As we've discussed for some time, the esports industry has been the subject of unprecedented growth in competitive sports. This growth trend began nearly a decade ago, but its pace steadily increased and was then supercharged by the COVID-19 pandemic. The industry is now looking back at a year when it nearly doubled in size, basking in its new found cultural position. So, the esports industry has grown. Now it's time for it to grow up.

What do I mean by that? Well, it's time that the industry learn the same lessons many other sports leagues have had to learn: it's the players that drive interest among viewers. Personalities are what become popular in competitive sports and those personalities need space to shine through, rather than be muzzled. And, unfortunately, the esports industry has a nasty habit of trying to muzzle its personalities.

The most glaring example of this came during the Hong Kong protests of 2019. During those protests, many esports athletes spoke out in support for the protests. This led to those athletes being punished, including bans of high profile streamers and others. Given all that's happened in and to Hong Kong since, it's hard to imagine companies like Blizzard arguing they were on the right side of history when it comes to Hong Kong. Frankly, I think I'd enjoy seeing them try.

But the Hong Kong protests are far from the only example of gaming companies and esports events taking a heavy hand to silence athletes. You will recall that Nintendo, after nixing a competition over its use of a mod that basically made putting the tourney on possible, likewise nixed a Splatoon tournament broadcast for the crime of some of the players criticizing the company.

And the latest example of all of this is a Mortal Kombat player being disqualified from a tournament all for mildly chiding the game developers about an over-powered character in the game.

During an official Mortal Kombat 11 Pro Kompetition tournament on January 16, finalist Titaniumtigerzz was disqualified after jokingly calling out developer NetherRealm Studios by labeling his Sheeva variation—a personalized moveset that displays a custom name to opponents—as “WhyDidNRSdoThis.”

The disqualification made for an awkward moment on the stream. When the official broadcast cut away from the top 8 match after just a few minutes, commentators Housam “Mitsuownes” Cherif and Miguel “Darth Arma” Perez were left fumbling for words to explain what happened.

If you're thinking that there's no way that a player was DQ'd from a tournament simply for having that moveset name and are about to go hunting the internet for an alternate explanation...don't bother. That really was the reason. The Sheeva character is the subject of some controversy among Mortal Kombat fans due to a specific move she does that most agree makes her overpowered and nearly impossible to defeat if used in a certain way.

The variation name, Titaniumtigerzz told Kotaku, was supposed to be a very mild criticism of Sheeva’s strengths.

“It was meant to be funny since the character I was using is basically extremely easy,” Titaniumtigerzz explained to me via DM. “The joke was, ‘Why would they make such an easy character?’”

He went on to note that it was the first time he'd used the name, that he wasn't given any notice or warning for using it, and that he wasn't given any opportunity to change the name. The competition rules also don't lay out any rules for this sort of thing, but they do give tournament organizers basically full discretion when it comes to banning players for pretty much anything. Meanwhile, this whole thing backfired anyway, with gamers hurling about the #whyDidNRSdoThis hashtag on twitter.

But, Streisand Effect aside, the point is again that esports needs to grow up. Part of that maturation process is going to require growing a thicker skin. Athletes criticizing their own leagues is incredibly common in competitive sports. It's also common to see athletes using their voices for political and social movements. And, love or hate how athletes use their voices, its those voices that fans connect with, not league executives.

So grow up, esports leagues. Let your players be heard. And if that means hearing them criticize you? Well, that's okay too.

As was totally expected, US district court judge, Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, has handily rejected Parler's motion to force Amazon to turn Parler's digital lights back on. The order is pretty short and sweet, basically saying that Parler hasn't even remotely shown a likelihood of success in the case that would lead to having the court order Amazon to take the social media site back.

On the antitrust claims, the judge points out that these appear to be a figment of Parler's imagination:

At this stage in the proceedings, Parler has failed to demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its Sherman Act claim. While Parler has not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery, the evidence it has submitted in support of the claim is both dwindlingly slight, and disputed by AWS. Importantly, Parler has submitted no evidence that AWS and Twitter acted together intentionally—or even at all—in restraint of trade....

