Taylor Lorenz’s Power User - Trump's Plan to Destroy 'Woke AI'

Episode Date: July 31, 2026

If AI becomes the foundation of search, education, government, and everyday life, the fight over who controls AI outputs could shape the future of the internet. SUPPORT MY WORK: Buy a paid subscription to my newsletter at https://www.usermag.co    Support my work on Patreon: http://patreon.com/taylorlorenz       The Trump administration is making a major push to reshape AI in a way that could affect ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and every AI company building the future by trying to ban "woke" AI.  In this episode of Free Speech Friday, TechDirt's Mike Masnick joins me to break down the FTC's proposed AI policy, what it actually says, and how it will pressure AI companies to change their answers, withhold information, give misleading information, and what this battle means for free speech, censorship, AI regulation, and open-weight models.We discuss:• Trump's AI Executive Orders • The FTC's new anti-woke AI policy proposal • ChatGPT and AI censorship • Free speech and the First Amendment • OpenAI vs Grok • Open-weight AI models • Government regulation of artificial intelligence • The future of AI in America

Like so many things in the Trump administration these days, it is done by incompetent people who are not doing a serious thing. They're doing a silly thing badly because they want to win the cultural war. Have you ever been using AI asked a question and gotten a response that you feel like is a little too woke? Well, the Trump administration is trying to fix that. After years of waging culture wars in Hollywood, on college campuses and social media, the Trump administration is now setting its sights on AI. The government's currently attempting to leverage the FTC to effectively censor all AI outputs to ensure that they comply with a pro MAGA worldview. And obviously, as AI becomes the engine powering search, education, government, our economy,

the consequences of this type of censorship would be really significant. Mike Masnick is the co-founder of TechDirt and he's been covering Trump's effort to censor woke AI. And today he's joining me to break down how this high stakes battle is playing out, how Trump is weaponizing the FTC and ultimately how this high stakes battle over who gets to decide what these AI systems say, what they refuse to answer, and whose worldview they reflect is playing out. Mike, welcome to Free Speech Friday. Hey, it's always good to be talking to you.

Today, I want to dive into this piece that you wrote on TechDirt about the FTC. And you wrote that the FTC, I love this headline, would like to decide which AI answers are too woke. And it is calling that consumer protection. Tell me a little bit about what's going on. There's a bunch of different things happening here all at once, and it's a little bit complex and a little bit confusing, and sort of the FTC is relying on that confusion and complexity

to try and scare AI platforms into being less woke, I guess, is the real part of it. And what it is is this particular FTC, and the chair of the FTC is this guy, Andrew Ferguson. And when he was applying for the job, there was like this one pager that he put together that I don't know if it got leaked or he released it or whatever and it made it very clear that he was on board with whatever you know cultural fights Donald Trump wanted to pick it was kind of funny because he talks about ending ideological lawfare by lina con who ran the fDC under the

Biden administration but taking on important issues but then like all of his issues were just all culture war nonsense, which, you know, the FTC doesn't really have a role in. What is the FTC and what's its traditional role? Yeah, so the FTC, I mean, it has a few different roles, but the major one is that it's supposed to be about consumer protection, right? And protecting consumers from, from, from sort of unfair and deceptive trade practices. So things related to commerce, which are unfair and deceptive. And so, you know, if a company is out there, promising that it's selling something that will do something wonderful that it can actually promise, that's something that the FTC can go after. They go after companies for, you know, running illegal

scams and fake lotteries and all sorts of stuff like that. Basically, anything that might trick a consumer in a clearly unfair way, that's what the FTC is supposed to go after. And that's a useful function at times because there are bad actors out there who are trying to trick people out of their money and having a government regulator being able to step in and stop them from doing that is valuable. It has some other ancillary features as well that's often involved in reviewing with the Justice Department reviewing antitrust issues. So like if there's a merger, they'll review whether or not it's acceptable under antitrust laws to allow for the merger to happen. The FDC can also bring with the DOJ again antitrust cases against companies. So it has sort of a broad

purview, but the overarching theme is supposed to be consumer protection. And how is that changing under Andrew Ferguson, and specifically in relation to this idea of, like, woke AI? I mean, he's definitely just trying to figure out any way to use the power of the office, not unlike the FCC, which, you know, handles broadband and television regulation and things like that, to put his thumb on the scale in some way or another. And there have been all sorts of accusations. But this latest one is that they put out a proposed policy.

