Over the weekend, a viral story spread on social media pointing out “Trump assassination” and other variants were being removed from web searches on Google. The public's reaction shows a sharp disdain towards tech companies for this presumed act of censorship. Top keywords include:

• Trump assassination attempt
• Censorship
• Leftist media
• Google
• Secret Service
• Deep state
• Investigation

Sentiment about this revelation is predominantly negative, with most people expressing outrage and suspicion.

Hi Google @Google! Why are you censoring the ass*ss*nat*on attempt of DJT??

They’re trying to memory hole it. pic.twitter.com/NtvD9pNovn

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 28, 2024

Big Tech Censorship is Alive and Well

Analysis shows public sentiment and recurring themes focus on free speech and censorship.

• Freed Speech: Voters debate the integrity of free speech, expressing concerns that removing organic search suggestions is an attempt at election interference.
• Censorship: There are strong accusations of censorship, connecting broader concerns about the control and manipulation of information by Big Tech.
• Political Bias: Accusations against Google and Facebook for political manipulation and protecting Harris while censoring Trump are rampant.
• American Values: Many say liberty, freedom, and democracy are at stake, reflecting worry that these foundational values are being undermined.

Many voters, especially on the right, accuse both Google and Facebook of acting as the communications arm of the Democratic Party. Even after admissions of “accidental” censorship, many Americans still take umbrage. Facebook’s claim that blocking a photo of Trump during the assassination attempt was accidental, draws claims the algorithmic “accidents” always benefit Democrats.

Freedom Versus Safety

Voter sentiment around Google suppressing searches about Trump and assassination can be divided into a few clear trends.

• Defenders of Free Speech: Many voters say, to preserve free speech, even controversial topics should not be hidden from search results. They believe removing or hiding search results related to political figures is a direct attack on American voters.
• Concerns about Misinformation: People on the left are concerned about the potential spread of harmful misinformation. They argue removing search “harmful” suggestions is necessary to prevent increased violence and to ensure responsible dissemination of information.
• Accusations of Political Bias: There are strong accusations that Google and Facebook display bias towards Democrats. Conservatives feel targeted and express resentment towards Big Tech companies they believe are suppressing their viewpoints.
• Calls for Regulation: In response to perceived biases and censorship, some advocate for greater regulation of tech giants to ensure a balanced and fair platform for all users.

Voter Impact

Undecided and Independent voters are likely influenced by these discussions. Their perception of political neutrality or bias in search engines can significantly sway their views on broader political issues.

• Trust in Media and Tech: Those who are already skeptical of media and Big Tech might find their beliefs reaffirmed, pushing them towards candidates who promise to regulate these industries.
• Political Disillusionment: Some Independents, witnessing these debates, may experience a heightened sense of political disillusionment, feeling neither side offers a solution to the pervasive issue of biased information control.
• Swing Votes Based on Free Speech: Candidates like Trump who strongly advocate for free speech and oppose censorship might attract voters who prioritize these values as central to their decision-making process.

Debates about American values, such as free speech, reveal deep ideological divides in the electorate. The public reveres core principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy, often contrasting them with perceptions of oppression and censorship. Many argue for the inalienable right to express opinions without fear of censorship, celebrating historical champions of these values.

People defend democracy through the lens of a free press, which they deem as essential for a healthy society. These discussions increase scrutiny of political figures and tech companies which may be influencing elections. Voters call for reforms to better align with American values, emphasizing freedom, liberty, and democratic participation amidst contemporary challenges.

Voter opinions of J.D. Vance's vice-presidential candidacy show hesitant hope, some skepticism, and direct criticism. Supporters laud his life story as emblematic of the American Dream. His rise from disadvantaged beginnings to the national political stage is seen as a testament to meritocracy.

Vance’s supporters are especially keen on highlighting his service in the Marines and his Ivy League education as accomplishments earned through hard work and determination. This narrative of individual effort resonates strongly with traditional American values of self-reliance and perseverance, giving cautious hope to those unfamiliar with Vance.

There are some who argue Vance's life story as a powerful counterpoint to criticisms of elitism within the political establishment. His rise from his socio-economic background situates him as an inspiring figure for many Americans dissatisfied with career politicians. This sentiment is compounded by comparisons to Kamala Harris, who many view as a DEI token.

However, many people also have concerns and sharp criticisms—especially when it comes to Vance’s tech ties.

