Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on to open meaning. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to to open meaning awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of to open meaning, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding to open meaning. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of to open meaning. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of to open meaning, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on to open meaning, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around to open meaning. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of to open meaning.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about to open meaning, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of to open meaning.
2024 chevy blazer ev debuts with up to 557 hp original ink 2024 chevy blazer ev debuts with up to 557 weather 2024 chevy blazer ev debuts with up to 557 bur 2024 chevy blazer ev debuts meaning 2024 chevy blazer ev debuts on wall 2024 chevy blazer ev debuts theater 2024 chevy blazer ev debuts datewise 2024 chevy blazer ev specs 2024 chevy blazer electric 2024 chevy blazer colors 2024 chevy 2500 hd 2024 chevy blazer ev
2024 Chevy Blazer EV Debuts With Up to 557 HP or 320 Miles of Range
2024 Chevy Blazer EV Debuts With Up to 557 HP or 320 Miles of Range
General Motors' Ultium electric car platform is mighty impressive, but so far the only production models we've seen use it have been the luxurious Cadillac Lyriq, the outrageous GMC Hummer EV and the expensive (at first) Chevrolet Silverado EV. But now Chevy has fully unveiled the new Blazer EV, which will be a wholly mainstream crossover when it goes on sale next summer.
A front three-quarters view of the Blazer EV was first shown last month, but now we've got a full set of images showing multiple trim levels of the new Blazer. More than just the existing gas-powered Blazer with an electric powertrain stuffed in, the Blazer EV is new from the ground up and has a look all its own with sculpted haunches, boomerang-shaped LED lights, short overhangs and a low, wide stance. Sportier trim levels like the range-topping SS have more air intakes and a larger faux grille up front, but even the base model looks great. The RS and SS get a full-width front light bar and illuminated logo that have a welcome animation and show charge status when plugged in. That prominent fender vent is functional, too.
The electric Blazer looks more modern than the gas-powered Blazer.
Chevrolet
The interior is an evolution of the current Blazer's, with design cues and tech taken from the Silverado EV. Every Blazer EV has an 11-inch digital gauge cluster and a 17.7-inch central touchscreen canted toward the driver, the latter of which has a physical volume knob and sits above a number of analog climate controls. There are a trio of round Camaro-style air vents in the lower dash, and some trim levels get rad integrated ambient lighting. The SS has orange accents and leather seats with a cool lightning bolt perforation pattern.
Not many performance details or specs are available yet, but Chevy did announce the Blazer EV's standout figures. The Blazer EV will be available with front-, rear- or all-wheel drive depending on model and battery size, and no matter the setup, the SUV has an independent suspension at all four corners. The Blazer EV SS will offer 557 horsepower and 648 pound-feet of torque and can hit 60 mph in under 4 seconds when using the WOW (Wide Open Watts) mode. Chevy says the SS has "the soul of a sports car." Regenerative braking will have legit one-pedal driving capability, and it looks like the Blazer has the same regen-activating steering wheel paddle as the Bolt EV. Range estimates fall anywhere from 247 to 320 miles depending on trim level. Here's a chart that'll help break some of it down.
Chevy Blazer EV Specs
1LT
2LT
RS
SS
Drivetrain
FWD
FWD or AWD
FWD, AWD or RWD
AWD
Range (est.)
247 miles
293 miles
320 miles
290 miles
Wheels
19-inch
19-inch
21-inch
22-inch
Check out that perforation pattern!
Chevrolet
Depending on the model, the Blazer EV can accept DC fast-charging speeds of up to 190 kW, with the ability to add 78 miles of range in 10 minutes of being plugged in. The Blazer EV comes with an 11.5-kW onboard charger, and owners will be able to use GM's Ultium Charge 360 service and over 100,000 public chargers across the US.
GM's Super Cruise hands-free driver-assist tech will be optional on the Blazer EV, along with new safety features like advanced parking assist and reverse automatic braking. Other available features include an automatic power tailgate, heated and ventilated front seats, heated rear seats, 22-inch wheels, multiple USB-C ports, a wireless phone charger, navigation with EV route planning and a powered charge port door.
The first Blazer EV models to go on sale will be the 2LT and RS trims, which will start at $47,595 and $51,995 respectively, both before destination. Those will hit dealers in summer 2023, with the $65,995 SS to come later in 2023. Then the entry-level 1LT will be launched in the first quarter of 2024 for $44,995 alongside a PPV police fleet model. The Blazer EV will be produced at the same Mexico factory that builds the current Blazer.
