Lo spettacolo del calcio in tv: dove vederlo e come i tifosi daranno voce e colori agli stadi

Non solo sagome, ma anche app e effetti speciali come una sorta di videogioco: ecco come vedremo le partite e soprattutto come si potrà esultare

Load more
Read full article on:
It's the economy, stupid: Biden frames the choice as between Scranton and Park Avenue
The 2020 winner must rebuild an economy slammed by COVID-19. Trump has an edge but Biden seeks to be the Main Street choice to Wall Street's Trump.
How to erase your data to remove your life from Google’s grip
I use Google for so many things, from looking things up, handing my email and calendar, video chatting with my team, to peeking in on the Nest cam in my mother's living room
102-year-old New Hampshire woman survives both COVID-19 and the 1918 Spanish flu
The 102-year-old was infected with the Spanish flu in 1918 in Worcester and she tested positive last May for COVID-19 but overcame both illnesses.
Bobby Flay’s Salisbury Steak
Chef, restaurateur and cookbook author Bobby Flay demonstrates for “Sunday Morning” viewers his rendition of a classic ground-beef-and-gravy dish.
Why It May Be Time to Move to Buffalo, Rochester or Duluth | Opinion
Ode to Milton Friedman, fleeing climate change, and blue state bailouts.
How Millennials’ Childhood Set Them Up for Burnout
The writer Anne Helen Petersen’s new book is primarily about “burnout,” a condition endemic to the Millennial generation that she describes as a persistent “sensation of dull exhaustion” and “the feeling that you’ve optimized yourself into a work robot.” Expanding on a widely read BuzzFeed News article from two years ago, Petersen follows lines of cultural and economic inquiry in an effort to identify the root causes of this generational malaise.But her book, titled Can't Even: How Millennials Became the Burnout Generation, is also about parenting. It is about how many Baby Boomers’ hands-on, sometimes overbearing approach to parenting was the product of the anxious economic milieu that they came of age in and how many Millennials’ overbooked upbringings set them up for burnout later in life. This hardly describes the experience of every child of the 1980s and ’90s, but this “intensive” parenting style was practiced widely, and not just by the middle-class parents who pioneered it. (It has since become a nationwide ideal across race and class.)[Read: ‘Intensive’ parenting is now the norm in America]Over the course of Can’t Even, Petersen convincingly draws a line from society-level economic shifts that took place decades ago to how overwhelmed—by work, by debt, by everyday life—many 20- and 30-somethings feel today. Those shifts, she argues, have also contributed to enduring changes in American parenting.I recently spoke with Petersen about these ideas. The interview that follows has been condensed and edited for clarity.Joe Pinsker: What connections do you see between how many Millennials were raised and how burned out many of them are now, as adults?Anne Helen Petersen: There are two major factors. The first is conceiving of children as mini-adults—trying to cultivate behaviors, postures, and skills that are associated with adults, like being able to carry on conversations with adults or advocating for themselves when they feel something is unfair. I think we often admire that sort of precociousness without understanding what’s lost when you cultivate that in a child. The other component is thinking of childhood as a means to an end, and that end is getting into a good college. So instead of viewing childhood as simply childhood, parents are thinking, How can these various experiences—everything from playdates to piano lessons—lead to this larger résumé-building path to college?When childhood is treated that way, it can eliminate space for the formation of personality, independence, or confidence. Anything not oriented toward that goal of college—things like hobbies—gets lost. One of the saddest things I heard when talking to many Millennials is that when they reach a point of exhaustion with work, lift their head up, and look around them, they're like, What else is there? Do I have a personality? Do I know what I like? There's no there there, other than their ability to work, and I think that's really difficult.Pinsker: You suggest in the book that many aspects of this approach to parenting in the ’80s and ’90s had to do with the nature of the economy when Baby Boomers were entering adulthood. How so?Petersen: In the ‘60s and ‘70s, the middle class was larger and more prosperous, and a lot of Boomers grew up with at least a modicum of financial and class stability. But as adults in the ’80s and ’90s, they felt that stability slipping away, as well-paid middle-class jobs started disappearing. So a lot of the parenting decisions they made were attempts to add that stability that they felt had been lost over the course of their lives.Growing up, I thought that the reason parents wanted their kids to go to a good college was prestige or cultural capital, and obviously it has something to do with that. But it seems more and more clear that the reason you want your kids to go to a good college is so that they can find stability themselves and then pass that down to their kids.[Read: Why Swedes are chiller parents than Americans]Pinsker: When I read the chapter in your book about Millennials’ own parenting, it seemed like many of them were doing the same things their own parents did, just more intensely.Petersen: Yeah, whether it's more activities, more schedules, more supervision, more attention to the specifics of schooling—all of those things just keep going up. It does make sense that now, as Millennials have reached adulthood and often have even less stability than their parents, they’re taking a lot of the same strategies their parents used and just ratcheting them up.Pinsker: Is the implication that today’s kids are destined for even more burnout in adulthood than Millennials are experiencing, since many of them are being subjected to a more extreme version of the parenting experience that Millennials had growing up?Petersen: Well, there’s also the possibility that they just rebel entirely, because I do think you can reach a breaking point. Maybe Gen Z will do that, whereas I just do not remember that much rebellion against these ideas when I was in high school.Pinsker: In the book, you mention in passing that when you were growing up in a