flango

There have been a lot of complaints about both the competency and the logic behind the latest Epstein archive release by the DoJ: from censoring the names of co-conspirators to censoring pictures of random women in a way that makes individuals look guiltier than they really are, forgetting to redact credentials that made it possible for all of Reddit to log into Epstein’s account and trample over all the evidence, and the complete ineptitude that resulted in most of the latest batch being corrupted thanks to incorrectly converted Quoted-Printable encoding artifacts, it’s safe to say that Pam Bondi’s DoJ did not put its best and brightest on this (admittedly gargantuan) undertaking. But the most damning evidence has all been thoroughly redacted… hasn’t it? Well, maybe not.

teens and twentysomethings today are of a very different demographic and have markedly different media consumption habits compared to Wikipedia’s forebears. Gen Z and Gen Alpha readers are accustomed to TikTok, YouTube, and mobile-first visual media. Their impatience for Wikipedia’s impenetrable walls of text, as any parent of kids of this age knows, arguably threatens the future of the internet’s collaborative knowledge clearinghouse. The Wikimedia Foundation knows this, too. Research has shown that many readers today greatly value quick overviews of any article, before the reader considers whether to dive into the article’s full text. So last June, the Foundation launched a modest experiment they called “Simple Article Summaries.” The summaries consisted of AI-generated, simplified text at the top of complex articles. Summaries were clearly labeled as machine-generated and unverified, and they were available only to mobile users who opted in. Even after all these precautions, however, the volunteer editor community barely gave the experiment time to begin. Editors shut down Simple Article Summaries within a day of its launch. The response was fierce. Editors called the experiment a “ghastly idea” and warned of “immediate and irreversible harm” to Wikipedia’s credibility. Comments in the village pump (a community discussion page) ranged from blunt (“Yuck”) to alarmed, with contributors raising legitimate concerns about AI hallucinations and the erosion of editorial oversight.

The prospect of direct foreign intervention in support of Iran’s protesters appears to be growing daily, with US President Donald Trump repeatedly signalling a readiness to attack. In Israel, far-right Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu told Army Radio last week, “When we attacked in Iran during ‘Rising Lion’ [Israel’s June attack on Iran], we were on its soil and knew how to lay the groundwork for a strike. I can assure you that we have some of our people operating there right now,” stopping short of claiming that Israeli agents were seeking regime change. Writing on social media earlier this month, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is also a former director of the CIA, did acknowledge the presence of Israeli agents operating on the ground in Iran, wishing “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”