Shania Twain celebrates Christmas with cozy, make-up free look
Newby scores 16, UNC Wilmington knocks off Appalachian State 76-61India News | MP Police Officials Visit Prayagraj to Study Mahakumbh Security Strategies for 2028 Ujjain Kumbh
By JUAN A. LOZANO, Associated Press HOUSTON (AP) — An elaborate parody appears to be behind an effort to resurrect Enron, the Houston-based energy company that exemplified the worst in American corporate fraud and greed after it went bankrupt in 2001. If its return is comedic, some former employees who lost everything in Enron’s collapse aren’t laughing. “It’s a pretty sick joke and it disparages the people that did work there. And why would you want to even bring it back up again?” said former Enron employee Diana Peters, who represented workers in the company’s bankruptcy proceedings. Here’s what to know about the history of Enron and the purported effort to bring it back. Once the nation’s seventh-largest company, Enron filed for bankruptcy protection on Dec. 2, 2001, after years of accounting tricks could no longer hide billions of dollars in debt or make failing ventures appear profitable. The energy company’s collapse put more than 5,000 people out of work, wiped out more than $2 billion in employee pensions and rendered $60 billion in Enron stock worthless. Its aftershocks were felt throughout the energy sector. Twenty-four Enron executives , including former CEO Jeffrey Skilling , were eventually convicted for their roles in the fraud. Enron founder Ken Lay’s convictions were vacated after he died of heart disease following his 2006 trial. On Monday — the 23rd anniversary of the bankruptcy filing — a company representing itself as Enron announced in a news release that it was relaunching as a “company dedicated to solving the global energy crisis.” It also posted a video on social media, advertised on at least one Houston billboard and a took out a full-page ad in the Houston Chronicle In the minute-long video that was full of generic corporate jargon, the company talks about “growth” and “rebirth.” It ends with the words, “We’re back. Can we talk?” Enron’s new website features a company store, where various items featuring the brand’s tilted “E” logo are for sale, including a $118 hoodie. In an email, company spokesperson Will Chabot said the new Enron was not doing any interviews yet, but that “We’ll have more to share soon.” Signs point to the comeback being a joke. In the “terms of use and conditions of sale” on the company’s website, it says “the information on the website about Enron is First Amendment protected parody, represents performance art, and is for entertainment purposes only.” Documents filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office show that College Company, an Arkansas-based LLC, owns the Enron trademark. The co-founder of College Company is Connor Gaydos, who helped create a joke conspiracy theory that claims all birds are actually surveillance drones for the government. Peters said that since learning about the “relaunch” of Enron, she has spoken with several other former employees and they are also upset by it. She said the apparent stunt was “in poor taste.” “If it’s a joke, it’s rude, extremely rude. And I hope that they realize it and apologize to all of the Enron employees,” Peters said. Peters, who is 74 years old, said she is still working in information technology because “I lost everything in Enron, and so my Social Security doesn’t always take care of things I need done.” “Enron’s downfall taught us critical lessons about corporate ethics, accountability, and the consequences of unchecked ambition. Enron’s legacy was the employees in the trenches. Leave Enron buried,” she said. Follow Juan A. Lozano on X at https://x.com/juanlozano70
Sam Darnold completed 33 of 43 passes for a career-best 377 yards to go with three touchdowns and one interception, and the Minnesota Vikings escaped with a 27-25 win over the Green Bay Packers on Sunday afternoon in Minneapolis. Justin Jefferson had eight catches for 92 yards for Minnesota (14-2), which won its ninth game in a row. Jalen Nailor, Jordan Addison and Cam Akers had one touchdown reception apiece for the Vikings. Jordan Love completed 19 of 30 passes for 185 yards and one touchdown for Green Bay (11-5). Josh Jacobs and Emanuel Wilson each rushed for a touchdown and Malik Heath had a touchdown catch for the Packers, who lost to the Vikings for the second time this season. Minnesota's nine-game winning streak matches its third longest in franchise history. The Vikings are enjoying their longest stretch of success since 1975, when they won 10 straight. Green Bay rallied with back-to-back touchdowns in the fourth quarter to pull within two. Wilson scored on a 5-yard run to cut the Packers' deficit to 27-18 with 6:12 to go. Love brought Green Bay within 27-25 with 2:18 to play. He fired a 3-yard touchdown pass to Heath, who scored on a quick slant. The Vikings got the ball on the following kickoff and never gave it back to Green Bay. Darnold secured the win when he lobbed a pass to Akers for a first down to set up the victory formation. The Packers opened the scoring late in the first quarter with a 22-yard field goal by Brandon McManus. Minnesota responded to grab a 13-3 lead at the half. Darnold found Nailor for a 31-yard touchdown with 11:52 remaining in the first half. Nailor was wide open and made a basket catch near the back of the end zone. Reichard rounded out the first-half scoring with field goals from 25 yards and 50 yards. The Vikings increased their lead to 20-3 on the opening drive of the second half. Addison made a diving grab for an 18-yard touchdown. Green Bay pulled within 20-10 with 5:07 left in the third quarter. Jacobs scored on a 2-yard run. Darnold's third touchdown pass, this time to Akers, made it 27-10 in favor of the Vikings with 51 seconds remaining in the third quarter. --Field Level MediaKim Kardashian comes under fire for letting North West, 11, wear a miniskirt and low-cut 'corset' top
