Blocking children from social media is no substitute for making platforms safe in the first place, the UN human rights office warned Friday, as it issued a 10-point framework urging governments and tech companies to go further and faster to protect children online.
Author: tio
-
Gaza: 26 killed over Eid holiday, UN rights investigators report
At least 26 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip since Tuesday – the eve of one of the most important holidays in Islam – the UN human rights office, OHCHR, reported on Friday. -
Nepal Rights Body Urges Charges Against Ex-PM Over Gen Z Protest Deaths
Nepal’s National Human Rights Commission has recommended sweeping legal action and a five-year political ban against former Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, two of his ministers, and top security officials. The commission holds the leaders directly responsible for a bloody crackdown on youth-led anti-corruption protests last year that left at least 76 people dead.
“We submitted the report to the government on Wednesday, so it is now the government’s responsibility,” said Lily Thapa, who led the inquiry into the September 2025 violence, which saw security forces open fire on Gen Z demonstrators in the capital, Kathmandu. She told OCCRP that the government is required to report back within three months on the steps it has taken to implement the recommendations.
The NHRC is Nepal’s constitutional watchdog body, mandated to investigate human rights abuses, make recommendations to the government, and monitor the implementation of those findings.
The commission explicitly blamed Oli, former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, and former Communications Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung for the street violence on September 8 and 9. It also called for departmental action against the current inspectors general of the Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force for directing a crackdown that drew widespread international condemnation.
The findings echo a separate government-appointed commission that recommended criminal investigations against Oli and his allies in March. Ironically, the NHRC report also recommended an investigation into the chair of that earlier commission, Gauri Bahadur Karki, along with other former officials, for their own alleged involvement in the protests.
The sprawling NHRC investigation also implicated prominent figures on the other side of the unrest. The commission recommended investigating 17 lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), including its president, former Deputy Prime Minister Rabi Lamichhane.
Lamichhane, who was detained at the time on fraud charges, escaped from prison during the chaos. The report accuses him and two other RSP lawmakers of leveraging a violent mob to threaten a jail administrator into facilitating his release, actions the NHRC said directly contributed to a secondary wave of violence.
The military also faced sharp criticism. The NHRC issued a formal warning to the Nepali Army for failing to intervene and protect highly sensitive sites, including the parliament and the president’s residence. Thapa said the army refused to provide a statement to investigators, adding that its failure to protect public property amounted to “a violation of cultural rights.”
Current Prime Minister Balendra Shah, who was the mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City during the protests, was investigated but cleared of any complicity.
“Our focus is on identifying those who violated human rights. Since he was not found complicit, his name is not included,” Thapa said, adding that the commission reached its conclusion after an extensive review of three specific allegations against him. “It wasn’t suppressed just because he is the current prime minister.”
Neither Oli nor his party has commented publicly on the report.
-
The Race to Build AI Data Centers — Before the People Can Protest
Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary has been making the media rounds defending the 40,000-acre data center project he’s backing in northern Utah. Dismissing residents’ concerns over the environmental impacts and water demands of the proposed project in the drought-stricken Great Salt Lake region, O’Leary has claimed protesters are “bused in,” “misinformed,” and alleged that China has had a hand in orchestrating the public push back.
“The Stratos project in Utah is an example of data center largesse,” says Jim Walsh, the policy director of Food and Water Watch, an organization leading a campaign to stop the rapid development of data centers across the country. As proposed, the project would be more than double the size of Manhattan. Walsh adds, “It’s important to recognize that the impacts of this data center go beyond the water and energy concerns that impact the residents of Salt Lake. They’re going to be pulling gas from the Ruby Pipeline, and this project is going to perpetuate more fracking in the Western U.S., a practice for extracting natural gas that uses extreme amounts of water.”
This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Jordan Uhl speaks to Walsh about the massive Utah project, the environmental and economic impact of data centers on communities especially where water is already scarce, and the Trump administration’s push to cut regulations at the federal and local level to accelerate the build-out of data centers and AI infrastructure.
In response to O’Leary claiming data center development is a national security priority to beat out China in the AI race, Walsh says, “National security isn’t just about having technological and military superiority.” We’re not safe if we don’t have clean air and clean water to drink and breathe. We’re not safe if our communities have massive data centers that are extracting our natural resources. Our entire economy functions on access to water.”
For more, listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you listen.
Transcript
Jordan Uhl: Welcome to The Intercept Briefing, I’m Jordan Uhl, your host today.
Jessica Washington: I’m Jessica Washington, politics reporter at The Intercept.
Jonah Valdez: And I’m Jonah Valdez, another politics reporter here at The Intercept.
JU: So Jess, Jonah, we’re talking to you both today because the California primary is days away: June 2. While there are a few notable races that have captured national attention, one here where I live in Los Angeles is the mayoral primary.
We’ve got a few contenders. It is looking tight at the top with a few candidates jockeying for one of these top two positions. Jess, could you give us an overview of this race?
JW: As the only non-Angeleno on the podcast, I’m going to try and do a good job. So something important to keep in mind before we even get into the candidates is because of how California’s primary system works, if no candidate gets a majority of the vote — so over 50 percent — the top two are going to go off to a runoff election in November.
The candidates in this race are the incumbent mayor, Karen Bass. She has been leading in every poll, but it should have been really a slam-dunk election, and yet it isn’t. We can get into more of why in a minute. But her opponent is really interesting; two opponents are interesting. So first, there’s reality star Spencer Pratt, who has been consistently polling in second place, although in more recent polling he’s looking to lose a little bit of steam. Then the other candidate is council member Nithya Raman, a Democratic socialist who’s not endorsed by DSA LA, but is recommended by them. So that’s the mix that’s happening in this election right now.
JU: Jonah, there are a few other contenders that could be potentially pulling votes from Nithya Raman or might be waiting to decide till last minute. What is this looking like on the ground? Who have you talked to and what are you hearing?
JV: My focus has been on LA’s left, if you will, and how there might be what people are calling some vote-splitting among the left. And that’s because not only is there Nithya Raman who, as Jessie said, is a Democratic socialist, but there’s also Rev. Rae Huang, who is a housing advocate.
She’s a Presbyterian minister. She actually was in the race before Nithya and was the only DSA candidate, Democratic Socialist candidate, in the race at the time. She launched two weeks after Mamdani’s win in New York, so she has all this buzz going into it. The LA Times was asking, is she LA’s Mamdani?
