The internet wouldn’t be the same without the Like button, the thumbs-up icon that Facebook and other online services turned into digital catnip.Like it or not, the button has served as a creative catalyst, a dopamine delivery system, and an emotional battering ram. It also became an international tourist attraction after Facebook plastered the symbol on a giant sign that stood outside its Silicon Valley headquarters until the company rebranded itself as Meta Platforms in 2021.A new book, Like: The Button That Changed The World, delves into the convoluted story behind a symbol that’s become both the manna and bane of a digitally driven society.It’s a tale that traces back to gladiator battles for survival during the Roman empire before fast-forwarding to the early 21st century when technology trailblazers such as Yelp cofounder Russ Simmons, Twitter cofounder Biz Stone, PayPal cofounder Max Levchin, YouTube cofounder Steve Chen, and Gmail inventor Paul Buchheit were experimenting with different ways using the currency of recognition to prod people to post compelling content online for free.As part of that noodling, a Yelp employee named Bob Goodson sat down on May 18, 2005, and drew a crude sketch of thumbs-up and thumbs-down gesture as a way for people to express their opinions about restaurant reviews posted on the site. Yelp passed on adopting Goodson’s suggested symbol and, instead, adopted the “useful,” “funny,” and “cool” buttons conceived by Simmons. But the discovery of that old sketch inspired Goodson to team up with Martin Reeves to explore how the Like button came to be in their new book.
This image provided by BCG shows a sketch by Bob Goodson that included a crude concept of what would become the Like button on May 18, 2005. [Photo: BCG via AP]
“It’s something simple and also elegant because the Like button says, ‘I like you, I like your content. And I am like you. I like you because I am like you, I am part of your tribe,’ ” Reeves said during an interview with the Associated Press. “But it’s very hard to answer the simple question, ‘Well, who invented the Like button?'”
The social wellspring behind a social symbol
Although Facebook is the main reason the Like button became so ubiquitous, the company didn’t invent it and almost discarded it as drivel. It took Facebook nearly two years to overcome the staunch resistance by CEO Mark Zuckerberg before finally introducing the symbol on its service on February 9, 2009five years after the social network’s creation in a Harvard University dorm room.
As happens with many innovations, the Like button was born out of necessity but it wasn’t the brainchild of a single person. The concept percolated for more than a decade in a Silicon Valley before Facebook finally embraced it.“Innovation is often social and Silicon Valley was the right place for all this happen because it has a culture of meet-ups, although it’s less so now,” Reeves said. “Everyone was getting together to talk about what they were working on at that time and it turned out a lot of them were working on the same stuff.”The effort to create a simple mechanism to digitally express approval or dismay sprouted from a wellspring of online services such as Yelp and YouTube whose success would hinge on their ability to post commentary or video that would help make their sites even more popular without forcing them to spend a lot of money for content. That effort required a feedback loop that wouldn’t require a lot of hoops to navigate
Hollywood’s role in the Like button’s saga
And when Goodson was noodling around with his thumbs-up and thumbs-down gesture, it didn’t come out of a vacuum. Those techniques of signaling approval and disapproval had been ushered into the 21st century zeitgeist by the Academy Award-winning movie, “Gladiator,” where Emperor Commodusportrayed by actor Joaquin Phoenixused the gestures to either spare or slay combatants in the arena.But the positive feelings conjured by a thumbs up date even further back in popular culture, thanks to the 1950s-era character Fonzie played by Henry Winkler in the top-rated 1970s TV series, “Happy Days.” The gesture later became a way of expressing delight with a program via a remote control button for the digital video recorders made by TiVO during the early 2000s. Around the same time, Hot or Nota site that solicited feedback on the looks of people who shared photos of themselvesbegan playing around with ideas that helped inspire the Like button, based on the book’s research.Others that contributed to the pool of helpful ideas included the pioneering news service Digg, the blogging platform Xanga, YouTube and another early video site, Vimeo.
The button’s big breakthrough
But Facebook unquestionably turned the Like button into a universally understood symbol, while also profiting the most from its entrance into the mainstream. And it almost didn’t happen.By 2007, Facebook engineers had been tinkering with a Like button, but Zuckerberg opposed it because he feared the social network was already getting too cluttered and, Reeves said, “is he didn’t actually want to do something that would be seen as trivial, that would cheapen the service.”But FriendFeed, a rival social network created by Buchheit and now OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor, had no such qualms, and unveiled its own Like button in October 2007.But the button wasn’t successful enough to keep the lights on at FriendFeed, and the service ended up being acquired by Facebook. By the time that deal was completed, Facebook had already introduced a Like buttononly after Zuckerberg rebuffed the original idea of calling it an Awesome button “because nothing is more awesome than awesome,” according to the book’s research.Once Zuckerberg relented, Facebook quickly saw that the Like button not only helped keep its audience engaged on its social network but also made it easier to divine people’s individual interests and gather the insights required to sell the targeted advertising that accounted for most of Meta Platform’s $165 billion in revenuelast year. The button’s success encouraged Facebook to take things even further by allowing other digital services to ingrain it into their feedback loops and then, in 2016, added six more types of emotions”love,” “care,” “haha,” “wow,” “sad,” and “angry.”Facebook hasn’t publicly disclosed how many responses it has accumulated from the Like button and its other related options, but Levchin told the book’s authors that he believes the company has probably logged trillions of them. “What content is liked by humansis probably one of the singularly most valuable things on the internet,” Levchin said in the book.The Like button also has created an epidemic of emotional problems, especially among adolescents, who feel forlorn if their posts are ignored and narcissists whose egos feast on the positive feedback. Reeves views those issues as part of the unintentional consequences that inevitably happen because “if you can’t even predict the beneficial effects of a technological innovation how could you possibly forecast the side effects and the interventions?”Even so, Reeves believes the Like button and the forces that coalesced to create it tapped into something uniquely human.“We thought serendipity of the innovation was part of the point,” Reeves said. “And I don’t think we can get bored with liking or having our capacity to compliment taken away so easily because it’s the product of 100,000 years of evolution.”
Michael Liedtke, AP Technology Writer
Switch, PS5, and XBox might be the biggest names in video games, but David Lee and a group of entrepreneurial alums from companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Meta are carving out a niche market with Nex, a new alternative.
The company’s Nex Playground device has sold more than 200,000 units. Instead of buying individual games, families buy a subscription-based collection of 40-plus titles. Like the old Nintendo Wii, Nex focuses on family-friendly, movement-based games.
The Nex device plugs into TVs for motion-controlled experiences. Instead of controllers, the device uses a built-in camera that enables you to play games by moving your hands and feet.
With national retail expansion underway across 5,000 stores, Nex positions itself as a simpler alternative to pricier, fancier, thumb-based video games. Fast Company spoke with Lee, the founding CEO, about how Nex competes against industry giants and how the company develops distinct hardware and games.
The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
How do you position Nex in relation to Nintendo and Xbox?
We all have a focus on core customers. Nintendo went back to what they were doinghandheld gaming and Mariotheir biggest franchises. Xbox users are gamers, people who got an Xbox to play games like Halo. When Microsoft was under pressure from PS4’s lower price, they unbundled Kinect and collapsed that system to compete.
We come into this space without any of those existing customers. We decided from the ground up to serve motion gaming. The design of our device, the pricing, how we use one camera to track multiple people, moving sensors into software and AIit’s all about keeping it affordable with a subscription service that takes care of the whole family.
Why did you build a dedicated device after starting with mobile apps?
