News Vérité

A landmark case in an Oakland courtroom is testing whether Big Tech can be held legally responsible for how its products are designed — not just what users post on them. In a federal courthouse in Oakland, California, a legal battle is unfolding that could fundamentally alter how billions of people interact with social media. A bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from 29 states has brought Meta Platforms — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — to trial, accusing the tech giant of deliberately building products designed to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of children and teenagers. At stake is a potential $1.7 trillion judgment against the company. The case, presided over by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, is being closely watched by legal scholars, child-safety advocates, and the tech industry alike. Unlike many previous lawsuits against social media companies, this one does not focus on harmful content posted by users. Instead, it targets the underlying architecture of Meta’s platforms — the algorithms, notifications, and interface choices that the states allege were engineered to maximize engagement among young users, regardless of the psychological cost. If the states prevail, the consequences could extend far beyond a financial settlement. The case

Nobody outside of the Swamp probably ever heard of Natalie Harp before comments made Sunday about the president’s aide by Senator Jon Ossoff (D.-GA), who called her Trump’s “security blanket to make him feel good about himself.” The implication was that she is a sycophant who feeds Trump all the positive news she can find in print, on the air, or on social media. The Ossoff comments could also be interpreted to imply that she is Trump’s version of Monica Lewinsky, former intern and aide to President Bill Clinton. (You probably know the story.) To wit: “He doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace, gifted by the Emir of Qatar,” Ossoff said Sunday during a speech in Atlanta. Harp, 34,  scours the news daily/hourly and prints out anything she finds, whether opinion or reporting, that is favorable to the president and the job he is doing. For this role, she has earned the not-pejorative nickname of “the human printer.” Natalie Harp has become one of the most visible—if least discussed—figures in Donald Trump’s inner circle, a former cable news anchor turned executive assistant whose constant

After Luigi Mangione entered a guilty plea to federal charges in connection with the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, his defense attorneys moved quickly to shut down the parallel state case against him. Their argument: trying him again in New York would amount to double jeopardy — being punished twice for the same act. Prosecutors in Manhattan disagree, and a state judge will ultimately have to decide who is right. The dispute turns on a tension between two different bodies of law — one federal, one rooted specifically in New York State statute — and the answer is far from obvious. The Federal Rule: Two Governments, Two Sets of Laws The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person can be tried twice for the same offense. But that protection has a significant carve-out that has been tested and upheld repeatedly in federal courts: the dual sovereignty doctrine. Under this principle, the federal government and each state government are considered separate sovereigns, each drawing their authority from independent sources. Because of that separation, both governments are generally permitted to prosecute the same individual for the same underlying act, so long as each is enforcing its own distinct