2026-01-17 04:00:00
2026年1月15日，德黑兰恩格拉布广场上悬挂着一幅巨大的横幅。| 新华社/盖蒂图片社
伊朗抗议者真的能指望美国“出手相助”吗？这是特朗普总统本周早些时候在Truth Social上承诺的，他还表示“伊朗爱国者应继续抗议，夺取你们的机构！！！”早在1月2日，特朗普就曾威胁称，如果伊朗继续杀害抗议者，美国将“准备就绪”发动袭击，并随后多次发出类似言论。然而，自那以后，抗议活动已蔓延至全国，而伊朗政权的镇压也愈发残酷。尽管全国范围的互联网中断使得外界难以准确了解伊朗国内的实际情况，但人权组织估计，可能已有12000至20000人丧生。无论如何，伊朗政权显然无视了特朗普的警告。
几天前，特朗普似乎倾向于对伊朗政权目标发动军事打击，这是自去年6月美国袭击伊朗核设施以来的首次。但周三，他却显得更加犹豫，称“重要消息来源”告诉他伊朗的杀戮已经停止，并表示美国将“观察并看情况如何发展”。据报道，以色列和一些阿拉伯国家政府已敦促特朗普暂时不要采取军事行动，担心引发地区报复。尽管暴力可能正在减缓，但这种减缓可能更多是因为伊朗政权担心美国干预，而非抗议活动本身开始减弱。
然而，局势仍然复杂多变——抗议活动和反制措施都可能再次爆发，而美国政府内的一些强硬派仍呼吁特朗普采取更加强硬的行动。尽管特朗普以他独特的方式处理这一危机，但美国是否应使用军事力量阻止海外的大规模杀戮这一基本困境，曾多次困扰他的前任总统。
特朗普的国家安全团队似乎在是否干预的问题上存在分歧，但据CNN报道，特朗普本人认为必须兑现威胁以维护自身信誉。他说：“他现在设定了一个红线，他觉得必须采取行动。”每当华盛顿的国家安全讨论中提到“红线”时，所指的都是奥巴马在2013年拒绝对叙利亚阿萨德政权采取军事行动的先例。当时，阿萨德使用化学武器杀害了数百名平民，而奥巴马曾表示这是“红线”，将改变他是否介入冲突的判断。特朗普多次指责奥巴马未能执行这一“红线”，导致阿萨德政权在任期初期犯下更多暴行。尽管特朗普在第一次竞选期间对叙利亚的干预并不特别热衷，甚至曾提议与阿萨德合作对抗极端组织“伊斯兰国”，但最终他还是下令对2018年的一次化学武器袭击进行空袭。
政治学家可能对“信誉”这一概念持怀疑态度，但特朗普显然认为在国际舞台上不能表现出软弱。如果以2013年的叙利亚为先例，可能促使特朗普采取行动，那么2011年的利比亚则可能成为他犹豫的另一个例子。当时，美国领导的北约空袭行动旨在阻止卡扎菲政权对的黎波里反对派控制的城市班加西发动屠杀。虽然推翻了卡扎菲的独裁政权，但利比亚随后陷入内战和混乱，导致北非地区出现武装冲突和大规模移民。如今，大多数美国人记得“班加西”事件，不是因为2011年阻止了屠杀，而是因为2012年发生的袭击事件，导致两名美国外交官和两名CIA特工丧生。
特朗普的军事行动是否达到了目标？尽管没有导致新的伊拉克或越南式战争，但其行动的效果并不明显。在特朗普的两次导弹袭击后，阿萨德政权仍继续屠杀平民，包括使用化学武器。也门、伊朗和委内瑞拉的军事行动也没有阻止胡塞武装对红海商船的袭击，或对以色列的攻击。尽管“午夜锤行动”对伊朗的核计划造成了一定损害，但并未“彻底摧毁”它。正如以色列分析师丹尼尔·西特里诺维奇所指出的，美国在应对伊朗问题上正面临某种战略困境。“通过有限、短期的行动，无法实现具有决定性战略成果的可信路径。”他写道。简短、迅速、低风险的行动对削弱政权或支持反对派作用不大，而长期、高成本的行动则可能引发报复，并且在美国国内可能缺乏公众支持。据昆尼皮亚克大学本月的一项民意调查，70%的选民反对对伊朗抗议者采取军事行动。
特朗普很少在政治上方便的时候低调地宣称胜利，无论实际情况如何。例如，他不断列举自己声称结束的战争清单。另一方面，如果伊朗的暴力已经减缓，他可能借此机会宣称胜利，而无需实际干预。然而，这对伊朗人民的帮助却微乎其微。
回顾1991年2月15日，老布什总统在“沙漠风暴行动”开始一个月后发表演讲，呼吁伊拉克军队和人民自行采取行动，迫使萨达姆·侯赛因下台。这一信息通过广播和传单传播至伊拉克，数千名伊拉克人响应号召，包括叛变的士兵、南部什叶派和北部库尔德人，他们早已希望推翻政权并发动大规模起义。然而，如果这些伊拉克人期待美国支持他们的起义，他们最终会失望。美国在两周后宣布停火，尽管停火协议禁止美军使用固定翼飞机，但萨达姆的军队仍使用直升机镇压起义。尽管这一行为违反了协议的精神，但布什政府选择不介入，担心伊拉克完全崩溃或引发另一场“越南战争”般的冲突。随后，多达6万名什叶派和2万名库尔德人死于镇压行动。
很难判断特朗普呼吁伊朗人“继续抗议”是否激励了他们冒着死亡或监禁的风险走上街头。这次抗议背后的经济和政治不满早于特朗普，而且抗议活动在没有他鼓励的情况下就已经开始。但可以肯定的是，尽管推动民主和国家建设并非该政府的优先事项，特朗普仍视抗议为削弱对手的工具。这场斗争远未结束，军事干预仍有可能发生，但伊朗人民恐怕不会是第一个在美国鼓励下反抗独裁政权，却最终发现美国愿意支持他们的程度有限的案例。
Is help really “on its way” for Iran’s protesters?
That’s what President Donald Trump promised in a Truth Social post earlier this week, adding that “Iranians Patriots” should “KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!”
Trump first threatened that the US was “locked and loaded” to launch strikes on Iran if it continued killing protesters on January 2, and has followed up with several similar messages. Since then, the protests have spread throughout the country, and the regime’s crackdown has become ever more brutal. Though a nationwide internet blackout has made it difficult to get an accurate picture of what’s happening on the ground in Iran, human rights groups believe between 12,000 and 20,000 people may have been killed. At the very least, we can say that the regime defied Trump’s warning to stop killing protesters.
Just a few days ago, Trump appeared to be leaning toward military strikes on Iranian regime targets, the first since the US bombed Iranian nuclear targets last June. But Trump appeared more equivocal on Wednesday, saying that “important sources” had told him that the killing in Iran had ended and that the United States would “watch and see” if it resumed. The governments of Israel and several Arab countries have reportedly urged Trump to refrain from strikes for now, fearing regional retaliation.
The violence may be subsiding, though that may be less because the regime is worried about US intervention than because the protest movement itself is starting to subside amid the unprecedentedly violent crackdown and communications blackout. Still, the situation is fluid —the movement and the backlash could resume, and influential hawks in the administration and on Capitol Hill are still calling for Trump to take stronger action.
While Trump has approached this crisis in his own unique way, the basic dilemma of whether the US should use military force to stop mass killing overseas is one that has repeatedly vexed his predecessors. It isn’t called a “problem from hell” for nothing. As he and his Cabinet weigh their next steps, they face difficult questions about the purpose and efficacy of American intervention that more traditional administrations have dealt with as well.
Trump’s national security team is reportedly split on whether to intervene, but according to a report from CNN, the president himself feels obligated to follow through on his threats in order to preserve his own credibility. “Part of it is that he has now set a red line, and he feels he needs to do something,” one official said.
Whenever “red lines” are invoked in national security debates in Washington now, the precedent being implicitly or explicitly referred to is Barack Obama’s decision in 2013 not to take military action against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. In that case, Assad had killed hundreds of civilians with chemical weapons, which Obama had previously said was a “red line” that would change his calculus about whether to intervene in the conflict.
