Well yes, I am indeed off – but not for long. I'm going on a trip to China for a week, so won't be around next weekend to do any writing. In the meantime, here's some good stuff. Two thousand, three hundred words of it. I may have got a bit carried away.
1. Mullenweg’s hollow “win”
After months of increasingly tedious legal theatrics, the latest chapter in WP Engine’s row with Automattic offers little comfort for anyone invested in open-source values. Yes, a judge threw out the most explosive charges—antitrust, monopolisation, and extortion—but let’s not pretend Matt Mullenweg now wears the hero’s cape. He’s already spinning this as a sweeping victory for open-source maintainers, but the reality is far messier.
Most of WP Engine’s claims survive, including defamation, trade libel, and intentional interference. These aren’t minor technicalities—they go to the heart of the simmering unease triggered by Automattic’s commandeering of the Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin. Mullenweg would have us believe this is all business as usual, but it’s hard to ignore the wider damage to trust in both the WordPress project and open source in general.
There’s a certain irony in seeing legal victory paraded as moral vindication, when the underlying conduct remains so questionable. Automattic’s approach has sent shockwaves not because it might be illegal, but because it so clearly undermines the communal trust that built this ecosystem.
What’s truly unnerving isn’t WP Engine’s accusations—it’s the public record of Automattic’s own decisions. The legal outcome here won’t settle the open question: when the leader of open-source’s flagship project acts with so little regard for the ecosystem, who or what is left to believe in?
2. Google finally admits the obvious about the open web
In a moment of accidental honesty, Google’s lawyers have finally said what many of us have known for years: “the open web is already in rapid decline.” This admission, tucked away in a court document, is a stunning contradiction to the rosy picture its executives publicly paint. While CEO Sundar Pichai claims web publishing isn't dying and other VPs insist the web is "thriving," their own legal team argues the opposite to try and fend off the divestiture of its ad business.
For anyone who has watched their referral traffic from Google wither away, this news is hardly a surprise. It feels more like a long-overdue, albeit self-serving, confirmation of reality. For years, Google has slowly strangled the open web it was built on, transforming from a discovery tool into a walled garden. Features like AI Overviews and zero-click searches are designed to keep users on Google's properties, scraping publisher content for its own benefit, while providing little in return.
The subsequent attempt by a Google executive to backtrack, claiming the statement only referred to "open-web display advertising," is a distinction without a difference. Advertising revenue follows traffic. If Google actively diminishes the traffic it sends to publishers, it directly contributes to the decline of the entire ecosystem. This isn't just about a poorly worded legal argument; it's an admission from the web's gatekeeper that the house is on fire, while it holds the matches.
3. How Tim Cook sold out Steve Jobs's legacy
Anil Dash has penned a searing, must-read critique of Apple's current leadership, arguing that Tim Cook has fundamentally betrayed the values that once defined the company under Steve Jobs. The piece contrasts Cook’s sycophantic displays towards figures like Donald Trump with the rebellious, countercultural spirit that Jobs embodied. It’s a powerful reminder that having "fuck-you money" is meaningless if you never find the courage to say "fuck you" to bullies and authoritarians.
Dash connects Jobs's personal history—as the biological son of a Syrian immigrant and a product of the 60s anti-establishment scene—to the ethos that shaped Apple. This was a man who launched the Macintosh with an advert explicitly targeting an Orwellian Big Brother. Can anyone seriously imagine that version of Steve Jobs fawning over the new class of right-wing tech billionaires or handing a gaudy, gold-plated trophy to a figure like Trump? It's simply unthinkable.
The core of Dash's argument is that Apple, under Cook, has squandered its immense cultural and economic power. Instead of standing firm on the principles of openness and defiance that made it an icon, the company has chosen the path of meek capitulation. Cook’s actions suggest a fear-based strategy, appeasing power in the hope of favourable treatment on tariffs or regulations. But as Dash points out, this is a fool's errand. Bending the knee to bullies only invites more demands.
This isn't just about what Steve Jobs would have done. It's about a missed opportunity for the world's most powerful company to lead with integrity. Apple had a chance to stand for something more than just profit margins, and it failed the test completely.
But hey, capitalists are going to capitalism.
4. A nostalgic dive into AppleWorks history
Howard Oakley’s Eclectic Light Company blog is a treasure trove for anyone with a deep interest in the nuts and bolts of Apple technology, and his recent piece on the history of AppleWorks is a perfect example of why it’s such a gem.
From its origins on the Apple II to its eventual replacement by the iWork suite, Howard charts the convoluted journey of AppleWorks and its sibling, ClarisWorks. He reminds us of a time when integrated software suites were revolutionary, and his post is filled with wonderful screenshots that will evoke a strong sense of nostalgia for long-time Mac users.
If you like deep-dives into tech history written with clarity and passion, Howard's blog is an essential read. It’s a wonderful corner of the internet where quality and expertise still reign supreme, offering a welcome break from the noise. Oh, and he covers a lot of great art too.
5. Doomers vs Boomers
Bloomberg recently explored a question that feels increasingly urgent: are the "AI doomers" losing the argument? The article highlights how, despite dire warnings from experts about existential risk, the relentless race for superintelligence continues unabated. The immense economic incentives and the classic Silicon Valley drive to build, no matter the cost to the rest of us, seem to be drowning out calls for caution.
From a skeptical perspective, this isn't surprising. The debate often feels like a feedback loop where both "doomers" and "boomers" contribute to the hype, making superintelligence feel inevitable. The article points out that many safety experts are now funded by the very industry they critique, creating a dynamic of "controlled opposition."
