Category: Uncategorized

By  Matt Walsh

In the midst of the #MeToo hysteria, when everyone was fixating on Aziz Ansari’s bad date and Brett Kavanaugh’s phantom gang rape trains, researchers at Morgan Stanley had a very different focus. They were concerned, as you might imagine, about the financial ramifications of the modern feminist movement. So they sent an analysis to their corporate clients looking into the economic impact of this new wave of feminism that was overtaking the country. Here was their top-line conclusion: “By 2030,” Morgan Stanley wrote, “more than 45 percent of working women aged 25 to 44 in the United States will be single.” If that prediction holds, it would be the highest percentage of single working-age women in this country’s history.

The economic impacts, Morgan Stanley predicted, would be significant. Morgan Stanley quoted one researcher as saying: “We find that single women outspend the average household, shifting spending profiles toward categories most poised to benefit from the demographic growth in single women with rising incomes.” Those categories include apparel, automotive, entertainment, and dining.

Like most research that consultants charge millions of dollars to produce, none of that’s terribly surprising. When women don’t get married, they tend to climb the corporate ladder, where they earn money that they don’t have to spend on kids. But there is one line of the Morgan Stanley report that stands out. It’s the part where Morgan Stanley specifically urges its corporate clients to encourage women to pursue this unmarried lifestyle because it will make the corporations a lot of money. “For corporates and investors that embrace these trends, there are numerous benefits, from more nuanced corporate governance and performance to bottom-line growth.”

The Morgan Stanley report, and several others like it, put all the big brands on notice that they should take a proactive role in ensuring that more women become career-driven, instead of getting married and having kids. And predictably, over the past few years, we’ve seen various initiatives along these lines. Facebook, Apple and other big tech companies began offering to freeze the eggs of female employees. That’s not for any medical reason; they’re offering it purely so that women don’t get pregnant and take maternity leave. Many companies have also started paying for out-of-state abortions. That’s all been widely reported.

What hasn’t been covered is the extent to which influencers and celebrities — most of them beholden to large corporations — are now openly campaigning, all at once, for women to remain single, or to become single again if they made the mistake of getting married. You can choose to believe this is all an accident, or maybe you think it’s coordinated. Whatever the case, it’s clearly happening. There have never been more famous people telling young women to stop making commitments to men. You may have seen this recent video from the actress and model Emily Ratajkowski, for example. She has around 2.6 million followers on TikTok, where she posts videos telling random couples that their relationships won’t last, and encouraging women to dress like prostitutes on Halloween. In her latest video, Ratajkowski extols the benefits of getting divorced by the age of 30, so that women can party and have fun while they’re still young and beautiful.

Mia Khalifa was another one, as shocking as it was to hear bad relationship advice from a porn star. Here’s how Mia spoke to her 37 million followers about the importance of getting divorced — multiple times, if possible.

To give one more example, there was also the country star Kelsea Ballerini who talked about leaving her marriage because the “glitter wore off” and it would be a “disservice to herself” to stay in the marriage.

If there’s not enough “glitter,” just bail, go party. Whatever you do, don’t think about putting in any kind of effort. Hollywood and the media have been pushing this message for a long time. They’re doing it with maximum intensity. That’s why I’ve been talking about the insane levels of backlash I’ve received for criticizing an influencer who promoted the “childfree” lifestyle as a path to happiness. It was a relentless barrage of media coverage, all over one tweet I made on the subject. That’s because they’re very invested in promoting this lifestyle, which means that anyone who criticizes it must be furiously dogpiled and shut down.

The point is that there’s a large-scale effort underway to convince young people — especially young women, but not just young women — to be as shallow and selfish as possible, even if it means abandoning their marriages and wrecking their families. Lots of wealthy people and powerful forces are invested in pushing this message.

In fact, the government is pursuing it as well. The National Bureau of Economic Research crunched the numbers on this last year. They looked at federal and state taxes, along with benefit programs. And found that, in effect, there’s a massive “marriage tax” in this country. People who decide to get married, especially low-income people, end up sacrificing roughly two years of income to the government simply because they got married. The researchers found that, “Absent the tax, 13.7 percent more low-income, single females with children would marry annually and 7.5 percent more would be married by age 35.” The researchers also found that the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — imposes a “substantial marriage tax,” because people who get married stand to lose a lot of subsidies under that law.

