PERSPECTA

News from every angle

Results for "Bluesky"

30 stories found

'Large-scale, resource-intensive, and sustained': OpenAI reveals China's operation to silence dissidents on social media
TechnologyBusiness InsiderThe Week5mo ago2 sources

'Large-scale, resource-intensive, and sustained': OpenAI reveals China's operation to silence dissidents on social media

OpenAI publishes a report detailing China's "cyber special operations" that target critics online. Anna Barclay/Getty Images OpenAI published a report detailing China's "cyber special operations" that target critics online. The report followed OpenAI's findings and removal of a ChatGPT account belonging to the CCP. Bluesky said it recently removed a small number of accounts for "inauthentic coordinated activity." It turns out that even the Chinese government uses ChatGPT — at least accordin...

PoliticsFT2mo ago

UK MPs Shift Social Media Platforms

A report indicates that right-wing Members of Parliament in the UK are increasingly using Elon Musk's X, while many centre-left Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians are migrating to alternative platforms like Bluesky.

What leading voices in media are saying about Anderson Cooper's '60 Minutes' exit
CultureBusiness Insider6mo ago

What leading voices in media are saying about Anderson Cooper's '60 Minutes' exit

Anderson Cooper said he's leaving CBS News to spend more time with his family. Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images Anderson Cooper said Monday he was exiting CBS News' "60 Minutes" after nearly 20 years. It comes at a turbulent time for CBS News under its new editor in chief, Bari Weiss. Some media commentators said Cooper's exit will add to the uncertainty surrounding '60 Minutes.' Veteran broadcaster Anderson Cooper said Monday that he is leaving his role as a correspondent on CBS News' "60 Minutes" after nearly 20 years. In a statement, Cooper said he intended to spend more time focusing on his CNN gig, and his family. His exit comes at an already turbulent time for CBS News under its new editor in chief, Bari Weiss. Here are what some of the leading voices in media are saying about Cooper's "60 Minutes" departure. Keith Olbermann Chris Sorensen for The Washington Post via Getty Images Sports broadcaster Keith Olbermann shared the news about Cooper's departure on his Bluesky account, posting: "Anderson Cooper has left the sinking ship that is Idiot Bari Weiss's New Stormfront CBS." Olbermann later added, "Now, people will only be able to NOT watch AC on cnn." Cooper has worked at CNN since 2001, where he is a political commentator and hosts the "Anderson Cooper 360" show. Brian Lowry FilmMagic/FilmMagic for HBO Brian Lowry, a longtime media columnist and current Hollywood correspondent at Status News, a media newsletter, wrote on X: "Have worked around Hollywood long enough to know nobody ever really leaves a job to spend more time with their family." Tom Jones Tom Jones, senior media writer at The Poynter Report, wrote in his newsletter that Cooper's departure marked "the end of a journalism era." Jones said that Cooper's exit "certainly adds more uncertainty in a news division that is very much in flux under relatively new editor-in-chief Bari Weiss." He added: "It also raises questions about '60 Minutes,' the previous gold standard of TV news shows." Lydia Polgreen Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images for Audible Lydia Polgreen, a New York Times opinion writer and the former editor in chief of HuffPost, posted to X on Tuesday: "I don't watch much TV news, but @andersoncooper is in a league of his own as a television journalist. A huge loss for 60 Minutes." Brian Stelter Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for CNN/WBD CNN's chief media analyst, Brian Stelter, wrote in his "Reliable Sources" newsletter Tuesday that there are open questions about which other correspondents might leave, "and on what terms." "The risk is obvious: Loyal '60 Minutes' viewers will leave along with the correspondents they like to watch," Stelter said. Read the original article on Business Insider

UK Announces Social Media Ban for Under-16s Starting 2027
PoliticsBBCNYTFT+62le-mondewapoThe GuardianNPRAl JazeeraFox Newsnrkcbc+54 more2mo ago65 sources

UK Announces Social Media Ban for Under-16s Starting 2027

The UK Prime Minister has announced a ban on social media for individuals under 16 years old, set to take effect in early 2027. This move aims to protect children and has sparked debate, with some comparing it to similar measures in other countries like Australia.

NYT Publisher Accuses AI Firms of 'Brazen Theft' of Content
Businessle-mondele-figarovariety+6hindustan-timeshollywood-reporterstraits-timesdanasnaftemporikiavgi2mo ago9 sources

NYT Publisher Accuses AI Firms of 'Brazen Theft' of Content

The publisher of The New York Times has accused artificial intelligence companies of 'brazen theft' of intellectual property from news outlets. He warned that AI firms are making choices that violate settled law and could cause significant harm to journalism.

US and Iran Exchange Fire in Hormuz Strait, Fueling Oil Price Hikes
BusinessBBCbloombergNYT+111FTle-mondewapoThe GuardianNPRAl Jazeeradr-dkFox News+103 more3mo ago114 sources

US and Iran Exchange Fire in Hormuz Strait, Fueling Oil Price Hikes

US and Iranian forces exchanged fire in the Strait of Hormuz, escalating tensions in the region. This renewed hostility led to a significant increase in oil prices and caused volatility in global stock markets.