While the prospect of a paperclip-maximising AI killing us all remains in the realm of sci-fi, the underlying issue is real. We are rushing to build something we don't fully understand or control. Even if true superintelligence never arrives, the willingness of tech's most powerful figures to gamble with such high stakes reveals a disturbing disregard for the rest of us. It’s a useful insight into the mindset driving the technology that is already reshaping our world in profound ways.
6. Penske sues Google over AI overviews
The chickens are coming home to roost for Google's AI Overviews... sort of. Penske Media, the owner of major publications like Rolling Stone and Billboard, has filed a lawsuit against Google. The suit alleges that Google uses its journalism without consent to power these summaries, which in turn siphons traffic and revenue from their websites.
This lawsuit highlights a fundamental imbalance at the heart of the AI race. While other AI companies like OpenAI are striking deals to license content, Google is simply taking it. Why? Because it can.
Google’s near-total monopoly on search gives it a unique advantage. Any publisher can block OpenAI’s crawler, but they cannot block Google’s without disappearing from search results entirely—a death sentence for any online publication.
This coercive leverage means publishers are forced to hand over their most valuable asset for free to train a product designed to replace them. It’s not a negotiation; it’s a shakedown, and it lays bare the anti-competitive foundation upon which Google's AI strategy is built.
7. Musk’s Grok: billionaires, bias, and AI misinformation
Elon Musk’s Grok AI bot has once again demonstrated the risks of letting tech billionaires set the terms of public discourse. The latest controversy: Grok falsely claimed that footage of violent confrontations between the Metropolitan Police and far-right activists in London was misrepresented by the police, wrongly asserting it was from a 2020 protest rather than recent events. The error was quickly seized upon and amplified by right-wing commentators on X, before the police were forced to step in and provide evidence of the actual location and date.
If you’ve tracked Musk’s stewardship of X and his record at xAI, this development is no surprise. The company previously was caught “rebalancing” its systems to ensure Grok reflects more right-wing perspectives—sometimes pushing out far-right conspiracy tropes like “white genocide.”
This isn’t just about one misleading answer. It’s a pattern: powerful AI, steered by people with vested interests, reflects and reinforces the owner’s worldview. AI developed and controlled by billionaires will inevitably echo their political leanings, regardless of the lofty claims about objectivity or the “democratic” potential of these tools. When platforms are used to promote division, or to magnify questionable narratives under the guise of neutral technology, we see how quickly innovation can morph into weaponisation.
If Grok is a glimpse into our AI-powered future, maybe it’s time to ask if billionaires are the last people we should trust to build our next reality.
8. The $12 billion AI company that only sells hype
If you ever need a perfect example of the froth and absurdity driving the current AI bubble, look no further than Mira Murati’s Thinking Machines Lab. This secretive startup, staffed by an all-star team of ex-OpenAI researchers, has managed to raise an astonishing $2 billion in seed funding at a $12 billion valuation. And what revolutionary product have they unveiled to justify such a monumental figure? A blog post.
That’s right. The company’s first public output is a single post on its new research blog, “Connectionism.” The post itself discusses a genuinely interesting but highly technical problem: making AI model responses more consistent. It’s a worthy goal, but it’s a research paper, not a product.
This situation perfectly encapsulates the hype-driven mania of the AI industry. We are witnessing billions of dollars being thrown at teams of well-credentialed researchers based on little more than promises and mystique. The actual output is, for now, secondary to the narrative.
While the team at Thinking Machines Lab is undoubtedly brilliant, their current valuation is a stark reminder that much of the AI gold rush is built on speculation. It raises the question: how many more billions will be spent on blog posts before the market demands actual, tangible products?
9. Mastodon's thoughtful take on quote posts
Mastodon is finally rolling out quote posts, a feature that has been a long-standing source of debate within the fediverse community. While a staple on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), quote posts have also been a primary vector for harassment, allowing users with large followings to "dunk" on others and unleash pile-ons. It's a dynamic many have been keen to avoid replicating.
Thankfully, Mastodon's implementation shows a level of thoughtfulness that has been sorely lacking elsewhere. Instead of simply copying the feature, they have built it with user control at its core.
You can disable quoting entirely for your posts or case-by-case. More granularly, you can limit who can quote you to followers only, or prevent it altogether.
This approach is a refreshing change of pace. It acknowledges that social features have social consequences and puts the power back into the hands of the user, rather than forcing everyone into a free-for-all that inevitably benefits the most toxic actors. It's a small but significant design choice that reflects the platform's community-first ethos, and one that other networks would do well to learn from.
10. The Daily Mail's walled garden problem
In a move dripping with irony, the Daily Mail has complained to UK regulators that Apple is blocking it from Apple News. For years, the publisher actively avoided the platform in its home market, fearing it would cannibalise its precious web traffic. Now, after publicly calling its US inclusion "extremely disappointing," the Mail is desperate to get in. What changed?
The timing of this reversal is telling. As Google's traffic firehose dwindles and the display advertising model it supports crumbles, publishers are scrambling for new revenue streams. The Mail's sudden pivot suggests it can no longer rely on search traffic, and now sees Apple's walled garden as a necessary lifeboat. For a publication that thrives on massive volume, Apple's claim that the Mail's prolific output would "overwhelm" its ecosystem is a particularly stinging, if convenient, excuse.
While it's hard to muster sympathy for the Mail, the situation highlights a worrying concentration of power. Apple now acts as a key gatekeeper to a huge audience, wielding arbitrary control over which publishers get access. It's a reminder that as the open web declines, our news diet is increasingly dictated by the whims of a few powerful tech giants. This isn't a healthy ecosystem for a free press.