Phone app loved by 30 MILLION users shutting down in weeks as hit download disappears from stores and refunds promised
A POPULAR phone app with more than 30 million users is shutting down forever in weeks.
The app was used "billions" of times, but will go offline for good in early July.
Pocket is a beloved app that let users save content to read later.
It's currently owned by Mozilla, which is the tech giant behind the Firefox web browser (a rival to Microsoft Edge, Apple 's Safari, and Google Chrome).
Mozilla says it wants to focus on Firefox instead, and has decided to shut down Pocket permanently as a result.
"We've made the difficult decision to shut down Pocket on July 8, 2025," the Pocket team said in a statement.
"Thank you for being part of our journey over the years.
"We're proud of the impact Pocket has had for our users and communities."
Pocket first launched back in mid-2007 as a browser extension for Mozilla Firefox.
It was originally called Read It Later, and quickly grew to have millions of users.
The service rebranded to Pocket in 2012, and its app ended up being used by tens of millions of people around the world.
In early 2017, Pocket revealed that it had been acquired by Mozilla.
iPhone 16e review – I've secretly tested Apple's cheapest mobile and I love the new button but that's not the best bit
Then just a few weeks ago, Mozilla confirmed that Pocket would shut down in July – with user data and accounts due for deletion in October.
"As users' everyday needs evolve alongside the web itself, it's imperative we focus our efforts on Firefox," Mozilla said.
"And building new solutions that give you real choice, control, and peace of mind online.
"With that in mind, we've made the difficult decision to phase out two products.
5
"Pocket, our read-it-later and content discovery app, and Fakespot, our browser extension that analyses the authenticity of online product reviews."
SHUT DOWN EXPLAINED
The app itself (and browser extensions) will shut down totally on July 8, 2025.
Your data will be retained until October 8 – so that gives you a chance to export your "saves".
But after that date, all of the data will vanish completely.
5
That includes your account, which will be automatically deleted on October 8.
Some Pocket users will also be owed refunds.
This is the case if you have a Pocket Premium account that you've paid for on an annual basis.
So the refund will be based on the time that was left on your subscription after the shut down (July 8).
Pocket refunds – how it works
Here's the official guidance from Pocket...
For monthly subscribers:
We will begin disabling automatic renewal of monthly subscriptions immediately.
You can continue to enjoy the benefits of Pocket Premium until the end of the monthly subscription period.
You will not be charged again, so no refund will be necessary.
No action is required from you.
For annual subscribers:
On July 8, 2025, Annual subscriptions will be cancelled and Annual users will receive a prorated refund automatically to the original payment method.
No action is needed from you.
Picture Credit: Pocket
You should get this back automatically to the payment method that you originally used to pay for Pocket Premium.
The Pocket app has already vanished from app stores.
But it can be reinstalled if you already had it but deleted it, right up until October 8, 2025.