Indeed, Parler has failed to do more than raise the specter of preferential treatment of Twitter by AWS. The sum of its allegation is that “by pulling the plug on Parler but leaving Twitter alone despite identical conduct by users on both sites, AWS reveals that its expressed reasons for suspending Parler’s account are but pretext.”... But Parler and Twitter are not similarly situated, because AWS does not provide online hosting services to Twitter. Parler’s unsupported allegation that “AWS provides online hosting services to both Parler and Twitter” is explicitly denied in a sworn declaration by an AWS executive.... (“Twitter’s principal social-media service (the “Twitter Feed”) does not run on AWS. . . . On December 15, 2020, AWS announced that it signed an agreement with Twitter for AWS to begin servicing the Twitter Feed for the first time. . . . We do not yet service the Twitter Feed, and I am not aware of any particular timeline for doing so.”). Thus, as AWS asserts, “it could not have suspended access to Twitter’s content” because “it does not host Twitter.”

For what it's worth the judge doesn't even note the other huge weakness in Parler's "antitrust claims." I had intended to write a post about this, but now that this order is out, that post may be moot: Parler's CEO in his own declaration undermined the entirety of the antitrust claim by admitting that there were at least half a dozen other "large" cloud providers beyond Amazon. It's true that none of them wanted to do business with Parler, but it sort of highlights that there's competition in the market:

Parler reached out to at least six extremely large potential providers— all of which refused to host Parler for one of two reasons.

The "strongest" (and I use that term in the sense of the "tallest of the ants" meaning) of the claims was probably the breach of contract claim, in which Parler said AWS's terms require 30 days notice for termination. As we wrote, however, the terms also allow for a suspension of service in much less time, and Amazon insists that Parler's service was suspended rather than terminated. The judge, not surprisingly, did read the whole of the terms of service, rather than just the convenient bit Parler's lawyer wanted her to read:

Parler has not denied that content posted on its platform violated the terms of the CSA and the AUP; it claims only that AWS failed to provide notice to Parler that Parler was in breach, and to give Parler 30 days to cure, as Parler claims is required per Section 7.2(b)(i). However, Parler fails to acknowledge, let alone dispute, that Section 7.2(b)(ii)—the provision immediately following—authorizes AWS to terminate the Agreement “immediately upon notice” and without providing any opportunity to cure “if [AWS has] the right to suspend under Section 6.” And Section 6 provides, in turn, that AWS may “suspend [Parler’s or its] End User’s right to access or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice” for a number of reasons, including if AWS determines that Parler is “in breach of this Agreement.” In short, the CSA gives AWS the right either to suspend or to terminate, immediately upon notice, in the event Parler is in breach.

Parler has not denied that at the time AWS invoked its termination or suspension rights under Sections 4, 6 and 7, Parler was in violation of the Agreement and the AUP. It has therefore failed, at this stage in the proceedings, to demonstrate a likelihood of success on its breach of contract claim.

Then there's the intentional interference claim, which almost never flies, because it's almost always just an attempt to repeat earlier claims with a "and this is serious." Here, it's just pathetic. And the judge knows that.

Parler has failed to allege basic facts that would support several elements of this claim. Most fatally, as discussed above, it has failed to raise more than the scantest speculation that AWS’s actions were taken for an improper purpose or by improper means. Conversely, AWS has denied it acted improperly, justifying its actions as a lawful exercise of rights it had pursuant to either the suspension or the termination provisions of the CSA. Further, for the reasons outlined supra, §§ III.B.(1) & (2), Parler has failed to demonstrate the likelihood that AWS breached the CSA. To the contrary, the evidence at this point suggests that AWS’s termination of the CSA was in response to Parler’s material breach. Parler has therefore not demonstrated a likelihood of success on this claim.

The judge does admit that Parler may be right that there are irreparable harms here, but its failure to plead a winnable case means that doesn't much matter. Finally, there's an interesting paragraph on the public interest arguments in the case:

The Court explicitly rejects any suggestion that the balance of equities or the public interest favors obligating AWS to host the kind of abusive, violent content at issue in this case, particularly in light of the recent riots at the U.S. Capitol. That event was a tragic reminder that inflammatory rhetoric can—more swiftly and easily than many of us would have hoped—turn a lawful protest into a violent insurrection. The Court rejects any suggestion that the public interest favors requiring AWS to host the incendiary speech that the record shows some of Parler’s users have engaged in. At this stage, on the showing made thus far, neither the public interest nor the balance of equities favors granting an injunction in this case.

