Elon Musk’s Leaked DMs Situation is Pathetic, Biden's TikTok Ban Fumble, & Transnational Adoption
PDS Published 01/16/2025
-
Elon Musk is not taking the accusations that he’s not a God Gamer well and is lashing out.
Right, we talked about this yesterday so here’s the short version:
For months Musk has claimed to be a top ranked player in games like Diablo 4 and Path of Exile 2.
But top POE content creators and players accused Musk of being “boosted,” releasing evidence that someone else leveled and geared the characters on his account.
If you want more info on that, check out yesterday’s episode AFTER this one. Don’t you dare click off and tank my watch time.
Since then we’ve seen people like Screamheart -- who has played high end Diablo 4 content with Musk -- coming to his defense and saying it’s not hard to believe that Musk is a nerd. []
That short video included a small clip of Asmongold saying:
“He… there’s no way he played that account. Like I’m sorry I think he bought the account or someone played it for him. 100 fucking percent.” 0:09 -:0:17
And Musk actually replied to this short segment of the video, saying:
“Asmon behaves like a maverick “independent”, but in reality has to ask his boss for permission before he can do anything. He is not his own man.” []
He then went on to leak DMs he had with Asmongold.
In the DMs. it looks like they’re talking about making an account for something, to which Asmon says:
“I’m gonna see if my editors might want to make a second account for it even.”
Musk then asks who the editors are and Asmon replies saying that two people essentially run his YouTube channel and that:
“...basically any content I post is edited or uploaded by them and they just get a cut of the ad rev. It’s a super good system tbh almost everyone on YT does it.”
Musk also bashed Asmon directly, saying:
“I’m on hundreds of streams on YouTube/Twitch playing live with the world’s best players. No other way to say this, but, while Asmon IS good at caustic commentary and making fun of people, he is NOT good at video games.” []
Asmon actually jokingly replied to this and said:
But you may have noticed that there’s a Community Note on this post which points out that leaking DMs like this is explicitly against X’s Terms of Service. []
This is just the start of his retaliation against Asmongold, because people noticed that Asmon didn’t have a Blue Checkmark anymore and assumed Musk removed it.
Asmon’s own YouTube account said as much when replying to a comment.[]
(I say his “account” rather than him because as we just saw, two of his editors largely run the account so I’m not sure which one of the three actually wrote it).
One thing with all this is that it’s kinda unclear what Musk was even trying to “prove” by pointing out that Asmong runs things by his editors.
Someone gave this suggestion:
“I think his argument is that [Asmon] outsources the grind (editing)
The 2nd argument he makes is that Zack is at the mercy of his editors as he has to "ask" them, instead of just setting the new direction. (Implying that the editors have power over him)” []
However others claimed that Musk is “...way off base with this take.”
“Asmongold/Zack livestreams on twitch. Any content that gets uploaded to youtube is edited by mods. Your "proof" does not show that he has to ask anyone for permission for anything. It just seems like he bruised your ego and you're lashing out.” []
And that person is right about how the Twitch ecosystem generally works.
For whatever reason, a lot of content creators on Twitch just don’t want to make YouTube out of their livestream.
Which, to be fair, is a pain to sift through that much footage so I don’t blame them.
But at the same time, they recognize it can be a viable revenue stream so they often work with an editor who cuts up the livestream for the good stuff and uploads it.
The editors usually get a really good revenue sharing agreement -- I’ve heard of deals as high as 80% of a YouTube channel’s revenue -- and the streamer gets another cash flow for something they weren’t going to do anyways.
So for many this wasn’t the dunk Musk thought it was.
Especially because he never addresses the actual cheating accusations well.
Right, he only posted that joke yesterday that his account is played by a Chinese player named “Elon Ma.”
And then in this thread he also put a clip of him clearing high-end Diablo 4 content with other players. [broll]
But for many that doesn’t prove anything.
Right, the issue isn’t whether Musk has ever played this account -- he clearly has.
The issue is whether he has someone else on the side playing the account when he’s not to level and gear characters -- pretty much grinding the hard part.
With all that being said, it seems like he possibly went back a bit on his lashing out.
Right, Asmongold now has a Blue Check mark again.
Although it’s entirely possible he just paid for it again, no one has really said anything.
What I wish I could know is whether this entire saga has changed the minds of any of his fanboys.