So that’s the framing that she entered the race in, and it excited a lot of progressives here in the left in Los Angeles. But as soon as Nithya joined the race, very last minute, and the rise of Spencer Pratt, you have this threat of this right-wing figure. Sure, this is a nonpartisan election, but the things he’s saying, demonizing homelessness and really getting on Karen Bass around her record and the fires. There’s this tangible threat now that Spencer Pratt could be in the runoff with Karen Bass, which is a pretty worst-case scenario for LA’s left that is trying to push LA’s politics in a different direction.
Right now, the contention for a lot of voters in LA’s left is between, do I vote for Nithya Raman, someone who I at least agree with, but have to hold my nose on some issues, like police accountability, where she has fallen short in the eyes of some of her opponents? Or Rae Huang, who has a bolder vision? Some members of DSA LA have said that she has the true socialist platform amongst the two Democratic Socialist members. I should say that Rae Huang is only polling at about 5 percent. That’s nowhere near the second place spot to get into the runoff.
JU: We’re seeing a wide array of polling in this race, and there was a new poll that dropped on Thursday morning from Berkeley IGS, which had Bass, unsurprisingly, in the top spot with 26 percent. But in second place, this I think caught many people off guard, Nithya Raman at 25 percent, Spencer Pratt at 22, and Rae Huang at 9 percent, with 10 percent undecided. That presents a totally different outlook going into the general in this runoff.
But Jess, I want to bring you back in here. Spencer Pratt was widely considered to have a guaranteed spot in the runoff because he had a ton of press, a ton of buzz, especially from outside LA. He had Trump’s endorsement. He’s been getting featured in national press.
One of the things that he really rose to prominence on was his criticism of Karen Bass, like Jonah said, for her, “handling of the fire.” But I think many people who live here felt that some of it was disingenuous because those fires were exacerbated by the Santa Ana winds. You can only do so much as mayor.
You can’t get helicopters up in the air in 80-mile-an-hour winds to fight those fires. So I think some of it came off as very disingenuous to people here in LA. But what are you hearing? What are you seeing from Spencer Pratt that puts him even in contention?
JW: For anyone who doesn’t know who Spencer Pratt is, he’s this former reality star from “The Hills.” He’s the guy who told People Magazine that he blew, I think, about $1 million on crystals, blowing through his $10 million reality television fortune on other lavish purchases. So that’s just a little bit of who Spencer Pratt is, the guy who yelled at women on television for about a decade.
But the reason he’s catching steam, I think, is twofold. I think, one, the fires are a very visceral moment. The mayor obviously has no control over the fires, but the fact that she was in Ghana during the Palisades fire did really anger a lot of people. The fact that she didn’t come home until the following day is a large part of that narrative.
The other thing that’s happening is also people’s concerns over homelessness. What Spencer Pratt is pushing is we have to arrest, arrest, arrest, force treatment. But if you talk to most people on this issue, homelessness is caused by housing, unaffordability, and inequality in our system, and those are huge issues to tackle.
Spencer Pratt is not looking to tackle those issues. He is looking to move people out of spaces where he and his friends can see them. It’s also worth noting that his plans of mass arrest also aren’t going to even fix that problem. But what you’re looking at in Los Angeles is frustration over Karen Bass’s handling of these fires and this kind of visible problem of homelessness that frustrates people on both sides of this issue.
That’s what Spencer Pratt has really honed in on. I think it’s important to note that none of his solutions are going to fix any of those problems, but he is tapping into a real anger and a real frustration in the electorate.
JU: Yeah I think what’s interesting to watch is the national support for Spencer Pratt. But that comes at a cost for him because 80 percent of his donors don’t live in Los Angeles, according to analysis that I saw from one Gabe Sanchez. And sure, you can run ads, you can get press, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that people within the city, within your jurisdiction, would vote for you.
What I found so interesting and Jonah, I want to bring you back in here, people dug up some of his old appearances or guest appearances on Infowars with Alex Jones, and during one of those interviews, he talked about his belief that climate change was a hoax.
What I found so ironic is that this is somebody who made losing his home in the Palisades fire a centerpiece of his campaign, but we know that worsening climate change leads to more frequent and more severe wildfires. So on the one hand, you have somebody who believes it’s a hoax. At the same time, he’s making a byproduct of climate change the centerpiece of his campaign.
Jonah, what stood out to you?
JV: I think to Jessie’s point as far as demonizing the homeless population in LA, his rhetoric around that is concerning, not just on the level of, this is going to hurt a lot of the gains that housing advocates have fought for in LA County for years, but even just on the level of basic humanity.
He’s referred to unhoused people as fentanyl-addicted zombies. Like a constant refrain for him is telling people to go outside and go to your freeway underpass, talk to a homeless person, and ask them. He’s assuming they don’t want housing, that’s not what they want, they just want their next high. They just want to be on drugs.
This is all in the face of studies showing that most people who do have drug addiction or in substance use addiction on the streets is a result of being unhoused — and not the other way around. And so I think he does exist in this bubble of distorted reality.
LA is still seen as this liberal bastion along with California as a whole, but there are a lot of folks here who voted just a couple years ago for someone like Rick Caruso, who preyed on a lot of these similar fears of course from a different standpoint of crime and safety. So these fearmongering tactics are being recycled again and again.
I was talking to sources yesterday, other voters, and there is some reality to what [Pratt is] saying, which is like LA is struggling. Angelenos are struggling. A lot of the nation is struggling economically, but how you diagnose that matters.
JU: So why has this mayoral election captured the national interest? Jess, I want to start with you, and then we’ll go to you, Jonah.
JW: It’s captured the national interest partially because it feels like this perfect allegory for the 2016 election. You have this Trumpian figure, you have liberal-left infighting, so I think that’s part of it. But I also think for someone like me, who cares a lot about policy around housing and homelessness, this is about the spread of very dangerous ideas about people, about the idea that we can call people zombies, we can mass arrest them, and these ideas around homelessness are spreading all across the country.
JV: For me, it’s a lot of the same questions that the left in LA is facing could be amplified to a national level as well, and a lot of this infighting, a lot of it is just lack of organization. And I think one example of that is for listeners who don’t know, there are actually four DSA members on city council, one of which is Nithya Raman, who is running.
However, three of those DSA members didn’t endorse their fellow DSA member for mayor. They actually endorsed the incumbent Mayor Bass. So a lot of that back and forth and mixed messaging to the public could really hurt movements and coalition-building. DSA LA has told me that’s one of the things they hope to fix, which is more organization within city council to increase their influence there, and that starts with being on the same page.
That messaging here and a lot of these lessons could be amplified on the national stage as well.
