“Not in my backyard” is the rallying cry of citizens everywhere resisting projects proposed for their locality. Whether it’s affordable housing, a waste treatment plant, or a new data center, they may recognize the benefit of the activity. They just don’t want it near them. And the roots of that resistance differ from place to place. When it comes to the ongoing transition from fossil fuels to renewables, companies and policymakers need to know where, exactly, people are coming from.

The Italian island of Sardinia is a textbook example. As IEEE Spectrum’s power and energy editor Emily Waltz discovered when she traveled there last October, Sardinian opposition to wind and solar projects runs deep. It spurred a quarter of the voting population to queue up in public squares in 2024 to sign a petition banning all construction of renewable energy.

Waltz was surprised. She went there to see a promising new grid-scale energy storage system that uses domes inflated with carbon dioxide. While reporting on that project, she interviewed residents, engineers, activists, and professors about their attitudes toward climate change and the Italian government’s grand plans for renewable energy on the island. And Waltz soon learned of Sardinians’ profound antipathy toward renewable energy and its deep ties to a history of invasion, occupation, and exploitation stretching back 2,700 years.

It started with the Phoenicians and then extended through the Romans, the Byzantines, and the Iberians. Sardinia was absorbed into a newly unified Italy in 1861, and it became an autonomous region of Italy in 1948. The island’s population is justifiably suspicious of outsiders, including the Italian government. “When you’re in Sardinia, the weight of history—you can feel it like in the air,” Waltz told me. “And it gets passed down from one generation to the next.”

Now, Italy needs Sardinia to produce even more power to meet the country’s climate goals—something that Sardinians see as Rome’s problem, not theirs. “Sardinia already exports about 30 percent of its electricity. It’s not like they need more,” Waltz says. “So it’s hard to make the case to build, build, build.”

The result of Waltz’s old-fashioned shoe leather reporting is this month’s cover story. She notes that the Sardinians she talked to aren’t climate-change deniers, and they don’t object to renewables per se. They just don’t like the way corporations and Italian policymakers are trying to plug into Sardinia like it’s one giant battery rather than the home of an ancient and proud people.

“I think Sardinians would be more receptive to renewable projects if it was more of a ground-up, grassroots approach,” Waltz says. Indeed, this homegrown approach is already working in some places in Sardinia. She knows of more than 50 projects, called energy communities, where the residents are deploying renewables themselves. The idea also holds promise for other places struggling to get locals to buy into the renewable-energy transition.

The Sardinian experience is both a cautionary tale and a blueprint. Ignore the weight of history that communities carry and your project risks failure. Meet the people where they are and you might just get somewhere. The same lesson applies whether you’re in Sulawesi or sub-Saharan Africa. You just have to show up to learn it.

Children born after 2013 are the first generation to grow up fully immersed in digital systems, which weren’t designed with them in mind. One‑third of the world’s Internet users are younger than 18, according to UNICEF, yet these systems shaping their daily lives were built for adults. They were optimized for engagement and designed long before people understood how profoundly digital environments influence children.

For engineers and technical professionals, online safety is not an abstract policy debate. It is a design challenge that demands rigor, systems thinking, and ethical foresight.

Governments around the world are also beginning to recognize the problem. Policymakers from across Australia, Brazil, the European Union, Indonesia, and the United States are responding to risks engineers have long understood: Addictive features, inappropriate content, opaque data practices, and algorithmic systems shape user behavior in ways that their creators did not fully predict. For years, technology moved faster than governance. Now governance is trying to catch up.

Global Shift Toward Design Reform

Supporting National Digital Ambitions

In Athens this year I met with senior leaders of Greek government agencies and key national research institutions. Greece is moving quickly on digital transformation and responsible technology governance, and our discussions reinforced IEEE’s role as a trusted, neutral collaborator.

We focused on supporting Greece’s ambitions in digital modernization and public‑sector innovation. We also discussed responsible AI and age-appropriate digital design in Europe and elsewhere. These engagements, grounded in shared values and long‑term commitment, strengthened IEEE’s presence within the European ecosystem and opened new pathways for collaboration on trustworthy AI and child‑focused digital well‑being.

The European Union and the United Kingdom have been among the first to act, embedding age‑appropriate digital design into their broader children’s rights agenda. Drawing on IEEE expertise and global best practices, Indonesia is the first country in Asia, and Brazil is the first country in Latin America, to adopt age-appropriate design regulation. Australia is aiming to limit access to harmful content and addictive design features through age restrictions on certain platforms. And in the United States, in addition to federal efforts, states including California, New York, and Utah are enacting approaches including age-appropriate design principles.

