The KIDS Act, ostensibly aimed at protecting children, will raise the risk for journalists, dissidents, and whistleblowers.
"Democrats and Republicans in Congress have struck a deal on a bill they say will help keep children and teens safe online. The KIDS Act could pass on the House floor as soon as next week; if enacted, it would fundamentally change the way everyone — not just kids — accesses the internet.
At stake is your ability to use many social media platforms without revealing your identity.
That’s because the KIDS Act at least strongly incentivizes — and, for some services, outright requires — age verification. Many platforms will turn to age verification to avoid potential liability under the law. Companies like X, video-sharing services like Vimeo, and others with a history of users’ populating social feeds with edgy content may be required to verify users’ ages because they host a certain amount of content deemed “sexual material harmful to minors,” a term that the KIDS Act defines broadly.
That’s a big problem for people who need to be able to use the internet anonymously, since, as Taylor Lorenz has previously written about in The Intercept, “there’s no way to reliably verify someone’s age without verifying who they are.”
Threats to online anonymity harm everyone, but one group is often overlooked: journalists and the sources who talk to them. Age verification requirements will help the Trump administration carry out its vendetta against the press by creating new avenues to identify journalists’ confidential sources. [...]
Mandating age verification effectively hands Big Tech and the government a skeleton key to the identities of every whistleblower, dissident, and investigative reporter who uses online platforms, not to mention everyone else, including children. This kind of surveillance on steroids that surrenders our right to speak, report, and read the news anonymously won’t make anyone safer."
"You didn't lose a child to autism. You lost a child because the child you waited for never came into existence.
That isn't the fault of the autistic child who does exist, and it shouldn't be our burden. We need and deserve
families who can see us and value us for ourselves, not families whose vision of us is obscured by the ghosts of
children who never lived. Grieve if you must, for your own lost dreams. But don't mourn for us. We are alive.
We are real. And we're here waiting for you."
The hygiene hypothesis says exposure to germs helps kids develop healthy immune systems. But many viruses didn’t circulate as widely during
The hygiene hypothesis is the idea that kids need to be exposed to germs in order to develop healthy immune systems. We know that many common viruses did not circulate as widely during the pandemic, thanks to social distancing, masking, and other COVID mitigation measures. Are there downsides to those missed infections?
In this Q&A, Caitlin Rivers speaks with Marsha Wills-Karp, PhD, MHS, professor and chair of Environmental Health and Engineering, about the role of household microbiomes, birth, and vaccines in the development of kids’ immune systems—and whether early exposure really is the best medicine.
...
I think there’s some concern among parents who have heard about the hygiene hypothesis that there is a downside to all those stuffy noses that didn’t happen [during the COVID-19 pandemic]. Are there any upsides to viral infections? Do they help the immune system in some meaningful way?
I don’t think so.
You mentioned the hygiene hypothesis, which was postulated back in the ‘80s. German scientists noticed that families with fewer children tended to have more allergic disease. This was interpreted [to mean] that allergic disease was linked to experiencing fewer infections. I have explored this idea in my research for a couple of decades now.
This phenomenon has helped us to understand the immune system, but our interpretation of it has grown and expanded—particularly with respect to viruses.
Almost no virus is protective against allergic disease or other immune diseases. In fact, infections with viruses mostly either contribute to the development of those diseases or worsen them.
The opposite is true of bacteria. There are good bacteria and there are bad bacteria. The good bacteria we call commensals. Our bodies actually have more bacterial cells than human cells. What we’ve learned over the years is that the association with family life and the environment probably has more to do with the microbiome. ...
What does contribute to the development of the immune system, if not exposure to viruses?
There are a number of factors that we’ve associated with the hygiene hypothesis over the last 20 years, and these exposures start very early in life.
Cesarean sections, which do not allow the baby to travel through the birth canal and get exposed to the mother’s really healthy bacterial content, is a risk factor for many different immune diseases.
Getting that early seeding with good bacteria is critical for setting up the child going forward. Breastfeeding also contributes to the development of a healthy immune system.
There are other factors. Our diets have changed dramatically over the years. We eat a lot of processed food that doesn’t have the normal components of a healthy microbiome, like fiber.