• In the last 7 days, overall approval for J.D. Vance has hovered at or just below 50%.
• His approval on the economy fluctuates slightly but averaged 49% in the last week.
• Sentiment toward Vance on crypto has the highest high at 52%, but also the lowest low at 45%, likely due to lower discussion volume.

General Reaction to Vance’s Tech History

Public reactions to J.D. Vance's connections to Silicon Valley and the tech sector are mixed. There are supporters who are enthusiastic about the potential benefits of his connections. They say Vance's ties to Silicon Valley could drive innovation and economic growth. They also believe his relationships with tech giants may bring much-needed investment and expertise to various sectors, including education, infrastructure, and job creation.

Sentiment trends reveal deep concerns about economic and political power dynamics. The public repeatedly underscores that the middle class should not bear the burden of policies and systems that disproportionately benefit the wealthy elite. This discontent is amplified in the context of unions, with many feeling true advocacy for working-class interests is incompatible with benefiting from Silicon Valley's corporate wealth.

In contrast, there are individuals who view Vance’s background in the tech sector as potentially advantageous. There is cautious excitement about the possibility of having a candidate who understands the complexities and potential of technological innovation and its impact on the economy. They see Vance as a figure who can perhaps bring fresh, tech-driven perspectives to policymaking. This they hope will foster growth which can solve modern economic challenges with innovative solutions.

Public sentiment towards Vance is complicated by his perceived contradictions. Some voters applaud his narrative of rising from humble beginnings and attaining success, viewing it as a testament to the American Dream. However, this narrative is simultaneously criticized, with detractors accusing Vance of romanticizing his past while contradicting it through his political stances and elite connections.

Arguments Defending Vance

Americans seem generally disapproving of any perception of undue influence by wealthy individuals on politics. They also regularly express concerns over economic equity and fairness. Vance’s connections to Silicon Valley and his critiques of current economic policies elicit mixed reactions, ranging from support for his tech-oriented insights to strong disapproval of his financial backers and political rhetoric.

Despite general disapproval for wealth influencing politics, some Americans appreciate Vance for his rejection of traditional establishment politics within the Republican Party. They resonate with his "pro-union anti-corporate" rhetoric.

Hopefuls value what they see as his commitment to fighting corporate excesses and believe in his potential to rejuvenate the GOP with a blend of economic populism and cultural conservatism. These supporters tend to downplay or dismiss the negative characterizations, viewing them as media exaggerations meant to discredit a rising political figure who might disrupt the status quo.

Many supporters, tech enthusiasts, and crypto voters largely support Vance's commitment to clear cryptocurrency regulations. They appreciate his efforts to navigate the regulatory landscape, which they view as fraught with restrictive measures under current administration policies.

This group likes Vance's critique of the SEC's hardline enforcement tactics, which they believe stifle innovation. His legislative proposals aiming to overhaul how the SEC and CFTC regulate crypto are seen as steps towards an environment more conducive to technological growth and investment.

Vance's personal involvement in the crypto sphere, evidenced by his Bitcoin holdings and public comments, amplifies his credibility among crypto voters—who are increasingly seen as an important voting group. His actions such as voting to repeal controversial accounting rules and opposing stringent tax reporting requirements demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges faced by the industry.

Supporters like Vance’s comments on the utility of cryptocurrencies in circumventing government overreach. This is highlighted by his stance on the Canadian trucker protests and gaining traction with voters who value financial autonomy and limited government interference.

Negativity Toward Vance as VP

Vance's controversial stances and his connections with influential figures like Peter Thiel can also drum up disapproval. Critics believe there’s reason for concern and Vance may pose a significant threat to democratic norms.

This position has been emphasized heavily in public discussions, particularly following Liz Cheney’s sharp critique. Cheney's assertions that Vance would "overturn an election and illegally seize power" and "capitulate to Russia" resonate strongly with liberals and anti-Trump Republicans.

Vance also faces criticism from some Republicans and the media for his perceived hypocrisy and controversial positions. Some praise his alignment with former President Trump, but others use his past criticism of Trump as evidence of hypocrisy or a disingenuous power play.

The influence of Peter Thiel and other billionaires financing Vance’s campaigns generates contentious debate about the role of money in politics. Critics argue his backing fuels fears of oligarchic control over democratic processes. This sentiment suggests a widening economic and representational gap, intensifying the debate over campaign finance reform.