If you've stilled got the app, you'll need to delete it yourself. It won't vanish on its own – but it will stop working.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US attacks on science and research a ‘great gift' to China on artificial intelligence, former OpenAI board member says
The US administration's targeting of academic research and international students is a 'great gift' to China in the race to compete on artificial intelligence, former OpenAI board member Helen Toner has said. The director of strategy at Georgetown's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) joined the board of OpenAI in 2021 after a career studying AI and the relationship between the United States and China. Toner, a 33-year-old University of Melbourne graduate, was on the board for two years until a falling out with founder Sam Altman in 2023. Altman was fired by the board over claims that he was not 'consistently candid' in his communications and the board did not have confidence in Altman's ability to lead. The chaotic months that followed saw Altman fired and then re-hired with three members of the board, including Toner, ousted instead. They will soon also be the subject of a planned film, with the director of Challengers and Call Me By Your Name, Luca Guadagnino, reportedly in talks to direct. The saga, according to Time magazine – which named her one of the Top 100 most influential people on AI in 2024 – resulted in the Australian having 'the ear of policymakers around the world trying to regulate AI'. At CSET, Toner has a team of 60 people working on AI research for white papers or briefing policymakers focused on the use of AI in the military, workforce, biosecurity and cybersecurity sectors. 'A lot of my work focuses on some combination of AI, safety and security issues, the Chinese AI ecosystem and also what gets called frontier AI,' Toner said. Toner said the United States is concerned about losing the AI race to China and while US chip export controls make it harder for China to get compute power to compete with the US, the country was still making a 'serious push' on AI, as highlighted by the surprise success of Chinese generative AI model DeepSeek earlier this year. The Trump administration's attacks on research and bans on international students are a 'gift' to China in the AI race with the US, Toner said. 'Certainly it's a great gift to [China] the way that the US is currently attacking scientific research, and foreign talent – which is a huge proportion of the USA workforce – is immigrants, many of them coming from China,' she said. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'That is a big … boon to China in terms of competing with the US.' The AI boom has led to claims and concerns about a job wipeout caused by companies using AI to replace work that had otherwise been done by humans. Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, the company behind the generative AI model Claude, told Axios last week that AI could reduce entry-level white-collar jobs by 50% and result in 20% unemployment in the next five years. Toner said Amodei 'often says things that seem directionally right to me, but in terms of … timeline and numbers often seem quite aggressive' but added that disruption in the jobs market had already started to show. 'The kind of things that [language model-based AI] can do best at the moment … if you can give them a bite-size task – not a really long term project, but something that you might not need ages and ages to do and something where you still need human review,' she said. 'That's a lot of the sort of work that you give to interns or new grads in white-collar industries.' Experts have suggested companies that invested heavily in AI are now being pressed to show the results of that investment. Toner said while the real-world use of AI can generate a lot of value, it is less clear what business models and which players will benefit from that value. Dominant uses might be a mix of different AI services plugged into existing applications – like phone keyboards that can now transcribe voices – as well as stand-alone chatbots, but it's 'up in the air' which type of AI would actually dominate, she said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Turner said the push for profitability was less risky than the overall race to be first in AI advancements. 'It means that these companies are all making it up as they go along and figuring out as they go how to make trade-offs between getting products out the door, doing extra testing, putting in extra guardrails, putting in measures that are supposed to make the model more safe but also make it more annoying to use,' she said. 'They're figuring that all out on the fly, and … they're making those decisions while under pressure to go as fast as they can.' Turrner said she was worried about the idea of 'gradual disempowerment to AI' – 'meaning a world where we just gradually hand over more control over different parts of society and the economy and government to AI systems, and then realise a bit too late that it's not going the way that we wanted, but we can't really turn back'. She is most optimistic about AI's use in improving science and drug discovery and for self-driving services like Waymo in reducing fatalities on the roads. 'With AI, you never want to be looking for making the AI perfect, you want it to be better than the alternative. And when it comes to cars, the alternative is thousands of people dying per year. 'If you can improve on that, that's amazing. You're saving many, many people.' Toner joked that her friends had been sending her options on who might play her in the film. 'Any of the names that friends of mine have thrown my way are all these incredibly beautiful actresses,' she said. 'So I'll take any of those, whoever they choose.'
