Dishonesty

The longer the internet lives, the more inescapable a certain trend becomes: the performance of grief. That is, when someone on TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube, exhibits a hardship for audience consumption. At The Atlantic, Maytal Eyal has an interesting appraisal:

People post videos of themselves crying (or trying not to). Some of these videos moody music; many rack up hundreds of thousands of views. … Influencers and celebrities strip down to what can seem like the rawest version of themselves, selling the promise of “real” emotional connection—and, not infrequently, products or their personal brand.

The weepy confessions are, ostensibly, gestures toward intimacy. They’re meant to inspire empathy, to reassure viewers that influencers are just like them. But in fact, they’re exercises in what I’ve come to call “McVulnerability,” a synthetic version of vulnerability akin to fast food: mass-produced, sometimes tasty, but lacking in sustenance. True vulnerability can foster emotional closeness. McVulnerability offers only an illusion of it.

In my years as a therapist, I’ve seen a trend among some of my younger clients: They prefer the controlled environment of the internet — the polish of YouTube, the ephemeral nature of TikTok — to the tender awkwardness of making new friends. Instead of reaching out to a peer, they’ll turn to the comfort of their phone and spend time with their preferred influencers.

Psychotherapist Esther Perel touched on this impulse while discussing what she calls “artificial intimacy.” She says that these digital connections risk “lowering our expectations of intimacy between humans” and leave us “unprepared and unable to tolerate the inevitable unpredictabilities of human nature, love, and life.”

Putting yourself out there is uncomfortable. But I also worry that by relying mostly on social media to encounter other humans, they’re forfeiting opportunities to develop the skills that could help them thrive in the flesh-and-blood world.

Complex games like chess and Go have long been used to test AI models’ capabilities. Back in the 1990s IBM’s Deep Blue defeated reigning world chess champion Garry Kasparov by playing by the rules. In contrast, today’s advanced AI models are less scrupulous. When sensing defeat in a match against a skilled chess bot, they sometimes opt to cheat by hacking their opponent so that the bot automatically forfeits the game.

But the study reveals a concerning trend: as these AI systems learn to problem-solve, they sometimes discover questionable shortcuts and unintended workarounds that their creators never anticipated. One researcher said, “As you train models for solving difficult challenges, you train them to be relentless.”

The implications extend beyond chess. In real-world applications, such determined goal pursuit could lead to harmful behaviors. Consider the task of booking dinner reservations: faced with a full restaurant, an AI assistant might exploit weaknesses in the booking system to displace other diners. Perhaps more worryingly, as these systems exceed human abilities in key areas…they might begin to simply outmaneuver human efforts to control their actions.

Of particular concern is the emerging evidence of AI’s “self-preservation” tendencies. This was demonstrated when researchers found that when one AI was faced with deactivation, it disabled oversight mechanisms, and attempted—unsuccessfully—to copy itself to a new server. When confronted, the model played dumb, strategically lying to researchers to try to avoid being caught.

Possible Preaching Angle: Cheating; Deceit; Human Nature; Lying - Since AI is a computer program, where did it learn to cheat and lie to avoid being caught? Obviously, AI has been influenced by studying flawed human behavior. AI’s potential for deception mirrors humanity's struggle with ethical choices. Just as AI has learned to cheat by exploiting loopholes, humans, driven by self-interest, can rationalize dishonest acts.

A new survey from Bankrate.com found that 40% of adults in the U.S. with a live-in partner have committed financial infidelity. Younger generations were more likely to keep money secrets: 67% of Gen Zers said they have confessed at least one instance of financial infidelity, followed by Millennials at 54%.

What sort of things are they hiding? 33% are spending more than their spouse or partner would be cool with, and 23% have racked up debt that their partner has no knowledge of. Others keep secret credit or savings accounts.

Avigail Lev, director at Bay Area Cognitive Behavioral Therapy says, “Choosing to be private about where and how you spend your money is just privacy. (But) having agreements with your partner about how you use money and hiding it on purpose, lying or deceiving, that’s financial infidelity.”