Quiet quitting the work life debate is having another baby quiet quitting the work life debate is having another child quiet quitting the work life debate is having another cup quiet quitting the work life debate is having gas quiet quitting the work life debate is having covid quiet quitting the work life debate is jesus quiet the noise quiet quitting meaning if your coworkers are quiet quitting quiet quitting meme
Quiet Quitting: The Work-Life Debate Is Having Another Viral Moment
Quiet Quitting: The Work-Life Debate Is Having Another Viral Moment
Months after "the Great Resignation" entered the collective vocabulary, the question of what, exactly, a person owes their employer is having yet another viral moment.
At the end of July, @zaidlepppelin posted on TikTok about a phrase called "quiet quitting." It's the idea of meeting the requirements of a job and stopping there. The video has since racked up more than 3.4 million views, while the hashtag has more than 21 million views from other TikTokers chiming in with their views on the broader idea, and even the term itself.
The concept is reigniting another debate over work-life balance, with proponents saying it's just a necessary call for boundaries while critics bemoan a perceived lack of initiative and slacker mentality.
As always, it's not clear cut. Here's what you need to know about quiet quitting.
What is quiet quitting?
Quiet quitting is the idea of doing your job and nothing more. In the original viral TikTok, @zaidlepppelin described it like this: "You're still performing your duties but you're no longer subscribing to the hustle culture mentality that work has to be your life. The reality is it's not, and your worth as a person is not defined by your labor."
@zaidleppelin On quiet quitting #workreform♬ original sound - ruby
Is quiet quitting new?
In a word, no.
"It's popular now because of the hashtag," said Jha'nee Carter, who goes by @_thehrqueen on TikTok where she talks about leadership and employee advocacy.
Although the phrase "quiet quitting" has only gained traction in the last few weeks, the struggle to find a balance between work and personal life is far older. The National Labor Union first (if unsuccessfully) asked Congress to establish the eight-hour work day in 1866.
A century later, American pop group The Vogues sang about the bliss of being off the clock in their 1965 song Five O'Clock World: "It's a five o'clock world when the whistle blows. No one owns a piece of my time."
These days, you're more apt to hear about achieving a healthy "work-life balance."
The trend shows up globally at times, too. In July 2021, Brookings wrote about the "lying-flat" movement in China, where a culture that prioritizes overwork started to clash with a feeling of stagnation among workers, particularly among younger people. In April of that year, the concept went viral.
"For some, 'lying flat' promises release from the crush of life and work in a fast-paced society and technology sector where competition is unrelenting. For China's leadership, however, this movement of passive resistance to the national drive for development is a worrying trend," the article said, also explaining that China has aimed to "end its reliance on imported technology," hence driving a particular pressure in the tech sector.
What's the controversy?
Some of the controversy around quiet quitting surrounds the question of whether this is a healthy approach to your job, or whether you're being a slacker.
"The tether to the workplace … the expectations and exploitation of employers is so extreme now, that just doing your job is considered quitting," said Leigh Henderson. You might have run into Henderson on TikTok as @hrmanifesto, where she uses her more than 15 years of experience in the corporate world to talk about everything from dealing with your toxic job to interviewing for a new one.
She was initially confused by the idea of quiet quitting, thinking how is that "different from just work life balance, creating boundaries, having priorities, and just having a life?" Henderson says it should the be responsibility of employers to keep their employees engaged.
And on TikTok, people have questioned whether anyone should be expected to put in more work than they're being compensated for.
Not everyone sees it that way. Kevin O'Leary from ABC's Shark Tank took to TikTok to say, "Quiet quitting is a really bad idea. If you're a quiet quitter, you're a loser." O'Leary did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a video on CNBC, he said you're hired at a company to make the business work, and you should go above and beyond because you want to – and that's how to get ahead.
@kevinolearytv What are your thoughts on quiet quitting? #kevinoleary#quietquitting#entrepreneur#career#careeradvice♬ original sound - Mr. Wonderful
TikTokers have pointed out that to the ears of an employer, quiet quitting could sound like suddenly getting less out of their employees, regardless of whether those employees were getting paid to do the extra work anyway.
What's more, the term itself – quitting – has a negative connotation. Henderson thinks of it as "quiet survival," and it's something she's done in her own career. In a follow up TikTok, Henderson said, "I was saving myself from the toxic work environment and protecting myself from the toxic work environment that my employer not only established and facilitated but continually benefited from."
Why are people talking about quiet quitting now?
The easy answer is that this particular TikTok went viral at the end of July. But circumstances have been ripe for this for much longer, according to Matt Walden, managing partner at Infinity Consulting Solutions, who has been working in the recruiting space for more than two decades. He pins some of this moment to burnout.
For one, Walden looks to the pandemic – as employees shifted to remote work, often it could be more difficult to compartmentalize work and home life. It's easy to keep your laptop open and answer a few extra emails while cooking dinner, perhaps.
"Work from home was a blessing for many. And for others, it had people working more than they've ever worked, unknowingly, in isolation," Walden said.
