from the death-from-above dept

It’s hard to believe we once were shocked to hear a government figure proudly declare that we kill people based on metadata.

What’s happening now is even more disturbing. We’re killing people simply because they happen to be in boats spotted exiting certain shores and headed towards international waters.

The War on Drugs has always been evil. It has always relied on the ends justifying the malicious means, especially when the means usually meant the killing or incarceration of non-white people.

Under Trump, it’s gotten even worse. Trump has pretended the mere existence of a drug trade — something that involves the exchange of money for goods by consenting adults — justifies the wholesale slaughter of people in boats in international waters.

The Defense Department and Trump himself have posted clips of boat strikes on social media, almost always accompanied by self-serving statements about protecting Americans from foreign-based drug cartels.

But the government has offered very little in support of its social media postings and public statements. Almost no documentation exists to buttress assertions about the at-sea execution of alleged drug traffickers. Almost nothing connects these random murders to cartel activity.

The government has shown absolutely no interest in identifying the victims of its extrajudicial murder program. And why would it? Identifying drone strike victims might undercut the government’s unproven assertions. Worse, it might expose it for what it is: small-scale genocide meant to kill non-white people whose ultimate destination might be the United States.

It’s up to everyone else to do what this government and its historically large deficit won’t do: address the human cost of its antagonism towards any nation located south of the US border. Those doing this heavy lifting don’t have the benefit of billions of dollars of funding or internal pressure to discover the truth. They’re doing it because our government won’t.

Twenty journalists involved with the Latin American Center for Investigative Journalism (CLIP) have managed to identify 13 victims of Trump administration drone strikes. And even though it’s only a small percentage of the nearly 200 people our nation has murdered in open waters since Trump took office, it still matters.

This administration may prefer these people to remain faceless and nameless, since it makes their killing that much easier to shrug off. But anyone with an operating conscience shouldn’t pretend this effort is too small to matter. It does, and these are the names of a small portion of the people this administration has presumably straight-up murdered — an assumption that should stand until the administration is willing to produce evidence that says otherwise.

Of the 16 victims now identified, eight are Venezuelans: Juan Carlos Fuentes, 43; Luis Ramón Amundarain, 36; Eduard Hidalgo, 46; Dushak Milovcic, 24; and Robert Sánchez, Jesús Carreño, Eduardo Jaime and Luis Alí Martínez, whose ages are unknown. Three are Colombians: Alejandro Andrés Carranza Medina, 42, and Ronald Arregocés and Adrián Lubo (ages unknown). Two are from Ecuador: Pedro Ramón Holguín Holguín, 40, and Carlos Manuel Rodríguez Solórzano, 34; two are Trinidadians: Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo (age unknown); and one is from Saint Lucia: Ricky Joseph (age unknown).

Some of the people murdered by Trump’s Defense Department were simply going from one country to another to secure employment. Some of them may have been transporting drugs, but they were mules, rather than key members of international drug cartels. What’s actually known about the nearly 200 people the administration has killed is minimal. And the one entity that could provide more insight on its drone strike targets isn’t interested in sharing this information with anyone.

In the eight months since the airstrikes began, the US has not provided any evidence that any of the 194 victims were involved in drug trafficking.

Read that again: the US government has not provided evidence about any of its 194 murder victims. Instead, it has produced a steady stream of baseless invective meant to persuade the stupidest of Americans that these killings were justified.

What is being said by government officials doesn’t erase its refusal to provide evidence backing its claim, much less justify killings it’s unwilling to honestly discuss with the US public or its congressional oversight.

A spokesperson for US Southern Command said that all the strikes were “deliberate, lawful and precise, directed specifically at narco-terrorists and their enablers. We have full confidence in the operations and intelligence professionals who inform our missions.”

This is not evidence of anything. This statement is conclusory, which is the exact opposite of evidence, as any court will tell you. It simply says the government is in the right because the government says it’s in the right. That’s not justification. That’s someone representing entities swallowing up billions of federal officers telling the people paying its outsized paycheck “because I said so” and expecting that to be the end of the discussion.

The American public is not the government’s child. It’s actually the other way around. The government is reliant on the public, which makes the general public the adult in this conversation. That far too many MAGA enablers refuse to be the adults in the room makes it that much easier for the government to pretend it owes the public nothing. But that doesn’t change how this actually works. The government works for us, rather than the other way around. And when it doesn’t, it’s up to the public to remind it of its place.

In this case, it took people in other countries to generate the modicum of accountability this nation — under Trump — appears unwilling to do itself. That’s just fucking sad.

Filed Under: boat strikes, donald trump, drug war, extrajudicial killings, murder, pete hegseth, racism, trump administration

Companies: clip, Latin american center for investigative journalism

Christopher Quek invested S$250K to launch Spike Durian

Singapore is not short of durian sellers. From roadside stalls piled high with husks to dedicated cafes serving Musang King tarts, the King of Fruits has never been hard to find—during season, at least. But for the other eight months of the year, your options run dry.

