Embedded Files
Photo credit: The New York Times
The Ugly Reality of Fast Fashion
Josie Powers
Josie Powers
March 12, 2025
March 12, 2025
Even if you haven’t heard of the term fast fashion, chances are you have unknowingly contributed to it. Trends are constantly changing and people are continuously being convinced to buy more than they need, but at what cost? Fast fashion is a rapidly growing industry that affects millions of people worldwide. Social media has made consumerism a trend in our society. People always seem to want more than what they have; making material items a big want in today’s world. Seeing the option to have the things you want for a lower price is often very appealing to people, but what people often don’t consider is the damage that is being done on the other end.
Fast fashion is a term that was first coined in the early 90s to describe the new type of fashion being created by many clothing lines. Fast fashion is cheap or inexpensive clothing that is quickly manufactured in order to meet the demands of rapidly changing trends. Some brands that are considered to be fast fashion include Zara, H&M, Forever 21, TopShop, Shein, Urban Outfitters, Gap, Old Navy, American Eagle, Hollister, Temu, TikTok Shop and so many more. Fast fashion is built to not last, for the purpose of making the consumer buy more. There are many issues with fast fashion and in this day and age with the popularity of social media and influencers promoting these brands with the click of a button, fast fashion is becoming more and more of a problem in our society. Celebrities significantly contribute to this issue, because when a celebrity promotes or simply wears a certain brand, it attracts people and makes them want the same items, which leads to an increase in support of these brands. The target audience of fast fashion is the younger generation, “Gen Z.” Since most young people have been brought up in the age of social media, these brands target them to purchase their merchandise. In the HBO documentary “Brandy Hellville,” the company’s previous employees expose how the company targeted young teen girls through social media and trends, making many girls feel like they weren’t “cool enough” or “popular” if they didn’t support the brand.
Fast fashion is increasing at a rapid rate and it harms both humans and the earth. The rapid production of fast fashion comes at a cost, the cost of human lives. According to The George Washington University’s article titled “Fast Fashion Getting Faster: A Look at the Unethical Labor Practices Sustaining a Growing Industry,” many workers behind the scenes of fast fashion live excruciating lives, with exhausting hours, unsafe working conditions, and minimal pay. Women are often faced with physical, verbal, and sexual abuse in unregulated factories that don’t account for workplace violence. So many people are paying the toll of the fashion industry of the West. Most if not all of these companies contribute to unsafe and dangerous working conditions for so many people. Consumers have a huge impact on protecting and upholding labor standards by making the conscious choice to support companies that are open about their labor conditions and who put fair treatment of their factory workers first.
Not only is the fast fashion industry harmful to people around the world, but it is extremely damaging to the environment and wildlife. Fast fashion has a big impact on the environment, causing issues such as depletion of nonrenewable resources, emission of greenhouse gases and the use of mass amounts of water and energy. According to Earth.Org, many fast fashion brands are known for using synthetic fibres like polyester, nylon and acrylic which take hundreds of years to biodegrade. Journalist for Earth.Org Rashmila Maiti writes about how the fashion industry is the second largest consumer of water “requiring about 700 gallons to produce one cotton shirt and 2,000 gallons of water to produce a pair of jeans.” Maiti continues about how textile dying is also one of the leading water polluters in the world, explaining how leftover water is often dumped into ditches making its way to rivers and then to the ocean, which harms not only the environment but also the wildlife living in it.
While this issue is far from being fixed, there are still things you can do in order to make sure you are not contributing to fast fashion companies. Consider supporting local businesses and thrift stores, both local and online like ThredUp. Austin has amazing thrift stores such as Pavement on South Lamar, Top Drawer Thrift on Airport Blvd, Savers on Pecan Park Blvd, and Austin Pets Alive Thrift! (for all the animal lovers out there whose motto is “shop for you, save a life.”) All of these places are great ways to make a difference in the world and help break this harmful cycle. While the issue may seem impossible to solve, it all starts with the decision to stop supporting fast fashion.