Quiet quitting also comes in the wake of the Great Resignation, the term for the phenomenon of American workers quitting their jobs in record numbers, often to pursue better pay, benefits and flexibility, or even just to dodge going back to an office. A July report from McKinsey called it the "quitting trend that just won't quit." Although open jobs in the US fell to 10.7 million in June from 11.25 in May, the report said it's likely openings won't return to a more normal range for a while.
Another possible facet is a backlash to hustle culture – the mentality that calls for optimizing every minute of your life for productivity and glorifies non-stop work.
Henderson also pointed out that there's a whopping four generations in the workforce now, bringing with them different perspectives, attitudes and experiences which inform their relationship with work.
"Make no mistake that Gen Z employees watched those Gen X parents stick the finger right to corporate America," Henderson said.
Who is quiet quitting?
While there are no numbers on quiet quitting, Walden said he wouldn't characterize this as a tidal wave trend. Though Gen Z is being largely associated with quiet quitting, demographic breakdowns from the Great Resignation show they're not the only generation reappraising work.
And not everyone has the luxury of quiet quitting.
"In order to climb that corporate ladder as a person of color, I believe that it's a necessity to go above and beyond," Carter said, talking about how those in minority groups, like people of color, don't always have the same resources available to them, so upping their skills, getting in the right rooms with the right people to network, and the like takes more work. She also says it takes learning to advocate for yourself in order to not end up burned out and exploited.
@_thehrqueen Can quietly quitting destroy your career? ✨ #hrqueen#quietquitting#iquit#corporateamerica#mentorforu#youngprofessionals#hrlife#hrtok#careertips#careeradvice#careeradvicedaily#leadershipdevelopment#ReTokforNature♬ Level Up - Kwe the Artist
Signal whatsapp and telegram here s which secure messaging my healthevet signal whatsapp and telegram here s which secured signal whatsapp and telegram here s my number call me maybe signal whatsapp and telegram here she comes signal whatsapp and telegram here s lucy tv series signal whatsapp and telegram here s your perfect chords signal and power integrity simplified forex signal whatsapp group
Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram: Here's which secure messaging app you should use
Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram: Here's which secure messaging app you should use
If your choice of encrypted messaging app is a toss-up between Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp, do not waste your time with anything but Signal. This isn't about which one has cuter features, more bells and whistles or is the most convenient to use: It's purely about privacy. And if privacy's what you're after, nothing beats Signal.
You probably already know what happened. In a tweet heard 'round the world last January, tech mogul Elon Musk continued his feud with Facebook by advocating people drop its WhatsApp messenger and use Signal instead. Twitter's then-CEO Jack Dorsey retweeted Musk's call. Around the same time, right-wing social network Parler went dark following the Capitol attacks, while political boycotters fled Facebook and Twitter. It was the perfect storm -- the number of new users flocking to Signal and Telegram surged by tens of millions.
Read more: Everything to know about Signal
The jolt also reignited security and privacy scrutiny over messaging apps more widely. Among the top players currently dominating download numbers, there are some commonalities. All are mobile apps available in the Google Play store and App Store that support cross-platform messaging, have group chat features, offer multifactor authentication and can be used to share files and multimedia. They all also provide encryption for texting, voice and video calls.
Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp use end-to-end encryption in some portion of their app, meaning that if an outside party intercepts your texts, they should be scrambled and unreadable. It also means that the exact content of your messages supposedly can't be viewed by employees of those companies when you are communicating with another private user. This prevents law enforcement, your mobile carrier and other snooping entities from being able to read your messages even when they intercept them (which happens more often than you might think).
The privacy and security differences between Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp couldn't be bigger, though. Here's what you need to know about each of them.
Getty/SOPA Images
Does not collect data, only your phone number
Free, no ads, funded by nonprofit Signal Foundation
Fully open-source
Encryption: Signal Protocol
Signal is a typical one-tap install app that can be found in your normal marketplaces like Google Play and Apple's App Store and works just like the usual text-messaging app. It's an open-source development provided free of charge by the nonprofit Signal Foundation and has been famously used for years by high-profile privacy icons like Edward Snowden.
Signal's main function is that it can send -- to either an individual or a group -- fully encrypted text, video, audio and picture messages, after verifying your phone number and letting you independently verify other Signal users' identity. For a deeper dive into the potential pitfalls and limitations of encrypted messaging apps, CNET's Laura Hautala's explainer is a life-saver.
When it comes to privacy, it's hard to beat Signal's offer. It doesn't store your user data. And beyond its encryption prowess, it gives you extended, onscreen privacy options, including app-specific locks, blank notification pop-ups, face-blurring antisurveillance tools and disappearing messages.