Trump repeatedly referred to Obama’s failure to enforce the “red line,” blaming it for subsequent atrocities by the Assad regime during his first term. Though Trump had not been particularly enthusiastic about intervention in Syria during his first campaign, even suggesting the US should ally with Assad to fight ISIS, he ultimately decided to order the airstrikes that Obama had refused to in response to a chemical weapons attack in 2018.
Political scientists may be skeptical about the idea of “credibility” in foreign policy, but Trump clearly believes in the importance of not showing weakness on the world stage.
If Syria in 2013 is the Obama precedent that may sway Trump toward intervention, Libya in 2011 is the one that may sway him against.
In that case, a US-led NATO air campaign intervened to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya in order to prevent what many feared was an impending massacre by dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi’s forces in the opposition-held city of Benghazi. The intervention led to the overthrow of Qaddafi’s despotic regime, but also Libya’s descent into civil war and chaos, contributing to armed conflict and mass migration throughout North Africa. Most Americans remember “Benghazi” today not for the averted massacre in 2011, but for the attack that killed two US diplomats and two CIA contractors in the city the following year.
Could US intervention bring down the 46-year-old Islamic Republic? If so, what would come next? Iran hawks argue that the country’s widespread opposition and strong civil society signal that it’s unlikely to go the way of Libya or Iraq and devolve into civil war.
Perhaps that’s true. But the president has also consistently shown skepticism toward nation-building missions throughout both his terms, even as he’s intervened in multiple countries. In his military actions thus far, whether the Syria strikes and assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in his first term or the campaigns in Yemen, Iran, and Venezuela in this one, Trump has managed to defy critics who warned he was leading the US into a quagmire, always managing — so far at least — to keep the intervention limited and the backlash manageable.
But that brings up the next issue:
Though none of them turned into a new Iraq or Vietnam, it’s less clear whether Trump’s military actions accomplished their goals. Assad continued to massacre civilians, including with chemical weapons, after Trump’s two missile strikes in 2017 and 2018. The Houthis continued to attack ships transiting the Red Sea as well as Israel, even after the US concluded “Operation Rough Rider” last spring. Iran’s nuclear program was damaged, but not “obliterated” by “Operation Midnight Hammer.”
As the Israeli analyst Daniel Citrinowicz suggests, the US finds itself in something of a strategic dilemma when it comes to its Iran response. “There is no credible path to achieving a decisive strategic outcome through a limited, short-duration campaign,” he writes. A short, sharp, low-risk operation wouldn’t do much to weaken the regime or help the opposition. A long, costly campaign would raise the risk of blowback and would probably get little public support in the US. A poll by Quinnipiac University this month found 70 percent of voters opposed military action to support protestors in Iran.
Trump has rarely been modest about claiming victory when it’s politically convenient, regardless of the facts on the ground. See, for instance, the ever-expanding list of wars he claims to have ended. On the other hand, if the violence in Iran is already subsiding, it may give him an out to claim a win without actually intervening.
This doesn’t do all that much for the people of Iran, however.
On Feb. 15, 1991, about a month into Operation Desert Storm, President George H.W. Bush gave a speech saying that one way for the bloodshed to stop would be for “the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.”
The message was broadcast into Iraq along with leaflets calling for civilians and soldiers to rise up. Thousands of Iraqis responded to the call, including mutinying soldiers, Shiites in the south of the country, and Kurds in the North who had long hoped for the downfall of the regime and launched a mass uprising. But if these Iraqis were hoping the US would support their uprising, they were disappointed. The US declared a ceasefire two weeks later. Though forbidden from flying fixed-wing aircraft under the terms of the ceasefire, Saddam Hussein’s forces used helicopters to put down the uprising. Despite this violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of his deal with the US, the Bush administration chose not to intervene, fearing the complete collapse of Iraq or “another Vietnam” that would draw in US troops. As many as 60,000 Shias and 20,000 Kurds were killed in the ensuing crackdown.
It’s difficult to know to what extent Trump’s calls for Iranians to “keep protesting” motivated Iranians to take to the streets in spite of the risk of death or imprisonment. The economic and political grievances motivating this uprising predate Trump, and the marches began without any encouragement from him. But it’s also clear that while democracy promotion and nation-building are not major priorities for this administration, Trump saw the protests as a useful means of weakening an adversary.
This story is still far from over, and intervention is still very much on the table, but the people of Iran would hardly be the first to rise up against an autocratic government with America’s encouragement, only to find that there are limits to how far the US was actually willing to go to support them.
2026-01-16 21:30:00
如果你觉得身边的技术人员和你的时间线上的人都像是失去了理智，甚至比平时更疯狂，那这正是“Claude Code”带来的体验。如果你明白我在说什么，那你可能要么正在全神贯注地“ vibe coding”（一种充满激情的编程方式），快要进入数字狂喜的状态，要么就是冷汗直流，正在起草“我欢迎我们的AI统治者”的邮件。但如果你以为Claude Code听起来像《纽约时报》的一个文字游戏，还没尝试过，那么这篇FAQ就是为你准备的。
那么，Claude Code到底是什么？没错，它是一种AI工具，可以真正地在你的电脑上执行任务。实际上，它可以处理你电脑上做很多事情。当然，如果你是这篇FAQ的目标读者，那可能不是你，而是那些从不睡觉、从不拒绝、工作效率极高的专家程序员。
它能做些什么呢？说实话，列出它不能做的事情会更容易。但用户已经用Claude Code完成的一些任务包括：一个可以生成短信摘要的Spotify Wrapped程序；从邮件、新闻通讯等中提取信息的个性化每日简报；一个管理Pokémon卡的系统；一个个人DNA分析工具；以及一款“赛博朋克”风格的俄罗斯方块游戏。
你至少需要一个每月20美元的Claude Pro账户才能使用它——没有免费版本。
不过，它名字里有“code”（代码），难道我必须懂编程吗？不用担心！是的，Claude Code是设计用于“命令行界面”（CLI）的，也就是你不用点击图标或写正常句子，而是通过终端输入编程语言命令来操作电脑。哦，哦，哦！我看起来像1995年的《黑客帝国》里的安吉丽娜·朱莉吗？我不太明白你在说什么。没关系，我也不明白！虽然经验丰富的程序员能从Claude Code中获得最大收益（尽管他们也可能会经历更严重的存在主义危机），但使用Claude Code的学习曲线下降得比六旗游乐园的过山车还快，你甚至可以用普通的英语和较少的命令与它互动。当然，它在终端中使用起来会更笨拙一些，但说实话，我也不太信任我们俩能用好它。
总之，使用Claude Code的过程大致如下：1. 你告诉它你想做什么（修复错误或添加新功能）；2. 它会查看整个项目的代码库，包括实际代码、配置文件和测试文件，以理解当前情况；3. 它会编辑相关文件；4. 它可以运行测试或命令来检查是否破坏了其他内容；5. 它会不断迭代。在最好的情况下，它会自主完成整个循环：计划→修改→检查→修复。这就是为什么那些从事软件开发的人会感觉像是从无数小麻烦中解脱了出来。
不过，在最坏的情况下，它可能会删除你的文件、泄露你的信息，或者耗尽你的请求配额。这显然不是什么好事。但我想保留我的所有文件，至少是它们目前的样子。聪明的人啊，Claude Code具有一定的自主性，意味着它可以在较少监督的情况下执行任务。正如任何管理者都知道的，代理（agent）的好处（“它可以自主行动！”）同时也是它的弊端（“哦不，它刚刚自主行动了！”）。因此，如果你开始使用它，一定要非常明确地指示它，比如“不要删除任何东西，我真的很认真。”（幸运的是，默认情况下，Claude Code在执行不可逆操作前仍会提醒你。）
这有点像养育一个拥有超能力的5岁孩子。此外，也要记得备份重要文件。当然，你本来就应该这么做。
不过，我理解为什么这对程序员来说是个大新闻。但对其他人来说，这真的重要吗？当然重要！正如《未来完美》的编辑Dylan Matthews去年所写——借用AI作家兼投资者Leopold Aschenbrenner的一句话——令人担忧的最终结果是“远程工作的替代者”。简而言之，如果你是远程工作者，那你很可能大部分任务都是在电脑上完成的。比如我现在正在做的事情。虽然我不觉得自己在工作中在操作代码，但事实上，我每按一个键，都在间接地操纵代码。大型语言模型，尤其是像Claude的Opus 4.5这样具备复杂推理能力的模型，已经非常擅长思考、分析和编写代码，而且只会越来越好。
Claude Code就是当你给一个语言模型提供工具访问权限（如文件编辑、搜索、运行命令）时，它在你的代码库中执行任务的结果。换句话说，你可以通过设置一些规则（比如可以放宽或移除），让Claude Code在你的代码库中自主工作。因此，如果Claude Code是软件团队的“远程替代者”，那么Claude Cowork则是适用于大多数远程工作者的版本，它能将杂乱的输入转化为可用的输出，速度比你还能说“抱歉，我回头再说”更快。
哦，对了，现在你可能明白为什么Anthropic的CEO Dario Amodei警告说我们可能“在不知不觉中走进白领大屠杀”的局面，因为AI可能会迅速取代大量初级岗位。你试过Claude Cowork吗？还没有——目前Cowork至少需要每月100美元的Max账户，而我得攒钱应对“后工作时代”的到来。
等等，你不是应该是个带来好消息的人吗？没错，我就是！（点击此处订阅我们的通讯。）如果你仔细想想，我们可能看到的不是取代人类工作，而是重新安排工作，将员工转变为管理未来AI代理团队的管理者，负责设定目标、检查输出并做出判断。因此，在这个更乐观的未来里，我们都会成为《办公室空间》中的Bill Lumbergh，指挥我们的AI代理团队填写无数份TPS报告。
哦，这真是个勇敢的新世界，充满了AI代理！是的，我认为我们可以确定的一件事是，这一切将会变得越来越奇怪。而且，会越来越奇怪。但在此期间，除非你打算去破坏数据中心（请不要这么做），否则你真的可以通过这些工具显著提升你的工作效率，甚至改善你的生活。第一次真正创造出一个能正常运行的东西时，那种感觉真的很强大。就像我想象中米奇在《魔幻奇缘》中途时的感受一样。你记得那部电影是怎么结束的吗？最后他们幸福地生活在一起。
If it feels like the tech people in your life and on your timeline have collectively lost their minds — but, like, more than usual — that’s just the Claude Code experience at work.