Before we built Nex Playground, we were building motion games on phones. What we discovered is that when we create dedicated hardware instead, we have a much deeper relationship with customers. When there’s a device where the only thing it does is bring the family together to play active games, it shows big potential.
When you use your TV for a motion-game experience, you pay much more attention to it than you would to a game on your phone. The experience is a lot better, and customers love it more.
How are families using Nex in ways you didn’t expect?
When we started searching for customers and building our Facebook community, which now has over 20,000 people, we discovered new use cases. We found that when kids come back from school, we have a half-hour where they just play. On weekends, they play when friends come over.
[Photo: Nex]
We’ve also found that when kids are at school, parents want fitness experiences for themselves. Even grandparents derive benefits when they have something to do with their body. We’re defining what role we play for different people in the family, delivering benefits at different times of day, different days of the week, even different seasons of the year. In summer when kids are off school, we can occupy them and get them moving and learning.
Whats your approach to developing games in a saturated market?
We’re focusing on safety, privacy, and security first since we’re serving families. We have our first-party teams building games, but we also work with ten studio deals already, with seven games launched. We bring in partners whose games we like, and we share revenue with them.
We want to keep our model simplewe have our subscription model and want to supply and delight users all year. We don’t want to open the system to many games that might be low quality. We’re curating a set of content and working with developers who are passionate about creating great things.
Our business model is simple, honest, and sustainableno ads, no in-app purchases. The moment you open to third parties, they think about different ways to make money. For families, we don’t want to overwhelm themwe just want to serve them really well.
How do you keep up with hardware competition?
We think about our hardware in a similar way to how Amazon thinks about the Kindle or Apple thinks about the iPad. Every year, we want to do something better to create perfect experiences. For example, we improved the remote control from 2023 to 2024. We learned that the joystick was a little hard for young kids to useI saw my daughter struggling to press itso we made it simpler.
[Photo: Nex]
We’re always looking at what problems people face and how to improve. The hardware cycle is yearly, and we might be able to do something new each year. But we’re not thinking about something dramatically differentwe have a pretty good long trajectory ahead.
A lot of improvements actually come through software. With the same hardware, you get access to new technology we develop as detection technologies get better. We don’t want to force customers to buy new hardware to play something new. We think about compatibility and how not to fully obsolete customers. This is a device that can serve your family for years to come.
Given how much attention is paid to Nintendos new Switch, how are people discovering Nex?
According to our surveys, roughly 40% of customers hear about us from friends and families. The next-largest segment, about 20%, comes from our online ads. Another 13% first see us in retail stores.
Currently, we’re in 700 Target stores, 100 Walmart locations, and 200 Best Buy stores. This year, we have a national retail expansion to over 5,000 stores. Amazon is also now recognizing us as a new gaming system categoryif you look at Amazon video games, they put Nex Playground right next to PlayStation, Xbox, and Swith as top-level tabs, even though we’re way smaller than any of them.
What’s your long-term vision for Nex?
We want to keep kids active, bring families together, and even help keep elderly people active so they can stay independent. We want to tie your family together locally and remotely. We’re happy seeing more grandparents buying Nex for their grandkids and then saying “I want one too.”
Commuters in the New York City and New Jersey area are in for what is likely to be a weekend of increased congestion and more limited transit options after the engineers who run the New Jersey Transit rail system voted to go on strike.
That strike is now in effect and could continue throughout the weekendand potentially even longer. Heres what you need to know about the NJ Transit strike.
Whats happened?
On Thursday, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) announced that its members who run the trains in the New Jersey Transit Corporation, better known as NJ Transit, were officially on strike. The strike came after the BLET and NJ Transit failed to reach a deal on a new contract for the approximately 450 engineers and trainees who run the railway and are represented by the union.
The main issue centers around a disagreement on wage increases for the workers. News of the strike is no doubt a disappointment to the 100,000 NYC and NJ commuters who use the line daily, especially after both sides were reportedly close to a deal.
Talks between both sides went on for 15 hours on Thursday and ended shortly before 10 p.m., reports CNN. The strike then officially began at 12:01 a.m., today, Friday, May 16.
It is the first time union members working for New Jersey Transit have gone on strike in 42 years. The last time NJ Transit workers took to the picket lines was in 1983.
What do the striking rail workers want?
The BLETs union members are striking because no acceptable deal was reached on wage increases for its members. In a notice announcing the strike, BLET says that its NJ Transit members have not received a raise for five years.
The union also notes that NJ Transit engineers make at least $10 less per hour than the engineers for other passenger railroads that share the same train platforms as the ones used by NJ Transit.
NJ Transit has a half-billion dollars for a swanky new headquarters and $53 million for decorating the interior of that unnecessary building, BLET National President Mark Wallace said in a prepared statement. They gave away $20 million in revenue during a fare holiday last year. They have money for penthouse views and pet projects, just not for their front-line workers. Enough is enough. We will stay out until our members receive the fair pay that they deserve.
In addition to the strike now in effect, from 4 a.m. this morning BLET members began picketing at multiple locations, including NJ Transits Newark headquarters, New York’s Penn Station, and the Atlantic City Rail Terminal in Atlantic City.
The union says that despite the transit agency having the funds for a raise, NJ Transit managers walked out of talks before 10 p.m. on Thursday.
What does NJ Transit say?
NJ Transit, for its part, has posted a fact sheet about the strike, which lays out six claims and what the transit agency says are the facts about the claims.
NJ Transit says that it offered BLET members a competitive wage and benefits package that all 14 other rail labor unions accepted in 2021.
It also says that under its offer, NJ Transit locomotive engineers would have seen their average total earnings rise from $135,000 per year now to $172,856 as of July 1, 2027.
The transit agency says these wages are competitive within the region and higher than the wages Philadelphias SEPTA workers receive.
It concedes that the wages are lower than those received by MTA (Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road) workers in New York, but it adds, It isn’t reasonable to live and work in New Jersey, but demand to be paid like you live and work in New York.
How long could the strike last?
That is impossible to tell at this point.
In theory, NJ Transit and BLET could agree to return to the negotiating table at any timealthough thats unlikely to happen today. However, on Thursday, NJ Transit CEO Kris Kolluri said that both sides are currently scheduled to start negotiating again on Sunday.
But just because negotiations are scheduledor even begindoesnt mean the strike will be called off anytime soon. Indeed, if BLET would call off the strike, it may lessen the pressure on NJ Transit to meet their demands.
CNN notes that when Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) workers went on strike in the 1980s, the strike lasted for 108 days. A strike of Metro-North workers lasted 42 days, and a strike of Long Island Railroad workers lasted 11 days.
What should I do if I plan to use NJ Transit today?
You should rethink your travel plans.
NJ Transit has posted a notice warning of the complete suspension of services on its rail lines. The agency says it strongly encourages all those who can work from home to do so and limit traveling on the NJ TRANSIT system to essential purposes only.
However, if you do need to commute, the agency says that it is adding very limited capacity to existing New York commuter routes on its bus services.
The agency also says that from May 19, its regional Park & Ride service will operate on a first come, first served basis.
Commuters who need to use NJ transit during the strike are strongely encouraged to check out the agencys rail strike information page here.
What if Im seeing the Shakira or Beyoncé concerts?
From this weekend, there are also two large music events planned in the area that NJ Transit normally serves. The first is the Shakira concert at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, which begins at 7:30 p.m. tonight, May 16.
Then, Beyoncé is scheduled to perform at the same stadium for five nights between May 22 and May 29.
