I did not initially want to see the re-release of Ken Russell's 1971 film, The Devils. As the critic Armond White pointed out, Warner Bros. somewhat deceptively marketed the film as a subversive horror movie, "promising steady, anti-Christian jolts and atrocities." Based on the film's trailer alone, one might believe that The Devils is truly about demonic forces possessing a convent of nuns. If this were the case, I would have had little interest in paying for a ticket and would have opted to avoid any nightmares. But the marketing successfully brought in moviegoers seeking October thrills, filling enough seats to extend the film's run indefinitely. After reading more about the film's premise, I saw the newly restored, uncensored NC-17 film on Wednesday night, and found White's assessment to be largely correct. The movie is, above all, a tale of politically motivated persecution, and it serves as a warning against succumbing to mob hysteria. 

(Spoilers ahead.)

Based on the nonfiction book The Devils of Loudun by Aldous Huxley and John Whiting's play, The Devils, the film chronicles a French town's descent into hysteria, chaos, and religious perversion following a sexually repressed nun's false accusations against a priest. The priest named Father Grandier (Oliver Reed) is an iconoclastic, rakish man who defies the church's orthodoxies in his personal and public life. He impregnates (and somewhat callously casts aside) a magistrate's daughter and later secretly marries Madeleine de Brou, one of the many enamored townswomen who confess their sins to him. As the town's acting governor, Grandier defends Loudun's independence against Catholic leaders who wish to tear down its white walls. Grandier is a highly educated, tolerant priest who allows Protestants and Catholics to coexist peacefully in the city. All the while, France's Catholic leaders (who are one with the state) seek to purge the country of Protestants and consolidate power. Grandier's defiance makes him an enemy of the state, and his philandering and eccentricities make him a vulnerable target. 

The town's bureaucrats seize the opportunity to destroy Grandier's life when the local convent's Mother Superior, Sister Jeanne (Vanessa Redgrave), tells the convent's confessor, Father Mignon, that Grandier has possessed her and the other nuns. She makes this baseless accusation after learning of the priest's marriage to Madeleine, which had devastated and outraged Jeanne, who obsessively lusted for Grandier from within the confines of the convent. Although Grandier has never seen Jeanne (and knows nothing of her defining features: a hunchback, blue eyes, and a cackling laugh), his enemies conspire to wield the accusation against him and call in a professional witch hunter. Mass hysteria ensues as more nuns profess their possession, and the church quickly becomes a blasphemous circus of sexual deviancy. 

The latter half of the film contains its most controversial sequences, including a previously censored scene of nuns sexually defiling a statue of Jesus and depictions of gruesome torture. Responding to British censors' objections to the torture scene, Russell once told an interviewer that the censors should have known that the scene was based on historically accurate events.  

"I've always found that it's much more shocking and indeed more effectual to go for the truth, rather than fiction," he said. 

The same could be said of the film more generally. Perhaps the most disturbing part of Russell's movie is its ending, when the town celebrates Grandier's final moments and execution (burning alive at the stake) after a sham trial. Here, the human impulse to deliver mob justice, to punish, and to rejoice in another's demise is on full display. 

Films are not meant to be purely didactic, and The Devils' set design, story, and acting are worthy of praise on their own. But it is worth noting that Russell himself called the movie his "one political film," and it has a clear message. As Grandier's enemies knew, the state can more easily abuse its power when the masses become willing instruments. It is critical to know when the mob is being weaponized against the individual. Otherwise, "the devils" will only grow stronger.

The American justice system, while imperfect, seeks to temper these passions and guide jurors and judges toward truth and evidence-based outcomes. Unfortunately, any system made up of flawed individuals is vulnerable to corruption and public pressures. At the national level, seemingly every presidential administration punishes its enemies for partisan ends to placate its base and consolidate power. And as the public, we remain susceptible to condemning others in the court of public opinion before all the facts are presented. Due process is eroded when we cannot separate our passions from principles.

After the film, I asked moviegoers about their reactions. Rightfully, most people raved about the film's set design. Some fellow Zoomers told me they enjoyed the "gore" of it all, adding that nothing is really shocking to audiences in 2026. Nobody remarked on the storyline until pressed. My post-movie interviews weren't a representative sample, but I left the theater doubting we will learn from Loudun.  