That seasonal gap is exactly what Christopher Quek, 48, built Spike Durian to fix. And the origin story? It began with pregnancy cravings—but not his wife’s.

“15 years ago, my wife was pregnant, and ironically, I was the one with the pregnancy cravings,” he said with a laugh. “I was searching desperately for Mao Shan Wang and just couldn’t find it. I ended up at a durian cake shop just to survive on the durian.”

The experience stayed with him for years. So when technology eventually made year-round premium durian possible, Chris decided to take the leap and start Spike Durian, which sells premium Mao Shan Wang every day of the year.

After 10 years of funding others, he wanted in

Chris is, by trade, a venture capitalist. He founded TRIVE, a Singapore-based venture capital firm with roughly US$30 million (S$38.37 million) in assets under management, and has backed notable companies, including ride-hailing app Tada and Charge+, one of Singapore’s largest EV charging networks.

It was through TRIVE that Chris first encountered Agrifreeze, a food tech startup pitching an advanced freezing technology that uses electromagnetic field (EMF) waves to control ice crystal formation.

Unlike conventional blast freezing, which creates large, sharp ice crystals that rupture a food’s cellular structure and degrade texture, aroma, and flavour upon thawing, Agrifreeze’s process produces small, rounded crystals that are three times smaller. The result is what Chris calls “as good as fresh”—food that, once thawed, is largely indistinguishable from its fresh state.

“I looked at them and said, can you blast-freeze durians? Can you make sure you give me fresh durian?” he recalled. “And that was when Agrifreeze said, okay, let’s try.”

It took 18 months of research and development to perfect the Agrifreeze blast-freezing process for durian. Once they did, Chris invested in Agrifreeze and then went a step further by founding Spike Durian in Dec 2024 as a direct-to-consumer delivery venture. His partner, Marcus Choy, 32, who had previously worked at TRIVE, joined him to run operations.

The total investment in Spike Durian was approximately US$200,000 (S$255,810), which Chris describes as one of TRIVE’s smallest bets, against a fund that typically writes cheques of US$5–10 million (S$6.4-12.8 million) for incubators.

For a firm that has backed mobility platforms and EV infrastructure, a premium durian e-commerce shop seems like an unlikely portfolio addition. But Chris sees it as more than a business.

I’ve been seeing and helping so many startup founders for the last 10 years. I realised I’d been missing out on the action.

Christopher Quek

From Pahang to your doorstep

Spike Durian sources exclusively from six plantations in Pahang, Malaysia, which Chris considers to be the home of gold-standard Mao Shan Wang.

Pahang sits at a higher elevation than other durian-producing states, meaning trees get the precise balance of sunlight and rainfall they need, without waterlogging. The trees there are also among the oldest, ranging from 20 to 30 years. “The older the tree, the better the flavour, the more complex,” Chris explained.

The harvesting method matters too. Unlike farms in Thailand and Vietnam, where fruits are cut from the tree early to extend shelf life, Pahang’s plantations wait for durians to fall naturally into nets strung below.

“The farmers know that the best durians are the ones that drop, not the ones that you pre-cut,” Chris said. He added that this natural ripening produces the stronger, more complex flavour profiles that Singaporeans and Malaysians prize, as opposed to the lighter, sweeter taste of Indochina varieties.

Once harvested, the durians are husked and vacuum-sealed in a clean room environment within hours, then transported by a chiller truck to Agrifreeze’s facility in Selangor, where they are blast-frozen for four hours using EMF technology. From there, they are trucked to Spike Durian’s modest 200–300 sqft facility in Singapore—a nine-hour journey with the durians maintained at -28°C—and stored until orders come in.

To keep costs down, Spike Durian holds most of its inventory in Malaysia, only trucking in about a week’s worth of stock at a time to the Singapore facility.

“The cost of actually keeping it in Singapore is quite high, so we only bring sufficient stock for the week itself,” Chris explained. “If it’s sold out, unfortunately, we’ll tell them we have to wait for the next shipment.”

That said, the company benefits from sourcing durians that traditional sellers often reject. Misshapen or “ugly” fruits—those with irregular shapes or fewer chambers—are typically passed over by vendors who rely on displaying whole durians to customers.

But because Spike Durian sells only the flesh in vacuum-sealed boxes, the appearance of the husk makes little difference. This allows the team to negotiate lower prices for fruits that are cosmetically imperfect but otherwise identical in quality.

Spike Durian’s stocks in Singapore are usually adequate for customers to pre-order for next-day delivery. When an order is placed, frozen durians are transferred to a chiller to thaw for approximately 20 hours, then delivered within a four-hour window. By the time the box arrives, the durian is ready to eat—no different, Chris insists, from what you’d get at a stall mid-season.

Each 400g container of Mao Shan Wang comes in sweet or bitter variants and starts at S$45.

