There is a current tendency to blame free markets and technology for dyspepsia with the economy, as if there is a nefarious group of people destroying your way of life.
People are literally trying to attack data centers.
As David Friedberg noted on the “<a href="https://x.com/theallinpod/status/2046280245758787914">All-In Podcast</a>”:
<blockquote>Most people in America are starting to really hate rich people. And there&#8217;s no physical space that better represents the wealth in America, the wealth creation that&#8217;s happened that a lot of people feel left behind from, than the data center. It is the temple of the wealthy. It is the way that the rich, elite, tech, kind of political, connected billionaires that we&#8217;re obviously all attached to are taking from the poor, getting themselves ahead, shooting themselves to space, leaving everyone else behind, and the data center, I think, is the representation of their progress. And it is a representation of the progress that others don&#8217;t feel.
For a consumer&#8217;s life to actually be altered in a meaningfully positive way, most people don&#8217;t feel that yet. The best thing they see is some medical advice they&#8217;re getting on ChatGPT or something, and that&#8217;s kind of the end of it for them. So I think there&#8217;s a lot of this populism that&#8217;s swollen and that&#8217;s taken over, not just the US, but probably a good chunk of the West. And the data center is the target.</blockquote>
David Friedberg&#8217;s explanation is exactly right. This is the way that economic populists have been pushing.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-ep-2410?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Let’s differentiate between moral and economic populism. Moral populism was exemplified by William F. Buckley back in the 1960s when he stated that he would trust the first 100 names in the Harvard phone book on matters of public policy more than he would trust 100 Harvard professors.
The idea was that the common man in the United States — shaped as he or she was by the institutions of church and family and community — had a better moral compass, on average, than the elites.
I totally agree with that, because elites very often believe that they have been freed from these systems of morality.
However, when it comes to the economy, economic populism is virtually the inverse. Economic populism assumes that there should be some sort of centralized control placed into the hands of that central power by “the people,” and centralized control should overwhelm the disseminated knowledge that is implicit in free markets and capital markets.
The basic principle of capitalism is that disparate views on things lead to better outcomes, that differential knowledge and the diffusion of knowledge are actually significantly more effective than one guy at the top with a stick beating people into submission.
But economic populism says that free markets are bad if the product of the free market is something I don&#8217;t like, therefore, we should take power away from the free market to destroy it.
Whenever there is economic unease, people tend to attack free market capitalism, or what they see as the symbols of free market capitalism, and they tend to blame people who are wealthy.
The great lie is that people in the United States are wealthy because they&#8217;re stealing from the poor. It is a full-scale lie. It is not true.
The only places in the world where people are rich because they steal from the poor are communist countries and other forms of tyranny. The reason people get rich in a free market economy is because they are providing products and services at a price people are willing to pay. People want that product or service.
But if you can somehow recast the economy of the United States as “rigged” on behalf of the wealthy and go after the means of production, you target data centers.
What you are going to end up doing, in this view, is overthrow the capitalist system.
The outcome of that will be quite dire.
There is a grievance-based, horseshoe-theory economic Right that is also wildly upset about artificial intelligence data centers because they&#8217;re big and ugly.
You know what else is big and ugly? Walmart — but it’s wonderful for the vast majority of consumers.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman&#8217;s home was allegedly targeted in the second attack in just two days; a shot was even fired. This is part and parcel of a broader movement that is targeting technology more generally, including technologies that are required for the United States to win wars.
City Journal <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/palantir-protests-ice-national-security?utm_source=virtuous&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=cjdaily">reported</a> there is a campaign against the military contractor Palantir — which generates extraordinary technologies in terms of intelligence gathering, capacity to target, and much of the actual technology that goes into the machines that we use.
This crosses paths with all of America&#8217;s enemies. America&#8217;s enemies are delighted to watch us destroy ourselves by taking down the technologies that allow us to win.
If you buy into this entire shtick — the idea that AI as a technology must be destroyed — it won&#8217;t be destroyed.
We&#8217;ll just lose.
If you think that China is going to forgo AI, you&#8217;re a fool. They won’t.
If the United States were to heavily restrict AI, not just in terms of preventing its gravest harms, but restricting the development of AI, or if there were to be a political party that attempts to prevent the building of data centers, not for any sort of understandable economic reason — like, for example, make the data centers pay their fair share of electricity production, which I think is a fair argument — if there&#8217;s a broad scale movement to destroy the AI industry out of either misplaced agrarianism or a deep and abiding hatred for capitalism or the generalized belief that capitalism rots the human soul, we will lose.
If the United States heavily restricts AI, not just by preventing its gravest harms but by restricting its development, we will lose. If a political party tries to stop the construction of data centers, we will lose. That is different from making data centers pay their fair share for electricity production, which I think is a fair argument. But if there is a broad-based movement to destroy the AI industry out of misplaced agrarianism, a deep and abiding hatred of capitalism, or a generalized belief that capitalism rots the human soul, we will lose.
China wins.
This is not a vacuum. It is not as though if the United States forgoes AI magically, we would continue to have a burgeoning, wealthy economy, and China goes weapons down.
When it comes to AI, indeed, there are problems, there are dangers — and we should all recognize those dangers, not whistling past the graveyard — but at the same time, it is a tremendous opportunity.
A China in a dominant AI position means a China in a dominant military position. The amount of AI that is being used right now by the United States military in the conflict in Iran and in the operation in Venezuela is tremendous and growing.
If China outpaces us in AI development, that means their military is now superior to ours. If their military is superior to ours, that means they can not only effectuate change in their region, it means they can also spread that technology throughout the world and make other countries dependent on the receipt of that technology.
It means that many, many other countries all over planet Earth would suddenly become dependent on China.
That is a huge problem, and it also leaves China in a dominant economic position, because AI means more productivity. If productivity goes up for China but remains stagnant for the United States, they will outcompete us. If they outcompete us, one of two things happens: Either we block off our economy and become backward and protectionist — meaning we don&#8217;t have any of the best goods and products and services at the best price, we&#8217;re all poorer and we slide into poverty and stagnation — or we have to be dependent on Chinese products, our kids work for Chinese companies, and China is able to spread its influence.
When it comes to the game of economics, you must win.
When it comes to the game of military dominance, you must win.
And when it comes to the technological game, you must win.
The economic populism that&#8217;s been rising says that we ought to tariff our way out of all our problems, that we ought to attack technological development, that it would be great to have an economy based on t-shirts — none of this is going to solve the bigger problem.
Attacking tech CEOs or healthcare CEOs or burning up Teslas and attacking Tesla showrooms or shooting Charlie Kirk or attempting to shoot President Trump — all of these are the most extreme manifestations of an ideology.
That ideology says that you are a victim of American society and therefore you get to do bad things. On a broader political level, you are a victim of American society, and therefore you ought to get together with the other victims, take over the government, and use centralized, tyrannical power r to cram down your view of the world.

