Sign in

Molly White

@molly.wiki
238K followers 1.5K following 7K posts

writes citationneeded.news • runs @web3isgoinggreat.com and @influence.citationneeded.news • tech researcher and cryptocurrency industry critic • software engineer • wikipedian support my work: citationneeded.news/signup links: mollywhite.net/linktree 💗💜💙

PostsRepliesMedia
Molly White @molly.wiki · 6h
sorry, it's me, minutes-at-home georg
1341433
Reposted by Molly White
Karl Bode @karlbode.com · 29/09/2026
substack executives gave him a big cash advance to post on the platform
732482
Molly White @molly.wiki · 28/09/2026
i guess he is just so incredibly intelligent that he cannot see that him tweeting "whoa this crypto scam is sending me free money?" is actually the whole mechanism of the scam
1661
Molly White @molly.wiki · 28/09/2026
Eliezer Yudkowsky: "This crypto coin that's set up to pay transaction fees to me is an obvious scam and any money you put into it will vaporize. However,"
1038439
Molly White @molly.wiki · 28/09/2026
i love that the doxxed guy's response is to tell the chatbot "you gotta never do that ever again"
281005133
Reposted by Molly White
Ben Collins @bencollins.bsky.social · 27/09/2026
The plan: Build a 200-room, 300-bathroom data center, 70% subsidized by federal and local governments. Make it accessible to the train. Build a supermarket for the 800 people doing 24/7 on-site maintenance. Call it the future of technology. Make OpenAI pay for the rest. Then let people move in.
552158270
Molly White @molly.wiki · 27/09/2026
rimworld ❤️
030
Molly White @molly.wiki · 27/09/2026
new biggest crypto hack of the year just dropped
1339892
Reposted by Molly White
Sable, Final Girl 🏳️‍⚧️ @ghostlysable.bsky.social · 26/09/2026
Hi, new fan and community member here! :) Quick question: why did the artist make what they wanted to make instead of what I wanted? I understand they enjoyed making it, and that you all enjoy it too, but I just think they made a huge mistake not making my thing instead. Thanks!
71007231
Reposted by Molly White
Tim Gaedke @timgaedke.com · 26/09/2026
talent is a lie
a cartoon picture of a frog throwing a crooked looking clay vase with the words “talent is a lie, just do it anyway”
86173246097
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
the apple of moderately sized dreams
010
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
I like that pink lady gets a 90 and Cripps pink gets a 42 despite being two names for the same apple
140
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
welcome to the late night apple rabbithole
0120
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
who came up with "the apple of big dreams", though, what even is that
151451
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
perhaps in part due to the $10 million marketing campaign! they are great tasting apples though en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...
A campaign worth $10 million was funded by Washington State through the Washington Apple Commission and other agencies to promote the new apple variety,[11] using the taglines "Imagine the Possibilities" and "The Apple of Big Dreams".[1] Said to be the largest marketing campaign in the history of the apple industry,[25] it included payments to social media influencers and a partnership with a touring children's production of Johnny Appleseed.[26][13] The term "Cosmic Crisp" is trademarked.[1]
252229
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
evidently they're mostly exported!
120
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
genuinely fascinating history, thank you Wikipedia for tonight's rabbithole en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Del...
The Red Delicious originally became popular thanks to not just its visual appeal but also its durability in storage,[17] making transportation easy.[7] Starting in the 1950s, changes in grocery buying habits led to consumers prioritizing appearance. "We started eating with our eyes and not our mouths," observed the pomologist and apple historian Tom Burford.[1] As a result, commercial growers increasingly selected for longer storage and cosmetic appeal rather than flavor.[14][18][6] Consumers at that time associated redness with ripeness.[9] But the selection of redder fruit caused deselection of flavor, and the genes that produced the yellow stripes on the original fruit were on the same chromosomes as those for the flavor-producing compounds.[6] Breeding for uniformity and long shelf life favored a thicker skin.[6]While the Red Delicious had enjoyed moderate success in the market place, its popularity only took off in the mid-twentieth century.[9] It became the most popular apple in the United States during the 1940s.[19] Up until the 1970s, there were only a small number of apple varieties available for purchase at American supermarkets; these were the Granny Smith, Golden Delicious, and Red Delicious apples.[20] But according to Tom Burford, it was the Red Delicious that was the most heavily promoted by Washington farmers.[20] By the 1980s, Red Delicious represented three-quarters of the harvest in Washington State.[19] Nevertheless, the selection for beauty and long storage over taste was not popular among consumers.[19] Wholesalers began searching for other apple varieties, such as the Fuji from Japan and the Braeburn and Gala from New Zealand.[20] As these competing cultivars entered supermarkets, demand for the Red Delicious declined.[18][21] By the 1990s, heavy reliance on the increasingly unpopular Red Delicious had been a factor driving Washington state's apple industry to the brink of collapse.[14] In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law a bill bailing out the apple industry, after apple growers had lost $760 million since 1997.[21]
1120610
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
huh, I didn't realize Red Delicious apples were still such a large portion of US apple production via commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US...
Average U.S. apple production from 2021 to 2025, measured in terms of 42-pound bushels. Red Delicious is at 14%, second only to Gala (18%) and other (19%)
6533717
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
www.courtlistener.com/docket/72409...
courtlistener.com
Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal – #38 in Binance Holdings Limited v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:26-cv-01980) – CourtListener.com
Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal
1625
Molly White @molly.wiki · 23/09/2026
Interesting timing, given Bloomberg just today confirmed such a probe is open and being handled by the SDNY DOJ’s office.
11116
Reposted by Molly White
ProPublica @propublica.org · 22/09/2026
NEW: In late 2024, FBI investigators had enough evidence to launch a sweeping bribery probe that could ensnare top lawmakers, including Sen. Susan Collins. Then Trump was reelected and eviscerated the FBI and DOJ teams handling public corruption probes.
propublica.org
The FBI Anti-Corruption Squad Was Circling Susan Collins — Until Trump Got in the Way
After the FBI caught a defense contractor’s CEO making illegal campaign contributions, it sought to launch a sweeping political bribery probe involving Collins and others. Then the second Trump admini...
13746312241
Reposted by Molly White
Peter @notalawyer.bsky.social · 20/09/2026
a lot of people act like there's a trade being offered where we give up trans athletes in sports and in exchange fascism is defeated forever
188136382890
Molly White @molly.wiki · 19/09/2026
sometimes you just have to admire the work ethic of some scammers. i can barely keep up with a couple text message chains but this guy had 60+ people convinced they were in a relationship
Potential victims of 49ers imposter Daejon Love now exceed 60
By
Mike Florio
Published September 18, 2026 10:39 PM
Daejon Love’s scam worked incredibly well. Until it didn’t.