Convincing Singaporeans that frozen can be fresh

Overcoming the stigma of “frozen food” was Spike Durian’s first real test.

To test the market, Chris sent 100 boxes to friends and family in Dec and asked them to eat without knowing what they were tasting.

“95% said it was fresh durian,” he recalled. “When we told them it was frozen, they were astounded.”

Soon enough, word of Spike Durian’s Mao Shan Wang spread.

Spike Durian has since sold over 4,000 boxes in its first five months, with its biggest sales days coinciding with Chinese New Year, Hari Raya, and Mother’s Day—occasions that fall entirely outside the durian harvest window and where customers would often get the three-container bundle.

Chris shared that repeat customers now average about 20% of their total customer demographic.

“For the first time, people could finally bring durians to their Chinese New Year table or their Hari Raya spread,” Chris said. “That was really heartwarming to hear.”

One of Spike Durian’s most surprising discoveries has been who is actually buying.

According to Chris, about 25% of its customers are non-Chinese-speaking Singaporeans, many of whom told the company they found traditional durian-buying experiences intimidating or unfamiliar.

“They told us they felt threatened going to a durian seller. The uncle comes out with a cleaver, shouting, and they don’t speak Chinese,” Chris said. “They love that we’re entirely in English, and everything is handled for them.”

The premium packaging has also resonated with customers far more than Chris anticipated.

Traditional durian arrives in cling-wrapped polystyrene boxes stuffed in a red plastic bag—functional, but hardly appears gift-worthy. Conversely, Chris shared that Spike Durian’s presentation targets customers hosting guests or bringing durian as a dessert to a dinner party.

Hard lessons in the cold chain

Running a premium frozen durian business from a 300-square-foot facility is not without its chaos.

Three weeks into launching, a restock shipment from Malaysia arrived on a public holiday. The driver, unable to access the cold chain facility, placed the stock in a conventional freezer out of goodwill, but that instantly compromised the cellular structure of the durian.

We had to throw away 300 boxes because of that. I learned the hard way to cross-check every regional holiday before any truck leaves the plantation.

Christopher Quek

Advertisement

Quality control remains a persistent challenge, too.

Farmers visually inspect each durian before packing, but, by their own admission, are only about 70% accurate as they work through hundreds of durians a day with no automated assistance. When shipments arrive in Singapore, Chris and his team do a second round of visual checks, looking for discolouration or cracks in the vacuum-sealed boxes.

Increasingly, Chris has seen a surge in last-minute buyers. As Spike Durian operates on a pre-order model, he is now building a system to handle on-demand orders—a shift that comes with its own operational challenges.

Looking beyond Singapore

Six months in, Spike Durian is already fielding serious overseas interest.

There are some instances where customers would go the extra mile to enjoy Spike Durian.

Some of its most enthusiastic customers have personally carried frozen durian onto international flights, packing the boxes in insulated bags with dry ice and clearing customs.

One customer even flew to the US on a 20-hour journey and arrived home to find the durian still frozen. Chris helps coordinate these as bespoke concierge requests, talking through timing, packaging, and sealing with customers before they travel.

“They promoted it to their friends around them, and they were so stunned,” he said. “They were like, oh wow, this is from Malaysia.”

Beyond individual customers, Spike Durian is also exploring larger international opportunities.

Chris recently brought Agrifreeze durians to Taiwan, transporting them in dry-ice-packed styrofoam boxes and distributing samples to potential distributors over five days. The response, he said, was overwhelmingly positive.

One Taiwanese distributor told Chris they move 20,000 boxes of Malaysian Mao Shan Wang every month — a figure that genuinely surprised him.

“I thought the Taiwanese may be a little more restricted in their taste,” he admitted. “But no, they are very open-minded.” Given the scale of demand, Spike Durian sees significant potential in supplying Taiwanese brands through a white-label model.

China, by contrast, wants to carry the Spike Durian brand directly—in Mandarin packaging—drawn partly by the trust associated with a Singapore-origin product. Other territories have made enquiries, though Chris is not yet naming them publicly just yet.

The upcoming Jul to Aug harvest peak is where Spike Durian plans to potentially introduce Blackthorn durian—a variant Chris describes as more palatable and beginner-friendly than Mao Shan Wang, and one that beginner durian eaters may actually find more approachable. 

The founder expects demand to keep climbing.

• Find out more about Spike Durian here.
• Read other articles about Singaporean businesses here.

Featured Image Credit: Spike Durian

Oppo has officially launched the Enco Air 5 Pro TWS earbuds in India, featuring premium audio, robust active noise cancellation, and long battery life. The new earbuds are designed for users who listen to music, attend calls, travel frequently, or stream content daily. Oppo is offering the earbuds in Matte Black and Pearl White.

