At first glance, the videos seem harmless enough.

Clean subways gliding into spotless stations. Neon skylines glowing at night. Clips of high-speed trains, cashless stores, orderly crowds. Overlaid text reads something like, “Meanwhile in China…” or “They figured it out.”

This is “Chinamaxxing,” a loosely defined but increasingly visible social media trend where mostly young users frame China as a model of efficiency, stability, and modernity—often in contrast to life in the West.

What makes the trend notable isn’t just its subject, but its tone. Chinamaxxing is rarely explicit political advocacy. It’s not a manifesto. It’s a mood. Aesthetic admiration blended with subtle critique, delivered through short, visually compelling clips that invite comparison without context.

And that’s precisely why it has sparked debate.

What Is “Chinamaxxing,” Really?

Despite the provocative name, Chinamaxxing isn’t a coordinated movement or ideology. It’s better understood as an algorithm-driven pattern—a recurring style of content that rewards certain visuals and emotional cues.

Most Chinamaxxing content emphasizes:

• Infrastructure and urban design
• Technology embedded in daily life
• Perceived order and efficiency
• Implicit contrast with Western dysfunction

What it typically omits:

• Political repression and censorship
• State surveillance
• Limits on speech and dissent
• The lived diversity of Chinese experiences

The result is a highly curated portrayal—less about China as a nation, and more about what viewers want to believe is possible somewhere else.

Why It’s Gaining Traction Now

The rise of Chinamaxxing says as much about the West as it does about China.

For many young users, particularly Gen Z, the backdrop is familiar: rising housing costs, student debt, healthcare anxiety, political polarization, and a growing sense that institutions no longer function as promised.

In that environment, visually persuasive content showing order and functionality carries emotional weight. It offers relief from chaos—real or perceived.

Social platforms amplify this effect. Short-form video rewards clarity, contrast, and immediacy. A clean subway platform communicates more in five seconds than a policy analysis ever could. Nuance does not trend well. Aesthetics do.

Advertisement

The Social and Political Criticism

Critics argue Chinamaxxing crosses a line from curiosity into distortion.

By focusing exclusively on infrastructure and surface-level efficiency, the trend risks:

• Normalizing authoritarian governance through lifestyle framing
• Reducing political systems to consumer experiences
• Ignoring the tradeoffs that make such systems possible

Supporters counter that Western media has long flattened China into a single negative narrative, and that admiration for specific aspects of another society is not the same as endorsing its government.

Both perspectives, however, miss something important.

What the Trend Actually Reveals

Chinamaxxing isn’t primarily about China. It’s about disillusionment.

It reflects a generation that:

• Feels let down by existing systems
• Engages politics emotionally rather than institutionally
• Uses visual culture to express dissatisfaction indirectly

In this context, China becomes a projection surface—not because it is perfect, but because it appears functional.

That distinction matters.

Why This Matters

Chinamaxxing highlights how political understanding is evolving in the digital age. Governance is increasingly consumed not through debate or civic participation, but through comparison clips, memes, and aesthetics.

The risk isn’t admiration. It’s oversimplification.

When complex societies are reduced to visuals alone, public discourse loses depth. But when those visuals resonate, they also signal real unmet needs: stability, competence, and trust in institutions.

Ignoring that signal would be a mistake.

Advertisement

The STM Daily News Perspective

Chinamaxxing is not an endorsement, a conspiracy, or a joke. It is a cultural artifact—one that reflects generational anxiety, algorithmic storytelling, and the widening gap between expectations and reality.

The question it raises isn’t whether China is better.

It’s why so many people feel their own systems are no longer working.

Related Reading

• BBC News: China Coverage and Global Context
• The Atlantic: Technology, Media, and Internet Culture Analysis
• Pew Research Center: Global Attitudes and Political Perception
• The New York Times: China and International Affairs
• Brookings Institution: China Policy and Global Governance

More on This Topic from STM Daily News

Stay tuned to STM Daily News for more stories exploring internet culture, social media trends, and how digital platforms shape public perception. We’ll be publishing in-depth pieces that break down the societal impact of viral phenomena like Chinamaxxing, the psychology behind online political trends, and the evolving language of Gen Z culture.

Want alerts? Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for the latest insights and analysis.

US consumers started 2026 on a noticeably more cautious note. New data from The Conference Board shows its Consumer Confidence Index® fell sharply in January, wiping out a brief December rebound and pushing overall sentiment to its weakest level in more than a decade.

Confidence drops to the lowest level since 2014

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® fell 9.7 points in January to 84.5 (1985=100), down from an upwardly revised 94.2 in December. The organization noted that December’s figure was revised up by 5.1 points, meaning what initially looked like a decline last month was actually a small uptick—before January’s slide reasserted the broader downward trend.

The cutoff for the preliminary January results was January 16, 2026.

Both “right now” and “what’s next” got worse

The decline wasn’t isolated to one part of the survey. Both consumers’ views of current conditions and their expectations for the months ahead weakened.

• Present Situation Index: down 9.9 points to 113.7
• Expectations Index: down 9.5 points to 65.1

That Expectations reading matters because it’s well below 80, a level The Conference Board says “usually signals a recession ahead.”

