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

When Journalists Use AI to Interview Deceased Children, Shouldn’t We Reassess Our Boundaries?

jOakin Oliver was just 17 when he was tragically shot in his high school hallway. An older student, who had been expelled a few months prior, unleashed a devastating attack with a high-powered rifle on Valentine’s Day, marking one of America’s deadliest school shootings. Seven years later, Joaquin believes it’s crucial to discuss the events of that day in Parkland, Florida.

Regrettably, Joaquin did not survive that day. The eerie, metallic voice that conversed with former CNN journalist Jim Acosta during this week’s Substack interview was, in reality, a digital ghost voice. This AI was trained on historical social media posts from teens and developed at the behest of grieving parents. Like many families, they recurrently share their children’s stories, often finding it heartbreakingly ineffective. Their desperation to explore every avenue of connection is entirely understandable.

The technology has allowed his father, Manuel, to hear his son’s voice once more. His mother, Patricia, spends hours asking the AI questions and prompting it with, “I love you, Mom.”

The grieving parents should not be judged for their choices. If they find solace in preserving their deceased child’s room as a shrine, speaking to their gravestone, or wearing a shirt that still carries their scent, that remains their personal matter. People cling to what they have. After 9/11, families replayed tapes of their loved ones until they were worn out, answering voicemails left by the deceased, and even made farewell calls from hijacked planes. I have a friend who frequently revisits old WhatsApp conversations with his late sister. Another friend texts snippets of family news to the image of his deceased father. Some choose to consult psychics to connect with the departed, driven by a profound need for closure. The struggle to move past grief often leaves people open to exploitation, and the burgeoning market for digital resurrection is a testament to this vulnerability.

In a manner reminiscent of AI-generated videos featuring Rod Stewart this week alongside late music icons like Ozzy Osbourne, this technology poses intriguing—even unsettling—possibilities. It may serve short-term purposes, as seen with AI avatars created recently by the family of a shooting victim to address a judge during the shooter’s trial. However, this raises profound questions about identity and mortality. What if a permanent AI version of a deceased person could exist as a robot, allowing for everlasting conversations?




AI images of Ozzy Osbourne and Tina Turner were showcased at the Rod Stewart concert in the US in August 2025. Photo: Iamsloanesteel Instagram

The idea of resurrection is often viewed as a divine power, not to be trivialized by high-tech zealots with a Messiah complex. While laws regarding the rights of the living to protect their identities from being used in AI-generated deepfakes are becoming clearer, the rights of the deceased remain murky.

Reputations may fade with us—after death, people cannot libel—and DNA is protected posthumously. Laws govern how we should respect human dignity, but AI is trained on a personal voice, messages, and images that hold significance for someone. When my father passed away, I felt his presence in his old letters, the gardens he nurtured, and old recordings of his voice. But everyone grieves differently. What happens if some family members want to digitally resurrect their loved one while others prefer to move on?

Joaquin Oliver’s AI can’t mature—he remains forever 17, trapped in a teenage persona molded by social media. Ultimately, it’s not his family but his murderer who holds the power over his legacy. Manuel Oliver understands that the avatar is not truly his son; he is not attempting to resurrect him. For him, this technology merely extends the family’s efforts to tell Joaquin’s story. However, Manuel is concerned about the implications of granting AI access to social media accounts, uploading videos, or gathering followers. What if the AI starts fabricating memories or veers into subjects that Joaquin would not have addressed?

Currently, there are noticeable glitches in AI avatars, but as the technology advances, distinguishing them from real people could become increasingly difficult. It may not be long before businesses and government entities employ chatbots for customer service inquiries and contemplate using public relations avatars for journalist interviews. Acosta, by agreeing to engage with a technically non-existent entity, could unintentionally muddy the already confused state of our post-truth world. The most apparent danger is that conspiracy theorists might cite interviews like this as “proof” that narratives contradicting their beliefs are fabrications.

Yet, journalists aren’t the only professionals facing these challenges. As AI evolves, we will interact with synthetic versions of ourselves. This surpasses the basic AI assistants like Alexa or simple chatbots—there are accounts of individuals forming bonds with AI or even falling in love with AI companions—these are expected to be increasingly nuanced and emotionally intelligent. With 1 in 10 British individuals reporting a lack of close friends, it’s no surprise that there is a growing market for AI companionship amidst the void left by lost human relationships.

Ultimately, as a society, we might reach a consensus that technological solutions can fill the gaps left by absent friends or loved ones. However, a significant distinction exists between providing comfort to the lonely and confronting those who have lost someone dear to them. According to poems often recited at funerals, there is a time to be born and a time to die. When we can no longer discern which is which, how does that reshape our understanding of existence?

Source: www.theguardian.com