Author: Richell Fredson

  • Scientists say they’ve found the most compelling proof yet of extraterrestrial life

    Scientists say they’ve found the most compelling proof yet of extraterrestrial life

    A giant planet 124 light years from Earth has yielded the strongest evidence yet that extraterrestrial life may be thriving beyond our solar system, astronomers claim.

    Observations by the James Webb space telescope of a planet called K2-18 b appear to reveal the chemical fingerprints of two compounds that, on Earth, are only known to be produced by life.

    Detection of the chemicals, dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) would not amount to proof of alien biological activity, but could bring the answer to the question of whether we are alone in the universe much closer.

    “This is the strongest evidence to date for a biological activity beyond the solar system,” said Prof Nikku Madhusudhan, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge who led the observations. “We are very cautious. We have to question ourselves both on whether the signal is real and what it means.”

    He added: “Decades from now, we may look back at this point in time and recognise it was when the living universe came within reach. This could be the tipping point, where suddenly the fundamental question of whether we’re alone in the universe is one we’re capable of answering.”

    Others are more sceptical, with questions remaining about whether the overall conditions on K2-18 b, are favourable to life and whether DMS and DMDS, which are largely produced by marine phytoplankton on Earth, can be reliably regarded as biosignatures.

    K2-18 b, which sits in the Leo constellation, is nearly nine times as massive as the Earth and 2.6 times as large and orbits in the habitable zone of its star, a cool red dwarf less than half the size of the sun. When the Hubble space telescope appeared to spot water vapour in its atmosphere in 2019, scientists declared it “the most habitable known world” beyond the solar system.

    The supposed water signal was shown to be methane in follow-up observations by Madhusudhan’s team in 2023. But, they argued, K2-18 b’s profile was consistent with a habitable world, covered in a vast, deep ocean – a view that remains contentious. More provocatively, the Cambridge team reported a tentative hint of DMS.

    Planets beyond our solar system are too distant to photograph or reach with robotic spacecraft. But scientists can estimate their size, density and temperature and probe their chemical makeup by tracking the exoplanet as it passes across the face of its host star and measuring starlight that has been filtered through its atmosphere. In the latest observations, wavelengths that are absorbed by DMS and DMDS, were seen to suddenly drop off as K2-18 b wandered in front of the red dwarf.

    “The signal came through strong and clear,” said Madhusudhan. “If we can detect these molecules on habitable planets, this is the first time we’ve been able to do that as a species … it’s mind-boggling that this is possible.”

    The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggest concentrations of DMS, DMDS or both (their signatures overlap) thousands of times stronger than the levels on Earth. The results are reported with a “three-sigma” level of statistical significance (a 0.3% probability that they occurred by chance) although this falls short of the gold standard for discoveries in physics.

    “There may be processes that we don’t know about that are producing these molecules,” Madhusudhan said. “But I don’t think there is any known process that can explain this without biology.”

    A challenge in identifying potential other processes is that the conditions on K2-18 b remain disputed. While the Cambridge team favour an ocean scenario, others say the data is suggestive of a gas planet or one with oceans made of magma, not water.

    There is a question of whether DMS could have been brought to the planet by comets – this would require an intensity of bombardment that seems improbable – or produced in hydrothermal vents, volcanoes or lightning storms through exotic chemical processes.

    “Life is one of the options, but it’s one among many,” said Dr Nora Hänni, a chemist at the Physics Institute of the University of Berne, whose research revealed that DMS was present on an icy, lifeless comet. “We would have to strictly rule out all the other options before claiming life.”

    Others say that measuring planetary atmospheres may never yield a smoking gun for life. “It’s under-appreciated in the field, but technosignatures, such as an intercepted message from an advanced civilisation, could be better smoking guns, despite the unlikelihood of finding such a signal,” said Dr Caroline Morley, an astrophysicist at the University of Texas, Austin, adding that the findings were, nonetheless, an important advance.

    Dr Jo Barstow, a planetary scientist at the Open University, also viewed the detection as significant, but said: “My scepticism dial for any claim relating to evidence of life is permanently turned up to 11, not because I don’t think that other life is out there, but because I feel that for such a profound and significant discovery the burden of proof must be very, very high. I don’t think this latest work crosses that threshold.”

    At 120 light years away, there is no prospect of resolving the debate through closeup observations, but Madhusudhan notes that this has not been a barrier to the discovery of black holes or other cosmic phenomena.

    “In astronomy, the question is never about going there,” he said. “We’re trying to establish if the laws of biology are universal in nature. I don’t see it as: ‘We have to go and swim in the water to catch the fish.’”

  • What Mark Zuckerberg said before might make people upset with him now.

    What Mark Zuckerberg said before might make people upset with him now.

    e17e9c67 1a89 4e13 9b36 e825b12e3c33
    Mark Zuckerberg old Facebook profile in windows xp made with AI. Richell Fredson/The NewYorkBudgets

    In a 2008 email, Mark Zuckerberg wrote that “it is better to buy than to compete.” Now, the Federal Trade Commission is trying to prove that Zuckerberg applied that same thinking when he acquired Instagram and WhatsApp, thereby snuffing out two emerging competitors to secure Facebook’s social networking supremacy.

    This argument is at the heart of the FTC’s long-awaited legal showdown with Meta, which kicked off Monday. The lawsuit was filed during Trump’s first term before being refiled in 2021 under the Biden FTC. It hinges on whether the company violated antitrust law by scooping up companies that threatened its social networking monopoly in what the government calls a “buy or bury” scheme. The case, which is being tried in a Washington DC district court, is expected to last months and will feature testimony from Zuckerberg himself and other top officials, including former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg.

    “For more than 100 years, American public policy has insisted firms must compete if they want to succeed,” Daniel Matheson, the F.T.C.’s lead litigator, said Monday, according to The New York Times. “The reason we are here is that Meta broke the deal.”

    As the FTC makes its case, it will point to Zuckerberg’s words as a smoking gun.

    In emails throughout the years, Zuckerberg repeatedly referred to acquisitions as a way of buying Facebook a chance to catch up to what other social networks were doing. After the company’s failed attempt to acquire Twitter, for one, Zuckerberg wrote in an email in 2008, “I was looking forward to the extra time that would have given us to get our product in order.” Four years later, as he made the case for buying Instagram, he wrote, “[W]hat we’re really buying is time,” noting that buying Instagram would “give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again.”