Right, it’s such a weird thing to get into a beef over and SO defensive compared to every other accusation thrown his way.
Like to the point that he’s just ignoring the rules he implemented at X about DMs.
But let me know your thoughts down below.
-
In today’s episode of “Advertising Gone Wrong” we have Pakistan International Airlines!
Who is currently in some hot water with their government after they decided to announce that their airline is resuming flights to Paris!
Now, if you’re asking why that could land them in the aforementioned hot water - here is the ad that they put out into the world to make this announcement.
A passenger jet pointing at the Eiffel Tower with the caption “Paris, we’re coming today.”
Which, as many people pointed out, is an image that is uncomfortably close to imagery from the 9/11 attacks.
And this prompted intense reactions online - with many people calling for the ad to be pulled down and others saying that the airline needs a new marketing team entirely.
And one person even asked,
“Is this a threat???” []
Though there are those that are making the “any publicity is good publicity” argument - saying that the airline has gotten a lot of views with this post and everyone is aware that they have flights to Paris.
The Pakistani Finance Minister settled on calling the ad “stupid” and confirming that the Prime Minister has ordered an investigation into how exactly this got the green light. []
Now, we haven’t gotten a statement or any response from the airline itself regarding this situation.
But we do know that this is just the latest problem they’ve had to deal with as the government tries desperately to privatize the airline.
Back in November, that whole movement stalled because the only bidder offered less than 12% of the asking price of $300 million. []
Not to mention the controversy they found themselves in back in 2017 when ground crew members sacrificed a goat on the tarmac for good luck. []
And then there’s the questions about their safety standards - with the whole reason this announcement is coming is because the EU’s aviation safety agency lifted their ban on the airline. []
And they’re still banned from flying to the US or Britain.
So we’re just going to have to wait to see what comes from this.
Either a comment from the airline or some information regarding the Prime Minister’s investigation.
In the meantime, let me know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
-
Could Trump actually save TikTok?
That is a question on a lot of people’s minds as we are just a few days away from the app likely shutting down here in the U.S.
Right, that ban would take effect on Sunday, but by Monday, Trump will be the president.
And sources told the Washington Post that he is considering an executive order that would suspend enforcement of the ban for one to three months in an effort to negotiate a sale of the platform.[]
But it’s pretty unclear if an executive order like this would actually work.
Because even though the Supreme Court has not issued its ruling, it looks on track to uphold the ban.
And you also had the Washington Post explaining that:
“the strategy of using an executive order…has fueled doubts among some legal observers, who argue the president’s word can’t entirely overcome a law that Congress approved with overwhelming bipartisan support.”
But people close to Trump still seem adamant that they will try something, with Mike Waltz, Trump’s incoming national security adviser, telling Fox News yesterday that:
“TikTok itself is a fantastic platform…The algorithm is amazing. We’re going to find a way to preserve it but protect people’s data. And that’s the deal that will be in front of us.”
And it’s kind of a plot twist that Trump of all people is in position to potentially save the app.
Because even though in recent months he has been pro-TikTok, you might remember a few seasons ago, he was pushing for a ban during his first term.
But he is not the only one coming in at the final hour trying to look like Gen Z’s hero.
There are also reports that the Biden administration is trying to find a way to step in.
This even though Biden himself signed the ban just last year.
With an administration official telling NBC News that:[]
“Americans shouldn’t expect to see TikTok suddenly banned on Sunday” and officials are “exploring options.”
But uh, just a reminder to Biden & co…do you know you have 30 minutes?
Right, the guy has already issued his farewell address, so the clock is ticking pretty fast.
But as NBC noted, even if the Biden administration comes up with a last-minute plan, they still are essentially just punting the problem to Trump.
With some reports saying that Trump could opt to just not enforce the ban point blank.[]
But for the companies that could be penalized for not complying, that probably is not enough of a thumbs up for them to not follow the law anyways.
Right, as long as the ban is on the books, they probably will pull it from app stores.
Earlier this week, Senator Ed Markey did say he was introducing a bill that would extend the deadline to ban TikTok by another 270 days.
So that is something to look out for, too.
But as things stand, most people are bringing out their tiny violins to play a swan song for TikTok, and are trying to find alternative apps.
Earlier this week we talked about the great migration to a Chinese app known here as Rednote.