ATLANTA (AP) — Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer who tried to restore virtue to the White House after the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War, then rebounded from a landslide defeat to become a global advocate of human rights and democracy, has died. He was 100 years old . The Carter Center said the 39th president died Sunday afternoon, more than a year after entering hospice care , at his home in Plains, Georgia, where he and his wife, Rosalynn, who died in November 2023, lived most of their lives. The center said he died peacefully, surrounded by his family. A moderate Democrat, Carter ran for president in 1976 as a little-known Georgia governor with a broad grin, effusive Baptist faith and technocratic plans for efficient government. His promise to never deceive the American people resonated after Richard Nixon’s disgrace and U.S. defeat in southeast Asia. “If I ever lie to you, if I ever make a misleading statement, don’t vote for me. I would not deserve to be your president,” Carter said. Carter’s victory over Republican Gerald Ford, whose fortunes fell after pardoning Nixon, came amid Cold War pressures, turbulent oil markets and social upheaval over race, women’s rights and America’s role in the world. His achievements included brokering Mideast peace by keeping Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at Camp David for 13 days in 1978. But his coalition splintered under double-digit inflation and the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran. His negotiations ultimately brought all the hostages home alive, but in a final insult, Iran didn’t release them until the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, who had trounced him in the 1980 election. Humbled and back home in Georgia, Carter said his faith demanded that he keep doing whatever he could, for as long as he could, to try to make a difference. He and Rosalynn co-founded The Carter Center in 1982 and spent the next 40 years traveling the world as peacemakers, human rights advocates and champions of democracy and public health. Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, Carter helped ease nuclear tensions in North and South Korea, avert a U.S. invasion of Haiti and negotiate cease-fires in Bosnia and Sudan. By 2022, the center had monitored at least 113 elections around the world. Carter was determined to eradicate guinea worm infections as one of many health initiatives. Swinging hammers into their 90s, the Carters built homes with Habitat for Humanity. The common observation that he was better as an ex-president rankled Carter. His allies were pleased that he lived long enough to see biographers and historians revisit his presidency and declare it more impactful than many understood at the time. Propelled in 1976 by voters in Iowa and then across the South, Carter ran a no-frills campaign. Americans were captivated by the earnest engineer, and while an election-year Playboy interview drew snickers when he said he “had looked on many women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times,” voters tired of political cynicism found it endearing. The first family set an informal tone in the White House, carrying their own luggage, trying to silence the Marine Band’s traditional “Hail to the Chief" and enrolling daughter, Amy, in public schools. Carter was lampooned for wearing a cardigan and urging Americans to turn down their thermostats. But Carter set the stage for an economic revival and sharply reduced America's dependence on foreign oil by deregulating the energy industry along with airlines, trains and trucking. He established the departments of Energy and Education, appointed record numbers of women and nonwhites to federal posts, preserved millions of acres of Alaskan wilderness and pardoned most Vietnam draft evaders. Emphasizing human rights , he ended most support for military dictators and took on bribery by multinational corporations by signing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He persuaded the Senate to ratify the Panama Canal treaties and normalized relations with China, an outgrowth of Nixon’s outreach to Beijing. But crippling turns in foreign affairs took their toll. When OPEC hiked crude prices, making drivers line up for gasoline as inflation spiked to 11%, Carter tried to encourage Americans to overcome “a crisis of confidence.” Many voters lost confidence in Carter instead after the infamous address that media dubbed his “malaise" speech, even though he never used that word. After Carter reluctantly agreed to admit the exiled Shah of Iran to the U.S. for medical treatment, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun in 1979. Negotiations to quickly free the hostages broke down, and then eight Americans died when a top-secret military rescue attempt failed. Carter also had to reverse course on the SALT II nuclear arms treaty after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Though historians would later credit Carter's diplomatic efforts for hastening the end of the Cold war, Republicans labeled his soft power weak. Reagan’s “make America great again” appeals resonated, and he beat Carter in all but six states. Born Oct. 1, 1924, James Earl Carter Jr. married fellow