Facebook Is Making Some Awesome Changes to Their Emoji

The government of New Zealand, along with the country’s major broadband providers are working to silence the hate speech created by the Australian terrorist accused in Friday’s Christchurch mosque attacks. Videos of the attacks, along with a 74-page, anti-Muslim, white supremacist manifesto have been repeatedly published, and removed, from various online platforms. And, in her latest show of leadership, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has vowed to deny the shooter the notoriety he clearly wanted by refusing to mention his name.

“He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist,” Ardern said in an address to Parliament on Tuesday, March 19. “But he will, when I speak, be nameless.”

“And to others, I implore you,” she added, “speak the names of those who were lost, rather than the name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand will give him nothing. Not even his name.”

New Zealand’s three largest internet providers, Vodaphone NZ, Spark, and 2degrees, voiced a similar perspective in an open letter to Jack Dorsey (Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), and Sundar Pichai (Google, which owns YouTube), dated March 19.

“You may be aware that on the afternoon of Friday 15 March, three of New Zealand’s largest broadband providers, Vodafone NZ, Spark and 2degrees, took the unprecedented step to jointly identify and suspend access to web sites that were hosting video footage taken by the gunman related to the horrific terrorism incident in Christchurch,” the letter reads.

The letter goes on to acknowledge how, in the global marketplace, this decisive effort at content restriction marks an “extraordinary step” in limiting access to harmful material. Yet, the leaders behind these three New Zealand broadband companies remain steadfast in the belief that taking this step was “the right thing to do.” Their letter implores the three powerful tech CEOs to consider doing the same on their respective social media platforms, as a general practice.

“Although we recognize the speed with which social network companies sought to remove Friday’s video once they were made aware of it, this was still a response to material that was rapidly spreading globally and should never have been made available online,” the letter continues. “We believe society has the right to expect companies such as yours to take more responsibility for the content on their platforms.”

The Association of New Zealand Advertisers agreed, releasing a statement explaining that local businesses would consider pulling their advertising dollars from Facebook if the company didn’t take immediate action to silence hate speech.

“The events in Christchurch raise the question — if the site owners can target consumers with advertising in microseconds, why can’t the same technology be applied to prevent this kind of content being streamed live?” the group said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

In response, Facebook VP and Deputy General Counsel, Chris Sonderby penned a blog post on the company’s site, explaining how Facebook is working to remove videos like the one the shooter uploaded while the Christchurch attack was happening.

“We removed the attacker’s video within minutes of their outreach to us, and in the aftermath, we have been providing an on-the-ground resource for law enforcement authorities,” the post says. “We will continue to support them in every way we can. In light of the active investigation, police have asked us not to share certain details.”

The Facebook blog post also outlined how Friday’s video became viral (and out of Facebook’s hands) so quickly: a user of the website 8chan posted a link to a copy of the video to a file sharing site before Facebook was even notified of the video’s existence. Sonderby also writes that the company helped other social networks identify the video to get it removed, and have been working in conjunction with the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) to be proactive about curbing terror and extremism online.

(Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty)

The Trump administration has been quietly working behind the scenes to create a proposal that would use social media to target people receiving federal disability payments,according to theNew York Times. Under the proposal, the federal government would use social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to look out for posts that would call into question people’s ability to work.

“There is a little bitty chance that Social Security may be snooping on your Facebook or your Twitter account,” Robert A. Crowe, a lawyer from St. Louis who has worked with Social Security claimants, told the Times. “You don’t want anything on there that shows you out playing Frisbee.”

In a 2018 budget request, Social Security asked for additional funding to look into expanding its already-existing social media monitoring. Its goal is to find fraudsters among the nation’s more than 10 million benefits recipients, who could ostensibly be bilking the system of millions of dollars. Currently, Social Security only investigates social media in rare cases where a file has been flagged and they want to further investigate whether a claim is fraudulent.

Other government agencies have already endeavored to use social media to track non-residents, visitors, and immigrants. Back in 2017, the Department of Homeland Security announced its intent to use social media monitoring to screen immigration and visa applicants for content it may deem ineligible for US entry. And in 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom Of Information request to find out how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the DHS were collecting, and interpreting, content from social media sites.

Although there have been verifiable instances of people utilizing Social Security benefits fraudulently (such as the 57-year-old Louisiana man who was recently ordered to pay back $134,000 in bilked benefits), fewer people altogether have been relying on SSDI in recent years. Applications for new users were down 29 percent last year, per the Times.

The Times also reports that, in November, Social Security requested a rule change that would deny benefit recipients charged with fraud a guaranteed in-person court case, and instead offer a video conference hearing in its place. Critics of this proposal worry that the change would be inefficient and undermine individuals’ right to due process.

Proposed changes are all the more puzzling given that the Social Security system is, in fact, one of the most efficiently-run government bodies working today. According toSlate, although in-power Republicans have been open about their desire to chip away at Social Security, the program’s administrative costs barely factor into the federal budget at all due to a huge funding surplus in the trillions of dollars.

Congress doesn’t even manage funds for the administration of the program. Instead, it limits how much of the surplus and dedicated revenue the Social Security Administration can use for running the program (hence the spending request on social media monitoring). But since Republicans began their eight-year control of the House in 2010, the party has incrementally restricted how much money the program is allowed to spend, while canceling or significantly decreasing programming allowances.