In Defense Of Sir Jim Ratcliffe
Opinionzerohedge6mo ago

In Defense Of Sir Jim Ratcliffe

In Defense Of Sir Jim Ratcliffe Authored by Charles Johnson via TheCritic.co.uk, Far more energy has gone into condemning his phrasing than confronting the questions he raised... Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s statement that Britain has been “colonised by immigrants” has sparked a fierce reaction. From Starmer to Bluesky, to the Athletic and all the football social media pundits in between, the co-owner of  Manchester United has been bombarded with the same attack lines repeatedly. He has been called a tax dodging, racist immigrant hypocrite. Such an uproar has flared up in such a short space of time because Ratcliffe is radically different from those who have issued similar statements before. Ratcliffe is not a political figure: you do not see billionaires nor football club owners voicing discontent like this. The pushback has been fierce because Ratcliffe has no political incentive to say any of this. He isn’t running for office, seeking favour, or chasing votes — which makes his intervention harder to dismiss. Part of the backlash, too, reflects an unease that his diagnosis may be accurate. The remarks came from an initial conversation regarding the economic challenges Britain faces in general, not solely on immigration. The snippet that has been so widely shared is merely part of a wider statement of the economic problems Britain faces; Ratcliffe refers to the issues of “immigration” and “nine million people” on benefits simultaneously. Manchester United part-owner has told @EdConwaySky the UK has been "colonised" by immigrants, who are draining resources from the state, as he warns of the country facing profound political, social and economic challenges. 🔗 https://t.co/bie6uFZ1Tp pic.twitter.com/qFpiO0HkfO February 11, 2026 Colonised is a strong opening salvo for a figure such as Ratcliffe, who is not known for any previous anti-migration stance. This generated responses of tone policing from his critics – cries that his choice of words were “disgraceful and deeply divisive” and that “this language and leadership has no place in English football” from Kick It Out, a notable “Anti Racism” football pressure group. There was no attempt to argue or debate: this was no more than tone policing, of “mate mate mate, you can’t say that mate”. It did not engage with the substantive point. It was not an argument. The Prime Minister has pushed for Ratcliffe to apologise. Less than a year ago, Starmer was referring to Britain as an ”Island of Strangers”; he has little argument here. Sir Ed Davey has stated that Ratcliffe is “totally wrong” and is “out of step with British Values”. Once again this is weak tone policing, not an argument. Regardless, which British values are being violated in particular? What are British values precisely meant to mean here? The fact is that Ratcliffe’s vocabulary choice is nowhere near as divisive as the impacts of mass migration in the last quarter century. Mass migration is the most important issue in British political debate. It has bought sectarianism, Bengali and Palestinian politics swinging both local council and Parliamentary elections, a deepening of housing crisis, the rape and murder of British women from taxpayer funded hotels and programs which bloat the welfare state even further. It is undeniable mass migration has defined British politics of the 2010s onwards. It has been much more harmful and divisive than any comment made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe. His words are nothing compared to the actions of Deng Chol Majek, or Hedash Kebatu, to name a couple of examples. Critics have also cried that Ratcliffe is “an immigrant himself, dodging tax in Monaco”. The difference between Ratcliffe and migration into Britain is so different they are almost incomparable. In the 2017/18 tax year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a bill of £110.5 million. With such an extraordinarily high bill, it is no wonder that he has since moved to Monaco. Meanwhile, the average salary of of a migrant entering Britain in 2023 (which has fallen by £10,000 since 2021) was £32,946, according to a report by the Centre for Migration Control. From this we can estimate a migrant would pay about £5,000 in income tax. That means it would take over 22,000 (statistically average) migrants to foot the tax bill that Ratcliffe paid in one year alone. Ratcliffe has been an exceptional cash cow to the British state. He has been taxed incredible amounts and contributed more to this country than almost anyone currently living; to call him hypocritical since he dared to criticise migration and its impact on the welfare state is simply not fair. Census data from the ONS in 2021 shows that migrants from four nations – Somalia, Nigeria, Jamaica and Bangladesh – head over 104,000 social homes in London alone. With such incredible numbers of subsidised housing going to foreign born nationals, it is absolutely correct to state that mass migration is costing the British economy a fortune. The same census states that over 70% of Somali born households are in social housing in England and Wales, whilst also being of lowest contributors to income tax in the nation – paying well under the £5,000 stated per head previously. The increase and sheer scale of benefit reliance for many immigrants in Britain is not sustainable, and it is a problem that is right to be addressed. Perhaps the most nonsensical argument presented by some is that as co-owner of Manchester United he employs a significant number of immigrant players. Bruno Fernandes is not living in social housing in Wythenshawe. Benjamin Sesko is not in a single bed council flat in Hulme. When he arrived in Manchester last year, the first thing Senne Lammens did was not register for Universal Credit. Not a single foreign player is a drain on the state. They are, as elite athletes in the most lucrative league in the world, very clearly exceptions to the norm of British migration. The difference between Bruno Fernandes, who earns a reported £300,000 a week, and the over 40% of Bangladeshi immigrants who are economically inactive should really not need spelling out. We are referring to just 17 foreign senior team players who all earn more in a week than the average migrant – or Brit – will earn in a year. It is ludicrous  to even attempt to compare the two. Regardless, employing or working with immigrants does not mean you waive your right to criticise the state of affairs in Britain. As an Englishman, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has a given and inalienable right to comment on the affairs of his country. Ratcliffe’s critics have entirely focused on his choice of the word “colonised”, and how they consider it inflammatory. This choice of phrase was not entirely accurate or intentional by Ratcliffe – proved by the fact he issued an apology over his “choice of language”, rather than the substance and argument behind his critique of the broader economic challenge of Britain. The bottom line is, Ratcliffe was right to raise a perfectly reasonable concern. He is directionally correct, and close enough to the truth that the obsessive focus around his phrasing is both absurd and clearly no more than a tactic to dodge the substance of his argument entirely. His critics have been intentionally evasive around the underlying subject: it is a harsh, necessary truth they have no reply too. They avoid the debate because, despite his wording being wrong, Ratcliffe is right. Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 06:30