"Mr Branding" is a blog based on RSS for everything related to website branding and website design, it collects its posts from many sites in order to facilitate the updating to the latest technology.
To suggest any source, please contact me: Taha.baba@consultant.com
Thursday, January 8, 2026
OpenAI Unveils ChatGPT Health as a Dedicated Experience for Health and Wellness Questions
Image: Openai
ChatGPT Health brings health conversations, connected data, and files into a separate space with added privacy protections. OpenAI said the feature is intended to support, not replace, medical care and is not designed for diagnosis or treatment. The company said health is already one of the most common uses of ChatGPT, with more than 230 million people globally asking health and wellness questions each week based on their de-identified analysis.
The experience allows users to optionally connect medical records and wellness apps (such as Apple Health) so responses can reference connected information when relevant. Medical Records access is available only in the United States, requires users to be over 18, and is enabled through a partnership with "b.well". Apple Health integration requires iOS, while Android support "is coming soon" (as per OpenAI help page).
OpenAI said Health operates as a separate space within ChatGPT, with health chats, memories, and files kept isolated from other conversations. Health chats, files, and memories are not used to train OpenAI’s foundation models. Users can disconnect apps, delete Health memories, and manage permissions at any time, with third-party apps turned off by default.
ChatGPT Health is available via a waitlist for users with ChatGPT Free, Go, Plus, and Pro plans, excluding the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
Notes: This post was drafted with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed, edited, and published by humans.
Read next: Decentralized social media platforms unlock authentic consumer feedback
by Asim BN via Digital Information World
Decentralized social media platforms unlock authentic consumer feedback
The study, which was published in the European Journal of Marketing, found that people express stronger emotions and engage in less self-censorship on decentralized platforms than on traditional, centralized sites. Centralized platforms — such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) — are owned and operated by single corporations that control content and user data. Decentralized platforms like Mastodon, Bluesky, Odysee and Signal offer users greater anonymity and autonomy.
“In many centralized platforms, people think twice before posting because they know their activity is monitored or tied to a public identity,” said Mesut Cicek, scholarly associate professor of marketing in the Carson College of Business and corresponding author. “On decentralized platforms, users feel freer to express their true opinions, and that leads to more candid, emotionally rich reactions.”
Electronic word-of-mouth plays a critical role in how audiences respond to brands, yet people may soften or filter their reactions on platforms where their identity is more visible or tightly monitored. To examine how platform design influences online expression, the research team conducted surveys, controlled simulations and analyzed real-world social media content.
In an initial study, participants assigned to either a centralized or decentralized environment were asked how comfortable they felt sharing honest opinions. Those in the decentralized group reported feeling more autonomous and willing to express their genuine views.
The researchers then tested whether those perceptions would translate into actual behavior. Cicek and his co-authors built a mock social platform that allowed them to manipulate whether participants believed they were posting in a centralized or decentralized space. In this controlled setting, participants responded to identical prompts. Those who believed they were using a decentralized platform wrote comments with stronger emotional intensity and less hesitation, demonstrating how platform structure can directly shape expression.
A third study analyzed more than 26,000 comments posted by the same video creators who shared identical videos on both a centralized platform and a decentralized counterpart. The researchers found that comments on decentralized platforms were more affective, direct and expressive — even when the content and the creators were the same. This pattern suggests that the platform environment, not the message itself, influences how openly people communicate.
“We wanted to see if platform structure truly shapes expression, and it does,” Cicek said. “Even when the content is the same and the audience is similar, decentralization increases emotional expression.”
As decentralized social networks continue to grow in popularity, Cicek said companies, marketers and policymakers may increasingly rely on these environments to anticipate consumer concerns and make more informed decisions about product development and communication strategy. Additional co-authors include Serdar Yayla, assistant professor at California State University, Los Angeles; Omer Cem Kutlubay, associate professor at the University of Arkansas–Fort Smith; and Kunter Gunasti, associate professor of marketing at Washington State University.
