Rediscovering Native Culture in a Society That Overlooks It
Rediscovering Native Culture in a Society That Overlooks It
Rediscovering Native Culture in a Society That Overlooks It
By James Coleman
I was ten when I first realized Native culture was being pushed into the shadows. Every year at school, we had celebrations for different cultures, ranging from Black History Month in February to Hispanic Heritage Month in September, and many more. One class day in early November, a substitute teacher came in and showed us
By James Coleman
I was ten when I first realized Native culture was being pushed into the shadows. Every year at school, we had celebrations for different cultures, ranging from Black History Month in February to Hispanic Heritage Month in September, and many more. One class day in early November, a substitute teacher came in and showed us a video about Native American Heritage Month. That was the first time I had ever heard of it, and it pushed me to look deeper. Through the observation of Native American culture being overlooked, we can aim to spread awareness, which would allow us to further appreciate the actual complexity and importance of their culture.
Modern Native American culture is invisible. From what we're taught in school to what we're shown on TV, it simply is not being shown to a large percentage of our society. According to the Reclaiming Native Truth project, 78 percent of Americans said they know little to nothing about Native Americans. Meanwhile, 87 percent of schools don't teach about Native peoples past 1900, and 95 percent of images that appear in internet searches of "Native Americans" are antiquated, pre-1900 portrayals. Representation of Native peoples in TV and film is less than 0.4 percent. A striking pattern emerges: Native culture in today's society is barely shown, and many know next to nothing about it. So what can we do about it?
To combat the lack of Native culture present in our modern times, we can propose the solution of sharing their culture through our daily lives. This would bring an array of benefits. In a study consisting of 361 urban Native American adults from California in the years 2018–2021, researchers studied patterns related to culture and well-being. They found that higher cultural connectedness scores were significantly associated with better mental health, higher life satisfaction, and lower risk of depression as well as substance abuse.
Native Americans would reap a wide array of benefits from increasing their cultural connection. This includes the reversal of problems that are already huge in the Native American community, such as decreased substance abuse risk, improved physical health, protection against depression, and improved mental health and well-being.
It's clear that people need to see real examples of Native culture, as in our modern world it is living, evolving, and definitely still important. In fact, their culture is so alive that experts have found 574 different Native American tribes in the U.S. and hundreds of languages spoken across our country. By showing people the fascinating wonder that is Native culture in our day-to-day lives, we can allow more people to both understand and appreciate one of the most complex cultures in the world.
Despite this, many feel that Natives are already well portrayed in our society, and that their relatively low population in comparison to other cultures justifies overlooking their culture. While it is true that attempts to give consideration to Native American peoples have definitely increased recently, this does not equate to accurate representation. Much of the media surrounding them is biased and selective. For example, consideration given to Natives focuses primarily on negative aspects of their history, like their relocation, struggles with colonists, and their poverty. It does not shed light on the diverse and extensive Native American culture, or the many modern projects that surround it.
Native American culture often sits in the background of our society, even though it should not. Once we notice how overlooked it is, we can start making a real effort to bring more attention to it. Sharing awareness is not just about representation. It can strengthen Native communities and help people understand each other better. And when we look closer, we see that Native culture is complex, meaningful, and still very much alive today.
If we want to change how Native American culture is treated, it starts with paying attention. Learn about the different tribes and languages, support Native media and art, and share what you learn with others. Encourage schools to include accurate Native history and culture in their lessons. Every small step helps make Native culture more appreciated in our everyday lives, and it leaves a great impact on our community as a whole.
You Don't Actually Want to Be a Billionaire
Rediscovering Native Culture in a Society That Overlooks It
Rediscovering Native Culture in a Society That Overlooks It
By Muneer Rehem
You’re not really poor, are you? Maybe you’re working-class now, maybe you were born into it, but you’re not planning to stay there. You’re going to be a millionaire. That’s what you should be, right? That’s what you really want?
You work hard. You’ll grind, make big money, retire in your 20s– or better yet, become a titan o
By Muneer Rehem
You’re not really poor, are you? Maybe you’re working-class now, maybe you were born into it, but you’re not planning to stay there. You’re going to be a millionaire. That’s what you should be, right? That’s what you really want?
