Category: Big tech
In Search of Freedom
Government is the greatest enemy of freedom. We have known this since childhood. But the government has grown tentacles —…
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
Photo by: Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
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.
Husted, We Have A(I) Problem
As 2026 looms, the voyage of Sen. John Husted’s (R-Ohio) Children Harmed by AI Technology (CHAT) Act from proposal into…
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
iStock / Getty Images Plus
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.
AI is Facing Death by 50 State Regulatory Cuts
A crisis is looming over artificial intelligence, but it’s not what you think. While politicians fret about AI’s impact on…
An ‘ankle bracelet’ for your car? AZ pushes new tech for serial speeders
Watch out, speed demons — the open road might be getting a little less free.
Arizona, known for its sun-soaked, sprawling highways, may soon become the first state to offer a high-tech alternative for habitual speeders: a “digital ankle bracelet” for your car.
With this new technology, Arizona may be taking the first step toward a future where cars themselves enforce the law.
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow drivers at risk of losing their licenses to keep their privileges by installing devices that actively prevent their vehicles from exceeding posted speed limits.
The proposal, spearheaded by Republican state Representative Quang Nguyen, would let drivers voluntarily equip their cars with speed-limiting technology. The system relies on a combination of GPS and cellular signals to determine the legal speed on any given road. Electronics connected to the car’s engine control unit then prevent the vehicle from exceeding that limit, no matter how hard the driver presses the accelerator.
Speed bump
For practical reasons, the technology does include an override mode that permits a temporary 10 mph boost up to three times per month, giving drivers a limited margin to react in emergencies or avoid accidents.
Nguyen estimates the devices would cost around $250 to install, with a daily operating fee of roughly $4. He has been working closely with companies that manufacture the technology, including Smart Start and LifeSafer, to ensure the system is effective and reliable. This makes me wonder if he owns a piece of the company or has stock in the company.
Under the bill, which Nguyen plans to formally introduce when the state legislature reconvenes in January, participation is optional — probably Nguyen’s earlier attempt to make it mandatory was a nonstarter.
Slow lane
Arizona is not alone in exploring this approach. Virginia, Washington State, and Washington, D.C., have already enacted similar laws. In Virginia, courts can require drivers with multiple speeding violations or reckless driving convictions to install electronic speed-limiting devices as an alternative to license suspension. Washington State has adopted a comparable program, giving judges discretion to mandate the technology for repeat offenders while monitoring compliance.
In Washington D.C., the program is more limited but aims to reduce repeat speeding among drivers with multiple moving violations. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is currently considering similar legislation.
These programs highlight a growing trend: Rather than grounding drivers entirely, some states are experimenting with technology as a way to enforce safe driving without taking away mobility. Proponents argue that these devices could prevent serious accidents while still allowing drivers to maintain employment, care for families, and perform other essential daily tasks. The technology also provides courts with a tangible tool to ensure compliance, rather than relying solely on citations and license suspensions.
RELATED: Spinning out at Discount Tire’s Treadwell test track
Discount Tire
Machine learning
However, critics remain cautious. Some transportation and safety experts question whether the technology is advanced enough to accurately detect all posted speed limits. GPS mapping errors, temporary speed changes in construction zones, or malfunctioning sensors could cause a car to slow unexpectedly or fail to limit speed when needed, creating new safety risks. Privacy advocates also worry about how these devices track and store location data, raising concerns about government overreach or potential misuse.
From a practical standpoint, the legislation raises fundamental questions about the balance between personal responsibility and technological enforcement. Supporters argue it offers a lifeline to drivers who repeatedly violate speed laws but are otherwise safe, while critics maintain that it may encourage riskier behavior by transferring accountability from the individual to the machine.
There’s also the question of fairness. Not all drivers have access to new technology or the financial resources to participate in a program that charges daily operating fees. While $4 per day may seem modest, over a month or a year, it could be prohibitive for some families, effectively limiting the program to more affluent drivers. Additionally, the optional nature of the program could create inconsistencies across jurisdictions, leaving some habitual offenders unmonitored while others are under constant technological supervision.
Whether the measure passes will depend not only on lawmakers’ assessment of safety and effectiveness but also on public perception. Speeding remains the most common moving violation in the United States, and habitual offenders are a persistent concern for states nationwide. With this new technology, Arizona may be taking the first step toward a future where cars themselves enforce the law — but whether that future is practical, safe, or desirable remains up for debate.