The post <em>The Devils</em> Was Censored 55 Years Ago. Now It's Back, and Its Political Warning Still Holds.  appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Who could have predicted that age-gating large sections of the internet in a crusade to shield children's eyeballs from vaguely defined "harmful content" would have disastrous consequences and wouldn't ultimately protect kids? Apparently, the United Kingdom's online regulator, Ofcom, couldn't. 

On Thursday, Ofcom released a report assessing whether the government should make changes to the content categories of the 2023 Online Safety Act, a set of laws which require companies operating in the U.K. to prevent children from "accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they do arise." The act's "child safety regime" (Ofcom's words) went fully into effect in 2025, when porn websites in the country began checking IDs. Unfortunately, as Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown has pointed out, the age-verification rule has impacted far more than adult websites. Already, the Online Safety Act has age-gated a wide range of content, including war news, the "NoFap" subreddit, and a historic art image, creating a mass chilling effect online. 

Ofcom's report, however, says little about these age-gating concerns for adults, and its own findings highlight the act's underwhelming results. In the report, Ofcom notes that "Most children in the UK say they have encountered at least one piece of harmful content online in a four-week period." It adds that "at a total level there was no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content over the first nine months after the children's safety duties came into force in July 2025." So, it appears the act is requiring adults to fork over their IDs to access a wide range of content, some of which is innocuous, while playing a never-ending and unsuccessful game of whack-a-mole trying to eliminate "harmful" online content from kids' feeds. 

Instead of suggesting to repeal the Online Safety Act because it does not seem to be working or because it imperils online freedom, Ofcom's report proposes to broaden the law's scope. The regulator recommends adding "body stigma content and depression content, currently identified by Ofcom as kinds of non-designated content, to the category of priority content that is harmful to children." Priority content is defined as "content that services must protect/minimise the risk of children in age groups judged to be at risk of harm from encountering." In other words, online platforms could have more reasons to potentially age-gate, block, or avoid publishing out of fear of violating the law. 

The report does not address the U.K. government's plans to ban children under the age of 16 from accessing social media, and Ofcom says it will soon publish an assessment of "what highly effective age assurance looks like" for determining whether someone is 16 or older. But if the social media ban unfolds anything like it did in Australia, where kids are easily circumventing it, it is likely to flop, just as the Online Safety Act has.

The post The U.K.'s Online Safety Act Has Been a Failure. Regulators Want To Broaden It Anyway. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

There has been much consternation this week about the use of fake polls in the media, with some government officials promising swift, and legally dubious, punishments for broadcasters that use them. 

The use of these fake polls came to light on Wednesday, when The New York Times reported that "well-known polling aggregators," including the paper itself, had been citing fake surveys by Wedgewood Polls. The fake polling scheme was revealed when the outlet FivePlusOne contacted Wedgewood Tuesday for comment about an investigation into the pollster. That night, Wedgewood posted a now-deleted statement declaring that it was an "experimental project to demonstrate the vulnerabilities, lack of oversight, and overall barrier to entry in the modern polling industry." The fake pollster claimed it was "far too easy" to be taken seriously in media and public commentary. 

A similar "social experiment" was revealed in August, when the Los Angeles Times reported that a poll by Median Strategies showing Mayor Karen Bass "leading ahead of Councilmember Nithya Raman by a wide margin" was "bogus." An earlier poll by Median Strategies showed Francesca Hong, who lost her race for Wisconsin governor, up by more than 20 percentage points. Median Strategies told the Times that the firm was "created as a short term social experiment to examine how purported polling information could enter and spread through the political information ecosystem without independent verification."

If Wedgewood's polling stunts were in fact social experiments (pollster Nate Silver is very skeptical of this explanation), then the experiment worked. Nobody is completely immune to deceit. And while savvy media consumers have become more attuned to detecting AI writing and video fakes, masses of people still fall for more than fake polls, as they have for a long time.

In 2018, when the word "slop" meant food for pigs and before anyone wrote posts using ChatGPT, the Intelligencer asked the question: "How much of the Internet is fake?" The answer, the outlet concluded, was "a lot."