JW: We’ve also seen similar signals from the Trump administration with executive orders targeting the homeless population. The Supreme Court has also moved to weaken protections for unhoused people living on the streets.
These are policies and rhetoric that are truly taking root at the highest levels, and we need to be paying attention to them.
JU: And these hollow pandering overtures to different demographics, I think, are just jarring. Maybe it’s a byproduct of the Trump era, but just don’t garner the raised eyebrows that they typically would.
The headline I saw on Wednesday in TMZ that “Spencer Pratt loves Mexican food and Eats it More Than Any White Person in Los Angeles” made me laugh, but also I found myself feeling very confused. Like, why is this news? But it fits within a broader pattern from that campaign where he’s just trying to pander to the sizable Latino community in Los Angeles.
We see that also with his AI ads. Latinos for Pratt doesn’t seem to have an actual real or tangible base in the electorate. Maybe he does, but those AI ads have been widely mocked or parodied and some have gone viral, even those not made by his campaign.
The proliferation of AI ads in this cycle, I think, segues us into our next conversation with Jim Walsh, the policy director of Food and Water Watch, where we talked about the proliferation of AI data centers across the country.
JW: Let’s listen to that conversation.
JU: Jim Walsh, welcome to The Intercept Briefing.
Jim Walsh: Thanks for having me here, Jordan. I appreciate it.
JU: Jim, there are over 3,000 operational data centers across the country and more than 1,500 in development, according to Pew Research. Data centers aren’t new, but let’s start with the basics. What do they do, and how is the growing demand for AI transforming the energy needs of facilities?
JW: I think most people hear about data centers, they think about clouds and streaming and maybe searching or AI. But data centers themselves are these massive rows of servers that require large amounts of water infrastructure, electricity, cooling, land, and also backup power. The scale of these is really hard to grasp because most people don’t think in terawatt hours — but that’s exactly what we’re talking about for energy demand.
The Lawrence Berkeley National Lab found that U.S. data centers used about 176 terawatts of electricity in 2023. This is about how much electricity it takes to power 16 million homes for an entire year. And that number is expected to grow to 580 terawatts annually; it’s roughly equivalent to 50 million homes.
Data centers also use immense quantities of water. We’re talking hundreds of billions of gallons of water annually with projections that they’ll use as much as 18.5 million households by 2028. Nearly 60 percent of this coming from drinking water supplies. It’s really important to note that a lot of this is coming from drought-stressed areas that are compounding existing water scarcity concerns.
Beyond that, we’re also seeing that data centers can create significant pollution burdens for communities. When data centers use fossil fuels, they’re polluting our air and water to meet their energy needs, but the chemicals also used in cooling data centers can pollute our water. Even when chemicals aren’t used, evaporative cooling systems can concentrate pollution already in water.
We saw this happen in Oregon, where an Amazon data center was implicated and agreed to pay out $20 million due to elevated nitrate levels in water that coincided with the development of the data center. Now, Amazon never added nitrates to their water systems, but the water that came out of their facilities seemed to have increased the concentration of nitrates in the water because of water evaporation through their cooling systems.
Those elevated nitrate levels have been linked to increases in cancer and premature births and miscarriages in the communities where that data center is located.
JU: Now, in early May, a quasi-governmental agency in Utah approved a massive AI data center project. Known as the Stratos project, it is expected to cover more than 40,000 acres in northwestern Utah. For context, that’s more than twice the size of Manhattan.
The project, which is backed by the venture capitalist and “Shark Tank” regular Kevin O’Leary, has sparked local outrage. Could you tell us about this data center project and why community members are concerned?
JW: The Stratos project in Utah is an example of data center largesse. You talked about 40,000 acres, double the size of Manhattan. It also would double the state’s energy demand. It would also be located near the Great Salt Lake, which is already facing record droughts, like much of the United States. So it’s really no surprise that this and other projects in Utah are facing tremendous public opposition.
In response to the backlash, communities in Utah are putting the brakes on data centers, and the Utah legislature is actually gearing up to potentially require more reporting and studies on data center impacts. It’s important to recognize that the impacts of this data center go beyond the water and energy concerns that impact the residents of Salt Lake.
They’re going to be pulling gas from the Ruby Pipeline, and this project is going to perpetuate more fracking in the Western U.S., a practice for extracting natural gas that uses extreme amounts of water. That practice also has a track record of contaminating surface water and spreading radioactive waste generated from fracking operations.
And because of the segmented permitting process and the segmented evaluative process, nobody’s actually looking at the full impacts of this project or any data center projects, including the sources of energy. Which — if they’re going to be gas plants in the United States — probably means more fracking and more water pollution before you even get to the impacts of the data center themselves.
JU: Now, we should note, we invited Kevin O’Leary on this show to share his point of view. As of this recording, we have not heard back, but here he is on “Fox & Friends” talking about the project recently.
Kevin O’Leary: Utah stepped up and said, “Look, we can compete. Not only do we have the land, 40,000 acres, we’ve got a pipeline running through the land, and we have this designation that can accelerate permitting.”
It’s really about how do we catch up with the Chinese are doing because most people don’t like data centers for good reason. You tap it to the grid, and all of a sudden the electrical costs for their church and the community and the residents all go up, and that’s why there’s been a lot of pushback.
Not in this case. We’re building power from scratch from the pipeline.
JU: Jim, what do you make of O’Leary’s argument there?
JW: Posing this as a national security issue and a race with China really misses the real issue — that national security isn’t just about having technological and military superiority.
We’re not safe if we don’t have clean air and clean water to drink and breathe. We’re not safe if our communities have massive data centers that are extracting our natural resources. Our entire economy functions on access to water. Data centers are jeopardizing that access to water.
So it’s really easy for the ultrawealthy investor from Canada to come in and say, “Hey, we need to have these projects.” But for people that are directly impacted by these projects, it’s not helping them, and it’s not helping their communities.
“We’re not safe if our communities have massive data centers that are extracting our natural resources. Our entire economy functions on access to water.”
JU: That’s a good segue to where I wanted to take this next. The Salt Lake Tribune writes, “The full water demands of this project remain unknown, although its developers have said they’re working to secure a 13,000 acre-feet in Hansel Valley and the surrounding area, which is mostly agricultural. That’s enough water to meet the needs of more than 20,000 Utah households.”
One of the biggest concerns about data centers is the amount of water usage they demand. You touched on this a bit already, but why are AI data centers in particular such water-intensive facilities, and why are we seeing more pop-up in areas where water is already scarce?