Occasional bugs have proven that the tech is far from bulletproof, of course, but the overall arc of Signal's reputation and results have kept it at the top of every privacy-savvy person's list of identity protection tools. The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times (which also recommends WhatsApp) and The Wall Street Journal all recommend using Signal to contact their reporters safely.
For years, the core privacy challenge for Signal lay not in its technology but in its wider adoption. Sending an encrypted Signal message is great, but if your recipient isn't using Signal, then your privacy may be nil. Think of it like the herd immunity created by vaccines, but for your messaging privacy.
Now that Musk's and Dorsey's endorsements have sent a surge of users to get a privacy booster shot, however, that challenge may be a thing of the past.
Getty/NurPhoto
Data linked to you: Name, phone number, contacts, user ID
Free, forthcoming Ad Platform and premium features, funded mainly by founder
Only partially open-source
Encryption: MTProto
Telegram falls somewhere in the middle of the privacy scale, and it stands apart from other messenger apps because of its efforts to create a social network-style environment. While it doesn't collect as much data as WhatsApp, it also doesn't offer encrypted group calls like WhatsApp, nor as much user data privacy and company transparency as Signal. Data collected by Telegram that could be linked to you includes your name, phone number, contact list and user ID.
Telegram also collects your IP address, something else Signal doesn't do. And unlike Signal and WhatsApp, Telegram's one-to-one messages aren't encrypted by default. Rather, you have to turn them on in the app's settings. Telegram group messages also aren't encrypted. Researchers found that while some of Telegram's MTProto encryption scheme was open-source, some portions were not, so it's not completely clear what happens to your texts once they're in Telegram's servers.
Telegram has seen several breaches. Some 42 million Telegram user IDs and phone numbers were exposed in March of 2020, thought to be the work of Iranian government officials. It would be the second massive breach linked to Iran, after 15 million Iranian users were exposed in 2016. A Telegram bug was exploited by Chinese authorities in 2019 during the Hong Kong protests. Then there was the deep-fake bot on Telegram that has been allowed to create forged nudes of women from regular pictures. Most recently, its GPS-enabled feature allowing you to find others near you has created obvious problems for privacy.
I reached out to Telegram to find out whether there were any major security plans in the works for the app, and what its security priorities were after this latest user surge. I'll update this story when I hear back.
Angela Lang/CNET
Data linked to you: Too much to list (see below)
Free; business versions available for free, funded by Facebook
Not open-source, except for encryption
Encryption: Signal Protocol
Let's be clear: There's a difference between security and privacy. Security is about safeguarding your data against unauthorized access, and privacy is about safeguarding your identity regardless of who has access to that data.
On the security front, WhatsApp's encryption is the same as Signal's, and that encryption is secure. But that encryption protocol is one of the few open-source parts of WhatsApp, so we're being asked to trust WhatsApp more than we are Signal. WhatsApp's actual app and other infrastructure have also faced hacks, just as Telegram has.
Jeff Bezos' phone was famously hacked in January of 2020 through a WhatsApp video message. In December of the same year, Texas' attorney general alleged -- though has not proven -- that Facebook and Google struck a back-room deal to reveal WhatsApp message content. A spyware vendor targeted a WhatsApp vulnerability with its software to hack 1,400 devices, resulting in a lawsuit from Facebook. WhatsApp's unencrypted cloud-based backup feature has long been considered a security risk by privacy experts and was one way the FBI got evidence on notorious political fixer Paul Manafort. To top it off, WhatsApp has also become known as a haven for scam artists and malware purveyors over the years (just as Telegram has attracted its own share of platform abuse, detailed above).
Despite the hacks, it's not the security aspect that concerns me about WhatsApp as much as the privacy. I'm not eager for Facebook to have yet another piece of software installed on my phone from which it can cull still more behavioral data via an easy-to-use app with a pretty interface and more security than your regular messenger.
When WhatsApp says it can't view the content of the encrypted messages you send to another WhatsApp user, what is doesn't say is that there's a laundry list of other data that it collects that could be linked to your identity: Your unique device ID, usage and advertising data, purchase history and financial information, physical location, phone number, your contact information and that of your list of contacts, what products you've interacted with, how often you use the app, and how it performs when you do. The list goes on. This is way more than Signal or Telegram.
When I asked the company why users should settle for less data privacy, a WhatsApp spokesperson pointed out that it limits what it does with this user data, and that the data collection only applies to some users. For instance, financial transaction data collection would be relevant only to those WhatsApp users in Brazil, where the service is available.
"We do not share your contacts with Facebook, and we cannot see your shared location," the WhatsApp spokesperson told CNET.
"While most people use WhatsApp just to chat with friends and family, we've also begun to offer the ability for people to chat with businesses to get help or make a purchase, with health authorities to get information about COVID, with domestic violence support agencies, and with fact checkers to provide people with the ability to get accurate information," the spokesperson said. "As we've expanded our services, we continue to protect people's messages and limit the information we collect."