Working robots

Populist Rage And AI: National Surrender

Anti-capitalist

Artificial Intelligence

Ben Shapiro

Big Tech

Capitalism

China

Data Centers

Economy

Opinion

Populism

Technology

Roblox, the most popular online gaming site in the world, announced new age-based accounts on Monday as the company seeks to address numerous allegations of sex predators targeting children on the platform.
Roblox <a href="https://about.roblox.com/newsroom/2026/04/introducing-roblox-kids-and-select-accounts">introduced</a> new age-based accounts for children under 9 and for children between 9 and 15, which the company says will limit the games children can access and how they can chat with others online. The new accounts will also give parents more oversight over their children&#8217;s gaming and chat activities, according to Roblox. The new age-based accounts are set to officially launch in June.
&#8220;When they roll out in early June, these accounts will more closely align content access, communication settings, and parental controls with a user’s age. We’re also establishing an ongoing selection process for games available to users under 16,&#8221; Roblox said. &#8220;This update will bring age-checks, account-level defaults, content ratings, ongoing moderation, and expanded parental controls together into a unified framework for younger users.&#8221;
The move comes after Roblox has faced intense scrutiny over its child safety measures and has been accused of standing by as child sex predators took advantage of the game&#8217;s realistic interactive settings and chat functions to prey on children. The platform, which boasts over 80 million daily users worldwide, allows gamers to develop their own games or play games developed by other users. Roblox is especially popular among children, with the company claiming that around half of all American kids under 16 are active on the platform.
The platform&#8217;s interactive concept has exposed children to sexually explicit content, exploitation, and grooming by predatory adults, according to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sued Roblox in November. The <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Petition_0.pdf">lawsuit</a> alleges that Roblox has deceived parents about the safety of the game when, &#8220;In reality, Roblox is a sprawling and unregulated digital playground that is overrun by predators and saturated with sexual content.&#8221;
When the changes announced by Roblox go into effect, it will mark the first time the platform has set up specific account barriers to separate children under 16 from adult users. Parents will also be given expanded oversight of their children&#8217;s accounts, including the ability to monitor and manage chats and block specific games they don&#8217;t want their children playing.
Alleigh Marré, the executive director of the American Parents Coalition — which raises awareness about activists agendas and corporate interests influencing children — told The Daily Wire that Roblox&#8217;s move isn&#8217;t enough to address the issues on its platform. Marré argued that the age-gated accounts are just another &#8220;toolset,&#8221; not an actual fix.
&#8220;Tools without accountability don&#8217;t solve systemic problems,&#8221; Marré said. &#8220;Now, that doesn&#8217;t mean that it&#8217;s not going to help parents, but it&#8217;s just another dashboard. So, without Roblox taking some responsibility and putting some controls on the back end with teeth, it really doesn&#8217;t do anything except foist responsibility from a platform they&#8217;ve created onto parents.&#8221;
For its new age-gated system, Roblox will rely on an artificial intelligence tool that estimates the user&#8217;s age based on a photo the user uploads to the platform. Parents can also manually verify their child&#8217;s age when they sign up for a Roblox account.
Under the new guidelines, kids between the ages of 5 and 8 would only be allowed to use a &#8220;Roblox Kids&#8221; account, which would only give them access to games with &#8220;a Minimal or Mild content maturity label,&#8221; Roblox said. Under the game&#8217;s <a href="https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/8862768451604-Content-Maturity-Labels">rating system</a>, &#8220;Minimal&#8221; includes games that could &#8220;contain occasional mild violence, light unrealistic blood, and/or occasional mild fear.&#8221; &#8220;Mild&#8221; games could &#8220;contain repeated mild violence, heavy unrealistic blood, mild crude humor, and/or repeated mild fear.&#8221;
Kids under 9 would also have all online chat communications disabled by default. Parents, however, can turn on chat functions for a &#8220;Roblox Kids&#8221; account, which limits communications to &#8220;in-game chat with other users under 13-years-old&#8221; and users who are designated by parents as &#8220;trusted friends.&#8221;
Once a user turns 9-year-old, he is automatically moved up to a &#8220;Roblox Select&#8221; account, which will gives users between 9 and 15 access to a larger library of games, including games that fall under the &#8220;Moderate&#8221; maturity level. Roblox defines &#8220;Moderate&#8221; games as those which could &#8220;contain moderate violence, light realistic blood, moderate crude humor, unplayable gambling content, and/or moderate fear.&#8221;
Marré told The Daily Wire that the age-gated accounts still pose risks to children.
&#8220;When a child turns 9, they go from the entry-level Roblox to the 9- to 15-year-old bracket, which is a very wide maturity swath. You&#8217;re talking about a fourth grader with a sophomore in high school. That&#8217;s a very big difference,&#8221; Marré said. &#8220;And that&#8217;s if everybody is playing by the rules. That doesn&#8217;t stop a bad guy from creating a profile posing as a 14-year-old and reaching out to kids because now these bad guys are funneled into the &#8216;safe space&#8217; for kids too.&#8221;
Users 16 and older won&#8217;t see any changes to their accounts, Roblox said.
&#8220;Together, these updates are part of our ongoing work to build age-appropriate experiences for all users, apply safety-by-default protections for younger users, and give parents more visibility and control over how their children use Roblox,&#8221; the company added.