This, like, gets deep into the weeds of how the FTC works. There are things like rulemaking, which is a big official deal where they're presenting a rule that then effectively becomes a regulation. There has to be a comment period for that, and the FTC has to adopt the rule. This is not a rulemaking. This is just a policy, which is basically the FTC saying, this is how we are now going to be interpreting this law.

So in this case, they put out this proposed policy statement saying that they're interpreting any attempt to what they refer to as steer AI results as potentially unfair and deceptive under their Section 5 authority. Section 5 is the law that basically says what the FTC can do to protect people from unfair and deceptive practices. And the argument is it's almost clever. It says people expect when they're using AI tools, they expect to get good, high-quality, accurate results. I don't know if that's true.

I mean, I think lots of AI tools aren't very good at that, and I'm not sure that everyone's expectations are that they're good, but the argument is that they're expecting certain high-quality, competent, reasonable, accurate results. So if an AI company were to attempt to steer the outputs and change what they see, say that could be going against what the consumer expects and therefore would be unfair and deceptive. And so you could sort of see a possible way that that could kind of make sense. You know, if you're expecting certain kinds of things and the company is giving you something different, there's trying to manipulate you into a certain direction, then sort of.

Yeah, what would be an example of that? I'm trying to think. Say you're purchasing a timeshare or something and you're promised all sorts of things, but in the background there, whoever's selling you the timeshare is misleading you and sort of steering you towards a purchase that is against your best interest and effectively lying to you about what you're actually getting out of it. They promise you, you can use it, you know, whatever, four weeks of the year. And the reality is that they block every possible time that you would want to use it. It's a scam. And so the argument is that this is the, case here. That is not true for a variety of reasons. One is that the First Amendment, it pretty explicitly

does not allow the FTC to go after someone for their editorial decision making, right? So there was an attempt in the past to go after Fox News for claiming itself to be fair and balanced, which, as someone who does not trust Fox News, I think the Fair and Balance slogan is ridiculous and misleading, but is it so misleading that it becomes an unfair and deceptive practice? And, what the court said was no. It's just sort of marketing hype and it is their free speech right to say that. So that got rejected. But here he's sort of ignoring all that history and effectively saying, well, you know, if we find that the results are what we say consumers are not expecting, that would be unfair and deceptive. The obvious implication of this is any AI that produces answers that Andrew Ferguson and his culture war,

or FTC deems to be problematic, they could suddenly be investigated by the FTC. I don't think anyone thinks that he could win a lawsuit, but the process is the punishment. You know, if the FTC opens an investigation into you, that is a very, very expensive, very, very time-consuming process that is not helpful. Therefore, the thinking is that many AI companies, especially smaller ones, will then decide, like, okay, let's make sure that our AI never gives answers that talks about the existence of slavery in the U.S., for example, because how dare we admit that what happened in the U.S. and that it was bad? It's clearly designed to create a chilling effect because you might get investigated

if you don't make sure that the AI is answering in a way that, that, you know, MAGA approves, then you might face an investigation. If you want a $3,000 a month payday for life, what would you feel free to do? Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend, or try a bunch of new hobbies. Would you feel free to upgrade and listen ad-free? Don't worry, we get it. Every $20 ticket could win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday for life ticket today.

Raffle number 155-214. Please play responsibly. Car shopping this civic holiday weekend. Most car dealerships are closed and all you'll find are crickets. Not Performance Auto Group. They're open this Saturday and Holiday Monday for their annual Civic Holiday Sales event. Celebrate this long weekend with rates from 0%. They might be closed.

Performance Auto Group is open to serve you. Join Performance Auto Group this Saturday or Civic Holiday Monday 9 to 5 for the best time to shop this summer. Want to talk ETS with the people behind them? Join me, Etienne Jean-Cabouchard on the Upside Ticker Talk. We dive into what's moving markets with timely analysis, trends, and answers to ETF questions you've actually been thinking about. Hit play on the upside ticker talk and elevate your ETF investing IQ. Now streaming on Disney Plus, the Hulu original series Furious follows FBI agent Alice Black, played by Emmy Rossum, on the hunt for a mysterious and calculating serial killer.

