foreclose these questions.

There are also certain challenges that you have in Syria that are endogenous, that are related to the last 14 years, to the societal disintegration and geographic disintegration and economic disintegration, et cetera. But on top of that, of course, we live in an information environment that is, at the level of the global information environment, also structurally cracking down in terms of how we engage with information, how we deal with journalism, how we deal with questions of difference. These are problems that go well beyond Syria, right? These are difficult issues that we don't know how to tackle here in Brussels or in the US, right? And so there's also an interplay between these two. There's an interplay between the fact that even here, we are having to come to terms with some of the myths around liberalism, around journalism, the normative model of journalism, of how to do journalism, right? I mean, we have to come to terms with it. The last two years—of the Gaza genocide—didn't happen in a vacuum. It was earth shattering for a lot of these pretensions around the world that we live in. Which I think is a bigger challenge, but of course it interacts with the kind of challenges that you have in a place like Syria.

JY: To what degree do you feel that the sort of rapid opening up and disinformation and provocations online and offline are contributing to violence?

YB: I think they're at the very least exacerbating the impact of that violence. I can't make claims about how much they're contributing, though I think they are contributing. I think there are clear episodes in which the kind of the circulation of misinformation online, you could directly link it to certain episodes of violence, like what happened in Jaramana before the massacre of the Druze. So a couple of weeks before the Druze, there was this piece of disinformation that led to actual violence and that set the stage to the massive violence later on. During the massacres on the coast, you could also link the kind of panic and the disinformation around the attacks of former regime officers and the effects of that to the mobilization that has happened. The scale of the violence is linked to the circulation of panic and disinformation. So there is a clear contribution. But I think the greater influence is how it exacerbates what happens after that violence, how it exacerbates the depth, for example, of divorce between between the population of Sweida after the massacre, the Druze population of Sweida and the rest of Syria. That is tangible. And that is embedded in the kind of information environment that we have. There are different kinds of material causes for it as well. There is real structural conflict there. But the kind of ideological, discursive, and affective, divorce that has happened over the past six months, that is a product of the information environment that we have.

JY: You are very much a third country, 4th country kid at this point. Like me, you connected to this global community through Global Voices at a relatively young age. In what ways do you feel that global experience has influenced your thinking and your work around these topics, around freedom of expression? How has it shaped you?

YB: I think in a profound way. What it does is it makes you to some extent immune from certain nationalist logics in thinking about the world, right? You have stakes in so many different places. You've built friendships, you've built connections, you've left parts of you in different places. And that is also certainly related to certain privileges, but it also means that you care about different places, that you care about people in many different places. And that shapes the way that you think about the world - it produces commitments that are diffused, complex and at times even contradictory, and it forces you to confront these contradictions. You also have experience, real experience in how much richer the world is if you move outside of these narrow, more nationalist, more chauvinistic ways of thinking about the world. And also you have kind of direct lived experience of the complexity of global circulation in the world and the fact, at a high level, it doesn't produce a homogenized culture, it produces many different things and they're not all equal and they're not all good, but it also leaves spaces for you to contribute to it, to engage with it, to actively try to play within the little spaces that you have.

JY: Okay, here’s my final question that I ask everyone. Do you have a free speech hero? Or someone who's inspired you?

YB: I mean, there are people whose sacrifices humble you. Many of them we don't know by name. Some of them we do know by name. Some of them are friends of ours. I keep thinking of Alaa [Abd El Fattah], who was just released from prison—I was listening to his long interview with Mada Masr (in Arabic) yesterday, and it’s…I mean…is he a hero? I don’t know but he is certainly one of the people I love at a distance and who continues to inspire us.

JY: I think he’d hate to be called a hero.

YB: Of course he would. But in some ways, his story is a tragedy that is inextricable from the drama of the last fifteen years, right? It’s not about turning him into a symbol. He's also a person and a complex person and someone of flesh and blood, etc. But he's also someone who can articulate in a very clear, very simple way, the kind of sense of hope and defeat that we all feel at some level and who continues to insist on confronting both these senses critically and analytically.

JY: I’m glad you said Alaa. He’s someone I learned a lot from early on, and there’s a lot of his words and thinking that have guided me in my practice. 