And that migration has only gotten bigger, reports saying that Rednote has gotten over 700,000 new users in just two days, and that over 100,000 people have joined a live group chat hosted by someone called TikTok Refugee Club.[]
But today you had CBS News doing a report noting that it is not free from ban concerns either.
With a US official telling the outlet that it could face an ultimatum to divest or get the boot, with that person adding:
"This appears to be the kind of app that the statute would apply to and could face the same restrictions as TikTok if it's not divested.”
With one cybersecurity expert also saying:
"RedNote was never meant for outside of the China market. All of the data sharing and all the servers to which the data is being shared is in China. It means they are exempt from all of these data protections and outside of the view of the American government."
"Its terms and conditions are in Mandarin, leaving non-Chinese-speaking users unclear about what data is collected and how it's used.”
Though, it is worth noting that the TikTok users have made it very clear that they do not give a flying fuck about their data going to China and would send their diaries to international spies if it meant they could go on the app of their choosing.
But again, nothing is set in stone, by the time you see my face again TikTok could be gone or it could be rebranded to MrBeastTok and everyone on it got a free car, who the hell knows.
But we will obviously be keeping our eyes on it.
Visit Sundays for Dogs to get 50% off your first order!
-
The Supreme Court is coming for your porn.
During oral arguments in a case yesterday, the high court justices signaled that they are likely to uphold a Texas law requiring age verification for porn sites.
A move that would roll back First Amendment protections for porn — and potentially even open the door to broad restrictions on online speech.
Right, specifically, the law in question requires people to verify their identity and prove that they are over 18 in order to access any website where more than a third of the content is deemed “sexual material harmful to minors.”
Additionally, the law also mandated that sites post a warning that porn is “potentially biologically addictive” and “proven to harm brain development” — a claim that is widely disputed by experts.
Now, notably here, Texas is just one of the nearly 20 states that have imposed these kinds of age-gating laws.
And, as we’ve talked about before on the show a handful of times, those laws have resulted in Pornhub suspending service in almost all of those states.
Essentially making one of the world’s most popular and well-known adult sites unavailable across a wide chunk of the South.
But in Texas, Pornhub and other adult industry groups sued, claiming that the law violated the First Amendment and the identity-verification requirements raised very serious security and privacy concerns.
Arguing that users’ identifying information could be hacked, sold, or otherwise misused, thus opening them up to identity theft or possible extortion.
With the adult-content groups also noting that the law has a major loophole that would prevent it from being effective: it doesn’t restrict access to porn on social media or other sites where less than a third of the content is sexual material.
And at the same time the law leaves this gaping hole — no pun intended — it also restricts access to other sites that are mostly devoted to content that isn’t sexual.
And initially, a federal court in Texas agreed with those arguments, striking down the law.
But the state appealed, and the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, allowing the law to go into effect.
Though it did strike block the warning label requirements.
And in their decision, the appeals court justices cited a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a law making it a crime to sell pornographic magazines to minors.
But, of course, the adult industry groups appealed to the Supreme Court.
And in oral arguments yesterday, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the appeals court had erred in its decision, noting that there was a much more recent, much more applicable Supreme Court ruling that could be applied.
Right, back in 2004, the high court struck down a similar federal law that aimed to protect children from online porn.
Ruling there that states can restrict minors’ access to sexual content, but any laws that might limit adults’ rights to free speech need to undergo the most rigorous legal standard — called strict scrutiny.
Now, without going too deep into legal jargon, all you need to know is that the strict scrutiny standard basically says that a government needs to have a VERY good reason for passing a law that may infringe on a constitutional right.
Like, for example, the protection of public health and safety.
And even then, the law ALSO must be designed to advance that public interest in the least restrictive way possible.
And if that sounds like an impossibly high bar it’s because it is — most laws don’t pass the strict scrutiny test.
So, in the 2004 Supreme Court ruling, the justices applied that standard and said the federal law violated the First Amendment, arguing that there was a less restrictive way to limit minors’ access to porn.
And writing that, instead of requiring every porn website to verify the age of every user, the government could have just promoted content blocking and filtering software.
But that was a MAJOR departure from the 1968 ruling, which used the most lax legal standard — rational basis review — which just says that a law needs to have a legitimate purpose.
AKA… almost all laws.