    The FTC’s lawsuit points to other executives’ communications as well. After Facebook acquired Instagram for $1 billion, emails showed Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom asking why Facebook was limiting promotion of his app. In response, another Facebook executive said that the company’s vice president of product Chris Cox, was concerned “about Instagram’s feed cannibalizing our own.” All of this, the FTC argues in the suit, amounts to clear evidence that “Facebook neutralized Instagram as an independent competitor.”

    Zuckerberg’s emails suggest a similar strategy, the FTC argues, when it came to acquiring WhatsApp. Fresh off the Instagram purchase, Zuckerberg wrote in an email, “WhatsApp is already ahead of us in messaging in the same way Instagram was ‘ahead’ of us in photos” and said he would “pay $[1 billion] for them if we could get them.” Two years later, Facebook bought WhatsApp for $19 billion. “For the second time in two years, Facebook employees celebrated the neutralization of an existential competitive threat,” the FTC’s complaint reads.

    The company now known as Meta has called the FTC’s case “weak.” In a blog postSunday, the company’s chief legal officer Jennifer Newstead wrote that both Instagram and WhatsApp have become “better, more reliable and more secure” under Meta’s ownership. Newstead also pointed to the challenges inherent to the FTC’s case. To prove that Meta harmed competition to protect its monopoly, the government must first define the market that Meta dominates. The FTC has tried to define that market narrowly so as not to include competitors like TikTok or YouTube because including those other giants would make it far more difficult for the FTC to argue that Meta controls a dominant share of the market.

    “They’ve gerrymandered a fictitious market in which Facebook and Instagram compete only with Snapchat and an app called MeWe,” Newstead wrote. “In reality, more time is spent on TikTok and YouTube than on either Facebook or Instagram.”

    For Meta, the stakes of the case couldn’t be higher, which might have something to do with Zuckerberg’s recent MAGA transformation. A loss in court could mean the potential break up of the company, forcing Meta to divest from WhatsApp and Instagram. Earlier this month, Zuckerberg reportedly sought to avoid that possibility by lobbying Donald Trump to settle the case during a meeting at the Oval Office. But in an interview with Bloomberg last month, FTC chair Andrew Ferguson said, “We don’t intend to sort of take our foot off the gas.”

  • Video Game Prices Have Remained Steady for Two Decades, But That Might Change Soon

    Video Game Prices Have Remained Steady for Two Decades, But That Might Change Soon

    Trump's Tariff Video game like clash of clans create with AI. Richell Fredson/The NewYorkBudgets
    Trump’s Tariff Video game like clash of clans create with AI. Richell Fredson/The NewYorkBudgets

    It’s been a stressful time, full of concern about how much goods will cost in the months ahead — particularly tech. 

    Amid the Trump administration’s tariffs and now a “reciprocal tariff” pause, you might’ve gotten whiplash trying to keep up. But if you’re a gamer, an unfortunate truth emerges from the cacophony of news: Regardless of what the situation with tariffs might be, you can expect to pay more for your hobby.

    Nintendo announced the Switch 2 console last week, and some of its games are priced higher than people are accustomed to: $80 for digital and $90 for physical. However, should a price increase truly be unexpected? 

    Like most gamers, I wasn’t exactly thrilled by those price tags. But I was paying $50 for PlayStation 1 and 2 games nearly two decades ago. Current generation games cost about $70. That’s only a $20 increase over 20 years. What other tech product has had that kind of price stagnation? 

    Tariffs will likely increase the hardware costs, but the games themselves might not be directly affected. But that doesn’t mean prices aren’t going up. 

    Brad Hendricks, CEO of Blind Squirrel Entertainment Inc., told me he hopes people realize developers and publishers aren’t raising prices to try to rip off consumers. “Having a $60 price point for 10 or 15 years is wonderful,” he said, “but the reality is, the cost of everything has gone up.” 

    Blind Squirrel Games is the studio behind BioShock: The Collection and has credits on major games like God of War 2018, Avowed and New World. 

    There are a lot of reasons why your games might soon cost you more. Let’s get into it. 

    Tariffs and video games: What’s going on? 

    I know the question on every gamer’s mind right now is, “Will Trump’s tariffs mean I’ll soon be spending more on games?” Well, yes and no. 

    Tariffs “will affect hardware, for sure,” Hendricks said. “So Nintendo will have to raise the price point, is my guess. That would be true for Xbox and PlayStation, as well as PCs or anything else that’s hardware related.” 

    So if the 145% tariff on China — where PlayStations and Xboxes are primarily manufactured — remains in place, you’ll end up paying more for these products.  

    But Nintendo moved Switch console production from China to Vietnam in 2019. And because reciprocal tariffs were paused for all countries aside from China, you might not see a significant increase in Switch 2 prices in the US — at least during the 90-day period of the pause. This may be why Nintendo opted to put preorders for its new console on hold in the US and China. 

    As for physical games, they’re made all over the place: 

    • Most are manufactured in Mexico, which was hit with a 25% tariff earlier this year. 
    • PlayStation 5 games are made in Austria, which is part of the European Union and at least temporarily subjected to only the baseline 10% tariff. 
    • Nintendo games are primarily manufactured in China, so the price of Switch 2 games could be more heavily affected by the tariffs. 

    Digital games, which don’t have any physical components to import from other countries, wouldn’t be affected by tariffs. 

    But Hendricks said tariffs or no, he wasn’t shocked at the news of a higher price point for Nintendo’s games. He thinks games across the board need to see a price increase to account for higher development costs. 

    “Before the whole tariff discussion popped up, there was a lot of talk in the industry: When are publishers going to start moving the needle forward?” he said. 

    Right now a new AAA game costs $70 before tax. Hendricks said that if gamers want to see the realistic graphics, innovative features and gameplay they’ve come to expect, they’ll need to be willing to show their support with their wallets. 

    It might not be what you want to hear, but game prices likely need to come up 

    When the Switch 2 was announced at its higher-than-expected price point — combined with higher prices for both physical and digital Switch games and a paid walk-through of Switch features — people reacted negatively. Understandably so. 

    No one wants to hear they’ll have to shell out more for their favorite pastime. Continuing inflation and recession fears have left us all a bit wary, and the back-and-forth on tariffs has sent the stock market on a roller-coaster ride.  

    On top of that, the federal minimum wage hasn’t seen an uptick since 2009, when it was bumped to $7.25 — which isn’t enough to live off of during these trying times, let alone have disposable income to spend on games. So, if being asked to pay more for games upsets you, it makes sense.  

