Buty Obuwie

Google Is Censoring Reviews of ICE Detention Centers

· The Intercept

While they’re not as common as reviews for cafes and dry cleaners, reviews have poured into Google Maps by the thousands for the growing network of jails operated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The reviews have come from internet users sharing their often harrowing experiences in the detention facilities.

Visit biznow.biz for more information.

Google then purges these reviews and blocks the ability to write new ones, according to newly published research.

“Google actively suppresses carceral information, narratives, and digital trace data related to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) detention facilities,” wrote Muira McCammon, a professor at Tulane University’s Department of Communication who has been scraping and analyzing self-reported accounts of ICE imprisonment posted to Google Maps since last year.

Much of this record is now permanently deleted, erasing detailed testimony of people ingested by the U.S. deportation machine.

“Almost all of the Google reviews that I originally collected in 2025 are now no longer available.”

Last August, McCammon aggregated 1,636 posts from 26 different ICE facilities where Google still allowed users to post reviews and discovered there were 91 other immigration jails on Google Maps with no reviews.

“Google had already turned off reviews for the remaining 91 facilities,” McCammon told The Intercept. “Almost all of the Google reviews that I originally collected in 2025 are now no longer available.”

Only four ICE facilities appear to still permit reviews on Google Maps, she said.

Pulling the reviews has come with no public notice or explanation.

In 2023, Google said in a corporate blog post that it reserved the right to delete Maps reviews for locations that are “consistently unhelpful, harmful, or off-topic. This includes places that people go to without choice or places only accessible to people stationed or assigned there—such as police stations and prisons.”

Unhelpful to whom, however, is unclear: While some of the reviews in question were statements of protest that could have been left by anyone, many appeared to come from people directly affected by ICE. They described a variety of issues that would be of great material interest to anyone detained in the facilities or for people close to them.

“Reviews help people make decisions on where to go,” Google spokesperson Genevieve Park said in a statement, “and we don’t show reviews on several categories of places where people go without choice,” citing the company’s policy of removing Google Maps reviews that are “unhelpful, harmful, or off-topic.”

In the past, Google has complied with requests to censor speech about ICE. In 2025, the company blocked Android users from downloading ICEBlock, an app that alerted people to crowdsourced sightings of ICE agents.

Related

Google Fulfilled ICE Subpoena Demanding Student Journalist’s Bank and Credit Card Numbers

Asked if the Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, had communicated with Google about the reviews, Park said the takedowns were “unrelated—it was about enforcing our policy that prohibits reviews for places that people go to without choice.”

In a statement to The Intercept, a spokesperson for DHS denied that ICE requested any reviews of detention facilities be removed.

“Being in detention is a choice,” the Homeland Security spokesperson said, citing the department’s program to encourage an app-based system for self-deportation.

Many of the reviews McCammon aggregated were from despairing friends and relatives.

“You can barely hear the detainee when you make a phone call.”

“My friend’s dad was sentenced to one month in jail,” read one review. “He served the time and then was moved to this facility for another 3 months. How is it not illegal to hold someone 3x longer than what they were sentenced to serve?”

A Spanish language review McCammon collected read, “You can barely hear the detainee when you make a phone call.”

Other posts reflect what apparent former detainees described as poor conditions, such as “The place is infested with roaches crawling all over the inmates body there,” or “Very bad experience i spent 2 months in this hell . . . 99% of staff is cruel and racist.”

One reviewer said many detainees weren’t able to communicate with ICE staff because of the language barrier:

I stayed there for more than a month. The food there was okay, but very unpalatable. They were all very kind. Due to the language barrier, there was a big barrier to communication. I felt that most people couldn’t express their thoughts and needs. Why didn’t they have a translator? ! Even if it’s not expensive. The air conditioner there was very cold, and many people, including me, caught cold from the cold. Even so, they were unwilling to turn up the air conditioner temperature. When I slept at night, I only had a thin blanket to cover myself, and it felt very cold.

Although Google’s stance appears to be that the censorship is based on a common-sense, consumer-centric view of Google Maps’ purpose, McCammon argues in her paper that these are essentially political decisions, made by “suppressing the circulation of carceral information and counter-narratives [and] calling into question how the company approaches the ideology of search, when it concerns the reputation of the U.S. administrative state.”

The post Google Is Censoring Reviews of ICE Detention Centers appeared first on The Intercept.

