Nitasha Tiku

There is a battle set to play out across the country as super PACs backed by Trump-supporting tech moguls and the social network giant Meta try to use the 2026 midterms to reengineer Congress and state legislatures in favor of their ambitions for artificial intelligence. The groups aim to wrest control of the public narrative around AI, just as politicians in both parties have started warning that the industry is moving too fast. The largest of the pro-AI super PACs, Leadin

People are replacing Google search with artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT, a major shift that has unleashed a new kind of bot loose on the web. To offer users a tidy AI summary instead of Google’s “10 blue links,” companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic have started sending out bots to retrieve and recap content in real time.

Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, warned at a Senate hearing that requiring government approval to release powerful artificial intelligence software would be “disastrous” for the United States’ lead in the technology. It was a striking reversal after his comments at a Senate hearing two years ago, when he listed creating a new agency to license the technology as his “number one” recommendation for making sure AI was safe.

Google, a shrewd Washington player, has shifted into overdrive and adapted its approach as calls to regulate Big Tech have grown louder. A person familiar with Google’s strategy for influencing public debate says the company generally doesn’t seek to change experts’ thinking but, rather, to underwrite their time and encourage them to be more vocal on issues important to Google. Google may pre-vet op-eds and ask that certain statements be made stronger or weaker, which seems small but ends up having a big impact, the person said.

Less than a month before tough new European privacy rules take effect, there are growing concerns from regulators, publishers, and privacy watchdogs about the ways that two internet giants—Google and Facebook—plan to implement the regulations. The critics say the companies are squelching the promise of the new rules, and will leave European internet users no better off. In a blog, a top EU regulator warned of “attempts to game the system,” which could lead to a “travesty of at least the spirit of the new regulation, which aims to restore a sense of trust and control over what happens to our

In response to the Cambridge Analytica story, Facebook has curbed outsiders’ access to its data, vowed to hire thousands of additional content reviewers, and offered users clearer privacy controls. “I don’t think they do anything that will cost them more than a dollar over the long term,” said New York University professor Scott Galloway. The changes Facebook announced to regain consumer trust were “a series of half measures — one part delay, one part obfuscation. They’ve effectively done nothing [and] it doesn’t look like anyone cares,” he said.

Opponents fear that the Stop Enabling Online Sex Trafficking Act messes with a key ground rule that has allowed the internet to flourish. “Section 230 we’ve been saying for a long time is responsible for creating the modern internet that we know and love—not to say that the current Internet doesn’t have problems,” says India McKinney of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Consumers have long wondered just what Google and Facebook know about them, and who else can access their personal data. But internet giants have little incentive to give straight answers.  On May 25, however, the power balance will shift towards consumers, thanks to a European privacy law that restricts how personal data is collected and handled. The rule, called General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR, focuses on ensuring that users know, understand, and consent to the data collected about them. Under GDPR, pages of fine print won’t suffice.

Rep David Cicilline (D-RI) plans to introduce a bill that would exempt publishers from antitrust enforcement so they can negotiate collectively over terms for distributing their content. Rep Cicilline says the bill is designed to level the playing field between publishers and the tech giants, not dictate the outcome. Without an exemption, collective action by publishers could run afoul of antitrust laws around colluding over price or refusal to deal with competitors.