You never hear anyone talk about that, but it’s true. The government is punishing people who want to get married, especially low-income people. That’s a legacy of Barack Obama that’s never mentioned. And of course the current administration is continuing what Obama started. Last year, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, testified that abortion is good for the economy, because it means more women are working for large corporations, instead of getting married and raising kids.

What are the consequences for regular Americans? For women, it’s not great. And it used to be that you could say this publicly. It used to be conventional wisdom that it’s bad to encourage most women to be single. This is a Harvard Business Review analysis from 2002: “At midlife, between a third and a half of all successful career women in the United States do not have children. In fact, 33% of such women … in the 41-to-55 age bracket are childless—and that figure rises to 42% in corporate America. These women have not chosen to remain childless. The vast majority, in fact, yearn for children. Indeed, some have gone to extraordinary lengths to bring a baby into their lives. They subject themselves to complex medical procedures, shell out tens of thousands of dollars, and derail their careers—mostly to no avail, because these efforts come too late. In the words of one senior manager, the typical high-achieving woman childless at midlife has not made a choice but a ‘creeping non-choice.’”

Two decades later, that “creeping non-choice” has been rebranded as a positive. You could never get any article remotely like that one published in the Harvard Business Review today. As disastrous as this transformation has been for women’s happiness and fulfillment, it’s probably even worse for men. As we’ve discussed on this show, men are now using more drugs, and killing themselves, more than they ever have in recorded history — and at rates that far exceed women. We shouldn’t be surprised by that. When all of society reorients to promote girl bosses and to demean the institution of marriage, yes, women make more money in the short-term. Men also have fewer opportunities to start families, and have fewer opportunities to make a living.

Read more at: dailywire.com

By  Ben Shapiro

It’s rare to see actual Biblical-level events taking place in normal, everyday life. But that is what is happening over at Burning Man.

According to the Associated Press:

“An unusual late-summer storm turned a week-long counterculture fest into a sloppy mess with tens of thousands of partygoers stuck in foot-deep mud with no working toilets in the northern Nevada desert.”

When a hurricane hits Florida, the Left acts as though it’s because of the great sin that we have all committed in driving cars and running our air conditioners.

So now, I get to joke about how a bunch of morons decided they were going to jet-set into the desert, in the middle of nowhere — where it’s 115 degrees — to screw each other. Then there’s a giant, Biblical-style rainstorm and flood and no one bothered to bring enough wood to build an ark.

Unfortunately, their toilets do remain broken. And so they are just sitting there in their own poop, screwing each other. It sounds like the height of human experience.

The elites there treated it as though they escaped the beaches at Normandy. You wonder why people don’t trust the elite. You wonder why there’s a giant cultural gap between the Left Coast and the East Coast on one side and everybody in the middle of the country on the other.

These morons went out in the middle of the desert to worship their pagan selves and then got stuck in the mud? Well, that’s a rough ride for you.

You have an entire elite strata of our society that hates itself and that is constantly seeking to signal to everybody else how much it hates itself by doing things like going to Burning Man. They don’t seek to exemplify the behavior that everybody else should engage in. And if they do, they believe their behavior should be this hippie garbage and we should all just laugh and giggle along with them as they go to their Sodom and Gomorrah-style pleasure dome.

The principles of Burning Man look like a religion. Burning Man’s 10 principles declare:

“Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We welcome and respect the stranger. No prerequisites exist for participation in our community.”

That’s a lie. If you show up as a Bible thumper, I guarantee you you’re not going to be welcome over at Burning Man, where no one has a shower, but they’re all having sex with one another.

Burning Man’s principles also state:

“Our community respects the environment. We are committed to leaving no physical trace of our activities wherever we gather. We clean up after ourselves and endeavor, whenever possible, to leave such places in a better state than when we found them.”

That is wildly untrue. It turns out that Burning Man has had a bad history over the past few years of leaving garbage strewn along the highways as people careen out of there as fast as possible.

Contrast the Ten Commandments of Burning Man with the actual Ten Commandments, things like respect thy father and mother, remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, don’t commit murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t commit idolatry. One of these sets of rules has built a civilization that has lasted for literally thousands of years. The other set of rules lasted until a heavy rainstorm.

