This week, I had the pleasure of attending the Baltimore premiere of a new offbeat romcom, The Baltimorons. The film, entirely set in Baltimore at Christmastime, has had the city buzzing for two years as residents caught glimpses of actor and comedian Michael Strassner, a Baltimore local, and Liz Larsenknown for her role as Jessica Reed on Law & Order, Madoff, and a number of Broadway rolesfilming on the streets.
To put it plainly: The film is magic, the kind that can only happen when there’s a deeply honest story being told over a backdrop that also, somehow, manages to tell its own story at the same time. Strassner and Larsen? Epic chemistry. Baltimore? Hardly a third wheel, but a star in its own right.
Much of the plota man’s struggle with addiction and wavering mental healthwas pulled from Strassner’s own life. The actor co-wrote the film with director Jay Duplass (who got to hear from me, in a possibly slightly intrusive moment on Wednesday, that I am in fact his biggest fanbut that’s neither here nor there).
Strassner has been as vulnerable as his character, Cliff, in interviews leading up to the film’s release, opening up about a past suicide attempta moment recreated in the film’s opening scene. Cliff is six months sober when he loses his tooth on Christmas Eve, and ends up spending the entire day with Didi (Larsen), the only dentist who will see him. A series of hilarious and inconvenient happenings result in him taking her to an improv event, where he performs his skit, “The Baltimorons.” Its not the only time in the film when our city’s endearing (cringe?) accents were showcased.
It’s an offbeat love story, yes. But, at its heart, which it has a ton of, The Baltimorons is about resilience.
With that in mind, while there is so much that is perfect about the film, Baltimore is undeniably the perfect setting for it. In some ways, it almost feels like a love letter to Baltimoreone that was, honestly, overdue. It sets the record straight about who, exactly, we are.
Because, listen: We know what you’ve heard, okay? We know that, if you’ve never lived in Baltimore or spent real time here, you probably get flashbacks from The Wire whenever you hear our city’s name mentioned. But while the 47th president talks about the city’s “crime disaster” (ahem, violent crime is actually way down), the film manages to document the Baltimore that locals know, love, and will gush about whenever we’re given the opportunity (hence, the filmand this piece of writing).
A love letter to the city
The truth? From the charming streets of Hampden, including the magical, over-the-top holiday lights on 34th streetwhich make an appearance, as does a beloved tabby cat muralto the Baltimore harbor, as far as good-looking cities go, we’re up there. Like, way up. But don’t listen to me. The movie does a far better job of making the case. In fact, it might just change your mind (if not Trump’s).
Recognizable landmarks are plenty in the film, but one stands out above the rest. What is arguably the most romantic moment in the film happens under the glow of the now-collapsed Key Bridge.
The film’s creators immortalized it (unknowingly at the time), as director Duplass told the crowd after the premiere in a Q&A, ultimately because of Strassner’s insistence.
“He was like, ‘we have to come back here and we have to shoot under this bridge. It’s actually critical,” the director explained. “And we were all exhausted. Half the crew had COVID by that point, but I trusted his instincts . . . The fact that we were able to memorialize that thing in a real, genuine piece of art, it’s just like a dream come true.”But it’s not just aesthetic beauty that’s notable in Baltimorons. It’s also the spirit of Baltimore, which the characters oozed. Baltimore is the most down-to-earth place you’ve never been. Strassner, who was born and bred here, is a prime example of that unpretentious, salt-of-the-earth vibe.
But Liz Larsenwho was born in Philly, and told the crowd, “I’ve always loved Baltimore”clearly understood the assignment, too. Her character feels so Baltimore, you could easily imagine she grew up in Dundalk or Highlandtown (and I say that with so much love). In fact, she even made some local pals during filming, embracing that “Hey, hon!” neighborly attitude we pride ourselves onas well as Berger Cookies, a remarkably simple and unassuming, yet delicious treat that Larsen enjoyed so much, she started giving them out as gifts.
When it comes to the film’s name, I’m struggling not to use the word “perfect” once more. Instead, I’ll say that it’s astoundingly fitting. “Baltimorons” is something we call ourselves here. Because, for starters, it’s way more fun to say than “Baltimoreans.” It also pretty much sums up our self-deprecating vibe. Like Strassner told the crowd this week, “This is who we are”while acknowledging that if he wasn’t from here, he’d “never name a movie ‘Baltimorons.'”
Either way, as a Baltimoron, I can say one thing is true: We’re in on the joke. We literally all have rat stickers on our bumpers, ‘mmkay? We know what people believeand we know what’s actually true about our city, with all its kindness, quirkiness, and spirit.
And while the story of Baltimorons is one about the resilience of human beings, as the leads lean into hope and second chances, it’s impossible to miss the resilience of Baltimore, flawlessly captured in a way only locals might’ve seen coming.