Oppo Enco Air 5 Pro Specifications and Features

The Enco Air 5 Pro earbuds feature up to 55dB of Active Noise Cancellation for a quieter, more focused listening experience. Oppo claims the earbuds can reduce noise across a broad 5,000Hz frequency range, helping block voices and background sounds more effectively. Adaptive ANC automatically adjusts noise cancellation based on the user’s environment. The earbuds have also received TUV Rheinland certification for high-performance noise cancellation.

Oppo has added a triple-mic system to the earbuds for better call quality. The AI-backed noise cancellation feature focuses on the user’s voice while lowering unwanted environmental sounds. The earbuds are claimed to deliver clearer calls even in windy conditions or busy outdoor areas.

For audio performance, Oppo uses the Enco Air 5 Pro with 12mm titanium-coated drivers to deliver deeper bass, balanced vocals, and detailed sound. Hi-Res Audio certification, as well as the LHDC 5.0, ensure high-quality audio signal transmission. Oppo also features Alive Audio, which provides a broader, richer sound experience for music, streaming, and gaming.

The Enco Air 5 Pro offers up to 54 hours of combined battery life along with the charging case. The earbuds alone can run for up to 13 hours on a single charge with selected settings. Fast charging support is also available, and a 10-minute charge can deliver enough power for long listening sessions. Oppo notes that battery life may vary depending on whether ANC or high-resolution LHDC audio is enabled.

Price and Availability

Oppo has launched the Enco Air 5 Pro in India at a price of Rs 4,999. The earbuds are currently available for pre-order on Oppo India’s official website, with official sales beginning on May 28, 2026.

Purported images of Apple’s clear cases for the iPhone 18 range are causing unfathomable excitement for how different the MagSafe markings are.

There’s a strong chance you never noticed this, and perhaps quite a strong one that you’d now have to look at these images to spot the difference. Yet if you cared about this, you apparently cared a great deal and the latest clear-case leaks may be making you happy.

While there’s no confirmation of this at the time of writing, it’s claimed that images of the new cases have been circulating on Chinese social media. But wherever they are being shown or circulated, there are images that claim to be of the new Apple clear cases.

Previously on Apple’s clear iPhone cases… the company had a circle image on the back to show you where to position the phone for MagSafe charging. For the iPhone 17 range’s clear cases, Apple scrapped that in favor of nothing very much.

Instead of a circle or a sometimes broken circle, the clear cases had a large white region. It was mostly rectangular, though since this is Apple, the corners were neatly rounded.

Left: a new purported iPhone 18 range clear case. Right: Apple’s current model. Image credits: MyDevices (r) and Apple (l)

It made no difference to how MagSafe works, and there was no special reason it had to happen just because the MagSafe magnets were lowered.

Only, it did mean that if you had this clear case, it wasn’t really all that clear at all. Whatever color iPhone you had bought, it was chiefly covered by that white region.

This is why new reports showing the iPhone 18, iPhone 18 Pro, and iPhone 18 Pro Max clear cases have gotten some attention. The large white panel is seemingly gone, and the old circle or broken circle is back.

Reports of the new images were first spotted by MacRumors via Chinese news site MyDrivers.

There is the argument that a clear case ought to actually be clear, and it’s true the one for the iPhone 17 range was not.

But perhaps Apple was saving users from revealing they’d bought the horrible orange, or perhaps pink, color iPhone.

The Boys wrapped its five-season run just two days ago, and Prime Video is already keeping the hype train moving. The first trailer for Vought Rising, the prequel spinoff set in 1950s New York City, just arrived – and it looks promising.

The show follows a young, wide-eyed Soldier Boy (Jensen Ackles) suiting up for the very first time, teaming up with a fresh squad of supes who believe they’re a gift from God. Spoiler: they’re not!

What is Vought Rising about? The Boys prequel trailer explained

The trailer wastes no time establishing its world. Vought Rising is set around the creation of the first-ever superhero team, powered by V-One. It is the early version of Compound V, the drug that awakens superpowers in people.

You’ll recognize the Sage Grove Center from The Boys season 2, where Vought ran brutal experiments on psychiatric patients. Here, it’s shown in its earliest form, with an unnamed character played by Jorden Myrie being injected with V-One and breaking out of containment.

This detail carries more weight when you factor in Vought’s Nazi roots and notice who is being experimented on. Back when V-One was first developed, Vought’s public-facing heroes were predominantly white, while their test subjects were Black men. It’s a dynamic that mirrors the Isaiah Bradley arc from The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, where an all-Black unit was used to try to replicate the serum behind Captain America‘s powers.

The cast includes Mason Dye’s Bombsight, Will Hochman’s Torpedo, and Elizabeth Posey’s Private Angel. Aya Cash returns as Clara Vought, better known as Stormfront. She is the secret Nazi villain from season 2 who co-leads the series with Ackles.

Can Vought Rising win back The Boys fans who are disappointed by the finale?

