LinkedIn Blames ‘Error’ After Removing Pro-ICE Post Over ‘Hateful Speech’
'LinkedIn just proved once again that their woke censorship machine is still running full throttle,' SFCN President Andy Roth told The Federalist.'LinkedIn just proved once again that their woke censorship machine is still running full throttle,' SFCN President Andy Roth told The Federalist.A federal 'kill switch' for your car is coming — and neither Democrats nor Republicans will stop it
The federal government is moving closer to giving your car the authority to decide whether you are allowed to drive — without a warrant, without due process, and with no guaranteed way to reverse the decision once it is made.
And it is happening not because of one party alone, but because Congress, across party lines, has failed to stop it.
This is not about defending drunk driving. It is about stopping a government overreach that treats every driver as a suspect.
No accident
It's no accident that all this happened quietly. It was written into law under the Biden administration’s 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, buried deep in Section 24220 — a provision few lawmakers publicly debated, but one that now threatens to fundamentally alter the relationship between Americans and their vehicles.
Section 24220 directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to mandate “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” in all new passenger vehicles. In plain terms, it requires systems that continuously monitor drivers and can prevent a vehicle from operating if impairment is suspected. No breath test is required. No police officer is involved. The judgment is made by software.
Once flagged, a vehicle may refuse to start or restrict operation. Here is the most troubling part: Federal law provides no clear process for getting out of that lockout. There is no required appeal. No mandated reset timeline. No human review. Drivers can find themselves trapped in what critics have begun calling “kill switch jail,” with no guaranteed path to restore access to their own car.
This is not targeted enforcement. It applies to every driver, every time, regardless of driving history.
That alone should raise constitutional alarms.
Proven approach
Drunk driving laws already exist — and they work. Ignition interlock devices have long been required for convicted offenders, and there are 31 approved interlock systems currently in use nationwide. Those systems require a breath sample and are imposed only after due process. Section 24220 discards that proven, targeted approach and instead subjects all drivers to pre-emptive punishment, including those who do not drink at all.
To comply with the mandate, automakers may choose from a range of technologies: driver-facing cameras that track eye movement and head position; software that analyzes steering, braking, and lane-keeping behavior; or touch-based alcohol sensors embedded in the steering wheel or start button. None of these systems determine guilt. They calculate probability — and then deny access.
False positives are inevitable. Fatigue, prescription medications, medical conditions such as diabetes or neurological disorders, and even stress can trigger impairment alerts. Shift workers, caregivers, parents, and first responders are especially vulnerable. When the system is wrong, the consequences are immediate — and the driver has no guaranteed recourse.
Pre-emptive denial
This is not a passive safety feature like an airbag. It is a government-mandated, pre-emptive denial of mobility enforced by an algorithm.
Despite growing concern, Congress has chosen not to stop the mandate, with Democrats largely supporting continued funding and a number of Republicans also voting to keep the program intact.
In January 2026, the House voted on an amendment offered by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky that would have blocked funding for NHTSA’s implementation of Section 24220. That amendment failed, allowing the mandate to continue moving toward full enforcement.
Supporters argue the technology does not allow government agents or police to remotely shut down vehicles. While that may be technically true today, the mandate still requires continuous driver monitoring. Once that hardware becomes standard across the national vehicle fleet, expanding its use becomes a political decision — not a technical limitation.
RELATED: Dystopian future as misguided safety push sends drivers to 'kill switch jail'
Privacy risks
Privacy and cybersecurity risks only deepen the concern. Any system capable of denying vehicle operation must meet extraordinarily high standards of accuracy and security. Those standards have not been proven at national scale. A malfunctioning or compromised system could strand drivers during extreme weather, medical emergencies, or in remote locations.
Cost is another unavoidable consequence. Vehicles are already becoming unaffordable for many Americans. Adding cameras, sensors, software, and compliance infrastructure will only accelerate price increases and reduce consumer choice. Drivers who want simpler, more reliable vehicles will have fewer options — because mandates do not allow opting out.
Proponents often compare this mandate to seatbelts or airbags. That analogy fails. Seatbelts do not prevent you from driving. Airbags deploy after an accident. This system intervenes before any wrongdoing occurs, based on assumptions rather than certainty, and enforces compliance by denying access altogether.
This is not about defending drunk driving. It is about stopping a government overreach that treats every driver as a suspect and hands control of personal mobility to software.