MetLife Stadium has posted some travel options for concertgoers who are seeing the Shakira show tonight. The stadium points out that there will be no NJ Transit bus or rail service to the stadium tonight.
It says that those coming to the concert from New York City may be able to use the Coach USA bus service, which it says will be limited. The venue also asks people who plan to arrive by car to please carpool and arrive early to help ease congestion.
Will Congress step in?
When it comes to transportation strikes, Congress does have the authority to act and compel workers to accept a deal and return to their jobs, notes CNN.
The last time Congress did this was in December 2022 when it voted to force workers from the countrys four major freight railroads to accept a deal.
However, CNN points out that Congress likely felt more compelled to step in at that time because the strike affected mst of the country. The NJ Transit strike is a local affair, which means Congress may be more reluctant to interfere.
Cory Joseph has been blind since birth. So hes among the people Apple aims to serve with an addition to its App Store called Accessibility Nutrition Labels, one of a raft of features the company announced earlier this week to mark Global Accessibility Awareness Day.
Once the labels go live later this year, each apps listing will detail the accessibility features it supports, such as the VoiceOver screen reader, voice input, options to adjust text size and screen contrast, and captioned audio. These enabling technologies can be the difference between an app being essential and unusable: Having this level of transparency from the App Store is huge, says Joseph.
He isnt just one of the users who will benefit from that information, though. As a principal accessibility solutions architect at CVS Health, Joseph is in the business of making sure software works for everybody. Given his employers scaleits the worlds second-largest healthcare company by revenue and reaches 100 million people a dayits a job with the potential for deep real-world impact.
When using CVSs apps, everyone’s trying to find the best care, and we want to make sure that’s barrier-free for everyone, explains Joseph. The 6-year-old team hes on has been responsible for achievements that go well beyond taking advantage of the core accessibility features offered by Apple and other platform providers.
Spoken Rx uses RFID technology to identify prescription meds and read the vital details about them out loud. [Photo: Courtesy of CVS]
In 2020, for instance, the company introduced a CVS Pharmacy app feature called Spoken Rxa baby of mine, Joseph says. Special radio-frequency identification (RFID) labels on prescription containers enable it to read aloud vital information such as dosage instructions. CVS Health has also made some of its investments in accessibility freely available to other developers by open-sourcing them, including iOS and Android code, an automated system for testing website usability, and tools for annotating web designs in Figma.
As a field, accessibility has come a long way since Apple first dedicated a team to it, initially known as the Office of Special Education. Over 40 years, the company has built a wealth of functionality into its products to facilitate their use by people with disabilities, including the technologies that make the iPhone useful even if you cant see its touchscreen interface. Some of its recent advances, such as on-device generation of custom synthetic voices, would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. This weeks announcements even include support for brain-computer interfaces.
By contrast, theres nothing gee-whizzy about the Accessibility Nutrition Labels themselves. They just summarize the features that a given app has enabled. But by doing that in such a straightforward, prominent way, theyll not only aid millions of users but also give some glory to the software makers who take accessible design seriously. Rather than be embarrassed by listings that make their lack of effort obvious, developers who dont yet have much to brag about might finally get with the program.
Accessibility Nutrition Labels will clearly indicate which features for inclusive design an app supports. [Photo: Apple]
Joseph hopes that the labels associations are only positive. It’s easy to think about this sort of thing as a badge of shame, and I think that’s not the right way to think about this, he told me. This is an opportunity for independent developers, large organizations, and everyone in between to highlight the good work they do.
Even though Joseph works for a company that has dedicated significant mindshare and money to that good work, hes up front about the obstacles to rapid progress that large companies face, even when they have all the right intentions. I would be lying if I said that there aren’t challenges, he told me. We’re a gigantic organization. There are challenges in every gigantic organization. Of course, we balance all of our work and plan everything out as best as we can, and we deliver the most successful experience that we can across our applications.
The good news, he adds, is that CVS Health-size resources arent necessary to make software accessible. Realistically, it’s easier for smaller developers, he says. They can move more quickly, they can update their code faster, and they can adapt to and take in their user feedback in real time and make those changes by engaging directly. For independent and smaller developers, this shouldn’t be a burden.
I find that take heartening. And if Joseph is right that app creators dont have to be humongous to get inclusive design right, Accessibility Nutrition Labels will soon prove it.
Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on FastCompany.comyou can heck out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard.
More top tech stories from Fast Company
Donald Trump says he’s our ‘crypto president,’ but he’s tanking its best shot at adoptionThe president’s deep involvement in the crypto industry is raising red flags in Washington, leading to the collapse of a key stablecoin bill. Read More
AI is printing the rocket engine that could beat SpaceX at its own gameLeap 71 is developing AI to build rocket engines faster and cheaper than ever before. Read More
Couples are saying ‘I do’ in ‘Minecraft’ as virtual weddings become more popularMore couples are tying the knot in digital worlds, saving money and celebrating love in the places they met online. Read More
Apple teams up with a brain-computer startup to turn thoughts into device controlThe tech giant is working with Synchron to develop neural interfaces that let users control Apple devices with their brains. Read More
Meta is building a new data center in Louisianaand this Senate committee wants to know why it’s being powered by gas (exclusive)The local utility says Meta’s AI data center requires three new natural gas plants. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is asking how this fits with Meta’s climate goals. Read More
These 5 free AI-powered Chrome extensions make Gmail so much betterSignificantly improve your Gmail experience without breaking the bank.Read More
It has been an odd few weeks for generative AI systems, with ChatGPT suddenly turning sycophantic, and Grok, xAIs chatbot, becoming obsessed with South Africa.
Fast Company spoke to Steven Adler, a former research scientist for OpenAI who until November 2024 led safety-related research and programs for first-time product launches and more-speculative long-term AI systems about bothand what he thinks might have gone wrong.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What do you make of these two incidents in recent weeksChatGPTs sudden sycophancy and Groks South Africa obsessionof AI models going haywire?
The high-level thing I make of it is that AI companies are still really struggling with getting AI systems to behave how they want, and that there is a wide gap between the ways that people try to go about this todaywhether it’s to give a really precise instruction in the system prompt or feed a model training data or fine-tuning data that you think surely demonstrate the behavior you want thereand reliably getting models to do the things you want and to not do the things you want to avoid.
Can they ever get to that point of certainty?
I’m not sure. There are some methods that I feel optimistic aboutif companies took their time and were not under pressure to really speed through testing. One idea is this paradigm called control, as opposed to alignment. So the idea being, even if your AI wants different things than you want, or has different goals than you want, maybe you can recognize that somehow and just stop it from taking certain actions or saying or doing certain things. But that paradigm is not widely adopted at the moment, and so at the moment, I’m pretty pessimistic.
Whats stopping it being adopted?
Companies are competing on a bunch of dimensions, including user experience, and people want responses faster. There’s the gratifying thing of seeing the AI start to compose its response right away. Theres some real user cost of safety mitigations that go against that.
Another aspect is, Ive written a piece about why it’s so important for AI companies to be really careful about the ways that their leading AI systems are used within the company. If you have engineers using the latest GPT model to write code to improve the company’s security, if a model turns out to be misaligned and wants to break out of the company or do some other thing that undermines security, it now has pretty direct access. So part of the issue today is AI companies, even though they’re using AI in all these sensitive ways, haven’t invested in actually monitoring and understanding how their own employees are using these AI systems, because it adds more friction to their researchers being able to use them for other productive uses.
I guess weve seen a lower-stakes version of that with Anthropic [where a data scientist working for the company used AI to support their evidence in a court case, which included a hallucinatory reference to an academic article].