Plains native Rosalynn Smith in 1946, the year he graduated from the Naval Academy. He brought his young family back to Plains after his father died, abandoning his Navy career, and they soon turned their ambitions to politics . Carter reached the state Senate in 1962. After rural white and Black voters elected him governor in 1970, he drew national attention by declaring that “the time for racial discrimination is over.” Carter published more than 30 books and remained influential as his center turned its democracy advocacy onto U.S. politics, monitoring an audit of Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results. After a 2015 cancer diagnosis, Carter said he felt “perfectly at ease with whatever comes.” “I’ve had a wonderful life,” he said. “I’ve had thousands of friends, I’ve had an exciting, adventurous and gratifying existence.” Contributors include former AP staffer Alex Sanz in Atlanta.Richard Parsons, who steadied Time Warner and L.A. Clippers, dies at 76
Blinken heads to last G7 meeting of Biden presidency with Ukraine and Mideast topping the agenda
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — NATO and Ukraine will hold emergency talks Tuesday after Russia attacked a central city with an experimental, hypersonic ballistic missile that escalated the nearly 33-month-old war. The conflict is “entering a decisive phase,” Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday, and “taking on very dramatic dimensions.” Ukraine’s parliament canceled a session as security was tightened following Thursday's Russian strike on a military facility in the city of Dnipro. In a stark warning to the West, President Vladimir Putin said in a nationally televised speech that the attack with the intermediate-range Oreshnik missile was in retaliation for Kyiv’s use of U.S. and British longer-range missiles capable of striking deeper into Russian territory. Putin said Western air defense systems would be powerless to stop the new missile. Ukrainian military officials said the missile that hit Dnipro had reached a speed of Mach 11 and carried six nonnuclear warheads each releasing six submunitions. Speaking Friday to military and weapons industries officials, Putin said Russia is launching production of the Oreshnik. “No one in the world has such weapons,” he said with a thin smile. “Sooner or later other leading countries will also get them. We are aware that they are under development." But he added, "we have this system now. And this is important.” Testing the missile will continue, “including in combat, depending on the situation and the character of security threats created for Russia,” Putin said, noting there is ”a stockpile of such systems ready for use.” Putin said that while it isn’t an intercontinental missile, it’s so powerful that the use of several of them fitted with conventional warheads in one attack could be as devastating as a strike with strategic — or nuclear — weapons. Gen. Sergei Karakayev, head of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, said the Oreshnik could reach targets across Europe and be fitted with nuclear or conventional warheads, echoing Putin's claim that even with conventional warheads, “the massive use of the weapon would be comparable in effect to the use of nuclear weapons.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov kept up Russia's bellicose tone on Friday, blaming “the reckless decisions and actions of Western countries” in supplying weapons to Ukraine to strike Russia. "The Russian side has clearly demonstrated its capabilities, and the contours of further retaliatory actions in the event that our concerns were not taken into account have also been quite clearly outlined," he said. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, widely seen as having the warmest relations with the Kremlin in the European Union, echoed Moscow's talking points, suggesting the use of U.S.-supplied weapons in Ukraine likely requires direct American involvement. “These are rockets that are fired and then guided to a target via an electronic system, which requires the world’s most advanced technology and satellite communications capability,” Orbán said on state radio. “There is a strong assumption ... that these missiles cannot be guided without the assistance of American personnel.” Orbán cautioned against underestimating Russia’s responses, emphasizing that the country’s recent modifications to its nuclear deployment doctrine should not be dismissed as a “bluff.” “It’s not a trick... there will be consequences,” he said. Separately in Kyiv, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský called Thursday's missile strike an “escalatory step and an attempt of the Russian dictator to scare the population of Ukraine and to scare the population of Europe.” At a news conference with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, Lipavský also expressed his full support for delivering the necessary additional air defense systems to protect Ukrainian civilians from the “heinous attacks.” He underlined that the Czech Republic will impose no limits on the use of its weapons and equipment given to Ukraine. Three lawmakers from Ukraine's parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, confirmed that Friday's previously scheduled session was called off due to the ongoing threat of Russian missiles targeting government buildings in central Kyiv. In addition, there also was a recommendation to limit the work of all commercial offices and nongovernmental organizations "in that perimeter, and local residents were warned of the increased threat,” said lawmaker Mykyta Poturaiev, who added this is not the first time such a threat has been received. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office continued to work in compliance with standard security measures, a spokesperson said. Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate said the Oreshnik missile, whose name in Russian means “hazelnut tree,” was fired from the Kapustin Yar 4th Missile Test Range in Russia’s Astrakhan region, and flew 15 minutes before striking Dnipro. Test launches of a similar missile were conducted in October 2023 and June 2024, the directorate said. The Pentagon confirmed the missile was a new, experimental type of intermediate-range missile based on its RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile. Thursday's attack struck the Pivdenmash plant that built ICBMs when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. The military facility is located about 4 miles (6 1/2 kilometers) southwest of the center of Dnipro, a city of about 1 million that is Ukraine’s fourth-largest and a key hub for military supplies and humanitarian aid, and is home to one of the country’s largest hospitals for treating wounded soldiers from the front before their transfer to Kyiv or abroad. The stricken area was cordoned off and out of public view. With no fatalities reported from the attack, Dnipro residents resorted to dark humor on social media, mostly focused on the missile’s name, Oreshnik. Elsewhere in Ukraine, Russia struck a residential district of Sumy overnight with Iranian-designed Shahed drones, killing two people and injuring 13, the regional administration said.. Ukraine’s Suspilne media, quoting Sumy regional head Volodymyr Artiukh, said the drones were stuffed with shrapnel elements. “These weapons are used to destroy people, not to destroy objects,” said Artiukh, according to Suspilne. —— Associated Press journalists Lorne Cook in Brussels, Samya Kullab in Kyiv, Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia, and Justin Spike in Budapest, Hungary, contributed. —— Follow AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraineIn an era when information travels at breakneck speed across vast digital networks, the very act of trying to hide certain data often paradoxically ensures its broader dissemination. This ironic dynamic, known as the “Streisand effect,” encapsulates a critical tension at the heart of contemporary media ecosystems: attempts to suppress or censor information frequently result in that information being shared more widely and gaining even greater cultural resonance. Conceptually, the Streisand effect aligns with a set of interrelated theories from communication studies, media ethics, political science, and sociology that explore how power, secrecy, and transparency collide in the digital sphere. The naming of this effect traces back to a high-profile incident involving the American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, who sought to remove an innocuous aerial photograph of her home from a public online archive. Her attempt at legal action not only failed to conceal the image but also propelled it into public consciousness, transforming an obscure photo into a widely recognized symbol of the futility of certain censorship efforts. In the years since, the Streisand effect has been invoked to describe countless scenarios in which a suppression attempt has had precisely the opposite outcome, inadvertently amplifying the visibility of the contested information. The Streisand effect has long-since moved beyond a cultural anecdote into a conceptual lens through which we can examine the interplay between censorship, digital activism, and networked people. It resonates with theoretical frameworks in media studies and cyberlaw that explain how information—once digitized—does not simply vanish at the behest of a single authority figure. Instead, the attempt to stifle speech often triggers counterforces that intensify attention and circulation. More than a curiosity or quirk of the internet age, the Streisand effect raises profound questions about control, audience psychology, viral mechanisms, trust in authoritative institutions, and the ethics of public communication. The Streisand effect sits at the intersection of several core ideas in the study of media and communication. On one side, classical theories of censorship and propaganda have long held that efforts to control what the public sees, hears, and reads run the risk of sparking resistance and curiosity. J.S. Mill’s philosophical arguments about the importance of free speech and John Milton’s “Areopagitica” both highlight that suppressing ideas can inadvertently make them more appealing. Even a five-year-old child interacting with their parents embodies that. While these thinkers operated in pre-digital worlds, their observations resonate powerfully in an internet-driven context. In the digital era, communication occurs within a decentralized web of platforms, forums, and social media channels, allowing information to ricochet from one node to countless others at lightning speed. This distributed network structure makes it inherently more difficult to control narratives. Here, the Streisand effect can be seen as a manifestation of network theory principles, where attempts to remove content from a node can trigger attention from multiple connected nodes. Information becomes replicated and mirrored, spreading like wildfire, often beyond the jurisdictional reach of the initial censor. Conceptually, the effect is in dialogue with ideas about “forbidden fruit” and psychological reactance: when individuals perceive that certain knowledge is being withheld from