If Americans want to prevent this future, Section 24220 must be defunded — before “kill switch jail” becomes the default setting for the next generation of cars.
The following are the Republican members who voted against the amendment to block funding for NHTSA’s implementation of Section 24220:
Mark Amodei (Nev.-02)
French Hill (Ark.-02)
Max Miller (Ohio-07)
Don Bacon (Neb.-02)
Jeff Hurd (Colo.-03)
Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa-01)
Stephanie Bice (Okla.-05)
Brian Jack (Ga.-03)
Blake Moore (Utah-01)
Gus Bilirakis (Fla.-12)
John James (Mich.-10)
Tim Moore (N.C.-14)
Mike Bost (Ill.-12)
David Joyce (Ohio-14)
James Moylan (Guam-A.L.)
Ken Calvert (Calif.-41)
Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.-07)
Greg Murphy (N.C.-03)
John Carter (Texas-31)
Mike Kelly (Penn.-16)
Dan Newhouse (Wash.-04)
Tom Cole (Okla.-04)
Jen Kiggans (Va.-02)
Zach Nunn (Iowa-03)
Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.-26)
Kevin Kiley (Calif.-03)
Hal Rogers (Ky.-05)
Neal Dunn (Fla.-02)
Young Kim (Calif.-40)
Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.-27)
Chuck Edwards (N.C.-11)
Kimberlyn King-Hinds (Northern Mariana Islands-A.L.)
Mike Simpson (Idaho-02)
Jake Ellzey (Texas-06)
Darin LaHood (Ill.-16)
Elise Stefanik (N.Y.-21)
Randy Feenstra (Iowa-04)
Nick LaLota (N.Y.-01)
Glenn “GT” Thompson (Penn.-15)
Randy Fine (Fla.-06)
Mike Lawler (N.Y.-17)
Mike Turner (Ohio-10)
Chuck Fleischmann (Tenn.-03)
Frank Lucas (Okla.-03)
David Valadao (Calif.-22)
Vince Fong (Calif.-20)
Nicole Malliotakis (N.Y.-11)
Derrick Van Orden (Wis.-03)
Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.-01)
Celeste Maloy (Utah-02)
Rob Wittman (Va.-01)
Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.-02)
Brian Mast (Fla.-21)
Steve Womack (Ark.-03)
Carlos Gimenez (Fla.-28)
Dan Meuser (Penn.-09)
Ryan Zinke (Mont.-01)
Google’s new motto: Don’t be Christian
Google once had an informal motto: “Don’t be evil.” How about be ideologically driven? Opaque? Arbitrary?
Google sells itself as online Switzerland — a neutral search engine that doesn’t tilt one way or the other. That neutrality vanishes fast when you search for something its algorithm doesn’t like. Suddenly the thing you want becomes strangely hard to find unless you already know exactly where it lives. If you don’t, good luck.
You can’t fix what you’re not allowed to understand.
And good luck advertising it, too — if Google disapproves.
Most people still think of Google as a search engine. That’s outdated. Google is the 900-pound gorilla of online advertising through Google Ads. It has vacuumed up so much of the market that anyone who wants to advertise online usually has to go through Google’s pipeline, under Google’s terms, with Google acting as judge and jury.
This isn’t the print era, when advertisers bought space from newspapers and magazines directly, publication by publication. Today, a huge share of the ad economy runs through a single gatekeeper.
Some might call that a monopoly. Monopolies become even more dangerous when they turn ideological.
Google — and it is far from alone — leans hard left. It dislikes conservative and Christian content, and it has learned how to suppress it without leaving fingerprints. It buries the content in search rankings so that almost no one sees it unless they already know where to look. It throttles monetization. It blocks ads with vague warnings and “policy” language designed to end the conversation.
Google and TikTok now appear to be doing the same thing to faith-based content.
Have you heard of TruPlay? Probably not. That’s the point.
TruPlay is an entertainment app that offers faith-based games and videos for kids. It’s explicitly family-friendly — no sexual themes, no violence, no garbage disguised as “content.” Parents want that. Millions of them. There’s a market for wholesome screen time, and there’s money to be made providing it.
But according to the American Center for Law and Justice, Google has refused to do business with TruPlay for ideological reasons. The ACLJ says Google rejected TruPlay’s efforts to launch advertising campaigns, citing “religious belief in personalized advertising.”
Read that again. Google flagged religious belief as the problem.