Dana M. Peterson, Chief Economist at The Conference Board, summed it up bluntly: confidence “collapsed” in January, with all five components deteriorating. The overall Index hit its lowest level since May 2014.

What consumers are worried about (and what’s showing up in write-ins)

The Conference Board said consumers’ write-in responses continued to skew pessimistic. The biggest themes weren’t hard to guess:

• Prices and inflation
• Oil and gas prices
• Food and grocery prices

Mentions of tariffs and trade, politics, and the labor market also rose in January. References to health/insuranceand war edged higher.

In other words: consumers aren’t just feeling uneasy—they’re pointing to specific pressure points that affect day-to-day costs and long-term stability.

Labor market perceptions softened

Consumers’ views of employment conditions weakened, with fewer respondents saying jobs are plentiful and more saying jobs are hard to get.

• 23.9% said jobs were “plentiful,” down from 27.5% in December
• 20.8% said jobs were “hard to get,” up from 19.1%

That shift matters because consumer confidence often follows the labor market. When people feel less secure about job availability, they tend to pull back on big purchases and discretionary spending.

Expectations for business conditions and jobs turned more negative

Looking six months out, pessimism increased:

• 15.6% expected business conditions to improve (down from 18.7%)
• 22.9% expected business conditions to worsen (up from 21.3%)

On jobs:

• 13.9% expected more jobs to be available (down from 17.4%)
• 28.5% anticipated fewer jobs (up from 26.0%)

Income expectations cooled too:

• 15.7% expected incomes to increase (down from 18.8%)
• 12.6% expected incomes to decline (down slightly from 13.0%)

So while fewer people expected their income to fall, the bigger story is that optimism about income growth faded.

Who’s feeling it most: age, income, and politics

On a six-month moving average basis, confidence dipped across:

• All age groups (though under 35 remained more confident than older consumers)
• All generations (with Gen Z still the most optimistic)
• All income brackets (with those earning under $15K the least optimistic)
• All political affiliations (with the sharpest decline among Independents)

This broad-based decline suggests the shift isn’t confined to one demographic pocket—it’s spreading.

Big-ticket buying plans: more “maybe,” less “yes”

The survey also pointed to increased caution around major purchases.

Advertisement

Consumers saying “yes” to buying big-ticket items declined in January, while “maybe” responses rose and “no” edged higher.

• Auto buying plans were flat overall, though expectations for new cars continued to falter and plans to buy used cars climbed.
• Homebuying expectations continued to retreat.
• Plans to purchase appliances, furniture, and TVs decreased.
• Electronics purchase intentions dipped in most categories—except smartphones, which continued trending upward on a six-month moving average basis.

Services spending softened—but restaurants and travel stayed interesting

Planned spending on services over the next six months weakened in January, with fewer consumers saying “yes” and more shifting into “maybe.”

Still, a few categories stood out:

• Restaurants, bars, and take-out remained the top planned services spending category and continued to rise.
• Consumers also intended to spend more on hotels/motels for personal travel, airfare/trains, and motor vehicle services.

The Conference Board noted this was surprising given the plunge in vacation plans—especially for domestic travel—also recorded in the survey.

What to watch next

January’s report paints a clear picture: consumers are feeling squeezed by costs, less confident about the labor market, and more hesitant about major purchases. The Expectations Index dropping deeper below the “recession signal” threshold will likely keep economists, businesses, and policymakers watching the next few releases closely.

The Conference Board publishes the Consumer Confidence Index® at 10 a.m. ET on the last Tuesday of every month.

Source: The Conference Board, January 2026 Consumer Confidence Survey® (PRNewswire release, Jan. 27, 2026).

Jared Bahir Browsh, University of Colorado Boulder

Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl show is part of long play drawn up by NFL to score with Latin America

Donald Trump, it is fair to assume, will be switching channels during this year’s Super Bowl halftime show.

The U.S. president has already said that he won’t be attending Super Bowl LX in person, suggesting that the venue, Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California, was “just too far away.” But the choice of celebrity entertainment planned for the main break – Puerto Rican reggaeton star Bad Bunny and recently announced pregame addition Green Day – didn’t appeal. “I’m anti-them. I think it’s a terrible choice. All it does is sow hatred. Terrible,” Trump told the New York Post.

National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell likely didn’t have the sensibilities of the U.S. president in mind when the choice of Bad Bunny was made.

One of the top artists in the world, Bad Bunny performs primarily in Spanish and has been critical of immigration enforcement, which factored into the backlash in some conservative circles to the choice. Bad Bunny’s anti-ICE comments at this year’s Grammy Awards will have only stoked the ire of some conservatives.

But for the NFL hierarchy, this was likely a business decision, not a political one. The league has its eyes on expansion into Latin America; Bad Bunny, they hope, will be a ratings-winning means to an end. It has made such bets in the past. In 2020, Shakira and Jennifer Lopez were chosen to perform, with Bad Bunny making an appearance. The choice then, too, was seen as controversial.