Whether or not SSDI claimants will be permanently placed under scrutiny remains to be seen. But if the administration deems this use of tracking a success, it could mean the beginning of social media monitoring for the rest of us, too. It could also pave the way for private companies to begin tracking staff in ways that could lead to greater power imbalances and diminished transparency in the workforce.

Then, of course, there’s the fact that social media doesn’t always give us a picture of reality that’s, well, real. “Social media sites are not exactly clear and reliable evidence,” Michael J. Astrue, the last Senate-confirmed Social Security commissioner, told a hearing in 2012. He stepped down in 2013.

Astrue argued for more (and better trained) fraud investigators instead, reminding the hearing how false news easily spreads online. He quipped: “Facebook puts up phony websites under my name all the time.”

(Photo by BSIP/UIG via Getty Images)

I knew beauty trends were officially headed in a different direction when latte makeup dominated social media last year. Everything about it gave the appearance of soft features, making this millennial appreciate the ‘no makeup’ look more and more. And while I'm working on staying up-to-date on all the latest makeup trends, it also reminded me there are outdated trends that unintentionally age people...and definitelyneedto go.

Wanna look younger and more on-trend, too? From super metallic eyeshadow to contour that dominates your face, here are the 8 outdate makeup trends to leave in the early ‘90s to mid-2000s.

The 8 outdated makeup trends you need to stop ASAP!

1. Full Coverage Foundation

KoolShooters

There was a time where wearing full-coverage foundation was all the rage. From drugstore to high-end brands, it seems like they were consistently shoved in consumers’ faces to help us achieve a ‘full beat’ without sitting in a makeup artist’s chair. Also, those of us with dark spots or hyperpigmentation may have relied on them when we were in the thick of our skincare woes.

But these days, wearing too much foundation isn’t as popular as natural and skincare makeup are prioritized. If anything, more people are interested in wearing light-to-medium coverage foundation, skin tints, or tinted moisturizers.

2. Too Much Concealer

George Milton

It wasn’t until I watched this video by makeup artist Katie Jane Hughes that I realized some of us have been too heavy-handed with our concealers. There’s no reason we should be slapping products under the thinnest parts of our face, but we didn’t know any better!

Now that you know you can still get the desired effect with a minimal amount of concealer, don’t revert back to painting your under eyes!

3. 'Baking' Your Setting Powder

Chidi Young

Before you throw away your setting powders, step away from your makeup drawer and have a sit-down chat with me. There isn’t anything wrong with applying them to your face to help ‘set’ your foundation and concealer. However, spending over 10 minutes ‘baking’ your powder (AKA letting it sit untouched) doesn’t work for everyone.

It can lead to creased makeup which can derail your look, plus it’s a pain to correct when you’re halfway through your routine!

4. Overlining Lips

Kaboompics.com

I love a good lip liner, especially if it mirrors my favorite ‘90s makeup look. But, there’s such a thing as overdoing it. The key to lining your lips is following the natural flow of them. Going out of your way to draw above and under your lips’ lines comes off as comical and exaggerated. If anything, use a lip plumping gloss to help your lips look fuller.

5. Overtweezing Your Eyebrows

Getty Images

I don’t even have the words for this outdated makeup look besides wanting to say “no” 20 times in a row. But, I’ll bite and say why this shouldn’t be on your 2025 beauty moodboard.

Some people naturally have thinner eyebrows which is A-okay! However, purposely tweezing your eyebrows to smithereens is cringey. If you truly want to wear this look, here’s what you can do instead of tweezing:

• Create a faux bleached look by applying a skin tone colored setting powder all over your brows.
• Once they’ve ‘disappeared,’ take an eyebrow pencil or eyeliner to draw a thin line over them.

I’m…wondering what the ramifications of telling you how to do this will be, but only use go for this look if it’s a part of a themed party…like Halloween.

6. Exaggerated Highlighter On Cheeks

Milad Farhani

The shimmery look is in since it’s winter, but please don’t make it look like you dipped your cheeks into a vat of glitter. You can lightly dust highlighter onto your cheeks for a more natural glow that flows with the rest of your look. Otherwise you’ll look like a walking disco ball which could be the opposite of what you were going for.

7. Heavy Contour Or Bronzer

Laura Garcia

I know the ‘sculpted’ look is popular, but too much contour or bronzer can overpower the rest of your makeup and face. While it’s not impossible to fix if you do it by mistake, using the wrong shade of contour or bronzer may still peep through no matter how much you try to buff it out.

When in doubt, be gentle with your contour or bronzer application!

8. Incredibly Matte Makeup

Nataliia Yatsiuk

Matte makeup that didn’t budge was the ‘It Girl’ look for oily and combination skin girls! We thought it was the answer to our skin’s incessant need to hydrate our faces instead of actually using skincare products that focused on combatting that issue (psst…Vitamin C serums help!).

But now’s the time to break up with this look for good for one reason: dewy skin looks healthier.

While we have you here, learn about the outdated shoe trends you shouldn't be wearing in 2025 either.