I obviously don’t know the specifics. Its surprising to me that an AI expert would submit testimony or evidence that included hallucinated court cases without having checked it. It isnt surprising to me that an AI system would hallucinate things like that. These problems are definitely far from solved, which I think points to a reason that its important to check them very carefully.
You wrote a multi-thousand-word piece on ChatGPTs sycophancy and what happened. What did happen?
I would separate what went wrong initially versus what I found in terms of what still is going wrong. Initially, it seems that OpenAI started using new signals for what direction to push its AI intoor broadly, when users had given the chatbot a thumbs-up, they used this data to make the chatbot behave more in that direction, and it was penalized for thumb-down. And it happens to be that some people really like flattery. In small doses, thats fine enough. But in aggregate this produced an initial chatbot that was really inclined to blow smoke.
The issue with how it became deployed is that OpenAIs governance around what passes, what evaluations it runs, is not good enough. And in this case, even though they had a goal for their models to not be sycophanticthis is written in the company’s foremost documentation about how their models should behavethey did not actually have any tests for this.
What I then found is that even this version that is fixed still behaves in all sorts of weird, unexpected ways. Sometimes it still has these behavioral issues. This is what’s been called sycophancy. Other times it’s now extremely contrarian. It’s gone the other way. What I make of this is its really hard to predict what an AI system is going to do. And so for me, the lesson is how important it is to do careful, thorough empirical testing.
And what about the Grok incident?
The type of thing I would want to understand to assess that is what sources of user feedback Grok collects, and how, if at all, those are used as part of the training process. And in particular, in the case of the South African white-genocide-type statements, are these being put forth by users and the model is agreeing with them? Or to what extent is the model blurting them out on its own, without having been touched?
It seems these small changes can escalate and amplify.
I think the problems today are real and important. I do think they are going to get even harder as AI starts to get used in more and more important domains. So, you know, it’s troubling. If you read the accounts of people having their delusions reinforced by this version of ChatGPT, those are real people. This can be actually quite harmful for them. And ChatGPT is widely used by a lot of people.
When Nicholas Bloom, the William Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford University in California, started studying working from home in 2004, it was hard to get anyone engaged, he says. Even in 2018, no one had any interest whatsoever. In 2025, thats hard to fathom. Between the pandemic and technological advancements, WFH has become a norm among white collar workers. Not only has it normalized; its also destigmatized. The act that used to generate memes of Homer Simpson on the couch, prodding a distant computer with a stick has gained positive connotations, says Bloom. Working from home is seen as a privilege.
Its also here to stay. For their latest study, Working from Home in 2025, Bloom and his collaborators analyzed responses from 16,000 college graduates across 40 countries and discovered that WFH levels appear to have stabilized as of 2025, but its embrace hasnt been universal. WFH rates vary by location: highest in English speaking regionsthe U.S., UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealandthe rate dips a little across continental Europe, then dips a lot across Africa and Central and South Americas. WFH is least prevalent in Asia.
To be clear, when Bloom says WFH, hes mostly talking about those on hybrid work schedules. Sixty percent of people work fully in-person, 30% are hybrid, and 10% are fully remote, he says of those countries where the policy has stuck. Hybrid typically means Tuesday through Thursdays in the officea schedule Blooms values at about 8% more paybecause it saves two to three hours a week of commuting [and] enables people to live further away from their offices, often to where real estate is cheaper. Companies also benefit from hybrid policies, Blooms study found, since fewer employees tend to quit. With all these advantages, youd think bosses would have embraced WFH worldwide.
Why on earth does, say, Japan have a third the work from home rates of the U.S.? Bloom says. After looking at factors including development (Japan is about as developed as the U.S.), population density, industrial structure, and connectivity (no big differences there), it left Bloom and fellow researchers with one notable variable. The big factor is cultural, he says, and it’s around individualism.
In conversation with Fast Company, which has been edited for length and clarity, Bloom elaborated on how individualism drives working from home, how much the pandemic really increased at-home work rates, and why people still tend to think were returning to the office even though the data says otherwise.
Fast Company: What inspired you to look globally for your latest study?
Nicholas Bloom: If you look at the data, there was clearly a return to office movement from summer 2020 onwards after the lockdown in the U.S. But from Spring 2023 onwards, the return to office seems to slow down. People seem surprised by that. They’re like, Isn’t the media full of stories of Zoom canceling [WFH], Amazon canceling [WFH]? Yes, there are a bunch of high-profile firms canceling or reducing work from home. Turns out there are just as many on the other side, because their leases expire. If youre Goliath National Bank and your lease expires, it’s a perfect opportunity to reduce days in the office and save a chunk of money. What we’ve seen over the last couple of years in the U.S. is like a war, and it’s been fought to a standstill.
That sparked the big question for us: What on earth does this look like globally? We last collected global data in 2023, so I really didn’t know. It turns out, globally, work from home has also stalled out. There has been no change since 2023. Globally, we’re in a new norm. Folks saying when we return to the office at this point are dreaming. This is the future.
One of your findings I found particularly interesting was that WFH rates are higher in individualistic societies than in collectivist ones. Can you unpack that?
In individualistic societies, managers typically aren’t micromanaging their employees. The U.S. setup is: A manager tells an employee what to do and gives them strong incentives, like performance evaluations and bonuses. In Japan, theres much more micromanaging, because there’s much less hiring, firing, and bonuses. Managers want to see employees there. In Japan, you can’t leave the office until the boss has left. This long-hours culture exists for everyone. When the boss leaves, their junior leaves, then their junior leaves, etcetera. That is very problematic for work from home.
If you talk to folks working for American firms in Japan, they’re typically on a hybrid setup. If they work for Japanese firms in Japan, often doing the same job, they’re required to come into the office every day. Culture seems to have a huge explanation for this difference across countries.
To what extent do you think this comes down to bosses trusting their workers, or not?
It is kind of trust, although in the U.S., it’s trust but verify. Bosses don’t just trust workersthey trust them, but then they monitor.
Should companies without a WFH policy reconsider?
The big selling point is that it’s profitable. In my paper in Nature in June 2024, we did a massive, randomized control trial at a big company called Trip.com. They’re a publicly listed company worth about $40 billion. They randomized whether you got to work from home two days a week or come in all five daysthe former if your birthday fell on an odd day, the latter if it fell on an even day. For 24 months, we tracked 1,600 employees working in finance, marketing, computer engineeringprofessionals with college degrees. There was no effect on performance.
However, quit rates fell by 35% for people allowed to work from home two days a week. For Trip.com, every person that quits costs about $50,000. If someone quits, you have to advertise, re-interview, re-recruit, get them up to speed, and take managers off activity to train them. By reducing quit rates by 35% with no effect on productivity, that’s increasing business profits by like $20 million a year. That is ultimately why work from home has stuck.
On the flipside, an Economist article that mentions your study cited JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimons worry that the young generation is being damaged by increased working from home. To what extent do you agree or disagree with that statement, and why?
I advise my Stanford undergrads, particularly in their first five years of work, that it’s a good idea to go into the office four days a week, because Jamie Dimon is exactly right. It is easier to mentor, learn, and build connections in person. Typically, when I poll students, that’s what they wantthey want to socialize, be mentored, and they don’t have a lot of space at home. As people get to their 30s and 40s, they’ve moved up that learning curve, but they still benefit from coming in, maybe three even two days a week.
Another interesting data point from your study was the similar WFH rates for men and women across regions. What do you think accounts for that?