YB: Yeah, and his story is tragic in the sense that it kind of highlights that in the absence of any credible road towards collective salvation, we're left with little moments of joy when there is a small individual salvation of someone like him. And that these are the only little moments of genuine joy that we get to exercise together. But in terms of a broader sense of collective salvation, I think in some ways our generation has been profoundly and decisively defeated.

JY:  And yet the title of his book, “you have not yet been defeated.”

YB: Yeah, it's true. It's true.

JY: Thank you Yazan for speaking with me.

In 2023, the science fiction literary magazine Clarkesworld stopped accepting new submissions because so many were generated by artificial intelligence. Near as the editors could tell, many submitters pasted the magazine’s detailed story guidelines into an AI and sent in the results. And they weren’t alone. Other fiction magazines have also reported a high number of AI-generated submissions.

This is only one example of a ubiquitous trend. A legacy system relied on the difficulty of writing and cognition to limit volume. Generative AI overwhelms the system because the humans on the receiving end can’t keep up...

The Homeland Security secretary and others warn that consultants are slowing recovery projects potentially to "maximize billable hours."

Prime Minister Mark Carney is turning to factories and power plants to cut emissions, after scrapping a consumer carbon tax last year.

Members of the House and Senate said EPA under President Donald Trump has usurped congressional authority.

Scientists say the damage caused by that disaster, which ran from 2014 to 2017, underscores the danger of climate change to marine life.

From fertilizers to cement, manufacturers warn against introducing a kill switch into the just-launched CBAM scheme.

The climate commissioner said the force will include firefighters from across the 27-member bloc and will be swiftly deployed where needed.

The drought conditions and food shortages extend into Somalia, Tanzania and even Uganda.

Weather plays a critical role in the smooth running and safety of winter sports competitions.

Olympic figure skating looks effortless. Athletes sail across the ice, then soar into the air, spinning like a top, before landing on a single blade just 4-5 millimeters wide. To help figure skaters land quadruple axels, Salchows, Lutzes, and maybe even the elusive quintuple without looking the least bit stressed, Jerry Lu MFin ’24 developed an optical tracking system called OOFSkate that uses artificial intelligence to analyze video of a figure skater’s jump and make recommendations on how to improve. Lu, a former researcher at the MIT Sports Lab, has been aiding elite skaters on Team USA with their technical performance and will be working with NBC Sports during the 2026 Winter Olympics to help commentators and TV viewers make better sense of the complex scoring system in figure skating, snowboarding, and skiing. He’ll be applying AI technologies to explain nuanced judging decisions and demonstrate just how technically challenging these sports can be.

Meanwhile, Professor Anette “Peko” Hosoi, co-founder and faculty director of the MIT Sports Lab, is embarking on new research aimed at understanding how AI systems evaluate aesthetic performance in figure skating. Hosoi and Lu recently chatted with MIT News about applying AI to sports, whether AI systems could ever be used to judge Olympic figure skating, and when we might see a skater land a quint.

Q: Why apply AI to figure skating?

Lu: Skaters can always keep pushing, higher, faster, stronger. OOFSkate is all about helping skaters figure out a way to rotate a little bit faster in their jumps or jump a little bit higher. The system helps skaters catch things that perhaps could pass an eye test, but that might allow them to target some high-value areas of opportunity. The artistic side of skating is much harder to evaluate than the technical elements because it’s subjective.

To use mobile training app, you just need to take a video of an athlete’s jump, and it will spit out the physical metrics that drive how many rotations you can do. It tracks those metrics and builds in all of the other current elite and former elite athletes. You can see your data and then see, “This is how an Olympic champion did this element, perhaps I should try that.” You get the comparison and the automated classifier, which shows you if you did this trick at World Championships and it were judged by an international panel, this is approximately the grade of execution score they would give you.

Hosoi: There are a lot of AI tools that are coming online, especially things like pose estimators, where you can approximate skeletal configurations from video. The challenge with these pose estimators is that if you only have one camera angle, they do very well in the plane of the camera, but they do very poorly with depth. For example, if you’re trying to critique somebody’s form in fencing, and they’re moving toward the camera, you get very bad data. But with figure skating, Jerry has found one of the few areas where depth challenges don’t really matter. In figure skating, you need to understand: How high did this person jump, how many times did they go around, and how well did they land? None of those rely on depth. He’s found an application that pose estimators do really well, and that doesn’t pay a penalty for the things they do badly.

