Disney is pulling back on trigger warnings for old movies
Disney (DIS) is overhauling how it warns users on its streaming platform of older films that contain racial stereotypes.
Starting in 2020, Disney+ would autoplay disclaimers before movies such as Dumbo, Peter Pan, The Aristocats, warning of 'negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures' and that 'these stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now.'
Disney has now decided to do away with these warnings. Instead, the company will now include a text disclaimer in the details section of the films that says these movies 'may contain stereotypes or negative depictions,' according to a note sent to employees on Wednesday, Axios reported.
Disney did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Quartz.
The move is part of a broader effort at the House of Mouse to change its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, amid the Trump Administration's targeting of DEI programs in the government.
In addition to the adjusted content warnings, Disney is replacing its 'Diversity & Inclusion' performance factor when evaluating executive compensation. The new 'Talent Strategy' factor will instead absorb some criteria from the previous factor but focus more on values that drive business.
Disney is not alone in unwinding its DEI efforts; several companies have announced changes to their diversity programs in the wake of the President Donald Trump's inauguration.
Facebook-parent Meta (META), Google, and Walmart have all said they are scaling back their DEI programs.
'We're in the middle of a pretty rapidly changing policy and regulatory landscape that views any policy that might advantage any one group of people over another as something that is unlawful,' Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg told employees in a meeting last month. 'Because of that, we and every other institution out there are going to need to adjust.'
Conversely, some companies have said they will be sticking with their DEI programs including Costco and McDonalds.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Weekend: Tesla's problems mount as Trump-Musk 'bromance' hits the rocks
It was a moment many had predicted from the outset, a question of when rather than if. The wheel finally came off the Trump-Musk "bromance" in spectacular fashion on Thursday, wiping more than $150 billion off the value of Tesla and dragging down the broader market. The world's richest man kicked things off by describing Trump's signature "big, beautiful bill" aimed at extending tax cuts a "disgusting abomination." Trump responded by calling his electoral backer "CRAZY!", threatening to slash government contracts and subsidies key to Musk's business interests and telling reporters he was "disappointed" in him. Things only got more heated from there. The very public spat only adds to Tesla's woes. The electric vehicle maker's market capitalisation has fallen almost 30%, or $380 billion so far this year, the biggest drop of any large company globally. Elon Musk is at war with whole swaths of Trump's agenda Elon Musk cemented his break-up with Donald Trump this week with a move against the president's signature legislative priority: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But the scope of his attack broadened on Thursday with Musk making a case not just against that bill but with ever-widening critiques that now span significant chunks of Trump's political agenda. Musk's posts have seen him floating everything from the concept of impeachment to calling the president a liar to the false accusation that Trump 'is in the Epstein files' and covering it up. Trump, unsurprisingly, was quick to retaliate, calling his former friend "CRAZY!" and threatened to terminate Musk's governmental subsidies and contracts. ECB cuts interest rates for eighth time in a year In what ECB president Christine Lagarde described as an "almost unanimous decision" the central bank chopped rates by a quarter of a percentage point for the eighth time in a year. The move, which was widely expected, follows a drop in eurozone inflation to 1.9% last month, just below the 2% target for the first time since last September. Investors are now pricing in a pause in rate cuts in July, and some conservative policymakers have also advocated for a break to give the bank a chance to reassess uncertainty and the future outlook. UK house prices rise as higher wages, low unemployment boost market Property prices gained some momentum in May, with annual growth increasing to 3.5%, according to figures from Nationwide. The uptick comes amid signs that activity in the housing market is holding up well, despite the end of a stamp duty break. Low unemployment, rising real wages, strong household balance sheets, and the potential for lower borrowing costs were among the factors buoying the market. BoE governor expects interest rates and pay to decrease this year When quizzed along with other members of the Monetary Policy Committee in a Treasury Committee meeting, Andrew Bailey said his main consideration for the most recent rate cut was the question of domestic inflation. He also cited the loosening of the UK's labour market as a key indicator in the decision to cut rates by 25 basis points. On the question of future cuts, external MPC member Catherine Mann said the bank could not yet say how fast or how far it would look to cut. Another member, Swati Dhingra, said there was a "general view that we don't need to weigh down on living standards as much as we