They want to. You see a slightly higher preference for women to work from home. The main decider in the U.S. is: Do you have kid? A man with children under the age of 12 has a higher preference to work from home than a woman without kids, for example. Having a disability is also a huge driver, but gender doesn’t matter that much. What you see in countries like India is gender matters a lot more, because for women, there’s assault risk and massive sexism in the workplace. In lower income countries, the gender gap grows.
What was the most surprising takeaway from your study?
Working from home has stabilized globally. I did an online presentation for Australia last week, and people there are under the same view as in the U.S., that big companies were banning it. We just don’t see that in any data set. Fact and opinion are about as divergent as people’s views on crimethey always think crime is rising. On average, its tending to decline. Everyone thinks work from home is ending, but you don’t see it globally.
As a lifelong pop culture aficionado, I have a tendency to connect my favorite media to whatever Im currently doing.
When I purchased a secondhand easy chair a few weeks ago, my husband and I spent a sweaty 30 minutes struggling to get it up the stairs. With the chair still wedged at an impossible angle, we paused to catch our breath and I said, Youre gonna need a bigger boat.
Similarly, anytime I use up the last of the milk or take the last cookie from a package, my brain always bellows FINISH HIM!
But the pop culture in my head is more than just a running commentary on mundane moments. My favorite entertainment has also been an excellent teacher. In particular, the pop culture of my childhood taught me a number of financial lessons that Ive never forgottenincluding instruction on how to be an investor.
Here are the timeless investing lessons I learned from 1980s pop culture.
Lemonade Stand: the risk of playing it safe
While the majority of my fellow late Gen Xers have deep and visceral memories of dying of dysentery on the Oregon Trail, my early childhood gaming trauma stemmed from the lesser-known Apple II game Lemonade Stand.
This simple game teaches the basics of business planning by simulating a childs lemonade stand. The player receives a weather report for the day and has to decide what to spend on lemonade ingredients and advertising as well as determine the price for each glass of lemonade.
As a frugal and business-minded 7-year-old, I invested heavily in lemons and sugar when the game predicted a hot summer day on my first turn. I also set a reasonable per-glass lemonade price, knowing that it was folly to overcharge my customers. Though it seemed unnecessary on such a beautiful, 8-bit sunny day, I also splurged on a single advertising poster. Once my preparations were complete, I leaned back in my chair, ready for profits to rain down on me.
To my shock, I only had two customers all day. I didnt even make back the money I spent on cups.
Pop culture lesson: know where to invest
To little Emily, it made sense to spend money on ingredients, since you cant sell lemonade without them. But I balked at the expense of advertising, which seemed unnecessary compared to lemons and sugar. I couldnt predict or measure advertisings return on investment, so I assumed it was a waste of money.
(Unfortunately, I continued to make this mistake into adulthood. When I first started freelancing, I only owned a desktop computer. Investing in a laptop seemed like an unnecessary expense with no potential upside for my fledgling writing careerexcept that I traveled at least once a month and had to move heaven and earth to either work ahead or find a computer at my destination every single time.)
The shock of losing my Lemonade Stand money taught me that playing it safe cant protect you from loss. There is a risk to investingwhether youre investing in advertising, a new laptop, or in the stock marketbut theres also a risk to playing it safe. You could lose your business because no one knows about it, lose your time (and your mind) because you dont have the equipment you need, or your uninvested money could lose buying power over time because of inflation.
There is no such thing as a risk-free financial decision, and playing Lemonade Stand in second grade taught me that better than anything else.
The Westing Game: invest independently
Ellen Raskin may as well have written her 1978 Newbery Medal winning book The Westing Game specifically to appeal to me.
The novel begins after Westing Paper Products tycoon Sam Westing is found dead. Westings lawyer invites his 16 heirswho all happen to be the only tenants of the newly constructed Sunset Towersto the reading of the will. Once there, the heirs are paired off and given $10,000 and an envelope of mysterious clues written on paper towel scraps. They are invited to figure out who has taken Sam Westings life, and the winner will receive his $200 million estate.
As much as that set up is more than enough to get my attention, it was the character of Turtle Wexler that really established this book as one of the pop culture giants of my childhood. This 13-year-old budding entrepreneur and investing genius captured my heart by being smart, funny, and financially confident beyond her years.
Turtle and her partner, a 60-year-old dressmaker named Flora Baumbach, receive the incomprehensible clues SEA, MOUNTAIN, AM, and O, which the teen girl believes to be stock symbols. Since Westing was known to be a business wizard, Turtle thinks the stocks indicated by the clues must be clear winners. The pair invests the $10,000 in the clue stocks and in Westing Paper Products (stock symbol WPP).
The clue stocks dont perform as well as Turtle had hoped. Her daily perusal of The Wall Street Journal indicates that the Westing Paper Products stock is likely to go up, so she dumps the clue stocks and puts all their money in WPP. By the end of the game several weeks later, Turtle and Floras $10,000 stake has grown to $11,587.50.
Pop culture lesson: lean into your knowledge
Turtle taught me the importance of investing based on my own knowledge, expertise, and instincts, rather than following someone elses lead. She starts her investing journey with the knowledge that Westing was a remarkably astute investor. She assumes the clue stocks must have been handpicked by Westing. But when the clue stocks dont do well, she pulls her money from them and invests in something she has direct understanding of, rather than doubling down on her assumption that Westing must have known better. She changes her investing tactics once she has new information.
Turtle also shrugs off Flora repeatedly asking if she is sure about her investing choices. She doesnt let the concerns of her 60-year-old partner sway her, because she knows Flora doesnt understand the stock market as well as she does, even though she is much older.
All together, Turtles example made it clear to me that successful investing requires knowledge and a willingness to trust yourself. Its helped me avoid following the crowd into decisions that dont fit my investing strategies.
Trading Places: anatomy of an investing scheme
I loved the 1983 film Trading Places for Eddie Murphys brilliant comedic timing, but I was even more fascinated by the movies portrayal of revenge via short sale. It took me several rewatches to fully understand how the investing scheme resulted in financial doom for the films villains, the Duke brothers.
To exact their retribution, Murphys character Valentine and Dan Aykroyds inthorpe show up to the New York Commodities Exchange ready to trade. Their goal: sell as many orange juice concentrate futures as they can before the U.S. Department of Agriculture report on the nations orange crop. Meanwhile, the Dukes are buying as many OJ concentrate futures as they can before the report, essentially trying to corner the market.
Between the heroes feverishly selling and the Dukes feverishly buying, OJ future prices skyrocket until the moment trading pauses for the crop reportwhich reveals the orange harvest will be strong.
In the aftermath of the announcement, the Dukes are stuck with all the futures they purchased at inflated prices. To fulfill the margin call, they must pay $394 million. At the same time, Valentine and Winthorpe busily purchase futures from everyone but the Dukes at a greatly reduced price. This allows them to fulfill the orders they sold before the report droppedand make a ridonculous profit.
This scene fascinated me as a kid, but it also confused me. I knew that successful investing was about buying low and selling high. But I couldnt understand how the characters could sell high then buy low. How could you sell something before you bought it?
Pop culture lesson: stock sales aren’t always linear
After many years of catching the movie on TBS reruns, I finally grasped that stock and commodities sales dont have to follow a linear progression of cause then effect. Its possible to buy low after selling high, provided you plan your investment strategy carefully.
Thats because you dont have to own something you sell. You can borrow a stock (or an OJ future, for that matter) for a fee. As long as you return it or an identical asset before the margin call, you can sell the borrowed asset even though you dont own it.