Czytaj dalej u źródła

Report: Spurs considering €50m move for World Cup star

· Yahoo Sports

Report: Spurs considering €50m move for World Cup star

Tottenham Eye Andreas Schjelderup Transfer as Benfica Brace for Summer Battle

Visit palladian.co.za for more information.

Tottenham’s summer business looks to be gathering shape, and the latest name pushing towards the front of the queue is Andreas Schjelderup. According to Sport Witness, the Benfica winger is seriously considering a move away this summer, with Spurs currently leading the chase.

That alone makes this one worth watching. Schjelderup is 22, productive, versatile and coming off a campaign that sharpened his profile across Europe. Ten goals and seven assists in 43 appearances is a healthy return, and his impact on the international stage only seems to have reinforced the belief that there is another level still to come. For Tottenham, that profile fits a familiar need, a wide forward who can create, carry the ball and still affect the scoreboard.

Schjelderup Transfer Picture Develops

The situation in Lisbon appears finely balanced. Benfica are understood to want a new contract agreed, with his current deal running until 2028 and containing a €100m release clause. Yet the more important number is the practical asking price. Reports in Portugal suggest Benfica had initially been prepared to discuss a sale at around €40m, before increasing their demands after his recent rise in stock.

That shift matters, but it does not look fatal to Tottenham’s hopes. Spurs are said to be willing to offer around €40m including bonuses, and while that may currently fall short, the gap feels negotiable rather than prohibitive. In modern market terms, this is the kind of deal that can move quickly once player preference becomes clearer.

Photo: IMAGO

Benfica Future in Doubt

The strongest encouragement for Spurs may be Schjelderup’s own stance. Reports in Portugal suggest he has been slow to engage with Benfica’s renewal proposal and is seriously weighing up an exit. Record goes further, stating: “Contacts continue and intensify, in a context where Benfica admits the possibility of making one of the biggest sales of the summer. If negotiations advance as desired by the Eagles, the winger may not even wear the Benfica jersey again.”

That is the line that changes the mood around this story. Clubs can posture over valuations all they like, but once a player begins looking outward, negotiations tend to take on a different rhythm. Tottenham will know that.

Spurs Need for Attacking Depth

From a football perspective, the attraction is obvious. Schjelderup offers age, upside and proven output, while still carrying the feeling of a player who can be developed further in the Premier League. Tottenham have often looked at their best with speed and craft in wide areas, and adding another dynamic option would strengthen both rotation and long-term planning.

There is still work to do before this becomes anything more concrete, especially with interest from elsewhere in England and Italy. Even so, this feels more than a passing rumour. If Spurs decide to press, the route appears open.

Our View

From a Spurs fan’s perspective, this is exactly the sort of report that sparks genuine intrigue. Schjelderup feels like the kind of signing supporters can get behind because he sits in that sweet spot between established production and untapped potential. He is not arriving as a finished superstar, but he would not be a pure gamble either.

The most encouraging part is the suggestion that Tottenham are in the lead and that the player may be open to moving now. Too often, these stories drift because the selling club wants one figure, the buying club offers another, and nothing ever really develops. Here, the numbers sound close enough to make a deal realistic.

There is also a wider squad point. Spurs need more than names, they need options who can genuinely change games. If Schjelderup can add goals, assists and unpredictability from the wing, then this is the type of move that improves the side immediately while also leaving room for growth.

Supporters will naturally wonder whether €40m rising with bonuses is enough, especially after Benfica reportedly pushed the price up. Still, if the player wants the move and Tottenham move decisively, this could be one of those transfers that suddenly accelerates. On the surface, it makes a lot of sense, and it feels like one worth pursuing properly.

Czytaj dalej u źródła

What I got wrong about FIRE

· Business Insider

In 2021, when I joined Business Insider as a workplace reporter, I noticed something strange about my new readers: They were obsessed with the Financial Independence, Retire Early movement. Week after week, I watched them flock to stories about people who stopped working in their 30s and 40s.

Visit saltysenoritaaz.com for more information.

Having spent much of the 2010s in San Francisco, I had occasionally heard about high-earning tech workers sharing tiny studios with multiple roommates and subsisting on instant ramen so they could retire young. I never understood why they were killing themselves just to escape what seemed like perfectly good jobs. FIRE, as I understood it, was a fringe movement — just one of many eccentricities in a city full of people devoted to odd things.