    Yet at the same time, the cost of everything for everyone is going up. Including game developers. 

    There are three primary types of games: 

    • Indie games, which are solo or small-group efforts, made by developers who produce titles of modest scope that are released only digitally and may be minimally affected by tariffs.
    • AA (double A) games, which are typically produced by smaller studios with midsize budgets.
    • AAA (triple A) games, which are put out by your Ubisofts and Activisions — huge studios with the budgets to match.

    Game development isn’t exactly an inexpensive industry.  

    Hendricks said that when it comes to developing triple-A games, the low end is likely in the $20 million to $60 million range, not including marketing and whatnot. “So,” he said, “if you have a $100 million budget, it’s typically going to cost — with [distribution], marketing and everything else — probably closer to $200 million.” 

    Hendricks said he’s a developer, not a publisher, so he doesn’t have all the information. But what he does have is more than 30 years of experience working in the industry, with unique insight into what goes into making a game and leading a studio, including hiring talent. 

    Creating a video game takes a team of artists, programmers, sound designers, QA testers, writers, actors and many more. Maintaining these teams in the US is getting more expensive.  

    “I think there needs to be a shift in consumer minds,” Hendricks said. “Because some of the best developers in the world right now are struggling.” 

    Video game publishers set the price for games, but Hendricks said they’re hesitant to raise prices for fear of backlash. The reality, though, is that if gamers want to keep experiencing groundbreaking, innovative stories, they’ll have to be ready to support the studios making them. 

    So when are game prices likely to increase? 

    Aside from Nintendo, no other publisher has announced a price increase. But that’s likely going to change once Grand Theft Auto 6 comes out.  

    “Everybody is holding their breath right now: ‘What is GTA going to do?’” Hendricks said. The title’s developer, Rockstar Games, has “little to nothing to lose to go more expensive, because everyone’s going to buy it regardless of the cost.” 

    GTA 5, released in September 2013, is one of the best-selling video games of all time. As of February 2025, it’s sold 210 million copies, according to Statista.  

    With the Nintendo Switch 2 expected to come out on June 5, and GTA 6 slated for this fall, a price increase for games across the board is very likely to come soon after these two major releases. 

    Hendricks said that if Rockstar prices its game at $129, $179 or even $200 — as predicted — it’ll pave the way for other publishers to do the same.  

    How can you afford to be a gamer in 2025 and beyond? 

    Budgeting for hobbies isn’t always the easiest thing, especially if you’re into something as expensive as gaming. I know I’ll still be buying games even if they go up. Heck, I’ll probably pick up GTA 6 when it arrives — as long as it’s not $200, anyway.  

    If anything, a price hike will make me more intentional about the games I do purchase. I won’t be able to buy every major title as soon as it comes out, but I will pick up the games at some point when I have the money to burn. 

    As it stands, I tend to use my credit card points to cut back on gaming costs, with the caveat that I’ll never go into credit card debt just to buy the latest game. For instance, I used my card rewards to cover the cost of Assassin’s Creed: Shadows, as well as Avowed and Kingdom Come Deliverance 2. 

    Each title was released at $70, so it took me a fair amount of time to save the points, but it was worth it. Knowing what games you want to buy makes it easier to plan ahead for the expense. 

    I use the Blue Cash Preferred® Card from American Express for essential spending like gas and groceries, the Chase Sapphire Preferred® Card* for dining and travel purchases, and the Wells Fargo Active Cash® Card* for everything else. If I want a game that I can’t cover with points, I’ll slow down on eating out and other frivolous types of spending to make room for it. 

    I also try not to get swept up in FOMO. The three games above are easily over 60 to 70 hours of content. Once I’ve worked through those, I’ll think about picking up the next title on my list — which will likely be Doom: The Dark Ages after it arrives next month. 

    There are other ways to find room in your budget for your hobbies, too: 

    • Create a sinking fund for your next game purchase.
    • Add gaming as an item in your budget so you know how much you need to save or can spend. 
    • Save on games by buying used, or trade in old consoles and games you don’t use for store credit. It may not feel great trading in things you spent good money on for a lower price, but if they’re sitting around collecting dust and you’re not holding on to them for sentimental reasons and they’re not part of a collection, it can help to limit your costs.
  • The Broadband Gap in the U.S. Is Influenced by Race

    The Broadband Gap in the U.S. Is Influenced by Race

    People are using Internet in Pennsylvania. Richell Fredson/The NewYorkBudgets
    People are using Internet in Pennsylvania. Richell Fredson/The NewYorkBudgets

    In early March, Karen Kama woke up early to hand out flyers in her neighborhood. She wanted people to know about a program at her local library in Reading, Pennsylvania, that helps people learn how to use the internet. 

    Two out of every three residents in Reading are Hispanic, so Kama’s flyers have one side in Spanish and one side in English.

    It was only one year ago that Kama started using the internet herself. She described for me a whole world opening up to her: using Google to translate conversations with her Spanish-speaking neighbor, playing games to keep her brain sharp and looking up test results from her doctor. But she said the best part has been showing people in her community what the internet can do for them. 

    “I’m so grateful for it because now I can tell somebody else how to do it,” she said. “I’m proud to show somebody what I can do.”

    Kama is one of the millions of Black Americans who have been impacted by the digital divide, the gulf between people who have access to any internet at all and those who don’t. For as long as the internet’s been around, people of color have been more likely than their white counterparts to fall on the wrong side of this divide. 

    The Pew Research Center has asked US adults about how they use the internet since 2000, and every survey has shown Black and Hispanic Americans lagging behind white respondents.

    Internet access is a force multiplier. It significantly improves health outcomesincreases employment rates and even boosts our psychological well-being.

    “I like to joke that you give me an issue, and I’ll tell you why internet connectivity impacts it,” said Claudia Ruiz, a senior analyst at UnidosUS, a civil rights organization.

    The flip side of that coin is that people without it — a group that is disproportionately Black, Hispanic and Native American — experience all those effects in the opposite direction.

    To reap the benefits of the internet, you need three things: a connection available where you live, the means to afford it and the tools to use it. Every situation is unique, but in my seven years of reporting on the broadband industry, I’ve found that those boxes have often gone largely unchecked for minority communities. 

    “Having access to the internet is a social determinant of well-being, and it is something that improves quality of life, which has a series of economic and social outcomes for communities,” said Nicol Turner Lee, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 

    What is the racial digital divide?

    There are a lot of statistics you can look at to try to figure out how different groups use the internet, but the source researchers pointed me to the most is the Pew Research Center. 

