Latest news with #4PM
Express Tribune
16-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Express Tribune
Singapore's Gen Z swaps pints for pour-overs
Swaying to dance music and TikTok-fuelled pop under a disco ball, young punters are packed shoulder to shoulder while sipping on coffee, their energy powered by pour-overs rather than pints, reported AFP. This is no underground rave, nor a brunch gone wild. It's a caffeine-powered daytime clubbing sesh - part of a growing wave of alcohol-free, Gen Z-driven events gaining traction in Singapore and elsewhere in the world. At a recent event in Singapore's trendy Duxton district, the space was jammed by 4PM, with baristas churning out fancy coffees and DJs spinning back-to-back sets. The crowd grooved with energy, even without the usual liquid courage. "A lot of people think alcohol gives you the high, but caffeine sometimes can do that too," said Aden Low, 21, co-founder of Beans and Beats which organises coffee raves at different venues. "That's why the atmosphere at our events tends to be quite energetic." The parties blend curated music with specialty coffee served in white paper cups. The vibe is light, friendly and very Gen Z. "It's also the idea that this is a safe space," said Esther Low, 31, who was at the event in Duxton. "When you go to a club setting, there's usually this underlying intention to hook up. So, for me, that's personally why I would prefer this." Several reports say Gen Z is chugging fewer pints than previous generations, with the sober curious movement gaining popularity on social media. Sober curious people cut back on drinking or abstain altogether, often citing health reasons and better mental acuity. "Changes in alcohol use have been observed in population surveys and cohort studies. Generally, alcohol use among young adults has decreased," the World Health Organisation said in a 2024 report. Club culture update From London to Los Angeles and Melbourne, similar coffee raves have swept up the social scene, appealing to young partygoers who also want to avoid hangovers. Ashley Chean, a Singaporean student who has been alcohol-free for a year, said she appreciates these sober gatherings. "When I lived in Paris, I realised I had a lot of alcoholic tendencies and I didn't want that to be my lifestyle," the 20-year-old told AFP. "More and more of my friends are sober or sober curious." The coffee clubbing events are usually held in cafes and other spaces such as rooftop bars – as long as there's room for DJs and baristas to do their thing while people dance. The parties typically end by late afternoon, just in time for golden hour selfies. Besides the health benefits of avoiding alcohol, the events appeal to cost-conscious youth in Singapore, one of the most expensive cities in the world. The excess drinking and hard-partying ways of Gen X - fuelled by anthems like the Beastie Boys' Fight for Your Right (to Party) and hip-hop videos glamorising club culture - are fading for members of Gen Z. While organisers don't see Singapore's glitzy nightlife and clubbing being replaced, they hope their combination of beats and brews will keep the dance floor buzzing. "As long as we bring the vibes, we'll be OK," said Ashley.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Order blocking YouTube channel '4PM' withdrawn: Centre informs SC
The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, who is the editor of digital news platform 4PM, seeking quashing of an order blocking the channel Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court was on Tuesday informed that an order blocking YouTube channel "4PM", which has a subscriber base of 73 lakh, was withdrawn. "They have withdrawn the blocking order," senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, informed a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, who is the editor of digital news platform 4PM, seeking quashing of an order blocking the channel. The plea claimed the blocking was effected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction allegedly issued by the Centre citing vague grounds of "national security" and "public order". Sibal requested the bench that the plea be tagged with separate pending petitions which have challenged Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. He said Sharma's petition also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules. Rule 16 says strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof. The plea also sought striking down or reading down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, to mandate issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing and communication of a copy of the interim order to the originator or creator of the content prior to passing of a final order. The bench tagged the plea with the pending separate pleas. On May 5, the top court sought responses from the Centre and others on Sharma's plea, which said the blocking was a "chilling assault on journalistic independence" and the right of public to receive information. The plea, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards. The petition said it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard. "'National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny," it said. The plea said the action was not only ultra vires the parent statute but also strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press. "The blocking is a chilling assault on journalistic independence and the right of the public to receive information," it said. Seeking a direction to the Centre to produce the order with reasons and records, if any, issued to the intermediary for blocking the channel, it asked for a direction to quash the blocking order. The plea said the petitioner's YouTube channel was blocked without giving any fair opportunity to clarify or justify his case. Blocking Rules, 2009, including Rules 8, 9, and 16, infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly the rights to freedom of speech and expression, right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty, it added. It said the authorities concerned have a duty under the law to ensure that blocking of YouTube channels were not done arbitrarily, suppressing the freedom of speech and expression. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Govt withdraws order blocking YouTube channel 4PM, petitioner's lawyer informs Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India NEW DELHI: The government has withdrawn its order blocking YouTube channel "4PM," senior advocate Kapil Sibal , appearing for the petitioner, informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The bench of chief justice-designate BR Gavai and justice AG Masih was hearing a plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, the editor of 4PM, seeking quashing of the order blocking the channel, which has a subscriber base of 73 lakh. The plea claimed the blocking was affected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction issued by the Centre on vague grounds of "national security" and "public order". Sibal also requested the bench to tag the plea with separate pending petitions which have challenged Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like You Sell, We Buy! India's 1st Real Estate Sell Fest M3M Register Undo He said Sharma's petition also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules. The plea further sought striking down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, which mandates issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing, and communication of a copy of the interim order to the originator or creator of the content prior to passing a final order. The bench tagged the plea with the pending separate pleas. On May 5, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and others on Sharma's plea, which described the government's order as a "chilling assault on journalistic independence ." The plea, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner. The petition stated it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard. Seeking a direction to the Centre to produce the order with reasons and records, if any, issued to the intermediary for blocking the channel, it asked for a direction to quash the blocking order. The plea said 4PM was blocked without giving Sharma any fair opportunity to clarify or justify his case. Blocking Rules, 2009, including Rules 8, 9, and 16, infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, it added. (With PTI inputs)
The Hindu
13-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Order blocking YouTube channel ‘4PM' withdrawn, Supreme Court told
The Supreme Court was on Tuesday (May 13, 2025) informed that an order blocking YouTube channel "4PM", which has a subscriber base of 73 lakh, was withdrawn. 'They have withdrawn the blocking order,' senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, informed a Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, who is the editor of digital news platform 4PM, seeking quashing of an order blocking the channel. The plea claimed the blocking was effected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction allegedly issued by the Centre citing vague grounds of "national security" and "public order". Mr. Sibal requested the Bench that the plea be tagged with separate pending petitions which have challenged Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Also Read | Over 8,000 X accounts blocked in India; The Wire says will challenge site blocking He said Mr. Sharma's petition also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules. Rule 16 says strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof. The plea also sought striking down or reading down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, to mandate issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing and communication of a copy of the interim order to the originator or creator of the content prior to passing of a final order. The Bench tagged the plea with the pending separate pleas. On May 5, the top court sought responses from the Centre and others on Sharma's plea, which said the blocking was a "chilling assault on journalistic independence" and the right of public to receive information. The plea, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards. The petition said it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard. "'National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny," it said. The plea said the action was not only ultra vires the parent statute but also strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press. 'The blocking is a chilling assault on journalistic independence and the right of the public to receive information,' it said. Seeking a direction to the Centre to produce the order with reasons and records, if any, issued to the intermediary for blocking the channel, it asked for a direction to quash the blocking order. The plea said the petitioner's YouTube channel was blocked without giving any fair opportunity to clarify or justify his case. Blocking Rules, 2009, including Rules 8, 9, and 16, infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly the rights to freedom of speech and expression, right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty, it added. It said the authorities concerned have a duty under the law to ensure that blocking of YouTube channels were not done arbitrarily, suppressing the freedom of speech and expression.
New Indian Express
13-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Order blocking YouTube channel '4PM' withdrawn, SC informed
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court was on Tuesday informed that an order blocking YouTube channel "4PM", which has a subscriber base of 73 lakh, was withdrawn. "They have withdrawn the blocking order," senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, informed a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, who is the editor of digital news platform 4PM, seeking quashing of an order blocking the channel. The plea claimed the blocking was effected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction allegedly issued by the Centre citing vague grounds of "national security" and "public order". Sibal requested the bench that the plea be tagged with separate pending petitions which have challenged Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. He said Sharma's petition also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules.