You work hard. You’ll grind, make big money, retire in your 20s– or better yet, become a titan of industry with more wealth than you can spend. But once you have those multi-millions, then what? Never spend it all? Wanting money for what it provides is reasonable; wanting money for its own sake isn’t.
We shouldn’t bleed for wealth. We should bleed for our beliefs and passions. Yes, you need money to live –find a way to profit– but live an unprofitable life.
According to a 2025 Harris Poll, 70% of Gen Z and Millennials said they want to become billionaires. Yet in that same survey, 72% said billionaires make society more unfair, and 65% said billionaires make it harder to achieve “my American Dream.” Most of our generation views the ultra-wealthy negatively, so why do we still aspire to join them?
Many agree the ultra-rich don’t pay their fair share and worsen the economy for their own benefit. Harris Poll data shows 73% of Gen Z and Millennials think billionaires contribute to rising prices, and 80% of Gen Z supports higher taxes on top earners. Across the political spectrum, we agree that “Billionaires benefit the most from a system the rest of us are stuck in.”
Is this really the class we want to join? A class widely disliked, accused of draining opportunities and resources? Even if the lifestyle is good, do you want to be a tumor on society’s back?
We want it because we were raised to want it. The American Dream –prosperity through work– tells us that if you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you’ll make something of your life. But try literally pulling yourself up by your bootstraps: nothing happens. That’s how the real economy works now. Hard labor alone rarely leads to a good living.
It’s a one-in-a-million chance to succeed on labor alone. Minimum wage can’t support independent living. Realtor.com reports the average California home costs $1.2 million; yet the state’s median household income is $95,521. To afford a median-priced home in 2024, you’d need at least $221,200 in annual income. The dream is gone, stolen before you knew it.
So you watch the world get grimmer as people work harder for less, then open your phone: a 20-something day trader in a Hellcat, someone making millions off crypto, record profits, million-dollar homes. Buy, sell, trade, grow, fight. Start young, work longer. Finish line: never. Don’t stop.
If nothing changes, what’s the point of working a job you love or one that helps others? Passion doesn’t matter if you’re dead.
If everyone chased wealth –if we were all bankers, landlords, and day traders– what would happen to the food? To repair? To the art in work? We already see declines in essential professions. In 2022, more than 11 million Californians lived in areas without enough primary care providers. Profit is eroding the foundations of what keeps us alive. We cannot all be ultra-wealthy.
But there is a part of this that I have failed to acknowledge. As much as the feverish pursuit of money takes away from what we view to be the point of life, it’s also something that we must all do; you’ll die without dinner, and you gotta buy it. It’s a scary time to be entering the workforce, to have to start really worrying about your own money. In a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of renting has outpaced median wages and all other expenses in terms of inflation since the 1980s, being 4.5 times the cost in 1981, whereas wages are barely under 4 times the cost of living. Everybody in Washington over the course of the past few years has been able to watch the price of everything around them get higher.
This pressure fuels our obsession with wealth. The system feeds you when you’re rich and cooks you alive when you’re poor.
This isn’t an argument against working for a living–work is necessary and contributes to society. My criticism is aimed not at survival, but at enrichment for enrichment’s sake.
There’s no simple solution. These problems are older and larger than any of us. What you can do is stay mindful.
Ask yourself, really ask, why you want the job you want or why you work the job you do. If it’s not to live a life well lived, then maybe it’s not worth it. If you’re going to work the double shift, fight for the raise, or chase profit, do it for a better life, not a bigger number.
Get Influencers Out of the Front Row
Rediscovering Native Culture in a Society That Overlooks It
Get Influencers Out of the Front Row
By Molly Jones
Imagine being a new designer and having your first show, and when you look out into the crowd all you see in the front row is influencers on their phones while your designs are on the runway, not paying attention to what you have worked so hard to produce. In today’s art industries influencers are seen by fashion brands as a
By Molly Jones
Imagine being a new designer and having your first show, and when you look out into the crowd all you see in the front row is influencers on their phones while your designs are on the runway, not paying attention to what you have worked so hard to produce. In today’s art industries influencers are seen by fashion brands as a marketing move, but what cost comes with using influencers for marketing? The cost I have so often seen is that influencers are sitting front row at these shows and not paying attention, promoting unethical consumption habits, and contributing to the loss of creative freedom in fashion.