small town in Idaho, you remember some families struggling, but you weren’t really aware of the bigger economic forces at play, like government policies that weakened unions and trends in the logging industry. When I read that, I thought about how kids are often unaware of the larger economic forces that have a huge bearing on their upbringing. Do you think that parents should talk more openly with their kids about the structural things that shape their parenting approach?Petersen: I think that kids who are in more precarious positions have those conversations more. A lot of the people I interviewed who grew up poor had lots of conversations with their parents about being poor, in part because the parents had to say, No, we can't have this, because this is our reality. I interviewed some people who grew up in Michigan and remember conversations about layoffs in the auto industry, because they knew people who lost their jobs. There was also an interview that I did with a woman who grew up Black in the suburbs in Indiana, and her parents told her, The reason you have to stay close is because we live in this racist neighborhood and people are going to treat you like crap. So when the danger or precarity is more pressing, then those frank conversations, I think, become more common.Many middle-class white parents don't have those conversations. They invisibilize both class status and race, when those are the people who should absolutely be having those conversations.Pinsker: Near the end of the book, you say that one of the best pieces of advice you’ve heard for reducing burnout isn’t about reducing it for yourself, but considering how your own behavior enflames and encourages it in other people. What do you think that advice looks like in the context of parenting?Petersen: There’s one woman I interviewed who said something like, “We’re all so tired, but we are all so scared to actually ask for help from one another”—as if asking for help somehow makes you seem like you are failing at motherhood, like you don't have it all together. But there are so many ways that we could take some burdens off of one another. For instance, both kids' parents are often present for playdates. I'm like, let that kid go play! This is supposed to make excess time for at least one of the parents, not take up time for both of them.Pinsker: You write about how your own burnout played a role in not having a kid yourself, but I’m curious about what kind of parent you think you might have been, given what you’ve laid out in your book. If you did have kids, do you think your goal would be to subvert and destroy the inherited parenting norms? Or do you think that they are to some extent inescapable?Petersen: There's just no living outside of ideology unless you drop out of society and do a very alternative sort of child-rearing. One thing that would shape this hypothetical child's life is the fact that I live in Montana, where they would have a different sort of everyday life than, say, if I lived in Brooklyn. But at the same time, at the public high school that my neighborhood feeds into, kids compete to go to prestigious colleges, and get into them in part because they're from Montana. And you can't extract yourself from that. So unless we change the way that college works, it's hard to get outside of it.And a lot of this stuff is internalized by students themselves. I talked to Millennials who were like, My parents couldn't give a crap about college—I was the one who wanted all of this stuff. Personally, my mom tried to raise me as a feminist, and then in seventh grade, I come home from school and I’m like, Mom, I'm trying out for cheerleading. What does she do with that? How do you make your kids naturally want the things that you think they should want or reject the things that you think they should reject? I think that it does take structural change, because otherwise it is so dependent on independent choices and individual capabilities.
The Immigrants Who Created New Possibilities
Of the many questions at stake in this fall’s election, one of the less obvious is this: Will the United States remain a country where someone like Barack Obama or Kamala Harris—a person of color with immigrant parents—is likely to be born? The answer depends, in part, on whether America’s universities retain their global appeal. If Donald Trump wins reelection, they may not.Harris and Obama exist because, after World War II, American universities grew more attractive than their British counterparts to many young strivers from the decolonizing world. As the New York Times reporter Ellen Barry explained in a recent story, the current Democratic vice-presidential nominee’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, yearned to be a scientist. But in the British-influenced educational system prevalent in newly independent India, that wasn’t easy for a woman. At New Delhi’s Lady Irwin College, established by the wife of a former British viceroy, Gopalan was forced to study “home science.” When she looked for a graduate institution that would teach her biochemistry, according to her brother, she couldn’t find one in the United Kingdom. So, in 1959, she enrolled at UC Berkeley.For his part, Harris’s father, Donald, won a scholarship designed to allow promising young Jamaicans to study in Britain. But Harris disliked Britain’s “static rigidity” and had read a story about Berkeley students going south to fight for civil rights. He showed up at Berkeley in 1961 and met Gopalan the following year.Barack Obama’s father has a story like Donald Harris’s. In 1959, with Kenya on the verge of independence, the nationalist leader Tom Mboya hatched a scheme to send talented young Kenyans to Western universities so they could return and help run the fledgling country. The British colonial authorities dismissed the idea because a British-affiliated university was next door in Uganda. So Mboya went to the U.S., where he raised funds from Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, and Jackie Robinson, and, later, from presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, who thought the plan might make Kenya’s emerging elite pro-American. One of the students who won Mboya’s scholarship was Barack Obama Sr., who met Ann Dunham, the future president’s mother, in a Russian class at the University of Hawaii in 1960.