Both walk their own paths toward justice. And as their lives start to intertwine, the line between right and wrong begins to blur. New episodes week over week. Watch the Hulu original series Furious, now streaming only on Hulu on Disney Plus. If you're watching this video and you like my work, please support me on Patreon via the link below

or buy a paid subscription to my tech and online culture newsletter at usermag.com. That's usermag. I don't have any long-term brand partnerships and a lot of my content is effectively demonetized. I've lost major brand deals for speaking out on certain issues and for challenging power. As you can imagine, advertisers are not exactly eager to work with somebody who covers a lot of the topics that I cover and talks about the things that I talk about. These videos I make are entirely funded by you and I can't continue to make them without your support.

So if you get any value out of the videos that I create and you want me to be able to create more, please support me on Patreon or Substack via the links below. On Patreon, I do bonus episodes, monthly Q&A live streams, and post frequent updates about my work. My Substack newsletter gives you a bi-weekly roundup of everything that I'm seeing and reading and paying attention to online. You can also get my newsletter on Patreon.

Once again, the links to everything are below in the description. Every dollar of your support makes such a difference. When they say that, like, this is what consumers expect, is there, like, any data, like, whatsoever? Like, do they have to, like, find some random guy in Florida that will, like, testify to this? Yeah, normally. Normally, if the FTC were proposing something like this, yes, they would present some sort of data and some sort of proof and some sort of evidence. In this case, they don't.

They just sort of make the claim and just put it out there that this is what consumers expect. And if it differs from that, then that's a problem. Like so many things in the Trump administration these days, it is done by incompetent people who are not doing a serious thing. they're doing a silly thing badly because they want to win the cultural war. And so that's what you get. But yes, I mean, I don't think this would ever get to any reasonable level of a court case. But if it did, then yes, the FTC would, in theory, then be told that they have to present some sort of evidence of, you know, what is the expected behavior for consumers.

And I assume that they're not doing this either because, like you mentioned, it's sort of just like incompetence and laziness. but are they giving the AI companies any idea of the type of content that they want censored? Or is this mostly just like what for the companies to kind of guess? It's more guessing. This is how the sort of great firewall of China worked in the early days. Like now it's a much more sophisticated operation. But when China first sort of decided that they were going to make the internet more appropriate,

I guess would be the way they put it for Chinese users, what they would do is send these sort of vague notices. to internet service providers and say, if anything bad happens on your service, loosely defined, we will hold you liable. And the way that the ISPs responded was just like, take down anything that might be problematic in any way possible, which means you get massive overblocking and massive,

like anything that any government official might object to has to come down. And so it's this censorship by winking and nodding, right, as opposed to specifically calling out which things are an issue. And so, like, I pointed in the article that there's a former FTC lawyer who had posted this sort of sarcastic open letter on LinkedIn, responding to this request, basically asking the FTC, can you please publish a quarterly schedule of which ideological positions are approved and which are not?

And it's saying, I mean, it's very funny because it really calls out how ridiculous this is. and says, well, if you put out this notice and this proposed policy, obviously you've, you know, had it justified under the First Amendment. And therefore, the only way that could be true is if you have like a clear list of what ideological viewpoints are acceptable and which are not, therefore, could you please publish it just so we know what needs to be blocked and what doesn't? And just sort of making a mockery of the entire thing because it is, it's designed to be mocked. Yeah. I mean, But I feel like the comparisons to China are kind of apt in the sense of like a lot of the ways that China exerts power over speech is this sort of like vague pressure. I mean, as you mentioned, I guess it's more explicit now in terms of the firewall, but even just like within China.

And a lot of these authoritarian countries, they're never going to actually sort of come out and say it. But it's sort of like implied. And so these companies will oversensor. I mean, I'm even thinking of this right now with all of this obsession with sort of age appropriate content for children. You see the result is that meta over censors. and they oversensor anything that the Trump administration doesn't like or the Biden administration with Biden. Obviously, Trump is way worse on this. But how will this play out?

Because in a sense, you're right, it's like it's worth mocking. It's ridiculous. But also this is a government agency. And it seems like they're kind of moving ahead with this. So like it's maybe for real. Like, yeah. I mean, it'll it'll exist. The question is how far will they actually go with it?

