Parents have long raised concerns over the types of images their children can be exposed to on Instagram, and now the brand is taking a new step to fight sexual exploitation. In a major change for the app's interface, Instagram will begin automatically blurring nude images in direct messages. 

Announced by Instagram's parent company, Meta, on April 11, the change is part of a series of new tools designed to "protect young people from sextortion and intimate image abuse" and "make it more difficult for potential scammers and criminals to find and interact with teens," Meta said in a press release. 

How will the feature work?
When a user receives an image "containing nudity, it will be automatically blurred under a warning screen, meaning the recipient isn't confronted with a nude image and they can choose whether or not to view it," Meta said. Instagram will also show the user a message "encouraging them not to feel pressure to respond, with an option to block the sender and report the chat." This feature will be automatically enabled for users under age 18.

On the other end, people who try to send a nude image will see a message "reminding them to be cautious when sending sensitive photos," said Meta. Anyone trying to forward a nude image will receive a message urging them to reconsider. 

How will this change children's interactions on Instagram? 
Some say it won't. While users can block and report a sender if they receive a nude, the situation on Instagram won't change "until there is a way for a teen to say they've received an unwanted advance," Arturo Béjar, the former engineering director of Meta, said to The Associated Press.

Béjar said the tools announced can "protect senders, and that is welcome. But what about recipients?" He told the AP that one in eight teens receive an unwanted advance on Instagram per week. 

The blurring feature will be tested in the coming weeks with a global rollout in the next few months, said NBC News. How well these tools will work to curb this problem remains to be seen.

Director Alex Garland is back in theaters with "Civil War," a film depicting a hypothetical second American Civil War. The story sees our country devolved into full-blown armed conflict, as U.S. military powers in California and Texas combine to form the Western Forces. This new secessionist state is descending on Washington, D.C., along with a group of photojournalists, to oust the authoritarian U.S. president.

Garland has noted that the film is not intended to mirror real-life events. It also remains intentionally vague about the causes of the war. But while some have posited that this type of civil war could happen in the U.S., others aren't so sure. 

Garland's 'violence of war is … much more accurate'
War movies are hardly a new genre, but in the conflict depicted by Garland, the "violence of war is much more random — and, probably, much more accurate," Joanna Weiss said at Politico. The kind of societal breakdown seen in the film feels plausible, and "'Civil War' performs the sleight of hand of imagining a large-scale war, big enough to match our metaphorical divisions as we fight over blue and red."

Even if there aren't complete armies fighting on either side, "militia groups are also preparing for a dark future," Sam Jackson, a senior research fellow at the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, said to Politico. Many are "convinced that the federal government is going to go door-to-door, confiscating people's guns. Some are more generally preparing for social collapse … and are stockpiling weapons and supplies in anticipation." As a result, these groups could potentially be large and well-coordinated, similar to small armies.

'Formal state-versus-state conflict seems unlikely'
A "formal state-versus-state conflict seems unlikely," Colin Freeman said at the Telegraph. Instead of the "conventional military forces that square off in the film, there would be gangs and paramilitary groups carrying out tit-for-tat killings." While these groups would not be able to match the firepower of the U.S. military, they could "get backing from local National Guard units and sheriff's departments, which often cherish their independence from the federal government."