Lady Gaga performs at Copacabana Beach on May 3, 2025, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Kevin Mazur/WireImage for Live NationDavid Nemer, University of Virginia and Arthur Coelho Bezerra, Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (Ibict) The more than 2 million people who attended Lady Gaga’s free concert on Copacabana Beach on May 3, 2025, had no idea of a plot that, if successful, would have turned the event into a tragedy fueled by hate. Just hours before a sea of admirers waved fans in sync with the singer during the event, the Rio de Janeiro Civil Police thwarted a planned attack involving Molotov cocktails and improvised bombs – and targeting the American singer’s LGBTQ following. Two people have since been arrested over the plot, which was organized by users of digital platforms such as Discord. The intent, authorities say, was radicalizing and recruiting teenagers to carry out the planned attack. Those responsible hoped to entice these young people into actions that would gain online notoriety.More than 2 million people are said to have attended the Lady Gaga concert in Rio.Daniel Ramalho/AFP via Getty Images Although authorities were able to prevent the attack, the incident stands as a stark warning about the growth of hate networks among youth − and how platforms fuel the radicalization of teenagers, especially boys and young men. As experts in the anthropology of technologyand information science, we see something deeply generational about this phenomenon. The recent Netflix series “Adolescence” broke viewership records by portraying an environment in which young people live in hyperconnected online spheres, absent of state oversight and parental supervision. In these spheres, bullying toxic masculinity permeates, and violence – often targeted at women and sexual minorities – is normalized. The show was set in the U.K., but it holds up a mirror to the world. Data from polling company Gallup reveals a growing ideological divide between young men and women in Gen Z across the globe. Too often, that divide, in which young men and boys are turning against progressive values, is being expressed through actions associated with the “manosphere,” such as misogyny and incel behavior.
Platforms for hate
In the United States, women aged 18 to 30 are now 30 percentage points more liberal than their male counterparts, according to Gallup’s surveys. In Germany, where a right-wing coalition recently won national elections and the extreme-right AfD party is rising in popularity at an alarming rate, the gap is also 30 points. In Poland, although the far-right left power at the end of 2023 after eight years, nearly half of men ages 18 to 21 support far-right parties − compared with just one-sixth of women in the same age range. This polarization is emerging just as online platforms such as Discord, TikTok and Reddit have become formative spaces of identity. Instead of promoting diversity, however, many of these platforms have been used as machines for producing and spreading hate. The 2021 study Mapping Discord’s Darkside, published in the journal New Media & Society, shows that despite marketing efforts to distance itself from the far right, Discord hosts thousands of servers associated with neo-Nazi, misogynistic, racist, transphobic and conspiratorial discourse. Researchers identified 2,741 such servers − with more than 850,000 active members. These networks end up functioning as recruitment hubs, where young people − especially boys − are lured in by edgy memes, promises of belonging and identity games based on excluding others. Discord’s structure, which prioritizes privacy and decentralization, has become fertile ground for the emergence of what scholar Adrienne Massanari calls “toxic technocultures.” Services such as Disboard − an informal search engine for Discord servers − are used to recruit teens into communities that glorify Nazism, encourage hatred toward women and people from the LGBTQ+ community, and even offer “services” for coordinated attacks on other servers. And this appears to be the case in the thwarted attack on the Lady Gaga concert.
Presenting a challenge
A significant factor in the success of these radicalizing environments is gamification − the use of gamelike elements such as challenges, rewards and leaderboards in nongame contexts. When applied to social networks and extremist forums, gamification turns engagement into competition and hate speech into a playful challenge. This practice makes the entrance into extremism more palatable for young, impressionable people by masking violence behind seemingly harmless mechanics. As noted in the European Commission’s 2021 report Gamification and Online Hate Speech, gamification has become a powerful tool for normalizing and spreading hate, particularly among young people seeking recognition and belonging. This process, known as “bottom-up gamification,” occurs when users create the rules, symbolic rewards and challenges. For example, by turning hate speech into “challenges” that involve humiliating women or people from the LGBTQ+ community online, the dehumanization of targets is presented in playful, viral ways.
Turning hate into entertainment
The investigation into the foiled attack on Lady Gaga’s Copacabana concert revealed exactly this mechanism: The attack was treated as a “collective challenge,” with youths recruited to build Molotov cocktails and explosive backpacks in order to gain notoriety on social media. The logic of gamification also creates a structure of “achievement” and “scoring” that fosters competition and reinforces radical ideology. As shown in the 2022 study by criminologists Suraj Lakhani and Susann Wiedlitzka, attacks such as the 2019 mosque attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, in which 51 people were killed, were planned and executed with strong inspiration from gaming, including live broadcasts similar to “Let’s Play” sessions, in which people offer live commentary during walk-throughs of games, typically first-person shooting games, and viewer comments that treat the number of deaths as a “score.”More than 50 people were killed in the terrorist attack on Christchurch mosques in New Zealand on March 15, 2019.Omer Kablan/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images This aestheticization of violence serves as a bonding element among young men in digital spaces, especially those who already feel marginalized or frustrated and who find in these games of hate a sense of belonging and affirmation. In this way, gamification transforms hate into entertainment, strengthening ties in toxic communities and making it harder to recognize the behavior as extremism.