[Read: The real story of Obama’s mom]Gopalan, Harris, and Obama Sr. were ahead of their time. In the early 1960s, the U.S. permitted few immigrants from Africa and Asia. But that changed with the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which opened America’s doors to newcomers who weren’t from northern Europe. From 1965 to 1970, the number of immigrants from Asia quadrupled. Immigration from the Caribbean was almost four times higher in the 1960s than it had been in the 1950s. And the number of international students in the U.S.—many of whom stayed in the country after receiving their degrees—began a steady climb from fewer than 100,000 in the late 1950s to 400,000 by the late 1980s to more than 1 million by the time Trump took office. In 2016, nine of the 10 countries that sent the most students to the U.S. were in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.Supporters of these trends often defend them in economic terms. Immigrants, they note, are responsible for many of the patents created by America’s top research universities. Foreign students’ tuition subsidizes public universities during an era in which state-government support has dwindled. And many foreign students go on to create companies that employ Americans.But there’s an asymmetry between establishment pro-immigration voices, who generally stress materialist arguments, and the conservative nationalists, ascendant under Trump, who define immigration primarily as a political, cultural, and racial threat. In her book, Adios America, which helped shape Trump’s immigration message in 2016, Ann Coulter depicts the 1965 immigration law as part of a progressive strategy to flood the United States with nonwhite immigrants so that conservatives can’t win elections. “Democrats had not been able to get a majority of white people to vote for them,” she writes. “Their only hope was to bring in new voters.”This line of argument reduces immigration to an electoral ploy, and Democrats often respond by stressing the utilitarian benefits of welcoming people from all over. But the very existence of Kamala Harris and Barack Obama reveals a political effect that can’t be captured by statistical generalizations. Immigration into the United States allows multicultural interactions that produce Americans who can see the country from both within and without.Shyamala Gopalan and Donald Harris met at what became Berkeley’s Afro American Association, which Barry calls “a crucible of radical politics” made possible because “the descendants of sharecroppers or enslaved people” found themselves in proximity to “students from countries that had fought off colonial powers.” The historian Nell Painter, who was an undergraduate at Berkeley in the early 1960s, told Barry that, because immigrants such as Gopalan and Harris had “a broader view of the world, and they were people of color,” they represented “a kind of intellectual freedom.” The political environment at the University of Hawaii was less intense. Still, it was increasingly cosmopolitan—in the year Obama Sr. arrived, so did students from Jordan and Iran—and politically progressive. And it was in this environment that a brilliant young Kenyan who dissected colonialism over coffee and beer met an idealistic white Kansan who soon gave birth to America’s first Black president.Like most people, Barack Obama and Kamala Harris owe much of their political outlook to their parents. And each has incorporated their parents’ journeys into their own political narrative. Obama has said that “in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.” Harris calls herself “the child of parents who were marching and shouting” in the civil-rights movement and thus instilled in her a passion for justice.[Peter Beinart: Kamala Harris did what what she had to do]In the Trump era, the Republican Party has launched an effort to make replicating Harris’s and Obama’s family stories harder. Over the summer, the Trump administration demanded that foreign students leave the U.S. if their institutions taught solely online—before backing down in the face of lawsuits. It has also initiated a Red Scare–style hunt for Chinese spies on American campuses that, according to the president of MIT, has left “faculty members, post-docs, research staff and students” feeling “unfairly scrutinized, stigmatized and on edge—because of their Chinese ethnicity alone.”Even before the coronavirus pandemic, the administration’s moves were souring international students on the United States. The number enrolled in the U.S., which rose by 9 percent from 2014 to 2015, declined in both of the Trump administration’s first two years. A 2018 poll by the Graduate Management Admission Council found that 54 percent of prospective students from India, and 50 percent from China, said the political climate in the U.S. would deter them from applying to an American business school.Seeing an opportunity, both Canada and Britain are moving to loosen visa requirements to make their universities more attractive to foreign students. And in a grand historical irony, the Beijing-based New Oriental Education & Technology Group reported that in 2020, for the first time, Britain—the country whose inhospitality spurred Gopalan, Harris, and Obama Sr. to the other side of the Atlantic—was now a more popular destination among Chinese students than the U.S.If Trump wins reelection, these trends will likely accelerate. Last week, Axios reported that his administration wanted to change a law that allows foreign students to stay for the length of their studies and would instead require them to apply for visa extensions after two or four years. In a second term, Trump might push legislation such as the Secure Campus Act now being promoted by Senators Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn, which would bar Chinese students from graduate study in scientific and engineering fields in the U.S.The effect of these moves on America’s economic dynamism and geopolitical power would likely be profound. But, more intimately, they would also make America’s campuses less able to foster the kind of cosmopolitan, multicultural climates that produced the first Black president and perhaps the first Black (and female) vice president. Nativists like Ann Coulter understand that. Progressives should too. They should embrace immigration from countries such as those that produced Shyamala Gopalan, Donald Harris, and Barack Obama Sr., not just because it benefits the economy, but because of the range of human possibilities that it creates.