Concerns arise regarding the potential for a monopolistic tech landscape bolstered by politicians like Vance. Critics argue Vance’s tech ties and support from high-profile tech investors could perpetuate a monopolistic ecosystem where large corporations dominate, leaving little room for grassroots innovation.

On July 19, a worldwide outage of Microsoft devices relying on CrowdStrike products for cybersecurity experienced a major failure. This disastrous outage impacted industries from airlines to hospitals to offices. CrowdStrike is also the same firm which essentially initiated the Russiagate claim.

Americans took to social media with skepticism, frustration, and political blame games. MIG Reports data shows several dominant themes and sentiments from these conversations, reflecting the public’s varied concerns and theories about the event and its broader implications.

Top Topics and Keywords

The main narrative centers on cybersecurity issues, political intrigue, and widespread speculation. Keywords such as “deep state,” "Blackrock," "CrowdStrike," "Russiagate," "FISA warrant," "quasi-quo," "Biden administration," and "Microsoft outage" frequently appear. They are often wrapped in complex and sometimes conspiratorial storytelling.

Recurring topics include the link between historical political events such as Hillary Clinton's alleged mishandling of a private email server and the Benghazi attack. These are weaved into a broader narrative of political corruption and conspiracy involving corrupt corporations.

Another frequently discussed topic is the Microsoft outage, considered by many as a deliberate act with significant political undertones. Many say it was potentially intended to manipulate public perception or influence political outcomes. Some speculate the convenience of the outage for anyone attempting to bury evidence related to the Trump assassination attempt.

There is also significant discourse surrounding large corporations like Blackrock and their involvement in these events. This underscores a prevalent concern among the public about the influence of major financial and investment firms in political and national security matters.

Discussion Trends

The discussions trend towards a broader context of distrust in governmental and institutional transparency. There is a notable mix of factual recounting of past events and highly speculative theories about connections and motives behind the CrowdStrike incident.

Many discuss the present situation within their views of systemic fraud, manipulation, and political subversion. Individuals are vocal about their perceptions of collusion between the FBI, CrowdStrike, and powerful political figures to protect certain interests at the expense of transparency and justice.

Sentiment Trends

Sentiments largely skew negative, with a considerable amount of anger and distrust directed towards the Biden-Harris administration. A significant portion of the public views the administration as complicit or at least negligent in addressing cybersecurity threats and safeguarding public and private infrastructure.

There is also a thread of resignation and some despair as people discuss what they see as the futility of expecting accountability within current political systems. However, this sentiment is often coupled with a fervent call to action, stressing the importance of vigilance and political change to counter the perceived entwined interests of political, corporate and deep state entities.

Political Blame

Many fault the Biden-Harris administration. Labels of incompetence, weakness in protecting national security, and direct accusations of enabling larger conspiratorial networks are recurrent themes. The aftermath of the security breach elicits calls to hold the administration accountable, sometimes employing highly charged language that underscores a deep sense of betrayal and urgency.

Conversations often draw on recent, related failures or perceived inadequacies within the current administration. Many believe there is a pattern of negligence or deliberately corrupt oversight. People discuss “Biden Migrant Crime Wave,” inflation issues, and the Ukraine and Israel conflicts as interconnected failures, amplifying backlash against the administration.

Takeaway Analysis

American conversations about the CrowdStrike outage echoes broader concerns about deeply systemic corporate and government corruption. People view this event as a political maneuvering and national security failures intertwined with corporate failure.

Repeated mentions and constructed narratives around "deep state" orchestrations, billionaire-backed manipulations, and spy tactics illustrate a public highly conspiratorial. They are engaged but also profoundly troubled by the state of political affairs and cybersecurity.

These narratives and sentiments point to a collective sense of disillusionment and a clamor for more rigorous protective measures and accountability from those in power. The convergence of historical political events with contemporary security woes in public discourse also highlights an underlying continuity of mistrust and suspicion towards governmental and corporate actions within the realm of national security.

Recent news of airplane manufacturer Boeing’s guilty plea for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government is enraging Americans. The plea, in connection with two deadly 737 Max crashes, resulted in fines and penalties which, most Americans, feel is a meager punishment.

Despite the rare moment when a corporate giant admits to criminal wrongdoing, the two catastrophic crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 346 people, are only a small part of why Boeing’s brand value continues to plummet.

American sentiment toward Boeing consists of anger and disappointment. Many perceive Boeing's agreement to pay a $243.6 million fine is outrageously lenient given the magnitude of the tragedy and the $24.8 billion victims’ families hoped for.