Or, as The Washington Post explained:
“In other words, Texas is claiming that the situation today more closely resembles that of 1968, when it was assumed that human shopkeepers could distinguish kids from grown-ups at a glance.”[]
So, in their arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday, lawyers for Pornhub argued that the 2004 decision and the strict scrutiny legal standard it relied on should be applied in this case as well.
Noting that, like in that case, there is a less restrictive alternative to age-gating all porn websites, specifically pointing to the same alternative the justices flagged back then — teaching parents to protect their children by using content-filtering software.[]
But that drew objections from several justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, who referenced her own 7 children, saying:
“Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers. Let me just say that content-filtering for all those different devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with.” (5:09-5:22)
As well as Samuel Alito, who asked:
“Do you know a lot of parents who are more tech savvy than their 15-year-old children?” (6:47-6:53)
“There’s a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn’t work.” (7:16-7:21)
Beyond that, we also saw a number of justices seemingly favoring a point made by lawyers representing Texas —
Who argued that so much has changed since 2004 that has made porn so much more accessible and prolific, thus requiring more government intervention.
With several justices making it clear that they believe that the rules that govern online porn must be flexible enough to allow some laws that try to block children.
And it wasn’t just conservative justices who made that point — we also saw it being echoed by Elena Kagan, who said:
“It’s just got to be the case that states can do some regulation in this area.”(1:12:18-1:12:23)
So, with all this, the question isn’t whether or not the Supreme Court will block this law, but rather how broad their ruling will be when they decide to uphold the law.
And the crux of this question will come down to what the justices decide on the matter of which legal standard to apply when regulating online porn.
Right, will they go with the strict scrutiny standard they used in the 2004 case, or will they go for a more lax standard, like the 5th Circuit did in its ruling here?
But experts say that if they use a more lax standard, it could have a sweeping impact that goes way beyond just porn and undermines free speech across the internet.
With free-speech advocates saying this is just part of a conservative attempt to crackdown on free speech and could pave the way for restrictions on content related to gender identity and reproductive health.
Or, as one expert wrote in Vox:
“Another question is, if the Court permits age-gating, what sort of content will the Court allow the government to place a gate around? Could the state of Florida forbid children from reading a transgender author’s memoir of their transition? Or could it similarly prevent gay teenagers from accessing online forums where queer people discuss their sexuality?”
So for now, we’ll just have to wait and see, but with this, I’d love to know your thoughts.
-
In massive international news, the Israel-Hamas agreement has already hit its first roadblock.
Right, the three-phase ceasefire and hostage release deal was only announced yesterday.
And to recap, the first phase would reportedly involve:
The release of 33 hostages and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners;
the daily entry of 600 trucks of humanitarian aid into the territory;
the partial withdrawal of Israeli troops,
and the return of Gazans to the northern part of the strip.
Also, during the first phase, the second phase would be negotiated, which would involve both sides declaring “permanent cessation of hostilities;”
Israeli forces withdrawing from Gaza;
And the remaining living hostages being traded for more Palestinian prisoners. []
And then, hypothetically, phase three?
It’d involve the return of remaining bodies and the start of Gaza's reconstruction.
But as we talked about, even after the announcement, there were reportedly a few details that still needed to be ironed out.
And with that, Israel's acceptance of the deal?
It won’t be official until it’s approved by the country's security cabinet and government.
And that cabinet vote? It was meant to take place today.
But then, you all of a sudden had Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu saying it wasn’t gonna happen.
Right, with him accusing Hamas of creating a “last minute crisis” and “reneging” on parts of the agreement reached with the mediators.
And with that, saying the cabinet meeting would not proceed until the mediators notify Israel that "all elements of the agreement" have been accepted. []
And specifically, according to Netanyahu’s spokesperson, Hamas was demanding the release of “certain terrorists” unacceptable to Israel.
With him also claiming there’s last-minute disagreements about how Israeli forces would be deployed along Gaza’s border with Egypt during phase one.[]
But on the flip side, you have one senior Hamas official reportedly asserting there’s no basis to Netanyahu’s claims.[]
With a member of Hamas' political wing saying in a statement that Hamas remains "committed to the ceasefire agreement… announced by the mediators."[]
And also notably, as Netanyahu accused Hamas of holding things up?
The Israeli military continued its attacks on Gaza.
Right, with these airstrikes reportedly killing at least 77 people just since the announcement of the deal last night –
With those dead reportedly including at least 20 children and 25 women.[]
And with all that, you have some skeptical of the claim that Hamas was the reason – or at least the only reason – for the delay.