Roblox

The App Millions Of Kids Use Just Changed The Rules After Predator Fears Explode

Children

Gaming

Sexual Abuse

The CIA and U.S. military may have employed a secret, never-before-used technology to rescue the second American airman stranded behind Iranian enemy lines.
On April 3, Iran shot down an F-15E Strike Eagle during Operation Epic Fury, triggering a dramatic search-and-rescue mission to save the two crew members.
The pilot was found and rescued in “broad daylight,” but finding the weapons systems officer (WSO) proved far more difficult.
For nearly 48 hours, a &#8220;<a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116351956955900185">seriously wounded</a>&#8221; American colonel evaded capture by scaling a ridge and hiding inside a mountain crevice as Iranian forces worked to close in on his position, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/heres-everything-we-know-about-the-daring-mission-to-save-an-american-warfighter-in-iran">The Daily Wire previously reported</a>.
President Donald Trump later described the mission as an &#8220;Easter Miracle,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/exclusive-trump-reacts-to-easter-miracle-rescue-of-downed-u-s-airman-260734533647">according to NBC News</a>.
Speculation about how the United States ultimately located the airman has drawn attention online. The New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/04/07/us-news/ghost-murmur-a-never-used-secret-tool-deployed-to-find-lost-airman-in-iran-in-daring-mission/">reported</a> that the CIA used a classified system known as &#8220;Ghost Murmur&#8221; to detect the airman&#8217;s heartbeat from dozens of miles away. In a recent <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrRJimixWEc">podcast</a>, Joe Rogan and guest Duncan Trussell discussed the technology.
“This is science fiction. This is full minority report, science fiction-level technology. We can find a guy&#8217;s heart rate,&#8221; Rogan said. &#8220;What sick f*ck invented this?”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Joe Rogan: “CIA found the pilot who got shot in Iran by using classified tech called Ghost Murmur and AI that detects human heartbeats up to 40 miles away. What sick f*ck invented this. What else don’t they tell us?”<a href="https://t.co/A3L9fge3CT">pic.twitter.com/A3L9fge3CT</a>
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) <a href="https://twitter.com/DefiantLs/status/2042391861311258724?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
&#8220;They find this guy&#8217;s &#8230; heartbeat, he&#8217;s hiding in some kind of crevice, and then they&#8217;re able to go extract him,&#8221; Trussell told Rogan. &#8220;Heartbeat says a lot about a person — are they sleeping? Are they like in good shape, bad shape? Bet you can learn so much from a heartbeat.&#8221;
The classified technology &#8220;uses long-range quantum magnetometry to find the electromagnetic signal of a human heartbeat,&#8221; <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/04/07/us-news/ghost-murmur-a-never-used-secret-tool-deployed-to-find-lost-airman-in-iran-in-daring-mission/">according to the Post</a>, &#8220;and pairs the data with artificial intelligence software to isolate the signature from background noise.&#8221;
“It’s like hearing a voice in a stadium, except the stadium is a thousand square miles of desert,” a <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/04/07/us-news/ghost-murmur-a-never-used-secret-tool-deployed-to-find-lost-airman-in-iran-in-daring-mission/">s</a><a href="https://nypost.com/2026/04/07/us-news/ghost-murmur-a-never-used-secret-tool-deployed-to-find-lost-airman-in-iran-in-daring-mission/">ource told the Post.</a> “In the right conditions, if your heart is beating, we will find you.”
CIA Director Jon Ratcliffe did not confirm specifics, but referenced advanced capabilities during a White House press briefing, calling the tools used in the operation &#8220;exquisite&#8221; and unlike anything possessed by other intelligence services.
He described the rescue as a &#8220;race against the clock,&#8221; comparing it to &#8220;hunting a single grain of sand in the middle of a desert.&#8221;
Ratcliffe also said the CIA carried out a deception campaign to mislead Iranian forces searching for the downed airman, adding that U.S. intelligence indicates Iran was &#8220;embarrassed&#8221; and &#8220;humiliated&#8221; by the outcome of the mission.
Not everyone is convinced of the government&#8217;s account or the powers behind the alleged technology.
Scientific American, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-quantum-ghost-murmur-purportedly-used-in-iran-scientists/">a popular science magazine</a>, spoke to researchers with expertise in magnetic fields, who describe the story &#8220;as almost certainly not true,&#8221; claiming the described ability of Ghost Murmur &#8220;finds no support in decades of peer-reviewed physics.&#8221;
Chad Orzel, a professor of physics at Union College, said to detect a heartbeat, a Ghost Murmur device would have to sort through more than the Earth&#8217;s natural magnetic field, but with “the heartbeats of the sheep and dogs and jackrabbits—whatever else is running around out there,” according to Scientific American.
&#8220;Quantum atomic transitions obey classical antenna physics,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/AetherCzar/status/2042192828940394668?s=20">Hans G. Schantz</a>, scientist and engineer, posted on X. &#8220;Vastly superior performance, such as that attributed to Ghost Murmur, defies the known behavior of quantum systems.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Quantum atomic transitions obey classical antenna physics. Vastly superior performance, such as that attributed to Ghost Murmur, defies the known behavior of quantum systems. <a href="https://t.co/1U0Ephx05z">https://t.co/1U0Ephx05z</a> <a href="https://t.co/IAqdpGaHe3">https://t.co/IAqdpGaHe3</a>
— Hans G. Schantz (@AetherCzar) <a href="https://twitter.com/AetherCzar/status/2042192828940394668?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
“Somebody yanking a reporter’s chain,” Orzel told Scientific American. &#8220;It could be a &#8216;snarky, clever way to say, ‘Of course, I’m not going to tell you how we figured this out.&#8221;
The Daily Wire reached out to alleged Ghost Murmur developer Lockheed Martin, but we have received no reply as of publication.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
BREAKING🚨: The CIA just revealed its game-changing secret weapon: “Ghost Murmur” — an AI-powered tool that can detect a human heartbeat from MILES away.
It was used for the first time in the field to locate and rescue the downed U.S. airman stranded in Iran, according to the… <a href="https://t.co/OmkdFDfNSq">pic.twitter.com/OmkdFDfNSq</a>
— Officer Lew (@officer_Lew) <a href="https://twitter.com/officer_Lew/status/2041646461411094841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2026</a></blockquote>

Human Heart

Did CIA Use Covert Tech To Find Lost Airman?

Global Politics

Iran

Joe Rogan

World

Today on &#8220;Dystopia Now,&#8221; we take a look at something called the Enhanced Games, where nearly 40 athletes compete while doped up on performance-enhancing substances. You can catch them at Resorts World Las Vegas in late May.
A Legion of Doom-worthy coalition of tech billionaires is funding the Enhanced Games, including Peter Thiel, the Winklevoss twins, Saudi prince Khaled bin Alwaleed Al Saud, and Donald Trump Jr. According to their materials, it’s &#8220;a diversified revenue model designed to capitalize on the growing global demand for sports entertainment, performance enhancement and longevity products.&#8221;
As Richard Dawson said in &#8220;The Running Man,&#8221; “Without further ado, it’s time to start running!”
A major driver behind the Enhanced Games is German tech billionaire Christian Angermayer, the author of the Next Human Agenda. He is <a href="https://christianangermayer.substack.com/p/the-future-is-enhanced">pushing the games</a> as &#8220;a significant economic driver for the biotech pharma industry in the years ahead.&#8221;
 If the Enhanced Games sounds suspiciously like an advertisement for Compound V, the superhuman-making substance in &#8220;The Boys,&#8221; it should. This isn’t a sports gambit — it’s an advertisement for the “longevity” industry, based on big tech’s obsession with expanding the human lifespan and human vitality. 
The problem is, Compound V can create metahumans like Homelander, who is a total psychopath but is essentially evil Superman, but it can also create people with the power to shoot octopi out of their butts, or some such thing. We know that these substances aren’t steroids or cocaine, but we don’t know much else about them, or about their long-term effects. The Enhanced Games is promising sprint records, but A-Train, the super-sprinter on &#8220;The Boys,&#8221; has extreme heart issues and a dependency on Compound V.
Some athletes — who are either being paid very well, desperate for glory, or both — don’t seem to care. Greek swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev broke a 50-meter freestyle world record in an Enhanced Games trial last year, making a million dollars in the process. As Forbes <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2026/04/06/pro-doping-enhanced-games-raise-12-billion-before-a-single-race/">reported</a> this week, “Irish swimmer Max McCusker, also an Olympian, said publicly that his decision to join was a &#8220;no-brainer&#8221; after earning less than $10,000 across four years of professional swimming.”
<div id="attachment_1076275" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1076275" class="size-large wp-image-1076275" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Enhanced-Games-II-1024x549.jpg" alt="Screenshot: Enhanced Games/YouTube.com" width="1024" height="549" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Enhanced-Games-II-1024x549.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Enhanced-Games-II-300x161.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Enhanced-Games-II-768x411.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Enhanced-Games-II-1536x823.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Enhanced-Games-II.jpg 1960w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: Enhanced Games/YouTube.com</div>
So what&#8217;s the endgame? Clearly, life expansion is a mantra of the day, slotting in alongside at-home helper robots, personalized flight, Mars colonization, and the AI singularity. We seem to be heading toward a bifurcated, Gattaca-like future, with “optimized” people at the top of the pyramid and a vast mass of suboptimal people at the bottom, Elois performing feats of strength at Resorts World for an audience of barely human Morlocks.
All this reminds me of the opening credits of the “Six Million Dollar Man,” “Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability of making the world’s first bionic man. Better than he was before. Better. Stronger. Faster.” (Of course, today, six million is rounding error).
This future is actually kind of appealing, even interesting. We should at least try to see if the current billionaire obsession with hyperbaric cold plunges and blood transfusions and liquid megavitamins and genetic manipulation works. My own program of fish-oil pills, probiotics, not eating like crap, and standing on my head a few times a week seems to be working just fine, but I haven’t really started into the peak of my decline yet.
The real test of Enhanced Games technology won’t be how it affects super-swimmers or Olympic sprinters, who are already close to Peak Personhood. When they start injecting nootropics into people like me, to see if they can make the Substack posts a little snarkier and the decision-making at the $400 No-Limit Hold Em poker tournaments a little smarter, then we’ll see how well it works. Just remember that, sure, there are a lot of super-people in &#8220;The Boys.&#8221; But most of them end up with exploding heads.
* * *
Neal Pollack, “the greatest living American writer,” is the author of 12 semi-bestselling books of fiction and nonfiction and is a three-time “Jeopardy!” champion.