Q: Could you ever see a world in which AI is used to evaluate the artistic side of figure skating?

Hosoi: When it comes to AI and aesthetic evaluation, we have new work underway thanks to a MIT Human Insight Collaborative (MITHIC) grant. This work is in collaboration with Professor Arthur Bahr and IDSS graduate student Eric Liu. When you ask an AI platform for an aesthetic evaluation such as “What do you think of this painting?” it will respond with something that sounds like it came from a human. What we want to understand is, to get to that assessment, are the AIs going through the same sort of reasoning pathways or using the same intuitive concepts that humans go through to arrive at, “I like that painting,” or “I don’t like that painting”? Or are they just parrots? Are they just mimicking what they heard a person say? Or is there some concept map of aesthetic appeal? Figure skating is a perfect place to look for this map because skating is aesthetically judged. And there are numbers. You can’t go around a museum and find scores, “This painting is a 35.” But in skating, you’ve got the data.

That brings up another even more interesting question, which is the difference between novices and experts. It’s known that expert humans and novice humans will react differently to seeing the same thing. Somebody who is an expert judge may have a different opinion of a skating performance than a member of the general population. We’re trying to understand differences between reactions from experts, novices, and AI. Do these reactions have some common ground in where they are coming from, or is the AI coming from a different place than both the expert and the novice?

Lu: Figure skating is interesting because everybody working in the field of AI is trying to figure out AGI or artificial general intelligence and trying to build this extremely sound AI that replicates human beings. Working on applying AI to sports like figure skating helps us understand how humans think and approach judging. This has down-the-line impacts for AI research and companies that are developing AI models. By gaining a deeper understanding of how current state-of-the-art AI models work with these sports, and how you need to do training and fine-tuning of these models to make them work for specific sports, it helps you understand how AI needs to advance.

Q: What will you be watching for in the Milan Cortina Olympics figure skating competitions, now that you’ve been studying and working in this area? Do you think someone will land a quint?

Lu: For the winter games, I am working with NBC for the figure skating, ski, and snowboarding competitions to help them tell a data-driven story for the American people. The goal is to make these sports more relatable. Skating looks slow on television, but it’s not. Everything is supposed to look effortless. If it looks hard, you are probably going to get penalized. Skaters need to learn how to spin very fast, jump extremely high, float in the air, and land beautifully on one foot. The data we are gathering can help showcase how hard skating actually is, even though it is supposed to look easy.

I’m glad we are working in the Olympics sports realm because the world watches once every four years, and it is traditionally coaching-intensive and talent-driven sports, unlike a sport like baseball, where if you don’t have an elite-level optical tracking system you are not maximizing the value that you currently have. I’m glad we get to work with these Olympic sports and athletes and make an impact here.

Hosoi: I have always watched Olympic figure skating competitions, ever since I could turn on the TV. They’re always incredible. One of the things that I’m going to be practicing is identifying the jumps, which is very hard to do if you’re an amateur “judge.”

I have also done some back-of-the-envelope calculations to see if a quint is possible. I am now totally convinced it’s possible. We will see one in our lifetime, if not relatively soon. Not in this Olympics, but soon. When I saw we were so close on the quint, I thought, what about six? Can we do six rotations? Probably not. That’s where we start to come up against the limits of human physical capability. But five, I think, is in reach.

The 2026 Times Higher Education World University Ranking has ranked MIT first in three subject categories: Arts and Humanities, Business and Economics, and Social Sciences, repeating the Institute’s top spot in the same subjects in 2025.

The Times Higher Education World University Ranking is an annual publication of university rankings by Times Higher Education, a leading British education magazine. The subject rankings are based on 18 rigorous performance indicators categorized under five core pillars: teaching, research environment, research quality, industry, and international outlook.

Disciplines included in MIT’s top-ranked subjects are housed in the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (SHASS), the School of Architecture and Planning (SA+P), and the MIT Sloan School of Management.