Across these efforts, a shared realization is emerging. Protecting children online is not simply about filtering content or adding parental controls. It requires rethinking the architecture of digital systems regarding how data is collected, how algorithms make decisions, how interfaces influence attention, and how AI interacts with the developing minds of young users.

Engineers and technical professionals understand that design choices are never neutral. They encode values, incentives, and assumptions. When the user is a child, those choices carry greater weight.

This is where IEEE’s work becomes more essential.

Protecting Children Online

For more than a decade, IEEE has been building technical and ethical foundations for safer digital experiences. The first IEEE standard on age-appropriate design in 2021 marked a turning point. It offers a structured, principled approach to designing with children’s rights in mind. The Institute’s 2022 article “Use a New IEEE Standard to Design a Safer Digital World for Kids” highlights how the standard helps translate those principles into engineering practice.

Today the IEEE Standards Association’s (SA) Trustworthy Digital Experiences portfolio provides a practical, technically grounded framework for governments and industry. Spanning ethical design, data governance, algorithmic transparency, and child‑focused digital well‑being, it has already initiated discussions with government stakeholders around the world. This work helps bridge the gap between engineering realities and policy ambitions.

No single country can solve these challenges alone. Many policymakers lack access to the combined expertise in technology, governance, and children’s rights needed to act quickly and effectively. This collaborative effort helps close that gap.

The stakes are high. Without coordinated action, public policy will continue to lag behind technology, leaving children exposed to risks that could have been mitigated through thoughtful design. But with the right frameworks, governments can ensure digital systems respect children’s rights, support healthy development, and promote well‑being.

IEEE’s emerging standards and collaborative technology policy work offer a path forward. By grounding national efforts in evidence‑based, rights-aligned design principles, IEEE is helping governments move from reactive regulation to proactive, coherent, and globally informed strategies for protecting children online.

Safeguarding childhood in the digital age is both a moral imperative and an engineering challenge. And IEEE is helping to lead the way.

—Mary Ellen Randall

IEEE president and CEO

Please share your thoughts with me: president@ieee.org.

This article appears in the June 2026 print issue.

Ed Morrissey, writing for Hot Air, thinks Scott Pelley got what he deserved and Bari Weiss is doing a good job running CBS News:

And Pelley forgot the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. Instead, Pelley convinced himself of his own virtue and torched his own position — and if Bilton’s letter is accurate, in as mean-spirited and conceited a manner as possible. Pelley could have chosen a dignified resignation under protest, but instead pulled a power move in an attempt to intimidate Bilton, Weiss, and Ellison, only to discover that no one feared his absence. In fact, they’re probably happy to cut him loose.

There’s always at least one person in these situations who thinks they’re untouchable. A wise executive knows to start by making an example of that person, and then see how many other people think they’re indispensable. It’s not as if TV news jobs are expanding these days, after all. Pelley’s going to find out the hard way that no one’s paying $5 million a year to emote into a camera from other people’s copy.

It doesn’t even enter this man’s little mind that Pelley wasn’t concerned about his job, wasn’t concerned about his salary, but was concerned only with the integrity of the institution to which he’d committed decades of his career, and that he saw as his duty the need to stand up for his remaining and former colleagues. That Pelley himself has integrity. To the Trump lickspittles, everything is performative. They don’t just lack integrity, they don’t believe integrity is real.

Katie Notopoulos:

The Scott Pelley story to me is a lesson in how if you work hard enough in your career to get Fuck You Money, the real reward is the day you need to say it, you can.

Link: hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2026/06/03/cbs-fires-scott-pelley…

Paramount’s “Press Express” page promoting 60 Minutes still lists all eight correspondents from the 2025–2026 season, the program’s 58th. (Perhaps they fired the person responsible for keeping the cast page up to date.) In the order they appear on Paramount’s listing:

• Lesley Stahl
• Scott Pelley — fired today
• Bill Whitaker
• Anderson Cooper — left on his own after 20 years
• Sharyn Alfonsi — fired last week
• L. Jon Wertheim
• Cecilia Vega — fired last week
• Norah O’Donnell

A big part of the brand for 60 Minutes is that the show doesn’t change. Someone who last saw it 40 years ago would instantly recognize it today. There’s no silly fucking theme song. There’s no glossy set. There’s a ticking stopwatch, a logotype set in Microgramma/Eurostile, and correspondents sit against a black background. And correspondents measure their tenure not by years but by decades. Of the original hosts, Harry Reasoner was there for 23 years (and left the cast only upon his death at 68 in 1991), Dan Rather was there for 38 years, Mike Wallace for 40, and Morley Safer for 48. 48 years! Of the current hosts, Lesley Stahl has been there since 1991. I graduated high school that year.