Separately, it's worth noting that the judge called out the fact that this is not a case about free speech or the 1st Amendment, as some have tried to frame it:

It is important to note what this case is not about. Parler is not asserting a violation of any First Amendment rights, which exist only against a governmental entity, and not against a private company like AWS. And indeed, Parler has not disputed that at least some of the abusive and violent posts that gave rise to the issues in this case violate AWS’s Acceptable Use Policy.

Overall, the ruling was basically exactly what most people were expecting. The case still moves on, for now, as this was just rejecting the request for a temporary restraining order (effectively forcing Amazon to rehost Parler). But I would imagine this does not bode well for the next step, which is likely a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit from Amazon, which the judge seems likely to grant on similar grounds as was used for this ruling.

Another day, another privacy scandal where the penalties do virtually nothing to prevent history from repeating itself. This time the focus is on the Flo Period period and fertility tracking app, which has struck an arguably pathetic deal with the Federal Trade Commission over allegations that it lied to app users about sharing private health information with third-party firms, including Facebook and Google. According to the complaint and settlement, Flo informed the app's users that customer data would be "kept private." Instead, Flo sold consumer data, including the dates of user periods and their pregnancy plans with third parties:

"...the FTC alleges that Flo promised to keep users’ health data private and only use it to provide the app’s services to users. In fact, according to the complaint, Flo disclosed health data from millions of users of its Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker app to third parties that provided marketing and analytics services to the app, including Facebook’s analytics division, Google’s analytics division, Google’s Fabric service, AppsFlyer, and Flurry."

Like so many app makers, companies, and telecom giants, the company hid behind claims that this data was "anonymized," despite a laundry list of studies showing how anonymized data isn't really anonymous (especially when an attacker, government or company has access to other data sets). Also like a long list of companies, consumer privacy appears to have been last thing on Flo's mind as they looked for ways to monetize user data. As a result, Flo didn't restrict how this data could be used in any meaningful way.

The settlement comes on the heels of a 2019 story by the Wall Street Journal that first disclosed Flo's dubious privacy and security practices. Other detailed studies on several fronts have made it clear this has been a problem in the health app sector for years, with smoking cessation and mental health apps generally doing the same thing. It's something the FTC claims to be working on, but clearly hasn't made much of a dent in:

"Apps that collect, use, and share sensitive health information can provide valuable services, but consumers need to be able to trust these apps,” said Andrew Smith, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We are looking closely at whether developers of health apps are keeping their promises and handling sensitive health information responsibly."

Think about the sheer volume of apps and companies engaging in this kind of behavior, then remember that the US FTC, quite intentionally, has about 8% of the staff focused on privacy as UK privacy regulators do, despite the UK having one-fifth as many citizens. This is, much like our inability to pass even basic privacy guidelines for the internet era, by design, not accident. We hamstring, underfund, and understaff our regulators (when we're not busy actively sabotaging their legal authority), then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces wondering why US privacy is such a hot mess.

The settlement includes no financial penalty whatsoever, and while Flo will now inform users their data is being sold to third parties, it doesn't have to acknowledge any wrongdoing. Surely that will fix things.

Another law enforcement officer has lost his job after being unable to accept the outcome of a national election. Lots of officers around the nation are under investigation for their participation in the Capitol Hill raid earlier this month. There's another name to add to that long list -- one who used to work for one of the worst law enforcement officials in the county, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd. (h/t WarOnPrivacy)

Trump repeatedly made it clear he preferred cops to the people they served and would be willing to overlook almost any sin they committed, as long as they did it with a uniform on. Trump claimed not liking cops was "wrong" and that he would fix it. He praised extrajudicial killings by federal officers and encouraged beat cops to beat arrestees.

That love for cops is paying dividends. But probably not paying enough to offset the loss of a law enforcement salary. A Polk County deputy has been fired for threatening messages about the January 6 raid on the Capitol.

Judd said another deputy reported the action, making threats in connection with violence against the U.S. Capitol, to a lieutenant.

"Our deputy that reported this is a hero," Judd said, adding that the reporting deputy was also investigated but cooperated fully and is not in trouble.

The suspect is accused of a "mass shooting or act of terrorism" threat, Judd said.

Judd said Heneen had made comments such as "Need to make the streets of D.C. run red with the blood of the tyrants" and "should have dragged the tyrants into the streets and executed them."

The screenshots made public by Sheriff Judd show Deputy Peter Heneen stating he'll "fucking kill bitches," "slit the throats" of any federal officer who "touches his family," and promising to "make them suffer."

