Despite a federal judge blocking the Trump administration's attempt to cut funding for five NIH grants researching HIV prevention among transgender people, the NIH proceeded to terminate four of the grants anyway. The agency claimed the research had "serious weaknesses" and was unlikely to produce meaningful results, a justification the judge had previously rejected. This action effectively ended the studies prematurely, halting data collection and leaving researchers scrambling to find alternative funding. The NIH's move raises concerns about political interference in scientific research, particularly regarding marginalized communities.
A federal judge ruled that Google holds a monopoly in the online advertising technology market, echoing the Justice Department's claims in its antitrust lawsuit. The judge found Google's dominance in various aspects of the ad tech ecosystem, including ad buying tools for publishers and advertisers, as well as the ad exchange that connects them, gives the company an unfair advantage and harms competition. This ruling is a significant victory for the government in its effort to rein in Google's power and could potentially lead to structural changes in the company's ad tech business.
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the judge's ruling that Google holds a monopoly in online ad tech. Several highlight the conflict of interest inherent in Google simultaneously owning the dominant ad exchange and representing both buyers and sellers. Some express skepticism that structural separation, as suggested by the Department of Justice, is the right solution, arguing it could stifle innovation and benefit competitors more than consumers. A few point out the irony of the government using antitrust laws to regulate a company built on "free" products, questioning if Google's dominance truly harms consumers. Others discuss the potential impact on ad revenue for publishers and the broader implications for the digital advertising landscape. Several commenters express cynicism about the effectiveness of antitrust actions in the long run, expecting Google to adapt and maintain its substantial market power. A recurring theme is the complexity of the ad tech ecosystem, making it difficult to predict the actual consequences of any intervention.
A federal court ruled the NSA's warrantless searches of Americans' data under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unconstitutional. The court found that the "backdoor searches," querying a database of collected communications for information about Americans, violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. This landmark decision significantly limits the government's ability to search this data without a warrant, marking a major victory for digital privacy. The ruling specifically focuses on querying data already collected, not the collection itself, and the government may appeal.
HN commenters largely celebrate the ruling against warrantless searches of 702 data, viewing it as a significant victory for privacy. Several highlight the problematic nature of the "backdoor search" loophole and its potential for abuse. Some express skepticism about the government's likely appeals and the long road ahead to truly protect privacy. A few discuss the technical aspects of 702 collection and the challenges in balancing national security with individual rights. One commenter points out the irony of the US government criticizing other countries' surveillance practices while engaging in similar activities domestically. Others offer cautious optimism, hoping this ruling sets a precedent for future privacy protections.
The Nevada Supreme Court closed a loophole that allowed police to circumvent state law protections against civil asset forfeiture. Previously, law enforcement would seize property under federal law, even for violations of state law, bypassing Nevada's stricter requirements for forfeiture. The court ruled this practice unconstitutional, reaffirming that state law governs forfeitures based on state law violations, even when federal agencies are involved. This decision strengthens protections for property owners in Nevada and makes it harder for law enforcement to seize assets without proper due process under state law.
HN commenters largely applaud the Nevada Supreme Court decision limiting "equitable sharing," viewing it as a positive step against abusive civil forfeiture practices. Several highlight the perverse incentives created by allowing law enforcement to bypass state restrictions by collaborating with federal agencies. Some express concern that federal agencies might simply choose not to pursue cases in states with stronger protections, thus hindering the prosecution of actual criminals. One commenter offers personal experience of successfully challenging a similar seizure, emphasizing the difficulty and expense involved even when ultimately victorious. Others call for further reforms to civil forfeiture laws at the federal level.
Summary of Comments ( 26 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43926149
HN commenters discuss the legality and ethics of the NIH's actions, questioning whether the grants were truly axed due to scientific merit or political motivations. Some highlight the judge's ruling as evidence of potential wrongdoing, while others express concern over the chilling effect such actions may have on future research, particularly on marginalized communities. Several commenters debate the role of politics in scientific funding decisions, with some arguing that such interference undermines the integrity of research. A few also point out the potential long-term health implications of halting this research. There's also discussion about the procedural aspects of grant termination and whether proper protocols were followed.
The Hacker News post titled "Trump's NIH Axed Research Grants Even After a Judge Blocked the Cuts" generated a moderate discussion with varying viewpoints. Several commenters focused on the legal aspects of the situation, questioning the NIH's justification for canceling the grants despite a court injunction. Some suggested the NIH may have interpreted the injunction narrowly, allowing them to technically comply while still achieving the desired outcome of halting the research. The idea of bureaucratic maneuvering and exploiting loopholes to circumvent the judge's intent was a recurring theme.
Some commenters expressed skepticism about ProPublica's reporting, questioning their objectivity and suggesting a potential bias against the Trump administration. These commenters called for more evidence and a deeper investigation into the specific reasons behind the grant cancellations. They also debated the relevance of the research topic (transgender health) to the decision, with some suggesting the cuts were part of a broader agenda, while others argued it was simply a budgetary matter.
A few commenters delved into the potential impact of the grant cancellations, expressing concern about the chilling effect on future research, particularly on marginalized communities. They highlighted the importance of funding such studies to address health disparities and improve understanding of transgender health issues.
The discussion also touched upon the political context surrounding the decision, with some commenters framing it within the larger narrative of the Trump administration's policies on transgender issues. Others tried to steer the conversation away from politics, focusing instead on the legal and procedural aspects of the case.
Overall, the comments reflect a range of opinions and perspectives on the NIH's decision, with some expressing outrage and concern, while others maintained a more cautious or skeptical stance. The discussion highlights the complexities of navigating legal and political processes, and the potential consequences of such decisions on scientific research and public health. It also showcases the role of investigative journalism in bringing such issues to light and fostering public debate.