This is what Valentine and Winthorpe did to ruin the Dukes. They took their pooled money to pay the borrow fees of the futures, sold those futures at inflated prices before the crop report, then bought back the futures at the rock-bottom price afterwards so they could return the borrowed assets.
While short sales like the one in Trading Places are unlikely to ever be part of my own investment strategy, understanding the fluid nature of ownership in stock and commodities trading has made me a better investor. It broke me out of the rigid cause-and-effect thinking that limited my investing creativity.
Learning through story
Despite being a lifelong money nerd, stories are my first love. So its no wonder the most enduring lessons I learned about finance come from the pop culture I loved as a child.
Playing Lemonade Stand in my elementary school computer lab disrupted the story Id told myself that it was possible to make a profit without risking an investment. Reading The Westing Game gave me the story of a confident financial heroine to remember when Im tempted to follow the crowd. And Trading Places folded a satisfying revenge story into a creative investing scheme, which helped me feel smart and savvy when I finally wrapped my head around the details.
On weekdays, you could easily walk right past Knockdown Center, housed on an industrial stretch of road in Maspeth, Queens. The only thing that sets it apart from the neighboring auto body shops and wholesale warehouses is a rust-colored fence and a beat-up marquee that looks like its announcing a church rummage sale.
But when Knockdown Center opens its gates at night and on summer weekends when its outdoor stage is set, the crowds of clubgoers streaming through its gate and pouring out of taxis, rideshares, and city buses is impossible to miss. The three-acre venue can accommodate up to 3,200 people inside and another 1,200 in its outdoor space, called the Ruins.
[Photo: courtesy Knockdown Center]
This year has been especially busy. The nine-year-old Knockdown Center is hosting the fourth installment of its three-day Wire Festival from May 16 through 18, bringing together 55 artists for more than 50 hours of music across four stages indoors and outside. It will be the biggest iteration of the event yet and comes on the heels the venue’s recent hosting of the first U.S. installment of the C2C Festival, a 24-year-old dance and experimental music event held in Italy.
Electronic music is booming, and everyone from tiny clubs to mega-festivals wants a piece of the action. At Coachella this year, 39% of the artists on the bill were electronic actsnearly double the representation of indie-rock artists and almost four times the proportion of pop and hip-hop/rap acts each.
At the 20,000-seat Sphere in Las Vegas, DJ Anyma sold out eight shows for a residency that began New Years Eve 2024, then added four more dates to accommodate demand. Later this year, storied Dutch EDM festival Tomorrowland will bring Unity (a joint effort with promoter Insomniac) to Sphere for a 12-date run, a length that doubled after the initial slate of shows sold out.
Nick León at C2C 2025 [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center]
Knockdown Center is proof that not every venue has to be on the same scale as Sphere to thrive in the electronic world. In 2024, it hosted 470,000 guests, says Tyler Myers, cofounder and executive director, adding that the venue has been profitable since 2019. After the standstill of live events in 2020 and 2021, Knockdown’s ticket sales grew 144% between 2022 and 2024. The venue has sold many of those tickets on a steady roster of global electronic artists.
Operating a club in New York is not for the faint of heart: The rewards are high, but so are the risks. (Many are closing, and the nearby Brooklyn Mirage is struggling to open after ambitious renovations.) But by filling its lineup with a mix of recognizable acts and budding DJs and bands from around the world, Knockdown Center is pulling in steady audiences and a building a loyal community. Weve always been the right size for the business were doing, Myers says. Weve worked really hard to get ourselves into a position where riskiness is less risky.
LCD Soundsystem [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center]
From Doors to DJs
Opened in 1903 as a glass factory, the space became the home of the Manhattan Door Factory some three decades later. (In the 1950s, Manhattan Door owner Michael Sklar invented the knockdown-style door frame that gives the venue its name.) Myers and his two cofounders, working with owner David Sklar, took over the 50,000-square-foot space in 2016, renovating it into an events space. It’s since become a showcase for an ascendent electronic music scene that’s less akin to the over-the-top spectacle of the longstanding American EDM festival Electric Daisy Carnivaland more like the no-frills approach of Berlins legendarily cavernous techno club Berghain.
I had worked for a large entertainment company before this, and wed always been looking for venues [this size] in New York Cityand over the course of five years we never found one, says Myers. So with this space, it was like, holy shit this is unusualand wouldnt it be nice if we could figure out a sustainable way to support people who were taking risks with this kind of space.
Yaeji [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center]
After early efforts to showcase dance performances, theater, art installations, and murals, Myers and fellow organizers saw an opportunity to pair the venues scope with an ambitious music scene.
Some of the natural things we picked up early on were things that aspired to a sort of Detroit nostalgia for warehouse parties, he says, adding that DIY festivals focused on electronic music were cropping up around the same time. In particular, he highlights Dripping and Sustain-Releaaseannual events that take place in the woods outside of New Yorkas upstarts that have grown by centering music and inspired Knockdown Center’s approach.
“A lot of the innovationa lot of the punk rock attitude in New York and globallyis in electronic music right now,” he says. “Our program is a reflection of [that] world.”
Maria BC at Outline 2024. [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center]
An International Outlook
Over the course of nine years, the venue has had its share of notable headlinersLCD Soundsystem played a 12-night residency in December; Fatboy Slim is set to reprise a 14-hour day-to-night set at the outdoor Ruins stage at the end of May. But a big part of Knockdown Centers appeal has been built on its ability to bring a wide range of international acts to its stages. Thats been helped by events like Wire Festival.
[Photo: courtesy Knockdown Center]
By design, the festival has included a growing number of international artists. Téa Abashidze, cofounder of Wire, says different collectives are invited to curate the festival’s second stage each year. Its about creating spaces where different communities can meet, share experiences, and start building new collaborations and ideas, she says. This year, the stage is curated by Amsterdams queer techno organizers Spielraum and Berlins queer-focused art collective Pornceptual (don’t worry, that link is mostly SFW).
[Photo: courtesy Knockdown Center]
Beyond Wire, Abashidze has played a key role in bringing international artists to Knockdown Center year-round. In 2019, she cofounded Basement, Knockdown Centers underground, European-style nightclub that can hold up to 600 people. The space’s steady mix of local and international talent has been popular enough that Basement opened a second room in 2022, allowing for two performances to happen simultaneously. Wire Festival was initially an offshoot of the Basement project and its global vision.
But when that vision involves crossing international borders, things can get complicated for artists given the expense and time required to get the proper visassomething fans don’t realize impacts their ability to see the artists they want to. [Attendees] can be frustrated that theyre not getting access to events with some of the younger talent thats coming up in Europe,” Myers says. “And are simply unaware that to do so legally is substantially expensive, time intensive, and risky.”
Oneohtrix Point Never + Freeka Tet at C2C 2025 [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center]
The visa headache
In April, British avant-garde artist FKA Twigs canceled her tourwhich included two sold-out dates at Knockdown Centerdue to visa issues. Though it was due to her team not submitting her documents with enough time for the application to clear, the episode underscored the way a complex process can keep even well-known arists from playing global shows. Myers wants Knockdown Center to be a resource for the artists who don’t have teams to assist in going international.
We continue to look for less resource-intensive ways that people could get a shorter visa or some other kind of visa to come play legally in the United States with less risk. Myers says. “President Trump’s policies and platform menace the artists we book from abroad, just as they do the artists we book at home, just as they do to the community we serve, and the employees we count on. But the process itself hasn’t suddenly become worse. Its a big problem, but not a new problem.