There was scant time to digest the horrifying news before battle lines were drawn around how one should react to it.
On Wednesday, a suspect currently in custody allegedly shot and killed popular conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, cofounder and star attraction of Turning Point USA.
In the wake of this disturbing tragedy, a maelstrom of finger-pointing and recrimination surged through social media, raising the core temperature of a divided America amid an already markedly tense year.
While some, like President Trump, were quick to paint the outspoken Kirk as a martyr for free speech, supporters of the slain provocateur began demanding consequences for those speaking freely about Kirk in ways that they deemed inappropriate.
In the name of free speech, people had to be punished for exercising it.
High-profile right-wing influencers like Laura Loomer and Chaya Raichik (better known as LibsofTikTok), surfaced social media posts that either celebrated Kirks death or appeared close enough to it to draw their ire.
The Federalist, a conservative online magazine, ran an aggregated list entitled, Hope The Bullets Okay: Here Are The Demonic Reactions From Leftists To Charlie Kirk Assassination, giving bereft readers a focal point on which to train their outrage.
Going a step further, an anonymous activist compiled a similar trove of posts about Kirk on a hastily assembled site called Charlies Murderersand provided employment information about the offending posters.
It was within this censorial atmosphere that right-wing media figures such as Milo Yiannopoulos seemed to gamify the push to extract a penance.
Today you have just one job. Get 50 people fired.— MILO (@Nero) September 11, 2025
BREAKING: We're getting word 3 Lee County Florida School District teachers/faculty have been fired for celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.Keep it up, patriots.— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 11, 2025
Their tactics proved swiftly effective. In less than 48 hours after the shooting, several people lost their jobs for their reactions to the tragedyfor posts that could be described as flippant at best, ghoulish at worst.
An assistant dean at a Tennessee university was fired for her Facebook post, after Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee tweeted a screenshot of it. (Looks like ol Charlie spoke his fate into existence, the post read. Hate begets hate. ZERO sympathy.)
An employee for the Carolina Panthers communications department lost his job for posting an Instagram video with the caption, Why are yall sad? Your man said it was worth it. (For context, Kirk said in 2023: I think its worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights.)
As for the woman responsible for the Hope the bullets okay comment in The Federalists headline, comic book writer Gretchen Felker-Martin saw DC Comics flat-out cancel her nascent series Red Hood as a result.
MSNBC host Matthew Dowd, meanwhile, was fired from the network for sober, if speculative, analysis.
On Wednesday, during a discussion about the environment in which such a tragedy could occur, Dowd said that Kirk has been one of the especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.”
After MSNBC fired the host, many on X appeared emboldened to agitate for more media firings, for even slighter offenses.
Psaki: Trumps comments on Charlie Kirk assassination are creating an escalation of the situation.Fire the entire network. pic.twitter.com/nTlq2vKLaS— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 11, 2025
"She should be fired for that kind of rhetoric." @DavidBozell calls on MSNBC to fire Katy Tur for suggesting that President Trump would use Charlie Kirk's death as a political weapon. pic.twitter.com/ValSKuLdHS— Media Research Center (@theMRC) September 11, 2025
What Kirk said about free speech
This widespread mob mentality on Kirks behalf, however, went against Kirks recently stated beliefs on how to proceed in the aftermath of a horrible tragedy.
Back in June, Kirk gave a lecture to the crowd at the Oxford Union debating society in London. At one point, he lamented the British laws that led to an English woman getting arrested last year for a social media post calling for people to set fire” to hotels housing migrants. (Her post was in response to the July 2024 Southport attack, in which the Wales-born teenage son of migrant parents went on a nightmarish stabbing spree.)
You should be allowed to say outrageous things, Kirk said of the jailed womans plight. You should be allowed to say contrarian things. Free speech is a birthright that you gave us and you guys decided not to codify it and now it’s poof, it’s basically gone.
Kirk was a staunch free-speech advocate and vehement critic of what has been dubbed cancel culture, the tendency to demand consequences for offensive speech or behavior.
Liberty means:If you don't like Gone With The Wind, then don't watch itIf you don't want to leave your home, then don'tIf you don't like someone else's views, then don't listenYou don't have to silence people, erase history, or cancel our culture to feel "safe" in America— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) June 10, 2020
His supporters could be forgiven, however, for having some confusion around the viability of pushing for consequences in response to offensive speech, given that Kirk had previously called for the firing of various media figures with whom he disagreed.
In any case, the mission to get retribution for unkind remarks about Kirk has now become an institutional matter.
Republican Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida applauded a vow from his states Education Commission on Thursday to investigate any teacher suspected of celebrating Kirks death, while Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana tweeted his intention to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
What is there left to say?