The Constitutional Battle Over Birthright Citizenship in 2025
Aneesa Ravula
March 12, 2025
March 12, 2025
For over 150 years, birthright citizenship has been a foundation of American identity, revered in the Fourteenth Amendment. But now, as twenty-two states challenge president Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to end it, the discussion over who is entitled to U.S. citizenship is in the national spotlight. Legal experts warn that the order is unconstitutional, but with a conservative-leaning Supreme Court and growing anti-immigration lobbying, the future of birthright citizenship is uncertain. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subjected to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This clause was crucial in overturning the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857, which had ruled that Black Americans were not citizens of the country. It was later reaffirmed in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that children of immigrants are citizens according to birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court has not revisited the issue since Wong Kim Ark, but recent opinions from conservative judges suggest a renewed challenge. For instance, according to The New York Times’s Mattathias Schwartz and Mike Baker, Judge James C. Ho, whom President Trump nominated in 2017, and who was appointed under the Trump administration in 2018 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, has controversially equated undocumented immigrants to an “invading army” and questioned whether their children should receive citizenship. Although his stance does not carry legal weight, he along with others are showing a pattern and shift in legal circles toward reinterpreting birthright citizenship. Following Trump’s executive order on January 20th to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen parents, a coalition of twenty-two states filed lawsuits in federal courts of Massachusetts and Washington arguing that this was unconstitutional. “This is an extraordinary and extreme measure that violates over a century of legal precedent,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who is leading the coalition, as reported by Schwartz and Baker. A temporary block on the order has been placed by Judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District of Washington, who called it “blatantly unconstitutional,” as quoted by reporters of the courts. Another federal judge, Deborah Boardman, later issued a nationwide injunction on February 5, 2025, just sixteen days after the order was issued. While the federal legal battle continues to rage, some states have taken their own steps to challenge birthright citizenship. In Texas, state officials attempted to deny birth certificates to children of undocumented immigrants by refusing to accept certain foreign-issued IDs, sparking a 2016 lawsuit entitled Serna v. Texas Department of State Health Services. More recently, Oklahoma passed a law requiring school districts to collect and report students’ immigration status, a move that critics say aligns with broader anti-immigration efforts. And perhaps the most impactful consequence of the executive order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are preparing to sweep schools, churches, hospitals, weddings, and funerals, all former safe-havens for undocumented people and children, reports Jessica Rivera from FOX 7 Austin. Rivera explains that several central Texas school districts have responded to the threats of ICE raids by saying “they will have space for students regardless of their background of immigration status.”For now, birthright citizenship remains protected by the Constitution, and legal experts argue that Trump’s order has little chance of surviving in court. However, the lawsuits highlight a growing movement to challenge the longstanding definition of American citizenship. With a conservative Supreme Court and shifting political outlooks, the legal battles over birthright citizenship are far from over, at least for the next four years.
Photo credit: UVA Today
Photo credit: The Wired
The Rise of Instagram as Tiktok Fights a Ban
Aiden Tynberg
Aiden Tynberg
March 12, 2025
March 12, 2025
In April of 2024, Congress passed a bill stating that TikTok, owned by ByteDance, a Chinese internet company, would need to be sold to an American organization by January 19th, 2025 or it would face a ban. Former president, Joe Biden signed this bill, as the government was concerned about Tiktok’s data privacy, misinformation, and affect on youth; however, it is an app loved by millions, especially Gen Z’s. The platform has become a place where anyone can express themselves, because the structure of the app revolves around a “for you page,” designed for each account stemming from the user’s interest. This page takes notes on videos that the user enjoys, based on the like-system, then creates an algorithm personal to the account. This attribute has been able to draw in all types of people, and they can use the app in many different ways: food recipes, “day in my lifes,” funny videos, life hacks, etc. Tiktok allows anyone to become a content creator on the app, producing many influencers, who use this app as a full time job. Influencer Sloane Price, who specializes in positivity through trendy content, believes Tiktok is “an app where every single teenager can connect.”
Although Tiktok has positively impacted many people's lives, the negative effects of the app overpower the good, as social media has been known to affect mental health. Comments play a large role in the admiration of Tiktok, as people are allowed to express all their feelings, yet their true identity remains a mystery. This has allowed unhinged behavior of users, flooding comments with insults, racism, and other outcomes of insecurities, just to hide behind their phone unscathed. Comments are one of the most harmful parts of social media, as there will never be consequences for the actions taken. “We live in a culture where people feel very comfortable and open with being mean,” Price stated. “People feel safer behind the screen.” This unhealthy behavior has taken over the app, and influencers feel responsible for making social media a better place.