This article was originally published on Washington State University News on January 6, 2026 and republished with permission; Microsoft Copilot was used for light copy editing.
Read next:
• Understanding Online Rage: Why Digital Anger Feels Amplified
• We’re talking about AI all wrong. Here’s how we can fix the narrative
• WhatsApp Updates Group Chats, While Testing Parental Controls on Android
by External Contributor via Digital Information World
Wednesday, January 7, 2026
WhatsApp Updates Group Chats, While Testing Parental Controls on Android
Image: Whatsapp
The announcement introduces member tags, text stickers, and enhanced event reminders for group chats. Member tags allow users to assign a role or identifier that is visible within a specific group and can differ from one group to another. The Meta-owned messaging app said the feature is intended to provide clearer context about participants without changing account profiles.
Text stickers allow users to turn typed words into stickers through Sticker Search. Newly created text stickers can be added directly to sticker packs without first sending them in a chat. WhatsApp said this is designed to help messages stand out visually within conversations.
The update also adds expanded event reminders. When creating an event in a group chat, users can now set custom early reminders for participants. WhatsApp said this is meant to help group members remember scheduled activities, whether in person or online.
These features join existing group chat capabilities already available on WhatsApp, including screen sharing, large file sharing of up to 2GB, HD media sharing, and voice chats.
Separately, as per WABetaInfo (WBI), WhatsApp is testing and developing additional features through its Android beta program. In WhatsApp beta for Android version 2.26.1.28, some beta testers can share recent group chat history with new members. The feature is optional, disabled by default, limited to a maximum of 100 messages, and protected by end-to-end encryption.
In a another beta version, 2.26.1.30, as pe WBI, WhatsApp is working on primary controls that would allow parents to manage secondary accounts with limited features, including default contacts-only messaging and calling restrictions. This parental control functionality remains under development and is not yet available for public testing.
Digital Information World contacted WhatsApp but the company did not provide timelines for wider availability of the beta features. We'll update this post if we get any response.
Notes: This post was drafted with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed, edited, and published by humans.
Read next:
• We’re talking about AI all wrong. Here’s how we can fix the narrative
• Why are older adults more likely to share misinformation online?
by Ayaz Khan via Digital Information World
We’re talking about AI all wrong. Here’s how we can fix the narrative
Artificial Intelligence (AI) isn’t just made up of data, chips and code – it’s also the product of the metaphors and narratives we use to talk about it. The way we represent this technology determines how the public imagination understands it and, by extension, how people design it, use it, and its impact on society at large.
Worryingly, many studies show that the predominant representations of AI – anthropomorphic “assistants”, artificial brains, and the omnipresent humanoid robot – have little basis in reality. These images may appeal to businesses and journalists, but they are rooted in myths that distort the essence, abilities and limitations of current AI models.
If we represent AI in misleading ways, we will struggle to truly understand it. And if we don’t understand it, how can we ever hope to use it, regulate it, and make it work in ways that serve our shared interests?
The myth of autonomous tech
Distorted representations of AI are part of a common misconception that the academic Langdon Winner dubbed “autonomous technology” back in 1977: the idea that machines have taken on a life of their own and act independently on society in a purposeful and often destructive way.
AI gives us the perfect incarnation of this, as the narratives surrounding it flirt with the myth of intelligent, autonomous creation – as well as the punishment for assuming this divine function. It is an ancient trope, one that has given us stories ranging from the myth of Prometheus to Frankenstein, Terminator, and Ex Machina.
This myth is already hinted at in the ambitious term “artificial intelligence”, which was coined by computer scientist John McCarthy in 1955. The label took hold in spite of – or perhaps because of – the various misunderstandings it causes.
As Kate Crawford succinctly argues in her Atlas of AI: “AI is neither artificial nor intelligent. Rather, artificial intelligence is both embodied and material, made from natural resources, fuel, human labor, infrastructures, logistics, histories, and classifications.”