JW: Data centers use tremendous amounts of water for cooling their servers. That’s only part of the picture. They also use tremendous amounts of water for their energy needs. As we are facing significant amounts of water scarcity, we’re seeing data centers move into water-scarce regions, and it’s because water isn’t the only concern for data centers. Their biggest price point is actually energy.
“Their biggest price point is actually energy.”
The Stratos Project is being targeted for that area specifically because they were able to get expedited permits, but they also are able to pull from the Ruby Pipeline. And they have a significant flow of inexpensive energy that they’ll be able to pull from.
Now, these project developers don’t care about the larger impacts on communities any more than communities are going to force them to recognize those concerns. They’re trying to brush all of these things under the rug and pretend like they can build these projects and get more water as though it’s an unlimited resource, ignoring the fact that residents in Utah are facing unprecedented amounts of drought, and ignoring the fact that these data centers are going to do more to use up what limited resources are available to the people of Utah than they will to provide any meaningful benefit.
What good is any benefit if you don’t actually have the water that’s necessary for life?
[Break]
JU: In Fayette County, Georgia, for instance, another data center has captured national public attention after it came to light that the facility had drained 30 million gallons of water. Residents were experiencing low water pressure and had been told to cut their own water usage. The state is home to more than 200 data centers.
Last week, while questioning the EPA in a committee hearing, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez held up jars full of brown water from residents near a large Meta data center in a different county in the state. Here is a clip of Ocasio-Cortez.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I visited Morgan County, Georgia, where Meta is building a massive data center campus.
They are clear-cutting forests and began heavy construction, including explosive blasting. And families in the area are starting to see not only their water pressure decrease, to your point about water availability, but their appliances have all stopped working because it is decimating their water quality.
They now rely on bottled water to drink and prepare meals, and nearby residents’ water bills are expected to increase by 33 percent.
JU: Jim, in addition to the impact on local watersheds and wells, what impact do data centers have on the communities they exist in?
JW: I want to speak to that clip because I think that clip shows that communities not only lack resources to evaluate the effects of data centers, but also lack resources to effectively regulate and oversee these projects.
And the federal government is asleep at the wheel. We should not have to have a member of Congress in an open congressional hearing raising concerns that EPA is unaware of, that EPA then commits to investigating after the fact. We need to make sure that these data centers are actually out there to protect the public.
We’ve seen the impacts go well beyond just the water impacts, as you talked about. But it’s all these impacts are driving the concerns that are pushing Georgia and communities like Augusta Council and others to actively consider moratoriums on data centers, to put the brakes on these projects.
“Communities not only lack resources to evaluate the effects of data centers, but also lack resources to effectively regulate and oversee these projects.”
But even if you create the regulatory structure that we need to protect communities from data centers and determine if they’re even appropriate for certain areas and certain communities, you need to have the resources to actually oversee and regulate and hold these data centers accountable.
These data centers in Georgia, in Morgan County, was also, implicated for muddied water. The investigation shouldn’t have to come from members of Congress. It should really be found out before these projects are going to come online. If the project developers are over-pumping, extending their permit, or setting up systems behind the meter, which we saw happen in Georgia, to extract more water than they’re supposed to take, we should have regulators in place to oversee these projects and make sure they’re following the rules.
But these also go significantly beyond water impacts, and that’s what you asked about. For instance, in Memphis, communities there are raising significant concerns about the air pollution from data centers. And the data center there actually committed to use gas turbines only as backup generation, but then started pivoting to using those turbines around the clock. That means around-the-clock pollution and around-the-clock harms to the communities around those data centers.
We need to make sure that we not only have the rules in place to ensure that data centers aren’t harming communities, but make sure that we have the resources in place to hold them accountable to these laws and standards once they’re enacted. And we don’t have that right now.
JU: In addition to the EPA having a reactive approach, seemingly in that hearing being caught off-guard or maybe surprised by the environmental impacts in Georgia that Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez was pointing out, the Trump administration is also trying to fast-track the development of even more data centers. How are they enabling that?
JW: The Trump administration is explicitly [prioritizing] rapid data center build-outs. In their memo of July of last year, the executive order rather, it says that they’re going to “facilitate the rapid and efficient buildout” of AI data centers and related infrastructure by easing regulatory burdens and using federally owned land and resources for development, as well as working to curtail the development of local rules and regulations focused on AI and associated infrastructure with an executive order that came out in December.
So the Trump administration is really putting their foot on the gas with these projects and really throwing caution to the wind about all the significant impacts that these data centers will have. We’re seeing recent proposals to allow energy projects to move forward with construction before gaining federal approvals. This means that communities will see infrastructure built that may never get used.
And even worse is that the infrastructure will be used, but because once you build a power plant, there’s not much else you can do with that land, so regulators may be under immense pressure to grant variances or waivers for projects, which could increase localized pollution for communities.
The administration really treats environmental reviews and public transportation and community safeguards as red tape instead of actual protections. These projects are shaping our water systems, our electric grids, our air quality and land use — and those impacts will be felt for decades. This is exactly why we need more scrutiny and not less that the Trump administration is pushing forward.
JU: Yeah, you see how the industry responds to that scrutiny, how they peddle misinformation, how they go after activists and organizations. Even with the Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez moment — mocking them. I saw Marc Andreessen spending his time on Twitter that day mocking her, that she would even suggest that data centers could make your water brown.
How else are you seeing supporters of these data centers pushing back to the growing scrutiny and opposition to these development projects?
JW: Supporters usually point to tax revenue, construction jobs, digital infrastructure, national security, and competitiveness, like we heard earlier. Some of those benefits might be real, but the reality is, is we’re not looking at these projects in a comprehensive manner. And that’s what the industry wants us to do — is forget about the broader impacts of data centers by pointing out small, unique potential things that could be seen as benefits to communities.
These benefits are often overstated compared with long-term public costs. And we saw that in Virginia, studies on the data center boom found that economic benefits mostly come from construction jobs and not ongoing operations. So these short-term construction jobs aren’t providing long-term benefit to communities and usually are actually done by people not in the community, so you’re not even creating local jobs for people in the communities where data centers are being constructed and put together.
We’re also seeing that data center developers are trying to point to things like “bring your own power” as a way to say they support an affordability agenda, as they hear more and more consumers talk about affordability. They talk about bringing renewable energy to projects. But the reality is these “bring your own power” projects and renewable energy don’t actually do anything to address the massive demand.
Requiring renewable energy at data centers may actually make things worse for the rest of us, because you’re going to shift the energy transition ability in communities that are looking to do more electrification to replace fossil fuel infrastructure are going to be stuck using fossil fuels, which feeds the data center narrative.