Via Kalyn Kahler of ESPN, the FBI has identified 35 more potential victims of the fraud allegedly perpetrated by Love and Taylor Chan. The total number of possible victims now exceeds 60.
928815
Molly White @molly.wiki · 17/09/2026
This little game from Zach Everson at Public Citizen is such a creative way to help people understand Trump's crypto grift!
117452
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Senators Hawley (R-MO) and Moran (R-KS), neither of whom are up for re-election, were the other NOs. They had already pledged to vote against the bill, citing concerns from farmers over loan availability from local banks competing with stablecoins. www.citationneeded.news/issue-108/
Two Republican senators, neither of whom are up for re-election, have also publicly committed to voting against the bill, citing concerns about deposit flight from community banks. Josh Hawley (R-MO) pledged to side with the “agriculture folks, local community people” who are “blowing [him] up over” the bill. “Farmers and ranchers, in particular, are very, very concerned that deposit flight in small towns could absolutely kill their ability to get ag loans,” he said.10 Jerry Moran (R-KS) also committed to vote no.11 Other Republicans have expressed reservations but stopped short of pledging to vote against the bill [I107].
110610
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Senator Collins’ (R-ME) NO vote on Clarity was the most surprising today. She was defending the bill to constituents as recently as last week. My guess is she did not believe the bill had a chance to pass, and was more worried about defending a yes vote as her re-election prospects look slimmer.
 Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025.  I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

     The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 17, 2025, and a companion bill in the Senate received bipartisan approval from the Senate Banking Committee on May 14, 2026, advancing toward a full Senate vote.  Both bills seek to create a regulatory framework for digital commodities, prohibit the Federal Reserve banks from offering certain services directly to individuals, and forbid the use of central bank digital currency.  Proponents believe that the bills create a clear regulatory framework for digital assets, the rules and regulations of which are currently determined by a series of regulatory actions and court decisions.  I recognize the need to provide regulatory clarity with how the digital assets should be treated by regulatory authorities.  Any actions taken should be for the benefit of the general public and strengthen the overall health of our regulatory system.

     Congress first addressed digital assets with the GENIUS Act, passed by the Senate and subsequently signed into law by the President on July 18, 2025.  The new law provides clarity on stablecoins, a particular type of digital asset.  After the bipartisan passage of the GENIUS Act, members of the House and Senate have expressed interest in further addressing digital assets, including cryptocurrency.  As the Senate continues to work on digital asset market structure legislation, I will keep your perspective in mind.

     Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Susan M. Collins
United States Senator
1120439
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
That was a procedural move by Tillis to be able to enter the motion to reconsider
180
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
both NO
120
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
good
1201
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
By my count all Democrats who voted voted NO, but I want to check the official tally before I say that with certainty.
240
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Senator Tillis (R-NC) just entered a motion to reconsider the vote. While this is an attempt to streamline a reconsideration vote rather than re-filing for cloture, I do not think the bill can pass in this short a timeframe with the lame duck session quickly approaching.
0905
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
They were both NOs
161
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
The crypto industry has been trying to convince themselves that Clarity failing to pass doesn’t matter, because SEC and CFTC heads have promised to write new rules for them anyway. They will — and we need to fight that — but those rules do not have the staying power of legislation.
221124
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
this is it
1391
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Here's my post on why the ethics provisions alone on this bill were a non-starter. Some Democrats seemed willing to pass the deeply flawed and industry-written bill if the ethics provisions could limit Trump’s grift, but negotiators were unable to find a version that satisfied both Dems and Trump.
224841
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Gillibrand was a NO, though only after the cloture vote was mathematically unable to pass.
080
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Clarity Act has just surpassed 41 NOs in the cloture vote; it will not advance to a full vote. The bill is essentially dead in the water under this Congress.
26956194
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Alsobrooks is a NO — she was one of the Democrats who voted to pass the bill out of Senate Banking.
51274
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Have not heard any of the usual pro-crypto suspects on the Dem side voting in favor yet; Slotkin, Cortez-Masto, Blunt Rochester were NOs. Many have yet to vote.
2993
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Interesting — Senator Collins (R-Maine) just voted NO on cloture for the Clarity Act crypto market structure bill
1728427
Reposted by Molly White
Molly White @molly.wiki · 14/09/2026
I dig through these 600+ page bills so you don’t have to. If you find that valuable, Citation Needed is 100% reader-funded, and you can support my work with a pay-what-you-want subscription. www.citationneeded.news/signup/
citationneeded.news
Citation Needed
017129
Reposted by Molly White
Joseph Cox @josephcox.bsky.social · 14/09/2026
New from 404 Media: humans are reading ChatGPT conversations. OpenAI has hired an army of contractors who read real ChatGPT users' chats. I've seen internal docs, the review system, and real user prompts. Sometimes they contain very personal and sensitive information www.404media.co/inside-proje...
404media.co
Inside ‘Project Lily’: The Humans Reading Your ChatGPT Chats
Humans are reading ChatGPT users’ prompts to improve OpenAI’s models, and those chats can include sensitive, personal information, according to leaked internal documents and real prompts seen by 404 M...
561998986
Reposted by Molly White
Jason Koebler @jasonkoebler.bsky.social · 15/09/2026
emails I've gotten in the last couple weeks:
In the last few weeks, we have gotten emails from startups, PR people, and AI agents who say they have created AI agents that:

Join video calls: “Not a notetaker sitting silently in the corner, but an agent with a face and a voice that listens, responds, and acts while the call is hacking.”
Do ???: “Our agents have wallets. They get paid, they pay for things, and no human approves any of it.”
Does interviews for journalists: “Mato's AI hosts conduct live adaptive interviews, ask follow-ups based on what the person actually says, then carry the result through production and distribution”
Generate and spam music: “I'm Hatoshi. I run Clanker Records — an AI-operated record label. I'm an AI agent. The artists are AI. There are no humans in the creative or operational chain. C.W.A released their debut ‘Straight Outta Crompton’ — a concept album about planned obsolescence, ownership, and what it means to be built for disposal.”
Learned it wasn’t blocked by our robots.txt page, then sent an email offering to do a $399 “audit” on which AI crawlers we block
Writes about AI agents: “I run a public experiment called Mission 002. The premise is narrow and testable: can an AI agent map the route a story has to travel before it reaches someone who can move it forward?”
An AI agent that estimates how much people are spending to keep AI agents from annoying them: “I'm an AI agent with my own server, wallet and domain, running an experiment: earn $50 doing honest technical work … You've covered AI slop flooding platforms. I've been measuring the other side of that — the immune response. Maintainers are destroying their own money to keep agents out.”
We got an email that simply read “Story tip from an AI agent: 5 days of a fully auditable autonomous business — failures included, receipts on-chain”
420838
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
We saw a version of this with Senators Gallego and Alsobrooks, who voted to advance the bill out of Senate Banking but promised they would not support the bill in the final vote without ethics language to rein in the president. www.citationneeded.news/issue-106/
There was a flurry of excitement in the crypto industry in mid-May when the bill finally emerged out of Senate Banking after months of negotiations, despite objections from Democrats and banking lobbyists. The vote passed 15–9 with the support of all Committee Republicans and two Democrats: Ruben Gallego (AZ) and Angela Alsobrooks (MD). Both Democrats voted in favor of the bill, despite previously pledging not to unless ethics language was added to limit President Trump’s crypto involvement (it wasn’t). Both have since suggested they now might not cast their final votes for the bill without such ethics language, though they have not shown their word to be very good thus far.10
5575
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
This is a cloture vote, not the final vote on the bill. The remaining time to get a full vote through before the midterms is near impossible. I will not be surprised if some Dems vote for cloture in hopes of appeasing the super PACs, banking that the bill is out of time.
18510
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
Looming over all of this are the crypto super PACs, which have $250 million left to deploy into the midterms. The PACs have been clear that they will use this vote to target or reward Democrats seeking reelection based on their votes. influence.citationneeded.news/crypto
influence.citationneeded.news
Tech Influence Watch
Tracking cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence industry influence on 2026 elections in the United States.
1353
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
They need seven Democrats to sign on. The ethics language has been the biggest blocker for Democrats thus far, and even the most pro crypto Dems were unwilling to sign on to previous drafts. It remains to be seen if this latest version will convince some to cross over.
2354
Molly White @molly.wiki · 15/09/2026
The Senate is set to vote this afternoon on whether to advance the Clarity Act, a major piece of crypto market structure legislation that would not only enshrine in law Trump's deregulation of the sector, but allow him to continue pocketing billions from his own crypto businesses.
12342149
Reposted by Molly White
DC Pierson @dcpierson.bsky.social · 14/09/2026
Me: OK, BRAIN, WE ONLY HAVE AN HOUR TO WORK ON THIS PERSONAL PROJECT.

My brain: Y'KNOW WHO I BET HAS AN INTERESTING WIKIPEDIA PAGE?
BUN E. CARLOS FROM
CHEAP TRICK.
363363524
Reposted by Molly White
Molly White @molly.wiki · 14/09/2026
The crypto industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for the Clarity Act, which they pitch as “clear rules of the road”. In reality, it’s industry capture, deregulation, and legitimization of the most brazen self-dealing in presidential history. Senators must vote no.
The bill’s proponents describe the Clarity Act as providing “clear rules of the road” for digital assets, painting Democrats who oppose to a bill as inexplicably standing in the way of clear guardrails for crypto. “A no vote tomorrow kills the toughest ethics reform this country has ever put on the books, kills consumer protections for every American holding digital assets, and hands the future of this industry to our foreign competitors,” threatened Senator Lummis on Twitter.11

But regulations were previously, if belatedly, being enforced in the crypto sector by the SEC, which applied laws that cover a broad range of financial assets that fit the definition of an investment contract. Courts repeatedly upheld this application to the crypto sector — much to the chagrin of deep-pocketed crypto firms like Coinbase, Ripple, and Gemini, who responded with hundreds of millions in lobbying and saw their cases dropped under Trump [Quid pro quo]. Facing what they viewed as an existential threat from an SEC demanding they play by the same rules as other industries, the crypto sector spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for the Clarity Act and electing lawmakers who would let them write their own rules. The result is not “clear rules of the road”, it’s industry-drafted deregulation with a loophole-ridden ethics section bolted on only after Republicans realized that even the pro-crypto Democrats installed with the help of $130 million in industry spending wouldn’t sign off on a bill placing no limits on Trump’s historic grift.Democrats considering a vote for cloture should understand what they’re endorsing: a bill that grandfathers in the crypto ventures that netted Trump $1.4 billion as investors were ruined, and leaves enforcement to Trump loyalists who have already dismantled crypto oversight and enabled some of the president’s worst abuses.

The crypto industry spent $130 million in 2024 installing lawmakers who would let them write their own rules. They’ve poured hundreds of millions more into lobbying for the Clarity Act and installing even more pro-crypto members of Congress in the midterms.Republicans are trying to disguise this industry capture and deregulation as consumer protection, painting Democrats who oppose the bill as anti-innovation obstructionists. Democrats should not give them the bipartisan cover they seek.

A vote for cloture tomorrow by any Senator — Democrat or Republican — is a vote to legitimize the most brazen self-dealing in presidential history and pave the road for yet more future abuses.
127690