Most problems with the dominant narrative of AI can be attributed to this tendency to represent it as an independent, almost alien entity, as something unfathomable that exists beyond our control or decisions.
Misleading metaphors
The language used by many media outlets, institutions, and even experts to discuss AI is deeply flawed. It is riddled with anthropomorphism and animism, images of robots and brains, (always) fabricated stories about machines rebelling or acting inexplicably, and debates about their supposed consciousness. This is all heaped onto a prevailing sense of urgency, panic and inevitability.
This vision culminates in the narrative that has driven the development of AI since its inception: the promise of general artificial intelligence (GAI), a supposed human or superhuman intelligence that will change the world and even our species. Companies such as Microsoft and OpenAI and technology leaders like Elon Musk have been predicting GAI as an ever-imminent milestone for some time now.
However, the truth is that the path to this technology is unclear, and there is not even consensus on whether it will ever be possible.
Narrative, power and the AI bubble
This is not just a theoretical problem. The deterministic and animistic view of AI constructs a predetermined future, as myths of autonomous technology inflate expectations and divert attention from the real challenges AI poses.
This hinders a more informed and open public debate about the technology. A landmark report from the AI Now Institute refers to the promise of AI as “the argument to end all arguments”, a way of avoiding any questioning of the technology itself.
In addition to a mixture of exaggerated expectations and fears, these narratives are also responsible for inflating the AI economic bubble that various reports and technology leaders are warning about. If the bubble exists and eventually bursts, we should remember that it was fuelled not only by technical achievements, but also a narrative that was as misleading as it was compelling.
Changing the narrative
To repair the broken AI narrative, we have to bring its cultural, social, and political dimensions to the fore. We have to leave behind the myth of autonomous technology and start seeing AI as an interaction between technology and people.
In practice, this means shifting the focus in several ways: from technology to the humans who guide it; from a techno-utopian future to a present that is still under construction; from apocalyptic visions to real and present risks; from presenting AI as unique and inevitable to an emphasis on autonomy, choice, and diversity among people.
We can drive these shifts in a number of ways. In my book, Technohumanism: A Narrative and Aesthetic Design for Artificial Intelligence, I propose several stylistic recommendations to escape the narrative of autonomous AI. These include avoiding using it as the subject of a sentence when it is being used as a tool, and not using anthropomorphic verbs when we talk about it.
Playing with the term “AI” also helps us see how much words can change our perception of technology. Try replacing it in a sentence with, for example, “complex task processing”, one of the least ambitious but most accurate names considered during its early days.
Important debates on AI, from those on regulation to its impact on education and employment, will continue to rest on shaky ground until we correct the way we talk about it. Designing a narrative that highlights the social and technical reality of AI is an urgent ethical challenge. Successfully confronting this challenge will benefit technology and society alike.
Pablo Sanguinetti, Profesor de IA y Pensamiento CrÃtico, IE University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. This article was originally published in Spanish.
Read next:
• Why are older adults more likely to share misinformation online?
• Understanding Online Rage: Why Digital Anger Feels Amplified
by External Contributor via Digital Information World
Why are older adults more likely to share misinformation online?
Originally published by Sy Boles Harvard Staff Writer on the Harvard Gazette, as per Media Relations guidelines page.
Image: Andrea Piacquadio / pexels
Older adults tend to do well at identifying falsehoods in experiments, but they’re also likelier than younger adults to like and share misinformation online.
That paradox was at the heart of a recent lecture as part of the Misinformation Speaker Series at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
The answer, according to Ben Lyons, a University of Utah communications assistant professor who studies media, politics, and misinformation, is partisanship and congeniality bias, essentially the tendency to seek out and believe information that supports pre-existing views while avoiding and dismissing conflicting data.
“Older adults show a lot more congeniality bias,” said Lyons, who published a paper in 2024 in Public Opinion Quarterly on the issue. “Older adults value accuracy, at least in their self-reports, but these age-linked political traits — interest and sophistication and intensity of partisan effects— might reshape what counts as accurate in practice, filtering truth through partisan identity.”
