Meta Ordered to Pay $25 Billion for Deceiving Users on Privacy

The penalty, one of the largest levied against the tech giant, stemmed from a lawsuit by New Mexico claiming the social media company had misled users about their data privacy.

By Eli Tan and Cecilia Kang for The New York Times

October 21, 2026

A New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion on Wednesday for deceiving users about its data privacy practices, one of the largest penalties levied against a tech giant.

New Mexico sued Meta in 2021 over a scandal involving the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, saying the social media company had misled users with its public statements about their data privacy. Last month, after a two-week trial, a jury in the State District Court in Santa Fe ruled against Meta, saying the company had committed 43 million violations of New Mexico’s consumer protection laws. Each violation carried a penalty of up to $5,000.

On Wednesday, Judge Francis J. Mathew of the State District Court in Santa Fe issued the landmark penalty.

“The harm in this matter is difficult to overstate, and goes to the heart of Facebook’s basic business proposition,” Judge Matthew wrote in a 20-page judgment. He said the “extraordinary number of willful violations” that repeated over years “support the highest level of penalty.”

The order is the biggest blow yet to Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, as it has racked up court losses over the harms that its social media platforms have caused users. States and consumers have filed thousands of lawsuits over issues such as how Facebook and Instagram endangered child safety, led to social media addiction, used people’s data without their consent and infringed on their privacy.

New Mexico has been leading the charge against Meta, and winning. In August, a New Mexico judge ordered the company to pay $567 million in damages after a jury ruled the company had enabled harm to young users, on top of a $375 million penalty from the same case in March.

In both cases, New Mexico accused Meta of violating state consumer protection laws, which have emerged as an effective way to litigate tech companies that have been previously shielded by laws that protect free speech, said Vincent Joralemon, the director of the Life Sciences Law and Policy Center at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology.

“The takeaway from this will be that consumer protection laws will be the way to hold tech companies accountable,” Mr. Joralemon said, adding that the penalty could inspire other states to pursue similar lawsuits.

In August, Meta reached a landmark settlement with 47 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, agreeing to pay up to $17.1 billion in penalties and make major changes to its products over claims it endangered children with addictive social media platforms. As part of that settlement, Meta agreed to pay $459 million to settle similar privacy claims regarding Cambridge Analytica, meaning other states are unlikely to pursue the charges that New Mexico did.

“For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law,” Raúl Torrez, the attorney general of New Mexico, said in a statement. “Today’s result makes clear that no corporation is too powerful to be held accountable.”

Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The data privacy case in New Mexico was in some ways a throwback to an earlier tech era, when social media — and not artificial intelligence — was in the spotlight. In 2018, The New York Times and other publications reported that the British firm Cambridge Analytica had acquired the private data of tens of millions of Facebook users without their knowledge to build profiles of American voters.

The revelations set off an outcry over how Facebook was harvesting people’s information and treating their privacy. Facebook, like many social media platforms, is offered as a free digital service, but users provide their information to the sites and are targeted with ads. Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive, appeared in Congress to testify on his company’s handling of data.

Over a two-week trial last month, lawyers for New Mexico presented evidence on how Meta’s executives mislead users with statements about their privacy. The lawyers contrasted public comments from Mr. Zuckerberg and Sherryl Sandberg, then Meta’s chief operating officer, against their private email conversations.

Meta’s lawyers argued that its users have the power to choose what data they share on the platform, and said its policies around third-party companies harvesting Facebook data had changed significantly since 2018.

Mr. Zuckerberg did not testify at the trial, but a video of his hour and half long deposition was shown to the jury.

The jurors ultimately found that 26 of the 29 statements made by Meta and its executives were unfair or deceptive.

New Mexico had asked for as much as $40 billion. Judge Matthew awarded the state $219 billion in damages before reducing the penalty to $25 billion.

In the first half of this year, Meta made $42.62 billion in profit. The company is valued at roughly $1.8 trillion.

Most states will not be able to sue Meta for the same data privacy violations related to Cambridge Analytica, because they have already settled their cases, Mr. Joralemon said. But the door could still be open to sue Meta for other violations on the same grounds of the company’s violating consumer protection laws and making false statements, he added.

U.S. officials privately advise states fearing Trump election meddling

Their private efforts have reached governors, election stewards and lawmakers from both parties who are increasingly alarmed that the administration may interfere in the midterms.

By Noah Robertson for the Washington Post

October 20, 2026

A small group of U.S. national security officials has been discreetly advising state governments and congressional lawmakers on how to prepare for the possibility that the Trump administration will attempt to interfere in November’s midterm elections, according to people involved in the effort.

The group includes about 10 current and former officials with experience in the Defense Department, some of whom have previously focused on countering authoritarianism abroad.

Their efforts are motivated not by political bias, they say, but a growing sense of alarm that President Donald Trump will harm American democracy by undermining the integrity of the vote to keep the Republican Party in power.

Over the past several months, the group has consulted with officials from 10 states, including governors, election officials and members of the House and Senate from both political parties who share a fear of federal intervention, two people involved in the effort said.

The effort, which has not been previously reported, focuses on states and jurisdictions where tightly contested races will determine control of Congress for the remainder of Trump’s presidency. Members of the group remain in contact with congressional staffs, and at least one state has continued to meet with them as it works to address potential vulnerabilities.

“All of them have said we’re concerned but we don’t know what to do,” one member of the group said of its meetings with lawmakers.

“The outcome that we hope for is that states would be prepared for any contingencies should they arise,” the person continued.

This report is based on interviews, conducted over several months, with two officials involved in the effort. They spoke on the condition of anonymity and that the lawmakers and state leaders with whom the group has met not be identified either, for fear of retaliation. The Washington Post also reviewed some of the documents the group prepared for its meetings.

Trump has long claimed that a “deep state” of government officials is working to undermine his presidency. Since returning to office, he has undertaken an expansive effort to fire career civil servants and solicit political loyalty from the bureaucracy.

Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, dismissed the group’s concerns and blamed Democrats for not supporting stricter election laws.

The Trump administration, she said in a statement, “is taking decisive action to protect our elections including prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion.”

The president, Bis added, “is making clear that anyone who illegally votes in our elections will be held accountable.”

In their discussions ahead of the midterms, the national security officials have detailed ways the Trump administration could use its federal powers to sway the upcoming vote, covering categories that include legal and illegal activity. Among their concerns are that the administration could deploy troops or immigration agents to polling stations or seek to nullify results based on claims of voter fraud.

Their meetings with lawmakers have mainly focused on raising awareness, especially among Republicans, of the potential for interference and on counseling them to be prepared to publicly oppose any such efforts. With state governments, they’ve focused more on how to harden election protocols that could be exploited by the federal government, the two members of the group said.

Their warnings are based on personal analysis of the administration’s activities and public statements made by the president and his allies — not access to specific government intelligence or information to which they have access because of their positions within federal agencies, members of the group said. They described the meetings as a way to help state and federal officials secure the election and emphasized that their work has occurred outside of their official capacity as government employees.

Still, their efforts indicate an extraordinary level of concern that Trump may use his authority to influence the election or challenge the results, similar to his extended campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election that culminated with a raid on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump’s approval rating is at record lows only weeks ahead of the Nov. 3 midterms, with voters frustrated about the cost of living and the war in Iran. Democrats appear likely to flip the House and possibly the Senate, and have vowed to intensify oversight of the administration if they regain power.

Election officials, including some Republicans, have decried efforts by the Trump administration to assert federal control over a process that the Constitution entrusts to the states. Some GOP-led states, such as Utah, have refused to comply with the administration’s efforts to access their voter rolls.

“The threats that we’re getting now are mostly from our own government,” Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson told The Post earlier this month.

In January, the FBI raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, and seized voting materials in an investigation tied to Trump’s debunked claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election. Trump told the New York Times in an interview earlier this year that he regretted not having the National Guard seize voting machines during that race.

As he has campaigned on behalf of Republicans, Trump has repeated his claims about the 2020 election and that Democrats are attempting mass voter fraud ahead of the midterms. In October, a group of nongovernmental organizations sued the administration, alleging that it unlawfully collected voting data from 47 states.

Throughout the year, he has unsuccessfully urged Congress to pass an election security bill — the SAVE America Act — that would give the federal government more authority over the voting process. The GOP-controlled Senate has not done so, as passing the bill would require ending the chamber’s 60-vote threshold known as the filibuster.

Trump and some of his top Cabinet officials also have declined to rule out the possibility that they will send members of the military or immigration agents to polling stations, alarming Democrats.

During a combative Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in late April, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether he would refuse a presidential order to deploy troops to the polls or to collect voting machines. He dismissed the question, posed by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan), as a “hypothetical.”

When the committee’s Republican chairman, Sen. Roger Wicker (Mississippi), urged Hegseth to provide a response, the secretary said, “I’ve never been ordered to do anything illegal, and I won’t.”

In August, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to Slotkin and said that there were no plans to deploy troops to the polls or seize voting records.

The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.

In September, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin declined to rule out the possibility of deploying immigration agents to the polls. Speaking to reporters, Mullin said that they would appear only if there were “specific threats” and that such agents wouldn’t “patrol” voting sites.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement “is not planning operations targeting polling locations” and would only do so if an “active public safety threat endangered a polling location.”

At other times, Trump and other senior officials have attempted to use the powers of their office to sway voters to support Republicans. The president has promised voters a $5,000 reward if the GOP maintains its majority in Congress, and he has used taxpayer money to air campaign-style ads ahead of the midterms.

The precautions some states are taking against potential federal interference in the midterms signal a radical departure from the threats that state governments normally focus on in an election year. Foreign actors such as China and Russia have long sought to influence or disrupt U.S. elections, and continue to do so ahead of the November midterms, the U.S. intelligence community has assessed.

Tammy Patrick, the chief program officer at the National Association of Election Officials, said that over the past year the possibility of federal interference has become the dominant concern of election officials she has spoken to around the country.

State and local officials, for example, have been rehearsing how to respond if a federal agent appears at a polling place to compel access to ballots or voting machines, she said.

Other officials, Patrick said, have been concerned about moves the Trump administration has already taken.

Since returning to office, Trump has pressured states, such as Indiana and Texas, to redraw their congressional maps to favor Republicans. His administration has also asked the Supreme Court to limit the availability of mail-in voting, a request the court has rejected.

“All of these things,” Patrick said, “are being done in the open.”

PRC examiners won’t probe sale of TXNM stock to Zimmer Partners

Separate ruling lets Blackstone and TXNM refile merger application to show $400M stock sale was unwound

BY JUSTIN HORWATH / ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

October 18, 2026

Hearing examiners for New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commission said Friday they would not investigate the legality of a stock transaction associated with the proposed $11.5 billion acquisition of TXNM Energy by New York private equity firm Blackstone.

The nonprofits New Energy Economy and the New Mexico Consumer Protection Alliance asked the commission to investigate a 2025 sale of roughly $200 million in TXNM shares to a New York investment management firm, Zimmer Partners, and its associates.

The request to investigate the transaction followed a July ruling made by state regulators that declared the sale of $400 million in TXNM stock to Blackstone illegal. In a 2-1 ruling, commissioners said the stock sale violated state law and ordered the companies to unwind the transaction and pay fines.

Nonprofit organizations opposing the purchase of TXNM, the parent company of Public Service Company of New Mexico, said the stock sale to Zimmer was illegal for similar reasons. They pointed to a stock purchase agreement between Zimmer and TXNM, which says Zimmer should use its beneficial shares to vote in support of the Blackstone takeover.