Now if you know what I’m talking about, you’re either vibe coding so hard you’re about to dissolve into a digital rapture or you’re in a cold sweat and drafting your “I, for one, welcome our AI overlords” email.
But if you think Claude Code sounds like a New York Times word game you haven’t gotten around to trying out, this FAQ is for you.
Okay, so, what is it?
Right, you know how chatbots…chat? As in, write to you, talk to you, compose your college papers? Claude Code, which comes from the AI company Anthropic, is an AI tool that can actually do things with your computer. Actually, many of the things you can do with your computer. (Well, not you, if you’re the target audience for this FAQ, but someone who is an expert programmer who never sleeps, never says no, and works at an impressive speed.)
Do…like what things?
Honestly, it’d be easier to list the things it can’t do with a computer. But an incomplete rundown of what users have accomplished with Claude Code would include: a Spotify Wrapped program but for text messages; personalized daily briefs that pull in emails, newsletters, and more; a Pokémon card management system; a personal DNA analyzer; and a “cyberpunk” Tetris game. You will need at least a $20 a month Claude Pro account — no freebies for you.
…Cool? But it has “code” in the name — do I have to know something about programming?
No worries! Yes, Claude Code is designed to work in what’s known as a “command-line interface,” or the part of your computer where instead of clicking on icons or writing normal sentences, you type commands with a programming language into a terminal, aka the black screen where nerds are entering their code.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Do I look like 1995 Angelina Jolie in the movie Hackers? I don’t know what any of that means.
It’s okay — neither do I!
It’s true that experienced programmers can get the most out of Claude Code (though they’re also the ones that are undergoing the deepest existential crises). But the learning curve for using Claude Code is descending faster than a Six Flags roller coaster, and you can increasingly interact with Claude Code more or less as you would with a chatbot if you want — with plain English and relatively few commands. Be warned that it’s clunkier than using it in the terminal, but honestly I wouldn’t trust either of us with that.
Bottom line, the process works like this:
In the best-case scenario, it closes the loop, mostly on its own: plan → change → check → fix. That’s why people who build software for a living are acting like they’ve been freed from a thousand tiny paper cuts.
In the worst case, it can, uh, delete your files, leak your secrets, or burn through your rate limits. Which would be bad.
But I would like to keep my files. Ideally all of them. In their current state of existence.
Smart person. Claude Code is agentic-ish, meaning it can carry out tasks with little to no supervision, and as any manager knows, the benefits of an agent (“it can act autonomously!”) are also the drawbacks of an agent (“oh no, it just acted autonomously!”).
So if you start messing around with it, be sure to be very, very explicit in your directions — like, “do not delete anything. I really mean this.” (Fortunately, by default Claude Code still taps you on the shoulder before anything irreversible.) It’s sort of like parenting a 5-year-old with superpowers.
Also, keep backups of anything important. But obviously you already do that.
Uh, sure…moving on, I understand why this is such a big deal for programmers. But does it really matter for the rest of us?
Sure does! As Future Perfect contributing editor Dylan Matthews wrote last year — borrowing a phrase from AI writer/investor Leopold Aschenbrenner — the scary endgame is “drop-in remote workers.”
Put simply, if you are a remote worker, it likely means you execute most of your tasks on a computer. Like I’m doing right now. And while I may not think of myself as manipulating computer code in my work, under the hood, that’s exactly what’s happening with every letter I press in this document.
Large language models — especially complex reasoning ones like Claude’s Opus 4.5, the preferred model for super-charged Claude Code work — are already very good at thinking, analyzing and writing, and they’re only likely to improve.
Claude Code is what happens when you take a language model and give it tool access — file editing, searching, running commands — inside your codebase, with guardrails you can loosen (or, regrettably, remove). In other words, if you’re a remote worker, Claude Code could conceivably “drop in” and do some, most, or maybe all of that work. If chatbots could really just advise, models like Claude Code can actually do.
And Anthropic is already trying to port that same “Claude with hands” feeling out of the programmer cave and into the rest of your digital life. That’s the idea behind the just-released Claude Cowork: Instead of pointing Claude at a codebase, you point it at a normal-person folder — your notes, docs, spreadsheets, PDFs, screenshots, the junk drawer of modern work — and it can read, organize, extract, and draft inside that space to produce real deliverables, not just suggestions.
If Claude Code is a drop-in remote worker for software teams, Cowork is the version that can drop into the work most remote workers actually do: turning messy inputs into usable outputs, faster than you can say “sorry, circling back.”
Uh oh.
Yes, now perhaps you understand why Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned that we could be “sleepwalking into a white-collar bloodbath,” with AI wiping out huge numbers of entry-level jobs fast.
Have you tried Claude Cowork?
Nope — Cowork currently requires at least a $100 a month Max account, and obviously I have to save up for the post-work apocalypse.
Wait, aren’t you supposed to be the Good News guy?
Indeed I am! (Sign up for the newsletter here.) And if you squint, you can argue that what we’re likely to see is less replacing human jobs than rearranging them, turning workers into managers of teams of future AI agents, responsible for setting goals, checking outputs, and making judgement calls. So I guess in this more optimistic future, we’ll all be Office Space’s Bill Lumbergh, directing our army of AI agents to fill out infinite TPS reports.
O brave new world, that has such agents in it!
Yeah, I think the one thing we can count on is that it’s going to get weird. I mean, weirder.
But in the meantime, unless you’re planning on going around sabotaging data centers — please don’t — you really can meaningfully improve your work and even your life if you begin to play around with these tools. The first time you actually create something that works is a pretty powerful feeling. Like I imagine how Mickey felt halfway through The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
Do…you know how that ended?
And they all lived happily ever after.
// end of input
(Disclosure: Future Perfect is funded in part by the BEMC Foundation, whose major funder was also an early investor in Anthropic; they don’t have any editorial input into our content.)