The ACLJ says TruPlay tried to comply, filing appeals and revising its ad content repeatedly, only to receive the same rejection notices no matter what changes it made. The ads weren’t inflammatory. They were straightforward: “Turn Game Time into God Time,” “Christian Games for Kids,” “Safe Bible Games for Kids.”
Google’s policy supposedly prohibits “selecting an audience based on sensitive information, such as health information or religious beliefs.” But TruPlay wasn’t targeting a religious audience or harvesting private data. It was advertising Christian kids’ content to the general public.
Google’s response wasn’t “you’re targeting.” It was “your content is too sensitive to advertise.”
That’s the move. “Sensitive” once meant porn, violence, or content not suitable for children. Now it means “Christian games for kids.”
TikTok, the ACLJ says, applied the same logic with even less transparency. The platform allegedly suspended TruPlay’s advertising account over unspecified “repeated violations,” without explaining what those violations were. The ACLJ says one rejected ad contained the word “church.” Another issue allegedly involved an App Store preview image showing Jesus on the cross — not in the ad itself, but in the app’s images. The ACLJ claims TikTok barred advertising anyway.
RELATED: Google’s new plan: To learn everything about you from your online shopping
You can’t fix what you’re not allowed to understand. That’s the point of opacity. You don’t get a rule you can follow. You get a verdict.
What makes this even more revealing is the economic angle. This isn’t Google or TikTok avoiding ads that risk scaring off customers. TruPlay offers the kind of content parents actively want. Platforms should want that money. Instead, they appear willing to lose revenue just to suppress anything overtly Christian and family-friendly.
The ACLJ has sent a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, urging an investigation into what it calls “systemic discrimination” against Christian content creators and advertisers — part of a broader pattern of viewpoint-based censorship.
Google and TikTok will respond with the standard defense: We’re private companies. We can do what we want.
Fine. But stop pretending you’re Switzerland. If you present yourself as a neutral platform open to all, while quietly functioning as a political gatekeeper, you don’t get to hide behind the language of neutrality when people notice the double standard.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you’re Switzerland — or you’re not.
Google and TikTok are not. It’s time to treat them accordingly.
How do you solve a problem like Wikipedia?
Wikipedia has recently come under the microscope. I take some credit for this, as a co-founder of Wikipedia and a longtime vocal critic of the knowledge platform.
In September, I nailed (virtually) “Nine Theses About Wikipedia” to the digital door of Wikipedia and started a round of interviews about it, beginning with Tucker Carlson. This prompted Elon Musk to announce Grokipedia’s impending launch the very next day. And a national conversation evolved from there, with left- and right-leaning voices complaining about the platform’s direction or my critique of it.
As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.
As its 25th anniversary approaches, Wikipedia clearly needs reform. Not only does the platform have a long history of left-wing bias, but the purveyors of that bias — administrators, everyday editors, and others — stubbornly cling to their warped worldview and vilify those who dare to contest it.
The “Nine Theses” are the project’s first-ever thoroughgoing reform proposal. Among the ideas:
- Allow multiple, competing articles per topic.
- Stop ideological blacklisting of sources.
- Restore the original neutrality policy.
- Reveal the identities of the most powerful managers.
- End unfair, indefinite blocking.
- Adopt a formal legislative process.
Such ideas were bound to be a hard sell on Wikipedia. It has become institutionally ossified.
Nevertheless, I was delighted that the discussion of the theses has been robust, without much further prodding from me. Following the launch, Jimmy Wales actually stepped into the fray on the so-called talk page of an article called “Gaza genocide,” chiding the participants for violating Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. I chimed in as well. But the criticism was thrown back in our faces.
This brings me to the deeper problem: Wikipedia is stuck in its ways. How can it possibly be reformed when so many of its contributors like the bias, the anonymous leadership, the ease of blocking ideological foes, and other aspects of dysfunction? Reform seems impossible.
Yet there is one realistic way that we can make progress toward reform.
Above all else, those who care should get involved in Wikipedia. The total number of people who are really active on Wikipedia is surprisingly small. The number editing 100 times in any given month is in the low thousands, and this does not amount to that much time — perhaps one or two hours per week. Those who treat it as a part-time or full-time job — and so have real day-to-day influence — number in the hundreds.
In interviews, I have been urging the outcasts to converge on Wikipedia. You might think this is code for saying that conservatives and libertarians should try to stage a coup, but that is not so. Hindus and Israelis, among others, have also complained of being left out in recent years. The problem is an entrenched ruling class. As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.