Pointing out, for example, that Netanyahu is under pressure from his far-right allies.
Right, going back, when Netanyahu regained power for a second time back in 2022?
Ben-gveer, he’s now the Minister of National Security.
Smote-rich, he’s the Minister of Finance.
And both of them have long opposed any kind of deal with Hamas.
And in fact, them and other members of their parties have repeatedly threatened to abandon the coalition if a deal was finalized – a move that would likely lead to Netanyahu losing power.
As well as, some critics say, give him less of a chance of finding a way out of the corruption charges against him.
And with all that, just a couple days before the ceasefire and hostage release deal was announced, you actually had Ben-gveer proudly claiming he had foiled previous agreements with Hamas over the past year.
With him also calling on Smote-rich to join him in bringing down the agreement that then seemed to be taking hold.
And now, today, you have Smote-rich’s party saying in a statement that its condition for remaining in the government would be a return to fighting at the end of the first phase of the deal in order to destroy Hamas and bring all the hostages back.
And with that, we’ve also seen right-wing groups taking to the streets today to protest the deal.
But at the same time, of course, there’s also a lot of support for it – among the people and in the government.
And with that, if it comes to a vote, it is reportedly expected to gain cabinet approval, especially since the two far-right parties don’t have a majority in the cabinet.[]
And so you also have the White House downplaying the significance of this holdup.
John Kirby, for example, the National Security Council spokesperson, claiming the deal was “not breaking down.”
And saying the administration is confident that the deal will be implemented as planned on Sunday (BROLL: 3:24-3:30)
And with that, as of recording, he may have been right.
Right, we’ve seen reporting from an Axios correspondent claiming that the remaining disputes have been sorted out –
And that the Israeli cabinet will now convene to approve the deal tomorrow. []
But of course, people responding with comments like
“The US had said the deal was a done deal yesterday.”
Right, because honestly, until the ink is dry, anything can happen.
And even then, if it is approved tomorrow, with everything we talked about, there’s obviously concern about if and how long it will hold.
Of course, for the hostages and most of their families? And for the people of Gaza?
The implementation of this deal could not come soon enough.
And with that, it’s a good time to talk about what the cost of this war has been.
And of course, there’s decades of history leading up to everything that happened.
But October 7, 2024? It’s a key date.
Right, on that day, Hamas and affiliated groups killed approximately 1,200 people and took 251 others hostage to Gaza – most of them civilians.
With their actions that day allegedly amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity,
And as of now, it’s believed that 60 hostages are still alive in Gaza, with dozens more dead.
And then, of course, the Israeli response?
It’s also led to accusations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
With rights groups collecting evidence suggesting Israel has deliberately targeted civilians, destroyed vital infrastructure, and restricted the flow of lifesaving aid.
Right, and with that, a little more than 15 months since October 7th, officials say Israeli attacks have directly killed more than 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza.
Notably, with most being civilians, and more than 13,000 being children. []
Also, with the total representing roughly 2% of Gaza’s prewar population, or one in every 50.[]
And that’s even as the true death toll may be much greater.
A study, this month, for example, finding that the direct death toll may be 40 percent higher.
And that’s as the Israeli assault – possibly by design – has contributed to hunger, lack of shelter, and the near-collapse of the healthcare system.
All things that have and may continue contributing to many more deaths.
With, for example, the UN estimating that the Israeli military has destroyed or damaged nine in ten homes in the territory – []
With, on top of all that, another 110,000 having been wounded –
Over a quarter of whom now reportedly live with life-changing injuries including amputations, major burns and head injuries.[]
And so, obviously, no deal can undo all that.
But we’ll have to wait and see what happens with this one and what can be done.
And both of them have long opposed any kind of deal with Hamas.
Which is also a situation that some critics have give him less of a chance of finding a way out of the corruption charges against him.
2:33 -
“And with all that, today, you had Smote-rich’s party saying in a statement that its condition for remaining in Netanyahu’s coalition would be a return to fighting at the end of the first phase. With Ben-Gveer also announcing that his party would resign from the coalition if the ceasefire deal is approved, saying it would only rejoin the government if and when the war was continued. But notably, there, you then had the leader of the opposition firing back, saying he would block any attempt to take Netanyahu down to save the deal, saying in a statement: “This is more important than all the differences of opinion that there have ever been between us.” And with that, the ceasefire is still expected to be approved at some point, with an Axios correspondent claiming that the remaining disputes have been sorted out, and that the Israeli cabinet will now convene to approve the deal tomorrow. And so, on the US side, you’ve had John Kirby, for example, the National Security Council spokesperson, claiming the deal was “not breaking down.” And saying the administration is confident that the deal will be implemented as planned on Sunday.”