2026-01-16 21:00:00
去年，Z世代观众去电影院的人数显著增加，这表明实体影院体验并未过时。如今，要吸引人们走进电影院并不容易，而流媒体巨头如Netflix（其于12月以830亿美元收购华纳兄弟探索公司）似乎希望你相信，未来的大型电影可能更难在影院上映。这项尚未获得监管批准的巨额交易几乎确认了多厅影院的衰落。在讨论此次合并时，Netflix联合首席执行官Ted Sarandos表示，虽然公司计划在影院上映华纳兄弟的影片，但他并不认为长期独家影院放映对观众来说是“消费者友好的”。这位科技高管或许有道理。尽管像最新《阿凡达》续集这样的CGI大片仍能创下超过10亿美元的票房，但去电影院看电影已不再如从前那样普遍。过去十年，电影票销售持续下滑，新冠疫情更是让这一趋势雪上加霜，票房一度暴跌。2023年的好莱坞罢工也进一步打击了影院的吸引力。在流媒体主导的当下，人们似乎更倾向于在家中观看电影，同时刷TikTok或YouTube。但最近的一些研究显示，并非所有人都在回避实体影院。年轻人显然对这项已有百年的娱乐方式情有独钟。根据Cinema United（全球最大的影院贸易协会）发布的年度《影院展览实力报告》，Z世代的观影人数去年增长了25%。同样，每年至少去影院6次的Z世代观众比例也从2024年的31%上升至去年的41%。而根据2025年国家研究集团的一项调查，更年轻的Gen Alpha群体对去影院的兴趣甚至更高。虽然45%的千禧一代和48%的Z世代表示更喜欢在影院观看电影，但Gen Alpha中有59%的人更倾向于影院体验。在流媒体吞噬发行商的背景下，年轻人似乎赋予了看电影这一曾经随意的活动更多的文化意义。例如，AMC的Stubs A-List会员计划，允许会员每周观看四部电影，如今在社交媒体上已成为一种文化现象。尼科尔·基德曼在AMC影院的开场白仍会引发观众的掌声。此外，电影记录平台Letterboxd和TikTok上的#FilmTok话题，将原本普通的观影活动提升为一种有生产力甚至带有智力成分的爱好。这些在线空间不仅鼓励人们去影院观看新电影，还促使他们在观影时戴上“影评人”的帽子。正如电影作家Will Tavlin所说：“年轻人喜欢去电影院。随着我们接触到越来越多的流媒体内容，人们意识到，‘其实出去和世界互动也很棒。’”这种热情正在挑战流媒体主导的叙事，即人们只想要在家看电影的体验。在社交媒体和人工智能盛行的时代，影院不仅提供了一种逃离数字世界、回归现实的体验，还成为对抗“数字脑腐”（digital brain rot）的一种方式。Rutgers大学的Rutgers Cinemas经理Alex DelVeecchio表示，年轻人其实并不喜欢待在家里。对于这一成长于网络时代的一代来说，流媒体并非像对上一代人那样具有革命性。DelVeecchio说：“这其实是第一代人一直拥有智能手机的一代，所以这些便利和我们喜欢的活动，他们早已习惯，因此在家流媒体并不显得特别。”尽管一些媒体高管认为流媒体的便利性胜过去影院，但年轻人对线下体验有不同看法，尤其是在经历了疫情封锁后。近年来，Z世代愿意为现场活动（如音乐会和体育赛事）花钱，部分原因是对错过体验的恐惧。随着影院尝试通过提供鸡尾酒、晚餐服务等方式提升吸引力，看电影已成为一种独特的社交活动，吸引人们参与其中。Tavlin认为，影院正在将多厅影院体验打造为一种“奢侈”。“他们提高了票价，以创造更特别的观影体验。”他说。这种新的影院体验通常包括一些“噱头”，例如特制商品，如著名的《沙丘》爆米花桶。根据国家研究集团2025年《电影未来》研究，38%的Z世代观众因为可以在座位上点餐而选择去影院。33%的观众则因为影院的沙发式座椅而愿意前往。尽管有些人认为如今的影院正在出售一种高价产品，但这些价格上涨与通货膨胀趋势相符。不过，对一些电影爱好者来说，这些额外的激励措施似乎对年轻人有效，甚至促使他们加入更实惠的忠诚计划。此外，如今的年轻人每天平均花六个小时盯着手机屏幕，而社交媒体上的活动日益增多。去电影院不仅让他们有机会离开卧室，还能观看比无休止的TikTok视频更吸引人或更有思想深度的内容，尤其是在这些平台充斥着人工智能模拟和“脑腐”内容的情况下。当然，年轻人的观影活动仍然与社交媒体密切相关，比如拍照或录制电影片段分享到网络上。他们刚看完电影就会在#FilmTok和Letterboxd上发布评论和评分。总体来看，围绕特定电影系列的在线粉丝文化正越来越多地融入到实际的观影行为中。值得庆幸的是，一些艺术电影发行商，如Neon、A24和Mubi，正通过可拍照的周边商品和强大的社交媒体存在感，吸引更广泛的观众群体。因此，电影的社交属性似乎正在说服更多人成为影迷。在流媒体平台掌控了最著名电影公司的时代，比如Netflix收购华纳兄弟、亚马逊拥有 MGM、迪士尼拥有20世纪影业，人们不禁思考未来影院还能提供什么样的体验。但也许这些体验会比以往更好。Tavlin认为，“好的电影最终会把观众带回影院”，而年轻人也逐渐意识到，他们正在被流媒体提供的低质量、流水线式内容所影响。今年，瑞安·库格勒的吸血鬼电影《罪人》成为15年来票房最高的原创电影，而日本动画电影《咒术回战》则成为美国票房最高的国际影片。恐怖电影《武器》成为票房黑马，而乒乓球题材电影《Marty Supreme》则在圣诞节上映时，创造了A24旗下单厅平均票房最高的纪录。预计Netflix与华纳兄弟探索的交易将在今年夏天完成，这将对流媒体行业构成重大胜利。正如一群担忧的电影制作人写给国会的信中所说，这项交易将“有效地给影院市场套上绞索”，使电影的影院上映窗口期缩短至两周甚至完全取消。然而，年轻人对影院的热情表明，未来的影院市场可能并不那么黯淡。他们是否能像他们曾为黑胶唱片复兴一样，为影院带来文化上的回潮？显然，他们对坐在黑暗的房间里，听尼科尔·基德曼的独白，与陌生人一起享受精彩故事充满热情。也许电影行业最终不得不重视这一点。
It takes a lot to get people to movie theaters these days — and it might get even harder to catch blockbusters on the big screen in the near future.
Or at least that’s what streaming giants like Netflix, which controversially acquired Warner Bros. Discovery in December, want you to think. The staggering $83 billion deal, which is still pending regulatory approval, all but confirmed the hastening demise of multiplexes. In discussing the merger, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos stated that, while his company plans on releasing Warner Bros. projects in theaters, he doesn’t think long, exclusive theatrical runs for movies “are that consumer-friendly.”
The tech executive may have a point. While CGI-laden blockbusters like the latest Avatar sequel can still bring in more than$1 billion at the box office, going to the movies isn’t what it used to be. Ticket sales have been on the decline for the past decade, and they still haven’t completely recovered after falling off a cliff during the Covid-19 pandemic. (The 2023 Hollywood strikes didn’t help.) With the dominance of streaming services, it seems reasonable to assume that consumers simply prefer to watch feature films from their couches, where they can look at TikTok or YouTube at the same time.
But some recent research suggests that not everyone is avoiding the brick-and-mortar theater. Young people apparently can’t get enough of this century-old pastime.
Last year, there was a 25 percent increase in theater attendance for members of Gen Z, according to the annual Strength of Theatrical Exhibition report from Cinema United, the world’s largest exhibition trade association. Likewise, the number of Gen Z moviegoers who visit theaters at least six times a year rose from 31 percent in 2024 to 41 percent last year. Our youngest cohort, Gen Alpha, is even reporting higher levels of interest in going to the multiplex, according to a 2025 survey by the National Research Group. While 45 percent of millennials and 48 percent of Zoomers said they enjoy watching films on the big screen versus at home, a solid majority of Gen Alpha — 59 percent — said they favor the theatrical experience.
Amid the bleak reality of steamers swallowing up distributors, the once casual experience of moviegoing seems to have taken on some cultural gravity for young people. It’s become a joke — but an apt observation — that AMC Stubs A-List program, the top-tier subscription that allows members to see up to four movies a week, has become its own cult on social media. Nicole Kidman’s now-famous on-screen introduction at AMC Theatres still garners salutes and applause. Most visibly, the popular film-logging platform Letterboxd and #FilmTok, the corner of TikTok where users discuss the buzziest movies, have elevated a formerly mundane activity to a productive and even intellectual hobby. These online spaces have not only encouraged everyone to go out and see new movies but also pushed them to put on their critics hats while doing so.