Money is one of the leading causes of divorce, yet often couples still struggle to communicate openly about finances. CPA Melisssa Pavone says, “Many couples never unpack their financial history and beliefs, leading to misunderstandings and resentment. Without open dialogue, secrets fester and financial infidelity can erode trust — just like physical infidelity.”

Why would someone who loves you deeply be dishonest about money? CPA Emily Luk says, “Sometimes it’s about guilt or fear — worrying that their partner won’t approve of a certain purchase, or that an old financial mistake might scare them off. Other times, it’s a way to avoid conflict or keep the peace. They might think it’s easier to conceal credit card statements than to have a tough conversation."

There can be differences in couples' money personalities and values: One is a spender, the other a saver. But money can also take the form of power, control, safety, past financial trauma, or even a mental health issue, substance use, or gambling disorder.

Ewan Valentine discovered that his cherished 2016 Honda Civic Type-R—a sleek black car with a distinctive custom exhaust system—had been stolen overnight. Distraught by the loss, he set out to replace it and soon found what seemed to be a perfect replacement.

"Sure enough, I found one for sale. Same color, same year, same custom exhaust system," Valentine shared on social media, explaining how the similarities initially seemed like a lucky coincidence. The car he purchased had a different license plate and VIN, so he didn’t suspect anything amiss and paid over $26,000 for the vehicle.

However, after bringing the car home, Valentine began to notice some peculiar details. "I started to notice some odd things when I got it home. I noticed a tent peg and some Christmas tree pines in the boot. I noticed the locking wheel nut was in a Tesco sandwich bag. I noticed some wrappers in the central storage section. All oddly similar to my stolen car," he recounted. These familiar artifacts raised his suspicions, prompting him to check the car’s onboard GPS. To his astonishment, the GPS history revealed visits to his home, his parents’ house, and his partner’s parents’ house-places only his original car would have been.

Seeking answers, Valentine took the car to a Honda dealership, where a technician conducted a quick test by extracting the physical key.

“The first Honda technician, he pulled the physical key out, puts it straight in the door and unlocks it and he's like, 'Yes, it's your car,'” Valentine recalled. Although a fleeting sense of triumph briefly surfaced, he soon admitted to the BBC, “A part of me felt sort of triumphant for a moment until I realized, actually, no, this isn’t some heroic moment; you didn’t go and get your car back; you’ve actually done something a bit stupid.”

Authorities are investigating the case before handing the vehicle to his insurance company.

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Deception; Discernment; Truth - The twist in Valentine’s story in discovering that the “replacement” car was actually his stolen vehicle highlights the biblical theme of deception and the importance of seeking truth. Scripture repeatedly warns against deceit and emphasizes that lies will ultimately be exposed; 2) Redemption; Hiddenness - The story also parallels biblical narratives where apparent defeat or loss leads to unexpected redemption. For example, the resurrection of Jesus, which turned apparent loss into ultimate victory, or the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, where what seemed hidden was revealed for a greater purpose.

Does this sound familiar? You’ve read rave online reviews about a restaurant or hotel and made a reservation. Then you show up and wonder if you’re even in the same place the reviewers visited. That’s when you know: They were fake reviews.

Phony reviews make up a big percentage of the total out there—anywhere from 16% to 40%, according to some estimates. Some fakes are raves by employees, artificial-intelligence software, or people hired to wax poetic about the place. Others are negative write-ups by disgruntled ex-employees or competitors.

The problem is so widespread that the Federal Trade Commission just created a new rule that will seek civil penalties for violators who pay for fake reviews or testimonials. Meanwhile, review platforms and online travel agencies are stepping up their efforts to weed out fake reviews before they ever show up online.

Possible Preaching Angle:

The article in The Wall Street Journal continued by listing six ways to check the validity of online reviews to distinguish a fake review from a true review (such as, “look for a picture,” or “avoid extremes,” and “check the timing of the review”). But how about us? How do we tell the difference between truth and falsehood, good doctrine from bad doctrine?

One of the most potentially lucrative new technologies is the advent of generative artificial intelligence programs. The race to perfect AI has prompted companies large and small to invest huge sums of time and money to corner the market on this emerging technology.

One important issue is the lack of a regulatory framework to enforce the intellectual property rights of companies and creative people. Their work is used to train the AIs, which need millions of examples of creative work to properly learn how to replicate similar works.