Until the ink is dry, anything can happen.
And even then, if it is approved tomorrow, with everything we talked about, there’s obviously concern about if and how long it will hold.
Of course, for the hostages and most of their families? And for the people of Gaza?
The implementation of this deal could not come soon enough.
(BROLL: 3:24-3:30)
And with that, as of recording, he may have been right.
Right, we’ve seen reporting from of the deal in order to destroy Hamas and bring all the hostages back.
And with that, we’ve also seen right-wing groups taking to the streets today to protest the deal.
But at the same time, of course, there’s also a lot of support for it – among the people and in the government.
And with that, if it comes to a vote, it is reportedly expected to gain cabinet approval, especially since the two far-right parties don’t have a majority in the cabinet.[]
-
You may have missed this little piece of news from September that slipped under most people’s radar but rocked an entire global industry.
Namely that China’s foreign ministry held a press conference where they announced that foreigners could no longer adopt any Chinese babies. [B roll, 00:22]
Right, because since 1992, when the country’s international adoption program began, some 160,000 children got adopted out to parents in other countries. [Image and Quote, find “160”]
With more than half of those going to the United States. [Same image and quote]
And one reason they had so many babies to give away, and specifically so many girls, was the infamous one-child policy. [Image]
Right, for three and a half decades, Chinese parents favored boys over girls for several different reasons.
Mainly just straight up sexism; but to be more specific, to make sure their one child could carry on the family name, inherit their property, and take care of them in old age.
So China became a bit demographically lopsided, not only in favor of men, but old people too, since birth rates declined.
Which is why, in 2015, the government loosened the policy to let married couples have two kids, and then three kids in 2021.
But birth rates still haven’t recovered, which is one reason many speculate the government ended transnational adoption.
Though officially there was no reason given.
Either way, that left hundreds of aspiring parents with pending applications in the lurch. [Headline]
With them arguing that not only was their opportunity to become parents ripped away, but so was the chance for many abandoned kids to live better lives in a good home.
Right, every single Chinese adoptee NPR interviewed about the news said they had supportive parents, and most said they had good childhoods. [Image and Quote, find “had supportive”]
Acknowledging they might have faced a tough, uncertain life if they hadn’t been adopted, and adding that they worry about orphans left in China. [Same quote and Image]
So with all that, it may shock you to learn that many of them actually support China’s decision to terminate the program.
With one woman who was found on a street corner in China, adopted and raised in Texas telling the outlet:
“Two truths can be held at the same time. I can be grateful, and I can have a great, great relationship with my parents. But I can also still be critical of the systems that caused my adoption.” [Quote same link and image, woman on right]
Right, and when you dig into it, it turns out that transnational adoption isn’t always the fairytale happy ending advocates pitch it as.
First of all, studies show that adoptees suffer higher rates of depression and mental anxiety than non-adoptees. [Quote, find “higher rates”]
And those rates go up even further for transnational and transracial adoptees. [Same quote]
Right, not only do many of them have no connection to their birth parents, like regular adoptees, but they also lack a connection to their birth country and culture.
Which can be really confusing for a kid who grows up with white parents in a practically all-white school in a predominantly white community, but gets treated as a foreigner.
Yet they describe not feeling like they belong in Asian communities either, because they’re only adoptees. [Quote, find “Don’t belong”]
With names like “Twinkie” and “banana” getting thrown around, implying they’re yellow on the outside, white on the inside. [Quote same link]
So adoptive parents are faced with a dilemma: either try your best to assimilate your kid into your culture and forget where they came from,
Which, as one adoptee explains, is like naively hoping your love can just cover up all of the racism they’ll experience, [Quote, find “cover the racism” and image, woman on left]
Or try your best to expose them to the culture they came from, whether through videos, books, classes, or support groups with other adoptees.