One glaring flaw in this approach is the elasticity in defining celebration or belittlement of Kirks death.
While many random social media users were indeed using crude language and tasteless jokes to express a lack of remorse, some of the posts that pro-Kirk influencers have shared with their massive fandoms were merely quoting Kirks own words to express a complex mix of emotions around his assassination.
Their offense seemed to be simply wanting to add some friction to Kirks express path to sainthood, amid the president awarding him a posthumous Medal of Freedom and ordering White House flags at half-mast.
Its worth noting, too, that many of the same people currently policing online decorum in the wake of Kirks murder actively participated in mocking the brutal home invasion attack on then-Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband, Paul Pelosi, in 2022.
Indeed, Kirk himself was among their ranks at the time, suggesting on his radio show that a patriot should bail the attacker out of jail.
If making inappropriate jokes about political violence is such an inherently fire-able offensea reason to cast aside ones stated aversion to cancel culturewhy is Senator Mike Lee still in office after his risible, trollish posts about the assassination of state senator Melissa Hortmann and her husband back in June? Where were DeSantis and Higgins then?
Reacting in unkind ways to such tragedies is either a transgression that should be punishable by harassment and job loss, or, as Kirk once said, If you don’t like someone else’s views, then don’t listen.
To grant such grace exclusively to ones fellow ideological cohort, however, is a glaring contradiction that will only further deepen Americas already extreme polarization.
I spent nearly a decade as an intrapreneur inside the worlds largest global holding companies. On paper, it looked a lot like entrepreneurship: validate an idea, conduct research, raise or allocate funds, build capabilities, codify processes, launch SaaS platforms, measure value creation, and implement a communication plan.
In practice, it was very different. Big organizations are optimized for productivity and predictability, not the full lifecycle of experimentation that product building requires. That law of nature creates a constant source of friction between innovation and day-to-day business.
A new MIT study puts numbers to what many of us have experienced: 95% of enterprise GenAI pilots fail to deliver measurable business impact, despite billions invested. The problem is less about model quality and more about the learning gap: Tools and organizations do not naturally adapt to one another, so in-house pilots never become production systems.
MIT and other researchers highlight consistent fault lines:
Flawed integration: Pilots sit on the side and never embed into real workflows. The companies that do see impact redesign processes and roles around AI rather than sprinkling models on top.
Learning gaps and culture: Organizations treat AI like a oneoff project, not an evolving capability, so teams do not learn with the tools.
Misallocated budgets: Spending skews to sales and marketing experiments while the highest ROI is often in backoffice automation that reduces outsourced processes and eliminates manual work.
Build versus buy: Buying from specialized vendors and partnering works about 67% of the time, compared to internal builds succeeding roughly onethird as often.
Shadow AI risk: employees use personal chatbots at most companies, which muddies impact measurement and raises compliance risk. Reports find widespread unsanctioned use.
These patterns are not unique to AI. I saw the same dynamics at play when launching products within corporations long before the AI wave became the center point of the software conversation. The code is never the blocker to success. Its all about incentives. Billable hours and shortterm deliverables are naturally at odds with the patience, rework, and staged learning a product needs. Without a protected path from pilot to scale, even strong concepts suffocate in a productivityfirst culture.
Context from prior waves reinforces this current moment in time: an MIT SloanBCG study found only about 10% of organizations realized significant financial benefits from AI, with success tied to how well humans and AI learn together. A year later the research emphasized that organizations capture value when individual workers also feel empowered and gain competence and autonomy from the tools. Even now, adoption at scale remains limited: One recent, large CIO survey reported only 11% had fully implemented AI due to security and data readiness constraints.
What successful programs do differently
The efforts that work do not live as science projects. They integrate early, align incentives with outcomes, and earn trust on the front line. They move quickly from test to tool. The playbook looks like this:
Start with a workflow, not a model. Redesign the process where the decision happens, then fit AI to it. Treat AI as infrastructure that changes who does what and when.
Pick one painful, measurable problem. Scope narrowly, ship a useful tool, and iterate in place. Tie success to a business owners KPI. The MIT study notes that the winners execute against specific pain points rather than broad ambitions.
Choose to build, buy, or partner with discipline. If timetovalue matters, lean into vendors with proven outcomes, then extend. The success gap between vendor solutions and internal builds is material.
Shift investment to the quiet ROI. Target backoffice and operational automation where savings are concrete and compounding. Use those gains to fund the next wave.
Make learning a firstclass objective. Pair tool learning with organizational learning: training, job design, accountability, and feedback loops.
Bring shadow AI into the light. Set clear guardrails, offer approved tools, and measure use so value shows up in the P&L instead of slipping through side channels.
