Introducing Gen X: How the Internet’s Toxicity Has Fueled Anger and Radicalization Among Middle-Aged People

IThis might come off as unusual, but discussing the weather was common for us. If not that, we tend to contemplate the trivial exchanges with strangers we encounter daily, like musing over the train delays or commenting on a baby’s cuteness. However, the nature of our public conversations appears to be shifting.

Recently, while at Aldi, I engaged in the typical small talk at the checkout. When the cashier mentioned her fatigue from extra shifts to save for Christmas, a man behind me chimed in, suggesting that things would worsen if “she took all our money” (in case you’re curious, Rachel Reeves is definitely pushing her budget agenda). It seemed ordinary, until he proceeded to speak about how she and the government should go out, hinting at ex-military men who supposedly knew what to do, before escalating into graphic commentary until the line quieted down. What struck me was how calmly he articulated these thoughts, as if political violence had become just another acceptable topic for casual chats, akin to football or construction updates. It dawned on me later that this was a conversation drawn straight from Facebook, transposed into reality, where he voiced what’s often casually expressed online, seemingly unaware that such remarks can still shock in public—at least for now.

I recalled this encounter when Health Secretary Wes Streeting noted that NHS staff from ethnic minorities are facing a resurgence of openly expressed racism, a reflection of broader societal trends. Streeting’s remarks highlighted not only blatant racism but a general loss of decorum that transcends hospital waiting rooms. This atmosphere is palpable even at a bus stop, where a simple query about Route 44’s new schedule can pivot to wild theories about chemtrails and surveillance. Similarly, innocent conversations at school gates can reveal surprising and bizarre beliefs among seemingly normal parents regarding vaccines.

One of my friends dubs this phenomenon “sauna politics,” drawing from the bizarre and conspiratorial discussions he overheard at a local sauna. But whatever the name, it feels as though individuals are now externalizing their inner dialogues—thoughts they previously hesitated to voice publicly, sometimes even hiding them from themselves. After all, people can state such ideas online without a second glance. What, I wonder, is the equivalent of a young man attempting something he saw in online adult content with his girlfriend, only to be baffled when it fails? This time, however, the culprits are more likely confused teenagers than parents, grappling with the rapid dissolution of online social norms and a resurgence of slurs they haven’t heard aloud since their youth.

Midlife radicalization, which might seem paradoxical, counters stereotypes of stagnation. In our minds, if not others’, Gen Xers have been seen as the cultural peacekeepers. Too old to be labeled reactionary yet too young to be in the thick of it, we’ve inhabited this Goldilocks zone of moderation. Nevertheless, something appears to have transpired among those encountering midlife crises. Gen Xers now fear the world is evolving beyond their grasp. We worry about job security, marital stability post-children, whether our ideas are antiquated, and if we’re the subject of ridicule behind closed doors. While many navigate this phase without succumbing to political upheaval, some do seek release for their frustrations and disenchantment with unmet life expectations.

Populist insurrections now seem fueled by Generation X, rather than embittered retirees or teenagers swayed by right-wing propaganda. Only 19% of those in their 50s in the UK voted for British Reform. Surprisingly, one-third of those aged 50 to 64 would likely do the same now, marking a swift shift for the “Cool Britannia” generation that once propelled Tony Blair into office, according to YouGov—pivotal for propelling the party from fringe to mainstream. In the US, Generation X is known for being the demographic most inclined to identify as Republicans.

Still, with few exceptions such as the smidge project – a three-year international study on the dissemination of conspiracy theories and misinformation reveals an alarming lack of focus on understanding how 45 to 65-year-olds can be deradicalized, or how midlife minds react to the experiment of unregulated free speech.

My generation often believes we are immune to the influences of the online world, that we possess greater tech savvy than our parents, that we’re less fixated on TikTok than the youth, and that we can separate online discourse from reality. Yet, evidence suggests we struggle to compartmentalize more than we realize. Perhaps the only surprise is that it took this long for these boundaries to blur, given the thin fourth wall separating online and offline dialogues.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Source: www.theguardian.com

Embracing AI in Sports: Overlooking the Anger at Wimbledon 2025

WE all appreciate a good conversation. This year, Wimbledon certainly had its share of amusing moments. Initially, news broke that 300 judges had been substituted with AI robots. Soon after, it was revealed that the technology had its own unexpected glitch. Since Roger Federer switched from the Wilson racket, the sweet spot hasn’t made much of an impression in the last two weeks at Wimbledon.