Perhaps that’s the real story of Noah’s Ark, that the rain wasn’t all that heavy. Maybe the society was just not durable. In the absence of God, paganism rules. It is not that there is no God, it’s that there are many gods. And these gods typically involve self- worship, which is where things currently stand. This idolatry is idolatry of the self.

We celebrate a holiday in Judaism that’s coming up shortly called Sukkot. You build a hut outside your house and you are supposed to live in it for a week. The purpose of it is to remind you that you are at the mercy of God. You’re supposed to build the hut so you can see the stars through the roof. It’s open to the rain. The whole purpose of it is to remind you that while you are a physical creature, there is something more spiritual to you than that.

The idea is that when you decorate all the physical surroundings around you, that’s not the essential you. So then, what is the essential you?

It’s unity with God. That’s the part that matters.

Read more at: dailywire.com

By  Ben Shapiro

This week, the Burning Man festival – a convocation of large groups of men and women seeking sex, drugs, rock and roll, and other forms of hedonistic bliss – was flooded. It seems that a half inch of rain swamped the event, which takes place in the Black Rock Desert in Nevada, turning the dust to deep and sticky mud. The images of barely-clad neo-hippies struggling to walk through the muck spread like wildfire across the internet; even the White House was forced to acknowledge that it was monitoring the situation.

For a huge swath of Americans, all of this was simply amusing. But the rise and mainstreaming of Burning Man is a far more interesting story than its pathetic possible demise. Burning Man was founded in 1986, when some hippie types gathered at the beach in San Francisco to burn a nine-foot-tall wooden man. Over time, the bonfire became larger and larger, until eventually it moved to Nevada, where it has been located ever since. Each year, 100,000 people head out to the middle of the desert to participate in events ranging from impromptu art exhibits to orgies and mass drug use.

The fundamental principles of Burning Man are spelled out in co-founder Larry Harvey’s 10 Principles, written in 2004. These principles – 10 in number – construct a paganistic morality built around a bevy of mutually exclusive notions. For example, Burning Man is about “radical inclusion … No prerequisites exist for participation in our community.” But Burning Man is also “devoted to acts of gift giving.” Unfortunately, without some form of mutuality, giving alone cannot for the basis of a functioning society, even temporarily. All of which means that Burning Man features social pressure to ostracize free-riders – a tragic violation of the radical inclusion principle.

Burning Man values “radical self-expression,” which cannot be defined by anyone other “than the individual or a collaborating group.” But such radical self-expression quickly comes into conflict with Burning Man’s call for “civic responsibility,” which surely encroaches on the unlimited right to self-expression. Burning Man also values “immediacy,” which it calls “the most important touchstone of value in our culture.” But Burning Man also calls for the community to “clean up after ourselves,” which runs directly counter to the promise of immediacy.

All of this would be sheer countercultural nonsense, except for one perverse fact: the counterculture has now become the culture. This accounts for the fact that Burning Man now seems tired and played out, less transgressive than wearied. The age of Burning Man attendees has increased over the past decade (average age in 2013 was 32, compared to 37 just nine years later); so has the average income (in 2006, 14% of Burners listed their personal income at above $100,000, compared to 27.4% by 2016). Influencers now show up at Burning Man to sell Popeye’s Spicy Chicken; Elon Musk and Paris Hilton and Mark Zuckerberg have shown up.

And herein lies the problem for the broader American culture. Our elite class used to be inculcated in the same set of baseline values as “normal” Americans: John D. Rockefeller was a regular churchgoer; so was Cornelius Vanderbilt. Today, our elites participate in drug-fueled binges in the desert – or at least wish to appear as though they do. Throughout the 1930s, even the poorest Americans aspired to dress well, wearing suits even on the breadlines. Today, even the richest Americans dress as though they shop at Salvation Army.

Read more at: dailywire.com

A supermarket chain issued a recall for Paw Patrol snacks sold at British stores after it was discovered that a website on the packaging leads to content “not suitable for child consumption.”

Store chain Lidl said the five-packs of Paw Patrol All Butter Mini Biscotti Biscuits, Paw Patrol Chocolate Chip Mini Biscotti Biscuits, Paw Patrol Yummy Bake Bars Raspberry Flavor and Paw Patrol Yummy Bake Bars Apple Flavor bore the address of a website that no longer shows the intended content.