The attention span of users has been seen to decrease, causing people to wonder if it is better to not have the app at all. “Tiktok doesn’t get boring because they are 15 second videos,” claimed Katherine Stone, a junior from St. Andrew’s. “Deleting TikTok made my life better,” She said. Despite her liking of Tiktok, Stone admits that cutting out the app decreased her screen time and strengthened her attention span. “I was more productive and less on my phone: the main thing I do on my phone is scroll on Tiktok,” she said. The custom of Tiktok is to scroll endlessly. ByteDance created this platform as a way to lean into society’s addiction to social media, constantly creating new content to draw in more viewers. This way of life brought the issue of national security regarding Tiktok to unite both parties in congress.
Tikok was temporarily banned for 12 hours in the United States on January 19th, 2025. ByteDance owns not only Tiktok, but Capcut as well, meaning both were removed from the app store that day, and recently restored on February 13th, 2025. Capcut was originally created for content creators to generate their videos on, then upload their content on to Tiktok, so their users are using double the apps. In the app store, Capcut features are described as “basic video editing, advanced video editor, text and stickers, trending effects and features, music and sound effects, and easy to share.” With the potential ban happening to these apps, people seem to be asking themselves, what app is society going to resort to next?
St. Andrew’s sophomore, Grayson Walrath, has a positive take on the hypothetical banning, as he believes there will be “more local conversations.” Rather than resorting to a new app, certain people are hoping for the total discontinuation of social media.” On the other hand, a group of people want to replace the feeling of Tiktok with another app which will replicate the structure and feeling the app brought. There have been multiple creations, such as RedNote, another Chinese social media app Tiktok users attempted to migrate to; however, the government is encouraging people to stay on American-created platforms.
The day Tiktok had its 12 hour ban, Instagram, owned by Meta, announced the release of a new app called Edits. Essentially, Edits is a replica of Capcut, but under the name of Meta, rather than ByteDance. In the description of Edits on the app store, it says “Edits is a free video editor that makes it easy for creators to turn their ideas into videos, right on their phone. It has all the tools you need to support your creation process, all in one place. Simplify your creative process,” proving the similarities it has with Capcut. Many people have been thinking ahead about the possible ban, and do see themselves and others resorting to Instagram. “I like Instagram because it gives more variety of people… more mutual connections with friends,” quoted Elise Moore, St. Andrew’s freshman. “Instagram is more Tiktok oriented than other apps.” People seem to also appreciate the ‘reels’ on Instagram, as they feel similar to Tiktok. They have a more comedic approach, with Tiktok having more of a range of content. Meta seems to be planning ahead for the ban, making their platforms more similar to Tiktok, so the move between apps will seem natural.
Will Instagram be the replacement?
It Ends with Them
Fiona Nield
March 12, 2025
March 12, 2025
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni have taken "he said, she said” to an entirely new level; with lawsuits totalling $657 million, tarnished professional reputations and a slew of famous friends and family chiming in amidst a battle playing out in the court of public opinion and in the legal system.
How things began:The two initially met in 2023 working on the film adaptation of the popular book It Ends with Us. Baldoni directed the film and simultaneously played the male lead, Ryle. Lively was cast as the female lead, Lily Bloom. Even though problems arose, initially Lively and Baldoni seemed to have a positive collaborative experience as evidenced in text, email exchanges, and the dailies. Baldoni’s lawsuit alleges that “Baldoni and Lively shared stories and pictures from their lives, commiserated over family illnesses and exchanged jokes and memes. Baldoni offered concern and support when Lively faced family health concerns. They texted almost daily, and a friendly banter established a comfortable dynamic.”