RELATED: Wikipedia editors are trying to scrub the record clean of Iryna Zarutska’s slaughter by violent thug
If you are a conservative or libertarian who is concerned about the slanted framing of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, get involved. If you are a classical liberal who is alarmed by the anti-Semitism within Wikipedia — like Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz — it is time to make your presence felt. Wherever you may fall on the ideological spectrum, I call on good-faith citizens to become engaged editors who take productive discourse seriously, rather than scapegoating “the other side.”
Even a dozen new editors could make a difference, let alone hundreds or thousands who might be reading this column. Given that Wikipedia attracts billions of readers, in addition to featuring prominently in Google Search, Google Gemini, and elsewhere, improving the platform will strengthen our collective access to high-quality information across the board. It will bring us closer to truth.
So how do we solve the Wikipedia problem? With you, me, and all of us — individual action at scale.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
How data centers could spark the next populist revolt
Everyone keeps promising that artificial intelligence will deliver wonders beyond imagination — medical breakthroughs, massive productivity gains, boundless prosperity. Maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. But one outcome is already clear: If data centers keep driving up Americans’ electricity bills, AI will quickly become a political liability.
Across the country, data center expansion has already helped push electricity prices up 13% over the past year, and voters are starting to push back.
Handled correctly, AI can strengthen America. Handled poorly — by letting data centers overwhelm the grid and drive families toward energy poverty — it will accelerate decline.
In recent months, plans for massive new data centers in Virginia, Maryland, Texas, and Arizona have stalled or collapsed under local backlash. Ordinary Americans have packed town halls and flooded city councils, demanding protection from corporate projects that devour land, drain water supplies, and strain already fragile power grids.
These communities are not rejecting technology. They are rejecting exploitation. As one local official in Chandler, Arizona, told a developer bluntly, “If you can’t show me what’s in it for Chandler, then we’re not having a conversation.”
The problem runs deeper than zoning fights or aesthetics. America’s monopoly utility model shields data centers from the true cost of the strain they impose on the grid. When a facility requires new substations, transmission lines, or transformers — or when its relentless demand drives up electricity prices — utilities spread those costs across every household and small business in the service area.
That arrangement socializes the costs of Big Tech’s growth while privatizing the gains. It also breeds populist anger.
A better approach sits within reach: neighborhood battery programs that put communities first.
Whole-home battery systems continue to gain traction. Rooftop solar panels, small generators, or off-peak grid power can recharge them. Batteries store electricity when it’s cheap and abundant, then release it when demand spikes or outages hit. They protect families from blackouts, lower monthly utility bills, and sometimes allow homeowners to sell power back to the grid.
One policy shift should become non-negotiable: Approval for new data centers should hinge on funding neighborhood battery programs in the communities they impact.
In practice, that requirement would push tech companies to help install home battery systems in nearby neighborhoods, delivering backup power, grid stability, and real relief on electric bills. These distributed batteries would form a flexible, local energy reserve — absorbing peak demand instead of worsening it.
RELATED: Your laptop is about to become a casualty of the AI grift
Most importantly, this model reverses the flow of benefits. Working families would no longer subsidize Big Tech’s expansion while receiving nothing in return. Communities would share directly in the upside.
Access to local land, water, and electricity should come with obligations. Companies that consume enormous public resources should invest in the people who live alongside them — not leave residents stranded when the grid buckles.
Politicians who ignore this gathering backlash risk sleepwalking into a revolt. The choice is straightforward: Build an energy system that serves citizens who keep the country running, or face their fury when they realize they have been sacrificed for someone else’s high-tech gold rush.
Handled correctly, AI can strengthen America. Handled poorly — by letting data centers overwhelm the grid and drive families toward energy poverty — it will accelerate decline.
We still have time to choose. Let’s choose wisely.
Your laptop is about to become a casualty of the AI grift
Welcome to the techno-feudal state, where citizens are forced to underwrite unnecessary and harmful technology at the expense of the technology they actually need.
The economic story of 2025 is the government-driven build-out of hyperscale AI data centers — sold as innovation, justified as national strategy, and pursued in service of cloud-based chatbot slop and expanded surveillance. This build-out is consuming land, food, water, and energy at enormous scale. As Energy Secretary Chris Wright bluntly put it, “It takes massive amounts of electricity to generate intelligence. The more energy invested, the more intelligence produced.”