“We have been made aware that the URL of the supplier which is featured on the back of the packaging has been compromised and is being directed to a site that is not suitable for child consumption,” the recall notice states. “We recommend that customers refrain from viewing the URL and return this product to the nearest store where a full refund will be given.”

The website, when viewed from a desktop browser, shows a message in Chinese stating that the site is “temporarily unavailable.”

When viewed from a mobile browser, the URL leads to a holding page with numerous advertisements with sexually explicit imagery.

Read more at: upi.com

More bad news for Darwinism arrived after my last article about Cambrian Explosion. I showed there that taphonomic conditions should have produced Precambrian animal fossils had they existed. Now, some of the other props for Darwin’s House of Cards have been removed. Tom Bethell had said in that book, “The near-instant explosion of body plans is the opposite of what Darwin’s theory predicts” (p 134).

Oxygen Theory Deflated

“No, oxygen didn’t catalyze the swift blossoming of Earth’s first multicellular organisms,” begins some news from the University of Copenhagen. “Life on Earth didn’t arise as described in textbooks.” What? Textbooks wrong? Shocking!

“The fact that we now know, with a high degree of certainty, that oxygen didn’t control the development of life on Earth provides us with an entirely new story about how life arose and what factors controlled this success,” says the researcher, adding:

“Specifically, it means that we need to rethink a lot of the things that we believed to be true from our childhood learning. And textbooks need to be revised and rewritten.” [Emphasis added.]

Textbooks had been saying, “increased oxygen levels triggered the evolutionary arrival of more advanced marine organisms.” Scientists at the university, with international peers, claim that the oxygen theory “is being disproved” by measurements of oxygen levels in rocks dating from “the Avalon explosion, a forerunner era of the more famed Cambrian explosion.” The Avalon Explosion they date at “between 685 and 800 million years ago.”

Defying expectations, the result shows that Earth’s oxygen concentrations had not increased. Indeed, levels remained 5-10 times lower than today, which is roughly how much oxygen there is at twice the height of Mount Everest.

Evolutionists have a strained relationship with oxygen. They don’t want it at the origin of life, but they were relying on it to power the Avalon and Cambrian Explosions. And in modern times, they struggle with the complexity of molecular machines that protect life from Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS). Current atmospheric oxygen levels appear finely tuned for complex life, as biologist Michael Denton argues in Fire-Maker. We have a Goldilocks value that balances the advantages of oxygen for metabolism against the disadvantages of too much or too little.

Read more at: evolutionnews.org

Wow, I am SO happy I did not take my kids to see the Barbie movie.

Call it intuition, but I knew the movie would likely not be good for them.

But I didn’t know exactly WHY until I saw this from Jonathan Cahn.

As usual, Cahn takes what is hidden in plain sight and connects the dots and explains it so clearly that we can all see it.

Then once you see it you can’t UNSEE it.

Watch here: 100percentfedup.com

The combination of “warp speed” advances in neurotechnology, such as brain implants or scans that can increasingly peek inside minds, and artificial intelligence poses a threat to mental privacy, UNESCO warned on Thursday.

The UN’s agency for science and culture has started developing a global “ethical framework” to address human rights concerns posed by neurotechnology, it said at a conference in Paris.

Neurotechnology is a growing field seeking to connect electronic devices to the nervous system, mostly so far to treat neurological disorders and restore movement, communication, vision or hearing.

Recently neurotechnology has been supercharged by artificial intelligence algorithms which can process and learn from data in ways never before possible, said Mariagrazia Squicciarini, a UNESCO economist specialising in AI.

“It’s like putting neurotech on steroids,” she told AFP.

Gabriela Ramos, UNESCO’s assistant director-general for social and human sciences, said that this convergence of neurotechnology and AI was “far-reaching and potentially harmful”.

“We are on a path to a world in which algorithms will enable us to decode people’s mental processes and directly manipulate the brain mechanisms underlying their intentions, emotions and decisions,” she told the conference.

In May, scientists in the United States revealed they had used brain scans and AI to turn “the gist” of what people were thinking into written words — as long as they had spent long hours inside a large fMRI machine.

Later that month, billionaire Elon Musk’s firm Neuralink received approval to test its coin-sized brain implants on humans in the United States.

Read more at: www.barrons.com

With child marriage still legal in California, advocates are mounting a campaign to push the state to enact a ban, but their effort is facing surprising opposition from progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.