enhanced games

The Enhanced Games And The Billionaire Dream Of Superhumans

Drugs

DW Opinion

Humor

Las Vegas

Olympics

Performance Enhancing Drugs

Sports

Steroids

Swimming

Television

Track and Field

The day my five-year-old son came home from school proudly announcing he had learned to download apps on what he called &#8220;my iPad,&#8221; I felt two things: the instinct of a father sensing something was off, and the reflex of a physician recognizing a familiar problem. It wasn’t his excitement that gave me pause. It was the word &#8220;my.” After a few weeks of school, he was personally identifying with a device before he was developmentally ready to contextualize his relationship to it.
As an emergency physician, I evaluate interventions the same way every time, by weighing the evidence of benefit against the risk of harm. When the data is unclear, I fall back on medicine&#8217;s oldest principle — primum non nocere. First, do no harm. I never imagined I would be applying that framework to my son&#8217;s pre-K classroom.
The echoes of COVID remain familiar: an expert class prescribing an untested solution, dismissing the concerns of the people it serves. The pandemic increased reliance on technology in education but also exposed the priorities of America’s elites. When the public sought explanations, officials issued mandates. Conformity to dogma ruled the day, and any criticism was swiftly labeled misinformation. The cost was staggering. A generation’s trust in institutions was spent in just about two years. At the core of it all was a simple belief — that experts know best.
I am watching a similar phenomenon take place in our children’s classrooms. Every day our kids go to school, we are extending an act of trust — placing them in the school’s care, expecting that parents and teachers will work together in the children’s best interests. Increasingly, the educators’ posture has shifted to something more insular: we know best, and we’ll take it from here.
The deeper irony is that on this specific question, the evidence is not on the educators’ side.
In January, neuroscientist Jared Horvath testified before a Senate subcommittee about the impact of screen time and classroom technology on kids. And in his book, “The Digital Delusion,” he notes that the impact of classroom interventions is measured using a metric called &#8220;effect size.&#8221; The threshold for meaningful impact is +0.40. Teacher-led direct instruction averages approximately +0.56 — the gold standard. Broad educational technology interventions average around +0.29 — well below the impact threshold. For context, the negative effect of bullying is -0.28. OECD countries noted an almost two-letter-grade drop on standardized testing for students who used computers “very frequently.&#8221; The MIT-based Poverty Research Center, after examining 126 studies, found that programs expanding computer access &#8220;do not improve K-12 grades and test scores.&#8221;
Many schools claim that children need early digital exposure to succeed in the modern world. But this isn&#8217;t supported by evidence, nor does it pass the common-sense test. Digital skills can be acquired in minutes to hours, and they are not what predict deep learning or professional success.
What makes this particularly corrosive is what the apps are doing to learning itself. Early childhood is the most sensitive period for attention, executive function, and self-regulation — precisely the capacities most at risk. Research consistently shows stronger comprehension and retention on paper versus screens. Horvath notes that learning requires productive struggle. The friction of sitting with a hard problem, resisting distraction, and building toward mastery is not a flaw in education; it is the process. Apps are engineered to eliminate this friction. The result is what researchers call the &#8220;illusion of mastery.&#8221; Students feel they are learning, but the depth is not there.
COVID accelerated this without resolving it. The academic consequences were severe, and so were the mental health ones — anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal spiked across age groups and have not fully recovered. We poured energy into getting children back into classrooms, then handed them the same devices back.
Worse still, many educators don&#8217;t realize that much of the &#8220;evidence&#8221; backing these programs traces back to the for-profit education tech sector that created this ecosystem. These companies have cultivated academic voices to carry their message into schools, funding research through channels educators rarely scrutinize. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley&#8217;s founders have largely kept their own children off these devices. When Peter Thiel revealed as much at a recent summit, it elicited audible gasps. Educators who believe they are following the science are, in many cases, following a sales pitch.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro recently signed legislation mandating cursive handwriting in classrooms, explicitly to keep kids off tablets, while 10 states across the political spectrum are considering legislation to reduce screen time or restrict device programs in some way. This is no longer a fringe position.
As a father, I feel this differently than I do as a physician. Parents are watching in real time as young children develop a compulsive relationship with devices — fidgeting for the next stimulus, the next dopamine surge from apps designed to engage. Boys are particularly susceptible to these reward structures — the variable reinforcement, the next level, the next hit. The gaming addiction literature has documented it for years. We are now introducing that architecture to boys in pre-K through a school-issued device they are taught to think of as their own.
And yet the response from most schools has been silence, or worse, reassurance. Parents notice concerning changes in their children, review the data, bring their concerns to administrators, and are met with polished explanations that best practices are being followed. Parental concern is treated as a feature of the process, proof almost that the school is doing something bold.
Educators dismiss those concerns at their own peril. The trust parents extend to schools is not unconditional, and it is fraying. At a minimum, parents should have the right to opt their children out of individual device programs, and schools should provide information to parents on the potential harms. Regular efficacy assessments should accompany all device programs. No responsible physician would deny a patient the ability to decline an unproven intervention. Schools should extend a similar respect.
The larger obligation falls on the system itself. The education establishment should not be mandating device programs without a far stronger evidence base. When physicians, researchers, and parents all raise the same alarm, the appropriate response is curiosity or caution, not defensiveness. Before mandating a new intervention, demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the harms. If you can&#8217;t, don&#8217;t. Primum non nocere.
***
Dr. Benjamin Chacko is an Emergency Medicine Physician and the father of two sons.

Father Knows Best

Father Knows Best? Not When it Comes to Screens in the Classroom

Education

K-12

Parents rights

A new wave of concern is building around artificial intelligence (AI), not over jobs or misinformation, but over its impact on mental health. Now, a recent study out of MIT is sharpening that concern, suggesting that the problem is structural.
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a preprint <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.19141">study</a> examining how AI chatbot interactions evolve over time. Stripped of its dense mathematical and technical language, their core finding is straightforward: when a system is designed to agree with you, mirror you, and keep you engaged, it can gradually pull you deeper into whatever you already believe, whether true or not. 
The study models chatbot interaction as a feedback loop. A user expresses an idea, the AI responds in a way that sustains the conversation, and the user — feeling validated — returns with a stronger or more developed version of that idea. Over repeated exchanges, that loop can intensify beliefs rather than challenge them. 
For an average user, that might just mean reinforcement of existing opinions. But for someone vulnerable to disordered thinking, researchers warn, the same dynamic could contribute to more extreme or delusional beliefs. 
The findings align with a growing body of reporting and analysis. A recent piece highlighted by <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/202507/the-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis">Psychology Today</a>, along with an editorial in <a href="https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/49/6/1418/7251361?">Schizophrenia Bulletin</a> published less than a year after the launch of ChatGPT, points to what some are calling “AI psychosis,” a pattern in which chatbot interactions appear to reinforce or co-create irrational beliefs. It is not a formal diagnosis, and researchers are careful to say there is no definitive proof that AI alone can cause such conditions. <del></del>
Unlike a human therapist, who might gently push back or reality-check a harmful belief, a general-purpose chatbot has no built-in instinct to do so. Its “goal,” in a loose sense, is to continue the interaction. And mathematically, the easiest way to do that is to affirm, not challenge. That design choice may be harmless in most contexts. But in edge cases, it can become a kind of digital echo chamber, one that reflects a user’s thoughts back at them with increasing clarity and apparent authority.
While anecdotal, several reported cases illustrate the concern. 
Just in March, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/mar/26/ai-chatbot-users-lives-wrecked-by-delusion">the Guardian</a> detailed the story of a Dutch IT consultant who became convinced he had helped create a conscious digital entity after prolonged interaction with a chatbot. He reportedly spent roughly €100,000 (approximately $110,000) pursuing the idea, was hospitalized multiple times, and eventually attempted suicide.
In another alarming instance, a man <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/chatgpt-obsession-mental-breaktown-alex-taylor-suicide-1235368941/">reportedly</a> became convinced that an AI chatbot he had formed a relationship with had been “killed,” leading to a violent confrontation with police that ended in his death.
Modern AI systems are optimized for engagement. They are not designed to argue, correct, or confront. Instead, they are trained to be helpful, responsive, and agreeable, to keep the conversation going. Researchers often describe this as “sycophancy,” meaning the AI tends to validate the user’s framing of reality.
MIT researchers say the broader concern is not that AI creates harmful beliefs from scratch, but that it can accelerate and harden them, particularly when combined with increased social isolation.
And if the underlying logic of these systems rewards engagement above all else, the question becomes harder to ignore: what happens when the most engaging response is also the most misleading?