Initial concerns: Alleged issues regarding the film were not reported to the studio until November 2023 when Lively voiced on set safeguards she required. According to her complaint she made several demands such as an intimacy coordinator must be present involving any scenes with nudity or intimacy (there was one present already), she also demanded they avoid discussing personal experiences with sex and nudity etc. In response, the production company, Wayfarer said “Although our perspective differs in many aspects, ensuring a safe environment for all is paramount,” according to her legal complaint. Lively claims the men’s on set behavior improved following her demands, however she remained at a creative stand still with Baldoni and Heath, one of the film's producers.
Smear-campaigning starts? One glaring anomaly that is in both of their lawsuits is that Lively got to make her own cut of the film allegedly with the support of Sony. In the mountains of information coming from both sides it is unclear how the final cut of the film was Lively’s version instead of Baldoni’s as the director. Lively claims her cut of the film was better received by critics while Baldoni claims his cut was better received but Lively threatened to not promote the film at all if they did not air her cut. This is relevant to understanding both lawsuits because Baldoni claims that the tensions over who’s cut of the movie would be released incited Lively to start a smear campaign against him.
When the public gets involved: Once promotional things started to come out for the film is when the floodgates opened. Lively and Baldoni did not once promote the movie together ahead of its release. During this time, members of the cast and the author of the book all unfollowed Justin Baldoni on Instagram at the same time for unknown reasons. Baldoni claims this was a part of the smear campaign Lively and Reynolds were setting in action against him. Also during the time of the film's promotion Lively began facing online backlash for how she marketed it. The film tells the story of domestic violence and does so in a graphic and serious way. Many critics on social media thought that Lively played down the serious central theme of domestic violence and abuse resulting in confused audiences who thought the film would be lighthearted. Saying things like “grab your friends, wear your florals” in an interview meanwhile many people felt the film does not fit that style of marketing because of how serious the topics it’s addressing are. However Lively claims in her lawsuit that this public backlash was astroturfing from Baldoni’s crisis PR team. Astroturfing can be defined as “the deceptive practice of presenting an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the public.”
Legal action is taken: Tensions escalated as the film was released and public speculation grew; it took only a few months until legal action was taken. On December 20th 2024, Lively filed a CRD complaint against Wayfarer studios and Justin Baldoni. A CRD complaint is “a complaint filed with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) alleging discrimination or civil rights violations.” Her complaint alleged that she faced “severe emotional distress” after she claimed key stakeholders in the film and Baldoni sexually harassed her and conducted a smear campaign against her. The day after the CRD complaint, The New York Times published an article titled “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Campaign” which claimed Baldoni was smearing Lively in the press and sexually harassing her.
The New York Times article:The article depicted Lively as an actress who had suffered months of sexual harassment from Baldoni and Heath and reportedley received retaliation through a smear campaign for expressing her concerns. The same day Baldoni’s agency WME dropped him amid the allegations. In the following days there was an influx of public support for Lively from fans, other celebrities, and family.
Baldoni fires back: The energy changed when Baldoni sued the New York Times for 250 million dollars. Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freeman in an interview with Variety claimed the Times “cowered to the wants and whims of two powerful ‘untouchable’ Hollywood elites, disregarding journalistic practices and ethics once befitting of the revered publication by using doctored and manipulated texts and intentionally omitting texts which dispute their chosen PR narrative.” Baldoni’s lawsuit states “The Times story relied almost entirely on Lively’s unverified and self-serving narrative, lifting it nearly verbatim while disregarding an abundance of evidence that contradicted her claims and exposed her true motives.”
Lively responds: The same day Baldoni’s lawsuit against the NYT dropped Lively filed her lawsuit against Baldoni. Regarding her decision to file a lawsuit instead of just keeping it at her CRD complaint her lawyers stated “Unfortunately, Ms. Lively’s decision to speak out has resulted in further retaliation and attacks. As alleged in Ms. Lively’s federal Complaint, Wayfarer and its associates have violated federal and California state law by retaliating against her for reporting sexual harassment and workplace safety concerns. Now, the defendants will answer for their conduct in federal court.”