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
America's infatuation with boy geniuses and ‘Great Men' is ruining us
One Saturday in the spring of 2021, a little achy after receiving our first doses of the Covid-19 vaccine, my husband and I decided to stay in bed and click on the first thing suggested to us by our TV. It was WeWork: Or the Making and Breaking of a $47 Billion Unicorn, a documentary produced by Hulu about the New York startup WeWork's spectacular fall from grace. The film mostly chronicles the misdeeds of founder Adam Neumann, the surfer-dude dolt who turned a good idea – co-working spaces that lease small offices to tech startups – into a surreally overvalued conglomerate, before he made a mortifying attempt to take the company public that eventually ended in his forced resignation. As a consolation prize, Neumann infamously received a $1.7bn golden parachute. The WeWork cautionary tale is partly about slick marketing, which is what seems to have convinced its investors that it was a tech startup. Neumann tried to position WeWork as something much more than a real estate company: he borrowed the tech industry's idealistic language about changing the world but upped the ante, insisting that the company's sole mission was 'elevat[ing] the world's consciousness'. This is a smart idea when trying to keep billionaire investors' money spigots flowing. A real estate flipper has a finite worth, based on markets, profits and expenses, but a company that 'elevates the world's consciousness', well, who knows where they might go with it? There is evidence, though, that WeWork executives were starting to buy into their own marketing – to get high, so to speak, on their own supply. As Gabriel Sherman writes in Vanity Fair, Neumann was known to make insane pronouncements about 'wanting to be elected president of the world, live forever, and become humanity's first trillionaire'. When SoftBank CEO and future WeWork investor Masayoshi Son met Neumann, he asked him: 'In a fight, who wins – the smart guy or the crazy guy?' 'Crazy guy,' Neumann answered. WeWork pushed its romantic origin story, which involved Neumann and co-founder Miguel McKelvey's idyllic childhoods thousands of miles apart: Neumann on a kibbutz in Israel, McKelvey on a hippie commune in Oregon. From this formative experience of communal living, so the story went, they created WeWork – what Neumann described with the impossible concept of the 'capitalist kibbutz'. These canned origin stories are what passes for good storytelling in an age when we are eager to swallow anything tech jams down our throats. And tech is only the most recent phenomenon that has made us simps for narratives about powerful men and how they got that way. This is a tendency that seems rooted particularly in American DNA, one that has been exploited for centuries to rope people into wars, cults and scams – with our unjust societal status quo being the greatest scam of all. Our obsession with brute power has gotten us where we are now, a system where nearly 100% of American wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few men, one of whom has ascended to the highest political office (twice!) to become our very own authoritarian strongman. Neumann fashioned himself after the spiritual tech-guy archetype, like the shadow side of Jack Dorsey from Twitter, whose Buddhist renunciation act contrasted dissonantly with the famously toxic website he founded. But Neumann has his own shadow in Billy McFarland, the con artist laughingstock who took entrepreneurial speculative fiction to Icarian heights with his Fyre festival. The 26-year-old McFarland and the rapper Ja Rule went all in on a pipe dream to hold a luxury music festival on what was once Pablo Escobar's private island in the Bahamas. Marketing the festival on social media was their sole concern – they reportedly paid Kendall Jenner $250,000 for an Instagram post – when it could have been food, bathrooms and housing for their 5,000 ticket holders. When their guests arrived, instead of luxury villas on a deserted private island, they found hurricane tents and inflatable mattresses on a residential construction site. The privileged would-be concertgoers spent a terrifying night of Lord of the Flies-style chaos in the tents before the festival was canceled, prompting schadenfreude the likes of which Twitter had rarely seen. I'm not saying that McFarland, who was released in 2022 after serving four years in prison for fraud, is the same as any other tech entrepreneur, but it's easy to see how the tech market draws con artists like roaches to grease. For one thing, McFarland was punished not for defrauding his customers – whom he put in serious danger, in addition to stealing their money – but his billionaire investors. Once again, the flows and reversals of capital float above real life, with all our ant-like obsession with cause and effect and human suffering. One of Silicon Valley's most dearly held and deleterious myths is of its boy geniuses. McFarland reportedly idolized Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, and I would be willing to bet that he styled himself not only on the real Zuckerberg but on