'We Are Helping Homeless People Get Stimulus Checks'
Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, we no longer have islands of hunger, illness and housing instability to contend with; these exist in all quarters of our community. We are seeing people who have never experienced homelessness being forced to navigate it for the first time.
1 h
Op-Ed: California finally sweeps away most of its tributes to the Confederacy. What took so long?
California once had far more Confederate monuments and place names than any state outside the South. Most have been removed.
1 h
Op-Ed: Where are the robotic overlords when we need them most?
Public-facing robotic technology could help mitigate the damages of the COVID-19 pandemic. It's time to welcome the robot revolution.
1 h
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, TikTok, Emmys: Your Weekend Briefing
Here’s what you need to know about the week’s top stories.
1 h
2021 Subaru Crosstrek SUV powers up to take on new rivals
Competition among subcompact SUVs has grown fierce since the Crosstrek arrived in 2012. The Crosstrek's high seating position and AWD made it a hit.       
1 h
How to watch the weirdest Emmy Awards ever
Here's how to live-stream the virtual Emmy Awards or watch them on TV on Sunday, Sept. 20.
1 h
Miss. Supreme Court says voters with coronavirus vulnerability don't automatically qualify for absentee ballots
Mississippi voters more vulnerable to the coronavirus because of preexisting conditions don't necessarily qualify to cast an absentee ballot, the state's Supreme Court ruled Friday.  
1 h
Why it could be a Biden blowout in November
Poll of the week: A new ABC News/Washington Post poll from Minnesota finds Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden with a 57% to 41% lead over President Donald Trump among likely voters.
1 h
D.C.-area forecast: Staying sunny and cool before a warm-up midweek
With high pressure firmly entrenched overhead, we’ll see another several days of mostly sunny and dry conditions.
1 h
In the Future, Propaganda Will Be Computer-Generated
John Phillips/Life Magazine via Getty / Arsh Raziuddin / The AtlanticSomeday soon, the reading public will miss the days when a bit of detective work could identify completely fictitious authors. Consider the case of “Alice Donovan.” In 2016, a freelance writer by that name emailed the editors of CounterPunch, a left-leaning independent media site, to pitch a story. Her Twitter profile identified her as a journalist. Over a period of 18 months, Donovan pitched CounterPunch regularly; the publication accepted a handful of her pieces, and a collection of left-leaning sites accepted others.Then, in 2018, the editor of CounterPunch received a phone call from The Washington Post. A reporter there had obtained an FBI report suggesting that Alice Donovan was a “persona account”—a fictitious figure—created by the Main Directorate, the Russian military-intelligence agency commonly known as the GU. Skeptical of the Russia link, but concerned about having potentially published content from a fake person, the CounterPunch editors pored over Donovan’s oeuvre, which spanned topics as varied as Syria, Black Lives Matter, and Hillary Clinton’s emails. They found her to be not only suspicious, but also a plagiarist: Some of the articles bearing her byline appeared to have been written instead by another woman, Sophia Mangal, a journalist affiliated with something called the Inside Syria Media Center.The ISMC’s “About” page claimed that the group, ostensibly a cross between a think tank and a news outlet, was founded in 2015 by a team of journalists. But as the CounterPunch editors dug further, they realized that Sophia Mangal was also a fabrication. So, it seemed, were the others at ISMC whom they tried to track down. CounterPunch published a January 2018 postmortem detailing what its investigation had found: articles plagiarized from The New Yorker, the Saudi-based Arab News, and other sources; prolific “journalists” who filed as many as three or four stories a day, but whose bylines disappeared after inquiries were made to verify that they existed; social-media profiles that featured stolen photos of real people; lively Twitter accounts that sycophantically defended the Syrian dictator and Russian ally Bashar al-Assad. The ISMC, it seemed, was a front. Its employees were purely digital personas controlled by Russian-intelligence agents.[Read: A computer tried (and failed) to write this article]A year after CounterPunch filed its story, in mid-2019, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence turned over a data set to my team at the Stanford Internet Observatory. Facebook had attributed the material to the GU; the official Facebook page for the ISMC (among other entities) was part of that trove. As we combed through online archives and obscure message boards to investigate the data, we found even more fake journalist personas with plagiarized portfolios and stolen photos, more front publications, and clusters of fake “amplifier” personas who shared the fake journalists’ content to audiences on Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook. All of this activity overlapped with the work of Russia’s other manipulation team, the Internet Research Agency. The IRA had its own accounts, which were producing even more tweets and Facebook commentary.In other words, we found a sprawling web of nonexistent authors turning Russian-government talking points into thousands of opinion pieces and placing them in sympathetic Western publications, with crowds of fake people discussing the same themes on Twitter. Not all of these personas or stories were hits—in fact, very few of the ISMC’s articles achieved mass reach—but in the strange world of online manipulation, popularity isn’t the only goal. If fake op-eds circulate widely and change American minds about Syria or the upcoming election, that’s a success. If a proliferation of fake comments convinces the public that a majority feels some particular way about a hot topic, that’s a success. But even merely creating cynicism or confusion—about what is real and who is saying what—is a form of success too.Because photos and text are easily searchable, cribbing real people’s photos and real writers’ work can make an operation easy to unravel. So America’s adversaries are adapting. Earlier this month, Facebook shut down yet another Russian influence operation, this one built around a website named PeaceData, which belonged to the IRA. This latest effort also involved a dubious media outlet as a front. But this time, instead of stealing photos, the trolls filled out fictitious authors’ social-media profiles with images of entirely unique faces generated by artificial intelligence. (Websites such as show how realistic these faces can be.) And while they republished some stories from elsewhere, their new, more robust fake personas hired unwitting American journalists to write original ones. But even this approach left evidence behind; some of those journalists have since given interviews about their experiences, revealing operational details.The ideal scenario for the modern propagandist, of course, is to have convincing personas produce original content. Generative text is the next frontier. Released in a beta version in June by the artificial-intelligence research lab OpenAI, a tool called GPT-3 generates long-form articles as effortlessly as it composes tweets, and its output is often difficult to distinguish from the work of human beings. In fact, it wrote parts of this article. Tools like this won’t just supercharge global propaganda operations; they will force internet platforms and average users alike to find new ways of deciding what and whom to trust.When I prompted GPT-3 to opine on these issues, it captured the problem succinctly: For the moment, at least, it seems unlikely that generative media will be effective in the same way as traditional media at promoting political messages. However, that’s not to say that it couldn’t be. What it will do is muddle the waters, making it much harder to tell what’s real and what’s not. The letters in GPT-3 stand for “generative pre-trained transformer.” It works by taking text input and predicting what comes next. The model was trained on several massive data sets, including Wikipedia and Common Crawl (a nonprofit dedicated to “providing a copy of the internet to internet researchers”). In generating text, GPT-3 may return facts or drop the names of relevant public figures. It can produce computer code, poems, journalistic-sounding articles that reference the real world, tweets in the style of a particular account, or long theoretical essays on par with what a middling freshman philosophy student might write.Indeed, if you want GPT-3 to speculate about the implications of a future full of AI-generated writing, it will. I fed it a couple of paragraphs of an early draft of this essay, asked it to generate 200 more words on the same subject, and instructed it to be a little creative. Here, verbatim, is some of what it returned: In addition to the potential for AI-generated false stories, there’s a simultaneously scary and exciting future where AI-generated false stories are the norm. The rise of the software engineer has given us the power to create new kinds of spaces: virtual reality and augmented reality are now possible, and the “Internet of things” is increasingly entering our homes. This past year, we’ve seen a new type of art: that which is created by algorithms and not humans. In this future, AI-generated content will continue to become more sophisticated, and it will be increasingly difficult to differentiate it from the content that is created by humans. One of the implications of the rise in AI-generated content is that the public will have to contend with the reality that it will be increasingly difficult to differentiate between generated content and human-generated content. It’s somewhat disconcerting to have a machine plausibly imitating your writing style based on a few paragraphs—to see it mindlessly generating “thoughts” that you have had. Even though I knew GPT-3 was putting words together based on probabilities, I found myself giving it prompts when I was stuck on how best to express a concept or wondering how it would answer a question. The AI’s output tends to ramble a bit and can become somewhat nonsensical if it goes on for too long, but this is a problem humans face as well; it’s why freshman philosophy students have TAs and publications have editors. But given a prompt, GPT-3 can produce any number of unique takes, which a person can quickly and easily polish and post.[Fred Benenson: AI is coming for your favorite menial tasks]The Guardian, in fact, recently did just that: Editors had the AI write eight essays about being an AI. Then they stitched them together into what has been widely touted as the first machine-authored op-ed. The cheeky headline—“A robot wrote this entire article. Are you scared yet, human?”—raised the prospect that self-aware computers will create mischief. But the more pressing question is how humans will adapt to a technology that enables anyone with access to push out content, undetectably, quickly, and cheaply. With minimal effort, GPT-3 can be guided to write in a range of styles: In a recent study, the Middlebury Institute of International Studies researchers Kris McGuffie and Alex Newhouse found that it could be prompted to generate plausible pro-Nazi posts, reproduce the writing style of mass-shooter manifestos, and answer questions like a QAnon disciple. The developers of GPT-3 understand the potential for abuse and have limited the number of people with access, though hostile countries will likely develop copycat versions soon enough.In the past, propaganda needed human hands to write it. Eager to create the illusion of popularity, authorities in China began hiring people in 2004 to flood online spaces with pro-government comments. By 2016, members of the “50-cent party”—after the amount that its members were said to be paid per post—were putting up an estimated 450 million social-media comments a year. Similar comment armies, troll factories, and fake-news shops in the Philippines, Poland, Russia, and elsewhere have attempted to manipulate public opinion by flooding online spaces with fake posts. One 2018 “opinion-rigging” operation in South Korea spearheaded by a popular blogger used a combination of human commenters as well as an automated program to post and boost comments critical of a particular politician. Seoul police noted the volume of two days of activity: “They manipulated about 20,000 comments on 675 news articles, using 2,290 different IDs from January 17 to 18.” In the quaint early days of social-media manipulation, such efforts were limited by human constraints. That will soon no longer be the case.Writing tweets, comments, and entire articles for a fake media outlet is time consuming. The GU agents who ran “Alice Donovan” and the imaginary ISMC team got sloppy. They plagiarized others’ writing and recycled their own; the stolen profile photos cemented investigators’ conviction that they were fake. In many other influence operations, the need to produce high volumes of text content means that researchers regularly observe