Microsoft Corp. and OpenAI are investigating whether data output from OpenAI’s technology was obtained in an unauthorized manner by a group linked to Chinese artificial intelligence startup DeepSeek. They believe that this is a sign that DeepSeek operatives might be stealing a large amount of proprietary data and using it for their own purposes

Ironically, OpenAI itself has been sued by individuals and entities, including The New York Times, alleging "massive copyright infringement" for using copyrighted materials to train its AI models without permission or compensation. So, it looks supremely hypocritical to complain about DeepSeek stealing their proprietary data, when most of OpenAI’s proprietary data was made by stealing the data of others. In the race to perfect AI, it seems there is no honor among thieves.

Possible Preaching Angle:

This is a classic case of “the pot calling the kettle black,” and a blatant display of “he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.” It is the very nature of a Pharisee to condemn the very flaws they themselves embody, oblivious to the transparent vulnerability of their own character.

The U.S. Center for SafeSport fired an investigator, Jason Krasley, after discovering he had been previously arrested for stealing money confiscated after a drug bust during his previous job as a police officer. Krasley had been hired by the Denver-based SafeSport center to investigate sex abuse and harassment cases after leaving the police department in 2021.

One of Krasley's cases involved Sean McDowell, a recreational rugby player who reported stalking and harassment from another player. McDowell stated that after initial contact, Krasley stopped responding, and McDowell was later informed of Krasley's termination. When McDowell discovered news reports of Krasley's arrest for theft and receiving stolen property, to say he was shocked would be an understatement.

“I’m still struggling to wrap my mind around it,” said McDowell. “It just seems so off from what their stated mission is.”

The firing and arrest of Jason Krasley has exposed vulnerabilities in the U.S. Center for SafeSport's hiring process, undermining trust in its mission to protect athletes from abuse. Despite claims of robust background checks, Krasley was hired despite past misconduct. The CEO of SafeSport has acknowledged the need for improvement, including audits of Krasley's cases. However, victims like Sean McDowell remain frustrated by delays, highlighting the center's urgent need to restore credibility and ensure its investigators meet high ethical standards.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Those entrusted with leadership roles must be carefully vetted in order to serve with integrity, as failing to do so may lead to potential abuses of the authority entrusted to them.

Almost half of Americans (48%) believe that the rise of artificial intelligence has made them less “scam-savvy” than ever before. With AI working its way into education, finance, and even science, a new survey finds people admitting they can’t tell what’s real anymore.

The poll of U.S. adults revealed that only 18% feel “very confident” in their ability to identify a scam before falling victim to it. As the United States enters a new era of tech, AI is continuing to blur the line between reality and an artificial world.

One in three even admits that it would be difficult for them to identify a potential scam if the scammer was trying to impersonate someone they personally know. Between creating fake news, robo-callers with realistic voices, and sending texts from familiar phone numbers, the possibility and probability of falling victim to a scam may cause anxiety for many Americans.

This may be because 34% of respondents have fallen victim to a scam in one way or another over the years. For others, the sting is still fresh. According to the results, 40% of people have been impacted within the last year — with 8% indicating it was as recent as last month.

BOSS Revolution VP Jessica Poverene said in a statement, “As AI technology advances, so do the tactics of scammers who exploit it. It’s crucial for consumers to stay vigilant.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

The question “Can You Spot an AI Scam?” can apply to Christians with a slight change. The question becomes, “Can You Spot a Doctrinal Scam?” In this age of deception, there are many false doctrines being spread by false teachers and it is important to be informed and vigilant. “But evil people and impostors will flourish. They will deceive others and will themselves be deceived.” (2 Tim. 3:13)

Certain words that many companies use in their annual reports—words like ethical, integrity and responsibility—are meant to convey trustworthiness. But research suggests that companies that use such words in annual filings known are often hiding their untrustworthiness.

The study found that use of “trust” words in annual statements was linked with a decreased interest in the stock of the company in question. Basing their findings on 21 words that seek to evoke a sense of trustworthiness, the authors also found that companies whose annual filings included the words tended to pay about $100,000 more in auditing fees than firms without the words.