Now, Heneen is not only out of a job, but he's been arrested and charged. This is something that seems to happen to an alarming number of Grady Judd's deputies. Here's a recent sampling:

August 2013: Deputy Mark Hicks arrested for sending lewd messages and images to a 17-year-old girl. (This is especially ironic given Grady Judd's numerous stings utilizing deputies who pretend to be minors and engage in sexual conversations with adult targets.)

January 2014: Deputy Julio Garcia arrested and charged after sexually propositioning arrestees.

September 2015: Deputy Consuelo Gallego-Bias arrested for assaulting her husband.

July 2017: Deputy David Clark arrested for driving under the influence after crashing his car into a utility pole.

September 2017: Deputy Russell Hilson arrested for assaulting his girlfriend.

April 2018: Deputy Thomas Strickland arrested and suspended for assaulting his wife.

March 2018: Deputy Silvia Lara arrested for aggravated stalking, burglary, and misuse of the drivers license database.

October 2018: 19-year veteran Scott Walker arrested on sexual battery charges after groping and digitally penetrating a deputy trainee.

November 2019: Detective Dennis Jones, Jr. arrested and charged with 22 counts of falsifying records and forgery.

February 2020: Deputy Seth Morozowski arrested for driving while intoxicated.

May 2020: Deputy Alfredo Marenco arrested for driving under the influence.

May 2020: Detention deputy Yessenia Turcios arrested for domestic violence.

September 2020: Sheriff's Office employee Candace Lewis arrested for domestic battery and filing a false report.

So, there are a couple of ways of looking at this. The more positive take would be that Sheriff Judd doesn't tolerate criminal acts or misconduct and moves swiftly to charge and remove troublesome deputies. The more negative view would be that Judd's department attracts and hires thugs, miscreants, and people with self-control issues. It can also be both! Counter-productive, if true, but the job still pays the same whether you're making things better or just looking busy.

On Thursday morning, the Oversight Board (you're apparently not supposed to call it the "Facebook Oversight Board" since it's -- theoretically -- independent) announced that it had agreed to review Facebook's decision to indefinitely suspend former President Donald Trump.

Today the Oversight Board accepted a case referral from Facebook to examine their decision to indefinitely suspend former US President Donald Trump’s access to post content on Facebook and Instagram. Facebook has also requested policy recommendations from the Board on suspensions when the user is a political leader.

Facebook’s decision to suspend Mr. Trump’s access to post on Facebook and Instagram on January 7, 2021, has driven intense global interest. The Oversight Board has been closely following events in the United States and Facebook’s response to them, and the Board is ready to provide a thorough and independent assessment of the company’s decision.

I'll note that this actually surprises me. When the Oversight Board was first announced, it was said that, at least initially, the Board would focus on individual content decisions, rather than on full account bans. But... apparently that changed. It's also interesting that Facebook has asked the Board for policy recommendations. If I remember correctly, Facebook can request such input, but that input is not binding on the company, which has made many skeptical of its value.

Still, this strikes me as an important moment for the Oversight Board. This will obviously be followed very closely. While I share the skepticism of many that the Oversight Board will be that useful in the long run, I do think it's a worthwhile experiment, and something that is worth watching and seeing how it plays out over time. This, obviously, will be its most high profile and important decision to date.

The Board really only got up and running in late October, and didn't announce its first cases until December. And, obviously, none of those were nearly as high profile or consequential as this question regarding former President Trump and his account.

Of course, that also makes this... a tricky issue. People have lots of opinions on the decision to suspend Trump, and many, many, many people are completely sure that their view (either for or against the suspension) is the only correct view. They are also quite sure that anyone who believes the opposite view is bad/corrupt/evil/biased/etc. Personally, I think the issue involves a lot of nuance, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides, especially if you taken into account the larger context.

Unfortunately, though, because people are so sure about what they think the result will be, it likely means that for a significant portion of people, no matter what the Oversight Board comes back with, it will be seen as illegitimate. If the Board agrees with Facebook's decision to suspend, people will argue (falsely) that the Oversight Board is just there to rubber stamp and whitewash Facebook's decisions. If the Board says the decision was a mistake, it will be seen by those who disagree as proof that Facebook never really wanted to ban Trump in the first place, and the move was just to give them political cover.

