 |
|
|
|||||
A federal judge will consider on Thursday whether to prevent President Donald Trump’s administration from enforcing his executive order limiting birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions. American Civil Liberties Union lawyers are set to ask U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante at a hearing in Concord, New Hampshire, to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by implementation of Trump’s directive. Granting class status would empower Laplante, if he is inclined to do so, to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president’s policy nationally. The ACLU and others filed the suit just hours after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling, powered by its conservative majority, that narrowed three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump’s directive. The suit was filed on behalf of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected. Under the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s executive order would take effect on July 27. Looking to seize upon an exception in the Supreme Court’s ruling, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the decision allows judges to continue to block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits. The three judges who issued nationwide injunctions found that Trump’s directive likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The amendment states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The Justice Department has argued that Trump’s order conforms with the Constitution and has asked Laplante to find that the plaintiffs cannot sue as a class. The Supreme Court’s ruling did not address the legal merits of Trump’s order, which the Republican president issued as part of his hardline immigration agenda on his first day back in office in January. Trump’s order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if it takes effect nationally, according to Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who have challenged it. The justices ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of the three injunctions that had blocked Trump’s order from being enforced anywhere in the country against anyone after finding judges lack the authority to issue so-called “universal injunctions” that cover people who are not parties to the lawsuit before the judge. Although the Trump administration hailed the ruling as a major victory, federal judges have continued to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of Trump’s agenda found to be unlawful. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision for the court, made clear that it did not prevent plaintiffs from obtaining essentially the same type of relief as provided in a nationwide injunction by instead bringing class action lawsuits that seek to represent all similarly situated people, among other exceptions. Immigrant rights advocates launched two proposed class actions that same day, including the one before Laplante, who in a related case also concluded in February that Trump’s order was likely unconstitutional. Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruled that Trump’s order contradicted the 14th Amendment and a 1898 Supreme Court ruling interpreting it. In that case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court interpreted that amendment as recognizing the right to birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of a baby’s parents. Laplante agreed at the time that an injunction was warranted, saying that “the denial of citizenship to the plaintiffs’ members’ children would render the children either undocumented noncitizens or stateless entirely.” But Laplante limited the scope of his order to members of the three immigrant rights nonprofit organizations who pursued the case before him. ACLU lawyers are now urging Laplante to go further by certifying a nationwide class of babies and their parents who would be affected by Trump’s order, saying that absent a court order thousands of families nationally would be unprotected. Trump’s administration counters that the three noncitizens parents and expectant parents seeking to serve as lead plaintiffs have immigration statuses that are too different to be able to pursue a single class action together and that an injunction at this time would “short circuit” the usual lengthier process required for them to obtain relief. Nate Raymond, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
In recent years, people have welcomed AI into their lives with open arms: as personal assistants, friends, therapists, even lovers. But one concern with having a chatbot in your pocket is that it can be hard to ignore. Reddit support groups are springing up for those struggling with chatbot addiction. 404 Media interviewed one self-confessed addict who had been staying up well into the night, compulsively talking to chatbots on Character.AI. The more I chatted with the bot, it felt as if I was talking to an actual friend of mine, the 18-year-old told journalist Ella Chakarian. Most people will probably just look at you and say, How could you get addicted to a literal chatbot? Now addicts are trying to break the cycle. Forums such as r/Character_AI_Recovery, which has more than 900 members, and r/ChatbotAddiction are serving as support groups for those struggling. While I have deleted the app, I keep going back to the website its practically reflex to me now, clicking back into my character ai tab. I hate it, one post on r/Character_AI_Recovery read. Nobody else knows about this addiction I have except myself because its humiliating. Another wrote: “I’m on my probably hundredth attempt of quitting. Others use the group to share their wins and hold themselves accountable. Ive been clean for a week! one posted. Another wrote: Been off three days now and everythings going well, but I have this feeling that I wont be able to get away from character ai. Character.ai says its striving to strike a balance between keeping its platform both engaging and safe, especially for teens, noting that this challenge is shared across the AI industry. A company spokesperson told Fast Company, Engaging with characters on our site should be interactive and entertaining, but its important for our users to remember that characters are not real people, adding that every chat includes disclaimers to that effect. To support younger users, Character.ai offers a suite of safety tools, including filtered content, time-use notifications, and Parental Insights, the latter of which gives guardians visibility into how teens use the platform. The company says users younger than 18 interact with a separate version of its language model designed to reduce exposure to sensitive material. We added a number of technical protections to detect and prevent conversations about self-harm, the spokesperson said, noting that in some cases this includes directing users to suicide prevention resources. While some have successfully weaned themselves off the chatbots, the likelihood of relapse remains high. Some platforms even encourage it, sending follow-up emails promoting different chatbots or offering incentives like a free months subscription to reengage users. I hated it whenever I’d see an email from the bot that had sent you a message, one former addict wrote. Or the emails telling me that a bot misses me. Just why? Isn’t this parasocial enough to them?
Category:
E-Commerce
YouTube is cracking down on mass-produced and repetitive content. The Google-owned video-sharing platform has released additional guidance for its YouTube Partner Program (YPP) in response to the growing popularity of AI-generated videos. In order to monetize as part of the YPP, YouTube has always required creators to upload original and authentic content, the update states. YouTube is updating our guidelines to better identify mass-produced and repetitious content. This update better reflects what inauthentic content looks like today. The update comes into effect on Tuesday, July 15. How much AI is too much? However, the announcement was met with concern from some creators over whether any AI use would demonetize a video. Rene Ritchie, YouTubes head of editorial and creator liaison, released a video in an effort to put some of these worries to bed. Ritchie called the update minor, explaining that it should help with identifying unwanted content. This type of content has already been ineligible for monetization for years, and its content viewers often consider spam, he added. YouTube is in a unique position when it comes to AI. Its parent company, Alphabet, is backing a series of AI initiatives, benefiting from AIs widespread use. It runs the Google AI Studio and develops AI models such as the Gemini series. At the same time, Alphabet has to acknowledge not only the downsides of AI, but its potential to overwhelm platforms that rely on user-generated contentin other words, rein in instances of repetitive, inauthentic slop created with the very technologies that it’s investing so heavily in.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||