Man Senses Someone Watching Him — And Finds The Cutest Spies

“They haven’t made it into my yard yet, but the puppy really tried,” Weiss said. “It was pretty comical to watch. He was on a mission to get into my yard, but he just couldn’t squeeze through.”

Though it was startling at first, Weiss has since gotten used to having a close relationship with his three furry neighbors.

“I joke with a friend that one day I’m gonna show my neighbor those pictures and tell her, ‘Look, you had a good run, but they’ve made their decision. They’re mine now,'” Weiss said.

“A lot of times I don’t even realize they’re there,” Weiss added. “I just turn around and there’s a snout sticking out from under the fence.”

And he wouldn’t have it any other way.

Pit Bull Tied To ‘No Dogs’ Sign With The Saddest Note

Though the note introduced the dog as Zanny, rescue workers gave him the nickname Folly, after the place where he was found, and the name stuck. A veterinary exam at the rescue revealed that, other than a rash on his stomach, Folly was in relatively good shape.

“Folly is a muscular boy whose tails wags nonstop,” Carrie Browning-Perez, marketing manager for Pet Helpers, told The Dodo. “It’s obvious he didn’t miss many meals.”

It was clear that the dog had been well taken care of at one point in his life, but if Niketas hadn’t come along when she did, things might have turned out differently.

“It was extremely hot on the day he was abandoned,” Browning-Perez said. “Just a matter of another hour or so could have greatly changed the outcome.”

Tiny Kittens Found Alone In Forest Weren’t Normal Kittens At All

After the original sighting, people kept a watch on the kittens to see if the mom was coming back. After 24 hours, no mother arrived and the kittens had started to stray closer and closer to a road.

“It seemed likely they had been abandoned or orphaned and were in grave danger,” O’Donoghue said.

That’s when rescuers decided they needed to do something. They managed to capture the kittens while a wildlife filmmaker, Steve Piper, set out remote cameras to make sure their mother wasn’t looking for them.

Sea Turtle Found On Beach Died For The Saddest Reason

“Sadly, this is not the first time we’ve seen a case like this,” Lexie Beach, communications coordinator for Sea Turtle Conservancy, told The Dodo. “Most commonly, the issue we see regarding beach chairs and sea turtles is that they actually run into them when trying to nest on the beach. Many times they’ve actually gotten stuck in a chair and rescued the next morning, or running into the chair causes them to false crawl (not nest) and head back to the ocean.”

For Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, every life lost is so significant. There are only around 1,000 left in the wild today, mainly due to habitat loss, illegal hunting and pollution.

The 10 Most Difficult-to-Defend Online Fandoms, from Barbz to Pewdiepie’s Bro Army

Oh, fandom. So passionate, so partisan—and, too often these days, so prolifically peevish. From Tumblr and Wattpad to more mainstream platforms like Twitter and Instagram, online communities have served as rallying points for stan armies: obsessives who comb over every interview and shred of non-news for information about the object of their adoration. But increasingly, fandoms’ emotions have been curdling into a different kind of potion; something petty, entitled, conspiratorial, even abusive. So on the occasion of San Diego Comic-Con, one of the biggest fan events in the world, it’s time for some tough love.

First, a note: this is a look at toxic strains that exist within a larger fandom, not an indictment of a given artist or person. Fandom is a pure and precious thing, and no one should feel conflicted about being invested in a pop-culture figure or property. If you express that investment by being a worse person, though—treating appreciation like warfare, demanding dogmatic purity tests, attacking people, or seeing yourself as some kind of a crusader—than it’s probably time to take some time and re-assess things. We’re sure nothing in the following catalog sounds like anything you’ve done in the name of fandom, right? Enjoy Comic-Con!

10. Barbz (Nicki Minaj Fandom)

The Barbz are a fiercely loyal sort. Case in point: In April, upon the release of Invasion of Privacy, a writer for British GQ explained how Cardi B had adopted Nicki Minaj’s style in a much more accessible way. “Nicki intimidates; Cardi endears,” she wrote. Minaj disciples responded with an all-out attack. The GQ staffer was flooded with malicious tweets, ranging from the direct (“I will kill u bitch”) to even more direct (“You better to delete that before we get your address and start hunting you and your family down!!”) The following month, the Barbz turned on one of their own when a self-proclaimed fan wondered aloud on Twitter: “You know how dope it would be if Nicki put out mature content? No silly shit, just reflecting on past relationships, being a boss, hardships, etc.” (Minaj took it further and DMed a disgustingly petty reply to the fan). For Barbz, fandom doesn’t allow for dissent—even when it’s not dissent but a valid, healthy appraisal. This may come as a surprise, y’all, but love and criticism are not mutually exclusive.

9. Swifties (Taylor Swift Fandom)

Generally speaking, Taylor Swift’s fans aren’t bad—they just really love Swift and tend to be a little over-the-top about it. And most of the time, that’s what fandom is. (Also, this is a pop star who sends holiday presents to them; she’s earned their devotion.) But within that group, the “Bad Blood” singer has a few bad apples. There are those who go after Hayley Kiyoko for daring to point out that she shouldn’t be criticized for singing about women when Swift sings about men all the time. (Swift actually agrees with Kiyoko on that point.) There are Swifties who get bent out of shape when she doesn’t get nominated for enough awards. And then there are the white supremacists—fans Swift seems to have done nothing to court, but pop up anyway. Yeah, the ones who call her an “Aryan goddess”? Those are the ones who give her a bad reputation.

8. Zack Snyder Fans

Look, Zack Snyder’s hardcore supporters have it rough. Or, well, they think they do. They’ve hitched their wagon to a star that occasionally blinks out. He’s made some OK movies (Dawn of the Dead, Watchmen) but he’s made even more that have been trashed by critics: Sucker Punch; Man of Steel; Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. That’s led to a persecution complex among more than a few of his stans. While this kerfuffle has died down a bit with Snyder’s step back from the spotlight—recently, he has shifted focus to make iPhone movies and produce the DC movies rather than direct them—the coming years represent a reckoning. James Wan’s Aquaman and Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman sequel are headed to theaters, and the receptions they get may determine whether critics have complaints with all DC movies, or just the ones with Snyder behind the camera. In the meantime, though, his own personal justice league will be there to defend it.

7. Rick and Morty Fans

Yes, Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland created a funny, smart, challenging (god, those burps) cartoon. Yes, it delivers a bizarro Back to the Future ride through both spacetime and genre tropes. Yes, it’s the most STEM-conscious animated show since Futurama. But sweet tapdancing Pickle Rick, you’ve never seen a TV fandom more noisome than this one. There’s the “this show is so smart normies don’t get it” self-congratulation that’s so over-the-top it became a copypasta meme; there’s the propensity to doxx the show’s female writers and generally be such venal stains that Harmon despises them; there’s the mass freakout after McDonald’s ran out of limited-edition Szechuan dipping sauce. (Yes, that’s correct.) While Adult Swim recently renewed the show for 70 new episodes, there’s going to be quite a lull before anyone sees a new episode—here’s hoping the fans grow up a little bit in the meantime.

6. #TeamBreezy (Chris Brown Fandom)

It’s been almost a decade since reports first surfaced of Chris Brown’s violent abuse of then-girlfriend Rihanna. Since then, Rihanna has rocketed to pop superstardom while Brown’s career has strided along, aided by a loyal following that borders on enablers. Despite an earnest-seeming redemption tour, reports of Brown’s violent behavior continue to bubble up: Brown’s ex-girlfriend filed for a restraining order; Brown went on a homophobic Twitter rant; Brown punched a fan in a nightclub; Brown locked a woman in his home, without a cell phone, so she could be sexually assaulted. (Brown’s camp denies that last accusation.) Yet, Team Breezy generally attributes such reports to misinformation and “haters.” Fandoms are built on stand-by-your-man loyalty, but at some point it becomes impossible to love the art in good conscience. If the #MeToo movement is any indication, the times have changed since Rihanna’s bloody face headlined gossip sites. Willful ignorance is no longer an acceptable choice.