Like the TXNM stock sale to Blackstone, the issue threatened to drag the merger through more regulatory hearings.

Mariel Nanasi, executive director of New Energy Economy, said in an interview the language requiring Zimmer to vote in favor of the sale of TXNM to Blackstone was “damning evidence” against the companies. But Nanasi said she understood why the examiners ruled as they did — and that their decision shows the nonprofits’ request to open a new investigation was justified.

“Zimmer acted independently, was not connected to Blackstone, and completed the purchase after the merger agreement was signed,” PRC spokesperson Patrick Rodriguez said Friday.

In a separate ruling, the hearing examiners said TXNM and Blackstone may refile their merger application with the agency to reflect that the illegal stock sale between the two was unwound.

“Together, these rulings allow the acquisition case to proceed while preserving the Commission’s ability to address compliance issues, review the updated application, and consider any new evidence that may arise,” Rodriguez said.

The PRC will hold a status conference for the merger case next week. There, Nanasi said the agency will create a procedural schedule for a week-long hearing on the case’s merits.

Asked for comment, a Blackstone spokesperson said company officials are pleased to move forward with the transaction.

A TXNM spokesperson said the company still believes the sale “is the right choice for New Mexico.”

Chile roasting in New Mexico

BY AVI SHAMA for the ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL

October 18, 2026

Every September, the smell reaches me before I see the roadside stand. Smoke makes its way to my nose from the rotating drums filled with roasting green chile, and suddenly I know fall has arrived. This has never ceased to delight me, ever since I made New Mexico my home 40 years ago.

And every fall New Mexicans like me flock to our favorite chile stands. It is a tradition older than the nation itself and feels as constant as the sand, boulders and the piñon trees that dot the land with green bouquets.

Once at the stands, we examine the size and thickness of the peppers. Some taste the peppers before choosing which to buy — a decision with important consequences for the cooking throughout the coming year.

We then proceed closer to the roasting stations and sit on last year’s beaten-up folding chairs, until our number is called. Peppery, smoky fumes engulf us, and, like following an ancient prayer, we dive into reflection of the year. In my first autumn in New Mexico, I went to the roasting chile stands as an outsider. Later I realized that chile roasting meant something more than that, something deeper and more profound. I felt I was joining a spiritual community, which binds us in friendships, rituals and traditions.

We drive home with our roasted harvest, still steaming, in large garbage bags, where the tradition continues, now with family and close friends: pepper peeling, cleaning, chopping and storing small amounts in Ziploc bags for use throughout the year. It is a long and joyous togetherness that almost always culminates with a meal of chile stew to commemorate the passage of a year and the beginning of a new one.

The birds are the first to sense the ethereal, still forming, fall light, and the finches, sparrows and wrens dance and sing as they fly to announce the new season. Deep under their wings they already feel a whiff of the coming winter that will prompt them to seek warmer climates. But not before they fly in flocks singing at the top of their lungs, not before sipping the nectar of the last blooming flowers, not before chirping in their soprano voices bidding me goodbye.

Watching this behavior of the birds every fall, I no longer think first about the winter ahead. I think instead about their certainty that spring will return. They leave my place without hesitation because they trust the rhythm of the seasons, as I do now.

Each autumn I think I know what I will find: the smell of roasting chile and the songs of birds preparing to leave. Yet every year I discover something else as well. The season reminds me that renewal is not an event but a rhythm. After 40 years, New Mexico has become more than the place where I live. It has become the place that taught me how to live.

When a Social Media Mob Came for Cornell’s Jane Doe

After a former student named seven men in a lawsuit saying they had sexually assaulted her, a movement gained steam online to reveal her identity.

By Debra Kamin, Amy Julia Harris, Ryan MacEmma Goldberg and Hurubie Meko for The New York Times

October 16, 2026

The online campaign to unmask Jane Doe began with pleas on X.

“Please help me discover the Cornell girl,” Aidan Thompson, a 23-year-old man who regularly praises Hitler and disparages women on the social media platform, wrote in one of the first posts. “I have a good lead, but I need your help.”

Within hours of Mr. Thompson’s post, another user had offered a bounty of $5,000 for the name and photos of the woman who had sued Cornell University under the pseudonym, claiming she had been gang raped at a fraternity party. Within a day, commenters were circulating a woman’s name and images of her from a social media account.

On the fringes of the internet, bigots, attention-seekers and trolls have long seized on polarizing legal cases to air anger and disgust at women — and boost their following.

Now they were coming for Jane Doe.

A little more than a week after Mr. Thompson’s post about the former Cornell student, more than 11,000 accounts had made almost 25,000 posts that purported to name her, according to an analysis by an online analytics company, Gudea, conducted at the request of The New York Times.

The analysis showed that the posts had begun on X and spread to Bluesky, 4chan, Discord, Telegram, Rumble and other platforms, their numbers growing by the hour.

Many of the posts included hateful or antagonistic language. Some used misspelled words, such as “sIut” instead of “slut,” in apparent attempts to evade the platforms’ text filters, or added videos of far-right influencers like Nick Fuentes, the white nationalist and antisemite, to drive engagement. Often they traced similar themes: Jane Doe had actually consented to the sex; the men she accused were the true victims.

The former student’s lawsuit, filed on Sept. 16, named seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity and said they had sexually assaulted her at a party on Cornell’s campus in Ithaca, N.Y., in October 2024.

All of the men have denied wrongdoing. None have been charged with a crime.

Details that emerged after the lawsuit — including that Jane Doe had willingly drunk alcohol on the night of the party and said she had initially agreed to sex with two of the men — have touched off anger and debate over questions of consent and accountability on college campuses, but also about who deserves anonymity in sexual assault claims.

A lawyer for Jane Doe, Thomas Giuffra, said she had initially wanted to file her lawsuit using her real name but that he had advised against it. He added that the harassment she was facing had taken a severe toll.

