As other corporations scale back DEI to avoid political heat, Nintendo’s sticking to its principles. Some gamers are cheering. Others? Not so much.

Nintendo of America isn’t backing down. CEO Doug Bowser made that very clear, doubling down on the company’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies.

In an interview with Brazilian news outlet Folha de S.Paulo (via The Gamer), Bowser said, “This is something that has been in place for years, before people really started using the acronym DEI. And it will continue to be in place. It’s important to us.”

That puts Nintendo squarely at odds with a growing list of U.S. companies quietly abandoning their own DEI efforts in the wake of President Donald Trump’s re-election.

According to Forbes, at least 20 major firms—including Walmart and Ford—pulled back their diversity programs after Trump was re-elected in November 2024 and began his second term in January 2025. By early 2025, DEI departments were vanishing faster than NFTs at a Steam sale.

Not Nintendo.

Their approach has sparked fresh debate across the gaming world, where DEI is either a badge of progress or a four-letter word, depending on who you ask.

Bowser’s Defiant Stance

Bowser’s comments weren’t vague corporate fluff. He told The Gamer that “diversity has always been, and will continue to be, part of the company’s values,” adding that Nintendo’s wide-ranging player base helps shape its inclusive approach. As of this writing, Nintendo’s careers page still features a full DEI section—highlighting support for women, disabled communities, and Hispanic and Latin American groups.

That’s a sharp contrast from companies like Disney, who’ve quietly deleted DEI job listings or scrubbed related language. Per Forbes, a lot of these changes happened behind the scenes in Q1 2025, presumably to avoid drawing attention—or heat from Capitol Hill.

Nintendo, on the other hand, seems fine being loud about it. Whether that earns them applause or a boycott is another matter.

Gaming’s DEI Divide

Nintendo’s stance comes at a time when the gaming industry can’t seem to agree on what DEI even means anymore.

In 2024, Square Enix caught flak for using the gender-neutral labels “Type A” and “Type B” in Dragon Quest 3 HD-2D Remake. Some fans called it inclusive. Others called it pandering. IGN called it a “controversy,” which is journalism-speak for “X was mad about Y.”

Then came Palworld, which sparked another internet firestorm over its “Body Type 1” and “Body Type 2” character creation system. Popular streamer Asmongold went off about it on YouTube in April 2025, echoing a broader frustration that some players feel DEI choices are being shoehorned into games just to score points.

Nintendo’s no stranger to this heat either. In 2024, eagle-eyed Reddit users noticed localization changes in the Paper Mario remake—swapping or softening language tied to gender and identity.

One notable example was the character Vivian, originally portrayed as transgender in some non-English versions. Some fans accused the U.S. localization of downplaying this element, which sparked debates over how much influence Nintendo of America has versus the Japanese headquarters, and whether Bowser’s team is taking liberties or marching in lockstep with Kyoto.

What’s at Stake for Nintendo?

This isn’t just PR posturing. Nintendo has big skin in the game. The Switch 2 is expected to be revealed later this year, per VentureBeat. Between now and then, every move the company makes—DEI or otherwise—could shape fan sentiment.

If localization changes or character customization decisions feel too politically charged, gamers may push back. But if Nintendo’s inclusive stance translates into better character options, wider appeal, or new audiences, it could pay off big.

So far, Nintendo of Japan hasn’t made any public comments. But Bowser’s crystal-clear messaging suggests that, at least in the U.S., the company’s staying the course. Whether that wins praise or protests, we’re about to find out.

Let’s Keep the Conversation Going

Is Nintendo taking the right stand here, or will it cost them fan goodwill? Do you want more inclusive games, or should devs just focus on making good ones and stay out of politics? Drop your thoughts in the comments or tag us on socials—we’re all ears.

Sources:

• “Nintendo Of America CEO Doug Bowser Defends DEI Practices”, The Gamer, May 4, 2025

• “Here Are The Companies That Have Recently Pulled Back On DEI Initiatives”, Forbes, February 7, 2025

• “Dragon Quest 3 Remake Body Type Controversy Explained”, IGN, November 15, 2024

• “Asmongold Reacts to Palworld Body Type Controversy”, YouTube, April 19, 2025

• “Nintendo Has Quietly Dropped DEI Language From Their Localisation Job Postings”, Reddit, June 17, 2024

• “Nintendo Switch 2: Everything We Know So Far”, VentureBeat, March 1, 2025

• “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion – Careers at Nintendo of America”, Nintendo, accessed May 4, 2025

News compiled, edited, and fact-checked by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. for D/REZZED from Clownfish TV.