Influencers are often paid by brands to wear their clothing, come to their shows, or make videos for them. That is not the problem, the problem is when influencers begin promoting fast fashion brands that often steal other fashion brands’ designs to make at a lower cost with unethical labor. Influencers promoting unethical companies and then showing up to a designer show at New York Fashion Week is almost contradicting and depletes the intricacy of a piece, creating a culture around virality over substance. The blatant disregard for overconsumption’s effects on our environment while also appearing front row at high quality fashion shows is not only extremely ignorant but it is also ill-mannered. The appearance at fashion shows used to be centered around photographers and journalists who appreciated the designs and crafts, almost admiring them. “The Influencer Revolution” an article featured in Harvard Politics, which looks into the effect that influencers have had on the fashion industry specifically how influencers have “normalized a mindset of overconsumption which has even found its way into “sustainable fashion,” as seen by the massive “sustainable thrift hauls” which still lead to waste.”
The ignorance regarding fast fashions design stealing and unethical practices while also having access to high quality fashion and having the choice to promote sustainable habits can be seen as just disrespectful to the designers who devote their lives to creating these pieces. Influencers have also led to the deterioration of personal style, while yes inspiration is always nice, influencers are causing people to lose their creativity and replace it with what their favorite influencer wears and promotes. Through this designers are losing their creative freedom to adhere to the styles that are trending and people want. Trends like model off duty, mob wife, and all things of the sort have popped up, and every time people flock to whatever is most popular.
The study of this has been a hot topic as of recent, especially with TikTok’s influence on what people are wearing. In an analysis article by Disa they describe how “TikTok’s digital ecosystem replaced traditional real-world influences, with TikTok becoming the arbiter of what was considered stylish and desirable”, TikTok influencers not only create trends but they also follow them. For example the era where everyone was flocking to the Kendall Jenner Model Off Duty look, everyone was buying the same white t-shirt and jeans as each other.
The consistent change in trends which are influenced heavily by creators on platforms like TikTok and instagram is slowly breaking down the art of one’s personal style. Creating a copy over and over of the same similar look depleting one’s own personal style. In addition it causes designers to lose their control over what they are making, they need to make money and to do that they have to do what is popular. This is contributing to the loss of the creative portion of fashion on the designers end and the consumer end.
New York Fashion Week, a popular event among celebrities and any regular civilian alike has routinely showcased the ignorance of some influencers. Influencers were seen sitting front row at these shows while not even paying attention to the designs. They were either taking videos or frankly just not paying attention and being on their phones
At Paris Fashion Week 2025, Karissa Mitchell described how “I found myself watching the entire collection through someone else’s iPhone screen. The woman seated directly in front of me was holding her phone high, live-streaming the runway”. This begs the question of influencers truly paying attention to what they are seeing. Influencers are hindering not just their ability to enjoy the show but also everyone else’s.
Influencers do have positive effects on brands, when they make a video about something it brings the brand more revenue from the trend they have created, which is presented as a good impact on fashion brands ability to stay in business. In addition many influencers are not actually rude at all and are actually respectful.
However, if that is the case, why are we constantly seeing this issue pop up across different countries, fashion shows, and fashion weeks. If it’s not a problem people like Alix Earl should be seen off their phones enjoying the runway and promoting the true designers online. We don’t see that, influencers like Alix Earl and Addison Rae have been spotted at multiple high fashion shows not even paying attention, among other influencers doing the same.
The overconsumption habits, disrespectful actions at shows, and fast fashion use by influencers is harming the fashion industry and its art. Even if influencers are seen as a wonderful investment of company money from a marketing standpoint. What does that mean for the designer’s art?
In the future, fashion brands’ marketing team which decide guest lists should pivot towards filling their front rows with true creative fashion influencers, and people who will appreciate the art for what it is. Not through a phone lens or a livestream, just from one’s own eyes. You yourself can try to shop sustainably, avoid brands like Shein or Forever 21 which are notorious for stealing designs. Everyone has their own personal style and it’s important we all stay true to our creativity.
The App That Made Us Feel Less Alone
Rediscovering Native Culture in a Society That Overlooks It
Get Influencers Out of the Front Row
By Paul Vong
My first experience with the live mobile game show occurred around August of 2018 when I found out about a new game called HQ Trivia.