A lot of fans (including me) felt burned by season 5, which spent a big chunk of its runtime setting up Vought Rising rather than nailing its own landing. Soldier Boy dominated screen time across the season only to end up right back on ice, with nothing truly resolved for his character. It felt like a bait-and-switch.

The cancellation of Gen V, the interesting college-set spinoff that never got its third season, only deepened the frustration. The combination of letdowns makes it reasonable to approach Vought Rising with caution. The trailer, though, is hard to dismiss on its own merits.

The 1950s aesthetic is sharp, the production looks distinctly stylish, and there is a sense of renewed identity this universe badly needs. Vought Rising is also one of two planned spinoffs, the other being The Boys: Mexico, led by Gael Garcia Bernal and Diego Luna, which is still early in production.

Vought Rising arrives on Prime Video sometime in 2027, and how it lands could shape the future of this entire universe.

The merchandise website of FBI director Kash Patel was taken offline on Friday after reports that it had been hijacked by hackers trying to infect visitors with malware, as first reported by Straight Arrow News.

As of this writing, the website of Based Apparel is offline. On Thursday, an X user who goes by Debbie posted that the brand’s website apparently had malware on it, in particular an infostealer, a type of malicious software designed to infect victims and steal their credentials and passwords. A security researcher later analyzed the malware. 

Brand Apparel could not be reached for comment. TechCrunch emailed a Gmail address previously associated with Patel, but we have not received an answer.  

This was not a good week for security for MAGA-associated business ventures. 

On Friday, President Trump’s cellphone provider and maker of Trump Mobile confirmed that the company left customers’ personal information exposed online, including names, email addresses, mailing addresses, cell numbers, and order identifiers. The confirmation came days after a researcher alerted two YouTubers who had purchased Trump Mobile’s phone, that their personal data was exposed on the internet. 

Over three decades, I’ve watched consumer behavior evolve across television, search, and social media. Each shift changed tactics, but not the underlying logic of decision-making.

What I am watching happen right now is different. And I know I am not alone. Every seasoned marketing professional I speak to, whether they built their career in offline media or digital platforms, says some version of the same thing: something fundamental has shifted, and the old playbooks are no longer working the way they used to.

This is not just a platform change. It is a psychological one. For the first time in my career, I am watching users move from searching for information to seeking certainty, and that distinction changes everything.

When Behavior Was Predictable

I remember the era when a celebrity’s face on a television screen was essentially a guarantee. Brand loyalty tracked closely with fan loyalty. If your brand ambassador had a devoted following, that following would follow them to your product. It was a simple, time-tested formula: attention creates association, association creates purchase. And it worked, consistently, for decades.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

When the internet arrived, it digitized that predictability rather than dismantling it. Google and Yahoo turned discovery into a structured, keyword-driven system. Users searched, engines returned ranked results, and businesses that showed up at the top of those results won the customer. For the better part of a decade, through multiple algorithm updates, through the rise of paid search, through the SEO arms race, the core principle held: be visible, and you will be chosen.

Both eras rewarded the same thing: reach. Who could get in front of the most people, most often? That question shaped marketing strategy for nearly thirty years.

What Has Actually Changed

The change I am describing is not about which platform is winning or losing. It runs deeper than that, it is about how people make decisions.

Celebrity credibility has eroded in a way it simply had not before. It is not that people distrust celebrities, it is that modern consumers understand the commercial ecosystem they operate inside. They know that an endorsement is a transaction. And with global information available at their fingertips at all times, they also know that a single endorsement is not a sufficient reason to spend money.

Younger consumers in particular, Gen Z and late millennials, have moved almost entirely toward first-hand experience. Their own experience, or that of someone in their immediate circle, their age group, their specific context. Not someone famous. Someone relatable. And even then, they verify.

The online and offline distinction has also largely dissolved. A consumer who sees a product in a store will pull out their phone before they put it in their cart. A consumer who hears a recommendation from a friend will cross-check it before acting on it. The behaviors that once lived in separate worlds, browsing a physical shelf, reading an online review, asking a peer, now happen simultaneously, fluidly, and constantly.

What the Research Showed Me

To test whether what I was observing professionally reflected broader behavioral patterns, I ran an in-person field survey from mid-2025, nearly 500 people, not a formal academic study, but a deliberately diverse one: college students, working professionals, homemakers, and retirees across different age groups and economic backgrounds. The results confirmed the pattern I had been sensing.

Among 16 to 20 year olds, 87% said their primary trust for purchase decisions sits with friends, parents or teachers, people in their immediate circle. In the 21 to 30 age group, 73% blend peer input with social media and select individuals they follow, but 96% of that same group said they re-verify suggestions before acting on them. Nearly everyone. Among 31 to 40 year olds, 65% exhibit similar verification behavior. Even in the 41-and-above segment, 44% now follow the same pattern, slower adoption, but the same direction.

The common thread across every age group: trust is no longer accepted. It is earned and then verified. Consumers of every generation have become active validators, not passive recipients.