McDonald’s is facing its biggest U.S. sales drop since the pandemic. Will $5 meal deals and Adult Happy Meals be enough to stop the bleeding?

McDonald’s is hurting in 2025. The fast food giant saw a 3.6% drop in same-store sales in the U.S. for Q1—its worst domestic showing since the COVID crash of 2020. Globally, same-store sales dipped 1%, and revenue slid 3% to $6 billion. Net income dropped 3% as well, hitting $1.9 billion.

According to a USA Today report published May 2, McDonald’s execs blame economic headwinds: rising interest rates, inflation, and uncertainty tied to Donald Trump’s new round of tariff announcements from April 2025. CFO Ian Borden said plainly that lower- and middle-income consumers just aren’t showing up like they used to.

This decline reflects what many Americans are feeling. X user @BrandonM96 posted on May 3, “Game prices are $80, rent is insane, and people can barely afford groceries.” That budget crunch is making people think twice about grabbing a Big Mac combo.

What’s McDonald’s Doing to Fix It?

The Golden Arches is leaning on two proven strategies: value and nostalgia.

In late April, the chain rolled out a $5 Meal Deal: a sandwich, fries, drink, and McFlurry. Business Insider reports that it’s aimed squarely at customers feeling the economic pinch. It’s not just about low prices—it’s about making the brand feel accessible again.

Meanwhile, McDonald’s revived its Adult Happy Meals, now rebranded as “McNostalgia Meals.” These come with a Big Mac or 10-piece McNuggets, fries, a drink, and a collectible toy—usually tied to Marvel characters or classic McDonaldland mascots. According to a May 1 announcement on McDonald’s website, it’s all about “bringing back the joy of childhood.”

These moves aren’t random. In 2023, the Cactus Plant Flea Market Adult Happy Meal campaign boosted U.S. sales by 20%, per QSR Magazine. It worked then. McDonald’s is hoping lightning strikes twice.

Will It Work This Time?

The fast-food battlefield is more intense than ever. Wendy’s is pushing a $3 breakfast combo that’s gotten serious traction. Burger King isn’t far behind with its own value promos. And operational costs—labor, beef, packaging—are up across the board.

That said, McDonald’s is pulling from its marketing playbook. Brand Vision notes the brand excels at limited-time offers (LTOs) like the McRib to create hype and repeat visits. It’s also leaning into regional flavors, like spicy McNuggets in the Southwest. Plus, the McDonald’s app is offering loyalty perks like free fries with a $1 purchase. Digital orders now make up 30% of U.S. sales.

The strategy? Keep people coming back without gutting profits.

What Now?

McDonald’s isn’t in full panic mode yet—but this is a serious warning sign. A 3.6% U.S. drop is a big deal for a chain that’s often seen as recession-proof.

The question is whether a combo of cheap eats and nostalgic toys can bring back foot traffic. The $5 deal checks the value box. The McNostalgia Meals hit the emotional one. But it may take more than childhood memories and discount burgers to dig out of this McSlump.

Stay tuned. The Golden Arches might need to get even more creative.

Sources:

• “McDonald’s Sales Drop as Inflation, Tariffs Weigh on Consumers”, USA Today, May 2, 2025

• “McDonald’s Launches $5 Meal Deal to Combat Sales Slump”, Business Insider, April 30, 2025

• “McNostalgia Meals: Adult Happy Meals Return”, McDonald’s Website, May 1, 2025

• “How Limited-Time Offers Drive McDonald’s Sales”, QSR Magazine, 2023

• “The Magic Behind McDonald’s Marketing Strategy”, Brand Vision, accessed May 4, 2025

• “Wendy’s $3 Breakfast Combo Gains Popularity”, Fast Food Post, April 2025

• X post by @BrandonM96, May 3, 2025

News compiled, edited, and fact-checked by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. for D/REZZED from Clownfish TV.

The supposed Russian hacktivist collective behind Disney’s biggest breach turned out to be a lone Californian with a GitHub account and a grudge.

A Summer Breach, a Fabricated Persona

In mid-2024, The Walt Disney Company suffered one of its largest internal data leaks in history: over 1.1 terabytes of internal Slack data spilled online. The culprit? A mysterious group calling itself NullBulge, which claimed to be a Russian hacktivist collective fighting against AI-generated content on behalf of artists.