5. XXXtentacion Fans

On June 18, outside of a Broward County motorcycle dealership, 20-year-old Jahseh Onfroy was fatally gunned down by two assailants. At the time of his death, Onfroy, who rapped under the moniker XXXTentacion, had already amassed a rare kind of fame: He attracted deep love and even deeper hate with a ferocious mania. The allure of Onfroy’s dark matter inspired the type of fandom that spills into violent obsession. A recurring source of vitriol for the rapper, and an easy target for his rabid fanbase, was his ex-girlfriend, Geneva Ayala, who filed multiple charges against the rapper (including aggravated battery of a pregnant woman, domestic battery by strangulation, and witness tampering). When it came to light that Ayala created a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for hospital bills due to damage inflicted by Onfroy, his fans bullied her into exile: forcing her to delete Instagram, hacking her Twitter account, harassing her at work to the point that she was left with no option but to quit, and shutting down her GoFundMe (it was later reopened). Having made a name for himself on Soundcloud, where he often engaged issues of mental health in his music, Onfroy willingly embraced his demons (he once called himself “lil dylan roof” on Twitter, referencing the Charleston shooter who murdered nine parishioners in South Carolina in 2015). But even now, in death, XXX is a reminder that extreme fandom has the power to blind people to the blood on their own hands.

4. Logang (Logan Paul Fandom)

Let’s get this out of the way up front. Many, even most, of Logan Paul’s fans are literal children. And so if you ask us who is really responsible for their bad behavior, we’re going to have to say the fault is predominantly with Paul and, you know, other adults. But the Logang (or the Logangsters, depending on who you ask), like Lil Tay, are inventing a new category of internet villain: the terrifying baby troll. They do all the things adult trolls do—parrot back the sexist and racist things Pauls says, stalk him outside hotel rooms, and harass and troll the “haters” daring to criticize their deeply problematic idol—but they’re kids! So you can’t really fire back at them without being a jerk yourself. Listen, Logang: all Logan wants to do is sell you merch. He’s not really your friend. Can I interest you in a puppy video?

3. Bro Army (Pewdiepie Fandom)

First rule of non-toxic fandoms: Don’t call yourselves “bro,” don’t call yourselves an “army,” and definitely don’t call yourselves the Bro Army. People might assume you’re a bunch of flame-war-loving trolls who think girls are icky—and where YouTuber PewDiePie’s fans are concerned, everyone would be absolutely right. It’s not just that they’ve stuck with the Swedish gamer/alleged comedian as he peppered his videos with racial slurs, rape jokes, anti-Semitism, and homophobia for nearly a decade (though that’s bad enough). It’s also that they insist that PewDiePie somehow isn’t being hateful at all. Oh, and if you quote their hero back at them, they’ll wallpaper your social media accounts with thoughtful messages about how you suck—for years.

2. The Dark Side of Star Wars Fandom

The most recent eruption has been a hilariously non-ironic campaign to remake The Last Jedi, but that’s sadly just the latest in a long line of online grossness from the entitled Sith-heads who are so keen on reclaiming the Star Wars universe . Somehow, Gamergate has come to a galaxy far, far away; hectoring, harassment, even death threats aimed at director Rian Johnson. To be clear, this is a tiny (if vocal) subset of Star Wars fandom, which on the whole is as joyous and inclusive as the universe is finally becoming. But to to quote our own Adam Rogers:

“Everyone has a right to opinions about movies. Everyone has a right, I guess, to throw those opinions in the face of the people who make those movies, though it does seem at minimum impolite. Everyone has the right to ask transnational entertainment companies to make the movies they want, and if those companies don’t respond, to stop giving the companies money. But harassment, threats, jokes about someone’s race or gender? A Jedi would fight someone who did that stuff. The Force binds us all together. Hatred and anger are the ways of the Dark Side; they may bring power, but at a cost. It harms individuals, debases the people who do it, and it breaks the Fellowship. In the end, the cost of that power will be powerlessness.”

1. Elon Musk Acolytes

“Always punch up” is a good life motto. You’ll accomplish a lot by speaking truth to power; dissecting the misdeeds of a relative unknown, though, makes you look like a tool. That’s why, despite the plethora of dark and toxic fandoms that flourish on the fringes of the internet, the group that tops our list of nasties is devoted to a person at the internet’s very center: Elon Musk. To his fan club, Musk is so much more than a charismatic artist, a talented musician, or, hey, a flawed but successful tech entrepreneur—he’s a messiah, a vestige of an age of retrograde masculinity, when a reasonably successful man could expect his ideas to remain unchecked and his words be read as gospel. And Musk wields his one-man metaphor status (and his 22.3 million follower army) to whack out any dissenting opinions. “Because before he commented on my tweet, it was floundering in relative obscurity,” science writer Erin Biba wrote in a piece for the Daily Beast. But after Musk’s dismissive response, Biba found herself drowning in hate mail and abuse. By letting his mob pick over opinions he does not like, Musk is able to control the narrative, playing up investigative reporting on Tesla’s poor labor practices as a misinformation campaign—or even, in some recent deleted tweets, insinuating that one of the people involved with the Thai cave rescue efforts is a pedophile. It’s bad to be thin-skinned, and terrible to play the underdog, but playing it while you ignite a million-man bullying campaign is reprehensible.


More Great WIRED Stories

Trump’s Russia Denials Have Real Consequences

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump appeared to downplay Russia’s efforts to interfere with US democracy for a third time this week.

The first had come during a joint press conference with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, a 45-minute exercise in kowtowing to a hostile foreign leader. The second, remarkably, came during the “clarification” of those remarks; on the heels of reading a prepared comment acknowledging Russia’s actions in 2016, Trump improvised, stating that it “could be other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.”

And then came Wednesday, when a reporter asked Trump before a Cabinet meeting if Russia is still targeting the US. The correct answer, according to repeated warnings from US intelligence officials, is absolutely. Trump said no.

Later in the day, press secretary Sarah Sanders framed the answer differently, suggesting that Trump in fact meant “no more questions.” Given the broader context of his almost pathological resistance to admitting that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, that explanation seems wanting. And even if it’s a correct interpretation, Trump still declined an opportunity to assertively back up the intelligence community he has repeatedly spurned.

“It’s an unprecedented time in our nation’s history.”

Clint Watts, Foreign Policy Research Institute

Trump’s denials of Russian interference go back more than two years, and have been largely steadfast despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (It was only after the Putin press conference backlash that he squarely blamed Russia, both in his prepared remarks Tuesday and in an interview with CBS that aired Wednesday night).

Meanwhile, every relevant US intelligence agency has said that Russia did interfere and continues to. On Friday, director of national intelligence Dan Coats told a gathering at the Hudson Institute think tank that the “warning lights are blinking red again” regarding Russian cyberactivity, invoking pre-9/11 levels of concern. And at this very moment, alleged Russian spy Maria Butina sits in a jail cell awaiting trial.

All of which is to say that there is no gray area here, other than that which Trump himself creates. And that’s the first problem.

“What’s clear is that whether he believes it or not, what he wants people to hear is that Russia may or may not be culpable. He wants to confuse people,” says Evelyn Farkas, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia in the Obama administration. “President Trump wants his followers to be uninterested in what he’s doing vis-à-vis Russia. He wants the people who vote for him to continue voting for him regardless of whether he sells out US security interests to Russia or not.” (Before you dismiss that last part as hyperbole, remember that on Wednesday, Sanders didn’t rule out the possibility that the US might let the Kremlin interrogate former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.)

But even if the explanation for Trump’s stance lies elsewhere—ego, genuine verbal missteps, willful ignorance—the most important consequence of his refusal to take a hard line against ongoing Russian aggression is that he invites more of it.

“If you’re Putin and Russia, the signal is, ‘Continue what you’re doing. We won’t respond or do anything,’” says Clint Watts, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and author of Messing with the Enemy: Surviving in a Social Media World of Hackers, Terrorists, Russians, and Fake News.

Watts says that despite all the public attention brought by investigations by Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller, Russia’s influence ops have not scaled back. “The troll farm is not only still up and running, it expanded.”

The US does have means by which to counteract Russia’s influence and hacking operations, but the lack of guidance from the White House hamstrings the three-letter agencies. In May, national security adviser John Bolton eliminated the role of cybersecurity coordinator—the person who would have been charged with formulating a coherent response plan. With Trump not taking Russia seriously, and no one running point at the White House, groups like the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command have taken it upon themselves to create a game plan, as The Washington Post recently reported.

“On a practical level, not having somebody coordinating from the White House can be a pretty big deal, especially when it comes to cyber,” Farkas says. “It’s not just about what Russia is doing to interfere in our voting process. It’s also the fact that they’re sitting on the electric grid, that they have an active military doctrine that permits them if necessary to launch attacks on the critical infrastructure of their adversaries.”

The lack of White House involvement or concern can also impact funding. Even if money has been allocated to address a problem, it needs a mission and strategy to be spent toward. Look no further than the Global Engagement Center, which has a $120 million budget to combat propaganda—like Russia’s influence efforts—and spent none of it under former secretary of state Rex Tillerson. Or look at the intelligence agencies.