have been." To personal finance now. As the government's spending review looms large, speculation about what will change is ramping up. Heavily debated taxes, such as rules around gifting and inheritance tax, could be in the crosshairs. Yahoo Finance's Lucy Harley-McKeown examined the possibilities: How next week's spending review could impact your finances There was bad news for home-seekers this week. No major lender cut its rates, with the majority hiking mortgages for first-time buyers as the market moves away from a mini price war that had pushed deals deep into sub-4% territory. Vicky McKeever brought us the best mortgage deals on the market right now: Mortgage lenders raise rates amid uncertainty over BoE interest rate cuts Find more personal finance gems here: Money Matters On the company results calendar, TSMC ( TSM) will release its latest sales figures after the CEO saying that demand remained strong for artificial intelligence chips. Tesco (TSCO.L) is set to provide a bellwether update for the UK grocery market. Its first-quarter report comes with supermarket price wars on the horizon, as shops fight to retain customers. In the housebuilding sector, investors will want to see how Bellway (BWY.L) is performing against key targets set out by the company's CEO earlier this year. Zara owner Inditex ( reports results on Wednesday, with investors' eyes on its margins following a disappointing report in in to access your portfolio
Time Magazine
40 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
AI Can't Replace Education—Unless We Let It
As commencement ceremonies celebrate the promise of a new generation of graduates, one question looms: will AI make their education pointless? Many CEOs think so. They describe a future where AI will replace engineers, doctors, and teachers. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently predicted AI will replace mid-level engineers who write the company's computer code. NVIDIA's Jensen Huang has even declared coding itself obsolete. While Bill Gates admits the breakneck pace of AI development is 'profound and even a little bit scary,' he celebrates how it could make elite knowledge universally accessible. He, too, foresees a world where AI replaces coders, doctors, and teachers, offering free high-quality medical advice and tutoring. Despite the hype, AI cannot 'think' for itself or act without humans—for now. Indeed, whether AI enhances learning or undermines understanding hinges on a crucial decision: Will we allow AI to just predict patterns? Or will we require it to explain, justify, and stay grounded in the laws of our world? AI needs human judgment, not just to supervise its output but also to embed scientific guardrails that give it direction, grounding, and interpretability. Physicist Alan Sokal recently compared AI chatbots to a moderately good student taking an oral exam. 'When they know the answer, they'll tell it to you, and when they don't know the answer they're really good at bullsh*tting,' he said at an event at the University of Pennsylvania. So, unless a user knows a lot about a given subject, according to Sokal, one might not catch a 'bullsh*tting' chatbot. That, to me, perfectly captures AI's so-called 'knowledge.' It mimics understanding by predicting word sequences but lacks the conceptual grounding. That's why 'creative' AI systems struggle to distinguish real from fake, and debates have emerged about whether large language models truly grasp cultural nuance. When teachers worry that AI tutors may hinder students' critical thinking, or doctors fear algorithmic misdiagnosis, they identify the same flaw: machine learning is brilliant at pattern recognition, but lacks the deep knowledge born of systematic, cumulative human experience and the scientific method. That is where a growing movement in AI offers a path forward. It focuses on embedding human knowledge directly into how machines learn. PINNs (Physics-Informed Neural Networks) and MINNs (Mechanistically Informed Neural Networks) are examples. The names might sound technical, but the idea is simple: AI gets better when it follows the rules, whether they are laws of physics, biological systems, or social dynamics. That means we still need humans not just to use knowledge, but to create it. AI works best when it learns from us. I see this in my own work with MINNs. Instead of letting an algorithm guess what works based on past data, we program it to follow established scientific principles. Take a local family lavender farm in Indiana. For this kind of business, blooming time is everything. Harvesting too early or late reduces essential oil potency, hurting quality and profits. An AI may waste time combing through irrelevant patterns. However, a MINN starts with plant biology. It uses equations linking heat, light, frost, and water to blooming to make timely and financially meaningful predictions. But it only works when it knows how the physical, chemical, and biological world works. That knowledge comes from science, which humans develop. Imagine applying this approach to cancer detection: breast tumors emit heat from increased blood flow and metabolism, and predictive AI could analyze thousands of thermal images to identify tumors based solely on data patterns. However, a MINN, like the one recently developed by researchers at the Rochester Institute of Technology, uses body-surface temperature data and embeds bioheat transfer laws directly into the model. That means, instead of guessing, it understands how heat moves through the