They can say, “Look, we’re using all renewable energy. Aren’t we great?” But in reality, they’re taking all the renewable energy supplies for themselves while the rest of us are stuck with dirty energy that tends to be more expensive and costly. So when we look at these projects, it’s important that we look at them in a comprehensive way and not just the industry sound bites that they’re putting forward to cite narrow perceived benefits of these projects.
JU: Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez introduced a bill to halt the development of new data centers. On one, I want to hear what you could tell us about that bill, but then you also speak to lawmakers across the country, across the political spectrum. What are you hearing from them, and are they receptive to the adverse impacts of data centers?
JW: Data center development is moving along way too fast, and communities are being asked to sacrifice water, affordability, their health for the benefits of billionaire tech industries. The Sanders–Ocasio-Cortez AI Data Center Moratorium Act is important because it shows that these concerns have moved from local zoning fights into national politics.
This legislation is exactly what we need a federal moratorium on data centers until national safeguards are in place. That moratorium will give policymakers an opportunity to better understand the impacts of data centers and protect the public from the significant harms from using millions of gallons of water in drought-stricken regions. The Stratos data center in Utah is going to be using tremendous amounts of water. That project should be put on hold, along with the rest of them, to make sure that the public is actually protected, not just the benefit of these big tech industries.
“ We all know rivers and streams and groundwater don’t stop at municipal boundaries.”
It’s important to note that many of the decisions relating to data center developments are made by municipal and county governments who often lack resources to do the kind of analysis necessary to make informed decisions about the impacts of data centers. Many of the impacts of data centers go beyond their local boundaries. We all know rivers and streams and groundwater don’t stop at municipal boundaries, and pulling water from one place can impact communities miles away.
As hundreds of people are turning up to city council meetings across the country demanding moratoriums on data centers, that is creating more pushback from communities. We’re seeing communities, dozens of communities around the country have actually enacted moratoriums on data centers so they can better understand these impacts, create more comprehensive rules to protect communities from these profit-hungry tech companies. But we also need the federal government to step in and provide support to those communities to help with the environmental reviews, to help provide expertise to better understand the impacts of these projects, so that you’re not dealing with municipal elected officials who are really sitting there with limited resources and limited knowledge about the full impacts of these projects.
In order to get that more comprehensive review, we need to have more federal engagement in understanding these data center impacts, and that starts with putting the brakes on these projects through a moratorium.
JU: We will continue to look to your organization, Food & Water Watch, for more analysis, more insight.
Jim, I want to thank you for joining us on the Intercept Briefing.
JW: Thank you very much for having me. I appreciate it.
JU: This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Maia Hibbett is our managing editor. Chelsey B. Coombs is our social and video producer. Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Nara Shin is our copy editor. William Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by David Bralow.
Slip Stream provided our theme music.
This show and our reporting at The Intercept doesn’t exist without you. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Keep our investigations free and fearless at theintercept.com/join.
And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. Do leave us a rating or a review, it helps other listeners to find us.
Let us know what you think of this episode, or if you want to send us a general message, email us at podcasts@theintercept.com. And if you are concerned about a data center project near you send us an email or leave us a voice mail at 530-POD-CAST that’s 530-763-2278
Until next time, I’m Jordan Uhl.
The post The Race to Build AI Data Centers — Before the People Can Protest appeared first on The Intercept.
-
Gay-Torrents Vanishes After Lawsuit, FlavaWorks Narrows Case from 325 to 39 Users
FlavaWorks is an Illinois-based adult entertainment company specializing in content featuring Black and Latino men.
In late April, the company launched one of its largest legal campaigns, targeting the owner and administrators of private BitTorrent tracker Gay-Torrents.org.
The complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, also listed a named uploader as a defendant, as well as 325 individual members identified only by their site usernames.
Flava has filed lawsuits against copyright infringers in the past, but this case stands out. Gay-Torrents.org has been a long-running private torrent tracker, and seeing hundreds of individual users being targeted directly is rather unprecedented.
Gay-Torrents Vanishes
Over the years, Flava has repeatedly signaled that it has its eyes set on the private torrent tracker. That didn’t seem to faze the operators. However, shortly after the complaint was filed, they took drastic action.
In early May, Gay-Torrents.org suddenly became unresponsive, and it still is today. The domain’s A records were simply deleted, presumably without the operators informing the tracker’s staff or users.
According to a post in a gay Reddit community, the operators did not inform the admins of the site either.
“I am in contact with one of them, and while I can’t say how I got this information they are completely in the dark too. Whatever happened, the owners didn’t inform either of them prior to shutting the site,” the commenter said.
The Reddit comment 
This exact Reddit thread wasn’t just read by former users of the private tracker. Flava was also reading along. This week, they filed an amended complaint where the same commenter is cited, to explain the tracker’s apparent disappearance to the court.
Amended Complaint: Operators Frustrate the Case
The amended complaint adds an entire section dedicated to the site’s disappearance. According to Flava, Gay-Torrents.org was taken offline intentionally, and that serves as an admission of guilt.
Flava quotes several messages from the Reddit thread, which suggest that the people running the site left without offering an explanation.
“These facts support the inference that the operator-tier Defendants undertook the shutdown to frustrate service of process, dissipate assets, destroy evidence, and otherwise evade the jurisdiction of this Court,” Flava writes.
From the amended complaint 
Flava argues these third-party Reddit comments show the operators acted unilaterally and without warning, behavior it says is consistent with an attempt to frustrate the case rather than an ordinary technical outage.
From 325 Users to 39
The most significant change in the amended complaint is a sharp reduction in the number of targeted users. The original complaint listed 325 “John Doe” members of the site. The amended version reduces that figure to just 39 users.
This reduction is the result of a change in strategy. Previously, members were selected on several alternative grounds, including VIP purchases, forum activity, and forensic-watermark matches. The 39 remaining defendants are now all included based on a single theory.
The complaint alleges that these users all had an account on a FlavaWorks-branded website using the same email address registered to their Gay-Torrents.org account. In doing so, they agreed to terms that include an Illinois forum-selection clause.
“The identity of the email address establishes the identity of the natural person,” the complaint reads.
Exact Match 
By matching the email addresses used on the tracker to those used on its own paid sites, Flava claims it can both unmask the anonymous users and bind them to an Illinois court through the contracts they previously accepted.
“Known” Tracker Registration Emails?
The complaint does not explain how Flava obtained the registration email addresses linked to the private, invite-only Gay-Torrents.org accounts in the first place. This information is typically only visible to the site’s admins.