Is WhatsApp more convenient than Signal and Telegram? Yes. Is it prettier? Sure. Is it just as secure? We won't know unless we see more of its source code. But is it more private? Not when it comes to how much data it collects comparatively. For real privacy, I'm sticking with Signal and I recommend you do the same.
I visited samsung s galaxy s22 metaverse event lumber i visited samsung s galaxy s22 metaverse event script i visited samsung s galaxy s22 metaverse meaning i visited samsung s galaxy s22 metaverse adalah i visited samsung s galaxy s22 metaverse news i visited samsung s galaxy s22 i visited samsung s galaxy buds pro i visited samsung support i samsung
I visited Samsung's Galaxy S22 metaverse event, but it felt rushed and incomplete
I visited Samsung's Galaxy S22 metaverse event, but it felt rushed and incomplete
Samsung's Galaxy S22 reveal event wasn't just a standard livestream this year: It also took place inside a metaverse -- and I was genuinely excited to check it out. I've attended previous Samsung events in VR and found them to be more enjoyable than most other branded virtual experiences. The infamous 2016 photo of Mark Zuckerberg walking down an aisle while everyone around him is wearing a Gear VR headset is undeniably silly, but the demonstration of what could be possible from home was actually compelling.
By comparison, this 2022 Unpacked event had surprisingly little to do with Samsung and served more as an example of what not to do when using the metaverse to host a product launch.
If you saw Samsung announce an event in the metaverse and thought it meant putting on a VR headset and sitting in an audience, you're not alone. Instead, Samsung built a version of its New York event space in Decentraland, a cryptocurrency-focused virtual playground. It's technically possible to enter Decentraland with a VR headset, but the experience is barely functional and requires a lot of technical knowledge. Using your web browser alongside your mouse and keyboard, as intended by the creators, you enter Decentraland as an animated avatar you can modify, and move yourself to the Samsung 837X space to participate.
Arriving at this space the day before the event revealed a brightly lit building and a faux pizza shop. The doors were all closed and there wasn't much to see, but there were already people lined up to see what Samsung had to offer. When I checked in again, 30 minutes before the event was to start, a handful of people waiting outside had climbed to nearly 100 that I could see. Decentraland runs 10 servers and you can only see the people on your server, but as I moved around before the event each server seemed similarly full. Roughly 1,000 people were waiting for Samsung to open the doors and show us the Galaxy S22 Ultra.
Unfortunately for a lot of those servers, the doors didn't open on time. Many people were unable to actually enter Samsung 837X before the event started. Everyone outside the metaverse was enjoying a strange crossover with the popular TV series Bridgerton at the start of this event, while I and dozens of my fellow metazens were changing servers to find one that worked. Once a server with open doors had been located, the next challenge was finding the room inside this virtual building where the announcement event was actually streaming.
The three unlockable clothing packs you could use to equip your metaverse avatar if you completed the minigame inside Samsung's event.
Russell Holly/CNET
Inside Samsung 837X, you are presented with three rooms and a host of smaller activities to enjoy. Samsung had made special clothing for your Decentraland avatar you could only get by completing a quest in this space. Most of the space was dedicated to this quest, but in the back you could find a theater with the Unpacked event streaming. The room was a fairly generic virtual theater with a big curved screen showing the event already in progress outside of the metaverse. I was nearly 10 minutes late, and now watching a smaller version of the livestream with animated characters dancing around inside of a web browser on my laptop.
A few minutes into watching this presentation, it became clear the real reason most people were here was to unlock the virtual clothes tied to the Samsung quest. The app told me there were 96 people in the space, but the room only held 37. The novelty of the Samsung-made space was much more important than the unveiling of a new phone and tablet for a majority of those who regularly visit Decentraland.
It's difficult to feel like this approach to an event is anything other than a step backward. Back in 2016, Samsung offered the ability to watch a Galaxy Unpacked event from inside its VR headset. You put the headset on, opened the app and picked one of several positions to watch the stage from a 360-degree streaming camera. Being able to turn your head and see the audience made you feel like you were actually sitting in the audience. Not a lot of people owned those headsets at the time, but it felt like you were in a packed room and could enjoy the show.
The Samsung Theater, where I could watch the Galaxy S22 Ultra unveiling.
Russell Holly/CNET
In fairness, this 2022 event was fully virtual, so there was no live space to warp into as there was during pre-pandemic product launches. But Samsung could have made it possible to walk through a virtual store, get a closer look at the phone from every angle, or maybe even preorder the next phone using cryptocurrency. There could have been Samsung staff on hand in the space to answer questions or talk to people about what they're upgrading from and how the cameras on this new phone might have been better.