Every weekday at noon and 6pm, I’d grab my phone, launch the app, and hop on to the nicely animated lobby while the game’s expertly crafted music filled the room. Then at around game time, I’d h
By Paul Vong
My first experience with the live mobile game show occurred around August of 2018 when I found out about a new game called HQ Trivia.
Every weekday at noon and 6pm, I’d grab my phone, launch the app, and hop on to the nicely animated lobby while the game’s expertly crafted music filled the room. Then at around game time, I’d hear the countdown start with the words: “And now, very soon…,” and the timer which counted down at a quicker pace than normal.
The intro would play, and a stand-up comedian in a nice suit would appear to talk over the rules and present the jackpot for that game, which was usually around $5,000 a game.
The questions would come after, easy at the start, but they’d get harder and more people dropped out after answering incorrectly. The game would occasionally wipe out a large group of people on one question, leading the host to declare it a Savage Question, along with a nicely animated graphic.
It would glitch every once in a while, which sometimes tripped me up. I didn’t win this first time around, but for me, the experience was exhilarating. The game then grew due to word of mouth, and then it started failing in front of a live audience.
Many people online share the same experience with me, all hopping on at relatively the same time just to escape reality for 15 minutes or so every day, and also to make a little something for our time and effort.
I’ve seen comments from people reminiscing over the game on social media, sharing their past wins, and the frustrations with the money they believed they were still entitled to after all these years. Despite that, general memories are positive.
Today, we really don’t have something to fill that gap, the need for escape, or at least to the caliber that HQ was able to bring us each night. We could use something like it again, especially in today’s fractured world.
It’s known that social media isn’t very social, with many citing it as a reason for their declining mental state. So how could HQ even work?
The game was live, and that you were really competing with others, and the prize made playing the game worthwhile. Families and friends would get together and pool their answers in the hopes of having someone win.
Then there came the copycat games that tried to steal the spotlight away from them. SwagIQ, Confetti, and The Q, the list simply goes on.
It’s sad to see regardless, but many of these knock off games simply couldn’t exist for too long. But HQ was bound to start failing soon for another reason. Player count dropped week after week until it went under 100K and never recovered.
They’d add new features and power ups, which they later sold. Then there was talk of a subscription service for their spinoff game, Words, which never materialized. Sponsors stopped promoting their products, and the game still had its trademark bugs and glitches.
After all that, people would still play. I would know, since I stuck around to see what would happen. Some at this point started to experience light burnout. The developers expected this from its players, so they started toying with the format.
Me and my Discord friends certainly found this out for the first time ourselves too, and they continued to play not only because the game itself was fun, but also because it was nice to hang around with other people who share an interest in the thing you loved too.
It seems that everyone was playing with those around them, making HQ a really social experience that no other game has tried to capture to that scale since.
“[Game shows] are looking to find their unique twists in that formula and capture people’s imagination, and HQ was able to scratch that itch in a unique way that it hadn’t happened before,” said game show author Mike Miley.
Alyssa Bereznak of the Ringer podcast “Boom/Bust: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia” had this to say, “It was filling an entertainment need that most people didn’t even know they had.”
HQ and other games kept peoples’ attention, which is especially important in today’s world. Despite this, HQ shut down in February 2020.
In March of that year, an pandemic held many indoors. Later that month, HQ surprisingly came back from the dead for more games. There was an audience again, so much that many say that HQ would’ve been a bigger success thanks to this new captive audience.
It wasn’t. Not that many people showed up, people instead entertained themselves through new streaming services and saw no interest.
HQ shut down again the next year, only being open for non-official games which themselves were later shut down after the developers closed the game’s mainframe.
Streaming offered audiences the ability to watch whatever they wanted whenever, something that HQ tried to emulate with their daily challenge, a short hostless quiz that was playable every six hours. But nothing they tried could work.
This was sad news for people like me, we’d stuck it out until the last game. And now it and others like it were gone. Everyone was on their own thing now.
I’d joined a Discord group earlier on in my time playing as I couldn’t find anyone in my household that’d be interested in playing, and there we supported each other towards large, and mostly small wins. I’d be there practically every day, and I’d stick around after losing to help those still in.
After HQ failed, people started to leave. I recall there were only about five of us left in late 2020. Even though we weren’t really together in person, it still felt nice to interact with those who shared the same interest in the game as much as I have.