Instead, Flava states only that the addresses are “known to Plaintiff” and matched against its own subscriber records. How it obtained the tracker’s internal registration data is left unmentioned.
Known to Plaintiff 
We can only speculate, but this type of data can usually only be accessed through leaks or with help from a planted or compromised insider. Perhaps more detail will be uncovered as the case progresses.
Flava Seeks Domain Takeover
The amended complaint also expands the injunctive relief Flava seeks from the court. In addition to the asset freeze and records-preservation requests from the original complaint, the company now asks the court to direct domain registrar Tucows to lock the gay-torrents.org domain, preventing it from being transferred.
As part of a final judgment, Flava goes a step further, asking the court to order Tucows to hand the domain to Flava, so it can no longer be used for copyright infringement.
Aside from the sharp reduction in targeted users, the other defendant categories remain largely the same. These still include the anonymous operators and administrators, a named uploader, and the Bulgarian company and individuals tied to the site’s payments.
The amendment does add BYZONA manager Orlin Tsekov as a named defendant, and drops the original civil conspiracy claim, leaving six counts in total.
For now, the torrent tracker is offline and the operators have yet to appear in court. If none of the defendants responds, Flava will likely move for a default judgment, which is the same route through which it has secured a $1.5 million damages award against a single BitTorrent user in the past.
—
A copy of the First Amended Complaint, filed by FlavaWorks Entertainment, Inc. at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is available here (pdf).
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
-
MAHA Fluffers Claimed MAHA Doctors Would “Restore Lost Trust.” I Disagreed. Who Turned Out to be Right?
The COVID Amnesia Project has seamlessly morphed into the MAHA Amnesia Project, and it’s up to us not to forget the sheltered sycophants and enablers whose enthusiastic support of the pandemic’s worst disinformation superspreaders led to this sad moment.
The post MAHA Fluffers Claimed MAHA Doctors Would “Restore Lost Trust.” I Disagreed. Who Turned Out to be Right? first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.
-
What the Shadow Holds: Turning Survival Skills Into Superpowers – Part two
Part Two
In Part One, we explored the ten attributes of ‘traumatic intelligence’ and how, when left unconscious, they can become patterns of exhaustion, isolation and pain. Now, here, we can turn to the work of integration, and how we can reclaim each of these shadow capacities as a conscious, flexible superpower.
The Integration: The Conscious Superpower
Jung’s central process, individuation, is the work of making this unconscious material conscious. He wrote, “One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.” For our purposes, this isn’t about deleting the past or dismantling the survival architecture. Integration is the process of walking back into the control room of your own nervous system, gently thanking the hyper-competent manager who has been running the show for the last few decades, and, with compassion, letting them rest.
We don’t smash the instrument, we retune and learn to play it, rather than letting it play us. The integrated superpower is a function of awareness and intention. It transforms an exhausting, reactive compulsion into a flexible, regenerative responding gift.
This isn’t a before-and-after story, integration isn’t a single event but a slow, recursive and often untidy process. I still have days when the old patterns return, when my antenna won’t retract, when someone else’s mood hijacks my morning, when asking for help feels impossible. The difference now is I recognise these states as weather, not climate, and they pass, faster than they used to.
- From Hypervigilance to Calibrated Awareness
We trust our ability to notice what’s salient without needing to scan every microsecond. We say to ourselves, “Nothing in this room is a threat right now,” and our system begins to listen, allowing us to dim the antenna to be inside our own skin in a crowd. The noticing is a tap we can turn on and off, not a flood over which we have no control. We’re safe and perceptive, not perceptive to be safe.
- From Anxious Forecasting to Intuitive Foresight
We learn to distinguish the clear, concise voice of gut instinct from the cacophonous noise of trauma-based hyper-fear. A true intuitive hit doesn’t panic us, it informs us with a strangely neutral certainty. We can now run a scenario analysis (“If this friendship ends, I will be deeply sad but I will survive it”) without our body feeling like the abandonment is already happening. Our past prepared us to see the future, our present awareness lets us not live there.
- From Dissociated Numbness to Grounded Equanimity
We access deep stillness in a storm from a place of presence, not from splitting off from our body. We feel the adrenaline, the fear, the stakes, and we choose the calm atop them, like riding a wave rather than freezing beneath it. We learn to cultivate peace not just as the absence of chaos, but as a positive, tangible state we can generate. We begin to stop confusing peace with boredom.
- From Scattered Presence to Panoramic Awareness
The superpower is the ability to hold a soft, wide-angle focus, to be fully with the person in front of us, while simultaneously having a subtle, peripheral sense of the whole. Like a mother who’s deeply engaged in a game with her toddler but whose body knows the infant in the other room has just changed breathing patterns. We aren’t flitting, we’re anchored and broad, we’re unmistakably here and also aware of the horizon.
- From Porous Empathy to Boundaried Insight
We move from being an open channel to an astute translator, registering someone’s emotional signal without getting swamped by its frequency. We say to ourselves (and internalise it), “That’s their sadness. I can have immense compassion for it without needing to carry it for them.” Our insight becomes sharper because we aren’t drowning in the data. We become a witness, more than a vessel.
- From Compulsive Gravity to Sacred Depth
Our depth is a conscious offering, not a reflex, as we regain the lost art of play, lightness, and mundane joy, not as a betrayal of our profundity, but as its necessary balance. We talk about the weather and deeply enjoy someone’s company as our connection isn’t dependent on constant, draining emotional excavation. Our depth is a place we visit, and invite others to, but it’s no longer a pit from which we can’t imagine climbing out of.
- From Fortress Self-Reliance to Sovereign Interdependence
Our profound self-reliance remains a bedrock, we can survive alone, but integration builds a drawbridge. We let people in, not because we need to, but because we choose to. Our vulnerability transforms from a potentially dangerous liability into a courageous gift, as asking for help becomes a sign of strength, a powerful act that strengthens bonds, not a confirmation of inadequacy.
- From Scarcity Ingenuity to Spacious Creativity
Our ability to solve problems with a teaspoon and a paperclip can be unshackled from the emergency context, becoming a source of play, innovation and art. We use our inventive brilliance not just to fix a leak but to build a sculpture, write a novel or devise a new business model from a place of desire not dread. We create from overflow, not just to fill a void of emptiness.
- From Compulsive Rescue to Fierce Discernment
The core remains: a fierce refusal of bullying and a soft heart for the vulnerable. Integration adds the wisdom to ask “Is this mine to carry?” We understand we aren’t the world’s emergency responder, that we can feel immense compassion for someone and choose not to fix their problem, trusting in their own competence. Our protection is precise, not indiscriminate. We stand for those who can’t, without joining them in their cage.