In his study, Lyons analyzed survey experiments of about 10,000 respondents and internet usage data from about 4,500 people. He found that adults older than 60 were about as skeptical of false headlines, on average, as younger people.
Despite that, older adults tended to be likelier to read and share misinformation than younger ones.
“Digital literacy does in fact decrease with age, not surprisingly.” — Ben Lyons
Lyons investigated common explanations for the paradox: that older adults have poorer digital literacy and that cognitive decline in some cases may exert a greater influence on decision-making.
The data, he found, were not so straightforward.
“Digital literacy does in fact decrease with age, not surprisingly,” Lyons said. “But news literacy is always higher in these samples; news literacy increases with age.”
In other words, adults over 60 had less skill and understanding of online environments, but more understanding of how news is produced.
Lyons also questioned the common wisdom that cognitive aging could make older adults more vulnerable to accepting online misinformation.
Cognitive aging is not all decline, he said. Older adults might lose episodic memory, processing speed, and fluid abilities, but they often score higher on tests of semantic memory, general knowledge, and emotional regulation — characteristics that might actually help them understand and engage with misinformation online.
To test that theory, Lyons looked at cognitive reflection — the ability to override initial responses that are intuitive but incorrect. That faculty increases with age, Lyons said, but the link between cognitive reflection and discernment decreases with age.
“Having greater cognitive reflection is associated with much more rejection of false news for younger adults … and for older adults, we see much less of an effect of cognitive reflection on their discernment.”
The same is true for emotional reactivity to the news.
“Older adults tend to rely more on prior knowledge, as a rule, as a general finding, to reduce cognitive load.” — Ben Lyons
Busting those myths helped Lyons home in on his theory of partisanship and congeniality bias.
“Older adults tend to rely more on prior knowledge, as a rule, as a general finding, to reduce cognitive load,” he explained. “But their prior knowledge, based on this consistently stronger partisanship, at least in the political domain, is more likely to be politically biased.”
But ultimately, Lyons noted, while a greater proportion of older adults share misinformation online than younger cohorts, the total percentage is still small.
Lyons was the final guest in the Shorenstein Center’s Misinformation Speaker Series in fall 2025. The series will resume this spring.
Also read:
• Understanding Online Rage: Why Digital Anger Feels Amplified
• From Kathmandu to Casablanca, a generation under surveillance is rising up
by External Contributor via Digital Information World
Tuesday, January 6, 2026
Understanding Online Rage: Why Digital Anger Feels Amplified
New research from a UBC Okanagan alumna suggests that difference is not accidental—it’s shaped by context, distance and the design of online spaces themselves.
Clare Wiznura focused her interdisciplinary studies master’s thesis on identifying anger in online environments, analyzing how people express frustration, hostility and outrage across social media and survey-based interactions.
“One of the biggest differences we saw was how controlled people were when they believed they were speaking directly to someone,” Wiznura says. “Even when participants were clearly upset, they were more measured. They asked questions. They avoided using all capital letters and insults. That restraint largely disappeared in more general online spaces.”
The research examined both general online commentary and direct, interpersonal communication to understand how language changes depending on who is being addressed—and how.
Wiznura’s research found that general social media comment sections were far more likely to contain what researchers describe as “hot” anger—language that is loud, aggressive and emotionally charged. In contrast, interpersonal exchanges showed greater emotional regulation, even when disagreement or frustration was present.
“This aligns with something we intuitively know,” Wiznura says. “Online, there’s often a decreased sense of social presence. People feel more comfortable being mean in ways they likely wouldn’t be in person, even though we know these are still real people on the other side.”
A key takeaway from the research was the importance of context. More than half of survey participants said they could not confidently interpret whether language was angry or hostile without knowing what it was responding to, or what relationship existed between speakers.
“The same words could be interpreted very differently depending on the situation,” says Wiznura. “People repeatedly said, ‘If this was the context, then, yes, it’s angry. If it’s another context, maybe not.’ That makes emotional language much harder to categorize than we often assume.”