But however sincerely they try to be sensitive, white parents too often just don’t know how to provide the kind of support a non-white kid needs. [Quote, find “too sensitive” and “first step”] and “aggressions”]
Right, maybe they simply don’t understand how racism works, or they tell the kid to just shake it off, or they pretend it’s not a big issue. [Same quotes]
None of which is to say that transracial adoption is necessarily bad, or that plenty of adoptive parents don’t build loving, caring relationships with their children.
The point is just that the story’s much more complicated than white parents “saving” non-white children from a life of squalor.
But so far, we’ve only talked about what happens when the kids get there; we still haven’t looked at where they actually come from.
And when you start to dig into that question, you pull up a lot of really ugly history.
Right, so let’s go back to China’s one-child policy for a moment.
Because you’ll remember that I mentioned how Chinese parents would give up girls for adoption so they could have a boy instead.
Well, sometimes they actually kept their babies in secret, which, of course, was against the law.
So in the late 2000s, reports trickled out detailing how government officials in Hunan [Hoo-non] Province had taken advantage of the policy to seize babies and sell them into what was called “a lucrative black market in children.” [Quote and Image]
Right, family planning officials would prowl around villages, looking for a diaper on a clothesline, listening for the cry of a newborn.
With parents also watching out for those officials and scrambling to hide their babies when the bureaucrats came by in a dystopian game of cat and mouse.
But inevitably someone would get caught, the officials demanded a huge fine on the spot, the parents couldn’t pay, and they were left sobbing as their child got driven away in a government van, never to be seen again.
With story after story following a similar pattern, mothers saying things like:
“They grabbed the baby and dragged me out of the house. I was screaming -- I thought they were going to knock me over.” [Quote]
Or “Our children were exported abroad like they were factory products.” [Quote same link]
And they may as well have been products to the officials involved in this scheme, because they raked in thousands of dollars in adoption fees for each baby.
And remember, this is rural China; American dollars are worth a lot more than they are in the U.S.
Now back when this scandal first blew up, the Chinese government insisted that the abuse was rare and limited to a handful of local officials who had been fired.
But the truth is that we really have no idea how many children were kidnapped, and in many cases it’s impossible to verify the baby’s origins because the paperwork was faked.
That way, the American adoptive parents get a document saying their child was simply found on a doorstep or something innocent like that, not ripped from the arms of a screaming mother.
With one adoptive mother from Canada back in 2009 telling the LA Times:
“When we adopted in 2006, we were fed the same stories, that there were millions of unwanted girls in China, that they would be left on the street to die if we didn’t help. I love my daughter, but if I had any idea my money would cause her to be taken away from another mother who loved her, I never would have adopted.” [Quote]
But at the same time, you have some, like this one adoptive mother in Philadelphia, saying that even if she could find the birth parents, she could never return her daughter. [Quote same link, find “SpongeBob”]
Who, at the time she was interviewed, was a thoroughly Americanized 6-year-old obsessed with SpongeBob and hating the Chinese culture classes she was enrolled in. [Same quote]
And often times, the birth parents feel the same way, with one mother telling the Times:
“We’d never make her come back, because a girl raised in the West wouldn’t want to live in a poor village like this. … But we’d like to know where she is. We’d like to see a picture. And we’d like her to know that we miss her and that we didn’t throw her away.” [Quote same link]
But as shocking as all that is, I don’t want to paint China as the evil culprit here.
Right, this is a problem with the global adoption industry itself, and it spans many other countries.
For example, take South Korea, which has adopted out some 200,000 babies to the rest of the world, though mostly the United States.
For decades their adoption pipeline was alternatively described as “baby diplomacy,” “baby wholesaling,” and “baby factories.”
With a recent investigation by the Associated Press and Frontline PBS revealing how it all got started after the Korean War in the 1950s. [B roll, 10:46 - 10:54]
Right, because American soldiers stationed there impregnated thousands of Korean women, giving birth to mixed-race babies who weren’t accepted at the time. [Same B roll]
Also, Korea was impoverished and devastated by war, so the southern government saw transnational adoption as a way to bring in foreign currency while saving money it would’ve otherwise spent on child welfare programs. [B roll, 10:26 - 10:42]
Meanwhile, in the West, birth control and abortion created a shortage of adoptable babies. [Same B roll and Quote, find “in the West”]
So demand met supply; Western couples desperately wanted babies, and South Korea desperately wanted to rid itself of mouths to feed. [Same quote]
But once the country ran out of mixed-race babies, it needed more supply.