Dozens of survivors of forced or child marriages traveled to California’s state Capitol in Sacramento last month to protest the state’s existing laws. Dressed in wedding dresses with their wrists tied and mouths taped shut, they called on state lawmakers to finally outlaw the practice.

California, a solidly Democratic state, was on track to be the first to pass an absolute ban on marriages for children under 18. But the legislative proposal was met with opposition from liberal organizations like Planned Parenthood, the Children’s Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The pushback comes out of concerns that imposing an age requirement could set the stage for a slippery slope when it comes to constitutional rights or reproductive choices, specifically that an age requirement could impede a minor’s ability to seek an abortion.

California and Mississippi are the only two states where there is no minimum age requirement to get married. Most states have a minimum marriage age of 16 with parental consent, although it can range from as low as 14 to as high as 18, according to voting rights organization Wisevoter.

Newsweek reached out to Planned Parenthood via email for comment.

Minors seeking to wed in California need approval from a guardian and a court order. But those calling for a ban on child marriages point out that when it comes to issues like statutory rape, California’s definition of unlawful sexual activity between a child and an adult does not apply if the two parties are married.

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California spokesperson Jennifer Wonnacott told the Los Angeles Times that it “strongly supports protecting youth from abuse of all kinds” but said those protections should “not impede on the reproductive rights of minors and their ability to decide what is best for them, their health and their lives.”

An analysis from Unchained At Last, a nonprofit dedicated to ending forced and child marriages in the U.S., found that between 2000 and 2018, 23,588 minors were married in California, making it the state with the second-highest number of child marriages behind Texas.

Read more at: www.msn.com

By Ben Shapiro

There’s a group of people who control what you are allowed to see — the news you read, the videos you watch, the posts you engage with.

You haven’t heard of them. You don’t know their names, but they determine, through methods both direct and indirect, whether you are allowed to be exposed to particular messages. Their decisions can bankrupt companies, silence voices and fundamentally shift cultural norms. Who are these people and how do they do this?

Well, at the top level you have a network of global elites who have created a universal framework full of guidelines and ratings designed to enforce “approved” narratives and punish disapproved ones. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, except it isn’t a secret and we’re not guessing.

First, you have the World Economic Forum, the WEF, and their platform for shaping the future of media, entertainment and culture. Second, you have the World Federation of Advertisers, the WFA, who represent mega-corporations that control 90% of global advertising dollars. WFA members are a who’s who of global business and include some of our recent wokeified favorites like Bud Light’s parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev, Hershey, Procter & Gamble, Lego and Disney.

There is barely a billionaire Fortune 500 CEO, heavyweight philanthropist, government or woke nonprofit that isn’t associated with the WEF or the WFA.

In 2019, the WFA established the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. Within months, the WEF adopted GARM as part of its platform for shaping the future of media, entertainment and culture. GARM is a cross-industry alliance that brings these mega-corporations — the advertisers — together with Big Tech companies like Meta, who owns Facebook and Instagram; Google-owned YouTube; the CCP’s TikTok; and even Snapchat and Pinterest.

This unholy alliance created something they call the Brand Safety Floor & Suitability Framework. Think of Brand Safety as a dog whistle for censorship. They say it themselves: The Brand Safety Floor means, “Content not appropriate for any advertising support.” In other words, if you publish content that violates these guidelines, you will be blacklisted from 90% of the advertising revenue in the marketplace.

So, what have these global elites decided to put in their censorship framework? They started with things we can all universally agree on, like preventing the distribution of child pornography or the advocacy of graphic terrorist activity. But they don’t draw the line at what is objectively criminal, abusive or dangerous. They continue expanding the guidelines to include far more subjective parameters.

For example, the framework lists subjective terms like “hate speech” as a problem. It says that anything surrounding transgenderism that they decide is dehumanizing or discussing what they deem to be a debated social issue in an insensitive way is off limits.

The framework is deliberately vague, allowing those in control to pick and choose how they enforce it and against whom.

So, how exactly do the approved narratives set by these global entities get enforced all the way down to the daily content you consume?

Well, here’s how. We’ll start with NewsGuard. NewsGuard is an organization that formulates ratings for American media. They rank news sites on a 0-to-100 scale based on nine supposedly apolitical criteria. These criteria are anything but apolitical. They often align with left-wing positions.

