News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
Click-B Reunites After 11 Years, Discord Resolved
The members recalled, "Our fandom formed quickly, but mainstream recognition was slow. We gained recognition through our music show No. 1 win with *Baekjeonmupae*." They also honestly shared why they reunited after 11 years. Oh Jong-hyuk surprised everyone by stating, "The reason we couldn't be together for 11 years is because Min-hyuk and I didn't see each other." Yoo Ho-seok laughed, "How honest can you get?" Oh Jong-hyuk admitted, "Our values and directions were too different, and our pride was strong. We cut ties and lived separately for about 10 years." However, reconciliation came unexpectedly fast. Oh Jong-hyuk explained, "The members kept pushing us to meet, saying, 'If this continues, we'll never reunite.' We met by chance and talked for 15 minutes, and everything was resolved. Meeting face-to-face cleared up misunderstandings easily." Yoo Jae-seok, Yoon Jong-shin, and Lee Hyo-ri, who heard this, empathized, "When you get older, member conflicts aren't a big deal. It's like cutting water with a knife." The reason Click-B decided to reunite was also unique. The members said, "We've all passed 40. If not now, we'd have families and find it harder to gather. We wanted to show our fans that we're still together as 'Click-B' forever." On the day, Click-B performed their representative song *Baekjeonmupae*, recreating the emotions of 25 years ago. After the performance, Oh Jong-hyuk said, "It feels like we finally have a chance to repay our fans who waited 11 years. We just want to enjoy ourselves." He added, "Personally, it's happy just to stand on stage with all seven of us. Even after living our separate lives, when we gather, we're the same as before. We bicker over trivial things and then laugh together. I thought, 'We really haven't changed.'" Finally, Click-B announced, "We're preparing for a concert in August," and requested, "We hope for much interest and support."
US divergence sows discord at NATO summit
Allies renew pledge at Ankara meeting as doubt swirls over future of alliance NATO leaders left Turkiye on Wednesday after reaffirming their commitment to collective defense, but uncertainty now hangs over the alliance following US President Donald Trump's disruptive remarks. Divisions over defense spending and the security commitments of the United States have raised questions about the cohesion of the alliance and even whether leaders would convene another summit next year. Although the 32-member bloc sought to project unity through its "ironclad commitment" to the collective defense principle, the summit highlighted increasingly divergent priorities between Washington and its European allies. Trump's repeated criticism of NATO, renewed demands for Europe to shoulder more of the budgetary burden, and public rebukes of individual allies reinforced concern that the trans-Atlantic relationship is becoming more transactional than strategic. Speaking in Ankara before joining alliance leaders, Trump made clear that his frustrations with NATO had not eased. "Despite the fact that I'm very upset with NATO, that we pay far, far too much, billions and billions of dollars too much -- because it's unfair -- we protect them, but they're not there for us," he said. Trump also renewed his call for US control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO member Denmark, while criticizing Spain over defense spending and its position on the Iran war, even threatening to cut off all trade with Madrid. The remarks contrasted sharply with efforts by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European leaders to present a united front, underscoring growing disagreements over burden-sharing, strategic priorities and the future balance of responsibilities within the alliance. Domestic pressures Tom Harper, a lecturer in international relations at the University of East London, said the dispute over defense spending has become increasingly tied to domestic political and economic pressures. European governments face mounting political risks if higher military spending comes at the cost of public services, Harper said. "If increased defense spending coincides with cuts to social services and education, this will likely impose domestic costs on European governments, which they may be unwilling to pay, especially should they be facing election campaigns," he said. "You could say it's an example of the age-old debate over guns or butter." Harper also argued that the economic benefits of increased military spending could flow disproportionately to the US. "It is quite likely that American companies would be the primary beneficiaries of increased spending, which is one of the reasons why Washington has been keen for NATO members to increase their defense expenditure," he said. Matthew Arnold, a policy analyst and visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science, questioned whether NATO members could realistically sustain significantly higher defense spending. "The fiscal concerns are serious," he said, warning that sustained increases in military expenditure could worsen debt burdens and social tensions, while much of the increased procurement would initially benefit large defense contractors, many of them based in the US. Challenge to cohesion Lawrence Loh, director of the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the National University of Singapore Business School, said NATO now faces a broader challenge to its cohesion. "The NATO summit comes at a critical time when the alliance faces an emerging legitimacy crisis," Loh said. "With pressure from Trump, NATO risks bowing to this strongman's demands for increased defense spending," he said. "It is evolving into a transaction grouping of countries that weigh their respective interests with just one member -- the US." The alliance is simultaneously grappling with economic slowdown, political fragmentation and social integration challenges across Europe, while also facing criticism over its limited effectiveness in responding to conflicts in the Middle East, he added. "All in all, NATO is now caught between a rock -- the US -- and a hard place, which is all the region-based anguishes in Europe," he said. Several analysts believe Trump's approach could ultimately accelerate Europe's pursuit of greater strategic autonomy. Angel Saz-Carranza, director of the EsadeGeo Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics in Spain, said NATO will likely evolve over the next decade. "Reliance on the US will diminish as European Union capabilities increase, which will gradually rebalance the trans-Atlantic relationship," he said. Pedro Brinca, an associate professor of macroeconomics at Nova School of Business and Economics in Portugal, also expects the alliance to become increasingly European in character. However, he cautioned that Europe's ability to shoulder greater responsibility will depend not only on spending more but also on spending more efficiently. Fragmented national procurement would deliver less security than coordinated European investment, he added. Although NATO leaders departed Ankara reiterating their commitment to collective defense, the summit illustrated that the alliance's greatest challenge may no longer be external threats alone, but maintaining political trust among its own members. The final declaration said the leaders "look forward to our next meeting", but without committing to a date.
US divergence sows discord at NATO summit
Allies renew pledge at Ankara meeting as doubt swirls over future of alliance NATO leaders left Turkiye on Wednesday after reaffirming their commitment to collective defense, but uncertainty now hangs over the alliance following US President Donald Trump's disruptive remarks. Divisions over defense spending and the security commitments of the United States have raised questions about the cohesion of the alliance and even whether leaders would convene another summit next year. Although the 32-member bloc sought to project unity through its "ironclad commitment" to the collective defense principle, the summit highlighted increasingly divergent priorities between Washington and its European allies. Trump's repeated criticism of NATO, renewed demands for Europe to shoulder more of the budgetary burden, and public rebukes of individual allies reinforced concern that the trans-Atlantic relationship is becoming more transactional than strategic. Speaking in Ankara before joining alliance leaders, Trump made clear that his frustrations with NATO had not eased. "Despite the fact that I'm very upset with NATO, that we pay far, far too much, billions and billions of dollars too much -- because it's unfair -- we protect them, but they're not there for us," he said. Trump also renewed his call for US control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO member Denmark, while criticizing Spain over defense spending and its position on the Iran war, even threatening to cut off all trade with Madrid. The remarks contrasted sharply with efforts by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European leaders to present a united front, underscoring growing disagreements over burden-sharing, strategic priorities and the future balance of responsibilities within the alliance. Domestic pressures Tom Harper, a lecturer in international relations at the University of East London, said the dispute over defense spending has become increasingly tied to domestic political and economic pressures. European governments face mounting political risks if higher military spending comes at the cost of public services, Harper said. "If increased defense spending coincides with cuts to social services and education, this will likely impose domestic costs on European governments, which they may be unwilling to pay, especially should they be facing election campaigns," he said. "You could say it's an example of the age-old debate over guns or butter." Harper also argued that the economic benefits of increased military spending could flow disproportionately to the US. "It is quite likely that American companies would be the primary beneficiaries of increased spending, which is one of the reasons why Washington has been keen for NATO members to increase their defense expenditure," he said. Matthew Arnold, a policy analyst and visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science, questioned whether NATO members could realistically sustain significantly higher defense spending. "The fiscal concerns are serious," he said, warning that sustained increases in military expenditure could worsen debt burdens and social tensions, while much of the increased procurement would initially benefit large defense contractors, many of them based in the US. Challenge to cohesion Lawrence Loh, director of the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the National University of Singapore Business School, said NATO now faces a broader challenge to its cohesion. "The NATO summit comes at a critical time when the alliance faces an emerging legitimacy crisis," Loh said. "With pressure from Trump, NATO risks bowing to this strongman's demands for increased defense spending," he said. "It is evolving into a transaction grouping of countries that weigh their respective interests with just one member -- the US." The alliance is simultaneously grappling with economic slowdown, political fragmentation and social integration challenges across Europe, while also facing criticism over its limited effectiveness in responding to conflicts in the Middle East, he added. "All in all, NATO is now caught between a rock -- the US -- and a hard place, which is all the region-based anguishes in Europe," he said. Several analysts believe Trump's approach could ultimately accelerate Europe's pursuit of greater strategic autonomy. Angel Saz-Carranza, director of the EsadeGeo Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics in Spain, said NATO will likely evolve over the next decade. "Reliance on the US will diminish as European Union capabilities increase, which will gradually rebalance the trans-Atlantic relationship," he said. Pedro Brinca, an associate professor of macroeconomics at Nova School of Business and Economics in Portugal, also expects the alliance to become increasingly European in character. However, he cautioned that Europe's ability to shoulder greater responsibility will depend not only on spending more but also on spending more efficiently. Fragmented national procurement would deliver less security than coordinated European investment, he added. Although NATO leaders departed Ankara reiterating their commitment to collective defense, the summit illustrated that the alliance's greatest challenge may no longer be external threats alone, but maintaining political trust among its own members. The final declaration said the leaders "look forward to our next meeting", but without committing to a date.
