 |
|
|
|||||
Waking up in the middle of the night used to spike my anxiety. Id panic about losing sleep, which would only lead to more lost sleep, and more panic, until I wore myself out or the sun came up. But over time, I realized that those wakeups werent always bad. Some of my thoughts during those half-asleep moments turned out to be surprisingly useful. They helped me generate article ideas or navigate complex, ambiguous problems. Eventually, I saw that this altered state of wakefulness let me engage with lifes challenges in ways I couldnt during the day. It turns out that I wasnt alone. Your mind in the middle of the night In a well-known study from 2022 titled Mind after Midnight, a team led by scientists at the University of Arizona found that late-night thoughts tend to be negative, more ruminative, and more impulsive. They also found that being awake during the night increases risky behaviors and makes risky rewards seem more appealing. But there are upsides, say some proponents and sleep medicine professionals. For one, late-night thinking is now one of the only times when were shielded from endless pings and other distractions. And because were not fully awake, it allows for us to benefit from a sort of dreamy state that fosters original thinking. Salvador Dali and Albert Einstein famously used hypnagogia, this semi-lucid sleep state, to solve creative problems. Its a quieter time for our brain, says Katherine Green, the medical director of sleep medicine at UCHealth in Aurora, Colorado. Theres less distraction at night. Madan Kandula, founder of Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based Advent medical practices, credits his middle-of-the-night thoughts for helping him develop the operational efficiencies he needed to scale his business to more than 30 locations. Its literally when everything comes together for me, he says. Its almost like this weird in-between world that Im living in, and problems that I was working on the day before now have a pathway forward. Kandula, a medical doctor by training, says he sometimes wakes up around 3 a.m., after being asleep for a few hours. While still in a dreamlike state, he says, I am detached and can arrive at the solutions. The only downside is that he can be groggy the following day. UCHealths Green says waking up from deep sleepeven in the middle of the nightenables us to consolidate what we learned the day before. Although consistent, quality sleep is criticalideally seven hours or moreshe says that these wakeful moments do help us synthesize ideas. When you wake up with ideas in the middle of the night, its your brain activating those synapses or making those connections, she says. For those trying to take advantage of the learnings, Green recommends keeping a notebook nearby. Write the thought down, she says, then let it go. We dont want those thoughts to be lost, but we dont want them to run rampant, and keep us awake, she adds. Why the in-between time can be the best time Not fully waking yourself up in the middle of the night is key to reaping the benefits, says Annika Carroll, a sleep and health coach based in Manitoba, Canada. The prefrontal cortex, which governs logical reasoning, impulse control, and decision-making shows reduced activity during late-night hours. That means that people are often plagued by fewer imposter syndrome thoughts, which rely on more rational brain activity, she says. But theres one caveat when tapping into the late-night brain: If thoughts become too emotional, its going to be a disaster, Carroll says. Rebecca Zhou, CEO of Soft Services, a body care brand in New York, says it can be difficult to figure out if her middle-of-the-night thoughts are actually useful. I try to not immediately react, and give it some time, she says. If the idea keeps bubbling up over the course of the day, Ill share it with someone on my team that I trust to get their reaction and determine if its worth pursuing. While late-night thoughts can inspire creativity, you shouldnt overdo it. Too much time awake in the night can signal something deeper, and impair thinking. If it happens consistently, Carroll says, I would start exploring why Im waking up.
Category:
E-Commerce
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996 as part of the Telecommunications Act, has become a political lightning rod in recent years. The law shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content while allowing moderation in good faith. Lawmakers including Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., now seek to sunset Section 230 by 2027 in order to spur a renegotiation of its provisions. The senators are expected to hold a press event before April 11 about a bill to start a timer on reforming or replacing Section 230, according to reports. If no agreement is reached by the deadline Section 230 would cease to be law. The debate over the law centers on balancing accountability for harmful content with the risks of censorship and stifled innovation. As a legal scholar, I see dramatic potential effects if Section 230 were to be repealed, with some platforms and websites blocking any potentially controversial content. Imagine Reddit with no critical comments or TikTok stripped of political satire. The law that built the internet Section 230, often described as the 26 words that created the internet, arose in response to a 1995 ruling penalizing platforms for moderating content. The key provision of the law, (c)(1), states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. This immunizes platforms such as Facebook and Yelp from liability for content posted by users. Importantly, Section 230 does not offer blanket immunity. It does not shield platforms from liability related to federal criminal law, intellectual property infringement, sex trafficking or where platforms codevelop unlawful content. At the same time, Section 230 allows platform companies to moderate content as they see fit, letting them block harmful or offensive content that is permitted by the First Amendment. Some critics argue that the algorithms social media platforms use to feed content to users are a form of content creation and should be outside the scope of Section 230 immunity. In addition, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has signaled a more aggressive stance toward Big Tech, advocating for a rollback of Section 230s protections to address what he perceives as biased content moderation and censorship. Censorship and the moderation dilemma Opponents warn that repealing Section 230 could lead to increased censorship, a flood of litigation and a chilling effect on innovation and free expression. Section 230 grants complete immunity to platforms for third-party activities regardless of whether the challenged speech is unlawful, according to a February 2024 report from the Congressional Research Service. In contrast, immunity via the First Amendment requires an inquiry into whether the challenged speech is constitutionally protected. Without immunity, platforms could be treated as publishers and held liable for defamatory, harmful or illegal content