These healthy bacteria in our gut need that fiber to maintain themselves. They not only are important for our immune system but they’re absolutely critical to us deriving calories and nutrients from our food. All these things contribute to a healthy child.
We’ve also noticed that people who live on farms have fewer of these diseases because they’re exposed to—for lack of a better term—the fecal material of animals. And what we have found is that it’s due to these commensal bacteria. That is one of the components that help us keep a healthy immune system. Most of us will probably not adopt farm life. But we can have a pet, we can have a dog.
I think all the pet lovers out there will be pleased to hear that.
There’s a lot of evidence that owning a pet in early childhood is very protective.
What about the idea that you need to be exposed to viruses in early life because if you get them as an adult, you’ll get more severely ill? We know that’s true for chickenpox, for example. Do you have any concerns about that?
We should rely on vaccines for those exposures because we can never predict who is going to be susceptible to severe illness, even in early childhood. If we look back before vaccines, children under 4 often succumbed to infections. I don’t think we want to return to that time in history.
Let me just give you one example. There’s a virus called RSV, it’s a respiratory virus. Almost all infants are positive for it by the age of 2. But those who get severe disease are more likely to develop allergic disease and other problems. So this idea that we must become infected with a pathogenic virus to be healthy is not a good one.
Even rhinovirus, which is the common cold, most people recover fine. But there’s a lot of evidence that for somebody who is allergic, rhinovirus exposures make them much worse. In fact, most allergic or asthmatic kids suffer through the winter months when these viruses are more common.
And that’s particularly salient because there is a lot of rhinovirus and enterovirus circulating right now.
From my point of view, right now, avoiding flu and COVID-19 is a priority.
Those are not going to help you develop a healthy immune response, and in fact, they can do a lot of damage to the lungs during that critical developmental time.
Data [show] that children that have more infections in the first 6 months to a year of life go on to have more problems.
It’s always surprising to me when I look at the data of the fraction of time that young children spend with these common colds—and this is pre-pandemic—it’s not uncommon for kids to be sick 50% of the time. That feels right as a parent, but it’s startling.
The other thing people don’t know is that the GI tract is where you get tolerized to all of your foods, allergens and things. Without those healthy bacteria in your gut, you can’t tolerate common allergens.
How does that relate to the guidance that’s changed over the years—that you should withhold peanuts in early life and now you’re supposed to offer them in early life?
The guidance to delay exposure to peanuts didn’t consider the fact that oral exposure to peanuts was not the only exposure kids were getting. There were peanut oils in all kinds of skin creams and other things.
So kids got exposed through their skin, but they had no gut protection—and the GI tract is important for a tolerant system. If you have a healthy immune response, you get tolerized in early life.
This concept is a little bit different for those families who may already have a predisposition to allergies. But for the general public, exposure is key to protecting them in early life.
I think some parents look at the guidance that you should now offer peanuts in early life and say, “Are we not doing that with rhinovirus by masking kids or improving ventilation?”
How should people think about the development of the immune system for food allergies compared to infections?
The thing about rhinoviruses is that after recovering, you’re not protected from the next infection. There is no real immune protection there. Most of us suffer from colds throughout our whole life.
Like I said, bacterial exposure is what’s key to priming the immune response.
Also, we forget that a lot of kids die from the flu... RSV, too, can be quite severe in young children and older adults.
"Women learn a new set of assertive responses to various forms of intimidation, threat, and harassment that fall along the continuum of sexual violence. Self-defensers sometimes remark on the 'little assaults' they respond to with 'little defenses'. . . . Some women remarked that their increased self-confidence is a psychological effect of their training and concomitant sense of strength, distinct from the utility of their fighting techniques for specific threats. . . . These statements should not be dismissed as some naive 'false sense of security.' Research has shown that a confident demeanor is a deterrent to attack, and a woman's belief that she can fight, along with the concomitant willingness to put up a fight, are central components to thwarting attacks successfully in the vast majority of situations."