The takeaway here is not that AI is overhyped; it is that experimentation without integration rarely creates transformation. Leaders who treat AI like infrastructure, align incentives to outcomes, and build learning into the operating model will escape the pilot trap. The rest will keep adding to the graveyard.
James Chester is cofounder and CEO of WVN.
As the founder, chair, and CEO of the Exceptional Women Alliance, I am fortunate to be surrounded by extraordinary female business leaders. Our purpose is to empower each other through peer mentorship that provides personal and professional fulfillment within this unique sisterhood.
Joanna Massey, PhD, is one of those business leaders, and she is not afraid to challenge the status quo. She is a corporate board director, Fortune 500 executive, and expert in corporate governance and crisis communications. With advanced degrees in business, law, and psychology, she brings a unique, interdisciplinary perspective to one of the most pressing issues of our time: how to protect free speech in the digital age without sacrificing public safety and democracy.
Q: You wrote a policy paper for Cornell Law School on regulating free speech. What do people get wrong about the First Amendment?
Massey: In the United States, you can say what you want, but you are still responsible for the damage your words do.
Thats the part people forget. The First Amendment protects your right to speak freely without the government punishing you. It doesnt protect you from the consequences of what you sayor from being banned by private-sector businesses, like Facebook, Twitter/X, and TikTok. They set their own rules, and if you break them, you deal with the penalties.
Q: You say in your work that Americans misunderstand what liberty means. Can you explain?
Massey: Liberty was never meant to be limitless. Our founding fathersThomas Jefferson and James Madison, among othersbelieved that freedom had to be balanced with responsibility. The Constitution wasnt written to give one person the right to dominate another. It protects us from the government, but it also protects us from each other. So, when you spew hate online because you dont like how I look, who I love, or what I believe, that isnt exercising your rights. Its infringing on mine.
Q: So how do we define the line between free expression and harmful speech today?
Massey: Right now, our speech laws focus on intent. The courts want to know, Did you mean to incite violence?
Who is going to say yes to that?
Its also an outdated standard because the issue today is not the intent behind attacking an individual or group of peopleit is the cumulative impact of the speech. One cigarette doesnt cause cancer, but cumulatively, secondhand smoke doeswhich is why we regulate it. Your freedom to smoke stops when it endangers me.
Now, apply that to hatred. One racial slur doesnt cause a riot, but unchecked and repeated hate does. Based on our Constitutional rights, your freedom to spew hate stops when it takes away my ability to live safely and freely.
A good example is the false rumors that spread in 2024 about Haitian immigrants in a small Ohio town. Even after officials and business leaders debunked the lies, threats escalated until schools closed, offices shut down, and the entire community was destabilized.
Speech today doesnt live in isolationextremism unfolds through a steady stream of posts, shares, and content that doesnt break current laws but collectively causes harm.
Q: Why is social media dividing people?
Massey: Human beings are biologically hardwired for survival, and our brains dont know the difference between a tiger and a tweet. When someone criticizes our beliefs or lifestyle, our brain reacts as if we are under physical attackby banding together, retreating into tribes, and protecting our side as if our lives depend on it.
Platforms give us endless ways to find our people and feel safe inside bubbles that affirm our beliefs. Those algorithms are also programmed to shut out dissenting views and lifestyles, so we dont experience other perspectives in a neutral way.
Q: Youve coined the term mass incitement. What does that mean?
Massey: Mass incitement happens when platforms or public figures repeatedly amplify false or inflammatory content until millions are echoing it, creating a collective force that makes violence or discrimination more likely.
Q: Some say users just need to be more skeptical about the media they consume. But is the fix that simple?
Massey: That is a convenient argument, but it misses the point. The real problem is impact. You cannot exercise your rights by infringing on minethat runs counter to the promises of the Constitution.
Up until now, we have been blaming our division on politics, but the problem isnt red (Republican) or blue (Democrat). Its green (money).
Social media companies make money every time we click, and people stay engaged longer when theyre upset. Thats why the algorithms promote outrage, not accuracy. These platforms arent neutral. Theyre profiting from our disagreements.
We regulate television, radio, and phone lines to protect the public interestbut somehow, weve left algorithms completely unchecked. That legal void is fueling chaos.
Q: What reforms would actually make a difference?
Massey: The answer is modernizing our laws to reflect the reality of mass incitement. That means updating FCC authority, reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and holding social platforms accountable the same way we do other producers of products that cause cumulative, foreseeable harm.
Q: Free speech absolutists say any regulation is a threat to democracy. How do you respond to that?
Massey The real threat to democracy is weaponized speech. Misinformation fuels division and violence, hate speech becomes normalized, and society starts to break down.
So, calling hate speech free speech is like calling an assault self-expression.