To start with, the new electronic line judging system struggled to recognize Sonay Kartal’s swift sledge against Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova during a match. Interestingly, this issue arose because the staff unintentionally powered down the system.


Moreover, a forehand from Taylor Fritz was mistakenly called out, even though it landed four feet inside the baseline. During his serve, the system was baffled by the ball boys still present on the court.

In comparison, this was less problematic than Kartal’s situation. Regardless, a narrative has emerged suggesting that technology is eroding our traditional practices while implying that machines cannot fully replace human judgment.

What went unnoticed amidst all the backlash is that Wimbledon actually implemented an upgraded version of the Hawkeye system it adopted back in 2007. This tech performs much better than the human eye, resulting in significantly fewer errors. The difference is not even debatable.

Historically, studies have indicated that umpires made mistakes about 8% of the time with close calls. However, players’ judgment tends to be even poorer.

When I inquired with IBM about players’ accuracy in calling lines at Wimbledon last year, my expectation was a rough parity of 50/50. Yet, out of 1,535 challenges in men’s and women’s singles matches in 2024, only 380 were successfully overturned—less than 25%. In simpler terms, players often guessed wrong about three out of four times when a ball was out.

Furthermore, Wimbledon officials emphasized the importance of technology in maintaining the integrity of sports. Unlike in the past when decisions led to shoulder shrugs from fans and gamblers, the current landscape sees players and officials targeted on social media with accusations of conspiracy.

During the last Rugby World Cup, Wayne Barnes shared his experience of severe online abuse targeted towards his family, asking, “Is this really a sport?” He is not alone in these concerns. In such a hostile environment, anything that aids officials is a welcome addition.


Referee Nico Helworth addresses the issues following the electronic line call system being temporarily disabled during the match between Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova and Sonay Kartal. Photo: Tom Jenkins/Guardian

Even when umpires strive to be fair, they can be unconsciously swayed by crowd reactions. In one study involving 40 qualified soccer referees analyzing 47 incidents from Liverpool-Leicester matches, those who reviewed footage with crowd noise penalized Liverpool significantly less (15.5%) compared to a control group watching in silence.

Further research in Norway indicated that successful teams were more likely to receive advantageous penalty calls. Psychologists attribute this effect to cognitive biases. Regardless of opinions about machines, they remain impervious to these influences.

Critics of sports technology often resist change while demanding perfection. However, as Voltaire noted, perfection is the enemy of good. Instead, we ought to ask if the technology offers improvements and enhancements over previous systems.

Skip past newsletter promotions

The accuracy of Hawk-Eye has improved since its inception in 2007 and will continue to evolve. Although VAR has its critics, FIFA’s implementation during the World Cup and Club World Cups has been less controversial, allowing fans to witness the same replays that officials see. Hopefully, the Premier League is taking note.

Nevertheless, one thing remains certain: change is inevitable. As per Matt Drew of Statsperform, a leader in data and sports integrity, “There isn’t a flawlessly perfect system, but the technology is evidently more reliable than solely human decision-making.” He emphasizes that sports bodies believe technology aids in making more accurate decisions while safeguarding officials and players from harassment. The best sports like tennis and cricket manage to preserve the fan experience while integrating technology.

Consider this: at last year’s International Olympic Committee’s Artificial Intelligence Conference, we demonstrated divers in real-time. Judges were promptly informed of jump height, rotations, and distances as the athletes performed. Each dive was analyzed in less than a tenth of a second, allowing referees to more accurately assess dive quality and ensure fair scoring. Who could oppose that?

Meanwhile, as technology progresses, more traditions may fade away. Starting in September, for instance, the NFL will replace the traditional “chain gangs” used to mark first downs with Hawk-Eye technology. I personally will miss them, but it’s certainly more accurate than relying on methods from the 18th century.

Do you have any thoughts on the issues discussed in this article? If you’d like to submit a response of up to 300 words for publication consideration, please click here.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk Urges Labor MP to Address Tommy Robinson’s Anger

Elon Musk has caused controversy by advocating for the release of Tommy Robinson and criticizing Keir Starmer for not prosecuting a child rapist in Oldham, Greater Manchester.

Billionaire and ally of Donald Trump, Elon Musk’s message “Free Tommy Robinson!” was prominently displayed on his X feed, showing support for the far-right activist who had been jailed for contempt of court.

In addition to expressing support for Robinson, Musk also made several posts about the Rochdale and Oldham rape gangs, criticizing the Prime Minister and Security Secretary Jess Phillips for their handling of the scandal.