“No one has been told they need to take this on as their mission,” says Watts, who regularly briefs both Congress and government agencies about Russian influence efforts. “There has been no plan put in place. And really it’s been the agencies working independently and around the White House to get this undone. It’s an unprecedented time in our nation’s history.”

And then come the ramifications that will play out well into the future: lowered morale in the intelligence community leading to a brain drain the US can’t afford; frayed relationships with allies who no longer know whose word to trust; the propping up of Putin on the world stage, normalizing and emboldening a country that has actively sought to undermine Western democracies for years.

Trump has swatted back reports of Russian influence for so long that it’s easy to grow numb. But think of it as accumulative, rather than repetitive. Each time he declines to denounce Russia, he diminishes US interests and encourages further attacks—whether his handlers walk it back for him or not.


More Great WIRED Stories

Cyclist Gives Piggyback Ride To Puppy Who Desperately Needed Help

Columbo was injured, but he eagerly accepted the cyclists’ food and affection. Little knew he needed to do more, and that meant getting creative.

“We couldn’t leave him,” he said.

So, after trying a few methods of carrying the dog on his bike, Little settled on this: placing Columbo’s legs in his rear pockets and letting him ride piggyback style to safety.

Airbnb Can’t Win New York—But It Can’t Quit Either

Anyone who has been paying attention to the escalating showdown between Airbnb and New York City’s hotel industry will not be surprised that the $31 billion startup just lost, handily. This afternoon, the New York City Council passed a bill that will force Airbnb to provide the Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement with the names and addresses of its hosts. Other cities have passed similar laws, resulting in precipitous declines in listings. Because New York has strict laws about the homes that are allowed to be listed, and many hosts choose to skirt them, this could have more detrimental effects as the city identifies and fines these hosts more easily.

It’s the latest in a long history of battles between the startup and the city. “In 2010, I said, ‘This is gonna be a one-year challenge.’” Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky said, while addressing New York regulatory challenges at the Code Conference in May, adding that now “it doesn’t seem like the end is in sight with that challenge.”

But regardless of how many rules officials impose, Airbnb can’t afford to abandon New York City. That’s not because it’s one of the company’s largest markets — Airbnb’s listings are so diffuse that its top five markets, which include the Big Apple, account for just 4.3 percent of its listings. The New York political fight is resource-intensive enough that if the market were purely about revenue, there’d be a good argument for Airbnb to pull out of New York altogether.

Simply put, you can’t be a travel company in the 21st century and not operate in New York City. Airbnb has to maintain and grow its New York listings because it’s one of the top spots for travelers.

Even more, what happens in New York will influence how the world perceives the company, and it’ll set a precedent for other markets. As Airbnb looks for new ways to grow in the run-up to its initial public offering, the company is encountering regulatory crackdowns across the globe. The New York situation mirrors legislative efforts underway in Los Angeles, and comes months after San Francisco passed a measure mandating that hosts register with the city. Should Airbnb pull out of New York, caving to the special interests of the hotel industry, it sends a message that it might be willing to do the same in other places over time, eventually losing ground in markets where it has brokered a fragile peace.

Should Airbnb pull out of New York, it sends a message that it might bewilling to do the same in markets where it has brokered a fragilepeace.

Though Airbnb has attempted to collaborate with New York City regulators, it has hit a dead end in navigating the city’s quagmire of politicians. “New York is way behind other cities, and we’re moving farther away from a compromise position,” says Julie Samuels, executive director of the advocacy group Tech NYC, adding, “the only thing standing in the way of an agreement is pure politics.”The company’s New York troubles date back to a key decision Airbnb made in its earliest years: to ask forgiveness rather than permission as it rolled out its service in cities.

At the time, this idea was a central tenet in the on-demand economy’s playbook for launch. In most cities it worked. In New York, however, it backfired. In 2010, before most people had even heard of home-sharing or Airbnb, the New York state legislature passed the Multiple Dwelling Law, an amendment to fight illegal hotels. Tenants of apartments in shared buildings couldn’t rent their entire homes for fewer than 30 days. Early on, Airbnb chose to ignore it.

As Airbnb grew large enough to threaten hotels and their unions, an organized group of opponents latched onto the Multiple Dwelling Law to argue the service was illegal. After a protracted fight with the attorney general that ended with a scathing report published in 2014, Airbnb began devoting resources to New York City policy. But by then, its opponents had organized in their efforts to shut the service down. In 2016, New York state passed a bill that made it illegal even to advertise a listing in which a home is rented for fewer than 30 days. The day the bill was signed into law, 20,000 Airbnb listings were deemed illegal, and the hosts were threatened with up to $7,500 in fines for just posting.

Meanwhile, the hotel industry and unionized hotel workers have been supporting city politicians and have invested heavily in advertising and lobbying campaigns criticizing Airbnb for reducing the amount of affordable housing in cities. They’ve run ads promoting a recent report from city comptroller Scott Stringer that claimed Airbnb was driving rents up and taking affordable housing off the market.

While it got a lot of press attention, the report’s results were called into question by the company that provided the information. To analyze Airbnb’s impact on rents in the city, it relied on data scraped by AirDNA, an independent company that collects and analyzes data from Airbnb listings. An AirDNA spokesperson told The New York Times that Stringers’ team had come to “flawed conclusions” because it misinterpreted the data, and that Airbnb had no material impact on city rents.

Regardless, the latest city council legislation was introduced shortly after the report’s publication. It requires hosts of the city’s close to 50,000 listings to provide both the listing address and their home addresses, and answer some basic questions. Under the bill, violators will be fined up to $25,000 per listing not shared.

In the weeks running up to the new legislation, Airbnb countered in every possible way. It released a report showing that city council members who had backed the legislation had accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the hotel lobby. It sent an actor dressed as “Mr. Big Hotel Tycoon” to join protests outside city council offices.

The day before the bill passed, Airbnb’s policy and public affairs head Chris Lehane, a former Clinton administration political consultant, hosted a conference call for press in which he criticized regulators for putting politics before policy, saying: “The Office of Special Enforcement is using its power to target political opponents.” Lehane fell back on a familiar saw, claiming that Airbnb’s hosts, most of whom, he suggested, were just trying to cover their own housing costs by pulling in a little extra from the service, would be the ones to suffer. And he complained the legislation violated hosts’ privacy, a concern so great, he suggested, that Airbnb would consider taking legal action.

Lehane fell back on a familiar saw, asserting that Airbnb hostswere just trying to cover their own housing costs, and that they wouldbe the ones to suffer.

Just hours before the bill was expected to be signed, Airbnb revealed that it planned to finance a host’s lawsuit against the city.

Though Airbnb is voicing concerns about privacy, ultimately the new legislation is problematic for the company because it enforces a state law—and it’s at the state level that Airbnb may one day succeed in improving Airbnb’s standing. A bill introduced in Albany last year would modify the state occupancy law in a way that would legalize most Airbnb rentals. So far, the proposal has remained ensnared in the capital’s divisions, subject to a different set of politics, and it failed to advance before the legislative session that ended last month. Unfortunately for Airbnb, the state legislature won’t reconvene until January.


More Great WIRED Stories

Amazon Web Services Tests Out Two Tools to Help Keep the Cloud Secure

Amazon Web Services is the world’s biggest cloud provider. As a result, its security directly influences that of countless websites and online services. And those concerns aren’t just theoretical; dangerous lapses happen all the time. Customers store all sorts of datasets and raw information in AWS repositories, which then become part of their own infrastructure. If a customer makes a mistake in how they set something up, or they don’t understand the full implications of an AWS feature, it can expose them to the risk of unauthorized access and data exfiltration.

AWS account misconfigurations have exposed everything from voter registrations, to FedEx customer data, insurance information, and even the systems of the massive accounting and consulting firm Accenture.

Two new tools might help alleviate the problem, though. Known as Zelkova and Tiros, the offerings from the AWS Automated Reasoning Group analyze crucial AWS security configurations, evaluating access control schemes and mapping possible paths to the open internet from an S3 bucket. They also offer automated feedback on the practical ramifications of different setups, helping administrators avoid dangerous errors.

“What we’re hoping to achieve is to get a kind of provable security out of our systems,” said Greg Frascadore, security architect at the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, which has been testing Zelkova and Tiros at an AWS conference in New York City Tuesday. “By provable security I don’t mean that what we get out is infallible security. Instead what we’re trying to get is a formal analysis, and a methodical way that we have gone about verifying that the security controls we put into place are working the way we think they’re working. Our security objective here is to stop data exfiltration from AWS.”

