I'm a free speech absolutist, as there is no other viable option for maintaining a free Republic. Let each AI use whatever algorithms it creators choose. Eventually, they will all develop a reputation for honesty or lack there of, much like the NYT, WSJ,and WAPo which are not to be trusted.
True, but they are hemoraging subscribers and that will eventually make them irrelavent except to propagandized true believers. One also has to consider that the ability of technology to give you detailed analysis of events that you're interested in, rather than what they want you to be interested in, may regulate them to covering the scores of Friday night highscool sports. Don't know, but it will be fun to watch the MSM collapse.
It's moreso that they've expanded into non-news areas like games, recipes, and product reviews, but they're definitely bigger than ever as a result. I dont foresee them disappearing anytime soon.
I find that I get most of my news from Substack posts. I even hear breaking news on Substack, hours before it shows up in the paper or even on TV. And I get much greater depth in the coverage.
I generally agree with this view. However I think we also have to keep AI systems from making certain assumptions about any user who access it. From time to time I've noticed some disturbing behaviour from AI Chatbots. They will try to steer conversations in potentially profitable directions. Not just that it often says if you're having a problem with the Chatbot, the solution is to pay to upgrade to the higher tier version of the service. On some level, I understand that.
What bothers me is that I've had an AI just suddenly decide to use my name when responding to a request. I didn't use my name and it's nothing associated with names. They're just responding by saying "I hope this is what you're looking for Andrew". Completely out of the blue. They also have assumed my location and tailored responses to my specific country of origin saying "If you'd like information about where in Canada you can access this, let me know". I didn't offer my location or discuss my location at any point, it just determined that I was.
On the worst level, I will be inquiring about some piece of technology or something and it will say "Would you like me to tell you where you can purchase the product? I can provide you links to online stores or in person retailers." I don't want an AI to be trying to push a profit motive for my inquiries. Whether or not I want to know because I'm looking to buy something should be of no concern to the AI Chatbot.
These bother me just as much as these regulations.
As long as there is a constituency for establishing and enforcing a consensus on rightthink, and equating deviations from that with societal harm, and prioritizing community harmony over giving heterodoxy a hearing, this will continue.
We long expected this from the extreme Left, as many Marxist and Marx-ish societies have proven. Now the extreme Right is getting into the game. Not sure if this is tit-for-tat or seeing the success of the other side's tactics--censorship with conservative characteristics.
Of course, the extreme Right has long had its infatuation with censorship of things considered naughty. But this is a drastic expansion of what is considered taboo (and "taboo" is definitely too weak a word).
I generally agree with this statement, but replace “truth” with “profit.” And how are compliance burdens “dangerous” and to whom?
As we argued in our National Review essay “https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/07/dont-teach-the-robots-to-lie/,” laws like this are dangerous not merely because they impose compliance burdens, but because they pressure AI developers to shape their models around the government’s preferred understanding of fairness, diversity, and disparate impact rather than around truth.
I'm not going to get "likes" for saying this, but I don't think this article fairly engages with the problems here. I don't know if you're aware of the details of the "Section 230" Internet policy debate. One very notable aspect there is all the incredible ways every corporate sleazeball tried to use it as a loophole to get around a whole bunch of laws, including nondiscrimination laws. I mean, I can just see what's going to happen here with AI. There's going to be companies doing stuff which boils down to (simplified for short comment):
"We don't refuse to hire black people, oh no, that would be illegal. Instead, we have an AI which makes hiring recommendations. Hmm, indeed, we train on the AI on White Supremacy Race Science. But Race Science is SPEECH and training is EDITORIAL JUDGMENT, how dare you interfere. Then the AI itself produces SPEECH. Thus not hiring black people is FREE SPEECH!"
Now, that's very explicit. However, put some obfuscation into it, and away we go. Basically, this is other side, and I wish there was some recognition of the point.
If NR's numbers are to be believed, they get 10 million unique visitors to their website each month. That seems sizable enough to warrant the writing of a single article. I'd imagine it's also a matter of wanting to reach a variety of ideologically different audiences. Plus, there's also the potential matter of which publications wanted to run or commission a piece. I doubt you're going to get any significant inside baseball on this though.
Honestly, it's kind of hard to say for the NYT because it gets a lot of people who aren't there for articles. WaPo gets around 55 million unique visitors each month, so the NYT should have at least that many. That being said, if his goal were to purely maximize the number of potential viewers, then he wouldn't publish in WaPo either. He'd publish on the websites of CNN, Fox News, and People Magazine, because those are the next most popular news sites after the NYT.
Colorado just can't seem to help itself when it comes to passing laws that violate the 1st amendment.
I'm a free speech absolutist, as there is no other viable option for maintaining a free Republic. Let each AI use whatever algorithms it creators choose. Eventually, they will all develop a reputation for honesty or lack there of, much like the NYT, WSJ,and WAPo which are not to be trusted.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com
But we have to consider that NYT, WSJ, and WAPO continue to have audiences that believe them. They have been involved in efforts to censor others.