At the time, Reason's Nick Gillespie noted that the article was a "sobering and obvious revelation that much of what we browse, engage, and interact with is in some fundamental way, total bullshit." Gillespie solemnly observed, "we're living not in the disintermediated, utopian world chronicled in the early days of Louis Rossetto and Jane Metcalfe's Wired, but something closer to the endlessly creative, weird, off-kilter, semi-insane world imagined by Philip K. Dick and, later, Neal Stephenson."

Eight years later, the "semi-insane" world is no less insane, and humans, as they always have, are falling prey to increasingly intricate schemes and hoaxes. In September, Semafor's Max Tani revealed that a large number of YouTube videos—several of which garnered hundreds of thousands of views—were made by "ghost creators." In these videos, presented as news reports, real actors were paid to read AI-written scripts "laced with misleading claims and outright falsehoods." According to Tani, these "accounts appear to be run not by political operatives trying to win, or foreign intelligence efforts seeking to destabilize the US, but by engagement junkies detached from the stakes of politics." While any semi-media-literate person in 2026 could tell you that not all YouTube videos should be taken as fact, the scale of the operation was staggering. 

The deception crisis plagues the media as well. Recently, the platform Qwoted, which connects journalists with sources, had to remove a supposed art therapy expert from its website after her "details were found to be false," reported the Press Gazette. According to the Gazette, the fake therapist's insights had been cited in several outlets, including Psychology, Forbes, Glamour, and Vice. I have also raised concerns about news outlets and commentators citing polls published by EduBirdie, a Cyprus-based company that sells human-written academic papers to students for $8 a page (ethics aside, what a bold business model in the AI age).

So what is to be done? As Gillespie wrote in 2018, there are existing legal levers to root out fraud, but any top-down approach to squashing online lies "will be poorly applied, repressive, and ultimately arbitrary." Government-led crackdowns on COVID-19 "misinformation" have proven him right. Outsourcing the arbitration of truth would only diminish our access to information, and no one entity, particularly the government, should be trusted to determine what is true or false. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has not learned much from the pandemic era and has instead repeatedly tried to crack down on media coverage it doesn't like.

Ideally, media organizations would act as B.S. detectors, but clearly, they often fail to do so. So, consumers are left to wade through lies, AI hoaxes, and so-called "social experiments." This may be tedious work, but it is necessary for consumers to evolve as technologies change. This sleuthing for scams may even be enjoyable. Why pay to have your brain scrambled by Nathan Fielder's Elizabeth Holmes documentary when you can drive yourself insane by tracking down and scrutinizing widely cited statistics and polls?

The post Worst <i>Nathan for You</i>–Style Scheme Ever? A Polling Company Claimed Its Fake Polls Were a Social Experiment. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

On eBay Live, livestreaming is for the entrepreneurial everyman. It is a no-frills, decentralized QVC for the modern age.

The interface is clunky, the sellers are unpolished, and the viewer numbers are low. The site is more like a digital garage sale than a Sotheby's auction, but it's just as thrilling to watch a bidder win a rare baseball card as to watch one win a Rothko.

Items for sale include Rolex watches, Funko Pop toys, commemorative coins, and Michael Kors backpacks, which sellers hawk to audiences of anywhere from 10 to 1,000 other souls. These online auctioneers set countdown clocks, sometimes as short as 10 seconds. Bids start as low as $1.

Tuning into a sub-100-viewer eBay Live auction is strangely intimate. Sellers, often in makeshift home sets or nondescript warehouse backrooms, fill the time between auctions with banter and often play music on their own speakers. Sellers also respond to the audience, affectionately referred to as "chat."

One bidding frenzy drew me in. Ten seconds and a flurry of clicks later, I became the proud owner of a $3.81 Dragonite Pokémon card. I know nothing about Pokémon, yet I felt a surge of joy hearing my username declared the winner. There is a simple pleasure in buying and selling real things in a digital auction house.

The post Review: eBay Live Is QVC for the Modern Age appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Questioning the prevailing narrative about the "Cornell seven" case is bound to create controversy. And at Columbia University, two student journalists drew condemnation for their views on the case from the unlikeliest of places: a college free speech group. 