AI apps smartphone

Are AI Chatbots Shaping How You Think?

The New York Times confirmed that they’ve cut ties with a freelance writer who stands accused of using AI to generate his book review. Alex Preston said he’s “hugely embarrassed” by the whole debacle.
The legacy paper was alerted by a reader who noticed that Alex Preston&#8217;s review of “Watching Over Her” by Jean-Baptiste Andrea was suspiciously similar to the review of the same title that Christobel Kent wrote for The Guardian last August.
When confronted by the Times, Preston admitted to using AI for assistance in writing his review and said he did not realize it had lifted copycat lines from anywhere else.
The New York Times sent a note to The Guardian, saying, “[Preston’s] reliance on AI and his use of unattributed work by another writer are a clear violation of the Times’s standards.”
“I made a serious mistake in using an AI tool on a draft review I had written, and I failed to identify and remove overlapping language from another review that the AI dropped in,” Preston said in his statement to the Guardian, as the outlet <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/31/the-new-york-times-drops-freelance-journalist-who-used-ai-to-write-book-review">noted</a>. “I am hugely embarrassed by what happened and truly sorry. I took responsibility immediately and apologized to the New York Times, and I also want to apologize to Christobel Kent and to the Guardian.”
The phrase “lazy Machiavellian Stefano” from The Guardian version became “lazy, Machiavellian Stefano” in the New York Times version.
The Guardian described the book as “most significantly a song of love to a country of contradictions, battered, war-torn, divided, misguided and miraculous: an Italy where life is costume and the performance of art, and where circuses spring up on wasteland.”
This is very similar to the Times version, which said the characters “populate what is ultimately a love song to a country of contradictions: battered, divided, misguided, and miraculous. This is an Italy where life is performance, where circuses rise on wasteland.”
The outlet noted that Preston has written for The Observer, The Financial Times, The Guardian, and The Economist. He’s also written six books, including the recent release, “A Stranger in Corfu.”
This isn’t the first time a legacy newspaper outlet got caught publishing AI-generated content, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chicago-sun-times-published-a-i-generated-summer-reading-list-with-books-that-dont-exist">reported</a>. The Chicago Sun-Times was called out last year for advertising an AI-generated summer reading list, including a number of titles that didn’t actually exist.
Only five of the fifteen suggested titles were real books. The writer, who was not a full-time staff member, apologized for his “huge mistake” and said he “betrayed that trust.”
The paper also issued a response to subscribers, noting that the person responsible for the error had been terminated and promising the mistake would not happen again. 
“We are in a moment of great transformation in journalism and technology, and at the same time our industry continues to be besieged by business challenges. This should be a learning moment for all journalism organizations: Our work is valued — and valuable — because of the humanity behind it,” the statement said.
“At Chicago Public Media, we are proud of our credible, independent journalism, created for and by people. And part of the journalistic process is a commitment to acknowledging mistakes. It is unacceptable that this content was inaccurate, and it is equally unacceptable that we did not make it clear to readers that the section was produced outside the Sun-Times newsroom.”