Last summer, to make the process of getting a visa more straightforward, Wire and Basement partnered with online music and community site Resident Advisorto launch Artist Visa Guide, a site that helps demystify what’s required to obtain an O-1 artist visa.
Nala Sinephro at C2C 2025 [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center]
To give smaller international artists exposureand to help them offset the cost of a visaKnockdown Center’s events that feature eclectic bills, even acts that might be unfamiliar to the venue’s audience. Since 2021, Jeff Klingman, Knockdown Centers lead talent buyer, has curated Outline, a series of single-day festivals that bring together slates of performers from different genres and with different reach.
Broad programs like C2C and Outline are a nice way to showcase artists who need to go through that expensive visa process but arent necessarily going to sell 3,000 tickets on their own,” Klingman says. “But you need a broader framework to allow itand thats not going to happen at a bigger festival where you want your opening act to have 50K Instagram [followers] minimum.”
C2C 2025 [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center]
Klingman has programmed 15 Outline events so far. The most recent installment, held in April, was headlined by established American post-rock band Explosions in the Sky, who shared the bill with Icelandic electronica act Múm, Guatemalan cellist and vocalist Mabe Fratti, Philadelphia shoegazers They Are Gutting a Body of Water, Danish electronic artist Upsammy, and Mexico City experimental band Diles Que No Me Maten.
Putting together the artists combinations that we do has become a beacon to the international community. Klingman says. “It allows us to take modest chances in the spirit of art that we really believe in.”
Since President Donald Trump took office, one of his fondest pastimes has been firing off randomly capitalized social media posts lambasting various laws asand this is a technical termtoo woke to be legal. Among his targets last week was the Digital Equity Act, which he deemed RACIST, ILLEGAL, and totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL. He wrapped by promising to (attempt to) end the program immediately. No more woke handouts based on race! he wrote.
Other than the name of the Digital Equity Act, basically everything about Trumps post is wrong. Overall, the vast majority of Americans use the internet96% of adults, according to Pew Research Center data. Yet there remains a persistent digital divide in this country, which breaks down on lines that will be unsurprising to anyone with a passing familiarity with its history. As recently as 2019, for example, only 71% of people who didnt graduate from high school said they used the internet, and less than half46%subscribed to home broadband. In 2021, 85% of households making less than $25,000nearly 23 million householdshad a computing device (desktop, smartphone, or tablet) at home, compared to over 99% of households earning $150,000 or more, per U.S. Census Bureau data. Among those households making less than $25,000 a year, 16% had internet access only through a smartphone, compared to just 5% of households at the other end of the income spectrum.
The Digital Equity Act, introduced in 2019 by Washington state senator Patty Murray, a Democrat, and passed as part of President Joe Bidens bipartisan infrastructure law two years later, aims to narrow these gaps, if not close them altogether. The law established a trio of grant programs that allow states, Tribes, and other organizations to apply for money they can use to get people online and provide them with the tools necessary to make safe, effective use of the web. (The ability to log on is not especially useful if, for example, you are unfamiliar with the hamfisted phishing scams that will start landing in your Gmail inbox two minutes after you create it.)
By passing the DEA, Congress acknowledged the simple fact that it is more or less impossible to find jobs, do homework, obtain healthcare, apply to college, pay taxes, and otherwise fully participate in modern society with limited and/or unstable internet access. The law set aside a total of $2.75 billion over five years for its purposes, which, in the context of the federal budget, is roughly analogous to a thimbleful of Evian poured into the infinity pool on a megayacht.
Why, then, is Trump so incensed about the Digital Equity Act? Regrettably, the answer is as stupid as it is cynical: It has the word equity right there in the title, and he and his fellow Republicans are constitutionally incapable of understanding the term outside of the context of the right-wing culture wars they are obsessed with fighting at every turn. His preoccupation with ferreting out racial handouts via clumsy CTRL+F search is now so all-consuming that he is trying to cut government spending that has nothing to do with race, and that would meaningfully improve the lives of millions of voters, many of whom cast their ballots for him six months ago.
Some DEA funding recipients have already received notices purporting to cancel their grants. But as is the case with all of Trumps unilateral threats to revoke duly enacted federal laws, ending the DEA is not as simple as the president doing a post on a social media network he controls. Federal judges have spent the last several months blocking many of his illegal attempts to withhold congressionally appropriated funding from those who are entitled to it. Here, too, any would-be recipient of DEA funds who takes the administration to court should have a decent chance of prevailing.
But the mere fact that Trump is attacking the DEAa modest, targeted, flexible attempt to extend an essential service to people who do not yet have itdemonstrates just how uninterested he is in doing anything resembling the basic work of governing. In a press release, Senator Murray described Trumps attempts to withhold resources meant to help red and blue communities[to] close the digital divide as absolutely insane. A good rule of thumb in politics is that when a 74-year-old Democratic senator is angry enough to use phrases like absolutely insane in their official communications, the characterization is probably accurate and more than appropriate.
The text of the DEA acknowledges that the digital divide, like many problems in this country, affects members of racial and ethnic minority groups, and frames digital equity as a matter of social and economic justice. But the law does not define the concept solely (or even primarily) in terms of race, as Trump asserts. Instead, it emphasizes that the law is intended to cover lower-income people, veterans, people with disabilities, and people living in rural areas, among other demographic groups whose members face systemic barriers to getting on the internet. It is not different from any number of federal programs that identify the intended beneficiaries with specificity; doing so is, one might say, efficient. To the extent that the DEA touches on race, it does so only in the sense that, as is the case with every multibillion-dollar grant program Congress creates, some number of people whom the money helps will, in fact, not be white.
The Digital Equity Act should be the sort of policy that conservatives, who treat any invocation of diversity as a form of illegal discrimination, nevertheless enthusiastically support: The law doesnt aim to provide some greater, privileged level of internet access to anyone, but only to establish a baseline level of internet access for everyone. Already, deep-red states like Alabama, Indiana, Arkansas, and Iowa have completed their digital equity plans, which repeatedly affirm the urgent need for federal intervention, especially in rural areas. Alabamas plan, for example, notes that 14.3% of its residents who do not have broadband at home say the service still isnt available where they livenearly twice the national figure.
Other states are even further along in the process. During the last few weeks of the Biden administration, the Department of Commerce approved a total of $85 million in funding for initiatives to educate users about the basics of cybersecurity and digital privacy in North Carolina; to make interne access more affordable in Kansas; and to provide web devices and skills training in Mississippi. In 2024, these states voted for Trump by 3, 16, and 23 points, respectively.
Republicans who supported the DEA in 2021 had no problem with its basic premise. For example, at the time, Ohio Senator Rob Portman emphasized the impact of limited web access on overlooked and underserved communities, and touted the potential for comprehensive digital equity plans and digital inclusion projects to close these access gapsa quote that might get him run out of the party on a rail if the White House finds out about it.
Four years later, GOP lawmakers are happily seizing on the Trump administrations ongoing anti-integration crusade to rail against the DEA for its state-sanctioned anti-white bigotry. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, for example, hailed Trump for ending the DEAs impermissible discrimination, which he described as part of the Biden-Harris administrations woke spending spree. For him, preserving the availability of $55 million in federal funding allocated to his state is less important than complimenting his partys leader in public.