“SHASS is a vibrant crossroads of ideas, bringing together extraordinary people,” says Agustín Rayo, the Kenan Sahin Dean of SHASS. “These rankings reflect the strength of this remarkable community and MIT’s ongoing commitment to the humanities, arts, and social sciences.” 

“The human dimension is capital to our school's mission and programs, be they architecture, planning, media arts and sciences, or the arts, and whether at the scale of individuals, communities, or societies,” says Hashim Sarkis, dean of SA+P. “The acknowledgment and celebration of their centrality by the Times Higher Education only renews our deep commitment to human values.”

“MIT and MIT Sloan are providing students with an education that ensures they have the skills, experience, and problem-solving abilities they need in order to succeed in our world today,” says Richard M. Locke, the John C Head III Dean at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “It’s not just what we teach them, but how we teach them. The interdisciplinary nature of a school like MIT combines analytical reasoning skills, deep functional knowledge, and, at MIT Sloan, a hands-on management education that teaches students how to collaborate, lead teams, and navigate challenges, now and in the future."

The Arts and Humanities ranking evaluated 817 universities from 74 countries in the disciplines of languages; literature and linguistics; history; philosophy; theology; architecture; archaeology; and art, performing arts, and design. This is the second consecutive year MIT has earned the top spot in this subject.

The ranking for Business and Economics evaluated 1,067 institutions from 91 countries and territories across three core disciplines: business and management; accounting and finance; and economics and econometrics. This is the fifth consecutive year MIT has been ranked first in this subject.

The Social Sciences ranking evaluated 1,202 institutions from 104 countries and territories in the disciplines of political science and international studies, sociology, geography, communication and media studies, and anthropology. MIT claimed the top spot in this subject for the second consecutive year.

In other subjects, MIT was also named among the top universities, ranking third in Engineering and Life Sciences, and fourth in Computer Science and Physical Sciences. Overall, MIT ranked second in the Times Higher Education 2026 World University Ranking. 

Flock contracts have quietly spread to cities across the country. But Flock ALPR (Automated License Plate Readers) erode civil liberties from the moment they're installed. While officials claim these cameras keep neighborhoods safe, the evidence tells a different story. The data reveals how Flock has enabled surveillance of people seeking abortions, protesters exercising First Amendment rights, and communities targeted by discriminatory policing.

This is exactly why cities are saying no. From Austin to Cambridge to small towns across Texas, jurisdictions are rejecting Flock contracts altogether, proving that surveillance isn't inevitable—it's a choice.

Join EFF's Sarah Hamid and Andrew Crocker along with Reem Suleiman from Fight for the Future and Kate Bertash from Rural Privacy Coalition to explore what's happening as Flock contracts face growing resistance across the U.S. We'll break down the legal implications of the data these systems collect, examine campaigns that have successfully stopped Flock deployments, and discuss the real-world consequences for people's privacy and freedom. The conversation will be followed by a live Q&A. 

EFFecting Change Livestream Series:
Get the Flock Out of Our City
Thursday, February 19th
12:00 PM - 1:00 PM Pacific
This event is LIVE and FREE!

Accessibility

This event will be live-captioned and recorded. EFF is committed to improving accessibility for our events. If you have any accessibility questions regarding the event, please contact events@eff.org.

Event Expectations

EFF is dedicated to a harassment-free experience for everyone, and all participants are encouraged to view our full Event Expectations.

Upcoming Events

Want to make sure you don’t miss our next livestream? Here’s a link to sign up for updates about this series: eff.org/ECUpdates. If you have a friend or colleague that might be interested, please join the fight for your digital rights by forwarding this link: eff.org/EFFectingChange. Thank you for helping EFF spread the word about privacy and free expression online. 

Recording

We hope you and your friends can join us live! If you can't make it, we’ll post the recording afterward on YouTube and the Internet Archive!

Section 230 helps make it possible for online communities to host user speech: from restaurant reviews, to fan fiction, to collaborative encyclopedias. But recent debates about the law often overlook how it works in practice. To mark its 30th anniversary, EFF is interviewing leaders of online platforms about how they handle complaints, moderate content, and protect their users’ ability to speak and share information.