Right. So right now there's this comment period that's open. They have no, you know, real, real. reason to actually pay attention to the comments, but it doesn't mean the comments aren't important. They are important just for establishing the historical record that people objected to this, that people called out the problems with it. And that could come in handy down the road, especially if it does go to court and the FDC tries to claim that this was a totally reasonable policy that everybody agreed was wonderful.

If there's the evidence and then any comments that are added are publicly available, you can say like, no, like 90% of the people who responded to the comment period pointed out that this was unconstitutional garbage. That's helpful for the public record. But, you know, what I think will happen is that they will ignore the comments and then say, this is now the official policy. And then likely they'll just sort of use it to saber rattle. And there will be some story, who knows when, six months from now, something will come up and someone will find a result coming out of chat GPT that they'll say, look at this woke AI, because it may even be Elon Musk, right? I mean, he wants to beat up on an open AI and talk about how wonderful

GROC is. So he'll find some result that someone got it to generate and say, look at this ridiculous, totally woke result. It's violating expectations. And Andrew Ferguson will jump up and wave around this whole policy and say, we're going to investigate this because it is. a violation of our consumer protection rules. And then Open AI will be forced to come out and say, like, we're always adjusting our thing and trying to get it. You know, all of the nonsense. But they'll have to pay, right?

Like, I mean, that is like you said the process is the punishment, right? Like, this is still negative for them. Oh, totally. Yeah. The worst situation, too, is right. I mean, Open AI has a ridiculous amount of money, right? I mean, they're losing money, but they've raised so much cash that they can afford the top lawyers who will do a good job and fight back and eventually this will go away.

But, you know, what really worries me is there's a lot of smaller players out there that are building AI tools that I think are more important. And, you know, I want there to be a competitive market because I don't want everyone to be forced to use one of four models that are owned by giant companies with, with diverging interest to their actual users. I want there to be other models. I want there to be smaller models. I want there to be specific models for specific purposes.

But the more we do things like this, the more difficult we make that and the more we actually drive all the AI business into, you know, just a few giant companies. And I don't think that's a healthy result for anyone. I mean, it feels so similar to a lot of the social media stuff too where like, I mean, I brought up like the meta example, but all of this, right? And you have Elon Musk who obviously wants to take out like all his kind of competitors. But, I mean, we've seen a massive amount of censorship over that, again, the company is just sort of a. abide by. And so I guess like what I'm concerned about is like if this goes to pass, like because there's no transparent process and it's all sort of like implied, there's also no way to like legally review it or get any transparency. There's no transparency. There's no

auditing. The companies can do things on the back end that will change their systems just to avoid ever having these kinds of results. I mean, there was like there was a few years ago in the early days of these AI systems where, you know, Google's AI was before, I think it was before was even called Gemini, somebody had asked the image generation tool to generate images of like the founding fathers. And it presented a bunch of images of founding fathers who were not all white men. And you know why that happened, right? You know that somebody put in some sort of prompt that was basically trying to recognize that

not all image generation results should show up as white men because if you don't do that, That's what it's been trained on. That's what the results are going to be. But in this particular case, if someone's asking for the founding fathers, they were white men. So it should generate it. But it wasn't. So then suddenly it's like, oh, no, Google is producing woke AI. That's sort of an extreme example.

It was very, very silly. But like, it became this, like, article of faith among, like, the MAGA folks that, like, oh, my gosh, Google is so woke that they won't even let you present the reality that the founding fathers were white men. Which led to a lot of people using grok. Like my friends was telling me about his dad who literally spends all day talking to Grak, and he's convinced that everything else is woke. And I mean, it seems like it like resonated again. Like it's people believe some of this stuff, right? They consume these news stories and they get mad about it.

