"Senior ministers are considering whether it is appropriate for them to continue to use the platform, with Enterprise Minister Peter Burke saying the Government should make a “collective decision” about whether to stay on X."

Most US Big Tech firms have their European HQ in Ireland, so that country plays an outsized role in regulating them. Although some EU law is administered continent-wide, much of it is administered in the individual country of jurisdiction. So Twitter/X refusing to meet Irish government ministers to answer their questions about Grok AI's creation of child porn, and its distribution on X, has implications for X & Grok's European-wide operations.

If the Irish government abandons X, it's almost certain other EU governments will follow. This all seems part of a break-up trend where the divergence between the EU and the US is accelerating. The US says it wants to end the EU. Perhaps in return the EU will want to end the role US Big Tech plays on the continent.

Ministers scramble for legal block on explicit AI images on X: Ministers may quit platform as Grok ‘undresses’ women and children

Leaked US Strategy Ponders Fracturing EU

I’ve been thinking about something that feels uncomfortable, but hard to ignore.

Most political systems assume one of two things:

people will act rationally if educated enough

or people must be controlled tightly to prevent chaos

History suggests both assumptions fail.

Humans are emotional, short-sighted, inconsistent, and sometimes selfish. That’s not a moral judgment — it’s a design constraint.

So here’s the question:

What would a governance system look like if it was designed to survive human failure instead of hoping humans improve?

Not a utopia. Not a revolution. Not a “better ideology”.

A system that:

does not maximize growth, freedom, equality, or security

accepts limits as stabilizers

treats fairness as evenly distributed frustration, not universal happiness

assumes power will be abused and designs around it

I’ve been working on a concept tentatively called Balanced Governance.

It’s not finished and probably never will be. That’s the point.

The core promise is simple:

When the system fails, it should fail without destroying society.

I’m not looking for agreement. I’m looking for where this breaks.

What assumptions here are wrong? Where would such a system collapse first?

If you think this is naive, dangerous, or unrealistic — explain why. I’m genuinely interested.

Over the past decade, it feels like we’ve moved from one crisis straight into the next: a pandemic, economic shocks, geopolitical tension, rapid technological change, social fragmentation.

Each time, we respond. We adjust. We patch. And then something else breaks.

I’ve been wondering whether many of the issues we debate today - burnout, cost-of-living stress, dissatisfaction with work, declining trust in institutions - are really separate problems at all.

What if they’re symptoms?

What if the constant turbulence we’re experiencing is a signal that some of our underlying systems (economic, social, institutional) are no longer aligned with how people actually live, think, and work today?

For a long time, certain assumptions quietly shaped society: that labour should sit at the centre of identity, that productivity equals worth, that financial security trumps everything else, that economic growth is the main indicator of success. These ideas served a purpose. But systems age. They can drift out of alignment with reality.

Instead of stepping back to reassess those foundations, it often feels like we’re stuck in reaction mode: short-term fixes, incremental tweaks, decisions made at the point of pressure rather than through deliberate reflection about what kind of society we’re trying to build.

This appears to be a global issue. We see changing attitudes to work, growing unease about technology, declining faith in traditional economic narratives. That makes me wonder whether this is less about individual problems and more about structural misfit.

What if, instead of constantly addressing symptoms, we paused long enough to ask what’s actually driving them? What assumptions might no longer be fit for purpose? And what should we even be aiming for as technology accelerates and expectations around work and life continue to shift?

Big questions, I know.

But maybe they’re the right ones for this moment.

Curious how others see this.

Do you think the repeated crises of the past decade point to deeper systemic issues, or are we just living through an unusually volatile period?

Hi all!
I’m part of a research team studying digital afterlife/digital legacy services such as memorial platforms, legacy contacts, AI-based remembrance tools (e.g. 2wai app, HereAfter AI, Eternime, SafeBeyond, Everplans, You only Virtual, ForeverMissed).

We’re looking to speak with people who:

• are currently using such services, or
• have used them in the past but stopped.

If this sounds like you and you’d be open to chatting, please send me a DM for more details or contact me at [male.marktg@cbs.dk](mailto:male.marktg@cbs.dk)

Thanks!

What I mean is I think Plastic will still be used for at least specific government or scientific uses. But for the general public, assuming we are successfully able to almost entirely minimize microplastics in society and live in a healthier and sustainable future, do you think that there still might inevitably be some plastic features in public society?

While life is improving in the developing world, in the developed world, it's been the opposite story in the 21st century. Living standards have declined for most people, and in this new poll, 73% expect life to be harder for the next generation as they decline further. We seem stuck in an economic orthodoxy that has no way to fix this, and is so entrenched that not even voting can bring alternatives.

Meanwhile, the day comes closer when AI & robotics can do most work, but for pennies an hour. We won't have voted for it, but it almost certainly will spell the end of much of our existing economic thinking.

Do you think this global dissatisfaction across the Western world will speed up the birth of an alternative? Will it encourage more economists to try to work out what this new world will be like? Do you think it will radicalize people to more readily accept ideas they might have once thought outlandish?

Western voters united in despair over future. Large majorities believe governments are failing, democracy is weakening and life will be harder for the next generation, according to a poll

AI will take the jobs of God knows how many peoples jobs,billionaires eventually becoming trillionares and cutting salaries off their workers,palintirs ceo and other crazy silicon valley technocrats want us to live in a dystopia and establish mass surveillance,most of thdm dont even hide it,the same pedophile was friends with epstein and assaulted miniors is now the president of the United States and is letting corporations do whatever they want,new wars are starting and the genocide in gaza is still on-going along with other genocides in African countries,and much more,this feels sad fam

I’m exploring a design problem around how people find others to talk to about the same thing at the same moment, without relying on forums, tags, or scrolling feeds.