Like so much in the content moderation world, all of this puts those making these calls in a no win situation. But... at least from an outsider perspective, it should be fascinating to watch what happens and to understand the results. And, personally, as someone who spends way too much time thinking about the trade-offs and consequences of content moderation decisions, I hope to learn something from whatever the Board decides, whether or not I agree with their eventual recommendations and decision.

The Complete Chess Bundle has 14 courses taught by International and Grandmasters designed to help you go from beginner to club level chess player. You'll learn different strategies and tactics via 120+ hours of content. It's on sale for $100.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

One of the most predictable things in the world is that if anything is going on in the universe, people will try to find some way to make video games into a villain over it. This is doubly true if there are children within a thousand miles of whatever is going on. Notable when these claims arise is the velocity with which any nuance or consideration of a counter-vailing opinion is chucked out the window.

Meanwhile most of the world, and the United States in particular, is suffering in all manner of ways from the COVID-19 pandemic. Hundreds of thousands dead. Millions falling ill. Economic fallout for large swaths of the public. High tensions due to all of this, compounded by a mad would-be-king inciting violence in the house of government. And, even for those not suffering health or massive economic crises, there's the simple matter that we're all more isolated, all home more often, and all mired in a severe lack of socialization and life-affirming activities.

And it's in this environment, apparently, that the New York Times has decided to chide parents for letting their kids play video games and allowing more screen time more generally.

The article, which ran on January 16, quoted some experts and presented a lot of “scary” numbers about screentime. But it also glossed over the fact that video games and the internet have helped many people, kids and adults, stay connected and sane during this terrible time.

The whole post is also oddly bookended by a random small family that is currently struggling during the pandemic. Their son plays a lot of video games as a way to connect with his friends. His father and mother are concerned about how much time he spends in front of the screen, but also know it’s one of the few ways he has to safely socialize while covid-19 runs wild across the world. This is a hard situation I imagine many parents around the globe are going through right now. But highlighting only kids and how much screentime they are using ignores that all of us, not just children and teens, are dealing with increased screentime and a lack of real human interaction. Instead, the article goes on and on about how potentially unhealthy and dangerous all this screentime could be for kids. How kids need to disconnect more. How kids are playing too much Roblox.

This whole diatribe is off for a number of reasons. First, let's start off with the obvious: these are not normal times. If experts want to make arguments or present data that one amount of screen time or another, or even certain amounts of video game playing, is harmful to children, I'm open to those arguments. They need to come with actual scientific data, but I'm open to them. But during a pandemic, when most children are incredibly isolated form their normal activities -- team athletics, outdoor play with other children, school and after-school activities, etc. -- someone is going to have to tell me how increased time playing video games or in front of a computer screen is somehow more harmful than the void of any affirming activity. There are only so many books a child is going to read. Only so many games of cards. Only so much time in imaginative play, or in discussion with his or her parents. Now is not a normal time, so why are we grading parents by normal rules?

Hell, even the experts on the matter have made their recommendations for screen time during the pandemic a moving target.

Dr. Jenny Radesky, a pediatrician who studies children’s use of mobile technology at the University of Michigan, said she did countless media interviews early in the pandemic, telling parents not to feel guilty about allowing more screen time, given the stark challenges of lockdowns. Now, she said, she’d have given different advice if she had known how long children would end up stuck at home.

“I probably would have encouraged families to turn off Wi-Fi except during school hours so kids don’t feel tempted every moment, night and day,” she said, adding, “The longer they’ve been doing a habituated behavior, the harder it’s going to be to break the habit.”

It's also very much worth keeping in mind that discussions on recommended limits to screen time and, even more so video games, are relatively new things given the rapid pace with which technology has been developed. And those recommendations regarding screen time for children have been moving targets over the years. New studies come out all the time on the topic and recommendations from experts likewise get updated.

Moving targets upon moving targets. If you're getting the sense that what experts say about all of this during the COVID-19 pandemic has a make-it-up-as-we-go quality to it, ding ding ding!

And instead of any nuance afforded to the fact that video games have changed wildly to become multiplayer social platforms as much as games, and what that means for children who need to socialize during a pandemic, the article instead just further vilifies game-makers.

Children turn to screens because they say they have no alternative activities or entertainment — this is where they hang out with friends and go to school — all while the technology platforms profit by seducing loyalty through tactics like rewards of virtual money or “limited edition” perks for keeping up daily “streaks” of use.