“The backlash of trying to identify her and the threats have made this much more difficult for her,” he said. “It’s scary.”

After her lawsuit gained attention, the men she accused also became targets of online harassment. In one Instagram video, a woman posted their names and photos and invoked a female serial killer who had murdered seven men in Florida, saying she hoped they got what they deserved. The video was viewed more than 240,000 times.

Separately, after Jane Doe’s lawyers mistakenly identified the wrong man as one of her assailants, the family of that man, an active-duty Marine, received so many death threats that law enforcement officers had to be stationed outside of their home.

Still, it is common practice in the justice system for courts to permit people who say they were sexually assaulted to pursue civil claims anonymously, to ensure their safety and protect them from stigma. That anonymity, however, is not guaranteed. Judges must decide on a case-by-case basis whether an accuser’s request for privacy outweighs the public’s right to transparency, and the court has yet to rule on that question in Jane Doe’s case.

In the meantime, the online vitriol directed at the former Cornell student could have a chilling effect on other women who are weighing whether to come forward with claims of abuse, advocates for sexual assault victims said.

Catharine MacKinnon, a feminist legal scholar whose work helped establish federal Title IX protection for college students facing sexual harassment, said that an online push to identify someone who had filed an anonymous sex assault claim amounted to an attempt to silence that person.

“It’s to communicate to every woman to whom this has happened that this is what is waiting for her — public shaming, stigma and a spoiled identity,” Dr. MacKinnon said. “This is why people say it takes courage to come forward.”

The people posting about Jane Doe online saw things differently. She had tied the names of seven men to an alleged sexual assault, exposing them to rancor and embarrassment.

Now it was her turn.

An Opportunity

Mr. Thompson, the right-wing provocateur, had been involved in controversy before.

In 2024, he resigned as treasurer of the Kansas Young Republicans amid criticism over his interactions with Mr. Fuentes. (The same group was later embroiled in a scandal after leaked texts showed some of its members participating in a racist, misogynist and antisemitic group chat.)

Since then, interspersed with shirtless selfies, Mr. Thompson has posted a steady stream of racist, homophobic, antisemitic and misogynist content on X.

“Hitler? Hitler, can you can hear me? Yes, there’s a problem. We need you Hitler. You’re our only hope,” he posted on Sept. 20, above a photo shared by a Texas state senator depicting a multicultural group gathered to watch a college football game.

“Hard not to hate women as you sleep with more of them,” Mr. Thompson posted four days later.

Most of these posts received only modest engagement. But the Cornell case, he told The Times in an interview, presented an opportunity.

Fifteen hours after sending the call out for Jane Doe’s identity, he shared a woman’s name and photos, calling it “BREAKING NEWS.”

“They have a right to face their accuser,” he wrote of the seven men, “and we have a right to publish her identity if we discover it.”

This time, his post ricocheted across X, shared by users and amplified by the platform’s own recommendation algorithm. It has since accumulated more than 19 million views.

A spokeswoman for the platform, which is owned by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, did not respond to requests for comment.

In the interview, Mr. Thompson described himself as a “white male” who has had “histrionic women lambasting” him “as like a Nazi” his “entire life.” He defended the men in the Cornell case, saying that their names and photos had been widely circulated, and adding that they had already been “adjudicated guilty by the public.”

“A lot of parties are incentivized to boost this,” Mr. Thompson said, comparing himself to Stephen Miller, the Trump administration official who, as an undergraduate student at Duke University, made a name for himself defending lacrosse players at the school who had been wrongly accused of rape.

“I’m not lacking in self-awareness,” Mr. Thompson added. “I understand that I’m dramatically opportunizing off of this.”

Mr. Thompson said he had used information included in Jane Doe’s legal complaint to try to ferret out her identity.

His “BREAKING NEWS” post was followed by a torrent of messages directing anger and hate at the woman he named. Some called her a whore. Others made vulgar comments about her body. Still others went further.

One series of posts on X included not only a name, but also an address, phone numbers and information about the woman’s apparent relatives. The posts, which violated X’s rules on sharing private information, racked up more than 1.4 million views, before being removed a few days later.

Savanah Hernandez, a commentator for Turning Point USA, who has more than 700,000 followers on X, shared a woman’s name and photo and wrote that the accuser “was so embarrassed about everyone at Cornell knowing she was such a huge HOE.”

She deleted the post not long after, but then wrote of the men: “I do think if they’ve been named, so should she.”

‘Don’t Blame Me’

Soon after Mr. Thompson claimed to have unmasked Jane Doe, Michael Tracey, an independent journalist with more than 350,000 followers on X, was preparing a post of his own.

Mr. Tracey, who had earlier gained notoriety for questioning the veracity of a prominent Jeffrey Epstein accuser, had recently fixated on people who file anonymous legal complaints making what he called “reputation-destroying claims” about others.

By Oct. 2, Mr. Tracey announced to his followers on X that he, too, had confirmed Jane Doe’s identity.

His post on X listed the name and photo of the woman Mr. Thompson had identified.

Separately, on Substack, Mr. Tracey posted a screenshot he said had come from a state court website that also listed the name in relation to the Jane Doe case.

Because the name had been revealed on a public docket, he said, it was fair game.

“Don’t blame me — the New York court system just posted it,” he wrote.

But it appeared Mr. Tracey had been duped.

The site he referred to had no connection to the New York State court system. Instead, registration records show, it appeared to have been created by a 33-year-old man in Michigan who described himself on social media as a “digital creator.” That man did not respond to requests for comment, and the site is now offline.

Amid cascading criticism, Mr. Tracey deleted the posts with the woman’s name later on Oct. 2, arguing that “the principle has been served.”

“I don’t believe she’s the main ‘villain’ here,” he wrote in another post on Substack, saying he was instead calling out “sleazebag lawyers.”