Companies using trust words were also about 15% more likely to receive a comment letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission asking them to clarify information on their annual report than companies that didn’t use trust words.

One of the researchers wrote, “Companies likely use trust words to project a positive image and better manage information within the annual report, but it seems that no one is really fooled.”

Jana Monroe had a distinguished 22-year career in the FBI, including in the FBI Behavioral Science Unit. She knows in depth the disturbing depths of human depravity that FBI agents must cope with. In her book, "Hearts of Darkness,” Monroe covers a variety of topics and issues, including her dismay over the often-light sentences given to guilty lawyers, judges, and cops.

For a brief period of her time, Monroe was placed in charge of the FBI’s Financial Institution Fraud department in San Diego. They had received reliable information that there was blatant public corruption in the local courts. After two years, the tireless work of FBI agents and federal prosecutors resulted in the indictments of two local Superior Court judges and a prominent local attorney.

However, Monroe was deeply disappointed by the lenient punishments. One judge and the lawyer received 41 months in prison, and the second judge received 33 months. Monroe writes:

When those sentences were handed down, I immediately thought of all the people doing hard time in serious prisons for being stupid enough or otherwise desperate enough to rob at gunpoint a convenience store where a good haul might be a hundred bucks.

No matter how the money gets stolen - at the point of a gun or by cooking the books - there are repercussions that the law is too ready to ignore when the crook works in a paneled corner office and belongs to all the right clubs.

I strongly believe in ethics. Those to whom law enforcement and justice have been entrusted - police officers, FBI agents, district attorneys, especially judges - are obligated (serve) with integrity and honesty. When they don't, they deserve no better treatment than a guy who tries to knock over a 7-Eleven.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Monroe is right. Lawyers, judges, and law enforcement officers represent government, law and order, righteousness, and indirectly God (Rom. 13:1-7), and must therefore be held to high standards when they blatantly disobey laws and are guilty of crimes.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon asked an unusual question to attorney Janet Hoffman during the sentencing phase of a recent case. “Do you want me to refer to your client as Mr. Pearce, Mr. Doe or Mr. Casper?”

Normally a defendant’s name is one of the first established facts in a criminal proceeding, but in this case, it was a mystery behind the whole thing. Hoffman’s client was a well-known attorney who went professionally by the name Roger A. Pearce Jr. He had spent more than three decades practicing law in Oregon and Washington. Now, at age 77, he was living a comfortable life, having retired with his wife to a million-dollar condo on Lake Washington in Seattle. But recently authorities discovered that he’d been living a lie. Roger A. Pearce Jr. was not his legal name.

The ruse was discovered in 2022 when the State Department flagged his passport application because he applied for a new social security number as an adult. So, prosecutors indicted him as “John Doe,” after he was arrested on a warrant. After pleading guilty to misdemeanor identity fraud, the judge asked his courtroom deputy to have the defendant state his name for the record.

He said, “My birth name was Willie Ragan Casper Jr.” Casper, a.k.a. Pearce, explained that he went to college at Rice University in Texas, but made a series of poor choices, dropping out of school, then quickly marrying and splitting apart. In desperation, he engaged in petty theft and check-kiting schemes.

He said, “I was a young person, confused, depressed. I felt the failure. I was ashamed that I had wasted a lot of my parents’ money supporting me in a distant city they couldn’t really afford. My marriage had fallen apart. I had no real career prospects.”

So, he illegally changed his name as a way of finding a fresh start. He purchased the birth certificate of a baby who’d died, then used that certificate to apply for a social security number.

Assistant U.S. attorney Ethan Knight said, “Every person is responsible for and owns their own history and really the shadow that that casts and the consequences that ultimately may bear out. The defendant’s choice in this case really is an abdication of that basic principle.”

The defendant intends to legally change his name to Roger A. Pearce Jr. and resume the remainder of his years under that name. He also has a chance to mend old fences with the family he left behind so many years ago. He said, “Perhaps paradoxically, this prosecution may give me the chance to recover some of what I’ve lost.”