More lawsuits:It didn’t take long for Baldoni to fire back with another lawsuit he filed on January 16th accusing Lively, Reynolds, Leslie Sloane and her PR firm of defamation and various other contractual claims. The 179 page filing accuses Lively of taking creative control over the film, refusing to promote the film unless she got to produce her own edits, and much more. In the lawsuit it is also alleged that Lively’s team worked to smear Baldoni and Wayfarer studios. In a statement to NBC news Lively’s team said in regards to Baldoni’s lawsuit that “This is an age-old story: A woman speaks up with concrete evidence of sexual harassment and retaliation and the abuser attempts to turn the tables on the victim.” Baldoni’s lawsuit has had the public’s opinion split because he had provided so much evidence defending her claims. After both lawsuits had been filed things started to ramp up. Both legal teams were avidly speaking to the media trying to push their narrative of what had transpired on set. Eventually after much indirect back and forth in the media Baldoni’s team released a website titled “Lawsuit Info” with two links, the first to his amended suit, and the second to a timeline of “relevant events” from January of 2019 to January 2025.
New allegations: On February 15th the judge warned Baldoni and Lively’s lawyers about making public statements and the judge also told both attorneys that he may have to move up the trial if they keep making statements. Two days after that, Lively amended her lawsuit adding another complaint from a Jane Doe who claims she also faced sexual harassment on set from Heath and Baldoni. Lively's attorney’s claim that although she will remain a Jane Doe until court where she is prepared to testify.
What happens now:As the lawsuits gain momentum, public opinion remains divided in who is telling the truth. The public and the entertainment industry are meant to grapple with the broader implications of this dispute. Is this an isolated conflict between two celebrities or does it represent deeper systemic issues in Hollywood’s power dynamics? These events unfolding challenge us to consider the balance between accountability and reputation in the public sphere. This article was last updated March 10th, 2025 the trial date is set for March 9th, 2026.
How things began:The two initially met in 2023 working on the film adaptation of the popular book It Ends with Us. Baldoni directed the film and simultaneously played the male lead, Ryle. Lively was cast as the female lead, Lily Bloom. Even though problems arose, initially Lively and Baldoni seemed to have a positive collaborative experience as evidenced in text, email exchanges, and the dailies. Baldoni’s lawsuit alleges that “Baldoni and Lively shared stories and pictures from their lives, commiserated over family illnesses and exchanged jokes and memes. Baldoni offered concern and support when Lively faced family health concerns. They texted almost daily, and a friendly banter established a comfortable dynamic.”
Initial concerns: Alleged issues regarding the film were not reported to the studio until November 2023 when Lively voiced on set safeguards she required. According to her complaint she made several demands such as an intimacy coordinator must be present involving any scenes with nudity or intimacy (there was one present already), she also demanded they avoid discussing personal experiences with sex and nudity etc. In response, the production company, Wayfarer said “Although our perspective differs in many aspects, ensuring a safe environment for all is paramount,” according to her legal complaint. Lively claims the men’s on set behavior improved following her demands, however she remained at a creative stand still with Baldoni and Heath, one of the film's producers.
Smear-campaigning starts? One glaring anomaly that is in both of their lawsuits is that Lively got to make her own cut of the film allegedly with the support of Sony. In the mountains of information coming from both sides it is unclear how the final cut of the film was Lively’s version instead of Baldoni’s as the director. Lively claims her cut of the film was better received by critics while Baldoni claims his cut was better received but Lively threatened to not promote the film at all if they did not air her cut. This is relevant to understanding both lawsuits because Baldoni claims that the tensions over who’s cut of the movie would be released incited Lively to start a smear campaign against him.
When the public gets involved: Once promotional things started to come out for the film is when the floodgates opened. Lively and Baldoni did not once promote the movie together ahead of its release. During this time, members of the cast and the author of the book all unfollowed Justin Baldoni on Instagram at the same time for unknown reasons. Baldoni claims this was a part of the smear campaign Lively and Reynolds were setting in action against him. Also during the time of the film's promotion Lively began facing online backlash for how she marketed it. The film tells the story of domestic violence and does so in a graphic and serious way. Many critics on social media thought that Lively played down the serious central theme of domestic violence and abuse resulting in confused audiences who thought the film would be lighthearted. Saying things like “grab your friends, wear your florals” in an interview meanwhile many people felt the film does not fit that style of marketing because of how serious the topics it’s addressing are. However Lively claims in her lawsuit that this public backlash was astroturfing from Baldoni’s crisis PR team. Astroturfing can be defined as “the deceptive practice of presenting an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the public.”