“Young people like going to the movies. As we’re subjected to more streaming slop, people realize that, ‘Oh, it’s actually nice to go out and be part of the world.’”
Will Tavlin, film writer
This sort of enthusiastic engagement is complicating streamer-driven narratives that at-home movie experiences are all consumers want. In our social media-dominated, AI-addled times, theaters don’t just offer a refreshing dose of reality and connection but a way of combatting digital brain rot.
Alex DelVeecchio, general manager at Rutgers Cinemas on Rutgers University’s campus, says young people ultimately “don’t like to stay at home that much.” For an age bracket that grew up online, streaming isn’t necessarily the novel or groundbreaking technology that it was when introduced to older generations.
“This really the first generation that’s always had a smartphone,” DelVecchio says. “So these things that are big conveniences for us or things that we like to do — they’ve had it forever, so it’s not really all that special to be able to stream everything at home.”
Despite suggestions from some media executives that the convenience of streaming beats going to theaters, young people have a different way of thinking about in-person experiences, especially since they came of age during pandemic lockdowns. In recent years, Gen Z has shown their willingness to splurge on live events, like concerts and sports, partially for a fear of missing out. And as theaters try to be more creative to sell tickets by offering everything from cocktails to dinner service, moviegoing has become its own sort of unique outing that consumers want to be a part of.
“They’ve tried to make the multiplex experience more of a luxury,” says film writer Will Tavlin, citing AMC and Regal’s moves to install plush, reclining seats. “They’re jacking up the prices of tickets to make it more of a special experience.”
This new, theater experience tends to include, in Talvin’s words, “gimmicks,” like special-edition merchandise designed to go viral, such as the infamous Dune popcorn bucket. The ability to order food and drinks from your seat at certain theaters accounts for 38 percent of what’s driving Gen Z to the movies, according to the National Research Group’s 2025 Future of Film study. Couch-like seating (33 percent) is another notable draw.
The idea that once-affordable theaters now sell a premium product is controversial to some, although these increased prices track with inflation. Still, what might seem like unnecessary incentives to some movie lovers appear to be working on young people and even encouraging them to sign up for more cost-friendly loyalty programs.
There’s also the fact that young people today spend six hours a day, on average, looking at their handheld screens, as more activities take place on social media. Going to a movie theater doesn’t just give young people the opportunity to leave their bedrooms. It’s a chance to watch something that’s more engaging or more intellectually demanding than an endless TikTok stream, especially as these feeds become filled with AI simulations and brain rot content.
Of course, theater attendance for young people still includes a social media component, whether it’s taking pictures of the screen or even recording full scenes to share online. Moviegoers post reviews on #FilmTok and Letterboxd as soon as they leave their screenings. In general, the sort of online fan culture that follows specific movie franchises is creeping more and more into the act of moviegoing itself. It helps that arthouse distributors, like Neon, A24, and Mubi, are finding increasing success with general audiences, courting Gen Z with Instagrammable merchandise and a savvy social-media presence. All in all, the social side of moviegoing seems to be persuading more people to become cinephiles.
In a world where streaming platforms own the most iconic movie studios — Netflix is acquiring Warner Bros., Amazon owns MGM, Disney owns 20th Century Studios — it’s worth wondering what kinds of theater experiences will even be available in the future. They might be better than ever. Tavlin, for one, believes that “good movies ultimately get people back to the theater” and that young people are becoming more cognizant when they’re being sold less-than-high-quality, assembly-line products from streamers.
“Young people like going to the movies,” Tavlin says. “As we’re subjected to more streaming slop, people realize that, ‘Oh, it’s actually nice to go out and be part of the world.’”
This year alone, Ryan Coogler’s vampire flick Sinners became the highest-grossing original film in 15 years, while Japanese anime film Demon Slayer became the high-grossing international film in the United States. The horror film Weapons was a box-office hit, while the ping-pong movie Marty Supreme earned A24 its highest per-theater average (the film’s box-office gross divided the numbers of theaters it plays in) when it was released over Christmas.
The Netflix-Warner Bros. deal is expected to close this summer, and it will represent a major coup for the streaming industry. As a group of concerned filmmakers wrote to Congress in a letter, the deal would “effectively hold a noose around the theatrical marketplace,” shrinking the theatrical window for movies for as little as two weeks or eliminating it completely for certain projects. Still, the noticeable fervor around moviegoing signals a future that might not be so bleak.
Can young people do for movie theaters what they did for vinyl after records were pronounced dead, sparking a cultural resurgence and record-high sales? They’re clearly excited to sit in a dark room, listen to a Nicole Kidman monologue, and enjoy compelling stories with a group of strangers. Maybe the film industry will have no choice but to pay attention.
2026-01-16 20:00:00
2026年1月15日，美国联邦执法人员试图驱散在明尼苏达州圣保罗市比彻·亨利·惠普尔联邦大楼外抗议移民与海关执法局（ICE）行动的示威者。| Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images
这则新闻出现在《今日解释》（Today, Explained）每日新闻通讯中，帮助读者理解当天最具吸引力的新闻和故事。订阅此处。当我听到“叛乱”这个词时，我仍然想到2021年1月6日的事件。历史和词源上出现了一个奇怪的转折——这个词如今在明尼阿波利斯找到了新的用武之地。周四，总统唐纳德·特朗普威胁要援引《叛乱法》（Insurrection Act），这是一部很少被使用的法律，一些法律学者称之为“最危险的”法律，以镇压该市的抗议活动。这些抗议者自上周一名移民与海关执法局官员枪杀瑞妮·戈德（Renee Good）以来，就一直封锁交通并骚扰联邦执法人员。特朗普过去也曾做出类似威胁，但无法确定他是否会真正采取行动。然而，即使只是暗示出动现役部队，也足以引发对这一问题的深入探讨。
在今天的版面中，我们将回答以下问题：《叛乱法》到底是什么？如果特朗普援引该法，明尼阿波利斯会发生什么？此外，还有关于MAGA媒体机器和微塑料的内容。
《叛乱法》是一部已有数百年历史的联邦法律，赋予总统在美国内部部署美军并使用军事力量镇压美国人的权力。在正常情况下，总统几乎可以随意部署军队，但这些士兵不能在美国境内执行民事执法任务，例如逮捕或搜查。《叛乱法》则提供了一个临时例外。
该法允许总统在四种情况下部署军队：当州政府请求联邦援助时；当无法通过其他手段执行联邦法律或法院命令时；当暴力行为剥夺了人们的宪法权利或干扰了联邦权力时；以及当暴力行为威胁到联邦财产或权力时。虽然这些情况听起来范围很广，但法律有重要限制。根据美国海军战争学院的军事专家林赛·科恩（Lindsay Cohn）在2020年的一次采访中所说，总统只能部署军队以保护联邦财产或执行联邦法律。联邦政府历史上也一直认为，《叛乱法》只能在“那些实施暴力的人要么得到州政府的批准，要么像19世纪70年代的三K党一样，实际上控制了相关地区”时才能使用，正如司法部在1964年的一份关键备忘录中所指出的。但该法从未对“叛乱”做出明确定义，法律学者和组织认为这使得该法容易被滥用。2022年，一位法律专家警告国会，该法赋予总统“在大多数情况下”决定何时以及如何使用它的独断权力。去年11月，特朗普在《60分钟》节目中声称，《叛乱法》允许他将陆军或海军陆战队派往美国城市，而无需司法审查或监督。“你知道我可以用它，而且法官甚至无法对此提出质疑，”他问道，“但我还没有选择这么做，因为我感觉我们不需要。”
特朗普在周四的Truth Social上称，“许多总统”都曾援引过《叛乱法》。这是真的；该法及其前身被援引过30次，主要集中在19世纪和20世纪初。乔治·华盛顿曾使用该法的前身镇压1794年因酒税引发的叛乱。后来的总统则派遣军队平息暴动、镇压边疆冲突，并迫使罢工的员工复工。在过去一个世纪中，总统仅在两种情况下使用过该法：一是为了保护黑人在美国反对种族隔离的州的民权；二是为了响应州政府的援助请求。该法最后一次被使用是在1992年洛杉矶暴动期间，当时四名警察因殴打罗德尼·金（Rodney King）而被起诉，但最终被宣判无罪。暴动导致63人死亡，加州州长请求联邦援助。相比之下，特朗普威胁要动用军队镇压抗议活动，即使州长反对。去年，他还使用另一部联邦法律，派遣各州国民警卫队前往波特兰、芝加哥和洛杉矶。
《叛乱法》允许特朗普动用现役士兵，而不仅仅是国民警卫队成员。根据布雷纳中心（Brennan Center for Justice）的说法，法院在审查《叛乱法》下的任何部署时，可能会给予总统更大的自由裁量权。然而，美国最高法院在12月裁定，特朗普动用国民警卫队镇压芝加哥外的一次小型反ICE抗议活动是非法的。在解释这一裁决时，布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官指出，特朗普仍可以使用《叛乱法》来部署常规部队。“法院的裁决可能意味着总统会比国民警卫队更频繁地动用美国军队来保护联邦人员和财产，”他写道。
理论上是的。援引《叛乱法》可以让士兵像民事执法人员一样行动。但该法并不取代宪法或其他联邦法律对军队使用武力的规定。例如，根据《叛乱法》被召集的士兵仍然不能在没有搜查令或你同意的情况下对你进行搜查。他们还必须在所有其他方法都失败后才使用武力。值得一提的是，根据《明尼阿波利斯星-三角报》的报道，目前在双城地区（明尼苏达州）的联邦执法人员数量已经超过了当地警察的数量。
《叛乱法》从未被用于移民执法，法律观察者认为，要这样使用该法，需要对法律进行相当武断的曲解。但特朗普多次威胁要援引该法，不仅是为了镇压像明尼阿波利斯这样的抗议活动，还为了“完全控制”美墨边境并实施大规模遣返。无论特朗普的最终目标是什么，任何援引《叛乱法》的行为都可能引发一系列诉讼。明尼苏达州已经起诉联邦政府，要求结束该州的ICE人员激增，认为这构成了“联邦入侵”，使明尼苏达州“变得不安全”。
This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.