Shortages will hit consumers hard in the coming year.
That framing ignores what is being sacrificed — and distorted — in the process.
Beyond the destruction of rural communities and the strain placed on national energy capacity, government favoritism toward AI infrastructure is warping markets. Capital that once sustained the hardware and software ecosystem of the digital economy is being siphoned into subsidized “AI factories,” chasing artificial general intelligence instead of cheaper, more efficient investments in narrow AI.
Thanks to fiscal, monetary, tax, and regulatory favoritism, the result is free chatbot slop and an increasingly scarce, expensive supply of laptops, phones, and consumer hardware.
Subsidies break the market
For decades, consumer electronics stood as one of the greatest deflationary success stories in modern economics. Unlike health care or education — both heavily monopolized by government — the computer industry operated with relatively little distortion. From December 1997 to August 2015, the CPI for “personal computers and peripheral equipment” fell 96%. Over that same period, medical care, housing, and food costs rose between 80% and 200%.
That era is ending.
AI data centers are now crowding out consumer electronics. Major manufacturers such as Dell and Samsung are scaling back or discontinuing entire product lines because they can no longer secure components diverted to AI chip production.
Prices for phones and laptops are rising sharply. Jobs tied to consumer electronics — especially the remaining U.S.-based assembly operations — are being squeezed out in favor of data center hardware that benefits a narrow set of firms.
This is policy-driven distortion, not organic market evolution.
Through initiatives like Stargate and hundreds of billions in capital pushed toward data center expansion, the government has created incentives for companies to abandon consumer hardware in favor of AI infrastructure. The result is shortages that will hit consumers hard in the coming year.
Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron are retooling factories to prioritize AI-grade silicon for data centers instead of personal devices. DRAM production is being routed almost entirely toward servers because it is far more profitable to leverage $40,000 AI chips than $500-$800 laptops. In the fourth quarter of 2025, contract prices for certain 16GB DDR5 chips rose nearly 300% as supply was diverted. Dell and Lenovo have already imposed 15%-30% price hikes on PCs, citing insatiable AI-sector demand.
The chip crunch
The situation is deteriorating quickly. DRAM inventory levels are down 80% year over year, with just three weeks of supply on hand — down from 9.5 weeks in July. SK Hynix expects shortages to persist through late 2027. Samsung has announced it is effectively out of inventory and has more than doubled DDR5 contract prices to roughly $19-$20 per unit. DDR5 is now standard across new consumer and commercial desktops and laptops, including Apple MacBooks.
Samsung has also signaled it may exit the SSD market altogether, deeming it insufficiently glamorous compared with subsidized data center investments. Nvidia has warned it may cut RTX 50 series production by up to 40%, a move that would drive up the cost of entry-level gaming systems.
Shrinkflation is next. Before the data center bubble, the market was approaching a baseline of 16GB of RAM and 1TB SSDs for entry-level laptops. As memory is diverted to enterprise customers, manufacturers will revert to 8GB systems with slower storage to keep prices under $999 — ironically rendering those machines incapable of running the very AI applications they’re working on.
Real innovation sidelined
The damage extends beyond prices. Research and development in conventional computing are already suffering. Investment in efficient CPUs, affordable networking equipment, edge computing, and quantum-adjacent technologies has slowed as capital and talent are pulled into AI accelerators.
This is precisely backward. Narrow AI — focused on real-world tasks like logistics, agriculture, port management, and manufacturing — is where genuine productivity gains lie. China understands this and is investing accordingly. The United States is not. Instead, firms like Roomba, which experimented with practical autonomy, are collapsing — only to be acquired by the Chinese!
This is not a free market. Between tax incentives, regulatory favoritism, land-use carve-outs, capital subsidies, and artificially suppressed interest rates, the government has created an arms race for a data center bubble China itself is not pursuing. Each round of monetary easing inflates the same firms’ valuations, enabling further speculative investment divorced from consumer need.
RELATED: China’s AI strategy could turn Americans into data mines
Hype over utility
As Charles Hugh Smith recently noted, expanding credit boosts asset prices, which then serve as collateral for still more leverage — allowing capital-rich firms to outbid everyone else while hollowing out the broader economy.
The pattern is familiar. Consider the Ford plant in Glendale, Kentucky, where 1,600 workers were laid off after the collapse of government-favored electric vehicle investments. That facility is now being retooled to produce batteries for data centers. When one subsidy collapses, another replaces it.