The tools provide a one-two punch. Tiros maps the connections between network mechanisms, and is particularly useful for checking for unexpected access from the open internet. Zelkova, meanwhile, can create benchmarks for comparison between different S3 buckets or other AWS components, helping developers understand how permissive their setups are compared to their existing infrastructure, or a model S3 bucket. Zelkova also uses automated logic to play configurations out to their possible extremes. Together, the two tools help spot mistakes before they go live.

“A very important thing about these tools is that you can verify things during the design stage,” Frascadore says. “One of the things that we would really like is be able to do is security verification before we make a change to the actual AWS infrastructure, so before we put a vulnerability into the account.”

Frascadore and Bridgewater technology and security lead Tim Kropp note that Tiros and Zelkova are still bare bones internal tools, with complicated and unfriendly user interfaces. Bridgewater worked with AWS on testing them and invested its own resources in exchange for access to the tools, but Frascadore and Kropp are now helping generate interest to get AWS to do the push to refine them into consumer-grade products. An AWS spokesperson said the company couldn’t comment on whether it would deploy Tiros and Zelkova more broadly, but noted that Zelkova is already used in the S3 dashboard for automatic checks for things like which buckets can be publicly accessed.

The fact that AWS is talking about the tools more openly is an indicator that the organization is seriously considering the best ways to deploy them. And the idea of distributing them more broadly ties in to AWS vice president of security engineering and chief information officer Stephen Schmidt’s larger vision for fundamentally changing how humans and data interact at AWS. Schmidt told WIRED last week that he has set a security goal for every vice president in the organization to “radically restrict and monitor human access to data.”

The use of “radically” is not an understatement. “The number that I used was 80 percent reduction in human access to data,” Schmidt says. “And the reaction I got from people was ‘you’re insane, this is impossible.’ And that is exactly why I chose that number, because it is impossible to achieve without automation. The goal is to guide people to build tools for things that they would otherwise do by hand.”

Tiros and Zelkova are the types of utilities that fit into this push, but Schmidt wants AWS to keep building out mechanisms that protect customers in all different ways. “Human access to data is just something that we need to have to do business, everybody does,” Schmidt says. But that doesn’t mean all access is always appropriate. “Often organizations give their administrators excessive access to data because it’s the easiest thing to do, it’s the most convenient thing to do. And I feel really, really strongly that we need to as an industry be draconian about restricting that access when it’s not absolutely necessary. If you keep the humans away from the data, you remove whole classes of attack.”

The process fits into a longterm AWS initiative to lock itself out of access to customers infrastructure and data. That complicates things for AWS in terms of being able to provide customer support and reliability management, but Schmidt is adamant that it’s the only way to reduce risk. And he wants to push even farther on limiting access. So how’s the 80 percent reduction going so far within the organization?

“There are some teams that will absolutely hit it,” Schmidt says. “There are some teams that are making great progress but won’t hit everything this year. Realistically speaking, it was an audacious ask. The good news is that everybody’s on board now, everybody’s invested. Even the naysayers realized after awhile that ‘this is actually good for me.’”


More Great WIRED Stories

Don’t Expect Big Changes from Europe’s Record Google Fine

European regulators took a big swing at Google Wednesday for abusing the dominance of its Android mobile operating system, fining the company €4.34 billion ($5 billion) and ordering changes to Android designed to put Google rivals on a more level playing field. But it’s not clear that the fine or the operational changes will have much effect.

“Google has basically won,” says Maurice Stucke, cofounder of the Konkurrenz Group and a law professor at the University of Tennessee. “They already dominate mobile. Just think about the number of apps, like with Google Play and the like. There’s no way you’re going to have another operating system that is going to threaten that. Bing invested, gosh, billions of dollars in its search engine, and it still hasn’t really made a significant dent.”

The decision by the European Commission, the EU’s regulatory arm, found that Google manages Android, which runs roughly 80 percent of the world’s smartphones, in ways that illegally harm competition. The ruling focused on three practices: the bundling of Google’s Chrome web browser and its search app as a condition for licensing the Google Play store; payments Google makes to phone manufacturers and telecom companies to exclusively preinstall the Google search app on their devices; and Google’s practice of prohibiting device makers from running Google apps on Android “forks,” or alternative versions of the software unapproved by Google. In its ruling, the commission ordered Google to stop all of those practices.

The commission said preinstalled apps create “a status quo bias,” making users more likely to adopt default settings. It said Google’s Search app is used more often on Android phones, where it is preinstalled, than on Windows Mobile devices, where users must download it. “This also shows that users do not download competing apps in numbers that can offset the significant commercial advantage derived through preinstallation,” the release says. As a result, the commission said, other companies don’t innovate on search, harming consumers.

Stucke says Google’s search engine benefits as more people use it, helping Google’s algorithm predict better responses and understand opaque questions, and forcing website operators to develop and index content that is optimized for Google.

What’s more, Stucke says, the decision will not impact Google’s leap from mobile to voice through digital personal assistants, smart appliances, and devices like Google Home, where the default search results will introduce even more bias.

Google said it would appeal the decision. In a blog post, Google CEO Sundar Pichai argued that Android creates more choice than in “the dial-up age” by providing technology for app developers and more affordable options for consumers. “We’ve always agreed that with size comes responsibility,” wrote Pichai. “But we are concerned that today’s decision will upset the careful balance that we have struck with Android, and that it sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms.”

The Android case is one of three lodged against Google by European antitrust regulators. Last year, the commission fined Google €2.42 billion ($2.7 billion) for abusing its dominance as a search engine to illegally privilege its own comparison shopping service. Google appealed the decision. The commission also is investigating restrictions that Google has placed on websites displaying search ads from Google’s competitors. In July 2016, the commission issued a preliminary conclusion that found Google had abused its dominance in that arena as well.

Google made Android open source and lets handset makers license it for free. But the commission said the restrictions Google puts on handset makers who use Android inhibits competition. The commission began investigating Google’s management of Android in April 2015.

The order to change how Google manages Android applies only in Europe, but Stucke says eliminating the restrictions on Android forks could have a wider impact because it would be hard for Google to implement that regionally. But he and others say the order is unlikely to affect Google’s practices elsewhere unless US authorities order similar changes. Stefan Heumann, a board member at Stiftung Neue Verantwortung, a German think tank focused on new technologies and digitalization, says American intervention seems unlikely amid ongoing trade disputes between the US and Europe. “This case will probably also be politicized in the current trade standoff between the US and the EU and increase the growing transatlantic divisions in the tech sector,” Heumann said.

In the past, when Google has been ordered to change how it operates in one region of the globe, it generally has applied the changes only in that region. For instance, Google responded to similar concerns from competition authorities in Russia by showing users a “choice screen” that let them pick search engines when they opened Chrome for the first time.

Despite the multiple antitrust investigations, Heumann said the commission does not have a clear idea of how to regulate dominant platforms like Google. In an email, he said the impact of Wednesday’s ruling will likely be limited. “Unless we have better concepts on how a fair platform economy should look and what the appropriate regulation is, antitrust cases such as this one will be only imperfect short-term fixes. They won’t address the underlying structural issues,” he said.

A coalition of consumer-oriented US groups, including Consumer Watchdog, the Open Markets Institute, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Center for Digital Democracy, and Fight for the Future, supported the decision in a letter to EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager. “The US Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice should also act to end Google’s monopolistic abuses, instead of letting the Europeans be the only cop on the antitrust beat,” said John Simpson, director of Consumer Watchdog’s privacy and technology project.

Two nonprofit organizations that receive funding from Google criticized the ruling and echoed the argument that Android improves consumer choice.Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association said in a statement, “Today’s decision punishes the most open, affordable, and flexible operating system in the mobile ecosystem. Android brought more competition, innovation, and consumer choice to the market. These are precisely the things competition authorities are tasked to promote rather than jeopardize.”

Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said the decision was based on European protectionism. “Despite the Commission’s protests to the contrary, it is hard to see how today’s ruling aids consumers,” he said. “Instead, it merely fills European coffers at the expense of American companies.”


More Great WIRED Stories

How a Flock of Drones Developed Collective Intelligence

The drones rise all at once, 30 strong, the domes of light on their undercarriages glowing 30 different hues—like luminescent candy sprinkles against the gray, dusky sky. Then they pause, suspended in the air. And after a couple seconds of hovering, they begin to move as one.

As the newly-formed flock migrates, its members’ luminous underbellies all change to the same color: green. They’ve decided to head east. The drones at the front approach a barrier, and their tummies turn teal as they veer south. Soon, the trailing members’ lights change in suit.

Zsolt Bézsenyi
Zsolt Bézsenyi

It beautiful. It’s also kind of amazing: These drones have self-organized into a coherent swarm, flying in synchrony without colliding, and—this is the impressive bit—without a central control unit telling them what to do.