Yelp hosts millions of reviews written by internet users about local businesses. Most reviews are positive, but over the years, some businesses have tried to pressure Yelp to remove negative reviews, including through legal threats. Since its founding more than two decades ago, Yelp has fought major legal battles to defend reviewers’ rights and preserve the legal protections that allow consumers to share honest feedback online.

Aaron Schur is General Counsel at Yelp. He joined the company in 2010 as one of its first lawyers and has led its litigation strategy for more than a decade, helping secure court decisions that strengthened legal protections for consumer speech. He was interviewed by Joe Mullin, a policy analyst on EFF's Activism Team. 

Joe Mullin: How would you describe Section 230 to a regular Yelp user who doesn’t know about the law?   

Aaron Schur: I'd say it is a simple rule that, generally speaking, when content is posted online, any liability for that content is with the person that created it, not the platform that is displaying it. That allows Yelp to show your review and keep it up if a business complains about it. It also means that we can develop ways to highlight the reviews we think are most helpful and reliable, and mitigate fake reviews in a way, without creating liability for Yelp, because we're allowed to host third party content.

The political debate around Section 230 often centers around the behavior of companies, especially large companies. But we rarely hear about users, even though the law also applies to users. What is the user story that is getting lost? 

Section 230 at heart protects users. It enables a diversity of platforms and content moderation practices—whether it's reviews on Yelp, videos on another platform, whatever it may be. 

Without Section 230, platforms would face heavy pressure to remove consumer speech when we’re threatened with legal action—and that harms users, directly. Their content gets removed. It also harms the greater number of users who would access that content. 

The focus on the biggest tech companies, I think, is understandable but misplaced when it comes to Section 230. We have tools that exist to go after dominant companies, both at the state and the federal level, and Congress could certainly consider competition-based laws—and has, over the last several years. 

Tell me about the editorial decisions that Yelp makes regarding the highlighting of reviews, and the weeding out of reviews that might be fake.  

Yelp is a platform where people share their experiences with local businesses, government agencies, and other entities. People come to Yelp, by the millions, to learn about these places.

With traffic like that come incentives for bad actors to game the system. Some unscrupulous businesses try to create fake reviews, or compensate people to write reviews, or ask family and friends to write reviews. Those reviews will be biased in a way that won’t be transparent. 

Yelp developed an automated system to highlight reviews we find most trustworthy and helpful. Other reviews may be placed in a “not recommended” section where they don’t affect a business’s overall rating, but they’re still visible. That helps us maintain a level playing field and keep user trust. 

Tell me about what your process around complaints around user reviews look like. 

We have a reporting function for reviews. Those reports get looked at by an actual human, who evaluates the review and looks at data about it to decide whether it violates our guidelines. 

We don't remove a review just because someone says it's “wrong,” because we can't litigate the facts in your review. If someone says “my pizza arrived cold,” and the restaurant says, no, the pizza was warm—Yelp is not in a position to adjudicate that dispute. 

That's where Section 230 comes in. It says Yelp doesn’t have to [decide who’s right]. 

What other types of moderation tools have you built? 

Any business, free of charge, can respond to a review, and that response appears directly below it. They can also message users privately. We know when businesses do this, it’s viewed positively by users.

We also have a consumer alert program, where members of the public can report businesses that may be compensating people for positive reviews—offering things like free desserts or discounted rent. In those cases, we can place an alert on the business’s page and link to the evidence we received. We also do this when businesses make certain types of legal threats against users.

It’s about transparency. If a business’s rating is inflated, because that business is threatening reviewers who rate less than five stars with a lawsuit, consumers have a right to know what’s happening. 

How are international complaints, where Section 230 doesn’t come into play, different? 

We have had a lot of matters in Europe, in particular in Germany. It’s a different system there—it’s notice-and-takedown. They have a line of cases that require review sites to basically provide proof that the person was a customer of the business. 

If a review was challenged, we would sometimes ask the user for documentation, like an invoice, which we would redact before providing it. Often, they would do that, in order to defend their own speech online. Which was surprising to me! But they wouldn’t always—which shows the benefit of Section 230. In the U.S., you don’t have this back-and-forth that a business can leverage to get content taken down. 