The research also examined rage bait—content intentionally designed to provoke outrage and drive engagement. Wiznura notes that rage bait does not require the original poster to be angry themselves.
“Rage bait has become a significant factor in how anger circulates online,” says Dr. Christine Schreyer, Professor of Anthropology and Wiznura’s supervisor. “People may not be angry themselves, but they are deliberately provoking anger in others. Clare’s research highlights how important it is to account for that dynamic when studying language and emotion in digital spaces.”
The research arrives amid growing public conversation about online outrage and engagement-driven platforms.
Oxford University Press named “rage bait” its Word of the Year for 2025, reflecting how widely the concept has entered everyday language. For Dr. Schreyer, the label is useful but the behaviour behind it has been visible for longer.
“Words of the Year reflect an emphasis in society, something that represents a snapshot in time. The fact that rage bait is Oxford’s 2025 Word of the Year indicates the cultural significance of online discourse in contemporary society,” says Dr. Schreyer.
Wiznura is careful not to overextend the findings, particularly when asked to draw broad conclusions about society.
“It’s very easy to feel connected through social media, but that connection is fundamentally different from in-person relationships,” says Wiznura. “There’s real value in what we sometimes call ‘third spaces’—libraries, community centres, places where people gather without a screen in between.
“We’ve known for a while that online spaces impact how we communicate. Understanding how anger works in those environments is a necessary step toward engaging with each other more thoughtfully.”
Read next:
• From Kathmandu to Casablanca, a generation under surveillance is rising up
by External Contributor via Digital Information World
From Kathmandu to Casablanca, a generation under surveillance is rising up
Image: Heather Mount / Unsplash
In 2025, youth-led protests erupted everywhere from Morocco to Nepal, Madagascar and Europe. A generation refused to remain silent in the face of economic precariousness, corruption and eroding democratic norms and institutions.
Although they arose in different contexts, all the protests were met with the same playbook of responses: repression, contempt and suspicion towards youth dismissed as irresponsible.
Mobilization across several continents
In Morocco, the #Gen212 movement, which originated on social media, denounced the high cost of living, police violence, muzzling of civil society and lack of opportunities. This mobilization, which began digitally on platforms such as Discord, quickly spilled over from screens into concrete action taken in several cities across the country.
In Madagascar, young people took to the streets at the end of September in a climate of high pre-election tensions to demand real change before being violently repressed. In Nepal, thousands of young people occupyied public spaces, demanding genuine democracy and an end to the corruption that is undermining the country.
In Europe, too, youth are mobilizing against authoritarian excesses and persistent inequalities. In Italy, France, and Spain, young people are taking to the streets to protest gender-based violence, unpopular reforms and police repression and to demand recognition of their political rights.
Although the contexts are very different, these mobilizations share the same goal of refusing injustice and demanding that marginalized voices be heard.
Authorities call youth immature and irrational
These movements are often treated as fleeting emotional outbursts, even though they express structured political demands for social justice, freedom, economic security, access to dignity and participation.
Yet the responses by governments have been heading in a totally different direction — towards increased repression. Young protesters are being monitored, arrested, stigmatized and sometimes accused of treason or of being manipulated by foreign powers.
In Morocco, for example, nearly 2,500 young people have been prosecuted, with more than 400 convicted — including 76 minors — since September 2025. The charges include “group rebellion,” “incitement to commit crimes” and participating in armed gatherings. More than 60 prison sentences have been handed down, some of them for up to 15 years.
This mass judicialization of a peaceful movement has been denounced by Amnesty International, which points to excessive uses of force and the increasing criminalization of protest.
In Madagascar, the response was just as brutal: at least 22 deaths, more than 100 injuries and hundreds of arbitrary arrests were recorded during youth demonstrations against corruption and electoral irregularities.