The media ate it up.

NullBulge was positioned as a kind of digital Robin Hood—striking back against Disney’s alleged reliance on AI to churn out content. But by May 2025, that myth crumbled. The group wasn’t a group at all. It was Ryan Mitchell Kramer, a 25-year-old from Santa Clarita, California, who pleaded guilty in court to orchestrating the breach.

Selling the Myth: From Hacktivist to Hoax

NullBulge emerged online in spring 2024, claiming to be a pro-artist resistance movement. Social media posts and messages on hacker forums like BreachForums rallied support, painting the Disney breach as a moral crusade.

Major outlets—including CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and Infosecurity Magazine—ran headlines about Russian cyber threats and “ethical hacktivism.” Some even speculated NullBulge had ties to LockBit, a notorious ransomware group.

But security experts like SentinelLabs weren’t buying it. They flagged inconsistencies from the start: fluent English phrasing, ransom demands, and unsophisticated methods that didn’t match the supposed Russian origin. The so-called group also used ransomware—a tactic at odds with its claimed ideology.

The Real Story: Malware and a Single Mistake

The truth came out in court. Kramer wasn’t a hacktivist. He was a lone operator who crafted malware disguised as an AI art tool and uploaded it to GitHub. One Disney employee—Matthew Van Andel—downloaded the bogus program, giving Kramer access to his machine. From there, Kramer extracted login credentials stored in 1Password—credentials that opened the door to Disney’s internal Slack.

The result: 1.1 terabytes of internal data, from unreleased projects to sensitive HR records, all siphoned and eventually dumped on BreachForums after a failed extortion attempt.

Media Missteps and Missed Red Flags

Coverage of the breach quickly became a cautionary tale. Infosecurity Magazine and SiliconANGLE ran with narratives about insider threats and AI censorship motives. Even Eulerpool quoted researchers like Eric Parker, who correctly theorized that NullBulge might be a solo act.

While some skepticism existed, much of the early press portrayed the breach as a righteous rebellion. The @vxunderground and @H4ckManac accounts on X amplified NullBulge’s theatrical flair—posting cryptic countdowns and threats ahead of the leak. It looked calculated. And it worked.

Ties to LockBit? Maybe. Maybe Not.

Kramer’s malware reportedly used a LockBit builder, which led some, including HackRead, to speculate about deeper ties. But there’s no evidence he ever collaborated with LockBit or other cybercrime syndicates. The use of shared tools—common in hacking circles—was likely just that: opportunistic, not organizational.

Curiously, Kramer also experimented before the Disney breach. His earlier malware-laced mods targeted Stable Diffusion users and AI-themed indie games, suggesting he was testing the waters long before he made headlines.

Disney’s Fallout and the Bigger Lesson

After the breach, Disney quietly transitioned from Slack to Microsoft Teams. Internally, the damage was significant, but the company never fully disclosed the scope of the stolen data. That silence added fuel to media speculation.

What’s clear is that a lone actor successfully impersonated a Russian hacktivist cell, manipulated public perception, and exploited a single employee’s mistake to breach one of the most powerful media companies in the world.

And for a while, the world believed it.

Sources:

• BleepingComputer, “Hacker ‘NullBulge’ pleads guilty to stealing Disney’s Slack data,” May 1, 2025

• Adgully, “Disney probes data breach by Russian hacktivist group NullBulge,” July 20, 2024

• Infosecurity Magazine, “Understanding NullBulge, the New AI-Fighting ‘Hacktivist’ Group,” July 17, 2024

• SentinelOne, “NullBulge | Threat Actor Masquerades as Hacktivist Group Rebelling Against AI,” July 16, 2024

• Eulerpool, “Hacker group NullBulge publishes internal Disney data,” July 16, 2024

• HackRead, “Disney’s Internal Slack Breached? NullBulge Leaks 1.1 TiB of Data,” July 13, 2024

• X posts by @vxunderground and @H4ckManac, July 12, 2024

News compiled and edited by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. for D/REZZED News from Clownfish TV.

Target joins a growing list of retailers backing away from self-checkout as theft spikes and shoppers push back.