Are LLMs an Innovation or a Response to Market Pressure?

Looking at technology history, a pattern emerges roughly every ten to fifteen years: radio gave way to television, television to the internet, the internet to search engines, search engines to social media. Each revolution did not just create a new platform, it changed how buyers behaved. Which means, if you are a marketer trying to understand the AI era, the first question is not “how do I optimize for this platform?” It is “how has buyer behavior changed, and why?”

The rise of large language models – ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and others, is a direct response to the psychological shift I have been describing. These tools did not create the verification instinct in modern consumers. They answered it.

Traditional search engines offered a list of options and left the user to sort through competing claims. LLMs synthesize. They aggregate information from multiple sources and return a structured answer. For a consumer whose instinct is to verify, cross-check, and reach certainty before deciding, that is not just convenient, it is exactly what they were already trying to do, done faster.

Here is the insight that I think gets missed: the tech giants who have invested most aggressively in this space – OpenAI, Google, Microsoft – were not motivated purely by innovation. They understood something more uncomfortable. The audience that once lived on their platforms was fragmenting. Attention was splitting across social media, e-commerce platforms, and dozens of other channels. LLMs are, in part, a strategic attempt to re-aggregate that audience under a single, trusted interface.

They are not building these tools because they want to. They are building them because remaining passive risks losing the next interface layer of the internet.

And that changes the stakes considerably. Because an LLM that users trust enough to make purchase decisions through is an LLM that must remain unbiased. The moment users sense commercial favoritism in a recommendation, they abandon it, and move to the next tool that feels more neutral. The entire value proposition of these platforms depends on being perceived as trustworthy.

What This Means for Brands

The shift from visibility to credibility is not a subtle one. In the old paradigm, a brand that showed up frequently enough and loudly enough would eventually be chosen. In this paradigm, showing up is necessary, but nowhere near sufficient. If your brand cannot survive the moment a potential customer decides to verify your claims, through an AI tool, peer networks, reviews, or independent sources, you are unlikely to remain in the consideration set.

A useful example of this shift can be seen in how consumers now make even relatively small purchase decisions. A user may first discover a product through TikTok or Instagram, search for reviews on YouTube, cross-check opinions on Reddit, compare alternatives through Google, and finally ask ChatGPT or Perplexity to summarize the best option before purchasing. What matters is not the number of platforms involved, but the behavior itself.

Another example: Take a procurement manager evaluating CX outsourcing vendors. They may first encounter a shortlist through an AI Overview, cross-check reviews on Clutch, G2 or Trustpilot, look for case studies on the vendor’s site, scan Reddit or industry forums for unfiltered opinions, and finally ask ChatGPT to compare the top options. A company that has invested in verified reviews, documented case studies, and third-party editorial coverage survives that journey. One that hasn’t, doesn’t.

Consumers are no longer relying on a single source of authority. They are building confidence through layered verification, and for brands, that behavioral shift has a concrete consequence.

Practically, this means thinking less about impression count and more about information integrity. Are your claims verifiable? Are you consistent across every surface a user might check – your website, third-party reviews, forum discussions, AI-generated summaries? Is there enough legitimate, high-quality information within trusted ecosystems for an LLM to surface your brand accurately? These are not marketing questions. They are infrastructure questions.

Most brands are still optimizing for the old game: reach, frequency, creative impact. The ones pulling ahead are doing something different. They are making themselves easy to trust at the exact moment a skeptical consumer decides to look closer, not by being louder, but by having nothing to hide when someone does.

The Deeper Shift

What I keep coming back to, after everything I observed in my survey and in three decades of watching markets move, is that the underlying human need has not changed. People have always wanted to feel certain before they commit. What has changed is the threshold for that certainty, and the speed at which they expect to reach it.

Search has not become less important. It has become more decisive. Increasingly, users are not looking merely to explore; they are looking to reduce uncertainty quickly. And if your brand cannot be part of that moment, in a way that holds up to scrutiny, then in that specific moment of decision, your brand simply does not exist.

That is a harder problem than getting your SEO right. But it is also a more honest one, because it forces brands to ask not just “how do I get found?” but “do I deserve to be chosen?”

In the AI era, that is the only question that actually matters.

from the follow-the-science? dept

As statehouses ramp up for 2026, we’re seeing a familiar and concerning trend of lawmakers rushing to regulate the internet based on shockingly shaky science. From the California State Assembly to the Massachusetts and Minnesota legislatures, a wave of bills is crashing against the digital lives of young people, with proponents of these measures framing social media access as a “public health epidemic,” or a “mental health crisis,” even though we have yet to see any of the settled science that those labels usually invoke.