During the height of COVID-19, NewsGuard falsely labeled and downgraded 21 news sites, only well after the fact admitting that they either “mischaracterized the site’s claims” about the lab leak theory — referring to the lab leak theory as a “conspiracy theory” — or “wrongly grouped together unproven claims” about the lab leak with the “separate, false claim” that the “COVID-19 virus was man-made” without explaining that one claim was unsubstantiated and the other was false.

“NewsGuard apologizes for these errors,” they said. “We have made the appropriate correction on each of the 21 labels.”

And when you compare their ratings of Left-leaning news organizations to Right-leaning news organizations, you see the same bias appear.

The Media Research Center, a free-speech nonprofit, studied NewsGuards’ ratings. The study found glaring examples of bias by NewsGuard.

The Left’s BuzzFeed managed a 100 out of 100 perfect score, despite its reporting on the Steele dossier and alleging collusion between former President Donald Trump and Russia.

The study found that The Global Times, a Chinese propaganda government outlet, scored a 39.5 — that is 27 points higher than the U.S.-based conservative outlet The Federalist. Despite a scandal at USA Today revealing the publication of multiple fabricated sources in their stories and their own fact-checking operation misleading readers on the history of the Democratic Party and the KKK, USA Today maintained the 100 out of 100 rating by NewsGuard.

NewsGuard is also working with others to use AI technology to enforce Brand Safety standards at scale, by identifying scalable hoaxes and misinformation in order to streamline blanket removal. This means that the news that you read, news that is supposed to be fair and objective or at least diverse, must adhere to GARM, the WEF, the WFA and their subjective and biased standards in order to be deemed monetizable.

Read more at: pjmedia.com

“Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near” — Luke 21:28.

Sam Altman, CEO of the company behind the world-altering ChatGPT artificial intelligence system, along with a partner announced yesterday the launch of Worldcoin, a global currency for those who “prove their humanity” through an iris scan. It has been tested in a couple dozen countries, and now they’re ready and hoping to take it global.

The Worldcoin website says, “If successful, we believe Worldcoin could drastically increase economic opportunity, scale a reliable solution for distinguishing humans from AI online while preserving privacy, enable global democratic processes, and eventually show a potential path to AI-funded UBI [universal basic income].”

Obviously this raises concerns with respect to globalism, privacy, freedom, the economy, and even biblical prophecy.

Human Intent?

Worldcoin’s stated purpose is to create a fully private and trustworthy means to prevent artificial intelligence from masquerading as humans and to keep individuals from claiming to be more than one person. At face value it sounds great: The 2020 election sure could have benefited from security like that.

Its primary application, however, would be economic, especially to keep AI out of fraudulent participation in the human business of buying and selling. That is, to solve a problem created by — guess who? — the creators of Worldcoin, among others.

Humanitarian Intent?

The company behind Worldcoin names itself “Tools for Humanity.” Its logos feature the mottoes “For every human,” and “The future is bright, and it belongs to the people of the world.”

Another part of Worldcoin’s stated purpose is to provide a universal basic income globally. Sounds great again, right? Sure, if you like socialism, and if can find it in you to believe a tech giant corporation has nothing but altruism in its heart.

That, plus you’d also have to agree with them in denying that the future belongs in any way to the God who created time and space. Humanism in our day is virtually always atheistic, or in another sense polytheistic, treating humans as gods themselves.

“We’re From a Massive Tech Corporation and We’re Here to Help”

The saying used to be “We’re from the government and we’re here to help.” Usually that’s taken to mean, “Don’t trust a word of that.” I’d rather have the government than this, though: At least we can vote, and retain some semblance of checks and balances. We can at least pay lip service to the rule of law. Tools for Humanity, in contrast, is out to create a global economic kingdom with a self-appointed emperor ruling by right of economic might.

Still, you can’t deny they’ve been helpful. Tools for Humanity went to a number of developing countries, testing their iris-scanner “Orb” with promises of “free money.” How free was it? MIT Technology Review published a scathing report on it:

We found that the company’s representatives used deceptive marketing practices, collected more personal data than it acknowledged, and failed to obtain meaningful informed consent. These practices may violate the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) — a likelihood that the company’s own data consent policy acknowledged and asked users to accept — as well as local laws.

Helpful, yes. Helping themselves. Because they had the money and the power.

Read more at: stream.org