them, their desire to access and disseminate it intensifies. The cognitive interplay between scarcity, curiosity, and the innate human impetus to resist perceived control fosters conditions ripe for the Streisand effect. Likewise, within political communication and digital activism, the effect dovetails with notions of “information cascades,” wherein social proof and the bandwagon effect drive people to share content precisely because it is being suppressed. In 2003, environmental photographer Kenneth Adelman took thousands of aerial images of the California coastline for the California Coastal Records Project, a public initiative to document coastal erosion. Among these images was a photograph of Barbra Streisand’s home. Although the image was not initially singled out or widely circulated, Streisand’s attempt to sue Adelman and the associated website for $50 million to have the photograph removed brought widespread media attention to it. Before the lawsuit, the image had been downloaded only a handful of times; in the aftermath, its visibility soared as global news outlets covered the story and internet users flocked to view what Streisand wanted hidden. The Streisand effect quickly transcended its origin story. Since then, it has been referenced in relation to a host of incidents spanning entertainment, politics, corporate branding, social justice campaigns, and beyond. WikiLeaks, for example, became a lightning rod for the Streisand effect: when governments and corporations attempted to block access to leaked documents, supporters and activists replicated and redistributed those files across mirror sites, magnifying their reach. Similarly, efforts by authoritarian regimes to tamp down dissenting voices often trigger widespread international attention, human rights reporting, and solidarity campaigns that amplify the suppressed message. More recently, attempts by political figures to remove incriminating tweets or videos have ignited the Streisand effect. The internet’s permanent memory—embodied in archiving tools like the Wayback Machine—thwarts erasure. Efforts to edit history, conceal past statements, or disappear embarrassing content often lead to journalists and activists spotlighting these very attempts at suppression. The effect has even extended into celebrity culture: attempts by public relations teams to quash rumors or scandalous images can inadvertently accelerate their spread, turning minor gossip into major controversy. Moreover, as social media algorithms privilege engagement—likes, shares, and comments—censorship attempts can become their own form of viral currency. The more a piece of content is framed as “secret” or “forbidden,” the more likely users are to engage with it, share it, and comment on its significance. In this environment, trying to stifle discourse can resemble tossing gasoline onto a smoldering fire. Human psychology lies at the heart of the Streisand effect. One key ingredient is the principle of psychological reactance, identified by psychologist Jack Brehm in the 1960s. Reactance posits that when individuals perceive their freedom of choice or access to information is threatened, they experience an emotional drive to restore that freedom. Attempts at censorship, particularly in open societies accustomed to broad speech protections, often ignite a collective reactance. Audiences do not merely consume information passively; they become motivated participants seeking to undermine the censors and affirm their autonomy. Another psychological dimension is the “forbidden fruit” phenomenon, where information labeled as suppressed or secretively removed attains a heightened allure. Social beings are drawn to that which is hidden, as uncovering secrets promises insider knowledge, prestige, or the thrill of rebellion. This dynamic is supercharged in digital spaces, where communities form around discovery, investigation, and sharing. The democratization of communication tools means anyone can become a whistleblower, archivist, or curator of hidden truths. These psychological drivers interact with group identities and in-group/out-group dynamics. When people identify as part of an information community—be it Reddit sleuths, political dissidents, or fandom collectors—they take collective pride in outsmarting suppression efforts. The Streisand effect can thus catalyze a sense of camaraderie and mission. The very networks that censorship attempts aim to disrupt become even tighter-knit and more determined to keep the contested information in circulation. The digital architecture underlying modern communication amplifies the Streisand effect. Unlike traditional, top-down broadcast models, digital platforms function as decentralized, user-driven networks. The spread of information is often organic, fueled by peer-to-peer sharing. However, it is also algorithmically orchestrated, as platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube use recommendation engines designed to boost user engagement. When content is “forbidden,” engagement often skyrockets. Users rush to view, share, and debate it. The algorithms notice this surge and respond by pushing it into more feeds, magnifying its visibility. Each attempt to remove or block the content may prompt a new wave of re-uploads, mirrors, and commentary, ensuring that it remains accessible through a variety of back channels. The Streisand effect also intersects with the darker realms of information warfare. State actors, intelligence agencies, and strategically motivated hackers might plant controversial documents or misinformation online precisely to lure their targets into attempts at