In just six months since David Ellison bought CBS and installed Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief of CBS News, they’ve fired or lost half their on-air talent, and of the four who remain, Wertheim and O’Donnell are only part-time (O’Donnell’s title is “CBS News senior correspondent”, not “60 Minutes correspondent”), Whitaker is 74 years old, and Stahl is 84.

Behind the cameras, longtime executive producer Bill Owens resigned in protest of corporate interference a year ago, in the cowardly run-up to Ellison’s acquisition of CBS. Last week Weiss fired Owens’s successor, Tanya Simon, who had been with the program for 30 years, replacing her with Nick Bilton, who not only had never worked at 60 Minutes, but has never worked in TV news period. Weiss also fired executive editor Draggan Mihailovich, who’d been at the show for 28 years.

It seems untenable for Stahl or Whitaker to remain on the show. Pelley called it what it was in Bilton’s ham-fisted staff meeting Monday: the murder of the institution.

Link: paramountpressexpress.com/cbs-news-and-stations/shows/60…

Nate Silver, back in April, under the headline “Social Media Is Turning Into a Freak Show”, where by “social media” he mostly discusses Twitter/X:

But what does that remaining traffic consist of? I recently came across a bubble chart depicting the Twitter accounts that had received the most “engagement” in February 2026. It was depressing: most of the top accounts were extremely low-quality and highly partisan. I hadn’t even heard of many of them and only follow a handful of the top accounts. So I tracked down the original data myself and, with help from Claude, made my own improved version of the chart. Here, voilà, are the Twitter accounts with the most engagement so far in 2026:

It’s not hard to notice that Twitter has become extremely right-leaning. But I’d argue there’s an equally important trend: the top accounts are of incredibly low quality. Elon, with the algorithmic boost he built in for himself, is at the eye of the storm, of course. But “Catturd” literally gets far more engagement than the New York Times, for instance.

There’s a common argument from proponents of the Musk-era X that the only problem is that left-leaning people have abandoned the platform. That the X algorithm is a contest and if only right-leaning accounts are playing, of course they’re winning. This is nonsense. The whole thing is rigged. Elon Musk’s outsized prominence as the most-engaged-with account is proof of that. Twitter existed for 16 years before Musk bought it. He wasn’t even close to the biggest account during that era. Then he bought it. Now his account is the biggest.

As Silver’s data analysis shows, Musk’s X is not just dominated by right-wing accounts, it’s dominated by “who the hell is that?” right-wing slop accounts.

The only way not to lose a rigged game is to refuse to play. X is still a thing. A lot of people, companies, and organizations still post there — treat it like their blogs — exclusively. I still wind up linking to posts on X because that’s where they are. That’s a whole separate discussion. But anyone who’s trying to “compete” there with subject matter that is even vaguely political has no chance of success unless what they’re posting is what Elon Musk wants to see promoted. It’s not like his thumb is on the scale, it’s like an anvil is on the scale. The conundrum is that there are still a lot interesting people posting interesting things there.

Link: natesilver.net/p/social-media-has-become-a-freak-show

Laura Hazard Owen, writing for Nieman Journalism Lab back in April:

I used Claude to help me scrape the 200 most recent tweets from 18 large publishers’ X accounts and track the engagement (likes + comments + retweets) on each. Six of those publishers have paywalls: Bloomberg, CNN, Forbes, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. Nine don’t: Al Jazeera English, AP, BBC, Breitbart News, CBS News, Daily Wire, Fox News, NBC News, and Reuters. The last three accounts I looked at — Leading Report, unusual_whales, and Globe Eye News — are not news publishers, but aggregate breaking news in tweets without links. (Here, for example, is an example of a Leading Report tweet: “BREAKING: Iran has halted direct talks with the US, per WSJ.” They’re sometimes referred to as engagement-maxing accounts.

These charts make it pretty clear that links in tweets hurt engagement. The connection was so apparent in my analysis that a graph including all 18 publishers is almost unreadable: The traditional, link-loving publishers are clustered in the bottom left corner (lots of links, little engagement) in a nearly indistinguishable mass of bubbles, no matter how large their followings are.

Musk’s Twitter/X is not an aggregator for news. It’s a walled garden. But the type of garden where you need to keep your eyes open and your hand on your wallet. Sometimes it’s fun to visit a seedy neighborhood. But let’s not pretend it isn’t a seedy neighborhood just because, long ago, it used to be nice.

Link: niemanlab.org/2026/04/do-links-hurt-news-publishers-on…