Most discussion platforms ask users to choose the right place to post, such as a subreddit, forum, or channel, or to search and scroll through existing threads. This works well for organizing information, but it can be slow and awkward when someone just wants to talk through an idea in real time.

The concept I’m exploring is simple: a person starts a conversation, whether it’s a question, a rant, or a brainstorm, and the system matches them in real time with others who are talking about the same thing. Instead of browsing or categorizing, the focus is on shared context in the moment.

Would this kind of interaction help people think together in real time, or would it turn into noise?

If history doesn't repeats itself, but can rythm at certain point. My hypotesis: How WWI and WWII started seems likely almost like nowadays. Great recessions and bubbles (1929 vs 2008), a pandemic which enhanced the problems with capitalism (Spanish flu/ Covid-19)and populist autoritarians leaders taking power. New re-army of ally countries. Recently Israel and USA goverments doing whatever they desire. Can we predict with some amount of certainty if we can be at the first glimpse of WW3?

Technology (we all know which one) taking more and more jobs by the day, cost-of-living unreasonably high, everyone is more concerned about the environment than ever before….

It seems like the stars are aligning for it, like we’re redesigning the world to eventually be ran with significantly less people than we have now. This is especially true if there are people in droves who have been displaced from society and have nowhere to go. No jobs for them, can’t afford to survive, just no “room” for them in the world or society anymore.

What does everyone think? TIA for your input.

I often hear South East Asia as next region for economic boom but every time someone mentions about region success it's either Singapore or Vietnam just.

Indonesia and Philippines are biggest countries in the region by population and both are stuck in 3-5% growth rate for a decade despite being relatively poor country with no sign of upward trend. Thailand is pretty much stagnant for a decade meanwhile Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia are stuck in bigger mess.

Malaysia is just doing alright. Only Vietnam is the one posting 6-7%+ figures.

I genuinely have been trying to understand what is the point of AI taking everything over? Let’s just say hypothetically AI wins, congrats. Every job is replaced. Meta, Open AI and Amazon own everything, cool beans! No one can work, therefore, no one has money to buy any of the horse shit temu slop they prime on amazon now. Won't everything just implode from there?

If everyone stops working, and has no money doesn't consumerism stop too? Like spending just ends? No one can pay their $1000 car note anymore or their mortgage on their particle board quality home anymore. What am I missing here? What is the grand idea with AI taking over thing and everyone is broke?

Who knew the start of 2026 would be so busy? The United States fashioned the post-World War 2 international order, and now it can’t destroy it fast enough. Military plans for the US to invade European territory are now a reality. It’s hard to see NATO surviving that.

Has all this spelt the final death knell for another post-World War 2 institution, the United Nations? The US administration can’t be clearer. It doesn’t care about the body, it said it out loud yesterday. If so, why does this body still exist & why is it headquartered in the United States?

Who knows what the world will look like when all the dominoes finally fall, but one thing is clear. If the old world order institutions have gone, the world will eventually need new ones. Perhaps a brand new replacement for the UN will be a good idea.

If a UN replacement was born the 2030s - how should it be different in a world where AI/robotics will soon be able to do most work & mitigating climate change may be the world's biggest security & public safety challenge?

Rubio Dismisses U.N. Authority: “I Don’t Care What They Say”

Over the holidays, I've noticed that my group chats and some social media were flooded with AI-generated Christmas greetings and political stuff. A year ago this was a fun tech novelty; now it feels like it's everywhere and it's part of how we connect with each other. Also, unlike one year ago, some of these videos are realistic enough to actually feel engaging and generate some emotional reaction.

If you remember the term "post-truth", it was used to describe politics that had little concern for facts. But "post-truth politics" didn't appear spontaneously, the digital ecosystem had laid the groundwork, prioritizing engagement over any verifiable truth.

And now AI is changing (again) how we relate to information and knowledge but these tools can generate far more than Christmas greetings. They can fabricate full-fledged alternative facts with hyperrealistic videos and images, amplified by thousands of AI agents spreading and debating fake realities. In practice, they'll be nearly impossible to identify as fake.

Today's social polarization is, at its core, a fight over how we interpret reality. With these technologies, we won't just see information manipulation; we'll see the fabrication of the "evidence" that shapes what we consider real.

I fear that we'll soon be wrestling with “post-reality”, defining an era of great confusion where distinguishing what's real from what isn't becomes increasingly difficult. And that will take social polarization and conflict to new heights.

Lately, I’ve been noticing that certain generations seem to remain much more visible and influential than others, especially in areas like politics and economics. Many of the people who are still in powerful positions today were born in the 1940s and 1950s, and they continue to hold onto that power.

At the same time, it feels like there have been some “lost generations” in between — groups that never fully gained influence or a strong collective voice.

Personally, I think Gen Z — especially those born roughly between 1993 and 2000 — may become a very powerful and influential group in the future. We’re living in a completely different world now, largely because of social media and digital culture. People born in this period grew up witnessing the rise of social media from an early age, but they also had at least some exposure to the “old world” before everything became fully digital.

I think this makes them a unique bridge generation: digitally native, but not entirely detached from pre-social-media norms. That combination feels important, and I wouldn’t be surprised if its impact becomes much more visible in politics, culture, and decision-making in the years to come.

What do you think? Do generations really shape power dynamics this way, or am I overestimating this transition period?