repetitive phrasing from manipulative accounts. Advances in AI-generated content will eliminate those tells. In time, operators far less sophisticated than the Russian government will have the ability to robo-generate fake tweets or op-eds. The consequences could be significant. In countries around the world, coordinated propaganda campaigns in print as well as social media have sown social unrest, pushed down vaccination rates, and even promoted ethnic violence. Now imagine what happens when the sources of such postings are untraceable and the supply is essentially infinite.Our information ecosystem is trending toward unreality. Of course, society has managed to adapt to technology that alters humans’ perception of reality before: The introduction of Adobe Photoshop in 1990 popularized the ability to edit pictures of real people. Computer-generated images (CGI) offered another leap forward; artists and moviemakers use computers to design life forms and even entire worlds from whole cloth. Today, Snapchat and Instagram filters that put canine features on human faces have made selfie altering not just effortless but socially desirable, as well.Whether these digital alterations alarm people depends on the context in which they’re experienced. By now, readers of celebrity or fashion magazines have come to assume that photos in them are digitally airbrushed. Movie viewers intent on being entertained do not feel misled by special effects. But in other domains, the discovery that a video or photo has been edited is a scandal—it’s manipulation. Americans who read an article in an online newspaper or a comment on an internet message board today might fairly assume that it’s written by a real person. That assumption won’t hold in the future, and this has significant implications for how we parse information and think about online identity.[Read: ‘Artificial intelligence’ has become meaningless]“On the Internet,” declared a 1993 New Yorker cartoon, “nobody knows you’re a dog.” In authoritarian countries where the government routinely cranks out propaganda and manipulates the discourse with so-called sock-puppet accounts, the public reacts with weary resignation: Identifying what’s authentic, what’s true, often requires significant effort. The impact that pervasive unreality within the information space will have on liberal democracies is unclear. If, or when, the flooding of the discourse comes to pass, our trust in what we read and who we are speaking with online is likely to decrease. This has already begun to happen: As awareness of deepfake videos, automated trolling, and other manipulative tactics has increased, internet users have developed a new vocabulary with which to try to discredit their critics and ideological opponents. Some supporters of Donald Trump have speculated, against all evidence, that his comments on the infamous Access Hollywood tape were digitally generated. Twitter users regularly accuse each other of being bots.The rise of generative text will deepen those suspicions and change the information environment in other ways. In the media, editors will find themselves exercising extra vigilance to avoid publishing synthesized op-eds by future algorithmic Alice Donovans and Sophia Mangals. Major internet companies will work to make detection of generated content as fast and effective as possible. Still, as the detection technology grows in sophistication, so too will tools that generate images, videos, and text even more seamlessly.Amid the arms race surrounding AI-generated content, users and internet companies will give up on trying to judge authenticity tweet by tweet and article by article. Instead, the identity of the account attached to the comment, or person attached to the byline, will become a critical signal toward gauging legitimacy. Many users will want to know that what they’re reading or seeing is tied to a real person—not an AI-generated persona. Already, the internet has divided into more and less sanitized spaces: Sites such as 4chan exist for internet users who want unfettered anonymous forums, but the majority of internet users prefer more moderated platforms. The proliferation of machine-generated messaging will enhance the appeal of internet communities in which all participants must validate their identity, or at least their physical existence, in some way. Political debate may migrate to entirely new speech platforms—or carved-out sections of existing platforms such as Twitter or Facebook—that prioritize the postings of users with verified identities or validated pseudonyms.Then again, these adjustments could put even more power in the hands of internet platforms that many Americans believe already have too much influence over how information circulates in the United States. When Twitter confers a blue check mark on a public figure’s profile, the company officially is saying only that it has verified who owns the account. But the user community often views those decisions as an endorsement. And when the company took check marks off the accounts of several far-right and white-supremacist leaders in 2017, it was, in some sense, establishing bounds for respectable debate.The idea that a verified identity should be a precondition for contributing to public discourse is dystopian in its own way. Since the dawn of the nation, Americans have valued anonymous and pseudonymous speech: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay used the pen name Publius when they wrote the Federalist Papers, which laid out founding principles of American government. Whistleblowers and other insiders have published anonymous statements in the interest of informing the public. Figures as varied as the statistics guru Nate Silver (“Poblano”) and Senator Mitt Romney (“Pierre Delecto”) have used pseudonyms while discussing political matters on the internet. The goal shouldn’t be to end anonymity online, but merely to reserve the public square for people who exist—not for artificially intelligent propaganda generators.Without even existing, Alice Donovan and Sophia Mangal could become a harbinger of the future. To quote GPT-3, the dilemma is this: In this future, AI-generated content will continue to become more sophisticated, and it will be increasingly difficult to differentiate it from the content that is created by humans … In the meantime, we’ll need to keep our guard up as we take in information, and learn to evaluate the trustworthiness of the sources we’re using. We will continue to have to figure out how to believe, and what to believe. In a future where machines are increasingly creating our content, we’ll have to figure out how to trust.