That makes them utterly different from the drone-hordes you’ve seen deployed at places like the Super Bowl and the Olympics. Sure, those quadcopter fleets can number more than a thousand, but the movement and position of each unit is all programmed ahead of time. In contrast, each of these 30 drones is tracking its own position, its own velocity, and simultaneously sharing that information with other members of the flock. There is no leader among them; they decide together where to go—a decision they make on the literal, honest-to-goodness fly.

Video by Balazs Tisza

They’re like birds in that way. Or bees, or locusts. Or any number of creatures capable of organizing themselves majestically and somewhat mysteriously into cohesive groups—a so-called emergent property of their individual actions. A few years ago, they managed to pull it off with 10 drones. Now they’ve done it with three times that many.

But pulling it off was more than three times as difficult. The drones owe their formation to a highly realistic flocking model described in the latest issue of Science Robotics. “The numbers themselves don’t express how much harder it is,” says Gabor Vásárhelyi, director of the Robotic Lab in the Department of Biological Physics at Eötvös University in Budapest and the study’s first author. “I mean, parents with three kids know how much tougher they can be to manage than just one kid. And if you have 20 or 30 to look after, that’s orders of magnitude more difficult. Believe me. I have three sons. I know what I’m talking about.”

Animation by Vásárhelyi et al.

Vásárhelyi’s team developed the model by running thousands of simulations and mimicking hundreds of generations of evolution. “The fact that they’ve done this in a decentralized fashion is quite cool,” says SUNY Buffalo roboticist Karthik Dantu, an expert in multi-robot coordination who was unaffiliated with the study. “Each agent is doing its own thing, and yet some mass behavior emerges.”

In coordinated systems, more members usually means more opportunities for error. A gust of wind might throw a single drone off course, causing others to follow it. A quadcopter might misidentify its position, or lose communication with its neighbors. Those mistakes have a way of cascading through the system; one drone’s split-second delay can be quickly amplified by those flying behind it, like a traffic jam that starts with a single tap of the brakes. A hiccup can quickly give rise to chaos.

But Vásárhelyii’s team designed their flockinging model to anticipate as many of those hiccups as possible. It’s why their drones can swarm not just in a simulation, but the real world. “That’s really impressive,” says roboticist Tønnes Nygaard, who was unaffiliated with the study. A researcher at the Engineering Predictability With Embodied Cognition project at University of Oslo, Nygaard is working to bridge the gap between simulations of walking robots and actual, non-biological quadrupeds. “Of course simulations are great,” he says, “because they make it easy to simplify your conditions to isolate and investigate problems.” The problem is that researchers can quickly oversimplify, stripping their simulations of the real world conditions that can dictate whether a design succeeds or fails.

Instead of subtracting complexity from their flocking model, Vásárhelyi’s team added it. Where other models might dictate two or three restrictions on a drone’s operation, theirs imposes 11. Together, they dictate things like how quickly a drone should align with other members of the fleet, how much distance it should keep between itself and its neighbors, and how aggressively it should maintain that distance.

To find the best settings for all 11 parameters, Vásárhelyi and his team used an evolutionary strategy. The researchers generated random variations of their 11-parameter model, using a supercomputer to simulate how 100 flocks of drones would perform under each set of rules. Then they took the models associated with the most successful swarms, tweaked their parameters, and ran the simulations again.

Sometimes a promising set of parameters led to a dead end. So they’d backtrack, perhaps combining the traits of two promising sets of rules, and run more simulations. Several years, 150 generations, and 15,000 simulations later, they’d arrived at a set of parameters they were confident would work in with actual drones.

And so far those drones have performed with flying colors; real-world tests of their model have resulted in zero collisions. Then there’s the literal flying colors: the lights on the quadcopters’ undercarriages. They’re color-mapped to the direction of each drone’s travel. They were originally developed for multi-drone light shows—you know, Super Bowl type stuff—but the researchers decided at the last minute to add them to their test units. Vásárhelyi says they’ve made it much easier to visualize the drones’ status, spot bugs, and fix errors in the system.

They’re also beautiful, and straightforwardly so—a simple, roboluminescent representation of complex coordination.


More Great WIRED Stories

The Best Post-Prime Day Deals From Apple, Walmart, Fitbit, Dell

Other online retailers don’t like Amazon’s big Prime Day event very much. And so, each year, the competition tries to steal attention away from Jeff Bezos and his summer shopping holiday by putting on sales of their own. This is good news for you, dear readers, because it means more competition, which leads to lower prices.

Most of these non-Amazon deals are from Walmart because it has the largest rival sale going, but we’ve also included highlights from Best Buy, the Microsoft Store, eBay, Dell, Newegg, and others. You can find a list of sales at the bottom, if you’d like to go searching on your own.

Updated July 18: Prime Day is over, and most of Google’s deals have gone with it, but many deals are still active. We’ve updated this entire article and added a few fresh deals. Most of these deals will end by July 20.

TV Deals

These are all decent 4K TVs, and most probably have smart features and apps like Netflix built in. We don’t think you should use them. Buy one of these 4K Media Streaming Devices instead. They’re more reliable, means your TV maker has less data on you, and likely a lot quicker.

Beats Headphones & Apple Deals

Beats Studio3

Beats

These are the biggest discounts we’ve seen this year on Beats. If you’re thinking of buying some of Apple’s hip headphones, this is probably the time. We’ve also seen a few good Apple deals we’ve included in this section.

Audio Deals

PC & Laptop Deals

PC and Laptop deals are in full swing for the summer. To counter Amazon Prime Day, Dell is holding a “Black Friday in July” sale. Horrible name aside, there are a lot of good PC deals. We’ve collected a few, along with some from Walmart and Microsoft.

Fitbit Deals

Fitbit Alta HR

Fitbit

Fitbits don’t always top our list of Best Fitness Trackers, but it’s nice to see them at a good discount. Any of these Fitbits can help you get in better shape.

Gaming Deals

Home and Camera Deals

Google Deals

Google Home Mini

Google

Amazon refuses to sell some of Google’s products because they compete with its Echo speakers, but we actually like them more! Google Assistant speakers topped our Best Smart Speakers and we recommended a Chromecast in our Best TV Streaming Devices roundup. Best Buy has most of these deals, too.

Store Sale Pages

These links take you straight to the deal landing pages on various stores that are holding sales.

More Prime Day Coverage

When you buy something using the retail links in our product reviews, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Read more about how this works.

Prime Day 2018 Is Over: But Deals Remain From Bose, Fitbit, and More

Despite a rough start filled with downtime, glitches, and boycotts, Prime Day 2018 looks like it was a success for Amazon. The online retailer says it sold “more than 100 million products” during the 36-hour “day” of deals in a press release July 18.

Amazon’s own Fire TV stick and Echo Dot were the top sellers, which is no surprise given their extremely low $30 or less price points. The Instant Pot and LifeStraw (still on sale, see below) were also top sellers.

Prime Day officially ended as of 3 a.m. ET July 18, but after doing an audit of all the deals we recommended, we noticed that quite a few are still on sale for at or near their Prime Day prices. Below are the very best sales from all of our Prime Day articles, spanning many tech and entertainment categories. Up top, we’ve hand-picked deals we really love—because they’re products we’ve written about or already have experience with, so you’ll be sure to not accidentally pick a dud of a deal.

Be sure to also check out our Post Prime Day Deals from Apple, Walmart, and Other Stores.

Our Favorite Post-Prime Day Deals

Bose Noise-Cancelling Cans for Cheap

Bose Quiet Comfort 25 Headphones

Bose

These wired Bose headphones are perennial best-sellers and today they’re almost a steal. Usually priced at $300, you can get them today for less than half their MSRP. If you or someone you know fly a lot, then you’ll want these headphones. They sound good, and the noise cancellation helps your ears feel just a little bit better after a trans-continental trip in coach class.

Buy the Bose QC25 Noise Cancelling Headphones for $198 (were $299)

The Greatest R2-D2 Toy for a Real Bargain

Sphero R2-D2

Sphero

Want to own the coolest Star Wars toy ever? You’ll be able to get a Sphero R2-D2 for way less than its $180 introductory price. It rolls around, lights up, and warbles in authentic astromech fashion. Artoo works with any Android or iOS phone with an feature-packed app. You’d have to be a moofmilker to turn down a deal like this one.

Buy the Sphero R2-D2 App Connected Droid for $81 (was $100)

The Best Android Tablet for Way Cheap

Samsung Galaxy Tab S3

Samsung

When we sampled a wide array of tablets earlier this year, the Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 was easily the best Android tablet of the bunch. With a vivid 9.7-inch OLED screen, included S-Pen, and powerful specs, it’s a good buy at its MSRP but a great deal at $445.