“This has been a gift to them — we’ve given them a captive audience: our children,” said Dr. Dimitri Christakis, director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The cost will be borne by families, Dr. Christakis said, because increased online use is associated with anxiety, depression, obesity and aggression — “and addiction to the medium itself.”

To give the Times an ounce of credit, that quote is immediately followed by an acknowledgement that Christakis' claims aren't actually born out by anything other than association metrics. In other words, correlation rather than causation. So why bother even including the quote at all?

To conclude: these are not normal times. An over-indulgence of video games in lieu of other healthy activities is surely not optimal for the health and growth of children. But right now there are severe limits on those other healthy activities. And if some gaming gets children in touch with their friends who they can't see otherwise, vilifying video games makes zero sense.

By law, the FCC is required once a year to issue a report indicating whether quality broadband is being deployed on a "reasonable and timely basis." If not, the agency is supposed to, you know, actually do something about it. Unsurprisingly, the Pai FCC last year issued a glowing report declaring that everything was going swimmingly, despite some glaring evidence to the contrary. After all, the nation's phone companies have effectively stopped upgrading their DSL lines, leaving cable giants like Comcast with a growing monopoly over faster broadband speeds (no, neither Elon Musk nor 5G will magically fix this problem).

As one of its last acts in power, the outgoing Trump FCC this week issued its latest annual report on the state of broadband deployment in the US. And, rather unsurprisingly for an agency that took kissing monopoly ass to an entirely new level, outgoing boss Ajit Pai used it to declare the US broadband is perfectly healthy thanks to mindless deregulation and his incredible leadership:

"From my first day as Chairman, the FCC’s top priority has been closing the digital divide. It’s heartening to see these numbers, which demonstrate that we’ve been delivering results for the American people,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

"These successes resulted from forward-thinking policies that removed barriers to infrastructure investment and promoted competition and innovation. I look forward to seeing the Commission continue its efforts to ensure that all Americans have broadband access. Especially with the success of last year’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I auction, I have no doubt that these figures will continue to improve as auction winners deploy networks in the areas for which they got FCC funding."

The problem: FCC broadband mapping data and methodology is hot garbage, something all FCC Commissioners (after more than a decade of complaints) only started even acknowledging in the last few years. Monopolies like Comcast and AT&T have long fought tooth and nail against more accurate mapping and data collection, knowing full well that once the public gets a better view of how spotty, expensive, and uncompetitive the US broadband market is, somebody might just get the crazy idea to do something about it. Captured regulators eagerly share this view.

While there certainly has been improvement over the last four years in terms of broadband access, the Pai FCC also has a four-year history of taking credit for improvements they had nothing to do with. One such example is the steady growth in community owned and operated broadband networks, which Pai FCC's actively opposed. Pai's FCC has even tried to take credit for AT&T fiber deployment mandated as a merger condition by the previous, Obama FCC. That's before you even get to Pai's widely disproven claim that gutting the FCC's consumer protection authority (and net neutrality rules) resulted in incredible new investment.

Pai's last FCC progress report also clings tight to the claim that our definition of broadband (25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up) is still good enough for modern policy making:

"We find that the current speed benchmark of 25/3Mbps remains an appropriate measure by which to assess whether a fixed service is providing advanced telecommunications capability. We conclude that fixed services with speeds of 25/3Mbps continue to meet the statutory definition of advanced telecommunications capability; that is, such services "enable[] users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications."

3 Mbps is pathetic. It in no way meets the urgency of a moment, and that was before entire families became stuck at home gaming, streaming 4K video, and teleconferencing due to the pandemic. And here too is yet another example where Pai's FCC went out of its way to pander to telecom monopolies. Monopolies cried like toddlers in 2010 when the previous FCC increased the definition from 200 kbps symmetrical to 4 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream. Giant ISPs whined again when the FCC in 2015 bumped it to 25/3. They oppose a higher standard because it would clearly illustrate monopolization and market failure. Captured regulators and lawmakers, again, eagerly share this position.

A slow consensus is emerging that 50/25 or even 100/25 should be the new normal. But Pai not only parroted industry opposition to increasing it, he actively tried to weaken the existing standard. Again, the goal here isn't to "bridge the digital divide," it's to obfuscate it on the behalf of monopolies. Monopolies that employ an army of lobbyists, consultant, academics, and think tankers whose entire function is to pretend that US broadband isn't a monopolistic mess. It's why you'll never see Pai and his ilk even mention US broadband pricing, because they know what that kind of observation leads to.

