Last week Google urged the U.S. government not to break up the company — but apparently, it didn’t work.
In a new filing Friday, America’s Justice Department “reiterated its November proposal that Google be forced to sell its Chrome web browser,” reports the Washington Post, “to address a federal judge finding the company guilty of being an illegal monopoly in August.”

The government also kept a proposal that Google be banned from paying other companies to give its search engine preferential placement on their apps and phones. At the same time, the government dropped its demand that Google sell its stakes in AI start-ups after one of the start-ups, Anthropic AI, argued that it needed Google’s money to compete in the fast-growing industry.

The government’s final proposal “reaffirms that Google must divest the Chrome browser — an important search access point — to provide an opportunity for a new rival to operate a significant gateway to search the internet, free of Google’s monopoly control,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in the filing… Judge Amit Mehta, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who had ruled that Google held an illegal monopoly, will decide on the final remedies in April.
The article quotes a Google spokesperson’s response: that the Justice Department’s “sweeping” proposals “continue to go miles beyond the court’s decision, and would harm America’s consumers, economy and national security.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

U.S. president Donald Trump called Daylight Saving Time “very costly to our nation” and “inconvenient” in December. Today the Washington Post remembers he’d vowed his Republican party would use their “best efforts” to eliminate it.

But it’s still proving to be politically difficult…

Polls have shown that most Americans oppose the time shifts but disagree on what should replace them… [U.S. political leaders] also say they are grappling with whether the nation should permanently move the clocks forward one hour, an idea championed by lawmakers on the coasts who say it would allow for more sunshine during the winter, or remain on year-round standard time, which is favored by neurologists who say it aligns with our circadian rhythms. That decision would rest with Congress, not the president. The split often reflects regional, not political, differences, based on where time zones fall; a year-round “spring forward” would mean winter sunrises that could creep past 9 a.m. in cities such as Indianapolis and Detroit, prompting many local lawmakers to oppose the idea…

[A 2022 Senate vote to make Daylight Saving Time permanent] awoke a new lobbying effort from advocates such as the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, which warned that year-round daylight saving time would be unhealthy, citing risks such as higher rates of obesity or metabolic dysfunction. Some researchers warned of a condition dubbed “social jetlag,” saying that internal body clocks and rhythms would be persistently misaligned if human clocks were permanently set forward an hour. The concerted resistance from the health groups — which some congressional aides jokingly referred to as “Big Sleep” — helped kill the measure in the House and has contributed to a stalemate over how to proceed…
Today, roughly two-thirds of Americans want to end the clock changes, polls show. But even those Americans don’t agree on what should come next. An October 2023 YouGov poll found that 33 percent of respondents wanted year-round daylight saving time, 23 percent wanted permanent standard time, and 9 percent had no preference. The remainder weren’t sure or preferred to remain on the current system… The political fight is far from over, with Trump allies such as Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) pledging to keep pushing for year-round daylight saving time. Some congressional Republicans also have privately called for a hearing in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, with hopes of advancing the Sunshine Protection Act.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

As Christie’s auction house planned the first-ever auction dedicated to AI-generated art works, over 5,600 people signed an online letter urging them to cancel it. “Many of the artworks you plan to auction were created using AI models that are known to be trained on copyrighted work without a license,” the letter complained.
“These models, and the companies behind them, exploit human artists, using their work without permission or payment to build commercial AI products that compete with them. Your support of these models, and the people who use them, rewards and further incentivizes AI companies’ mass theft of human artists’ work.” CNET reports that the signers “range from illustrators to authors to art therapists to cinematographers, from countries all across the globe.”

Christie’s ignored them all and held the auction anyways. So what happened when it was over on Wednesday morning?

More than 30 lots attracted hundreds of bids and brought in $728,784, Christie’s reports. And there’s a generational twist: The auction house says 37% of registrants were completely new to Christie’s, and 48% of bidders were millennials or members of Gen Z… The highest price in the sale was $277,200 for a work by Refik Anadol titled Machine Hallucinations — ISS Dreams — A. It used a data set of more than 1.2 million images taken from the International Space Station and satellites.

ARTnews reports that the auction actually brought in more than Christie’s had expected:
The sale, which made up of 34 lots, had an 82 percent sell through rate… While some digital artists, including Beeple, championed the sale, others decried it as emblematic of the ongoing struggle between human artistry and machine-driven innovation. The results, however, suggest that AI art — controversial as it may be — is carving a firm place in the market.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“The early web was fun,” Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian posted Wednesday on X.com. “It was weird. It was community-driven. It’s time to rebuild that.

“Which is why Kevin Rose and I just bought back Digg.”

The amount of that purchase is “undisclosed,” reports CNBC:

The deal is backed by venture capital firms True Ventures, where Rose is a partner, and Ohanian’s Seven Seven Six…. The company said in a release that it aims to differentiate itself in the social media market by “focusing on AI innovations designed to enhance the user experience and build a human-centered alternative….” Rose said in a post on X that he and Ohanian “dreamed up features that weren’t even possible with yesterday’s tech.”

“We’re bringing more transparency and community partnership,” according to Rose’s post, “unlike anything you’ve seen, plus AI that unlocks creativity without sanitizing the human element. The timing is finally right to reimagine what’s possible.”

“I really disliked you for a long time,” Ohanian tells Rose in their joint announcement video. (To which a cheery Rose responds, “Rightfully so.”)

But in the video Ohanian also says that today “Our perspective on the world has shifted a lot. You don’t want to live in the past, but now we actually have the technology to make better, healthier community experiences.” (“Old Rivals, New Vision,” says a post on Digg’s X.com account, urging readers to “Sign up to get early access when invites go live.”)

And Digg.com now just displays this teasing catchphrase. “The front page of the internet, now with superpowers.” (At the top of the page there’s also a link to watch Diggnation Live at SXSW.)

While valued at $160 million dollars in 2008, Digg’s plummeting traffic led to its brand and web site being acquired in 2012 by tech incubator Betaworks for about $500,000, according to CNBC…

Read more of this story at Slashdot.