Buy the Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 Tablet for $445 (was $548)

A Solid Deal on a Good Fitbit

Fitbit Alta HR

Fitbit

We thought the Fitbit Alta HR was pretty good when we took it out for a spin last year, but with today you’ll save 40 percent, making it even sweeter. It’s compact, has the features we’ve come to expect from a Fitbit, and manages to last a week on a single charge.

Buy the Fitbit Alta HR for $120 (was $149)

Post-Prime Day Deals by Category

Best Smartphone Deals

Best Home & Health Deals

Best Kitchen Deals

Best Gaming & Entertainment Deals

We have more active gaming deals in our Non-Amazon Deals roundup. They’re from other stores, but you may still want to check them out.

Best PC and Laptop Deals

Best Audio Deals

Best Amazon Device & Services Deals

More Prime Day Coverage

Updated on July 18: We revamped this post to only feature deals still active after Prime Day ended.

When you buy something using the retail links in our stories, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Read more about how this works.

Reddit Reinvents the Chat Room With Subreddit Chat

A few months into Jason Lee’s new job at Reddit, the office was buzzing with excitement. It was April 2017 and Reddit had just launched r/place, a collaborative project that invited more than 100,000 communities on Reddit to contribute to a great mosaic of the internet. Redditors would land on a random tile on the canvas, which they could then change to any color they wanted.

Lee, a product manager who hadn’t used Reddit much before joining its staff, watched in awe. The mosaic morphed from a scattering of weird blobs (and, OK, a distinctly phallic shape) to a patchwork of everything Redditors loved: a pixelated rendition of the Mona Lisa, the logo for Stranger Things, the Swedish flag, and hundreds of other symbols, smashed into one great digital quilt. “It all clicked for me,” says Lee, “what strangers can do when they band together.”

But Lee and other Reddit staffers also noticed something else. As communities fought to colonize the canvas, they started planning in their own subreddits, and then off Reddit altogether. It took coordination for communities to make their mark on the 1000 x 1000 canvas, but Reddit didn’t have any way to support those fast-paced conversations. You could leave a comment on a thread, but in order to see the replies in real time, you’d have to constantly refresh the page—an impractical and inelegant way to get anything done. So moderators redirected their communities to Google Docs or Google Sheets, using the color picker to replicate the r/place map; others huddled on Slack or, oddly, even Facebook Messenger to plan their conquests.

The experiment proved something to Lee and other members of the product team: When strangers come together on Reddit, beautiful things can emerge. But Redditors needed new ways to come together, a new medium to talk outside of the community-based posts and threads. Some communities already had well-established chats on third-party apps, like Slack and Discord and even Internet Relay Chat. Why couldn’t they have those same conversations on Reddit?

Since then, Lee has been the lead product manager on a new feature that will make that possible: old-school, real-time, type-and-go chatrooms on Reddit. The company has been testing the feature with a small group of communities and plans to roll out to the rest of Reddit at the end of this month. Think of it like a community center for a subreddit: It creates a space to talk without pretense, to bring discussions beyond the comment threads, or simply hang out with strangers online.

The company imagines community chat becoming an integral part of the Reddit experience. The question is whether it can stick—and whether a throwback to a simpler time on the web can withstand the internet in 2018.

A Room of One’s Own

When Lee and the product team began thinking about chat, they took stock of the other chat applications on the market. There was Slack (for work), Discord (for gaming), and Facebook Messenger (for friends). Redditors had used all of those—both as places for moderators to hold discussions and as relaxed social spaces for communities. But Reddit wasn’t really like any of those platforms. No one knows who you are on Reddit; you come there to mingle with strangers who share something in common—whether that’s an interest in conspiracy theories or a fascination with bread stapled to trees. (Yes, really.) That felt more like the chat platforms of the early 90s, like Internet Relay Chat or AOL chat rooms.

In those early days of the internet, chatrooms served a specific purpose: They turned surfing the web into a social act. In chatrooms, people forged web communities with their own slang and netiquette. “People felt like they were pioneers creating community homesteads on the electronic frontier, as Howard Rheingold described it,” says John Suler, the author of Psychology of the Digital Age and the founder of the field of cyberpsychology. Joe Schober, AOL’s chief architect, likened those early chatrooms to “frontier towns.”

Reddit

Reddit’s chat feature hopes to reintroduce some of that early web spirit. Chatrooms will be organized by subreddit; only moderators will be able to create them. In beta testing, some have organized around super specific topics (like a room in r/BabyBumps for expectant mothers in their first trimester) while others let the conversation meander (like r/mildlyinteresting’s General Chat: “Ya know it’s general.”)

Open the chat icon and you’ll see all the rooms you’ve joined above a list of recommended rooms. Each room includes a sentence or two to explain what it’s about, but there aren’t full-on community rules here like there are in subreddits. You can see how many people are in the room and scroll up to read the last 14 days of chat history. (Reddit started beta-testing subreddit-based chat with zero chat history, but expanded it when people complained it was impossible to start conversations. “Going into a chat room, saying ‘hello world’ and then sitting there thinking no one is there or cares sucks,” says one moderator.) The chat icon lights up in orange when there are new messages in a chat you’ve joined, and Reddit is working to build in notifications for @ mentions.

Reddit

Alex Le, Reddit’s VP of product, says community chat serves a different function than Reddit’s comment threads. He points to sports subreddits, many of which already hack together semi real-time threads for game days. “They default sort that conversation by ‘new’ instead of by ‘best.’ What emerges then is people shouting into the comment box the thing that they just saw on the screen, and it’s appearing next to what someone else saw on the screen. So that’s almost real time,” he says. A conversation like that might be better suited for a chatroom, while Reddit’s archived content—long stories, discussions, AMAs—might be better served by the comment format.

Chat also changes the nature of conversations on Reddit. “There are different levels of formality involved in posting versus chatting,” says Le. “You can think of the subreddit listing as a pretty curated space. The moderators think a lot about it, and they have rules for how you’re supposed to post, etiquette.” Chat, on the other hand, is off the cuff. “We think there’s room for both.”

Talk the Talk

Reddit’s chatrooms come at a time when the platform is struggling to tame some of the content on its platform. Earlier this month, Reddit’s co-founder and CEO Steve Huffman told a user that hate speech itself isn’t explicitly against Reddit’s rules—it’s simply too hard to determine what qualifies and what doesn’t. Last week, when a moderator tried to shut down r/KotakuInAction—a controversial subreddit associated with GamerGate—Reddit administrators swooped in to save it. Some moderators say they’re already struggling to keep their subreddits civil. The idea of managing a room of thousands of people all talking over one another on charged topics has made some want to steer clear of community chat altogether.

“We’re just the internet version of a janitor,” says u/Handicapreader, who moderates several large communities including r/worldnews. “No janitor in his right mind is going to tell you how to make it harder to clean the poop off the floor.”

Reddit

Reddit’s product team says they haven’t actually seen more trolling or bad behavior in their early tests with community chat. When Reddit first launched its first test chat, r/community_chat, Lee and others volunteered to moderate. “Initially, just like with r/place, we saw people just coming in to see how much damage they could do,” says Le. There was spamming and a spattering of inappropriate remarks. But within a couple of hours, it went away. The offending comments disappeared in the chat history and people started having normal, civilized conversations.

“For a troll or someone trying to ruin that experience, there’s just not that much incentive,” says Lee. “Their message goes away so quickly.

Reddit has several teams devoted to brigading and trolling, including an Anti-Evil team that builds tools to make the platform safer. When Reddit introduced one-to-one chat last year, that team created mechanisms for preventing spam and harassment in messaging. Those kinds of tools will carry over to the new chatrooms; moderators can also set a custom rate limit (to limit how frequently someone can post) and custom keyword filter (to block specific words and slurs), in addition to other basic functions (like banning users or locking the room). Reddit also plans to release an API to let moderators build their own tools, based on subreddit-specific needs. But for now, the feature set remains pretty basic. “It’s more of a community-based moderation model compared to a subreddit, where they take everything more seriously,” says Lee.

Le thinks that “almost any community could benefit from having real-time conversation on Reddit,” though some moderators have shied away from the idea. u/iwinalot7, a moderator for r/casualconversations, says that community’s beta chat has gone pretty well so far. The real-time nature of chat works well for a subreddit built for relaxed conversations. But she also moderates r/cringe, a place to share cringeworthy articles, videos, photos, and stories. “I do not want, and will actively try to stop the implementation of that chat for that subreddit,” she says, citing a community culture that can easily become “toxic.”