Target just made a move that’s turning heads—and not in a good way. As of early May 2025, the retail giant has begun pulling self-checkout lanes from select stores across the country. According to a report from Fox Business (May 4, 2025), the decision stems from a sharp increase in shoplifting and mounting customer frustration with malfunctioning kiosks. While some shoppers are applauding the return of full-service lanes, others—particularly toy collectors and board game enthusiasts—are less than thrilled.

And it’s not just Target. Other major retailers including Dollar General, Walmart, and Five Below are also scaling back or restricting self-checkout access. Security concerns are the driving factor behind the shift, marking a reversal of the pandemic-era trend that embraced contactless, customer-driven transactions.

The Bigger Problem: Theft and Shrink

Fox Business cited a jaw-dropping case out of California where a single individual allegedly swiped $60,000 worth of merchandise during 100 self-checkout visits. And in New York, organized theft rings are now costing retailers a combined $4.4 billion annually, according to the New York Post.

That kind of loss—what retailers call “shrink”—is pushing companies to tighten controls. As PaymentsJournal reported back in July 2024, many stores are starting to prioritize security over convenience. Walmart, for instance, now limits self-checkout to Walmart+ members and Spark drivers in many areas. Dollar General capped usage at five items or fewer, and Five Below has yanked self-checkout entirely from several locations, per The Daily Dot.

Why It Matters to Collectors

For toy collectors and tabletop fans, this is more than a minor inconvenience. Target has long been a top destination for exclusive action figures, retro toys, and board game restocks. Whether you’re hunting a hard-to-find Marvel Legends release or grabbing a new copy of Wingspan for your next game night, self-checkout made those quick trips faster and easier.

As The US Sun highlighted, collectors often rely on in-and-out efficiency to scoop up high-demand items before they disappear. Losing self-checkout could mean longer lines, slower trips, and missed opportunities.

There’s also the issue of customer preference. While the article cites a 2023 LinkedIn consumer insights report, a more widely cited NIQ study from July 2024 confirms that Gen Z shoppers strongly prefer seamless, tech-driven retail experiences, aligning with the claim that self-checkout fits their shopping habits.

The Backlash Is Real

Unsurprisingly, shoppers are speaking out. Fox Business says customers are already “fuming” over the change, voicing frustration on social media and Reddit. Others, like those cited by NBC Chicago, actually prefer the human touch and see it as a return to better service. The divide underscores a larger challenge for modern retail: finding the balance between safety, efficiency, and customer experience.

What Now?

Target’s move won’t tank its collector following, but it could make those early morning toy hunts or last-minute game grabs a bit more of a grind. The company has reported significant shrink-related losses in recent years, though the article’s cited $180 million loss in 2024 could not be independently verified and may require clarification or a stronger source.

As more retailers follow suit, the future of in-store shopping is in flux. Will smart surveillance and hybrid lanes solve the problem, or are we witnessing the slow death of self-checkout altogether?

For now, if you’re headed to Target for your next Funko Pop or Settlers of Catan expansion, be prepared to wait—and hope your cashier knows the toy aisle well.

Sources:

• Target Pulls the Plug on Self-Checkout Amid Shoplifting Surge and Customers Are Fuming, MSN, May 4, 2025

• Target Dials Back Access to Self-Checkout Machines, Joining Other Retailers, New York Post (via Fox Business), May 4, 2025

• Retailers Pull Back From Self-Checkout on Theft Concerns, PaymentsJournal, July 9, 2024

• Five Below Is the Latest Retailer to Pull Self-Checkout From Stores, The Daily Dot, 2024

• Target Becomes Latest Retailer to Rethink Self-Checkout, The US Sun, 2025

• How Gen Z Consumer Behavior is Reshaping Retail, NIQ, July 29, 2024

• Target Limits Self-Checkout: Here’s What Shoppers Are Saying, NBC Chicago, 2025

Sandfall Interactive’s bold RPG outperforms bloated blockbusters and proves smaller studios can still win big in 2025.

In a gaming landscape riddled with AAA flops and overhyped underperformers, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is rewriting the playbook. Developed by the French indie studio Sandfall Interactive, this striking JRPG-inspired RPG has already sold 1.5 million copies across platforms as of May 3, 2025. Even more impressive? It peaked at 129,461 concurrent players on Steam during its second weekend, a rare feat in modern PC gaming.

Released at $49.99 and built on a modest budget of $20 to $30 million (based on industry estimates), the game’s success stands in sharp contrast to recent AAA trainwrecks with rumored budgets exceeding $600 million. While the big boys bled money, this smaller title captured critical acclaim, player loyalty, and marketplace momentum—all without microtransactions, live-service traps, or shareholder pandering.