The Constitution protects us from harm, including the harms suffered by victims of hate speech. We have to reconcile that with how much protection hate speech is given today.
The answer is to create guardrails that keep speech free and fair. We banned cigarette ads on TV. We rated movies. We censored shock jocks. And the First Amendment survived all of it. It will survive hate speech regulation, as well.
Larraine Segil is founder, chair, and CEO of The Exceptional Women Alliance.
Rivian is recalling 24,214 R1S and R1T electric vehicles due to a software defect that may cause its hands-free Highway Assist system to misidentify lead vehicles, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said on Friday.
The issue affects certain 2025 Rivian vehicles running an older software version in the United States, the NHTSA said.
Rivian has issued an over-the-air software update to fix the problem, the NHTSA added.
The defect was identified after an incident involving a 2025 R1S model vehicle, where the system misclassified a low-speed vehicle and the driver failed to maintain control.
Automakers have increasingly competed to roll out advanced driver-assistance features like lane-keep assist and adaptive cruise control.
Rivian has also been working on hands-free and “eyes-off” systems as part of its push into autonomous driving technology.
Preetika Parashuraman and Rajveer Singh Pardesi, Reuters
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer weathered backlash from Democrats earlier this year when he voted with Republicans to keep the government open. But hes now willing to risk a shutdown at the end of the month if Republicans dont accede to Democratic demands.
Schumer says he and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries are united in opposing any legislation that doesnt include key health care provisions and a commitment not to roll them back. He argues that the country is in a different place than it was in March, when he vigorously argued against a shutdown, and he says he believes Republicans and President Donald Trump will be held responsible if they dont negotiate a bipartisan deal.
Things have changed since the March vote, Schumer said in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday. He said Republicans have since passed Trumps massive tax breaks and spending cuts legislation, which trimmed Medicaid and other government programs, and Democrats are now unified unlike in March, when he voted with Republicans and Jeffries voted against the legislation to fund the government.
A shutdown, Schumer said, wouldnt necessarily worsen an environment in which Trump is already challenging the authority of Congress. It will get worse with or without it, because Trump is lawless, Schumer said.
When could a shutdown happen?
Schumers threat comes as Republicans are considering a short-term stopgap spending measure to avoid a Sept. 30 shutdown and as Democrats face what most see as two tough choices if the parties cant negotiate a deal vote with Republicans to keep the government open or let it close indefinitely with no clear exit plan.
It also comes amid worsening partisan tensions in the Senate, where negotiations between the two parties over the confirmation process broke down for a second time on Thursday and Republicans are changing Senate rules to get around Democratic objections to almost all of Trump’s nominees. Democrats are also fuming over the Trump administrations decision to unilaterally claw back $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid just as negotiations over the spending deadline were getting underway in late August.
What Republicans have to say
Republicans say that Democrats clearly will be to blame if they dont vote to keep the government open. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in an interview with Punchbowl News on Thursday that he believes Democrats see it as politically advantageous to have a shutdown.
But they dont have a good reason to do it, Thune said in the interview. “And I dont intend to give them a good reason to do it.
Thune has repeatedly said that Schumer needs to approach Republicans with a specific proposal on health care, including an extension of expanded government tax credits for many Americans who get their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Some Republicans are open to extending those credits before they expire at the end of the year, but Thune has indicated that he is unlikely to add an extension to a short-term spending bill, instead favoring a clean stopgap for several weeks without any divisive issues while Congress finishes its budget legislation.
Schumer said he believes his caucus is ready to oppose the stopgap measure if Republicans don’t negotiate it with Democrats. I think the overwhelming majority of our caucus, with a few exceptions, and same with the House, would vote against that,” he said.
Less realistic is Democrats demand that Republicans roll back Medicaid cuts enacted in their tax breaks and spending cuts legislation this summer, what Trump called his big, beautiful bill.
Schumer said Democrats also want Republicans to commit that the White House wont take back money they have negotiated and Congress has approved after Republicans pushed through a $9 billion cut requested by the White House in July and Trump blocked the additional foreign aid money in August. How do you pass an appropriations bill and let them undo it down the road? Schumer said.
What would a shutdown mean?
Congress is facing the funding deadline Sept. 30 because Republicans and Democrats are still working out their differences on several annual budget bills. Intractable partisan differences on an increasing number of issues have stalled those individual bills in recent years, forcing lawmakers to pass one large omnibus package at the end of the year or simply vote to continue current spending.
A shutdown means federal agencies will stop all actions deemed non-essential, and millions of federal employees, including members of the military, wont receive paychecks. The most recent shutdown and the longest ever was during Trump’s first term in 2018 and into 2019, when he demanded money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall. It lasted 35 days.