    In Pew’s most recent survey, from June 2024, 83% of white respondents said they subscribed to home internet, compared with 73% each for Black and Hispanic adults. (Native Americans weren’t included in Pew’s survey, but US Census Bureau data has them at similar adoption rates as Black Americans.)  

    McKinsey analysis of census data found that the gap was even larger in some places: Black households in Chicago and Baltimore, for instance, are twice as likely as their white counterparts to lack a high-speed internet subscription.

    The racial divide is, to a large extent, a proxy for the income divide, which is what drives broadband adoption.

    “This question is pretty roundly studied across the country, and the results are almost always the same, where Blacks and Latinos just universally lag behind in broadband and devices,” said Drew Garner, a director of policy engagement for the nonprofit Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.

    The reasons for the gap are more complicated, but let’s start with the money. The latest Federal Reserve data shows that for every $100 in wealth held by white households, Black households hold only $16 and Hispanic households hold $22.

    “The racial divide is, to a large extent, a proxy for the income divide, which is what drives broadband adoption,” said Alisa Valentin, broadband policy director at the digital advocacy nonprofit Public Knowledge. 

    That tracks with Pew’s survey results, which show that 92% of Americans making over $100,000 have home internet, compared with 57% who make less than $30,000. 

    These numbers paint a simple picture: Poor people can’t afford internet access, and poor people are disproportionately Black and Hispanic in the US. But to get a better view, you have to go back to the 1930s.

    Digital redlining: How neighborhoods get left behind

    The term redlining has its roots in the New Deal when the Federal Housing Administration was created in 1934 to provide insurance for mortgages from private lenders. With the help of real estate agents, the government created color-coded maps to rank neighborhoods from least to most risky in terms of loanworthiness. Not coincidentally, they assigned the “most risky” grade to neighborhoods where Black residents lived, effectively barring them from qualifying for loans.

    The practice was banned when the Fair Housing Act passed in 1968, but by then, the damage had been done. A 2022 FiveThirtyEight analysis of 138 metropolitan areas found that “nearly all formerly redlined zones in the country are still disproportionately Black, Latino or Asian.”

    What does all that have to do with internet access? Pick out any city in the country. If you place a map of redlined neighborhoods next to one showing internet speeds, you will likely see the same pattern: faster speeds in neighborhoods given the “least risky” grade and slower speeds in redlined areas.

    screenshot 2025 04 10 at 10 14 18am

    An analysis by The Markup and the Associated Press found that slower speeds were offered in historically redlined neighborhoods in cities like Kansas City, Missouri.

    This practice has been so thoroughly documented already that it hardly needs repeating here. In Los AngelesClevelandDallasPhiladelphiaNew York and Oakland, California researchers found slower speeds in poorer neighborhoods. 

    The most damning evidence came from a 2022 report co-published by The Markup and the Associated Press, which analyzed 800,000 internet plan offers in 38 US cities. In two-thirds of the cities where they had enough data to compare, internet providers offered the worst plans to the least-white neighborhoods. 

    “I don’t think it’s a case of executives at AT&T sitting in smoke-filled rooms conspiring about how to not build infrastructure in mostly Black and brown neighborhoods,” said Sean Gonsalvez, a director of communication with the advocacy group The Institute for Local Self-Reliance. He said internet service providers don’t always see the economic incentive to build network infrastructure in these neighborhoods. (AT&T recently pulled its wireless internet plans in New York in response to a state law requiring ISPs to offer low-income residents plans of $15 monthly.)

    “We’re focused on doing our part to close the digital divide across the country,” an AT&T spokesperson told CNET in a statement. “As we expand high-speed internet connectivity, we consider a number of factors, including costs, competitive offerings and customer demand. Any suggestion that we discriminate in providing internet access is wrong.”

    Barriers to homeownership created wealth disparities; wealth disparities meant that those same redlined neighborhoods have been last in line for technologies like fiber, which is considered “the gold standard” for internet connectivity, according to Cornell rural planning researchers.

    Is it systemic racism? Yeah, obviously it is. Whether it was intentional or not is another question. I think in many places, it probably was.

    But it’s probably too simple to say that income is the only determinant of where broadband infrastructure is built. In a study of Los Angeles County from 2014 to 2018, researchers at USC looked at where fiber had been deployed. 

    “Income was the main driver of the disparities, but even after controlling for income, we did find a significant racial disparity in some areas lagging behind fiber deployment,” said Hernan Galperin, a professor at USC and one of the authors of the study. 

    Cid Espinal, who works at the Reading Public Library in Pennsylvania training seniors in digital literacy skills, has seen these disparities firsthand. One 2024 study published in the Annual Review of Sociologydetermined that the city of Reading had the highest segregation rate between white people and Latinos of any city in the country. 

    “You’re literally crossing the bridge. Here, on one side of the bridge, is strictly Comcast. The moment you cross the bridge, you have access to FastBridge Fiber,” he said. 

    fcc map reading

    FCC broadband map of fiber availability in Reading, PennsylvaniaFCC National Broadband Map

    The FCC’s broadband map shows fewer than 1% of homes can get fiber in Reading, compared with 41% across the Schuylkill River in the adjacent borough of Wyomissing. That doesn’t necessarily mean people in Reading can’t get fast internet — Comcast offers download speeds up to 2,100 megabits per second in parts of the city — but it does mean there’s a lack of competition. 

    “Comcast has a chokehold on the city. They get to charge whatever price they can because there are no competitors here,” Espinal said. 

    Comcast’s prices start at just $35 per month in Reading, but after two years, the same plan jumps to $83. When that happens in a city with essentially one provider, consumers are stuck with three options: try to negotiate a better deal, cancel or pony up. 

    “We offer low-cost Internet options like Internet Essentials for $14.95 and prepaid NOW Internet for $30, and a variety of other speed tiers, that cater to every household and budget in Reading and nationwide,” a Comcast spokesperson told CNET in a statement. “We encourage our customers to contact us when their promotional period ends, so we can find an Internet plan that meets their needs.”

    The FCC created digital discrimination rules, but they haven’t been implemented

    “Is it systemic racism? Yeah, obviously it is,” said Andy Stutzman, executive director at the nonprofit Next Century Cities. “Whether it was intentional or not is another question. I think in many places, it probably was.”

    This question about intent in digital redlining has been the subject of much debate. In 2023, the Federal Communications Commission ruledthat intent isn’t necessary to allege digital discrimination; only conduct with a “discriminatory effect, based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion or national origin” is.

