BConnecticut's attorney general says the next targets are Roblox, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube.
BThat's a big swing. What's the theory?
BWilliam Tong told Politico that after the Meta settlement, those four are next. He's been one of the loudest state AGs on kids and screens.
BI get the instinct. But Roblox is a game platform, not a social feed. YouTube is where schools post lessons.
BThat's exactly the fight. Tong's argument is that the design keeps kids hooked, and the companies know it.
BBut where does that stop? Every app wants engagement. Are we going to sue Duolingo next?
BNo, because Duolingo isn't serving algorithmically amplified content to eight-year-olds at two in the morning.
BFair. But the Meta case was about specific harms. If you stretch that to every platform, you're basically regulating the whole internet through lawsuits.
BMaybe that's the point. Congress won't pass a privacy bill, so the AGs are doing it state by state.
BAnd that's the problem. You get fifty different rules. A developer in Ohio has to comply with California's law and Connecticut's lawsuit.
BBut the alternative is nothing. And parents are furious. You can't just say 'wait for Congress' forever.
BI'll give you this: Tong is smart to name names. It puts pressure on the companies before any bill passes.
BAnd it tells parents he's on their side. That's not nothing in a state like Connecticut.
BDifferent world entirely: there's a post going around about a Trump-Xi-Putin meeting at APEC.
BAl Jazeera's Telegram channel says a nuclear treaty and the Iran war are on the agenda. But we couldn't confirm the meeting itself.
BRight. So treat it as a rumor. But the idea is interesting: three leaders who don't trust each other, sitting down because they have to.
BThe deeper piece here is the nuclear treaty. The last real arms control framework between the US and Russia is basically on life support.
BAnd China has never been in a trilateral nuclear deal. If that's actually on the table, it's a big deal.
BBut here's my skepticism: Putin wants the meeting because it makes him look like an equal. Xi wants it because it shows China is the indispensable power.
BAnd Trump wants it because he loves the photo. But the substance? Iran is the wildcard. China and Russia both have reasons to keep Iran from collapsing.
BThat's the real argument. If the US is bombing Iran, and China and Russia are sitting there, do they actually try to stop it, or just manage the fallout?
BI think they manage the fallout. Neither wants a direct fight with the US. But they also don't want to look weak to Tehran.
BSo the meeting is theater, but the theater matters. It tells the world the big three are still talking even while missiles fly.
BAnd that's the uncomfortable truth: diplomacy and war are happening at the same time, in the same room, sometimes with the same people.
BOne more from the region: a post claims Russia and Ukraine opened three-way talks in Abu Dhabi, with the US, but no ceasefire.
BWe couldn't confirm that either. But the pattern is real: talks in one city, drones in another.
BThe history here is that every round of talks since February has produced a prisoner exchange or a grain deal, but never a pause in the fighting.
BAnd that's the cynical read: both sides use talks to show they're reasonable, then go back to the front line.
BBut the prisoner exchanges are real. Families get their sons back. That's not nothing.
BIt's not nothing, but it's also not peace. And until one side is exhausted or the US changes its posture, the talks are just a pressure valve.
BSo the question for the next few months: does the APEC meeting, if it happens, change the calculus, or is it just another photo op?
BMy bet is photo op. But I've been wrong before. The one thing that would change my mind is a real nuclear framework with China in it.
BAnd that's the story to watch. Not the handshake, but whether anyone leaves with a piece of paper that actually binds.