On October 13, Barnard junior Christina Ma and Columbia junior Nikos Mohammadi published an article called "The 'Cornell Seven' Is Really About Liberalism" in the Columbia Sundial, an independent student publication. The piece argued that the discourse surrounding the alleged rape at Cornell University infantilizes women by omitting the possibility that in a post–sexual revolution, liberal society, women may make regrettable but consensual choices.

"In the world that, for better or worse, follows from it, we cannot claim to stand for sexual freedom and then recoil in disgust when there's a possibility that a young woman simply chose to exercise it," Mohammadi and Ma wrote. 

The piece also argues that the "collective frenzy" over the Cornell case has created a climate on campus that makes it "difficult to disagree with the maximalist position on what happened" the night of the alleged rape.

As Mohammadi wrote in UnHerd, the piece caused immense backlash. He said he received an onslaught of messages urging him to commit suicide and demanding that his "career and life be destroyed." But the criticism went beyond threatening DMs and comments. 

The day after the article's publication, the Columbia Open Discourse Alliance (CODA) canceled an event about press freedom because the Sundial's editor in chief, Nick Baum, had been slated to speak at the event. Although Baum did not author the piece, CODA wrote in an Instagram post that the free speech group "refused" to be affiliated with the Sundial's article "in any way." 

CODA also claimed that the event, ironically called "Who Gets to Tell the Story? Press Freedom and the Public Square," could not take place at a time when "many survivors in our community feel that their stories are under attack and are not being believed."

The group added that the Sundial's article "promotes rape culture and works to silence survivors of sexual assault." 

The group's president, Aum Desai, told Columbia's student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator, that the group canceled the event "not in spite of, but because of [CODA's] commitment to free expression." 

Columbia graduate Clayton Smith, who founded CODA in 2025, quickly commented that he was "shocked" by CODA's statements on Instagram. Smith started the organization to create a central hub for groups hosting events promoting free speech and open discourse, including the Sundial and Columbia's Heterodox Academy chapter.

He tells Reason that CODA's rationale for canceling the event was "ironic" and "hypocritical," and he believes the group should have collaborated with the Sundial if there were legitimate safety concerns at the event. He says he was particularly disturbed by the group's condemnation of the article and CODA's claim that it promotes "rape culture."

"They don't argue or explain how it works to silence survivors of sexual assault. It is a baseless slander that they use to condemn the article because it promoted an opinion they do not like," Smith says. 

Smith says he spoke to Desai on the phone after CODA posted the statements, and Desai tried to reassure him that CODA would uphold the principle of free speech. But Smith says he did not leave the phone call feeling "very confident at all" in Desai's commitment. 

Desai did not respond to Reason's requests for comment.

CODA faculty adviser and Columbia Business School professor emeritus Eli Noam was traveling in China during the fallout from the Sundial article and was not involved in CODA's decision.

After speaking with members of both CODA and the Sundial, Noam tells Reason that he thinks CODA "made some proper decisions, some correct decisions, and some mistakes."

"I think we're dealing here with…a group of college students who kind of were confronted with a crisis at 2 a.m.," Noam says. "And kind of [made] some judgments that they now regret, and they do." 

He tells Reason that it was not "unreasonable to assume there would be a disruption" at the event, given the climate at Columbia and "about this rape allegation." He says the group suddenly "had an event where they needed college security" and could not organize in time. CODA, Noam says, is not yet recognized by the university, and he thinks the group was likely fearful of jeopardizing its recognition.  

Still, Noam says CODA's statements condemning the article were "unreasonable," and it was "disappointing that they kind of lost their nerve here."

Although he was not involved in planning the panel, Mohammadi says, to his knowledge, there were no credible threats of violence to the panel. He understood there may have been "disgruntled students" and an "environment CODA did not want to deal with." But instead of simply canceling the event or working with the Sundial to find a solution, Mohammadi says CODA overstepped by condemning the Sundial piece. 

James Applegate, an astronomy professor who serves on Columbia's Academic Freedom Council (CAFC) alongside Noam, tells Reason that he disagreed with CODA's decision to cancel the event.