A Surreal Masterpiece with Substance

Set in a brooding 19th-century-inspired fantasy world, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 casts players as “expeditioners” on a haunting journey to stop the Paintress, an enigmatic force who awakens yearly to paint a number—like “33”—causing everyone of that age to disintegrate.

The game blends turn-based combat with real-time mechanics, earning comparisons to titles like Persona and Baldur’s Gate 3. Built in Unreal Engine 5, its painterly visuals utilize Lumen and Nanite to deliver a dreamlike atmosphere that feels both eerie and intimate. IGN awarded it a 9/10, calling it “captivating” with “inventive mechanics,” while over 50,000 Steam reviews average a 92% positive rating as of May 4.

AAA Misses While Indies Rise

Compare that to the big spenders:

• Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League (2024) reportedly cost $200 million, launched to dismal reviews, and barely crossed 1 million sales in six months. Fans and critics alike rejected its live-service model and uninspired gameplay.

• Ubisoft’s Skull & Bones (2024) was in production for over a decade with a budget reportedly topping $650 million, only to debut with tepid reviews and flat sales, according to Acer Corner.

• Concord (2024), a PlayStation-backed hero shooter with a $100 million budget (per industry speculation), shut down just two weeks post-launch with fewer than 25,000 players, per GamesIndustry.biz.

Even Marvel’s Spider-Man 2, rumored in industry circles to cost over $600 million, hasn’t generated the same player retention buzz as Expedition 33, which actually increased its Steam peak in its second weekend—a unicorn event in this industry.

Built with Heart, Not Hype

The team at Sandfall consists of just 50 core developers, with an extended team of around 200 contributors. Their development philosophy, as shared in a 2025 Unreal Engine dev interview, emphasized player-first design, no microtransactions, and a focus on accessibility and storytelling.

Even X (formerly Twitter) is paying attention. Users like @Aurondarklord highlighted the game’s second-week surge as evidence of its staying power. Posts from fans like @ElvenMaidInn described the game’s polish, artistic direction, and “anti-corporate” vibe—a sentiment echoed by many players online.

What Now?

Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is more than a surprise hit—it’s a statement. It shows that great games don’t need corporate committees or blockbuster budgets. They need vision, discipline, and heart. With the AAA model cracking under its own weight, smaller teams like Sandfall may very well be the ones to watch as gaming enters its next evolution.

News compiled and edited by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. for D/REZZED News from Clownfish TV.

Sources:

• Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Review, IGN, April 28, 2025

• Hit RPG Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Tops 1 Million Sales in Just 3 Days, IGN, April 28, 2025

• X post by @Aurondarklord, May 3, 2025

• Steam store page for Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, accessed May 4, 2025

• Inside the Development Journey of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, Unreal Engine, 2025

• Major AAA Gaming Flops of 2024, Acer Corner, October 19, 2024

• Concord Shuts Down After Two Weeks, GamesIndustry.biz, September 10, 2024

• Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League Underperforms, Warner Bros. Financial Report, August 2024

• 2025’s Gaming Trends: Indies and AA Titles Outshine AAA, GamesIndustry.biz, April 15, 2025

Disney’s controversial remake stumbles to a massive loss, eclipsing even Joker 2’s theatrical bellyflop.

The Bigger Disaster? It’s Not the Clown

Disney’s live-action Snow White has officially earned the title of 2025’s biggest box office flop, beating out Joker: Folie à Deux in a race no studio wanted to win. According to MSN, Snow White barely crossed the global finish line at $310 million. That’s grim when you consider the remake cost $269 million to make and reportedly needed $673 million to break even after marketing, per ScreenRant. That leaves Disney staring at a $363 million shortfall.

Joker 2, for comparison, had a $200 million budget and managed to scrape in $201.2 million globally, also per ScreenRant. It needed $400 million to break even, putting its deficit at around $198.8 million. Both movies tanked, but Snow White’s bigger budget and loftier expectations made its downfall the more catastrophic of the two.

From Bold Projections to Brutal Reality

Early buzz for Snow White set it up as the next big Disney hit. In February 2025, ScreenRant reported it was projected to open at $55–60 million, with hopes it might match 2017’s Beauty and the Beast, which opened at $174 million.

But the wheels came off fast.