Turning a generation off hate
Society is, we believe, facing a dual challenge: the need for moderation of platforms and for support for measures preventing men and boys from being drawn into toxic digital spaces. The gender divide within Gen Z is no small matter, too. It reflects, in broad terms, a rift between a generation of young women who, empowered by #MeToo and other feminist movements, have embraced progressive causes, and a generation of men who, threatened by their perceived diminished power in this new environment, are being co-opted by far-right and misogynistic discourse in digital spaces. This gap has real consequences in personal relationships, in schools and for democracy at large. But it also reveals something that we believe must be stated clearly: Platform regulation is not just a technical issue. The future of a generation cannot be built on algorithms that reward hate and radicalization. This article is a translated and adapted version of a story that was originally published by The Conversation Brazil on May 8, 2025.David Nemer, Associate Professor in the Department of Media Studies, University of Virginia and Arthur Coelho Bezerra, Professor titular, Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (Ibict) This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Harkins Theatres Announces Rob Reiner Tribute Screening on December 17
Rob Reiner Tribute: Harkins Theatres will host a special $5 screening of The American President on December 17 to honor filmmaker Rob Reiner, with all proceeds benefiting the Human Rights Campaign.
Harkins Theatres Announces Rob Reiner Tribute Screening of The American President
Harkins Theatres has announced a special one-day tribute screening honoring acclaimed filmmaker Rob Reiner, celebrating his life’s work and cinematic legacy.
On December 17, select Harkins locations will screen Reiner’s 1995 political romance The American President, with all proceeds benefiting the Human Rights Campaign. Tickets are priced at $5, making the event both an accessible film experience and a charitable fundraiser.
The tribute was announced via Harkins’ official, verified social media accounts and is positioned as a legacy celebration, not a memorial.
🎥 Why The American President?
Released in 1995 and written by Aaron Sorkin, The American President stars Michael Douglas and Annette Bening and remains one of Rob Reiner’s most politically resonant films. The movie blends romance, idealism, and civic responsibility — themes that have consistently appeared throughout Reiner’s career.
The film later served as a creative blueprint for The West Wing, cementing its place in modern political storytelling.
Rob Reiner’s career spans more than five decades, including landmark films such as:
This Is Spinal Tap
Stand By Me
The Princess Bride
When Harry Met Sally…
Misery
A Few Good Men
His work is often praised for balancing entertainment, empathy, and social conscience, making tribute events like this especially meaningful to longtime audiences.
Hollywood Legend Rob Reiner and Wife Found Dead; Son in Custody
Renowned filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, were found dead in their Los Angeles home in a reported homicide. Police have arrested their son in connection with the case, and tributes are pouring in.
Director Rob Reiner participates in a discussion following a screening of the film LBJ at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas on Saturday October 22, 2016 On Saturday evening October 22, 2016, the LBJ Presidential Library held a sneak peek of Rob Reiner’s new filmÊLBJ, starring Woody Harrelson as the 36th president. The film, which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, chronicles the life and times of Lyndon Johnson who would inherit the presidency at one of the most fraught moments in American history. Following the screening, director Rob Reiner, actor Woody Harrelson, and writer Joey Hartstone joined LBJ Library Director Mark Updegrove on stage for a conversation about the film. LBJ Library photo by Jay Godwin 10/22/2016
Hollywood Legend Rob Reiner and Wife Found Dead; Son in Custody
December 15, 2025
Renowned filmmaker and actor Rob Reiner, 78, and his wife Michele Singer Reiner, 68, were found dead in their Brentwood, Los Angeles home on Sunday, authorities say. Emergency responders were called to the residence Sunday afternoon, where both were discovered with fatal wounds consistent with a stabbing. Police are treating the case as a double homicide.
Los Angeles police arrested the couple’s 32-year-old son, Nick Reiner, in connection with the deaths. He is being held in custody as investigators continue to piece together the circumstances surrounding the incident.
2016 SAMHSA Voice Awards
Reiner was one of Hollywood’s most influential figures, known for his work as a director, producer and actor. His career spanned decades, from early television fame to directing beloved films that shaped American cinema.
Friends, colleagues and public figures have begun sharing tributes and reactions to the news as the investigation is ongoing.
More details will be updated as they become available.
FDA’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Claims Lack Solid Evidence—Why Overreaction Could Harm Public Health
COVID-19 vaccine safety: The FDA’s claims about COVID-19 vaccine deaths in children lack strong evidence and could restrict vaccine access. Learn why experts say VAERS reports aren’t proof, and how overreacting may harm public health and trust in vaccines.