Legal action is taken: Tensions escalated as the film was released and public speculation grew; it took only a few months until legal action was taken. On December 20th 2024, Lively filed a CRD complaint against Wayfarer studios and Justin Baldoni. A CRD complaint is “a complaint filed with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) alleging discrimination or civil rights violations.” Her complaint alleged that she faced “severe emotional distress” after she claimed key stakeholders in the film and Baldoni sexually harassed her and conducted a smear campaign against her. The day after the CRD complaint, The New York Times published an article titled “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Campaign” which claimed Baldoni was smearing Lively in the press and sexually harassing her.
The New York Times article:The article depicted Lively as an actress who had suffered months of sexual harassment from Baldoni and Heath and reportedley received retaliation through a smear campaign for expressing her concerns. The same day Baldoni’s agency WME dropped him amid the allegations. In the following days there was an influx of public support for Lively from fans, other celebrities, and family.
Baldoni fires back: The energy changed when Baldoni sued the New York Times for 250 million dollars. Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freeman in an interview with Variety claimed the Times “cowered to the wants and whims of two powerful ‘untouchable’ Hollywood elites, disregarding journalistic practices and ethics once befitting of the revered publication by using doctored and manipulated texts and intentionally omitting texts which dispute their chosen PR narrative.” Baldoni’s lawsuit states “The Times story relied almost entirely on Lively’s unverified and self-serving narrative, lifting it nearly verbatim while disregarding an abundance of evidence that contradicted her claims and exposed her true motives.”
Lively responds: The same day Baldoni’s lawsuit against the NYT dropped Lively filed her lawsuit against Baldoni. Regarding her decision to file a lawsuit instead of just keeping it at her CRD complaint her lawyers stated “Unfortunately, Ms. Lively’s decision to speak out has resulted in further retaliation and attacks. As alleged in Ms. Lively’s federal Complaint, Wayfarer and its associates have violated federal and California state law by retaliating against her for reporting sexual harassment and workplace safety concerns. Now, the defendants will answer for their conduct in federal court.”
More lawsuits:It didn’t take long for Baldoni to fire back with another lawsuit he filed on January 16th accusing Lively, Reynolds, Leslie Sloane and her PR firm of defamation and various other contractual claims. The 179 page filing accuses Lively of taking creative control over the film, refusing to promote the film unless she got to produce her own edits, and much more. In the lawsuit it is also alleged that Lively’s team worked to smear Baldoni and Wayfarer studios. In a statement to NBC news Lively’s team said in regards to Baldoni’s lawsuit that “This is an age-old story: A woman speaks up with concrete evidence of sexual harassment and retaliation and the abuser attempts to turn the tables on the victim.” Baldoni’s lawsuit has had the public’s opinion split because he had provided so much evidence defending her claims. After both lawsuits had been filed things started to ramp up. Both legal teams were avidly speaking to the media trying to push their narrative of what had transpired on set. Eventually after much indirect back and forth in the media Baldoni’s team released a website titled “Lawsuit Info” with two links, the first to his amended suit, and the second to a timeline of “relevant events” from January of 2019 to January 2025.
New allegations: On February 15th the judge warned Baldoni and Lively’s lawyers about making public statements and the judge also told both attorneys that he may have to move up the trial if they keep making statements. Two days after that, Lively amended her lawsuit adding another complaint from a Jane Doe who claims she also faced sexual harassment on set from Heath and Baldoni. Lively's attorney’s claim that although she will remain a Jane Doe until court where she is prepared to testify.
What happens now:As the lawsuits gain momentum, public opinion remains divided in who is telling the truth. The public and the entertainment industry are meant to grapple with the broader implications of this dispute. Is this an isolated conflict between two celebrities or does it represent deeper systemic issues in Hollywood’s power dynamics? These events unfolding challenge us to consider the balance between accountability and reputation in the public sphere. This article was last updated March 10th, 2025 the trial date is set for March 9th, 2026.