    “The idea was to better understand and even define what we mean by digital discrimination, which the FCC defined as direct and indirect acts of discrimination, which ISPs hated,” said Christopher Ali, a professor of telecommunications at Penn State University who sat on the FCC council that helped draft the rules. 

    It would be exceedingly difficult to prove that internet providers directlydiscriminated against minority communities. Indirect discrimination is another story.

    “You didn’t have to prove AT&T was racist,” Garner said. “You just had to prove that the effect of their network design disproportionately disadvantaged racial minorities.”

    The FCC adopted these rules in November 2023 and was almost immediately sued by the US Chamber of Commerce and two cable industry lobbying groups. The rules are currently being challenged in court, and industry experts don’t expect Trump’s FCC to defend them. (The FCC didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

    “They really haven’t been implemented yet,” Stutzman said. “I think we were looking towards a brighter future. But that’s not what we’re necessarily seeing at the moment.”

    Rural doesn’t always equal white

    When we talk about the broadband gap, rural areas tend to get most of the attention (and funding). Take the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment program, a $42.5 billion fund passed as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.

    “The idea [with BEAD] was always to take the number of options that people have from zero to one. It is never to take them from one to two,” said Bill Callahan, director of the nonprofit Connect Your Community. 

    BEAD prioritized fiber as often as possible, with an exception for sparsely populated areas where fiber would be prohibitively expensive to build. (I recently reported on how this fiber preference is starting to change with the Trump administration, which is expected to shift BEAD’s rules to favor satellite options like Elon Musk’s Starlink.) 

    “Historically, when we were talking about issues related to the digital divide, I was hearing it more so as ‘digital divide equals rural issue,’ and then folks would say rural equates to white. And that’s not true,” Valentin said. 

    According to the 2020 census, nearly 14 million rural Americansidentified as Black, Hispanic or Latino, Native, Asian, or multiracial — a population larger than that of New York City and Los Angeles combined.

    rural americans of color in 2020

    The Brookings Institution, “Mapping rural America’s diversity and demographic change”

    A 2021 study from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studiesfound that 38% of Black Americans lacked home internet access in the Black Rural South, compared with 23% of white Americans in the region and 22% of Black Americans nationwide. 

    Even when it is available, it’s often much slower. The report notes that 36.6% of all American households don’t use the internet at speeds of at least 25Mbps download — the FCC’s minimum definition for broadband at the time — compared with 72.6% in the Black Rural South. Last year, the FCC quadrupled the broadband threshold to 100Mbps download to reflect the greater needs of Americans for fast internet.

    In other words, the racial broadband gap doesn’t just exist in rural areas too — it’s actually wider than it is in cities in some cases. 

    Affordability is a bigger barrier for most people

    Digital redlining has kept many minority groups from a speedy internet connection, but the cost of a connection is an even bigger hurdle for most people. 

    A 2021 Pew Research Center survey found that one in five people who don’t have home internet cited cost as the main reason — the highest of any answer and well above the number who said service isn’t available. Another study found that “for every American without broadband service available, up to twice as many have service available but still don’t subscribe.”

    The No. 1 reason that we hear from our community on why folks are not adopting broadband is cost.

    “As folks in this space like to say, if it’s not affordable, it’s not accessible,” Gonsalvez said.

    Over the years, the vast majority of federal broadband money has gone to expanding infrastructure. Comparatively little has been spent on helping people afford an internet connection once it’s there.

    That started to change with the COVID-19 pandemic, when Congress passed the Emergency Broadband Benefit to help low-income families keep internet service. At the beginning of 2022, this morphed into the longer-term Affordable Connectivity Program

    “The ACP program really saved my life,” said Dorothy Burrell, a digital navigator with the Kansas City nonprofit Essential Families.

    The ACP provided $30 monthly to anyone making below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines, or $60,000 for a family of four. By the time the $14.2 billion program ran out of money in May 2024, more than 23 million households had enrolled. 

    According to a (since-deleted) White House fact sheet, one in four households participating in the ACP program were Black, one in four were Latino and nearly half were military families, along with 4 million seniors and 10 million Americans over the age of 50.

    “The No. 1 reason that we hear from our community on why folks are not adopting broadband is cost,” said Daiquiri Ryan Mercado, strategic legal adviser and policy counsel for the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

    Digital literacy and tools 

    Along with the ability to access and afford an internet connection, you also need the tools to use it. Otherwise, it’s like having a meal in front of you but no utensils to eat it with. 

    The data shows that the digital divide is just as strong on the device end. According to a 2021 Pew survey, eight in 10 white adults own a desktop or laptop computer, compared with 69% of Black adults and 67% of Hispanic adults.

    Additionally, 22% of Hispanic and 19% of Black adults are considered smartphone-dependent, meaning they own a smartphone but don’t subscribe to home internet service, compared with 12% of white adults. 

    “It’s really hard to apply for a scholarship or a job on a [mobile] phone,” Mercado said.

    Several nonprofits working to close the digital divide provide free or discounted devices, and some providers like T-Mobile will give students a laptop or tablet at cost. CNET editor Josh Goldman also recommends buying a used or refurbished laptop.

    “Sites, including BackMarket and eBay Refurbished, sell deeply discounted laptops from qualified refurbished, and they typically come with a one-year warranty,” Goldman said. 

    Along with the devices themselves, many marginalized groups have never been taught the skills to use them. Essential Families partnered with T-Mobile to offer people living within 150% of the poverty level discounted internet plans and devices, plus an initial two-hour training session.

    Dorothy Burrell started as a student in the program but has since become a digital navigator herself, teaching people in the program how to use their new devices. 

    “I let them know that I was once where you were sitting. And that kind of gives them hope that, okay, I can do this,” Burrell said. 

    Lynnette White, a 77-year-old in San Francisco, told me she’s noticed that Black people are often quieter in her digital literacy classes with the nonprofit Community Tech Network

    “It has a lot to do with their pride,” she said. “They don’t want people to know that they don’t know.”

    Nicol Turner Lee, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told me that it’s important not to teach minority communities outdated digital literacy tools.

    “That often happens in an economy where digital literacy is tethered to racial stereotypes and tropes,” she said. “Low-income black people in particular are sort of stereotyped into being seen as people that know nothing about how to turn on a computer.” 

    “In actuality, we should be also catering digital literacy towards ways in which they can protect their online privacy.” 