1 h
In John Cassavetes’ Husbands, Men Are in Crisis
An unwieldy and uncomfortable dramedy following three best friends on a midlife crisis bender.
1 h
How Scrapbooking Connects Craft and Personal Reflection
It’s a hobby--and a means of self-expression.
1 h
Progressives plan 'fight' in battle over Supreme Court vacancy
Republicans rallied around a Supreme Court vacancy in 2016. Will Democrats do the same this year?
2 h
China Says TikTok Parent Company ByteDance Said It Had Only Learned About Trump Deal in the News
The president has said he has agreed to a deal to allow the social media platform to continue operating in the United States.
2 h
Yankees’ Clint Frazier keeps raking — mock turtleneck or not
Mock turtleneck or not, Clint Frazier is really heating up at the plate. Just before the Yankees’ 8-0 rout of the Red Sox in Boston on Saturday night, Frazier took to Twitter to report that teammate Brett Gardner had stolen his turtleneck undershirt from his locker to wear for himself. But the 26-year-old Frazier stayed...
2 h
Ahmaud Arbery's mother says fundraising efforts exploit her son's death
It's been almost seven months since Ahmaud Arbery was gunned down while jogging in a residential community on the outskirts of Brunswick, Georgia.
2 h
2020 Emmys: Everything you need to know before the award show
As the 72nd Emmy Awards grow closer, it’s no secret that this year’s award show will be historically different from any previous broadcast of TV’s biggest night. 
2 h
Couple's wedding RSVP allegedly offers better meals for guests who give expensive gifts: 'That is horrific'
A couple who is soon to be wed had allegedly sent an RSVP that demands to know the value of the gift they are going to receive and provided meal options accordingly.
2 h
The titan of Black media, John H. Johnson, shaped how African Americans got the news
Black media like Jet magazine made me aware of national news coverage. Today, the media landscape has changed drastically for African Americans.       
2 h
'I'm An Obama Impersonator, These Are The Strangest Things That Have Happened To Me'
Something I could never have anticipated was that when you play President Barack Obama on late night television, people then want you at their live events. I have travelled the world as Obama and had some truly weird and wonderful experiences.
2 h
If GOP Creates 'Illegitimate Majority' on Supreme Court, More Justices Should be Added: Former U.S. Attorney General
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder accused Republicans of "blatant hypocrisy" for moving to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death so close to the presidential election.
2 h
Democrats seek foothold in critical states for redistricting
The party is hoping to flip state legislative chambers in North Carolina and Texas, two states where Republican-drawn maps have given the GOP huge advantages in congressional elections.
3 h
Robert Pattinson’s Weird, Funny Accents Make Everything Better
Photo Illustration by Kristen Hazzard/The Daily Beast/ Courtesy Netflix/A24The thing about Robert Pattinson is that from the moment he’s telling it, he commits to the lie. Earlier this year we were all captivated by one of the master Hollywood troll’s best performances yet: A viral interview in which Pattinson invented—and, disastrously, tried to cook—a portable pasta recipe called “Piccolini Cuscine.” (I tried to make it. It did not go well.)But Pattinson’s knack for going all-in on a bizarre charade extends to his work as an actor. After all, if one thing has defined a lot of his post-Twilight work, it’s his full (and full-throated) embrace of weird accents.Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here
3 h
Thai monarchy reform protesters declare 'victory' after delivering their demands
3 h
Matthew Wolff, 21, set to make golfing history as he seizes US Open lead
3 h
Protesters Gather Outside Mitch McConnell's Home to Decry Move to Fill Supreme Court Seat: 'Ruth Sent Us'
Protesters lined the streets in front of the senator's home in Louisville, Kentucky, after he vowed to call a vote for President Donald Trump's nominee following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
3 h
Biden 'Approves' Clip of Trump Saying 'You'll Never Hear From Me Again' If He Loses Election
The president told supporters if Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden defeats him in November that "I will never speak to you again."
3 h
Trump's Supreme Court court pick likely to be Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa: reports
Two names have been emerging from the list of Supreme Court contenders President Trump is said to be considering following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to reports.
3 h
This game of Dungeons & Dragons has been going on for 38 years
Since 1982, Robert Wardhaugh has been hosting the same game of Dungeons & Dragons in Ontario, Canada. Over nearly four decades, it has grown to be bigger than he could have ever expected.