Zuckerberg as he was fictionalized by the screenwriter Aaron Sorkin in 2010's The Social Network, one of the most influential documents in shaping the narrative of Web 2.0. My husband and I also watched The Social Network while laid up from the vaccine. I had never seen it before, and more than 10 years after it was made amid a tech backlash with its target squarely on Zuckerberg and Facebook, I found the movie's tone strange, as it portrayed Zuckerberg as a manipulative misogynist who is nevertheless one of the visionary geniuses of our times. As Zadie Smith pointed out in her 2010 essay on the film, Generation Why?, this does not really conform with what we know of Zuckerberg, who is so bland that his only explanation for why he invented Facebook, beyond a mystical fixation on the word 'connection', is that he liked 'building things'. The unwitting assault on democracy, community and the human sense of self by a bunch of college sophomores who liked building things is not a bad story, but it's clear why it is not the one that Sorkin chose. As Mark Harris wrote in New York magazine in 2010, the film's central narrative question could be stated as: 'What exactly does it mean to be an asshole?' Women in the film's first and last beats tell Zuckerberg that he either is or isn't an asshole, and in the intervening two hours, he confidently fucks people over like an oblivious poster in the Am I the Asshole? subreddit. But this does not make him a villain; it is more of his tragic flaw. One must imagine that Elon Musk has done some of this same rationalizing as he has gone from being hailed as the real-life Iron Man to his new role as Twitter's head troll and eviscerator of the American federal government at Doge. Moving fast and breaking things means some people will think you're an asshole. Or maybe you have to be an asshole to be effective – assholes are the real good guys! Harris innocently reports in New York that Sorkin and the film's director, David Fincher, relate to Zuckerberg, having 'been at some point in their professional lives on the receiving end of the word asshole'. The Social Network's alternate title could be Sympathy for the Asshole, having been created by a team of men who have internalized the myth of their own temperamental genius and are intoxicated by stories of others who have done the same. This is a favorite theme of Sorkin, who has become the go-to screenwriter for contemporary 'Great Man' stories. His Steve Jobs, from the biopic Steve Jobs, is a total dick, questioning his daughter's paternity in the national press and screwing over his collaborators and mentors. And still his genius is assured, if ineffable: in one scene, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak blows up at Jobs, telling him: 'How come 10 times in a day, I read Steve Jobs is a genius? What do you do?' Jobs's response is that his inability to write code is irrelevant since he is like a conductor, 'play[ing] the orchestra', coordinating technicians under his sweeping business vision. Tech founders' self-belief is broadcast by the geniuses they name their businesses after: Tesla is a conspicuous example, and Apple is, of course, a nod to Isaac Newton. Steve Jobs and The Social Network are full of mini-monologues about the future of computing and the lives of historical Great Men like Alan Turing, creating little biopics within biopics. Intelligence is signified in Sorkin's work by simply knowing a lot of facts, and his nerd heroes are often being asked difficult trivia questions so that they can answer them correctly, like the sixth-grade brownnosers they once were. As Joan Didion said of Woody Allen's characters in 1979: 'They reflect exactly the false and desperate knowingness of the smartest kid in the class,' but at least Allen's characters are just dilettante writers with teenage girlfriends, not the supposed incarnations of the spirit of American innovation. This juvenile intelligence and ruthlessness seem to go hand in hand. One of the leitmotifs of Sorkin's tech biopics is, as I am sure he read on 'Great artists steal.' Zuckerberg and Jobs in his movies are defiant about their practice of plundering other people's hard work. This Sorkin does not exactly share with them, since his biopics are ahistorical fantasies, telling stories that are mostly Sorkin's own invention. 'I'm really weak when it comes to plot,' Sorkin told New York. 'With nothing to stop me, I'll write pages and pages of snappy dialogue that don't add up to anything.' By seizing on poetic license, he can push those popular narratives even further, plating up the Zuckerberg and Jobs of our dreams, our very own assholes to rival the assholes of history such as Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Walt Disney. Sorkin's appeal is not to artistic ingenuity but national pride, creating corporate propaganda so satisfying that his lines from The Social Network have become tech truisms – 'we lived on farms, then we lived in cities, now we're going to live on the internet' – reshaping reality around itself. I can admit that this version of the Facebook story is easier to face than the truth. As Smith writes in Generation Why?, Facebook was a