So why, as the economy was emerging from the depths of the pandemic, were all these articles about FIRE suddenly going viral? The mystery nagged at me but I just couldn't take it seriously. From the extreme austerity the movement espoused to the passive-income side hustles that sounded kind of scammy, everything about it seemed unrealistic. I assumed FIRE would flame out.

Five years later, I couldn't have been more wrong. The movement has only grown more popular: The main subreddit now has 2.4 million followers. Half of millennials list financial independence as a life goal of theirs. And Business Insider has even assigned a reporter to cover the movement, my colleague Kathleen Elkins. No one has helped me understand why more than Laura Sonday, a professor of organizational behavior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a leading researcher on the movement.

For her doctoral dissertation, Laura Sonday spent years conducting in-depth interviews with 55 devotees.

For her doctoral dissertation, Sonday spent years observing FIRE meetups and retreats and conducting in-depth interviews with 55 devotees, some of whom had achieved financial independence and some of whom were still working toward it. When I first stumbled on her findings in 2024, I began to see the movement in a different light — as a deeply philosophical response to the broken state of modern work. She's since built on that research for a new paper that was just published in one of the top management journals, Administrative Science Quarterly.

At its core, Sonday argues, FIRE is a rejection of the dominant way we view work in American culture: that good workers demonstrate an unwavering dedication to our jobs. Sociologists have given this belief a variety of names — the ideal worker norm, the work-devotion schema — but most of us know it more colloquially as hustle culture. The standard emerged in the postwar boom of white-collar jobs, back when the vast majority of corporate professionals were men with stay-at-home wives and companies promised their employees lifelong job security. But over the decades, the economy changed: Women flooded into the workforce and layoffs became the norm. In this new world, it became harder for workers to give so much of their lives to their jobs — and that kind of loyalty also no longer came with the guarantee of a stable career or a pension. So what's a modern worker to do? FIRE answers that dilemma by offering a whole new way of thinking about work.

That new ideal centers around the idea that work should be optional. It's not that work is bad per se, FIRE followers told Sonday — it's that having to work is bad. To them, financial independence — the movement's lingo for saving up enough money to never need to work again — was about freeing you to live the life you actually want. For some, that meant escaping work entirely as an early retiree. But a surprising share of the people Sonday interviewed intended to keep working. Many saved up so they could switch into an occupation that was less lucrative but more fulfilling, or work a more flexible schedule that would allow them to take a random Tuesday off for a beach outing with their kids.

"Am I just studying a really privileged group of people," Sonday wondered, "or is this actually a means to economic mobility?"

The most telling anecdotes came from the people who reached their savings goals and not only kept working, but chose to keep doing the same jobs. One guy Sonday spoke to kept a letter of resignation at the ready, a reminder to himself that he had the freedom to leave his job if his company did something he morally objected to. He eventually presented it when his employer pressured him to lay off his employees. Another person said achieving financial security gave her the confidence she needed to disagree with her boss. From the outside, it may have looked like financial independence changed very little about their lives — they were still in the same jobs — but to them their freedom meant everything. It changed their relationship with work itself. No longer dependent on their paychecks, they didn't have to compromise themselves anymore for the sake of keeping a roof over their heads. "They said, 'I had the courage to stick my neck out and stand up for things that were important to me,'" Sonday tells me.

For years, I've been puzzling over one of the great paradoxes of white-collar work: There are so many things we like and even love about it — building relationships with colleagues, solving hard problems, feeling competent, helping a customer or a patient or a student — but so many of us end up resenting our jobs anyway. Why? The answer, FIRE would suggest, lies not so much in the work itself as in the coercion that too often comes with it. A boss can demand we do something we know is wrong, and still we stay because we need the paycheck. Sonday's interviewees had found a way out of that bind. By achieving financial independence, they gained the option to walk away — which meant they could keep the elements of work they liked and reject the parts they didn't.

If hustle culture's long hold over America ever seemed to be breaking, it was in the aftermath of the pandemic. People rage-quit their soul-sucking jobs. They moved into remote roles that allowed them to spend more time with their families. They quiet-quit, refusing to go above and beyond. An entire country of frustrated employees finally rejected a norm around work that had grown wildly outdated.

But it didn't last. Our ability to escape hustle culture was ultimately contingent on an unusually hot economy that gave workers an upper hand. Once the job market soured, people had no choice but to go back to working long hours, return to the office, and stay silent in the face of mistreatment. They couldn't afford to get fired. The people who achieved financial independence were some of the only people who could.