their users post. Platforms could adopt a more cautious approach, removing legally questionable material to avoid litigation. They could also block potentially controversial content, which could leave less space for voices of marginalized people. MIT management professor Sinan Aral warned, If you repeal Section 230, one of two things will happen. Either platforms will decide they dont want to moderate anything, or platforms will moderate everything. The overcautious approach, sometimes called collateral censorship, could lead platforms to remove a broader swath of speech, including lawful but controversial content, to protect against potential lawsuits. Yelps general counsel noted that without Section 230, platforms may feel forced to remove legitimate negative reviews, depriving users of critical information. Corbin Barthold, a lawyer with the nonprofit advocacy organization TechFreedom, warned that some platforms might abandon content moderation to avoid liability for selective enforcement. This would result in more online spaces for misinformation and hate speech, he wrote. However, large platforms would likely not choose this route to avoid backlash from users and advertisers. A legal minefield Section 230(e) currently preempts most state laws that would hold platforms liable for user content. This preemption maintains a uniform legal standard at the federal level. Without it, the balance of power would shift, allowing states to regulate online platforms more aggressively. Some states could pass laws imposing stricter content moderation standards, requiring platforms to remove certain types of content within defined time frames or mandating transparency in content moderation decisions. Conversely, some states may seek to limit moderation efforts to preserve free speech, creating conflicting obligations for platforms that operate nationally. Litigation outcomes could also become inconsistent as courts across different jurisdictions apply varying standards to determine platform liability. The lack of uniformity would make it difficult for platforms to establish consistent content moderation practices, further complicating compliance efforts. The chilling effect on expression and innovation would be especially pronounced for new market entrants. While major players such as Facebook and YouTube might be able to absorb the legal pressure, smaller competitors could be forced out of the market or rendered ineffective. Small or midsize busiesses with a website could be targeted by frivolous lawsuits. The high cost of compliance could deter many from entering the market. Reform without ruin The nonprofit advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation warned, The free and open internet as we know it couldnt exist without Section 230. The law has been instrumental in fostering the growth of the internet by enabling platforms to operate without the constant threat of lawsuits over user-generated content. Section 230 also lets platforms organize and tailor user-generated content. The potential repeal of Section 230 would fundamentally alter this legal landscape, reshaping how platforms operate, increasing their exposure to litigation and redefining the relationship between the government and online intermediaries. Daryl Lim is a professor of law and associate dean for research and innovation at Penn State. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Nearly 40% of Black workers feel comfortable talking about their faith with people at work, the highest of any U.S. racial group, our two recent studies found. But they also risk facing religious discrimination. For the past 15 years, we have been studying religion in workplaces. Recently we conducted two studies, including two online surveys involving 15,000 workers and in-depth interviews with nearly 300. Our respondents included Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and nonreligious individuals. The majority of Black Americansnearly 8 in 10identify as Christians. And we found that Black workers from all faiths are more likely than other racial groups to use their traditions to find meaning and purpose in their work and to feel called to their work. Although not all Black Americans are religious or want their faith to intersect with their work, we found that many Black Americans very much want to bring their religious beliefs to work. This goes beyond just talking about them at work, such as their holiday celebrations or the importance of their church in their lives. In addition, Black Americans are more likely than other racial groups to display or wear religious symbols, such as jewelry or head coverings. Why it matters Scholars have often focused on racial discrimination in workplaces. However, the potential overlap between racial and religious marginalization has not been studied as much. Some Black Christians told us that when they mention faith at work, they fear they will be discriminated against because of their race and because of their faith, what we call double marginalization. For example, we interviewed a Black Christian woman who worked as an assistant professor of English. She told us she was reluctant to describe the challenges she faced in academia as religious discrimination but said the humanities tend to not always be welcoming toward religious people and Christians specifically. She recalled several instances when she was treated differently due to her faith. Black Christians we interviewed said that coworkers stereotyped them as narrow-minded or sanctimonious in ways that felt marginalizing. For example, some said the term holywhich might seem positive in certain kinds of contextscan be applied in pejorative ways to Black Christians. A man we interviewed who attends a majority Black congregation said he talks about his faith openly in the workplace and often feels negatively judged. Members of minority religions may feel even more at risk. The largest group of Muslims in the U.S. are Black Americans. Black Muslim female workers, for example, feel three times marginalizedfeeling at risk for gender, racial, and religious discriminationour study found. Their faith sometimes makes Black Americans less likely to address inequality in their workplaces. We found they sometimes draw on religious values like forgiveness and their belief that God is in control to justify remaining quiet about religious and racial discrimination. Whats next This contrasts with our previous work, where we argued that religion can be used to address inequalities at work. We need more research that examines the inextricable link between religion and race in workplaces. Workplace leaders who care about lessening inequality need to understand that racial and religious identities are often deeply intertwined. The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Elaine Howard Ecklund is a professor of sociology at Rice University. Christopher P. Scheitle is an associate professor of sociology at West Virginia University. Denise Daniels is a chair of entrepreneurship at Wheaton College (Illinois). This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||