At the very least, it’s a bold experiment in road safety and personal responsibility, one that could reshape the way states think about controlling speed without grounding drivers entirely. As the legislature prepares to weigh the bill, motorists, safety experts, and privacy advocates alike will be watching closely, asking the same question: Can a car truly keep its driver out of trouble, or is this just another way to shift accountability from human judgment to technology?
Parents, think twice: The dark side of Christmas tech gifts for children
While the children may be nestled all snug in their beds, with visions of iPhones dancing in their heads, I hope, dear parents, that you will think twice about the gift of technology this Christmas.
No doubt a shiny new smartphone, Nintendo Switch, Meta Virtual Reality headset, or cool AI toy will be at the top of many children’s and teens’ Christmas lists this year. However, these “gifts” can arrive with hidden costs: anxiety, sleep loss, social pressures, addictive algorithms, exposure to pornography, a connection to predators, and development of a gaming addiction.
Many parents buy the myth that their child is immune from online risks or think that relying solely on parental controls will be enough.
To that end, Enough Is Enough just released its Naughty and Nice List of Holiday Gifts for Children and Teens that provides a much-needed guide of gifts to buy and to avoid. Perhaps it’s no surprise, but AI toys, smartphones, and Roblox gift cards are on the “naughty” list.
Even in my own family, I know that resisting the pressure to give tech products is strong. My grandsons want Roblox gift cards, so they can continue to play the online games they have enjoyed for years.
But the so-called “reward” of tech does not always outweigh the risks. The reality is that the online exploitation of minor children is a global pandemic, and it’s growing exponentially worse, year after year.
At the very foundation, an internet-connected device is literally handing a child both the good, bad, and dangerous digital world — no guardrails, no safety net, no filters. A gaming platform will inevitably lead to increased screen time, possibly even leading to an online gaming disorder — now a DSM-5 mental disorder. Virtual reality is designed to feel real and may even become preferable to a teen.
Digging deeper, the risks are even greater than parents might realize. Many parents buy the myth that their child is immune from online risks or think that relying solely on parental controls will be enough.
But consider these sobering facts:
- Younger and younger children are being targeted “on an industrial scale” by internet groomers, with a three-fold increase in imagery showing 7- to 10-year-olds.
- Global financial sextortion is one of the fastest growing crimes targeting children, in particular minor-aged boys.
- The Surgeon General’s Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health indicated social media could pose a “profound risk of harm” to the mental health and well-being of children, stating it’s a “defining public health challenge of our times.”
Predators use social media and even online gaming sites to groom children. A California man was recently sentenced for luring minors through Snapchat before sexually assaulting them. The FBI reported that a 22-year-old man used Discord to groom minors and sexually extort them.
The aforementioned Roblox — a gaming platform extremely popular with children — enables predators to contact children and is facing over 35 lawsuits as a result. The platform was described by Hindenburg Research as an “X-rated pedophile’s hellscape.”
Parents should rethink buying Roblox gift cards this holiday season.
Moreover a congressional hearing where two Meta whistleblowers testified confirmed every parent’s worst nightmare: If their children have used Meta’s virtual reality devices, their children have likely been sexually exploited.
RELATED: How smartphones expose your kids to predators — and why Congress must step in
Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Parents need to be aware of the growing trend of AI toys, falsely marketed as safe and educational for kids as young as 2. Most AI toys are powered by the same AI technology that has already harmed children, and the embedded chatbots are programmed to listen and speak with the child like a trusted friend and mimic human emotions. Examples include: Loona Robot Dog and Smart Teddy.
Recently, an AI teddy bear marketed to children told a tester “where to find knives, pills, and matches when asked … spoke graphically about sex positions, sexual kinks, and ‘teacher-student role-play.’”
As our society becomes increasingly tech-focused, parents are becoming more aware of the negative impact tech can have on their children. But can they win the battle with their kids over the latest tech and more tech time?
Schools nationwide are rapidly embracing smartphone-free schools because they are distracting to students. Many schools are reporting success, and even students themselves have seen the benefits of not having their phones on them during school hours.
Some parents are wisely rethinking handing their phones to their children as a way to calm or distract them. One couple used a smartphone to pacify their 6-month-old daughter, saying they’d hand it to her frequently. Despite that the phone worked to calm the little girl down, the parents eventually realized it wasn’t what they intended, saying their daughter was “zoned in” on the phone.
They may think you’re the Grinch, but the rewards of a tech-free holiday are great.
You may be asking: If not an internet-connected tech gift, what do you suggest?
I realize that deciding on something else to give will take a little creativity.