The difference was that FIRE not only offered a new philosophy around work but also a practical toolkit to allow its followers to live that new philosophy. It taught people how to be frugal, how to earn a little extra, and how to invest their savings — so that they could be free regardless of the state of the economy. Quiet quitting came with no such manual.

That's not to say that FIRE is an achievable goal for the vast majority of Americans. One of the common criticisms of the movement is that it's doable for only the well off, even though it's cloaked in an anyone-can-do-it optimism. After all, you need to earn enough to even think about saving; the median household income in a 2018 survey of FIRE devotees was $109,402 (about $145,000 in today's dollars) and virtually all had a college degree. Sonday found that her interviewees were split on how attainable FIRE actually is. Some believed it was just a matter of tenacity. Others not so much. One person in a low-paying public-service job found that the community's success stories often glossed over the advantages that made financial independence possible, like having wealthy parents and being in a high-earning career. He didn't have those advantages, and he eventually stopped going to the meetups. Sonday wrestled with this question too. "Am I just studying a really privileged group of people," she wondered, "or is this actually a means to economic mobility?"

Another criticism is that FIRE is a hyper-individualistic response to a problem that actually calls for a collective solution. In Sonday's research, people felt so precarious that, even if they had jobs they liked, they still pursued FIRE. "Anything could change at any time," one corporate employee told Sonday. "My boss could leave. I could get a new boss that I hate. There might be an acquisition, changes to culture… or even something simple as my headquarters is moving in two years." The popularity of the movement seems to me a reflection of the intense cruelty of the economy we live in today — of the yearning we have for a sense that we're going to be ok. In a better world, we wouldn't need to build our own private escape hatches; we'd have laws that actually protect workers from being treated like disposable machines. But I get that FIRE followers don't feel like they can count on that.

Despite the individualism of FIRE's solutions, one of the things that surprised me was how important the movement's social elements are. There are plenty of books and podcasts and blogs about FIRE that teach you its philosophy and its methods — the most foundational one being the 1992 book "Your Money or Your Life" that became the movement's original bible — but Sonday saw the power of the community the movement fostered. For many of its followers, the hardest part about FIRE wasn't just the penny-pinching lifestyle it requires but the isolation that lifestyle leads to: losing friends because you don't want to eat out, looking poor driving a beat-up car when all your coworkers drive brand new Teslas. It's lonely going against the grain. That's why its followers found so much solace in finding other like-minded "frugal weirdos," as some of them called themselves. One person told Sonday that FIRE gives them "a sense of belonging to something — knowing that there are others out there that care about this and it's ok to not feel a part of the mainstream culture."

Perhaps that feature of FIRE — that it's so far outside the mainstream — is also why it's so often misunderstood. Even a few of Sonday's colleagues were initially skeptical when she told them she wanted to study the movement back in grad school. Why would she want to study a group of people who didn't want to work? But Sonday sensed there was something deeper there. She says she hasn't become a total convert, but she does feel more attuned to her own relationship with work and money and happiness. "I probably save more money than I would have if I hadn't met the group," she tells me.

During the pandemic, I resolved to form a different relationship to work from my previous overworking days, and I've been searching for the right approach for me ever since. The thing that I've come to realize, though, is just how hard it actually is to quit hustle culture. I no longer put in 60 hours a week, but I feel guilty about it. I'm scared of losing my job in a media industry that gets smaller by the year. In difficult moments, I still catch myself burying myself in my work, clinging to my old belief that writing bigger stories and winning awards will help me feel fulfilled. As my sister often tells me, I'm a bad hustle-culture defector.

I'm still not convinced FIRE is the right path for me. I've already spent a lot of my life forgoing the present for a future reward and FIRE would require me to do even more of that. But I admire the community's search for an alternative approach that, for some, has brought a kind of freedom few of us ever stop to imagine. There's a reason I've kept writing about movements like quiet quitting and search funds and the overemployed: They all reject the American Dream, of toiling for 30 years in the hope of one day becoming a senior vice president.

That dream is dead for so many of us, and we're desperate for a new one we can actually believe in. For all its flaws, FIRE is the most robust alternative we've seen yet, and I'm hopeful there will be more in the years ahead.

Aki Ito is a chief correspondent at Business Insider.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Czytaj dalej u źródła