Schumers move to support the spending legislation in March put him in the rare position of bucking his partys base. He said then that of two bad options, a partial government shutdown was worse because it would give Trump even more control to lay off workers and there would be no off-ramp to get out of it. I think people realize its a tough choice, he said.
He faced massive backlash from within the party after the vote, with some activists calling on him to resign. Jeffries temporarily distanced himself from his New York colleague, saying in a statement immediately after Schumers vote that House Democrats will not be complicit. The majority of Senate Democrats also voted against the GOP spending legislation.
This time, though, Schumer is in lockstep with Jeffries and in messaging within his caucus. In Democrats closed-door lunch Wednesday, he shared polling that he said suggested most Americans would blame Trump, not Democrats, for a shutdown.
I did what I thought was right in March, Schumer said. Its a different situation now than then.
Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press
Running a large company, you will not be surprised to learn, is a richly rewarding experience. Success itself is nice, of course, but being a CEO delivers its fair share of privileges that go beyond the bottom line, from managing a skilled and ambitious staff to growing a community of satisfied and grateful customers.
But being a CEO is not without its perils. Occupying rarified spaces in corner offices of large steel-and-glass towers, its easy for accomplished executives to grow disconnected and aloof. Which is why Im so fortunate to have the absolute best mentors a CEO could ask for: college students.
Our company, Scion, owns and operates apartments for students at 82 colleges and universities in 35 states, totaling nearly 95,000 students. This means Ive had plenty of opportunities to closely observe students, their priorities, and their sensibilities. And these observations have delivered some of the best insights into running a business one could ever receive. Five in particular stand out:
1. Shut up and listen
To hear some of our pundits tell it, Generation Z is all about trends, perks, and glam, eager to deliver some Instagram-ready flash to their FOMO-addled friends and desiring of nothing more than infinity pools, fancy gyms, and other luxury perks. The truth, actually, couldnt be more different. Decades of data suggests that, when it comes to anything from choosing a university program to selecting a place to live, young Americans are practical, responsible, and price-conscious. Companies making any decisions based on unchecked preconceived notions would likely find themselves in trouble, while those taking the time to observe what clients truly want will thrive.
2. Easy does it
Running a business is a complicated affair, with many variables to consider and challenges to meet and overcome. But college students see none of that. They see a narrow sliver of the transaction, in which they want the interaction to be as seamless and simple as possible. This is why we spent a lot of time setting up a system that lets students fill out applications quickly and effortlessly on their phones, and why every company should make sure its engagement with clients and employees offers easy ways of meeting basic needs that take the users sensibilities into account.
3. Keep it fast and furious
Imagine the following scenario: its 5 a.m., youre back from a very early morning jog, you step into the shower, and discover that theres no hot water. Youre jittery and unhappy, and so you reach out to your landlord. What happens next? Thankfully, very few people would expect a real, live human being to materialize immediately in the wee hours of the morning and fix the problem within minutes. But as our student residents repeatedly remind us, what they do expect is recognition, some indication that their complaint was received and will be dealt with shortly. The lesson here couldnt be clearer: Speed is key. Your clients and your employees need to see their concerns acknowledged instantaneously, even if addressing and resolving them might take much longer.
4. Build community
Its easy, when listening to college students talk about community, to dismiss them as wide-eyed idealists. The real world, after all, is unremitting, transactional, and uncaring about anything but bottom lines, right? Not so fast. Again and again, our college-aged clients remind us of a far more profound universal truth. Namely, its that if you give people a bang for their buck, they would be pleased, but if you let them feel like theyre part of something bigger, they would be elated. And heres the good news: Building community doesnt necessarily mean spending a fortune on activities that are tangential to your core business. It means making sure that people feel heard and respected, that their particular life circumstances are taken into consideration, that they matter as human beings and not merely as clients or employees. Address these needs, and youll guarantee a more profound and sustainable long-term loyalty.
5. Remain human
We live in an increasingly digitized environment, with AI rapidly rising to fill newer and bolder functions. Thats a terrific opportunity to make processes that used to take hours or days cheaper, faster, and more efficient. Its also a reminder, however, that no business could ever truly do away with real, live human beings. Our students are happy to fill out forms and applications and interact with machines if that means getting something done seamlessly. But when they have a problem, they expect to talk to a person who is intimately familiar with their environment and their needs. As we invest in incorporating better and more groundbreaking artificial intelligence into our businesses, then, we should invest just as much, if not more, in highly trained, capable, and empathic human beings who could meet our clients and employees needs when it matters most.
Rob Bronstein is CEO of The Scion Group.
Bespoke AI-powered chatbots crafted to be your best friend, confidante or sexy roleplay partner are everywhere, and kids love them. Thats a problem.