In a post, Musk mentioned, “In the UK, serious crimes like rape require approval from the Crown Prosecution Service for the police to prosecute a suspect. Who was leading the CPS when rape gangs were allowed to exploit young girls without facing justice? Keir Starmer, 2008-2013.”

He also stated that Mr. Phillips claimed it was Oldham City Council, not the central government, calling for an investigation into child exploitation, remarking, “He deserves to be in prison.”

Elsewhere, he suggested: “The real reason she’s refusing to investigate the rape gang is because it would clearly implicate Keir Starmer [Crown Prosecution Service] during that time.”

Musk reposted numerous comments advocating for Robinson’s release, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and who had been jailed the previous October for spreading false information about Syrian refugees.

The recent involvement of the Tesla founder and X owner in British politics has angered many Labour MPs, prompting calls for the government to cease using X for postings.

Skip past newsletter promotions

The founder of Tesla and X has been openly critical of Mr. Starmer for the Prime Minister’s response to last summer’s British riots. He is reportedly considering donating up to $100m (£80m) to Reform Britain, and two weeks ago, he met with party leader Nigel Farage and treasurer Nick Candy, with whom he was photographed.

Musk’s recent online posts show strong support for the British far-right and follow his pledge to support Germany’s anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany.

As one member of parliament commented: “[Musk] This time I went too far. Twitter [now X] is becoming a cesspit remarkably quickly, even for uninterested independents.”

Several ministers believe this should be the trigger for the government to distance itself from Musk’s platform, although some warn that doing so could create a diplomatic issue given Musk’s role in the upcoming Trump administration.

Downing Street declined to provide a comment.

A spokesperson for Reform UK did not indicate whether the billionaire’s support for Mr. Robinson, who is at odds within the party, would impact their willingness to accept funding from him.

A spokesperson for Oldham City Council stated: ‘Survivors are at the heart of our efforts to end child sexual exploitation, and their wishes remain our priority, regardless of the outcome of any future investigations. We have made a promise, and we intend to keep it.

“We all acknowledge the grave mistakes of the past where children were overlooked and neglected. By ensuring that survivors’ voices are heard, we can prevent the same failures from happening again.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Is your emotional AI struggling with a mix of anger and sadness? Understanding why emotional AI is facing challenges

On Wednesday evening, I found myself seated at my kitchen table staring at my laptop screen with a mix of emotions. Testing out a new demo from a Manhattan-based startup called Hume, claiming to have the world’s first voice AI with emotional intelligence. According to Alan Cohen, CEO and chief scientist at Hume, the technology helps predict emotional patterns based on the tone of voice and text.

With the rise of emotional AI in the industry, companies like Hume are raising significant funding and predicting a booming market. However, there are concerns about how accurately AI can read and respond to human emotions. Will it be able to interpret subtle cues and non-verbal expressions? Professor Andrew McStay suggests that understanding emotions can have a far greater impact beyond monetary value.

My experience testing Hume’s Empathic Voice Interface (EVI) revealed interesting results. While the AI could analyze and display emotional patterns like love, adoration, and romance, there was a sense that voice tone was given more weight than the actual words spoken. Some critics argue that AI is limited in understanding subtle human emotions and behaviors that go beyond overt expressions.

On the ethical front, there are concerns about AI bias and the potential for misuse in areas like surveillance and emotional manipulation. Safeguards like the Hume Initiative aim to set guidelines and restrictions on the use of emotional AI in various sectors. However, the evolving nature of artificial intelligence poses challenges in regulating its applications.

As emotional AI continues to develop, researchers like Lisa Feldman Barrett highlight the complexities of defining and interpreting emotions accurately. Legal frameworks like the European Union AI law aim to curb the negative impacts of emotional recognition technology while allowing for certain applications.

While there are ongoing debates about the effectiveness and ethical implications of emotional AI, researchers like Lennart Hogman from Stockholm University are exploring innovative uses of the technology. By analyzing emotions in interactive settings like psychotherapy, AI tools could potentially enhance therapeutic outcomes and improve collaboration in various fields.

Ultimately, the future of emotional AI depends on how society navigates its potential benefits and risks. As we grapple with the implications of this technology, it’s crucial to prioritize ethical considerations and align user interests with the development of these systems. Embracing emotional AI requires a critical understanding of its capabilities and impact on individuals and society as a whole.

Source: www.theguardian.com