Applegate tells Reason he was considering attending the event, and he was "rather surprised and disappointed" when it was canceled.

He recalled that when he was a professor in 2000, he objected to changes to the school's sexual misconduct policy on the University Senate floor. He says his statements were "similar to what was said in the Sundial article" and there was a "level of emotion in this debate." 

"Nonetheless, we had the debate. I was in it, and the degree to which it was civil is shocking when you look at where we are now. And it's sad." 

Applegate said he does not condemn CODA, however, "for the simple reason that the atmosphere on college campuses and on the left wing of politics in general in the United States is quite vicious."

CODA's honorary faculty fellow John McWhorter tells Reason he interpreted CODA's statement as "saying that an event about who gets to tell the story is untenable when or if a critical mass of people with such stories don't even feel comfortable telling them— i.e.being a participant in the event." He added, "I imagine some might think of that as cutting the salami a little thin, but then I highly suspect that Desai is equally worried about the event becoming a physical melee of some kind. In that, let's face it, he is hardly unreasonable."

Still, McWhorter said that he would have chosen to have the event himself, "especially as in the likely case that some people did talk about their experiences without any particular repercussions, it may have made the more reluctant people less apprehensive about doing so in the future."

According to Mohammadi, as of Tuesday, the Sundial, College Republicans, Platypus Affiliated Society at Columbia (which discusses leftist thought and history), and Columbia's Heterodox Academy chapter have left CODA. 

CODA was not the only group to condemn the Sundial's piece. On October 14, the Columbia Political Review's editorial board wrote that Mohammadi and Ma's piece "violates standards of integrity" and "perpetuates a culture of campus violence, rape, and assault." The editorial board of the Columbia Political Review, which purports to publish "multipartisan political discourse," stated that it would refuse to publish "any article that upholds or recreates cultures and systems of rape, sexual assault, or violence" and it urged "all campus publications to do the same."

And on Monday, Columbia's main newspaper, the Spectator, published a staff editorial accusing the Sundial of violating journalistic ethics by "its page to disparage survivors of sexual violence." 

Mohammadi tells Reason the piece underwent "far more editorial scrutiny than any other piece" the Sundial had published given the sensitive nature of the topic.

Free speech student organizations are necessary on Columbia's campus, especially as the school's free speech climate continues to crumble; it recently received a failing grade from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. And while upholding free speech principles may have become more fashionable among those resisting the Trump administration's pressures on academic freedom or those defending pro-Palestinian speech, it is clear that some topics remain taboo in the public square. College is supposed to be a place where students debate controversial topics, form their own beliefs and opinions, and learn from mistakes. Hopefully, the students who demanded condemnation instead of debate will be forgiven for their perversion of free speech ideals, and they will learn to afford such grace and open-mindedness to classmates with whom they disagree.

The post A Free Speech Group at Columbia Canceled an Event About Free Speech Over 'Cornell 7' Article Controversy appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Most New Yorkers are lawbreakers and don't even know it. 

New York City requires residents to separate certain sorts of food scraps from the rest of their trash. Composting diverts waste from landfills, creates nutrient-rich soil, and helps the environment by reducing greenhouse gases. When food scraps are buried in a landfill, they decompose without access to oxygen, causing the release of methane. Composting lets rotten food breathe and reduces methane emissions. In New York City, composting is also supposed to save money by reducing the amount of trash that the city hauls to landfills and incinerators, many of which are out of state.

The city's older, voluntary residential curbside composting initiative started as a pilot program 13 years ago under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In his 2013 State of the City address, he declared that he would "tackle New York City's final recycling frontier, and that is food waste." Mayor Bill de Blasio wanted to expand the program, but in 2018 that was put on hold due to exploding costs and low participation rates. 

Around this time, according to the Citizens Budget Commission (CBC), the city was spending an estimated $1,700 per ton to collect organics compared to $291 per ton of regular trash, as special composting trucks were carrying relatively little waste. The CBC also reported that in participating neighborhoods, almost 90 percent of organic material was still going in the regular trash in 2017. During the pandemic, budget constraints forced the sanitation department to pause compost pickups altogether.

