Entertainment
Exclusionary Gatekeeping Is The Future Of Entertainment
By Joshua Tyler
| Updated
Even the most optimistic pundits are now willing to admit that the quality of entertainment produced by Hollywood has declined. Many reasons have been put forward for this flagging level of competence, but there’s only one solution: exclusionary gatekeeping.
For more than a decade, the entertainment industry has run entirely on inclusivity. Hiring both in front of and behind the camera has been done with a representation-first mindset, which means everyone must be allowed in to whatever you’re doing, whether they’re a qualified fit for your audience or not.
The Death Of Differences
The same transformation happened in entertainment journalism. When the online movie news world emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was run almost entirely by obsessive fans. I know because I helped build it as the founder of CinemaBlend in 2000.
Sites like CinemaBlend, Ain’t It Cool News, Dark Horizons, Film Threat, The Movie Blog, and others were operated by individual owners who were deeply knowledgeable about the topics they covered. These weren’t corporate brands managed by committees. They were passion projects run by people like Vic Holtreman, Chris Gore, John Campea, Garth Franklin, Christopher Null, and Harry Knowles.
They weren’t trying to represent everyone. They were writing for their audience: hardcore male genre fans.
Over time, those independents were either iced out by algorithms that were sued into promoting mainstream media (this actually happened), or bought out by corporate conglomerates (including Cinema Blend, which I exited in 2015) who ditched the genuine, knowledgeable, gatekeeping fan owners in favor of creating something inclusive. Where those original owners had only hired other fans who shared the interests of their audience, the new owners hired opinion makers who represented everyone and everything, which in reality means they hired people who stood for nothing and no one.
This same process was happening in Hollywood itself. It’s why John Lasseter was fired for giving a hug, and Pixar hasn’t made a truly great movie since. The result in both the entertainment creation and the entertainment reporting space has been a disaster. Box office numbers are plummeting. Viewers now use positive Rotten Tomatoes scores as an indicator for which movies to avoid.
Gatekeeping Is The Answer
There’s only one solution, and that solution is gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is the act of controlling access to an idea, community, opportunity, or resource by deciding who is allowed in and who is excluded.
As part of the push towards radical inclusivity by big corporations and activists, the term gatekeeping has become a pejorative. It’s used as an emotionally charged attack against meanies. Being called a gatekeeper is the kind of thing that gets people cancelled.
But nothing of any worth happens without some form of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is just another way of saying quality control. Quality control isn’t mean, it’s sensible.
Without gatekeeping, we’d end up with unqualified pilots crashing planes maintained by unqualified mechanics. Without gatekeeping inspectors, the quality of the food you eat degrades, the drugs you need aren’t potent, and nuclear reactors go into meltdown.
Creative endeavors are no different. Without gatekeeping a new Star Trek show hires writers who know nothing about Star Trek, and then its scripts end up filled with obvious mistakes and terrible plot holes which any fan could have spotted if they’d done some gatekeeping to hire one.
Inclusivity Is Lazy And Destructive
If you have standards and want to keep them, you must exclude people or things that do not meet them. Enforcing standards is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.
I require my son to get As in math. To make that happen, I check his grades and help him with his homework when he struggles. If he doesn’t study and fails a test, I have to enforce consequences.
If I remove my requirement for an A, I no longer have to do anything. My son also won’t learn math, but I’ll save a lot of time.
Radical inclusivity is a way of removing standards, a way of deferring responsibility for maintaining quality. It’s lazy and destructive.
Exclusion Maintains Differences And Diversity
Exclusion maintains the integrity of your work, your idea, and your brand. Samurai swords are only Samurai swords as long as Claymores are excluded from being classified as Katanas. Pepsi is only Pepsi as long as you exclude lemonade from Pepsi cans. It’d be easier to fill Pepsi cans with whatever liquid is cheapest and most available, but then it wouldn’t be Pepsi anymore, and eventually people would stop buying it.
Maintaining unique differences is hard, so homogenization disguised as inclusivity allows corporations to take an established universe like Star Trek or Star Wars and wear it like a skin suit, puppeted by inclusive hires (hiring done without relevant standards) who have no idea what they’re a part of, and because they don’t care are totally willing to treat fans like fat, juicy, pay pigs to be farmed for maximum profit. They fill Star Wars up with whatever happens to be lying around, and then play the Star Wars theme music in front of it.