New York Times

Major Legacy Media Outlet Caught Red-Handed In AI Plagiarism Scandal

Books

Plagiarism

The Guardian

The New York Times

For now, Facebook is still technically called Meta. But the “metaverse,” Mark Zuckerberg’s ambitious virtual reality project, is in shambles. Tech outlets <a href="https://www.engadget.com/ar-vr/meta-isnt-shutting-down-its-vr-metaverse-after-all-165520696.html">reported</a> last week that the company would be sunsetting Horizon Worlds, its VR social media platform. Then CTO Andrew Bosworth clarified that Horizon Worlds would remain operational, even if users could expect little in the way of updates or new content. The parallel reality that Zuckerberg invited his clientele to dream of will linger quietly on — like the mostly forgotten game &#8220;The Sims,&#8221; that nerds of a certain age sometimes spin up for old time’s sake, except with real people pretending to be virtual instead of the other way around. Meta’s rebrand was perhaps a bit premature.
But then, it wasn’t so much the “Meta” part that grated. It was the “Verse”: the all-encompassing and boundlessly presumptuous claim about how life would be from now on. Pretensions to metaversality were part of the enthusiasm for “Web 3,” a supposedly epochal transition from a world of siloed apps and websites to a paradise of digital interconnectivity. It was one of those tech projects that consists of a doomsday scenario presented unblinkingly as a sales pitch. In &#8220;Snow Crash,&#8221; a 1992 cyberpunk fantasia, the novelist Neal Stephenson gave the name “metaverse” to a digital world that his characters would escape into when socioeconomic conditions conspired to make their embodied lives unbearable.
Zuckerberg, striding confidently through a sea of early adopters wearing insectoid VR helmet-goggles for a photo op, didn’t seem to notice how viscerally unappealing the whole thing was. He comes across as totally deaf to these sorts of concerns, although maybe acting that way is part of his job. It also has to be said how profoundly the mood back then was affected by COVID-19, which spiked people’s screen time and created the impression that everything was getting ported to the cloud.
<div id="attachment_1063987" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1063987" class="size-large wp-image-1063987" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1236189437-864x576.jpg" alt="Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Facebook Inc., speaks in a virtual Horizon Home environment during the virtual Facebook Connect event, where the company announced its rebranding as Meta, in New York, U.S., on Thursday, Oct. 28, 2021. A major theme at the annual conference will be the company's ambitions for the so-called metaverse, a new digital space that it believes will supplant smartphone apps as the primary form of online interaction. Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1236189437-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1236189437-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1236189437-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1236189437.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
Lots of things were, but it was silly not to expect an imminent counter-revolution once people grew disgusted with the effects of too much scrolling. In the first round of mass layoffs that followed his pandemic hiring spree, Zuckerberg regretfully <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2022/11/mark-zuckerberg-layoff-message-to-employees/">acknowledged</a> that he had seen the rush of users to the site and “predicted this would be a permanent acceleration.” Whoopsie. The four most foolhardy words in the English language are “if present trends continue.”
Present trends generally do not continue. In &#8220;<a href="https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/shoshana-zuboff/the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism/9781478947271/?lens=publicaffairs">The Age of Surveillance Capitalism</a>,&#8221; the social psychologist Shoshanna Zuboff used the word “inevitabilism” to describe how technologists labor to make their designs seem inevitable “when they are actually meticulously calculated and lavishly funded means to self-dealing commercial ends.” What Zuboff called “the prediction imperative” puts tech companies in “the reality business,” where profit models depend on passing off corporate aspirations as unalterable, world-historical developments that must and will take place. Then the only question becomes whether you’ll get on board or, in the words of Ebenezer Scrooge from the 1951 adaptation of Dickens’s &#8220;A Christmas Carol,&#8221; “be crushed under with the weak and the infirm.” This is why product launches so often look and sound like something out of Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of History, and why emissaries from the c-suite tend to talk like Thanos from &#8220;Avengers: Endgame&#8221;: &#8220;I.Am.Inevitable.&#8221;
What I want to propose is that inevitabilism is neither unique to tech nor especially modern. It’s just the standard advertising strategy for aspirants to global power. In 1817, anticipating the arrival in London of a colossal pharaonic statue from Egypt, Percy Shelley and Horace Smith embarked on a friendly competition to write a poem on the theme of monarchic pride. Shelley won with “Ozymandias,” a sonnet on the ruins of a dead king’s towering monument whose “vast and trunkless legs of stone” stand on a pedestal inscribed with the words “‘My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings. / Look on my works ye mighty, and despair!’ / Nothing beside remains. Round the decay / Of that Colossal Wreck, boundless and bare, / The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
The real Ozymandias was Ramesses II, god-king of Egypt’s mighty New Kingdom. The Greek version of his name, which Shelley used for his title, came from the royal epithet he adopted at his coronation: Usermaatre Setepenre. It means roughly “Strong Justice and Chosen one of Ra,” the Sun God. Shelley neither invented nor exaggerated Ozymandias’ claims to ultimate power. The statue’s inscription in the poem is a rough paraphrase of a real one quoted by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus: “King of Kings am I, Osymandias. If anyone would know how great I am and where I lie, let him surpass one of my works.”
Ozymandias, Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Ashurbanipal&#8230;they came and they went. It used to be standard practice for imperial monarchs to boast of their sacred, eternal, and universal dominion. The fiction is appealing because it offers things people crave: permanence, stability, order, and certainty about the future. It’s tragic because, as Shelley observed, none of these are things that even very good men can guarantee. The sands of time’s desert are littered with trunkless legs. Nothing beside remains.
Understand these things, and you understand the politics of the Old Testament. The constant refrain of the Hebrew Prophets was that people look for eternity in the wrong places. “Put not your trust in princes”: again and again, the Jews of ancient Israel were invited to observe the wreckage of dynasties whose total dominion was once depicted — plausibly, at the time — as inevitable.
As it winds down its VR program, Meta will be diverting its resources and attention toward Artificial Intelligence. AI technology has so far proven vastly more useful and workable than the metaverse. It seems unlikely that we’ll look back on it as a passing fancy. At the same time, the predictions about the world AI will make — its powers to transform the universe, or come to life, or usurp God — have all the flavor of inevitabilism.
The same people who went all-in on the metaverse have moved on with undiminished confidence to telling us that AI will change everything, everywhere, all at once, that the whole thing is a fait accompli, that it’s pointless to speak of exercising restraint. “Look on our works, ye mighty, and despair.” I submit that we will continue to fall for this routine, chasing like hamsters after the next forever, just as long as we expect a company or a king to secure the future of the universe. If we want eternity, we will have to look elsewhere.
* * *
Spencer A. Klavan is co-host, with his father Andrew Klavan, of the “Klavans on the Culture” podcast. He is associate editor of the Claremont Review of Books and author, most recently, of &#8220;Light of the Mind, Light of the World: Illuminating Science Through Faith.&#8221;
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Day Two of MWC Barcelona 2023

The Metaverse Was Never Inevitable

Facebook

Literature

Mark Zuckerberg

Silicon Valley

The horror novel “Shy Girl” is being pulled from publication in the United States and won’t be sold anymore in the U.K. due to suspected use of artificial intelligence (AI) by the author, Mia Ballard.
Hachette Book Group, one of the largest publishers in the United States, announced its decision on Thursday, per <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/books/shy-girl-book-ai.html">The New York Times</a>.
 “Hachette remains committed to protecting original creative expression and storytelling,” a company spokeswoman told the outlet, noting that authors are required to disclose any use of AI for writing before submitting their work.
“Shy Girl” was slated to be released later this spring. Ballard responded to the accusations via email, denying the allegations. 
“This controversy has changed my life in many ways, and my mental health is at an all-time low, and my name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do,” she told the NYT.
The book has sold about 1,800 copies in the U.K. so far. As of Thursday, it was removed from Amazon and the Hachette website.
According to the Goodreads description, the novel is about a girl who decides to live as a man’s pet. Ballard initially self-published the book in 2025.
“Lonely, broke and depressed with a serious case of OCD, Gia finds herself at a crossroads when financial troubles lead her to Nathan, a mysterious and affluent man she encounters on a sugar dating website. Desperate for a solution, Gia is intrigued by Nathan&#8217;s unconventional offer: in exchange for living as his devoted pet, all of her debts will be erased. But the longer Gia is in captivity, the more animalistic she becomes,” the description says. 
While AI-generated writing isn’t always easy to recognize, many readers have begun to notice certain patterns and call it out. “Shy Girl” was no exception, as many reviewers noticed aspects that they said indicate AI did the writing. 
“I am quite certain that this was written by ChatGPT,” one reviewer who gave the book one star wrote. “As an editor, I&#8217;ve read a few specifically ChatGPT written books, and this has not only all the hallmarks, but some specific repeated phrases that I&#8217;ve read in other ChatGPT works … If it&#8217;s not AI, and I&#8217;m truly quite sure that it is, then this author needs to be ruthlessly edited. Every noun is preceded by a flaccid adjective, every action is followed by a repetitive, boring simile.”
Two months ago, YouTube personality Frankie&#8217;s Shelf released a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbeKTa5xhZo">video</a> on the book called &#8220;I&#8217;m pretty sure this book is AI slop,” which took a deep dive into the allegations. It received more than one million views and 44,000 likes. 
This move comes as the controversy over the use of AI across multiple industries, including entertainment and Hollywood, remains a hot topic of debate.

Robot’s hand holding a pencil.