And invariably, the reviewer was a customer. The business was just using the system to try to take down speech. 

Yelp has been part of some of the most important legal cases around Section 230, and some of those didn’t exist when we spoke in 2012. What happened in the Hassel v. Bird case, and why was that important for online reviewers?

Hassel v. Bird was a case where a law firm got a default judgment against an alleged reviewer, and the court ordered Yelp to remove the review—even though Yelp had not been a party to the case. 

We refused, because the order violated Section 230, due process, and Yelp’s First Amendment rights as a publisher. But the trial court and the appeal court both ruled against us, allowing a side-stepping of Section 230. 

The California Supreme Court ultimately reversed those rulings, and recognized that plaintiffs cannot accomplish indirectly [by suing a user and then ordering a platform to remove content] what they could not accomplish directly by suing the platform itself.

We spoke to you in 2012, and the landscape has really changed. Section 230 is really under attack in a way that it wasn’t back then. From your vantage point at Yelp, what feels different about this moment? 

The biggest tech companies got even bigger, and even more powerful. That has made people distrustful and angry—rightfully so, in many cases. 

When you read about the attacks on 230, it’s really politicians calling out Big Tech. But what is never mentioned is little tech, or “middle tech,” which is how Yelp bills itself. If 230 is weakened or repealed, it’s really the biggest companies, the Googles of the world, that will be able to weather it better than smaller companies like Yelp. They have more financial resources. It won’t actually accomplish what the legislators are setting out to accomplish. It will have unintended consequences across the board. Not just for Yelp, but for smaller platforms. 

This interview was edited for length and clarity.

Section 230 helps make it possible for online communities to host user speech: from restaurant reviews, to fan fiction, to collaborative encyclopedias. But recent debates about the law often overlook how it works in practice. To mark its 30th anniversary, EFF is interviewing leaders of online platforms about how they handle complaints, moderate content, and protect their users’ ability to speak and share information. 

A decade ago, Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates Wikipedia, received 304 requests to alter or remove content over a two-year period, not including copyright complaints. In 2024 alone, it received 664 such takedown requests. Only four were granted. As complaints over user speech have grown, Wikimedia has expanded its legal team to defend the volunteer editors who write and maintain the encyclopedia. 

Jacob Rogers is Associate General Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation. He leads the team that deals with legal complaints against Wikimedia content and its editors. Rogers also works to preserve the legal protections, including Section 230, that make a community-governed encyclopedia possible. 

Joe Mullin: What kind of content do you think would be most in danger if Section 230 was weakened? 

Jacob Rogers: When you're writing about a living person, if you get it wrong and it hurts their reputation, they will have a legal claim. So that is always a concentrated area of risk. It’s good to be careful, but  I think if there was a looser liability regime, people could get to be too careful—so careful they couldn’t write important public information. 

Current events and political history would also be in danger. Writing about images of Muhammad has been a flashpoint in different countries, because depictions are religiously sensitive and controversial in some contexts. There are different approaches to this in different languages. You might not think that writing about the history of art in your country 500 years ago would get you into trouble—but it could, if you’re in a particular country, and it’s a flash point. 

Writing about history and culture matters to people. And it can matter to governments, to religions, to movements, in a way that can cause people problems. That’s part of why protecting pseudonymity and their ability to work on these topics is so important. 

If you had to describe to a Wikipedia user what Section 230 does, how would you explain it to them? 

If there was nothing—no legal protection at all—I think we would not be able to run the website. There would be too many legal claims, and the potential damages of those claims could bankrupt the company. 

Section 230 protects the Wikimedia Foundation, and it allows us to defer to community editorial processes. We can let the user community make those editorial decisions, and figure things out as a group—like how to write biographies of living persons, and what sources are reliable. Wikipedia wouldn’t work if it had centralized decision making. 

What does a typical complaint look like, and how does the complaint process look? 

In some cases, someone is accused of a serious crime and there’s a debate about the sources. People accused of certain types of wrongdoing, or scams. There are debates about peoples’ politics, where someone is accused of being “far-right” or “far-left.” 