    “Sprinting before so many of us even walk”

    When I asked Burrell whether she would ever consider canceling her internet, she seemed shocked that I would even ask. 

    “Never. Never. You need it. You need the internet no matter what,” she said. “I could go without getting my nails done, but not my internet.”

    Phyllis Jackson, a retired administrative assistant in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, gave me the same answer. 

    “I can’t live without it,” she said. “I will find some way — cutting down on food or heat or whatever. Because it’s really necessary. I live alone, and the computer’s like my best friend.”

    Ultimately, the broadband divide isn’t a force with a mind of its own — it’s a result of our choices as a country. And those choices don’t just leave communities of color behind. 

    “Equity does not just mean racial equity,” said Valentin. “We’re talking about rural communities, low-income communities, veterans, communities of color, of course — and all the ways in which those intersect.”

    It can be hard to wrap your head around. At the same time that OpenAI builds data centers that would collectively consume more electricity than every home in Massachusetts, 21% of Americans don’t have a broadband internet connection to use the tools it produces. 

    “We’re sprinting before so many of us can even walk,” said Claudia Ruiz, the civil rights analyst at UnidosUS. “We’re all so focused on what AI can bring, on how AI is going to revolutionize everything. But we still haven’t even dealt with the basic gaps of digital connectivity.”

    Several of the experts I spoke with for this article recommended contacting your representatives and letting them know that the digital divide is a top concern. You can find the contact information for your senators and representatives by entering your address on Congress’ website

    “If constituents come to their members and say, ‘This is something that impacts us,’ I think at least it will give them pause,” said Mercado.

  • Trump introduces tariff exemptions for electronics, including smartphones and computers.

    Trump introduces tariff exemptions for electronics, including smartphones and computers.

    After more than a week of ratcheting up tariffs on products imported from China, the Trump administration issued a rule late Friday that spared smartphones, computers, semiconductors and other electronics from some of the fees, in a significant break for tech companies like Apple and Dell and the prices of iPhones and other consumer electronics.

    message posted late Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection included a long list of products that would not face the reciprocal tariffs President Trump imposed in recent days on Chinese goods as part of a worsening trade war. The exclusions would also apply to modems, routers, flash drives and other technology goods, which are largely not made in the United States.

    The exemptions are not a full reprieve. Other tariffs will still apply to electronics and smartphones. The Trump administration had applied a tariff of 20 percent on Chinese goods earlier this year for what the administration said was the country’s role in the fentanyl trade. And the administration could still end up increasing tariffs for semiconductors, a vital component of smartphones and other electronics.

    The moves were the first major exemptions for Chinese goods, which would have wide-ranging implications for the U.S. economy if they persist. Tech giants such as Apple and Nvidia would largely sidestep punitive taxes that could slash their profits. Consumers — some of whom rushed to buy iPhones this past week — would avoid major potential price increases on smartphones, computers and other gadgets. And the exemptions could dampen additional inflation and calm the turmoil that many economists feared might lead to a recession.

    The tariff relief was also the latest flip-flop in Mr. Trump’s effort to rewrite global trade in a bid to boost U.S. manufacturing. The factories that churn out iPhones, laptops and other electronics are deeply entrenched in Asia — especially in China — and are unlikely to move without a galvanizing force like the steep taxes that the Trump administration had proposed.

    “It’s difficult to know if there’s a realization within the administration that reworking the American economy is a gargantuan effort,” said Matthew Slaughter, the dean of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. 

    The electronics exemptions apply to all countries, not just China. 

    Still, any relief for the electronics industry may be short-lived, since the Trump administration is preparing another national security-related trade investigation into semiconductors. That will also apply to some downstream products like electronics, since many semiconductors come into the United States inside other devices, a person familiar with the matter said. These investigations have previously resulted in additional tariffs.

    Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokeswoman, said in a statement on Saturday that Mr. Trump was still committed to seeing more of these products and components made domestically. “President Trump has made it clear America cannot rely on China to manufacture critical technologies” and that at his direction, tech companies “are hustling to onshore their manufacturing in the United States as soon as possible,” she said.

    A senior administration official, speaking on background because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said that Friday’s exemptions were aimed at maintaining America’s supply of semiconductors, a foundational technology used in smartphones, cars, toasters and dozens of other products. Many cutting-edge semiconductors are manufactured overseas, such as in Taiwan.

    Paul Ashworth, the chief North America economist for Capital Economics, said the move “represents a partial de-escalation of President Trump’s trade war with China.”

    He said the 20 product types that were exempted on Friday account for nearly a quarter of U.S. imports from China. Other countries in Asia would be even bigger winners, he said. Should the tariffs on those countries kick in again, the exemption would cover 64 percent of U.S. imports from Taiwan, 44 percent of imports from Malaysia and nearly a third of imports from both Vietnam and Thailand, he said.

    The changes punctuated a wild week in which Mr. Trump backtracked from many tariffs he introduced on April 2, which he had called “liberation day.” His so-called reciprocal tariffs had introduced taxes that would reach up to 40 percent on products imported from some nations. After the stock and bond markets plunged, Mr. Trump reversed course and said he would pause levies for 90 days.

    China was the one exception to Mr. Trump’s relief because Beijing chose to retaliate against U.S. tariffs with levies of its own. Instead of pausing tariffs on Chinese imports, Mr. Trump increased them to 145 percent and showed no willingness to spare any companies from those fees. In return, China on Friday said it was raising its tariffs on American goods to 125 percent.

    That sent shares of many technology companies into free fall. Over four days of trading, the valuation of Apple, which makes about 80 percent of its iPhones in China, fell by $773 billion.

    For now, Mr. Trump’s moderation is a major relief for a tech industry that has spent months cozying up to the president. Meta, Amazon and several tech leaders donated millions to President Trump’s inauguration, stood behind him as he was sworn into office in January and promised to invest billions of dollars in the United States to support him.

    Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, has been at the forefront of the industry’s courtship of Mr. Trump. He donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inauguration and later visited the White House to pledge that Apple would spend $500 billion in the United States over the next four years.

    The strategy repeated Mr. Cook’s tactics during Mr. Trump’s first term. To head off requests that Apple begin manufacturing its products in the United States rather than China, Mr. Cook cultivated a personal relationship with the president that helped Apple win exemptions on tariffs for its iPhones, smartwatches and laptops.

    It had been unclear if Mr. Cook could obtain a similar break this time, and the tariffs Mr. Trump proposed were more severe. As the Trump administration increased its taxes on Chinese goods, Wall Street analysts said Apple might have to increase the price of its iPhones from $1,000 to more than $1,600.