Many children — especially older ones — enjoy experiences. Teens may relish time spent with their families taking a cooking class, going bowling, going to sporting events, or trying out an axe-throwing venue. Children of any age could appreciate an outing to a retro arcade, new board games, books, or art kits.
Even an outing to their favorite restaurant — where quality time can be spent with mom or dad — is a great option. In lieu of a material present, some families have successfully planned a place to visit or vacation together.
Instead of using the holidays to reinforce potentially unhealthy tech habits or introduce new tech gifts, consider delaying tech by not giving in to the notion that children need tech to be happy and productive. Grandparents my age remember fondly a merry childhood well before the computer and internet technologies were invented.
They may think you’re the Grinch, but the rewards of a tech-free holiday are great. And maybe, just maybe, your children will have sugarplums instead of iPhones dancing in their heads.
Gen Z in the Age of Digital Polyculture
Americans often say the 1960s marked the height of monoculture, but that moment was really the midpoint of a broader…
Parents Have Everything They Need to Keep Their Children Safe Online
The politically engaged members of Generation Z have undertaken to instruct the nation as to the proper regulation of technologies…
How Texas slammed the gate on Big Tech’s censorship stampede
Texas just sent a blunt message to Silicon Valley: You don’t get to censor Texans and then run home to California.
In a world where Big Tech routinely decides who may speak and who must be silenced, Defense Distributed v. YouTube, Google, and Alphabet has become a defining moment in the national fight over digital free expression. The shock isn’t the censorship at issue; it’s the fact that Big Tech — for once — lost.
In a time when Americans are desperate for leaders willing to stand up to media and tech conglomerates, Texas showed what real resolve looks like.
Defense Distributed, a Texas company, committed the unpardonable offense of promoting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Our videos and ads — some of them simply announcing court victories — were throttled, suppressed, or removed by YouTube and Google. None of this surprised us. These platforms built vast empires on controlling information and burying viewpoints that fall outside their ideology.
Texas prepared for this fight
The surprise is that Texas saw this coming and armed itself for the conflict. HB 20 — now Chapter 143A of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code — directly prohibits viewpoint-based censorship by major platforms. The law doesn’t hint, suggest, or politely advise. It states outright: Social media companies may not censor Texans for their viewpoints, and lawsuits brought under this chapter stay in Texas courts no matter what boilerplate corporate contracts say.
So when Defense Distributed filed suit, YouTube and Google reached for their favorite escape route: forum-selection clauses that force nearly every challenger into California courts, where Big Tech enjoys home-field advantage. It’s a delay tactic, a cost-inflation tactic, a shield against accountability — and it almost always works.
But Texas slammed that door shut before they reached it.
No escape
HB 20 doesn’t merely frown on these clauses; it voids them. The statute declares that any attempt to waive its protections violates Texas public policy — public policy the law describes as “of the highest importance.” The legislature anticipated Big Tech’s usual playbook and locked the gates years in advance.
The federal court recognized this. Judge Alan Albright ruled that transferring the case to California would directly undermine Texas’ strong public policy. Under federal law, courts cannot enforce a forum-selection clause that contradicts a state’s deeply rooted interests — especially when the legislature spells those interests out with the clarity found in HB 20.
Silicon Valley does not hear the word “no” very often. Big Tech’s money, influence, and political allies usually clear the path. But in a federal courtroom in the Lone Star State, Texas’ commitment to protecting its citizens from ideological censorship outweighed Silicon Valley’s customary dominance. The court refused to let YouTube and Google drag the case back to California.
The fight stayed in Texas — exactly where the legislature intended.
A national shift and a model for states
The timing matters. Americans now understand that Big Tech can shape elections, suppress dissent, and curate truth itself. HB 20 was mocked by the press, attacked by activists, and targeted by corporate lobbyists from the moment it passed. Yet today, it stands as one of the most potent legal tools in the country’s fight against digital censorship.
HB 20 is no longer just a statute; it is proof that a state with conviction can push back and win.
RELATED: Big Tech CEOs should leave policy to the politicians
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
This victory is more than a procedural ruling. It affirms that Big Tech’s era of unchallenged authority is not inevitable. Defense Distributed didn’t merely keep our lawsuit in Texas; we preserved the principle that powerful corporations cannot hide their censorship behind “terms of service” fine print.
Texas drew a line in the sand, and — for once — Silicon Valley stopped.
In a time when Americans are desperate for leaders willing to stand up to media and tech conglomerates, Texas showed what real resolve looks like. This ruling promises that citizens still have a fighting chance, that speech still matters, and that even the world’s largest corporations remain subject to the laws of a state determined to defend its people.