The first step is community dispute resolution. On the top page of every article on Wikipedia there’s a button at the top that translates to “talk.” If you click it, that gives you space to discuss how to write the article. When editors get into a fight about what to write, they should stop and discuss it with each other first. 

If page editors can’t resolve a dispute, third-party editors can come in, or ask for a broader discussion. If that doesn’t work, or there’s harassment, we have Wikipedia volunteer administrators, elected by their communities, who can intervene. They can ban people temporarily, to cool off. When necessary, they can ban users permanently. In serious cases, arbitration committees make final decisions. 

And these community dispute processes we’ve discussed are run by volunteers, no Wikimedia Foundation employees are involved? Where does Section 230 come into play?

That’s right. Section 230 helps us, because it lets disputes go through that community process. Sometimes someone’s edits get reversed, and they write an angry letter to the legal department. If we were liable for that, we would have the risk of expensive litigation every time someone got mad. Even if their claim is baseless, it’s hard to make a single filing in a U.S. court for less than $20,000. There’s a real “death by a thousand cuts” problem, if enough people filed litigation. 

Section 230 protects us from that, and allows for quick dismissal of invalid claims. 

When we're in the United States, then that's really the end of the matter. There’s no way to bypass the community with a lawsuit. 

How does dealing with those complaints work in the U.S.? And how is it different abroad? 

In the US, we have Section 230. We’re able to say, go through the community process, and try to be persuasive. We’ll make changes, if you make a good persuasive argument! But the Foundation isn’t going to come in and change it because you made a legal complaint. 

But in the EU, they don’t have Section 230 protections. Under the Digital Services Act, once someone claims your website hosts something illegal, they can go to court and get an injunction ordering us to take the content down. If we don’t want to follow that order, we have to defend the case in court. 

In one German case, the court essentially said, "Wikipedians didn’t do good enough journalism.” The court said the article’s sources aren’t strong enough. The editors used industry trade publications, and the court said they should have used something like German state media, or top newspapers in the country, not a “niche” publication. We disagreed with that. 

What’s the cost of having to go to court regularly to defend user speech? 

Because the Foundation is a mission-driven nonprofit, we can take on these defenses in a way that’s not always financially sensible, but is mission sensible. If you were focused on profit, you would grant a takedown. The cost of a takedown is maybe one hour of a staff member’s time. 

We can selectively take on cases to benefit the free knowledge mission, without bankrupting the company. To do litigation in the EU costs something on the order of $30,000 for one hearing, to a few hundred thousand dollars for a drawn-out case.

I don’t know what would happen if we had to do that in the United States. There would be a lot of uncertainty. One big unknown is—how many people are waiting in the wings for a better opportunity to use the legal system to force changes on Wikipedia? 

What does the community editing process get right that courts can get wrong? 

Sources. Wikipedia editors might cite a blog because they know the quality of its research. They know what's going into writing that. 

It can be easy sometimes for a court to look at something like that and say, well, this is just a blog, and it’s not backed by a university or institution, so we’re not going to rely on it. But that's actually probably a worse result. The editors who are making that consideration are often getting a more accurate picture of reality. 

Policymakers who want to limit or eliminate Section 230 often say their goal is to get harmful content off the internet, and fast. What do you think gets missed in the conversation about removing harmful content? 

One is: harmful to whom? Every time people talk about “super fast tech solutions,” I think they leave out academic and educational discussions. Everyone talks about how there’s a terrorism video, and it should come down. But there’s also news and academic commentary about that terrorism video. 

There are very few shared universal standards of harm around the world. Everyone in the world agrees, roughly speaking, on child protection, and child abuse images. But there’s wild disagreement about almost every other topic. 

If you do take down something to comply with the UK law, it’s global. And you’ll be taking away the rights of someone in the US or Australia or Canada to see that content. 

This interview was edited for length and clarity. EFF interviewed Wikimedia attorney Michelle Paulson about Section 230 in 2012.

For thirty years, internet users have benefited from a key federal law that allows everyone to express themselves, find community, organize politically, and participate in society. Section 230, which protects internet users’ speech by protecting the online intermediaries we rely on, is the legal support that sustains the internet as we know it.

