I have to ask this question again, are we engaged in the first World E-War? If so, is the FBI the right agency to deal with it?

https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/14/doj-confirms-fbi-operation-that-mass-deleted-chinese-malware-from-thousands-of-us-computers/

… The Department of Justice and the FBI said on Tuesday that they had successfully deleted the malware planted by the China-backed hacking group, known as “Twill Typhoon” or “Mustang Panda,” from thousands of infected systems across the United States during a court-authorized operation in August 2024. 

French authorities led the operation with assistance from Paris-based cybersecurity company Sekoia. In a press release last year, French prosecutors said the malware — known as “PlugX” — had infected several million computers globally, including 3,000 devices located in France. 

… U.S. authorities said that the operation was used to delete the malware from more than 4,200 infected computers in the United States.

A point! Definitely a point.

https://www.ft.com/content/917c9535-1cdb-4f6a-9a15-1a0c83663bfd

The coming battle between social media and the state

… The notion that all we need to make the world a better place is “better regulation” is deeply embedded in our culture. And one thing for which the cry for regulation is made is social media platforms. If only they were “better regulated”, the popular sentiment goes, then various political and social problems would all be solved.

But there are two problems with regulating social media platforms. The first comes from the very technology that gave rise to this fairly recent but now almost ubiquitous phenomenon. The second is that to impose effective regulation against unwilling platforms will require determined, unflinching governmental action and political will — the possibility of which the platforms are now doing what they can to avoid.

Is this likely to become more common in today’s environment?

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/meta-lawyer-lemley-quits-ai-case-citing-zuckerberg-descent

Meta Lawyer Lemley Quits AI Case Citing Zuckerberg 'Descent' (1)

California attorney Mark Lemley dropped Meta Platforms Inc. as a client in a high-profile copyright case because of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s “descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness,” the Stanford University professor said on LinkedIn.

Lemley said in a Monday post he still believes Meta to be “on the right side in the generative AI copyright dispute,” but that he “cannot in good conscience serve as their lawyer any longer.” Zuckerberg has generated controversy in recent days by ending diversity initiatives at the social media giant and ending fact-checking on Facebook posts while expounding the benefits of “masculine energy.”