haphazard invention, with little thought given to its look or function, reducing all of us in the end to the 19-year-old who invented it. There is a strange resonance with Smith's unanswerable questions – 'Why? Why Facebook? … Why do it like that?' she asks. The granddaddy of all tech scams, Enron, the energy provider turned online trading marketplace whose unironic motto was: 'Ask why.' In addition to wreaking havoc on Texas and California energy sectors (damage that, in our climate change–addled present, we are still suffering from), Enron's executives were maestros of fake accounting, hiding billions of dollars in debt to keep the firm's stock price high before its epic collapse in 2001. The definitive book on the Enron scandal, adapted into a documentary with the same name, is called Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, and its executives loved to congratulate themselves for their intelligence, casting it as the means to justify any sordid ends. In a Sorkinist reading of history, American progress is safe-guarded because the assholes we endow with great power are inoculated with visionary genius. But intelligence, popularly taken to mean devious cleverness or maybe just privilege, has never been synonymous with moral goodness, and we should no longer blindly celebrate people for so low and ambiguous a bar as 'changing the world'. Why? Why Facebook? Why Enron? Why is our economy an unregulated wasteland of self-dealing, where theft is not an aberration but the very foundation of the world's greatest fortunes? Musk has become the archetypal tech founder not only for his passion for self-beatification – he revived the dream of space travel! And he makes electric cars! – but now also for his Dr Evil-style eccentricity and megalomania, essentially buying control of the federal government, which he spent four months haphazardly decimating. Tech is only the latest sector to take cover in the American mania for founder myths, with the virtual requirement that they be mostly made up. (Elizabeth Holmes, the sociopathic founder of the fraudulent medical startup Theranos and one of Silicon Valley's few girl geniuses, courted investors with a falsified sob story about her uncle dying of skin cancer.) This narrative impulse comes from our own epic origin story, our misplaced pride in the genius of the founding fathers that has become one of the main stagnating forces of American government. Our stubborn American social structure, where wealth and political power are so ludicrously concentrated, was seemingly incarnated in the founders, some of the smartest guys of the 18th century, whose inspiring opening salvo, a poetic ode to all men being created equal, was maybe more marketing than actual game plan. With this, they got the foreign policy apparatus of France to buy into what might be the most ambitious and visionary startup venture of all time: the United States of America. The figures of the founders are narcotizing antidotes to the reformer spirit; depictions of them as revolutionaries foreclose any further revolution as redundant. It is no wonder they are foisted on us by the entire spectrum of cultural gatekeepers, including politicians, publishing, Disney, the Tonys, the Grammys and the Pulitzer prize. Why else would we be so taken in by the romanticized story of our most corrupt and problematic founding father? Yes, you know the one. Lin-Manuel Miranda got the idea for his musical Hamilton when he bought a copy of Ron Chernow's biography of the founding father at the airport. 'When I encountered Alexander Hamilton I was immediately captivated,' Miranda said. 'He's an inspirational figure to me. And an aspirational one.' Miranda has popularized the fantasy that Hamilton's was a New York immigrant story, like those of Miranda's parents, who moved to New York from Puerto Rico. But Hamilton was not an immigrant as we now think of them: he did move to New York from the Caribbean, but as an English citizen moving between two of England's colonies. (Despite having American citizenship, Puerto Ricans living in the United States are seen as more 'foreign' than Hamilton would have been.) And disregarding rumors kicked up by the musical's popularity, he was white. Miranda's casting of the founding fathers with Black and Hispanic actors was a stroke of genius, since it clouded Hamilton's politics in a confusion so profound that few people felt like questioning them. One might even forget to notice that the musical portrays no actual people of color. As the historian Lyra D Monteiro wrote in The Public Historian, Hamilton repackages the same myths of the founders that we have received from time immemorial, particularly the myth that white men were the only people of any importance living in America during this time. Despite his overtures to the subjectivity of history, with the final song in Hamilton repeating the question: 'Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?' Miranda misses the irony – that he has perpetuated a narrative by white men about white men, because the founder biography is an essentially white genre, especially the ones you can buy at the airport. Maybe I'm crazy, but as I sat down to watch