So it turned instead to fully-Korean children of poor families and unwed mothers. [Quote same link, find “poor families”]
With the government turbocharging the process by allowing foreigners to adopt children without ever even visiting Korea. [B roll, 12:54 - 13:04]
Right, they’d just pick up their new Korean baby at an American airport, where kids were shipped by the planeload.
With a Swiss organization writing in 1966 that it suspected the Korean government assessed agencies not by child welfare standards, but by the money they brought in. [Quote, find “1966”]
And adding in the same document, “There is quite a bit of rivalry and competition among the different agencies, and it is not beyond agencies to bribe or pressure mothers for the release of these children, and not beyond agencies to try to compete with each other for the same child.” [Quote same link]
Right, the methods they used weren’t much different from those in China.
With agencies claiming that lost children were actually abandoned, making no effort to verify the origins of alleged orphans, and disguising others as having been born from unwed mothers to make them adoptable. [Quote same link, find “disguised”]
Or sometimes people involved in the system just lied to parents’ faces.
Like with this one father who told the AP that in 1986, the Red Cross Hospital told him his newborn son had serious lung and heart problems. [Image and Quote same link, find “1986”]
Which would require a high-risk, very expensive surgery that could leave the baby dead or severely disabled, and which he could not afford. [Same quote]
So under the hospital’s advice, the father gave up his son to an adoption agency, which would pay for the surgery and find a home that could handle the disability if he survived. [Quote same link, find “advised”]
But hospital staff told this dad and his wife that their son had died.
With him saying, “It felt like the sky was falling. I felt like my heart was being ripped apart.” [Quote same link]
But thing is, the boy hadn’t died.
Instead, documents were drafted describing him as a “normal healthy baby” born to an unwed mother, and just like that, he was shipped to the United States. [Quote same link]
Then, in 2019, that boy, now 34 years old and named Robert, got a call from a Korean government agency telling him they had found his father. [Image]
So in 2020, he flew to Seoul [Soul], and his long lost father was so excited to meet him he ignored the quarantine and went straight to the apartment where he was staying.
With Robert throwing open the window and shouting “Dad!” [Quote same link, find “threw open”]
To which his biological father shouted back, “my son!” [Quote same link, find “shouted back”]So now, Robert visits his birth country often and talks to his dad on the phone every few days. [Image]
With him telling the AP, “You’re constantly in flux between two worlds, the one you could have and should have been in, and the one where you are.” [Quote same link]
Now like with China, we’ll never know exactly how many Korean children were stolen from their rightful parents like that.
But one Korean scholar tells the outlet that from 1980 to 1987, records show that more than 90% of the Korean children sent to the West almost certainly had known relatives. [Quote same link, find “90%”]
With him adding that the number of children sent for adoption was often more than 10 times higher than the police count for abandoned children, close to 9,000 in 1985. [Same quote]
So as all of these adoptees from China, South Korea and other countries became adults, they started looking for their parents and scrutinizing origin stories they had always taken for granted.
And we’ve seen the fruits of that in the past several years as governments tighten up their transnational adoption programs.
With South Korea creating a fact-finding commission, to which hundreds of adoptees have submitted their cases for review. [Headline]
Which could be huge, because depending on what the commission turns up, adoptees could use it to take legal actions against agencies or the government. [Quote same link, find “take legal”]
And recently we’ve seen European countries investigating, restricting or altogether shutting down their transnational adoption programs. [Quote, find “Sweden”]
From the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden to Norway, Switzerland and France. [Same quote]
And although the United States hasn’t taken any action recently, its regulations since 2008 have gotten much more strict.
So the number of inter-country adoptions to the U.S. has plummeted from 20,000 in 2004 to less than 2,000 today. [Quote, find “20,000”]
Which is where this story, if not the problems we’ve talked about, ends.
But if you’re an adoptee or an adoptive parent, or you work in the system, or you just have thoughts on this whole mess, let me know in the comments down below.
Links:
https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/10/17/g-s1-28521/china-adoption-international
https://apnews.com/article/south-korean-adoptions-investigation-united-states-europe-67d6bb03fddede7dcca199c2e3cd486e
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-04-16/asian-adoptees-and-their-experiences
Go to Saily and use the code Phil to get an exclusive 15% discount on Saily data plans! ⛵