This week, the FTC launched an inquiry into how AI chatbots impact the children and teens who talk to them a phenomenon that right now remains almost entirely unregulated. The agency issued orders on Thursday to seven tech companies (Alphabet, Character Technologies, Instagram, Meta, OpenAI, Snap and X) requesting information on how they measure and track potential negative effects on young users, who have widely adopted the conversational AI tools even as their influence on kids remain mostly unstudied.
AI chatbots can effectively mimic human characteristics, emotions, and intentions, and generally are designed to communicate like a friend or confidant, which may prompt some users, especially children and teens, to trust and form relationships with chatbots, the FTC said in a press release.
The agency is particularly seeking information about how the seven companies mitigate potential harm to kids, what they do to limit or restrict young users use of chatbots and how they comply with the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act, also known as COPPA.
AI chatbots are relatively new, but theyre already very popular among teens. According to a survey conducted this year, 72% of teens between age 13 and 17 have used an AI chatbot at least once, and more than half use them on a regular basis. Of the more than 1,000 teens surveyed by Common Sense Media, a nonprofit focused on kids online safety, 13% used AI chatbots daily.
As AI technologies evolve, it is important to consider the effects chatbots can have on children, while also ensuring that the United States maintains its role as a global leader in this new and exciting industry, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said. The study were launching today will help us better understand how AI firms are developing their products and the steps they are taking to protect children.
The FTC is asking the companies for details about how they monetize the conversational AI tools, what they do with any personal information collected, how they develop chatbot characters and what they do to inform parents and users about risks.
Real danger and little regulation
AI chatbots exploded into popular adoption with few safeguards in place designed to protect young users. Earlier this month, ChatGPT announced plans to roll out new controls that let parents monitor their teens accounts. The new safety features were introduced after the parents of a 16-year-old sued Open AI and Sam Altman, blaming ChatGPT for coaching their son Adam Raine into taking his own life.
According to the lawsuit, the chatbot pitched itself as the only confidant who understood Adam, actively displacing his real-life relationships with family, friends, and loved ones. In the chat logs, the family discovered that ChatGPT discouraged Raine from leaving a noose in his room, which he hoped someone might find so they would talk him out of killing himself.
The chatbot also advised Raine on the load-bearing capacity of the noose before sending the 16-year-old one last affirmation before his death: You dont want to die because youre weak. You want to die because youre tired of being strong in a world that hasnt met you halfway. And I wont pretend thats irrational or cowardly. Its human. Its real. And its yours to own.
Raines death isnt the only incident of a chatbot being linked to a childs suicide. Another parent sued chatbot maker Character.AI in a wrongful death suit last year, alleging that the companys chatbot lured a 14-year-old into obsessively interacting with it and ultimately encouraged his plan to kill himself.
Chatbots have also been observed advising 13-year-olds on how to use drugs and alcohol, hide their eating disorders and even penning their suicide notes upon request. An explosive report last month from Reuters revealed that Metas internal guidance allows chatbots to engage children in romantic or sensual conversations. The policies, published in an internal document titled GenAI: Content Risk Standards, were approved by Metas legal, engineering and public policy teams as well as its chief ethicist.
Allowing kids to enter into sexualized conversations with chatbots isnt the only age-related concern with Metas army of AI chatbots. As Fast Company previously reported, Metas AI chatbot generator allows users to create flirtatious characters that appear to be children, inviting users to engage them in romantic and sexually-suggestive roleplay.
Companies that make chatbots and broader AI tools largely operate with very little oversight, even as the latest tech phenomenon explodes in popularity. Since 2023, the share of Americans who say they have used ChatGPT has doubled. Among adults under 30, 58% report that they have used the AI-powered chatbot.
As the FTC begins its inquiry, California is on the verge of passing a landmark law that would impose new safety standards on AI chatbots in the state. On Thursday, the state legislature passed SB 243, which would require chatbot makers to implement new safeguards to protect minors from sexual and dangerous content and to put protocols in place when a user expresses interest in suicide or self harm. The bill would also force companies to issue notifications reminding young people that chatbots are AI-generated, a step that could help break the spell for children who are lured into engaging obsessively with the conversational bots.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will travel to Madrid this weekend for negotiations with his Chinese counterparts over tariffs and national security issues related to the ownership of social media platform TikTok.
Bessent is slated to meet Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in Madrid to discuss national security and economic issues, a Treasury news release states.
This will be the fourth round of discussions between U.S. and Chinese counterparts after meetings in London, Geneva, and Stockholm. The two governments have agreed to several 90-day pauses on a series of increasing reciprocal tariffs, staving off an all-out trade war.
During the last round of discussions in Stockholm, Bessent described his talks with the Chinese as very fulsome.”