When I hear the word “insurrection,” I still think about January 6. It’s a strange twist of history — and also, probably, etymology — that this particular term is now finding new purchase in Minneapolis.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a seldom-used law some legal scholars have dubbed the country’s “most dangerous,” to crack down on protesters in the city. Those protesters have blocked traffic and hounded federal agents since an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer killed Renee Good last week.
Trump has made similar threats in the past, and it’s anyone’s guess if he’ll follow through. But even the suggestion of active-duty troops on the ground in a major US city is scary enough to justify a close look at the issue.
In today’s edition, we answer the question: What is the Insurrection Act, exactly, and what will happen in Minneapolis if Trump invokes it? Plus: the MAGA media machine and microplastics.
The Insurrection Act is a centuries-old federal law that gives the president authority to deploy US troops inside the United States and use military force against Americans. Under normal circumstances, presidents can deploy troops almost anywhere they see fit, but those soldiers can’t perform civilian law-enforcement tasks, like making arrests or conducting searches, inside the US. The Insurrection Act creates a temporary exception.
The act allows the president to deploy troops in four situations: when a state government requests federal help, when a federal law or court order can’t be enforced through other means, and when violence deprives people of their constitutional rights or interferes with federal authority. That sounds pretty wide-ranging, and it is, but there are important limitations.
Under the act, presidents can only deploy troops to protect federal property or enforce federal law, Lindsay Cohn, a US military expert at the Naval War College, told Vox in a 2020 interview. The federal government has also historically held that the Insurrection Act can only be used when “those engaging in violence are either acting with the approval of state authorities or have, like the Klan in the 1870s, taken over effective control of the area involved,” as the Justice Department put it in a key 1964 memo.
But the law never actually defines “insurrection,” and legal scholars and organizations say that’s made it ripe for abuse. In 2022, one legal expert warned Congress that the Insurrection Act gives presidents “sole discretion, in most instances” to determine when and how it’s used.
In an appearance on 60 Minutes last November, Trump claimed that the Insurrection Act allowed him to send the Army or Marines into US cities without judicial oversight or review. “Do you know that I could use that immediately, and no judge can even challenge you on that?” he asked. “But I haven’t chosen to do it because I haven’t felt we need it.”
In a Thursday post on Truth Social, Trump argued that “many presidents” have invoked the Insurrection Act before. This is true; the act and related precursors have been invoked 30 times, mostly in the 1800s and early 1900s. George Washington used a precursor to the act to quash a (literal) rebellion over liquor taxes in 1794. Later presidents deployed troops to quell riots, crush frontier skirmishes, and force striking employees back to work.
In the past century, presidents have used the Insurrection Act in only two situations: to defend the civil rights of Black Americans in states that actively opposed desegregation and to respond to requests for aid from state governments. The last time it was invoked was in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots that followed the acquittal of four police officers charged with beating Rodney King. The violent unrest killed 63 people, and California’s governor requested federal assistance.
Trump, by contrast, has threatened to use soldiers to squash protests even over governors’ objections. And last year, he used a different federal law to deploy state National Guard troops to Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
The Insurrection Act lets Trump call up active-duty soldiers, not just National Guard members. And courts reviewing any deployments under the Insurrection Act would likely grant the president more latitude than they might otherwise, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The Supreme Court ruled in December that it was illegal for Trump to use the National Guard to quash a small anti-ICE protest outside Chicago. In his opinion explaining the decision, however, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that Trump could still use the Insurrection Act to deploy regular troops. “One apparent ramification of the Court’s opinion is that it could cause the President to use the U. S. military more than the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property in the United States,” he wrote.
In theory, yes. Invoking the Insurrection Act allows soldiers to function like civilian law enforcement. But the Act doesn’t override the Constitution or other federal statutes governing military use of force. Soldiers called up under the Insurrection Act still can’t search you without a warrant or your consent, for instance. And they’re required to use force as a last resort after all other methods have failed.
It’s maybe worth noting that, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, there are already more federal agents in the Twin Cities region than there are local police officers.
The Insurrection Act has never been used in immigration enforcement, and legal observers say that using the statute to deploy troops in that way would require a pretty willful misreading of the law. But Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act not only to quell protests like those in Minneapolis but to secure “full operational control” of the US-Mexico border and carry out mass deportations.
Whatever Trump’s ultimate goals, any invocation of the Insurrection Act would likely trigger a slew of lawsuits. Minnesota is already suing the federal government to end a surge of ICE agents in the state, arguing that it constitutes “a federal invasion” that has made Minnesota “less safe.”