It remains unclear just what kind of FCC leadership the incoming Biden administration has in mind. But with COVID finally lighting a fire under our collective apathy on this subject, at a bare minimum you'd hope they'll have a fundamental respect for real world data. Real world data that, with any luck, results in us no longer looking at the broken US telecom sector through distorted, rose colored glasses.

This is how the law enforcement community has responded to nationwide complaints that they do their jobs poorly, violently, and abusively: by doing their jobs poorly, violently, and abusively.

The killing of George Floyd by a Minnesota police officer set off anti-police brutality protests across the nation. These protests were met with more police violence, with some of the violence singling out journalists, protesters, and legal observers. Things have since calmed down, but each new instance of police violence tends to result in another set of protests. Cops have proven they can't stop killing people or violating their rights so this cycle will continue in perpetuity.

Since it's impossible to calm the police down, it appears prosecutors and law enforcement agencies are shifting their focus into inflicting maximum pain on those exercising First Amendment rights. A truly ridiculous response to a recent protest in Arizona shows just how far the government is willing to go to stifle dissent. Maybe the ultimate goal isn't to end protests, but the end result of this Phoenix protest shows local law enforcement is willing to put their credibility on the line to punish citizens for being unhappy with the status quo.

On Oct. 17, about 20 people gathered in downtown Phoenix to march for justice for victims of police violence. The group was made up mostly of young people, including three 17-year-olds, an honors student from Arizona State University, and a Harvard student. The group marched down the streets of Phoenix chanting “Black lives matter.” Some of the protesters moved traffic cones and signs into the middle of the street. Some carried umbrellas, which protesters have used to protect themselves from tear gas and projectiles.

Eventually, police officers donning helmets and bulletproof vests closed in on the group. With a weapon drawn, an officer told them to get on the ground, which they did. Police ripped away the umbrellas. Dozens of officers surrounded the protesters, video footage shows. Police handcuffed the kneeling protesters, yanked them to their feet, and put them in the back of cruisers. Police used pepper bullets on at least one of the protesters.

This is only part of the disproportionate response. The major damage came after the arrests, when prosecutors added felony gang charges. Here's what prosecutors offered in support of these charges.

The street gang charges are based on the group’s common use of the phrase “all cops are bastards,” the fact they all dress in black, and carry umbrellas.

Police testified the group used the umbrellas to attack officers, conceal their activities, and further their criminal activities.

In essence, prosecutors are claiming "ACAB" is a gang. The acronym used by plenty of people who don't know or associate with each other is being presented as evidence of gang affiliation or activity. Depending on what specifics accompany these charges (whether its "participation" or merely "assisting"), these sentence enhancements can add up to ten years in prison to whatever else the protesters are convicted of. As The Appeal's report points out, one protester is being charged with felony aggravated assault of a police officer for allegedly digging his nails into the officer's thumb while being arrested.

And the Maricopa county prosecutor's office has continued to double-down on this brutal stupidity. It has refused to directly address the ridiculousness of pretending ACAB is a gang call sign and instead keep pointing people to its asterisk:

On October 27, 2020, a Maricopa County Grand Jury issued indictments on fifteen individuals for incidents that occurred on October 17, 2020. The indictment is for several crimes, including conspiracy to commit assault, riot, and assisting a criminal street gang. The attached Grand Jury Indictment outlines all charges.

While some will attempt to describe these defendants as “protestors,” a grand jury found probable cause to *charge this group with crimes, including the planning of violence.

It's just an accusation, folks.

*A charge in a crime is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

See? Nothing stupid or politically-charged about turning BLM protesters carrying umbrellas into a street gang for indictment purposes.

A few months down the road and these charges remain on the books. Nothing has changed. The prosecutors are offering plea deals, but the "deals" involve pleading guilty to something that simply isn't true:

According to an attorney familiar with the case, the plea requires the defendants to plead guilty to two felony offenses, including the street gang charge.

Unlike some of the other charges the protesters are facing, these charges can't be expunged or downgraded to misdemeanors. This is permanent. And it's only there because cops and prosecutors found a handy way to severely punish people who are already unhappy with the actions of cops and prosecutors. There's nothing in here that's going to close the divide between these public servants and the people they serve. This is Maricopa law enforcement showing residents they're exactly who the residents thought they were: petty, vindictive people with far too much power.