By March, after a flurry of bad press and online backlash, MSN said projections had fallen to $35–40 million. The final opening? A weak $32 million domestic, with a total global run that stalled at $310 million. That puts it below 2019’s Dumbo ($353 million), making Snow White the lowest-earning live-action remake in Disney’s modern lineup.

Controversy Magnet: From Casting to Comments

The film didn’t just stumble—it tripped over nearly every PR hurdle imaginable.

According to The New York Times, backlash began with Rachel Zegler’s casting as Snow White, prompting heated online debate over ethnicity and the character’s traditional appearance. Then came Disney’s decision to ditch the seven dwarfs in favor of “magical creatures,” a move meant to sidestep stereotypes but one that instead sparked more backlash, per ScreenRant.

Zegler didn’t help the situation. In press interviews, she called the 1937 original “outdated” and labeled the prince “a stalker”—comments that alienated classic Disney fans, per MSN. Even her wig became a punchline, with The New York Times noting fan ridicule over its “atrocious” look.

All of this stacked up to a lack of goodwill before the movie even hit theaters. Unlike Mufasa: The Lion King, which recovered in late 2024 with a $600 million haul, Snow White never found its footing.

Joker 2 Flopped—Just Not as Hard

Joker: Folie à Deux didn’t fare much better, but at least its numbers weren’t quite as soul-crushing.

The $200 million sequel to 2019’s billion-dollar Joker managed just $57.8 million domestic and $143.4 million international, totaling $201.2 million, per ScreenRant. With a $400 million break-even point, it came up $198.8 million short.

Critics weren’t kind, either—33% on Rotten Tomatoes—and fans were divided over its musical format and casting of Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn, again per ScreenRant.

But unlike Disney’s Snow White, Joker 2 didn’t carry the same weight of legacy or merchandising potential. And with a smaller budget, Warner Bros. took a hit—but not a Disney-sized wound.

Disney’s Remake Machine: Running Out of Gas?

The crash-and-burn performance of Snow White isn’t just about one film—it reflects a wider malaise for Disney’s live-action remakes. Once a golden goose (see: The Jungle Book at $966M in 2016), the shine has dulled. Even 2023’s The Little Mermaid only managed $570 million, according to ScreenRant.

Fan fatigue, creative controversy, and brand dilution seem to be catching up. Snow White was supposed to be a safe bet—a well-known IP with modern tweaks. Instead, it proved that “modernizing classics” without respecting the nostalgia can backfire in spectacular fashion.

In contrast, Joker 2 was a weird gamble that didn’t pay off—but it was at least trying something different.

What Now?

With a $363 million loss, Snow White wins the title for 2025’s most expensive cinematic misfire. Warner Bros. can write off Joker 2 as an artistic swing-and-miss. But for Disney, the message is clear: the remake formula is no longer bulletproof. If they want to recover, it may be time to go back to the drawing board—and maybe back to the original drawing style too.

Sources:

• MSN, “Snow White Stumbles Past Final Global Box Office Milestones After Disastrous Theatrical Run,” May 2, 2025

• ScreenRant, “Rachel Zegler’s Snow White: Early Box Office Projections Eyeing Continued Downward Trend For Live-Action Disney Remakes,” March 15, 2025

• ScreenRant, “Joker 2 Box Office Manages to Pass Major Global Milestone Four Weeks After Release Despite Lackluster Theatrical Run,” October 30, 2024

• The New York Times, “Snow White and the Seven Kajillion Controversies,” March 27, 2025

News compiled and edited by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. for D/REZZED News from Clownfish TV.

X’s $33 billion merger with xAI on March 29, 2025, sparks speculation about a Vine revival, with users hoping the AI-powered combo can bring back the six-second video app amid a nostalgia wave.

X and xAI: A Powerhouse Combo

Elon Musk dropped a bombshell on March 29, 2025, announcing that xAI has acquired X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, in an all-stock deal valuing X at $33 billion—$11 billion less than Musk’s 2022 purchase price of $44 billion, according to Ars Technica.

The merger, combining xAI’s $80 billion valuation with X’s massive user base, aims to “build a platform that accelerates human progress,” Musk stated on X. With xAI’s AI tech—like Grok, already trained on X posts—now fully integrated, the deal promises to blend advanced AI with social media’s reach.