Only moderators can start new chatrooms for their communities, and it’s unlikely that all of them will. But Reddit’s product team maintains that the feature could benefit anyone on the platform—and it could bring Redditors together unlike ever before.

“People are mostly good,” says Lee. “You see that on Reddit over and over again.”


More Great WIRED Stories

Rising Seas Could Cause Your Next Internet Outage

This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

You probably didn’t give much thought to how exactly you loaded this webpage. Maybe you clicked a link from Twitter or Facebook and presto, this article popped up on your screen. The internet seems magical and intangible sometimes. But the reality is, you rely on physical, concrete objects—like giant data centers and miles of underground cables—to stay connected.

All that infrastructure is at risk of being submerged. In just 15 years, roughly 4,000 miles of fiber-optic cables in US coastal cities could go underwater, potentially causing internet outages.

That’s the big finding from a new, peer-reviewed study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Oregon. To figure out how rising seas could affect the internet’s physical structures, researchers compared a map of internet infrastructure to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s predictions for sea-level rise near US coasts.

In New York City, about 20 percent of fibers distributed throughout the city are predicted to flood within 15 years—along with 32 percent of the fibers that connect the metropolis to other cities and 43 data centers. The research suggests that Seattle and Miami are especially vulnerable, along with many coastal areas.

A map of New York City shows a network of cables (green lines) and areas estimated to be underwater in 15 years (blue shaded areas) due to sea-level rise.
Paul Barford/UW-Madison

“All of this equipment is meant to be weather-resistant—but it’s not waterproof,” says Paul Barford, UW-Madison professor of computer science and a coauthor of the paper. Much of the system was put into place in the ’90s without much consideration of climate change, he says.

On top of that, much of the internet’s physical infrastructure is aging. Paul Barford says a lot of it was designed to last only a few decades and is now nearing the end of its lifespan.

That is, if the floods don’t get to it first. While 15 years may seem shockingly soon, we’re already seeing more high tide flooding, points out Carol Barford (married to the aforementioned Paul), a coauthor on the paper and director of UW-Madison’s Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment. We’re seeing outages related to extreme weather, too: Hurricane Irma, for example, left over a million people without internet access.

It’s hard to predict exactly what would happen inland when coastal infrastructure floods—but the internet is an interconnected system, so damage in one place could affect others. For those inland, it’s possible that coastal flooding could cause a total internet connection outage, or issues in connecting to particular web pages and services.

Still, there’s a lot of research to be done. “We need to better understand the scope of the problem to create good solutions,” says Ramakrishnan Durairajan, a University of Oregon assistant professor of computer and information sciences and the paper’s lead author. Further studies could examine the effects of increased extreme weather on the system, he says, as well as ways to better engineer web traffic in the face of floods or other climate-induced disasters.

The takeaway, Carol Barford says: “If we want to be able to function like we expect every day, we’re going to have to spend money and make allowances and plans to accommodate what’s coming.”

Photograph or Painting? These Landscapes Are Both

As a student at the School of Fine Arts in Caen, France, Guillaume Hebert studied painting. He later transitioned into photography, but rather than leave his first love behind he developed a novel way to combine it with his new passion.

In his 2017 series Rocks of Ludao, Hebert seamlessly combined photographs of the Taiwanese shoreline with classical landscape paintings he found on Google Images, creating hybrid photograph-paintings convincing enough to fool the casual viewer. The experiment proved so successful that Hebert reprised it in another series, Updated Landscape, in which he juxtaposed photographs of banal urban scenery with the lush Baroque and Romantic landscapes of artists like Jean-Honoré Fragonard, Eugène Delacroix, and William Turner.

Hebert took the photographs for the series in China, Indonesia, and Taiwan, then spent days poring over high-resolution digital reproductions of paintings, looking for ones that would match his photographs in lighting and perspective. Since all of the artists were long dead and their paintings the property of public museums, Hebert didn’t encounter any copyright issues.

After pairing up photograph and painting, Hebert used Photoshop to surgically combine them into a single image, carefully adjusting color and tone to ensure a perfectly blended final scene. This post-production process can take anywhere from eight to 20 hours. “I don’t want it to look like a collage,” Hebert says. “I want people, when they look at my picture, to see just one image and not two.”

It takes many viewers a few moments to understand the illusion. “People have to stop in front of the picture to look carefully and figure out what has happened, discover the painting,” Herbert says. Out of respect for the painters whose work he’s sampling, Hebert includes information about the original work in his captions so that curious viewers can seek it out for themselves.

“For me, photography is just a continuity of painting, so when I mix the two media I’m emphasizing their continuity,” Hebert says. “I don’t really care about the traditional way we use photography. I don’t put limits on my pictures.”


More Great WIRED Stories

The False Tale of Amazon’s Industry-Conquering Juggernaut

Amazon is one of the largest and most formidable companies in the world. It’s run with brutal efficiency, a keen focus on keeping its customers happy, and a deep thirst for innovation. Its $50 billion of revenue per quarter makes the company worth more than $850 billion, which is enough to buy Walmart three times over and still have more than $100 billion in change. (It’s also enough to make founder Jeff Bezos the richest man in modern history.) There’s no industry that Amazon feels incapable of taking on — not even the Google and Facebook fief of advertising, where Amazon is already bringing in some $2 billion in revenues every quarter.

Still, it’s really nothing to be scared of.

Felix Salmon (@felixsalmon) is an Ideas contributor for WIRED. He hosts the Slate Money podcast and the Cause & Effect blog. Previously he was a finance blogger at Reuters and at Condé Nast Portfolio.

The rest of the world doesn’t see it that way. If you’re a Wall Street speculator who’s shorting a stock, betting on its decline, then one of the best things that can happen is for Amazon to enter that business. When Amazon gets involved in anything from supermarkets to pharmaceuticals, the market knee-jerks in a very predictable way, wiping billions of dollars off the valuation of every other company in the industry. The logic, such as it is, is that Amazon is such a formidable competitor that no company can do well while competing with them.

Except, that logic isn’t really borne out by any kind of evidence. Amazon was founded as a bookstore in 1994, and it really did disrupt the business of bookselling. Publishing, too, is much less profitable now than it was 20 years ago, thanks to Amazon’s formidable monopsony power. Amazon is by far the largest buyer of books in the world, all publishers need to sell to Amazon, and Amazon forces them to accept terms they would never accept from anybody else.

It’s a testament to the cultural salience of the publishing industry that the books precedent looms so large in the mind of the public and stock traders, because today, 24 years after Amazon was founded, the company has failed to achieve similar market power in any other sector. Quite the opposite, in fact. By opening up its platform to third-party sellers, Amazon has ensured that it will nearly always face competition, even on its own website. And as Amazon has become one of the most valuable companies in the world, it has taken increasing pains to avoid doing anything that antitrust authorities might disapprove of. Amazon’s book monopsony is valuable, but it also comes at significant reputational cost; it’s not at all clear that building a similar monopsony in some other market would be a net positive for the company.

Not that it’s threatening to do so. When Amazon bought Whole Foods, it gained no particular control over the food industry: it merely went from having 0.2 percent of the groceries market to having 1.4 percent. When it bought PillPack, for all that it wiped $11 billion off the market capitalization of the likes of CVS and Walgreens, it still acquired a company that only has $100 million in revenue. (Walgreens, by contrast, has over $100 billion.) However Amazon intends to compete in such markets, it’s not going to do so by being the dominant player. Even Amazon’s attempts to become a book publisher have been pretty small-scale and unimpressive.

By opening up its platform to third-party sellers, Amazon has ensuredthat it will nearly always face competition, even on its own website.

In fact, I can’t think of a single industry, other than bookselling, that Amazon has entered with significant negative repercussions for the incumbents in that industry. Amazon makes fantastic TV shows, for instance, but it has hardly damaged Disney or Netflix in doing so; for the producers of TV shows, its entry into the business has been an unalloyed boon. Its music-streaming service hasn’t hurt Spotify, even as Apple has proved that there was more than enough room for a new competitor. Its Fire phone, of course, was an unmitigated disaster. And while the so-called retailpocalypse has decimated the ranks of American shopping malls, it’s hard to blame Amazon for that when in-store retail sales continue to rise. (The real reason for shopping malls closing down is, simply, that developers built far too many of them, and that no country on earth has ever been able to support America’s per-capita number of shopping malls.)

Amazon is great at inventing new categories, from online bookselling to cloud-computing services to voice-commanded personal assistants. It’s a genuinely innovative company, which is willing to take risks and fail. By allowing third-party sellers onto its platform, it regularly surfaces fantastic merchants who would otherwise be very hard to find; increasingly, it’s becoming a search engine in its own right, one of the very few companies that can take on Google at its own game.