2026-01-16 19:00:00
目前美国的避孕措施充满了矛盾。避孕药的获取从未如此便捷，许多州已通过立法，允许药剂师直接为个人开具和分发激素类避孕药，而不再需要医生处方。远程医疗服务也帮助人们更容易在农村地区找到不同的避孕方法。2024年初，第一款非处方避孕药Opill已上架药店。然而，避孕也正面临文化上的抵制。社交媒体上充斥着人们因担心激素影响身体或性格而丢弃避孕药的证言，同时一些网红传播关于激素避孕药的错误信息，如声称其会导致长期激素紊乱或引发癌症。这是一个特殊时期讨论避孕问题。
这种抵制部分源于对女性健康中被忽视问题的讨论增多。例如，过去十年，医生才开始认真对待宫内节育器（IUD）插入时的疼痛问题，对更年期和围绝经期症状的重视也逐渐提高，子宫内膜异位症等疾病也获得了应有的研究关注。正如伊利诺伊大学的人类生殖生态学家兼人类学家凯特·克拉尼（Kate Clancy）所说，历史上“女性和性别少数群体一直是一个被医疗系统忽视和误待的群体”。许多人或她们的亲友曾有过糟糕的医疗经历，导致她们对医学失去信任，因此当她们考虑激素避孕药及其可能的副作用时，会开始质疑：“这真的适合我吗？”
过去二十年，种族和阶级偏见也影响了医生对避孕方法的建议。2000年代末，首款激素IUD（Mirena）和激素植入物（Implanon，后改名为Nexplanon）在美国获批。当时，“计划生育界非常推崇这些方法的高有效性”，加州大学旧金山分校的Christine Dehlendorf表示。医生们有时不恰当地将这些长效可逆避孕（LARC）方法强加给患者，或强烈反对患者想要停用这些方法，而没有倾听或理解他们的理由。这种“LARC优先”策略旨在保护低收入群体和少数族裔免受意外怀孕的影响，但这也反映出医疗界在生殖自主权方面一直未能给予应有的重视。当人们感到医疗提供者以家长式态度行事，不重视自己的需求时，他们就会对医疗系统产生不信任，并寻找其他健康信息来源。这使得他们更容易受到错误信息的影响。
关于激素避孕药的副作用，事实是许多使用激素避孕药的人会经历副作用。数据显示，大多数选择停用避孕药或取出IUD的人（不包括为了怀孕而停用的人）是因为这些副作用。一些副作用，如情绪变化，可能随时间自行消失，或在更换避孕方式后缓解。但另一些如月经变化或阴道分泌物变化，医生只能提供安慰，说明这些是正常现象。克拉尼指出，尽管有大量数据和证据表明激素避孕药是安全有效的，但医生无法预测某个人是否会经历某些副作用，这是医学中的普遍现象，使得关于避孕和副作用的讨论变得复杂。
此外，人们在使用相同激素避孕药时可能会有不同的体验，且不同人生阶段（如怀孕前后）的体验也可能不同。每个人的需求和容忍度也各不相同，对某些人来说，轻微的副作用是可以接受的，而对另一些人则可能是无法忍受的。因此，当人们遇到未预料到的副作用时，可能会感到震惊。
克拉尼提到，一些人至今仍认为不应向患者透露药物的潜在负面风险，以免影响其使用意愿。但她的研究和其他研究显示，相反的情况是，当人们感到被信任时，他们更可能认真听取医生的建议。所有接受采访的人士都强调，医生和其他医疗专业人员应在解释可能的副作用以及缓解策略方面做得更好。
避孕确实是为了防止怀孕，但还有更宏大的图景。20世纪50年代，第一款避孕药研发时，女性迫切希望了解如何获取它。早期的女权主义者如玛格丽特·桑格（Margaret Sanger）和凯瑟琳·麦考密克（Katharine McCormick）认为，控制生育是女性解放的重要组成部分。研究也支持这一观点，显示可靠的避孕方法可以提高女性收入，增加教育机会，并降低陷入贫困的风险。而激素避孕药是目前最可靠的避孕方式之一。美国妇产科医师学会指出，避孕药在常规使用下约有93%的有效率，而IUD和避孕植入物的有效率高达99%，相比之下，避孕套和生育意识方法（如计算月经周期、测量体温等）的有效率分别为约87%和77%。
然而，过度推崇LARC方法也带来了教训，说明避孕的最终目标不应仅仅是防止怀孕，而是帮助人们实现他们想要的性与生殖生活。Allison指出，虽然某些避孕方法效果较低，但这并不意味着它们对所有人都不适用。如果一个人因为过去的经历而不愿使用激素避孕药，同时对怀孕的风险持中立态度，那么生育意识方法可能就足够。但如果人们因错误信息而拒绝激素避孕药，或误以为其效果和便利性与避孕药相同，那么就需要进行讨论和纠正。
一些人担心，对避孕的偏见态度会模糊人们对避孕药的理解，造成“使用激素避孕药的人是好的，不使用的人是坏的”这种对立。但克拉尼认为，了解不同避孕药对身体的影响，并批判性地评估是否适合自己，不应是政治立场的问题。没有一种避孕方法应被妖魔化或被赋予绝对优先地位。对避孕药保持清醒的认识，需要我们理解人们在评估这些权衡时的多样性和个体性。在一个避孕药、避孕信息和堕胎服务都容易获得的社会中，人们仍会选择各种不同的避孕方式，每种方式都有其独特的优缺点，但我们都应拥有完全的自由选择权。
Birth control in the US right now is full of contradictions.
Access to contraceptives has never been easier. Many states have passed legislation to allow pharmacists to prescribe and dispense hormonal contraceptives directly to individuals, instead of requiring a doctor’s prescription first. Telehealth services have helped make it easier to find different contraceptive methods in more rural parts of the country. The first over-the-counter birth control pill, Opill, hit pharmacy shelves in early 2024.
Yet birth control is also facing cultural backlash. Social media platforms are awash with testimonials from people tossing aside their contraceptives in fear and sometimes anger, saying hormones are affecting their bodies or changing their personalities. Meanwhile, influencers are spreading misinformation about hormonal birth control, like that birth control causes long-term hormone disruption or causes cancer.
It’s a weird time to talk about birth control. But understanding the current cultural moment requires more than just agreeing that birth control is good and that those who decry it are wrong.
Rather, it’s worth interrogating where people’s dissatisfactions come from, and tracing how legitimate experiences with and worries about hormonal contraceptives can lead people toward alternate (and often scientifically dubious) sources of education about their bodies.
This backlash against birth control is partially related to growing conversations around neglected issues in women’s health. In the past 10 years, for example, doctors have finally started to take IUD insertion pain seriously. There’s now wider recognition of how distressing symptoms of perimenopause and menopause can be, and conditions like endometriosis are finally getting the research it deserves.
Historically, “women and gender minorities are a medically underserved and medically mistreated population,” says Kate Clancy, a human reproductive ecologist and anthropologist at the University of Illinois, and the author of Period: The Real Story of Menstruation.
Many people with uteruses either have had or know someone who has had horrible experiences with health care that has diminished their trust in medicine, she says — so it makes sense that when people consider hormonal contraception and the possibility of side effects they start to question, “Is this really good for me?”
Racist and classist prejudices also shaped how doctors counseled people on birth control methods over the past 20 years. In the late 2000s, after the first hormonal IUD, Mirena, and the first hormonal implant, Implanon (which later became Nexplanon) were approved for use in the US. At that time, “the family planning community became very enamored with the high levels of effectiveness of those methods,” says Christine Dehlendorf, director of the Person-Centered Reproductive Health Program at the University of California San Francisco.
Doctors began, sometimes inappropriately, pushing these long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods on patients, or strongly objecting when people wanted to quit these methods, without listening to or trying to understand their reasoning. There was a sense that this “LARC first” strategy could protect people — especially low-income communities and communities of color — from their own undesired fertility, Dehlendorf says.
It was a demonstration of how, in the medical community, “we haven’t always prioritized reproductive autonomy in the way that we should,” Dehlendorf says. And when people sense their medical providers are acting paternalistically and not prioritizing their own wants and needs, they start to distrust the medical system and begin looking elsewhere for health information. “That then leads somebody to be susceptible and vulnerable to mis- and disinformation.”
And misinformation is in no short supply. There’s a swell of mostly right-leaning influencers now who have gained followings by demonizing hormonal contraceptives and promoting “natural birth control” methods like counting the days since your last period, tracking internal bodily temperature, and assessing the quality of vaginal discharge to gauge when you may or may not be fertile.
Some, like conservative podcast host Alex Clark, spread further fear and mistrust of hormonal birth control by claiming that it hurts women’s fertility and turns some women bisexual, neither of which are supported by data. These attitudes are rife throughout the Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) movement — Surgeon General nominee Casey Means has called birth control pills a “disrespect of life.”
Part of why learning about natural birth control methods is so attractive is because it promises more intimate knowledge of the body that eliminates the need for “unnatural” interventions like hormonal contraception. And while people, no matter their political leanings, want to understand their bodies and how to gauge their own health, the desire to rely only on “natural” interventions for health is a huge feature of MAHA rhetoric.
For those who have tried hormonal birth control but felt blindsided by side effects that weren’t adequately explained by their doctors, natural birth control might feel like a simpler path forward.
The plain truth is that many people on hormonal birth control will experience side effects. And data show that the majority of people who choose to go off the pill or take out their IUDs (not counting those who do so to get pregnant) make that choice because of those unwanted side effects. Some side effects, like mood changes, can go away by themselves over time or disappear when you change the kind of birth control you take. But for others, like changes in your bleeding or vaginal discharge, all that doctors can offer is reassurance that what you’re experiencing is normal.
Hormonal contraceptives are a remarkable, life-changing tool — that often come with trade-offs that others find unacceptable.