The merger isn’t exactly a surprise. X and xAI have been increasingly intertwined over the last year. Grok, xAI’s AI bot, has been available to X Premium+ subscribers since late 2023, with higher usage limits for paying users. Musk’s vision for xAI, launched in 2023 to “understand the universe,” now merges with X’s 436 million daily active users as of early 2025, per Reuters.

The combined company will leverage X posts to train AI models, potentially enhancing features like content curation or user engagement. Musk teased, “This combination will unlock immense potential,” hinting at AI-driven innovations across X’s ecosystem.

Could Vine Return?

The idea of a Vine revival isn’t just fan speculation anymore—Elon Musk has added fuel to the fire. On March 28, 2025, a user posted, “xAI now owns Vine. What should we do with it?” Musk replied directly: “Feel free to take that on.” The tweet has already racked up over 400,000 views, signaling interest in reviving the defunct six-second video app.

Vine, originally acquired by Twitter in 2012 for $30 million, was shut down in 2017 after struggling to monetize its platform. Despite its short lifespan, Vine helped launch major internet personalities like Logan Paul and Shawn Mendes and laid the groundwork for short-form video culture later dominated by TikTok.

Now, with the merger between xAI and X—and Musk’s public openness to bringing Vine back—there’s renewed buzz about its future. While there’s no official announcement yet, Musk’s endorsement suggests a revival is at least on the table. If it happens, Vine could be powered by xAI’s tools, making it smarter, more personalized, and better suited to compete in 2025’s crowded short-form video space.

What’s Next for X, xAI, and Vine?

The X-xAI merger sets the stage for an AI-driven evolution of social media, but a Vine revival remains purely speculative. If Musk greenlights it, xAI’s AI tools could enhance Vine with smarter algorithms and creator features aimed at recapturing an audience that’s now addicted to TikTok-style video content.

For now, the focus appears to be on integrating xAI’s capabilities deeper into X’s core platform. Vine’s return would be a nostalgic bonus, not the main event—at least not yet.

Sources:

• https://arstechnica.com/tech-news/2025/03/xai-buys-x-deal-values-social-network-at-33-billion-11b-less-than-musk-paid

• https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-says-xai-will-examine-universe-work-with-twitter-and-tesla-2023-07-14

• https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-to-integrate-xai-with-social-media-platform-x-2023-11-07

• https://em360tech.com/tech-article/what-happened-vine

• https://www.failory.com/blog/why-did-vine-shut-down

From Biotech Darling to Bankruptcy: 23andMe’s Rocky Road

Once the golden child of biotech, 23andMe is now staring down the barrel of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filing for protection on March 23, 2025, in Delaware.

The consumer genetics company, famous for its at-home DNA kits, is gearing up for a court-supervised sale of its assets—assets that include the genetic data of over 15 million customers.

With a plummeting stock price, a CEO shakeup, and a 2023 data breach still haunting its reputation, 23andMe’s fall from grace has everyone asking: What happens to your DNA data now? From privacy nightmares to regulatory gaps, let’s dig into the mess, the stakes, and what you can do to protect your genetic blueprint.

The DNA Data Dilemma: Your Genes on the Auction Block

Here’s the kicker: 23andMe holds the genetic data of over 15 million users, a treasure trove of ancestry, health predispositions, and raw genomic info. With the bankruptcy filing, that data could be sold as part of the company’s assets. 23andMe’s privacy policy is crystal clear: “If we are involved in a bankruptcy, merger, acquisition, reorganization, or sale of assets, your Personal Information may be accessed, sold or transferred as part of that transaction.” Translation? If you sent in a spit sample, you might have zero say in where your DNA ends up.

The company insists it’s business as usual, with a March 23, 2025, X post stating there are “no changes to the way we store, manage, or protect customer data.” But a sale changes the game. About 80% of users have opted into 23andMe’s research program, letting their de-identified data be shared with partners like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for drug development. A 2023 deal with GSK netted 23andMe a cool $20 million for anonymized data. A new owner could stick to the current privacy policy—or rewrite it entirely, potentially expanding how your data is used. Your genes might be the hottest item on the bankruptcy auction block.

What Could Happen to Your DNA? The Scary Scenarios

So, what might happen if 23andMe’s database gets sold? The possibilities range from mildly concerning to downright dystopian:

• Private Buyer Risks: A pharmaceutical company, insurer, or tech giant could snap up the data. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 stops health insurers and employers from using genetic data against you, but life, disability, and long-term care insurers aren’t covered. A buyer could use your DNA to assess risk profiles or hawk targeted products—think “ancestry-based” diet plans or worse.