Samsung had an opportunity to make this space actually feel like a virtual version of its 837 store, but instead built a terribly rendered virtual forest to showcase its intent to plant 2 million trees as part of its sustainability efforts. For comparison's sake, the real Samsung 837 store not only sells Samsung devices but opened with a cafe on site and, at least pre-pandemic, held a running club that promoted its fitness trackers.
This could have been a lot of fun, but instead felt rushed and incomplete. It was a halfhearted attempt in a long line of cultural zeitgeist moments from Samsung, and felt more like an online version of the Yo! Noid game from Pizza Hut in 1990 than it does a glimpse at an often-promised metaversal future.
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
Rachel Barkman's son started accurately identifying different species of mushroom at the age of 2. Together they'd go out into the mossy woods near her home in Vancouver and forage. When it came to occasionally sharing in her TikTok videos her son's enthusiasm and skill for picking mushrooms, she didn't think twice about it -- they captured a few cute moments, and many of her 350,000-plus followers seemed to like it.
That was until last winter, when a female stranger approached them in the forest, bent down and addressed her son, then 3, by name and asked if he could show her some mushrooms.
"I immediately went cold at the realization that I had equipped complete strangers with knowledge of my son that puts him at risk," Barkman said in an interview this past June.
This incident, combined with research into the dangers of sharing too much, made her reevaluate her son's presence online. Starting at the beginning of this year, she vowed not to feature his face in future content.
"My decision was fueled by a desire to protect my son, but also to protect and respect his identity and privacy, because he has a right to choose the way he is shown to the world," she said.
These kinds of dangers have cropped up alongside the rise in child influencers, such as 10-year-old Ryan Kaji of Ryan's World, who has almost 33 million subscribers, with various estimates putting his net worth in the multiple tens of millions of dollars. Increasingly, brands are looking to use smaller, more niche, micro- and nano-influencers, developing popular accounts on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube to reach their audiences. And amid this influencer gold rush there's a strong incentive for parents, many of whom are sharing photos and videos of their kids online anyway, to get in on the action.
The increase in the number of parents who manage accounts for their kids -- child influencers' parents are often referred to as "sharents" -- opens the door to exploitation or other dangers. With almost no industry guardrails in place, these parents find themselves in an unregulated wild west. They're the only arbiters of how much exposure their children get, how much work their kids do, and what happens to money earned through any content they feature in.
Instagram didn't respond to multiple requests for comment about whether it takes any steps to safeguard child influencers. A representative for TikTok said the company has a zero-tolerance approach to sexual exploitation and pointed to policies to protect accounts of users under the age of 16. But these policies don't apply to parents posting with or on behalf of their children. YouTube didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
"When parents share about their children online, they act as both the gatekeeper -- the one tasked with protecting a child's personal information -- and as the gate opener," said Stacey Steinberg, a professor of law at the University of Florida and author of the book Growing Up Shared. As the gate opener, "they benefit, gaining both social and possibly financial capital by their online disclosures."
The reality is that some parents neglect the gatekeeping and leave the gate wide open for any internet stranger to walk through unchecked. And walk through they do.
Meet the sharents
Mollie is an aspiring dancer and model with an Instagram following of 122,000 people. Her age is ambiguous but she could be anywhere from 11-13, meaning it's unlikely she's old enough to meet the social media platform's minimum age requirement. Her account is managed by her father, Chris, whose own account is linked in her bio, bringing things in line with Instagram's policy. (Chris didn't respond to a request for comment.)
You don't have to travel far on Instagram to discover accounts such as Mollie's, where grown men openly leer at preteen girls. Public-facing, parent-run accounts dedicated to dancers and gymnasts -- who are under the age of 13 and too young to have accounts of their own -- number in the thousands. (To protect privacy, we've chosen not to identify Mollie, which isn't her real name, or any other minors who haven't already appeared in the media.)
Parents use these accounts, which can have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, to raise their daughters' profiles by posting photos of them posing and demonstrating their flexibility in bikinis and leotards. The comment sections are often flooded with sexualized remarks. A single, ugly word appeared under one group shot of several young girls in bikinis: "orgy."
Some parents try to contain the damage by limiting comments on posts that attract too much attention. The parent running one dancer account took a break from regular scheduling to post a pastel-hued graphic reminding other parents to review their followers regularly. "After seeing multiple stories and posts from dance photographers we admire about cleaning up followers, I decided to spend time cleaning," read the caption. "I was shocked at how many creeps got through as followers."
But "cleaning up" means engaging in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole to keep unwanted followers at bay, and it ignores the fact that you don't need to be following a public account to view the posts. Photos of children are regularly reposted on fan or aggregator accounts, over which parents have no control, and they can also be served up through hashtags or through Instagram's discovery algorithms.