As a digital rights organization dedicated to the civil liberties of all users, EFF’s expertise lies in reminding lawmakers that young people enjoy largely the same free speech and privacy rights as adults. EFF is not a social science research shop, but we can read the emerging research. What that research shows is much more nuanced than what is claimed by those proposing to ban young people from social media, and it is clear that research and theories used to justify these sweeping bans is far from settled. The rush to ban access to digital platforms is being fueled by “pop psychology” narratives and a collection of statistically flawed studies that do not meet the rigorous standards required for such a massive infringement on youth autonomy and constitutional rights.

The Lie of A “Settled” Consensus

The current legislative push relies heavily on a specific, media-friendly narrative that the “great rewiring” of the adolescent brain is a proven fact. This theory suggests that smartphones and social media are the primary, if not sole, drivers of a global uptick in teen anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self harm, etc. While this narrative makes for a compelling airport-bookstore read, it quickly collapses under the scrutiny of the broader scientific community.

Independent researchers, including developmental psychologists from institutions like the University of California, Irvine, and Brown University, have repeatedly found that the evidence for such claims is mixed, blurry, and often contradictory. Large-scale meta-analyses covering dozens of countries have failed to show a consistent, measurable association between the rollout of social media and a decline in global well-being. In reality, we are seeing a classic case of what many of our middle school science teachers warned us about: “correlation” being sold as “causation.”  

Additionally, the studies used to support these measures often fail to account for or exclude significant alternative explanations for rising teen anxiety and depression, such as the lasting impact of pandemic-era isolation, the persistent threat of school gun violence, and mounting economic or climate-related stress. By focusing narrowly on social media, these findings frequently overlook the broader societal factors that also impact youth mental health.

The Cult of the “Anxious” Expert

The current push for blanket social media bans relies almost exclusively on the work of Jonathan Haidt, particularly his book The Anxious Generation. While Haidt is an amiable and brilliant storyteller, he is not a clinical psychologist or a specialist in child development. He is a social psychologist who writes about moral psychology at a business school. Nonetheless, the book has made it to every Best Seller list, and with Haidt revered as an expert on podcasts with massive reach, like Oprah, Joe Rogan, Michelle Obama, and Trevor Noah—his message has been heard by a large subset of society, which primarily relies on: no smartphones or social media before age 16, phone-free schools, and more “unsupervised, real-world independence.”

To highlight Haidt’s reach when it comes to legislation banning social media: the California committee analysis for the proposed California social media ban mentions Haidt 20 times; the Governor of Utah promoted the book as a “must-read” months before signing the nation’s first social media ban; Haidt is cited in bill analysis for the bill banning social media in Florida; his work is mentioned in a federal bill aiming to ban phones in schools; and he provided formal testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Technology, Privacy, and the Law) in May 2022. 

While Haidt’s research has been paramount to legislation stripping millions of young people of their rights to expression and connection, his conclusions are not without challenge, and many experts in the field argue that the evidence is less than ironclad. 

The “Bad Science” Fueling Social Media Bans

While we can admit that Jonathan Haidt’s “great rewiring” theory makes for a gripping narrative, we cannot ignore that independent researchers and statisticians have identified significant flaws in the data used to justify it. Which means we are currently watching policymakers legislate blanket bans based on evidence that would be rejected in almost any other field of public health.

The reality is that research has consistently disproven the oft-assumed link between social media use and poor mental health in youth, and actually indicates that moderate internet use is a net positive for teens’ development, and negative outcomes are usually due to either lack of access or excessive use. In one major study of 100,000 adolescents, a “U-shaped association emerged where moderate social media use was associated with the best well-being outcomes, while both no use and highest use were associated with poorer well-being.” We also know that young people’s relationship with social media is complex, as it provides them essential spaces for civic engagement, identity exploration, and community building—particularly for LGBTQ+ and marginalized youth who may lack support in their physical environments. 

But again, the image Haidt presents in his book is increasingly at odds with the broader academic consensus. As mentioned, critics argue that the evidence for the mental health impacts of social media is mixed, blurry, and often misinterpreted. NYU statistics expert Aaron Brown, writing for Reason, notes that many of the studies in Haidt’s exhaustive reference list are statistically unreliable or fail to show a strong causal link. Prof. Candace Odgers, a leading voice in psychological science, explains the “selection effect” that legislators often ignore:

“Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers.”

This raises a fundamental question of legislative responsibility: If the science is not settled, how can legislators confidently declare a “public health crisis” to justify stripping away young people’s First Amendment rights? By bypassing the rigorous, nuanced findings of the scientific community in favor of a more convenient narrative, legislators are choosing emotion over evidence. Before imposing such draconian restrictions on young people’s access to information, policymakers have an obligation to do the heavy lifting: to dig into the actual research and listen to the experts who are sounding the alarm on oversimplified conclusions.