—Martha McCaughey, Real Knockouts: The Physical Feminism of Women’s Self-Defense (1997), pg. 117-118
The Church’s presence in the world is also expressed through her relationship with civil society and public institutions. By engaging with these entities, the Church acknowledges the value of social and political realities and honors their specific responsibilities, supporting everything that fosters the wellbeing of individuals and strengthens the fabric of society. The Church does not claim to assume the functions belonging to the State. On the contrary, she esteems those who serve the common good, and she firmly acknowledges the responsibility that civil institutions hold within society. At the same time, the mission entrusted to the Church prompts her to address the real suffering of the men and women of our time. This closeness does not stem from an intent to supplant civil institutions, much less from an implicit criticism of their work. Rather, it stems from evangelical charity, which impels the Church to draw near to the wounds of humanity whenever they surface with greater severity. When the Church intervenes, she does so following the example of the Good Samaritan, with discretion and closeness, aware that what arises from urgent necessity cannot become the norm, nor replace the institutional responsibilities proper to the civil community.
"To celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Tomb Raider franchise, Lara Croft will embark on two new adventures for Xbox Series X|S. Set forth on Lara’s most ambitious adventure to date in Tomb Raider: Catalyst (2027), alongside Tomb Raider: Legacy of Atlantis (2026), a true reimaging of her 1996 debut game. Amazon Game Studios and Crystal Dynamics couldn’t be more excited to finally reveal the future of Tomb Raider, starting with the voice of Lara Croft. Look forward to Alix Wilton Regan revitalizing the fiercely brilliant heroine in both titles." [source, PS post. also on steam]
One month after a major round of layoffs impacted roughly 100 Bungie employees of 1,200, those remaining at the Destiny developer say the cu
"While the exact details of Sony’s deal to acquire Bungie remain unknown to the public or employees, sources say they were told by leaders that the current split board structure is contingent on Bungie meeting certain financial goals. If Bungie falls short of certain financial thresholds by too great an amount, Sony is allowed to dissolve the existing board and take full control of the company."
"According to those still with the company, employee frustration and sadness in the days and weeks following the layoffs was met with a surprising amount of indifference or even outright flippancy or hostility from management. Several people we spoke to told us that leaders had reiterated, across multiple meetings, that they couldn’t guarantee there wouldn’t be more layoffs, with two specifically recalling chief people officer Holly Barbacovi outright stating that layoffs were a “lever” the company would pull again."
"Others said they were rebuffed repeatedly and discouraged from even discussing the layoffs whenever they tried to ask questions. Employees in one department recalled a post-layoffs Q&A session where a department head was asked if leadership taking salary cuts to prevent layoffs had been considered, only to respond that Bungie was 'not that type of company.'"
"Several people we spoke to expressed anger at the layoff of Bungie general counsel Don McGowan, who played a key role in Bungie winning an historic suit against a player who harassed a Bungie developer. Others laid off included a noticeable number of members of Bungie’s DE&I clubs, including co-heads of Pride@Bungie, Women@Bungie, and Accessibility@Bungie. When combined with other recent resource cuts, these dismissals have led to fears these clubs might be shut down."
"'I’m angry. I’m upset. This isn’t what I came here to do,' one person said. 'It feels like many higher ups aren’t listening to the data and are like, "We just need to win our fans back, they still like us." No. They don’t…We got rid of some of our most knowledgeable beloved folks who have been here for 20+ years. Everyday I walk in afraid that I or my friends are next. No one is safe.'"
Through surgical intervention, Money et al. enabled medicine to erase the visible signs of intersexuality. Predicating their recommendations based on two supposedly distinct body morphologies (maleness/femaleness), they created two corresponding gender roles (masculine/feminine) and disallowed any body or gender role that called this system into question. The surgical intervention they advocated was solely focused on the genitalia. Feminist philosopher Rosi Braidotti argues that “swapping the totality for the parts that compose it, ignoring the fact that each part contains the whole” particularly marks the logic of bio-power (1994: 48). This synechdochal logic blatantly reveals itself in the process of intersexualization. Not whole bodies but specific parts—organs—are organized and classified in a hierarchical scheme. As Riki Wilchins and David Valentine note, “genitals account for only 1 percent of the body’s surface area” but they “carry an enormous amount of cultural weight” (1997: 215). Looking at narratives and practices pertaining to intersexualized bodies reveals that genitals ultimately function as the key and the truth of the body.
-Intersexualization: The Clinic and the Colony, Lena Eckert, pg 50.