There is a significant outcry that the punishment does not fit the crime, particularly since no one is facing jail time. The company already faced $2.5 billion in penalties and payouts in 2021, but critics argue financial penalties alone are inadequate to hold the company accountable for the loss of human lives.

• With news of Boeing’s guilty plea, online mentions skyrocketed aspublic sentiment crashed down to 36%.
• Ongoing scandals and negative press coverage continue to erode public views of Boeing, which faces negativity more severe than American hatred of Mexican cartels.

Destroying Public Trust

American view of Boeing and consequently, air travel, has been severely compromised. Ongoing scandals, safety incidents, and rumors about the dead whistleblowers cast a long shadow over Boeing's reputation.

The aviation industry's overall safety and integrity now face heightened scrutiny. The idea of boarding a Boeing 737 Max or any aircraft manufactured by Boeing terrifies many travelers. Incidents like the recent aborted takeoff of an American Airlines Boeing 737 due to a blown tire amplify these concerns.

This incident occurred as the aircraft accelerated for takeoff, resulting in a catastrophic tire failure, which later caused a fire. The immediate danger of the situation was compounded by a delayed response from emergency trucks. This heightened concerns over the readiness and efficiency of ground support systems in handling such emergencies.

JUST IN: American Airlines flight 590 out of Tampa, Florida narrowly avoids disaster after multiple tires blow out during takeoff.

As the plane was picking up speed and seconds away from liftoff, the tires blew out.

The pilot slammed on the brakes as the plane barreled towards… pic.twitter.com/P5kZ3N6pUO

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 10, 2024

The FAA's order to inspect 2,600 Boeing 737 planes over potential oxygen mask failures further erodes confidence in air travel, suggesting systemic quality control issues within the company. Many are also discussing recent news that Boeing’s Starliner capsule will be stuck in space, possibly until mid-August, due to technical issues.

Another recent incident where two planes nearly collided mid-air resurfaced fears about the impact of DEI initiatives in the aviation industry.

Remember when the FAA threw out over 700 qualified Air Traffic Controller applicants (who passed the test) just because they were white? https://t.co/KaECGX3uke

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) July 10, 2024

Vitriol Over Disproportionate Punishments

The juxtaposition of Boeing's insignificant penalties with other high-profile cases also fuels ideas of a two-tiered justice system. Americans increasingly believe corporate entities receive lenient treatment compared to individuals—especially for those who hold the "wrong" ideology.

Most people view Boeing's fine as a "sweetheart deal" that fails to hold anyone accountable to the victims' families. Critics argue this penalty amounts to a slap on the wrist for Boeing, a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and fails to deliver real justice or corrective pressure.

The sense of injustice is exacerbated by the fact that no individual executives face criminal charges or jail time. In contrast, some people point out Trump's fine of nearly $500 million including interest for his valuation of Mar-a-Lago.

They fined Donald Trump 2x more for accurately appraising the market value of his home than Boeing got fined for killing people. https://t.co/jhfbrI7DZy

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 8, 2024

Many, especially on the right, view these disproportionate penalties as clear evidence of favoritism and politically motivated justice. These reactions frame the justice system as being unfairly weaponized against anyone who doesn’t align with the “Uniparty.”

Americans frequently talk online about censorship and the dangers of Big Tech and corporation gatekeeping. When they discuss these things a common subject, especially among right leaning voters, involves political discrimination.

One of the themes in online discussion includes credit card companies that track customer purchases and could potentially report certain purchases or even block usage. American reactions to this are deeply influenced by broader socio-political contexts, personal privacy concerns, and economic security apprehensions.

Americans Worry About Privacy

A huge concern for Americans across the political spectrum is privacy and surveillance. People express unease at the idea of Big Tech companies or other corporations having detailed records of their purchasing habits. This creates a sense of being constantly watched, which feels invasive to most citizens.

Many people also fear how their data might be used. There are worries around data marketing strategies or information being shared with third parties including government entities. Some see it as a breach of personal freedom, challenging the right to privacy in a digital age increasingly dominated by data capitalism.

Financial Surveillance and Censorship

Many Americans question whether they can trust banks or credit card companies. Discussions about the Canadian government shutting down trucker bank accounts during the protests of 2022 are frequently mentioned, especially among Republicans and conservatives. U.S. voters do not want to see similar political and financial discrimination emerge in America.