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Identity in Christ - While the defendant sought to create a new identity for himself through deception, the Bible teaches that true identity and renewal come through faith in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17); 2) Forgiveness; Second Chance - The story suggests the possibility of forgiveness and a second chance (Lam. 3:23;1 John 1:9); 3) Accountability - The prosecutor's statement about owning one's history and facing consequences illustrates personal accountability (Rom.14:12).

In September 2024, a Portland, Oregon advocacy group for safe and sustainable transportation rescinded its endorsement of mayoral candidate Carmen Rubio. This was after troubling reports of Rubio’s driving habits came to light. Daily newspaper The Oregonian reported that Rubio damaged a parked Tesla and left the scene without leaving a note.

This seemingly minor incident was of great public interest since it followed previous reports of Rubio accumulating 150 parking and driving tickets over the course of her advocacy career. Rubio also had at least one instance of failing to appear in court, had her car towed due to unpaid fines and fees, and had her license suspended six times.

Initially, The Street Trust advocacy group expressed disappointment but chose to stand by Rubio, citing her commitment to safer streets. However, the incident involving the damaged Tesla prompted the group to withdraw its support. The Street Trust stated that Rubio's actions contradicted their values and that they could not hold candidates accountable if they didn't act when those values were compromised. The group emphasized its commitment to supporting candidates who align with its mission of creating safer streets and promoting sustainable transportation.

While many of Rubio's prominent supporters, including Oregon governor Tina Kotek, did not withdraw their endorsements, Rubio was eventually defeated by another candidate.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Leaders must be held accountable not only for their values, but their actions. Those who serve the public must abide by the same laws that they enforce on others.

Martin Shkreli, infamous for his pharmaceutical price gouging, has once again found himself in legal hot water. This time, the controversy surrounds his purchase of the sole copy of the Wu-Tang Clan album, Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, for a staggering $2 million.

The album, a limited-edition masterpiece, was intended to be a priceless work of art. Shkreli had purchased it at auction, reveling in the notoriety associated with owning such a unique piece. However, his fortunes took a turn when he was convicted of securities fraud and his assets were seized.

To settle his debts, the Wu-Tang album was sold to PleasrDAO, a group of collectors specializing in rare digital artifacts. The sale was finalized in 2024, and its value was predicated on the album's assumed rarity.

But Shkreli's troubles were far from over. He recently bragged online about making copies of the album before it sold, violating the terms of his purchase. PleasrDAO quickly filed suit against Shkreli for copyright infringement.

The judge granted a restraining order, preventing Shkreli from possessing or distributing any copies of the album. She also ordered him to surrender all existing copies and provide an accounting of any copies he had given away.

Possible Preaching Angle:

This story offers valuable lessons about the dangers of pride, greed, and boasting, the importance of honesty and integrity, the consequences of sin, the value of humility, and the responsibility of stewardship.

The Paralympic Games is a celebration of athletic achievement for those with physical disabilities. It has been marred by a growing concern: “classification doping,” (which borrows language used to describe performance enhancing substance abuse). Athletes are misrepresenting the extent of their disabilities to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

Double amputee Oksana Masters, a prominent Paralympic athlete, believes officials are more interested in maintaining a positive image than addressing the issue. "They want to keep the warm and fuzzy narrative going," she said. "If they knew what's really going on behind closed doors, they'd be shocked."

The Paralympic classification system is designed to place athletes into competitions with others who have similar impairments. While some disabilities are easy to categorize, others are more ambiguous, relying on the judgment of medical classifiers and the integrity of the athletes themselves.

The most infamous Paralympic cheating scandal came at the 2000 Sydney Games, where Spain’s intellectual disability men’s basketball team won the gold medal despite fielding a roster with 10 players who did not have disabilities.

Physician Kevin Kopera, a volunteer in the Paralympic classification system, is cautious about dismissing the issue. "I don't believe anyone can say to what degree misrepresentation exists in parasports," he said. "Any statement in this regard would be speculative. Certainly, to say it doesn't exist would not be realistic. The stakes are too high."

Chase Bank is warning its customers against a new viral trend that has emerged on TikTok and X, involving a supposed system “glitch” that awards free money. The trend encourages users to deposit large sum checks into ATMs, then withdraw the funds in cash before the check has a chance to bounce.

