Verizon has confirmed to customers in stores and online that its network is having an issue on Saturday. Many people have been unable to connect and make or receive calls for hours, while DownDetector’s tracker peaked in the afternoon at around 3:30PM ET with more than 20,000 reports. Some customers report their service has continued to function throughout the day, so it’s unclear what the cause is exactly.
Downdetector’s outage map showed hotspots in many cities, and Verizon didn’t specifically list affected areas. On X, the @VerizonSupport account confirmed the issue in response to customers’ questions, but didn’t have additional details on restoration or how widespread it is.
Verizon’s Karen Schulz responded to our inquiry about the issue and confirmed the outage via email, saying,
We are aware of a software issue impacting wireless service for some customers. Our engineers are engaged and we are working quickly to identify and solve the issue. Please visit our Check Network Status page for updates on service in your area. We know how much people rely on Verizon and apologize for any inconvenience. We appreciate your patience.
If there’s any additional information or the situation changes, we will update this post.
When people use the term “Orwellian,” it’s not a good sign.
It usually characterizes an action, an individual or a society that is suppressing freedom, particularly the freedom of expression. It can also describe something perverted by tyrannical power.
It’s a term used primarily to describe the present, but whose implications inevitably connect to both the future and the past.
This ambition was manifested in efforts by the Department of Education to eradicate a “DEI agenda” from school curricula. It also included a high-profile assault on what detractors saw as “woke” universities, which culminated in Columbia University’s agreement to submit to a review of the faculty and curriculum of its Middle Eastern Studies department, with the aim of eradicating alleged pro-Palestinian bias.
On Aug. 12, 2025, the Smithsonian’s director, Lonnie Bunch III, received a letter from the White House announcing its intent to carry out a systematic review of the institution’s holdings and exhibitions in the advance of the nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026.
On Aug. 19, 2025, Trump escalated his attack on the Smithsonian. “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was…” he wrote in a Truth Social post. “Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. We are not going to allow this to happen.”
Such ambitions may sound benign, but they are deeply Orwellian. Here’s how.
But while Orwell believed in the existence of an objective truth about history, he did not necessarily believe that truth would prevail.
Truth, Orwell recognized, was best served by free speech and dialogue. Yet absolute power, Orwell appreciated, allowed those who possessed it to silence or censor opposing narratives, quashing the possibility of productive dialogue about history that could ultimately allow truth to come out.
As Orwell wrote in “1984,” his final, dystopian novel, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
Historian Malgorzata Rymsza-Pawlowska has written about America’s bicentennial celebrations that took place in 1976. Then, she says, “Americans across the nation helped contribute to a pluralistic and inclusive commemoration … using it as a moment to question who had been left out of the legacies of the American Revolution, to tell more inclusive stories about the history of the United States.”
This was an example of the kind of productive dialogue encouraged in a free society. “By contrast,” writes Rymsza-Pawlowska, “the 250th is shaping up to be a top-down affair that advances a relatively narrow and celebratory idea of Americanism.” The newly announced Smithsonian review aims to purge counternarratives that challenge that celebratory idea.
The Ministry of Truth
The desire to eradicate counternarratives drives Winston Smith’s job at the ironically named Ministry of Truth in “1984.”
The novel is set in Oceania, a geographical entity covering North America and the British Isles and which governs much of the Global South.
Oceania is an absolute tyranny governed by Big Brother, the leader of a political party whose only goal is the perpetuation of its own power. In this society, truth is what Big Brother and the party say it is.
The regime imposes near total censorship so that not only dissident speech but subversive private reflection, or “thought crime,” is viciously prosecuted. In this way, it controls the present.
But it also controls the past. As the party’s protean policy evolves, Smith and his colleagues are tasked with systematically destroying any historical records that conflict with the current version of history. Smith literally disposes of artifacts of inexpedient history by throwing them down “memory holes,” where they are “wiped … out of existence and out of memory.”
At a key point in the novel, Smith recalls briefly holding on to a newspaper clipping that proved that an enemy of the regime had not actually committed the crime he had been accused of. Smith recognizes the power over the regime that this clipping gives him, but he simultaneously fears that power will make him a target. In the end, fear of retaliation leads him to drop the slip of newsprint down a memory hole.
The contemporary U.S. is a far cry from Orwell’s Oceania. Yet the Trump administration is doing its best to exert control over the present and the past.
As part of efforts to purge references to gay people, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the removal of gay rights advocate Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship. Screenshot, Military.com
Other erasures have included the deletion of content on government sites related to the life ofHarriet Tubman, the Maryland woman who escaped slavery and then played a pioneering role as a conductor of the Underground Railroad, helping enslaved people escape to freedom.
Responding to questions, the Smithsonian stated that the placard’s removal was not in response to political pressure: “The placard, which was meant to be a temporary addition to a 25-year-old exhibition, did not meet the museum’s standards in appearance, location, timeline, and overall presentation.”