The simple truth is that publicly posted content is anyone's for the taking. "Once public engagement happens, it is very hard, if not impossible, to really put meaningful boundaries around it," said Leah Plunkett, author of the book Sharenthood and a member of the faculty at Harvard Law School.
This concern is at the heart of the current drama concerning the TikTok account @wren.eleanor. Wren is an adorable blonde 3-year-old girl, and the account, which has 17.3 million followers, is managed by her mother, Jacquelyn, who posts videos almost exclusively of her child.
Concerned onlookers have pointed Jacquelyn toward comments that appear to be predatory, and have warned her that videos in which Wren is in a bathing suit, pretending to insert a tampon, or eating various foodstuffs have more watches, likes and saves than other content. They claim her reluctance to stop posting in spite of their warnings demonstrates she's prioritizing the income from her account over Wren's safety. Jacquelyn didn't respond to several requests for comment.
Last year, the FBI ran a campaign in which it estimated that there were 500,000 predators online every day -- and that's just in the US. Right now, across social platforms, we're seeing the growth of digital marketplaces that hinge on child exploitation, said Plunkett. She doesn't want to tell other parents what to do, she added, but she wants them to be aware that there's "a very real, very pressing threat that even innocent content that they put up about their children is very likely to be repurposed and find its way into those marketplaces."
Naivete vs. exploitation
When parent influencers started out in the world of blogging over a decade ago, the industry wasn't exploitative in the same way it is today, said Crystal Abidin, an academic from Curtin University who specializes in internet cultures. When you trace the child influencer industry back to its roots, what you find is parents, usually mothers, reaching out to one another to connect. "It first came from a place of care among these parent influencers," she said.
Over time, the industry shifted, centering on children more and more as advertising dollars flowed in and new marketplaces formed.
Education about the risks hasn't caught up, which is why people like Sarah Adams, a Vancouver mom who runs the TikTok account @mom.uncharted, have taken it upon themselves to raise the flag on those risks. "My ultimate goal is just have parents pause and reflect on the state of sharenting right now," she said.
But as Mom Uncharted, Adams is also part of a wider unofficial and informal watchdog group of internet moms and child safety experts shedding light on the often disturbing way in which some parents are, sometimes knowingly, exploiting their children online.
The troubling behavior uncovered by Adams and others suggests there's more than naivete at play -- specifically when parents sign up for and advertise services that let people buy "exclusive" or "VIP" access to content featuring their children.
Some parent-run social media accounts that Adams has found linked out to a site called SelectSets, which lets the parents sell photo sets of their children. One account offered sets with titles such as "2 little princesses." SelectSets has described the service as "a classy and professional" option for influencers to monetize content, allowing them to "avoid the stigma often associated with other platforms."
Over the last few weeks, SelectSets has gone offline and no owner could be traced for comment.
In addition to selling photos, many parent-run dancer accounts, Mollie's included, allow strangers to send the dancers swimwear and underwear from the dancers' Amazon wish lists, or money to "sponsor" them to "realize their dream" or support them on their "journeys."
While there's nothing technically illegal about anything these parents are doing, they're placing their children in a gray area that's not explicitly sexual but that many people would consider to be sexualized. The business model of using an Amazon wish list is one commonly embraced by online sugar babies who accept money and gifts from older men.
"Our Conditions of Use and Sale make clear that users of Amazon Services must be 18 or older or accompanied by a parent or guardian," said an Amazon spokesperson in a statement. "In rare cases where we are made aware that an account has been opened by a minor without permission, we close the account."
Adams says it's unlikely to be other 11-year-olds sending their pocket money to these girls so they attend their next bikini modeling shoot. "Who the fuck do you think is tipping these kids?" she said. "It's predators who are liking the way you exploit your child and giving them all the content they need."
Turning points
Plunkett distinguishes between parents who are casually sharing content that features their kids and parents who are sharing for profit, an activity she describes as "commercial sharenting."
"You are taking your child, or in some cases, your broader family's private or intimate moments, and sharing them digitally, in the hope of having some kind of current or future financial benefit," she said.
No matter the parent's hopes or intentions, any time children appear in public-facing social media content, that content has the potential to go viral, and when it does, parents have a choice to either lean in and monetize it or try to rein it in.
During Abidin's research -- in which she follows the changing activities of the same influencers over time -- she's found that many influencer parents reach a turning point. It can be triggered by something as simple as other children at school being aware of their child's celebrity or their child not enjoying it anymore, or as serious as being involved in a car chase while trying to escape fans (an occurrence recounted to Abidin by one of her research subjects).
One influencer, Katy Rose Pritchard, who has almost 92,000 Instagram followers, decided to stop showing her children's faces on social media this year after she discovered they were being used to create role-playing accounts. People had taken photos of her children that she'd posted and used them to create fictional profiles of children for personal gratification, which she said in a post made her feel "violated."