The death of children due to an unsafe vaccine is a serious allegation. I am a pediatric cardiologist who has studied the link between COVID-19 vaccines and heart-related side effects such as myocarditis in children. To my knowledge, studies to date have shown such side effects are rare, and severe outcomes even more so. However, I am open to new evidence that could change my mind. But without sufficient justification and solid evidence, restricting access to an approved vaccine and changing well-established procedures for testing vaccines would carry serious consequences. These moves would limit access for patients, create roadblocks for companies and worsen distrust in vaccines and public health. In my view, it’s important for people reading about these FDA actions to understand how the evidence on a vaccine’s safety is generally assessed.
Determining cause of death
The FDA memo claims that the deaths of these children were directly related to receiving a COVID-19 immunization. From my perspective as a clinician, it is awful that any child should die from a routine vaccination. However, health professionals like me owe it to the public to uphold the highest possible standards in investigating why these deaths occurred. If the FDA has evidence demonstrating something that national health agencies worldwide have missed – widespread child deaths due to myocarditis caused by the COVID-19 vaccine – I don’t doubt that even the most pro-vaccine physician will listen. So far, however, no such evidence has been presented. While a death logged in VAERS is a starting point, on its own it is insufficient to conclude whether a vaccine caused the death or other medical causes were to blame. To demonstrate a causal link, FDA staff and physicians must align the VAERS report with physicians’ assessments of the patient, as well as data from other sources for monitoring vaccine safety. These include PRISM, which logs insurance claims data, and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which tracks safety signals in electronic medical records. It’s known that most deaths logged only in VAERS of children who recently received vaccines have been incorrectly attributed to the vaccines – either by accident or in some cases on purpose by anti-vaccine activists.
Heart-related side effects of COVID-19 vaccines
In his Substack and Twitter accounts, Prasad has said that he believes the rate of severe cardiac side effects after COVID-19 vaccination is severely underestimated and that the vaccines should be restricted far more than they currently are. In a July 2025 presentation, Prasad quoted a risk of 27 cases per million of myocarditis in young men who received the COVID-19 vaccine. A 2024 review suggested that number was a bit lower – about 20 cases out of 1 million people. But that same study found that unvaccinated people had greater risk of heart problems after a COVID-19 infection than vaccinated people. In a different study, people who got myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccination developed fewer complications than people who got myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection. Existing vaccine safety infrastructure in the U.S. successfully identifies dangers posed by vaccines – and did so during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, most COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. rely on mRNA technology. But as vaccines were first emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic, two pharmaceutical companies, Janssen and AstraZeneca, rolled out a vaccine that used a different technology, called a viral vector. This type of vaccine had a very rare but genuine safety problem that was detected.A report in VAERS is at most a first step to determining whether a vaccine caused harm. VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, clinical investigators in the U.S. and their European counterparts detected that these vaccines did turn out to cause blood clotting. In April 2021, the FDA formally recommended pausing their use, and they were later pulled from the market. Death due to myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination is exceedingly rare. Demonstrating that it occurred requires proof that the person had myocarditis, evidence that no other reasonable cause of death was present, and the absence of any additional cause of myocarditis. These factors cannot be determined from VAERS data, however – and to date, the FDA has presented no other relevant data.
A problematic vision for future vaccine approvals
Currently, vaccines are tested both by seeing how well they prevent disease and by how well they generate antibodies, which are the molecules that help your body fight viruses and bacteria. Some vaccines, such as the COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, need to be updated based on new strains. The FDA generally approves these updates based on how well the new versions generate antibodies. Since the previous generation of vaccines was already shown to prevent infection, if the new version can generate antibodies like the previous one, researchers assume its ability to prevent infection is comparable too. Later studies can then test how well the vaccines prevent severe disease and hospitalization. The FDA memo says this approach is insufficient and instead argues for replacing such studies with many more placebo-controlled trials – not just for COVID-19 vaccines but also for widely used influenza and pneumonia vaccines. That may seem reasonable theoretically. In practice, however, it is not realistic. Today’s influenza vaccines must be changed every season to reflect mutations to the virus. If the FDA were to require new placebo-controlled trials every year, the vaccine being tested would become obsolete by the time it is approved. This would be a massive waste of time and resources.Influenza vaccines must be updated for every flu season.Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images Plus Also, detecting vaccine-related myocarditis at the low rate at which it occurs would have required clinical trials many times larger than the ones that were done to approve COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. This would have cost at least millions of dollars more, and the delay in rolling out vaccines would have also cost lives. Placebo-controlled trials would require comparing people who receive the updated vaccine with people who remain unvaccinated. When an older version of the vaccine is already available, this means purposefully asking people to forgo that vaccine and risk infection for the sake of the trial, a practice that is widely considered unethical. Current scientific practice is that only a brand-new vaccine may be compared against placebo. While suspected vaccine deaths should absolutely be investigated, stopping a vaccine for insufficient reasons can lead to a significant drop in public confidence. That’s why it’s essential to thoroughly and transparently investigate any claims that a vaccine causes harm.
David Nemer, Associate Professor in the Department of Media Studies, University of Virginia and Arthur Coelho Bezerra, Professor titular, Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (Ibict) This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