Repressing thought
Orwell’s “1984” ends with an appendix on the history of “Newspeak,” Oceania’s official language, which, while it had not yet superseded “Oldspeak” or standard English, was rapidly gaining ground as both a written and spoken dialect.
According to the appendix, “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees of [the Party], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”
Orwell, as so often in his writing, makes the abstract theory concrete: “The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds.’ … political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts.”
The goal of this language streamlining was total control over past, present and future.
If it is illegal to even speak of systemic racism, for example, let alone discuss its causes and possible remedies, it constrains the potential for, even prohibits, social change.
It has become a cliché that those who do not understand history are bound to repeat it.
As George Orwell appreciated, the correlate is that social and historical progress require an awareness of, and receptivity to, both historical fact and competing historical narratives.
State legislation that would have required investor-owned utilities including Southern California Edison to take steps to avoid causing wildfires died Friday in Sacramento.
The government of California seems to be completely captured by the utilities. We have the most expensive electricity in the country outside Hawaii (for now...rates and fixed fees keep going up) and yet we can't get decent infrastructure.
Last week, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia sought to indict Sydney Reid on felony charges of assaulting an FBI agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111.
Here are some of the allegations in the criminal complaint:
4.ERO Officer Vincent Liang gave instructions to REID to step back and allow them to complete the transfer of the two suspects. REID continued to move closer to the officers and continued to record the arrest. Officer Laing reiterated to REID that she could not get any closer. REID got in Officer Laing's face, and he could smell alcohol coming off REID's breath. After multiple commands to step back, REID tried to go around Officer Laing by going up the side steps and attempted to get in between the FBI Agents and the second suspect being transferred into their custody.
5.As REID was trying to get behind Officer Lang and impede the transfer of the second suspect by inserting herself between the second suspect and the agents, Officer Lang pushed REID against the wall and told her to stop. REID continued to struggle and fight with Officer Lang. Agent Bates came to Office Lang's assistance in trying to control REID. REID was flailing her arms and kicking and had to be pinned against a cement wall.
6.During the struggle, REID forcefully pushed Agent Bates's hand against the cement wall. This caused lacerations on the back side of Agent Bates's left hand as depicted below.
A federal magistrate found that there was probable cause to support the charge. Yet, on three occasions, a grand jury in the District of Columbia declined to indict. Instead, the U.S. Attorney filed an information for a misdemeanor violation of Section 111. A writer at MSNBC suggests that the grand jury's refusal to indict may be due to a weak cases being brought by the U.S. Attorney.
Since the failed indictment for Reid, there have been two more grand juries that failed to return a true bill.
It is possible that these juries are carefully attuned to the gradation between felonies and misdemeanors. May I suggest another possibility? Federal grand juries in the District of Columbia, made up (almost) entirely of critics of President Trump, are engaging in nullification of the Trump Administration's law federal enforcement efforts. I imagine this sort of active resistance will increase as more federal officers are fanned throughout the District of Columbia. The Capital likely seems something like this to D.C. residents:
Historically, at least, the concept of jury nullification was viewed as a popular check against tyrannical governments. I imagine an average D.C. resident who can take time off from work to serve extended periods of federal grand jury duty may see himself in that fashion.
During the Jack Smith saga, Trump argued that he could not possibly get a fair jury pool in the District of Columbia. I wonder if the same is true for cases brought by the Trump Administration?
Words have meaning. Proper word selection is integral to strong communication, whether it's about relaying one’s feelings to another or explaining the terms of a deal, agreement, or transaction.
Language can be confusing, but typically when something is available to "buy," ownership of that good or access to that service is offered in exchange for money. That’s not really the case, though, when it comes to digital content.
Often, streaming services like Amazon Prime Video offer customers the options to “rent” digital content for a few days or to “buy” it. Some might think that picking "buy" means that they can view the content indefinitely. But these purchases are really just long-term licenses to watch the content for as long as the streaming service has the right to distribute it—which could be for years, months, or days after the transaction.
A lawsuit [PDF] recently filed against Prime Video challenges this practice and accuses the streaming service of misleading customers by labeling long-term rentals as purchases. The conclusion of the case could have implications for how streaming services frame digital content.
New lawsuit against Prime Video
On August 21, Lisa Reingold filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California against Amazon, alleging "false and misleading advertising." The complaint, citing Prime Video’s terms of use, reads:
On its website, Defendant tells consumers the option to 'buy' or 'purchase' digital copies of these audiovisual works. But when consumers 'buy' digital versions of audiovisual works through Amazon’s website, they do not obtain the full bundle of sticks of rights we traditionally think of as owning property. Instead, they receive 'non-exclusive, nontransferable, non-sublicensable, limited license' to access the digital audiovisual work, which is maintained at Defendant’s sole discretion.