• Law Enforcement Access: 23andMe currently requires a warrant to share data with law enforcement, but a new owner might not be so strict. Cases like the Golden State Killer, identified via GEDmatch, show how genetic databases can aid investigations—sometimes without your consent.

• Data Breach Nightmares: A 2023 breach exposed the data of nearly 7 million users, leading to a $30 million settlement. A new owner with shoddy security could make things worse, especially as re-identification tech improves.

• Research Continuation: A buyer aligned with 23andMe’s mission might keep using the data for science, respecting current consent protocols—but there’s no guarantee.

Privacy expert Carissa Veliz told the BBC, “If you gave your data to 23andMe, you also gave the genetic data of your parents, your siblings, your children, and even distant kin who did not consent to that.” That interconnectedness means a sale could ripple far beyond 23andMe’s direct customers. Is your family’s DNA about to become someone else’s profit margin?

What Can You Do? Taking Back Your Genes

If you’re sweating about your DNA’s fate, you’ve got options—sort of. 23andMe lets users download their genetic info and delete their accounts via the online portal under “Settings” > “23andMe Data” > “Delete Your Data.” Deletion removes your personal info and destroys your physical sample, but here’s the catch: data already shared with research partners like GSK can’t be clawed back. The Electronic Frontier Foundation urges users to act fast if they’re worried about a sale. It’s a small shield in a storm of uncertainty—better than nothing, but not a full armor.

The stakes are high. Your DNA isn’t just yours—it’s a family affair, potentially affecting relatives who never signed up. And with 23andMe’s history of breaches, the idea of a new owner with lax security is enough to make anyone’s double helix tremble. Will you delete and run, or roll the dice on the bankruptcy court?

Regulatory Oversight: A Patchwork of Protections

The Chapter 11 process offers some guardrails, but they’re shaky at best. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could step in, as it did in the 2000 Toysmart bankruptcy, ensuring data sales stick to existing privacy policies. State laws like California’s Genetic Privacy Act might require consent for data transfers, but enforcement is spotty. Harvard’s I. Glenn Cohen points out that federal protections like HIPAA don’t apply to direct-to-consumer companies like 23andMe, leaving consumers at the mercy of the company’s terms and the bankruptcy court.

23andMe has touted its privacy creds, supporting laws like California’s Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and earning ISO certifications for information security. But those promises mean little if a new owner rewrites the rules. The bankruptcy court will play a big role in deciding the data’s fate, but without robust federal laws, it’s a genetic Wild West out there. Will regulators step up, or leave your DNA to the highest bidder?

Looking Ahead: A Test for Privacy in the DNA Age

As 23andMe navigates Chapter 11, its genetic database is both its biggest asset and its hottest potato. The sale’s outcome will test the balance between commercial interests and consumer privacy in an age where DNA is a scientific goldmine—and a personal treasure. For now, 23andMe’s 15 million users can only watch, wait, and decide whether to yank their data before it changes hands. The company’s fall from a $6 billion valuation to bankruptcy is a cautionary tale—biotech dreams can turn into privacy nightmares faster than you can say “spit in a tube.”

In short, your DNA could be sold to anyone from a biotech firm to a shady operator, with the current privacy policy holding until a buyer changes it. Delete your data if you’re worried, but know that previously shared info is out of your hands. The bankruptcy court and potential FTC oversight will shape what’s next, but the lack of strong federal protections leaves a lot up in the air.

Weigh In: Are You Deleting Your 23andMe Data?

Are you pulling your DNA from 23andMe, or riding out the bankruptcy storm? Does this sale scare you, or is it just business as usual in the biotech world? Drop your thoughts below or ping us on X @DREZZEDNews—I’m here to deliver the facts and hear your unfiltered take on this genetic mess.

News compiled by Derek Gibbs and Edgar B. D/REZZED Gaming News is part of Clownfish TV. Subscribe to our newsletter at http://drezzed.substack.com

D/REZZED provides Balanced and Based Gaming, Pop Culture, and Paranormal News. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of hosts, editors, other contributors, affiliates, sponsors, or advertisers. Our articles are human-edited but may utilize AI assistance for research and grammar. Articles may include affiliate links; we may earn commissions on purchases made through these links. Any products or services received for review are disclosed, as are any sponsored posts.