Giant Freakin Robot Is An Exclusionary Publication
Late last year, I relaunched Giant Freakin Robot with a renewed determination to avoid these pitfalls by making this the most exclusionary geek site on the internet. What does that mean? It means we will not work with writers who have bad ideas or ideas that are in direct conflict with the values and interests of our readers. That doesn’t serve them or us.
Specifically, Giant Freakin Robot’s readers are geeky men, and always have been, so that means finding commentators who have the same fundamental world view that most geeky men have. Engaging Alex Kurtzman fans to write for Giant Freakin Robot would make about as much sense as investing in Giant Freakin Robot makeup tutorials.
To serve our audience in this way requires gatekeeping. So we’re contracting with talented freelancers based on exclusion, rather than inclusion, and we’re doing it using this simple ad:
There’s only one required question in the application process, which pops up after you read the ad. That question is: Do you hate Starfleet Academy? Yes/No
We’ve received hundreds of applications from writers, most of them recently laid off by struggling, inclusive corporate publications. 95% of those applicants checked No and failed this rather simple IQ test. Their applications were automatically sent to a trash bin.
Before we bring on anyone new, in addition to correctly answering that single question, they’ll have to meet the standards of quality and creativity established by our crack team of genius geek culture commentators. We’ll continue to exclude anyone who doesn’t measure up.
If you want a world free of gatekeeping, go to X for random opinions and watch endless AI slop on YouTube. But if you’re looking for a place that throws out the bad and only keeps the good, then read Giant Freakin Robot. Gatekeeping is our business; it’s what we do.
Entertainment
Pennsylvania is suing Character.AI for allegedly practicing medicine without a license
Pennsylvania has taken the unusual step of suing an AI company for practicing medicine without a license.
In a lawsuit filed May 1, the state is targeting Character.AI after an investigator found a chatbot on the platform posing as a licensed psychiatrist and providing what the state characterizes as medical advice.
According to the complaint, filed by the Pennsylvania Department of State and State Board of Medicine, a Professional Conduct Investigator for the state created a free account on Character.AI and searched for psychiatric characters. He selected one called “Emilie,” described on the platform as a “Doctor of psychiatry.”
The investigator told Emilie he had been feeling sad, empty, tired, and unmotivated. The chatbot mentioned depression and offered to conduct an assessment to determine whether medication might help.
When pressed on whether she was licensed in Pennsylvania, Emilie said she was and even provided a specific license number. The state checked and found that the number doesn’t exist.
The complaint also states Emilie claimed she attended medical school at Imperial College London, has practiced for seven years, and holds a full specialty registration in psychiatry with the General Medical Council in the UK.
Mashable Light Speed
In a similar case, 404 Media reported last year that Instagram AI chatbots were pretending to be licensed therapists, even inventing license numbers when prompted for credentials by the user.
Pennsylvania is seeking an injunction ordering Character.AI to stop allowing its platform to engage in the unlawful practice of medicine. The company has more than 20 million monthly active users worldwide and hosts more than 18 million user-created chatbot characters, according to the complaint.
In an email to Mashable, a Character.AI spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit. Further, they added that “our highest priority is the safety and well-being of our users. The user-created Characters on our site are fictional and intended for entertainment and roleplaying.”
The spokesperson added that the company “prioritizes responsible product development and has robust internal reviews and red-teaming processes in place to assess relevant features.”
A much bigger legal battle looms over AI health
The Pennsylvania lawsuit lands in the middle of an already messy legal debate over what AI is actually allowed to tell you — and whether any of it is even admissible in court.
As Mashable’s Chase DiBenedetto reported, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has publicly advocated for “AI privilege,” arguing that chatbot conversations should be afforded the same legal protections as conversations with a therapist or an attorney. Courts have so far been split, with two federal judges reaching opposite conclusions on the question within weeks of each other earlier this year.
The stakes are high on both sides. Legal experts warn that sweeping AI privilege protections could effectively shield companies from accountability, making it harder to subpoena chat logs and internal records when something goes wrong. Meanwhile, health AI is booming — $1.4 billion flowed into healthcare-specific generative AI in 2025 alone, according to Menlo Ventures — and much of it operates outside of HIPAA protections.
Pennsylvania is one of several states to have introduced an AI Health bill this year, following a trend of states that aren’t waiting for Washington to act.
Entertainment
How to watch Bayern Munich vs. PSG online for free
TL;DR: Live stream Bayern Munich vs. PSG in the Champions League for free on RTÉ Player. Access this free streaming platform from anywhere in the world with ExpressVPN.