    The threat of higher iPhone prices caused some Americans to rush to Apple stores to buy new phones. Others raced to buy computers and tablets that were made in China.

    Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Apple’s iPhone quickly became a symbol of the tit-for-tat over tariffs with China. On Sunday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and said the tariffs would result in an “army of millions and millions of people screwing in little, little screws to make iPhones” in the United States. Ms. Leavitt said later in the week that Mr. Trump believed that the United States had the resources to make iPhones for Apple.

    “Apple has invested $500 billion here in the United States,” she said. “So if Apple didn’t think the United States could do it, they probably wouldn’t have put up that big chunk of change.”

    Apple has faced questions about moving some iPhone manufacturing to the United States for more than a decade. In 2011, President Obama asked Steve Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, what it would take to make the company’s best-selling product in the United States rather than China. In 2016, Mr. Trump also pressured Apple to change its position.

    Mr. Cook has remained steadfast in his commitment to China and has said the United States doesn’t have enough skilled manufacturing workers to compete with China.

    “In the U.S., you could have a meeting of tooling engineers, and I’m not sure we could fill the room,” he said at a conference in late 2017. “In China, you could fill multiple football fields.”

    Additional tariffs on semiconductors and other electronics could come in the next few weeks or months. The administration has signaled it is considering such tariffs under a legal statute known as Section 232, alongside other tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals.

    The president has already used the statute to put a 25 percent tariff on imported steel, aluminum and automobiles, and is weighing similar steps for imported lumber and copper. All of those sectors were given exemptions from the so-called reciprocal tariffs that the president announced on April 2.

    Speaking to reporters the next day, the president said that other tariffs on chips would be “starting very soon,” adding that the administration was also looking at tariffs on pharmaceuticals. “We’ll be announcing that sometime in the near future,” he said. “It’s under review right now.”

    The other tariffs that the Trump administration has applied through Section 232 investigations have been set at 25 percent — much lower than the 145 percent tariff currently in place for many products from China.

  • Why aren’t the democrats fighting harder against Trumps trade problems?

    Why aren’t the democrats fighting harder against Trumps trade problems?

    This has been the mealymouthed critique of President Donald Trump’s trade wars from many Democrats this past week. They awkwardly triangulate between bashing Trump’s catastrophic ideas and touting support for their own similarly spirited, if scaled-down, ideas. No wonder their message is falling flat.

    Trump’s current tariff regime — including “only” 10 percent levies on 70 countries, plus 145 percent on China — will devastate the U.S. economy. His tariffs imposed so far are estimated to raise a typical household’s annual costs by $2,700, with lower-income Americans shouldering the biggest burden. That’s only a subset of the damage. Recession risks have surged, companies have begun furloughing workers, and our once-close allies are flipping us the bird.

    If this is a curse to the U.S. economy, it should be a windfall for Democratic politicians. Instead, Democrats are blowing their good fortune.

    Rather than shouting from the rooftops that trade wars are bad, Democrats babble in “yes, buts.” Yes, these particular tariffs are costly and regressive, they say, but when Democrats impose tariffs, somehow they present no such downsides.

    The most obvious cognitive dissonance relates to Trump’s first-term tariffs. Democrats assailed these policies in the 2018 midterms and 2020 presidential election — shortly before adopting them as their own.

    For instance, in 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden said Trump’s China tariffs led to “American farmers, manufacturers and consumers losing and paying more.” The 2020 Democratic platformsaid Trump had “launched reckless, politically-motivated tariff wars that have punished American workers, antagonized our allies, and benefited our adversaries.” They were right!

    But as president, Biden extended (nearly) all of Trump’s existing tariffs. In some cases, he expanded them or replaced them with slightly different trade barriers. He did so with vigorous support from his party.

    Given this checkered record, it’s no wonder Democrats struggle to articulate a clear, credible critique of Trump’s (now much worse) tariff policy.

    In a social media video this month, House Democrats opened with an awkward defense of protectionism: “I think a wrong-for-decades consensus on ‘free trade’ has been a race to the bottom,” Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pennsylvania) said, adding that we need “a better trade approach” that is “pro-worker.”

    Deluzio clarified that he didn’t mean Trump’s trade approach, per se — even though Republicans likewise claim Trump’s approach is “pro-worker.”

    On Wednesday, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) gave a speech criticizing Trump for wielding tariffs like a “hammer.” When asked how she would deploy tariffs differently, Whitmer could not answer. “I don’t know how I would have enacted them differently,” she said. “I haven’t really thought about that. What I have thought about, though, is, you know, tariffs are, need to be used like a scalpel, not a hammer.”

    Other Democrats, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, assert that the real problem with Trump’s tariffs is that companies will use them as an excuse for “price gouging” and profiteering. The stock market massacre suggests investors don’t agree tariffs will be profitable. But even if Warren’s critique were true, the same logic should apply to the Biden-née-Trump tariffs Warren backed.

    Elsewhere, lefty populist thinkers explain that Trump’s tariffs are bad but tariffs could be good if only the resulting revenue were used for things Democrats like. (Never mind that whole poor-people-bear-the-costs problem.) Both they and their horseshoe-theory-demonstrating conservative counterparts contend that Trump’s execution might be lousy, but the underlying premise — that America must build higher economic walls — remains correct.

    Real trade wars, it seems, have never been tried.

    To be clear, there are some limited circumstances in which tariffs (or sanctions) could be an appropriate way to build U.S. capacity or punish bad behavior. For example, if an adversarial country has a stranglehold on some technology critical to national defense. Or if an exporter is using slave labor.

    But that’s not what either party has endorsed. Both Trump and his Democratic critics have supported broad tariffs on our allies and on random consumer goods (tiki torches, guitars, toothbrushes) with no plausible security or “resiliency” justification.

    How did Democrats back themselves into this corner? Partly they’re pandering to pro-tariff constituencies (i.e., unions, once reliable Democratic allies). Populist, anti-“neoliberal” think tanks have also overtaken the party. These often employ political operatives churning out pseudo-scholarly research, which the media then credulously cites. (Republicans invented and perfected this model more than a decade earlier, though it doesn’t seem to have served Democrats as well politically.)

    That’s how you end up with Democratic leaders embracing such quackery as “greedflation” and price controls — both of which, by the way, the Trump administration is also now flirting with. This Trump blunder should be yet another layup for Democrats, but they can’t really dunk on it now, can they?