3 h
Abcarian: 35 years in a dungeon: The long-term effects of intimate partner violence we don't talk about
A woman chronicles her mother's awful journey, recounting her own pain and guilt as well as their reconciliation.
3 h
Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 15. It's one small step toward fixing California's broken tax system
Proposition 15, the split-tax roll measure, is the first step in a necessary fix to one of the state's most intractable problems, a faulty property tax system.
3 h
Oregon wildfires: Working in disaster relief, I see the best and the worst of 2020
What did it take to move me from empathy to action? Apparently, it took 2020.       
3 h
Patrick Reed plummets down US Open leaderboard: ‘It was brutal’
Patrick Reed’s 36-hole lead at the U.S. Open was extended to three strokes early in Saturday’s third round, with two birdies on the first four holes. The free fall was both disastrous and spectacular, however, sending the 2018 Masters champion tumbling down the leaderboard throughout the treacherous back nine at Winged Foot. Though powerful playing...
3 h
As coronavirus skyrocketed in the US, so did stress and depression
As the Covid-19 pandemic got worse in the United States, so, too, did levels of stress and depression, according to a new report.
3 h
Seahawks will see new Patriots team since Super Bowl loss
There is history between the two teams that play in the Game of the Week — the Patriots and Seahawks. The most recent history between the two was Super Bowl history, with the Patriots winning Super Bowl XLIX in January 2016, when Seahawks coach Pete Carroll opted not to run Marshawn Lynch at the goal...
4 h
France's Oldest Public Library is Paris' Best Oasis
Cliché Marie-Lan Nguyen (CC-by-nc-nd)PARIS––When I entered the reading room of France’s oldest public library, I let out an audible and not-too-professional gasp that was (fortunately) muffled by my protective mask. After several years of living in Paris, I have become accustomed to the city’s architectural grandeur. However, as a self-described bibliophile, I found the space’s sumptuous interior lined from floor-to-ceiling with leather-bound volumes a little overwhelming at first. Add to that the woodsy, vanilla-tinged aroma of old books hanging in the air, and I wasn’t sure whether to explore the library or just stand in the entrance and take some yoga-style inhalations. Since I was accompanied by Florine Levecque, the library’s head of communications who served as my guide, I went with the former while hoping she wouldn’t notice the protracted deep breaths I took every few minutes. Once again, the face mask came in handy.  Read more at The Daily Beast.
4 h
Why Is Sarah Paulson So Good?
Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Netflix/AlamyTo understand how a lot of longtime Sarah Paulson fans feel about her, look no further than a recent viral TikTok video from the account @iwantafrankoceanalbum. “Any movie, any show, any thing that this girl is on, it’s automatically a 10 out of 10,” the TikToker, Nijhea, says. “You don’t even gotta watch it.”It’s... really true. If a project happens to star Sarah Paulson, be it great or terrible, I know I want to watch just to see what she does with it. I didn’t exactly love Ratched, but even I have to admit it was eminently watchable—all thanks to performers like Paulson and Sharon Stone, whose very presence is engrossing.But what is it about my best friend and yours, Sarah Paulson, that makes her performances so captivating—especially on television? Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here
4 h
Deivi Garcia excited to pitch where ‘legend’ Pedro Martinez did
Growing up with Red Sox legend Pedro Martinez as his childhood idol, Deivi Garcia always dreamed of pitching at Fenway Park. But as the 21-year-old right-handed hurler prepares to take the mound in Boston for the first time in his big league career, he can’t help but be shocked by how quickly he got to...
4 h
At least 40 rounds were fired during shooting that left two dead at a party in New York, police say
At least 40 rounds were fired during a shooting that left two people dead and over a dozen others injured at a house party in upstate New York, authorities said.
4 h
Dana White vents at officiating in Jessica-Rose Clark's UFC on ESPN+ 36 win
Dana White again voiced frustration toward referee Chris Tognoni after Jessica-Rose Clark's TKO of Sarah Alpar at UFC on ESPN+ 36.        Related StoriesDana White: Khamzat Chimaev 'one of the most special fighters' I've ever seenColby Covington turns to Jorge Masvidal after beating 'woke little [expletive]' Tyron WoodleyKamaru Usman, Colby Covington have heated (but cringeworthy) exchange after UFC on ESPN+ 36 
4 h
The Bloody Night That New York City Rioted Over Shakespeare
GettyThere was one thing on which people on both sides of the pond and on both sides of the class divide could agree in the mid-19th century: they loved the Bard. Though long-dead, Shakespeare was the Steven Spielberg of the day, and with theater tickets available for a very reasonable price (Hamilton producers, look to your thespian ancestors), playhouses were democratic spaces where those from all walks of life came together to see a good show. Because theater was the closest equivalent to popular entertainment at the time, the stage actors responsible for delivering the Bard’s rhymes were the culture’s A-listers. In the 1840s, a feud for the history books broke out between two of these leading stars—one from America, one from England. Like all good celebrity gossip, this rivalry played out in the newspapers of the day; and like all good culture wars, the issue at hand went way beyond two famous narcissists trading barbs. Read more at The Daily Beast.
4 h