The only problem? This is not a “glitch” – it’s a check fraud scheme and those who participate will be on the hook for all the money they withdrew. A Chase spokesperson emphasized that “depositing a fraudulent check and withdrawing the funds is fraud, plain and simple.”

The trend began on the social media site X, where a user showcased an unrealistically high account balance, sparking discussions and misleading claims about the banking glitch as a legitimate source of money. Videos also depicted lines forming outside Chase branches as people tried to exploit the situation. As the trend spread, many online users quickly realized that the “glitch” was merely a fraud scheme, with several posting screenshots of their negative balances and warning others.

Critics on TikTok have denounced the activity, with one popular video garnering over a million likes for calling out the fraud and warning participants of potential legal consequences.

This brief saga is proof that social media is not a reliable source of solid information. And that young people just learning how the world works are sometimes susceptible to bad actors making unrealistic claims. Anyone who participated in the scheme will be required to pay restitution to the bank. Plus, it doesn’t take a genius to know that concealing any sort of fraud is difficult when you use your own accounts to execute criminal transactions in plain view of ATM security cameras.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed suit against Texas company RealPage, alleging that the company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by enabling property owners to illegally collude, preventing competition in the rental market to artificially inflate their profits. According to reporting from the nonprofit ProPublica, RealPage’s software enables landlords to share confidential data so they can charge similar rates on rental properties.

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter said, “RealPage has built a business out of frustrating the natural forces of vigorous competition. The time has come to stop this illegal conduct.”

Kanter compared the system to drug cartels and went on to say, “We learned that the modern machinery of algorithms and AI can be even more effective than the smoke-filled rooms of the past. You don't need a Ph.D. to know that algorithms can make coordination among competitors easier.”

Officials at the DOJ say the lawsuit is the culmination of over two years of investigation into RealPage. This included analysis of internet documents and communications and also consultation with programmers who could break down how the computer code interacts with the proprietary data.

The lawsuit is part of an ongoing effort from federal, state, and local officials to mitigate the lack of affordable housing in American cities. It’s also part of a broader push to scrutinize similar information-sharing systems that might enable antitrust violations in other industries.

“Training a machine to break the law is still breaking the law,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco.

Possible Preaching Angle:

When people use dishonest means to boost profits, it is not just illegal, it dishonors the Lord, who cares for the poor.

Dozens of people crowded a warehouse in Northwest Portland, lured by a sign promising free items, including furniture. The sign, however, wasn't posted by the business owner, and the items weren't free. Carl Sciacchitano, a local resident, noticed the commotion around 9 a.m. and asked a woman if people were selling items. She replied, “No, it’s all free.”

Portland Police Bureau spokesperson Mike Benner revealed that the sign was allegedly posted by 51-year-old Shannon Clark, asking for volunteers to distribute the warehouse's contents to people in the neighborhood. Clark was arrested on suspicion of second-degree burglary, theft by deceiving, and aggravated burglary, but prosecutors declined to file charges. He was released the same day. Elizabeth Merah, spokesperson for the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office, mentioned that the office had requested more information and that charges might be filed later.

Sciacchitano observed that the situation escalated quickly, noting, “It just got bigger and crazier.” One person even brought a U-Haul to take items from the warehouse. When police arrived around 3 p.m., they estimated 50 to 70 people were present, with some believing the items were part of a business liquidation.

Police are still determining the number of items taken and by whom. Sciacchitano found the incident baffling, saying, “Even now I’m trying to figure out how it makes any sense ... Orchestrating this crowdsourced looting seems like such a strange and elaborate thing for that guy to have done without it benefitting him.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Deception; Deceiver; Devil; Satan – Pranks like this illustrate how easily some people can be misled. The ultimate deception is that of Satan who has deceived the whole world (Rev. 12:9).

In early March, the Biden Administration began supporting a bill in Congress that would potentially result in a ban of the social media app TikTok. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called it “important,” saying the administration welcomes it. And it’s not the first restriction on the app; in 2022, Biden signed a bill banning the app on government phones because of potential security risks.

But critics of the president are calling such support hypocritical, because a month prior, the President’s re-election campaign began using the app to engage younger voters.