And the culture war works in a lot of ways. That is the purpose of the culture war, right? I mean, it is to get you mad about things that have reasonable explanations in which they want you to believe that there is no reasonable explanation for this and it's horrible and it's a sign of a problem. and this particular attempt by the FTC is designed to just pump that up, right? They will now go hunting. And I'm sure, you know, Elon Musk or other people on X, because it's all going to be people on X, are going to CC,

Andrew Ferguson and the FTC on any AI result that they find, that they find to be too woke in some form, and we'll call it out and call for an investigation. And it just, again, just creates this general sense that I think will likely drive a bunch of AI companies to try and change their prompts in the other way, to try and limit any of those kinds of results. And, you know, we know that that leads to inaccurate outputs

in the other direction. And that is also a problem. Yeah, it just seems like overall this, like, infrastructure for censorship is being created, but it's not so overt. It's almost like a ridiculous thing. And then it, like, ends up having real bad consequences. I mean, we've seen that over and over again

in the Trump administration, especially with the FCC, but now with the FTC as well. and that they're using the levers of power that they have to target speech and then pretending and acting shocked that anyone would think that they were targeting speech for ideological reasons. You're saying, no, we're just applying the laws. We have this power to stop unfair and deceptive practices. And if people are expecting the AI not to be woke, how dare it be woke?

And it's like, you know, unless you really follow this stuff, it can sound reasonable. You can take each step of this process and look at it and say like, yeah, sure, the FTC should stop things that are tricking people or that it goes against the expectations of the consumers. That's what the FTC is supposed to be doing. But, you know, this is not that. This is them clearly trying to get into the editorial process and adjust it in a way that they want it to come out. It seems like there's just like, and you write about all of them, these like growing attempts to circumvent the First Amendment protections that we have through this idea of like defective products or scale.

or product liability, whatever. And it seems like this is being pretty, like, it's been pretty successful legally. I mean, you talk about if this goes to court, they lose on speech grounds, but like, would they? I don't know. I mean, these like product liability suits against, like, social media are going forward.

Like, I don't know. It seems like these novel strategies are kind of working. Yeah, I mean, I think they're working at the margins. And there's a lot of public discussion of the cases where they are working. To be honest, a lot of them have not worked. And it's been, you know, we've gone through almost a decade now of those kinds of approaches not really working. There are a few cases that have worked. In my mind, a lot of it's just sort of probing, like, you know, testing all these different theories and slightly different

variations to figure out what actually resonates with a judge or in the most recent cases with juries, where juries, you can get them to a stage where it's emotional and get results that are problematic. It's also like science is not determined by, like, this is why we don't have like jury trials to determine like scientific realities and on things. Yeah. I mean, there's there are a bunch of problems with it. One hopes that for something like this when you're talking about administrative law, that that would get taken care of by judges and wouldn't ever become sort of a jury issue. I mean, it's problematic, right? I mean, I think there's there have been certainly some pretty, you know, systematic attempts to figure out how do we route around or under the First Amendment in ways that are

convincing to judges. And in some cases, it's working. And that's certainly a concern of mine. But for the most part, I think the First Amendment still stands and still holds and for something like this. We've got it for it. It's getting chipped away. You know, speaking of the First Amendment, there's been so much conversation around like AI and speech protections. Obviously, this debate on on kind of like, where does the First Amendment apply with AI output? And even here, like you're mentioning all this stuff about, well, speech protections, but this is AI generated output. Is that even covered by the first event? Can you kind of break those sort of questions down?

This is trickier than it should be. And I think it's tough for a lot of people to wrap their heads around. But the simplest version of it to think of is that AI generated output can still be expressive. All sorts of things can be expressive. And if it's expressive, then for the most part, with very limited exceptions, it is protected under the First Amendment. And we want that to be so. And I know that that upsets some people and people are saying, well, it's a computer.

It has no rights. And therefore, we shouldn't. consider there to be any protections there. But the simplest way to think about the problem that we would have if AI output was not protected by the First Amendment is simply that if it's not, then we don't have to go through any of this facade that Andrew Ferguson is going through. Donald Trump can just say, like, Open AI, you need to have like MAGA-only results. And if you don't say stuff that we like, we will punish you and you can't complain because

the AI output has, there's no First Amendment protections there. The argument is not really about the First Amendment protection so much of the computer generation, but rather the companies themselves and their editorial controls. And that gets into a whole other thing where people say, well, the company shouldn't have any First Amendment rights. And then you get to the thing what's like, if companies don't have First Amendment rights, then the New York Times doesn't exist. There's like all sorts of things where it's like, I understand the complaints, but like each thing that people want in terms of like, oh, the First Amendment shouldn't apply to that

leads you to a very, very bad place very quickly. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600, to speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with I, Gaming, Ontario. Hey y'all, it's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder, what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old.