The city made composting mandatory in late 2024, under Mayor Eric Adams. Since then, residents have had to separate eggshells, orange peels, and other food scraps from regular trash and dispose of these organic materials in composting bins. In April 2025, the city began issuing fines of up to $300 to property owners who failed to comply. The city paused fines for most violators a few weeks later, on the grounds that New Yorkers needed more time to learn what to do. Now, under Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the composting enforcement fines are back. 

With all this confusion, it's hardly surprising that New Yorkers are not great composters. According to the New York City Independent Budget Office (IBO), "Organic waste—food scraps, yard waste, and other compostable materials—make up roughly 36% of the City's residential waste stream, yet organics collections were 2.4% of residential waste collected in [fiscal year] 2025." In other words, New Yorkers separated only about 7 percent of their organic waste from the regular trash during the first nine months of the citywide composting program. A recent report from the city government says that the amount of all organics separated from the rest of the trash increased by 25 percent in fiscal year 2026. Given the already low levels of compliance, the figures are still not encouraging. 

It's unclear exactly how much the city is spending on this largely ignored program. A spokesperson for the Sanitation Department told Reason, "It is difficult to put a number on it, since composting is integrated with so much of [the department's] other work, but for personnel and processing, the city budget includes baselined funding for 299 uniform positions at a recurring cost of $33.4M a year for curbside organics collection."

Still, some have tried to estimate how much the city would need to compost to make the program cost-effective. Samantha MacBride, a former director of research and operations at the sanitation department, has estimated that the city would need to sort out about 30 percent of its organic waste.

The Mamdani administration attempted to increase compliance by reinstating fines at the beginning of this year. Buildings face tickets of up to $300 for failing to compost or composting improperly, but the fines haven't had much impact. According to data from the city's sanitation department, there was a brief jump in the amount of organic waste collected after Adams instituted fines in April 2025. But oddly, the monthly tonnage collected in May, June, and July of 2025 (when fines were not being enforced) was higher than in May, June, and July of 2026 (when fines were in effect).

Suppose all residents complied with the composting mandate. Would the city even be able to process all that waste? Absolutely not.

As of 2025, the city can handle only about 400,000 tons of organic waste per year. That organic waste goes either to traditional composting facilities or to anaerobic digesters, which turn waste into energy. Based on the IBO's estimate that 36 percent of residential waste is compostable, New York residents produce around 1.1 million tons of compostable organic waste per year.

The city's composting and digesting facilities would hit capacity if New Yorkers put barely more than a third of their organic waste into brown bins. Not that the city is close to that level of compliance. Right now, it's still trying to tell New Yorkers the mandate even exists.

In one amusing effort to alert citizens about composting, the city launched a Sex and the City marketing campaign funded by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency. The ad features the composting mascot "Scrappy" on the side of NYC buses and urges residents to call 3-1-1 if their buildings aren't complying with the rules.

Reason asked several New Yorkers whether they understood this ad. Overwhelmingly, they did not.

One might think this PSA would at least inspire Carrie Bradshaw wannabes in Manhattan to compost, but no. Manhattanites actually tend to be the worst composters. This may be due to living in cramped apartments and large apartment buildings. The borough with the highest composting rate is actually Staten Island, the city's Republican stronghold, where many residents live in single-family homes.

Steven Cohen, who used to run Columbia University's Earth Institute, is skeptical that the program will ever achieve 100 percent compliance. He believes composting is a worthwhile endeavor, but as he told Reason, "It takes a lot to change people's habits." That's why he has proposed an alternative to relying on individuals to sort their trash: AI.

Ideally, he says, a mixed stream of garbage could go to "essentially a waste mining facility where artificial intelligence and robotics will do the separation for us and try to extract the value out of the waste stream." Instead of paying to send garbage to landfills, he says, we could extract, process, and sell the valuable mineral resources in the waste stream. Some places, such as Portsmouth, Virginia, have begun experimenting with AI trash sorting, but the technology is still in its early stages.

And for now, New York City seems determined to keep its mandatory composting program going with fines and confusing reminders from Scrappy.