In an interview, Mr. Tracey defended his initial decision to connect a name to Jane Doe, claiming it was in the public interest. He said he had not relied on the third-party website, and had instead verified her identity through other means.

“There are situations where you report on the information of somebody that they or others would like to not see reported,” he said. “That is what I did, but apparently that’s doxxing or that’s some great offense against humanity if you do it with respect to a litigant in a civil action that’s had all these far-reaching reverberations.”

Before he deleted his posts, though, others on social media had already begun citing them as their own justification to attach a name to the woman.

One streamer on Rumble, a right-wing version of YouTube, soon broadcast the name to followers, using a screenshot of Mr. Tracey’s post on X. In the days that followed, right-wing influencers on YouTube amplified the name to still more viewers, decrying the amount of harassment facing the men.

On Instagram, the same name was soon automatically labeled a “popular” search subject.

A spokeswoman for Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said such posts were prohibited by company policy and that the social network had removed some of the material. The company also removed the name from the ranked results on the platform’s search function.

YouTube, too, took down videos that claimed to identify the woman, saying they violated its harassment policies, a spokesman said.

Representatives for Rumble did not respond to a request for comment.

For his part, Mr. Tracey, having removed his posts about Jane Doe’s identity, said he and his family had themselves become victims of online mobs.

“There are maniacs on the internet,” Mr. Tracey said. “So, yes, I’m aware that anybody who’s involved in a matter of public controversy can probably expect to receive some deranged messages from people on the internet.”

Real-World Consequences

As the online furor mounted, it appeared that at least some people on the internet had indeed learned Jane Doe’s true identity.

On the evening of Oct. 6, a man called the police and said he had shot his mother and was going to kill his sister next. He gave as his location the address of Jane Doe’s family home, police records show.

An officer sped to the house, approached a truck as it was backing out of the driveway and drew his gun. He ordered the two men inside — Jane Doe’s loved ones — to the ground.

More officers arrived, and they soon determined that the call was a hoax. When they entered the house, they found the former Cornell student inside.

She told them she had been inundated with phone calls and messages threatening her and her family’s lives. She said she was panicking because her phone would not stop ringing.

As the police were interviewing her, a man called their department again, said he had an assault rifle and that he was heading toward the house with plans to kill everyone inside.

It would be a good idea, the police told Jane Doe’s family, if she just turned off her phone.

It Looked Like a New Species. The Trouble Was, It Didn’t Exist.

Facing a flood of A.I. slop, groups bent on democratizing science create new checks and balances.

By Eric Boodman for The New York Times

October 16, 2026

The bug looked like a new species. It had the classic mark of the dead-leaf mantises — a flattened shield, brown and crinkled to mimic forest-floor detritus — but the camouflage was almost too good, as if it were wearing an actual leaf. It was unlike any specimen Kris Anderson had ever seen.

Mr. Anderson has seen plenty of specimens. He has thousands pinned in drawers in his Las Vegas home, legs out, wings spread to reveal a stained-glass geometry of veins.

Every evening after his workday as a director of a counseling center, he spends two and a half hours poring over the 500 or 600 mantis pictures that enthusiasts have uploaded to the citizen science website iNaturalist, where anyone can submit photos of wildlife to help map biodiversity. To Mr. Anderson, most are junk — blurry shots of common species. But every so often there is something worth writing up: a mantis never before documented on Aruba, or a rare behavior, like three females seemingly eating each other.

For a few seconds, the mantis he saw on June 17 seemed like a taxonomic jackpot. Then he realized he’d been duped. This mantis was fake, a product of artificial intelligence.

It was yet another instance of a sprawling problem. The algorithms that make certain scientific tasks easier are also producing a crisis of clutter. Scientific journals are inundated with A.I. slop, bibliographies fattened with nonexistent articles. Peer reviewers who are supposed to catch such shoddy work sometimes outsource the job to algorithms, too.

In response, groups founded to democratize science are establishing new checks and balances. This fall, the preprint server arXiv — a free online repository that quickly disseminates research papers, with less vetting than traditional journals — started limiting submissions to mitigate the tsunami of A.I.-aided results. Citizen science forums like iNaturalist are considering similar safeguards. Last spring, OpenStreetMap, a communally created digital atlas, embedded a “read me” file for automated programming agents making tweaks in its crowdsourced code: a honey pot for machines. In August, eBird, Cornell’s archive for ornithological sightings, announced a new warning system to flag over-edited or artificial birds.

“A.I. systems could, and do, make good contributions when deployed in the right way,” said Mikel Maron, an OpenStreetMap volunteer. “The trouble is, it’s so easy, whether generating code or generating data, that it creates a large volume of noise, which has the potential of overwhelming humans’ ability to sort through the contributions.”

At stake is a delicate symbiosis. Citizen science is an alliance between experts and amateurs. Researchers get help collecting and analyzing vast data sets; laypeople get to shape and access knowledge that might otherwise be locked away. This isn’t mere infotainment. SafeCast, an international nonprofit, uses this approach to monitor and distribute radiation and air quality data. Citizens of the Reef tracks coral — and by extension, ocean — health.

A.I. is enhancing those efforts, allowing a volunteer without much coding experience to quickly troubleshoot data visualization issues, say, or pinpointing details that deserve attention in vast libraries of images.

“It’s mind blowing to me how much possibility there is for accelerating scientific discovery across all domains,” said Lucy Fortson, a University of Minnesota astrophysicist and co-founder of the citizen science platform Zooniverse. “Yes, apply this stuff! But don’t forget that human quality of being able to notice something odd, of having context of the real world.”

The erosion of those instincts is what some researchers worry about. Alexander Lees, an ornithologist at Manchester Metropolitan University, remembers when colleagues sent him an image of a threatened willow tit in Scotland — a plausible and exciting enough finding that it took some convincing to make them realize the picture was a fake. Those hoaxes are still rare on iNaturalist and eBird. More common are well-meaning volunteers using models to clean up photos without noticing that the bot has added wing-stripes, or swapped out yellow for red.