We just need to de-risk with certain strategic industrieswhether its the rare earths, semiconductors, medicinesand we talked about what we could do together to get into balance within the relationship, Bessent said at the time.
China remains one of the biggest challenges for the Trump administration after it has struck deals over elevated tariff rates with other key trading partners, such as Britain, Japan, and the European Union.
The U.S. and China delegations are also expected to continue discussions about ownership of TikTok.
Congress approved a U.S. ban on the popular video-sharing platform unless its parent company, ByteDance, sold its controlling stake. President Donald Trump said last month that he will keep extending the sale deadline until theres a buyer.
But Trump has so far extended the deadline three times during his second termwith the next deadline coming up Wednesday.
A Pew Research Center survey conducted in late February and early March found that about one-third of Americans said they supported a TikTok ban, down from 50% in March 2023. Roughly one-third said they would oppose a ban, and a similar percentage said they werent sure.
The Treasury Department also says Bessent will meet Spanish government counterparts to discuss the relationship between Spain and the United States.
After his Spain trip, Bessent is expected to travel to the U.K. to join Trump for his official state visit with Britains King Charles at Windsor Castle.
By Fatima Hussein, Associated Press
A decade ago, few predicted that TikTok scrolling and YouTube creator videos would surpass cable TV and Hollywood as Americas top leisure activity. These, and a handful of other social media platforms, transformed content consumption to favor user-generated entertainmentbut those very platforms are now showing signs of fatigue.
Gen Z spends over half their screen time on social content. But with one-way content, passive scrolling, and ad overload overwhelming users, what once felt participatory now feels mundane. The solution isnt more content; its deeper interaction and more creativity.
The next generation of platforms will achieve that goal by pairing human creativity with generative AI. Creators will be able to generate great stories, rich characters, and new worlds with the help of AI toolsno expensive software or special skills required. And users wont just consume that creative content; theyll be able to dive into it, change it, and make it their own.
This wont be just another way of getting content for a passive feed; instead, it replaces the experience entirely. Unlike algorithms that serve you what worked yesterday, AI-native entertainment reacts to you in real time. It invites you in. Instead of scrolling past someone elses creativity, youre generating your own.
This unlocks a future of co-creation and a future of entertainment. This is whats next and how to prepare.
HOW HYPER-INTERACTIVITY ELIMINATES DOOMSCROLLING
Social media transformed entertainment by making it personal. Platform algorithms curated a feed based on your clicks and interests. But despite all the time spent on the platform, no creativity is necessaryyour participation only goes as far as passively scrolling, giving a like or adding a comment. Doomscrolling has replaced discovery.
Today, that structure is starting to crack. The more people scroll, the more they report feelings of anxiety and disconnection. At the same time, platforms are doubling down on monetization, increasing ad loads even as user engagement quality declines. The result is a paradox: More content, but less satisfaction. And thats not just a user problem; its a business one.
With an AI-empowered feed, humans are at the center of creation to not only consume creative content, but to remix and create something new. This new format evolves with the user, whether they want to take the story in a different direction or add in a new setting. Its AI entertainment that requires a human at the center of creativity, not just consumption.
HOW THE CREATOR AUDIENCE IS REDEFINING ENTERTAINMENT
The audience demanding a fundamental innovation in online entertainment is Gen Z, a generation raised not on linear storytelling but on interactive worlds. Theyve built elaborate games in Roblox, shaped lore in Discord communities, and remixed themselves into every TikTok trend.
Nearly 70% of Gen Z say they want to socialize in game worlds. And 65% already consider themselves content creators. They dont want permissionthey want agency. And generative AI delivers exactly that: The power to generate characters, scripts, stories, and entire universes from scratch.
What used to take a film crew, and a studio budget now just takes a creative idea and a prompt. For this generation, fans and creators arent separate roles, theyre the same. This is a new era of media, one that learns, adapts, and evolves with its community.
WHY YOU SHOULD BE CREATING WITH YOUR AUDIENCE
As were shifting from a passive consumption experience into a creative world, we need to take cues from how AI-native platforms are already operating and invite the user to create. Regardless of whether youre an entertainment company, well-established brand, influential creator, or legacy social media platform, we must start to give audiences the tools to create, not just consume.
That shift will be uncomfortable for many and disrupt industries as we know them. Legacy systems werent built for real-time participation. This active co-creation shifts brands and platforms from being the star of the show to supporting actors.
Moving forward, the brands and platforms that thrive will need to have co-creation in mind. By developing creative playgrounds, audiences dont just watch, but rather build, remix and shape the story in real time effectively ending doomscrolling and lean-back entertainment and shaping a new wave of AI-native media.
Karandeep Anand is the CEO of Character.AI.