The potential for credit card companies to block usage based on political statements or purchase history adds a layer of anxiety. This is especially true considering how dependent modern society is on credit for daily expenses and emergency situations.

For those with precarious financial standings or who are living paycheck to paycheck, financial censorship could spell disaster. The power wielded by credit card companies—capable of determining a person’s financial solvency—fuels apprehension about corporate overreach and its implications on individual economic stability.

Regulation for Big Tech and Corporations

There are conversations about how to effectively implement regulation and accountability for credit card companies and other businesses. Voters call for greater transparency and oversight to prevent abuse of power.

There is also a vocal segment advocating for more stringent data regulations to ensure tracking and data collection are done ethically. Some want protective measures in place to prevent arbitrary withdrawal of services which customers cannot protest.

Most Americans are vocal about the need for stronger consumer protections. This includes calls for clearer guidelines on data usage and stricter penalties for companies that violate consumer trust. Different voter groups on both sides of the aisle discuss stricter regulations, although opinions about the method and degree of regulation differ.

Apprehension About Social Credit

Across the political spectrum, there is also considerable apprehension about a system that would evaluate personal behavior and use those evaluations to grant or restrict access to societal benefits or market participation.

This idea, often called a social credit score system, gets criticism as a dystopian measure that would bring unprecedented levels of government surveillance and control. Critics argue social credit would infringe on basic civil liberties like freedom of expression and privacy. They fear it would lead to an authoritarian state where compliance is coerced through the threat of social and economic penalties.

One of the main concerns Americans express is the potential for misuse and discrimination. There is a widespread belief that a social credit system would disproportionately affect marginalized groups, exacerbating existing prejudices.

Liberals tend to fear minorities and the underprivileged would face economic or racial discrimination. Those on the right tend to fear political discrimination and censorship of conservative beliefs.

The fear of constant monitoring and the subjective nature of what constitutes "good" or "bad" behavior exists for many groups and demographics. Depending on which groups a person identifies with, concerns emerge about outsiders setting social credit standards, leading to arbitrary and biased decision-making.

The idea that market participation could be contingent on adherence to specific behavioral norms is deeply unsettling for many Americans.

Democrats and liberals push narratives and Biden administration talking points claiming a successful and healthy economy with strong jobs performance. But working Americans who feel the effects of inflation and layoffs experience a different reality. While trying to remain hopeful for the future, many voters also voice longing for the economy and markets prior to COVID.

MIG Reports data shows emerging discussions about layoffs and firings with sentiment driven by ongoing political and economic conditions in Biden’s economy. This dialogue appears to be concentrated around several themes:

• The U.S. economy under Biden versus Trump
• Unemployment rates
• Inflation
• Legislation around job creation and layoffs

What Americans Are Saying

America’s economic performance frequently dominates voter conversations. People compare the achievements of Presidents Biden and Trump on the economy. There are many references to record-low unemployment rates and the two presidents’ respective economic policies, especially during and after COVID.

The COVID era brought extreme volatility to employment statistics, which continues to influence public sentiment. For example, there is frequent mention of the record high unemployment during Trump's term due to lockdowns. People also talk about how economic recovery has gone under Biden—specifically low unemployment rates.

Sentiment Trends

Attitudes about jobs and layoffs show a strong partisan divide. Biden supporters emphasize the reported low unemployment rates, stabilized inflation, significant investments in infrastructure, and legislative successes such as the CHIPS Act and lowered insulin prices.

Trump supporters highlight the unparalleled economic growth during his tenure prior to COVID, citing low taxes, high stock market performance, and strong GDP growth. Both sides seem to view the economy as much better during their preferred candidate’s presidency.

This political polarization is underscored by mutual accusations of economic mismanagement. Each side attributes positive or negative outcomes selectively to their favored administration.

Demographic Patterns

Discussions about layoffs and unemployment rates cut across various groups, but certain patterns emerge. Minorities, particularly African American and Hispanic communities, are noted for achieving historically low unemployment rates under both administrations. This serves as a focal point in debates about the effectiveness of each administration’s economic policies.

Industry Trends

Many discussions about jobs refer specifically to the manufacturing and energy sectors. This suggests wider concerns about job security in traditional blue-collar jobs. Voter focus on these industries confirms the importance of political platforms that heavily emphasize revitalizing American manufacturing. Workers want to ensure energy independence, which is touted as critical for job creation and economic stability.