the live version made available on Disney+, I assumed that a hip-hop musical about the founding fathers would be at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, poking holes in our pieties about the founders. Instead, I watched a very long and self-serious biography of Hamilton, with a sentimentality about its subject worthy of the Walt Disney Company. This combination – a performance of diversity crossed with the familiar sanding down of the sharper edges of American history – makes Hamilton 'one of the most brilliant propaganda pieces in theatrical history', as Matt Stoller writes, and one, if Disney has anything to say about it, that will be shown to schoolchildren annually for the rest of forever. Stoller's essay The Hamilton Hustle from the Baffler is an exhaustive and illuminating rundown of all of Alexander Hamilton's faults and misdeeds. Hamilton not only was in favor of centralized government but was vehemently anti-democracy, calling the American people 'a great beast'. Instead, he envisioned a United States run by an elite coalition of wealthy financiers and military officers, and much of his career was dedicated to fucking over the small farmers who formed the majority of the American population. And while Chernow presents Hamilton as an abolitionist, he married into a family of slaveholders and sold enslaved people himself. Hamilton's authoritarianism had long-lasting effects, eviscerating the economic power of the middle classes and creating stratification and inequality that we still recognize today. It is baffling that educated, progressive people so willingly accepted Miranda's fairytale about the father of modern finance so soon after the 2008 financial crisis, in which the craven stupidity of Wall Street bankers nearly caused global economic collapse. But this may be exactly why Hamilton was such a phenomenon. As Stoller writes, Hamilton is so resilient a figure in the American popular consciousness that 'the shifting popular image of Hamilton is itself a gauge of the relative strength of democratic institutions at any given moment'– that is, the more popular Hamilton is, the less healthy American democracy is. Hamilton the musical exemplifies a familiar leftist critique of contemporary liberalism: that the appearance of progress, particularly involving narratives about 'strong women' and 'breaking down historic barriers', stands in for the real thing. With this frame, Hamilton is the quintessential Obama-era document, with Obama's secretary of the treasury, Timothy Geithner, calling Hamilton the 'original Mr Bailout'. Geithner's blanket bailout of the big banks, with the architects of the financial crisis going totally unpunished, was a travesty we are only beginning to reckon with, but one thing it did for certain is pass the baton of bank-friendly economic policies between the Bush and Obama administrations, with Obama's innovation being an even closer relationship with tech founders, the titans of our new Gilded Age. Barack and Michelle Obama have said of their greatest strength: 'One way of looking at what we've both been doing for the last 20 years, maybe most of our careers, was to tell stories.' This is true, and they are maybe a little too good at it. Maybe this is why I am a bit grumpy about the Obamas' choice to start a film and TV production company with their post-White House popularity, moving decisively into the realm where they have always most excelled: celebrity. Their company is called Higher Ground Productions, which they claim is an ode to Stevie Wonder, but this phrase inevitably evokes Michelle Obama's catchphrase on the 2016 campaign trail: 'When they go low, we go high.' This policy of tight-lipped civility was no match for the emergency of the Trump moment – it's embarrassing when one thinks of how low we have sunk from there – but it was a savvy act of image preservation, one that ensured that the Obamas would weather the Trump era unscathed, no matter if the rest of us will. Just as it is for Silicon Valley founders, for the Obamas, 'good storytelling' is synonymous with good branding. And, of course, big streaming companies such as Netflix, whom the Obamas' production company signed an eight-figure deal with in 2018, do not see their 'content' as separate from the demands of marketing. To them, good stories are the ones people want to hear because they've heard them before, thus the knockoffs they produce of all their most popular shows: iterating, iterating, iterating. Who lives, who dies, who tells your story? Since I wrote the first draft of this piece in 2021, there have been so many tech scandals and meltdowns that I have been able to shoehorn in only a few of them here, and it is interesting how we seem to have as healthy an appetite for stories of tech villains as those of tech founders. Sam Bankman-Fried makes a great story whether he's the barefoot CEO giving all his money away or the incompetent crook gambling with his investors' savings. We love Musk whether he's exploring space or destroying Twitter (now X) and the American administrative state. It's the ultimate postmodern nightmare, where truth and taste are not only contested but irrelevant. One simple