Chances are that you’d be there not only for the 6pm game on HQ, but notice that there were others just like it and check those out too. And if you needed help, there’d be at least one other person there who’d be playing too for support.
“Even with the bounty of content available to choose from today, there’s still a hunger for something participatory. As the game got bigger, having that reminder that thousands — eventually millions — of people were doing the same exact thing, at the same exact time, was just thrilling,” said Bereznak.
A common issue cited with the game was its payment system, which had a hard time paying out with small winnings, and barely paid out for large winnings.
A lot of this issue can be tied to the game’s poor management and funding attempts, HQ could’ve benefitted with good backers, and better management and payment system. It was just dealt a bad hand of cards in every situation.
Since then, multiple apps have popped up with live games once again including the previously mentioned Daily Trivia Live, along with Savvy (cofounded and hosted by original HQ host Scott Rogowsky), and Netflix’s recently launched Best Guess Live.
It’s too early to tell how long these new games will go for and for what reason, but the live chats on these games still show interest. These new games still bring back good memories, memories of time spent with others.
If such a thing like HQ came back and became just as popular, mobile trivia night might just become a community affair worth setting time out of our busy days for again on that once packed Discord server we called home for so long.
I still believe live shows are still relatively successful formats, especially in a time where people like me feel disconnected with others more than ever.
Many of us are still hoping for that day, we still have the HQ app on our phones despite it being of no use any more since early 2025. Fingers crossed though.
When Online Bullying Follows You Offline
By Avery Hayes
Leaning against the wall in an empty hallway with your friends, it's lunch time and today you pull an apple out of your bag and take a bite. Your “friend” looks you up and down and then turns away and whispers into another “friend’s” ear, they giggle and shoot belittling stares at you. You move on, try your best to ignore them, but they’re on their third stare and laugh when you start talking about your excitement for the upcoming thanksgiving break. They talk over you, can’t hold eye contact with you, and act like you are something less than human for some unknown reason. These, in my experience, are the effects of chronic social media use bleeding into everyday life.
Social media, a tool for learning, a place to show off dance routines, life updates in massive dumps of photographs, a way to stay connected, has created a disconnect. It seems like constant connection through apps like snapchat and imessage would strengthen friendships, but it has normalized dehumanization in a way that goes beyond cyberbullying.
Technology and social media have normalized dehumanizing people both in online spaces and in person. Being behind a screen gives you a sense that you can say anything you want because you cannot see the human in front of you. This bleeds into real life so that people view you as less than human, they see you as their iphone, another screen to scream at.
People have become so used to sitting in a dark room at 2 in the morning typing away insults to people they’ve never met. These people do this so often that they become so comfortable with being mean. The bully doesn’t see the tears dropping on the other side of the screen, the long stares in the mirror of ‘I’m not enough’ or simply the change of expression when they read the comments. This all preps the bully for when they make negative comments in real life. They can subconsciously block out the change in expression and the pain that the person feels.
“The online disinhibition effect,” an article by John Suler, says that people act more openly online due to the feeling of separation between one's usual identity and their online identity. The research showed that people felt more of their “true selfs” online.
Being a teenager and using social media helps to understand what both the bully and the victim are going through. You can see how easy it is to give into the impulse of hurting someone in person because of your social media use. You can see how hard it is to be the victim, the frustration, the sadness, the heaviness you carry.
Trends like the “flip the camera trend” and humiliation based content are only adding to the problem. This creates a thought in the bullies mind that bullying is normal. Trends like these display the victims as less than human. It normalizes treating other people in the world as if they aren’t humans.
An article published by “Phycology Today,” says, “Research informs that when any form of bullying or social humiliation becomes social or societal entertainment, society risks losing its moral compass.”
This means that the more trendy humiliation based content becomes, the closer we move to an unsympathetic society full of bullies looking for their next like on TikTok. It shows us that people enjoy this content. People think it's funny online and trends like “flip the camera” are filmed in person, the people are being exploited in person. The bullies aren’t removed or isolated from the situation, they are 2 feet in front of the victim.
People feed off of each other, they look for approval. When others are being mean, it makes them feel like it's ok to be mean. When videos get tons of likes for mean, dehumanizing content, it allows others to feel ok about being mean. This is groupthink, the idea that since everyone else is doing something, you can do it too.