Raising the flag overseas

As a teacher and scholar of critical sports studies, I study the global growth of U.S.-based sports leagues overseas.

Some, like the National Basketball Association, are at an advantage. The sport is played around the globe and has large support bases in Asia – notably in the Philippines and China – as well as in Europe, Australia and Canada.

The NFL, by contrast, is largely entering markets that have comparatively little knowledge and experience with football and its players.

The league has opted for a multiprong approach to attracting international fans, including lobbying to get flag football into the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.

Playing the field

When it comes to the traditional tackle game, the NFL has held global aspirations for over three-quarters of a century. Between 1950-1961, before they merged, the NFL and American Football League played seven games against teams in Canada’s CFL to strengthen the relationship between the two nations’ leagues.

Developing a fan base south of the border has long been part of the plan.

Advertisement

The first international exhibition game between two NFL teams was supposed to take place in Mexico City in 1968. But Mexican protest over the economy and cost of staging the Olympics that year led the game, between the Detroit Lions and Philadelphia Eagles, to be canceled.

Instead, it was Montreal that staged the first international exhibition match the following year.

In 1986, the NFL added an annual international preseason game, the “American Bowl,” to reach international fans, including several games in Mexico City and one in Monterrey.

But the more concerted effort was to grow football in the potentially lucrative, and familiar, European market.

After several attempts by the NFL and other entities in the 1970s and ’80s to establish an international football league, the NFL-backed World League of Football launched in 1991. Featuring six teams from the United States, one from Canada and three from Europe, the spring league lost money but provided evidence that there was a market for American football in Europe, leading to the establishment of NFL Europe.

But NFL bosses have long had wider ambitions. The league staged 13 games in Tokyo, beginning in 1976, and planned exhibitions for 2007 and 2009 in China that were ultimately canceled. These attempts did not have the same success as in Europe.

Beyond exhibitions

The NFL’s outreach in Latin America has been decades in the making. After six exhibition matches in Mexico between 1978 and 2001, the NFL chose Mexico City as the venue of its first regular season game outside the United States.

In 2005, it pitted the Arizona Cardinals against the San Francisco 49ers at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. Marketed as “Fútbol Americano,” it drew the largest attendance in NFL history, with over 103,000 spectators.

The following year, Goodell was named commissioner and announced that the NFL would focus future international efforts on regular-season games.

The U.K. was a safe bet due to the established stadium infrastructure and the country’s small but passionate fan base. The NFL International Series was played exclusively in London between 2007 and 2016.

Advertisement

But in 2016, the NFL finally returned to Mexico City, staging a regular-season game between the Oakland – now Las Vegas – Raiders and Houston Texans.

And after the completion of upgrades to Latin America’s largest stadium, Estadio Azteca, the NFL will return to Mexico City in 2026, along with games in Munich, Berlin and London. Future plans include expanding the series to include Sydney, Australia, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2026.

The International Player Pathway program also offers players from outside the United States an opportunity to train and earn a roster spot on an NFL team. The hope is that future Latin American players could help expand the sport in their home countries, similar to how Yao Ming expanded the NBA fan base in China after joining the Houston Rockets, and Shohei Ohtani did the same for baseball in Japan while playing in Los Angeles.

Heading south of the border

The NFL’s strategy has gained the league a foothold in Latin America.

Mexico and Brazil have become the two largest international markets for the NFL, with nearly 40 million fans in each of the nations.

Although this represents a fraction of the overall sports fans in each nation, the raw numbers match the overall Latino fan base in the United States. In recent years the NFL has celebrated Latino Heritage Month through its Por La Cultura campaign, highlighting Latino players past and present.

Latin America also offers practical advantages. Mexico has long had access to NFL games as the southern neighbor to the United States, with the Dallas Cowboys among the most popular teams in Mexico.

For broadcasters, Central and South America offer less disruption in regards to time zones. Games in Europe start as early as 6:30 a.m. for West Coast fans, whereas Mexico City follows Central time, and Brasilia time is only one to two hours ahead of Eastern time.

The NFL’s expansion plans are not without criticism. Domestically, fans have complained that teams playing outside the U.S. borders means one less home game for season-ticket holders. And some teams have embraced international games more than others.

Another criticism is the league, which has reported revenues of over US$23 billion during the 2024-25 season – nearly double any other U.S.-based league – is using its resources to displace local sports. There are also those who see expansion of the league as a form of cultural imperialism. These criticisms often intersect with long-held ideas around the league promoting militarism, nationalism and American exceptionalism.

Bad Bunny: No Hail Mary attempt

For sure, the choice of Bad Bunny as the halftime pick is controversial, given the current political climate around immigration. The artist removed tour dates on the U.S. mainland in 2025 due to concerns about ICE targeting fans at his concerts, a concern reinforced by threats from the Department of Homeland Security that they would do just that at the Super Bowl.

Advertisement

But in sticking with Bad Bunny, the NFL is showing it is willing to face down a section of its traditional support and bet instead on Latin American fans not just tuning in for the halftime show but for the whole game – and falling in love with football, too.

Jared Bahir Browsh, Assistant Teaching Professor of Critical Sports Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.