All these examples highlight the different kinds of threats sharents are exposing their children to. Plunkett describes three "buckets" of risk tied to publicly sharing content online. The first and perhaps most obvious are risks involving criminal and/or dangerous behavior, posing a direct threat to the child.
The second are indirect risks, where content posted featuring children can be taken, reused, analyzed or repurposed by people with nefarious motives. Consequences include anything from bullying to harming future job prospects to millions of people having access to children's medical information -- a common trope on YouTube is a video with a melodramatic title and thumbnail involving a child's trip to the hospital, in which influencer parents with sick kids will document their health journeys in blow-by-blow detail.
The third set of risks are probably the least talked about, but they involve potential harm to a child's sense of self. If you're a child influencer, how you see yourself as a person and your ability to develop into an adult is "going to be shaped and in some instances impeded by the fact that your parents are creating this public performance persona for you," said Plunkett.
Often children won't be aware of what this public persona looks like to the audience and how it's being interpreted. They may not even be aware it exists. But at some point, as happened with Barkman, the private world in which content is created and the public world in which it's consumed will inevitably collide. At that point, the child will be thrust into the position of confronting the persona that's been created for them.
"As kids get older, they naturally want to define themselves on their own terms, and if parents have overshared about them in public spaces, that can be difficult, as many will already have notions about who that child is or what that child may like," said Steinberg. "These notions, of course, may be incorrect. And some children may value privacy and wish their life stories were theirs -- not their parents -- to tell."
Savannah and Cole LaBrant have documented nearly everything about their children's lives.
Jim Spellman/WireImage
This aspect of having their real-life stories made public is a key factor distinguishing children working in social media from children working in the professional entertainment industry, who usually play fictional roles. Many children who will become teens and adults in the next couple of decades will have to reckon with the fact that their parents put their most vulnerable moments on the internet for the world to see -- their meltdowns, their humiliation, their most personal moments.
One influencer family, the LaBrants, were forced to issue a public apology in 2019 after they played an April Fools' Day Joke on their 6-year-old daughter Everleigh. The family pretended they were giving her dog away, eliciting tears throughout the video. As a result, many viewers felt that her parents, Sav and Cole, had inflicted unnecessary distress on her.
In the past few months, parents who film their children during meltdowns to demonstrate how to calm them down have found themselves the subject of ire on parenting Subreddits. Their critics argue that it's unfair to post content of children when they're at their most vulnerable, as it shows a lack of respect for a child's right to privacy.
Privacy-centric parenting
Even the staunchest advocates of child privacy know and understand the parental instinct of wanting to share their children's cuteness and talent with the world. "Our kids are the things usually we're the most proud of, the most excited about," said Adams. "It is normal to want to show them off and be proud of them."
When Adams started her account two years ago, she said her views were seen as more polarizing. But increasingly people seem to relate and share her concerns. Most of these are "average parents," naive to the risks they're exposing their kids to, but some are "commercial sharents" too.
Even though they don't always see eye to eye, the private conversations she's had with parents of children (she doesn't publicly call out anyone) with massive social media presences have been civil and productive. "I hope it opens more parents' eyes to the reality of the situation, because frankly this is all just a large social experiment," she said. "And it's being done on our kids. And that just doesn't seem like a good idea."
For Barkman, it's been "surprisingly easy, and hugely beneficial" to stop sharing content about her son. She's more present, and focuses only on capturing memories she wants to keep for herself.
"When motherhood is all consuming, it sometimes feels like that's all you have to offer, so I completely understand how we have slid into oversharing our children," she said. "It's a huge chunk of our identity and our hearts."
But Barkman recognizes the reality of the situation, which is that she doesn't know who's viewing her content and that she can't rely on tech platforms to protect her son. "We are raising a generation of children who have their entire lives broadcast online, and the newness of social media means we don't have much data on the impacts of that reality on children," she said. "I feel better acting with caution and letting my son have his privacy so that he can decide how he wants to be perceived by the world when he's ready and able."
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.
The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.
There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.
I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay.
I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.
The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.
My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.
The gold Apple Watch, way back when.
James Martin/CNET
An excellent design, with luxury overtones
Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.
The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.
Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.
The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered.
Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.
A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.
Sarah Tew
New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display
All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.
As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.
Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.
The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.
The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.
Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.
The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.
Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.
Sarah Tew
Lots of features. Too many features?
As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.
There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.
I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.
Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.
Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day.
Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.
The rings were the beginning.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning
The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others.
I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.
There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.
The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.
You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.
Sarah Tew
It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory
Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.
One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.
That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).
Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.
The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Today: the best watch in a war of attrition
You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.
I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.
The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).
Sarah Tew
In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.
The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.
What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.