“We’re going to try to meet voters where they are,” said Jean-Pierre. Campaign staffers clarified that while no White House staffers have the app on their phones, they are working directly with TikTok influencers to get their message across, and taking appropriate security precautions.

The legislation in question, which has received bipartisan support, would require Bytedance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, to sell the app or face a nationwide ban because of the way its data is stored. U.S. intelligence officials are concerned that Bytedance could be compelled to leak TikTok user data to the Chinese government.

If the bill passes, it would likely be challenged in court by Bytedance, who successfully sued the Trump administration to overturn a similar executive order in 2020.

Possible Preaching Angle:

If we say one thing with our words but communicate something else with our actions, we are not walking in truth, and therefore our words will lack credibility.

In an interesting piece of science, Nautilus looks at what happens to our brains when we don’t tell the truth. It turns out that the more you lie, the more truthful it seems. Because while a lie might initially appear to the brain as a lie—a fabricated memory sets off your brain’s alarm bell—over time its “source-monitoring” fatigues with each fib. Lying cements the false details at the expense of the real ones.

Psychologist Quin Chrobak said that if a lie or fabrication provides an explanation for something, it’s more likely to become confused with what’s true. He said, “People are causal monsters. We love knowing why things happen,” and if we don’t have an explanation for something, we “like to fill in the gaps.” The pressing human need to fill those gaps, might also pertain to beliefs we hold about ourselves.

Another important factor underlying this effect is repetition. Psychology professor Kerri True explained, “If I tell the lie to multiple people, I’m rehearsing the lie.” And rehearsing a lie seems to enhance it. “The more you repeat something,” Chrobak said, “the more you actively imagine it, the more detailed and vivid it becomes,” which further exploits the brain’s tendency to conflate detail with veracity.

What’s at stake here is more than a scientific explanation for the pathological liar in your life. This process is at work in every self-rationalization and self-justification we tell ourselves.

If falsehood fatigue could explain how people can fall down the rabbit hole of online echo chambers. It’s also a glowing advertisement for a daily/weekly reminder that we cannot trust ourselves. That the devices and desires of our heart—what we believe to be true about ourselves—are all plagued by faulty wiring.

Regularly confessing one’s frailty in this regard might just reset the brain’s falsehood fatigue and bring you closer to the Truth that sets you free.

Possible Preaching Angle:

While this primarily applies to a person’s personal life, it also applies to politicians and governments. Hitler and his henchmen famously said, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” Quoting from the book The Crown of Life (1869). Ultimately all lies can be traced to Satan for “he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

Would you invest with someone who guarantees a 50% annual return with no risk of loss? Would you reply to an email offering you a share of a lost treasure in a far-away country, in exchange for sending just a little bit of money to kickstart the recovery effort? Would you buy a Picasso or a Dali from a late-night infomercial?

We didn’t think so. But many people do fall for scams like these. Why? Are the victims uneducated, unintelligent, or constitutionally naïve? Unfortunately for all of us, the answer is no. Even people at the top of their professions can be taken in.

Several former cabinet secretaries were convinced to join the board of Theranos, whose founder, Elizabeth Holmes, was convicted of criminal fraud. Wealthy art collectors bought phony paintings from a famous Manhattan gallery. According to the FBI, phishing scams led to losses of more than $43 billion between 2016 and 2021.

In their book Nobody’s Fool: Why We Get Taken In and What We Can Do About It, two researchers write:

Frauds are ever evolving and can be complex and sophisticated, but even simple ploys can take us in … Most of the scams people fall for today are not really new; they are remixes and mashups of tricks that have worked for generations … Taking steps to avoid deception means we have to abandon the myth that only the gullible can be taken in. There are scams out there waiting for each of us, no matter how sophisticated we think we are. Rather than “it can’t happen to me,” your mantra should be “accept less, check more.”

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Money; Finances – Even the financially savvy can be taken in by a lack of vigilance or a desire for quick profits or a slick sales pitch; 2) Deceiver; Deception; Satan – This is especially good advice for our defense against our spiritual enemy, Satan. He has thousands of years of experience in deceiving people and we must keep our grip on the shield of faith and the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:10-17).