Geographical Conversations

States like Mississippi, Kansas, and North Dakota come up frequently in job discussions. Reports cite Mississippi's record-low unemployment alongside the lowest labor force participation rate. This suggests a nuanced economic landscape where job growth does not necessarily equate to broader economic health.

Kansas shows slight changes in employment metrics, maintaining a middle ground in job growth across states. North Dakota’s energy production and high GDP per capita also get attention, highlighting its robust economic performance.

WARN Data

MIG Reports analysis of data from the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act revealed some interesting patterns. WARN notices are filed by employers announcing mass layoffs or plant closures. The dataset for 2024 year-to-date shows 2,247 layoff notices which affected 183,454 employees. That equates to an average of 82 workers per company layoff notice.

Some additional layoff trends include:

There is a significant spike of WARN notice activity in January of 2024, indicating a high number of layoffs planned at the beginning of the year. The number of WARN notices fluctuates across different months with noticeable peaks and troughs.

California has the highest number of WARN notices by a significant margin. Other states with a notable number of WARN notices include Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois.

News of U.S. prosecutors recommending the Justice Department criminally charge Boeing for violating the settlement on fatal 737 Max crashes, is generating discussion. On June 18, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun testified in the U.S. Senate about numerous issues which sparked widespread public reactions.

Public commentary focuses on the aviation giant's apparent safety lapses and retaliatory tactics against whistleblowers. Americans seem deeply concerned and outraged over the company's negligence and the emerging whistleblower claims, which add fuel to an already blazing fire of public discontent.

Sentiment Trends

American attitudes are predominantly negative towards Boeing. There is a strong sense of betrayal, with people feeling Boeing's leadership, including Calhoun, place profits above human lives and safety. The CEO's large salary amid these allegations only exacerbates public anger. This highlights a stark disconnect between Boeing's top brass and any serious consequences for their actions.

Many Americans draw parallels between Boeing's corporate practices and broader systemic issues within American political and business practices. Americans believe Boeing's safety issues represent a larger problem in which corporate malpractice goes unchecked due to weak regulatory oversight and prioritizing corporate profit over public welfare. The speculation about favoritism and insufficient criminal prosecution by the Justice Department fuels the narrative of systemic corruption.

Belief in corrupt corporations leads calls for a more extensive overhaul, beyond penalizing Boeing. Public opinion suggests holding individuals at the top levels of management accountable, including demands for Calhoun's resignation, could be a starting point. However, transforming this sentiment into a broader movement against systemic corporate and political negligence requires strategic framing.

Corporate Corruption in America

Many voters believe Boeing's quality control issues and lack of repercussions are emblematic of larger problems in corporate America. There are recurring mentions of corporate greed, regulatory failure, and political complicity. Voter suspicions include:

• Whistleblower deaths and retaliation show grave moral and legal corruption.
• Boeing's situation with other corporate malpractice cases reveals a pattern of corporate negligence under weak administration.

While the public's immediate reaction is one of anger and disappointment towards Boeing, there is potential to channel this sentiment into a broader movement against corporate hubris. People seem to want robust regulatory governance, which they hope can lead to a significant systemic overhaul.

Online discussion about corporate corruption isn't limited to Boeing. Many people draw parallels between Boeing's situation and other issues like corporate tax evasion, legal loopholes, and the perceived inadequacy of regulatory frameworks.

Some Americans further associate these corporate malpractices with a corrupt political establishment. They believe politicians across party lines tend to protect the interests of big corporations over those of ordinary citizens.

This negativity seems to be impacting Boeing’s stock, which is down in 2024. It also remains lower than when the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) between Boeing and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was announced on January 7, 2021. The agreement required Boeing to pay more than $2.5 billion to resolve the criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The sudden and indefinite removal of Zyn nicotine pouches from the market has caused a predominantly negative reaction from Americans. Zyn users and anti-regulation advocates express frustration, confusion, and concern. Many voice discontent with the decision to discontinue Zyn sales in the U.S. after the company received a subpoena about its compliance with D.C.’s ban on flavored tobacco.

Many Americans say Zyn has been a significant part of their lives and they’re unhappy if it becomes unavailable. This disruption appears to have affected various demographics, from younger individuals and older consumers who use tobacco products.

