Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Privacy vs. piracy

British newspapers featuring stories of Kate Middleton

Coverage of Kate Middleton, the princess of Wales, is just the latest example of an insidious invasion of someone's privacy, writes Lockard.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

Have we become a society of small minds?

In 1974, Time magazine rolled out a new publication, People, to capitalize on its wildly popular section. Fifty years later, we need not wait for a weekly publication.

Privacy, a concept once treasured, is being ceded to the pirates with a fight.


After Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, the widow of our 35th president, had been widowed a second time, the paparazzi hounded her. They argued that because she had married a former president and then a wealthy shipping magistrate, she was fair game. She had given up her right to privacy.

Privacy is not mentioned in our Bill of Rights, but perhaps it should be. It is implied in the Declaration of Independence’s promise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as depriving citizens of their privacy violates every aspect of life and limits their personal liberty. Plus, happiness is difficult to pursue when you are being pursued by paparazzi.

Should Jackie have had to spend her entire life pleasing all of the people all of the time? Did the public have a right to know her every move, even to vilify her for wanting privacy? Apparently, the answer was “yes” to both questions. Her only choice: to hire a firm to manage her public relations. She was considered American royalty.

The stakes have only gotten higher, the privacy invasion only more insidious.

Years later, a “real” royal, Princess Diana, discovered this. And paid dearly.

And since her hospitalization in January, Kate Middleton, now princess of Wales, has become the object of intense media speculation. Was her husband, Prince William, having an affair? Was she? Were they on the verge of divorce? And why was the princess not playing to her public, catering to the enquiring minds who want to know, as The National Enquirer used to say.

Turns out the answer to all the speculation was: none of the above. The princess is battling cancer.

For shame.

Yet, the blood-thirsty media can’t be entirely blamed for procuring fresh meat to feed our insatiable appetites. Besides, don’t we have a right to know?

Do we? Did we have the right to force a devoted mother suffering with a horrendous disease to disclose her struggle publicly?

Others’ “stories” may be interesting, but their personal lives are just that – personal. Why do we so want to infiltrate them? As fodder for our otherwise mundane lives? And why are we satisfied being preoccupied with other’s lives, while, in the words of T.S. Eliot, measuring out our own in “coffee spoons?”

Garnering adulation for being in the know, especially for the first to know, our hunger for salacious gossip is seemingly unquenchable and only grows more so in our increasingly connected world. In our obsession with celebrity status, so much time is consumed by others’ lives and curating our own. Influencers and those famous for being famous, with no other talent than the ability to draw attention to themselves, are admirable, emulated. And how willingly we disclose our own honed versions of ourselves, hoping our “followers” or resulting “likes” will capitulate us to our 15 minutes of fame, as promised by Andy Warhol.

But what is the difference between the outrage we feel at our phones being tapped, or cameras in private places, and the invasion of an individual’s privacy?

And where is “oneself,” when always playing to the public or pleasing others? Appeasing and pleasing are constraints which leave no possibility of remaining true to oneself.

Despite this, Oscar Wilde’s adage has seemingly been taken to heart: “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.” Privacy has become an archaic idea in this tell-all age. The pirates have taken over the ship.

What if we concentrated on fully living our own lives, ignoring both critics and followers, and engaging in worthwhile, real pursuits? Instead of indulging our endless fascination with others’ lives and showcasing our own, would it not be a thousand-fold more enthralling for us to keep our treasures and sail bravely forth?

Then, think of Mary Oliver “and tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?”


Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less