Photo Credit: The Hollywood Reporter
Photo Credit: Silicon Labs
Why Semiconductors Matter
Brooks Tolany
March 12, 2025
March 12, 2025
When it comes to clocks, cars, life saving medical equipment, bluetooth, and nearly every modern day technological device, they all rely on one thing to become functional: semiconductors. Almost every phone, camera, controller, bluetooth device, or car you have driven has a semiconductor inside of it. So, you may be asking yourself, what is a semiconductor? A semiconductor is a material that contains electrical properties between conductors and insulators, serving as a foundation for almost every modern day electronic device. Semiconductors are measured in nanometers, meaning they are not visible to the naked eye. However, its nanoscopic size does not diminish its utmost importance in today’s economy. These seemingly insignificant micro chips are now acting as a possible reason for invasion, as tensions have begun to grow throughout the world about the possible conflict between The Republic of China (Taiwan) and The People’s Republic of China (China).In September of 1954, The People’s Republic of China initiated heavy bombardment on the Taiwanese island of Kinmen, only a few miles off the coast of mainland China in the Taiwan Strait. From this initial conflict has stemmed over 70 years of “gray area” for the two nations. The “gray area” is a point of uncertainty within a conflict, which usually is not good for resolving conflicts. But in some cases, like this one, we do not need to seek revision, but instead to find a middleground that meets the interests of all nations involved. Taiwan, or the Republic of China (ROC) as recognized by the United Nations and US, is what is called a tiger economy. To explain in simple terms, a tiger economy is an economy in which a nation is unbelievably skilled at producing a specific group of goods, which in Taiwan happens to be semiconductors. Although not directly stated by China, the governance of such a powerful entity in the economic market appears to be invaluable to the People’s Republic of China. If China were to invade Taiwan, the economy would be in shambles, sending ripple effects throughout the world, and maybe even halting the productions of devices just like the one you are using to read the article.Austin, Texas also holds a role in the semiconductor world in the form of a semiconductor manufacturing company in the heart of downtown Austin called Silicon Labs. Silicon Labs is the leading supplier for all major IoT ecosystems for wireless hardware. IoT ecosystems serve as the foundation of connection for a device, which in this case is for bluetooth wireless hardware. When asked if he had concerns about a conflict between Taiwan and China, Silicon Labs Chief Sales and Marketing Officer Brandon Tolany stated, “As a citizen of the world I absolutely have concerns about a potential conflict between Taiwan and China. It would be catastrophic for the global economy for a variety of reasons. Those reason are largely economic and would impact people all over the world as the vast majority of products we rely on or consume come from the China/Taiwan manufacturing epicenter. The entire semiconductor manufacturing supply chain relies on Taiwan and China at some point. This means a war, over time, would potentially disrupt nearly everything that we depend on in our lives every day,” says Tolany. The severity of this war would be detrimental to the world’s economy, but there is no need to panic. Although tensions appear to be quite frightening at times, the relationship between the US, Taiwan, and China is in a “Gray Area” currently, meaning that each nation is benefiting from the current situation, and they each recognize that a possible invasion in Taiwan could unravel their nations economies, and the world’s economies. I asked Ms. Linh Tran, who teaches numerous history courses within the St. Andrew’s community to explain the gray area.“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, we don’t need to create problems. Our world leaders need to continue to be in this “gray space”, [just like] we have special relationships with countries like the UK, if we need them, they will help, vice versa. When it comes to Taiwan, it is not clear,” states Tran. “The resolution to this problem is the “gray space”, that being that we don’t need an answer, we need to instead allow everyone to get what they want. We need parameters, we don’t need war. We as human beings want clarity and resolution, but sometimes it’s ok to be in the gray space, what we are doing right now with Taiwan needs to remain the same.” Tran then adds that she is concerned about the state of affairs that the US government is taking a stance in, specifically with the recent support of Russia in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is a tiger economy that produces more semiconductors than every country in the world by a wide margin as semiconductors alone make up 0.6% of the world’s economy. However, that seemingly miniscule number holds the foundation of the tech world, making up 15-17% of the worlds economy.Although this conflict should not be taken lightly, leaders in China are well aware of the devastating impact an invasion on Taiwan could cause to the welfare of the global economy and the possibility of a possible global war breaking out. Peace will always be the best option, and in this case, it could possibly prevent another World War.
Page updated
Report abuse