Conservatives often criticize diversity, equity, and inclusion principles by focusing on ostensibly zero-sum resources: well-paying jobs, prestigious college admissions offers, and so on. But this framework makes absolutely no sense in the context of the DEA, which does not deny anything to anyone on the more online side of the digital divide. A wealthy suburban family with four laptops, four smartphones, and a tablet or two does not need more resources to use the internet; the provision of government-subsidized mobile hotspots for rural middle school students wont affect the ability of white-collar employees living in major cities to get online and do their work. Calling the DEA discriminatory because it benefits people without internet access is like a person with 20/20 vision complaining because their optometrist didnt write them a new glasses prescription: Sure, technically, you arent getting something that others are getting, but thats only because you can see perfectly well already.
In a functioning democracy, the Digital Equity Act would be obscure because it is uncontroversialthe product of a bipartisan consensus that making the internet available to everyone is a simple, efficient, and inexpensive method of ensuring greater equality of opportunity. If Trump gets his way, people who remain marginalized by their limited internet access will remain that way for the foreseeable future, all because a reactionary octogenarian encountered statutory language that he didnt understand, and that made him upset.
Like most humans, I generally prefer to surround myself with people who like, value, and respect me. You know, its quite a nice and simple way to boost my self-esteem.And yet, after studying human behavior for many years, I am fully aware that the tendency to indulge in this self-enhancing habit is intellectually debilitating: while it feels nice to hang out with people who appreciate you, it is also a way to develop blind spots and ignore opportunities to get better, improve, and develop new skills and ideas. Montaigne warned of this in his Essays, cautioning against surrounding oneself with flattering mirrors that reflect only our vanity, not our flaws. Shakespeare dramatizes this danger repeatedlythink of King Lear, who banishes the only daughter who speaks honestly, choosing instead the empty praise of those who tell him what he wants to hear. In The Iliad, Achilles withdraws from battle in part because his ego isnt sufficiently stroked, with devastating consequences. And Orwell, in 1984, shows us a world where intellectual isolationbeing surrounded by only one narrativebecomes the ultimate mechanism of control.
Growing Divided
Beyond the personal level, this habit fuels tribalism and polarization: when we curate our social and intellectual circles to exclude dissent or difference, we don’t just grow more complacentwe grow more divided. What begins as a harmless preference for affirmation becomes a breeding ground for intellectual stagnation and collective delusion.
Conversely, increasing the time you spend with people who dont like or value you, particularly when they think different from you, may sound like a masochistic activity, but it can reveal important gaps between the person you are and who you would like to be. Indeed, even when people underestimate you, they can be an important source of negative or critical feedback that alerts you to the possibility that you may actually not be as good as you thinkand especially not as good as your inner circle thinks. This is an essential ingredient of self-awareness: coming to terms with your limitations, knowing what you dont know, and accepting the fact that other people may not see you as positively as you see yourself, or as your close friends and fans do.But first, lets understand the likely reasons other people may underestimate you:
1) It is a way to protect their own self-esteem
Bringing other people down is the most common way to feel good about yourself (pathetic, I knowbut very human). This phenomenon is often referred to as the Crab Barrel Syndrome, the psychological process where individuals attempt to hinder the progress of others perceived as competitors. When people feel threatened, envious, or insecure, they often cope by diminishing the value of others. Its less effortful than self-improvement and more immediately gratifying. So, when someone underestimates you, it may say more about their fragile ego than your actual potential. In other words, their low opinion of your talents might just be a defense mechanism theyre using to avoid facing their own inadequaciesa mix of jealousy, insecure narcissism, and self-pity that is expressed as a derogatory view of you.
In Joseph Mankiewiczs All About Eve, the aging stage actress Margo Channing becomes increasingly threatened by the seemingly innocent and adoring Eve Harrington, a young fan who slowly infiltrates her life and career. Margos initial condescension gives way to paranoia and defensiveness, while Eve’s ascent is lubricated by subtle manipulation and strategic modesty. Here, the envy runs in both directionsEve envies Margos fame and legacy; Margo resents Eves youth and promise. Each woman underestimates the other as a means of preserving her own sense of value, which makes the film a masterclass in how admiration curdles into rivalry when identity feels fragile.
2) You may actually be a high performerbut surrounded by other high performers
If you’re consistently underestimated despite strong output, consider the context. Being in an environment full of exceptional peoplelike elite academic programs, competitive companies, or high-performing teamscan distort perceptions. Just watch Damien Chazelles Whiplash, where gifted jazz drummer Andrew Neiman is pushed to his limits at a prestigious music conservatory. In that hypercompetitive setting, even brilliance isnt enoughevery success is met with silence or scorn, because greatness is simply expected. When excellence becomes the baseline, even impressive contributions may be overlooked. Meanwhile, others who are objectively less capable may shine simply because they operate in low-stakes environments where mediocrity passes for brilliance, and enjoy being a big fish in a small pond. So being underestimated may be a function of your high-performing context, not your low ability.
3) You may not be as good as you think
Self-enhancement bias is real. Research shows that most people overestimate their abilities, especially in ambiguous domains. Even if you’re talented, that doesnt guarantee youre making your value visible. Are you communicating clearly, aligning your work with others goals, or just expecting people to get it? Being underestimated might be your cue to refine how you showcase your strengthsclarify your contributions, seek feedback, and build a brand that matches your actual impact. (And yes, that means leaving the Dunning-Kruger zone.)So, what are the best strategies for winning your critics over?
1) Focus on them, not you
Dale Carnegie 101: take a genuine interest in others. The irony is that people who underestimate you often care more about being seen than about seeing you. So, just play the game: ask them about their work, their opinions, their ideasconvincingly faking appreciation for them. Make them feel important. To be sure, flattery works best when its believable, which means you need to pay attention, listen, and reflect their values back to them. Call it effective impression management, strategic empathy, or just good politics: contrary to popular belief, its one of the key ingredients of career success.
2) Quantify your achievements
People are less likely to ignore results when theyre staring at hard numbers. Share outcomes, metrics, and results that demonstrate your impact. Be specific: revenue increased, error rates decreased, engagement improved. You dont have to bragjust document. Some people may still dismiss the data because they favor charisma over competence, but those arent the people you should be trying to impress anyway. Let the results speak, and if they dont listen, speak louder with your results.
3) Change your behavior
Maybe theyre right. Or at least not entirely wrong. Being underestimated can be a gift disguised as insult: a wake-up call that motivates you to adapt, grow, and become harder to ignore. If youve been coasting, this is your cue to sprint. If youve been misaligned, recalibrate. The good news is that people revise their judgments when they see genuine effort and improvement. Theres nothing more satisfying than disproving someones low expectationsespecially when you do it without gloating (at least not outwardly).
A final consideration: at times, the most effective way to win over the people who underestimate you may require you to care less about whether you actually win them overespecially if your goal is merely to inflate your ego. Focus instead on learning from them. Just as failure is a better teacher than success, critics and adversaries often teach us more than friends and fans. Nietzsche, for instance, argued that we owe our greatest growth to resistance and struggle, not comfort: What does not kill me makes me stronger is not just a gym slogan, but a blueprint for character development. Similarly, in The Republic, Plato has Socrates sharpen his thinking through constant dialectical combat with hostile interlocutorsbecause truth, like steel, is forged through friction. Even in literature, consider Jane Austens Pride and Prejudice: it is precisely through misunderstanding, misjudgment, and critical feedback that Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy evolve into better versions of themselves.
In the end, you cannot expect everybody to appreciate your talentsbut those who dont may be more valuable than your supporters. Their underestimation can sting, yes, but it also serves as a psychological spur to refine, improve, and provenot just to them, but to yourselfwhat you’re truly capable of becoming.