suppression. By prompting heavy-handed takedowns, they trigger a wave of viral attention and inadvertently legitimize the content’s significance. In this sense, the Streisand effect can be weaponized as a strategic tool: provoking an opponent into censorial overreach that backfires spectacularly. Through this lens, controlling the narrative in digital spaces becomes an intricate game of psychological manipulation, platform maneuvering, and memetic spread. Corporate entities are increasingly aware of the Streisand effect’s implications. In attempts to manage reputational crises, companies sometimes try to remove negative reviews, unflattering images, or damaging press. Ironically, these efforts can escalate minor issues into public-relations catastrophes. The brand, which intended to appear protective of its image and values, comes across as secretive, manipulative, or untrustworthy. In contrast, some brands have learned to embrace transparent communication policies. Rather than hiding criticism, they publicly address concerns, provide context, and invite dialogue. By doing so, they can transform potential scandals into opportunities for authenticity and trust-building. When customers see that a company is not trying to suppress information, they are more likely to view that company as accountable and honest. The Streisand effect, in this sense, serves as a cautionary tale: attempting censorship in the age of digital empowerment can do more harm than good. Politically, the Streisand effect often plays out when authoritarian regimes try to silence dissent or democratic leaders attempt to manage controversies behind closed doors. For instance, efforts to censor media outlets or online platforms to hide state-sanctioned abuses, leaked corruption files, or embarrassing diplomatic cables can unleash a torrent of attention from international media, human rights organizations, and activist networks. The result is often the opposite of what the censor intended: global scrutiny, condemnation, and sustained coverage of the originally suppressed information. After the French government tried to remove Wikipedia's article on the military radio station Pierre-sur-Haute, the article rocketed to the top of French Wikipedia (attribution: S. RIMBAUD). The Streisand effect is not solely the domain of corporate or political players. Grassroots social justice movements and marginalized communities sometimes leverage the effect to draw attention to issues that powerful actors attempt to hide. When police departments try to suppress video evidence of misconduct, activists seize upon the censorship attempt to highlight systemic issues, circulate the suppressed evidence more widely, and mobilize public outrage. The initial attempt at concealing wrongdoing ironically strengthens the movement’s moral leverage, showing how even clumsy censorship can serve as a catalyst for greater awareness and calls for reform. Social justice campaigns can thus find tactical advantage in understanding how the Streisand effect functions. It encourages a strategic approach: activists anticipate censorship, set traps for attempted suppression, and design their messaging so that any blocking attempt backfires into broader coverage. Here, the effect aligns with the broader ecology of digital activism, where information asymmetries and suppressive tactics often energize rather than deter reformist energies. Academics and thought leaders in communications, cyberlaw, and sociology have helped frame and elaborate the Streisand effect in more formal theoretical terms. Scholars like Ethan Zuckerman have discussed how digital networks facilitate the rapid spread of information in unexpected ways, highlighting the “cute cats” theory of internet content—meaning that platforms designed for innocuous sharing can become powerful tools for political mobilization once censorship attempts occur. Legal theorists such as Lawrence Lessig have pointed to how intellectual property law and content takedown notices can trigger counterproductive amplification. Sociologist Manuel Castells’ theory of networked society also provides a framework for understanding the decentralized power dynamics that foster the Streisand effect. Critical voices in media ethics have explored how content moderation efforts on large platforms can backfire. They emphasize that while some moderation is necessary, overly secretive or draconian measures can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement and erode public trust. Meanwhile, journalists and media watchdogs document case studies that illustrate the Streisand effect’s ubiquity. By cataloging these instances, they contribute to a growing body of evidence that suppression attempts often yield unintended consequences. At its core, the Streisand effect raises pressing moral questions about communication in the digital age. Should all information be freely accessible, regardless of its context or harm potential? What responsibilities do individuals, platforms, and institutions have in shaping the knowledge landscape? On one hand, the effect underscores the value of transparency and openness. It discourages paternalistic attempts to manage public discourse behind closed doors. When the public learns that certain truths are being hidden, trust in those concealing the truth erodes, and skepticism toward authority grows. This dynamic serves as a check on corporate and governmental overreach, potentially strengthening democratic ideals. On the other hand, not all information is innocuous. Certain data might infringe on privacy, promote hate, or endanger vulnerable populations. Complex moral dilemmas