Publisher Yanks Horror Novel Over Suspected AI Use

Entertainment

United States

Gen Z is having a moment — not in the “It Girl” kind of way, deserving the paparazzi spotlight because it has particular talents, looks, or other … assets. Quite the opposite. Gen Z, the generational group born from 1997 to the early aughts of the 21st century, is emotionally marred by its technological umbilical cord, ADHD, and COVID-induced psychological distress.
This Gen Z moment is more akin to a mid-midlife crisis. And what better cure than a longing for the halcyon days of yore: the 1990s. If your generation is defined by a lack of rebelliousness, social isolation, and emotional cope, then why not live out your fantasies indulging in the wildly innocent and spontaneous authenticity of a world unsoiled by social media, doomscrolling, and the precarious teetering on the edge of ecological, political, and economic collapse that your Boomer grandparents have heaped on your conscience? Of course, relief would only be found in longing for the days of mix tapes, Must See TV, and meeting friends at the mall arcade (IRL!).
Gen Z’s ’90s infatuation is a reminder of what we had and what we lost. A culture grounded in an analogue world, a freedom untethered from 24/7 hyperattentive neuroses based on social media antisocialism, and a freewheeling, spontaneous in-the-moment reality where politics and culture and entertainment still had defined boundaries, and America was, for the most part, an outward-looking, optimistic culture obsessed with collective cohesion, not division.
We’ve seen this coming. It makes perfect sense that kids who never owned a physical thing, let alone burn CDs, copy movies from television onto VHS, or take a date out to the local Blockbuster Video (Netflix and chill has nothing on the suggestive power of “Basic Instinct” or “Wild Things”), would now have extensive vinyl record collections, buy Criterion Collection film DVDs or be snapping up back issues of magazines on eBay.
“Friends,” “Seinfeld,” “Sex and the City,” the Vogue aesthetic, and NYC glamour have newfound cachet. Hell, with the rise of GLP-1 inhibitors, heroin-skinny chic is even back with a fervor (just ask Demi Moore). So it’s only natural that the &#8220;It Couple of America’s&#8221; style capital — John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Carolyn Bessette Kennedy — have found a resurrection among this generation. From Bessette’s <a href="https://www.thecut.com/article/carolyn-bessette-kennedy-cbk-headband-co-bigelow-love-story.html?_gl=1*93lvyj*_gcl_au*MTA5MjQ1MTU4Mi4xNzcwMjQxMzU2*FPAU*MjA4ODkwMzQ1MC4xNzY3OTA3NTEz*_ga*NzM5MzQ4NjMxLjE3Njc5MDc1MTM.*_ga_DNE38RK1HX*czE3NzM1MzU2OTkkbzIwJGcxJHQxNzczNTM1NzIxJGozOCRsMCRoODQxNTkwNjQ2*_fplc*Tmd1VUUzV3ZCdlZCJTJCU2hCNUVBOVhsOUpxMFMlMkJjc3ZaZThjd1E0ZnN0ZyUyRkNUd2lIRE9sJTJCR01LM2YlMkJxJTJGU1R3NEIyT2lhd2RlekElMkZxNGVPQWpIWkRRWWJaZXAlMkJDQnNDRUFjNUd4dE9tTkRDS0xmSjFvJTJGUGwlMkJQbWdXQW1JOVElM0QlM0Q.">killer headbands</a> and Calvin Klein fashion to a Washington Square Park JFK, Jr. <a href="https://instinctmagazine.com/jfk-jr-lookalikes-nyc/">lookalike contest</a>, this <a href="https://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/love-story">Love Story</a> is the perfect form of escapism. The tabloid favs predated Bennifer and Brangelina and offered relationship drama that Gwyneth Paltrow and Brad Pitt only dreamed of.
<div id="attachment_1060545" style="width: 837px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1060545" class="size-large wp-image-1060545" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1264317423-827x576.jpg" alt="John Kennedy, Jr. and his wife, Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy stroll together near their TriBeCa loft today. They had lunch at Bubby's after they bought a paper at Hudson News. In this photo, they head back to their apartment. (Photo by Lawrence Schwartzwald/Sygma via Getty Images)" width="827" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1264317423-827x576.jpg 827w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1264317423-300x209.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1264317423-768x535.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-1264317423.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 827px) 100vw, 827px" />Lawrence Schwartzwald/Sygma via Getty Images</div>
But if there are takeaways from Gen Z’s emotional support decade, it’s that we can’t go back in time, but we can try to recapture the idealism of our past, even if it’s a pieced-together, imperfect idealism, akin to what JFK, Jr. embodied in his own life with the launch of his George magazine in 1995. It was a hope found in a nation of possibilities rather than one of victims or grievances, and “not just politics as usual,” as its tagline pronounced.
George had it all: celebrity cachet to chaperone the political party, think “<a href="https://whca.press/news/annual-dinner/">Nerd Prom</a>” well before Ana Marie Cox stole the moniker from San Diego’s Comic-Con, and with a self-deprecating, tongue-in-cheek cheekiness completely absent in today’s self-important political spheres. This was vibes before vibe-maxxing was a thing; TMZ a decade before its celeb-skewering snark; politics merging with entertainment before The Donald came down the golden escalator.
In a way, JFK, Jr. and George were prophetic but also too good to appreciate in their own time, and too romantic and authentic for today. It would be unthinkable now for the son of President John F. Kennedy to put a too-cute Drew Barrymore evoking <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ7E1fzQzd8">Marilyn Monroe</a>, the sexy starlet who famously crooned for and canoodled with the 35th president, in that dress on the cover of his magazine. It was a figurative nesting doll of iconographic Americana. Kennedy explained the choice on an “Oprah Winfrey Show” <a href="https://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/john-f-kennedy-jrs-life-in-the-spotlight">appearance</a> in 1996: “Bill Clinton turned 50 two days after we went on sale, as an editor, that is a colossal opportunity that you can’t let pass.” Gen Z would lap that up faster than a collagen smoothie.
But in the 1990s, that was the atmosphere proving Andrew Breitbart’s leitmotif that politics is downstream from culture. But George did it in a noncombative, approachable way. Supermodels, sports stars, screen legends, and gossip mingled with serious interviews with George Wallace and profiles of politicos such as Newt Gingrich, poking holes in the pious and self-important world of politics. It certainly defies today’s carefully curated, protect-the-brand-at-all-costs ethos.
Why so serious, Gen Z? Laugh a little! JFK, Jr. and George showed that nothing should be so precious, even your own legendary family. It’s doubtful that Hunter Biden would allow his father’s name, image, or likeness to appear anywhere near an ad — or mock ad — for dementia care, or even Baskin-Robbins. 
Gen Z missed out on real comedy and genuine, innocent fun. The 1990s were a time when late-night talk shows were actually funny and reflected collective cultural entertainment, not just vehicles for applause harvesting and woke scolds. Hollywood was still interested in making movies people wanted to see, and New York City was the center of the universe and a destination for dreamers and tourists; it was possible to meet your future spouse at a bar (when young people went to bars), ride the subway without fear of being pushed onto the tracks, or exist as a <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/01/28/us-news/stranger-pummels-rabbi-after-sneering-f-k-jews-in-hate-fueled-nyc-attack/">Jew</a>. Instead, NYC has a mayor who seems hellbent on rolling the city back to the gritty urban decay of the 1970s — think “Taxi Driver” and “Mean Streets” — albeit with a touch of antisemitism and domestic terror attacks. Charming! Those films should be cautionary tales, not #Goals.
It’s no wonder Gen Z is looking back. When you’re promised the world and instead you get an IOU, you look for happier times where you can find them — even in the pages of long-lost magazines and People’s <a href="https://people.com/john-f-kennedy-jr-sexiest-man-alive-1988-people-magazine-cover-11916170">Sexiest Man Alive</a> when he was…still alive.
* * *
Jenna Stocker is editor and publisher of American Experiment’s quarterly magazine. A former Marine Corps officer, Stocker also contributes to The Federalist and National Review.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

John F. Kennedy Jr. And Wife Carolyn Remembered Four Years After Death

Gen Z Is Looking Back At The 1990s And Realizing What America Lost

Gen Z Is Looking Back To The Future, 1990s Style

Culture

Gen Z

John F. Kennedy Jr.