- From Fawning De-escalation to Grounded Diplomacy
We read and manage the emotional weather of a volatile room, that’s a master skill, but we do it without abandoning ourselves. Our “no” is a complete sentence, as accessible and sturdy as our “yes” was. We hold a boundary with the same grace with which we offered a compromise. Our adaptive skepticism, our hard-won difficulty trusting easily, becomes a finely-honed instrument of discernment. We trust less naively, but when someone earns it, we bestow a trust that’s profound, complete and deeply real. This isn’t cynicism, but wisdom, hard-won and it’s ours.
The Shadow of the Empath and the Road Home
This path is uniquely critical for those who identify as empaths or highly sensitive persons. Empathic absorption is often romanticised as a spiritual gift, but from a Jungian perspective, it’s frequently a symptom of unintegrated shadow. Why? Because healthy empathic function requires a strong, defined and protected ego-container. If you weren’t allowed to have essential parts of yourself, your anger, your needs, your right to say “no”, those parts were pushed into your unconscious shadow. In their place grew a diffuse, boundaryless self that finds its identity by merging with the emotions of others. We feel their sadness, as we never fully learned to feel our own disowned pain. We absorb others’ anger because a connection to our healthy, self-protective rage was severed.
The chronic empathic exhaustion which I felt, still do at times, and so many feel, isn’t a consequence of being “too open”, it’s the consequence of being fragmented. We leak energy as we’re not whole. For years, I thought my exhaustion was the price of caring, but it wasn’t. It was the price I was paying for being fragmented.
And while we are leaking, while we are still fragmented, the exhaustion is real and it’s not our fault. We’re not failing at healing because we are still tired. The tiredness is evidence of how much you have been holding, not how badly you’re doing.
There’s grief here too, though we don’t always name it. Grief for the childhood that wasn’t, for the years spent braced for threats that never came, or for the relationships our hypervigilance damaged before we understood what we were doing. This grief isn’t self-pity, it’s the natural, appropriate response to recognising what was lost, and it deserves its place alongside the insight. We don’t heal by skipping the sadness, we heal by letting it move through us.
The road home is the road of shadow integration. When we reclaim our right to own our full self, our self-protective anger, our selfish needs for rest and joy, our capacity to be disagreeable, a miracle occurs. We don’t become a cold, uncaring person, we become a cleaner, more powerful, and sustainable version of our empathic self. Our container is now strong, we can stand next to profound suffering, offer a hand, and feel a deep, clear compassion without being yanked into the abyss. We become a lighthouse, not a sponge.
This is the archetypal journey of the Wounded Healer, or Chiron, the wound isn’t an excuse, it’s a credential. But only when it’s fully acknowledged and integrated does it become medicine. The healer who hasn’t done this work infects, the healer who has, heals. Our traumatic intelligence, once we have compassionately taken control of the command centre, is the most finely tuned instrument of connection and protection we can ever possess. It becomes a superpower precisely because we have felt the full weight of its shadow and, in doing so, can finally put it down.
The Instrument and the Player
We didn’t choose the early training that shaped us, we didn’t ask to become fluent in danger, nor to develop a nervous system that remembers threat long after the environment has changed. But here we are, in possession of an instrument of extraordinary sensitivity and range. The question has never been whether we are too much or too sharp or too watchful, but whether we will remain a passive recipient of our own perceptions, or whether we will become the musician.
Integration doesn’t blunt the instrument, it doesn’t ask us to play fewer notes, it asks us to stop being played.
When we make the unconscious conscious, when we meet our shadow with compassion rather than fear, we discover something quiet and profound. The vigilance that once exhausted us becomes a precise, available attention we can deploy at will. The empathy that once flooded us becomes a deep, still well we can draw from without drowning. The self-reliance that once isolated us becomes a steady foundation from which we can finally risk connection.
This isn’t about defeating an enemy, as the danger has passed; it passed a long time ago. This is about learning to live in the quiet our body never quite believed could be safe. To notice a shift in a room and choose not to track it. To feel someone else’s pain and choose not to absorb it. To stand in the quiet of an ordinary afternoon and not scan it for hidden threats.
The power is in the shadow, yes, but we are the ones who bring it into the light. And when we do, we don’t need to brandish anything. We just need to be here, fully, or as fully as we can manage each day, in the life that was always waiting for us, not on the other side of our traumatic intelligence, but within it, slowly becoming us.
****
Mad in the UK hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.
The post What the Shadow Holds: Turning Survival Skills Into Superpowers – Part two appeared first on Mad in the UK.
-
July 8th: Johann, V and Gabor live in our zoom room! (Limited places available)
Part of the Challenging the culture of diagnosis & disorder! collectionWednesday 8 July • 6:30 PM – 8 PM GMT+1OverviewOur 3 friends/allies continue to challenge the culture of diagnosis and disorder in this LIVE AD4E discussion and Q&A. Be part of it.
Johann, Gabor and V are long time friends of AD4E and each other and they’re back together again – to continue the incredible conversation they started at our online annual festival in 2025.
Themes of the festival conversation were:- Trauma, addiction, activism, challenging the mental health narrative, shame, abuse, solidarity and so much more.
This time they are LIVE !
Many of you will appreciate that it’s almost impossible to pin these guys down to have them appear live separately – let alone together! So we are very excited.
And being live means …
there will be 30-40 mins for your questions!
Limited places on the zoom platform – first come first served.
BIOS
V (formerly Eve Ensler) is the Tony Award-winning playwright, activist, performer, and author of the Obie award-winning theatrical phenomenon The Vagina Monologues, published in over 48 languages, performed in over 140 countries, and heralded by The New York Times as one of the “best American plays” of the past 25 years and that “no recent hour of theater has had a greater impact worldwide.”
Her plays include Lemonade, Extraordinary Measures, Necessary Targets, O.P.C., The Good Body(Broadway and National Tour), Emotional Creatureand Fruit Trilogy. V recently performed In the Body of the World as a one-woman show, which she adapted for the stage from her best-selling, critically acclaimed memoir to rave reviews at Manhattan Theatre Club, after its debut at the American Repertory Theater. She helped create That Kindness: Nurses in Their Own Words presented by Brooklyn Academy of Music in collaboration with theaters across the US, as a tribute to nurses during the COVID 19 pandemic. She’s currently writing the story and co-writing lyrics for a musical fable Wild that made its world premiere in December 2021 at The American Repertory Theater.