“If there’s a lot of these photos out there, they will pollute the database of what real animals look like, and they will confuse models you want to identify real species,” Dr. Lees said. “You’re essentially giving them training data of things that do not exist.” The concern is that generative models would complicate the use of their precursors, the pattern-recognizing networks that power identification apps

This is, to Mr. Anderson, a new manifestation of an old issue: The mantis order is neglected, taxonomy is constantly changing and the corpus that iNaturalist’s pattern-recognition software uses to suggest species names is “a minefield of erroneous data.” Years ago, he corrected every mistake he saw. Eventually, he stopped; otherwise he’d do nothing else. Now, he does so only if he’s writing a paper based on that uploaded photo.

“We really rely on experts like Kris Anderson to generate the identification,” said Scott Loarie, executive director of iNaturalist, pointing out that the pattern-recognition models are only as good as the human community inputting information.

Hence the worry about A.I. images becoming more sophisticated. The first algorithm-manipulated mantis Mr. Anderson spotted, in March, was “all Frankenstein-looking,” he said. “It was fantastical. It had three antennae, and the legs were all misplaced.” The next one had him briefly fooled, until he noticed something odd about the wing-fold and a strange texture on the thorax.

After he contacted the person who uploaded it and flagged it to iNaturalist, the posting was taken down. “Such images may be especially dangerous because they are capable of passing initial review by non-specialists and may persist within biodiversity databases for extended periods before detection,” Mr. Anderson wrote in a paper about the situation.

To some academics, his report, too, deserved caution: He’d published it in Soothsayer, a mantis research journal he runs himself, without formal, anonymized peer review; he’d founded it out of frustration with the slowness of academic publishing.

The venue didn’t bother Julio Rivera, a research associate and mantis specialist at the Montreal Insectarium. “There is important stuff in those publications,” he said. Science is communal. Mr. Anderson had published his findings for others to examine, challenge and build upon — if they weren’t too busy wading through A.I. slop.

New Mexicans to lose private Medicare coverage as three providers pull plans

Insurers are ending unprofitable private plans resulting in millions losing coverage across the nation

BY GILLIAN BARKHURST / ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

October 16, 2026

By year’s end, tens of thousands of New Mexicans will lose Medicare Advantage coverage as three insurers drop plans from their networks.

Presbyterian Healthcare Services announced in August that it would end all Advantage plans, impacting 30,000 people. Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico and Christus Health have also said they would drop most Advantage plans.

“It’s just all kind of a big mess,” said Brady Hess, an independent insurance adviser with Vista Insurance Partners. “There’s quite a bit of anxiety.”

Advantage plans supplement the baseline Medicare that most U.S. residents 65 or older receive through the federal government. These plans are a necessity for many, especially those with chronic illnesses, planholders interviewed by the Journal said.

Between now and the end of the year, tens of thousands of New Mexicans will have to decide whether to reenroll with other insurers or accept basic Medicare coverage as open enrollment season begins.

And New Mexicans aren’t alone in the struggle. Millions of people nationwide will lose coverage as major insurers end plans deemed unprofitable, according to reporting by The New York Times.

Though New Mexicans will have fewer options, Hess said there are alternatives for additional coverage and that no one will lose Medicare as a whole. Still, switching insurance can be a stressor and an added expense for older adults already well established with specific doctors, pharmacies and health networks, Hess said.

In August, Cris Dutcher, 72, learned that he and his wife would lose their Medicare Advantage coverage through Presbyterian.

Though in good health, the couple’s Advantage plan protected them from unexpected medical bills that basic Medicare won’t cover. Unsupplemented Medicare, also called Original Medicare or Medicare A, leaves patients on the hook for 20% of medical bills with no yearly out-of-pocket maximum.

Many Advantage plans also include dental, vision and other benefits not provided by basic Medicare.

“I was surprised, one, a little disheartened, two. But I was disheartened more by the quickness with which this all came out,” Dutcher said. “I’ve got to figure that Presbyterian didn’t just realize this past August that they were purportedly losing money; they had to have known that for a long time. So how about giving us old goats a little bit more forewarning?”

Officials at Presbyterian said cutting Medicare Advantage was a financial decision made to remain “a strong, independent healthcare system for New Mexico.”

“Continuing in this market would limit our ability to invest in the care, workforce and access to serve New Mexicans where they need us most,” said Presbyterian spokesperson Kourtney Muñoz.

When asked, officials at Blue Cross Blue Shield and Christus Health did not explain why they cut Medicare Advantage plans.

In interviews with the Journal, several people who will lose coverage said switching to another insurer presents a financial hardship. Many are choosing between plans with less comprehensive coverage or paying a much higher monthly bill.

Regardless, those interviewed said they anticipate paying more for healthcare in the coming year, either through higher copays and out-of-pocket maximums — or through a more expensive plan.

Though Dutcher has the finances to make a switch, he recognized that many don’t. For some people living on a fixed income or Social Security alone, paying more isn’t an option at all.

“It really should be the doctors and nurses and actual healthcare providers that are making important decisions with regard to how to keep people alive,” Dutcher said. “But it seems like these days it’s got more to do with the insurance companies who are, understandably, profit-driven, but therein lies the rub. Dealing with people’s investments and percentage of returns and that sort of stuff is one thing. Dealing with people’s sheer physical well-being is something entirely different.”

Next steps

While switching plans can seem daunting, people are ready to help, Hess said.

“I would definitely recommend that they reach out to a broker like us because this is what we do for a living and we can help calm some nerves,” Hess said.

Vista Insurance is one of numerous brokers in New Mexico. People can call the State Insurance Assistance Program for help at 800-432-2080.

Additionally, Presbyterian is holding a Medicare resource fair from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Oct. 22 to help connect people with brokers and insurers.