arise when preventing the spread of harmful content unintentionally boosts its profile. The Streisand effect forces communicators and regulators to navigate a precarious tightrope, balancing the public’s right to know with the moral imperative to avoid spreading damaging or false information. It also implicates the role of technology platforms, which must decide how to respond to takedown requests without unintentionally fanning the flames of controversy. These moral dimensions invite a reevaluation of censorship policies. If attempts at suppression often fail or backfire, perhaps a more nuanced approach—founded on contextualization, critical literacy, and open debate—is necessary. The Streisand effect nudges us toward transparency as a virtue, but transparency alone is not a panacea. An informed public must be equipped with the media literacy skills to analyze and contextualize the information they encounter. The reality of the Streisand effect means institutions and individuals must be prepared to engage with it. This means: Transparent Communication Policies: Institutions should adopt policies that favor openness and clarity over secrecy. When confronted with unflattering facts, addressing them head-on rather than attempting concealment can build trust. For corporations facing a scandal, a prompt and honest statement acknowledging mistakes and outlining remediation steps is often more effective than a covert takedown strategy. Contextualizing Controversial Content: Instead of deleting or blocking information, communicators can provide context, fact-checking, and expert commentary. By reframing potentially damaging material within a broader narrative, they reduce its allure as “forbidden knowledge.” This approach empowers audiences to engage critically rather than sensationalizing the hidden. Media Literacy Education: An informed public is less susceptible to knee-jerk reactions and the allure of secrecy. By equipping citizens with the tools to evaluate sources, understand media ecosystems, and recognize disinformation tactics, media literacy education can minimize the effectiveness of both censorship and the counterproductive effects of censorship attempts. Proactive Crisis Management: Anticipating controversies before they arise and having a roadmap for ethical, transparent responses can help organizations avoid overreactions. Strategists can rehearse crisis scenarios, developing responses that reduce panic and minimize the temptation to suppress information in the heat of the moment. Critical Discourse Forums: Encouraging open discussion and debate in moderated forums allows contentious topics to be aired without resorting to deletion. By fostering respectful dialogue, platforms and organizations create a public sphere where misinformation can be challenged, and harmful content can be contextualized or debunked. Leveraging the Effect for Good: Activists and social justice groups, aware of the Streisand effect, can leverage suppression attempts to draw attention to critical issues. By documenting censorship attempts and highlighting them as evidence of wrongdoing, they can rally public support and galvanize meaningful change. The Streisand effect also symbolizes a broader cultural shift in how power operates in networked publics. Traditional gatekeepers—governments, mainstream media outlets, powerful companies—no longer enjoy uncontested control over narratives. Instead, networked citizens possess a heightened ability to counter attempts at censorship. The Streisand effect emphasizes that information is not a single, discrete commodity that can be centrally managed. It is a fluid, replicable, crowd-driven phenomenon. The Streisand effect is more than an internet curiosity. It stands as a crucial case study in understanding the unpredictability, interconnectedness, and evolving power relations of the global information landscape. From its origin in a legal battle over a single photograph, this phenomenon has grown into a robust conceptual framework for examining how efforts to silence information can result in louder, more widespread conversation. The effect bridges multiple disciplines—communications theory, psychology, sociology, cyberlaw, political science—and resonates with thinkers who have long warned about the unintended consequences of censorship. In a world where information flows at unprecedented volumes and speeds, attempts to control that flow are often counterproductive. Instead, the Streisand effect encourages a pivot toward transparency, dialogue, and critical engagement. As we navigate a future rife with challenges—misinformation wars, authoritarian clampdowns, corporate PR disasters, and the struggle for digital rights—the Streisand effect remains instructive. It teaches us that the networks we have built thrive on the interplay of curiosity, resistance, and shared identity. Censorship often triggers rebellion, and secrecy can breed discovery. The moral imperative is not merely to acknowledge the effect but to engage thoughtfully with what it implies about power, ethics, and the responsibilities of all communicators, from individual citizens to multinational platforms. The Streisand effect is, at its core, a reminder that information ecosystems have personalities and patterns of their own. Attempts to shape these ecosystems through force or concealment frequently backfire. The more you try to hide something in the digital age, the more it demands to be found. And once found, it spreads uncontrollably, carried along by human curiosity, algorithmic affinities, and the moral heartbeat of a public that will not be kept in the dark. Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.PASAY CITY, Philippines , Dec. 26, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- The SM Group is approaching the coming year with cautious optimism, encouraged by the continued growth of the Philippine economy. SM Investments President and Chief Executive Officer Frederic C. DyBuncio said that despite ongoing challenges of peso volatility and higher inflation, the business sector has adapted well. Consistent demand sustained household spending in the third quarter, with Household Final Consumption Expenditure posting a year-on-year growth of 5.1%, maintaining the same level in the same quarter last year, data from the Philippine Statistics Authority showed. "Any moderation in inflation should trigger a strong confidence rebound. This could create opportunities in consumer-focused sectors in the country and we are poised to cater to these evolving demands," Mr. DyBuncio said. To cater to growing demand, SM continues to expand into more underserved areas, contributing to sustainable economic development and collaborating with government stakeholders to enhance access to modern retail, financial services, and integrated property developments. "By investing and expanding to more areas nationwide, SM creates new markets and improves access to these essential sectors, serving more communities and helping stimulate sustained economic activities," he said. Mr. DyBuncio also said SM continues to invest in promising ventures such as renewable energy and logistics, that foster economic activity. SM has invested in the clean energy industry through Philippine Geothermal Production Company (PGPC) which produces 300 Megawatts of geothermal steam supply. SM aims to continue to develop geothermal concessions through PGPC in support of the Department of Energy's goal of reaching 50% renewable energy supply by 2040. To encourage circularity towards green energy production, SM's property arm, SM Prime Holdings partnered with GUUN Co. Ltd. ( GUUN ) to implement the Japanese technique of reducing landfill impact. The technology converts non-recyclable and hard-to-recycle packaging into alternative fuel. SM's banking arm, BDO Unibank is one of the largest funders of renewable energy projects. BDO has funded PHP898 billion in sustainable finance, including loans to 59 renewable energy projects as of December 2023. In logistics and tourism, the improvement of transport networks across the country's archipelago connects tourist and industrial areas that will help create inclusive growth. SM though its subsidiary 2GO launched MV Masigla and MV Masikap in 2024 to help better connect goods to 19 ports across the country including Iloilo, Bacolod, Cagayan de Oro and Manila , further supporting the government's push for medium term growth through an upgraded tourism infrastructure and ecosystem. "Our focus for 2025 will be to drive purposeful growth, empowering communities and partners through our investments towards a sustainable future," Mr. DyBuncio said. View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sm-approaches-2025-with-cautious-optimism-302339448.html SOURCE SM Investments Corporation
SMCI Now: Revolutionizing Gaming. The Future Is Here.Baker Mayfield threw for five touchdowns and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers stayed in the race atop the NFC South by pounding the visiting Carolina Panthers 48-14 on Sunday afternoon. Mike Evans and Jalen McMillan both caught two TD passes and Bucky Irving rushed for 113 yards as Tampa Bay's second victory of the month against Carolina came much easier than the road version in overtime. Mayfield completed 27 of 32 passes for 359 yards and Evans caught eight balls for 97 yards. The Buccaneers (9-7) collected 551 yards of total offense. The Panthers (4-12) have lost five of their last six despite Bryce Young throwing two touchdown passes to Adam Thielen (five catches, 110 receiving yards). Young finished 15-for-28 passing for 203 yards, but Carolina managed only 39 rushing yards as it played without injured top running back Chuba Hubbard. Both of Mayfield's TD tosses to Evans were short (2 yards, 1 yard). Mayfield's scoring throws to McMillian covered 10 and 16 yards. He also had a 5-yard throw to Payne Durham to open the second-half scoring. The Buccaneers also scored off J. J. Russell's blocked punt return during a 25-second span of the third quarter when they racked up 14 points. Chase McLaughlin kicked field goals of 23 and 34 yards for the Buccaneers, who need to finish with a better record than the Atlanta Falcons in the divisional race because the tiebreaker favors Atlanta, which plays at Washington on Sunday night. Tampa Bay hosts New Orleans next weekend, while Carolina plays at Atlanta. After scoring on its first possession, Carolina's next three series on offense resulted in a total of minus-6 yards and three punts. The Buccaneers cashed in for 17 points following those defensive stops. The Panthers perked up by going 70 yards in 21 seconds to score on Young's 40-yard pass to Theilen with 50 seconds left in the half. They got the ball back following a Tampa Bay punt, and were in position to post 10 points in the last minute of the half until Eddy Pineiro's 53-yard field goal attempt was off the mark. Carolina has surrendered more points this year than in any season in franchise history, though Tampa Bay came four points shy of matching the most points ever allowed by the Panthers in a game. --Field Level MediaTreysen Eaglestaff scores 19 as North Dakota cruises past Waldorf College 97-57
IMF Approves US$360 Million Disbursement for Ghana as Economy Stabilizes