body, allowing it to identify what's wrong, what's causing it, why, and precisely where it is by utilizing the physics of heat flow through tissue. In one case, a MINN predicted a tumor's location and size within a few millimeters, grounded entirely in how cancer disrupts the body's heat signature. The takeaway is simple: humans are still essential. As AI becomes sophisticated, our role is not disappearing. It is shifting. Humans need to 'call bullsh*t' when an algorithm produces something bizarre, biased, or wrong. That isn't just a weakness of AI. It is humans' greatest strength. It means our knowledge also needs to grow so we can steer the technology, keep it in check, ensure it does what we think it does, and help people in the process. The real threat isn't that AI is getting smarter. It is that we might stop using our intelligence. If we treat AI as an oracle, we risk forgetting how to question, reason, and recognize when something doesn't make sense. Fortunately, the future doesn't have to play out like this. We can build systems that are transparent, interpretable, and grounded in the accumulated human knowledge of science, ethics, and culture. Policymakers can fund research into interpretable AI. Universities can train students who blend domain knowledge with technical skills. Developers can adopt frameworks like MINNs and PINNs that require models to stay true to reality. And all of us—users, voters, citizens—can demand that AI serve science and objective truth, not just correlations. After more than a decade of teaching university-level statistics and scientific modeling, I now focus on helping students understand how algorithms work 'under the hood' by learning the systems themselves, rather than using them by rote. The goal is to raise literacy across the interconnected languages of math, science, and coding. This approach is necessary today. We don't need more users clicking 'generate' on black-box models. We need people who can understand the AI's logic, its code and math, and catch its 'bullsh*t.' AI will not make education irrelevant or replace humans. But we might replace ourselves if we forget how to think independently, and why science and deep understanding matter. The choice is not whether to reject or embrace AI. It's whether we'll stay educated and smart enough to guide it.
Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Musk has billions, but Trump has the presidency. In their feud, that counts for more.
There will be no true winners in the spectacular breakup between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, two alpha males with enormous egos and a penchant for rhetorical combat — and for excess. To many Americans watching it all, the two deserve each other. But in the end, Musk should know who truly holds the cards, and it's not him. The implosion that occurred Thursday was an irresistible spectacle pitting the most powerful person in the world against the richest person in the world. It was made for cable news and social media, and neither could get enough of it. Many Republicans who couldn't look away were nonetheless alarmed at the potential fallout. The marriage of convenience between Trump and Musk took root last year with Musk's endorsement and an infusion of an estimated $288 million into the effort to elect Trump president. It carried on into this year, with Musk given broad powers to cut down the executive branch through his U.S. DOGE Service, and he was sometimes described almost as a co-president rather than a volunteer. Musk may have confused the difference. The relationship between the two was one that many who knew them both believed would inevitably end in divorce. That the breakup was as swift and as acrimonious as it was reflected the personalities of the two. The split has implications both substantive and political — and for Musk there are monetary issues to consider, given the size of the government contracts with his businesses and the risk of a decline in the value of Tesla stock. At heart, however, this is a personality clash — pitting a volatile business talent, though a political novice, against a president with shrewd political instincts who has long displayed an appetite for street fights when attacked. Trump also has something Musk does not have, which is the votes of 77 million people and a MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement behind him, including some like Stephen K. Bannon who have been openly hostile to Musk. It's difficult at this moment to expect that Trump and Musk will return to their earlier relationship, however fraught it always was despite the public bonhomie at Cabinet meetings and in the Oval Office. But it's also in the interest of both not to perpetuate this very long. For Trump and the Republicans in Congress, the most pressing concern is Musk's ability to torpedo the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that is the summation of the president's legislative ambitions for this year and perhaps his entire second term. The measure passed the House by a single vote. It cannot pass the Senate without some rewriting, though how much is up in the air. Musk's declaration that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination' helped trigger the conflict between the two men and adds ammunition for those who want more spending cuts. The question is how much Musk's opposition adds to the difficulties of finding a compromise among the competing GOP factions. It's easy to see why GOP leaders are unsettled by Musk's initial attacks on the bill and now his feud with the president. Trump already was facing a sizable job in lobbying lawmakers to win passage of the bill. Any loss of focus on the legislation by the president could be costly, as defeat would deal a devastating blow to Trump and congressional Republicans. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) said on CNBC Friday that failure to pass the bill ultimately would cost Republicans control of the House in next year's midterm elections. That's stating the obvious, but then again, passage of the controversial measure also could imperil the House majority. No one can say whether Musk has the focus or the staying power to engage in a constructive debate about the bill beyond the broad claim that it's just too expensive. Absent something more substantive and targeted in his critique, members of Congress could dismiss him as just another billionaire who knows less than he thinks he knows — and a rich guy angry because federal subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles would be eliminated (though Musk claims he doesn't really care about that). Though there are worries about Musk's role, some Republicans downplay his influence. 'As a practical matter, he'll have almost no impact on the legislative process,' former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said. Gingrich went on to praise Musk as a business genius and someone whose SpaceX rocket company is vital to the United States winning the space battle against China. But as he noted, many business titans, from automaker Henry Ford to inventor Thomas Edison to IBM founder Thomas Watson, were never president. His argument was that Musk, like many business executives, knows almost nothing about politics. 'These are two dramatically different cultures,' he said. But for Republicans there is another concern about Musk, which is the possibility that he will use his vast wealth to try to defeat GOP lawmakers who support the bill. Could he intercede in Republican primary elections? Could he recruit challengers to punish those he sees on the wrong side of the fiscal debate? All that is possible, but there are other factors to consider about Musk's ability to play successfully in future political campaigns. Some strategists who have watched him in action believe the odds are low that his impact would be as great as his bank account might suggest. Musk claimed on Thursday that without his efforts Trump would not have won the 2024 election. That's questionable, though one can see why he might think so. But there are doubts in Republican circles about how effectively Musk's money was spent last year. In politics, he has been undisciplined and is seen as surrounded by mostly tech people who also are not skilled at politics. One of his more recent forays into politics came earlier this year, when he decided to get involved in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. He and allied groups put about $20 million into the race to support Brad Schimel, the conservative judge running against Susan Crawford, the liberal judge. Musk held a rally the weekend before the election, elevating himself almost as the face of the contest. In the end, Crawford won by a margin of 10 percentage points. In May, apparently sobered by the embarrassing loss, Musk said at the Qatar Economic Forum that he would be spending 'a lot less' on campaigns unless he saw a good reason to do otherwise. He sounded disillusioned with politics at the time and eager to shift his focus back to his business interests. He did not sound like someone with an appetite to build an effective political machine capable of recruiting candidates, developing messages and turning out voters. Maybe this is the time, but there is reason for skepticism. One of Musk's postings on X on Thursday also caught the eye of veteran political strategists. It was when he asked, 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' For some Republicans, that might have been alarming, given the resources at his control and the general disillusionment among many voters with politics as usual. For others, however, it signaled that Musk fundamentally misunderstands the structure of America's two-party system. Over many years, various politicians and strategists have talked about organizing the 'sensible center' of the electorate, without success. The experience of the No Labels group in the 2024 cycle was the latest such effort, ending with an acknowledgment that the leaders could not attract a candidate with a credible path to victory. Musk's talk about a third party is little more than musing at this point. Musk's experience with DOGE is enough by itself to question his future role in legislative or campaign politics. His impatience, his break-first-worry-later approach and his lack of understanding of the government all doomed him to fall far short of his grand expectations. 'Had Elon been capable of listening and going slower, he would have had enormous impact. But it's not who he is,' Gingrich said. 'Had he matured into a serious commentator and implementer, then he would have had enormous influence.' Trump said Friday that he's not paying any attention to Musk. That's an overstatement, but the president has more important things to worry about in leading the country and dealing with a complicated set of issues globally. Just laying out the menu of challenges is a reminder of the powers of the presidency. Musk may have thought he was a peer to the president, but he now could learn more about what his real role was and will be.