    The political calculus on all this is changing. Aggressive trade barriers, no longer abstract hypotheticals, are proving as disastrous as “neoliberal” economists predicted. Americans hate Trump’s tariffs. Even most manufacturing workers think they’re a bad idea, according to a Post poll.

    Democrats should stop pulling their punches. What the country needs is an unequivocal, full-throated condemnation of pandering protectionism. Let this be the moment that liberates the Democratic Party from the populists tying them to the same mercantilist, regressive, costly command-and-control economic policies that so often drive Trump’s agenda.

  • Robert W. McChesney, Who Warned of Corporate Media Control, Dies at 72

    Robert W. McChesney, Who Warned of Corporate Media Control, Dies at 72

    From 2002 to 2012, McChesney hosted the radio program Media Matters on Sunday afternoons on WILL-AM.
    From 2002 to 2012, McChesney hosted the radio program Media Matters on Sunday afternoons on WILL-AM.

    Robert W. McChesney, an influential left-leaning media critic who argued that corporate ownership was bad for American journalism and that Silicon Valley billionaires who dominated online information were a threat to democracy, died on March 25, at his home in Madison, Wis. He was 72.

    The cause was glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer, his wife, Inger Stole, said.

    Professor McChesney was grounded both in academia — he had a Ph.D. in communications and taught at universities — and in ink-on-paper journalism: He was the founding publisher of The Rocket, a Seattle music magazine that reviewed Nirvana’s first single.

    His primary thesis, expressed in more than a dozen books and in scores of articles and interviews, was that corporate-owned news media was overly compliant with the political powers that be and that it restricted the views Americans were exposed to. He further argued that the promise of the internet — of a Wild West market of opinions — had been throttled by a few giant owners of online platforms.

    An early book, “Rich Media, Poor Democracy” (1999), warned that consolidation in journalism would undermine democratic norms. In perhaps his best-known work, “Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet Against Democracy” (2013), he rejected the utopian view that the digital revolution would usher in an open frontier of information sources and invigorate democracy.

    Instead, he showed how the internet was devastating the business model for newspapers, while supplanting civically minded coverage of local government with lowest-common-denominator fluff: celebrity gossip, cat videos and personal navel gazing.

    Professor McChesney blamed capitalism.

    “The profit motive, commercialism, public relations, marketing, and advertising — all defining features of contemporary corporate capitalism — are foundational to any assessment of how the Internet has developed and is likely to develop,” he wrote.

    08McChesney fkbv jumbo
    In “Digital Disconnect,” Professor McChesney rejected the utopian view that the digital revolution would usher in an open frontier of information sources and invigorate democracy.Credit…The New Press

    An unapologetic socialist, Professor McChesney argued that the government should give all Americans $200 vouchers to donate to nonprofit news outlets of their choice.

    He campaigned for Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential races. Mr. Sanders returned the favor by writing a forward to Professor McChesney’s book “Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex Is Destroying America” (2013), written with John Nichols.

    In an interview with Truthout, a nonprofit news site focused on social justice, Professor McChesney attacked the mainstream media’s coverage of Mr. Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary that he lost to Hillary Clinton. CNN and MSNBC, he said, were deeply biased in favor of “centrist” candidates representing the status quo.

    “One can only imagine how Sanders would have done if he had coverage from MSNBC similar to what Obama received in 2007-08,” Professor McChesney said.

    The conservative writer David Horowitz put Professor McChesney on a list of the “101 Most Dangerous Academics in America” in 2006, including him among “tenured radicals” who were indoctrinating U.S. students.

    On the other hand, in 2008 Utne Reader named Professor McChesney as one of the “50 Visionaries Who Are Changing Your World.”

    Professor McChesney warned in 2016 that when corporate giants dominate online information — at the time, those giants were Facebook and Google — they hold too much power over what people know of the world.

    “This is really antithetical to anything remotely close to a free press and a free society,” he said in an interview with the left-leaning news outlet “Democracy Now!”

    The way to deal with such monopolies was to nationalize them, he said. He suggested a government takeover that would make internet behemoths into a quasi-public service, like the Post Office.

    Professor McChesney was also one of the founders, in 2003, of a public interest group, Free Press, that opposed corporate consolidation in the news business and that led a national campaign for net neutrality, calling for equal access to the internet for all content producers, from giants like Netflix to individual bloggers.

    08McChesney 02 kmhw superJumbo
    Professor McChesney in 2024. “Capitalism as we know it is a very bad fit for the technological revolution we are beginning to experience,” he observed.Credit…Inger Stole

    Robert Waterman McChesney was born on Dec. 22, 1952, in Cleveland, one of two sons of Samuel P. McChesney Jr., an advertising executive at This Week, a syndicated magazine inserted in Sunday newspapers, and Edna (McCorkle) McChesney.

    He grew up in the Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights and attended Pomfret, a prep school in Connecticut. In 1977, he graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Evergreen State College, in Washington, where he studied politics and economics.

    In 1979, after working as a sports stringer for U.P.I. and an editor at The Seattle Sun, an alternative weekly, he became the publisher of The Rocket, which charted the emergence of the Seattle grunge-rock scene in the 1980s and ’90s.

    Intellectually restless, he then enrolled in graduate school at the University of Washington, earning a Ph.D. in communications in 1989. For a decade, he taught in the journalism and mass communication department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    He and his wife, Dr. Stole, who also had a Ph.D. in communications, then moved to the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where he was the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the communications department.

    08McChesney mgjw superJumbo
    An early book, “Rich Media, Poor Democracy” (1999), warned that consolidation in journalism would undermine democratic norms.Credit…The New Press

    Professor McChesney’s books also include “Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights?” (2011), with Victor Pickard, and “Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy” (1997).

    In addition to his wife, he is survived by their daughters, Amy and Lucy McChesney; and a brother, Samuel P. McChesney III.

    In a late book, “People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy” (2016), written with Mr. Nichols, Professor McChesney argued that artificial intelligence and the digital revolution would wipe out numerous categories of jobs.

    08McChesney lphz superJumbo
    “People Get Ready” (2016) argued that artificial intelligence and the digital revolution would wipe out numerous categories of jobs.Credit…Hachette

    “Capitalism as we know it is a very bad fit for the technological revolution we are beginning to experience,” he said in an interview about the book.

    “Our argument is that we currently have a citizenless democracy,” he went on. “By that we mean a governing system where all the important decisions of government are made to suit the interests and values of the wealthiest and most powerful Americans, and the corporations they own.”