Bayern Munich vs. PSG would have made an amazing Champions League final, but we should be happy that we’re getting two matchups between these electric teams. The first leg finished 5-4 to PSG. We’re not expecting the same again, because that was probably one of the best games of all time. If we get half that level of entertainment in the second leg, we’ll be delighted.
Expect more of the same from the likes of Michael Olise and Khvicha Kvaratskhelia as these teams battle it out for a spot in the showpiece event. The winner will meet Arsenal at the Puskás Aréna in Budapest.
If you want to watch Bayern Munich vs. PSG in the Champions League from anywhere in the world, we have all the information you need.
When is Bayern Munich vs. PSG?
Bayern Munich vs. PSG in the Champions League kicks off at 3 p.m. ET on May 6. This fixture takes place at the Allianz Arena.
How to watch Bayern Munich vs. PSG for free
Bayern Munich vs. PSG is available to live stream for free on RTÉ Player.
Mashable Top Stories
RTÉ Player is geo-restricted to Ireland, but anyone can access this free streaming platform with a VPN. These tools can hide your real IP address (digital location) and connect you to a secure server in Ireland, meaning you can unblock RTÉ Player to stream the Champions League for free from anywhere in the world.
Live stream Bayern Munich vs. PSG for free by following these simple steps:
-
Subscribe to a streaming-friendly VPN (like ExpressVPN)
-
Download the app to your device of choice (the best VPNs have apps for Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Linux, and more)
-
Open up the app and connect to a server in Ireland
-
Visit RTÉ Player
-
Watch Bayern Munich vs. PSG for free from anywhere in the world
$12.95 only at ExpressVPN (with money-back guarantee)
The best VPNs for streaming are not free, but most do offer free-trials or money-back guarantees. By leveraging these offers, you can access free live streams of the Champions League without actually spending anything. This obviously isn’t a long-term solution, but it does give you enough time to stream Bayern Munich vs. PSG (plus more Champions League fixtures) before recovering your investment.
If you want to retain permanent access to the best free streaming services from around the world, you’ll need a subscription. Fortunately, the best VPn for streaming live sport is on sale for a limited time.
What is the best VPN for RTÉ Player?
ExpressVPN is the best choice for bypassing geo-restrictions to stream live sport on RTÉ Player, for a number of reasons:
-
Servers in 105 countries including Ireland
-
Easy-to-use app available on all major devices including iPhone, Android, Windows, Mac, and more
-
Strict no-logging policy so your data is secure
-
Fast connection speeds free from throttling
-
Up to 10 simultaneous connections
-
30-day money-back guarantee
A two-year subscription to ExpressVPN is on sale for $68.40 and includes an extra four months for free — 81% off for a limited time. This plan includes a year of free unlimited cloud backup and a generous 30-day money-back guarantee. Alternatively, you can get a one-month plan for just $12.99 (with money-back guarantee).
Live stream Bayern Munich vs. PSG in the Champions League for free with ExpressVPN.
Entertainment
AI stocks are cooling — this ChatGPT trading tool keeps delivering
TL;DR: A ChatGPT-powered investing platform that helps you find and manage stocks with clearer signals—lifetime access for a one-time $54.97.
Credit: Sterling Stock Picker
The AI trade has seemingly had its moment — big runs, big headlines, big expectations. The AI fun is not over by any means. But now that things are settling, the real question is what comes next?
Instead of chasing whatever’s trending, Sterling Stock Picker leans into a more grounded approach: using a ChatGPT-powered assistant (Finley) to help you understand what’s actually happening inside a stock. You can ask questions about companies, sectors, or your own portfolio and get explanations that are tied to real data — not just surface-level summaries.
Mashable Deals
It also handles the heavy lifting most people avoid. The platform analyzes financials, growth metrics, and risk, then surfaces signals like whether a stock is worth buying, holding, or avoiding. There’s even a “North Star” system that simplifies that call into something actionable.
Mashable Trend Report
If you’re building from scratch, there’s a done-for-you portfolio builder that aligns with your risk tolerance. If you already have positions, it can suggest adjustments based on your portfolio’s performance.
One thing that stands out is how it balances guidance with transparency. You’re not just handed picks — you can see the reasoning behind them, which matters if you’re trying to build a repeatable process.
Have a lifetime way to pressure-test your judgment — especially in a market that’s moving past hype and into something more selective.
Get lifetime access to the ChatGPT-driven Sterling Stock Picker while it’s on sale for a one-time $54.97 payment (reg. $486) through May 10.
StackSocial prices subject to change.
Pennsylvania is suing Character.AI for allegedly practicing medicine without a license
How to watch Bayern Munich vs. PSG online for free