Discord Bug Wrongly Banned Around 8,200 Accounts Since May
A bug in Discord's safety systems incorrectly banned accounts starting in May, the company said. Around 200 accounts were caught over one recent weekend, but the problem may have affected roughly 8,200 accounts since May 2026. Grid-style images seemed to be the trigger, wrongly matched against known harmful material. That meant a spreadsheet, a chessboard, or a Minecraft inventory menu could end in an erroneous ban. Key Takeaways * About 8,200 accounts were affected between May 2026 and early July, plus roughly 200 more over one weekend, and Discord says everyone caught by the bug has been reinstated. * Discord's system matches uploads against a database of known harmful content; a faulty match on square-grid patterns skipped human review and issued permanent bans instead of pausing uploads. * A second flaw kept the bans in place even after staff reviewed and cleared the accounts, which is why the problem lingered for about two months. Discord uses automated content-moderation tools to compare what members post against known harmful material. The support team said the system is known to produce false positives, so a person from its Trust and Safety team usually reviews flagged content before any action. "The intended behavior is to temporarily pause uploads during that review, not ban the account," the company wrote. "We had a bug that caused the latter. When our staff reviewed and cleared those accounts, the same bug prevented the ban from being lifted automatically, so it just stayed in place." How Two Bugs Stacked Up The pipeline was meant to pause uploads and queue an account for human review when a match fired. Instead, one bug bypassed the pause and issued a permanent ban, and a second kept the ban locked even after a reviewer cleared the account. The result hit ordinary users hard, since a permanent ban based only on automated detection can cut people off from work, gaming communities, or long-distance friendships. Because Minecraft's inventory is grid-based, players who shared item screenshots were among those flagged. Not everyone accepted the framing that AI ran wild. A Discord developer pushed back on that reading, writing that the issue traced to a single faulty hash incorrectly matching innocent grid patterns rather than an autonomous model banning users. Discord said it found the problematic hash and overrode it, so nothing else should get flagged, and that all affected accounts have been unbanned. As the company put it in its apology, it is an embarrassing mistake to have been active for roughly two months. The Cost of Automated Moderation The episode fits a pattern across platforms that lean on automated enforcement at scale. Discord is not alone: last year users of other large services reported waves of unexplained suspensions many blamed on automated systems, and oversight bodies have pushed for more transparency about how these calls get made. Discord itself acknowledged the trade-off, writing that it is working on better safeguards so this cannot quietly happen again and on making sure its systems do not penalize people who did nothing wrong. The tension underneath is hard to escape. Platforms scanning for illegal material at the scale of hundreds of millions of accounts trade speed for accuracy, and false positives carry a real human cost when the penalty is a permanent ban. The reliability of these systems is a live debate, sharpened by a UN science panel's warning that AI is outpacing the people meant to check it. It also runs alongside a broader push on youth safety, from Australia's under-16 rules stumbling at age checks to reports of children slipping past verification tools with simple tricks. For the gamers caught in this one, the lesson was narrower: a screenshot of a Minecraft inventory should never have been mistaken for anything else.