reason that documentaries have abounded in the past 10 years – particularly notable was the release of two competing Fyre festival documentaries at the exact same time – is because of the amount of video footage that now exists of basically everyone since the rise of reality television and the iPhone. Social media feeds exemplify the total victory of spectacle over argument, a stream of unlimited, barely distinguishable content, narrativeless and authored by everyone. We look at the dominance of social media apps and start seeking the Great Men behind them, completely ignoring the billions of users who have donated their time, confessions and creativity to make them compelling. One sees this startlingly with HBO's documentary series Q: Into the Storm, which seeks out the men behind the mega-conspiracy theory QAnon. The documentary film-maker Cullen Hoback had remarkable access to Jim and Ron Watkins, the father-son duo in the Philippines who ran the anonymous message board 8chan, where Q, a supposed 'deep-state' operative, posted warnings of a cabal of powerful pedophiles who can only be stopped by a heroic President Donald Trump. Hoback comes to the same conclusion that many other journalists already have, that Ron Watkins had been writing Q's posts since 2017, and that both Jim and Ron had heavy interests in promoting QAnon. But Q was never one person: Ron Watkins did not originate the persona, and the anonymous message board that was QAnon's birthplace was crucial for its development, as a kind of collaborative fiction written by a web of different authors. QAnon is a case study in the power of emergence, though it is all in service to perhaps the least deserving and most powerful Great Man on the planet: Trump. In terms of sheer people power, it acts like a microcosm of social media or even the United States itself, this concentration of human ingenuity misdirected to benefit people who are already rich and powerful. This is another way of saying, as my Marxist brother tells me, that workers create value, even as regular people have so little power in this time of inequality, price increases, stagnant wages, environmental injustice and war. The current billionaire class has more power than any human beings have ever had, and they wield it with remarkably little responsibility. Billionaires must be cut down to size through every means possible, from breaking up monopolies to tax reform to financial regulation to union drives. But we also need to stop swallowing these Great Man stories whole and recognize them for what they are: an ideology of dominance. I do not exaggerate when I say that this ideology is not only impoverishing the narratives available to us but endangering human lives and the future of civilization. But the wheel is beginning to turn. Tech billionaires' public image is in the toilet, with these former 'visionaries' seeming ever more embarrassing, monomaniacal, shortsighted and pathetic. This is true of Trump, too, whose bizarre and ever-changing tariff policies led to awful approval ratings almost as soon as his second term started. Of course, we could have said this in the fall of 2024, too, when he was making rambling speeches about Hannibal Lecter and interrupting campaign events to sway sleepily to Ave Maria – none of which was enough to cost him the election. The fickle winds of marketing may finally be blowing against these self-styled Great Men, but they know more keenly than anyone that all publicity is good publicity: McFarland was recently back in the news, capitalizing on the attention garnered by his notorious failures, claiming he wanted to host a Fyre festival 2. It will take more than our disapproval to stop them all from failing up like Neumann, who was so incompetent that he got paid more than a billion dollars to quit his job. Who wins, the smart guy or the crazy guy? The crazy guy, and he's getting crazier every day. Alice Bolin is the author of Dead Girls: Essays on Surviving an American Obsession and Culture Creep: Notes on the Pop Apocalypse, out this month. This essay was adapted from Culture Creep courtesy of Mariner Books, HarperCollins Publishers
Geeky Gadgets
4 hours ago
- Geeky Gadgets
How AI is Predicting Viral Videos : The Secret Tech Behind Tomorrow's Viral Sensations
What if you could predict the next viral sensation before it takes over your feed? Imagine knowing which quirky dance challenge, heartfelt story, or jaw-dropping stunt was about to explode in popularity—days or even hours before the rest of the world caught on. Thanks to the rise of AI-powered tools, this isn't just a futuristic fantasy; it's already happening. By analyzing massive datasets and uncovering hidden patterns in real time, artificial intelligence is transforming how we understand and anticipate digital trends. For content creators, marketers, and platforms, this technology offers a innovative advantage in the race to capture attention in an increasingly crowded online space. Creator Magic explores how AI is reshaping the way viral videos are identified and used. You'll discover how advanced algorithms and data pattern recognition allow these tools to predict which videos are poised to dominate