The article “Cyberbullying and Groupthink,” published by Penn State, talks about how groupthink influences bullying. They say that it leads to groups of people bullying one person or a minority and how all of the bullies can feel so sound in what they are saying because they have a whole “army” behind them.
When you were sitting in the hallway, simply talking to your friends, they felt they could be mean to you. They were able to stare and laugh at you because it's two vs. one. That makes them feel comfortable showing their online personality, their true personality.
Sceptics say that social media is a tool that connects people and builds communities. They believe that it is doing more good than harm.
Before social media was here, people were able to make strong lasting connections and flourishing communities. Social media is not necessary for communities to be formed. Research from Stanford University in the article “Why is social connection so hard for gen Z” states that the media ecosystem makes it difficult for teens to connect. This means that on some levels, bonds are being strengthened through social media apps, but for the most part social media is making it harder for teens to connect in person.
To change what is happening and stop the normalization of dehumanization social media platforms need to be aware of the humiliation based content and take it down. When the algorithm or the people in charge of apps like Tiktok and Instagram notice that there are dehumanizing trends or videos being posted, they need to take them down. This will help stop the spread of meanness in the media.
Back in the hallway, the cool breeze coming through the open door. Your friends don’t laugh as often, they don’t see as much hateful content anymore. Since you don’t see as much hateful content anymore, you are able to recognize that maybe they have something going on in their lives that you don’t see.
Behind the Ring Light: How the Law Fails Child Influencers
By Jazzalyn Perez-Arreguin
Do you ever imagine what goes on behind the scenes of teenage content creators? Management companies should not be targeting and exploiting young creators for the satisfaction of any audience. No one holds any of the management accountable for the trauma they cause these teens.
One of the biggest victims is Piper Rockelle. Piper is a big example of how money-hungry people will drown a child in this industry. "Virtually every step of Rockelle's success was engineered by her mother, Tiffany Smith, who invited a number of aspiring child stars to join her daughter in front of the camera. But as time went on, several members of 'The Squad' as well as their parents began to feel that something was seriously wrong," according to the documentary on Piper Rockelle's story.
Piper's mother Tiffany and her boyfriend Hunter were the ones managing all of the content being created. Tiffany's ideas for these videos became more eye-opening and uncomfortable for the kids and parents to watch. Once Piper became a teenager, her content shifted to the stereotypical teen girl drama such as videos about boys and having a crush or drama with friends, but something was always off about these videos. What the girls were told to say or wear was super off-putting.
In January of 2022, 11 former squad members filed a $22 million lawsuit against Tiffany and Hunter alleging emotional, physical, and sexual abuse as well as child labor violations and lack of compensation. Specific allegations detailed inappropriate sexual comments towards minors, and one member alleged sexual assault done by Tiffany Smith. Several minors claimed Smith touched them inappropriately, and Corinne Joy alleged Tiffany suggested she perform oral sex on Hunter Hill when Joy was just 11 years old. Tiffany and Hunter faced a civil lawsuit which resulted in a $1.85 million settlement, but they have not been charged with any crimes related to the allegations of abuse.
Another example is the family channel "8 Passengers," run by Ruby Franke. The videos detailed household activities and showed the organized chaos of a large family which many viewers found relatable and inspiring. The family's content often centered around their strict religious principles and loving Mormon family's daily life, but was later widely reinterpreted as child exploitation, verbal and physical abuse, and extreme, harmful parenting practices. The children were frequently denied food for days at a time as punishment. They were bound with ropes, chains, and handcuffs, resulting in deep lacerations and open wounds. Franke also described in her journal nearly suffocating her son and poking her daughter with a "cactus poker."
Unlike traditional child actors, child influencers or "kidfluencers" are not covered by existing state or federal child labor laws, leaving them without protections regarding working hours, set conditions, or the safeguarding of their earnings. As one policy analysis notes, "The Kidfluencer Protection Act recognizes the difference between a parent casually sharing images of their children online and someone who has turned the images of their children into a business."
Some argue that family vlogging is harmless entertainment that brings joy to millions of viewers and provides financial stability for families. They point to the many family channels where children appear happy and parents seem responsible.