The discussion trends show heavy engagement across social media, blogs, and forums. Conversations often pivot around regulatory concerns, health implications, and the economic impact on both consumers and businesses. Some users speculate that Zyn's removal may relate to regulatory scrutiny, suggesting potential issues in compliance or safety which have not been transparently communicated. Meanwhile, others focus on the health impacts, hypothesizing that undisclosed health risks could be a reason for the abrupt market withdrawal.

Economic ramifications are another hot topic, particularly for small business owners and retailers who sell Zyn products. Discussions reflect anxiety over potential revenue losses and the search for alternative products. Zyn users from various economic backgrounds lament the loss of a product they had budgeted for, indicating the product’s broad market penetration and consumer dependency.

Demographically, the reactions can be categorized into distinct patterns. Younger adults, often vocal on platforms like X and Instagram, use hashtags and memes to express their frustration and seek out information on possible replacements. This group also shares concerns about lifestyle adjustments and habitual changes resulting from Zyn's absence. Many younger voters also have general regulation concerns for things like TikTok, NYC mask bans, and in some cases pornography.

Middle-aged and older adults, who are more prevalent on platforms like Facebook and local news forums, tend to adopt a more pragmatic tone. They discuss the implications more analytically. Their conversations often delve into personal anecdotes about how the disruption impacts their daily routines, household expenses, and even broader societal implications.

A smaller subgroup within these demographics comprises health-conscious individuals who view Zyn’s market removal as a potential positive development. They often advocate for natural alternatives and discuss the importance of regulatory compliance for consumer products.

Online discourse about AI and American jobs continues to show worry. There is an overall negative sentiment, specifically among 50- to 60-year-olds and those in blue-collar positions.

Recent economic studies indicate negative sentiment is likely to continue as workers fear AI displacement in the workforce. This will likely extend beyond the cited demographics as more people consider the implications of AI on jobs. Several industries beyond blue-collar are feeling AI’s impact on the workforce.

• The automotive sector led in job cuts, with Tesla slashing 14,000 jobs. This adds to a total of 14,373 for the month and 20,189 for the year, a 108% increase from last year.
• Education jobs followed with 8,092 cuts in April, totaling 17,892 for the year. This is up 635% from the previous year due to budgetary constraints and recruitment issues.
• The Healthcare industry saw 5,826 job cuts in April, totaling 17,218 for the year, a 41% decrease from last year.
• Technology jobs saw 47,436 cuts this year, which is a startling 58% decrease from last year.

• The media industry reported 8,091 cuts this year, down 29%. However, the news subset is up 12% at 2,184 cuts.

While not all job cuts were directly a result of AI innovations, many view AI as one more threat among many for jobs. People worry about the economy and other factors, which worsen fears that companies may opt to save money with automation.

American Fears About AI Displacement

There is a sense of inevitability and concern in most discussions about job cuts and AI. People are apprehensive about the rapid pace of artificial intelligence development and its potential to automate jobs that were previously considered secure. This includes jobs requiring higher education or specialized training.

Conversations often reflect concerns about technological unemployment, with some expressing anxiety about being forced into early retirement before they have had a chance to secure financial stability.

Sentiment Trends

Feelings about AI’s impact on employment trends are largely negative. Many Americans worry that AI and automation could push them out of the labor market prematurely. This would damage their ability to save adequately for retirement.

Displacement anxieties are especially noticeable among middle-aged workers who feel they are too young to retire but too old to re-enter the job market if displaced. These discussions frequently underscore the lack of adequate retraining and reskilling opportunities, which exacerbates fears.

Demographic Patterns

Some demographic patterns are also evident in these discussions. Older workers, particularly those in their 50s and early 60s, are more vocal about their concerns, specifically regarding AI.

Older workers often highlight the difficulty in finding new employment at a later stage in their careers. They also mention the inadequacy of their retirement savings in the face of unexpected job loss.

Younger demographics seem to express a different kind of concern. Their focus is more on long-term job security and the career disruptions AI might cause. Many younger workers are optimistic about their ability to adapt to new working conditions. However, they are still somewhat anxious, especially amid larger economic worries.

Geographically, workers in regions with a higher concentration of manufacturing and traditionally blue-collar jobs express more anxiety. Discussions in more tech-centric regions might reflect a more balanced or even optimistic view, with some anticipating that new job categories will emerge as AI technology evolves.

Withing the negative discussion, there also exists a minority viewpoint that sees AI as an opportunity rather than a threat. This group usually consists of those who work in tech or have seen the benefits of AI integration in the workplace. They argue AI could enhance productivity, create new job opportunities, and improve work-life balance.