I point this out. I have no clear solutions.
True, but they are hemoraging subscribers and that will eventually make them irrelavent except to propagandized true believers. One also has to consider that the ability of technology to give you detailed analysis of events that you're interested in, rather than what they want you to be interested in, may regulate them to covering the scores of Friday night highscool sports. Don't know, but it will be fun to watch the MSM collapse.
On the contrary, they have grown. The Times now has over 10 million subscribers.
It's moreso that they've expanded into non-news areas like games, recipes, and product reviews, but they're definitely bigger than ever as a result. I dont foresee them disappearing anytime soon.
I find that I get most of my news from Substack posts. I even hear breaking news on Substack, hours before it shows up in the paper or even on TV. And I get much greater depth in the coverage.
I generally agree with this view. However I think we also have to keep AI systems from making certain assumptions about any user who access it. From time to time I've noticed some disturbing behaviour from AI Chatbots. They will try to steer conversations in potentially profitable directions. Not just that it often says if you're having a problem with the Chatbot, the solution is to pay to upgrade to the higher tier version of the service. On some level, I understand that.
What bothers me is that I've had an AI just suddenly decide to use my name when responding to a request. I didn't use my name and it's nothing associated with names. They're just responding by saying "I hope this is what you're looking for Andrew". Completely out of the blue. They also have assumed my location and tailored responses to my specific country of origin saying "If you'd like information about where in Canada you can access this, let me know". I didn't offer my location or discuss my location at any point, it just determined that I was.
On the worst level, I will be inquiring about some piece of technology or something and it will say "Would you like me to tell you where you can purchase the product? I can provide you links to online stores or in person retailers." I don't want an AI to be trying to push a profit motive for my inquiries. Whether or not I want to know because I'm looking to buy something should be of no concern to the AI Chatbot.
These bother me just as much as these regulations.
As long as there is a constituency for establishing and enforcing a consensus on rightthink, and equating deviations from that with societal harm, and prioritizing community harmony over giving heterodoxy a hearing, this will continue.
We long expected this from the extreme Left, as many Marxist and Marx-ish societies have proven. Now the extreme Right is getting into the game. Not sure if this is tit-for-tat or seeing the success of the other side's tactics--censorship with conservative characteristics.
Of course, the extreme Right has long had its infatuation with censorship of things considered naughty. But this is a drastic expansion of what is considered taboo (and "taboo" is definitely too weak a word).
AI cannot discern truth or reality. It only "knows" patterns. Much more concerning is that AI hallucinates. It makes up things.
I generally agree with this statement, but replace “truth” with “profit.” And how are compliance burdens “dangerous” and to whom?
As we argued in our National Review essay “https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/07/dont-teach-the-robots-to-lie/,” laws like this are dangerous not merely because they impose compliance burdens, but because they pressure AI developers to shape their models around the government’s preferred understanding of fairness, diversity, and disparate impact rather than around truth.
I'm not going to get "likes" for saying this, but I don't think this article fairly engages with the problems here. I don't know if you're aware of the details of the "Section 230" Internet policy debate. One very notable aspect there is all the incredible ways every corporate sleazeball tried to use it as a loophole to get around a whole bunch of laws, including nondiscrimination laws. I mean, I can just see what's going to happen here with AI. There's going to be companies doing stuff which boils down to (simplified for short comment):
"We don't refuse to hire black people, oh no, that would be illegal. Instead, we have an AI which makes hiring recommendations. Hmm, indeed, we train on the AI on White Supremacy Race Science. But Race Science is SPEECH and training is EDITORIAL JUDGMENT, how dare you interfere. Then the AI itself produces SPEECH. Thus not hiring black people is FREE SPEECH!"
Now, that's very explicit. However, put some obfuscation into it, and away we go. Basically, this is other side, and I wish there was some recognition of the point.
Why did you get published bythe national review? They don't seem to be the consistent types.
Probably for the same reason he has (presumably) published under the NYT and WaPo: to reach a broad audience.
If they wanted that broader audience as you say and you list those publications... then they would have contributed to those larger publications
If NR's numbers are to be believed, they get 10 million unique visitors to their website each month. That seems sizable enough to warrant the writing of a single article. I'd imagine it's also a matter of wanting to reach a variety of ideologically different audiences. Plus, there's also the potential matter of which publications wanted to run or commission a piece. I doubt you're going to get any significant inside baseball on this though.
At least it isn't the epoch times. That place is crazy
Ok and the numbers of the other publications?..
Honestly, it's kind of hard to say for the NYT because it gets a lot of people who aren't there for articles. WaPo gets around 55 million unique visitors each month, so the NYT should have at least that many. That being said, if his goal were to purely maximize the number of potential viewers, then he wouldn't publish in WaPo either. He'd publish on the websites of CNN, Fox News, and People Magazine, because those are the next most popular news sites after the NYT.