However, behind closed doors, we cannot know what is really happening. The cases of Piper Rockelle and Ruby Franke show how easily exploitation can hide behind smiling faces on camera. The LaBrant family, another popular family of YouTubers, has also faced online criticism for child exploitation, pranks, and controversial statements. "Parents Cole and Savannah have received backlash for exploiting their children for profit, views, and attention. Critics argue that the parents have consistently prioritized monetizing their children's lives over their privacy and emotional well-being."
Some states are finally taking action. In 2024, Illinois became the first state to expand its child labor laws to cover child influencers and vloggers. In 2025, Utah passed similar legislation in response to a case of child abuse from a vlogging family. California's new child influencer laws expand protections for children who perform in online content: "Content creators who feature minors in at least 30 percent of their content must deposit 65 percent of the minor's gross earnings into a trust account for when they reach adulthood."
These laws should have been passed long ago to keep these children safe instead of giving parents the opportunity to exploit them. Child labor law needs to cover the children who are being exploited on vlogging apps, not just traditional actors. All platforms should not allow parents to have their kids running any of their pages alone. Everyone should feel safe around their parents and not feel like they are only used for financial income.
Management companies should not be targeting and exploiting young creators for the satisfaction of any audience. I want there to be a firm law to keep these children safe. The operators of social media apps should also be held accountable for not having direct rules on any of these cases. No one holds any of the management accountable for the trauma they cause these teens—and that needs to change.
Canceled Today, Forgotten Tomorrow
By Ivett Tiscareno
A simple post or an old tweet can trigger a massive form of outrage. It's kind of safe to say at some point in your life you have a high but yet low percent chance of being canceled yourself. 40% of Americans as of 2022 fear that the “cancel culture” could risk their job or education. People argue that canceling is a necessary step towards holding people accountable, but the reality is far more complicated. Online platforms in the form of social media move so fast that misinformation moves quicker than the truth. Many online users join in on cancelling someone without fact-checking, as a result of the culture shifting from accountability to acting out on impulse actions and reactions based on incomplete and misinformation.
One reason culture gained popularity is that many people believe it brings necessary attention to harmful behavior and actions that are made public when someone with influence does something offensive. Calling them out can pressure them to take responsibility, or they don't have a long-lasting negative impact. A perfect example is Kanye West, now legally named Ye. Ye has faced many instances of backlash ever since his mental health has declined over the years, taking a turn in 2022. People all over social media have debated whether or not what he says should be taken seriously. From saying explicit antisemitic remarks on Twitter to misogyny and more. Despite this, his popular fashion brand Yeezy has maintained much of its hype, actually, in fact, spiking his sales even more. Raising questions about how effective cancel culture truly is when fame and influence are involved, in which the public's response did not match the cancellation at all. The Yeezys’ demand actually increased after the controversy, according to reports from Resale platforms like Goat and StockX; both saw nearly a 30% spike in searches and prices, turning Yeezys into high-value collectors' items.
This demonstrates how the public actually cares so little about the controversy that they continue supporting these brands, even when the founder is openly problematic. It's not a real cancellation at all, just temporary outrage that quickly fades.
Cancel culture often fails because it prioritizes public performance over real accountability, Instead of creating genuine change, it pushes people online to join the “hate train” and continue to broadcast their outrage and disapproval online simply to feel morally justified for taking a stand, but as soon as the attention fades, most of that outrage disappears with it. Celebrities and influencers know this cycle well; many don't address the criticism at all. They just wait for the backlash to lose momentum and then return to their usual routines. In the end, there's no real system of accountability, no space for growth, no meaningful path towards repairing the harm that was caused.
This pattern becomes even clearer when looking at real cases, such as James Franco. A well-known American Actor and filmmaker. After allegations against him circulated over the internet regarding sexual misconduct allegations, online backlash surged, but the conversation quickly disappeared just as fast once acknowledged that James Franco himself was denying the allegations, taking a step back from acting and staying out of the spotlight. According to nprkqed.org, he later broke his silence in 2021 and admitted to his behavior as a way to begin rebuilding his career. His slow return was later accepted and fully ignored by the public, which shows how many public figures simply wait for the backlash to fade before reentering the industry, highlighting how canceled culture rarely produces long-term accountability.
Ultimately, Franco's experiences reflect a much larger issue, making an image that the public moves on and the issue fades over time when his gradual return shows how public figures simply wait for the anger to die down before reentering the industry proving how quickly the public forgets and how cancel culture, despite being intense is the moment, isn't taken seriously enough to create a long lasting effect of accountability.