According to the United Nations, security forces used rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the crowds. The crisis culminated in the flight of President Andry Rajoelina, which confirmed that, far from defusing the conflict, the crackdown revealed institutions’ fragility in the face of politicized youth.
A discourse referring to parental responsibility
The actions of the young people who have been arrested during recent protests are often attributed to lack of parental responsibility.
In Morocco, for example, the Home Office has called on parents to supervise and guide their children. In Indonesia, the Philippines, Peru and Nepal alike, authorities call on parents to supervise, guide or restrain their children, shifting the political conflict into the family sphere.
This trend illustrates what national security researcher Fatima Ahdash calls the “familialization” of politics: instead of addressing the social, economic and ideological causes of protests, governments turn them into a matter of home education, depoliticizing, individualizing and privatizing the protests in the process. Families become the prism through which young people’s political behaviour is interpreted, evaluated and sometimes punished.
This response isn’t new, but it’s taking on unprecedented proportions in a global context of democratic fragility and authoritarian recentring of power marked by the restriction of freedoms, the control of protest and the criminalization of social movements.
States are adopting a defensive stance, treating youth engagement not as a civic resource but as a threat to be neutralized. This hardened stance is symptomatic of a deeper problem: youth are refusing to be satisfied with empty promises and forced compromises, but they face powers unable to recognize the legitimacy of their anger and aspirations..
Silencing criticism
Image: Jack Skinner / Unsplash
Repression in response to criticism has become a tactic governments use to avoid being questioned. But this strategy is becoming increasingly fragile.
That’s because first, it denies the legitimacy of the anger being expressed. Secondly, it ignores a fundamental reality: that this anger is rooted in collective experiences of social decline, discrimination and political powerlessness. It’s not empty anger. It expresses a demand for social, political and environmental change that institutions are struggling to grasp.
Unlike mobilizations likr the Arab Spring of 2011, the current protests led by Generation Z are horizontal; they are decentralized, have no identifiable leaders, and are rooted in the urgency of the present.
They also originate on social media, organize themselves into autonomous micro-cells, reject structuring ideological narratives, and favour a politics of everyday life — meaning they reject precariousness while calling for immediate dignity and concrete justice.
Their esthetic is fluid, borrowing from digital codes — memes, manga, visual remixes — and their forms circulate through emotional affinities rather than imitation. This makes them elusive to the powers that be, but powerfully viral.
These movements stir up political emotions (anger, but also hope) and create new languages, digital practices and forms of engagement that often lie outside traditional parties.
One unifying visual element keeps coming up: the black flag with a skull and crossbones wearing a straw hat, a symbol taken from the manga One Piece. More than just a nod to pop culture, this Jolly Roger embodies a thirst for justice, freedom and rebellion shared by a globalized youth, from Kathmandu to Rome.
In Serbia, for example, a student uprising in early 2025 with no visible leader united thousands of people around a simple slogan: more democracy. The movement spread to other generations, without any party or hierarchy, challenging a government that tried to stifle the protests through force and stigmatization.
Evading censorship
Meanwhile, the young people of Cuba Decide are mobilizing on digital platforms to demand a democratic referendum in the midst of constant surveillance. Thanks to encrypted tools and alliances abroad, they are circumventing censorship and amplifying their voices beyond borders.
While criminalizing young people and their protests may slow their momentum, it doesn’t solve anything. It only undermines the social contract, fuels political disenchantment and reinforces polarization. What’s more, it risks pushing demands for reform to outright refusal of the status quo.
Recent protests remind us of an obvious fact: young people are not “the future,” but political entities in the present. Governments need to hear not just the noise of protest, but the clarity of the demands: justice, dignity, representation and a future.![]()
Amani Braa, Assistant lecturer, Université de Montréal
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Read next:
• Online Shopping Scam Reports – How To Spot Patterns In Frauds
• How to Let AI Think With You, Not Instead of You
• From our sponsors: How Automated Internal Links and Image Alt Texts Improve Modern SEO Performance
by External Contributor via Digital Information World