The complaint compares buying a movie from Prime Video to buying one from a physical store. It notes that someone who buys a DVD can view the movie a decade later, but “the same cannot be said," necessarily, if they purchased the film on Prime Video. Prime Video may remove the content or replace it with a different version, such as a shorter theatrical cut.
Amazon has fought this fight before
In 2020, Amanda Caudel filed a similar complaint [PDF] in the same court as Reingold. Caudel's complaint argued that Amazon “secretly reserves the right to terminate the consumers’ access and use of the Video Content at any time, and has done so on numerous occasions, leaving the consumer without the ability to enjoy their already-bought Video Content.”
Caudel's case was dismissed [PDF] in October 2021 with the judge ruling that the plaintiff lacked “standing.”
California law reignites debate
Despite the dismissal of similar litigation years ago, Reingold's complaint stands a better chance due to a California law that took effect in January banning the selling of a "digital good to a purchaser with the terms ‘buy,’ ‘purchase,' or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a time-limited rental.”
There are some instances where the law allows digital content providers to use words like "buy." One example is if, at the time of transaction, the seller receives acknowledgement from the customer that the customer is receiving a license to access the digital content; that they received a complete list of the license's conditions; and that they know that access to the digital content may be "unilaterally revoked."
A seller can also use words like "buy" if it provides to the customer ahead of the transaction a statement that "states in plain language that 'buying' or 'purchasing' the digital good is a license," as well as online access to terms and conditions, the law states.
The California legislation helps strengthen the lawsuit filed by Reingold, a California resident. The case is likely to hinge on whether or not fine print and lengthy terms of use are appropriate and sufficient communication.
Reingold's complaint acknowledges that Prime Video shows relevant fine print below its "buy" buttons but says that the notice is “far below the ‘buy movie’ button, buried at the very bottom” of the page and is not visible until “the very last stage of the transaction,” after a user has already clicked “buy.”
“This does not meet the standards set by the statute for a clear and conspicuous notice that the thing they are purchasing is a revocable license to access the digital good,” the complaint reads.
Speaking about the case with Ars Technica, Danny Karon, a consumer attorney who has taught class-action litigation at the University of Michigan Law School and Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, said:
… Amazon is sure to argue that, never mind its ‘buy’ or ‘purchase’ language, the rest of the story was described (or buried) in its terms and conditions. If plaintiff didn’t want to read her contract, including the small print, that’s on her.
The plaintiffs will be challenged to prove that Amazon's communication was ineffective and inaccurate.
"One has to prove that when they bought the movie, they were given indication that they 'owned it' in perpetuity and that they were harmed when the movie was taken away," Rahul Telang, a professor of information systems at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College who has researched the digitization of copyrighted industries, told Ars.
"I think it is well established that digital products are licensed and they cannot be used as physical products. One has to prove that Amazon provided false information that they were buying a product ..."
Karon, pointing to Amazon’s choice of words, told Ars: “I like plaintiff’s chances.” He explained:
A normal consumer, after whom the California statute at issue is fashioned, would consider ‘buy’ or ‘purchase’ to involve a permanent transaction, not a mere rental, as is occurring here. If the facts are as plaintiff alleges, Amazon’s behavior would likely constitute a breach of contract or statutory fraud.
The attorney added that such complaints could be more viable if the content purchased from the plaintiffs was removed from the service.
The complaint requests a jury trial and is seeking unspecified damages, including the disgorgement of relevant profits.
A break in communication
The two lawsuits against Prime Video highlight consequential gaps in understanding among people who spend money on digital content. Both cases could contribute to potential changes in how the streaming industry describes digital content transcations moving forward. Prime Video is the target of both suits discussed, but other streaming companies, such as YouTube, also use the word “buy” when selling long-term licenses for digital content.
Streaming is now the most popular way to watch TV, yet many are unaware of what they’re buying. As Reingold's lawsuit points out, paying for content in the streaming era is different from buying media from physical stores. Physical media nets control over your ability to watch stuff for years. But you also had to have retrieved the media from a store (or website) and to have maintained that physical copy, as well the necessary hardware and/or software for playing it. Streaming services can rip purchased content from customers in bulk, but they also offer access to a much broader library that's instantly watchable with technology that most already have (like a TV and Internet).
We can debate the best approach to distributing media. What's clearer is the failure of digital content providers to ensure that customers fully understand they’re paying for access to content, and that this access could be revoked at any time.
There’s an argument to be made for thoughtful word choices that communicate clearly to customers. Ars asked Amazon if it might change its word choices on Prime Video to avoid the potential confusion embodied by the aforementioned lawsuits. We didn’t receive a response.
I hope the argument that they redefined the word "buy" in their multi-page, impenetrable terms & conditions documents, and therefore consumers should know better than to think that "buy" means buy, fails.
If the rights holders can redefine the word 'buy' to mean that the customer doesn't own anything, then the public can decide that getting the digital content without paying is not 'stealing'.
Log in