A clear example of how quickly misinformation spreads online is the case of Mitski, a singer-songwriter who was suddenly hit with extreme accusations of sexual abuse to a fan, projecting on platforms like Tumblr and Reddit. These allegations appeared days after she had stepped away from social media, leaving her unable to immediately respond. Music Journalist Payton Thomas examined the claims, found multiple inconsistencies and spoke to all parties involved, and ultimately concluded the story was fabricated. Miski later reactivated her social media accounts to deny the allegations herself. The public was quick to judge, turning these baseless rumors into viral accusations within hours. This rushed response turns cancelling into an impulsive trend rather than a thoughtful process, supporting the idea that social media encourages snap judgements instead of real accountability. In the end, the speed of the internet creates noise, not solutions, and the issue gets buried as soon as the next viral controversy appears. Spreading misinformation can easily damage reputations in today's online environment.
Some people argue that canceling culture is necessary because it is the only real power ordinary people have to hold celebrities and influencers accountable. In a world where the rich and famous often escape consequences, public backlash can feel like the only form of justice available. The details behind canceling are understandable; people want to protect others from harm, call out wrongdoing, and demand responsibility when traditional systems fail to do so, so it's a call to action.
While canceling culture may seem like the only way for ordinary people to hold the powerful accountable, and protect others from harm, this system discourages future implications for growth but creates fear, which leads to fake apologies and no genuine learning, true accountability requires conversation and education, not instant punishment.
Ultimately, cancel culture has shifted from a tool of accountability to a cycle of impulsive judgment fueled by misinformation and rapid online reactions.
If we want a society that values truth over impulse, we must slow down and pause before we join the backlash on social media, real change doesn't need to come from hashtags or instant backlash, focus on approaches that create long term change, an effective alternative is having respectful conversations allow a person to understand why their actions were harmful without being publicly attacked, this leads to genuine learning rather than fear or defensiveness, Another important step is fact checking before reacting, since misinformation spreads extremely fast online and can ruin someone's reputation before the truth is even known. By choosing education, communication and verified information over instant outrage, we promote healthier and more responsible ways of dealing with disagreement.
Should 16 year olds be able to vote?
By: Christopher Gallegos
For a while now people (more specifically teens) have been wanting to vote and it’s been seen as a trend for teens to get more into politics. People have been wondering if the voting age should be lowered to 16 so that younger people can start to learn more about politics. With this change, it could and most likely change how politics work and how they are looked at. Have you ever wondered to yourself how voting as a minor could possibly change things for you and for politics? These are some opinions on why people think the voting age should be lowered.
As you know, the normal age for someone to vote is and has to be 18. To some other people, it isn’t at all fair to them since they want their voice to be heard. Discussing on whether or not the voting age should be lowered could have an impact on a lot of people, mostly those of the age of 16 or around that age. The cause could really help younger people really understand how it works and what politics really are. It’s well thought out that if minors were able to vote, they would most likely increase the likelihood of teens becoming adults.
A main reason why 16 year olds should be able to vote is that between the ages 16-17 most people are seen as adults at that age. Along with people thinking that those in between the age of 16-17 are old enough to be ready to vote. With research showing that they have the necessary civic knowledge, skills and cognitive abilities to vote responsibly.
With 16 year olds being able to vote, it's able to strengthen their civics education. It helps provide students by making them more effective as providing students, its also a way to directly apply what they’re learning in the classrooms in their communities. It could also encourage schools to implement higher quality civic education programs given its immediate implications on student lives.
The voting age being lowered increases voter turnout and develops lifelong voting habits. With students learning more about government and civics in highschool it’ll lead to a higher turnout for 16-17 year olds as others help surpass obstacles as first time voters. With young people voting, it could encourage their parents and other adults in a way to vote, increasing the overall vote turnout rate. It is also said by researchers that people who participate in elections when they first reach the legal age that they are likely to develop the habit of voting. (Procon.org, lowering the voting age, 11/8/23)
As we have seen, it is highly recommended that the voting age should be lowered to the age of 16. With the cause bringing in good effects, along with how theres been a trend of teens getting more involved in politics. Along with how most 16 year olds are ready to vote since most are seen as adults, and with how its able to strengthen their civics education. This is why the voting age should be lowered to 16.