We are trading convention for speculation. Conventional technology — reliable hardware, the internet, mobile computing — delivers proven, measurable utility. The current investment surge into artificial general intelligence is based on hypothetical future returns propped up by state power.
The good old laptop is becoming collateral damage in what may prove to be the largest government-induced tech bubble yet.
Buckle up: We are headed for an AI collision with China
President Trump spoke by phone to his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, on November 24 and later posted on Truth Social, “Our relationship with China is extremely strong!” The warm feelings from Washington came on the heels of the two leaders holding a productive meeting in Korea recently and scheduling several more confabs for the year ahead.
But bubbling beneath the surface is a rivalry between the two countries over the most vital technology of the 21st century: artificial intelligence.
China is not abiding by the rules that are supposed to govern the global economy.
To understand the rivalry, consider a recent announcement by the U.S. Justice Department: On November 20, it charged two Americans and two Chinese nationals with a conspiracy to illegally export about 400 high-performance graphics processing units to China. Federal law requires a license for export of these technologies, which can be used to develop and strengthen AI.
The co-conspirators didn’t have a license — and never even applied for one. In fact, they lied about the destination of the GPUs when shipping them. And for their services, they received a cool $3.89 million in wire transfers from China.
The backdrop to this smuggling scheme is Beijing having set a goal for China to be the world’s leader in AI by 2030. And it’s made considerable headway. According to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “China is the global leader in AI research publications and is neck and neck with the United States on generative AI.” Additionally China is “advancing rapidly in AI research and application, challenging the United States’ dominance in this critical field.”
This progress stems from massive investments by the Chinese government. From 2000 to 2023, venture capital funds connected to the Chinese government made $184 billion in investments in China-based companies in the AI sector, according to a study published last year and conducted by professors at Harvard, MIT, and Oxford.
In an amusing coincidence, one day after the smuggling indictment, Huawei — a leading Chinese technology company — announced a tool called Flex:ai that it said “improves the utilization of artificial intelligence-based chipsets.” The announcement also made the obligatory nod to corporate citizenship, saying that the technology will “speed up the democratization of AI.” But the company buried the lede, saving the most important detail — which is curiously attributed to “sources” — for the final sentence: “The new software tool will help China create an analogue AI chip 1,000 times faster than Nvidia’s chips.”
Huawei is not just any company. It is the world’s largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment. And it’s also been engaged in the kind of skullduggery that resulted in the recent indictment. In 2020, the U.S. Justice Department indicted the company and four of its subsidiaries. The charges mostly revolved around attempts to steal trade secrets from U.S. companies.
The company used an array of tactics, but perhaps most brazen of all, it paid its employees bonuses if they procured confidential information from rival companies. And when U.S. law enforcement was investigating Huawei, the company told its employees not to comply.
RELATED: China’s AI strategy could turn Americans into data mines
Suffice to say, there’s good reason not to trust the Chinese government and its proxy companies like Huawei.
The Trump administration recognizes the threat. In late June, it approved a merger among two American companies that compete with Huawei: Hewlett Packard Enterprises and Juniper Networks. A senior U.S. national security official told Axios: “In light of significant national security concerns, a settlement ... serves the interests of the United States by strengthening domestic capabilities and is critical to countering Huawei and China.” The official said blocking the deal would have "hindered American companies and empowered" Chinese competitors.
Given the economic importance of AI to countries throughout the world, the competition between the United States and China is regrettable. But it’s probably also inevitable. China is not abiding by the rules that are supposed to govern the global economy. And it’s using AI, says the Justice Department, to bolster its military, to test weapons of mass destruction, and to heighten surveillance.
Sometime next year, President Trump is scheduled to make a state visit to Beijing and Xi is scheduled to come to Washington. They’re destined to focus on the cooperative parts of the relationship, but you don’t need to ask ChatGPT to see that the two countries are on a collision course over AI. Buckle up.
Editor's note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Trump Media Announces $6 Billion Merger With Tech Giant To Spearhead ‘Fusion Energy’ Revolution
The Trump Media & Technology Group Corp (TMTG) announced on Thursday that it is merging with a major tech company to further develop and expand the use of “fusion energy” throughout the country. The merger is valued at more than $6 billion. “Trump Media & Technology Group built uncancellable infrastructure to secure free expression online […]Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com