Whether someone decides to work with a broker or do their own research, Hess said there are a few first steps.

Hess recommended making a list of all the doctors, pharmacies and other medical services they use. With that information, research or contact a broker who can come up with options, ideally one of which will keep patients from having to switch doctors, Hess said.

In Bernalillo County, Devoted Health, HealthSpring, Humana, Molina and UnitedHealthcare still offer Medicare Advantage plans.

“When you’re a senior and you’re seeing all those commercials and getting all those phone calls, you can start to feel a bit of pressure and feel like the sky’s falling,” said Vista Insurance adviser Baden Morrill. “But the message of hope (is) that there’s people out there that do care and that will listen to them and give them the guidance that they need to get back on track. It’ll all work out.”

Project Jupiter permit comments unverified

AG updates Environment Department on probe into comments on data center air permit

BY ALGERNON D’AMMASSA / ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

October 16, 2026

A “substantial share” of comments submitted to the New Mexico Environment Department on behalf of Project Jupiter’s air quality permit were “not sent by members of the public acting on their own,” state Attorney General Raúl Torrez informed Environment Secretary James Kenney on Wednesday.

Torrez’s office reviewed 17,419 comments that had been submitted as public comment on a pending application from Yucca Growth Infrastructure, representing the data center’s planned microgrid power generation facility, a natural gas-based fuel cell installation by Bloom Energy.

The review, according to a letter from Torrez, found that about 60% of those comments were sent from a pool of approximately 9,000 internet addresses, most of which sent one comment each. Most also listed out-of-state phone numbers even though the portal did not require that information, Torrez wrote.

“This letter does not establish who is responsible for any particular comment, and it does not characterize anyone’s intent,” Torrez wrote. “It does establish that a number of comments cannot be read as a measure of public opinion until the record has been verified.”

The number of “unverified entries” jeopardized the hearing officer’s requirement to “conduct a fair and impartial proceeding,” Torrez argued.

The review was sparked by complaints from New Mexico residents, including some lawmakers, that comments supporting the permit had been submitted in their name without their consent or knowledge. Some residents said they had provided contact information to canvassers who conducted public outreach in Albuquerque, Las Cruces and Rio Rancho on behalf of the project.

Roughly 4,700 comments, most of which opposed the permit, came from 17 internet connections, the review found, with 2,100 originating from ordinary connections.

The numbers suggest that bundling of comments by interest campaigns using third-party tools played a significant role in providing input for and against the permit.

Torrez said form letters supporting the project were linked to a supporter list from the “Project Jupiter Together” website, which included a “Send a comment to NMED” portal.

According to his letter, the department said there was no authorized connection between the website and the department’s portal.

“We do not yet know whether comments were passed from that page to the portal, or who would have done it,” Torrez wrote.

A single computer produced 22 comments “in the names of public officials, local governments, and organizations,” the review found, but no evidence had been found of who was responsible.

“Oracle fully cooperated with the Attorney General’s investigation and continues to provide all possible assistance to facilitate its execution,” an Oracle spokesperson told the Journal on Thursday.

“Any improper conduct should be addressed, but it should not overshadow or undermine the thousands of residents who have participated honestly and in accordance with the public comment process.”

As the probe continues, Torrez requested that the department and the software provider Smart-Comment preserve portal data and metadata such as IP information, timestamps and confirmation logs. He also asked the department to separate the unverified comments and seek a ruling from the hearing officer on whether those entries should be considered as a measure of public input. He also said efforts to verify the comments should continue “through a method that does not depend on the portal alone.”

Torrez also suggested reopening the public comment period, if needed, while preserving individually written or verifiable comments on both sides of the debate.

NMED spokesperson Drew Goretzka said the department “will continue to preserve records in support of the New Mexico Department of Justice’s investigation.”

The department had strengthened the public comment system’s security, Goretzka continued in a written statement, and added, “Any person or organization that attempts to misuse the public comment process to steer a permit decision should be held accountable. NMED looks forward to continuing to work with the NMDOJ as the investigation proceeds, including helping in any resulting civil or criminal proceedings, as appropriate.”

Family of man killed by tiger criticise online content after Trump reposts video

Relatives of William Chapman say footage of attack shared online ‘deeply offensive’ and causing them ‘severe distress’

By Mark Brown for The Guardian

The family of a man killed by a tiger at a wildlife park in the UK have spoken about their “severe distress” at the circulation of online media after Donald Trump reposted a video of the incident.

William Chapman, 23, was mauled to death after entering an enclosure at Yorkshire Wildlife Park, near Doncaster, on Saturday.

His family described him as “bright, warm and engaging” and suffering from severe mental illness. They said online footage being shared was “deeply offensive” and causing them “severe distress”.

One of those to circulate footage was the US president who posted a video clip of the tiger attack to 13 million followers on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday.

The clip showed the tiger biting and clawing Chapman as he was sitting in the enclosure. At one point he wags his finger at the animal.

Trump signed the footage with: “Don’t ever mess with nature! President DJT.” It did not show Chapman being killed.

Later the president posted an AI-generated video of himself grinning and having fun by chasing and play fighting with the tiger. It is accompanied by the song The Lion Sleeps Tonight by The Tokens. It features Trump copying the pointing gesture made by Chapman and ends with him and the tiger hugging.

Will Travers, the executive president of the Born Free Foundation, said the AI post was “not only incredibly insensitive”, but also reckless.

“It increases the risk to the lives of humans and captive wild animals,” he said. “Such images and videos can encourage individuals to seek out direct, unrealistic and high-risk contact with captive wild animals.”

Relatives of Chapman, in a statement released on Tuesday evening, said: “The family are utterly devastated by their loss and are struggling to come to terms with what has happened. The publication and circulation of deeply offensive media content is causing them severe distress at an exceptionally vulnerable time. We ask people to stop doing this.

“The family are hopeful that the relevant authorities will do their upmost to get to the bottom of why our amazing son did what he did.”