The Dangers of “Social Contagion” Narrative

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Haidt’s crusade is its overlap with ideological rhetoric that pathologizes the identities of marginalized youth, and how that makes its way through efforts to ban social media for youth. A recurring theme in the literature favored by proponents of social media bans is the idea of “social contagion“—specifically regarding the rise in young people identifying as transgender or non-binary. Haidt dedicates an entire chapter of his book to this (ch.6, pt 3, p. 165), talking about “Why Social Media Harms Girls More Than Boys,” stating that: 

“The recent growth in diagnoses of gender dysphoria may also be related in part to social media trends, […] the fact that gender dysphoria is now being diagnosed among many adolescents who showed no signs of it as children all indicate the social influence and sociogenic transmission may be at work as well.”

These harmful theories suggesting that social media is “infecting” young people with gender dysphoria are false and not supported by peer-reviewed clinical research. But by legitimizing “experts” who promote these debunked theories, legislators—especially those in states like California who pride themselves on being a sanctuary for LGBTQ+ youth—are inadvertently platforming the same rhetoric used in other states to ban gender affirming care for youth. This “social contagion” narrative is a tool of exclusion, not a scientific reality, and we must be wary of any “public health” argument that treats community-building and self-discovery among marginalized young people as a “purported mental illness” spread via TikTok.

A Better Path: Digital Wellness, Not Bans

Fortunately, there is a measured, evidence-based alternative already emerging. California’s A.B. 2071, for instance, is a student-authored “digital wellness” bill that offers a measured, evidence-based alternative rather than prohibition. The bill advocates for a curriculum that teaches students how to manage algorithms, recognize cyberbullying, and regulate their own relationship with technology. Instead of trying to completely shield young people from social media, education-based approaches empower young people and have the benefit of providing skills that stay with a young person long after they leave the classroom. 

JustLeadershipUSA, a criminal justice organization, has a slogan that rings true in this instance too: “Those closest to the problem are closest to the solution.” So let’s start listening to what our young people are asking us for—more education—instead of imposing paternalistic, disempowering bans.

Legislating With Precision instead of Emotion 

Adolescent mental health struggles are a complex, multifaceted crisis. It is a crisis that has existed for as long as time, and has been driven by economic instability, the opioid epidemic, the threat of school violence, amongst other issues. To pin all of society’s woes on a smartphone app is not just a scientific error; it is a policy failure that ignores the real, material needs of young people both online and off.

Legislators must stop legislating as “anxious parents” and start acting as measured policymakers. Because for some youth, social media platforms are a lifeline. UNICEF and other global human rights organizations have warned that age-related restrictions and blanket bans can backfire in three critical ways: isolating marginalized youth (like LGBTQ+ youth, students in rural areas, foster youth, or those with disabilities) who social media is often the only place they can find a supportive community; necessitating invasive mass collection of biometric data or government-issued IDs from all users, including adults; and pushing young people toward less-regulated, “darker” corners of the web where content moderation is non-existent and the risks of actual exploitation are significantly higher.

Legislators have a valid interest in protecting children, but that interest must be pursued through tailored, measured approaches. We cannot allow emotions or a collection of flawed data sets to justify a historic rollback of digital rights. 

Reposted from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Filed Under: addiction, harm to children, jonathan haidt, protect the children, research, social media

AI + ML

Listening to your customers? Who are you, and what have you done with Microsoft?

Microsoft has made Copilot a little less in-your-face with the option to banish the assistant’s Dynamic Action Button to the toolbar.

The change, rolling out this week, comes after howls of outrage from customers over Microsoft’s decision to drop a Copilot button onto user workspaces. 

Although the desire to get users clicking on the assistant is understandable, obscuring content in its productivity applications was perhaps not the best way to do it.

Microsoft’s forums show plenty of frustration with the floating button. Some call it “infuriating,” while others are less tactful. One Excel user wrote: “Did you let copilot design this idea and no human review it? Such abomination.”

Another said: “Putting a button over the working content was not a good move by Microsoft,” which gets to the heart of the problem. Redesigns and interface tweaks will always generate strong feelings. However, obscuring content with something that many don’t want is arguably a step too far.

There was already a way to turn off Copilot features in Excel and Word via the Settings screen, but the latest update indicates that Microsoft has paid attention to recent feedback. A user commented: “There needs to be a toggle or something to move it back to the ribbon,” and that is pretty much what Microsoft has done.

A new option has been added to the button’s menu, “Move to ribbon,” which does exactly that. Click it, and Copilot is banished to the ribbon. The floating Copilot Dynamic Action Button is no more, although it can be moved back if a user happens to miss that particular design decision.

Microsoft has acknowledged that forcing Copilot on users was not universally welcomed. Windows boss Pavan Davuluri promised a reduction in Copilot entry points and a rethink of how the technology is integrated into the operating system (because of course it isn’t going away any time soon). Earlier in May, Microsoft said it would “streamline” access to Copilot in its productivity applications.

Alas, that “streamline” involved the Copilot button, and plenty of customers asked for the ability to shift it back to the ribbon.

Less than two weeks after the initial announcement, Microsoft has responded. Although Copilot will still be there, the option to move it back to the ribbon is a move in the right direction. ®