Her books include Insecure At Last: A Political Memoirand The New York Times best seller I Am An Emotional Creature. Her newly released and celebrated best-selling book, The Apology, now published in nearly 20 languages, has been called transfixing, revelatory, and cathartic.
Film credits include The Vagina Monologues (HBO) and What I Want My Words to Do to You (Executive Producer, Winner of the Sundance Film Festival Freedom of Expression Award, PBS) and Mad Max: Fury Road (Consultant).
She is founder of V-Day, the almost 25 year old global activist movement which has raised over 120 million dollars to end violence against all women (cisgender and transgender), gender diverse people, girls and the planet, and the founder of One Billion Rising, the largest global mass action to end gender based violence in over 200 countries. She is a co-founder of the City of Joy, a revolutionary center for women survivors of violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, along with Christine Schuler Deschyrver and 2018 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dr. Denis Mukwege, and appeared – along with Christine and Dr. Mukwege – in the award winning documentary film City of Joy, available on Netflix.
V was named one of Newsweek’s “150 Women Who Changed the World” and The Guardian’s “100 Most Influential Women.” Her writing regularly appears in The Guardian.
In addition to the Isabelle Stevenson Tony award and the Obie, she has received numerous awards including a Guggenheim Fellowship in Playwriting, Glamour’s Woman of the Year, the Lucille Lortel Lifetime Achievement Award and the Lilly Award, as well as many honorary degrees.
Gabor Maté is a retired physician who, after 20 years of family practice and palliative care experience, worked for over a decade in Vancouver’s Downtown East Side with patients challenged by drug addiction and mental illness. The bestselling author of five books published in nearly 40 languages, including the award-winning In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close
Encounters With Addiction, Gabor is an internationally renowned speaker highly sought after for his expertise on addiction, trauma, childhood development, and the relationship of stress and illness. For his ground-breaking medical work and writing he has been awarded the Order of Canada, his country’s highest civilian distinction, and the Civic Merit Award from his hometown, Vancouver. His most recent book, The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness and Healing in a Toxic Culture is a New York Times and international bestseller.
His next book, co-written with his son Daniel, will be Hello Again: A Fresh Start for Parents and their Adult Children, based on their popular workshop, is expected to publish in late 2027.
www.drgabormate.com
Johann Hari is the author of three New York Times best-selling books, and the Executive Producer of an Oscar-nominated movie and an eight-part TV series starring Samuel L. Jackson. His books have been translated into 40 languages, and been praised by a broad range of people, from Oprah to Noam Chomsky, from Elton John to Naomi Klein.
‘Stolen Focus: Why You Can’t Pay Attention’, was published in January 2022. It was named as one of the three best books of the year by Amazon.com, and it was named as a Book of the Year by the Financial Times, the New York Post, and the Spectator. It was also chosen as ‘Book of the Month’ by Britain’s biggest bookseller, Waterstones, and Australia’s biggest bookseller Dymocks. It won several awards, including being named as ‘Most Important Book of the Year’ at the Non-Essential Book Awards and ‘Best Book of the Year’ at the Porchlight Book Awards. It has been a best-seller on three continents.
Johann’s first book, ‘Chasing the Scream: the First and Last Days of the War on Drugs’, was adapted into the Oscar-nominated film ‘The United States Vs Billie Holiday’. It has also been adapted into a documentary series which is available to view now.
His second book, ‘Lost Connections: Uncovering The Real Causes of Depression – and the Unexpected Solutions’ was described by the British Journal of General Practice as “one of the most important texts of recent years”, and shortlisted for an award by the British Medical Association.
Johann’s TED talks have been viewed more than 93 million times. The first is named ‘Everything You Think You Know About Addiction is Wrong’. The second is entitled ‘This Could Be Why You Are Depressed or Anxious’.
He has written for some of the world’s leading newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian, the Spectator, Le Monde Diplomatique, the Sydney Morning Herald, and Politico. He has appeared on NPR’s All Thing Considered, HBO’s Realtime With Bill Maher, The Joe Rogan Podcast, the BBC’s Question Time, and many other popular shows.
Johann was born in Glasgow, Scotland, and when he was a year old, his family moved to London, where he grew up and where he has lived for most of his life. His father – a Swiss immigrant – was a bus driver, and his mother was a nurse and later worked in shelters for survivors of domestic violence.
He studied Social and Political Science at King’s College, Cambridge, and graduated with a Double First.
Johann was twice named ‘National Newspaper Journalist of the Year’ by Amnesty International. He has also been named ‘Cultural Commentator of the Year’ and ‘Environmental Commentator of the Year’ at the Comment Awards.
He lives half the year in London, and spends the other half of the year traveling to research his books.
The discussion part of this session will be recorded.
The post July 8th: Johann, V and Gabor live in our zoom room! (Limited places available) appeared first on Mad in the UK.
-
The Right Are No Friends of Palestine
Since Israel began its genocide on Gaza in 2023, U.S. public opinion has undergone an unprecedented shift. For many decades, both Democrats and Republicans were broadly favorable toward Israel. Now, Pew reports that “eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents currently have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69% last year and 53% in 2022.” Even Republicans, who have historically been far more supportive of Israel, have shifted significantly.
-
Age Verification is a Privacy Nightmare
In the rush to block young people from certain parts of the internet, lawmakers are creating a privacy and security nightmare for everyone. This scenario is already playing out globally. Help us stop it and keep the web open and accessible for all.
Protect the web for everyone
Even with the best intentions, every online age verification scheme has the same result: users are forced to reveal sensitive personal information to third parties simply to access the web. Once that valuable data is centralized, it becomes an immediate target for leaks, hacks, and misuse. This isn’t hypothetical: it has already happened several times.
Support digital rights in EFF’s new Claw Back member t-shirt and Privacy Badger Crewneck.
Thanks to our members, EFF is on the front lines fighting against online age gating and identity verification online. We’re working with lawmakers to pass better policies, educating the public, and fighting the wildfire of age verification proposals around the world. Now all we need is you.
🐝 No, It’s Not a Bug
We all want young people to be safe online, but we don’t need to trade everyone’s digital rights to achieve it. These new restrictive mandates are used to justify government-led censorship and expanded surveillance. That’s no accident.
Whether you trust today’s lawmakers or not, handing anyone keys to new forms of censorship and surveillance is a serious risk. Because history shows us that these powers are always abused. It’s time to demand better.
Help us claw back your privacy
____________________
EFF is a member-supported U.S. 501(c)(3) organization. We’ve received top ratings from the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator since 2013! Your donation is tax-deductible as allowed by law.