Despite the robust body of data and evidence showing that hormonal contraceptives are safe and effective, doctors have no way of predicting whether any one person will experience any number of side effects, says Dehlendorf — a reality that exists in all of medicine and that makes the conversation around birth control and side effects tricky. Moreover, people can have very different experiences on the same hormonal birth control with different dosing, and experiences with one method can differ in different life stages, like before or after a pregnancy.
On top of all that, people’s wants and needs are unique — not every person views every side effect as equally tolerable or intolerable. What one person might find to be a minor and livable side effect, another person might find a deal-breaker. Some patients come into the clinic wanting their birth control to halt their periods (having no period while on birth control is safe and not bad for you), says Bianca Allison, a teen-focused primary care pediatrician in North Carolina and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. Others really want to make sure they keep having regular periods, as reassurance that they’re not pregnant.
Regardless of where your bar is, experiencing an unpleasant side effect you weren’t expecting can be shocking. When Clancy started on a hormonal IUD in her 40s, which she needed as an offset for the estradiol patch she began taking for perimenopause, she spotted. In fact, “for seven months straight, I bled every single day” she says. That’s not uncommon, and Clancy was lucky to have a doctor who had warned her. But a lot of people are completely taken aback by their side effects and dismissed when they express fear or concerns about these side effects, she says.
There are people who will argue to this day that you shouldn’t share the potential negative risks of medication because then patients won’t take it, Clancy says. “My research and the research of others indicate the absolute opposite — when you inform people, and they feel like they can actually trust you, they’re actually much more likely to listen to your recommendations,” Clancy says.
Every person interviewed for this piece brought this up as a key area where doctors and other medical professionals can do a better job supporting patients, emphasizing that people want their doctors to proactively explain possible side effects, and what strategies are available to alleviate them.
When the first birth control pill was in development in the 1950s, women clamored to their doctors wanting to know how to get their hands on it. Early feminists like Margaret Sanger and Katharine McCormick argued that having control of one’s fertility was a necessary component of the emancipation of women. And research suggests that’s true. Access to reliable birth control has been shown to increase women’s earnings, allow them greater educational attainment, and decrease their risk of falling into poverty.
And there’s really no contraceptive more reliable than hormonal options. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that birth control pills are about 93 percent effective with typical use. IUDs and contraceptive implants are the most reliable reversible contraceptives with 99 percent effectiveness, while condoms and fertility awareness methods (like counting the days since your last period or measuring body temperature to approximate when you might be fertile) are just about 87 and 77 percent effective, respectively.
That said, the pitfalls of the “LARC first” approach teach us that the ultimate goal of birth control should not be only to prevent pregnancy, but to help people live the sexual and reproductive lives they want to lead, says Allison.
Just because one birth control method has lower effectiveness doesn’t mean it is an inferior choice for all people. If a person really doesn’t want to be on hormones because of past experiences, and feels ambivalent about the risks of pregnancy, then fertility awareness methods alone might be okay for them, she says. But if they’re choosing to not be on hormones because of misinformation about long-term health effects, or if they think it’ll be as effective and easy as the pill at preventing pregnancy, then that’s something to talk about and maybe correct.
Some worry that politicized attitudes toward birth control will flatten people’s understanding of contraceptives, and create a divide where people who trust and use hormonal contraceptives are “good” and those who don’t are “bad” or vice versa, says Clancy. But the desire to learn about how different contraceptives affect the body — and to critically assess whether they’re right for you — should not be partisan. And no one method to control fertility should be demonized or given absolute primacy.
Hormonal contraceptives are a remarkable, life-changing tool — that often come with trade-offs that others find unacceptable. Being clear-eyed about birth control requires us to understand that the way people assess these tradeoffs and make their decisions can be layered and individual.
If we had a society with easily available contraception, easily available education for all the pros and cons for all the different methods, and easily available abortion, we’d still have a diverse array of people picking all the different options, says Clancy. There are nuances and valid critiques to each of them, “but I 100 percent think that we should have complete unfettered access to them if we need them.”
2026-01-16 06:50:00
2026年1月13日，美国明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯市，联邦执法官员从一辆汽车中将一名女子带走并拘留。| Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images
这则新闻出现在《The Logoff》每日通讯中，旨在帮助您了解特朗普政府的动态，而不会让政治新闻占据您的生活。欢迎阅读《The Logoff》：明尼苏达州的紧张局势正在加剧，随着特朗普政府继续加强执法行动。
目前，有大约3000名美国国土安全部（DHS）特工，包括移民与海关执法局（ICE）和海关边境保护局（CBP）的人员，正在明尼苏达州，尤其是明尼阿波利斯地区开展行动。自八天前一名名叫Renee Good的女性被ICE特工杀害后，大量视频和报道记录了联邦移民特工对移民和美国公民的暴力行为，这些行为往往毫无理由且未经挑衅。周三晚上，一名联邦特工在一次疑似交通拦截中开枪击伤一名委内瑞拉男子，引发了新的抗议浪潮。周四早上，特朗普总统威胁称，如果明尼苏达州的腐败政客不遵守法律并阻止针对ICE“爱国者”的专业煽动者和叛乱分子的攻击，他将动用《叛乱法》并派遣军队进驻明尼苏达州。
这为何重要？这是过去六年中，明尼苏达州第二次成为局势紧张的焦点。州政府官员，包括州长蒂姆·沃尔兹和明尼阿波利斯市长雅各布·弗莱，呼吁保持冷静并要求抗议者保持和平，但局势似乎越来越像特朗普政府有意挑起的冲突。周三，特朗普高级顾问史蒂芬·米勒表示，逮捕明尼阿波利斯的“叛乱分子”是“国家安全优先事项”。
背景如何？ICE（移民与海关执法局）目前是明尼阿波利斯地区特工的主要组成部分，其规模在过去一年中大幅扩大，同时其执法标准却急剧下降。与此同时，在面临更多移民逮捕的压力下，ICE采取了越来越军事化的执法方式，这与之前政府的执法方式大相径庭。目前明尼阿波利斯的局势正是这些因素的集中体现。
大局如何？目前明尼阿波利斯居民所经历的情况，看起来更像是被占领而非移民执法。如果特朗普真的兑现其动用《叛乱法》的威胁，局势可能会进一步恶化。
好了，是时候结束今天的阅读了。我非常喜欢Defector的一篇报道，您也可能会喜欢：《一周自由对实验鼠意味着什么》（此外还有他们优秀的“Creaturefector”栏目中的其他内容）。一如既往，感谢您的阅读，祝您有一个美好的夜晚，明天我们再见！
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.
Welcome to The Logoff: Tensions are rising in Minneapolis as the Trump administration continues its crackdown.
What’s happening? There are some 3,000 Department of Homeland Security agents — both ICE and Customs and Border Protection, or CBP — in Minnesota this week, largely in the Minneapolis area. Since the killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent eight days ago, a huge amount of video and reporting has documented further brutality by federal immigration agents, often indiscriminate and unprovoked, against immigrants and American citizens alike.
On Wednesday night, a federal agent shot and injured a Venezuelan man after an alleged traffic stop, giving fresh fuel to protests. And on Thursday morning, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy troops to Minnesota, “if the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E.”
Why does this matter? For the second time in six years, Minnesota feels like a tinderbox. Officials in the state, including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, are urging calm and asking protesters to remain peaceful, but it increasingly feels like this is a fight the Trump administration wants to pick. On Wednesday, senior Trump aide Stephen Miller described arresting “insurrectionists” in Minneapolis as a “national security priority.”
What’s the context? ICE, which makes up the majority of the agents currently in Minneapolis, has grown substantially in the last year, at the same time as its standards have dropped precipitously. At the same time, under pressure to make more immigration arrests, they’re taking an increasingly militarized approach at odds with how ICE operated under previous administrations. All of those factors are on display right now in Minneapolis.
What’s the big picture? What’s happening to Minneapolis residents already looks less like immigration enforcement and more like an occupation. If Trump follows through with his Insurrection Act threat, things could grow far worse.
I really enjoyed this piece from Defector, and you might too: What A Week Of Freedom Can Do For A Lab Mouse. (Plus everything else under their excellent “Creaturefector” tab.)
As always, thanks for reading, have a great evening, and we’ll see you back here tomorrow!