timelines—before they even hit their stride. From analyzing engagement metrics to decoding emotional tones in comments, AI provides insights that human intuition alone could never achieve. Whether you're a creator looking to ride the next big wave or a marketer eager to align with emerging trends, this technology holds the key to staying ahead of the curve. The question is: how will you use it to your advantage? AI-Powered Viral Video Prediction How AI Identifies Viral Video Potential AI's ability to predict viral content is rooted in its capacity to process and analyze massive amounts of data in real time. These systems evaluate key factors such as user interactions, engagement metrics, and historical trends to uncover patterns that indicate a video's potential to gain popularity. For example, an AI tool might detect a sudden surge in shares, likes, or comments within a specific demographic. By comparing this activity to patterns observed in past viral videos, the system can forecast whether the content is likely to achieve broader appeal. This predictive capability enables AI to identify trends that might otherwise go unnoticed by human observers, offering a unique advantage in spotting viral content early. The Role of Advanced Algorithms in Trend Prediction The foundation of AI's predictive power lies in its advanced algorithms, which are designed to analyze complex datasets and identify correlations that drive content virality. These algorithms evaluate multiple factors, including: Video length and format Topic relevance to current events or audience interests Engagement metrics such as comments, shares, and watch time Natural Language Processing (NLP) plays a critical role in this process by analyzing video titles, descriptions, and comments to understand the emotional tone and context of the content. Additionally, AI systems assess visual and audio elements—such as color schemes, themes, and music—that are essential for capturing viewer attention. By combining these insights, the algorithms can make highly accurate predictions about a video's potential to go viral, offering actionable intelligence for content creators and marketers alike. AI Agent Finds Viral Videos Before They Go Mainstream Watch this video on YouTube. Here are additional guides from our expansive article library that you may find useful on AI videos. Spotting Trends Early Through Data Pattern Recognition AI's ability to recognize data patterns is a powerful tool for early trend detection. By continuously monitoring user behavior and content performance, these systems can identify emerging trends before they reach mainstream popularity. This capability is particularly valuable for marketers and creators who aim to stay ahead of the curve in a fast-paced digital environment. For instance, if an AI system identifies a growing interest in videos featuring a specific challenge, theme, or format, it can alert users to this trend. Content creators can then produce relevant material while the trend is still gaining momentum, significantly increasing their chances of reaching a larger audience. This proactive approach not only helps creators maximize their impact but also allows brands and advertisers to align their campaigns with current audience interests, making sure greater relevance and engagement. Real-World Applications of Viral Content Forecasting The ability to forecast viral content has far-reaching applications across various industries. Social media platforms can use this technology to recommend trending videos to users, enhancing engagement and user satisfaction. By identifying high-potential content, platforms can also optimize their algorithms to prioritize videos that resonate with their audience. For brands and advertisers, AI tools provide a strategic advantage by identifying content that aligns with current trends. This allows them to collaborate with creators or promote videos that are likely to perform well, making sure their campaigns achieve maximum visibility and impact. Content creators, on the other hand, benefit from actionable insights into what resonates with their audience. By understanding the factors that drive virality, they can refine their strategies, focusing on topics, formats, and styles that maximize their reach. In a competitive digital landscape, this combination of creativity and data-driven decision-making is essential for standing out and building a loyal audience. The Future of AI in Trend Prediction AI-powered tools for predicting viral videos represent a significant advancement in trend analysis. By using advanced algorithms, data pattern recognition, and early trend detection, these systems provide unparalleled insights into the dynamics of content popularity. Whether you're a marketer, content creator, or platform operator, adopting this technology offers a clear path to making informed decisions and staying ahead of the competition. As AI continues to evolve, its role in shaping the future of digital content will only grow, influencing how trends are identified, analyzed, and used across industries. Media Credit: Creator Magic Filed Under: AI, Top News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