You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust. Visit Wayfair.ca. Wayfair, every style, every home. Hear that? It's your money calling. It wants a promotion.

Elevate your savings with the Scotia high-interest savings account. Always earn high regular interest rates that grow the more you save and invest. Conditions apply. Visit scotiabank.com slash h-i-sa to learn more. Scotia Bank, you're richer than you think. Yes, which I think is like,

I think it's really hard for people to understand that sort of like second order effect. And I don't know how you get through to that, Mike, because like I feel like you write about this all day, but like when you post about this stuff online or I shared this in a group chat, you know, people will be like, well, the government should take control, right?

Like these addictive algorithms or these, the woke, the problematic AI that's telling everyone to kill themselves or whatever, like, well, the government should seize control over it. And, you know, I think there's a lot of frustration with tech, obviously. Yeah. And like, the frustration with tech is real. But like, right now the government is run by Donald Trump, right? And for a while, the government was really run by Elon Musk. And are we happy with the control that he has over the recommendation algorithm on X? I don't think so. I think what people are really concerned about, and this is a reasonable concern. is that you have these big, powerful companies whose interests are not aligned with their users. And that is a real issue.

But you don't solve that by saying, well, we give the government control, because the more centralized control you have, then it just becomes a bigger and bigger target. And then Elon Musk will spend as much money as he can in order to have the influence to control what that looks like. The real answer is to not have so much power be in the hands of just a few incredibly wealthy, centralized entities that can be taken over and can be controlled this way. The real answer is to have the power distributed and to have many, many different players and providers, hopefully in a world where they can communicate with each other separately, but you don't have any sort of central

angle of control and power. And there are ways to get there, but it's different than saying give government control over the algorithms. Yeah, there's been this big debate. I just posted a video about it today about open weight models, I guess, or, you know, these more open systems. I mean, is this an argument for open weight models? I mean, theoretically, these models would be even harder for the government to censor at all. Yeah, absolutely. It is sort of the same issue in a slightly different set of clothes where there are open weight models now that you could run locally. I mean, I'm running a bunch of models myself on a local machine that, you know, I don't have to send the data that I use the models for to a giant company.

They just stay on my local computer. And I think that is really empowering and can be much more powerful than having to worry about what is open AI doing, what is Google doing, what is Anthropic doing with my data, how are they deciding which results? I can change things myself and tweak them myself. But now suddenly there's this big fight, which is brewing over whether or not the U.S. would ban open weight models, which is, there's this big fear of, like, most of the open weight models right now, not all, but most of them are coming from China. So suddenly you have this whole

like U.S. China fight that is happening. It's all sort of the same fight. And the reality is the only way that we get through this in a way where it's not sort of, you know, government or super rich, powerful companies in control of these things is to have more open, competitive, local tools that we can use, and that includes the open way to AI tools. Yeah, more sort of decentralization and less consolidation of power, whether that's government or corporate. Well, Mike, thank you so much for covering all of this. Can't wait to continue to read about it all on tech dirt? And I really encourage people to, so can anybody submit a comment for this thing? Yeah, it is. It is wide open and it's very easy. You don't need a lawyer. You just have to go to the site and you can submit a comment

just right in the form. If you want to do a longer one, you can upload a PDF. And they've they make it pretty straightforward. Just recognize that anything that you submit will be will be listed publicly. Government record. Well, I'll put the link of the comments for anybody that does want to make their voice heard. And thank you so much for joining me. Thanks for having me. This is always fun. All right, that's it for this week's episode of Free Speech Friday. If you like my work, please, please buy a paid subscription to my substack at usermag.co. That's usermag.com or support me on Patreon via the link below. On my substack and Patreon, I do bonus content. I sent a weekly newsletter of everything that I'm reading and following online. I don't really have very much

much advertiser support, if any, on this channel. It's certainly not enough to live off of. And the only way that I can remain an independent journalist is thanks to the direct support of people like you. So truly, if you feel like my coverage is important, please, please buy a paid subscription to my substack at usermag.com. It's the best way to support me. Again, you can also support me on Patreon via the link below. I'll be back next week with a brand new episode of Power User. See you then.