Yet as Section 230 turns 30 this week, there are bipartisan proposals in Congress to either repeal or sunset the law. These proposals seize upon legitimate concerns with the harmful and anti-competitive practices of the largest tech companies, but then misdirect that anger toward Section 230.

But rolling back or eliminating Section 230 will not stop invasive corporate surveillance that harms all internet users. Killing Section 230 won’t end to the dominance of the current handful of large tech companies—it would cement their monopoly power. 

The current proposals also ignore a crucial question: what legal standard should replace Section 230? The bills provide no answer, refusing to grapple with the tradeoffs inherent in making online intermediaries liable for users’ speech.

This glaring omission shows what these proposals really are: grievances masquerading as legislation, not serious policy. Especially when the speech problems with alternatives to Section 230’s immunity are readily apparent, both in the U.S. and around the world. Experience shows that those systems result in more censorship of internet users’ lawful speech.

Let’s be clear: EFF defends Section 230 because it is the best available system to protect users’ speech online. By immunizing intermediaries for their users’ speech, Section 230 benefits users. Services can distribute our speech without filters, pre-clearance, or the threat of dubious takedown requests. Section 230 also directly protects internet users when they distribute other people’s speech online, such as when they reshare another users’ post or host a comment section on their blog.

It was the danger of losing the internet as a forum for diverse political discourse and culture that led to the law in 1996. Congress created Section 230’s limited civil immunity  because it recognized that promoting more user speech outweighed potential harms. Congress decided that when harmful speech occurs, it’s the speaker that should be held responsible—not the service that hosts the speech. The law also protects social platforms when they remove posts that are obscene or violate the services’ own standards. And Section 230 has limits: it does not immunize services if they violate federal criminal laws.

Section 230 Alternatives Would Protect Less Speech

With so much debate around the downsides of Section 230, it’s worth considering: What are some of the alternatives to immunity, and how would they shape the internet?

The least protective legal regime for online speech would be strict liability. Here, intermediaries always would be liable for their users’ speech—regardless of whether they contributed to the harm, or even knew about the harmful speech. It would likely end the widespread availability and openness of social media and web hosting services we’re used to. Instead, services would not let users speak without vetting the content first, via upload filters or other means. Small intermediaries with niche communities may simply disappear under the weight of such heavy liability.

Another alternative: Imposing legal duties on intermediaries, such as requiring that they act “reasonably” to limit harmful user content. This would likely result in platforms monitoring users’ speech before distributing it, and being extremely cautious about what they allow users to say. That inevitably would lead to the removal of lawful speech—probably on a large scale. Intermediaries would not be willing to defend their users’ speech in court, even it is entirely lawful. In a world where any service could be easily sued over user speech, only the biggest services will survive. They’re the ones that would have the legal and technical resources to weather the flood of lawsuits.

Another option is a notice-and-takedown regime, like what exists under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That will also result in takedowns of legitimate speech. And there’s no doubt such a system will be abused. EFF has documented how the DMCA leads to widespread removal  https://www.eff.org/takedownsof lawful speech based on frivolous copyright infringement claims. Replacing Section 230 with a takedown system will invite similar behavior, and powerful figures and government officials will use it to silence their critics.

The closest alternative to Section 230’s immunity provides protections from liability until an impartial court has issued a full and final ruling that user-generated content is illegal, and ordered that it be removed. These systems ensure that intermediaries will not have to cave to frivolous claims. But they still leave open the potential for censorship because intermediaries are unlikely to fight every lawsuit that seeks to remove lawful speech. The cost of vindicating lawful speech in court may be too high for intermediaries to handle at scale.

By contrast, immunity takes the variable of whether an intermediary will stand up for their users’ speech out of the equation. That is why Section 230 maximizes the ability for users to speak online.

In some narrow situations, Section 230 may leave victims without a legal remedy. Proposals aimed at those gaps should be considered, though lawmakers should pay careful attention that in vindicating victims, they do not broadly censor users’ speech. But those legitimate concerns are not the criticisms that Congress is levying against Section 230.

EFF will continue to fight for Section 230, as it remains the best available system to protect everyone’s ability to speak online.