 

Photo Credits: MEGA / Dennis Rees / MEGA / Newscom/DRSTA/Newscom; John Marshall Mantel/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; RICHARD B. LEVINE/Newscom: Rafael Ben-Ari/Chameleons Eye/Newscom

Music Credits: "Sneaky Tactics" by Ilona Harpaz via Artlist; "Gentle Persuasion" by Matt Evans via Artlist; "Second Smile" by LMOP via Artlist; "Catch Me" by Ty Simon via Artlist; "The Microwave Dance" by Semo via Artlist

The post New Yorkers Don't Compost. Will They Be Fined Into Compliance? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates running for the House of Representatives and endorsed by NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani are all but guaranteed to win their general elections this November, but that does not mean the midterm drama is over in New York. In the state's 17th congressional district, which includes the lower Hudson Valley, Democratic challenger Cait Conley, a combat veteran who served on the Biden administration's National Security Council, could unseat incumbent Republican congressman Mike Lawler in one of the most consequential races of the midterms. 

The highly contested purple district voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election while reelecting Lawler for his second term. Now, Lawler is attempting to win a third term as support for President Donald Trump wanes ahead of the midterms. As of Friday, The Cook Political Report lists the race, which could determine control of the House, as a toss-up. 

If elected, Conley would have far more in common with the "Badass Women" coalition of security state and military veterans than with DSA types (think more Sen. Elissa Slotkin from Michigan than Darializa Avila Chevalier). As Judge Street Journal's Timmy Facciola notes, "Conley's candidacy is testing the viability of a tactful centrism that rebukes left-wing positions like abolishing ICE or restricting weapon shipments to Israel." Lawler is also vying for moderates, pitching himself as "one of the most bipartisan members of Congress" and emphasizing his willingness to break with Trump occasionally while still welcoming Trump's support. 

While Lawler and Conley certainly are not pure MAGA acolytes or DSA members, both have leaned into a tech-critical position, much like that of more radical populists like Lina Khan or Steve Bannon, revealing how pervasive anti-tech sentiment has become in mainstream politics. 

This tech skepticism was on full display during an October 14 debate, when each candidate made the case for why they were the most equipped to regulate AI, insisting that the industry needs guardrails. 

Conley said members of Congress do not want to regulate AI because "they want to look out for their billionaire and trillionaire backers like Elon Musk, who is pouring over $260 million into this midterm election." She then added that Musk backed Lawler in his 2024 race. 

Lawler then accused Conley, who previously consulted for Primer AI, of being "the AI candidate for the AI industry."

While Lawler and Conley disagree on specific data center regulations (Conley supports Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's data center moratorium while Lawler supports local zoning control over data centers), neither wants to pitch themselves as an explicitly pro-data center candidate. During the debate, Conley claimed that, "On Mike Lawler's watch there have been five data centers built in Rockland County." Lawler has said that he had no say in the decision to build the data centers, and during the debate, he pointed out that the facilities were built for financial services. Lawler also attempted to attack Conley over data centers, slamming her in an ad for saying "we need data centers." Regardless of the candidates' specific policies on data centers, their attacks on one another demonstrate that cheerleading hyperscale data center development is a political liability. In their district, data center has presumably become a dirty term. 

The candidates' tech-skeptical rhetoric did not end with unchecked data center development. After the debate, Reason asked both candidates about their positions on age-verification laws for social media and AI, since such regulations raise significant privacy and censorship concerns by age-gating the internet. Unsurprisingly, both Lawler, who voted for the controversial KIDS Act, and Conley, who has proposed stricter age verification for AI tools, parroted platitudes about why such online safety regulations are necessary to protect children. 

"We have watched how social media is literally hurting the mental health of children," Conley told Reason. "And when you talk about the power of AI and what that power could do, we have to regulate this." 

Lawler gave a similar response, telling Reason that he respects free speech but that protecting children "is paramount." 

This bipartisan consensus over social media regulation has long been brewing in Congress. The mainstream political conversations about AI and data centers, however, are relatively new this midterm election cycle. And it appears both Lawler and Conley have figured out which way Americans' sentiment toward AI is leaning, and they have waged their campaigns accordingly. 

The post Nobody Wants To Be the Pro-Tech Candidate in This New York Race That Could Flip the House appeared first on Reason Magazine.