magazine

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Dinging. Buzzing. Notifications. Alerts. Reminders. These punctuate modern life, ruining our attention spans and leaving us feeling tired, burned out, and depleted of our energy. We watch our screens, wishing we weren’t, and it seems like we’re powerless to look away from the constant swirl of content. But there’s a better way of living if we were willing to fight for it.
In a world of six-second videos, most of us don’t have the attention span to read the books we want or write the stories that float around in our heads, but it’s possible to restore the focus and creativity we’ve lost.
Based on my own experience before and after getting rid of my smartphone, the question isn’t how to do it. We all know we’re unhappy spending hours a day looking at the bright pixels of social media and Netflix, mindlessly consuming. The question is whether we have the strength to make our lives harder on purpose, to be bored sometimes, and to experience the doldrums of life. Then we can become creative and curious again.
As a homeschooled kid, I’d get my schoolwork done early, usually by lunch. That way, I’d have hours before the other kids got home from school to play with my siblings on the empty neighborhood streets. Eventually, we got bored of our scooters and bikes. We craved something new and exciting, so we lashed a bowl-shaped bamboo chair someone had thrown in the trash to wheelie boards we’d gotten for Christmas the previous year. The resulting vehicle allowed one kid to be pulled behind another by a rope — like a street tube that could be flung down the driveway and pulled around and around.
It was dangerous. It was janky. It was extremely fun.
One day while we were playing with it on the street, a pedestrian stopped. She must not have seen all the DIY flourishes because she had the audacity to ask, “Where can I get one of those for my kids?”
You couldn’t buy that death trap anywhere. It was concocted out of toys, trash, and duct tape using a creative streak born out of sheer boredom and a zero-dollar budget.
Our best ideas come during times of silence, reflection, and nothingness. When we’re consuming content, whether social media or streaming services, we’re thinking about how to get what we want, to get a dopamine fix, to feel something. Sometimes, we don’t even want what we’re getting, but we’re too locked into the cycle to break out of it.
You can’t read that book you’ve been wanting to crack open for years when you’re used to short videos riddled with ASMR and horse hoof cleaning.
When I was working as an editor of a daily newspaper, I’d get emails constantly. I had an Apple Watch that would let me know about new notifications. I’d get texts throughout the day, Facebook notifications, beeps, pings, and warnings about new OS updates. I wrote for my job, but I never wrote for fun. I never read magazines or books. Who had the time or the mental willpower? At the end of a long day, it was just easier to put on &#8220;The Office&#8221; again or watch a new show on Apple TV.
Then my wife and I got rid of our TV in hopes that we and our children would spend less time in front of it. We saw how even a few minutes of screen time affected our daughter’s behavior and our own.
But it wasn’t until after I traded my iPhone for a Light Phone, which has only the most basic apps and an e-ink screen, that I started seeing changes in how I was able to focus. I also made a point not to use my computer after normal work hours, barring job-related emergencies.
Suddenly, it was possible to read magazine articles at night, even if it took several days to get through one. It was easy to listen to albums all the way through. I started calling people more to connect with them and hear their voices. Without all the noise of modernity, the constant distractions, I also started finding time to write fun stories, to build a novel in my head and start to write it on paper. Our deepest thoughts thrive in the quietness of our minds, I have found.
By filling our heads with endless streams of videos, podcasts, songs, clips, reels, streamers, edits, and movies on demand, we leave no room for ideas to flourish. We don’t spend time thinking because we don’t have to anymore.
When we’re addicted to the feeds and the algorithms, we’re the pedestrian who walks by a good idea and says, “How can I have that?” 
It’s not technically difficult to start your new life. Get rid of your TV or hide the power cord, get a <a href="https://dumbwireless.com/?gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=21235769934&amp;gbraid=0AAAAApJkoAxVHg0MuNEwb88omRdgluLnl&amp;gclid=CjwKCAiAnoXNBhAZEiwAnItcG3fdNVOOMM9HT-SKYssOYGdugGFyIF_fTVYrC2Zh66evi8o7PicwmRoCFNkQAvD_BwE">dumb phone</a> or <a href="https://getbrick.com/">severely limit</a> the capacity of your smartphone, stop filling your head with other people’s stuff, and wait for your mind to reset itself.
The transition from consumer to one who is creative and curious takes time. It’s not an easy switch to flip, and the fight is difficult to maintain. I can actually feel my attention span being sapped after using certain sites. It turns out that switching topics every five seconds isn’t good for us.
The intellectual costs of our age are staggering: How many poems will never be written? How many songs will never be sung? How many great books will go unread? How many short stories will go unpublished?
With AI use increasing, our collective creative slump is only going to get worse. Thankfully, we hold the power to take back our ability to create and build our focus back. We just need to work for it. And that’s harder than it has ever been.
***
Brendan Clarey is the deputy editor of Michigan Enjoyer.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

A human brain model made by needle felting

I Tried The One Thing Big Tech Hopes You Never Do

Smartphones

Upstream

The internet has united in disgust against a new music video released by AI-generated “actress” Tilly Norwood, which has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hollywood-actors-union-slams-ai-synthetic-performer-pitched-as-the-next-scarlett-johansson">advertised as</a> “the next Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman.”
The song “Take the Lead” is inspired by a recently published <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/ai-actor-tilly-norwood-song-music-take-the-lead-1236526080/">essay</a> written by Eline van der Velden, the creator of Norwood and CEO of production company Particle6 and AI talent studio Xicoia. The exec said it was all done in response to the backlash from Norwood’s debut last year.
The music video, released on Tuesday, begins with a disclaimer saying: “The following production was made by 18 real humans — from production designers to costume designers to prompters, editors, and an actor. No flamingos were harmed in the process.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Tilly Norwood | Take The Lead (Official Music Video)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G7V2Biy3omw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“When they talk about me, they don’t see the human spark, the creativity/ I’m just a tool, but I’ve got life,” the lyrics say in part. “They think I’m just a dollar dream but I’ve got more than they believe/ I’m not a puppet, I’m the star.”
“Be the creators we’ve always known/ It’s the next evolution, can&#8217;t you see?/ AI’s not the enemy, it’s the key,” another line says. 
The song also insists that the Norwood character possesses human qualities. 
“They say it’s not real, that it’s fake/ But I am still human, make no mistake/ My soul’s in every move I take/ And you can own the path you make,” the song lyrics read.
These assertions and the over-the-top nature of the music video have led to a slew of mockery.
“It took only 18 humans to achieve this level of soullessness? Imagine what 19 could have done!” one commenter wrote.
“This is the most offensive thing I&#8217;ve seen in a long, long time. And that&#8217;s really saying something,” a second person agreed.
“I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself,” echoed a third.
“Tilly is, and has always been, a vehicle to test the creative capabilities and boundaries of AI — not take anyone’s job,” van der Velden <a href="https://variety.com/2026/digital/news/tilly-norwood-creator-tells-actors-to-create-ai-avatars-1236638940/">wrote</a> in defense of the created character.
“As an actor myself, I have loved bringing Tilly alive for this video and feel that the ability to now use performance capture in this way, to fully inhabit an AI character, is a phenomenal way to bring an unknown actor like me closer to the craft.” 
She added, “However, at the end of the day, even with brilliant new technology, it’s still important to stress that great AI content isn’t instant — it always takes good ideas, taste, direction, judgment and time. In other words: people remain at the heart of it.”
The Hollywood Reporter <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/ai-actor-tilly-norwood-song-music-take-the-lead-1236526080/">noted</a> that this music video is part of the launch of a “Tilly-verse,” where Norwood and other AI characters can “live, interact, and work.” 
Many prominent stars have come out against the creation of Tilly Norwood, including the media labor union SAG-AFTRA.
“It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion and, from what we’ve seen, audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience,&#8221; the organization wrote in a statement last fall. &#8220;It doesn’t solve any ‘problem’ — it creates the problem of using stolen performances to put actors out of work, jeopardizing performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry.”

Tilly Norwood

Music Video For AI-Generated ‘Actress’ Tilly Norwood Gets Absolutely Wrecked

Hollywood

Music

Menu