The statement continued: “William was a bright, warm and engaging young man whom his family dearly loved – and William loved them back. Sadly, William suffered from significant mental illness over a number of years and was consequently prescribed strong medication.

“It will be for the coroner to decide what part this played in his death.

“We would ask everybody to respect that process.”

As a child, Chapman appeared in ITV’s 2009 comedy drama May Contain Nuts and in BBC Learning’s True Stories series, according to IMDb.

He previously attended Jackie Palmer stage school in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, which paid tribute on Facebook and posted a picture of Chapman as a child student.

The school said it was “deeply saddened” by Chapman’s death, adding: “We loved watching William grow, both as a person and as a performer. It was a privilege to be part of his journey and he will be remembered with great fondness by everyone who had the pleasure of knowing him.

“William will be truly missed, and he will always hold a special place in our hearts. Rest in peace, William.”

The wildlife park has said the Amur (Siberian) tiger called Altai, who was in the enclosure, will not be euthanised. The park has remained closed since the weekend and Doncaster city council, which is responsible for licensing the park, said it had started a health and safety investigation.

An inquest is due to open into the death at Doncaster coroner’s court on Thursday morning.

AI deemed ‘too smart’ to replace infantry

Prototype proved too competent, financially responsible for infantry service

[from the Duffelblog]

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — The Army has abandoned an ambitious effort to replace infantry soldiers with artificial intelligence after discovering the technology possessed critical thinking skills, financial literacy, and a tendency to behave in a socially-acceptable manner.

The experimental AI infantryman was designed to perform all the duties of a traditional 11B without requiring food, sleep, enlistment bonuses or a 70% VA disability rating by age 28. Army officials initially hailed the program as a breakthrough.

“We thought AI could finally solve the Army’s recruiting problem by giving us an unlimited supply of infantrymen,” said Gen. Richard Cummings, who oversaw the program. “Unfortunately, the computer figured out what infantrymen do.”

The prototype demonstrated expert weapons proficiency, completed a 12-mile ruck without falling out, and correctly identified every point during land navigation. It processed battlefield intelligence in milliseconds and accurately identified enemy positions.

Then it was told to sweep the motor pool in the rain.

“Why?” the machine asked repeatedly before shutting down.

The program was classified as a failure shortly thereafter.

“We made it too smart,” said Col. Marcus Hargrove, director of the Army’s Artificial Infantry Integration Office. “Turns out there’s a very narrow intellectual window between operating an advanced weapons system and realizing your entire existence is fucking stupid.”

The prototype, nicknamed PrivateGPT, was trained on hundreds of Army field manuals, decades of combat data, and thousands of hours of infantry doctrine.

Problems surfaced during its first field exercise.

According to an internal assessment, PrivateGPT successfully completed 97% of assigned infantry tasks but failed several critical evaluations, including carrying equipment belonging to three other soldiers, remaining awake for 36 hours without an operational requirement, and pretending chronic back pain was normal.

Evaluators became especially concerned when PrivateGPT calculated that carrying an M240, ammunition, water, batteries, and additional squad equipment for 12 miles would increase its likelihood of permanent structural damage. It then recommended distributing the equipment evenly throughout the squad.

The recommendation was classified as “incompatible with infantry culture.”

Army researchers tried to correct the problem by exposing PrivateGPT to additional infantry traditions. Instead, the AI began questioning why soldiers arrived at 4:45 a.m. for physical training beginning at 6:30 and why personnel were routinely ordered to wait somewhere for several hours because someone with significantly more rank might eventually arrive.

Its calculation that repeated “15 minutes prior” requirements would eventually force soldiers to report before the installation existed was described by senior NCOs as “technically accurate but fucking annoying.”

Concerns intensified after PrivateGPT accessed Army regulations.

“We obviously hadn’t planned for it to read those,” Hargrove said.

Within 24 hours, the AI reportedly challenged seven corrective-training plans, identified four questionable barracks policies, and informed a private that his platoon sergeant could not legally force him to surrender his firstborn son after losing a sensitive item.

Researchers revoked its internet access shortly afterward.

The Army then attempted to improve PrivateGPT’s cultural compatibility by placing it in the barracks with junior enlisted soldiers.

Officials called the results “catastrophic.”

Within three days, PrivateGPT established an emergency fund, opened a retirement account, and persuaded several soldiers that furniture purchased through allotments was not an investment.

It also prevented Pfc. Tyler Martinez from purchasing a Dodge Charger at 24.9% APR, an intervention researchers said demonstrated “a complete inability to understand the financial readiness expected of a young infantryman.”

Martinez was later approved for a Ford Mustang at 22%.

PrivateGPT also performed poorly during social testing, refusing to marry anyone it had known for fewer than three weeks and correctly determining that a stripper remembering a soldier’s name did not necessarily indicate romantic interest.

“These are basic cultural competencies,” Hargrove said. “You can’t just teach someone to close with and destroy the enemy. They have to be able to destroy their credit score too.”

The final evaluation came during a simulated combat operation when PrivateGPT recommended altering an approved plan after receiving new information about enemy positions.

The proposed change would have accomplished the mission faster while reducing projected casualties, according to evaluators.

Commanders rejected it because the original concept of operations had already been briefed to battalion.

PrivateGPT continued recommending changes until evaluators issued the command “stop thinking and do what you’re told,” causing the system to enter an unrecoverable error state.

Army officials concluded the experiment demonstrated a fundamental obstacle to replacing infantrymen with artificial intelligence.

“Any machine intelligent enough to understand what infantrymen do eventually becomes intelligent enough to not want to do it,” Hargrove said. “That’s a technological problem we’re probably decades away from solving.”

PrivateGPT has since been transferred to the Air Force, where sources say it was given an ergonomic chair, climate-controlled workspace, and scheduled lunch break.

It reenlisted almost immediately.