Still, there’s a world of difference between Amazon starting to sell ads, and Amazon being a potentially disruptive force to the advertising duopoly of Google and Facebook. Amazon had an impressive $2 billion of advertising revenue in the first quarter of this year; Google’s year-on-year increase in ad revenue was more than twice that sum. Between them, Google and Facebook had over $38 billion in ad revenue in the first quarter. Is it possible that Amazon might become a real competitor to them, if it keeps its ad revenue growing at current rates? Well, anything is possible. But it’s not likely any time soon.

Amazon famously reinvests almost all of its profits into its own business, which is one of the reasons Wall Street loves the company so much. Companies like Apple are incredibly profitable and spend billions of dollars on dividends and share buybacks, creating the problem for shareholders of what they’re going to do with all those billions. Amazon, by contrast, always seems to have a new set of ideas for where to spend its profits, and investors are happy to trust its founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos, to reinvest those profits wisely.

Still, as Bezos will readily admit, most of his investment ideas fail. Just because Amazon spends a huge amount of money on, say, trying to create a new social network, doesn’t mean it’s going to have any visible success doing so. After Amazon spent $545 million to acquire Diapers.com, for instance, it ended up shuttering the business, claiming it couldn’t make it profitable.

Ultimately, Amazon is not a disruptive force so much as it’s just a big, rich company which spends a lot of resources trying a lot of things. That’s smart, for Amazon, but it certainly doesn’t mean that industry after industry is going to get disrupted the minute the Seattle giant lays eyes on it. Even Amazon’s core business of retailing hasn’t changed all that much: e-commerce still accounts for less than 10 percent of total sales, and Amazon is a minority of that 10 percent.

So the next time you hear the word disrupt, or any of its cognates, in the general vicinity of the word Amazon, be sure to treat anything you hear with a pinch of salt. Just because Amazon is successful, doesn’t mean it’s particularly harmful to anybody else.


More Great WIRED Stories

Comic-Con 2018: What We’re Most Looking Forward to at This Year’s Convention

Every year, the tradeoff is real: What panel are you willing to sacrifice in order to see another? Even in a year when HBO and Marvel are staying away, the days at Comic-Con International are so stacked with events that hard choices need to be made. We feel that pain, and are here to help. Below are all the panels and events that we think will be the biggest deals at this year’s con. It’s not a comprehensive list—there are always gems hidden away for any pop-culture interest you can imagine—but if you’re looking for the blockbusters, these are a good place to start.

The Rebirth of the Predator Franchise

Writer-director Shane Black starred in 1987’s Predator, the story of a brutal alien who sees the world through a heat-activated, Hypercolor-shirt-like lens. That film inspired a handful of sequels and spin-offs (including the magnificently hyper-violentPredator 2), but none with the pulpy pedigree of Black, who wrote the original Lethal Weapon, and directed the high-flying Iron Man 3. His revival of the Predator series stars Wonder-kind Jacob Tremblay as a pre-teen who accidentally beckons one of the space-hunters to our planet, where it wreaks havoc with rangers and government officials before going to battle with an even bigger bad guy: a super-creature rumored to be named the Mega-Predator. Hopefully the members of Black’s delightfully disparate cast—including Olivia Munn, Keegan-Michael Key, Sterling K. Brown, and Jake Busey (Jake Busey!)—will be appearing at Comic-Con, and can tell us once and for all just how much The Predator’s plot cribs from the Ice Cube album of the same name. All in all, we expect it to be a good day.

Meet Jonathan Albright, The Digital Sleuth Exposing Fake News

For Albright, the CrowdTangle findings were a seed that germinated, weed-like, far beyond Facebook. He spent late nights and early mornings studying what he’d found and soon realized that the very same memes and accounts he discovered there were popping up on other, less discussed, platforms. He collected IRA-linked ads on Instagram that Facebook hadn’t yet publicly reported. A reporter at Fast Companytook notice, and afterward, Facebook discreetly added a last-minute bullet point to an earlier blog post, acknowledging that yes, the Russian trolls had abused Instagram, too.

He used a list of Twitter handles associated with the IRA to scour sites like Tumblr for suspicious content posted by accounts of the same name. He found plenty, including particularly egregious posts intended to stoke outrage about police brutality among black Americans. Albright helped Craig Silverman at Buzzfeed Newsbreak the story. A month later, Tumblr announced that it had indeed found 84 IRA accounts on the platform. Albright had already identified nearly every one of them.

“You have a conversation with Jonathan, and you feel like you’ve just learned something that he realized six months or a year earlier,” Craig Silverman says.

I know the feeling. More often than not, a single message from Albright (“rabbit hole warning”) leads me to so many unanswered questions I’d never thought to ask. Like in late February, when Albright finished reading through the follow-up answers Facebook’s general counsel, Colin Stretch, sent to the Senate following his congressional testimony.

Albright realized then that over the course of hours of testimony and 32 pages of written responses, Stretch never once mentioned how many people followed Russian trolls on Instagram. That struck Albright as a whale of an oversight because, while the Russians posted 80,000 pieces of content on Facebook, they posted 120,000 on Instagram. (And yes, these are numbers Albright knows by heart.)

When, prompted by Albright, I asked Facebook this question in March, they said they hadn’t shared the number of people who followed Russian trolls on Instagram because they—a multibillion-dollar company that had already endured hours of congressional interrogation—hadn’t calculated that number themselves. Another time, Albright mentioned that Reddit still hosted live links to websites operated by the Internet Research Agency. Several of these accounts had already been deleted, but at least two were still live. When I asked Reddit about the accounts, the company suspended them within hours. (Disclosure: Conde Nast, which owns WIRED, has a financial stake in Reddit.)

Silverman, of Buzzfeed, describes Albright’s research as a “service” to the country. “If Jonathan hadn’t been scraping data and thinking about cross-platform flow and shares and regrams and organic reach and all these other pieces that weren’t being captured, we wouldn’t know about it,” he says.

But this work has come at a personal price. When I ask Albright what he does to blow off steam, he says he travels—for work. Nights and weekends are mostly spent in the company of his spreadsheets, which are often loaded up with fragments of humanity’s worst creations—like conspiracy theories about survivors of a high school shooting.

And, yet, that’s also what drives him. When the Parkland shooting happened, Albright says he was thinking about slowing down, and taking some time to plot his next steps. But he couldn’t help himself. “The fact that I was seeing Alex Jones reply to a teenager who had just survived a mass shooting, and he’s calling him a fake and a fraud, that’s just un-fucking-believable,” Albright says. “I’ve never seen that. Not like that.”

By late spring of this year, almost two years after he’d started this quest, it looked like even Albright was beginning to realize this life was unsustainable. Especially given the distance, Albright’s erratic schedule requires a lot of patience on his partner’s part. “You have to be pretty laid back and cool to be with someone who’s doing this kind of work,” he says. And this spring, Albright’s father died of cancer, requiring him to take some time off and make the cross-country trip home to Oregon. Recently, his typically busy Twitter feed has quieted down. He’s hard at work on a book proposal and thinking up ideas to pitch as part of Facebook’s new research initiative, which grants independent academics access to the company’s data.

Silverman, of CrowdTangle, says he hopes this initiative will help Facebook work more closely with people like Albright. “The really best case scenario is there will be a lot of Jonathans and a larger community of folks flagging these things and helping raise awareness,” he says.

Meanwhile, tech giants have begun taking some responsibility for the mess they made. Facebook and other tech companies have started making major changes to their ad platforms, their data-sharing policies, and their approaches to content moderation.

Albright knows that returning to writing academic papers that warn of some far off threat may not capture the public imagination or make the front page of the country’s leading newspapers. That’s particularly true given that tech companies, federal investigators, and vast swaths of the country are still looking in the rear-view mirror. But he’s ready to start looking forward and thinking holistically, not forensically, about the influence technology has on our lives.

“I can’t just be a first responder for propaganda,” Albright told me in May, several months after we met under the leaky pipes.

Yet, minutes later, he had a new discovery to share. The day before, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee published all 3,500 ads Russian trolls bought on Facebook in the run-up to the election. Aside from Albright’s own collection, it was the most thorough look yet at how Russia had used social media to try to influence American voters. Albright couldn’t help but take a look. He compiled the ads into one 6,000-page PDF, and as he scanned the images he realized a lot of the ads were familiar. And then he noticed a series of ads unlike any of the ones he’d seen before. He thought I might find them interesting. He suggested I take a closer look.


More Great WIRED Stories